Using Computer-Tagged Linguistic Features to Describe L2 Writing Differences
By L. Grant, A. Ginther. 2000
294 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Literature and Literary Theory
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/98895302b6b450cace18033ca50da3138e06bdac
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Developmental and Educational Psychology
- Scott Andrew Crossley
- Danielle S. McNamara
- K. Kyle
- Naoko Taguchi
- Danielle Wetzel
- W. Crawford
- Bethany Gray
- P. Uccelli
In Education
- Scott Andrew Crossley
- Danielle Wetzel
- Naoko Taguchi
- W. Crawford
- Danielle S. McNamara
- Bethany Gray
- P. Uccelli
- Douglas Biber
In Literature and Literary Theory
- Scott Andrew Crossley
- Bethany Gray
- Douglas Biber
- Naoko Taguchi
- Danielle Wetzel
- W. Crawford
- M. James
- Kyoko Baba
Citations in the corpus
- Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL (2005, background): “For example, studies such as Grant and Ginther (2000), among many others, have coded the frequencies of specific word classes, such as adverbs, adjectives, or verbs, in texts that indicate functional purposes, such as hedging, emphatics, or markers of attitude or identity.”
- Predicting Second Language Writing Proficiency: The Roles of Cohesion and Linguistic Sophistication (2012, methodology): “Past studies using computational tools have included the use of STYLEFILES (Reid, 1992) and computerised tagging systems (Grant & Ginther, 2000; Jarvis et al., 2003).”
- What Linguistic Features Are Indicative of Writing Quality? A Case of Argumentative Essays in a College Composition Program (2013, background): “Previous studies have shown that certain linguistic fea- TESOL QUARTERLY420 tures of writing help distinguish the performance of second language (L2) writers with varying levels of proficiency (e.g., Becker, 2010; Cumming et al., 2005; Grant & Ginther, 2000; Hinkel, 2003; Lu, 2011).”
- Discourse Characteristics of Writing and Speaking Task Types on the "TOEFL iBT"® Test: A Lexico-Grammatical Analysis. "TOEFL iBT"® Research Report. TOEFL iBT-19. Research Report. RR-13-04. (2013, background): “Grammatical and syntactic features Grant & Ginther (2000) Nouns, nominalizations, personal pronouns, verbs, modals, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, articles, subordination, complementation, relative clauses, adverbial subordination, passives The frequency of several features increased with…”
- Japanese Learners' Self Revisions and Peer Revisions of Their Written Compositions in English. (2008, background): “The total number of words in TWE essays has been demonstrated to correlate with L2 writing proficiency in this type of context (Grant & Ginther, 2000).”
- 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).”
- Same language, different functions: A cross-genre analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ writing performance (2016, background): “…(TWE) corpus, researchers found that highly rated EFL essays were usually longer, with longer average word length, and higher frequencies of certain lexical and grammatical categories (e.g., nouns, hedges, conjuncts) (Ferris, 1994; Frase, Faletti, Ginther, & Grant, 1999; Grant & Ginther, 2000).”