Cover not available
Part of
Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber
Edited by Tony Berber Sardinha and Marcia Veirano Pinto
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 60] 2014
► pp. 197–238

Chapter 3.1 A Multi-Dimensional analysis of essay writing

What linguistic features tell us about situational parameters and the effects of language functions on judgments of quality

ORCID logo | Georgia State University
| Arizona State University
| Arizona State University

This study applied the Multi-Dimensional analysis used by Biber (1988) to examine the functional parameters of essays. Co-occurrence patterns were identified within an essay corpus (n = 1529) using linguistic indices provided by Coh-Metrix. These patterns were used to identify essay groups that shared features based upon situational parameters. Results revealed that the linguistic features reliably co-occurred according to the parameters. Namely, four dimensions were interpreted and associated with essay quality, prompt, and grade level. Confirmatory analyses revealed that the dimensions reliably distinguished among the parameters. Results provide insight into the situational parameters that affect writing, and the extent to which essays vary among and between themselves. The results have important implications for composition pedagogy, writing assessment, and writing theory.

Published online: 31 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.60.07cro
References
Abbott, R.D., Berninger, V., W., & Fayol, M
(2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 281-298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H., Piepenbrock, R., & Van Rijn, H
(Eds.) (1995) The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM) . Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Baker, W., & Eggington, W
(1999) Bilingual creativity, multi-dimensional analysis, and world Englishes. World Englishes, 18(3), 343-358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Swanson, H.L., Lovitt, D., Trivedi, P., Lin, S. -J., & Amtmann, D
(2010). Relationship of word and sentence-level working memory to reading and writing in second, fourth, and sixth grade. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 179-193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berninger, V.W., Cartwright, A.C., Yates, C.M., Swanson, L., & Abbott, R.D
(1994). Developmental skills related to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades: Shared and unique functional systems. Reading and Writing, 6, 161-196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berninger, V.W., Mizokawa, D., & Bragg, R
(1991). Theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writing disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 57-79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D
(1985) Investigating macroscopic textual variation through multi-feature/ multi-dimensional analyses. Linguistics, 23, 337–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986) Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language, 62, 384–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K
(2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W
(1975) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view in subject and topic. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25-55). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Connor, U
(1987) Research frontiers in writing analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 677-696. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connor, U., & Upton, T
(2004) The genre of grant proposals: A corpus linguistic analysis. In U. Connor, & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 235-256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costermans, J., & Fayol, M
(1997) Processing interclausal relationships: Studies in production and comprehension of text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Crossley, S., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D
(2008). Assessing text readability using psycholinguistic indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 475-493.Google Scholar
Crossley, S., Roscoe, R., & McNamara, D
(2011) Predicting human scores of essay quality using computational indices of linguistic and textual features. In S. Bull, J. Kay, & A. Mitrovic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 438-440). Gautam Biswas: AIED.Google Scholar
Crossley, S., Weston, J., Sullivan, S., & McNamara, D
(2011) The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28, 282-311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D
(2012) Syntagmatic, paradigmatic, and automatic n-gram approaches to assessing essay quality. In P. McCarthy & M. Youngblood (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference (pp. 214-219). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Crossley, S., & McNamara, D
(2012) Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 115-136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowhurst, M
(1990) Reading/writing relationships: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Education, 15, 155-172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M., & Cox, B
(2006) Understanding the language demands of schooling: Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 247–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, C
(1998) WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Flesch, R
(1948) A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freedman, A., & Pringle, I
(1980) Writing in the college years: Some indices of growth. College Composition and Communication, 31, 311-322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & Kulikowich, J
(2011) Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40, 223-234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z
(2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193-202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gregg, N., Coleman, C., Stennett, R., & Davis, M
(2002). Discourse complexity of college writers with and without disabilities: A Multi-Dimensional analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 23-38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K
(1967) Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199-244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R
(1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K
(1989) Spoken and written language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C
(1999) Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Haswell, R
(1986) Change in undergraduate and post-graduate writing performance: Quantified findings (Technical report; ERIC database ED269780).Google Scholar
(2000) Documenting improvement in college writing: A longitudinal approach. Written Communication, 17, 307-352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hempelmann, C., Dufty, D., McCarthy, P., Graesser, A., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D
(2005) Using LSA to automatically identify givenness and newness of noun phrases in written discourse. In B. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 941-946). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hunt, K
(1965) Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (NCTE Research report No. 3). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J., Johnson, E., & Hileman, J
(2004) When is reading also writing: Sources of individual differences on the new reading performance assessments. Scientific Studies in Reading, 8, 125-151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R., & Raulerson, B
(2007) Improving the writing skills of college students. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 237-242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, J.P., Fishburne, R.P., Rogers, R., & Chissom, B
(1975) Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated readability index, Fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel (Research branch report 8-75). Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training, U. S. Naval Air Station.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T
(1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T., McNamara, D., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W
(2007) Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Longo, B
(1994) Current research in technical communication: The role of metadiscourse in persuasion. Technical Communication, 41, 348-352.Google Scholar
Louwerse, M
(2001) An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 291-315.Google Scholar
Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., & Durán, P
(2004) Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, M., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M.A
(1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19, 313-330.Google Scholar
McCarthy, P., & Jarvis, S
(2010) MTLD, voc-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381-392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCutchen, D
(1986) Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431-444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCutchen, D., & Perfetti, C
(1982) Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. Text, 2, 113-139.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D., Crossley, S., & McCarthy, P
(2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27, 57-86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D., & Graesser, A
(2012) Coh-Metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing. In P. McCarthy, & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 188-205). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K
(1990) Five papers on WordNet. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Cognitive Science Laboratory.Google Scholar
National Commission on Writing
(2003) The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution. New York, NY: College Board.Google Scholar
(2004). Writing: A ticket to work… or a ticket out. New York, NY: College Board.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, R.,Griffin, W., & Norris, R
(1967) Syntax of kindergarten and elementary school children: A transformational analysis (NCTE Research report No. 8). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Pearson, P.D
(1974-1975). The effects of grammatical complexity on children’s comprehension, recall, and conception of certain semantic relationships. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 155-192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J
(2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M.J. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227-247). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C., & McCutchen, D
(1987). Schooled language competence: Linguistic abilities in reading and writing. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Reading, writing, and language learning (Vol. 2; pp. 105-141). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J
(1985). A Comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Stewart, M
(1978) Syntactic maturity from high school to university: A first look. Research in the Teaching of English, 12(1), 37-46.Google Scholar
Toglia, M., & Battig, W
(1978) Handbook of semantic word norms. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wells, R
(1960) Nominal and verbal style. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 213–220). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, M
(1988) The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine-readable dictionary, version 2. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 201, 6-11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witte, S., & Faigley, L
(1981) Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiao, R
(2009) Multi-Dimensional analysis and the study of world Englishes. World Englishes, 28(4), 421-450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R., Langston, M., & Graesser, A
(1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6(5), 292-297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Larsson, Tove, Magali Paquot & Douglas Biber
2021. Chapter 9. On the importance of register in learner writing. In Corpus-based Approaches to Register Variation [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 103], ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Le Foll, Elen
2021. Register variation in school EFL textbooks. Register Studies 3:2 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Melissourgou, Maria N. & Katerina T. Frantzi
2018. Moving Away from the Implicit Teaching of Genres in the L2 Classroom. Corpus Pragmatics 2:4 ► pp. 351 ff. DOI logo
Rasool, Attia, Asim Mehmood & M. Raheel Ashraf
2023. Exploration of Logical Meta-functions in ICLE: An Analysis of Pakistani Argumentative Essays. Linguistics and Literature Review 9:2 ► pp. 128 ff. DOI logo
Sardinha, Tony Berber, Carlos Kauffmann & Cristina Mayer Acunzo
2014. A multi-dimensional analysis of register variation in Brazilian Portuguese. Corpora 9:2 ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.