Developmental trends in lexical diversity.

This article discusses issues in measuring lexical diversity, before outlining an approach based on mathematical modelling that produces a measure, D, designed to address these problems. The procedure for obtaining values for D directly from transcripts using software (vocd) is introduced, and then applied to thirty-two children from the Bristol Study of Language Development (Wells 1985) at ten different ages. A significant developmental trend is shown for D and an indication is given of the average scores and ranges to be expected between the ages of 18 and 42 months and at 5 years for these L1 English speakers. The meaning attributable to further ranges of values for D is illustrated by analysing the lexical diversity of academic writing, and its wider application is demonstrated with examples from specific language impairment, morphological development, and foreign/second language learning.

Language dominance and lexical diversity: how bilinguals and L2 learners differ in their knowledge and use of French lexical and functional items

This chapter compares lexical diversity of French words used by Dutch-French bilinguals, English-French bilinguals and Flemish L2 learners of French.

Measuring lexical diversity among L2 learners of French: an exploration of the validity of D, MTLD and HD-D as measures of language ability

In this study two new measures of lexical diversity are tested for the first time on French. The usefulness of these measures, MTLD (McCarthy and Jarvis (2010 and this volume) ) and HD-D (McCarthy and Jarvis 2007), in predicting different aspects of language proficiency is assessed and compared with D (Malvern and Richards 1997; Malvern, Richards, Chipere and Durán 2004) and Maas (1972) in analyses of stories told by two groups of learners (n=41) of two different proficiency levels and one group of native speakers of French (n=23). The importance of careful lemmatization in studies of lexical diversity which involve highly inflected languages is also demonstrated. The paper shows that the measures of lexical diversity under study are valid proxies for language ability in that they explain up to 62 percent of the variance in French C-test scores, and up to 33 percent of the variance in a measure of complexity. The paper also provides evidence that dependence on segment size continues to be a problem for the measures of lexical diversity discussed in this paper. The paper concludes that limiting the range of text lengths or even keeping text length constant is the safest option in analysing lexical diversity.

Native speakers and task performance: comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity

This article argues that a native-speaker baseline is a neglected dimension of studies into second language (L2) performance. If we investigate how learners perform language tasks, we should distinguish what performance features are due to their processing an L2 and which are due to their performing a particular task. Having defined what we mean by “native speaker,” we present the background to a research study into task features on nonnative task performance, designed to include native-speaker data as a baseline for interpreting nonnative-speaker performance. The nonnative results, published in this journal (Tavakoli & Foster, 2008) are recapitulated and then the native-speaker results are presented and discussed in the light of them. The study is guided by the assumption that limited attentional resources impact on L2 performance and explores how narrative design features—namely complexity of storyline and tightness of narrative structure— affect complexity, fluency, accuracy, and lexical diversity in language. The results show that both native and nonnative speakers are prompted by storyline complexity to use more subordinated language, but narrative structure had different effects on native and nonnative fluency. The learners, who were based in either London or Tehran, did not differ in their performance when compared to each other, except in lexical diversity, where the learners in London were close to native-speaker levels. The implications of the results for the applicability of Levelt’s model of speaking to an L2 are discussed, as is the potential for further L2 research using native speakers as a baseline.

Using lexical diversity measures to operationalise language dominance in bilinguals

Treffers-Daller and Korybski propose to operationalize language dominance on the basis of measures of lexical diversity, as computed, in this particular study, on transcripts of stories told by Polish-English bilinguals in each of their languages They compute four different Indices of Language Dominance (ILD) on the basis of two different measures of lexical diversity, the Index of Guiraud (Guiraud, 1954) and HD-D (McCarthy & Jarvis, 2007). They compare simple indices, which are based on subtracting scores from one language from scores for another language, to more complex indices based on the formula Birdsong borrowed from the field of handedness, namely the ratio of (Difference in Scores) / (Sum of Scores). Positive scores on each of these Indices of Language Dominance mean that informants are more English-dominant and negative scores that they are more Polish-dominant. The authors address the difficulty of comparing scores across languages by carefully lemmatizing the data. Following Flege, Mackay and Piske (2002) they also look into the validity of these indices by investigating to what extent they can predict scores on other, independently measured variables. They use correlations and regression analysis for this, which has the advantage that the dominance indices are used as continuous variables and arbitrary cut-off points between balanced and dominant bilinguals need not be chosen. However, they also show how the computation of z-scores can help facilitate a discussion about the appropriateness of different cut-off points across different data sets and measurement scales in those cases where researchers consider it necessary to make categorial distinctions between balanced and dominant bilinguals. Treffers-Daller and Korybski correlate the ILD scores with four other variables, namely Length of Residence in the UK, attitudes towards English and life in the UK, frequency of usage of English at home and frequency of code-switching. They found that the indices correlated significantly with most of these variables, but there were clear differences between the Guiraud-based indices and the HDD-based indices. In a regression analysis three of the measures were also found to be a significant predictor of English language usage at home. They conclude that the correlations and the regression analyses lend strong support to the validity of their approach to language dominance.

Back to basics: how measures of lexical diversity can help discriminate between CEFR levels

This study contributes to ongoing discussions on how measures of lexical diversity (LD) can help discriminate between essays from second language learners of English, whose work has been assessed as belonging to levels B1 to C2 of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The focus is in particular on how different operationalisations of what constitutes a “different word” (type) impact on the LD measures themselves and on their ability to discriminate between CEFR levels. The results show that basic measures of LD, such as the number of different words, the TTR (Templin 1957) and the Index of Guiraud (Guiraud 1954) explain more variance in the CEFR levels than sophisticated measures, such as D (Malvern et al. 2004), HD-D (McCarthy and Jarvis 2007) and MTLD (McCarthy 2005) provided text length is kept constant across texts. A simple count of different words (defined as lemma’s and not as word families) was the best predictor of CEFR levels and explained 22 percent of the variance in overall scores on the Pearson Test of English Academic in essays written by 176 test takers.

On the robust measurement of inflectional diversity

Lexical diversity measures are notoriously sensitive to variations of sample size and recent approaches to this issue typically involve the computation of the average variety of lexical units in random subsamples of fixed size. This methodology has been further extended to measures of inflectional diversity such as the average number of wordforms per lexeme, also known as the mean size of paradigm (MSP) index. In this contribution we argue that, while random sampling can indeed be used to increase the robustness of inflectional diversity measures, using a fixed subsample size is only justified under the hypothesis that the corpora that we compare have the same degree of lexematic diversity. In the more general case where they may have differing degrees of lexematic diversity, a more sophisticated strategy can and should be adopted. A novel approach to the measurement of inflectional diversity is proposed, aiming to cope not only with variations of sample size, but also with variations of lexematic diversity. The robustness of this new method is empirically assessed and the results show that while there is still room for improvement, the proposed methodology considerably attenuates the impact of lexematic diversity discrepancies on the measurement of inflectional diversity.

Effets de la croissance des capacités respiratoires sur la longueur des énoncés et sur la diversité lexicale

Brown (1973) a proposé la « longueur moyenne des énoncés » (LME) comme indice standard du développement langagier. La LME se calcule selon le nombre moyen de morphèmes dans 100 énoncés de parole spontanée. L’hypothèse sous-jacente à cet indice est que la complexité syntaxique croît avec le nombre de morphèmes dans les énoncés. Selon Brown, l’indice permet d’estimer le développement d’une « compétence grammaticale » jusqu’à environ quatre morphèmes. Certains auteurs ont toutefois critiqué le manque de fiabilité de la LME et la limite de quatre morphèmes. Des rapports démontrent des variations de la LME avec l’âge, ce qui suggère que des facteurs comme la croissance des capacités respiratoires peuvent influencer l’indice de Brown. La présente étude fait état de ces problèmes et examine comment la LME et certaines mesures de diversité lexicale varient selon le développement des capacités respiratoires. On a calculé la LME et la diversité lexicale dans la parole spontanée de 50 locuteurs mâles âgés de 5 à 27 ans. On a également mesuré, au moyen d’un pneumotachographe, la capacité vitale (CV) des locuteurs. Les résultats démontrent que la LME et des mesures de diversité lexicale corrèlent fortement avec la croissance de la CV. Ainsi, la croissance des fonctions respiratoires contraint le développement morphosyntaxique et lexical. Notre discussion fait valoir la nécessité de réévaluer l’indice de la LME et la conception « linguistique » du développement langagier comme une compétence mentale qui émerge séparément de la croissance des structures de performance.

Do children with Williams syndrome have unusual vocabularies?

Aims: The present study investigated whether children with Williams syndrome (WS) produced a higher number of different word roots and low-frequency words in spontaneous speech in a topic controlled setting. Method: A group of children with WS was compared to a group of typically developing children matched for chronological age (CA), and a group of typically developing children matched for receptive language abilities (LA). A further comparison was made between the WS group and a group of children matched for non-verbal abilities (NA). Spontaneous speech was elicited using a narrative task. The data were analysed using three different measures of lexical diversity. The results revealed that the children with WS neither produce a higher number of different word roots nor significantly more low-frequency items in comparison to the CA, LA and NA matched participants. Furthermore, language and non-verbal abilities did not predict the number of different and low frequency words used by the typically developing children, however in the WS group non-verbal abilities predicted the number of low-frequency words and receptive language skills predicted the number of different words produced. It is concluded that individuals with WS do not have unusual vocabularies and that the subdomain of language, lexical semantics, does not seem to be an independent cognitive skill. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Assessing L2 task performance: understanding effects of task design

The overarching aim of the research reported here was to investigate the effects of task structure and storyline complexity of oral narrative tasks on second language task performance. Participants were 60 Iranian language learners of English who performed six narrative tasks of varying degree of structure and storyline complexity in an assessment setting. A number of analytic detailed measures were employed to examine whether there were any differences in the participants’ performances elicited by the different tasks in terms of their accuracy, fluency, syntactic complexity and lexical diversity. Results of the data analysis showed that performance in the more structured tasks was more accurate and to a great extent more fluent than that in the less structured tasks. The results further revealed that syntactic complexity of L2 performance was related to the storyline complexity, i.e. more syntactic complexity was associated with narratives that had both foreground and background storylines. These findings strongly suggest that there is some unsystematic variance in the participants’ performance triggered by the different aspects of task design.

Task design and second language performance: the effect of narrative type on learner output

This article reports on a detailed empirical study of the way narrative task design influences the oral performance of second-language (L2) learners. Building on previous research findings, two dimensions of narrative design were chosen for investigation: narrative complexity and inherent narrative structure. Narrative complexity refers to the presence of simultaneous storylines; in this case, we compared single-story narratives with dual-story narratives. Inherent narrative structure refers to the order of events in a narrative; we compared narratives where this was fixed to others where the events could be reordered without loss of coherence. Additionally, we explored the influence of learning context on performance by gathering data from two comparable groups of participants: 60 learners in a foreign language context in Teheran and 40 in an L2 context in London. All participants recounted two of four narratives from cartoon pictures prompts, giving a between-subjects design for narrative complexity and a within-subjects design for inherent narrative structure. The results show clearly that for both groups, L2 performance was affected by the design of the task: Syntactic complexity was supported by narrative storyline complexity and grammatical accuracy was supported by an inherently fixed narrative structure. We reason that the task of recounting simultaneous events leads learners into attempting more hypotactic language, such as subordinate clauses that follow, for example, while, although, at the same time as, etc. We reason also that a tight narrative structure allows learners to achieve greater accuracy in the L2 (within minutes of performing less accurately on a loosely structured narrative) because the tight ordering of events releases attentional resources that would otherwise be spent on finding connections between the pictures. The learning context was shown to have no effect on either accuracy or fluency but an unexpectedly clear effect on syntactic complexity and lexical diversity. The learners in London seem to have benefited from being in the target language environment by developing not more accurate grammar but a more diverse resource of English words and syntactic choices. In a companion article (Foster & Tavakoli, 2009) we compared their performance with native-speaker baseline data and see that, in terms of nativelike selection of vocabulary and phrasing, the learners in London are closing in on native-speaker norms. The study provides empirical evidence that L2 performance is affected by task design in predictable ways. It also shows that living within the target language environment, and presumably using the L2 in a host of everyday tasks outside the classroom, confers a distinct lexical advantage, not a grammatical one.

L2 performance and context of language learning: a comparative study of learners in Tehran and London

The importance of learning context has stirred debates in the field of second language acquisition over the past two decades since studying a second language (L2) abroad is believed to provide authentic opportunities that facilitate L2 acquisition and development. The present paper examines whether language performance of learners studying English in a formal language classroom context at home (AH) is different from performance of learners who study English abroad (SA) where they would have to use English for a range of communicative purposes. The data for this comparative study is part of a larger corpus of L2 performance of 100 learners of English, 60 in Tehran and 40 in London, on four oral narrative tasks. The two groups’ performances are compared on a range of different measures of fluency, accuracy, syntactic complexity and lexical diversity. The results of the analyses indicate that learners in the two contexts are very similar with respect to the grammatical accuracy and aspects of the oral fluency of their performance. However, the SA group appears to have benefited from living and studying abroad in producing language of higher syntactic complexity and lexical diversity. These results have significant implications for language teaching in AH contexts.