Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity

By Scott Jarvis. 2002

261 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0251af410f13bb55e793973452a6e52c048884b7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Measuring L2 Lexical Growth Using Hypernymic Relationships (2009, methodology): “MTLD was selected to link the WordNet hypernymy data to lexical growth because LD measures are commonly used to analyze lexical growth (Jarvis, 2002; Malvern & Richards, 2002; Polio, 2001).”
Psycholinguistic word information in second language oral discourse (2011, background): “These measures are referred to as indices of lexical diversity, also known as lexical variation or lexical variety (Jarvis, 2002).”
Lexical Diversity in Writing and Speaking Task Performances (2010, background): “2 The equation for D was reported incorrectly in Jarvis (2002:60) and Malvern and Richards (2002:89), i.e., the ½ is missing.”
Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview (2020, background): “These studies indicate that more proficient L2 writers produce texts with a greater diversity of words (i.e., less lexical overlap, Berman & Verhoeven, 2002; Crossley & McNamara, 2012; Engber, 1995; Grant & Ginther, 2000; Jarvis, 2002; Reppen, 1994).”
The Relationship of Lexical Richness to the Quality of ESL Learners' Oral Narratives. (2012, result): “Jarvis (2002), however, reported mixed results for the relationship of the D measure to holistic ratings of EFL written narratives.”
Assessing the Validity of Lexical Diversity Indices Using Direct Judgements (2020, methodology): “Lexical measures have been used for over a hundred years as a way to estimate the size of a language user’s vocabulary (Jarvis, 2002, 2013b; Thomson & Thompson, 1915; Yule, 1944).”
vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation (2007, methodology): “We then added the original calculation of D – first promulgated by Malvern and 480 vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation Richards (1997) and analyzed in Jarvis (2002) – as a particularly”
MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment (2010, background): “Indeed, when tested on a corpus of 266 texts (see Jarvis, 2002, for details of the texts), the correlation between vocd-D and the value of HD-D was r (cid:21) .971.”
Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. (2004, background): “In a recent study Jarvis (2002) argued that Malvern's and Richards' (1997) D-”
Back to Basics: How Measures of Lexical Diversity Can Help Discriminate between CEFR Levels (2016, methodology): “and Jarvis 2010, 384). 4 Subsequently MTLD is obtained by dividing the total number of words by the total number of factors. Thus, if the text is 360 words long and there are 4 factors, the MTLD value is 90. As shown in Author (2013) text length dependency is also a problem for the newer measures of”
Assessing Lexical Proficiency Using Analytic Ratings: A Case for Collocation Accuracy (2014, background): “More proficient writers produce a greater variety of words (as measured through curve-fitting formulae; Jarvis 2002) as do more proficient speakers (Higgins et al.”