Cover not available
Part of
Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Learner Corpus Research
Edited by Agnieszka Leńko-Szymańska and Sandra Götz
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 104] 2022
► pp. 81–114

Development of L2 writing complexity

Clause types, L1 influence and individual differences

| University of Oslo
Recent research on complexity development has demonstrated the need to distinguish between specific types of subordinate clauses and consider L1 influence and individual variation. The present study combines these factors and makes finer distinctions between clause types than usual in complexity research. A case study following five Norwegian learners of English over four years shows that individual clause types have different developmental trajectories and that learners may develop in syntactic diversity even when showing little change in amount of subordination. A lack of specific clause types in the L1 can lead to late development of these in the L2, and higher uses of subordination in particular areas may boost complexity in the L2. Individual differences were found mainly in pace.
Keywords: subordinate clauses, diversity, cross-linguistic influence, individual variation, second language acquisition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A move toward more fine-grained distinctions in syntactic complexity research
  • 3.Individual variation and cross-linguistic influence in syntactic complexity development
  • 4.Contrastive differences between English and Norwegian
  • 5.Previous studies of L2 English complexity in the Norwegian context
  • 6.Research questions and method
    • 6.1Design and material
    • 6.2Coding and analysis
  • 7.Results
    • 7.1Clauses with adverbial function
    • 7.2Clauses with nominal function
    • 7.3Clauses with adnominal function and clauses modifying adjectives and adverbs
    • 7.4Cross-linguistic influence
    • 7.5Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.104.04dir
References (52)
References
Behrens, Bergljot, Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine & Solfjeld, Kåre. 2012. Competing structures: The discourse perspective. In Big Events, Small Clauses: The Grammar of Elaboration, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Dag Haug (eds), 179–225. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Gray, Bethany & Poonpon, Kornwipa. 2011. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45(1): 5–35. [URL]
Biber, Douglas, Gray, Bethany & Staples, Shelley. 2016. Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics 37(5): 639–668. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Also published as Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 2021. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Reppen, Randi. 1998. Comparing native and learner perspectives on English grammar: A study of complement clauses. In Learner English on Computer, Sylviane Granger (ed.), 145–158. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bulté, Bram & Housen, Alex. 2012. Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA [Language Learning & Language Teaching Series 32], Alex Housen, Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder (eds), 21–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing 26: 42–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casanave, Christine P. 1994. Language development in students’ journals. Journal of Second Language Writing 3(3): 179–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, Bastien & Housen, Alex. 2017. A cross-linguistic perspective on syntactic complexity in L2 development: Syntactic elaboration and diversity. The Modern Language Journal 101(2): 315–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirdal, Hildegunn. 2021. L2 development of -ing clauses: A longitudinal study of Norwegian learners. In Beyond Concordance Lines: Corpora in Language Education, Pascual Pérez-Paredes & Geraldine Mark (eds), 75–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirdal, Hildegunn, Danbolt Drange, Eli-Marie, Graedler, Anne-Line, Guldal, Tale M., Hasund, Ingrid K., Nacey, Susan L. & Rørvik, Sylvi. 2017. Tracking Written Learner Language (TRAWL): A longitudinal corpus of Norwegian pupils’ written texts in second/foreign languages. Poster presented at the 4th Learner Corpus Research Conference, Eurac Research, Bolzano, 4–7 Oct. 2017. <[URL]> (8 March 2022).
Drew, Ion. 2003. A comparison of early writing in Norwegian L1 and English L2. In Multilingualism in Global and Local Perspectives: Selected Papers from the 8th Nordic Conference on Bilingualism, November 1–3, 2001, Stockholm–Rinkeby, Kari Fraurud & Kenneth Hyltenstam (eds), 341–355. Stockholm: Centre for Research on Bilingualism, City of Stockholm and Stockholm University.Google Scholar
. 2010. A longitudinal study of young language learners’ development in written English. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 28: 193–226.Google Scholar
Durrant, Philip & Brenchley, Mark. 2018. Growth in Grammar Corpus. Available from <[URL]>. (registration required – contact Philip Durrant for access details: [email protected]).
Ehret, Katharina & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2019. Compressing learner language: An information-theoretic measure of complexity in SLA production data. Second Language Research 35(1): 23–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Gillard, Patrick & Gadsby, Adam. 1998. Using a learners’ corpus in compiling ELT dictionaries. In Learner English on Computer, Sylviane Granger (ed.), 159–171. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 1997. On identifying the syntactic and discourse features of participle clauses in academic English: Native and non-native writers compared. In Studies in English Language and Teaching: In Honor of Flor Aarts, Jan Aarts, Inge de Mönnink & Herman Wekker (eds), 185–198. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 1998. The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. In Learner English on Computer, Sylviane Granger (ed.), 3–18. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, Dagneaux, Estelle and Meunier, Fanny (eds). 2002. International Corpus of Learner English, Version 1.1. Université catholique de Louvain: Centre for English Corpus Linguistics.Google Scholar
Housen, Alex, De Clercq, Bastien, Kuiken, Folkert & Vedder, Ineke. 2019. Multiple approaches to complexity in second language research. Second Language Research 35(1): 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Non-finite and verbless clauses. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), 1171–1271. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunt, Kellogg W. 1965. Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. Urbana IL: The National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott. 2000. Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning 50(2): 245–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinn, Torodd. 2014. Verbalt presens partisipp. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 32(1): 62–99.Google Scholar
Kreyer, Rolf & Schaub, Steffen. 2018. The development of phrasal complexity in German intermediate learners of English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 4(1): 82–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, Folkert & Vedder, Ineke. 2019. Syntactic complexity across proficiency and languages: L2 and L1 writing in Dutch, Italian and Spanish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 29(2): 192–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kyle, Kristopher & Crossley, Scott A. 2018. Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. The Modern Language Journal 102(2): 333–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, Craig & Kormos, Judit. 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, Line. 2016. Fluency and Complexity in the Written English of Norwegian 7th Graders: A Comparative Study of Pupils in the Early Years Literacy Program (EYLP) with Those in a Textbook-Based Approach. Master’s thesis, University of Stavanger.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 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 expectation: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30(4): 579–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 2016. Verbal present participles in Norwegian: Controlled complements or parts of complex predicates. In Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland, Doug Arnold, Miriam Butt, Berthold Crysmann, Tracy Holloway King & Stefan Müller (eds), 380–400. Stanford CA: CSLI. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, Xiaofei & Ai, Haiyang. 2015. Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing 29: 16–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næs, Olav. 1952. Norsk grammatikk. 1. Ordlære: Bokmål og nynorsk på bakgrunn av språkhistorie og dialekter. Oslo: Fabritius.Google Scholar
Norris, John M. & Ortega, Lourdes. 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, Lourdes. 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
. 2015. Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing 29: 82–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, Gabriele. 2015. A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research 31(1): 117–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, Jean & Musgrave, Jill. 2014. Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14: 48–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raaen, Guri Figenschou & Guldal, Tale M. 2012. Basic skills: Orthography and sentence complexity in written English from grades 7 to 10. In The Young Language Learner: Research-Based Insights into Teaching and Learning, Angela Hasselgren, Ion Drew and Bjørn Sørheim (eds), 101–117. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 1998. Clefts in Scandinavian: An investigation. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 10: 163–190.Google Scholar
Tjerandsen, Eli. 1995. ‘Stories You May Think is Boring, Can She Make Funny’: Sentence Complexity in the Written Work of Norwegian 8th Graders. Master’s thesis, University of Bergen.
Vercellotti, Mary Lou. 2019. Finding variation: Assessing the development of syntactic complexity in ESL speech. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 29(2): 233–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vercellotti, Mary L. & Packer, Jessica. 2016. Shifting structural complexity: The production of clause types in speeches given by English for academic purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22: 179–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn, Schmid, Monika S. & Xu, Xiaoyan. 2012. A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(3): 239–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vikør, Lars S. 2015. Norwegian: Bokmål vs. Nynorsk. The Language Council of Norway. <[URL]> (1 July 2021).
Vyatkina, Nina. 2012. The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal leaner corpus study. The Modern Language Journal 96(4): 576–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Specific syntactic complexity: Developmental profiling of individuals based on an annotated learner corpus. The Modern Language Journal 97(1): 11–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vyatkina, Nina, Hirschmann, Hagen & Golcher, Felix. 2015. Syntactic modification at early stages of L2 German writing development: A longitudinal learner corpus study. Journal of Second Language Writing 29: 28–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, Kate, Inagaki, Shunji & Kim, Hae-Young. 1998. Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy and Complexity. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.Google Scholar