Analysis of syntactic complexity in secondary education EFL writers at different proficiency levels

Martínez, Ana Cristina Lahuerta

doi:10.1016/j.asw.2017.11.002

Cited by 56 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As our review of CEFR-related SC studies indicates, one of the weaknesses in many studies is the limited range of measures. More generally, too, SLA research on SC has suffered from limited validity as the measured SC construct narrows down because too few indicators are Running head: SC IN EFL LEARNERS' WRITING ACROSS CEFR LEVELS investigated (e.g., Bulté and Housen 2012, 2018. Secondly, the relationship between different SC indices and L2 proficiency is not clear: the results vary between studies (Lu and Ai 2015).…”

Section: Aims and Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Syntactic Complexity in EFL Learners' Writing across Common European Framework of Reference Levels A1, A2, and B1

Khushik

Huhta

2019

Applied Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study investigates the linguistic basis of Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels in English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ writing. Specifically, it examines whether CEFR levels can be distinguished with reference to syntactic complexity (SC) and whether the results differ between two groups of EFL learners with different first languages (Sindhi and Finnish). This sheds light on the linguistic comparability of the CEFR levels across L1 groups. Informants were teenagers from Pakistan (N = 868) and Finland (N = 287) who wrote the same argumentative essay that was rated on a CEFR-based scale. The essays were analysed for 28 SC indices with the L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer and Coh-Metrix. Most indices were found to distinguish CEFR levels A1, A2, and B1 in both language groups: the clearest separators were the length of production units, subordination, and phrasal density indices. The learner groups differed most in the length measures and phrasal density when their CEFR level was controlled for. However, some indices remained the same, and the A1 level was more similar than A2 and B2 in terms of SC across the two groups.

show abstract

Section: Aims and Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Syntactic Complexity in EFL Learners' Writing across Common European Framework of Reference Levels A1, A2, and B1

Khushik

Huhta

2019

Applied Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, this effect is exacerbated by L2 proficiency (where larger differences are observed for beginners than advanced L2 speakers) (Crossley, Salsbury et al, 2011). The complexity of L2 writing was also shown to correlate with proficiency (Kim, 2014;Lahuerta Martínez, 2018;Radhiah & Abidin, 2018). Our results are therefore compatible with the hypothesis that L2 writers are less likely to get their manuscript accepted at peer review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Textual analysis of artificial intelligence manuscripts reveals features associated with peer review outcome

Vincent-Lamarre

Larivière

2021

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyzed a dataset of scientific manuscripts that were submitted to various conferences in artificial intelligence. We performed a combination of semantic, lexical and psycholinguistic analyses of the full text of the manuscripts and compared them with the outcome of the peer review process. We found that accepted manuscripts scored lower than rejected manuscripts on two indicators of readability, and that they also used more scientific and artificial intelligence jargon. We also found that accepted manuscripts were written with words that are less frequent, that are acquired at an older age, and that are more abstract than rejected manuscripts. The analysis of references included in the manuscripts revealed that the subset of accepted submissions were more likely to cite the same publications. This finding was echoed by pairwise comparisons of the word content of the manuscripts (i.e. an indicator or semantic similarity), which were more similar in the subset of accepted manuscripts. Finally, we predicted the peer review outcome of manuscripts with their word content, with words related to machine learning and neural networks positively related with acceptance, whereas words related to logic, symbolic processing and knowledge-based systems negatively related with acceptance.

show abstract

“…Weigle (2002) proposed that in the process of assessing writing quality, the rating method and standards are more likely to influence the results of rating scores. Writing quality rating in the present study followed the practice in several studies (Bulté and Housen, 2014;Martínez, 2018), where writing quality is indexed by both holistic and analytic ratings. Further, analytic rating takes into consideration of grammar, lexicon, global organization, local organization and supporting ideas.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Along the same line, a robust association is well established between measures of syntactic complexity and writing quality (e.g., Taguchi et al, 2013 ; Crossley and McNamara, 2014 ; Martínez, 2018 ). For instance, the correlations are significant between writing quality and indices of linguistic features for a writing sample like MLTU and occurrence of finite clausal subordination ( Homburg, 1984 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Human Ratings of Writing Quality Capture Features of Syntactic Variety and Transformation in Chinese EFL Learners’ Argumentative Writing

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, writing quality is measured by human ratings, either holistically or analytically. The present study aimed to investigate the locus of human ratings by analyzing the linguistic features that are predictive of writing quality. One hundred and 44 argumentative writing samples from Chinese learners of English as a foreign language were evaluated by human ratings and quantitative measurement of writing quality indexed by Coh-Metrix. Holistic and analytic human ratings had significant correlations with quantitative measures related to syntactic variety and transformation. Moreover, linear and logistic regressions revealed that syntactic simplicity, words before main verb, syntactic structure similarity in all sentences and across paragraphs, incidence of passive voice and temporal connectives were five valid indices that can consistently differentiate writing quality indexed by human ratings. The present findings have significant pedagogical implications for human ratings on writing quality in the foreign language learning context.

show abstract

Analysis of syntactic complexity in secondary education EFL writers at different proficiency levels

Cited by 56 publications

References 33 publications

Investigating Syntactic Complexity in EFL Learners' Writing across Common European Framework of Reference Levels A1, A2, and B1

Investigating Syntactic Complexity in EFL Learners' Writing across Common European Framework of Reference Levels A1, A2, and B1

Textual analysis of artificial intelligence manuscripts reveals features associated with peer review outcome

Human Ratings of Writing Quality Capture Features of Syntactic Variety and Transformation in Chinese EFL Learners’ Argumentative Writing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About