Linguistic Features of Writing Quality

Written Communication Jan 2010

Linguistic Features of Writing Quality

Danielle S. McNamara University of Memphis ; Scott A. Crossley Mississippi State University ; Philip M. McCarthy University of Memphis

Abstract

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.

Journal: Written Communication
Published: 2010-01-01
DOI: 10.1177/0741088309351547
Open Access: Closed
Topics: assessment rhetorical theory

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (12)

Zappoli et al. (2024)

A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Students’ Essays in Italian High Schools: …

Written Communication
Tate et al. (2024)

Linguistic Features of Secondary School Writing: Can Natural Language Processin…

Written Communication
Wang et al. (2023)

Writing Quality Predictive Modeling: Integrating Register-Related Factors

Written Communication
Jo (2021)

Exploring General Versus Academic English Proficiency as Predictors of Adolesce…

Written Communication
Troia et al. (2019)

Multidimensional Levels of Language Writing Measures in Grades Four to Six

Written Communication

Show all 12 →

Balling (2018)

No Effect of Writing Advice on Reading Comprehension

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Roscoe et al. (2014)

The Writing Pal Intelligent Tutoring System: Usability Testing and Development

Computers and Composition
Crossley et al. (2014)

What Is Successful Writing? An Investigation Into the Multiple Ways Writers Can…

Written Communication
Dryer (2013)

Scaling Writing Ability

Written Communication
Uccelli et al. (2013)

Mastering Academic Language

Written Communication
Thonney (2012)

“That's Beyond the Scope of This Paper”: Analyzing the Functions of a Familiar …

Rhetoric Review
Crossley et al. (2011)

The Development of Writing Proficiency as a Function of Grade Level: A Linguist…

Written Communication

Cites in this index (1)

Collins (1998)

Strategies for Struggling Writers

College Composition and Communication

Also cites 35 works outside this index ↓

10.1075/sl.7.3.05bam

↗
Biber, D. ( 2003). Variation among university spoken and written registers: A new multidimensional analysis. …

↗
10.1080/14640748108400805

↗
10.1080/08351818409389208

↗
10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00507.x

↗
10.2307/1495373

↗
10.2307/747483

↗
10.1017/CBO9780511816796.038

↗
10.4324/9780203506929

↗
10.4324/9780203463932_UC_and_the_SAT

↗
10.21236/ADA221854

↗
10.1075/z.74

↗
10.1075/idj.15.3.02gra

↗
10.3758/BF03195564

↗
10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122

↗
10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1

↗
10.4324/9780203936399

↗
Light, R. (2001)

Making the most of college

↗
10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002

↗
Louwerse, M.M. (2001)

10.1515/cogl.2002.005

Cognitive Linguistics ↗
10.2190/1LN8-7BQE-8TN0-M91L

↗
McCarthy, P.M., Briner, S.W., Rus, V. & McNamara, D.S. (2007). Textual signatures: Identifying text-types usi…

↗
10.1177/0265532207080767

↗
10.1207/S15326985EP3501_3

↗
10.1037/h0087352

↗
10.4324/9780203810033

↗
10.3758/BF03195736

↗
10.1093/ijl/3.4.235

↗
10.1080/01638530709336895

↗
10.3102/0002831206298171

↗
10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1

↗
10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1281

↗
10.1006/jecp.1996.0054

↗
10.1016/j.asw.2007.02.002

↗
10.2307/356693

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 336 View in citation network →