Title: Shared features of L2 writing: Intergroup homogeneity and text classification. Abstract

Malvern, D. D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Duran, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230511804

Mayfield-Tomokiyo, L. & Jones, R. 2001. You’re not from ‘round here, are you? Naive Bayes detection of non-native utterance text. In Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL ‘01), unpaginated electronic document. Cambridge, MA: The Association for Computational Linguistics.

McCarthy, P.M. & Jarvis, S., (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of

sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42,

McClure, E. (1991). A comparison of lexical strategies in L1 and L2 written English narratives. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 2, 141-154.

McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299-325.

McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35, 13-23.

Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research. Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Miller, G. A, Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D. & Miller, K. (1990). Five papers on WordNet. Cognitive Science Laboratory, Princeton University, No. 43.

Ninio, A. (1999). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26, 619–653.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Paivio, A. (1965). Abstractness, imagery, and meaningfulness in paired-associate learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 32−38.

Porte, G. (1997). The etiology of poor second language writing: The influence of perceived teacher preferences on second language revision strategies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 61–78.

Ransdell, S., & Levy, C. M. (1996). Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 93-105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reid, J. R. (1992). A computer text analysis of four cohesion device in English discourse by native and nonnative writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 79¬107.

Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2009). Situated writing practices in foreign language settings: The role of previous experience and instruction. In R. M. Manchon (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 23-48). Buffalo, New York: Multilingual Matters.

Scarcella, R. (1984). Cohesion in the writing development of native and non-native English speakers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.

Scardamalia, M. (1981). How children cope with the cognitive demands of writing. In C. H. Frederiksen & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication, Vol. 2. Writing: Process, development, and communication (pp. 81-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.) Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77-101). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Toglia, M. P., & Battig, W. R. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ventola, E. & Mauranen, A. (1991). Non-native writing and native revising of scientific articles. In E. Ventola (Ed.) Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses (pp. 457-492). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Weigle, S. C. (2005). Second language writing expertise. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp. 128-149). Basingstoke, Hampshire/ New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

White, R. (1981). Approaches to writing. Guidelines, 6, 1-11.

Table 3
Means (standard deviations), F values, and effect sizes (hp2) for L1 and L2 essays in training set.
Variables	L1 essays				L2 essays		F(1,742)
Lexical diversity M	0.022 (.002)				0.019 (.002)		140.865	0.170
Stem overlap adjacent sentences	0.576 (.153)				0.373 (.184)		139.915	0.100
LSA givenness	0.337 (.033)				0.305 (.046)		76.289	0.082
Average word polysemy	4.188 (.357)				3.941 (.450)		60.845	0.081
Average word hypernymy	1.707 (.206)				1.569 (.192)		60.412	0.027
Word meaningfulness every word	355.094 (8.143)				350.948 (11.993)		18.626	0.024
Tense and aspect repetition	0.759 (.083)				0.794 (.084)		17.089	0.021
Causal verbs and particles	39.810 (9.843)				36.451 (16.662)		14.969	0.017
Number of locational prepositions and nouns	0.696 (.119)				0.656 (.120)		11.945	0.015
Incidence of negation connectives	13.361 (6.280)				15.777 (7.831)		10.278	0.012
Word familiarity content words	578.835 (5.304)				577.203 (6.549)		8.367	0.006
Number of words before main verb	4.663 (1.413)				4.296 (1.595)		4.184	0.006
Word imagability content words	392.342 (19.981)				396.483 (20.939)		3.898	0.006