Defining and operationalising L2 complexity

Bulté, Bram; Housen, Alex

doi:10.1075/lllt.32.02bul

Cited by 382 publications

(367 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

342

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, for future work, syntactic complexity sub-constructs can be conceptualized and measured in a more fine-grained manner, taking a more functional perspective and taking into account different types of subordination-complement, adverbial, and adjective, finite and non-finite, respectively, since these different subordination types may not develop with age and proficiency in similar ways and may function differently in different discourses, as suggested in the work of Hunt (1965), Nippold et al (2005), Nippold, Mansfiled, and Billow (2007), and Biber et al (2011), which all primarily examined L1 language samples. Likewise, with increasing interest in noun-phrase complexity, sophisticated and more sensitive measures to tap complexity that arise from the use of different types of modifications for head nouns (see Bulté & Housen, 2012;Ravid & Berman, 2010) can be pursued in our understanding of syntactic complexity and its relationship with other variables.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality

Yang

Weigle

2015

Journal of Second Language Writing

240

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pattern used to identify complex nominals in the original L2SCA was modified accordingly to match this definition in order to calculate CNP/C. This measure does not show the full range of NP complexity measures (cf Bulté & Housen, 2012;Ravid & Berman, 2010)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality

Yang

Weigle

2015

Journal of Second Language Writing

240

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In their review of 16 studies in recent task-based language learning research, for example, Norris and Ortega (2009) found that subordination ratios were used in all 16 studies without fail. For several SUBORDINATE CLAUSES IN L2 GERMAN AND L2 SWEDISH 8 reasons, they added, this "exclusive reliance on subordination is worrisome" (p. 566; see also Bulté & Housen, 2012). They noted, for example, that subordination ratios measure only one dimension of linguistic complexity, and, if subordination ratios are used as absolute indices for L2 development or L2 proficiency, they are in fact misapplied and liable to misinterpretation.…”

Section: Subordinate Clauses In L2 German and L2 Swedishmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Development of Subordinate Clauses in German and Swedish as L2s

Baten

Håkansson

2014

Stud Second Lang Acquis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we aim to contribute to the debate about the use of subordination as a measure of language proficiency. We compare two theories of SLA-specifically, processability theory (PT; Pienemann, 1998) and dynamic systems theory (de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007)-and, more particularly, their addressing of the development of subordinate clauses. Although DST uses measures from the complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) research tradition (see Housen & Kuiken, 2009), PT uses the emergence criterion to describe language development. We will focus on the development of subordinate clauses and compare how subordination as such is acquired and how the processing procedures related to a specific subordinate clause word order is acquired in the interlanguage (IL) of second language German and Swedish learners. The learners' language use shows that the use of subordination (as measured by a subordination ratio) fluctuates extensively. From the beginning of data collection, all learners use subordinate clauses, but their use of subordinate clauses does not increase linearly over time, which is expected by DST. When focusing on processability and the emergence of subordinate clause word order, however, a clear linear developmental sequence can be observed, revealing a clear difference between the nonacquisition and the acquisition of the subordinate clause word order rules. Our learner data additionally reveal a different behavior regarding lexical and auxiliary or modal verbs. SUBORDINATE CLAUSES IN L2 GERMAN AND L2 SWEDISH 3The Development of Subordinate Clauses in German and Swedish as L2s: A Theoretical and Methodological ComparisonThe notion of developmental sequences can be considered as an accepted finding in second language acquisition (SLA) research (Long, 2007;VanPatten & Williams, 2007), the existence of which is supported by robust evidence over the past 40 years (see Abrahamsson, 2013;Meisel, 2013). A promising explanation for developmental sequences has been put forward by processability theory (PT; Pienemann, 1998Pienemann, , 2005, which presents itself as a psycholinguistic theory of second language (L2) development. According to PT, L2 learners go through separate developmental stages that are implicationally ordered.A recent challenge to this long-established finding, however, comes from the dynamic systems theory (DST) approach to SLA (de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007). DST scholars assert that it is time to reconsider whether universal orders really exist, given the high amount of variability present in learner language. In fact, de Bot et al. (2007, p. 8) claim that "the outcome of development over time can therefore not be calculated exactly." In this paper, we aim to demonstrate, however, that in addition to variability, IL systems do follow a highly regular and predictable pattern. We will discuss what kind of measures and evidence two SLA theories (i.e., PT and DST) use to describe and predict learners' IL systems. Adopting such CAF measures as a way to investigate the dynamism ...

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, overall the fi gure indicates that candidates for the same exam are of roughly equal profi ciency and that those sitting different exams differ in their profi ciency. In using the MLTD, we follow a long tradition of using lexical diversity measures to evaluate profi ciency (e.g., Michel, Kuiken, & Vedder, 2007 ;Robinson, 2001 ; see also Bulté & Housen, 2012 ). Because our purpose is only to confi rm that exams from different levels are linked to profi ciency, we have not explored a wider range of profi ciency measures (cf.…”

Section: Target L1 Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

L1 Influence on the Acquisition Order of English Grammatical Morphemes

Murakami

Alexopoulou

2015

Stud Second Lang Acquis

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We revisit morpheme studies to evaluate the long-standing claim for a universal order of acquisition. We investigate the L2 acquisition order of six English grammatical morphemes by learners from seven L1 groups across fi ve profi ciency levels. Data are drawn from approximately 10,000 written exam scripts from the Cambridge Learner Corpus. The study establishes clear L1 infl uence on the absolute accuracy of morphemes and their acquisition order, therefore challenging the widely held view that there is a universal order of acquisition of L2 morphemes. Moreover, we fi nd that L1 infl uence is morpheme specifi c, with morphemes encoding language-specifi c concepts most vulnerable to L1 infl uence.

show abstract

Defining and operationalising L2 complexity

Cited by 382 publications

References 60 publications

Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality

Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality

The Development of Subordinate Clauses in German and Swedish as L2s

L1 Influence on the Acquisition Order of English Grammatical Morphemes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About