Structural Factor Analysis of Lexical Complexity Constructs and Measures: A Quantitative Measure-Testing Process on Specialised Academic Texts

References

• Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity,elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511920776
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (1964). Language and thought. Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Chaudron, C., & Parker, K. (1990). Discourse markedness and structural markedness: The acquisition of English noun phrases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008731
   Google Scholar
• Covington, M. A., & McFall, J. D. (2010). Cutting the Gordian knot: The moving-average type-token ratio (MATTR). Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 17(2), 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296171003643098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dugast, D. (1978). Sur quoi se fonde la notion d’étendue théoretique du vocabulaire? Le francais moderne, 46(1), 25–32.
   Google Scholar
• Durán, P., Malvern, D., Richards, B., & Chipere, N. (2004). Developmental trends in lexical diversity. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 220–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.220
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guiraud, P. (1954). Les Caractères Statistiques du Vocabulaire. Essai de méthodologie. In [The statistical characteristics of vocabulary: An essay in metholdogy]. Presses Universitaires de France.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Deakin University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harley, B., & King, M. L. (1989). Verb lexis in the written compositions of young L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(4), 415–439. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008421
   Google Scholar
• Herdan, G. (1960). Type-token mathematics: A textbook of mathematical linguistics. Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Housen, A., Bulté, B., Pierrard, M., & Van Daele, S. (2008). Investigating lexical proficiency development over time – the case of Dutch-speaking learners of French in Brussels. French Language Studies, 18(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269508003451
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, W. (1944). Studies in language behavior: I. A program of research. Psychological Monographs, 56(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093508
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Köhler, R., Altmann, G., & Piotrowski, R. G. (2005). Quantitative linguistics: An international handbook. Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Kubát, M., & Milička, J. (2013). Vocabulary richness measure in genres. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 2(4), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2013.830552
   Google Scholar
• Kyle, K. (2018). TAALED: Tool for the automatic analysis of lexical diversity (beta version 1.2.4. Python-based).
   Google Scholar
• Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757–786. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, K., & Green, S. B. (2016). The problem with having two watches: Assessment of fit when RMSEA and CFI disagree. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(3), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2015.1134306
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laufer, B. (1994). The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time? RELC Journal, 25(2), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829402500202
   Google Scholar
• Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linnarud, M. (1986). Lexis in composition: A performance analysis of Swedish learners’ written English. CWK Gleerup.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maas, H. D. (1972). Zusammenhang zwischen Wortschatzumfang undLänge eines Textes. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguis-tik, 8, 73–79.
   Google Scholar
• Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (1997). A new measure of lexical diversity. In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language (pp. 58–71). Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511804
   Google Scholar
• McArdle, J. J. (2011). Some ethical issues in factor analysis. In A. T. Panter & S. K. Sterba (Eds.), Multivariate applications series. Handbook of ethics in quantitative methodology (pp. 313–339). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, P. M., Al-Harthy, A., Buck, R. H., Ahmed, K., Duran, N. D., Thomas, A. M., Kaddoura, N. W., & Graesser, A. C. (2021). Introducing auto-peer: A computational tool designed to provide automated feedback. Asian ESP Journal, 17(5), 9–43.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, P., & Jarvis, S. (2007). Vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24(4), 459–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207080767
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, P., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.381
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, P., & Jarvis, S. (2013). “From intrinsic to extrinsic issues of lexical diversity assessment: An ecological validation study.” In Vocabulary knowledge, S. Jarvis Ed.Ed., pp. 45–78. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.47.04ch2
   Google Scholar
• McClure, E. (1991). A comparison of lexical strategies in L1 and L2 written English narratives. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 2, 141–154.
   Google Scholar
• Myhill, J. (2005). Quantitative methods of discourse analysis. In R. Köhler, G. Altmann, & R. G. Piotrowski (Eds.), Quantitative linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 471–497). Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Nasseri, M., & Lu, X. (2020). Lexical complexity analyzer for academic writing (LCA-AW, version 2.2). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4147000
   Google Scholar
• Nasseri, M., & Thompson, P. (2021). Lexical density and diversity in dissertation abstracts: Revisiting English L1 vs. L2 text differences. Assessing Writing, 47, 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popescu, I.-I., Altmann, G., Grzybek, P., Jayaram, B. D., Köhler, R., Krupa, V., Macutek, J., Pustet, R., Uhlirova, L., & Vidya, M. N. (2009). Word frequency studies. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218534
   Google Scholar
• Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Revelle, W. (2018). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Evanston, Illinois, The USA: Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psychpackageinRversion1.8.12
   Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Těšitelová, M. (1992). Quantitative linguistics. John Benjamins,
   Google Scholar
• Tobias, S., & Carlson, J. E. (2010). Brief report: Bartlett’s test of sphericity and chance findings in factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 4(3), 375–377. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0403_8
   Google Scholar
• Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density and register differentiation. In G. E. Perren & J. L. M. Trimm (Eds.), Applications of linguistics: Selected papers of the 2nd international congress of applied linguists (pp. 443–452). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wei, T., & Simko, V. (2017). “R package “corrplot”: Visualization of a correlation matrix (version 0.84).“ https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/corrplot/corrplot.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. University of Hawaii Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yoon, H. (2017). Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issues of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality. System, 66, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar