Predicting second language writing proficiency: the roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication
Abstract
This study addresses research gaps in predicting second language (L2) writing proficiency using linguistic features. Key to this analysis is the inclusion of linguistic measures at the surface, textbase and situation model level that assess text cohesion and linguistic sophistication. The results of this study demonstrate that five variables (lexical diversity, word frequency, word meaningfulness, aspect repetition and word familiarity) can be used to significantly predict L2 writing proficiency. The results demonstrate that L2 writers categorised as highly proficient do not produce essays that are more cohesive, but instead produce texts that are more linguistically sophisticated. These findings have important implications for L2 writing development and L2 writing pedagogy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
This study's results correspond to previous research findings that word formation is key in developing spelling, grammar, vocabulary, and lexical processing and writing, and EFL learners with lexical competence score holistically in writing composition.
“This study's results also correspond to previous research findings, which support the argument that word formation is key in developing spelling, grammar, vocabulary, and lexical processing and writing, and EFL learners with lexical competence score holistically in writing composition (Masrai, 2016;Karimi, 2013;Crossley and McNamara, 2012;Crossley and McNamara, 2009;Engber, 1995).”
From Transformative impacts of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional acquisition in Saudi EFL learners (2024) · cites this paper as Crossley and McNamara, 2012
Cites
Situation models in language comprehension and memory
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 · Cited by 2,877 · see citing works
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.42.2.381 · Cited by 905 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gauging the association of EFL learners’ writing proficiency and their use of metaphorical language
Hoang, H., & Boers, F. (2018) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2018.02.004 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Linguistic complexity as the predictor of EFL independent and integrated writing quality
Zhang, Y., & Ouyang, J. (2023) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100727 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Khan, A. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03610-4 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S.
- Affiliations
- Georgia State University (US)
- University of Memphis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Crossley, Scott A.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Reading
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-08-31
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 115-135
- ISSN
- 0141-0423 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9817
- OpenAlex
- W2148785608
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 7.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Research in Reading (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- 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
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Keywords
- second language writing, textual cohesion, lexical diversity, word frequency, word familiarity, situation model, textbase, L2 writing development, L2 writing pedagogy
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