Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview
Open accessAbstract
This paper provides an overview of how analyses of linguistic features in writing samples provide a greater understanding of predictions of both text quality and writer development and links between language features within texts. Specifically, this paper provides an overview of how language features found in text can predict human judgements of writing proficiency and changes in writing levels in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. The goal is to provide a better understanding of how language features in text produced by writers may influence writing quality and growth. The overview will focus on three main linguistic construct (lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity, and text cohesion) and their interactions with quality and growth in general. The paper will also problematize previous research in terms of context, individual differences, and reproducibility
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?
One empirically observable property of interlanguage writing is its constrained lexical and syntactic profile.
“One of the empirically observable properties of interlanguage writing is its constrained lexical and syntactic profile.”
From ARE AI DETECTORS FAIR TO EFL LEARNERS? A LIBRARY RESEARCH ON DETECTION BIAS AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY (2026) · cites this paper as Crossley, 2020
EFL writers tend to employ a narrower vocabulary range, favor high-frequency items, and produce lower scores on established lexical diversity measures compared to more proficient or native speakers.
“EFL writers tend to employ a narrower vocabulary range, favor high-frequency items, and produce lower scores on established lexical diversity measures compared to more proficient or native speakers”
From ARE AI DETECTORS FAIR TO EFL LEARNERS? A LIBRARY RESEARCH ON DETECTION BIAS AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY (2026) · cites this paper as Crossley, 2020
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Strategy Uptake in Writing Pal: Adaptive Feedback and Instruction
Butterfuss, R., Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2022) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331211045304 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Modifying AI, Enhancing Essays: How Active Engagement with Generative AI Boosts Writing Quality
Yang, K., Raković, M., Liang, Z., Yan, L., Zeng, Z., Fan, Y., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2025) · Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference · doi:10.1145/3706468.3706544 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
AI-based Writing Tools: Empowering Students to Achieve Writing Success
(2024) · Advances in Educational Technology and Psychology · doi:10.23977/aetp.2024.080206 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
ARE AI DETECTORS FAIR TO EFL LEARNERS? A LIBRARY RESEARCH ON DETECTION BIAS AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Patty, J., & Matatula, M. Y. (2026) · J-Shelves of Indragiri (JSI) · doi:10.61672/jsi.v8i1.3557
“EFL writers tend to employ a narrower vocabulary range, favor high-frequency items, and produce lower scores on established lexical diversity measures compared to more proficient or native speakers (Crossley, 2020; Kyle et al., 2021).”
All Public Voices Are Equal, But Are Some More Equal Than Others to LLMs?
Kim, S., Janssen, M. A., Wang, J., Min-Venditti, A., Karanjia, N., & Anderies, J. M. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.17247
- Authors
- Crossley, S.
- Corresponding author
- Crossley, Scott
- ORCID
- Crossley, Scott
- Venue
- Journal of Writing Research
- Published
- 2020-02
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- vol. 11 issue 3
- Pages
- 415-443
- ISSN
- 2030-1006 (ISSN-L)
- 2294-3307
- OpenAlex
- W3006224918
- Cited by
- 310
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 52 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 52.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Journal of Writing Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Keywords
- linguistic features, writing quality, writing development, lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity, textual cohesion, writing skills, individual differences, reproducibility
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
