Assessing lexical proficiency in Russian as a second language using indices of lexical sophistication, diversity, and fluency
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21360286 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Olesya Kisselev (0000-0003-2514-3107, Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures University of South Carolina Columbia South Carolina USA, corresponding author), Mikhail Kopotev (0000-0002-4998-2952, University of Helsinki), Mihail Kopotev (Department of Modern Languages University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland), Anton Vakhranev (independent scholar) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 109 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 344-364 |
| Publication date | 2025-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Modern Language Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0026-7902 • E-ISSN: 1540-4781 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/modl.12998 |
| OpenAlex | W4410915954 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 51 |
Lexical proficiency in a second language (L2) has long been effectively assessed through the measurement of various lexical indices, or textual characteristics that act as observable indicators of such conceptual categories as lexical richness, diversity, sophistication, and fluency. While many studies have established links between these lexical characteristics and levels of overall language proficiency, languages other than L2 English rarely feature in such research. The current study addresses this gap by investigating a less commonly studied language, Russian, while paying specific attention to the operationalization of proficiency through an American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages Proficiency Guidelines‐based procedure. The study analyzes eight lexical proficiency indices in a corpus of essays written by learners of Russian at different proficiency levels. Our analyses demonstrate that seven indices (i.e., word length in letters, word length in syllables, word length in morphemes, unique tokens per text, unique lemmas per text, and measure of textual lexical diversity for tokens and for lemmas) changed significantly with the increase in proficiency. Only one index—the proportion of content versus function words—did not reliably track the increase in proficiency. The findings confirm the usefulness of lexical proficiency measures in tracking lexical development in L2 Russian and increase the repertoire of these indices for L2 Russian
Diversity (politics) · Fluency · Lexical Diversity · Linguistics · Natural language processing · Social science · Sociology · Sophistication · Vocabulary · Computer Science · Foreign Language Teaching Methods · Philosophy · Psychology · Second Language Acquisition and Learning · Text Readability and Simplification
Second language development in writing
Learning Vocabulary in Another Language
University Language
Assessing Vocabulary
Fluency in Writing
The Relationship of Lexical Richness to the Quality of ESL Learners’ Oral Narratives
Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme
Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples
Challenging stereotypes about academic writing
Cutting the Gordian Knot
MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D
Using Computer-Tagged Linguistic Features to Describe L2 Writing Differences
Comparing Individual Means in the Analysis of Variance
A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing
Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity
Vocabulary Size and Use
Lexical Diversity in Writing and Speaking Task Performances
Lexical Richness in the Spontaneous Speech of Bilinguals
Back to Basics
Measuring the development of lexical richness of L2 Spanish
Measuring Writing Development and Proficiency Gains Using Indices of Lexical and Syntactic Complexity
Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices
Vocabulary Coverage of Reading Tests
Factors affecting the quality of online learning in a task‐based college course
The Contribution of Vocabulary Knowledge to Reading Proficiency
Measuring L2 Lexical Growth Using Hypernymic Relationships
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |