Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science, Vol 4, No 1 (2017)

L2 English learning books under analysis: a computational study of conjunctions in oral English

Maria Angeles Zarco-Tejada
Issued Date: 28 Feb 2018


In this study we have addressed how cohesion is achieved in L2 oral English learning materials focusing our study on the analysis of conjunctions. We have checked if cohesion is gradually accomplished according to levels of proficiency and if the use of conjunctions in upper level learning materials resembles native speaker standards. Our study proves that cohesion is gradually achieved by L2 oral English learning materials but that proficiency level distinctions based on cohesion cannot be explained in terms of cohesive variables quantitative measures only, but on the combination of statistical results plus qualitative cohesive devices criteria. Our study uses Coh-Metrix and AntConc as computational tools and compares outputs with the British National Corpus (BNC) which shows how ranks of use of cohesive procedures from authentic oral texts should guide learning material makers.

Download Media

PDF (Price: £17.50 )

DOI: 10.1558/jrds.33070


Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc 3.4.3 [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from

Biber, D. (1988). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cain, K. and Nash, H. M. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers' processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology 103 (2), 429-441.

Castro, C. D. (2004). Cohesion and the social construction of meaning in the essays of Filipino college students writing in L2 English. Asia Pacific Education Review 5 (2), 215-225.

Chen, J. (2008). An investigation of EFL students' use of cohesive devices. Asia Pacific Education Review 5 (2), 215-225.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., and Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10, 39-71.

Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of References for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crossley, S. A. and McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing second language reading texts at the intermediate level: An approximate replication of Crossley, Louwerse, McCarthy, and McNamara (2007). Language Teaching 41 (3), 409-229.

Crossley, S. A. and McNamara, D. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 119-130.

Crossley, S. A. and McNamara, D. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading 35 (2), 115-135.

Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M. and McNamara, D. S. (2007). A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. The Modern Language Journal 91 (1), 15-30.

Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J. and McNamara, D. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly 42 (3), 475-493.

Crossley, S. A., Allen, D. B. and McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text readability and intuitive simplification: a comparison of readability formulas. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23 (1), 84-101.

Crossley, S. A., Yang, H. S. and McNamara, D. S. (2014). What's so simple about simplified texts? A computational and psycholinguistic investigation of text comprehension and text processing. Reading in a Foreign Language 26 (1), 92-113.

Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies 1(2), 1-23.

Dahlmeier, D., Ng, H. T. and Wu, S. M. (2013). Building a large annotated corpus or learner English: The NUS corpus of learner English. Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, 22-31. Atlanta, GA, 13 June 2013. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Dell'Orletta, F., Montemagni, S. and Venturi, G. (2013). Linguistic profiling of texts across textual genres and readability levels. An exploratory study on Italian fictional prose. Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing 7-13, September, 189-197. Hissar, Bulgaria.

Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing 4 (2), 139-155.

Ferris, D. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features in ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly 28 (2), 414-420.

Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M. and Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 36, 193-202.

Granger, S. and Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes 15 (1), 17-21.

Grant, L. and Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing 9, 123-145.

Green, C. (2012). A computational investigation of cohesion and lexical network density in L2 writing. English Language Teaching 5 (8), 57-69.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halliday M. A. K. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). London: Routledge.

Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing 19, 57-84.

Johnson, P. (1992). Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English. RELC Journal 23 (2): 1-17.

Liu, M. and Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System 33, 623-636.

Longo, B. (1994). The role of metadiscourse in persuasion. Technical Communication 41, 348-352.

McCarthy, D. (2001). Lexical Acquisition at the Syntax-semantics Interface: Diathesis Alternations, Sub-categorizational Frames and Selectional Preferences. Sydney: University of Melbourne.

McCarthy, P. M. (2005). An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD). Dis­sertation Abstracts International 66 (12), UMI No. 3199485.

McNamara, D., Ozuru, Y., Graesser, A. and Lowerse, M. (2006). Validating Coh-Metrix. In R. Sun and N. Miyake (Eds) Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., Cai, Z., and Graesser, A. (2013). Coh-Metrix version 3.0. Retrieved [December 2015], from

Montemagni, S. (2013). Tecnologie linguistico-computazionale e monitoraggio della lingua italiana. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata (SILTA) XLII (1), 145-172.

Sanders, T. J. M. and Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 29 (1), 37-60.

Van de Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36, 82-93.

Zarco-Tejada, M. A., Noya Gallardo, C., Merino Ferradá, M. C., Calderón López,, I. (2015). Building a Corpus of 2L English for Automatic Assessment: The CLEC Corpus. Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences 198, 515-525.

Zhao Chunhong. (2014). Lexical cohesion of Sino-British college students' EAP writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4 (10), 2123-2128.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Equinox Publishing Ltd - 415 The Workstation 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, S1 2BX United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)114 221-0285 - Email:

Privacy Policy