Lexical Richness of Newspaper Editorials Published in Southeast Asian Countries

This paper investigates the lexical richness of newspaper editorials written by the writers from ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) of Southeast Asian countries. Using editorial texts published on the same day in two major online newspapers from Malaysia and the Philippines as representative of ESL countries, and two major online newspapers published in Indonesia and Thailand that represent EFL countries, this paper compares the production of Type Token Ratio (TTR) as a measurement of the lexical richness. This study displays a profile of lexical richness gained by submitting the texts into a vocabulary profiler program namely Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP) proposed by Laufer and Nation (1995) to highlight the emergence of the high-frequency word list (K1 and K2 words) and low-frequency word list (AWL and Offlist words). In general, the results show that in all terms of word lists, ESL texts have more varied vocabulary than EFL texts as indicated by the TTR scores (ESL: 0.51; EFL: 0.49). Although the gap of the TTR scores between ESL and EFL texts is slightly insignificant, a bigger TTR score indicates a high lexical richness, while a smaller TTR score shows a low lexical richness. The higher score of TTR in ESL texts could be understood since English plays an important role in education, governance policy and popular culture in those countries (i.e. Malaysia and the Philippines), meanwhile, in Indonesia and Thailand, it plays a lesser role.


INTRODUCTION
Some scholars have argued how to acknowledge the opinion and editorial articles published in both online and printed newspapers. Biber (1988) and Van Dijk (1996) treat both opinion and editorials as the same type of text, while Diller (2000) and Morley and Murphy (2005) claim those articles are different. Biber (1988) and Van Dijk (1996) conclude that both opinion and editorial articles display three aspects. First, both of them are a reaction to previous news articles. Second, the objective of opinion and editorial articles are the same, which is to persuade readers in a communicative way. Third, the writers of both opinion and editorial articles are encouraged to share their thoughts, ideas, objection, and arguments in specific issues. Meanwhile, Diller (2000) and Morley and Murphy (2005) share the same ideas that the two columns have different notions related to the writers, content and the function of the text. Table 1 below showed the differences between opinion and editorial articles based on Diller (2000) and Morley and Murphy (2005), as cited in Muarif (2019). Table 1. Differences between opinion articles and editorials Diller (2000) and Morley and Murphy (2005), as cited in Muarif (2019).

No. Differences
Opinion articles Editorials 1 Writers The newspapers' readers Newspapers' editorial desk 2 Content Readers' personal point of views in their writings The opinion of the editor or publisher on a specific topic or news 3 Function of news To support their ideas Use news as a medium to share information and to deliver the corporate view of the publishers.
Despite the debate of difference between opinion and editorial articles, media texts are seen as a platform to portray social changes and newspaper editorials are one of media texts type that pays attention to various elements including human social issues, problems, and opportunities (McCombs, 1997). Editorial as persuasive texts are social and institutional and it makes them worth probing to know the orientation of a particular media group (Afzal & Harun, 2015). An editorial has three purposes, those are (1) to influence public opinion, (2) to promote critical thinking, and (3) to cause people to take a specific action on an issue (Wiredu, 2012).
Editorial newspapers have various interesting linguistic aspects to be explored and it is proven by numerous published studies that analyzed and investigated editorial texts from different fields. Reynolds (2007) examines the generic discourse texture of a set of editorials from the London Times and Guardian and describes how the texture of the set can be accounted for in terms of just three representational textural modes: narrative, description, and argument, and shows how argument predominates in the editorial genre. Wiredu (2012) examines what linguistic choices are made at the level of the sentence in selected English editorial in a particular newspaper in Ghana. The study limited to the complex sentence and specifically to the dependent clause as it occurs in these editorials. The results of the study identify that (a) only declarative sentences were used, (b) there was overwhelming reliance on complex sentences, and (c) most of the complex sentences consisted of multiple ranks shifted structures. Meanwhile, Indarti (2018) reveals the syntactic complexity of online English newspaper editorials across countries. The results show that non-native editorial newspaper The Vaguardgnr from Nigeria shows the most complexity of sentence structure while native editorial newspaper, The New York Times, displays the highest score of subordination. Those studies highlight the use of editorial texts as an interesting research subject and this paper tries to contribute new findings in the linguistic field, specifically in lexical richness.
It has been long accepted that vocabulary plays a major role in second language learning and the main difference between L2 and native speakers or among L2 speakers themselves is the number of vocabularies they use in the language production, either oral or written (Juanggo, 2018). Laufer and Nation (1995, p. 307) stressed out that "a well-used rich vocabulary is likely to have a positive effect on the reader". Juanggo (2018) writes that there are several measures that have been coined to evaluate L2 speakers' vocabulary use, such as lexical diversity/variation (LV) which primarily assesses how varied vocabulary is used and lexical sophistication (LS) which deals with the proportion of advanced vocabulary employed in the writings.
English vocabulary falls into two major categories: high-frequency words, that is, words that appear very frequently in almost all kinds of discourse, and lowfrequency words, that is, words that appear very infrequently across all texts. The highfrequency words are divided further into a 1000-word level and 2000-word level (Djiwandono, 2016). Lexical richness has attracted many linguists to explore, mostly in academic written products area, but to the best of the researcher's knowledge, no study has been conducted by choosing newspaper editorials as the subject. Djiwandono (2016) identifies the lexical richness of senior students' writing production by comparing them to academic papers written by their lecturers. The analysis shows that the lecturers are better in terms of type-token ratio (or TTR) and academic words but write slightly fewer 2000-word level and off-list words than the students. While the differences in TTR and academic words are significant, the differences in the use of a 2000-word level and off-list are not significant. Moreover, Vedder and Benigno (2016) study the relationship between lexical richness, operationalized as lexical frequency, and the overall proficiency level in Italian of the L2 learners, measured by a C-test. The results show that although a relationship in L2 between lexical richness, collocation competence, and general language proficiency could not be demonstrated, there appeared to be a number of traits that differentiate L2 and L1 writers. Meanwhile, Moskowich (2016) examines lexical richness, understood as the degree of variety of terms used in texts written by women during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by analyzing samples drawn from the Corpus of English History Texts (CHET) to see whether the communicative format (genre) of the sample has any influence on vocabulary in a discipline with discursive patterns that were not probably as standardized as those of other fields of knowledge. The results indicate that the language of female authors is influenced not only by the genres they are using but also that these are chosen precisely because of the writers' intended relationships.
The present study tries to bridge the gap by investigating and comparing the lexical richness of newspaper editorials from ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) of Southeast Asian countries, and achieve the following objectives: (1) to determine the difference of the type-token ratio (TTR) between ESL and EFL newspaper editorials, (2) to determine the difference of the use of academic words in ESL and EFL newspaper editorials, (3) to seek whether there is a significant difference between ESL and EFL newspaper editorials in term of lexical richness.

Newspaper Editorial
A newspaper editorial was first considered as a rhetoric text. By the midtwentieth century, editorial evolved into a device for the newspaper as an institution to provide information and explanation to readers (Richardson & Lancendorfer, 2004). In recent decades, the editorial has become more likely to take controversial stands, use argumentation and express reactions or calls for action (Hynds, 1990). Buitkiene (2008) states that: An editorial is characterized as a rather subjective and, at the same time, persuasive type of writing. The chief editor or a group of famous columnists, comments, i.e. expresses his/her opinion, on current issues of general importance, gets involved in a certain political or ethical discussion. Events are criticized, praised, or denounced. (Buitkiene, 2008, p. 13) According to Ukonu (2005), as cited in Jegede (2015), in editorials, the firstperson pronouns and stories about personal experiences will be quite rare. On the contrary, editorials are impersonal, focus on public (news) events, and support general (social, economic, cultural or political) opinions, usually shared by other elites. Also, other elements of style will mark this institutional, public, more or less formal properties of the context, e.g., in the selection of lexical items, syntactic structures, and modes of argumentation (Ukonu, 2005).
Newspaper editorial is an interesting genre to study cross-culturally since they are persuasive, public and have a function to represent both local cultures and ideological proclivities (Ansary & Babaii, 2009). Therefore, it has attracted many scholars to explore various linguistic aspects. Jegede (2015) uses Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory to identify and specify the types of processes that help in the realization of the messages of the selected editorials and reveals that (1) editorials help to articulate a better understanding of the news media and the unique use of language and text, (2) editorials express different process types, which are used to describe or make references to authorities in the nation, citizens, social bodies, political and social values, education, unemployment, the economy and the world as a whole, (3) editors use these process types in editorials to make appeal to relevant authorities to proffer solutions to certain problems. Jegede (2015) considers that the systemic functional linguistics (SFL) analytical framework made it possible to analyze the data linguistically; hence making it possible for the editorials' readers to bring out deeper nuances of meaning than would otherwise have been possible if either perspective had been adopted. Wiredu (2012) examines what linguistic choices are made at the level of the sentence in 338 selected sentences from 22 English language editorials of the Daily Graphic published in January 2008 and identifies the patterns: (a) only declarative sentences were used, (b) there was overwhelming reliance on complex sentences and (c) most of the complex sentences consisted of multiple rank-shifted structures. Meanwhile, Kuhi and Mojood (2014) conduct a contrastive rhetoric study to examine a corpus of 60 newspaper editorials written in English and Persian gathered from 10 elite newspapers in America and Iran and analyze both interactive and interactional metadiscursive resources by using the model of metadiscourse by Hyland (2005). The results show that genre conventions had a determining role in the writers' choice of some meta-discourse resources that contributed to some similarities in the use and distribution of meta-discourse resources across English and Persian data.
A study of newspaper editorial in Indonesian context was conducted by Zainuddin (2016) who investigate the types of derivational affixes of Indonesian nounformation in the newspaper editorial of Kompas. The data findings show that there are 7 types of derivational affixes of Indonesian noun-formation exists in the newspaper editorial of Kompas namely (1) suffix-an, (2) infix-em-+ suffix -an, (3) infix -el-, (4) confix per-an, (5) confix ke-an, (6) confix pe-an and (7) confix pen-an. He concludes that the function of Indonesian today developed much more diversity based on the social context such as politics, culture, and education.
The reviews above infer that newspaper editorials are mostly argumentative and persuasive text types, written by the member of the editorial board of newspaper's corporation to interpret current issues from a deeper and wider point of view and to influence the readers. Connor (1996) states that newspaper editorials are considered some of the best examples of persuasive writing in all countries because they set standards for written persuasion, studies of newspaper editorials become significant and could be linguistically explored in various fields.

The Circle Model of World Englishes
In this subchapter, the writer highlights some studies about the term of ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language). The term of world Englishes was firstly developed by Kachru (1985) who divide the English world in terms of three concentric circles: the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle, and the Expanding Circle. These circles represent "the type of spread, the patterns of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages" (Kachru, 1985, p. 12). The distribution of English speakers into inner, outer and expanding circles is preferable to the traditional native, ESL and EFL labels which involve the dichotomy between native and non-native speakers (Rajadurai, 2005). In global terms, the inner circle includes the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; the outer circle consists of countries where English has become part of a country's main institutions and are former colonies of the UK or USA, for examples Malaysia, Singapore, India, Ghana, Kenya and others (Rajadurai, 2005). Meanwhile, the expanding circle points to the countries where English is considered as a foreign language and do not have a history of colonization by the countries of the inner circle. The examples of expanding circles are China, Japan, Greece, and Indonesia (Crystal, 1997).
Although Karchu's three-circle has become the base in many researches, there are some drawbacks and contradictions proposed by several authors, such as Patil (2006) who argued that sometimes, it is difficult to define which countries use English as the first language. Crystal (1995, p. 363) also argued that "there are several countries where population movement, language loss, divergent language attitudes, and massive shifts in language use have made it difficult to answer to question: What is your first language?" However, the model of Kachru (1985) for world Englishes has been used as the framework in many studies, such as Bokhort-Heng et al. (2007) who captured a snapshot of Singaporean English speakers across age and socio-economic of their language ownership in transition beyond the NS/NNS dichotomy of English in Singaporean society. According to Bokhort-Heng et al. (2007), Singapore represents what Kachru (1985) calls an outer circle country where English is an official language, the de facto working language of the nation and is medium of instruction in all schools. Shaw et al. (2004) attempt to seek about genre validity across cultures by testing the responses to four different customer-complaint dialogues in English of 100 students in each of six countries: Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, England, Italy, and Japan. The results showed that the most version is seen by respondents as occurring in most cultures, that a "clear, brief, sincere" version seems most acceptable worldwide, that this version is also preferred in the four north-western European countries, but not necessarily in Italy or Japan, and that of the various prescribed versions some are never preferred and others are only preferred on one or two countries (Shaw et al., 2004, p. 285).
Meanwhile, Wee (2018) writes a paper which argued that a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed if the gap between World Englishes (WE) and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is to be bridged is 'the linguistic system conundrum' or how references to distinct L1s and L2s can be coherently related to sociolinguistic claims about the porosity of language categories. Wee (2018) suggested how the conundrum can be resolved in a way that: (i) preserves the insights gleaned from SLA and WE; (ii) opens up pathways for greater dialogue and common research.
Those papers above highlighted the contrastive linguistics between ENL (English Native Language), ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) based on the separation of English using countries. Since English is more widely used in a different aspect, including in professional writing genre such as newspaper editorials, this study also refers to the three circles of world Englishes (Kachru, 1985) to determine the countries of the outer circle or ESL (Malaysia and the Philippines) and expanding circle or EFL countries (Indonesia and Thailand).

Lexical Richness
Lexical richness is defined as the ratio of types of words, to the total words (token) written in a text, hence the term 'type-token ratio' (Hoover, 2003). In detail, Djiwandono (2016, p. 210) explains that 'type' refers to the types of words, while 'token' encompasses the total number of words used in a particular text; the higher the ratio, the more the text uses varied words. Laufer and Nation (1995, p. 307) state that, "a well-written composition, among other things, makes effective use of vocabulary. This need not be reflected in a rich vocabulary, but a well-used rich vocabulary is likely to have a positive effect on the readers". Laufer and Nation (1995) mention several measures of lexical richness, as follow.

Lexical originality
It is the percentage of words in a given piece of writing that is used by one particular writer and no one else in the group.

= 100
The lexical originality index measures the learners' performance relative to the group in which the composition was written (Laufer & Nation, 1995).

Lexical density
It is defined as the percentage of lexical words in the text, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.

= 100
Lexical density does not necessarily measure lexis since it depends on the syntactic and cohesive properties of the composition (Laufer & Nation, 1995).

Lexical sophistication
It is the percentage of 'advanced' words in the text.

ℎ = 100
What is labeled as 'advanced' would depend on the researchers' definition. To decide what vocabulary is advanced, it is necessary to take the learner's level into consideration. Lexical sophistication is determined by the researchers' definition of advanced or sophisticated words, its uses are limited (Laufer & Nation, 1995).

Lexical variation
It is the type/token ratio in percent between the different words in the text and the total number of running words.

= 100
The type/token ratio has been shown to be unstable for short texts and can be affected by differences in text length; even more sophisticated formulas have been shown to be unsuitable for short texts like learners' essays. Lexical variation distinguishes only between the different words used in a composition (Laufer & Nation, 1995).

Lexical frequency profile
The LFP (Lexical Frequency Profile ) was proposed by Laufer and Nation (1995) and it shows the percentage of words at different vocabulary frequency levels. The calculation is done by a computer program which compares vocabulary lists against a text that has been typed in (without lemmatization) to see what words in the text are not in the lists and to see what percentage of the items in the text is covered by the lists.
Furthermore, Laufer and Nation (1995) explain that the VocabProfile package consists of the program itself and three accompanying word lists. The program compares the words in a text in ASCII format with the words in the word lists. The calculation results display word tokens, word types or word families and academic words based on General Service List (GSL) which consists of one thousand most frequent words of English (K1), two thousand most frequent words of English (K2) and AWL (Academic Word List) with high-frequency appearance in English academic text (Indarti, 2017). Below is the terminology of lexical richness in LFP. Studies of lexical richness have been conducted by many linguists, especially in academic writing products. Djiwandono (2016) investigates EFL learners' ability to use varied vocabulary to determine the difference between the type-token ratio (TTR), the use of 2000-word level, and the use of academic words in students' essays and that in their lecturers' essays. The results show that the lecturers far better in terms of TTR and academic words, but write slightly fewer 2000-word level and off-list words than their students. While the differences in TTR and academic words are significant, the differences in the use of a 2000-word level and off-list are not significant. Juanggo (2018) investigates lexical diversity and lexical sophistication of productive vocabulary in the written discourse of Indonesian EFL learners. The results of the calculation done by using the lexical frequency profile (LFP) show that the lexical diversity index of students at a higher level was greater than that of students at a lower level. Juanggo (2018) also notes that in terms of lexical sophistication, it was found that the percentage of advanced vocabulary used by less proficient learners was slightly larger than the percentage of advanced vocabulary used by more proficient learners. Meanwhile, Halim (2018) analyzes undergraduate theses of English Language and Culture department's students by using computer software namely AntwordProfiler. Halim (2018) sets the hypotheses that the closer the TTR score to 1, the higher the lexical richness is. However, the result shows that the students' lexical richness is quite low since none of the students achieved even 0.5. In general, the existing studies of lexical richness focus on the comparison between students' written production. To fill in the gap, the current study uses newspaper editorials written by ESL and EFL of South East Asian countries' writers and compares the production of lexical richness in professionally written texts.

METHODS
This study employs a case study because according to Duff (2012) as a case study has commonly used in social sciences, consists of a small set of participants, sites or events and is based on an in-depth investigation of a group of data. The data of the study consists of four editorial articles published on the same day, September 18 th 2019 from New Straits Times Malaysia and Manila Bulletin News Philippine as representative of ESL countries, while The Jakarta Post Indonesia and Bangkok Post Thailand as representative of EFL countries. Table 3 below lists the data in detail. To measure the lexical richness, this study uses a free online website designed by Tom Cobb in http://www.lextutor/ca/vp. The editorial articles were copied-paste into the website and the output of the processing automatically provides number and percentage of K1 words, K2 words, AWL words, Off-list words, words in a text (tokens), different words (types), and TTR (type-token ratio).

Results
In analyzing the data, this study adopts the steps used by Juanggo (2018) who applied two types of analysis: collective analysis and separate analysis. Here, the collective analysis was aimed to find out the general lexical frequency profile (LFP), while separate analysis was done to find out the LFP of each text.
A token is any occurrence of a word form regardless of how many times it appears in the text (Juanggo, 2018). As we can see from Table 4, in term of tokens, an editorial text published in News Strait Times Malaysia contains 564 tokens, consists of the majority of K1 (the first 1000 most frequent words) amount of 414 words, K2 (the second 1000 most frequent words) amount of 21 words, AWL (Academic word List) that accounts for 22 words and off-list (words that do not belong to the three categories) amount of 107 words. Meanwhile, an editorial text published in Manila Bulletin News from the Philippines produces 791 tokens, consists of 585 words belong to K1, 59 words belong to K2, 55 words belong to AWL and 92 words belong to an off-list category. An editorial published in The Jakarta Post from Indonesia contains 549 words, consisting of the majority of 410 words that fall into the K1 category, 16 words fall into the K2 group, 41 words fall into AWL and 82 words fall into the off-list category. The last is an editorial published in Bangkok Post from Thailand that produces 576 tokens consists of 409 words of K1, 53 words of K2, 32 words of AWL and 82 words of off-list category. Unlike tokens, word types are any forms of a word counted only once regardless of how many times it might appear in the text (Juanggo, 2018). In terms of types in the editorial text published in News Strait Times Malaysia, 176 out of 283 total word types belong to the K1 category, 20-word types belong to K2 and AWL and 67-word types belong to off-list. From an editorial published in Manila Bulletin News from the Philippines, among the 404 words, the majority of word types belong to the K1 category that accounts for 235-word types, K2 category has 48-word types, AWL category has 40-word types and off-list category has 81-word types. The Jakarta Post's editorial from Indonesia contains a total of 269 words which consist 162-word type of K1, 13-word type of K2, 33-word type of AWL and 61-word type of off-list category. Meanwhile, 178 out of 298-word types produced by an editorial published in Bangkok Post of Thailand fall into K1, 32-word types fall into K2, 23-word types fall into AWL and 65-word types fall into off-list category.
A word family is a group of words with a common base to which different prefixes and suffixes are added (Nordquist, 2019) Table 5 shows the average TTR of each text in each group. Generally, the difference in the average TTR between ESL and EFL texts is not significant. According to Mackiewicz (2016), the indicator TTR ratio between 0 and 1 shows that the closer the result to 1, the greater the lexical diversity of the vocabulary composition (Juanggo, 2018). Table 5 displays that ESL texts contain richer vocabulary than EFL texts since 0.51 is higher than 0.49. Following the steps of Juanggo (2018), this paper also compares K1, K2, AWL and not in the lists of words. Table 6 below shows the overall composition between ESL and EFL countries. From Table 6, we can infer that for the first 1000 most common wordlist, ESL texts contain more words (999) than EFL texts (819), but EFL texts have a slightly higher TTR score. It means that EFL texts have more varied K1 words. In terms of the second 1000 most common wordlist, ESL texts also contain more words (80) than EFL texts (69) and the TTR score is higher than EFL texts. It infers that ESL texts have more varied K2 words than EFL texts.
Considering the academic words, it seems that ESL texts have more academic words (TTR 0.779) than EFL texts (TTR 0.767) although the gap is just slightly. Meanwhile, off-the list words show the contrary. EFL texts contain more varied not in the list words, with the TTR score account 0.768 compared to ESL texts, with the TTR score account 0.744. According to Read (2000), the classification of words considered as advanced or sophisticated was determined under the consideration of their rareness and low frequency of occurrence in normal texts. It means that all academic words and off-lists words were considered as advanced lexical items (Juanggo, 2018). Figure 1 displays the appearance of academic words and off-lists words in both ESL and EFL texts. The average tokens of academic words in ESL texts is 38.5 while in EFL texts are 36.5. It means the difference is slightly insignificant. Meanwhile, there is a quite significant difference in terms of off-list words between ESL and EFL texts. The average tokens of off-list words in ESL texts is 99.5 while in EFL texts are 82.

Discussion
Research of lexical richness on professional writing production genre, such as newspaper editorials is still rare, Nevertheless, Connor (1996, p. 144) stresses that, "research on editorials cross-culturally is significant since editorials are considered some of the best examples of persuasive writing in all countries because they set standards for written persuasion." Further, Laufer and Nation (1995, p. 307) also maintain that "a well-used rich vocabulary is likely to have a positive effect on the reader." Accordingly, the findings of this research highlight the different quality of editorial texts written by the writers from ESL and EFL countries. Since the four texts used in this study have a slightly similar number of words in the text (token), which is between 500 -800 words, the writer considers that the data are similar in terms of length of texts.
In term of the first one thousand words (K1), ESL countries' texts contain slightly more token (999) and type (411) than EFL countries' texts which contain less token (819) and type (340), although the TTR of K1 wordlist from EFL texts is slightly higher (0.415) than ESL texts (0.411). It can be assumed that EFL writers use a more varied of K1 word list than ESL writers. Meanwhile, the results of the K2 word list display the contrary. ESL texts have more token (80) and type (68) than EFL texts, which have a token (69) and type (45). The TTR of the K2 word list also shows that ESL texts have more varied K2 words (TTR = 0.850) than EFL texts (TTR = 0.661).
Academic Word List (AWL) and off-list words are classified into low-frequency word category under the consideration of their rareness and low frequency of occurrence in normal texts (Juanggo, 2018). Research has shown that the AWL covers 10% of words in academic texts. The results of this study show that ESL texts produce more AWL (token: 77, type: 60, TTR: 0.779), than EFL texts (token: 73, type: 56, TTR: 0.767). It shows that the writer from ESL countries has more varied of AWL words compare to the EFL writers. Meanwhile, off-list words are those which may include proper nouns (names, places, and many more), unusual words, specialist vocabulary, acronyms, abbreviations, and miss-spellings. ESL texts contain more offlist words (token: 199, type: 148) than EFL texts (token: 164, type: 126). It means that in ESL editorials, we can find more non-English words and terms than in EFL editorials texts. Off-List words Language and Education, 7(1), 55-69, 2020

CONCLUSION
The present study aims to compare of lexical richness between editorial texts written by two ESL and two EFL countries in South East Asia, with the focus to see the TTR score, the proportion of appearance of high-frequency words (K1 and K2 words) and low-frequency words (AWL and off-list words). Generally, the results show that in all term of word lists, ESL texts has more varied vocabulary than EFL texts as indicated by the TTR scores, as Laufer and Nation (1995) imply that a big TTR score indicates a high lexical richness, while a small TTR score shows a low lexical richness, although the gap of TTR's score between ESL and EFL texts is slightly not significant.
The higher score of ESL text' TTR could be understood since English plays an important role in education, governance policy and popular culture in those countries (Nordquist, 2018). In these countries, a variety of English has evolved which possesses the common core characteristics of Inner circle varieties of English, but in addition can be distinguished from them by particular lexical, phonological, pragmatic, and morph syntactic innovations. This study merely used a small data set of editorial texts. The results might be different if further study is conducted by using a bigger data set of editorial texts.