{"title":"Back to Basics in Measuring Lexical Diversity: Too Simple to Be True","authors":"Yves Bestgen","doi":"10.1093/applin/amae053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Measuring lexical diversity in texts that have different lengths is problematic because length has a significant effect on the number of types a text contains, thus hampering any comparison. Treffers-Daller et al. (2018) recommended a simple solution, namely counting the number of types in a section of a given length that was extracted from the middle of each of the texts to be analysed. By applying this approach to second language essays, the authors observed that using the number of types was slightly more effective for differentiating amongst the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) levels than were the Type-Token Ratio (TTR) and the Guiraud index and that these three indices were more effective than were mathematically more complex ones. However, their conclusions regarding these two points are incorrect, and a less basic approach should be used. The last section addresses two broader issues in applied linguistics that are highlighted by these problems.","PeriodicalId":48234,"journal":{"name":"Applied Linguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amae053","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Measuring lexical diversity in texts that have different lengths is problematic because length has a significant effect on the number of types a text contains, thus hampering any comparison. Treffers-Daller et al. (2018) recommended a simple solution, namely counting the number of types in a section of a given length that was extracted from the middle of each of the texts to be analysed. By applying this approach to second language essays, the authors observed that using the number of types was slightly more effective for differentiating amongst the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) levels than were the Type-Token Ratio (TTR) and the Guiraud index and that these three indices were more effective than were mathematically more complex ones. However, their conclusions regarding these two points are incorrect, and a less basic approach should be used. The last section addresses two broader issues in applied linguistics that are highlighted by these problems.
期刊介绍：
Applied Linguistics publishes research into language with relevance to real-world problems. The journal is keen to help make connections between fields, theories, research methods, and scholarly discourses, and welcomes contributions which critically reflect on current practices in applied linguistic research. It promotes scholarly and scientific discussion of issues that unite or divide scholars in applied linguistics. It is less interested in the ad hoc solution of particular problems and more interested in the handling of problems in a principled way by reference to theoretical studies.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
