Textual Analysis of Conceptual Associations in CEFR B2 Level Texts: A Network-based Semantic Representation Approach
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Lexical cohesion is vital for text comprehension, especially for learners progressing through CEFR levels. While research has focused on logical relations like synonymy and part-whole relationships, conceptual associations remain underexplored. These associations are crucial for cognitive processing and discourse comprehension but appear to be underrepresented in CEFR-B-leveled texts, which may potentially hinder learners’ preparation for C1-level demands. This study examines the patterns and prevalence of conceptual associations in B2 texts, their comparison with logical relations, and the impact of topic complexity on their distribution.
Methodology: The study was conducted in two phases, with the initial phase involving the collection of verified B2 level texts. In the second phase, automated analysis via the UCREL Semantic Analysis System (SAS) was used to categorize words into broad conceptual groups, while a manual approach based on Town’s (2021) taxonomy was used to verify their actual association. A semantic network analysis based on Yang and González-Bailón’s (2017) framework was adapted to examine concept clustering. The semantic network was automatically generated and quantified by the numbers of nodes and clusters present in B2 level texts.
Main Results: B2 texts showed an uneven use of lexical cohesion, relying more on simpler, explicit logical relationships. In all five texts examined, the use of logical relations (such as parent-child and part-whole relationships) outnumbered the use of other conceptual associations. In the five texts combined, logical relations occurred 92 times, whereas conceptual associations occurred 39 times. While this aids initial clarity, it creates a gap for learners moving to higher proficiency levels, where they need to connect ideas less explicitly via modeled B2 texts. Despite the similar totals of cohesive relationships (logical and conceptual associations) from the approximately 20 relationships in each text, B2 texts vary significantly in their use of conceptual association.
Discussions: The dominance of logical relations in B2 texts may limit learners' development of abstract reasoning and inferencing skills, which are critical at higher proficiency levels. While logical relations provide structural clarity, they lack the deeper conceptual connections needed for C1 comprehension. Topic variations also affect conceptual richness, emphasizing the need for intentional text selection. A balanced integration of conceptual associations with logical relations could enhance engagement and better align with CEFR descriptors and expectations.
Conclusions: These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of lexical cohesion in B2 texts and emphasize the importance of designing instructional materials that bridge the gap between explicit logical structures and abstract conceptual reasoning. To improve text cohesion and support learners’ transition to higher proficiency, B2 materials should incorporate more conceptual associations, particularly entity-based relationships and abstract linkages. By strengthening these connections, reading materials can better align with CEFR descriptors and prepare learners for complex and abstract textual comprehension at the C1 level. Future research should explore effective strategies for integrating conceptual associations into B2 materials and examine their impact on learner comprehension and retention.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Akmilia, P. M., Faridi, A., & Sakhiyya, Z. (2022). The use of cohesive devices in research paper conferences to achieve text coherence. English Education Journal, 12(1), 67-75. https://doi.org/10.15294/eej.v12i1.53228
Bolognesi, M., Pilgram, R., & van den Heerik, R. (2017). Reliability in content analysis: The case of semantic feature norms classification. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1984-2001. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0838-6
Chanyoo, N. (2018). Cohesive devices and academic writing quality of Thai undergraduate students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(5), 994-1001. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0905.13
Crossley, S. A. (2020). Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview. Journal of Writing Research, 11(3), 415-443. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.11.03.01
Crossley, S. A., Allen, D. B., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text readability and intuitive simplification: A comparison of readability formulas. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23(1), 84-101. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/66657
Europe, C. o. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Fata, I. A., Komariah, E., & Alya, A. R. (2022). Assessment of readability level of reading materials in Indonesia EFL textbooks. Lingua Cultura, 16(1), 97-104. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v16i1.8277
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564
Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review, 114(2), 211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.211
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (2014). Cohesion in english. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315836010
Harsch, C. (2018). How suitable is the CEFR for setting university entrance standards? Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(1), 102-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2017.1420793
Hiebert, E. H. (2002). Standards, assessment, and text difficulty. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 267–296). International Reading Association. https://doi.org/10.1598/0872071774.15
Hoey, M. (2012). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203327630
Ismail, F. K. M., & Zubairi, A. M. B. (2022). Item Analysis of a Reading Test in a Sri Lankan Context using Classical Test Theory. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(3), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.3.3
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
Natova, I. (2021). Estimating CEFR reading comprehension text complexity. The Language Learning Journal, 49(6), 699-710. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1665088
North, B. (2005). The CEFR levels and descriptor scales. In Taylor, L., & Weir, C. J. (Eds.), Multilingualism and assessment: Achieving transparency, assuring quality, sustaining diversity, Proceedings of the ALTE Berlin Conference (pp. 21-66). Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (2012). Interlanguage complexity. Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact, 13, 127. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229226.127
Sager, J. C. (1990). A practical course in terminology processing. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.44
Sihombing, I., Sidabutar, U., & Tampubolon, S. (2024). An analysis of lexical cohesion on the students thesis at the english teaching department of HKBP Nommensen University. ALACRITY: Journal of Education, 4(3), 370-381. https://doi.org/10.52121/alacrity.v4i3.470
Siripol, P., & Towns, S. G. (2021). A network-based method for identifying and categorizing semantic relationships. In Proceedings of DRAL 4: Doing Research in Applied Linguistics (pp. 142-157). King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi.
Siripol, P., Rhee, S., Thirakunkovit, S., & Liang-Itsara, A. (2025). Evaluating the consistency of automated CEFR analyzers: a study of English language text classification. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 14, 3283-3294. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v14i4.33528
Sung, Y. T., Lin, W. C., Dyson, S. B., Chang, K. E., & Chen, Y. C. (2015). Leveling L2 texts through readability: Combining multilevel linguistic features with the CEFR. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 371-391. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12213
Towns, S. G. (2021). A general-purpose semantic relationship taxonomy for the classification of logical relations and conceptual associations. In Proceedings of DRAL 4: Doing Research in Applied Linguistics (pp. 131-141). King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi.
Towns, S. G., & Watson Todd, R. (2017). Methods for identifying relations and associations in text. In Proceedings of DRAL 3: Doing Research in Applied Linguistics (pp. 146-155). King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi.
Towns, S. G., & Watson Todd, R. (2019). Beyond proficiency: Linguistic features of exceptional writing. English Text Construction, 12(2), 265-289. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00029.tow
Wang, G., & Liu, Q. (2014). On the theoretical framework of the study of discourse cohesion and coherence. Studies in Literature and Language, 8(2), 32. http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/4512
Wu, L.-l., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica, 132(2), 173-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.02.002
Yan, C., de Lange, F. P., & Richter, D. (2023). Conceptual associations generate sensory predictions. Journal of Neuroscience, 43(20), 3733-3742. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1874-22.2023
Yang, S., & González-Bailón, S. (2017). Semantic networks and applications in public opinion research. The Oxford handbook of political networks, 327-353. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190228217.013.14
