Lexical diversity before and after a language exposure : a cognitive-linguistic study on the lexicology of English for second language students.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

LEXICAL DIVERSITY
BEFORE AND AFTER A LANGUAGE EXPOSURE:
A COGNITIVE-LINGUISTIC STUDY ON THE LEXICOLOGY
OF ENGLISH FOR SECOND LANGUAGE STUDENTS
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education

Roandryo Sigma P. Surbakti
081214076

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAMME
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
2012

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

LEXICAL DIVERSITY
BEFORE AND AFTER A LANGUAGE EXPOSURE:
A COGNITIVE-LINGUISTIC STUDY ON THE LEXICOLOGY
OF ENGLISH FOR SECOND LANGUAGE STUDENTS
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education

Roandryo Sigma P. Surbakti
081214076

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAMME
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
2012
i

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

ii

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

iii

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

DEDICATION PAGE

This thesis was written under a very heavy rain of love from

Haryono Surbakti,
Rosdiana J Ginting,
Hadya Hexa L Surbakti,
Rofiyanti Kornalia Saik,
Agatha Viti Anggraini.

To them, this thesis is dedicated.

iv

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work

or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the
references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, 6 June 2012
The Writer

Roandryo Sigma P. Surbakti
081214076

v

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertandatangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:
Nama

: Roandryo Sigma P. Surbakti

Nomor Mahasiswa : 081214076
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan
Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
Lexical Diversity Before and After an Exposure:
A Cognitive-Linguistics Study on the Lexicology
of English for Second Language Students
beserta alat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan
kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan,
mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan
data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di Internet atau
media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya
maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya
sebagai penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di Yogyakarta
Pada tanggal: 6 Juni 2012
Yang menyatakan

Roandryo Sigma P. Surbakti

vi

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

ABSTRACT
Surbakti, R. S. P. (2012). Lexical diversity before and after an exposure: A
cognitive-linguistic study on the lexicology of English language students.
Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University
This thesis intends to make a comparison of the lexical diversity in the

English productions of non-native speakers in two separate situations: with and
without being previously having an exposure of the language.
Lexical diversity –the variation of words used in a language production, is
one key element distinguishing native English speakers from their non-native
counterparts. Native speakers tend to choose their vocabulary in an unpredictable
way, where the latter’s choice is far more obvious, despite having the same
vocabulary knowledge (Booth, 2010). It is important to improve the ability to
vary words for higher word variation will result in a more natural and accurate
language production (Hogeweg, 2009).
With an understanding that language is mostly memory-based and that we
tend to reproduce rather than produce new lexical elements, in this research
observes whether language exposures can assist non-natives’ language production
to have more natural and varied words, thus, approaching native speakers’
qualities, as have defined by Lee, 2005. Conducted using Token-Type Ratio
method, a method which compares number of word types relative to the number
of total words used in a language production, this research analyses data retrieved
from two tests performed by the students of Translation class in Sanata Dharma
University in two given situations.
Results show that the students produce more varied words in their
translation after being exposed to an English text of the same topic.

Key words: lexical diversity, language exposure, lexicology, token-type ratio

vii

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

ABSTRAK
Surbakti, R. S. P. (2012). Lexical diversity before and after an exposure: A
cognitive-linguistic study on the lexicology of English language students.
Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University
Skripsi ini bertujuan unjuk melakukan pembandingan keragaman leksikal
dalam produksi bahasa Inggris oleh penutur asing dalam dua situasi berbeda:
dengan dan tanpa sebelumnya mendapat paparan dari bahasa tersebut.
Keragaman leksikal –variasi kata yang digunakan dalam produksi bahasa,
adalah salah satu elemen kunci yang membedakan penutur asli dari penutur asing.

Penutur asli cenderung memilih kata-kata mereka dengan cara yang sukar
diprediksi, sedangkan pilihan kata penutur asing jauh lebih mudah diperkirakan,
meskipun keduanya memiliki pengetahuan yang sama (Booth, 2010).
Kemampuan untuk menggunakan kata-kata yang beragam adalah penting karena
keragaman kata yang lebih tinggi akan menghasilkan produksi bahasa yang lebih
akurat dan alami (Hogeweg, 2009).
Dengan pemahaman bahwa bahasa adalah sebagian besar berdasar pada
ingatan, dan bahwa kita cenderung untuk memproduksi ulang daripada
memproduksi elemen leksikal baru, di sini diamati apakah paparan bahasa dapat
membantu produksi bahasa penutur asing untuk menggunakan kata-kata yang
lebih alami dan bervariasi, sehingga mendekati kualitas penutur asli, menurut
definisi dari Lee, 2005. Menggunakan metode Token-Type Ratio, sebuah metode
yang membandingkan jumlah jenis kata dengan jumlah total kata yang digunakan
dalam produksi bahasa, penelitian di dalam skripsi ini menganalisa data yang
didapat dari dua tes yang dilakukan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Translation di
Universitas Sanata Dharma pada dua kesempatan yang berbeda.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa para mahasiswa menggunakan katakata yang lebih beragam dalam terjemahan mereka setelah mereka terpapar pada
sebuah teks bahasa Inggris dalam topik yang serupa.
Kata kunci: lexical diversity, language exposure, lexicology, token-type ratio

viii

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Most of my university colleagues said that writing a thesis is the heaviest
burden in university life. They were right. But for me, it was also one of the most
interesting and challenging experience. Overall, writing this thesis felt like riding
on a roller coaster. When the car was upside-down, I did pump all the air in my
lung out, screaming as loud as I could. But at the end of the ride, I smiled and
laughed, proud and thankful for that miserable joy.
From the beginning of this thesis writing, I have been meeting extraordinary
people giving me support and assistance. Here, I would like to show my deepest
appreciation to them.
1. Having a good advisor in writing a thesis is essential, and therefore, I
believe I am very fortunate to have Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D. as
mine. Being an easy going but not laid back person at the same time, I
rarely found difficulties in seeking advice from him. In fact, the only
schedule we agreed for our meetings was anytime, and the only deadline
was as soon as possible. Probably this is why this thesis can be
completed in a very smooth fashion.
2. Whenever I speak with the head of the English Language Study
Programme, Ibu Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd., I feel like talking to
my own mother. Maybe it is because the way she speaks, or perhaps it is
because she treats all her students like her own children. I never had any
hesitation to ask assistance from her in my whole academic life.

ix

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

3. Bapak Fidelis Chosa Kastuhandani, S.Pd., M.Hum. is one of the most
helpful lecturers in these almost four years I spent in University.
Therefore, I had no doubt that he would be more than agree to let me
conducted research in his Translation 2 class. My expectation met, and I
am very thankful to him.
4. When I met Prof. Dr. David Reeve in the student hall to ask whether he
could help me in writing this thesis by providing translations to be
analysed, his answer was a short ‘sure’, and he did it on the spot. It was
not surprising, in fact, it was expected. He always has time to stop and
have these ‘crazy’ conversations with the university students even in his
very tight schedule, and I knew that time was not different.
5. I would also like to say thank you very much to all the lecturers of the
English Language Education Study Programme in Sanata Dharma
University for all of their assistance and support in all the time I spent
studying in this university. I always think that the board of lecturers
consists of the finest educators I can find in my whole life.
6. The students of the Translation class, where I conducted research, were
cooperative and helpful. Therefore, I would like to give my appreciation
for them, and wish them success in their study.
7. Last, I want to hug everybody in my batch, the 2008’s students, whom I
have been spending these four years with. They are the best friends one
can get and I am very fortunate to know and work with such fine people.
I hope and expect nothing but the best for them.

x

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

There are many other people who have been helpful for me, especially in
writing this thesis. To every one of them, I would like to say thank you very much
and wish them luck and success in their life. I also like to say apologize in every
mistake I made, whether it was intentional or not, and looking forward to any
criticism and suggestion that leads to improvement.

Writer

xi

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
TITLE PAGE...........................................................................................

i

APPROVAL PAGE.................................................................................

ii

DEDICATION PAGE..............................................................................

iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY........................................

v

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI.........................................

vi

ABSTRACT.............................................................................................

vii

ABSTRAK.................................................................................................

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................

xii

LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................

xv

LIST OF APPENDICES..........................................................................

xvi

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................

1

A. Research Background................................................................

1

B. Research Problem......................................................................

4

C. Problem Limitation....................................................................

4

D. Research Objectives..................................................................

5

E. Research Benefits......................................................................

6

F. Definition of Terms...................................................................

6

xii

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

Page
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.......................

10

A. Lexical Diversity and its Importance.......................................

10

B. Language Exposure, Lexicology and Lexical Diversity
Relations....................................................................................

12

C. Measuring Lexical Diversity Using Token-Type Ratio
Method.......................................................................................

14

D. Research Overview....................................................................

16

E. Theoretical Framework.............................................................

20

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................

22

A. Research Method.......................................................................

22

B. Research Setting........................................................................

23

C. Research Subjects......................................................................

24

D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique..............................

25

E. Data Analysis Technique...........................................................

27

F. Research Procedure...................................................................

28

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULTS AND FINDINGS....................

31

A. Primary and Comparison Groups’ First Translation Results....

31

B. Primary Group’s First and Second Translation Results............

32

C. Primary Group’s and Native Speaker’s Translations
Comparison...............................................................................

34

D. Data Interpretation and Discussion...........................................

37

xiii

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

Page
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........

42

A. Conclusions...............................................................................

42

B. Recommendations.....................................................................

43

REFERENCES.........................................................................................

46

APPENDICES..........................................................................................

48

xiv

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table 1. Primary and Comparison Groups’ Test 1 Results......................

31

Table 2. Primary Group’s Test 1 and Test 2 Results...............................

33

Table 3. Native Speaker’s Translation Result..........................................

36

Table 4. Translation Analyses Comparison.............................................

36

xv

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page
Appendix 1. Primary Group Test 1 Result...............................................

48

Appendix 2. Comparison Group Test 1 Result........................................

49

Appendix 3. Primary Group Test 2 Result...............................................

50

xvi

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides background information and rationale of the
research, with a mission to introduce and describe the nature and content of the
study. In order to formulate the information systematically, this chapter is
subdivided into: research background, research problem, problem limitation,
research objectives, research benefits and definition of terms. This is to clearly
address what the study is about, how it fits the present context and what the focus
of the research is.

A. Research Background
English is undeniably the most important and influential language in the
world today. The language has achieved this status by being globally recognised
in every country. Although official UN statistics shows Chinese Mandarin as the
language with the most native speakers (1,077,548,100 in 1995), English, with its
large amount of non-native users, is the language which being extensively used by
most people in the world (well over 1500 million) (Weber, 2008).
However, regardless of the extensive number of people using the
language, native speakers of English, around 400 million users, are only one-third
of the whole users. A comparison is Chinese-Mandarin, whose non-native
speakers are only about a quarter of its total users (Weber, 2008). This is not only

1

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

2

showing how widespread English language is, but also showing how diverse the
users are.
Having widely diverse users means that the language has a number of
variations. Today, variations of English which worldwide people familiar with are
probably: American English, Australian English, and British English. There are
also other variations are such as Singlish used in Singapore and Spanlish used by
Spanish speakers, but in general, people consider American English and British
English as the two standards of the language (Poole, 1999).
With far more non-native speakers than natives, it is obvious that people
who use English come from various backgrounds. These backgrounds include
differences in culture, social status, age, education, competency in English, and
also the mother tongue. These differences will then influence the way the people
use the language, in this case, English.
The goal of language learning everywhere is to help learners master the
language, and to master the language means to achieve a near-native competency.
This native-like competency is internalised knowledge which the native speakers
have in using the language, such as appropriate use of idiomatic expressions,
correctness of language form, natural pronunciation, cultural context, above
average sized vocabulary, collocations and other phraseological items, metaphors,
frozen syntax, such as binomials or bi-verbials, and nonverbal cultural features
(Lee, 2005).
One thing which distinguishes native English speakers, people with
English as their mother-tongue, from their non-native counterparts is that native

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

3

speakers have more ‘grip’ in the language. Obviously, this is not an odd
phenomenon since they are living where the language is being part of the culture,
education, and many other aspects of life. The same case does not apply to the
non-native English users who are usually better with their mother tongue. They
are having difficulty to ‘sense’ English, as it is only an additional part of their life.
This better ability in sensing the language can be seen in one of the
features of native users: vocabulary choice. A tendency of native users is that they
choose their vocabulary in an unpredictable way (Booth, 2010). Non-native users
are far more obvious and predictable in this issue, where they tend to use more
common and general words rather than to pay attention to the deeper semantic –
not to mention pragmatic- meanings of their words, despite having the same level
of vocabulary knowledge.
In order to improve one’s language ability, having a desirable amount of
language exposure can probably be one of the choices. Having exposed to a
language means experiencing the use of the language. This experience, later, will
supposedly help the exposed to understand how they should produce the language.
To see the effect of exposure on a person’s word choice, one of the most
common methods is to make a comparison between the language productions
before the person receives the exposure and after the exposure is given (Dewaele
& Pavlenko, 2003). If it is true that English exposure improves English language
production, then, the improvement should reflects on the product after the
exposure is given. In this thesis, the analysis will be focused on the word variation
used before and after the samples are given the exposure.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

4

B. Research Problem
The intention of this thesis is to answer two questions related to the effect
of English exposure on word variation in English language production. The
questions are:
1. Are the words used in the translation products of ESL students after
they are given an exposure more varied, compared to the products they
made before having the exposure?
2. What aspects in a language exposure affect the students’ word
variations?
There are probably many other questions need to be answered, related to
the effect of exposure on language production ability. However, this thesis
considers the answers to these questions to be able to show the basic effect. These
two questions will hopefully lead to better understanding the significance of
English exposure in learning English.

C. Problem Limitation
In order to make the comparison, this research used the method of TypeToken Ratio (TTR) which analysed the amount of word-types per total amount of
words used in the product. TTR is believed to be the most suitable method to be
conducted in this thesis. This method will give score on the ESL student’s
translation products, with the range of 0 as the minimum and 1 as the maximum,
before and after the exposure is given, with higher score means more variations.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

5

The samples of this research were Sanata Dharma University ELSP
students who were taking Translation 2 course. The students were having Bahasa
Indonesia as their mother tongue, and were considered able to use English in
academic level. Despite acknowledging that English competencies of these
students were different, the writer looked at the samples as having the similar
level of proficiency.
The analysis on the reason of the effect given by the exposure to the word
variation was done from the perspective of cognitive-linguistics. There are
supposedly many other approaches which can be used to analyse the problem.
However, the writer believes the cognitive-linguistics approach, as one of the
methods in psycholinguistics, to be the best method, and can be related to the
perspective of semantics and sociolinguistics.

D. Research Objectives
In relation to the problems, the first expectation of this thesis is to find
whether English exposure able to improve the variation of words used in language
products of the ESL students. On this case, the language products are the students’
translation products. With this, then it will be obvious that exposure can improve
the quality of language, and further, language proficiency.
The second expectation is to find a scientific reason of this matter. The
scientific reason will then serve as the basis of the discussion, and to prove that
the change carried by the English exposure to the language products is not a

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

6

random phenomenon. In other words, this is to prove that the improvement is
truly affected by the language exposure.

E. Research Benefits
In doing this research, the writer hopes to prove that enriching exposures
of English can improve ESL’s ability to use more diverse vocabulary. This, then,
will lead to a better understanding of the significance of exposure to language
learning. Finally, language students and teachers will place exposure on an
important position in their teaching-learning activities.
Other benefit of this finding is that hopefully language teachers will have
new approaches and methods to improve their student’s language competence,
especially in understanding and using wider vocabulary. Students, hopefully, will
also expose themselves more to the language, in order to improve their ability to
use the language. In general, hopefully this thesis can aid improvement in the
nation’s education.

F. Definition of Terms
There are several terms that are extensively used in this thesis. These
technical words will be described and defined below in order to assist the readers
to have clearer understanding of the topic.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

7

1. Lexicology
Lexicology is a branch of linguistics that studies the meanings and
structures of words. In lexicology, a word is approached from its form and the
‘sense’ it gives. Other approach is to “Take a given concept and then see what
different words are available as synonyms to refer to the entities in our conceptual
world.” (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004).

2. Exposure
Literary, the word exposure refers to a particular condition or situation
where someone experiences something (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary, 2011). This experience comes from the contact made by that
particular something with the person’s senses: talking, seeing, hearing, tasting,
touching and thinking. This contact will then memorised and become the person’s
knowledge. There are many kinds of exposure, and language exposure will be the
one extensively discussed in this thesis.

3. Language exposure
Related to the definition of exposure stated above, language exposure can
be defined as a condition or situation where someone is experiencing the use of
language. It can be described further that these experiences include many forms.
In the form of readings it can be news, novels, or other texts in the language.
Having conversation in English is considered a good exposure of the English

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

8

language. Others are listening to music, watching film, or writing papers or letters
in English.

4. Token-type ratio
Token-type ratio is the most used way to measure lexical diversity
(Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2003). This method compares type –the number of
different words- with token –the number of total words, used in speeches or
writings. The maximal score of this method is 1, which is obviously impossible in
a normal language production, for it needs repetitions of certain grammatical
elements. This method is an easy way to see the changes in word variation since it
is formulated in numerical score.

5. Cognitive linguistics
Cognitive linguistics is a modern school of linguistics emerged since
1970s. This area of study focuses heavily on semantics, with a considerable part
on syntax and morphology (Evans & Green, 2006). It is also rooted in the
development of cognitive science. In brief, cognitive linguistics sees
comprehension of meaning by approaching the study of mind and its relation with
experience and culture (Croft & Cruse, 2004).

6. Semantics
As part of cognitive linguistics, semantics also focuses on words meaning
conceptualisation. The focus of this study is the relation between the signifiers

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

9

(words, signs, and symbols) and the actual things symbolised. Semantics has
relation with morphology in the term of word forming, and pragmatics, in the
term of word meaning. Lexicology, as described earlier, is part of semantics
which studies deeply in vocabulary choice.

7. Lexical Diversity
Lexical diversity, or word variation, is how varied are the words that are
used in a language production. Discussing lexical diversity means discussing the
amount of different words used. High lexical diversity usually indicates the high
proficiency of the language producer. The variation of words usually comes from
the use of synonyms (words with similar meaning). The ability to use highly
varied vocabulary is believed to be a characteristic of a native-speaker, with
deeper ability to understand and sense the meaning of a word.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents reviews of theoretical writings and researches related
to the study in this thesis. These reviews attempt to synthesise one theory to the
other in order to obtain a theoretical framework of the study of lexical diversity
conducted here. This chapter is made into five divisions: what lexical diversity is
and why it is important, the relation of language exposure, lexicology and lexical
diversity, measuring lexical diversity using Token-Type Ratio method, overview
of the research conducted in this study, and theoretical framework in order to give
clear and deep understanding of the study.

A. Lexical Diversity and its Importance
Most people will probably think that lexical diversity has the same concept
with vocabulary richness. However, although both of them can be approached
with a similar method, they are practically different. Vocabulary richness,
according to Nation (2008), is the amount of words that can be comprehended by
someone. Lexical diversity, on the other hand, is closely related to productivity
and involves not only understanding the meaning of the words used, but also the
‘decision’ of how and why those words should be used (Dewaele & Pavlenko,
2003). Better explanation is given by Malvern, Richards, Chipere and Durán
(2010) who stated that the level of lexical diversity is “an indication of a
combination of vocabulary size and the ability to use it effectively”, or in a very

10

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

11

simple explanation, it can be said that lexical diversity is how one uses his
vocabulary richness.
Lexical diversity is important because it heavily determines how accurate
the language that one produces, or, as how Dewaele and Pavlenko (2003) put it,
“...higher levels of resolution will result in longer and more fine-grained retellings
with more specific words”. Moreover, in their perspective, one’s level of lexical
diversity is an obvious indication of his language proficiency and also often used
as the basis to judge his personality and intellectuality. Therefore, in the context of
language mastery, acquiring a high level of lexical diversity is a necessity.
Native speakers are excellent models of language users with high level of
lexical diversity. Their language productions, compared to the language
productions of non-native speakers, are natural and seem to be effortless.
According to Booth (2010), native speakers have advantage in ‘sensing’ their
language, where they have the ability to comprehend wider and deeper meaning of
the words. This leads to the tendency of using more unpredictable words, which
results in more varied language productions. Non-native speakers tend to use
common and general words, and therefore, their language productions lack
variations.
Furthermore, every language education aims to reach a particular level of
language proficiency, where in a higher level of language education, the goal is
supposedly to attain near-native proficiency (Leaver, Ehrman, & Shekhtman,
2005). In the list of internalised knowledge that native speakers have, four points
among them are 1) appropriate expressions, 2) correctness of language forms, 3)

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

12

contextual understanding and 4) above average vocabulary size, all related to
lexical diversity (Lee, 2005). Therefore, improving lexical diversity to a certain
desired level should be one main aim of every form of second language
acquisition effort.

B. Language Exposure, Lexicology and Lexical Diversity Relations
Masoura and Gathercole (2005), state that language exposures heavily
influence one’s choice of words. This is true according to Skehan (2003), who
quotes Bollinger that “language itself is much more memory-based than has been
generally considered. Much of language consists of lexical elements, and that, on
occasion, these may not even easily described by rules”. Supporting this, are
Nessel and Dixon (2008), who state that language learning is very much
experience-based. The implementation of this theory is that “the most speech we
produce is likely to have been produced before” (Skehan, 2003).
From Masoura and Gathercole’s statement, it can be said that English
exposure must be very influential to one’s English, or in other words, the way
someone uses English is very much influenced by the English exposures he has.
Therefore, the way one uses English cannot be separated from how he has been
exposed to the language.
In addition to the theories above, Cruse (2007) proposes that the
understanding of meaning of words is also affected by the background of the
language user. According to him, increasing amount of exposures will not only
improving the lexical knowledge in the area of semantics, but also in pragmatics.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

13

It can be seen from this, a correlation between having exposures to the
comprehension of meaning of words.
Leaver, Ehrman and Shekhtman (2005), who also propose that English
exposure is one of the most significant factors which affect someone’s English,
then continue it with a statement that the best way to achieve high level of
acquisition in English is by surrounding the learner with the language. Wardaugh
(1992), strengthens this with his statement that not only it will improve one’s
ability in using English, it will also affect the way he uses it, since the knowledge
in using a language is highly influenced by the way the language is used around
him. In a simpler sentence, it can be said that improving exposures of English will
result in better ability in using it.
Now, referring back to lexical origination, one will ‘decide’ to use a word
by regarding the association of the word with the real object (Poole, 1999). To
this, Hogeweg (2009), argued that “there is no one-to-one relation between
meanings and words”, and one’s production of words –his ‘decision’ to choose
the words to be used, is heavily depended on his own interpretation of the words.
This is what is called lexicology.
The question is, then, how exactly does someone ‘decides’ the words he
will use? Croft and Cruse (2004) and Dirven and Verspoor (2004) agree that word
meaning comprehension is not the only factor involved in words production, it
also involves intention. Evans and Green (2006) added intuition as another factor
else than those two. Intention and intuition of a language user are related to his
prediction of how will the language he produces is understood by other people.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

14

This prediction is very much affected by how he understood that language when
he received it from others.
Other than those three factors, the author believes that there are two more
things influencing the decision in using a word: familiarity and comfort.
Familiarity means that someone will likely use words he is most familiar with;
words that are used most often around him, and comfort means that someone will
use words that need less effort, less restrictions and more spontaneity related to
the situation he is involved in. Both related to how the language is used around
him.
It can be seen here, then, that one’s lexicology is built by the interactions
he experienced with the language –language exposures. Thus, a link of connection
between language exposures, lexicology and lexical diversity can be drawn.
Exposures give the experience and knowledge of how words in a language are
used, built up lexicology, which later affects the ‘decision’ in choosing the words
to be used in language production.

C. Measuring Lexical Diversity Using Token-Type Ratio Method
Basically, there are two methods commonly used to measure lexical
diversity: the Number of Different Words (NDW) method and the Token-Type
Ratio (TTR) method. Both methods approach the measurement by counting the
number of different words relative to the number of total words used (Malvern,
Richards, Chipere, & Durán, 2004). NDW is the simplest among both methods,
but is failing due to its inability to be consistent when facing large language

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

15

production with longer sentences and extensive words uses and repetitions. TTR
is now the most common method used in numerous research of lexical diversity.
In the TTR method, a score is given to a language product based on the
number of word types used in the product relative to the total number of words
used in it; for example, the sentence the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
has eight word types with the total number of words used is nine (the word the is
used twice). Therefore, the TTR score for the sentence is 8/9 or 0.89. The
maximum score in this method is 1, when in the case, no word is used twice.
However, the basic TTR method, in contrast with the NDW method,
cannot provide consistent measurement when it is dealing with large number of
samples, especially with high vocabulary range differences. Therefore, a number
of TTR transformations are invented to cover various needs of lexical diversity
research. In this thesis, the TTR method used is one that has been modified by
Dugast (Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2003) in 1989, the Dugast’s Uber formula, which
is an algebraic transformation of TTR:

(log ������) 2
(log ������)2
���� ����� = � =
=
������
log ������ − log �����
log
�����
Dewaele and Pavlenko believe that the Uber formula is considerably
accurate to measure lexical diversity in general research. Obviously, in more
particular situations, other kinds of TTR transformation are better to be used. The
most sophisticated transformation of TTR is probably the Mean Segmented Type-

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

16

Token Ratio (MSTTR). However, due to its complexity, the method will not be
used in this thesis.
However, it has to be understood that there are variables that are still not
covered by the Uber formula. The length of the language product, for example, is
one of the elements that should be considered to affect the score of lexical
diversity, but is not in this method. Proficient language users are also having the
tendency to make repetitions to make their language as clear as possible, where it
can largely affect the results of the measurement (Booth, 2010).

D. Research Overview
There are two kinds of research conducted in this study. The first one is
experimental research; meanwhile the second is library study. Here is also
presented another research on lexical diversity as a comparison to the research
conducted in this thesis.

1. Experimental Research
There are two very important respects that make experimental research
unique: “it is the only type of research that directly attempts to influence a
particular variable, and when properly applied, it is the best type for testing
hypotheses about cause-and-effect relationships” (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). In
this thesis, the experimental research is conducted to answer the first problem of
the study. It is believed to be the most suitable type of research to be conducted to
achieve the answer of the question.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

17

In an experimental research, three variables must be taken into account.
The first one is the starting point, the second is the treatment, and the last is the
outcome or the result point. A comparison is then made between the starting point
and the result point to see what effect brought by the treatment to the samples.
Fraenkel and Wallen (2008) define treatment and outcome as independent and
dependent variable.
Commonly, an experimental research has two or more groups of samples
to be compared, although having only one group is possible (Fraenkel & Wallen,
2008). The experimental research conducted in this study uses two groups of
samples. The first group, act as the primary subjects, is the group of which the
change of lexical diversity is observed. The second group, act as the comparison
group, role in showing whether the treatment of English exposure is really put on
effect.
According to Fraenkel and Wallen, “the major characteristic of
experimental research that distinguishes it from all other types of research is that
researchers manipulate the independent variable”. In other words, a researcher
who conducts an experimental research decides what will happen to the subjects.
At the end of the research, the researcher, then, see what effect caused by the
treatment, or did the treatment really cause a difference in the subjects.

2. Library Study
In general, library study research is conducted by finding already exist
theories that support, or oppose, a hypothesis (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). This

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

18

kind of research is usually conducted in an academic study area. The theories that
can be taken in library study are theories of experts in the particular topic being
discussed in the study. Therefore, the most acceptable sources for library study are
literature, books and journal, from trustworthy publishers or study institutions.
These theories do not necessarily need to be directly linked to the study, or
cover the whole topic thoroughly. They can be partly correlated with the topic in a
wider area of study or perspective. A researcher may arrange and synthesise one
theory to the other in order to show the whole picture of his theoretical
explanation.
In writing an academic paper, theoretical support is a necessity. Thus, in
this thesis, library study is conducted not only to find the answer to the second
research problem, how language exposures affect lexical diversity, but also to
support the writer’s hypothesis that language exposures highly influence one’s
level of word variation.

3. Booth’s Research in Lexical Diversity
Another research in lexical diversity had been conducted by Paul Booth in
2010. In his research, Booth compared the vocabulary performance of native and
non-native speakers in relation with their learning style. This research analysed
lexical diversity using another mathematical model of Token-Type Ratio which
called measure D. The research aimed to find L1 and L2 lexical diversity patterns
in relation with memory and analysis strengths and weaknesses.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

19

In his research, Booth grouped his participants according to their scores in
memory and analysis. Then using measure D, he looked for the relation of the
participants’ lexical diversity and their scores. Last, he compared the
performances of the native and non-native participants to find differences in their
lexical diversity patterns. There was no clear difference in the L1 and L2 lexical
diversity observed by Booth in his research, but patterns were emerged when the
scores were associated with their memory and analysis performances.
Booth’s research found that the lexical variation of non-native speakers is
highly related to their memory performance. Their analysis performance also
showed influence on their lexical diversity, but in a less affective manner. This
was shown on his findings that participants with high memory scores made more
unpredictable lexical diversity scores, whilst lexical diversity scores of the
participants with high analysis performance were not much different with the
participants who had lower performance.
This lexical diversity pattern of Booth’s non-native participants did not
apply for his native subjects. The lexical diversity scores of Booth’s native
participants seemed to be stable despite the differences in their memory and
analysis performance. Booth suggested that native speakers may over-learn lexis,
which later cancels out any effects of learning styles.
Booth then concluded that speakers need to have a predisposition to
analyse language to gain a more stable lexical diversity, like was shown by his
native participants. Meanwhile non-native speakers, who tend to memorise lexis,
seemed to be more erratic and influenced by their memory performance.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

20

In relation to research conducted in this thesis, Booth’s research showed
that there are differences in the pattern of the lexical diversity of native and nonnative speakers. Thus, this research also suggests that non-native speakers’ lexical
diversity is influenced by their memory performance which, in this thesis,
believed to be related to language exposure.

E. Theoretical Framework
This section tries to relate the study matter to the theories. The relation is
made by summarising and synthesising all major relevant theories previously
stated in this chapter. This is in order to help conducting the study to solve the
research problems.
This research begin with an understanding that lexical diversity is
important not only because it is one key element in native-speakers’ language
production characteristic (Lee, 2005), but also because it improves, in general,
language production quality (Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2003). Therefore, improving
the ability to vary words in language production is essential in language
acquisition efforts (Leaver, Ehrman, & Shekhtman, 2005).
In order to see how lexical diversity can be improved, this research stands
on the theory that language is mostly based on experience (Nessel & Dixon,
2008), and that people tend to reproduce rather than produce new lexical items
(Skehan, 2003). Related to this theory, this research believes that language
exposure must be an element that plays a significant part in language production,
which is also supported by Leaver, Ehrman and Shekhtman (2005), and Wardaugh

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

21

(1992). Not surprisingly, this is in line with the way one decides the words to be
used in his language production, as stated by Croft and Cruse (2004), Dirven and
Verspoor (2004), and Evans and Green (2006).
To analyse the effect of language exposure on lexical diversity, an
experimental research is conducted, simultaneously with library study.
Experimental research is chosen because it is believed to be the best method in
finding cause-effect relationship (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). The library study is
performed to assure the research is in line with the theories.
To measure the effect of language exposure on lexical diversity, this thesis
used Token-Type Ratio method and, its algebraic transformation, Uber index.
Token-Type Ratio is believed to be the most used method in measuring lexical
diversity, and its variant, Uber index, is believed to be the most consistent
(Malvern, Richards, Chipere, & Durán, 2004 and Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2003).
With this method, this research expects to find relation between language
exposure and lexical diversity and defines the importance of language exposure in
improving language production quality.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents a rationale for the methods of research and analysis
conducted in this thesis. This rationale comprises the description of the methods
of research and analysis, the outline of the procedure in gathering and analysing
the data, and the boundaries of the research. To systematically present the
rationale, this chapter is divided into sections: research method, research setting,
research subjects, instrument and data gathering technique, data analysis
technique and research procedure.

A. Research Method
To answer the two research problems of this thesis, the writer used the
analyses of results from an experimental research. Meanwhile, a library study was
also performed to help the result analysis stay in a scientific point of view. Both
methods were conducted simultaneously.
According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2008), an experiment research “is the
best type for testing hypotheses about cause-and-effect relationships”. In this type
of research, the researcher conducts a particular treatment to the research subjects
and sees what effect(s) the treatment brings to them. One characteristic that
distinguishes this type of research from the other types is that the researcher
manipulates and decides the nature of the treatment that is given to the subjects.

22

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

23

In this study, two treatments were given to the primary subjects. The first
treatment was an English exposure in the form of a short text in English that had
to be read by the subjects. The second treatment was, because the subjects were
students of Translation 2 course, the lecture that the subjects received in attending
the course. Obviously, there must also be other English exposures experienced by
the subjects outside the class, however, they were not included as part of the
treatments in this research.
As mentioned above, a library study was also conducte