Linguistic Features of Writing Quality

被引:299
作者
McNamara, Danielle S. [1 ]
Crossley, Scott A. [2 ]
McCarthy, Philip M.
机构
[1] Univ Memphis, Inst Intelligent Syst, Memphis, TN 38152 USA
[2] Mississippi State Univ, TESOL Program, Mississippi State, MS USA
关键词
writing proficiency; cohesion; coherence; essay quality; computational linguistics; assessment; INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES; WORKING-MEMORY; COHERENCE; KNOWLEDGE; CAPACITY; TEXTS;
D O I
10.1177/0741088309351547
中图分类号
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要
In this study, a corpus of expert-graded essays, based on a standardized scoring rubric, is computationally evaluated so as to distinguish the differences between those essays that were rated as high and those rated as low. The automated tool, Coh-Metrix, is used to examine the degree to which high-and low-proficiency essays can be predicted by linguistic indices of cohesion (i.e., coreference and connectives), syntactic complexity (e.g., number of words before the main verb, sentence structure overlap), the diversity of words used by the writer, and characteristics of words (e.g., frequency, concreteness, imagability). The three most predictive indices of essay quality in this study were syntactic complexity (as measured by number of words before the main verb), lexical diversity (as measured by the Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity), and word frequency (as measured by Celex, logarithm for all words). Using 26 validated indices of cohesion from Coh-Metrix, none showed differences between high-and low-proficiency essays and no indices of cohesion correlated with essay ratings. These results indicate that the textual features that characterize good student writing are not aligned with those features that facilitate reading comprehension. Rather, essays judged to be of higher quality were more likely to contain linguistic features associated with text difficulty and sophisticated language.
引用
收藏
页码:57 / 86
页数:30
相关论文
共 59 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1995, Functionalism and grammar
  • [2] [Anonymous], DISCOURSE P IN PRESS
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1990, CANADIAN J ED, DOI DOI 10.2307/1495373
  • [4] TO MEAN, TO UNDERSTAND - PROBLEMS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SEMANTICS - HORMANN,H
    BAMBERG, M
    [J]. STUDIES IN LANGUAGE, 1983, 7 (03): : 431 - 438
  • [5] Biber D, 2003, LANG COMPUT, P47
  • [6] Bormuth JR, 1969, DEV READABILITY ANAL
  • [7] Brace N., 2006, SPSS for Psychologists: A guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows, V3rd
  • [8] Chall Jeanne Sternlicht, 1995, Readability Revisited: The New Dale-Chall Readability Formula
  • [9] Charniak E, 2000, 6TH APPLIED NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING CONFERENCE/1ST MEETING OF THE NORTH AMERICAN CHAPTER OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS, PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANLP-NAACL 2000 STUDENT RESEARCH WORKSHOP, pA132
  • [10] Collins J.L., 1998, STRATEGIES STRUGGLIN