Article published In:
Cumulative Knowledge Building in Learner Corpus Research
Edited by Tove Larsson and Douglas Biber
[International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 11:1] 2025
► pp. 47–78

The more proficient the learners, the less sophisticated their L2 vocabulary?

The curious effect of the reference corpus on mean-frequency measures of lexical sophistication

ORCID logo | Lancaster University
 | University of Cologne
Mean-frequency scores of lexical sophistication are used to evaluate written and spoken language production. They are calculated using word frequencies extracted from a reference corpus. Using mixed-effects regression models, we analyse the strength of the relationship between L2 proficiency and mean-frequency scores in spoken and written texts using reference corpora representing different modes and registers. We control for task and topic effects. We observe that mean-frequency measures of lexical sophistication are considerably more influenced by the mode and register of the reference corpus used to calculate these scores than by language users’ proficiency level. Advanced language users produce more frequent vocabulary, typical of the target register, in both spoken monologues and written essays. These results provide evidence in favour of a conceptual and terminological shift from lexical sophistication to register appropriateness (as suggested by Durrant & Brenchley, 2019) to refer to the construct captured by mean-frequency scores of vocabulary use.
Keywords: lexical complexity, L2 proficiency, reference corpora, register appropriateness, language testing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The problem
  • 3.Hypotheses
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Data
    • 4.2Procedure
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Results from the ICNALE spoken monologues
    • 5.2Results from the ICNALE Written Essays
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Hypothesis 1: The relationship between L2 proficiency and mean-frequency scores of content words (CW)
    • 6.2Hypothesis 2: The effect of mode and register of the reference corpus on mean-frequency scores of content words (CW)
      • 6.2.1The ICNALE spoken monologues
      • 6.2.2The ICNALE Written Essays
    • 6.3Limitations and future research
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Open data badge and open code badge
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 21 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.23029.bot
References (62)
References
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39 (3), 445–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, H. M. (2003). Using frequency lists to assess L2 texts [PhD thesis, University of Wales]. [URL]
Berger, C., Crossley, S., & Skalicky, S. (2019). Using lexical features to investigate second language lexical decision performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41 (5), 911–935. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (2023). Writing and speaking. In R. Horowitz (Ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Writing (2nd ed., pp. 535–548). Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G. N., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (2021). Grammar of spoken and written English. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
BNC Consortium. (2007). The British National Corpus (XML) [Data set]. Oxford Text Archive. [URL]
Bottini, R. (2022). Lexical complexity in L2 English speech: Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus [PhD thesis]. Lancaster University.
Brezina, V., Hawtin, A., & McEnery, T. (2021). The written British National Corpus 2014 — design and comparability. Text & Talk, 41 (5–6), 595–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41 (4), 977–990. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe (Ed.). (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. [URL]
Crossley, S., Cobb, T., & McNamara, D. (2013). Comparing count-based and band-based indices of word frequency: Implications for active vocabulary research and pedagogical applications. System, 41 (4), 965–981. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S., Kyle, K., & Römer, U. (2019). Examining lexical and cohesion differences in discipline-specific writing using multi-dimensional analysis. In T. B. Sardinha & M. V. Pinto (Eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues (pp. 189–216). Bloomsbury Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S., & McNamara, D. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: the roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35 (2), 115–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Applications of text analysis tools for spoken response grading. Language Learning & Technology, 17 (2), 171–192.Google Scholar
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. (2010). The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers: Polysemy and frequency use in English L2 speakers. Language Learning, 60 (3), 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing, 29 (2), 243–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D., & Jarvis, S. (2011). What is lexical proficiency? Some answers from computational models of speech data. TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1), 182–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawson, N., Hsiao, Y., Tan, A., Banerji, N., & Nation, K. (2021). Features of lexical richness in children’s books: Comparisons with child-directed speech. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dombi, J., Sydorenko, T., & Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2022). Common ground, cooperation, and recipient design in human-computer interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 193 1, 4–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P. (2014). Corpus frequency and second language learners’ knowledge of collocations: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19 (4), 443–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P., & Brenchley, M. (2019). Development of vocabulary sophistication across genres in English children’s writing. Reading and Writing, 32 (8), 1927–1953. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P., & Durrant, A. (2022). Appropriateness as an aspect of lexical richness: What do quantitative measures tell us about children’s writing? Assessing Writing, 51 1, 100596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P., Moxley, J., & McCallum, L. (2019). Vocabulary sophistication in First-Year Composition assignments. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24 (1), 33–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, J. (2017). Corpus linguistics and language testing: Navigating uncharted waters. Language Testing, 34 (4), 555–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eguchi, M., & Kyle, K. (2020). Continuing to explore the multidimensional nature of lexical sophistication: The case of oral proficiency interviews. The Modern Language Journal, 104 (2), 381–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (2), 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42 (3), 375–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fergadiotis, G., Wright, H. H., & West, T. M. (2013). Measuring lexical diversity in narrative discourse of people with aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology / American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 22 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D., & Bottini, R. (2022). Spoken learner corpora for language teaching. In R. Jablonkai & E. Csomay (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpora and English language teaching and learning (pp. 296–310). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D., Harding, L., Brezina, V., & Dunlea, J. (2023, July). Talking to an imagined interlocutor: Interactional and interpersonal features of discourse in computer — mediated semi-direct speaking assessment. Corpus Linguistics 2023 Conference, Lancaster University (UK).
Gries, S. Th. (2015). The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10 (1), 95–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horst, M., & Collins, L. (2006). From faible to strong: How does their vocabulary grow? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63 (1), 83–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, S. (2023). The ICNALE guide: An introduction to a learner corpus study on Asian learners’ L2 English. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, M., Crossley, S., & Kyle, K. (2018). Lexical sophistication as a multidimensional phenomenon: Relations to second language lexical proficiency, development, and writing quality. The Modern Language Journal, 102 (1), 120–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20 (2), 148–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49 (4), 757–786. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). The relationship between lexical sophistication and independent and source-based writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34 1, 12–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K., Crossley, S., & Berger, C. (2018). The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): version 2.0. Behavior Research Methods, 50 1, 1030–1046. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Le Foll, E. (2021). Register variation in school EFL textbooks. Register Studies, 3 (2), 207–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022a). Making tea and mistakes: The functions of make in spoken English and textbook dialogues. In Z. Yin & E. Vine (Eds.), Multifunctionality in English: Corpora, language and academic literacy pedagogy (pp. 157–178). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022b). Textbook English: A corpus-based analysis of the language of EFL textbooks used in secondary schools in France, Germany and Spain [PhD thesis, Osnabrück University]. DOI logo
Leńko-Szymańska, A. (2019). Defining and assessing lexical proficiency. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). The spoken BNC2014. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22 (3), 319–344. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D., Crossley, S., & McCarthy, P. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27 (1), 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monteiro, K., Crossley, S., & Kyle, K. (2020). In search of new benchmarks: Using L2 lexical frequency and contextual diversity indices to assess second language writing. Applied Linguistics, 41 (2), 280–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakatsuhara, F., Khabbazbashi, N., & Inoue, C. (2021). Assessing speaking. In G. Fulcher & L. Harding (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 209–222). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesi, H. (2001). A corpus-based analysis of academic lectures across disciplines. In J. Cotterill & A. Ife (Eds.), Language across boundaries (pp. 201–218). British Association for Applied Linguistics in association with Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ockey, G. J., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2021). Human versus computer partner in the paired oral discussion test. Applied Linguistics, 42 (5), 924–944. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED. (2023). sophistication, n. | sophisticated, adj. In Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press; Oxford English Dictionary. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19 (4), 218–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2020). Measuring complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). In P. Winke & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Second Language Acquisition and language testing (pp. 201–210). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M. (2019). The phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research. Second Language Research, 35 (1), 121–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M., Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & Naets, H. (2022). Phraseological complexity in EFL learners’ spoken production across proficiency levels. In S. Götz & A. Leńko-Szymańska (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in learner corpus research (pp. 115–136). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Suzuki, S., Oyama, T., & Akiyama, Y. (2021). How does longitudinal interaction promote second language speech learning? Roles of learner experience and proficiency levels. Second Language Research, 37 (4), 547–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salsbury, T., Crossley, S., & McNamara, D. (2011). Psycholinguistic word information in second language oral discourse. Second Language Research, 27 (3), 343–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tidball, F., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2008). Analysing lexical richness in French learner language: What frequency lists and teacher judgements can tell us about basic and advanced words. Journal of French Language Studies, 18 (3), 299–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Halteren, H. (2020). Domain bias in distinguishing Flemish and Dutch subtitles. Natural Language Engineering, 26 (5), 493–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar