Syntactic Complexity of Academic Text: A Corpus Study of Written Production by Learners of English with Russian L1 in Comparison with Expert Texts of English Authors
https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2020-7-107-129
Abstract
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
About the Authors
О. I. Vinogradova
HSE University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga I. Vinogradova
21/4 Staraya Basmannaya Str., bld. 1, Moscow 115054
E. A. Smirnova
HSE University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elizaveta A. Smirnova
38 Studencheskaya Str., Perm 614070
A. V. Viklova
HSE University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anna V. Viklova
21/4 Staraya Basmannaya Str., bld. 1, Moscow 115054
I. M. Panteleeva
Russian Federation
Irina M. Panteleeva
Moscow
References
1. Anthony, L. (2014), AntConc 3.4.4, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan.
2. 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.
3. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. and Quirk, R. (1999), Longman grammar of spoken and written English, Longman, London, UK.
4. 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.
5. Biber, D. and Gray, B. (2016), Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Dunning, T. (1993), “Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence”, Computational Linguistics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 61–74.
9. Ellis, R. (1997), Second Language Acquisition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
10. 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.
11. Gray, B. (2013), “More than discipline: Uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles”, Corpora, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 153–181.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Hawkins, R. (2001), Second language syntax: A generative introduction, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
16. Hinkel, E. (2003), “Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts”, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 275–301.
17. Jucker, A.H. (1992), Social stylistics: Syntactic variation in British newspapers, Mouton de Gruyter, New York, USA.
18. 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.
19. 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).
20. 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.
21. 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)
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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).
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
Review
For citations:
Vinogradova О.I., Smirnova E.A., Viklova A.V., Panteleeva I.M. Syntactic Complexity of Academic Text: A Corpus Study of Written Production by Learners of English with Russian L1 in Comparison with Expert Texts of English Authors. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin: “Literary Teory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies”, Series. 2020;(7):107-129. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2020-7-107-129
Views:
250
Email this article 