Article published in:
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 7:2 (2021) ► pp. 197229
References

References

Ågren, M., Granfeldt, J., & Schlyter, S.
(2012) The growth of complexity and accuracy in L2 French: Past observations and recent applications of developmental stages. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 95–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bartning, I., & Schlyter, S.
(2004) Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en français L2. Journal of French Language Studies, 14(3), 281–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Batista, R., & Horst, M.
(2016) A new receptive vocabulary size test for French. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 72(2), 211–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bestgen, Y., & Granger, S.
(2018) Tracking L2 writers’ phraseological development using collgrams: Evidence from a longitudinal EFL corpus. In S. Hoffmann, A. Sand, S. Arndt-Lappe, & L. M. Dillmann (Eds.), Corpora and lexis (pp. 277–301). Leiden: Brill Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 223 ]
Blanche-Benveniste, C., & Adam, J.-P.
(1999) La conjugaison des verbes: Virtuelle, attestée, defective. Recherches Sur Le Français Parlé, 15, 87–112.Google Scholar
Bulté, B.
(2013) The development of complexity in second language acquisition: A dynamic systems approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
(2012) Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, I. Vedder, & F. Kuiken (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Candito, M., Nivre, J., Denis, P., & Anguiano, E. H.
(2010) Benchmarking of statistical dependency parsers for French. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2010: Poster Volume), 108–116.Google Scholar
Church, K. W., & Hanks, P.
(1989) Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 76–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T., & Horst, M.
(2004) Is there room for an academic word list in French? In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language : Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 15–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) The common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coxhead, A.
(2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, B.
(2015) The development of lexical complexity in second language acquisition: A cross-linguistic study of L2 French and English. EUROSLA Yearbook, 15(1), 69–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) The development of linguistic complexity: A comparative study on L2 French and L2 English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
De Clercq, B., & Housen, A.
(2017) A cross-linguistic perspective on syntactic complexity in L2 development: Syntactic elaboration and diversity. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 315–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) The development of morphological complexity: A cross-linguistic study of L2 French and English. Second Language Research, 35(1), 71–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demol, A., & Hadermann, P.
(2008) An exploratory study of discourse organisation in French L1, Dutch L1, French L2 and Dutch L2 written narratives. In G. Gilquin, S. Papp, & M. B. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research (pp. 255–282). Amsterdam: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denis, P., & Sagot, B.
(2012) Coupling an annotated corpus and a lexicon for state-of-the-art POS tagging. Language Resources and Evaluation, 46, 721–736. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N.
(2009) To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(2), 157–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 224 ]
Erman, B., Denke, A., Fant, L., & Forsberg Lundell, F.
(2015) Nativelike expression in the speech of long-residency L2 users: A study of multiword structures in L2 English, French and Spanish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 160–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forsberg, F., & Bartning, I.
(2010) Can linguistic features discriminate between the communicative CEFR-levels?: A pilot study of written L2 French. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing (pp. 133–157). European Second Language Association.Google Scholar
Forsberg Lundell, F., Lindqvist, C., & Edmonds, A.
(2018) Productive collocation knowledge at advanced CEFR levels: Evidence from the development of a test for advanced L2 French. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 74(4), 627–649. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garner, J., Crossley, S. A., & Kyle, K.
(2018) N-gram measures and L2 writing proficiency. System, 80, 176–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2006) Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Bestgen, Y.
(2014) The use of collocations by intermediate vs. advanced non-native writers: A bigram-based study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(3), 229–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenwell, B.
(2017) pdp: An R package for constructing partial dependence plots. The R Journal, 9(1), 421–436. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenwell, B., Boehmke, B., & Gray, B.
(2019) vip: Variable importance plots. Retrieved from https://​cran​.r​-project​.org​/package​=vip
Guiraud, P.
(1954) Les charactères statistiques du vocabulaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Gyllstad, H., Granfeldt, J., Bernardini, P., & Källkvist, M.
(2014) Linguistic correlates to communicative proficiency levels of the CEFR: The case of syntactic complexity in written L2 English, L3 French and L4 Italian. EuroSLA Yearbook, 14(1), 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T., Buehlmann, P., Dudoit, S., Molinaro, A., & Van Der Laan, M.
(2006) Survival ensembles. Biostatistics, 7(3), 355–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
(2000) Pattern grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N.
(2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindqvist, C., Gudmundson, A., & Bardel, C.
(2013) A new approach to measuring lexical sophistication in L2 oral production. In C. Bardel, C. Lindqvist, & B. Laufer (Eds.), L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use: New perspectives on assessment and corpus analysis (Eurosla Monographs Series 2) (pp. 109–126). European Second Language Association.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, D., & Le Bras, Y.
(2009) A frequency dictionary of French: Core vocabulary for learners. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michalke, M.
(2019) koRpus: An R package for text analysis (Version 0.12-1).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(4), 555–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 225 ]
Ortega, L.
(2012) Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. In B. Szmrecsanyi & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact (pp. 127–155). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ovtcharov, V., Cobb, T., & Halter, R.
(2006) La richesse lexicale des productions orales: Mesure fiable du niveau de compétence langagière. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 107–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2015) A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(11), 117–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M.
(2018) Phraseological competence: A missing component in university entrance language tests? Insights from a study of EFL learners’ use of statistical collocations. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(1), 29–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) The phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research. Second Language Research, 35(1), 121–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M., & Granger, S.
(2012) Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(2012), 130–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peters, E., Velghe, T., & Van Rompaey, T.
(2019) The VocabLab tests: The development of an English and French vocabulary test. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(1), 53–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
(2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Porte, G.
(2012) Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team
(2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved on 27 July 2021 from https://​www​.r​-project​.org/
Rosenthal, R.
(1994) Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Rubin, R., Housen, A., & Paquot, M.
(2021) Phraseological complexity as an index of L2 Dutch writing proficiency: A partial replication study. In S. Granger (Ed.), Perspectives on the L2 phrasicon: The view from learner corpora (pp. 101–125). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, R.
(2015) Processing and querying large web corpora with the COW14 architecture. In P. Bański, H. Biber, E. Breiteneder, M. Kupietz, H. Lüngen, & A. Witt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-3), 28–34.Google Scholar
Schäfer, R., & Bildhauer, F.
(2012) Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. U. Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), 486–493.Google Scholar
Skehan, P.
(2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. 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(2), 149–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 226 ]
Stengers, H., Boers, F., Housen, A., & Eyckmans, J.
(2011) Formulaic sequences and L2 oral proficiency: Does the type of target language influence the association? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(4), 321–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Kneib, T., Zeileis, T., & Achim, A.
(2008) Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics, 9(307). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Zeileis, A., & Hothorn, T.
(2007) Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics, 8(25). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J.
(2013) Measuring lexical diversity among L2 learners of French: an exploration of the validity of D, MTLD and HD-D as measures of language ability. In S. Jarvis & M. Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 79–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tutin, A., & Grossman, F.
(2014) L’écrit scientifique: Du lexique au discours. Autour de Scientext [Scientific writing: From lexis to discourse. Overview of Scientext]. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L.
(2009) Python 3 Reference Manual. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace.Google Scholar
Vanderbauwhede, G.
(2012) Le déterminant démonstratif en français et en néerlandais à travers les corpus: Théorie, description, acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, Paris, France.
Vandeweerd, N.
(2021) fsca: French syntactic complexity analyzer. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 7(2), 259–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vanhove, J.
(2018) Computer code for cleaning, tagging, and analysing the texts. Retrieved on 27 July 2021 from https://​osf​.io​/479um/
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X.
(2012) A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, J.
(1995) Comparative stylistics of French and English. Translated by J. Sager & M.-J. Hamel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Welcomme, A.
(2013) Jonction interpropositionnelle et complexité syntaxique dans les récits d’apprenants néerlandophones et locuteurs natifs du français. In U. Paprocka-Piotrowska, C. Martinot, & S. Gerolimich (Eds.), La complexité en langue et son acquisition [The Complexity of language and its acquisition] (pp. 261–284). Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Kul Katolicki Uniwersytet Jana Pawla II.Google Scholar