Article published in:
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 6:1 (2020) ► pp. 38–71

Exploring the longitudinal development of grammatical complexity in the disciplinary writing of L2-English university students

| Northern Arizona University
| Northern Arizona University
| University of Arizona
| Northern Arizona University
The present paper employs a corpus-based approach to track the longitudinal language development of university students. Compared to many other longitudinal studies, the present study tracks development over a relatively long period of time (two years) for a relatively large group of students (N = 22). However, the most important difference from previous research is that the study explores the linguistic characteristics of disciplinary writing, across levels of education and academic disciplines, investigating the writing tasks required for disciplinary content courses over two years of university education. We focus on grammatical complexity features associated with the hypothesized stages of development proposed in Biber et al. (2011). Methodologically, the study proposes research designs and statistical approaches that permit investigation of longitudinal development in an unbalanced corpus of natural texts. And linguistically, the results generally support the hypothesized stages of development, documenting a decline in the use of dependent clause complexity features and an increase in the use of phrasal complexity features. As such, the study adds to the growing body of research that emphasizes the importance of phrasal complexity in the development of academic writing.
Keywords: grammatical complexity, language development, disciplinary writing
Published online: 14 April 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.18007.bib
References

References

Ansarifar, A., Shahriari, H., & Pishghadam, R.
2018 Phrasal complexity in academic writing: A comparison of abstracts written by graduate students and expert writers in applied linguistics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 58–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. & Egbert, J.
(Eds.) 2016 Triangulating methodological approaches in corpus-linguistic research. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D.
1988 Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes, 15, 133–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Gray, B.
2010 Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B.
2013 Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking responses on the TOEFL iBT. (TOEFL iBT Research Report No. 19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Biber, D. & Gray, B.
2011/2016 Grammar emerging in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics, 15, 223–250. [Reprinted 2016 in the 20th Anniversary Collection, English Language and Linguistics.]Google Scholar
2016 Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
2011 Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Pay attention to the phrasal structures: Going beyond T-units. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 192–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B. & Staples, S.
2016 Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639–668. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
1999 The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
[ p. 68 ]
Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J.
to appear). Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes.
Biber, D., Reppen, R., & Staples, S.
(2017) Exploring the relationship between TOEFL iBT scores and disciplinary writing performance. TESOL Quarterly 51(4), 948-960. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E.
2011 Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24, 183–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B. & Housen, A.
2014 Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 147–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. & McCarthy, M.
2006 Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Connor-Linton, J. & Polio, C.
2014 Comparing perspectives on L2 writing: Multiple analyses of a common corpus. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 1–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S.
2014 Does writing development equal writing quality?: A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 66–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crosthwaite, P.
2016 A longitudinal multidimensional analysis of EAP writing: Determining EAP course effectiveness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 166–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Egbert, J.
2015 Sub-register and discipline variation in published academic writing: Investigating statistical interaction in corpus data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20, 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, S.
2012 A longitudinal study of complexity, accuracy and fluency variation in second language development. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, and I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in SLA (pp. 277–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friginal, E. & Weigle, S.
2014 Exploring multiple profiles of L2 writing using multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 80–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, S., Nesi, H., & Biber, D.
2018 Discipline, level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 40, 646–674. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gray, B.
2015 Linguistic Variation in Research Articles: When Discipline Tells Only Part of the Story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gray, B., Staples, S. & Egbert, J., & Biber, D.
2019 Developmental complexity in BAWE: comparing L1 and L2 English writers. Presentation at 10th International Corpus Linguistics 2019 Conference . Cardiff, Wales.
[ p. 69 ]
Gunnarsson, C.
2012 The development of complexity, accuracy and fluency in the written production of L2 French. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, and I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in SLA (pp. 247–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
1989 Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R.
1984 Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E.
1995 Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773–795. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knoch, U., Rouhshad, A., Oon, S. P., & Storch, N.
2015 What happens to ESL students’ writing after three years of study at an English medium university? Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 39–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kreyer, R. & Schaub, S.
2018 The development of phrasal complexity in German intermediate learners of English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 4(1), 82–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A.
2018 Measuring Syntactic Complexity in L2 Writing Using Fine-Grained Clausal and Phrasal Indices. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 333–349. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
2006 The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 24(7), 590–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L.
2008 Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martínez, A. C. L.
2018 Analysis of syntactic complexity in secondary education EFLwriters at different proficiency levels. Assessing Writing, 35, 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nesi, H., Gardner, S., Thompson, P., & Wickens, P.
2008–2010 The British Academic Written English (BAWE) corpus.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
2009 Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L.
2012 Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. In Kortmann, B., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (Eds.)., Linguistic complexity: second language acquisition, indigenization, contact (pp. 127–155). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. & Byrnes, H.
2008 The Longitudinal Study of Advanced L2 Capacities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. & Iberri-Shea, G.
2005 Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 26–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, J. & Musgrave, J.
2014 Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 48–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 70 ]
Polat, B. & Kim, Y.
2012 Dynamics of Complexity and Accuracy: A Longitudinal Case Study of Advanced Untutored Development. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 184–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spoelman, M. & Verspoor, M.
2010 Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 532–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Staples, S., Biber, D., & Reppen, R.
2018 Using Corpus-Based Register Analysis to Explore Authenticity of High-Stakes Language Exams: A Register Comparison of TOEFL iBT and Disciplinary Writing Tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 310–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B.
2016 Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33, 149–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., Crawford, W., & Wetzel, D. Z.
2013 What linguistic features are indicative of writing quality? A case of argumentative essays in a college composition program. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 420–430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & van Dijk, M.
2008 Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wells, R.
1960 Nominal and verbal style. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 213–220). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yan, X. & Staples, S.
(2019, early view) Fitting MD analysis in an argument-based validity framework for writing assessment: Explanation and generalization inferences for the ECPE. Language Testing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yang, W., Lu, X., & Weigle, S.
2015 Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 53–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 71 ]
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Bychkovska, Tetyana
2021. Effects of explicit instruction on noun phrase production in L2 undergraduate writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 54 ► pp. 101040 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 august 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.