CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Second Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparative study on lexical and syntactic features of ESL versus EFL learners’ writing

Open access
Zhang, Chao, Kang, Shumin·2022·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1002090PMC PMC9664217
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study analyzes the compositions of Hong Kong English as a second language (ESL) learners and English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in Mainland China in terms of lexical and syntactic features. A program based on the CoreNLP was developed and used to analyze written language texts, and differences in tags of parts of speech and syntactic dependencies between the two groups of texts were compared statistically to examine differences in the lexical and syntactic features of the learners’ written language. The results show significant differences in the lexical and syntactic features of learners’ writing. Specifically, in EFL learners’ writing, there is a salient group pattern of higher lexical diversity, whereas ESL compositions are more flexible in vocabulary use with higher information density, in that they use more syntactic phrases and content words. In terms of syntax, Hong Kong ESL students use more adverbials and adverbial clauses, which is advantageous in syntactic simplicity and readability over their counterparts, whereas Mainland China EFL students prefer using more specific expressions to demonstrate syntactic relations. Compared to EFL compositions, ESL compositions are more informative, coherent, and grammatical in lexical features and more readable in syntactic features, which require more attention and further improvements in terms of EFL teaching.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1002090

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 A sample of syntactic constituents (part of speech) analysis.
Figure 1 A sample of syntactic constituents (part of speech) analysis.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 76

  1. Abrams, 2016, The effects of pre-task planning on L2 writing: mind-mapping and chronological sequencing in a 1st-year German class, System, 63, 1, 10.1016/j.system.2016.08.011 · DOI
  2. Atak, 2021, Syntactic complexity in L2 learners’ argumentative writing: developmental stages and the within-genre topic effect, Assess. Writ., 47, 100506, 10.1016/j.asw.2020.100506 · DOI
  3. Bardovi-Harlig, 1996, Acquisition of tense and aspect in second language and foreign language learning: learner narratives in ESL and FFL, Can. Mod. Lang. Rev., 52, 308, 10.3138/cmlr.52.2.308 · DOI
  4. Bardovi-Harlig, 1998, Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning, TESOL Q., 32, 233, 10.2307/3587583 · DOI
  5. Betts, 1949, Readability: its application to the elementary school, J. Educ. Res., 42, 438, 10.1080/00220671.1949.10881708 · DOI
  6. Biber, 2010, Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: complexity, elaboration, explicitness, J. Engl. Acad. Purp., 9, 2, 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001 · DOI
  7. Biber, 2016, Grammatical complexity in academic English: linguistic change in writing
  8. Bulté, 2014, Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity, J. Second. Lang. Writ., 26, 42, 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Buschfeld, 2013, English in Cyprus or Cyprus English? An Empirical Investigation of Variety status [Varieties of English Around the World G46]
  10. Buschfeld, 2017, Towards an integrated approach to postcolonial and non-postcolonial Englishes, World Englishes, 36, 104, 10.1111/weng.12203 · DOI
  11. Buschfeld, 2020, Modelling World Englishes: A Joint Approach to Postcolonial and Non-Postcolonial Varieties
  12. Chan, 2011, The perception of English speech sounds by Cantonese ESL learners in Hong Kong, TESOL Q., 45, 718, 10.5054/tq.2011.268056 · DOI
  13. Chang, 2017, The development of the test of Chinese as a foreign language (TOCFL), 21
  14. Chang, 2016, Influence of second language proficiency and syntactic structure similarities on the sensitivity and processing of English passive sentence in late Chinese-English bilinguists: an ERP study, J. Psycholinguist. Res., 45, 85, 10.1007/s10936-014-9319-1 · DOI
  15. Charkova, 2011, Second- and foreign-language variation in tense backshifting in indirect reported speech, Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis., 33, 1, 10.1017/S0272263110000513 · DOI
  16. Crossley, 2008, Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices, TESOL Q., 42, 475, 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00142.x · DOI
  17. Crossley, 2012, Detecting the first language of second language writers using automated indices of cohesion, lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity and conceptual knowledge, 106, 10.21832/9781847696991-005 · DOI
  18. Crossley, 2011, The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: a linguistic analysis, Writ. Commun., 28, 282, 10.1177/0741088311410188 · DOI
  19. Ellis, 2003, Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: the emergence of second language structure, 63, 10.1002/9780470756492.ch4 · DOI
  20. Ellis, 2008, The study of second language acquisition. 2nd Edn.
  21. Eslami, 2014, The effect of syntactic simplicity and complexity on the readability of the text, J. Lang. Teach. Res., 5, 1185, 10.4304/JLTR.5.5.1185-1191 · DOI
  22. Guven, 2014, Readability of Texts in Textbooks in Teaching Turkish to Foreigners, The Anthropologist, 18, 513, 10.1080/09720073.2014.11891569 · DOI
  23. Graesser, 2011, Coh-Metrix: providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics, Educ. Res., 40, 223, 10.3102/0013189X11413260 · DOI
  24. Håkansson, 2010, Environmental influence on language acquisition: comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish, Lang. Learn., 60, 628, 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00569.x · DOI · Paper page
  25. Heusinger, 2019, Semantics – Typology, Diachrony and Processing, 10.1515/9783110589825 · DOI
  26. Hinkel, 2003, Simplicity without elegance: features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts, TESOL Q., 37, 275, 10.2307/3588505 · DOI
  27. Huang, 2021, Understanding ESL teachers’ agency in their early years of professional development: a three-layered triadic reciprocity framework, Front. Psychol., 12, 739271, 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.739271 · DOI
  28. Huang, 2022, English phrase learning with multimodal input, Front. Psychol., 13, 828022, 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.828022 · DOI
  29. Jarvis, 2016, Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity, Lang. Test., 19, 57, 10.1191/0265532202lt220oa · DOI
  30. Johnson, 2012, The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity, J. Second. Lang. Writ., 21, 264, 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011 · DOI
  31. Jones, 2009, A New Senior Secondary Language Course (6).
  32. Joseph, 2020, Evaluating reading habit among junior secondary school students in Ekiti state in Nigeria, Int. J. Lang. Educ., 74, 10.26858/ijole.v4i2.10206 · DOI
  33. Kasper, 2002, Pragmatic Development in a Second Language
  34. Kormos, 2011, Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance, J. Second. Lang. Writ., 20, 148, 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001 · DOI
  35. Krashen, 1985, The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications
  36. Li, 2021, Parataxis or hypotaxis? Choices of taxis in Chinese–English translation, Lingua, 251, 103026, 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.103026 · DOI
  37. Loewen, 2015, Introduction to Instructed Second Language Acquisition
  38. Loewen, 2017, The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 10.4324/9781315676968 · DOI
  39. Long, 1981, Input, interaction, and second language acquisition, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 379, 259, 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.x · DOI · Paper page
  40. Lu, 2010, Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing, Int. J. Corpus Linguist., 15, 474, 10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu · DOI
  41. Luk, 2017, Examining multiple readings of popular culture by ESL students in Hong Kong, Lang. Cult. Curric., 30, 212, 10.1080/07908318.2016.1241258 · DOI
  42. Maamuujav, 2021, Syntactic and lexical features of adolescent L2 students’ academic writing, J. Second. Lang. Writ., 53, 100822, 10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100822 · DOI
  43. Mackey, 2007, Interaction research in SLA: a meta-analysis and research synthesis, 407
  44. Mancilla, 2017, An investigation of native and nonnative English speakers’ levels of written syntactic complexity in asynchronous online discussions, Appl. Linguist., 38, 112, 10.1093/applin/amv012 · DOI
  45. Manning, 2014, The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit, 55, 10.3115/v1/P14-5010 · DOI
  46. Marchman, 1994, Continuity in lexical and morphological development: a test of the critical mass hypothesis, J. Child Lang., 21, 339, 10.1017/S0305000900009302 · DOI
  47. McNamara, 2010, Linguistic features of writing quality, Writ. Commun., 27, 57, 10.1177/0741088309351547 · DOI · Paper page
  48. McNamara, 2014, Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix, 10.1017/CBO9780511894664 · DOI
  49. Mitchell, 2019, Second Language learning theories, 10.4324/9781315617046 · DOI
  50. Nasseri, 2021, Lexical density and diversity in dissertation abstracts: revisiting English L1 vs. L2 text differences, Assess. Writ., 47, 100511, 10.1016/j.asw.2020.100511 · DOI
  51. Nivre, 2016, Universal dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection, 1659
  52. Norris, 2009, Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: the case of complexity, Appl. Linguis., 30, 555, 10.1093/applin/amp044 · DOI
  53. Novikova, 2019, Lexical features are more vulnerable, syntactic features have more predictive power, 431, 10.18653/v1/D19-5556 · DOI
  54. Ortega, 2003, Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: a research synthesis of college-level L2 writing, Appl. Linguis., 24, 492, 10.1093/applin/24.4.492 · DOI
  55. Ortega, 2015, Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion, J. Second. Lang. Writ., 29, 82, 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008 · DOI
  56. Ortega, 2017, Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman, 10.1075/lllt.48 · DOI
  57. Rauh, 2010, Syntactic categories: their identification and description in linguistic theories.
  58. Rossi, 2006, The impact of proficiency on syntactic second-language processing of German and Italian: evidence from event-related potentials, J. Cogn. Neurosci., 18, 2030, 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2030 · DOI
  59. Schauer, 2006, Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: contrast and development, Lang. Learn., 56, 269, 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.x · DOI
  60. Shadrova, 2021, A challenge for contrastive L1/L2 corpus studies: large inter- and intra-individual variation across morphological, but not global syntactic categories in task-based corpus data of a homogeneous L1 German group, Front. Psychol., 12, 716485, 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716485 · DOI
  61. Shehadeh, 2012, Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts: Research and Implementation. Task-Based Language Teaching: v. 4, 10.1075/tblt.4 · DOI
  62. Spolsky, 1989, Conditions for second language learning: Introduction to a general theory
  63. Swain, 1995, Three functions of output in second language learning, 125
  64. Tanaka-Ishii, 2010, Sorting texts by readability, Comput. Linguist., 36, 203, 10.1162/coli.09-036-R2-08-050 · DOI
  65. Tian, 2022, Self-regulated writing strategy use when revising upon automated, peer, and teacher feedback in an online English as a foreign language writing course, Front. Psychol., 13, 873170, 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.873170 · DOI
  66. Tolentino, 2011, Across languages, space, and time, Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis., 33, 91, 10.1017/S0272263110000549 · DOI
  67. Tyler, 2018, Usage-inspired L2 instruction, 3
  68. van Hout, 2007, Comparing measures of lexical richness, 93, 10.1017/CBO9780511667268.008 · DOI
  69. Vercellotti, 2015, The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: a longitudinal study, Appl. Linguis., 38, 90, 10.1093/applin/amv002 · DOI
  70. Vold, 2022, Learner spoken output and teacher response in second versus foreign language classrooms, Lang. Teach. Res., 136216882110686, 10.1177/13621688211068610 · DOI
  71. Vyatkina, 2012, The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: a longitudinal learner corpus study, Mod. Lang. J., 96, 576, 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01401.x · DOI
  72. Vyatkina, 2013, Specific syntactic: developmental profiling of individuals based on an complexityannotated learner corpus, Mod. Lang. J., 97, 11, 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01421.x · DOI
  73. Warren, 2019, A model of idiomaticity, Nordic J. English Stud., 4, 35, 10.35360/NJES.172 · DOI
  74. Xie, 2022, Effects of content support and planning instruction on discourse connection in EFL argumentative writing, Front. Psychol., 13, 912311, 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.912311 · DOI
  75. Youn, 2014, Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 pragmatic production: investigating relationships among pragmatics, grammar, and proficiency, System, 42, 270, 10.1016/j.system.2013.12.008 · DOI
  76. Zhou, 2022, Enhancing syntactic complexity in L2 Chinese writing: effects of form-focused instruction on the Chinese topic chain, Front. Psychol., 13, 843789, 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.843789 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 11

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, C., & Kang, S.
Affiliations
Qufu Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
Kang, Shumin
ORCID
Zhang, Chao
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-11-01
Volume
13
Pages
1002090-1002090
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1002090
PMC
PMC9664217
OpenAlex
W4308009568
Cited by
11
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences
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 › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Keywords
ESL learners, EFL learners, learner writing, lexical features, syntactic features, lexical diversity, syntactic dependencies, part-of-speech tagging, adverbial clauses, readability

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