Assessing the lexical richness of figurative expressions in Taiwanese EFL learners’ writing

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Assessing Writing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/asw

Assessing the lexical richness of figurative expressions in Taiwanese EFL learners’ writing Yi-chen Chen Department of Foreign Languages and Applied Linguistics, Yuan Ze University, 135 Yuan-Tung Road, Chung-Li, 32003, Taiwan, ROC

A R T IC LE I N F O

ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Lexical richness Figurative expressions L2 writing EFL Language proficiency test

This study aimed to explore the lexical richness of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ figurative expressions, including quantity, diversity, and types of figurative meanings, and the extent to which learners at different proficiency levels display such characteristics in their writing. Data for analysis were 442 writing samples collected from the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT), a test commissioned by Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, across four proficiency levels. The procedure for identifying figurative expressions was adapted from the Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit. The results showed that metaphors were the most frequently used figurative function across proficiency levels, whereas similes were the least frequently used. Among the four proficiency levels, learners at the intermediate level were the most productive in engaging diverse figurative forms and functions. The findings will contribute to a refinement of the proficiency descriptors in the GEPT and foster a positive washback effect on EFL learners’ development of vocabulary knowledge.

1. Introduction Lexical richness is deemed a reliable measure to assess the quality of a written text because lexical knowledge is, presumably, the strongest predictor of writing quality: the richer and more varied the vocabulary used in writing, the higher the quality of the writing (Bacha, 2001; Weigle, 2002), and the more positive evaluation given (Vögelin, Jansen, Keller, Machts, & Möller, 2019). Thus, lexical issues in second language (L2) writing have received growing attention in the past few decades. To evaluate the sophistication of lexical use, lexical richness, which is concerned with how well a learner knows the words, should be taken into consideration (Daller, Van Hout, & Treffers-Daller, 2003). The commonly agreed features that define lexical richness include lexical density, lexical diversity, lexical sophistication, and frequency of errors among the words used (Read, 2000). However, research on these features (e.g., Laufer & Nation, 1999, on lexical sophistication; McCarthy & Jarvis, 2007, on lexical diversity; Ure, 1971, on lexical density) has concluded that measuring vocabulary knowledge is more complicated than just calculating the frequencies of word forms; deep knowledge of vocabulary should also be accounted for. More specifically, advanced semantic knowledge, such as the multiplicity and figurative extensions of meaning, should be considered (Lindqvist, Gudmundson, & Bardel, 2013). The figurative extensions of meaning refers to the process by which a word takes on a related meaning to broaden its original one (Littlemore, 2008). Such meaning extension is believed to be rooted in the metaphorical nature of the human mind, referring to a rather concrete entity to comprehend a more abstract concept (Lakoff, 1993); the realization of the metaphorical nature of language use includes a direct comparison between two things that share a common feature (i.e., simile) and an implicit association between two seemingly unrelated subjects (i.e., metaphor). Moreover, as metaphorical language emphasizes the similarities between two

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.06.007 Received 20 August 2018; Received in revised form 27 May 2019; Accepted 15 June 2019 1075-2935/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Yi-chen Chen, Assessing Writing, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.06.007

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Y.-c. Chen

fundamentally different subject matters, it is realized through an inference of non-human entities in terms of human characteristics (i.e., personification) and a reference to one entity standing for another (i.e., metonymy). Since language use can be metaphorical in nature, being able to comprehend vocabulary metaphorically and to produce figurative expressions should be regarded as important indicators of lexical richness in L2 writing. The ability to use a range and a diversity of words in writing is believed to reflect a learner’s language proficiency (Jarvis, 2013). Thus, language proficiency indexes normally integrate lexical knowledge into the descriptions. However, the incorporation of deeper and more detailed lexical use into the reference-level descriptors of various language proficiency indexes has yet to be carried out. Take the widely accepted language proficiency index, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), for instance. In a document about reference-level descriptions published in 2001, the term “figure of speech” and its related terms “figurative language/expression” were not included. In addition, the term “metaphor” and its synonymous terms “metaphorical language/expression” occurred only three times in the whole document, twice as an instance of metalanguage (pp. 35, 186) and once as a type of fixed expression (i.e., “frozen metaphor”), alongside phrasal idioms (p. 110). Nacey (2013) commented that the CEFR had adopted an outdated view of metaphors as a rhetorical device or a figure of speech only: “the framework downgrades the importance of metaphor for language users” (p. 60). As the CEFR has been used as a framework of reference in more than 40 languages (Council of Europe, 2018), its lack of awareness of the figurative meaning extension of vocabulary may result in negative impacts, such as a limited role in teaching vocabulary in language classrooms and a challenge in developing advanced productive ability. A similar situation can be found in the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT), a criterion-referenced test of English language proficiency commissioned by Taiwan’s Ministry of Education and administered since 2000. The GEPT is tailored to English learners in Taiwan, assessing listening, reading, speaking, and writing abilities. It has received extensive recognition for its quality since its launch, and it is claimed to be the most widely taken English proficiency examination in Taiwan (Wu, 2012). To date, the GEPT test results have been used by government agencies, private enterprises, and over 400 schools for the purpose of job promotion and graduation qualification (Language Training & Testing Center, 2017). As of 2005, the Ministry of Education requires major English proficiency tests in Taiwan to provide score reference mapping to the CEFR, and the GEPT has aligned its proficiency levels with those of the CEFR (see Table 1). Yet skimming through the descriptors of the five proficiency levels in the GEPT—elementary, intermediate, high-intermediate, advanced, and superior (Language Training & Testing Center, 2016)—the descriptions for vocabulary knowledge include grammar and grammatical usage, but they do not go far enough in defining lexical richness regarding figurative meaning extension. This lack of specification may impede the development of lexical richness in L2 writing (Littlemore, Krennmayr, Turner, & Turner, 2014). To facilitate Taiwanese EFL learners’ pursuit of advanced English proficiency, the integration of the descriptions of the lexical features of vocabulary with existing proficiency descriptions is necessary. Taking a comprehensive viewpoint on L2 writing, the interface between L2 writing and second language acquisition has been confirmed by extant literature, which has called for a detailed examination of L2 proficiency and its effect on L2 writing (Ortega, 2012). Previous research has investigated L2 interlanguage development, particularly lexical proficiency, through the analyses of learners’ errors. Enbger (1995) investigated the relationship between lexical proficiency and scores on ESL compositions and found significant correlations for lexical variation minus errors. Baba (2009) investigated Japanese EFL learners’ summary writing and claimed that the quality of the work was influenced by lexical proficiency in different aspects. Verspoor, Schmid, and Xu (2012), in their corpus study, also found that errors were one of the frequently affected variables when the texts were coded for proficiency level. Kathpalia and Carmel (2011) examined ESL learners’ competence in using metaphors in English writing by analyzing the mistakes they made; however, in describing the mistakes made by and the insufficient competence of the L2 learners, the researchers did not provide descriptions of what the L2 learners did at various levels of lexical proficiency. The present study was exploratory in nature in that it examined the lexical richness of figurative expressions in the Taiwanese context. The aim was to explore the ways that Taiwanese EFL learners incorporated vocabulary terms with figurative meaning extensions in English writing, and the extent to which the characteristics of the lexical richness of those figurative expressions were displayed by learners at different proficiency levels. As the research site was Taiwan, the study collected writing samples from the GEPT across four proficiency levels: elementary, intermediate, high-intermediate, and advanced. The findings are expected to

Table 1 Alignmenta of proficiency levels in the GEPT, CEFR, IELTS, and TOEIC. GEPTb Superior Advanced High-intermediate Intermediate Elementary

a b

2nd stage 1 st stage 2nd stage 1 st stage 2nd stage 1 st stage 2nd stage 1 st stage

CEFR

IELTS

TOEIC

C2 (C1+) C1 (B2+) B2 (B1+) B1 (A2+) A2

7.5 6.5–7.0

950+ 880–949

5.0–6.0

750–879

3.5–4.5

550–749

3.0

350–549

The alignments are based on the Language Training and Testing Center (n.d.) and the British Council (n.d.). The 1st stage of the GETP contains listening and reading tests, and the 2nd stage contains speaking and writing tests. 2

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Y.-c. Chen

contribute to the future refinement of writing proficiency descriptions. 2. Literature review Research regarding L2 learners’ production of figurative expressions has gained importance in recent years. Research on L2 learners’ writing (Author, 2015; Chapetón, 2010; Kathpalia & Carmel, 2011; Littlemore et al., 2014) has shown that, as L2 learners advance in their proficiency in the target language, they tend to express themselves with figurative language, such as the use of novel metaphorical expressions and fixed idiomatic expressions, though mistakes are still inevitable. Challenges related to L2 learners’ lack of proficiency include the inappropriate choice of prepositions and verbs among L2 learners at the beginning to intermediate levels (Chapetón, 2010; Kathpalia & Carmel, 2011); conversely, learners at the intermediate to advanced levels tend to use fixed idiomatic expressions more frequently, and they match their usage with types of genres and purposes of writing more precisely (Author, 2015). In addition to limited competence due to lower language proficiency levels, difficulties may result from the interference of learners’ native language, such as a direct translation from the L1 into the L2 (Littlemore et al., 2014) or mismatches between the audience and register (Kathpalia & Carmel, 2011). Research on writing has also revealed the capability of L2 learners at different proficiency levels in performing figurative language use. Littlemore et al. (2014) examined 200 essays written by 40EFL learners taking the Cambridge ESOL exams for their use of metaphorical lexical units, including metaphors for direct comparison (i.e., similes) and indirect comparison, as well as metaphors for personification. Littlemore et al. (2014) found that the overall metaphorical density increased as the proficiency level increased; the density was fairly high for learners at the CEFR C1 and C2 levels (i.e., the advanced level). In addition, the learners started to use metaphors in clusters at the B2 level and used metaphors consisting of content words at a sustained rate of increase. Littlemore et al. (2014) hence suggested that the learners at the B1 and B2 levels (i.e., the intermediate level) had entered an experimental phase of language learning. In addition, research has found that EFL learners are capable of matching figurative language with goals of different genres for communicative purposes. Author (2015) analyzed 80 essays of EFL learners in four types of genres—description, narration, explanation, and exposition—and found that the participants applied different figurative functions, such as producing figurative expressions to suit different writing goals. For instance, they used figurative expressions mainly for an ideational function in descriptive texts and for a manipulative function in expository and narrative texts. Summing up the findings of previous studies, the sophisticated use of figurative language increases at each level. These various performances at different proficiency levels show the positive and close correlation between the richness of figurative expressions and language proficiency, in particular in writing ability. Therefore, incorporating the ability to use figurative language in writing as well as examining the lexical richness of figurative expressions are necessary for language proficiency tests. In the original CEFR specification published by the Council of Europe, 2001, descriptors related to figurative language, in particular, metaphors, were neither directly related to lexical uses nor written production. The updated version of the descriptors published in 2018, however, is of great importance to this topic. In total, the word “metaphor” was found 13 times: five were used as metaknowledge (pp. 31, 55, 83, 115, 164), while the remaining eight referred to the figurative function of language use: two were regarded as receptive ability skills, such as interpreting connotations (pp. 117, 208); two were regarded as productive skills, such as explaining new concepts with metaphors (pp. 126–127); three referred to plurilingual ability, such as exploring similarities and differences between metaphors and other figures of speech in the plurilingual repertoire (pp. 161–162, 234); and one referred to competence in sign language, such as the use of “metaphors, and particular knowledge of the manual and the non-manual parameters of signs” (p. 146). Though the latest CEFR descriptors include some descriptions on using “metaphors,” there are still some weakness. First, the descriptors are neither directly linked to written production nor do they relate to vocabulary skills. Second, the term “metaphor” is too narrow in definition, which may confine the range of figurative language use. In other words, the descriptors still do not give the full picture of the lexical richness of figurative expressions in L2 writing. Moreover, other language proficiency tests that are aligned with the CEFR, such as the GEPT administered in Taiwan, should add descriptions of figurative language use to their proficiency level descriptors. Therefore, to refine the proficiency descriptions, a thorough examination of L2 learners’ actual performance on using figurative language in their written production should be conducted. The present study aimed to investigate how EFL learners in Taiwan used figurative expressions in English writing and to analyze the characteristics of the lexical richness of the figurative expressions displayed by learners at different levels of proficiency. Based on the results of the analysis, suggestions for refining current writing proficiency descriptions will be made. The research questions are as follows: (1) What are the features of the lexical richness of figurative expressions that distinguish EFL learners’ writing at different proficiency levels of the GEPT? a In what ways do the richness of figurative expressions, including the productivity and diversity of figurative expressions, vary across the proficiency levels of the GEPT? b In what ways do the figurative functions of figurative expressions vary across the proficiency levels of the GEPT? (2) How do EFL learners at different levels of proficiency display their ability to use figurative language through writing?

3

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Y.-c. Chen

Table 2 Information about the GEPT writing tasks used for analysis. GEPT Level

Elementary Intermediate High-intermediate Advanced

Writing Tasks Selected for the Study (minimum word count)

Task Task Task Task Task

2: 2: 2: 1: 2:

Number of Pieces Written

Paragraph writing Guided writing (120 words) Guided writing (180 words) Essay writing (250 words) based on articles Essay writing (250 words) based on graphs

Total No.

Band 3

Band 4

Band 5

50 50

50 50 50 14 13

50 50 50 9 6

100 100 100 73 69

3. Method 3.1. Corpus and data A total of 442 GEPT writing samples were authorized for use by the Language Testing and Training Center (LTTC) in 2016. The examination scripts were anonymized and presented with series numbers. The texts represented four proficiency levels in the GEPT, namely, elementary, intermediate, high-intermediate, and advanced; the fifth level, superior, was excluded due to the small number of test takers. The written works at each level were on the same topic, although the topics differed among the four levels and therefore the genre types were different. Moreover, only works that passed were collected, meaning that test takers in the first three levels had to score a band 4 or above on a five-band scoring scale and those at the advanced level had to score at least a band 3 to pass the test. The requirements of the writing tasks at each level are listed in Table 2. Except for the elementary level which requires test takers to write a story based on the provided pictures, the rest require test takers to complete argumentative writing topics: both the intermediate and the high-intermediate level ask test takers to explain and discuss assigned issues, while the advanced level asks test takers to express viewpoints based on the given information. It is worth noting that the advanced-level test requires two writing tasks different in sources of information: task one is based on articles whereas task two on graphs; considering such difference, written works representing the advanced level were collected as two separate tasks. Moreover, due to the relatively smaller number of test takers, the number of written works of the advanced level was not equal to that of the other three proficiency levels. The number of written works obtained for analysis is also reported in Table 2. 3.2. Data analysis This study used the adapted framework of the Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit (MIPVU, Steen, Dorst, Herrmann, Kaal, & Krennmayr, 2010; Steen, Dorst, Herrmann, Kaal, Krennmayr, Pasma et al., 2010) as the analysis tool, since the identification protocol of the MIPVU is explicit and applicable in identifying not only metaphors but also expressions with a wide range of figurative functions (Littlemore et al., 2014). The MIPVU was carried out in four steps: (1) read the entire text discourse to establish a general understanding; (2) determine the lexical units in the text discourse; (3) determine the lexical meanings of each lexical unit, establish its meaning in context and the basic contemporary meaning in the dictionary, and decide whether the two meanings are contradictory yet can be understood in comparison with each other; and (4) if yes, mark the lexical unit as metaphorical in nature. To suit the context and the purpose of the present study, some amendments were made and rules for implementation were set: (1) In determining the lexical units, the present study followed the models in Littlemore et al.’s (2014) and Author’s (2015) studies and focused on units at the phrasal level rather than at the word level. Collocations, idioms, phrasal verbs, and slang were counted as one entry since their meanings could not be decoded from their constituent parts. Moreover, to avoid fixating on the mechanics of writing and to focus more on the global level of writing, grammatical words (i.e., modals, auxiliaries, particles, and infinitive markers) were excluded from the analysis. (2) In determining lexical meanings, Merriam-Webster Dictionary online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/) was chosen to determine basic contemporary definitions, as English education in Taiwan mainly focuses on American English. For each word entry, the online dictionary provides a simple and a full definition; the simple definition is the most popular one (the bottom 50% of words, accordingly) and is the most contemporary meaning, and thus simple definitions were used to determine basic meanings. (3) Since the collected written works were completed by the test takers of the GEPT, grammatical mistakes such as misspellings, neglecting the third-person singular, and/or incorrect verb tenses were inevitable; these mistakes were left untreated. 3.3. Procedure To scrutinize the collected data and identify the figurative expressions, a research team with two trained coders was formed. The two coders were advanced English learners as well as native Chinese speakers; they knew the English-learning context in Taiwan well and thus could provide critical viewpoints from the L1 background. The coders were experienced EFL teachers who were familiar 4

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Y.-c. Chen

with the ways to grade EFL learners’ written works. Before the formal analysis began, a training session was conducted by the researcher to train the two coders on how to apply the MIPVU to the GEPT samples. After both coders were familiar with the procedure, they moved on to identifying and analyzing the figurative expressions in the formal data. A disagreement-resolving protocol was adopted based on previous studies (Chapetón, 2010; Littlemore et al., 2014): members of the research team first analyzed metaphors independently; those that received different results were discussed and final decisions were made by the researcher, who acted as the coordinator. To determine the extent to which the two raters agreed when rating the same set of data, the inter-rater agreement was calculated. A Spearman’s rank-order correlation was run to determine the level of agreement between the coding results given by the two coders. A significant positive association between the coding results of the two coders (rs = .997, p < .000) was found. The correlation confirmed the consistency of the coding results, suggesting high reliability for the follow-up metaphor analysis. To answer the research questions, each feature of lexical richness in the current study was given an operational definition. 3.3.1. Productivity Defined as the number of word tokens produced by an individual to express a complete meaning in the “shortest grammatically allowable sentence” (i.e., T-unit) (Hunt, 1965). Productivity was measured by dividing the total number of word tokens by the total number of T-units. By this definition, higher productivity meant that more words were produced to form each meaningful sentence, implying more abundant information contained in each T-unit and better language proficiency. On this basis, figurative productivity was defined as the number of figurative expressions used per T-unit in each writing piece. Presumably, the higher the metaphor productivity, the more frequently figurative expressions were used and the more proficient the language learner. 3.3.2. Diversity Defined as the range of vocabulary deployed in a text by an individual. Diversity was measured by a type-token ratio (TTR), which compared the number of different words (i.e., types) with the number of words (i.e., tokens). The premise indices of more diverse vocabulary indicated more proficient lexicon and thus better language proficiency. In the same vein, figurative diversity referred to the ratio of the number of different figurative expressions to the total number of figurative expressions. Presumably, greater metaphor diversity represented richer lexical knowledge regarding figurative meaning extension. 3.3.3. Figurative functions Defined as the types of meaning extensions resulting from the metaphorical nature of language, which included similes, metaphors, personification, and metonymy. Some metaphorical expressions which were “as dead [as]…highly conventional and effortlessly used” (Kövecses, 2010, p. xii) were normally treated as idiomatic expressions, like word of mouth, or fixed usages, like play a role, or sayings, like honesty is the best policy. To avoid making biased decisions on fixed usages, as well as to highlight the nature of conventionalization, such noticeable conjoining of words represented an independent type labeled “collocation.” The operational definition and the abbreviation of each type of figurative function are stated in (1) to (5) below; sentences extracted from the collected writing samples are given as illustrations: (1) Personification (P): Inference of non-human entities with human characteristics. Example: One of the most important things thatmusic does to me, is that it will calm me down. [IW0863-4-2338] (2) Simile (S): The direct comparison of two items using like or as. Example: Music can calm me down or cheer me up, just like a good friend. [IW0863-4-2331] (3) Metonymy (ME): A reference to one entity that stands for another. Example: [music]…gives us courage to face the challenges and the problems. [IW0863-4-2625] (4) Metaphor (MA): An association between two unrelated concepts without an explicit comparison. Example: Rock and roll is the best medicine to relieve my stress. [IW0863-5-2044] (5) Collocation (C): Fixed usages, including collocational phrases and idiomatic expressions. Example: Music…really plays a significant part in my life. [IW0863-4-2042] Example: When it comes to music, almost everyone prefers pop music…. [IW0863-5-3102] Example: The real opinions and word-of-mouth can also help hotels to improve their service. [AW1101TASK1-3-014-0101-01032] 4. Results Table 3 reports the results of the analysis of the 442 samples of writing from the GEPT. In terms of lexical productivity, the results indicated obvious increases as proficiency levels increased. This finding conforms to the expectation that proficient learners are capable of producing longer sentences to express more information. As a T-unit is often treated as a sign of maturity in syntactic development (Gaies, 1980), its growing length can also be deemed a sign of development in lexical knowledge and an ability to deliver and expand meanings through words. As for figurative productivity, the results showed a similar tendency of general productivity: metaphor productivity increased as proficiency levels increased. This finding suggests that as learners became more proficient, they used more figurative expressions per T-unit and produced figurative expressions more frequently in their writing, and that more advanced learners adopted more words with figurative meaning extensions in their writing. This finding was as expected. In terms of lexical diversity, the results showed that as proficiency levels increased, lexical diversity, as estimated by the TTR, 5

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Y.-c. Chen

Table 3 Lexical richness and richness of figurative expressions across GEPT proficiency levels (reported in mean numbers). Lexical Richness

Richness of Figurative Expressions

　

Token

Type

Band 4 (n = 50) Band 5 (n = 50) Level mean

68.82 71.82 70.32

42.96 44.80 43.88

7.58 7.88 7.73

Band 4 (n = 50) Band 5 (n = 50) Level mean

145.14 163.22 154.18

79.60 87.64 83.62

12.06 13.68 12.87

Band 4 (n = 50) Band 5 (n = 50) Level mean

228.60 254.76 241.68

122.98 136.64 129.81

15.42 15.74 15.58

Band 3 (n = 50) Band 4 (n = 14) Band 5 (n = 9) Level mean

384.54 511.93 555.22 430.01

184.38 232.07 241.33 200.55

21.42 27.07 28.56 23.38

Band 3 (n = 50) Band 4 (n = 13) Band 5 (n = 6) Level mean

439.98 563.85 474.83 466.35

198.34 247.69 226.00 210.04

25.26 29.92 29.00 26.46

a b c d

T-Unit

Lexical Productivitya

Lexical Diversityb

Token

Elementary Level (n = 100) 62% 1.66 62% 1.90 62% 1.78 Intermediate Level (n = 100) 12.03 55% 7.34 11.93 54% 8.80 11.98 54% 8.07 High-intermediate Level (n = 100) 14.82 54% 10.66 16.19 54% 16.32 15.51 54% 13.49 Advanced Level: Task 1 (n = 73) 17.95 48% 30.80 18.91 45% 43.36 19.44 43% 40.56 18.39 47% 34.41 Advanced Level: Task 2 (n = 69) 4 45% 25.16 18.85 44% 34.15 16.37 48% 30.33 17.62 45% 27.30 9.08 9.11 9.10

Type

Figurative Productivityc

Figurative Diversityd

1.08 1.30 1.19

0.22 0.24 0.23

65% 68% 67%

6.28 7.28 6.78

0.61 0.64 0.63

86% 83% 84%

8.52 13.40 10.96

0.69 1.04 0.87

80% 82% 81%

24.50 35.21 30.89 27.34

1.44 1.60 1.42 1.47

80% 81% 76% 79%

19.90 26.77 23.67 21.52

1.00 1.14 1.05 1.03

79% 78% 78% 79%

Lexical productivity: number of word tokens per T-unit. Lexical diversity: number of word types to the number of total word tokens. Figurative productivity: number of figurative expressions per T-unit. Figurative diversity: ratio of different figurative expressions to the total number of figurative expressions used.

decreased, indicating that less proficient learners tended to use more different words, while more proficient learners tended to repeatedly use the same words in their writing. This finding contradicted the expectation that more proficient learners would produce wider lexical variation. As for figurative diversity, learners at the intermediate level had the highest ratios (84%), meaning they produced more widely varying figurative expressions in their writing. Learners at the high-intermediate level had the second highest ratios (81%), indicating high diversity as well. Compared with the two intermediate levels, learners at the advanced level had relatively lower ratios in terms of metaphor diversity (task 1: 79%; task 2: 79%). Elementary-level learners had the lowest ratio (67%) among the four levels. This finding refuted the presumption that learners at a more advanced proficiency level would achieve higher ratios of figurative diversity. In sum, in terms of the features of lexical richness, the results of both lexical productivity and figurative productivity conformed to the expectation that, as proficiency level increased, the EFL learners tended to write longer meaningful units and to incorporate a greater amount of figurative expressions. However, the results of lexical diversity and figurative diversity contradicted expectations, as higher levels of proficiency did not lead to greater diversity in word choice or figurative language use. These confirmations and contradictions deserve further discussion to explore the relation between L2 proficiency and L2 writing ability. Table 4 reports the results of the analysis of the figurative functions of the figurative expressions identified in the GEPT samples. In total, there were 6,730 occurrences of figurative expressions identified in the 442 writing samples. Metaphors were found to be the most frequently used across proficiency levels, with the highest total number of occurrences (n = 4,256). On the other hand, the least frequently used type of figurative function was similes (n = 44), which was not found in the elementary level group and was very rarely used in the other proficiency level groups. The order of the total number of occurrences of the other figurative functions, from the highest to the lowest, was personification (n = 1,020), metonymy (n = 769), and collocation (n = 641). Further and more detailed information about the number of occurrences and frequencies of use across proficiency levels can be found in Table 4 as well. Each proficiency level showed a clearer tendency of applying types of figurative functions across band levels. For the elementary level, metaphors (32%) and collocation (32%) were used in similar frequency, followed by personification (26%) and metonymy (10%); similes were not used. For the intermediate and high-intermediate levels, metaphors were the most frequently used types (intermediate level: 60%; high-intermediate level: 61%), followed by personification (24%; 16%), collocation (10%; 11%), metonymy (2%; 12%), and similes (4%; 0%). For the advanced level, in both tasks, metaphors were the most frequently adopted function (task 1: 64%; task 2: 68%); personification (13%; 13%) and metonymy (15%; 11%) were used with similar frequency, followed by collocation (8%; 8%) and similes (0%; 0%). These findings suggest that, once L2 learners passed the threshold of a proficiency level, their competence should be regarded as similar; however, the detailed band levels did not imply much on the differentiation of their linguistic competence. A few points are worthy of notice. First, metaphors were highly used among the five types of figurative functions across proficiency levels (intermediate level: 60%; high-intermediate level: 61%; advanced level task 1: 64%; advanced level task 2: 68%),

6

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Y.-c. Chen

Table 4 Occurrences and frequency (%) of figurative functions across GEPT proficiency levels. Personification Elementary Level Band 4 19 Band 5 28 Level total 47 Intermediate Level Band 4 92 Band 5 96 Level total 188 High-intermediate Level Band 4 88 Band 5 122 Level total 210 Advanced Level: Task 1 Band 3 198 Band 4 90 Band 5 45 Level total 333 Advanced Level: Task 2 Band 3 168 Band 4 46 Band 5 28 Level total 242 Total occurrences 1,020

Metaphors

Similes

Metonymy

Collocation

Band Total

(23%) (29%) (26%)

30 27 57

(36%) (28%) (32%)

0 0 0

(0%) (0%) (0%)

6 11 17

(7%) (12%) (10%)

28 29 57

(34%) (31%) (32%)

83 (100%) 95 (100%) 178 (100%)

(25%) (22%) (23%)

219 269 48

(60%) (61%) (60%)

14 17 31

(4%) (4%) (4%)

8 8 16

(2%) (2%) (2%)

34 50 85

(9%) (11%) (10%)

367 (100%) 440 (100%) 807 (100%)

(17%) (15%) (16%)

317 509 826

(59%) (62%) (61%)

4 2 6

(1%) (0%) (0%)

66 95 161

(12%) (12%) (12%)

58 88 146

(11%) (11%) (11%)

533 (100%) 816 (100%) 1,349 (100%)

(13%) (15%) (12%) (13%)

986 392 227 1,605

(64%) (65%) (62%) (64%)

3 1 0 4

(0%) (0%) (0%) (0%)

236 80 60 376

(15%) (13%) (16%) (15%)

117 44 33 194

(8%) (7%) (9%) (8%)

1,540 (100%) 607 (100%) 365 (100%) 2,512 (100%)

(13%) (10%) (15%) (13%)

830 328 122 1,280 4,256

(66%) (74%) (67%) (68%)

2 1 0 3 44

(0%) (0%) (0%) (0%)

152 33 14 199 769

(12%) (7%) (8%) (11%)

106 36 18 160 641

(8%) (8%) (10%) (8%)

1,258 (100%) 444 (100%) 182 (100%) 1,884 (100%) 6,730

indicating an obvious preference for metaphors. In particular, the advanced level adopted metaphors the most frequently, suggesting that the more proficient the test takers were, the more they preferred using metaphors while writing. Second, collocation was adopted as frequently as metaphors at the elementary level (metaphors: 32%; collocation: 32%), suggesting that the test takers relied on memorized fixed usages. Third, only the intermediate level used all five figurative functions to a certain degree (i.e., more than 0% in frequency), implying a relatively divergent way of applying figurative functions in writing. Finally, at the advanced level, attention should be given to the extremely high number of occurrences in band 3 for task 1 (n = 1,540) and task 2 (n = 1,258), compared with the number of occurrences in band 4 (task 1: n = 607; task 2: n = 444) and band 5 (task 1: n = 365; task 2: n = 182). The apparently higher number of occurrences in band 3 at the advanced level should be explained more thoroughly. To sum up, the results showed that metaphorical functions were the most widely used by the EFL writers, whereas similes were the least used. In other words, the EFL writers chose to express meanings through indirect implications rather than direct comparisons. In addition, the ranks of the frequencies of use of personification, metonymy, and collocations varied among proficiency levels, but neither considerably nor consistently. Finally, the clear reliance on using collocations found at the elementary level, a divergent use of figurative functions found at the intermediate level, and the apparent higher number of occurrences of figurative expressions found in band 3 at the advanced level should be further discussed. 5. Discussion 5.1. Features of the lexical richness of figurative expressions in EFL writing The results shown in Table 3 suggest that the EFL learners used the features of lexical richness across different proficiency levels. The more proficient the learners were, the more sentences (i.e., T-units) they produced and the more word tokens in each sentence they wrote. The longer sentences implied the more productive nature of vocabulary use, including figurative language. However, higher proficiency levels and higher productivity did not guarantee more varied vocabulary, as lexical diversity decreased as the proficiency level increased. This inconsistency may result from several factors. Firstly, the effect of writing prompts may influence test takers’ writing performance. Liu and Stapleton (2018) found that writing prompts used in high-stakes English tests like TOEFL and IELTS mainly took evaluation and hortation as the rhetorical functions; such goal-oriented writing prompts elicited greater length and higher lexical density, but not higher lexical diversity, compared to writing prompts whose rhetorical function was problemsolving. Since the writing prompts of the GEPT are similar to the high-stakes tests, the similar findings regarding lexical diversity are not unexpected. In particular, the writing tasks in the advanced level require clear demonstration of evaluation and hortation, as test takers were directly instructed to “state viewpoints” or to “make suggestions.” The instructions of the writing prompts may lead to rather narrow range of word use. Moreover, lexical overlap is found critical to overall writing quality and corresponding assessment: lexical overlap between paragraphs is positively correlated with the assessment given (Kim & Crossley, 2018), as the repetition of word use in an argumentative essay strengthens the global cohesion. Another reason of the lower lexical diversity of the advanced level may be explained by the sensitivity of the TTR to text length: “the more words (tokens) a text has, the less likely it is that new words (types) will occur” (McCarthy & Jarvis, 2007, p. 460). In other words, when the texts grew in length, certain words started to be repeated, and these repetitions generated construct-irrelevant 7

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Y.-c. Chen

variances that may have distorted the results (Koizumi, 2012; Lindqvist et al., 2013). On the other hand, the fact that both the total number of tokens and types increased, whereas the TTRs decreased, may also suggest a more sophisticated use of vocabulary. For instance, a word can belong to more than one word class; for example, book can be used as a noun in the sentence It’s an interesting book, or as a verb in the sentence We must book a room. In addition, a word can have several meanings, such as the word bank as a financial institution and as the edge of a river. As English is deemed a flexible language in relation to its vocabulary (Nunan, 2013), such diverse uses of words could imply that the EFL learners had more sophisticated control over word forms. Since lexical diversity is by the ratio of the sameness and differences of lexical forms, evaluating lexical diversity based on ratio of types to tokens may have overlooked the richness of the lexical meanings. It is also necessary to look at the contextual meanings of words, that is, the figurative meaning extension of the vocabulary. The results of figurative productivity showed that, as proficiency level increased, more figurative expressions were produced. The growth of productivity over proficiency levels was consistent with lexical productivity, which indicated a more sophisticated use of vocabulary. However, in examining figurative diversity, the elementary level differed from the other three levels. One possible reason is that more proficient learners dictated their use of lexical units, and they adjusted meanings by replacing or modifying content words while maintaining the legitimate sentence structure. For instance, while the figurative expression play a role is regarded as the base form, varied forms can include play both an important and a crucial role and they each play a role. The elementary-level learners who struggled with insufficient lexical knowledge may not have been capable of manipulating delicate grammatical structure changes, and thus they had the lowest metaphor diversity. On the other hand, the intermediate-level learners, rather than the advanced-level learners, demonstrated the highest variety of figurative expressions among the four proficiency levels. This finding is consistent with previous research. Boers’s (2004) study claimed that the advanced learners were more aware of the acceptability of their interlanguage and thus were more hesitant to produce figurative language, while learners at the intermediate level were more willing to take risks and thus were the most responsive group in producing figurative language. Other findings of empirical studies (Author, 2015; Littlemore, 2005; Littlemore et al., 2014) also support this claim, showing that intermediate learners tended to be more effective in producing figurative expressions, whether in written or spoken contexts. The findings of the present study, again, lend positive support to the correlation between learner proficiency and the ability to use figurative language. 5.2. Figurative functions of figurative expressions in EFL writing The results reported in Table 4 showed that metaphors were the most frequently used type of figurative function in the EFL learners’ writing, no matter the proficiency level. These findings conform to Lakoff’s (1993) contemporary theory of metaphors, in which metaphors are central to ordinary natural language semantics and are used in everyday conversation; therefore, L2 learners at any proficiency level manage to practice it. On the other hand, similes were the least frequently used function among the five types of figurative functions across the four proficiency levels. Similes, as the direct comparison between two things, are more explicit in terms of meaning compared with metaphors, which represent indirect implications. Such explicitness should have been easier to use among the EFL learners; however, the results of the current study showed the opposite finding. Such unexpected findings deserve an in-depth discussion of the relationship between similes and metaphors. The distinction between the two figures of speech is among the oldest and “one of the most tenuous” (Israel, Harding, & Tobin, 2004, p. 123). Traditionally, in rhetorical theory, as stated in Aristotle’s Rhetoric, similes are equal to metaphors, with only a slight difference in the way that they are produced. On the other hand, contemporary cognitive theories (Glucksberg, 2001; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) that diverge from Aristotle’s viewpoint consider metaphors more basic than other types of figures of speech, including similes. The distinction between simile and metaphor is not only suggested to be more flexible (Goatly, 1997), but also found to be extremely blurred. Steen, Dorst, Herrmann, Kaal, Krennmayr et al. (2010); Steen, Dorst, Herrmann, Kaal, Krennmayr, Pasma et al., 2010), based on the analysis on metaphor use drawn from the British National Corpus (BNC), found that only about 0.5% of all metaphorically used words are accompanied by a lexical signal like. In addition, Steen (2011) discusses metaphors functioning in communication, and claims that 99% of metaphor use is “indirect metaphor,” the metaphor illustrated by conceptual metaphor, whereas only 1% is “direct metaphor” as addresser deliberately draws attention of addressee to interpret the comparisons between two domains; in other words, simile is deemed as deliberate and direct metaphor. The indistinguishable and interwoven nature of metaphor and simile can explain the opposite rankings of metaphor and simile in the present study. Metaphors and similes are different in terms of their instantiations. Similes refer directly to literal encoded concepts and encourage consideration of the specific terms of comparison. Metaphors, on the other hand, draw attention to the juxtaposition of two concepts and how emphatically they are judged to be related (O’Donoghue, 2009). In other words, similes emphasize one-on-one structural matches between two things, whereas metaphors are associated with the broader scope of the two concepts. Different mapping processes and foci may lead to different levels of difficulty of use for L2 learners: since metaphors allow more freedom in depicting a concept, L2 learners tend to express meaning metaphorically rather than explicate explicit mappings between two concepts. Regarding discourse functions, similes require an explicit comparison construction, and thus similes serve only the discourse function that the construction performs; however, metaphorical expressions can appear as a subject-noun phrase or a main verb, among other roles (Israel et al., 2004). Additionally, many different parts of speech can be used metaphorically in a way that similes cannot mimic due to the restraints of conventional linguistic manifestations of similes—as…as, look like…, seem like…, more…than a…, etc. (O’Donoghue, 2009). For L2 learners, metaphorical expressions might be favorable in writing because they serve more flexible grammatical roles. Steen (2011) 8

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Y.-c. Chen

Finally, as for the rhetorical effects, similes are considered less attractive since listeners and readers may lose interest due to their straightforward comparison function (Fogelin, 1988). Metaphors, on the other hand, are believed to result in greater impacts on communication. An interesting example was given by Lindqvist (2009): “it is much worse to be told that you’re a stuffed sausage than that you resemble one” (p. 114). However, O’Donoghue (2009) held the opposite viewpoint: the use of similes can lead to the retrieval of a more precise and sophisticated meaning, while metaphors might merely reinforce emphatically a point already made clear. Bowdle and Gentner (2005) also claimed that “similes, unlike metaphors, invite comparison, and are therefore likely to involve a larger radius of potential commonalities” (p. 200). Although no agreement on the greatness of impact on similes and metaphors has been reached, one consensus is that similes and metaphors are very different in effect. In sum, the differences between metaphors and similes in their definitions, conceptualizing processes, and discourse functions are at extreme ends of a continuum; therefore, similes and metaphors should be viewed as two distinct, rather than only slightly different, figures of speech. Such differences may have manifested the findings of the present study, accordingly. 5.3. Impacts of L2 proficiency level on the lexical richness of figurative expressions The results of the study reported in Tables 3 and 4 showed differences across proficiency levels, and thus indicated the impact of language proficiency on EFL learners’ use of figurative expressions. In general, the intermediate-level learners varied their uses of figurative language the most often and applied figurative functions the most widely; the ways they integrated figurative language into their writing suggests that the EFL learners at this proficiency level were adventurous in their target language use. On the other hand, the elementary-level learners, restrained by their language ability, limited the quantity and diversity of word usages in their writing and thus restricted figurative meaning expressions. In the Asian context, fixed usages like collocations and idioms are usually learned through repeating, practicing, and memorizing (Author, 2010; Li & Cutting, 2011); thus, fixed usages are a reliable choice for less capable L2 learners when asked to produce language. Finally, the advanced-level learners were rather conservative in choosing word usages in their writing, since both lexical and metaphorical diversity were lower than that of the intermediate-level learners. The major way they expressed figurative meanings was in the metaphorical form, while the other forms were less overtly used. As the number of samples in some proficiency band levels varied, the comparisons were made based on the frequency (presented in %), rather than on the exact number, of occurrences. This explains the extremely high number of occurrences in band 3 for both tasks at the advanced level. The number of samples collected in band 3 for both tasks was 50, twice the amount of samples in bands 4 and 5 combined (see Table 2). Thus, the higher number of occurrences found in band 3 for both tasks was not problematic. If taking the figurative productivity into consideration, band 3 (task 1: 1.44; task 2: 1.00) of both tasks did not vary greatly from band 4 (1.60; 1.14) and band 5 (1.42; 1.05) (see Table 3). In addition, if taking the frequency of uses into consideration, the sequence of frequency among the figurative functions was similar in the three band levels: metaphors were the majority (task 1: 64%, 65%, 62%; task 2: 66%, 74%, 67%), following by personification, metonymy, collocation, and similes (see Table 4). The patterns of uses of figurative expressions found in the two tasks at the advanced level imply the influence of language proficiency on the EFL learners’ application of figurative functions. Interestingly, lexical productivity among the various bands within the same proficiency levels did not show apparent differences or appear in fixed sequences. At the intermediate level, the lexical productivity of band 4 (12.03) was close to and even slightly higher than that of band 5 (11.93); as for task 2 at the advanced level, the lexical productivity of band 4 (18.85) was the highest among the three band levels (band 3: 17.42; band 5: 16.37) (see Table 3). Such subtle differences among bands, though minor, may suggest that, once test takers possess ability at a certain proficiency level, their writing ability will be demonstrated through more than just the length of sentences. Other variables, such as the diversity of word use or the organization of the essay, should be taken into consideration as well. Moreover, the differences among proficiency levels also suggest that the differences in learners’ “can-do” descriptors could be and should be further elaborated. 5.4. Pedagogical implications This study aimed to provide insights into the refinement of the proficiency descriptors in the GEPT to enrich and complement existing descriptors. Yet considering the limited sample size and confined writing types, it might be premature to make determined suggestions for descriptor revisions. However, based on the results regarding productivity, diversity, and the frequency of the use of figurative functions found in the present study, descriptions of the ways learners at different proficiency levels adopted figurative expressions in writing can be inferred, as listed in Table 5. The revision of proficiency-level descriptions may lead to increased attention among language teachers and learners when teaching and learning vocabulary. It is generally believed that high‐stakes tests can be employed to engineer curriculum innovation and to achieve intended washback in education (Taylor, 2005), which may lead to a limited role in teaching vocabulary in language classrooms and a challenge to develop more advanced productive ability. Previous studies on the influence of tests on teaching and learning have proved the complex nature of education systems and test use (Shih, 2010; Spratt, 2005). Green’s (2006) study on preparing classes for the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) test found that substantial parts of the classes’ writing practices were in accord with the test design features of the IELTS writing test. However, in Qi’s (2007) study on the relation between the national English test and secondary schools in China, even though the writing task in the English test was designed with communicative features, neither teachers nor learners paid attention to the communicative context of writing, but instead emphasized the testing situation and the assumed preferences of the markers. This controversial evidence corresponds to the claim that washback cannot be considered an automatic or direct on exams (Spratt, 2005). Instead, with a proper understanding of the 9

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Y.-c. Chen

Table 5 Descriptions of EFL learners’ performances on using figurative expressions in writing. Level

Descriptions

Elementary Level

Learners were not quite able to use lexical units with figurative meanings. They occasionally relied on using conventional usages, or on making indirect analogies, to express meanings. Learners frequently used lexical units with figurative meanings, sometimes to make both direct and indirect comparisons of two unlike things and sometimes to emphasize human characteristics for non-human entities to enrich meaning. Conventional usages were also used. Learners often used lexical units with figurative meanings and could control subtle meaning changes with modifiers. They usually expressed meanings by associating abstract concepts with concrete ones. They also adopted the skills of personification to present their perspectives. Occasionally, they expressed meanings using conventional usages or by finding a common point in the references. Learners normally used lexical units with figurative meanings and made subtle meaning modifications to suit their purposes. They generally used metaphors to express abstract or complicated ideas. Personified and metonymic expressions were intermittently used to embody abstract meanings. At times, they used conventional and idiomatic expressions.

Intermediate Level

High- intermediate Level

Advanced Level

constructs of the language proficiency test, a positive washback effect can be reached to improve not only the quality of but also the effect on language teaching and learning. The results of the present study showed that the ability to use a range of words as well as to implement diverse functions of vocabulary are crucial indicators in determining language proficiency, writing proficiency in particular. For language teachers who intend to raise learners’ awareness of figurative language, giving explicit instruction on vocabulary is suggested. Empirical research has proved that explicit instruction compared with implicit instruction can lead to long-term retention (to name a few, Author, 2016; Boers, 2000; Sonbul & Schmitt, 2012; Verspoor & Lowie, 2003). Cognitive viewpoints on the metaphorical nature of language have also suggested useful methods for teaching figurative expressions. For instance, Boers (2000) implemented conceptual metaphors in teaching idioms, which proved to be beneficial in helping Dutch learners recognize the systematicity between two concepts. For example, when introducing the description of the emotion anger, instead of giving a list of expressions, Boers suggested the conceptual metaphor ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A CONTAINER first to facilitate the comprehension and retention of expressions like boil with anger and steam up. Furthermore, Author (2016) adapted Kövecses’ (2001) idea and proposed a metaphorical mapping instruction (MMI). By presenting figurative expressions under the categories of conceptual metaphors, Author (2016) found that MMI significantly increased EFL learners’ retention and awareness of figurative language; moreover, MMI facilitated high-intermediate learners in noticing expressions with more abstract mapping relations, as well as learners at lower proficiency levels in acquiring more advanced language ability beyond their current level.

6. Conclusion, limitations, and suggestions for future studies Even with careful scrutiny of the authentic data collected from an officially executed English proficiency test, this study still has limitations. First, the differences in writing topics rendered the results less generalizable; different topics implied different genres and writing purposes, and thus different intentions of figurative language used during writing. Previous research (Author, 2015) has found that L2 learners vary frequencies and types of figurative functions when writing different types of genres, and this indicates the importance of genre in writing instruction. Due to the nature of the GEPT, the present study was at a disadvantage in terms of sampling; therefore, future studies should collect texts on similar or the same topics to minimize the influence of genres and topics. Second, the study aimed to explore and report EFL learners’ actual use of figurative language in writing; thus, the study chose to present the features found in the frequency of occurrences, not to compare frequencies among groups and look for statistical evidence. The results of the frequency of occurrences disclosed common patterns of uses among the EFL learners at different levels of proficiency, yet the results of the study failed to find clear-cut stages, such as the developmental stages of second language acquisition. Researchers who are interested in digging deeper could engage the use of statistics to facilitate their analysis. Finally, the metaphor analysis procedure adopted by the study focused on determining the patterns of figurative language use among EFL learners and thus purposefully ignored mistakes made in the texts. The figurative expressions identified were not without grammatical mistakes, and sometimes their uses were pragmatically inappropriate in context. However, the present study focused on the fluency of meaningful expressions by the EFL learners, not the accuracy of their writing, and it emphasized and investigated the behavior intention of the EFL learners in writing. Moreover, the writing samples collected were those that had been assessed as passing the test; the passing tests certified the acceptance of minor grammatical mistakes. Thus, the exclusion of mistakes was regarded as acceptable. Yet the present study suggests that, to formally certify the references to proficiency levels, future studies could take both the fluency and accuracy of the writing into consideration. As lexical richness is commonly deemed a reliable measure to assess the quality of writing, the present study contends that, in addition to form variations, meaning variations, such as figurative meaning extensions, should also be considered. The findings from the analysis of four levels of GEPT samples showed that the more proficient the L2 learners were, the longer each meaningful unit produced, and the richer the variety and the more productive the expressions of meaning extensions. The results of the study have shed light on the lexical richness of figurative expressions in EFL learners’ writing in Taiwan, and have promoted a positive washback effect on EFL teaching and learning through increased attention on lexical uses. 10

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Y.-c. Chen

References Author. (2010). Author. (2015). Author. (2016). Baba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3), 191–208. Bacha, N. N. (2001). Writing evaluation: What can analytic versus holistic scoring tell us? System, 29(3), 371–383. British Council. (n.d.). 我們的學習分級評量 [Our learning benchmarks]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from https://www.britishcouncil.org.tw/en/english/adults/ levels. Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.4.553. Boers, F. (2004). Expanding learners’ vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expansion, what learners, what vocabulary. In M. Achard, & S. Niemeier (Eds.). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 211–232). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. Retrieved August 24, 2017, from http://groups.psych.northwestern. edu/gentner/papers/BowdleGentner05.pdf. Chapetón, C. M. (2010). Metaphor identification in EFL argumentative writing: A corpus-driven study. Folios, 32, 125–140. Retrieved June 01, 2016, from http:// www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0123-48702010000200008&lng=en&tlng=es. Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. [pdf-file]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, fromhttps:// rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680459f97. Council of Europe (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors [pdf-file]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, fromhttps://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989. Daller, H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197–222. Enbger, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139–155. Fogelin, R. (1988). Figuratively speaking. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Gaies, S. (1980). T-unit analysis in second-language research: Can it be validated objectively? TESOL Quarterly, 18(1), 87–107. Green, A. (2006). Watching for washback: Observing the influence of the international English language testing system academic writing test in the classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(4), 333–368. Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge. Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3Champaign, IL, USA: National Council of Teachers of English. Israel, M., Harding, J. R., & Tobin, V. (2004). On simile. In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.). Language, culture, and mind (pp. 123–134). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Jarvis, S. (2013). Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning, 63(1), 87–106. Kathpalia, S., & Carmel, H. (2011). Metaphorical competence in ESL student writing. RELC Journal, 42(3), 273–290. Kim, M., & Crossley, S. A. (2018). Modeling second language writing quality: A structural equation investigation of lexical, syntactic, and cohesive features in sourcebased and independent writing. Assessing Writing, 37, 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.002. Koizumi, R. (2012). Relationships between text length and lexical diversity measures: Can we use short texts of less than 100 tokens? Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 1(1), 60–69. Kövecses, Z. (2001). A cognitive linguistic view of learning idioms in an FLT context. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier, & R. Dirven (Eds.). Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp. 87–115). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.). Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). (2nd ed.). UK: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Language Training and Testing Center (2016). GEPT Information Brochure [PDF file]. Retrieved August 27, 2018, fromhttps://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/E_LTTC/E_GEPT/ files/GEPT_Information_Brochure.pdf. Language Training and Testing Center (2017). 106年「全民英檢能力分級檢定測驗」(GEPT)成績統計報告 [Score Data Summary for 2017 GEPT]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, fromhttps://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/academics/GEPT_ScoreR_Doc/Score_Data_Summary_for_2017_GEPT-English.pdf. Language Training & Testing Center. (n.d.). 本中心自辦測驗-CEFR對照表 [GEPT–CEFR Alignment]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/ CEFRbyLTTC_tests.htm. Laufer, B., & Nation, I. S. P. (1999). A vocabulary size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(1), 33–51. Li, X., & Cutting, J. (2011). Rote learning in Chinese culture: Reflecting active Confucian-based memory strategies. In L. Jin, & M. Cortazzi (Eds.). Researching Chinese learners: Skills, perceptions, and intercultural adaptation (pp. 21–42). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Littlemore, J. (2005). Figurative thought and the teaching of languages for specific purposes. In L. S. Ayala, & E. Hernández (Eds.). Lenguas para fines específicos. (VIII) Investigación y enseñanza (pp. 125–136). Spain: Universidad de Alcalá, Servicio de Publicaciones. Littlemore, J. (2008). The relationship between associative thinking, analogical reasoning, image formation and metaphoric extension strategies. In M. S. Zanotto, L. Cameron, & M. C. Cavalcanti (Eds.). Confronting metaphor in use: An applied linguistic approach (pp. 199–222). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Littlemore, J., Krennmayr, T., Turner, S., & Turner, J. (2014). An investigation into metaphor use at different levels of second language writing. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 117–144. Lindqvist, C., Gudmundson, A., & Bardel, C. (2013). A new approach to measuring lexical sophistication in L2 oral production. In C. Bardel, C. Lindqvist, & B. Laufer (Eds.). L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use: New perspectives on assessment and corpus analysis (pp. 109–126). European Second Language Association. [Open-access e-book: retrieved February 25, 2019, from http://www.eurosla.org/monographs/EM02/EM02tot.pdf. Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2018). Connecting writing assessment with critical thinking: An exploratory study of alternative rhetorical functions and objects of enquiry in writing prompts. Assessing Writing, 38, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.09.001. McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2007). Vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24(4), 459–488. Nacey, S. (2013). Metaphors in learner english. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Nunan, D. (2013). Chapter 3. The lexical system. What is this thing called language?. London: Palgrave Macmillan38–61. O’Donoghue, J. (2009). Is a metaphor (like) a simile? Differences in meaning, effect and processing. UCL working papers in linguistics, 21, 125–149. Retrieved August 24, 2017, from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/research/linguistics/research/uclwpl/wpl/9papers/odonoghue. Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing—SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 404–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.002. Qi, L. (2007). Is testing an efficient agent for pedagogical change? Examining the intended washback of the writing task in a high-stakes English test in China. Assessment in Education, 14(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701272856. Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sonbul, S., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Explicit and implicit lexical knowledge: Acquisition of collocations under different input conditions. Language Learning, 63(1), 121–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00730.x. Shih, C.-M. (2010). The washback of the General English Proficiency Test on university policies: A Taiwan case study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(3), 234–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434301003664196. Spratt, M. (2005). Washback and the classroom: The implications for teaching and learning of studies of washback from exams. Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr152oa. Steen, G. J. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor – Now new and improved!. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1. 03ste.

11

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Y.-c. Chen

Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., & Krennmayr, T. (2010). Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 765–796. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl. 2010.024. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Taylor, L. (2005). Washback and impact. ELT Journal, 59(2), 154–155. Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density and register differentiation. In G. Perren, & J. L. M. Trim (Eds.). Applications of linguistics (pp. 443–452). London: Cambridge University Press. Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53(3), 547–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00234. Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. Vögelin, C., Jansen, T., Keller, S. D., Machts, N., & Möller, J. (2019). The influence of lexical features on teacher judgements of ESL argumentative essays. Assessing Writing, 39, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.12.003. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wu, J. (2012). GEPT and English language teaching and testing in Taiwan. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(1), 11–25. Yi-chen Chen obtained her Ph. D. in TESOL at National Chengchi University, Taiwan. She is currently an Associate Professor of Department of Foreign Languages and Applied Linguistics in Yuan Ze University, Taiwan. Her major research interests covers areas from cognitive semantics, second language acquisition, to metaphor and metonymy. She has published papers in Language Awareness, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, etc.

12