Cover not available
Article published In:
Register Studies
Vol. 4:1 (2022) ► pp.55–90

Assessing linguistic complexity and register flexibility in advanced second language learners

Evidence from group- and individual-level analyses

ORCID logo | RWTH Aachen University
ORCID logo | RWTH Aachen University
ORCID logo | RWTH Aachen University
The aim of the present study is twofold: (1) to assess the degree of register flexibility in advanced second language (L2) learners of English and (2) to determine whether and to what extent this flexibility is impacted by inter-individual variability in experiential factors and personality traits. Register flexibility is quantitatively measured as the degree of differentiation in the use of linguistic complexity – gauged by a range of lexical, syntactic, and information-theoretic complexity measures – across three writing tasks. At the methodological level, we aim to demonstrate how a corpus-based approach combined with natural language processing (NLP) techniques and a within-subjects design can be a valuable complement to experimental approaches to language adaptation.
Keywords: register flexibility, second language learning, linguistic complexity, inter-individual variability, experience-related factors, personality traits
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Related work on register flexibility and L2 writing complexity
    • 1.2Inter-individual variability in L2 learning
    • 1.3The present study
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2L2 writing samples
    • 2.3Automated assessment of linguistic complexity
    • 2.4Individual differences factors
      • 2.4.1Experiential factors
      • 2.4.2Personality
    • 2.5Statistical modeling
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion and future directions
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 14 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.20014.ker
References (90)
References
Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & Macdonald, M. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40 1, 278–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexopoulou, T., Michel, M., Murakami, A., & Meurers, D. (2017). Task effects on linguistic complexity and accuracy: A large-scale learner corpus analysis employing natural language processing techniques. Language Learning, 67 (S1), 180–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. Fort Worth TX: Harcourt College Publisher.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). University language (Vol. 101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Vol. 2). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Egbert, J. (2018). Register variation online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Reppen, R., Staples, S., & Egbert, J. (2020). Exploring the longitudinal development of grammatical complexity in the disciplinary writing of L2-English university students. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 6(1), 38–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosker, H., Pinget, A., Quené, H., Sanders, T. & de Jong, N. (2013). What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing, 30 1, 159–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouwer, R., Béguin, A., Sanders, T., & van den Bergh, H. (2015). Effect of genre on the generalizability of writing scores. Language Testing, 32 (1), 83–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Browne, C. (2013). The new general service list: Celebrating 60 years of vocabulary learning. The Language Teacher, 37(4), 13–16.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). Development of the first language in the human species. American Psychologist, 28(2), 97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48 (3), 306–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Callies, M., & Zaytseva, E. (2013). The Corpus of Academic Learner English (CALE): A new resource for the assessment of writing proficiency in the academic register. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 126–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. L., Prince, M. S., & Astika, G. G. (1996). Personality types and language learning in an EFL context. Language Learning, 46(1), 75–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Personality psychology. Wiley.Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. (2020). Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview. Journal of Writing Research, 11(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2018). Experience, aptitude and individual differences in native language ultimate attainment. Cognition, 178 1, 222–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Experience, aptitude, and individual differences in linguistic attainment: a comparison of native and nonnative speakers. Language Learning, 691, 72–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, P. (1996). RFC1951: DEFLATE compressed data format specification version 1.3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J. M. (2009). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 623–646). Bingley, UK: Emerald Insight.Google Scholar
(2012). Personality: Personality traits as independent and dependent variables. In Psychology for language learning (pp. 42–57). Palgrave Macmillan, London. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J. M., & Furnham, A. (1999). Extraversion: The unloved variable in applied linguistic research. Language Learning, 49(3), 509–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2008). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehret, K., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2016). An information-theoretic approach to assess linguistic complexity. In R. Baechler & G. Seiler (Eds.), Complexity, isolation, and variation (pp. 71–94). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525–551). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103 1, 39–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farmer, T. A., Fine, A. B., Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). Reading span task performance, linguistic experience, and the processing of unexpected syntactic events. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70 (3), 413–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., Bentz, C., & Seguin, C. (2020). Optimal coding and the origins of Zipfian laws. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garner, J., Crossley, S., & Kyle, K. (2019). N-gram measures and L2 writing proficiency. System, 80 1, 176–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, B., & Egbert, J. (2019). Register and register variation. Register Studies, 1(1), 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2009). Methods – techniques – problems. In M. A. K. Halliday and J. J. Webster (Eds.), Continuum companion to systemic functional linguistics (pp. 59–86). London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 461–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jagaiah, T., Olinghouse, N. G., & Kearns, D. M. (2020). Syntactic complexity measures: variation by genre, grade-level, students’ writing abilities, and writing quality. Reading and Writing, 331, 2577–2638. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (p. 114–158). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Futch, C., Fuertes, R. F., Mujcinovic, S., & de la Fuente, E. Á. (2019). Adaptation to syntactic structures in native and nonnative sentence comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40 (1), 3–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaushanskaya, M., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2019). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Ten years later. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–6.Google Scholar
Kerz, E., & Wiechmann, D. (2017). Individual differences in L2 processing of multi-word phrases: Effects of working memory and personality. In International Conference on Computational and Corpus-Based Phraseology (pp. 306–321). Springer, Cham. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerz, E. & Wiechmann, D. (2020). Individual Differences. In N. Tracy-Ventura & M. Paquot (Eds.) Handbook of second language acquisition and corpora (pp. 396–408). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerz, E., Qiao, Y., Wiechmann, D., & Ströbel, M. (2020). Becoming linguistically mature: Modeling English and German children’s writing development across school grades. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (pp. 65–74). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., Bidgood, A., Donnelly, S., Durrant, S., Peter, M. S., & Rowland, C. F. (2020). Individual differences in first language acquisition and their theoretical implications. Trends in Language Acquisition Research (TiLAR), (27), 189–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22 (2), 154–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
KMK. (2014). Bildungsstandards für die fortgeführte Fremdsprache (Englisch/Französisch) für die Allgemeine Hochschulehre. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (KMK), Wolters Kluwer Deutschland.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (2007). Cracking the speech code: How infants learn language. Acoustical Science and echnology, 28(2), 71–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K., Crossley, S., & Berger, C. (2018). The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): version 2.0. Behavior research methods, 50 (3), 1030–1046. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application TESOL . Quarterly, 49 (4), 757–786. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35 (5), 607–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12 (4), 439–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior research methods, 44 (2), 325–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15 (4), 474–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96 1, 190–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, M. (2017). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 production. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition, (pp. 50–68). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, M., Murakami, A., Alexopoulou, T., & Meurers, D. (2019). Effects of task type on morphosyntactic complexity across proficiency: evidence from a large learner corpus of A1 to C2 writings. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 124–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning, 62(1), 302–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H. and Todesco, A. (1978). The Good Language Learner (Vol. 41). Toronta: Ontario Institute for Language and Education.Google Scholar
Neumann, S. (2014). Contrastive register variation: A quantitative approach to the comparison of English and German. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Neumann, S. & Evert, S. (submitted). A register variation perspective on varieties of English.
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24 1, 492–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ożańska-Ponikwia, K., & Dewaele, J. M. (2012). Personality and L2 use: The advantage of being openminded and self-confident in an immigration context. EuroSLA Yearbook, 12(1), 112–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polio, C. G., & Shea, M. C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26 1, 10–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2016). Same language, different functions: A cross-genre analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 331, 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Beyond linguistic complexity: Assessing register flexibility in EFL writing across contexts. Assessing Writing, 451, 100465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ströbel, M., Kerz, E., & Wiechmann, D. (2020). The relationship between first and second language writing: Investigating the effects of first language complexity on second language complexity in advanced stages of learning. Language Learning, 70 (3), 732–767. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L., & Meyer, A. (2012). Individual differences in second language learning: Introduction. Language Learning, 62 1, 1–4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D., Gabriel, N., & Katchan, O. (1994). Personality and second language learning. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(1), 143–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1992). Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory & Cognition, 20 1, 51–68. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ströbel, M. (2014). Tracking complexity of L2 academic texts: A sliding-window approach. Unpublished master’s thesis). RWTH Aachen University, Germany.
The Council of Europe. (2020). CEFR Companion Volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe, Strasbourg. [URL]
Tracy-Ventura, N., & Myles, F. (2015). The importance of task variability in the design of learner corpora for SLA research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1 1, 58–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density: A computational technique and some findings. Talking about text, 27–48.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2002). Communicative competence and personality dimensions in first and second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23(3), 361–374. 4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2016). Exploring psychology in language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yoon, H.-J., & Polio, C. (2016). The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly, 51 (2), 275–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behaviour and the principle of least effort. Cambridge (MA), USA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar