Cited by 209Discourse Analysis in Language StudiesSecond Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for academic purposes programme.

Open access
Mazgutova, Diana, Kormos, Judit·2015·Journal of Second Language Writing

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.004

Cites

71 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Green, A., & Weir, C. (2002). Monitoring score gain on the IELTS academic writing module in EAP programmes of varying duration. Phase 1 report. Cambridge: UCLES.
  3. Hirvela, A. (2011). Writing to learn in content areas: Research insights. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 37-59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  4. Jarvis, S. (2013). Defining and measuring lexical diversity. In S. Jarvis & M. Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 13-45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  5. McCarthy, P. M. (2005). An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Memphis. Retrieved from https://umdrive.memphis.edu/pmmccrth/public/Phil's%20papers.htm?uniq¼-xq6brv
  6. McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (in press). Coh-Metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  7. Reppen, R. (1994). Variation in elementary student language: A multi-dimensional perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J.
Affiliations
Lancaster University (GB)
Corresponding author
Kormos, Judit
Venue
Journal of Second Language Writing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-09
Volume
29
Pages
3-15
ISSN
1060-3743 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W832920401
Cited by
209
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
118.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Second Language Writing (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
English for academic purposes, academic writing, syntactic development, vocabulary development, lexical diversity, noun phrase complexity, argumentative essay, second language learners, systemic functional linguistics, corpus linguistics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review