Lexical Features of Academic Writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v1n1.10Abstract
In measuring the quality of written text, especially academic writing, lexical features are as important as grammatical features and should not be ignored. The highly computable nature of lexicons can make them a good criterion for determining and measuring the quality of text. In this article three lexical features: lexical density, complexity, and formality are reviewed and justified as measurement tools of academic texts. Furthermore, a measurement method is offered to evaluate lexical complexity level of an academic text.References
Akmajian, A., R. A. Demers, A. K. Farmer, and R. M. Harnish. 2001. Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. Fifth edition. USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Biber, D., Johansson S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Billig, M. 2008. Nominalizing and De-Nominalizing: A Reply. Discourse & Society. 19/6: 829–841.
Brinton, L. J. 2000. The Structure of Modern English: A Linguistic Introduction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Coxhead, A. 2000. ‘A New Academic Word List.’ TESOL Quarterly. 34/2: 213–238.
Crawford, W.J. 2005. Verb Agreement and Disagreement: A Corpus Investigation of Concord Variation in Existential There + Be Constructions. Journal of English Linguistics. 33/1: 35–61.
Goatly, A. 2000. Critical Reading and Writing: An Introductory Coursebook. London: Routledge.
Gregg, N., Coleman, C., Stennett, R. B., and M. Davis. 2002. Discourse Complexity of College Writers With and Without Disabilities: A Multidimensional Analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities 35/1:
–38.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1989. Spoken and Written Language. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hinkel, E. 2001. Giving Examples and Telling Stories in Academic Essays. Issues in Applied Linguistics 12/2: 149–70.
Hinkel, E. 2002. Second Language Writers’ Text: Linguistic and Rhetorical Features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hinkel, E. 2004a. Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary and Grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hinkel, E. 2004b. Tense, Aspect and the Passive Voice in L1 and L2 Academic Texts. Language Teaching Research 8 /1: 5–29
Hyland, K. 2008a. Academic Clusters: Text Patterning in Published and Postgraduate Writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18: 41–62.
Hyland, K. 2008b. As Can Be Seen: Lexical Bundles and Disciplinary Variation. English for Specific Purposes 27: 4–21.
Master, P. 1991. Active Verbs with Inanimate Subjects in Scientific Prose. English for Specific Purposes 10/1: 15–33.
Nation, P. and R. Waring 1997. Vocabulary Size, Text Coverage, and Word Lists. In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition, and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 6–19.
Papi, M. Bertuccelli, G. Cappelli, and S. Masi (eds.). 2007. Lexical Complexity: Theoretical Assessment and Translational Perspectives. Pisa: Plus Pisa University Press.
Richards, J. C. and R. Schmidt. 2002. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Third edition. London: Longman (Pearson Education).
Samraj, B. 2002. Introductions in Research Articles: Variations across Disciplines. English for Specific Purposes. 21/1: 1–17.
Samraj, B. 2005. An exploration of a Genre Set: Research Article Abstracts and Introductions in Two Disciplines. English for Specific Purposes. 24/2: 141–156.
Samraj, B. 2008. A Discourse Analysis of Master’s Theses across Disciplines with a Focus on Introductions. English for Academic Purposes. 7/1: 55–67.
Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wei, Y., and L. Lei 2011. Lexical Bundles in the Academic Writing of Advanced Chinese EFL Learners. RELC Journal 42/2: 155–166.
Yule, G. 2006. The Study of Language. Third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
