Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 32:1 (2019) ► pp.125–154

Medidas de longitud en la investigación empírica de ASL

¿Medidas de complejidad sintáctica o de fluidez?

 | Universidad Antonio de Nebrija
 | Universidad de Siena | Universidad Antonio de Nebrija
El objetivo del presente estudio fue analizar el controvertido estatus de tres medidas lingüísticas ampliamente utilizadas en la investigación empírica de Adquisición de Segundas Lenguas, como son la longitud promedio de la unidad terminal, la longitud promedio de la cláusula y la longitud promedio de la oración. Sesenta y cinco aprendientes griegos de español como lengua extranjera realizaron dos tareas escritas y su actuación se evaluó con base en un total de 24 medidas de precisión, fluidez y complejidad sintáctica y léxica. Mediante la aplicación del Análisis Factorial Común se pudo constatar que las medidas de longitud (longitud promedio de la unidad terminal y de la cláusula) y de subordinación cargan en factores diferentes y, más que fluidez, dichas medidas evalúan diferentes facetas del constructo de complejidad sintáctica. En cuanto a la longitud promedio de la oración, los resultados sugieren que esta medida se ve influenciada por factores relacionados con su cómputo, con la extensión de los textos analizados, así como por las convenciones lingüísticas que rigen la lengua materna o extranjera.
Keywords: complejidad linguística, fluidez, medidas de longitud, expresión escrita, análisis factorial común
Article outline
  • 1.Introducción
  • 2.Conceptualización y medición de los constructos de CAF
  • 3.Conceptualización, medición y problemas metodológicos relacionados con las unidades de análisis del discurso
  • 4.Análisis Factorial Exploratorio: Una herramienta útil al servicio del investigador de ASL
  • 5.Metodología
    • 5.1Participantes
    • 5.2Tareas escritas
    • 5.3Procedimiento de recogida y tratamiento de los datos
  • 6.Resultados
  • 7.Discusión
  • 8.Conclusiones
  • Notas
  • Referencias

Article language: Spanish

Published online: 24 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.15028.mav
References (76)
Referencias
Bardovi-Harlig, K., y Bofman, T. (1988). A second look at T-unit analysis. Comunicación presentada en 22nd Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Chicago, IL. Disponible en: [URL]
Bulté, B., y Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. En A. Housen, F. Kuiken, y I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Celaya, M. L., Pérez-Vidal, C., y Torras, M. R. (2000/2001). Matriz de criterios de medición para la determinación del perfil de competencia lingüística escrita en inglés (LE). RESLA, 141, 87–98.Google Scholar
Checa García, I. (2005). Medidas de madurez sintáctica aplicadas a lecturas de ELE. Interlingüística, 16(1), 273–285.Google Scholar
Conway, J. M., y Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6(2), 147–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costello, A. B., y Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7). Disponible en: [URL]
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2016). Of moving targets and chameleons: Why the concept of difficulty is so hard to pin down. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 353–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J. M., y Pavlenko, A. (2003). Productivity and lexical diversity in native and non-native speech: A study of cross-cultural effects. En V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 120–141). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Winter, J. C. F., Dodou, D., y Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 441, 147–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., y Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fidell, L. S., y Tabachnick, B. G. (2003). Preparatory data analysis. En I. B. Weiner, J. A. Schinka, y W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 115–141). New York: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., y Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2005). Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production (Tesis doctoral inédita, Universitat de Barcelona). Disponible en: [URL]
Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., y Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Holmes, D. I. (1985). The analysis of literary style: A review. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General), 148(4), 328–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., y Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., y Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. En A. Housen, F. Kuiken, y I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Johansson, V. (2008). Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Lund Working Papers in Linguistics, 531, 61–79.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, M. (2009). Hitting the mark: How can text organisation and response format affect reading test performance? New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 201, 148–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J., y Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32(2), 146–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J., y Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62(2), 439–472. DOI logoGoogle 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, 27(4), 590–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 579–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., y Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, X. (2012). The Relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Martínez Arbelaiz, A. (2004). Índices de progreso en la producción escrita de estudiantes de español en situación de inmersión. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 31, 115–145.Google Scholar
Mavrou, I. (2013). Precisión lingüística y complejidad sintáctica: ¿hasta qué punto compiten entre sí por los recursos limitados del aprendiz? Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas, 141, 75–91.Google Scholar
(2015). Análisis factorial exploratorio: Cuestiones conceptuales y metodológicas. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas, 191, 71–80. DOI logo
(2016). Complejidad, precisión, fluidez y léxico: Una revisión. Moderna språk, 110(1), 49–69.Google Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., y Jarvis, S. (2007). Vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Teaching, 24(4), 459–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. M., y Miralpeix, I. (2007). Vocabulary size estimator. Swansea: Lognostics.Google Scholar
(2016). Tools for vocabulary research. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohammadzadeh Mohammadabadi, A., Dabaghi, A., y Tavakoli, M. (2013). The effects of simultaneous use of pre-planning along +/−Here-and-Now dimension on fluency, complexity, and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ written performance. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(3), 49–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moreno, A. (1991). Un modelo computacional para el análisis y generación de la morfología del español (Tesis doctoral inédita, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid). Disponible en: [URL]
Moreno, A., y Goñi, J. M. (1995). GRAMPAL: a morphological processor of Spanish implemented in Prolog. En M. Alpuente y M. I. Sessa (Eds.), Proceedings of Joint Conference on Declarative Programming (GULP-PRODE 95) (pp. 321–331). Salerno, Italy: Palladio Editrice.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF Project. En C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 1–40). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nariman-Jahan, R., y Rahimpour, M. (2011). The effects of planning and proficiency on language production of writing task performance. Educational Research, 2(9), 1528–1537.Google Scholar
Navés, T. (2007, abril). Analytical measures of learners’ written interlanguage. Comunicación presentada en el XXV Congreso Internacional de AESLA, Universidad de Murcia, España.Google Scholar
Navés, T., Torras, M. R., y Celaya, M. L. (2003). Long-term effects of an earlier start. En S. Foster-Cohen y S. Pekarek (Eds.), EUROSLA-Yearbook. Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association (pp. 103–130). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. En B. Szmrecsanyi y B. Kortmann (Eds), Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact (pp. 127–155). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palloti, G. (2009). CAF: defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rahimpour, M., y Hosseini, P. (2010). The impact of task complexity on L2 learners’ written narratives. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 198–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, B. (1987). Type/token ratios: what do they really tell us? Journal of Child Language, 14(2), 201–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, B., y Malvern, D. (2000, September). Measuring vocabulary richness in teenage learners of French. Comunicación presentada en British Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff University.
Rietveld, T., y van Hout, R. (1993). Statistical techniques for the study of language and language behaviour. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberto, J. A., Martí, M. A., y Salamó, M. (2012). Análisis de la riqueza léxica en el contexto de la clasificación de atributos demográficos latentes. Procesamiento de Lenguaje Natural, 481, 97–104.Google Scholar
Salimi, A., y Fatollahnejad, S. (2012). The effects of strategic planning and topic familiarity on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ written performance in TBLT. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2308–2315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(4), 357–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šišková, Z. (2012). Lexical richness in EFL students’ narratives. University of Reading Language Studies Working Papers, 41, 26–36.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., y Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Cognition and tasks. En P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 181–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82–119.Google Scholar
Torras, M. R., y Celaya, M. L. (2001). Age-related differences in the development of written production. An empirical study of EFL school learners. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 130–126.Google Scholar
Torres González, A. N. (1993). Madurez sintáctica en estudiantes no universitarios de la zona metropolitana de Tenerife (Tesis doctoral, Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife). Disponible en: [URL]
(1997). Complejidad sintáctica en escritores de las islas canarias. REALE, 81, 105–125.Google Scholar
Torres López, M. C. (1999). Índices primarios de madurez sintáctica: análisis comparativo en alumnos de COU. REALE, 121, 93–118.Google Scholar
Towell, R., y Dewaele, J. M. (2005). The role of psycholinguistic factors in the development of fluency amongst advanced learners of French. En J. M. Dewaele (Ed.), Focus on French as a foreign language: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 210–239). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle 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. En S. Jarvis y M. Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 79–104). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, N., y Engle, R. W. (2006). Simple and complex memory spans and their relation to fluid abilities: Evidence from list-length effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(1), 68–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). On the division of short-term and working memory: An examination of simple and complex span and their relation to higher order abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 133(6), 1038–1066. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vajjala, S., y Meurers, D. (2012, June). On improving the accuracy of readability classification using insights from second language acquisition. Comunicación presentada en 7th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, The Association for Computational Linguistics, Montréal, Canada.
Véliz, M. (1996). Recurrencia textual y competencia narrativa en escolares de educación básica y media. REALE, 51, 107–126.Google Scholar
(1999). Complejidad sintáctica y modo del discurso. Estudios Filológicos, 341, 181–192.Google Scholar
Vercellotti, M. L. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency as properties of language performance: The development of the multiple subsystems over time and in relation to each other (Tesis doctoral inédita, University of Pittsburgh). Disponible en: [URL]
Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., y Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy & complexity (Technical Report 17). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Yang, W., y Sun, Y. (2015). Dynamic development of complexity, accuracy and fluency in multilingual learners’ L1, L2 and L3 writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(2), 298–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Menke, Mandy R.
2024. Beyond accuracy: The development of syntactic complexity in middle school Spanish immersion. Foreign Language Annals 57:3 ► pp. 844 ff. DOI logo
Mavrou, Irini
2020. Working memory, executive functions, and emotional intelligence in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 50 ► pp. 100758 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 2024. 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.