2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2012.10.012
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of text length on lexical diversity measures: Using short texts with less than 200 tokens

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
75
1
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(82 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
4
75
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In this regard, future research needs to elicit longer speech samples (e.g., Yuan & Ellis, 2003 for 3 min) in order to incorporate a range of robust lexical analyses which require oral texts consisting of 100-200 words (Koizumi & In'nami, 2012). FOREIGN LANGUAGE SPEECH LEARNING Endnotes 1.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this regard, future research needs to elicit longer speech samples (e.g., Yuan & Ellis, 2003 for 3 min) in order to incorporate a range of robust lexical analyses which require oral texts consisting of 100-200 words (Koizumi & In'nami, 2012). FOREIGN LANGUAGE SPEECH LEARNING Endnotes 1.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This school had the second highest score in the city on the National A total of 242 students participated in the testing. However, writing samples with words less than 100 were excluded from the analysis based on the recommendation by Koizumi and In'nami (2012). These authors demonstrated that some indices such as MTLD, a lexical diversity index used in this study, were not reliable with texts less than 100 words.…”
Section: Study Participantsmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…With respect to pronunciation variables, both expert and novice raters similarly relied on acoustic-phonetic information in L2 speech, in this case prioritizing the prosodic factor (word stress) over segmental accuracy (Crowther et al, 2015a;. With respect to lexical variables, the two sets of raters also seemed to attend to comparable domains of L2 vocabulary use, such as diversity (Koizumi & In'nami, 2012), polysemy (Crossley et al, 2010), lemma appropriateness (Crossley et al, 2015) and morphological accuracy (Yuan & Ellis, 2003). However, the relative weights of these lexical influences differed between the expert and novice raters.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%