The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Relationship of Lexical Richness to the Quality of ESL Learners’ Oral Narratives
Abstract
This study was an examination of the relationship of lexical richness to the quality of English as a second language (ESL) learners’ oral narratives. A computational system was designed to automate the measurement of 3 dimensions of lexical richness, that is, lexical density, sophistication, and variation, using 25 different metrics proposed in the language acquisition literature. This system was used to analyze large‐scale data from the Spoken English Corpus of Chinese Learners (Wen, Wang, & Liang, 2005) together with the vocd utility of the Computerized Language Analysis programs (MacWhinney, 2000), which offers an additional measure of lexical variation, the D measure (Malvern, Richards, Chipere, & Durán, 2004; McKee, Malvern, & Richards, 2000). This comprehensive analysis allowed us to identify measures that correlate strongly with the raters’ judgments of the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives, as well as to understand the relationships among these measures. This research provides ESL teachers and researchers with a robust tool for assessing the lexical richness of ESL language samples and insights into how lexical richness measures may be effectively used as indices of the quality of ESL learners’ speaking task performance.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk
MacWhinney, B. (1992) · Child Language Teaching and Therapy · doi:10.1177/026565909200800211 · Cited by 3,396
Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network
Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C. D., & Singer, Y. (2003) · Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology - NAACL '03 · doi:10.3115/1073445.1073478 · Cited by 2,844
Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in l2 written production
LAUFER, B., & NATION, P. (1995) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.307 · Cited by 1,316
Read, J. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511732942 · Cited by 1,305
(1998) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.280.5365.797k · Cited by 1,281
Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy and Complexity
Broussard, K. M., Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (2001) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3587656 · Cited by 920
Certain Language Skills in Children: Their Development and Interrelationships
TEMPLIN, M. C. (1957) · University of Minnesota Press eBooks · doi:10.5749/j.ctttv2st · Cited by 899
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 10.1007/978-1-349-12396-4_13 · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-12396-4_13
- Dugast D., 1979, Vocabulaire et stylistique. I Théâtre et dialogue[Vocabulary and style. Vol. 1 Theatre and dialogue]
- English Language Institute, 2001, Michigan English Language Assessment Battery Speaking Test rating scale reference sheet
- Guiraud P., 1960, Problèmes et méthodes de la statistique linguistique[Problems and methods of statistical linguistics]
- McClure E., 1991, A comparison of lexical strategies in L1 and L2 written English narratives, Pragmatics and Language Learning, 2, 141
- Steering Committee for Foreign Language Major Education in Institutions of Higher Education, 2000, National syllabus for English majors
- 10.1080/13682820152410872 · doi:10.1080/13682820152410872
- Toutanova K., 2003, Proceedings of the 2003 Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 252
- Ure J., 1971, Talking about text, 27
- Wen Q., 2005, Spoken and written English corpus of Chinese learners
- Xue G., 1984, A university word list, Language Learning and Communication, 3, 215
Cited by
Fact-checking: a meta-analysis of what works and for whom
Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R. L., & Morag, Y. (2020) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894 · Cited by 690
Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring
Mizumoto, A., & Eguchi, M. (2023) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050 · Cited by 647
(2017) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1017 · Cited by 436
Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for academic purposes programme.
Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J. (2015) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.004 · Cited by 209
The semiotic ecology and linguistic complexity of an online game world
Thorne, S. L., Fischer, I., & Lu, X. (2012) · ReCALL · doi:10.1017/s0958344012000158 · Cited by 181
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- LU, X.
- Venue
- The Modern Language Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-06
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 190-208
- ISSN
- 0026-7902 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-4781
- OpenAlex
- W1976538119
- Cited by
- 526
- References
- 46
- FWCI
- 26.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Relationship of Lexical Richness to the Quality of ESL Learners’ Oral Narratives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x
- The paper
- LU, X. (2012). The Relationship of Lexical Richness to the Quality of ESL Learners’ Oral Narratives. The Modern Language Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
