historyВЕСТНИК РГГУ. Серия «Литературоведение. Языкознание. Культурология»RSUH/RGGU Bulletin: “Literary Teory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies”, Series2073-6355RSUH10.28995/2686-7249-2020-7-107-129history-873Research ArticleОПИСАТЕЛЬНЫЕ И ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКИЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯRESEARCH ARTICLESСинтаксическая сложность академического текста: корпусное исследование работ русскоязычных студентов, изучающих английский язык, в сравнении с текстами профессиональных авторовSyntactic Complexity of Academic Text: A Corpus Study of Written Production by Learners of English with Russian L1 in Comparison with Expert Texts of English AuthorsВиноградоваО. И.VinogradovaО. I.

Ольга И. Виноградова  

115054, Россия, Москва, ул. Старая Басманная, д. 21/4, стр. 1

Olga I. Vinogradova 

21/4 Staraya Basmannaya Str., bld. 1, Moscow 115054

olgavinogr@gmail.comСмирноваЕ. А.SmirnovaE. A.

Елизавета А. Смирнова

614070, Россия, Пермь, ул. Студенческая, д. 38

Elizaveta A. Smirnova 

38 Studencheskaya Str., Perm 614070

cmelizaveta@yandex.ruВикловаА. В.ViklovaA. V.

Анна В. Виклова

115054, Россия, Москва, ул. Старая Басманная, д. 21/4, стр. 1

Anna V. Viklova 

21/4 Staraya Basmannaya Str., bld. 1, Moscow 115054

annakisseleva@gmail.comПантелееваИ. М.PanteleevaI. M.

Ирина М. Пантелеева

Москва

Irina M. Panteleeva

Moscow

impanteleyeva@gmail.comНациональный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»РоссияHSE UniversityRussian Federation20201912202007107129Copyright © Виноградова О.И., Смирнова Е.А., Виклова А.В., Пантелеева И.М., 20202020Виноградова О.И., Смирнова Е.А., Виклова А.В., Пантелеева И.М.Vinogradova О.I., Smirnova E.A., Viklova A.V., Panteleeva I.M.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://history.rsuh.ru/jour/article/view/873

В статье анализируются данные получения автоматизированной оценки синтаксической сложности академического текста на базе размеченных частеречной разметкой удовлетворяющих требованиям сравниваемости корпусов двух экспертных и двух учебных — в двух тематических областях. Исследование проводилось с использованием двух различных компьютерных инструментов – парсера UDPipe и комплекса программ AntConc. Были сделаны следующие выводы: экспертные академические тексты показывают высокую клаузальную и фразовую сложность, уровень которой выше в текстах по менеджменту, нежели по экономике. По сравнению с текстами студентов клаузальная сложность текстов профессионалов существенно выше, в то время как параметры фразовой сложности были почти одного уровня или даже незначительно ниже, чем у студентов. Наиболее значимые различия наблюдаются в употреблении генитивов с предлогом of, нормализованная частотность которых в учебных корпусах превышает оную в профессиональных статьях примерно в 1,7 раз в обеих областях. Результаты противоречат выводам предыдущих исследований о том, что с повышением уровня владения языком клаузальная сложность снижается, а фразовая растет.

The paper analyses data of automated evaluation of syntactical complexity of scholarly texts from four comparable corpora – two of expert texts and two of learner texts – in two subject areas. The research applied two different computer tools – UDPipe parser and AntConc set of programs. The following conclusions were made: – Expert scholarly texts demonstrated high clausal and phrasal complexity, and its level was higher in Business Studies than in Economics. – Clausal complexity in expert texts was much higher than in student texts, while phrasal complexity was at about the same level as, or even slightly lower than that of students. The largest difference was attested for genitive construction with preposition of, which was 1.7 times as frequent in student texts in both subject areas as in expert texts. The results contradict the conclusion of the prior research that with the growth in proficiency clausal complexity decreases, while phrasal complexity grows

синтаксическая сложностьфразовая сложностьклаузальная сложностьакадемический английскийкомпьютерные инструментыучебные корпусаsyntactic complexityphrasal complexityclausal complexityacademic Englishcomputer toolslearner corporaReferencesAnthony 2014 – Anthony L. AntConc 3.4.4. Tokyo: Waseda University, 2014.Anthony, L. (2014), AntConc 3.4.4, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan.Bhela 1999 – Bhela B. Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory case studies of native language interference with target language usage // International Education Journal. 1999. Vol. 1, no. 1. P. 22–31.Bhela, B. (1999), “Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory case studies of native language interference with target language usage”, International Education Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 22–31.Biber et al. 1999 – Biber D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S., Finegan E., Quirk R. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman, 1999.Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. and Quirk, R. (1999), Longman grammar of spoken and written English, Longman, London, UK.Biber et al. 2011 – Biber D., Gray B., Poonpon K. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? // TESOL Quarterly. 2011. Vol. 45, no. 1. P. 5–35.Biber, D., Gray, B. and Poonpon, K. (2011), “Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?”, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 5–35.Biber, Gray 2016 – Biber D., Gray B. Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.Biber, D. and Gray, B. (2016), Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Byrnes, Sinicrope 2008 – Byrnes H., Sinicrope C. Advancedness and the development of relativization in l2 German: a curriculum-based longitudinal study // The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities / L. Ortega, H. Byrnes, (ed.). New York: Routledge, 2008. P. 109–138.Byrnes, H. and Sinicrope, C. (2008), “Advancedness and the development of relativization in L2 German: a curriculum-based longitudinal study”, in Ortega, L. and Byrnes, H. (ed.), The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities, Routledge, New York, USA, pp. 109–138.Crossley, McNamara 2014 – Crossley S.A., McNamara D.S. Does writing development equal writing quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners // Journal of Second Language Writing. 2014. Vol. 26. P. 66–79.Crossley, S.A. and McNamara, D.S. (2014), “Does writing development equal writing quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners”, Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 26, pp. 66–79.Dunning 1993 – Dunning T. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence // Computational Linguistics. 1993. Vol. 19, no. 1. P. 61–74.Dunning, T. (1993), “Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence”, Computational Linguistics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 61–74.Ellis 1997 – Ellis R. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Ellis, R. (1997), Second Language Acquisition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Gabrielatos, Marchi 2012 – Gabrielatos C., Marchi A. Keyness: Appropriate Metrics and Practical Issues // CADS International Conference 2012. Corpus-assisted Discourse Studies: More than the sum of Discourse Analysis and Computing? Bologna: University of Bologna, 2012.Gabrielatos, C. and Marchi, A. (2012), “Keyness: Appropriate Metrics and Practical Issues”, in CADS International Conference 2012. Corpus-assisted Discourse Studies: More than the sum of Discourse Analysis and Computing? University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.Gray 2013 – Gray B. More than discipline: Uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles // Corpora. 2013. Vol. 8, no. 2. P. 153–181.Gray, B. (2013), “More than discipline: Uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles”, Corpora, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 153–181.Foster, Skehan 1996 – Foster P., Skehan P. The influence of planning and task type on second language performance, Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1996. Vol. 18. P. 299–323.Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (1996), “The influence of planning and task type on second language performance”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 18, pp. 299–323.Gardner et al. 2018 – Gardner S., Nesi H., Biber D. Discipline, level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing // Applied Linguistics. 2018. Vol. 10. P. 646–674.Gardner, S., Nesi, H. and Biber, D. (2018), “Discipline, level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing”, Applied Linguistics, vol. 10, pp. 646–674.Hannay, Caro 2008 – Hannay M., Caro E.M. Thematic choice in the written English of advanced Spanish and Dutch learners // Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research / G. Gilquin, S. Papp, M.B. Díez-Bedmar (ed.). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2008. P. 227–253.Hannay, M. and Caro, E.M. (2008), “Thematic choice in the written English of advanced Spanish and Dutch learners”, in Gilquin, G., Papp, S. and Díez-Bedmar, M.B. (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, Rodopi, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 227–253.Hawkins 2001 – Hawkins R. Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001.Hawkins, R. (2001), Second language syntax: A generative introduction, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Hinkel 2003 – Hinkel E. Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts // TESOL Quarterly. 2003. Vol. 37, no. 2. P. 275–301.Hinkel, E. (2003), “Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts”, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 275–301.Jucker 1992 – Jucker A.H. Social stylistics: Syntactic variation in British newspapers. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992.Jucker, A.H. (1992), Social stylistics: Syntactic variation in British newspapers, Mouton de Gruyter, New York, USA.Lu 2011 – Lu X. A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development // TESOL Quarterly. 2011. Vol. 45, no. 1. P. 36–62.Lu, X. (2011), “A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development”, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 36–62.Lyashevskaya, Panteleeva 2018 – Lyashevskaya O., Panteleeva I. REALEC learner treebank: annotation principles and evaluation of automatic parsing [Электронный ресурс] // Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories 2018 (TLT16). Prague, 2018. P. 80–87. URL: https://www.aclweb. org/anthology/W17-7612.pdf (дата обращения 26 нояб. 2019).Lyashevskaya, O. and Panteleeva, I. (2018), “REALEC learner treebank: annotation principles and evaluation of automatic parsing”, Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories 2018 (TLT16), Prague, pp. 80–87, [Online], available at: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W17-7612.pdf (Accessed 26 November 2019).Mazgutov, Kormos 2015 – Mazgutova D., Kormos J. Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme // Journal of Second Language Writing. 2015. Vol. 29. P. 3–15.Mazgutova, D. and Kormos, J. (2015), “Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme”, Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 29, pp. 3–15.Nesi, Gardner 2019 – Nesi H., Gardner S. Complex, but in what way? A step towards greater understanding of academic writing proficiency [Электронный ресурс] // Online Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics: Taking Risks in Applied Linguistics, 6-8 September, 2018, York St John University / C. Danjo, I. Meddegama, D. O’Brien, Prudhoe J., L. Walz, R. Wicaksono (ed.). York: York St. John University, 2019. URL: https://custom.cvent.com/01664CE00C344F7BA62E39C4CFE91FA8/files/0f77de05eb81461a8037170680562243.pdf (дата обращения 22 июня 2019).Nesi, H. and Gardner, S. (2019), “Complex, but in what way? A step towards greater understanding of academic writing proficiency”, Online Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics: Taking Risks in Applied Linguistics, 6–8 September, 2018, York St. John University, York [Online], available at: https://custom.cvent.com/01664CE00C344F7BA62E39C4CFE91FA8/files/0f77de05eb81461a8037170680562243.pdf (Accessed 22 June 2019)Ortega 2003 – Ortega L. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing // Applied Linguistics. 2003. Vol. 24. P. 492–518.Ortega, L. (2003), “Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing”, Applied Linguistics, vol. 24, pp. 492–518.Siepmann et. al 2001 – Siepmann D., Gallagher J.D., Hannay M., Mackenzie J.L. Writing in English: A guide for advanced learners. Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag, 2011.Siepmann, D., Gallagher, J.D., Hannay, M. and Mackenzie, J.L. (2011), Writing in English: A guide for advanced learners, A. Francke Verlag, Tübingen, Germany.Smith 2009 – Smith N. Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Web-Based Course. 2009 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/courses/ling/corpus/ blue/l08_4.htm (дата обращения 22 февр. 2020).Smith, N. (2009), Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Web-Based Course [Online], available at: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/courses/ling/corpus/blue/l08_4.htm (Accessed 22 February 2020).Staples et al. 2016 – Staples S., Egbert J., Biber D., Gray B. Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre // Written Communication. 2016. Vol. 33, no. 2. P. 149–183.Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D. and Gray, B. (2016), “Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre”, Written Communication, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 149–183.Straka 2017 – Straka M. CoNLL 2017 shared task – UDPipe baseline models and supplementary materials // LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics. Prague: Charles University, 2017.Straka, M. (2017), “CoNLL 2017 shared task – UDPipe baseline models and supplementary materials”, LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Charles University, Prague.Suárez, Álvarez 2010 – Suárez S.D., Álvarez E.G. The use of it-clefts in the written production of Spanish advanced learners of English // Linguistics & the Human Sciences. 2010. Vol. 6. P. 151–171.Suárez, S.D. and Álvarez, E.G. (2010), “The use of it-clefts in the written production of Spanish advanced learners of English”, Linguistics & the Human Sciences, vol. 6, pp. 151–171.Swales, Feak 2004 – Swales J.M., Feak C.B. Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004.Swales, J.M. and Feak, C.B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.Warchal 2010 – Warchal K. Moulding interpersonal relations through conditional clauses, consensus-building strategies in written academic discourse // Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2010. Vol. 9. P. 140–150.Warchal, K. (2010), “Moulding interpersonal relations through conditional clauses, consensus-building strategies in written academic discourse”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 9, pp. 140–150.Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998 – Wolfe-Quintero K., Inagaki S., Kim H.Y. Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1998.Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. and Kim, H.Y. (1998), Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI, USA.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.