1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 5, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-7245
  • E-ISSN: 2211-7253
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The present study is inspired by the often heard Chinese university level students’ complaint that they do not improve in English proficiency during their university courses. With a pre-post design, the study explores the potential gains in language development in free response data (writing samples) of three groups of L2 learners: a senior high school group and two university groups of different proficiency levels. Four writing samples, two collected at the beginning and two at the end of the students’ respective courses, were scored holistically on general proficiency and analytically on 47 complexity measures in a computerized tool (Synlex Analyzer). The holistic scores showed some improvement over time for the high school group, but not for the university groups. The analytical measures showed improvements in fairly different aspects of the written language for the three groups, suggesting that at different levels of proficiency different variables may develop. The highest level group actually regressed in almost all syntactic variables, but additional hand coded measures point to a subtle move toward a more academic style of writing with more non-finite constructions. The findings suggest that no single complexity measure is robust for all proficiency levels and that for the highest levels, other metrics tapping into inter-clausal complexity should be added.

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.5.1.04loe
2016-06-27
2024-04-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dujal.5.1.04loe
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adamson, B. , & Xia, B
    (2011) A case study of the college English test and ethnic minority university students in China: Negotiating the final hurdle. Multilingual Education, 1(1), 1–11. doi: 10.1186/2191‑5059‑1‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-5059-1-1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, A.H
    (1995) Negotiating coherence in dialogue. In M.A. Gernsbacher & T. Givon(Eds.), The negotiation of coherence (pp.41–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.31.05goo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.31.05goo [Google Scholar]
  3. Bardovi-Harliga, K. , & Bofmana, T
    (1989) The attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 17–34. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100007816
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100007816 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D. , & Gray, B
    (2010) Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bulté, B
    (2013) The development of complexity in Second Language Acquisition: A dynamic system approach. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Brussels.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Byrnes, H
    (2009) Emergent l2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 50–66. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Caspi, T
    (2010) A dynamic perspective on second language development. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Groningen.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  9. De Beaugrande, R.A. , & Dressler, W.U
    (1981) Introduction to text linguistics, Vol. 2. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. De Bot, K
    (2008) Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 166–178. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00712.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00712.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellis, N.C
    (2002) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223–236.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (2005) At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ellis, R. , & Barkhuizen, G
    (2005) Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Engber, C.A
    (1995) The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139–155. doi: 10.1016/1060‑3743(95)90004‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ferris, D.R
    (1994) Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414–420. doi: 10.2307/3587446
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3587446 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fillmore, C. , Kay, P. , & O’Connor, M.C
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. doi: 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  17. Foster, P. , & Skehan, P
    (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100015047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047 [Google Scholar]
  18. Foltz, P.W
    (2007) Discourse coherence and LSA. In T. Landauser , D. McNamara , D. Simon , & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp.167–184). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Graesser, A.C. , McNamara, D.S. , & Louwerse, M.M
    (2003) What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text?In A.P. Sweet & C.E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp.82–98). New York: Guilford Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Halliday, M.A.K. , & Matthiessen, C
    (1999) Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London/New York: Cassell.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Henry, K
    (1996) Early L2 writing development: A study of autobiographical essays by university-level students of Russian. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 309–326. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1996.tb01613.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01613.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Housen, A. , & Kuiken, F
    (2009) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp048
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048 [Google Scholar]
  23. Housen, A. , Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I
    (2012) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.32
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32 [Google Scholar]
  24. Howell, D
    (2009) Statistical methods for psychology. Australia: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Iwashita, N. , Brown, A. , McNamara, T. , & O’Hagan, S
    (2008) What features of language distinguish levels of learner proficiency? In-depth analysis of task performance in the context of the speaking scale development. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 29–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Ishikawa, S
    (1995) Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(1), 51–69. doi: 10.1016/1060‑3743(95)90023‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90023-3 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jarvis, S. , Grant, L. , Bikowski, D. , & Ferris, D
    (2003) Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 377–403. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kern, R.G. , & Schultz, J.M
    (1992) The effects of composition instruction on intermediate level French students’ writing performance: Some preliminary findings. The Modern Language Journal, 76(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1992.tb02572.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1992.tb02572.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Klein, D. , & Manning, C.D
    (2003) Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics .
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Langacker, R.W
    (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kenner (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Larsen-Freeman, D
    (1978) An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 439–448. doi: 10.2307/3586142
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3586142 [Google Scholar]
  33. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 140–165. doi: 10.1093/applin/18.2.141
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–616. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml029
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029 [Google Scholar]
  35. Laufer, B. , & Nation, P
    (1995) Vocabulary size & use: Lexical richness in L2 written productions. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. doi: 10.1093/applin/16.3.307
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307 [Google Scholar]
  36. Leech, G. , Rayson, P. , & Wilson, A
    (2001) Word frequencies in written and spoken English based on the British national corpus. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Lu, X
    (2010) Automatic measurement of syntactic complexity in child language acquisition. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(1), 3–28. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.14.1.02lu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.1.02lu [Google Scholar]
  38. (2011) A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL Writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62. doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.240859
     https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2012) The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190–208. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2011.01232_1.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x [Google Scholar]
  40. MacWhinney, B
    (2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Minnen, G. , Carroll, J. , & Pearce, D
    (2001) Applied morphological processing of English. Natural Language Engineering, 7(3), 207–223. doi: 10.1017/S1351324901002728
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324901002728 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ortega, L
    (2000) Understanding syntactic complexity: The measurement of change in the syntax of instructed L2 Spanish learners. (Doctoral dissertation). Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. (2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. doi: 10.1093/applin/24.4.492
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pawley, A. , & Syder, F.H
    (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp.191–226). New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Penris, W. , & Verspoor, M
    . (in press). Academic writing development: A complex, dynamic process.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Polio, C
    (2003) Research on second language writing: An overview of what we investigate and how. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp.35–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524810.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524810.005 [Google Scholar]
  47. Read, J
    (Eds.) (2000) Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511732942
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732942 [Google Scholar]
  48. Schmid, M.S. , Verspoor, M.H. , & MacWhinney, B
    (2011) Coding and extracting data. In M.H. Verspoor , K. De Bot , & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp.39–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.29.03sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.03sch [Google Scholar]
  49. Skehan, P
    (2009) Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp047
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
  50. Smiskova, H. , Verspoor, M. , & Lowie, W
    (2012) Conventionalized ways of saying things (CWOSTs) and L2 development. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 125–142. doi: 10.1075/dujal.1.1.09smi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.1.1.09smi [Google Scholar]
  51. Smiskova-Gustafsson, H
    (2013) Chunks in L2 development: A usage-based perspective. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Groningen.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Spoelman, M. , & Verspoor, M.H
    (2010) Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics31, 532–553. doi: 10.1093/applin/amq001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Stockwell, G.R. , & Harrington, M.W
    (2003) The incidental development of L2 proficiency in NS-NNS email interactions. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 337–359.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Tomasello, M
    (2003) Constructing language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Toutanova, K. , Klein, D. , Manning, C. , & Singer, Y
    (2003) Feature-Rich Part-Of-Speech Tagging with a Cyclic Dependency Network. InProceedings of the 2003 Human language technology conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics (pp.252–259). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: The Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Tanskanen, S.K
    (2006) Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.146
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.146 [Google Scholar]
  57. Templin M.C
    (1957) Certain language skills in children. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Urquhart, V. , & McIver, M
    (2005) Teaching writing in the content areas. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Dijk, M. , Verspoor, M. , & Lowie, W
    (2011) Variability and DST. In M.H. Verspoor , K. de Bot , & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp.55–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.29.04van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.04van [Google Scholar]
  60. Verspoor, M.H. , De Bot, K. , & Lowie, W
    (2011) A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.29
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29 [Google Scholar]
  61. Verspoor, M.H. , Schmid, M.S. , & Xu, X
    (2012) A dynamic usage-based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 239–263. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  62. Verspoor, M.H. , Lowie, W. , & Van Dijk, M
    (2008) Variability in L2 development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92, 214–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00715.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00715.x [Google Scholar]
  63. Warren, B
    (2005) A model of idiomaticity. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 35–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Weigand, E
    (2009) Language as dialogue: From rules to principles of probability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.5 [Google Scholar]
  65. Wen, Q. , Wang, L. , & Liang, M
    (2005) Spoken and written English corpus of Chinese learners. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Wolfe-Quintero, K. , Inagaki, S. , & Kim, H
    (1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Xu, X
    (2010) English language attrition and retention in Chinese and Dutch university students. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Groningen.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Zareva, A. , Schwanenflugel, P. , & Nikolova, Y
    (2005) Relationship between lexical competence and language proficiency - variable sensitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(4), 567–595. doi: 10.1017/S0272263105050254
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050254 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.5.1.04loe
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Chinese learners; dynamic usage-based approach; holistic rating; L2 proficiency; language development; lexical complexity; non-linear growth; syntactic complexity

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error