Vocabulary Matters: Gender and Word Use in EFL

Vocabulary Matters: Gender and Word Use in EFL | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Vocabulary Matters: Gender and Word Use in EFL Nida Husna, Hasnan Yasin This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6032811/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates gender-based differences in lexical diversity and vocabulary use among male and female EFL learners in descriptive writing. Motivated by ongoing discussions about gendered linguistic tendencies, the research focuses on the use of words from the General Service List (GSL) and Academic Word List (AWL). Employing a mixed-method approach, the study analyzed 60 descriptive texts written by male and female students using percentage-based data and chi-square tests. Results indicate that male students demonstrated slightly higher lexical diversity and used more GSL and AWL words than their female counterparts. Notably, a statistically significant difference was observed in GSL usage, while differences in AWL usage and overall lexical diversity were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that although male learners showed greater vocabulary variety in certain aspects, the overall overlap in word usage across genders indicates that gender-based differences in vocabulary use may be less pronounced than commonly assumed. The study highlights the need for further investigation into contextual and cultural factors that shape lexical choices among EFL learners, offering insights for educators and curriculum designers aiming to support vocabulary development equitably. Subject classification codes: Lexical Diversity in EFL Writing Gender Differences in Vocabulary Use General Service List (GSL) Vocabulary Academic Word List (AWL) Usage Indonesian EFL Learners Introduction The relationship between language and gender has long been explored in sociolinguistic research, often highlighting the ways in which men’s dominance and power manifest in various social contexts (Hall et al., 2021 ; Weatherall, 2002 ). Historically, women were viewed as linguistically inferior to men, a notion shaped by broader societal inequalities. In recent decades, shifting cultural dynamics have prompted renewed scholarly interest in how language reflects and reinforces gender roles. Current scholarship emphasizes that both men and women actively perform gender through language, rather than merely reflecting fixed identities (Tripp & Munson, 2022 ). This is critical because language offers a powerful medium for women to express themselves using their own linguistic preferences, further contributing to a more equitable social structure (Piller, 2016 ;Weatherall, 2002 ). While much of this work has examined native speakers, research exploring how gender differences in language manifest in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context remains limited. This is particularly important as learners in non-native settings often face distinct linguistic and sociocultural pressures. Studies that connect gender, vocabulary use, and language acquisition among EFL learners are still underrepresented in applied linguistics. Understanding these intersections offers a unique window into how social identity and language proficiency interact during second language development. A number of studies have explored how language reflects social positioning through gendered usage. These include analyses of lexical choices, grammatical structures, and morphological forms that express or reinforce social roles (Banda, 2020 ; Eckert, 1989 ). Gendered linguistic patterns are shaped by socio-economic background, cultural identity, and communicative purpose, all of which evolve in response to broader societal shifts. These shifts influence how both men and women communicate and perceive language norms. Recent work in sociolinguistics continues to argue that gender and language cannot be separated from the cultural and institutional forces that structure them. One significant factor influencing these gendered language differences is societal development, including changes in social communication, structures, and cultural norms. Each language has its own set of rules governing how men and women use linguistic properties. Over time, these rules have evolved, particularly as social changes demand more flexibility in communication practices. For example, developments in how societies communicate have shaped gender preferences in word choices, grammatical structures, and even morphological forms. A number of studies have explored the intersection of language and gender. Del Giudice ( 2015 ), for instance, argued that gender differences in communication styles significantly influence nonverbal behaviors. Males and females not only communicate differently but also exhibit distinct nonverbal cues that reflect their socialization and gender roles. Socio-economic factors also play a crucial role in shaping language use. Bilaniuk ( 2003 ) found that both men and women benefit from gender differences in language, especially as these differences relate to social mobility. For example, women often learn non-local languages as a way to improve their social status. Brown ( 1990 ) and Willet and Willet (2019) highlighted how women’s linguistic stance is often characterized by the use of irony, rhetorical questions, and humor, which helps them navigate their societal roles and assert their identities in subtle ways. The investigation into language and gender has gone beyond mere documentation of differences, focusing on when, how, and why both genders use language differently (Coates, 2015 ;McElhinny, 2003 ). This shift in focus reveals that language use is not just a reflection of gender but also a performance of it. Both men and women express their identities through their choice of words, gestures, and even intonation patterns. These differences are apparent in both spoken and written forms of language, with men and women often choosing different words to convey similar meanings. The complexity of these linguistic choices has made gender and language an enduring subject of interest in sociolinguistics. English, as a global language, has undergone centuries of modification and adaptation, making it a rich subject for exploring gendered differences in language use. The role of English as a medium of communication has allowed various communities to adopt and adapt linguistic practices that reflect their evolving identities. Ahearn ( 2001 ) and Sternberg ( 2014 ) note that words carry distinct meanings depending on the context in which they are used. Every word, in fact, carries the "taste" of its usage context, reflecting the social and historical layers embedded in language use (Bakhtin, 2010 , p. 293). This inherent complexity of language suggests that it is challenging to dismiss the notion that men and women use words differently. In particular, lexical diversity—the range and variability of words used by a speaker or writer—has received growing attention as a key indicator of linguistic development (Crossley & McNamara, 2009 ). Gender-based differences in lexical diversity may be influenced not only by sociocultural expectations but also by exposure to language learning contexts, instructional materials, and academic environments. These nuances warrant further empirical study, especially in underrepresented learner populations. This study aims to address this gap by investigating lexical diversity and vocabulary use among Indonesian EFL learners. It compares how male and female students differ in their use of high-frequency vocabulary (General Service List, or GSL) and academic vocabulary (Academic Word List, or AWL) in descriptive writing tasks. The novelty of this study lies in its specific focus on non-native English speakers in Indonesia, contributing new insights into gendered vocabulary use beyond native-speaking or ESL contexts. Specifically, the study will explore three key questions: (1) Which gender demonstrates greater lexical diversity in their writing? (2) How do male and female learners differ in their use of General Service List (GSL) vocabulary? and (3) How do male and female learners differ in their use of Academic Word List (AWL) vocabulary? By addressing these questions, the research aims to contribute to the growing body of literature on gender and language, offering insights into how gendered linguistic practices manifest in a non-native English context. Literature review The disparities between male and female language usage represent a fascinating facet of human society. Since the feminist movement of the 1970s, the distinctions in word usage between males and females have grown increasingly ambiguous; yet, variations in lexical choices continue to reflect cultural behaviours and social influences (Carli, 1990; Fuchs, 2017). Research indicates that females engage in "attentive activities" for a longer duration than males (Batters, 1986; Sujariati et al., 2022). Consequently, they exercise greater caution in their language use and word selection. Females generally pose more enquiries than males and, when engaged in the same discourse, females typically direct questions towards males (Maltz & Borker, 2012). The designation 'talkative,' frequently attributed to women across various cultures, arises from the observation that women tend to generate a greater number of utterances that solicit or promote responses from their interlocutors compared to men (Fishman, 1978; Chauncey, 2018). Recent research, however, has contextualized these tendencies within the framework of digital communication and second language acquisition, suggesting that gender-based variation in vocabulary use may reflect not only sociocultural norms but also pedagogical environments and task types (Fattahi & Nushi, 2021). In numerous societies, men exhibited significant dominance and authority, both socially and conversationally (Weatherall, 2002; Mann & Patterson, 2016), yet contemporary studies argue that gender is performed and negotiated differently across contexts, especially in educational settings where both male and female learners adapt their language to institutional expectations. This study draws on Butler’s (1999) Gender Performativity Theory as a framework to understand lexical diversity as a site where learners construct and express gender identities through language use. According to Butler, gender is not an inherent identity but a socially constructed one, performed repeatedly through discourse and social interaction. This perspective aligns with the idea that EFL learners may adapt their lexical choices in response to culturally embedded gender expectations within academic environments. By framing lexical behavior as performative, this study explores how language use among male and female learners is shaped not only by linguistic proficiency but also by their negotiation of gendered roles. This framework complements traditional sociolinguistic approaches while offering a more dynamic understanding of language in use. Other research indicates that females exhibit greater attentiveness to diction concerning socio-intellectual standing and prioritize the aesthetic dimensions of language, whilst males tend to adopt a more dynamic approach in their word usage (Mulac, Lundell, & Bradac, 1986; Downes, 2019). Females' heightened attention to language results in speech that is more indirect, intricate, and emotive, whereas males' language tends to be more direct, concise, personal, and functional (Mulac, Bradac, & Gibbons, 2001). Selecting words is indicative of cognition. Consequently, it is essential for EFL learners to possess sufficient lexical knowledge of English to achieve proficiency in the language. Recent EFL-specific studies have emphasized how lexical acquisition differs by gender, often shaped by classroom dynamics, input exposure, and language learning strategies. For example, Sujariati et al. (2022) found that male and female students employed different strategies in mastering vocabulary, which may contribute to differences in lexical richness. Similarly, Fattahi and Nushi (2021) noted that gender, alongside proficiency level, significantly influenced metaphor and word choice in TEFL students' writing—an indicator of deeper lexical variation. Lexical proficiency, defined as the capacity to utilise words accurately, encompasses three dimensions of vocabulary (Crossley, Salsbury, McNamara, & Jarvis, 2011). The first pertains to the quantity of words that learners possess, reflecting the breadth of their knowledge; the second concerns the learners' proficiency in using these terms effectively in language skills, indicating the depth of their knowledge. The final aspect is the automaticity in retrieving words or fundamental lexical components. This study regards lexical diversity as an element of both the breadth and depth of knowledge. Inappropriate usage of language within discourse may lead to miscommunications or misconceptions. The concept of 'lexical diversity' or lexical variation must not be conflated with other terms such as lexical density, which quantifies the proportion of each lexical category in a text (Laufer, 1994; O'Loughlin, 1995; Chen, 2024), or lexical sophistication, which is predicated on the notion that complex words are employed less frequently (Van Gijsel, Speelman, & Geeraerts, 2005). This topic centres on lexical variety, which is frequently linked to language production abilities and has been examined through many hypotheses and methodologies. Lexical diversity refers to the range of words employed in a text, distinct from lexical density, which denotes the ratio of lexical items inside a text (Johansson, 2009). Consequently, a text may theoretically exhibit high lexical diversity while possessing low lexical density, or the opposite may occur. Additional studies concur that the diversity in the application of linguistic structures is a significant method for evaluating an individual's language competence (Ortega, 2003; Lu, 2011), alongside the variation in vocabulary and the organisation of writing (Lu, 2011). The capacity to organise words to create intended sentences evolves progressively in both spoken and written forms, encompassing an enhancement in length and complexity of sentences (Nippold, 2007). Grammar exercises are considered to positively influence writing growth, particularly in assessing the enhancement of EFL learners' writing skills (Ortega, 2003). To acquire comprehensive insights into the progression of EFL learners' competencies, including the proficient application of the language as well as accuracy and diversity in usage, multiple tiers of linguistic analysis are requisite (Lu, 2011). Method This study employs a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques to achieve a comprehensive analysis. The integration of both methodologies allows qualitative data to refine and contextualize the interpretation of statistical results, enhancing both their clarity and interpretive significance (Creswell, 2013). Statistical procedures, including the chi-square test, were conducted to identify notable disparities in word usage between male and female learners, specifically concerning lexical diversity. Meanwhile, qualitative interpretations of the texts were used to explain patterns and anomalies that emerged from the statistical data. Participants The participants were 60 undergraduate students enrolled in the English Education Department of the Faculty of Educational Sciences, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, Jakarta. The sample included an equal number of male (n = 30) and female (n = 30) students to provide balanced gender representation. All participants were in their fourth semester (second year) and had received the same instructional input, including courses in English grammar, vocabulary, and academic writing, as part of the department’s standardized curriculum for English teacher candidates. Although they had not been assessed using CEFR-based frameworks, their shared coursework exposure indicates that they were operating at a broadly comparable proficiency level, estimated to range from intermediate to upper-intermediate. To support uniformity, all participants completed a standardized vocabulary and grammar test developed by the English department. The test consisted of 40 multiple-choice items: 20 targeting vocabulary (e.g., synonym recognition, sentence-level word usage) and 20 targeting grammar (e.g., sentence completion, error correction). The test was previously used in internal evaluations and demonstrated acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83). A minimum score of 70% was required for inclusion, though all participants met the threshold. There was no statistically significant difference in average test scores between male and female participants, which supports the interpretation that any observed variation in lexical diversity is unlikely to result from proficiency discrepancies. Writing Task and Data Collection Lexical diversity and vocabulary usage were analyzed through descriptive texts written by the participants. Each student was asked to compose an essay of 500–700 words during a one-hour session in a monitored classroom setting. To avoid software-related corrections, students wrote using Notepad instead of Microsoft Word. The topic was “Describe Jakarta,” and four visual prompts were provided to stimulate their responses. These images portrayed: Jakarta’s skyline, traffic congestion, a street food market, and historical sites. These prompts were chosen to support diverse thematic content (urban life, culture, infrastructure) and to avoid directing students toward a particular lexical field. Students were not instructed to use specific vocabulary types, such as academic terms or descriptive adjectives, in order to preserve the natural variation in word use. The essay length constraint was established to improve the reliability of lexical diversity measurements, such as Type-Token Ratio (TTR) and Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity (MTLD), in line with established research practices (Malvern et al., 2004). Data collection and analysis The data for this study were derived from students’ descriptive essays, each ranging from 500 to 700 words in length. A uniform topic and time limit were designated for all participants to maintain consistency and to ensure the reliability of lexical diversity measures, in line with established guidelines (Malvern et al., 2004). Students were instructed to compose their essays using a basic text editor (Notepad) rather than Microsoft Word to minimize digital writing aids and better reflect their actual language proficiency. The essay topic— “Describe Jakarta” —was selected in consultation with academic writing instructors to align with the participants' current curriculum. All students received the same topic and were given one hour to complete the task. To guide content without prescribing vocabulary, four thematic images depicting Jakarta’s skyline, traffic, local food vendors, and heritage sites were provided. After the essays were collected and categorized by gender, multiple analytical tools were applied to extract lexical features aligned with the study’s three research questions. For RQ₁ (lexical diversity), student essays were analyzed using VocabProfile (Cobb, 2016), a web-based lexical profiling tool that calculates word frequency and category distribution, including measures such as Type-Token Ratio (TTR) and Number of Different Words (NDW). VocabProfile is widely used in vocabulary studies and was selected for its capacity to differentiate between high-frequency and academic vocabulary categories, which is essential for examining lexical diversity between genders. To explore RQ₂ and RQ₃, which involved analyzing word usage based on the General Service List (GSL) and Academic Word List (AWL), this study employed two additional tools. First, the Constituent Likelihood Automatic Word-tagging System (CLAWS) (Rayson, 2016) was used to tag parts of speech with high accuracy (96–97%, see Lu, 2014, p. 61). CLAWS was chosen for its consistent performance in parsing large student corpora by word class, allowing gender-based comparisons across nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. Second, AntWordProfiler (Anthony, 2015) was used to identify lexical items present in one gender group but absent in the other, thus helping isolate gender-exclusive lexical patterns. These tools together allowed for cross-verification of lexical data from multiple perspectives. In addition, Dixon’s Semantic Division (Dixon, 2005) was used to examine vocabulary according to semantic categories, focusing on four content-word types: nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. Although Dixon’s full taxonomy was not applied, the selected categories were sufficient to capture key lexical differences relevant to descriptive writing. This approach allowed the study to observe not only overall lexical diversity but also the types of words that differentiated male and female student writing. Findings and Discussion Upon analysing essays from 60 respondents, comprising 30 males and 30 females, each of whom composed an essay of 500 to 750 words within one hour, it was determined that the female students produced a greater word count than their male counterparts. The male students wrote a total of 17,004 words, averaging 566 words per individual, whereas the female students wrote a total of 17,708 words, averaging 590 words per individual. The preliminary findings demonstrate that female students composed 518 more words than their male counterparts; this disparity is statistically significant, as seen by a chi-square test result of 0.000158, which is far lower than the t-table threshold of 0.05. On average, there were 24 more words, indicating an insignificant difference of 0.480261, which is considerably larger than the t-table value. Upon calculating both indices, the outcome was 0.000121, far lower than the t-table value. Consequently, a substantial disparity (statistically significant difference at p < .001) in the word count between male and female students was seen in this study. Both texts were subsequently analysed via the VocabProfile tool from the Lextutor website (Cobb, 2016), specifically the Classic Type. Lex Tutor designated the term Classic Type to refer to GSL and AWL. The vocabulary was categorised into groups: K-1 and K-2 for the General Service List (GSL), Academic Word List (AWL), and Offlist, which comprises terms not found in either the AWL or GSL. The results are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Female Text Vocabulary Analysis Freq. Level Families (%) Types (%) Tokens ( % ) Cumul. token % K-1 Words 544 (61.33) 910 (54.07) 6770 (78.63) 78.63 K-2 Words 205 (23.11) 269 (15.98) 634 (7.36) 85.99 AWL [570 fams] TOT 2,570 138 (15.56) 196 (11.65) 549 (6.38) 92.37 Off-List: ?? 307 (18.24) 657 ( 7.63 ) 100.00 Total (unrounded) 887+? 1683 (100) 8610 (100) ≈100.00 As shown in the table, the female students' descriptive writing contained a total of 8,610 word tokens. Of these, 85.99% (or 7,404 tokens) were part of the General Service List (GSL), which includes K-1 and K-2 word levels. Another 6.38% (549 tokens) were categorized under the Academic Word List (AWL). The remaining 657 tokens, accounting for 7.63%, were classified as Offlist words, meaning they did not belong to either GSL or AWL. In terms of word types, the 8,610 tokens in the female students’ writing represented 1,683 distinct word types. Of these, 70.05% were GSL types, while 11.65% (196 types) belonged to the AWL. The remaining 18.24% were Offlist word types. Regarding word families in the female students' texts, 749 words (84.44%) were part of the GSL, and 138 words (15.56%) were from the AWL. Table 2 Male Text Vocabulary Analysis Freq. Level Families (%) Types (%) Tokens ( % ) Cumul. token % K-1 Words 574 (59.42) 963 (51.91) 6819 (77.90) 77.90 K-2 Words 224 (23.19) 288 (15.53) 565 (6.45) 84.35 AWL [570 fams] TOT 2,570 168 (17.39) 239 (12.88) 558 (6.37) 90.72 Off-List: ?? 364 (19.62) 812 ( 9.28 ) 100.00 Total (unrounded) 966+? 1855 (100) 8754 (100) ≈100.00 In the male students’ written texts, there were a total of 8,754 word tokens. Among these, 84.35% (or 7,384 tokens) were classified as part of the General Service List (GSL), while 6.37% (or 558 tokens) fell under the Academic Word List (AWL). The remaining 9.28% (812 tokens) were categorized as Offlist words, meaning they did not belong to either GSL or AWL. Within these 8,754 tokens, there were 1,855 distinct word types. Of these, 67.44% (or 1,251 types) were GSL types, 12.88% (or 239 types) were AWL types, and the remaining 19.62% (or 364 types) were Offlist. The results indicated that although female students produced a greater word count than their male counterparts, the males exhibited a higher lexical diversity, with a difference of 172 types, suggesting greater variance in their lexicon usage (Singh, 2001; Fischer, Schult, and Hell, 2013). In the word family, the Males' descriptive writing contained 966 words, which is 79 more than that of the girls. This first discovery corroborates Fishman’s (1978) assertion that females generally utilise a greater number of words to articulate their ideas, occasionally lacking clarity (Jespersen, 1922; Pease & Pease, 2004; Sunderland, 2006; Fattahi and Nushi, 2021). They asserted that the manner in which females evade elucidation results in lengthier sentences or discussions that diverge into broader subjects. It was determined that females generally employed a greater number of words, many of which were superfluous, resulting in verbosity in both their spoken and written language; nevertheless, this assertion necessitates broader and more thorough investigation. Some suggested that women employed a greater number of words in their communications to preserve the dignity of their conversation partners (Batters, 1986; Pitcan, Marwick, & Boyd, 2018). Their heightened concern for status, identities, and social class (Frazer, 1989; Fishman, 1978; Armstrong, Hamilton, Armstrong, & Seeley, 2014) compels them to convey their messages with precision. In their attempt to exercise caution, they occasionally employed more elaborate language to mitigate their expressions (Lakoff, 1975; Armstrong, Hamilton, Armstrong, & Seeley, 2014; Pitcan, Marwick, & Boyd, 2018). This study concentrated exclusively on tokens and kinds, specifically content words—nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs—according to Dixon’s taxonomy, and their usage by males and females in a non-English speaking country. Lexical diversity between male and female learners In the examination of the written compositions, male students generated a total of 17,004 words, of which 8,754 were classified as content words (tokens). Conversely, the written works of female learnerss amounted to 17,708 words, of which 8,610 were content words (tokens). This signifies a disparity of 144 tokens, with male students exhibiting a greater count than their female counterparts. The disparity in the quantity of content words between male and female students was not statistically significant, as indicated by the chi-square test result of 0.274485, which surpasses the critical value of the t-table (0.05). Table 3 Related Ratios and Indices Pertaining to whole text Female Male Words in text (tokens): 8610 8754 Different words (types): 1683 1855 Type-token ratio: 0.20 0.21 Tokens per type: 5.12 4.72 Pertaining to onlist only Tokens: 7953 7942 Types: 1376 1491 Families: 887 966 Tokens per Family: 8.97 8.22 Types per Family: 1.55 1.54 The male students utilised 1,855 distinct words (types) in their writing, exceeding the female students by a margin of 172 words, who employed 1,683 distinct words (types). In contrast to the token results, there was a substantial disparity in the word types of male and female students, as seen by the chi-square test result (0.003832), which was lower than the t-table value (0.05). Consequently, it can be asserted that the male students' writing contained a greater variety of terms than that of the female students. The Type-Token Ratio (TTR) for the male students' work was 0.21, with 4.72 tokens per type, whereas the TTR for the female students' writing was 0.20, with 5.12 tokens per type. The TTR process and results indicate that, despite female students producing a greater word count than their male counterparts, male students exhibited a higher lexical diversity in their writing. The disparity between the males' TTR and the girls' TTR was not statistically significant. The chi-square test result for TTR across both genders was 0.98754, exceeding the t-table value of 0.05. Consequently, despite the existence of a difference, it was not substantial. The male students exhibited a larger type-token ratio than the female students, although the difference was not statistically significant. The initial result indicates that the NNS male students exhibited greater lexical diversity in their descriptive writing, while the difference in TTR was minimal and not statistically significant. It may also be asserted that males and females exhibited minimal differences in writing (Rubin & Greene, 1992; Reilly, Neumann, and Andrews, 2019). Their choice of similar words was influenced by their experiences related to lexical acquisition during their studies (Crossley & McNamara, 2009). Their status as foreign learners studying a foreign language in their local environment should be seen as a crucial element influencing their capacity for lexical diversity. 2. GSL between male and female learners The findings of this study indicate that the males utilised a greater number of words from the GSL. The male participants utilised 793 words from the General Service List, whereas the female participants employed 702 words. Among the four categories—nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs—males surpassed females in three of them: nouns, verbs, and adverbs. Conversely, females exhibited a higher usage of adjectives. In the total GSL, a notable disparity was observed in the quantity of content words utilised by each gender (0.018596, which is below the t-table threshold). Table 4 Parts of speech differences between male and female learners Male Female Noun 343 309 Verb 270 226 Adjective 122 130 Adverb 57 37 Total 792* 702* *The differences in the total were because there were words which were not included in the four categories The texts of male students surpassed those of female students in terms of noun and verb classifications. Males' texts contained 343 nouns and 267 verbs, while females' texts comprised 309 nouns and 226 verbs. The chi-square test result of 0.170794 indicated no significant difference in the quantity of nouns utilised by both genders, as it was substantially greater than the t-table value. Among the 343 nouns in the male text and 309 in the female text, 188 nouns were utilised in both categories. This indicates that 124 noun words appeared in the texts of females but were absent in the texts of males. Additionally, 155 noun terms included in the male texts were absent from the female texts. Following the implementation of Dixon’s (2005) Semantic Division, an initial observation suggests that, although females employed a greater quantity of words than males, males exhibited a propensity to discuss objects (Aries & Johnson, 1983), as evidenced by their higher utilisation of nouns as specifiers (Argamon, Koppel, Fine, & Shimoni, 2003) compared to females. Nonetheless, there was no substantial disparity in the quantity of nouns employed by the genders, since the chi-square test result was 0.170794, significantly above the t-table value. Nonetheless, the disparity in the quantity of verbs employed by the genders was large, measuring 0.048193, which is below the t-table value. Among the 270 verbs in the male texts and the 226 in the female texts, 166 verbs were utilised in both groups. This indicates that 57 verbs appeared in the texts of females that were absent in the texts of Males. Additionally, 90 verbs employed in the male writings were absent from the female versions. Both genders typically employed verbs categorised in Primary A as per Dixon’s (2005) Semantic Division. The males' capacity to employ a greater diversity of verbs may be associated with their inclination to differentiate themselves or to assume a central role within the community, especially in professional settings (Holmes, 2006). Male students’ broader verb usage may reflect classroom participation styles or linguistic confidence shaped by educational experiences. Studies like Fattahi and Nushi (2021) show that male learners tend to apply broader vocabulary when given open descriptive tasks. This propensity has fostered greater creativity in their lexical choices, encompassing the use of uncommon and specialised terminology, ultimately resulting in the production of more complex written texts (Jespersen, 1922). Table 5 GSL Verb class Both Males only Females only Total Males Total Females Primary A 76 56 30 132 106 Primary B 58 26 21 84 79 Secondary A 13 0 1 13 14 Secondary B 9 4 3 13 12 Secondary C 8 4 1 12 9 Secondary D 3 0 0 3 3 Total 167 90 57 259 223 In several categories, the numerical disparity is notably substantial, particularly in Primary A-Motion and Primary A-Affect. In Primary A-Motion, the count of male verbs is 17, whereas the female verbs total only five. In Primary A-Affect, males possess 18 verbs, whilst females possess six verbs. There are 28 distinct verbs used by both males and females, with males employing a greater number of verbs than females. In the absence of 75 comparable verbs, the quantity of verbs employed by females is merely half that utilised by males. An example from Primary A is the utilisation of words categorised under Motion, as illustrated below: Table 6 Primary A- Motion category differences between male and female learners Word Classification Words used by male only Words used by female only Primary A – Motion enter, fall, float, follow, litter, push, ride, rise, rush, scatter, send, slide, spoil, spread, steal, swim, travel, fly, pick, raise, step, close The examination of the language employed by both genders indicates that male students exhibited superior lexical diversity and frequency of usage. A potential explanation for the males' heightened use of motion verbs relative to females may be in intrinsic behavioural inclinations. Ellis (1934) and Pease & Pease (2004) assert that men are frequently defined by an inherent compulsion for mobility and activity. Pease and Pease (2004) propose that these inclinations originate from evolutionary roles focused on hunting, combat, and construction—endeavors that require ongoing physical activity and strategic cognition. In social settings, such as around a fire, men tend to engage in talks centred on tactical strategies for these tasks. Thus, it is unsurprising that their language has a greater prevalence of verbs related to movement and action. In addition, the tendency of male students to use more motion-related verbs could be attributed to how academic tasks are interpreted, classroom interaction styles, or discourse patterns shaped by sociocultural influences rather than inherent traits. Sujariati et al. (2022) note that EFL learners, especially males, may draw from domain-specific or formal discourse when composing written texts. Conversely, Pease and Pease (2004) recognise that women utilise motion-related verbs; nonetheless, the contexts of these verbs generally relate to domestic tasks or environmental factors. This contrast emphasises the divergence in how each gender perceives and expresses motion. An illustrative instance of this inclination is evident in the writings of both sexes. The term "flow," classified as a Primary A-Motion verb, was present in the writings of both male and female students. In the essays of female students, "flow" appeared in only two sentences, both describing the same phenomenon: the flowing of water. This restricted application highlights the overarching trend of divergent engagement with the notion of motion in writing between men and women. The rubbish piled up and plugged up so that the river cannot flow well. … Jakarta is located on the lowlands so that Jakarta must be willing to receive the water, for exact the flood, that flow from Bogor. Meanwhile, the males have ten sentences, where three of them have different subjects of flow that is about economic condition. The examples of males’ sentences with the verb flow are as follow: The capital flowing from banking world, the rate/ stock from manufactures, all are maintained from this city The rivers become full of garbage and the water flow to roads and houses around the river bank. As we know that the cycles of economical flows are staying in Jakarta, and most of mega companies of Indonesia must being centered in Jakarta. And government has built west flow canal and east flow canal also sterilization of house beside river. Also this city has contribute huge number of transaction and cash flow that help this country. As previously noted, the majority of males perceive it as their duty to provide for the family, and comprehending the competitive landscape for enhanced revenue is integral to their cultivated skills (Ellis, 1934; Pease & Pease, 2004). While they prioritise environmental concerns, they also consider economic conditions as a factor in their pursuit of comfortable surroundings. From the male perspective, the verb "flow" was utilised to convey more than merely the movement of water or liquids. In terms of the quantity of words in the adjective category, female students surpassed their male counterparts, albeit by a mere six words. No substantial variation was seen between genders in the use of adjectives (0.704336, exceeding the t-table value). The total number of adjectives employed by females (122) exceeded that used by males (130) by a marginal difference of eight words. Although the differences were not markedly significant, they nonetheless corroborate the findings of Belezza, Greenwald, and Banaji (1986), specifically that females employed a greater number of adjectives than males. The male students' texts included 57 adverbs, exceeding the number in the female students' texts by 18. The difference was minimal, since the chi-square test result (0.066193) marginally exceeded the t-table value (0.05). The disparity in the frequency of adverbs in the GSL between males and females appears to refute the assertions made by Lakoff (1975) and Jeon and Choe (2009) that females typically employ more intensifiers than males. The data indicates that Males employed nearly twice as many adverbs as females, suggesting that males can utilise language with precision in their writing; however, additional research is necessary to explore other potential factors. Although this appears to counter the notion that females employ more qualifiers than males (Martin & Craig, 1983), the inclusion of the writing activity as a mode of interaction remains debatable. 3. AWL between male and female learners The writings of male students exhibited a greater utilisation of Academic Word List (AWL) vocabulary than those of female students, with 173 AWL words present in the male cohort's writing, in contrast to 133 AWL words in the female cohort's texts. This disparity indicates a heightened involvement with more sophisticated or specialised terminology among the male learnerss. To conduct a more in-depth analysis of the lexical selections of both groups, the AWL terms were classified into four specific word categories: nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. This classification facilitates a more nuanced analysis of the lexical preferences of each gender and underscores potential disparities in their linguistic approaches. Nouns may denote a concentration on tangible or intangible concepts, whereas verbs signify actions or processes. Adjectives and adverbs provide insights into how both categories convey traits, intensities, or mannerisms. The categorisation of AWL words elucidates the distinctions in academic language usage between male and female students in their descriptive writing, highlighting the specific types of words they prioritise in text construction. Table 7 The comparison in the use of AWL between male and female students Male Female Noun 84 61 Verb 58 42 Adjective 29 30 Adverb 2 0 Total 173 133 *The differences in the total were because there were words which were not included in the four categories The cumulative count of AWL in the male students' texts exceeded that in the female students' texts by 40 words, with 173 AWL words in the males' texts and 133 AWL words in the females' texts. The most significant disparities in AWL between the texts of male and female students were observed in the noun category, exhibiting a difference of 23 words, followed by verbs with a difference of 16 words, and adjectives with a difference of one word. Only the male participants' papers contained the adverb category in their Academic Word List. Consequently, similar to the GSL, males surpassed females regarding AWL. The chi-square analysis indicated a disparity in the utilisation of four AWL content words between male and female students. The chi-square test score was 0.041579, which is below the t-table value. Nevertheless, upon analysis of each content term, no significant variations were observed. The quantity of AWL nouns utilised by both genders varied, with males surpassing females by 23 nouns, categorised into five types: concrete, abstract, state, activities, and speech act (refer to Table 9). The males surpassed the females in all categories of the AWL noun class, except for speech act types, where the females exceeded the males by one word. The propensity for males to utilise a greater number of nouns than females is evident in both the General Service List (GSL) and the Academic Word List (AWL). One hypothesis suggests that males are more inclined to assert and disseminate facts, as evidenced by their greater usage of nouns compared to females (Tannen, 1991; Argamon, Koppel, Fine, & Shimoni, 2003). Table 8 AWL Noun class Both Males only Females only Total Males Total Females Concrete 7 8 3 15 10 Abstract 23 25 12 48 35 State 3 4 3 7 6 Activities 4 9 4 13 8 Speech Act 1 0 1 1 2 Total 38 46 23 84 61 The analysis of male and female students’ use of nouns reveals an interesting tendency: male students demonstrated a greater use of nouns in both the General Service List (GSL) and the Academic Word List (AWL). This observation supports the assumption that males often focus on stating facts and disseminating information, which could be linked to their frequent use of nouns, as noted by Tannen (1991) and Argamon, Koppel, Fine, & Shimoni (2003). In this study, the males’ preference for using nouns more than the females was a notable feature in both word lists. When it comes to the use of verbs from the AWL, the male students surpassed the female students by a margin of 12 verbs. According to Dixon’s classification, both male and female students used verbs that fell into three categories: Primary A , Primary B , and Secondary C . In total, 28 AWL verbs were used by both genders, but 25 of these verbs were exclusive to the male students, while only 13 were used solely by the female students. The majority of verbs were found in the Primary A category, where the males outnumbered the females by 13 verbs. Interestingly, in the Primary B category, both genders had the same number of verbs, while in the Secondary C category, the females had a slight edge, using one more verb than the males. This demonstrates a degree of differentiation in verb usage between genders, although there are some areas of overlap. In contrast to the GSL, the usage of AWL adjectives was relatively balanced between males and females, though the females slightly outperformed the males in this category. A total of 19 adjective types were shared by both genders. However, the male students used 29 adjective words overall, including nine that were unique to them. Meanwhile, the female students used 30 adjective words in total, with 11 being exclusive to their writing. This suggests that while both genders had similar usage patterns for adjectives, the females exhibited a marginally broader range. Despite the relatively equal numbers, there were notable differences in the types of adjectives favored by each gender. For instance, certain adjective categories, such as dimension and difficulty , were present only in the male students’ writing. Neither gender, however, used adjectives from the speed , age , or color categories. Interestingly, both groups used similar adjectives related to physical properties and volition , indicating some shared linguistic preferences in describing attributes and actions. Regarding the use of AWL adverbs, there was a stark contrast between the genders. Only two adverbs from the AWL— consequently and apparently —were used across all the texts. The word consequently appeared four times in the male students’ writing, while apparently was used just once by the males in the sentence, But apparently, besides those great things, Jakarta has lots of bad things. Notably, apparently did not appear in the female students’ writing. While it might be tempting to claim that apparently is a "male" word, data from the British National Corpus (BNC) suggests otherwise. The difference in usage between genders is minimal, with males using apparently 82 times per million words and females using it 82.33 times per million words—an insignificant difference. However, in the case of consequently , the gender difference was far more pronounced. Males used the word 36.3 times per million words, compared to just 18.51 times for females, demonstrating a significant disparity in the use of this adverb. Although previous studies have suggested that females tend to use adverbs more frequently than males (Lakoff, 1975; Jeon & Choe, 2009), this study reveals that male students are also active users of adverbial words. In fact, in the context of this research, most of the AWL adverbs appeared in the male students’ writing, highlighting their strong engagement with this part of speech. In summary, the findings indicate that male students used more AWL words overall, with 173 compared to 133 in the female students’ texts. This pattern extended across most word classes. Specifically, male students used more AWL nouns, verbs, and adverbs, while female students led slightly in the use of adjectives. The overall conclusion is that male students demonstrated greater lexical variety in their writing, not only within the GSL but also in the AWL. Despite female students producing slightly more words overall (17,708, with an average of 590 words per person), male students exhibited a richer range of vocabulary, especially in terms of word types. This suggests that, in this study, male students showed a broader diversity of vocabulary in their descriptive writing, with notable differences in how both genders used GSL and AWL words. The findings of this study contribute to bridging the knowledge gap in understanding how gender influences lexical diversity in EFL writing contexts, particularly among non-native English learners in Indonesia. While previous studies have largely focused on native speakers or generalized assumptions about gendered language use, this research highlights how male and female EFL learners differ in vocabulary range, word type usage, and reliance on academic versus high-frequency vocabulary. By using empirical data drawn from classroom-based descriptive writing, the study provides concrete linguistic evidence rather than speculative or psychological interpretations. This grounded approach enhances the relevance of the findings for applied linguistics, second language acquisition, and EFL pedagogy. Pedagogically, the study underscores the importance of designing vocabulary instruction that takes subtle gender-based preferences into account without reinforcing stereotypes. It suggests that lexical diversity is not strictly a function of language competence but also reflects the learners’ engagement with instructional input, writing tasks, and topic familiarity. This has practical implications for material development, teacher training, and assessment design, especially in multilingual or multicultural EFL environments. The study advocates for a more nuanced, context-sensitive approach to vocabulary development—one that acknowledges learner variation and aims to support both male and female learners in achieving balanced, expressive, and academically appropriate language use. Conclusion This study revealed that male students exhibited marginally greater lexical diversity in their descriptive writing compared to female students. On average, male students employed a broader vocabulary with fewer repetitions, while both genders showed relatively comparable word counts. Notably, male learners used a wider range of words from the General Service List (GSL), and their use of Academic Word List (AWL) items was slightly higher than that of their female counterparts. These findings indicate subtle but measurable gender-based differences in vocabulary usage among EFL learners. However, these distinctions must be interpreted within the context of a shared academic environment. While male students demonstrated marginally higher lexical diversity, the overlap in vocabulary use suggests that instructional exposure, rather than inherent gender traits, played a more substantial role. In this way, the study acknowledges both the influence of common pedagogical inputs and the subtle individual strategies learners bring to language production. Rather than contradicting earlier claims, this dual perspective highlights that gender may influence language use in nuanced, context-dependent ways. For future research, it is recommended to explore controlled experimental setups that include varied genres—such as argumentative, narrative, and expository writing—as well as structured oral tasks like debates or interviews. Longitudinal designs may also provide insights into how gendered lexical patterns evolve over time. Additionally, comparative studies across institutions or cultural regions could help distinguish which lexical behaviors are universally gendered and which are shaped by local context. Pedagogically, these findings support the need for gender-sensitive vocabulary instruction that balances diversity, clarity, and engagement. Curriculum designers and teachers should integrate tasks that expose all learners to both high-frequency and academic vocabulary, while also encouraging metacognitive awareness of word choice. Ultimately, this study calls for EFL educators and researchers to recognize that gender is one of many factors shaping language development—and that a more responsive, inclusive approach to vocabulary teaching can empower learners to express themselves more precisely and confidently. Declarations Acknowledgment The data for this article is part of the doctoral research undertaken by the author in fulfilment of the requirements for a Ph.D. degree. Consent for participant Electronic informed consent was obtained by having participants complete an online form; by filling out and submitting the form, participants confirm that they have read, understood, and agreed to the research's terms and conditions, and voluntarily consent to participate. Ethic declaration This research instrument was evaluated and approved by the committee of the Post Graduate School at Atmajaya Catholic University prior to the commencement of data collection. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Funding statement This work received no external funding and was entirely supported by personal funds. Author Contribution ND conceptualized the study, conducted the research, and was responsible for the final manuscript writing. HY contributed to data collection, data cleaning, and editing the final manuscript. Both authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. Data Availability the data is provided upon request References Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30 (1), 109–137. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109 Anthony, L. (2015, April 30). AntWordProfiler (Version 1.4.1) [Computer software]. Waseda University. http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antwordprofiler/ Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., & Shimoni, A. R. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text & Talk, 23 (3), 321–348. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.014 Aries, E. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences . Oxford University Press. Aries, E. J., & Johnson, F. L. (1983). Close friendship in adulthood: Conversational content between same-sex friends. Sex Roles, 9 (12), 1183–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00290070 Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (Vol. 1). University of Texas Press. Banda, F. (2020). Sociolinguistics and modes of social class signalling: African perspectives. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 24 (1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12361 Batters, J. (1986). Do boys really think languages are just girl-talk? Modern Languages, 67 (2), 75–79. Bellezza, F. S., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1996). Words high and low in pleasantness as rated by male and female college students. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18 (3), 299–303. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200858 Bilaniuk, L. (2003). Gender, language attitudes, and language status in Ukraine. Language in Society, 32 (1), 47–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404503321043 Brown, P. (1990). Gender, politeness, and confrontation in Tenejapa. Discourse Processes, 13 (1), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539009544750 Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity (10th anniversary ed.). Routledge. Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (5), 941–951. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.941 Chauncey, K. (2018). The Effects of Stereotype Threat on Mixed-Gender Conversation (Master's thesis, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte). Chen, J. (2024). Exploring the textual characteristics of constrained English varieties: A comparative study of translated English, EFL, and native English using a multidimensional approach [Doctoral dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University]. PolyU Electronic Theses. https://theses.lib.polyu.edu.hk/handle/200/12967 Coates, J. (2015). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language (3rd ed.). Routledge. Cobb, T. (2016). Vocab Profile home. Compleat Lexical Tutor. http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/ Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 Coxhead, A. (2011). The Academic Word List 10 years on: Research and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly, 45 (2), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.254528 Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18 (2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002 Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2011). What is lexical proficiency? Some answers from computational models of speech data. TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859 Crowhurst, M. (1980). Syntactic complexity in narration and argument at three grade levels. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation , 5 (1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1494065 Del Giudice, M. (2015). Gender differences in personality and social behavior. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 750–756). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26016-2 Dixon, R. M. W. (2005). A semantic approach to English grammar . Oxford University Press. Downes, W. (2019). Language and gender: A comprehensive introduction . Cambridge University Press. Downes, L. (2019). Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology) Eckert, P. (1989). The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change, 1 (3), 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439450000017X Ellis, H. (2013). Man and woman: a study of secondary and tertiary sexual characters . Elsevier. Ellis, R. (1995). Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings. Applied Linguistics, 16 (4), 409–441. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.4.409 Fattahi, N., & Nushi, M. (2021). The effect of gender and language proficiency on the metaphor use in the writing of TEFL students. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6 (1), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00126-1 Fischer, F., Schult, J., & Hell, B. (2013). Sex differences in secondary school success: Why female students perform better. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28 (2), 529–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0127-4 Fishman, P. M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25 (4), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.2307/800492 Frazer, E. (1989). Feminist talk and talking about feminism: Teenage girls’ discourses of gender. Oxford Review of Education, 15 (3), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498890150307 Fuchs, R. (2017). Do women (still) use more intensifiers than men? Recent change in the sociolinguistics of intensifiers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22 (3), 345–374. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.03fuc Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2013). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics , 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt015 Hall, K., Borba, R., & Hiramoto, M. (2021). Language and gender. In J. Stanlaw (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of linguistic anthropology (pp. 892–912). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786093.ieoed111 Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered talk at work: Constructing social identity through workplace interaction . Blackwell Publishing. Jeon, J., & Choe, J.-W. (2009). A key word analysis of English intensifying adverbs in male and female speech in ICE-GB. In Proceedings of the 23rd Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (Vol. 1, pp. 210–219). Jespersen, O. (2013). Language: Its nature, development and origin (Original work published 1922). Routledge. Johansson, V. (2009). Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Lund Working Papers in Linguistics, 53 , 61–79. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2 (1), 45–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500000051 Laufer, B. (1994). The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time? RELC Journal, 25 (2), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829402500202 Long, R., & Hatcho, Y. (2018). The first language's impact on L2: Investigating intralingual and interlingual errors. English Language Teaching, 11 (11), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n11p115 Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15 (4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers' language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859 Lu, X. (2014). Computational methods for corpus annotation and analysis . Springer. Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In L. Monaghan, J. E. Goodman, & J. M. Robinson (Eds.), A cultural approach to interpersonal communication: Essential readings (pp. 168–185). Wiley-Blackwell. Mann, S. A., & Patterson, A. S. (2016). Reading feminist theory: From modernity to postmodernity. Oxford University Press, USA. Martin, J. N., & Craig, R. T. (1983). Selected linguistic sex differences during initial social interactions of same-sex and mixed-sex student dyads. Western Journal of Communication, 47 (1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318309374050 Martin, J. N., & Craig, R. T. (1983). Selected linguistic sex differences during initial social interactions of same‐sex and mixed‐sex student dyads . Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports) , 47(1), 16-28. McElhinny, B. (2003). Theorizing gender in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 21–42). Blackwell Publishing. Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). Empirical support for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences. Human Communication Research, 27 (1), 121–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00776.x Mulac, A., Lundell, T. L., & Bradac, J. J. (1986). Male/female language differences and attributional consequences in a public speaking situation: Toward an explanation of the gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs, 53 (2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758609376132 Nippold, M. A. (2016). Later language development: School-age children, adolescents, and young adults . PRO-ED, Inc. O’Loughlin, K. (1995). Lexical density in candidate output on direct and semi-direct versions of an oral proficiency test. Language Testing, 12 (2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229501200205 Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24 (4), 492–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492 Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice: An introduction to applied sociolinguistics . Oxford University Press. Pease, A., & Pease, B. (2004). Why men don't listen and women can't read maps: How we're different and what to do about it . Orion Publishing Group. Rayson, P. (2016, February 20). Free CLAWS WWW tagger. CLAWS part-of-speech tagger for English. http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/claws/trial.html Rubin, D. L., & Greene, K. (1992). Gender-typical style in written language. Research in the Teaching of English, 26 (1), 7–40. Sabatini, F. (2016). Languaging gender and gendering language. Euphemism and dysphemism in dubbing. Lingue e linguaggi, 17, 195-244 Singh, S. (2001). A pilot study on gender differences in conversational speech on lexical richness measures. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 16 (3), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/16.3.251 Sternberg, R. J. (2014). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. L. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89–105). Psychology Press. Sujariati, S., Wanci, R., & Arianti, W. (2022). Investigating learning strategies of male and female students on mastering vocabulary. Ethical Lingua: Journal of Language Teaching and Literature, 9 (2), 764–772. https://doi.org/10.30605/25409190.449 Sunderland, J. (2006). Language and gender: An advanced resource book . Routledge. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation . New York: Morrow. Tripp, A., & Munson, B. (2022). Perceiving gender while perceiving language: Integrating psycholinguistics and gender theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 13 (2), e1583. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1583 Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density and register differentiation. Applications of linguistics , 443-452. Van Gijsel, S., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2005). A variationist, corpus linguistic analysis of lexical richness . Corpus Linguistics Conference Series, 1, hal. 1-16. Weatherall, A. (2002). Gender, language and discourse. . Cornwall: Psychology Press. West, C. (1979). Against our will: Male interruptions of females in cross-sex conversation . Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 327(1), 81-96. Willett, C., & Willett, J. (2019). Uproarious: How feminists and other subversive comics speak truth . University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvrz68jk Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity . Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Willett, C., & Willett, J. (2019). Uproarious: How feminists and other subversive comics speak truth . U of Minnesota Press. Wu, H. P., & Garza, E. V. (2014). Types and attributes of English writing errors in the EFL context-A study of error analysis. Journal of language teaching and research, 5(6), 1256. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6032811","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":445405946,"identity":"9048ed09-c6e6-4abf-b5af-ced0572aa320","order_by":0,"name":"Nida Husna","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nida","middleName":"","lastName":"Husna","suffix":""},{"id":445405947,"identity":"28e99517-14d9-4544-8a10-eb0ed132f2a4","order_by":1,"name":"Hasnan Yasin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Islam Internasional Indonesia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hasnan","middleName":"","lastName":"Yasin","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-02-14 18:53:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6032811/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6032811/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":97670359,"identity":"ec5b4bec-fb60-472b-aff6-7f5016965d45","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:30:26","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":961516,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6032811/v1/c9ab8b64-2ed7-4a9d-b28a-55a223f9236a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Vocabulary Matters: Gender and Word Use in EFL","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe relationship between language and gender has long been explored in sociolinguistic research, often highlighting the ways in which men\u0026rsquo;s dominance and power manifest in various social contexts (Hall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Weatherall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Historically, women were viewed as linguistically inferior to men, a notion shaped by broader societal inequalities. In recent decades, shifting cultural dynamics have prompted renewed scholarly interest in how language reflects and reinforces gender roles. Current scholarship emphasizes that both men and women actively perform gender through language, rather than merely reflecting fixed identities (Tripp \u0026amp; Munson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This is critical because language offers a powerful medium for women to express themselves using their own linguistic preferences, further contributing to a more equitable social structure (Piller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e;Weatherall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile much of this work has examined native speakers, research exploring how gender differences in language manifest in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context remains limited. This is particularly important as learners in non-native settings often face distinct linguistic and sociocultural pressures. Studies that connect gender, vocabulary use, and language acquisition among EFL learners are still underrepresented in applied linguistics. Understanding these intersections offers a unique window into how social identity and language proficiency interact during second language development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA number of studies have explored how language reflects social positioning through gendered usage. These include analyses of lexical choices, grammatical structures, and morphological forms that express or reinforce social roles (Banda, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Eckert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Gendered linguistic patterns are shaped by socio-economic background, cultural identity, and communicative purpose, all of which evolve in response to broader societal shifts. These shifts influence how both men and women communicate and perceive language norms. Recent work in sociolinguistics continues to argue that gender and language cannot be separated from the cultural and institutional forces that structure them.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne significant factor influencing these gendered language differences is societal development, including changes in social communication, structures, and cultural norms. Each language has its own set of rules governing how men and women use linguistic properties. Over time, these rules have evolved, particularly as social changes demand more flexibility in communication practices. For example, developments in how societies communicate have shaped gender preferences in word choices, grammatical structures, and even morphological forms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA number of studies have explored the intersection of language and gender. Del Giudice (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), for instance, argued that gender differences in communication styles significantly influence nonverbal behaviors. Males and females not only communicate differently but also exhibit distinct nonverbal cues that reflect their socialization and gender roles. Socio-economic factors also play a crucial role in shaping language use. Bilaniuk (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) found that both men and women benefit from gender differences in language, especially as these differences relate to social mobility. For example, women often learn non-local languages as a way to improve their social status. Brown (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) and Willet and Willet (2019) highlighted how women\u0026rsquo;s linguistic stance is often characterized by the use of irony, rhetorical questions, and humor, which helps them navigate their societal roles and assert their identities in subtle ways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe investigation into language and gender has gone beyond mere documentation of differences, focusing on when, how, and why both genders use language differently (Coates, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e;McElhinny, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). This shift in focus reveals that language use is not just a reflection of gender but also a performance of it. Both men and women express their identities through their choice of words, gestures, and even intonation patterns. These differences are apparent in both spoken and written forms of language, with men and women often choosing different words to convey similar meanings. The complexity of these linguistic choices has made gender and language an enduring subject of interest in sociolinguistics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish, as a global language, has undergone centuries of modification and adaptation, making it a rich subject for exploring gendered differences in language use. The role of English as a medium of communication has allowed various communities to adopt and adapt linguistic practices that reflect their evolving identities. Ahearn (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) and Sternberg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) note that words carry distinct meanings depending on the context in which they are used. Every word, in fact, carries the \"taste\" of its usage context, reflecting the social and historical layers embedded in language use (Bakhtin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e, p. 293). This inherent complexity of language suggests that it is challenging to dismiss the notion that men and women use words differently.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn particular, lexical diversity\u0026mdash;the range and variability of words used by a speaker or writer\u0026mdash;has received growing attention as a key indicator of linguistic development (Crossley \u0026amp; McNamara, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Gender-based differences in lexical diversity may be influenced not only by sociocultural expectations but also by exposure to language learning contexts, instructional materials, and academic environments. These nuances warrant further empirical study, especially in underrepresented learner populations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aims to address this gap by investigating lexical diversity and vocabulary use among Indonesian EFL learners. It compares how male and female students differ in their use of high-frequency vocabulary (General Service List, or GSL) and academic vocabulary (Academic Word List, or AWL) in descriptive writing tasks. The novelty of this study lies in its specific focus on non-native English speakers in Indonesia, contributing new insights into gendered vocabulary use beyond native-speaking or ESL contexts. Specifically, the study will explore three key questions: (1) Which gender demonstrates greater lexical diversity in their writing? (2) How do male and female learners differ in their use of General Service List (GSL) vocabulary? and (3) How do male and female learners differ in their use of Academic Word List (AWL) vocabulary? By addressing these questions, the research aims to contribute to the growing body of literature on gender and language, offering insights into how gendered linguistic practices manifest in a non-native English context.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature review","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe disparities between male and female language usage represent a fascinating facet of human society. Since the feminist movement of the 1970s, the distinctions in word usage between males and females have grown increasingly ambiguous; yet, variations in lexical choices continue to reflect cultural behaviours and social influences (Carli, 1990; Fuchs, 2017). Research indicates that females engage in \u0026quot;attentive activities\u0026quot; for a longer duration than males (Batters, 1986; Sujariati et al., 2022). Consequently, they exercise greater caution in their language use and word selection. Females generally pose more enquiries than males and, when engaged in the same discourse, females typically direct questions towards males (Maltz \u0026amp; Borker, 2012). The designation \u0026apos;talkative,\u0026apos; frequently attributed to women across various cultures, arises from the observation that women tend to generate a greater number of utterances that solicit or promote responses from their interlocutors compared to men (Fishman, 1978; Chauncey, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent research, however, has contextualized these tendencies within the framework of digital communication and second language acquisition, suggesting that gender-based variation in vocabulary use may reflect not only sociocultural norms but also pedagogical environments and task types (Fattahi \u0026amp; Nushi, 2021). In numerous societies, men exhibited significant dominance and authority, both socially and conversationally (Weatherall, 2002; Mann \u0026amp; Patterson, 2016), yet contemporary studies argue that gender is performed and negotiated differently across contexts, especially in educational settings where both male and female learners adapt their language to institutional expectations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study draws on \u003cstrong\u003eButler\u0026rsquo;s (1999) Gender Performativity Theory\u003c/strong\u003e as a framework to understand lexical diversity as a site where learners construct and express gender identities through language use. According to Butler, gender is not an inherent identity but a socially constructed one, performed repeatedly through discourse and social interaction. This perspective aligns with the idea that EFL learners may adapt their lexical choices in response to culturally embedded gender expectations within academic environments. By framing lexical behavior as performative, this study explores how language use among male and female learners is shaped not only by linguistic proficiency but also by their negotiation of gendered roles. This framework complements traditional sociolinguistic approaches while offering a more dynamic understanding of language in use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOther research indicates that females exhibit greater attentiveness to diction concerning socio-intellectual standing and prioritize the aesthetic dimensions of language, whilst males tend to adopt a more dynamic approach in their word usage (Mulac, Lundell, \u0026amp; Bradac, 1986; Downes, 2019). Females\u0026apos; heightened attention to language results in speech that is more indirect, intricate, and emotive, whereas males\u0026apos; language tends to be more direct, concise, personal, and functional (Mulac, Bradac, \u0026amp; Gibbons, 2001). Selecting words is indicative of cognition. Consequently, it is essential for EFL learners to possess sufficient lexical knowledge of English to achieve proficiency in the language.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent EFL-specific studies have emphasized how lexical acquisition differs by gender, often shaped by classroom dynamics, input exposure, and language learning strategies. For example, Sujariati et al. (2022) found that male and female students employed different strategies in mastering vocabulary, which may contribute to differences in lexical richness. Similarly, Fattahi and Nushi (2021) noted that gender, alongside proficiency level, significantly influenced metaphor and word choice in TEFL students\u0026apos; writing\u0026mdash;an indicator of deeper lexical variation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLexical proficiency, defined as the capacity to utilise words accurately, encompasses three dimensions of vocabulary (Crossley, Salsbury, McNamara, \u0026amp; Jarvis, 2011). The first pertains to the quantity of words that learners possess, reflecting the breadth of their knowledge; the second concerns the learners\u0026apos; proficiency in using these terms effectively in language skills, indicating the depth of their knowledge. The final aspect is the automaticity in retrieving words or fundamental lexical components.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study regards lexical diversity as an element of both the breadth and depth of knowledge. Inappropriate usage of language within discourse may lead to miscommunications or misconceptions. The concept of \u0026apos;lexical diversity\u0026apos; or lexical variation must not be conflated with other terms such as lexical density, which quantifies the proportion of each lexical category in a text (Laufer, 1994; O\u0026apos;Loughlin, 1995; Chen, 2024), or lexical sophistication, which is predicated on the notion that complex words are employed less frequently (Van Gijsel, Speelman, \u0026amp; Geeraerts, 2005). This topic centres on lexical variety, which is frequently linked to language production abilities and has been examined through many hypotheses and methodologies. Lexical diversity refers to the range of words employed in a text, distinct from lexical density, which denotes the ratio of lexical items inside a text (Johansson, 2009). Consequently, a text may theoretically exhibit high lexical diversity while possessing low lexical density, or the opposite may occur.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditional studies concur that the diversity in the application of linguistic structures is a significant method for evaluating an individual\u0026apos;s language competence (Ortega, 2003; Lu, 2011), alongside the variation in vocabulary and the organisation of writing (Lu, 2011). The capacity to organise words to create intended sentences evolves progressively in both spoken and written forms, encompassing an enhancement in length and complexity of sentences (Nippold, 2007). Grammar exercises are considered to positively influence writing growth, particularly in assessing the enhancement of EFL learners\u0026apos; writing skills (Ortega, 2003). To acquire comprehensive insights into the progression of EFL learners\u0026apos; competencies, including the proficient application of the language as well as accuracy and diversity in usage, multiple tiers of linguistic analysis are requisite (Lu, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques to achieve a comprehensive analysis. The integration of both methodologies allows qualitative data to refine and contextualize the interpretation of statistical results, enhancing both their clarity and interpretive significance (Creswell, 2013). Statistical procedures, including the chi-square test, were conducted to identify notable disparities in word usage between male and female learners, specifically concerning lexical diversity. Meanwhile, qualitative interpretations of the texts were used to explain patterns and anomalies that emerged from the statistical data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participants were 60 undergraduate students enrolled in the English Education Department of the Faculty of Educational Sciences, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, Jakarta. The sample included an equal number of male (n = 30) and female (n = 30) students to provide balanced gender representation. All participants were in their fourth semester (second year) and had received the same instructional input, including courses in English grammar, vocabulary, and academic writing, as part of the department\u0026rsquo;s standardized curriculum for English teacher candidates. Although they had not been assessed using CEFR-based frameworks, their shared coursework exposure indicates that they were operating at a broadly comparable proficiency level, estimated to range from intermediate to upper-intermediate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo support uniformity, all participants completed a standardized vocabulary and grammar test developed by the English department. The test consisted of 40 multiple-choice items: 20 targeting vocabulary (e.g., synonym recognition, sentence-level word usage) and 20 targeting grammar (e.g., sentence completion, error correction). The test was previously used in internal evaluations and demonstrated acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha = 0.83). A minimum score of 70% was required for inclusion, though all participants met the threshold. There was no statistically significant difference in average test scores between male and female participants, which supports the interpretation that any observed variation in lexical diversity is unlikely to result from proficiency discrepancies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWriting Task and Data Collection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLexical diversity and vocabulary usage were analyzed through descriptive texts written by the participants. Each student was asked to compose an essay of 500\u0026ndash;700 words during a one-hour session in a monitored classroom setting. To avoid software-related corrections, students wrote using Notepad instead of Microsoft Word. The topic was \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Describe Jakarta,\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e and four visual prompts were provided to stimulate their responses. These images portrayed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJakarta\u0026rsquo;s skyline,\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003etraffic congestion,\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ea street food market, and\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ehistorical sites.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese prompts were chosen to support diverse thematic content (urban life, culture, infrastructure) and to avoid directing students toward a particular lexical field. Students were not instructed to use specific vocabulary types, such as academic terms or descriptive adjectives, in order to preserve the natural variation in word use. The essay length constraint was established to improve the reliability of lexical diversity measurements, such as Type-Token Ratio (TTR) and Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity (MTLD), in line with established research practices (Malvern et al., 2004).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData collection and analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data for this study were derived from students\u0026rsquo; descriptive essays, each ranging from 500 to 700 words in length. A uniform topic and time limit were designated for all participants to maintain consistency and to ensure the reliability of lexical diversity measures, in line with established guidelines (Malvern et al., 2004). Students were instructed to compose their essays using a basic text editor (Notepad) rather than Microsoft Word to minimize digital writing aids and better reflect their actual language proficiency. The essay topic\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Describe Jakarta\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;was selected in consultation with academic writing instructors to align with the participants\u0026apos; current curriculum. All students received the same topic and were given one hour to complete the task. To guide content without prescribing vocabulary, four thematic images depicting Jakarta\u0026rsquo;s skyline, traffic, local food vendors, and heritage sites were provided.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the essays were collected and categorized by gender, multiple analytical tools were applied to extract lexical features aligned with the study\u0026rsquo;s three research questions. For RQ₁ (lexical diversity), student essays were analyzed using VocabProfile (Cobb, 2016), a web-based lexical profiling tool that calculates word frequency and category distribution, including measures such as Type-Token Ratio (TTR) and Number of Different Words (NDW). VocabProfile is widely used in vocabulary studies and was selected for its capacity to differentiate between high-frequency and academic vocabulary categories, which is essential for examining lexical diversity between genders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo explore RQ₂ and RQ₃, which involved analyzing word usage based on the General Service List (GSL) and Academic Word List (AWL), this study employed two additional tools. First, the Constituent Likelihood Automatic Word-tagging System (CLAWS) (Rayson, 2016) was used to tag parts of speech with high accuracy (96\u0026ndash;97%, see Lu, 2014, p. 61). CLAWS was chosen for its consistent performance in parsing large student corpora by word class, allowing gender-based comparisons across nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. Second, AntWordProfiler (Anthony, 2015) was used to identify lexical items present in one gender group but absent in the other, thus helping isolate gender-exclusive lexical patterns. These tools together allowed for cross-verification of lexical data from multiple perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Dixon\u0026rsquo;s Semantic Division (Dixon, 2005) was used to examine vocabulary according to semantic categories, focusing on four content-word types: nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. Although Dixon\u0026rsquo;s full taxonomy was not applied, the selected categories were sufficient to capture key lexical differences relevant to descriptive writing. This approach allowed the study to observe not only overall lexical diversity but also the types of words that differentiated male and female student writing.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Findings and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eUpon analysing essays from 60 respondents, comprising 30 males and 30 females, each of whom composed an essay of 500 to 750 words within one hour, it was determined that the female students produced a greater word count than their male counterparts. The male students wrote a total of 17,004 words, averaging 566 words per individual, whereas the female students wrote a total of 17,708 words, averaging 590 words per individual. The preliminary findings demonstrate that female students composed 518 more words than their male counterparts; this disparity is statistically significant, as seen by a chi-square test result of 0.000158, which is far lower than the t-table threshold of 0.05. On average, there were 24 more words, indicating an insignificant difference of 0.480261, which is considerably larger than the t-table value. Upon calculating both indices, the outcome was 0.000121, far lower than the t-table value. Consequently, a substantial disparity (statistically significant difference at p \u0026lt; .001) in the word count between male and female students was seen in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth texts were subsequently analysed via the VocabProfile tool from the Lextutor website (Cobb, 2016), specifically the Classic Type. Lex Tutor designated the term Classic Type to refer to GSL and AWL. The vocabulary was categorised into groups: K-1 and K-2 for the General Service List (GSL), Academic Word List (AWL), and Offlist, which comprises terms not found in either the AWL or GSL.\u0026nbsp;The results are shown in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eFemale Text Vocabulary Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFreq. Level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFamilies (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTypes (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTokens (\u003cu\u003e%\u003c/u\u003e)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCumul. token %\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eK-1 Words\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e544 (61.33)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e910 (54.07)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6770 \u003cu\u003e(78.63)\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eK-2 Words\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e205 (23.11)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e269 (15.98)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e634 \u003cu\u003e(7.36)\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAWL\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;[570 fams]\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;TOT 2,570\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e138 (15.56)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e196 (11.65)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e549 \u003cu\u003e(6.38)\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOff-List:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e??\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e307 (18.24)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e657 (\u003cu\u003e7.63\u003c/u\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Total (unrounded)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;887+?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;1683 (100)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;8610 (100)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026asymp;100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in the table, the female students\u0026apos; descriptive writing contained a total of 8,610 word tokens. Of these, 85.99% (or 7,404 tokens) were part of the General Service List (GSL), which includes K-1 and K-2 word levels. Another 6.38% (549 tokens) were categorized under the Academic Word List (AWL). The remaining 657 tokens, accounting for 7.63%, were classified as Offlist words, meaning they did not belong to either GSL or AWL. In terms of word types, the 8,610 tokens in the female students\u0026rsquo; writing represented 1,683 distinct word types. Of these, 70.05% were GSL types, while 11.65% (196 types) belonged to the AWL. The remaining 18.24% were Offlist word types. Regarding word families in the female students\u0026apos; texts, 749 words (84.44%) were part of the GSL, and 138 words (15.56%) were from the AWL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eMale Text Vocabulary Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFreq. Level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFamilies \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;(%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTypes (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTokens (\u003cu\u003e%\u003c/u\u003e)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCumul. token %\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eK-1 Words\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e574 (59.42)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e963 (51.91)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6819 \u003cu\u003e(77.90)\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eK-2 Words\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e224 (23.19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e288 (15.53)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e565 \u003cu\u003e(6.45)\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAWL\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;[570 fams]\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;TOT 2,570\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e168 (17.39)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e239 (12.88)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e558 \u003cu\u003e(6.37)\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOff-List:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e??\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e364 (19.62)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e812 (\u003cu\u003e9.28\u003c/u\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Total (unrounded)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;966+?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;1855 (100)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;8754 (100)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026asymp;100.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the male students\u0026rsquo; written texts, there were a total of 8,754 word tokens. Among these, 84.35% (or 7,384 tokens) were classified as part of the General Service List (GSL), while 6.37% (or 558 tokens) fell under the Academic Word List (AWL). The remaining 9.28% (812 tokens) were categorized as Offlist words, meaning they did not belong to either GSL or AWL. Within these 8,754 tokens, there were 1,855 distinct word types. Of these, 67.44% (or 1,251 types) were GSL types, 12.88% (or 239 types) were AWL types, and the remaining 19.62% (or 364 types) were Offlist.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results indicated that although female students produced a greater word count than their male counterparts, the males exhibited a higher lexical diversity, with a difference of 172 types, suggesting greater variance in their lexicon usage (Singh, 2001; Fischer, Schult, and Hell, 2013). In the word family, the Males\u0026apos; descriptive writing contained 966 words, which is 79 more than that of the girls. This first discovery corroborates Fishman\u0026rsquo;s (1978) assertion that females generally utilise a greater number of words to articulate their ideas, occasionally lacking clarity (Jespersen, 1922; Pease \u0026amp; Pease, 2004; Sunderland, 2006; Fattahi and Nushi, 2021). They asserted that the manner in which females evade elucidation results in lengthier sentences or discussions that diverge into broader subjects. It was determined that females generally employed a greater number of words, many of which were superfluous, resulting in verbosity in both their spoken and written language; nevertheless, this assertion necessitates broader and more thorough investigation. Some suggested that women employed a greater number of words in their communications to preserve the dignity of their conversation partners (Batters, 1986; Pitcan, Marwick, \u0026amp; Boyd, 2018). Their heightened concern for status, identities, and social class (Frazer, 1989; Fishman, 1978; Armstrong, Hamilton, Armstrong, \u0026amp; Seeley, 2014) compels them to convey their messages with precision. In their attempt to exercise caution, they occasionally employed more elaborate language to mitigate their expressions (Lakoff, 1975; Armstrong, Hamilton, Armstrong, \u0026amp; Seeley, 2014; Pitcan, Marwick, \u0026amp; Boyd, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study concentrated exclusively on tokens and kinds, specifically content words\u0026mdash;nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs\u0026mdash;according to Dixon\u0026rsquo;s taxonomy, and their usage by males and females in a non-English speaking country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLexical diversity between male and female learners\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the examination of the written compositions, male students generated a total of 17,004 words, of which 8,754 were classified as content words (tokens). Conversely, the written works of female learnerss amounted to 17,708 words, of which 8,610 were content words (tokens). This signifies a disparity of 144 tokens, with male students exhibiting a greater count than their female counterparts. The disparity in the quantity of content words between male and female students was not statistically significant, as indicated by the chi-square test result of 0.274485, which surpasses the critical value of the t-table (0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRelated Ratios and Indices\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePertaining to whole text\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFemale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWords in text (tokens):\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8610\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8754\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifferent words (types):\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1683\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1855\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eType-token ratio:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTokens per type:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePertaining to onlist only\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTokens:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7953\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7942\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTypes:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1376\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1491\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamilies:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e887\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e966\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTokens per Family:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTypes per Family:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe male students utilised 1,855 distinct words (types) in their writing, exceeding the female students by a margin of 172 words, who employed 1,683 distinct words (types). In contrast to the token results, there was a substantial disparity in the word types of male and female students, as seen by the chi-square test result (0.003832), which was lower than the t-table value (0.05). Consequently, it can be asserted that the male students\u0026apos; writing contained a greater variety of terms than that of the female students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Type-Token Ratio (TTR) for the male students\u0026apos; work was 0.21, with 4.72 tokens per type, whereas the TTR for the female students\u0026apos; writing was 0.20, with 5.12 tokens per type. The TTR process and results indicate that, despite female students producing a greater word count than their male counterparts, male students exhibited a higher lexical diversity in their writing. The disparity between the males\u0026apos; TTR and the girls\u0026apos; TTR was not statistically significant. The chi-square test result for TTR across both genders was 0.98754, exceeding the t-table value of 0.05. Consequently, despite the existence of a difference, it was not substantial. The male students exhibited a larger type-token ratio than the female students, although the difference was not statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe initial result indicates that the NNS male students exhibited greater lexical diversity in their descriptive writing, while the difference in TTR was minimal and not statistically significant. It may also be asserted that males and females exhibited minimal differences in writing (Rubin \u0026amp; Greene, 1992; Reilly, Neumann, and Andrews, 2019). Their choice of similar words was influenced by their experiences related to lexical acquisition during their studies (Crossley \u0026amp; McNamara, 2009). Their status as foreign learners studying a foreign language in their local environment should be seen as a crucial element influencing their capacity for lexical diversity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. GSL between male and female learners\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study indicate that the males utilised a greater number of words from the GSL. The male participants utilised 793 words from the General Service List, whereas the female participants employed 702 words. Among the four categories\u0026mdash;nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs\u0026mdash;males surpassed females in three of them: nouns, verbs, and adverbs. Conversely, females exhibited a higher usage of adjectives. In the total GSL, a notable disparity was observed in the quantity of content words utilised by each gender (0.018596, which is below the t-table threshold).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 4\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eParts of speech differences between male and female learners\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"474\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFemale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNoun\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e343\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e309\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVerb\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e270\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e226\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdjective\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e122\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e130\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdverb\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e792*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e702*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*The differences in the total were because there were words which were not included in the four categories\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe texts of male students surpassed those of female students in terms of noun and verb classifications. Males\u0026apos; texts contained 343 nouns and 267 verbs, while females\u0026apos; texts comprised 309 nouns and 226 verbs. The chi-square test result of 0.170794 indicated no significant difference in the quantity of nouns utilised by both genders, as it was substantially greater than the t-table value. Among the 343 nouns in the male text and 309 in the female text, 188 nouns were utilised in both categories. This indicates that 124 noun words appeared in the texts of females but were absent in the texts of males. Additionally, 155 noun terms included in the male texts were absent from the female texts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the implementation of Dixon\u0026rsquo;s (2005) Semantic Division, an initial observation suggests that, although females employed a greater quantity of words than males, males exhibited a propensity to discuss objects (Aries \u0026amp; Johnson, 1983), as evidenced by their higher utilisation of nouns as specifiers (Argamon, Koppel, Fine, \u0026amp; Shimoni, 2003) compared to females. Nonetheless, there was no substantial disparity in the quantity of nouns employed by the genders, since the chi-square test result was 0.170794, significantly above the t-table value.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNonetheless, the disparity in the quantity of verbs employed by the genders was large, measuring 0.048193, which is below the t-table value. Among the 270 verbs in the male texts and the 226 in the female texts, 166 verbs were utilised in both groups. This indicates that 57 verbs appeared in the texts of females that were absent in the texts of Males. Additionally, 90 verbs employed in the male writings were absent from the female versions. Both genders typically employed verbs categorised in Primary A as per Dixon\u0026rsquo;s (2005) Semantic Division. The males\u0026apos; capacity to employ a greater diversity of verbs may be associated with their inclination to differentiate themselves or to assume a central role within the community, especially in professional settings (Holmes, 2006). Male students\u0026rsquo; broader verb usage may reflect classroom participation styles or linguistic confidence shaped by educational experiences. Studies like Fattahi and Nushi (2021) show that male learners tend to apply broader vocabulary when given open descriptive tasks. This propensity has fostered greater creativity in their lexical choices, encompassing the use of uncommon and specialised terminology, ultimately resulting in the production of more complex written texts (Jespersen, 1922).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 5\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eGSL Verb class\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBoth\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMales only\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFemales only\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal Males\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal Females\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrimary A\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e132\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e106\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrimary B\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecondary A\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecondary B\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecondary C\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecondary D\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e167\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e90\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e57\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e259\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e223\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn several categories, the numerical disparity is notably substantial, particularly in Primary A-Motion and Primary A-Affect. In Primary A-Motion, the count of male verbs is 17, whereas the female verbs total only five. In Primary A-Affect, males possess 18 verbs, whilst females possess six verbs. There are 28 distinct verbs used by both males and females, with males employing a greater number of verbs than females. In the absence of 75 comparable verbs, the quantity of verbs employed by females is merely half that utilised by males. An example from Primary A is the utilisation of words categorised under Motion, as illustrated below:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 6\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrimary A- Motion category differences between male and female learners\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"593\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWord Classification\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 243px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWords used by male only\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWords used by female only\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrimary A \u0026ndash; Motion\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 243px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eenter, fall, float, follow, litter, push, ride, rise, rush, scatter, send, slide, spoil, spread, steal, swim, travel, \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efly, pick, raise, step, close\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe examination of the language employed by both genders indicates that male students exhibited superior lexical diversity and frequency of usage. A potential explanation for the males\u0026apos; heightened use of motion verbs relative to females may be in intrinsic behavioural inclinations. Ellis (1934) and Pease \u0026amp; Pease (2004) assert that men are frequently defined by an inherent compulsion for mobility and activity. Pease and Pease (2004) propose that these inclinations originate from evolutionary roles focused on hunting, combat, and construction\u0026mdash;endeavors that require ongoing physical activity and strategic cognition. In social settings, such as around a fire, men tend to engage in talks centred on tactical strategies for these tasks. Thus, it is unsurprising that their language has a greater prevalence of verbs related to movement and action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, the tendency of male students to use more motion-related verbs could be attributed to how academic tasks are interpreted, classroom interaction styles, or discourse patterns shaped by sociocultural influences rather than inherent traits. Sujariati et al. (2022) note that EFL learners, especially males, may draw from domain-specific or formal discourse when composing written texts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConversely, Pease and Pease (2004) recognise that women utilise motion-related verbs; nonetheless, the contexts of these verbs generally relate to domestic tasks or environmental factors. This contrast emphasises the divergence in how each gender perceives and expresses motion. An illustrative instance of this inclination is evident in the writings of both sexes. The term \u0026quot;flow,\u0026quot; classified as a Primary A-Motion verb, was present in the writings of both male and female students. In the essays of female students, \u0026quot;flow\u0026quot; appeared in only two sentences, both describing the same phenomenon: the flowing of water. This restricted application highlights the overarching trend of divergent engagement with the notion of motion in writing between men and women.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col style=\"list-style-type: lower-alpha;\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe rubbish piled up and plugged up so that the river cannot\u003cu\u003e\u0026nbsp;flow\u003c/u\u003e well.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026hellip; Jakarta is located on the lowlands so that Jakarta must be willing to receive the water, for exact the flood, that \u003cu\u003eflow\u003c/u\u003e from Bogor.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMeanwhile, the males have ten sentences, where three of them have different subjects of \u003cem\u003eflow\u003c/em\u003e that is about economic condition. The examples of males\u0026rsquo; sentences with the verb \u003cem\u003eflow\u003c/em\u003e are as follow:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col style=\"list-style-type: lower-alpha;\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe capital \u003cu\u003eflowing\u003c/u\u003e from banking world, the rate/ stock from manufactures, all are maintained from this city\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe rivers become full of garbage and the water \u003cu\u003eflow\u003c/u\u003e to roads and houses around the river bank.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eAs we know that the cycles of economical \u003cu\u003eflows\u003c/u\u003e are staying in Jakarta, and most of mega companies of Indonesia must being centered in Jakarta.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnd government has built west flow canal and east \u003cu\u003eflow\u003c/u\u003e canal also sterilization of house beside river.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlso this city has contribute huge number of transaction and cash \u003cu\u003eflow\u003c/u\u003e that help this country.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs previously noted, the majority of males perceive it as their duty to provide for the family, and comprehending the competitive landscape for enhanced revenue is integral to their cultivated skills (Ellis, 1934; Pease \u0026amp; Pease, 2004). While they prioritise environmental concerns, they also consider economic conditions as a factor in their pursuit of comfortable surroundings. From the male perspective, the verb \u0026quot;flow\u0026quot; was utilised to convey more than merely the movement of water or liquids.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of the quantity of words in the adjective category, female students surpassed their male counterparts, albeit by a mere six words. No substantial variation was seen between genders in the use of adjectives (0.704336, exceeding the t-table value). The total number of adjectives employed by females (122) exceeded that used by males (130) by a marginal difference of eight words. Although the differences were not markedly significant, they nonetheless corroborate the findings of Belezza, Greenwald, and Banaji (1986), specifically that females employed a greater number of adjectives than males.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe male students\u0026apos; texts included 57 adverbs, exceeding the number in the female students\u0026apos; texts by 18. The difference was minimal, since the chi-square test result (0.066193) marginally exceeded the t-table value (0.05). The disparity in the frequency of adverbs in the GSL between males and females appears to refute the assertions made by Lakoff (1975) and Jeon and Choe (2009) that females typically employ more intensifiers than males. The data indicates that Males employed nearly twice as many adverbs as females, suggesting that males can utilise language with precision in their writing; however, additional research is necessary to explore other potential factors. Although this appears to counter the notion that females employ more qualifiers than males (Martin \u0026amp; Craig, 1983), the inclusion of the writing activity as a mode of interaction remains debatable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. AWL between male and female learners\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe writings of male students exhibited a greater utilisation of Academic Word List (AWL) vocabulary than those of female students, with 173 AWL words present in the male cohort\u0026apos;s writing, in contrast to 133 AWL words in the female cohort\u0026apos;s texts. This disparity indicates a heightened involvement with more sophisticated or specialised terminology among the male learnerss. To conduct a more in-depth analysis of the lexical selections of both groups, the AWL terms were classified into four specific word categories: nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. This classification facilitates a more nuanced analysis of the lexical preferences of each gender and underscores potential disparities in their linguistic approaches. Nouns may denote a concentration on tangible or intangible concepts, whereas verbs signify actions or processes. Adjectives and adverbs provide insights into how both categories convey traits, intensities, or mannerisms. The categorisation of AWL words elucidates the distinctions in academic language usage between male and female students in their descriptive writing, highlighting the specific types of words they prioritise in text construction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 7\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe comparison in the use of AWL between male and female students\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"364\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 119px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFemale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNoun\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 119px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVerb\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 119px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdjective\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 119px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdverb\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 119px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e173\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 119px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e133\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*The differences in the total were because there were words which were not included in the four categories\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe cumulative count of AWL in the male students\u0026apos; texts exceeded that in the female students\u0026apos; texts by 40 words, with 173 AWL words in the males\u0026apos; texts and 133 AWL words in the females\u0026apos; texts. The most significant disparities in AWL between the texts of male and female students were observed in the noun category, exhibiting a difference of 23 words, followed by verbs with a difference of 16 words, and adjectives with a difference of one word. Only the male participants\u0026apos; papers contained the adverb category in their Academic Word List. Consequently, similar to the GSL, males surpassed females regarding AWL. The chi-square analysis indicated a disparity in the utilisation of four AWL content words between male and female students. The chi-square test score was 0.041579, which is below the t-table value. Nevertheless, upon analysis of each content term, no significant variations were observed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe quantity of AWL nouns utilised by both genders varied, with males surpassing females by 23 nouns, categorised into five types: concrete, abstract, state, activities, and speech act (refer to Table 9). The males surpassed the females in all categories of the AWL noun class, except for speech act types, where the females exceeded the males by one word. The propensity for males to utilise a greater number of nouns than females is evident in both the General Service List (GSL) and the Academic Word List (AWL). One hypothesis suggests that males are more inclined to assert and disseminate facts, as evidenced by their greater usage of nouns compared to females (Tannen, 1991; Argamon, Koppel, Fine, \u0026amp; Shimoni, 2003).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 8\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eAWL Noun class\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBoth\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMales only\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFemales only\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal Males\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal Females\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConcrete\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAbstract\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eState\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eActivities\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeech Act\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e38\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e46\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e23\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e84\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e61\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of male and female students\u0026rsquo; use of nouns reveals an interesting tendency: male students demonstrated a greater use of nouns in both the General Service List (GSL) and the Academic Word List (AWL). This observation supports the assumption that males often focus on stating facts and disseminating information, which could be linked to their frequent use of nouns, as noted by Tannen (1991) and Argamon, Koppel, Fine, \u0026amp; Shimoni (2003). In this study, the males\u0026rsquo; preference for using nouns more than the females was a notable feature in both word lists.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen it comes to the use of verbs from the AWL, the male students surpassed the female students by a margin of 12 verbs. According to Dixon\u0026rsquo;s classification, both male and female students used verbs that fell into three categories: \u003cem\u003ePrimary A\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePrimary B\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eSecondary C\u003c/em\u003e. In total, 28 AWL verbs were used by both genders, but 25 of these verbs were exclusive to the male students, while only 13 were used solely by the female students. The majority of verbs were found in the \u003cem\u003ePrimary A\u003c/em\u003e category, where the males outnumbered the females by 13 verbs. Interestingly, in the \u003cem\u003ePrimary B\u003c/em\u003e category, both genders had the same number of verbs, while in the \u003cem\u003eSecondary C\u003c/em\u003e category, the females had a slight edge, using one more verb than the males. This demonstrates a degree of differentiation in verb usage between genders, although there are some areas of overlap.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast to the GSL, the usage of AWL adjectives was relatively balanced between males and females, though the females slightly outperformed the males in this category. A total of 19 adjective types were shared by both genders. However, the male students used 29 adjective words overall, including nine that were unique to them. Meanwhile, the female students used 30 adjective words in total, with 11 being exclusive to their writing. This suggests that while both genders had similar usage patterns for adjectives, the females exhibited a marginally broader range.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the relatively equal numbers, there were notable differences in the types of adjectives favored by each gender. For instance, certain adjective categories, such as \u003cem\u003edimension\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003edifficulty\u003c/em\u003e, were present only in the male students\u0026rsquo; writing. Neither gender, however, used adjectives from the \u003cem\u003espeed\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eage\u003c/em\u003e, or \u003cem\u003ecolor\u003c/em\u003e categories. Interestingly, both groups used similar adjectives related to \u003cem\u003ephysical properties\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003evolition\u003c/em\u003e, indicating some shared linguistic preferences in describing attributes and actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the use of AWL adverbs, there was a stark contrast between the genders. Only two adverbs from the AWL\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003econsequently\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eapparently\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;were used across all the texts. The word \u003cem\u003econsequently\u003c/em\u003e appeared four times in the male students\u0026rsquo; writing, while \u003cem\u003eapparently\u003c/em\u003e was used just once by the males in the sentence, \u003cem\u003eBut apparently, besides those great things, Jakarta has lots of bad things.\u003c/em\u003e Notably, \u003cem\u003eapparently\u003c/em\u003e did not appear in the female students\u0026rsquo; writing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile it might be tempting to claim that \u003cem\u003eapparently\u003c/em\u003e is a \u0026quot;male\u0026quot; word, data from the British National Corpus (BNC) suggests otherwise. The difference in usage between genders is minimal, with males using \u003cem\u003eapparently\u003c/em\u003e 82 times per million words and females using it 82.33 times per million words\u0026mdash;an insignificant difference. However, in the case of \u003cem\u003econsequently\u003c/em\u003e, the gender difference was far more pronounced. Males used the word 36.3 times per million words, compared to just 18.51 times for females, demonstrating a significant disparity in the use of this adverb.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough previous studies have suggested that females tend to use adverbs more frequently than males (Lakoff, 1975; Jeon \u0026amp; Choe, 2009), this study reveals that male students are also active users of adverbial words. In fact, in the context of this research, most of the AWL adverbs appeared in the male students\u0026rsquo; writing, highlighting their strong engagement with this part of speech.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the findings indicate that male students used more AWL words overall, with 173 compared to 133 in the female students\u0026rsquo; texts. This pattern extended across most word classes. Specifically, male students used more AWL nouns, verbs, and adverbs, while female students led slightly in the use of adjectives. The overall conclusion is that male students demonstrated greater lexical variety in their writing, not only within the GSL but also in the AWL. Despite female students producing slightly more words overall (17,708, with an average of 590 words per person), male students exhibited a richer range of vocabulary, especially in terms of word types. This suggests that, in this study, male students showed a broader diversity of vocabulary in their descriptive writing, with notable differences in how both genders used GSL and AWL words.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study contribute to bridging the knowledge gap in understanding how gender influences lexical diversity in EFL writing contexts, particularly among non-native English learners in Indonesia. While previous studies have largely focused on native speakers or generalized assumptions about gendered language use, this research highlights how male and female EFL learners differ in vocabulary range, word type usage, and reliance on academic versus high-frequency vocabulary. By using empirical data drawn from classroom-based descriptive writing, the study provides concrete linguistic evidence rather than speculative or psychological interpretations. This grounded approach enhances the relevance of the findings for applied linguistics, second language acquisition, and EFL pedagogy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePedagogically, the study underscores the importance of designing vocabulary instruction that takes subtle gender-based preferences into account without reinforcing stereotypes. It suggests that lexical diversity is not strictly a function of language competence but also reflects the learners\u0026rsquo; engagement with instructional input, writing tasks, and topic familiarity. This has practical implications for material development, teacher training, and assessment design, especially in multilingual or multicultural EFL environments. The study advocates for a more nuanced, context-sensitive approach to vocabulary development\u0026mdash;one that acknowledges learner variation and aims to support both male and female learners in achieving balanced, expressive, and academically appropriate language use.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study revealed that male students exhibited marginally greater lexical diversity in their descriptive writing compared to female students. On average, male students employed a broader vocabulary with fewer repetitions, while both genders showed relatively comparable word counts. Notably, male learners used a wider range of words from the General Service List (GSL), and their use of Academic Word List (AWL) items was slightly higher than that of their female counterparts. These findings indicate subtle but measurable gender-based differences in vocabulary usage among EFL learners.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, these distinctions must be interpreted within the context of a shared academic environment. While male students demonstrated marginally higher lexical diversity, the overlap in vocabulary use suggests that instructional exposure, rather than inherent gender traits, played a more substantial role. In this way, the study acknowledges both the influence of common pedagogical inputs and the subtle individual strategies learners bring to language production. Rather than contradicting earlier claims, this dual perspective highlights that gender may influence language use in nuanced, context-dependent ways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor future research, it is recommended to explore controlled experimental setups that include varied genres\u0026mdash;such as argumentative, narrative, and expository writing\u0026mdash;as well as structured oral tasks like debates or interviews. Longitudinal designs may also provide insights into how gendered lexical patterns evolve over time. Additionally, comparative studies across institutions or cultural regions could help distinguish which lexical behaviors are universally gendered and which are shaped by local context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePedagogically, these findings support the need for gender-sensitive vocabulary instruction that balances diversity, clarity, and engagement. Curriculum designers and teachers should integrate tasks that expose all learners to both high-frequency and academic vocabulary, while also encouraging metacognitive awareness of word choice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltimately, this study calls for EFL educators and researchers to recognize that gender is one of many factors shaping language development\u0026mdash;and that a more responsive, inclusive approach to vocabulary teaching can empower learners to express themselves more precisely and confidently.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgment\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data for this article is part of the doctoral research undertaken by the author in fulfilment of the requirements for a Ph.D. degree.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eConsent for participant\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElectronic informed consent was obtained by having participants complete an online form; by filling out and submitting the form, participants confirm that they have read, understood, and agreed to the research\u0026apos;s terms and conditions, and voluntarily consent to participate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eEthic declaration\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research instrument was evaluated and approved by the committee of the Post Graduate School at Atmajaya Catholic University prior to the commencement of data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eDisclosure statement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding statement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work received no external funding and was entirely supported by personal funds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eND conceptualized the study, conducted the research, and was responsible for the final manuscript writing. HY contributed to data collection, data cleaning, and editing the final manuscript. Both authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe data is provided upon request\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Anthropology, 30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 109\u0026ndash;137. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnthony, L. (2015, April 30). AntWordProfiler (Version 1.4.1) [Computer software]. Waseda University. http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antwordprofiler/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArgamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., \u0026amp; Shimoni, A. R. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. \u003cem\u003eText \u0026amp; Talk, 23\u003c/em\u003e(3), 321\u0026ndash;348. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.014 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAries, E. (1996). \u003cem\u003eMen and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAries, E. J., \u0026amp; Johnson, F. L. (1983). Close friendship in adulthood: Conversational content between same-sex friends. \u003cem\u003eSex Roles, 9\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1183\u0026ndash;1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00290070 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakhtin, M. M. (2010). \u003cem\u003eThe dialogic imagination: Four essays\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 1). University of Texas Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBanda, F. (2020). Sociolinguistics and modes of social class signalling: African perspectives. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Sociolinguistics, 24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 3\u0026ndash;15. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12361 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBatters, J. (1986). Do boys really think languages are just girl-talk? \u003cem\u003eModern Languages, 67\u003c/em\u003e(2), 75\u0026ndash;79.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBellezza, F. S., Greenwald, A. G., \u0026amp; Banaji, M. R. (1996). Words high and low in pleasantness as rated by male and female college students. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Research Methods, Instruments, \u0026amp; Computers, 18\u003c/em\u003e(3), 299\u0026ndash;303. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200858\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBilaniuk, L. (2003). Gender, language attitudes, and language status in Ukraine. \u003cem\u003eLanguage in Society, 32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 47\u0026ndash;78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404503321043 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, P. (1990). Gender, politeness, and confrontation in Tenejapa. \u003cem\u003eDiscourse Processes, 13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 123\u0026ndash;141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539009544750 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eButler, J. (1999). \u003cem\u003eGender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity\u003c/em\u003e (10th anniversary ed.). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59\u003c/em\u003e(5), 941\u0026ndash;951. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.941\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChauncey, K. (2018). \u003cem\u003eThe Effects of Stereotype Threat on Mixed-Gender Conversation\u003c/em\u003e (Master\u0026apos;s thesis, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, J. (2024). Exploring the textual characteristics of constrained English varieties: A comparative study of translated English, EFL, and native English using a multidimensional approach [Doctoral dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University]. PolyU Electronic Theses. https://theses.lib.polyu.edu.hk/handle/200/12967\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoates, J. (2015). \u003cem\u003eWomen, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCobb, T. (2016). Vocab Profile home. Compleat Lexical Tutor. http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. \u003cem\u003eTESOL Quarterly, 34\u003c/em\u003e(2), 213\u0026ndash;238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoxhead, A. (2011). The Academic Word List 10 years on: Research and teaching implications. \u003cem\u003eTESOL Quarterly, 45\u003c/em\u003e(2), 355\u0026ndash;362. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.254528 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W. (2013). \u003cem\u003eResearch design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrossley, S. A., \u0026amp; McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Second Language Writing, 18\u003c/em\u003e(2), 119\u0026ndash;135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., \u0026amp; Jarvis, S. (2011). What is lexical proficiency? Some answers from computational models of speech data. \u003cem\u003eTESOL Quarterly, 45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 182\u0026ndash;193. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrowhurst, M. (1980). Syntactic complexity in narration and argument at three grade levels. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;ducation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 6\u0026ndash;13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1494065 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDel Giudice, M. (2015). Gender differences in personality and social behavior. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eInternational encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed., pp. 750\u0026ndash;756). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26016-2 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDixon, R. M. W. (2005). \u003cem\u003eA semantic approach to English grammar\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDownes, W. (2019). \u003cem\u003eLanguage and gender: A comprehensive introduction\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDownes, L. (2019). \u003cem\u003eLanguage change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEckert, P. (1989). The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Variation and Change, 1\u003c/em\u003e(3), 245\u0026ndash;267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439450000017X \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEllis, H. (2013). \u003cem\u003eMan and woman: a study of secondary and tertiary sexual characters\u003c/em\u003e. Elsevier.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEllis, R. (1995). Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings. \u003cem\u003eApplied Linguistics, 16\u003c/em\u003e(4), 409\u0026ndash;441. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.4.409 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFattahi, N., \u0026amp; Nushi, M. (2021). The effect of gender and language proficiency on the metaphor use in the writing of TEFL students. \u003cem\u003eAsian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00126-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFischer, F., Schult, J., \u0026amp; Hell, B. (2013). Sex differences in secondary school success: Why female students perform better. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Psychology of Education, 28\u003c/em\u003e(2), 529\u0026ndash;543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0127-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFishman, P. M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. \u003cem\u003eSocial Problems, 25\u003c/em\u003e(4), 397\u0026ndash;406. https://doi.org/10.2307/800492 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrazer, E. (1989). Feminist talk and talking about feminism: Teenage girls\u0026rsquo; discourses of gender. \u003cem\u003eOxford Review of Education, 15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 281\u0026ndash;290. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498890150307 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFuchs, R. (2017). Do women (still) use more intensifiers than men? Recent change in the sociolinguistics of intensifiers in British English. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 345\u0026ndash;374. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.03fuc \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGardner, D., \u0026amp; Davies, M. (2013). A new academic vocabulary list. \u003cem\u003eApplied Linguistics\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;24. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt015 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHall, K., Borba, R., \u0026amp; Hiramoto, M. (2021). Language and gender. In J. Stanlaw (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eThe international encyclopedia of linguistic anthropology\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 892\u0026ndash;912). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786093.ieoed111 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolmes, J. (2006). \u003cem\u003eGendered talk at work: Constructing social identity through workplace interaction\u003c/em\u003e. Blackwell Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJeon, J., \u0026amp; Choe, J.-W. (2009). A key word analysis of English intensifying adverbs in male and female speech in ICE-GB. In \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 23rd Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 1, pp. 210\u0026ndash;219).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJespersen, O. (2013). \u003cem\u003eLanguage: Its nature, development and origin\u003c/em\u003e (Original work published 1922). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohansson, V. (2009). Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. \u003cem\u003eLund Working Papers in Linguistics, 53\u003c/em\u003e, 61\u0026ndash;79.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman\u0026apos;s place. \u003cem\u003eLanguage in Society, 2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45\u0026ndash;80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500000051 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaufer, B. (1994). The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time? \u003cem\u003eRELC Journal, 25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 21\u0026ndash;33. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829402500202 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLong, R., \u0026amp; Hatcho, Y. (2018). The first language\u0026apos;s impact on L2: Investigating intralingual and interlingual errors. \u003cem\u003eEnglish Language Teaching, 11\u003c/em\u003e(11), 115\u0026ndash;121. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n11p115\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15\u003c/em\u003e(4), 474\u0026ndash;496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers\u0026apos; language development. \u003cem\u003eTESOL Quarterly, 45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 36\u0026ndash;62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLu, X. (2014). \u003cem\u003eComputational methods for corpus annotation and analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaltz, D. N., \u0026amp; Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In L. Monaghan, J. E. Goodman, \u0026amp; J. M. Robinson (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eA cultural approach to interpersonal communication: Essential readings\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 168\u0026ndash;185). Wiley-Blackwell.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMann, S. A., \u0026amp; Patterson, A. S. (2016). \u003cem\u003eReading feminist theory: From modernity to postmodernity.\u003c/em\u003e Oxford University Press, USA.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartin, J. N., \u0026amp; Craig, R. T. (1983). Selected linguistic sex differences during initial social interactions of same-sex and mixed-sex student dyads. \u003cem\u003eWestern Journal of Communication, 47\u003c/em\u003e(1), 16\u0026ndash;28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318309374050 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartin, J. N., \u0026amp; Craig, R. T. (1983). \u003cem\u003eSelected linguistic sex differences during initial social interactions of same‐sex and mixed‐sex student dyads\u003c/em\u003e. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports) , 47(1), 16-28.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcElhinny, B. (2003). Theorizing gender in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. In J. Holmes \u0026amp; M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe handbook of language and gender\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 21\u0026ndash;42). Blackwell Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMulac, A., Bradac, J. J., \u0026amp; Gibbons, P. (2001). Empirical support for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences. \u003cem\u003eHuman Communication Research, 27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 121\u0026ndash;152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00776.x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMulac, A., Lundell, T. L., \u0026amp; Bradac, J. J. (1986). Male/female language differences and attributional consequences in a public speaking situation: Toward an explanation of the gender-linked language effect. \u003cem\u003eCommunication Monographs, 53\u003c/em\u003e(2), 115\u0026ndash;129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758609376132 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNippold, M. A. (2016). \u003cem\u003eLater language development: School-age children, adolescents, and young adults\u003c/em\u003e. PRO-ED, Inc.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Loughlin, K. (1995). Lexical density in candidate output on direct and semi-direct versions of an oral proficiency test. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Testing, 12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 217\u0026ndash;237. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229501200205 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrtega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. \u003cem\u003eApplied Linguistics, 24\u003c/em\u003e(4), 492\u0026ndash;518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePiller, I. (2016). \u003cem\u003eLinguistic diversity and social justice: An introduction to applied sociolinguistics\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePease, A., \u0026amp; Pease, B. (2004). \u003cem\u003eWhy men don\u0026apos;t listen and women can\u0026apos;t read maps: How we\u0026apos;re different and what to do about it\u003c/em\u003e. Orion Publishing Group.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRayson, P. (2016, February 20). Free CLAWS WWW tagger. CLAWS part-of-speech tagger for English. http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/claws/trial.html\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRubin, D. L., \u0026amp; Greene, K. (1992). Gender-typical style in written language. \u003cem\u003eResearch in the Teaching of English, 26\u003c/em\u003e(1), 7\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSabatini, F. (2016). \u003cem\u003eLanguaging gender and gendering language. Euphemism and dysphemism in dubbing.\u003c/em\u003e Lingue e linguaggi, 17, 195-244\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, S. (2001). A pilot study on gender differences in conversational speech on lexical richness measures. \u003cem\u003eLiterary and Linguistic Computing, 16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 251\u0026ndash;264. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/16.3.251 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSternberg, R. J. (2014). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. L. McKeown \u0026amp; M. E. Curtis (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe nature of vocabulary acquisition\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 89\u0026ndash;105). Psychology Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSujariati, S., Wanci, R., \u0026amp; Arianti, W. (2022). Investigating learning strategies of male and female students on mastering vocabulary. \u003cem\u003eEthical Lingua: Journal of Language Teaching and Literature, 9\u003c/em\u003e(2), 764\u0026ndash;772. https://doi.org/10.30605/25409190.449\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSunderland, J. (2006). \u003cem\u003eLanguage and gender: An advanced resource book\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTannen, D. (1990). \u003cem\u003eYou just don\u0026apos;t understand: Women and men in conversation\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Morrow.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTripp, A., \u0026amp; Munson, B. (2022). Perceiving gender while perceiving language: Integrating psycholinguistics and gender theory. \u003cem\u003eWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 13\u003c/em\u003e(2), e1583. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1583 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUre, J. (1971). \u003cem\u003eLexical density and register differentiation. Applications\u003c/em\u003e of linguistics , 443-452.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Gijsel, S., Speelman, D., \u0026amp; Geeraerts, D. (2005). \u003cem\u003eA variationist, corpus linguistic analysis of lexical richness\u003c/em\u003e. Corpus Linguistics Conference Series, 1, hal. 1-16.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeatherall, A. (2002). \u003cem\u003eGender, language and discourse. .\u003c/em\u003e Cornwall: Psychology Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWest, C. (1979). \u003cem\u003eAgainst our will: Male interruptions of females in cross-sex conversation\u003c/em\u003e. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 327(1), 81-96. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWillett, C., \u0026amp; Willett, J. (2019). \u003cem\u003eUproarious: How feminists and other subversive comics speak truth\u003c/em\u003e. University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvrz68jk\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., \u0026amp; Kim, H.-Y. (1998). \u003cem\u003eSecond language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, \u0026amp; complexity\u003c/em\u003e. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWillett, C., \u0026amp; Willett, J. (2019). \u003cem\u003eUproarious: How feminists and other subversive comics speak truth\u003c/em\u003e. U of Minnesota Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWu, H. P., \u0026amp; Garza, E. V. (2014). \u003cem\u003eTypes and attributes of English writing errors in the EFL context-A study of error analysis.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of language teaching and research, 5(6), 1256.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Lexical Diversity in EFL Writing, Gender Differences in Vocabulary Use, General Service List (GSL) Vocabulary, Academic Word List (AWL) Usage, Indonesian EFL Learners","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6032811/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6032811/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates gender-based differences in lexical diversity and vocabulary use among male and female EFL learners in descriptive writing. Motivated by ongoing discussions about gendered linguistic tendencies, the research focuses on the use of words from the General Service List (GSL) and Academic Word List (AWL). Employing a mixed-method approach, the study analyzed 60 descriptive texts written by male and female students using percentage-based data and chi-square tests. Results indicate that male students demonstrated slightly higher lexical diversity and used more GSL and AWL words than their female counterparts. Notably, a statistically significant difference was observed in GSL usage, while differences in AWL usage and overall lexical diversity were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that although male learners showed greater vocabulary variety in certain aspects, the overall overlap in word usage across genders indicates that gender-based differences in vocabulary use may be less pronounced than commonly assumed. The study highlights the need for further investigation into contextual and cultural factors that shape lexical choices among EFL learners, offering insights for educators and curriculum designers aiming to support vocabulary development equitably.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubject classification codes:\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Vocabulary Matters: Gender and Word Use in EFL","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-21 11:33:19","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6032811/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a9e613d3-b495-48d3-8ed8-7cb91986cbd1","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 21st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-05T03:23:44+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-21 11:33:19","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6032811","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6032811","identity":"rs-6032811","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}