Hubbry Logo
Lexical densityLexical densityMain
Open search
Lexical density
Community hub
Lexical density
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Lexical density
Lexical density
Lexical density
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Lexical density is a concept in computational linguistics that measures the structure and complexity of human communication in a language.[1] Lexical density estimates the linguistic complexity in a written or spoken composition from the functional words (grammatical units) and content words (lexical units, lexemes). One method to calculate the lexical density is to compute the ratio of lexical items to the total number of words. Another method is to compute the ratio of lexical items to the number of higher structural items in a composition, such as the total number of clauses in the sentences.[2][3]

The lexical density for an individual evolves with age, education, communication style, circumstances, unusual injuries or medical condition,[4] and his or her creativity. The inherent structure of a human language and one's first language may impact the lexical density of the individual's writing and speaking style. Further, human communication in the written form is generally more lexically dense than in the spoken form after the early childhood stage.[5][6] The lexical density impacts the readability of a composition and the ease with which the listener or reader can comprehend a communication.[7][8] The lexical density may also impact the memorability and retention of a sentence and the message.[9]

Discussion

[edit]

The lexical density is the proportion of content words (lexical items) in a given discourse. It can be measured either as the ratio of lexical items to total number of words, or as the ratio of lexical items to the number of higher structural items in the sentences (for example, clauses).[2][3] A lexical item is typically the real content and it includes nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. A grammatical item typically is the functional glue and thread that weaves the content and includes pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, determiners, and certain classes of finite verbs and adverbs.[5]

Lexical density is one of the methods used in discourse analysis as a descriptive parameter which varies with register and genre. There are many proposed methods for computing the lexical density of any composition or corpus. Lexical density may be determined as:

Where:
= the analysed text's lexical density
= the number of lexical or grammatical tokens (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs) in the analysed text
= the number of all tokens (total number of words) in the analysed text

Ure lexical density

[edit]
Further information: type-token distinction

Ure proposed the following formula in 1971 to compute the lexical density of a sentence:

Ld = ⁠The number of lexical items/The total number of words⁠ * 100

Biber terms this ratio as "type-token ratio".[10]

Halliday lexical density

[edit]

In 1985, Halliday revised the denominator of the Ure formula and proposed the following to compute the lexical density of a sentence:[1]

Ld = ⁠The number of lexical items/The total number of clauses⁠ * 100

In some formulations, the Halliday proposed lexical density is computed as a simple ratio, without the "100" multiplier.[2][1]

Characteristics

[edit]

Lexical density measurements may vary for the same composition depending on how a "lexical item" is defined and which items are classified as lexical or as a grammatical item. Any adopted methodology when consistently applied across various compositions provides the lexical density of those compositions. Typically, the lexical density of a written composition is higher than a spoken composition.[2][3] According to Ure, written forms of human communication in the English language typically have lexical densities above 40%, while spoken forms tend to have lexical densities below 40%.[2] In a survey of historical texts by Michael Stubbs, the typical lexical density of fictional literature ranged between 40% and 54%, while non-fiction ranged between 40% and 65%.[3][11][12]

The relation and intimacy between the participants of a particular communication impact the lexical density, states Ure, as do the circumstances prior to the start of communication for the same speaker or writer. The higher lexical density of written forms of communication, she proposed, is primarily because written forms of human communication involve greater preparation, reflection and revisions.[2] Human discussions and conversations involving or anticipating feedback tend to be sparser and have lower lexical density. In contrast, state Stubbs and Biber, instructions, law enforcement orders, news read from screen prompts within the allotted time, and literature that authors expect will be available to the reader for re-reading tend to maximize lexical density.[2][13] In surveys of lexical density of spoken and written materials across different European countries and age groups, Johansson and Strömqvist report that the lexical density of population groups were similar and depended on the morphological structure of the native language and within a country, the age groups sampled. The lexical density was highest for adults, while the variations estimated as lexical diversity, states Johansson, were higher for teenagers for the same age group (13-year-olds, 17-year-olds).[14][15]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Lexical density

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Lexical density is a key metric in and that measures the proportion of —typically nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs—to the total number of words in a given text or , serving as an indicator of the text's informational density and structural . Introduced by Jean Ure in 1971, it is calculated as the ratio of lexical (content) items to running words, often expressed as a , with values generally ranging from below 40% in casual to over 50% in formal written texts. The concept gained prominence through M.A.K. Halliday's work in systemic functional linguistics, particularly in his 1985 analysis of spoken and written language, where he emphasized that higher lexical density reflects greater semantic loading and compaction in written registers compared to spoken ones, which rely more on grammatical structures and repetition. This distinction arises because spoken language often includes function words (e.g., articles, prepositions, pronouns) and fillers for real-time interaction, while written language prioritizes precision and efficiency. Lexical density is widely applied in fields such as , where it assesses learners' writing proficiency and lexical richness; educational linguistics, to evaluate textbook ; and , for automated text complexity scoring. For instance, studies show that advanced L2 writers exhibit lexical densities closer to native speakers, around 50-60% in academic , signaling improved ability to convey complex ideas with fewer function words. Variations in measurement exist, with some approaches including or excluding certain word classes (e.g., Halliday's focus on clauses per word for grammatical density alongside lexical measures), but the core Ure-inspired formula remains standard, highlighting lexical 's role in distinguishing registers and predicting text comprehensibility.

Overview

Definition

Lexical density is a linguistic metric that quantifies the proportion of lexical words, also known as , to the total number of words in a text, thereby assessing the degree of informational content relative to grammatical structure. Lexical words belong to open-class categories, primarily including nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, which convey substantive meaning and contribute to the semantic load of the . In contrast, function words, or grammatical words, form closed-class sets such as articles, prepositions, pronouns, conjunctions, and auxiliary verbs, which primarily serve structural roles with minimal semantic contribution. To illustrate, consider the simple sentence "The cat sat on the mat," where lexical words ("cat," "sat," "mat") comprise about 50% of the total words, reflecting moderate density due to a balance of content and function elements. In comparison, a denser construction like "Feline predator crouched stealthily amid undergrowth" achieves higher lexical density, with ("feline," "predator," "crouched," "stealthily," "undergrowth") dominating at around 83%, packing more descriptive information into fewer words. Such variations highlight how lexical density captures the compactness of meaning in use. Higher lexical density generally signals greater text complexity, as it indicates a heavier reliance on to convey ideas efficiently, a characteristic often observed in written language compared to spoken forms, where function words proliferate due to interactive demands. This metric is also applied in evaluating , particularly in academic contexts, to gauge a speaker's or writer's ability to produce information-rich .

Significance

Lexical density serves as a key metric for assessing linguistic sophistication by quantifying the proportion of to total words, thereby revealing the maturity of a text or in terms of informational versus grammatical structure. This balance highlights how effectively conveys meaning without excessive reliance on function words, often indicating the cognitive demands placed on producers and receivers during communication. For instance, higher lexical density correlates with greater writing proficiency, as it reflects an ability to pack more semantic into fewer grammatical frames, a hallmark of advanced . In comparisons across language modes, written texts typically exhibit higher lexical density, ranging from 40% to 55%, compared to , which averages around 40% or lower, primarily due to the additional planning time available in writing that allows for more concise expression. This difference underscores the structural adaptations in spoken , where real-time interaction favors grammatical fillers for fluency over dense content delivery. Such variations emphasize lexical density's role in distinguishing modes of communication and their respective efficiencies. The implications for communication are profound: low lexical density often signals or simplified structures suited to casual or interactive contexts, while high promotes precision and informativeness but can increase and compromise if overly compact. Greater lexical density demands more processing effort from audiences, as it intensifies the informational burden per unit of text, potentially leading to comprehension challenges in high-stakes or rapid exchanges. Lexical density complements other metrics like lexical diversity, which measures the ratio of unique words to total words and focuses on vocabulary breadth rather than the content-function balance, together providing a fuller picture of lexical richness without overlap in their analytical scopes.

Historical Background

Origins

The concept of lexical density emerged from mid-20th-century efforts in to quantify text complexity, rooted in the empirical traditions of that prioritized systematic analysis of forms and functions over introspective methods. Structural linguists, building on the descriptive frameworks established in and 1940s, sought to measure linguistic features objectively to understand variation in use, laying groundwork for later quantitative metrics. This shift was facilitated by emerging computational tools in the late and early , which enabled linguists to process large samples of data for patterns in word types and structures. Initial motivations for developing such measures arose from practical needs in language teaching and literary analysis, particularly in distinguishing formal from informal amid growing interest in English as a global language post-World War II. In , educators required tools to assess text difficulty and informational richness to aid non-native learners, while literary scholars aimed to objectively compare stylistic features across genres and authors. These drives were evident in early projects, where quantifying lexical elements helped evaluate how modes conveyed meaning efficiently. For instance, analyses of varying registers highlighted how denser lexical content correlated with greater conceptual precision in academic or literary contexts compared to conversational styles. Precursors to formalized lexical density appeared in 1960s computational approaches to research, such as the creation of major corpora that facilitated counts of lexical versus grammatical elements. The Survey of English Usage, initiated in 1959, collected samples of natural spoken English to study its structural properties, revealing patterns in word distribution that informally proxied informational load. Similarly, the , compiled in 1961 from written texts, provided frequency data distinguishing open-class (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs) from closed-class function words (articles, prepositions, pronouns), enabling early comparisons of lexical saturation across text types. These studies from the 1950s and 1960s established density as an intuitive indicator of a text's capacity to pack substantive information, particularly when contrasting spoken and written modes where often showed lower ratios due to repetitive function words.

Key Developments

In the , the emergence of prompted the development of systematic metrics for lexical density, shifting focus toward empirical, data-driven assessments of linguistic complexity in texts. This period marked a transition from qualitative analyses to quantifiable measures, enabling comparisons across registers and genres through large-scale language samples. A foundational milestone was Jean Ure's chapter "Lexical Density and Register Differentiation" in Applications of Linguistics, edited by G. Perren and J.L. Holloway, which introduced lexical density as a tool for analyzing register differentiation, particularly in educational contexts where it highlighted variations in spoken and written proficiency. Ure's work emphasized the proportion of to total words, laying groundwork for its application in evaluating and stylistic differences. Systemic functional linguistics (SFL), pioneered by M.A.K. Halliday, further integrated lexical density into theoretical models of complexity and register variation, viewing it as a key indicator of how functions in social contexts. Within SFL, lexical density distinguishes modes of discourse, with higher values typically in written registers due to denser packing of lexical items, and lower in spoken ones reflecting interactive grammatical structures. Halliday's 1985 book Spoken and Written Language elaborated this by linking lexical density to grammatical intricacy, proposing it as a measure of a text's informational load relative to its structural elements. Post-1980s developments saw lexical density adapted for computational tools in large-scale text analysis, facilitating automated processing of corpora and extending its utility beyond English to multilingual frameworks. Software such as the Lexical Complexity Analyzer and Sketch Engine enabled efficient calculation across languages, supporting cross-linguistic studies of complexity in second-language acquisition and translation. These advancements, building on corpus methodologies, allowed for broader empirical investigations into lexical patterns in diverse linguistic environments.

Calculation Methods

Ure's Measure

Ure's measure of lexical density, introduced by linguist Jean Ure in 1971, defines it as the proportion of lexical ( to the total number of words in a text, expressed as a . Lexical words include nouns, main verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, which carry semantic content, while function words—such as determiners, pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, and auxiliary verbs—are excluded as they primarily serve grammatical roles. The formula is: Lexical Density=(Number of lexical wordsTotal number of words)×100\text{Lexical Density} = \left( \frac{\text{Number of lexical words}}{\text{Total number of words}} \right) \times 100 This measure originated in Ure's analysis of register differences between spoken and written English, examining 34 spoken texts and 30 written texts totaling about 21,000 words each, to highlight how spoken language tends to be less dense due to higher reliance on grammatical structures. Although initially developed for linguistic register studies, it has been widely adopted in educational contexts to evaluate spoken English proficiency among learners, where lower density often indicates developmental stages in language acquisition. To calculate lexical density using Ure's method, first identify and classify all words in the text by . Lexical words are counted as those with independent meaning (e.g., nouns like "," verbs like "run," adjectives like "quick," adverbs like "quickly"), while function words are omitted (e.g., "the," "is," "and," "of"). Divide the count of lexical words by the total , then multiply by 100 for the . For example, consider the sample sentence: "The quick brown jumps over the lazy ." Here, the total words are 9. Lexical words are "quick," "brown," "," "jumps," "lazy," "" (6 words), excluding function words "the" (appearing twice) and "over." Thus, lexical density = (6 / 9) × 100 ≈ 66.7%. This process can be done manually for short texts or programmatically for larger corpora by tagging parts of speech. One key strength of Ure's measure lies in its , making it suitable for manual or basic automated analysis without requiring complex syntactic . In Ure's original , spoken texts typically showed lexical densities below 40%, while written texts reached 40% or higher, reflecting the more concise packing in writing compared to speech, which often ranges from 35% to 50% in similar analyses.

Halliday's Measure

Michael Halliday's measure of lexical density, developed within , emphasizes the role of clausal structure in assessing informational density in texts. Introduced in his 1985 analysis of spoken and , this approach links lexical density to complexity, particularly noting how written registers pack more content into fewer ranking compared to spoken ones. Halliday distinguishes this from grammatical intricacy, which evaluates the elaboration of complexes rather than lexical content per . The formula for Halliday's lexical density is given by: Lexical density=(number of lexical itemsnumber of ranking clauses)×100\text{Lexical density} = \left( \frac{\text{number of lexical items}}{\text{number of ranking clauses}} \right) \times 100 Here, ranking clauses refer to the primary structural units of a text, identified by finite verbal processes and excluding embedded or rank-shifted clauses that function as constituents within them. Lexical items encompass content-bearing words such as nouns, full verbs, adjectives, and qualifying adverbs (e.g., those denoting manner or extent), counted across the entire text regardless of embedding. To compute the measure, analysts first parse the text to delineate ranking clauses, often relying on finite verbs as markers. Lexical items are then tallied, incorporating those in subordinate or embedded structures. For instance, in the complex sentence "The researcher analyzed the that had been collected from various sources, concluding that trends emerged clearly," there are two ranking clauses: the main ("The researcher analyzed the ... sources") and the projected ("trends emerged clearly"). Lexical items include "researcher," "analyzed," "data," "collected," "sources," "concluding," "trends," "emerged," and "clearly" (nine total), yielding a density of (9 / 2) × 100 = 450, though adjusted for full context this reflects high embedding typical of written . This process reveals how syntactic embedding amplifies density without inflating the clause count. One key advantage of Halliday's measure is its sensitivity to syntactic embedding, allowing it to capture the structural sophistication of texts where additional lexical content is integrated via subordination rather than . In , values typically range from 50 to 60, signifying dense informational loading, whereas spoken texts often register lower due to simpler clausal organization. Unlike word-ratio alternatives that overlook , this clause-based method provides nuanced insights into register-specific complexity.

Other Variants

One prominent extension of lexical density calculations is Xiaofei Lu's multidimensional framework for lexical richness, which integrates lexical density with measures of lexical diversity (e.g., type-token ratio variants) and lexical sophistication (e.g., proportion of advanced words) to provide a more comprehensive assessment of text quality, particularly in (L2) writing and oral narratives. This approach, implemented in tools like the Lexical Complexity Analyzer, allows for automated analysis across these dimensions, revealing correlations between higher density scores and improved L2 proficiency ratings in empirical studies. Computational variants have enabled automated computation of lexical density through , facilitating real-time analysis in large corpora. For instance, Coh-Metrix employs to calculate lexical density as the ratio of (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs) to total words, incorporating additional cohesion metrics for broader text evaluation in educational and linguistic research. Similarly, the Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Lexical Sophistication (TAALES) complements density measures by focusing on sophistication indices derivable from tagged corpora, supporting automated profiling in L2 assessment tools. Multilingual adaptations address structural differences in non-Indo-European languages. In Chinese, a character-based lacking clear word boundaries, lexical density is computed after automated word segmentation to distinguish content from function elements, as implemented in tools like AlphaLexChinese, which yields density metrics comparable to English while accounting for logographic features in L2 EFL writing analysis. For agglutinative languages like Turkish, where words incorporate multiple morphemes via suffixes, adjustments involve fine-grained morphological during POS tagging to avoid inflating density scores from affixation; studies on Turkish EFL essays demonstrate that such refinements reveal developmental patterns in lexical usage without overcounting derived forms. Hybrid formulas combine lexical density with syntactic measures like t-unit length (the average number of words per minimal terminable unit) to profile overall text maturity. For example, integrating density ratios with mean t-unit length in L2 writing corpora highlights how denser content within longer units correlates with higher proficiency, as evidenced in automated tools assessing argumentative essays.

Influencing Factors

Textual Characteristics

Lexical density varies across text genres primarily due to differences in stylistic demands, with narrative generally exhibiting lower levels, around 45%, compared to academic , which averages approximately 55%. This disparity arises because narrative often incorporates extensive and descriptive sequences rich in grammatical words like pronouns and prepositions, mimicking spoken patterns, whereas academic prioritizes argumentative structures that pack more to convey complex ideas efficiently. Note that reported values can vary depending on the calculation method, such as word-based ratios versus clause-based measures. Sentence complexity significantly influences lexical density, as longer sentences with embedded clauses allow for a greater concentration of lexical items within fewer grammatical frameworks. Embedded clauses enable writers to integrate additional —such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs—without proportionally increasing function words, thereby elevating the overall density of information in the text. This feature is particularly evident in formal writing, where syntactic supports nuanced argumentation and detailed exposition. Vocabulary choices play a key role in boosting lexical density, especially through the use of nominalizations and Latinate terms prevalent in formal texts. Nominalizations convert verbs or adjectives into nouns (e.g., "decide" to "decision"), increasing the proportion of and allowing for denser packing of in clauses. Similarly, Latinate facilitates this by providing morphological resources for , which enhances informational density in academic and compared to more Germanic-based everyday terms. Differences in mode between spoken and written language profoundly affect lexical density, with written texts typically achieving higher levels due to opportunities for revision and planning. Spoken language features interruptions, fillers (e.g., "um," "you know"), and repetitions that inflate the count of grammatical words, resulting in lower density around 25-40%. In contrast, written language minimizes such elements through editing, concentrating on content words to achieve densities of 50-60%, as seen in planned discourses like essays or reports.

Contextual Variables

Lexical density varies based on the speaker's proficiency, with more expert or proficient speakers producing higher density compared to novices due to greater vocabulary range and reduced reliance on function words. In spoken English, adults typically exhibit lexical densities of approximately 27-28% in and expository contexts, reflecting their ability to pack more into . In contrast, children around age 12 show lower values, around 20-24% in similar tasks, indicating less mature lexical control. For even younger speakers under 5 years, lexical density in associated child-directed speech (adult speech to children) averages about 29%. Audience characteristics also modulate lexical density, as speakers adapt their language to perceived listener needs, increasing density for formal or expert audiences to convey precision and decreasing it for casual ones to enhance . Lectures and presentations to professional audiences often display higher lexical density, approaching levels seen in written texts (over 40%), due to the emphasis on informational content and reduced fillers. Conversely, casual conversations exhibit lower density (under 40%), with more function words and repetitions facilitating interactive flow. Cultural factors and register choices further influence lexical density, as specialized in professional domains elevates it by prioritizing content-heavy terms, while non-standard dialects may reduce it through idiomatic repetitions and contextual redundancies. Legal texts, for instance, demonstrate high lexical density due to dense nominalizations and technical vocabulary, often exceeding 50% to ensure precision in argumentation. Technological platforms introduce additional variations, with texts typically showing medium lexical density owing to character limits that encourage concise alongside abbreviations, hashtags, and non-lexical elements like emojis. This balance reflects the hybrid nature of digital communication, blending informal brevity with expressive .

Applications

In Education

Lexical density serves as a valuable marker for evaluating writing proficiency and development in second-language learners, particularly in ESL contexts. Studies tracking ESL students' essays over time show consistent increases in density as proficiency grows; for example, among Saudi EFL undergraduates, average lexical density rose from 49.82% in first-year writing samples to 53.56% in fourth-year samples, reflecting improved ability to incorporate . Similarly, in Chinese EFL beginners, density progressed from 41.37% at grade 7 to 43.93% at grade 9, indicating a shift toward more mature, written-like registers. These metrics, derived from variants like Ure's measure, enable educators to quantify advancements in lexical sophistication without relying solely on holistic scoring. To foster higher lexical density, pedagogical tools emphasize targeted exercises that encourage the integration of and reduction of function words. Nominalization activities, for instance, guide ESL students to convert processes (e.g., "The teacher explained the " to "The teacher's explanation of the ") to condense meaning and boost density, as demonstrated in EFL writing interventions. Vocabulary expansion exercises, such as drills or replacement tasks, further support this by prompting learners to diversify lexical choices, helping them move beyond simple grammatical structures toward more informative prose. Research underscores lexical density's role in broader language skill integration, with studies revealing its correlation to in ESL learners; texts with moderately high density enhance comprehension when aligned with proficiency levels, while excessive density can impede it. In curriculum design, density informs the creation of balanced registers, ensuring scaffold from low-density spoken-like inputs to higher-density written outputs suitable for progressive skill-building. Case studies of corpora often reveal notable density gaps between spoken and written assignments, highlighting modality effects in ESL production. For example, of L2 opinion responses showed written samples with a mean lexical density of 44.1%, significantly higher than the 38.6% in spoken samples, attributing the disparity to time and revision opportunities in writing. Such findings guide targeted interventions to bridge these gaps, improving overall .

In Computational Linguistics

In , lexical density is integrated into (NLP) pipelines to quantify text complexity at scale, often relying on part-of-speech (POS) taggers to distinguish lexical from grammatical words across large corpora. For instance, automated tools employ POS tagging to compute density metrics during preprocessing stages, enabling efficient analysis of vast datasets for tasks like assessment or genre classification. This approach facilitates trend analysis in corpora, such as monitoring lexical density variations in over decades, revealing shifts toward greater informational density in specialized domains. In , lexical density serves as a stylometric feature for authorship attribution, particularly in verifying disputed where density patterns reflect an author's characteristic vocabulary richness. Studies have shown that , calculated via automated POS-based methods, discriminates between authors by capturing consistent lexical-to-grammatical ratios, as demonstrated in analyses of texts like . This computational application extends to modern forensic cases, where helps identify authorship in anonymous or contested writings by comparing against known corpora. Within AI and , lexical density is incorporated as a feature in text models to emulate human-like linguistic , guiding outputs toward balanced informational content rather than repetitive or overly simplistic structures. For example, during training or fine-tuning of generative models, density metrics inform adjustments to selection, ensuring generated text aligns with human norms of around 40-50% lexical content. This enhances model performance in producing coherent, varied , as evidenced by comparative studies where higher density correlates with perceived naturalness in AI outputs. Recent advancements in the have explored lexical density in (MT) systems to boost output naturalness, with studies revealing that neural MT often produces lower density than human translations, leading to simplified phrasing. Researchers have proposed density-aware techniques using generative AI assistants, which increase lexical ratios in learner translations and improve without sacrificing accuracy. These methods, applied to genres like or literary texts, demonstrate that elevating density through targeted constraints enhances the stylistic fidelity of MT, bridging gaps in cross-lingual complexity.

References

  1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394587596_Unveiling_Lexical_Density_Comparing_Genres_in_EAP_Textbooks_and_Research_Articles_Across_Disciplines
  2. https://rrlinguistics.ru/en/journal/article/3059/
  3. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED322776.pdf
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257527689_Lexical_density_and_Readability_A_case_study_of_English_Textbooks
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475158523000486
  6. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1406507.pdf
  7. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=english_fac_pubs
  8. https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/laufer_nation_95.pdf
  9. https://journals.lub.lu.se/LWPL/article/download/2273/1848/4927
  10. https://talenta.usu.ac.id/lingpoet/article/download/18971/8342/71435
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0024384124001682
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arua_Arua/publication/323222407_Lexical_Density_New_Word_Density_and_the_Readability_and_Sequencing_of_Reading_Materials_in_an_ESL_Course_Series/links/5a86ca5d0f7e9b1a9548ef63/Lexical-Density-New-Word-Density-and-the-Readability-and-Sequencing-of-Reading-Materials-in-an-ESL-Course-Series.pdf
  13. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1276705/full
  14. https://www.wseas.com/journals/bae/2024/e365107-067%282024%29.pdf
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10580801/
  16. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-linguistics/
  17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332725200_Entries_on_the_History_of_Corpus_Linguistics
  18. https://www.mark-davies.org/articles/davies_42.pdf
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262499599_Corpora_and_historical_linguistics
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257527979_Lexical_Density_and_Readability_A_Case_Study_of_English_Textbooks
  21. https://sharifling.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/lect-02_systemic-functional-linguistics.pdf
  22. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244018787586
  23. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110851670/html
  24. https://www.jowr.org/jowr/article/download/582/469/441
  25. https://sites.psu.edu/xxl13/lca/
  26. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/70d3/b8e756802996e5e7e3faa9c0532091482684.pdf
  27. https://old.callej.org/journal/22-3/Clavel-Speck2021.pdf
  28. https://books.google.com/books?id=T9RpAAAACAAJ
  29. https://www.academia.edu/41648686/Complexity_of_English_textbook_language_A_systemic_functional_analysis
  30. https://www.academia.edu/27978429/Lexical_density_and_Readability_A_case_study_of_English_Textbooks
  31. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x
  32. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=LYnVEkMAAAAJ&hl=en
  33. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-017-0924-4
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0346251X25002192
  35. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/nevsosbilen/issue/81478/1376253
  36. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02655322231167629
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293521000295
  38. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/register-text-and-language/halliday-on-english/1B5A6E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E
  39. https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789004653436/B9789004653436_s006.pdf
  40. http://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/doi/10.3828/ijeap.2023.8
  41. https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/RRQ.011
  42. https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Features-of-lexical-richness-in-childrens-books-Comparisons-with-child-directed-speech.pdf
  43. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125964924.pdf
  44. https://www.emerald.com/sjls/article/5/2/65/1244061/Lexical-density-in-English-newspapers-a-cross
  45. https://archive.aessweb.com/index.php/5019/article/download/4668/7355
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8206476/
  47. https://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/660b61f687c25.pdf
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383488433_Lexical_Density_of_Reading_Materials_in_An_English_Textbook_A_Content_Analysis
  49. https://royalliteglobal.com/advanced-humanities/article/view/1901
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10014596/
  51. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/20/7285
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475158520300928
  53. https://content.e-bookshelf.de/media/reading/L-14123925-436f9a97ec.pdf
  54. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-276/paper5.pdf
  55. https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/16/11/979
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377029323_Comparing_Measures_of_Syntactic_and_Lexical_Complexity_in_Artificial_Intelligence_and_L2_Human-Generated_Argumentative_Essays
  57. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-02986-7
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0346251X25000284
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.