1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Chinese as a Second Language. The journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, USA
  4. Volume 56, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 56, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2451-828x
  • E-ISSN: 2451-8298
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The current study investigates whether the CAF (complexity, accuracy, and fluency) analysis framework, frequently used in L2 studies of English and other languages, may effectively analyze L2 essays in Chinese, a language typologically different from English. CAF measures were examined for both their discriminative and predictive effects for L2 Chinese writing quality. The results revealed that most of the measures captured linguistic differences between lower-score and higher-score essays. Similar to findings in other L2s, more advanced L2 Chinese learners achieved syntactic complexification increasingly through phrasal features in their essays, in contrast to lower-level learners. The predictive effects of the measures for writing quality differed between lower-score and higher-score essays. T-unit length, a syntactic measure successfully analyzing Indo-European languages, did not serve as an effective predictor for L2 Chinese textual quality. The current study provides implications for both L2 writing research and L2 writing curriculum.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/csl.21012.lia
2022-02-04
2023-05-31

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/csl.21012.lia
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ACTFL
    ACTFL (2012) ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Retrieved fromhttps://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/guidelines/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012.pdf
  2. An, F.
    (2015) Butong shuiping CSL xuexizhe zuowen liuchangxing, jufa fuzadu he zhunquexing fenxi – Yixiang jiyu T-danwei celiangfa de yanjiu不同水平CSL学习者作文流畅性、句法复杂度和准确性分析—一项基于T单位测量法的研究 [Analysis of fluency, grammatical complexity, and accuracy of CSL writing: A study based on T-unit analysis]. Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies语言教学与研究, 3 , 11–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, D. , Gray, B. , & Poonpon, K.
    (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?TESOL Quarterly, 45 , 5–35. doi:  10.5054/tq.2011.244483
     https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D. , Gray, B. , & Staples, S.
    (2016) Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37 , 639–668. doi:  10.1093/applin/amu059
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu059 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bulté, B. , & Housen, A.
    (2012) Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.21–46). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul [Google Scholar]
  6. (2014) Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26 , 42–65. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Casal, J. E. , & Lee, J.
    (2019) Syntactic complexity and writing quality in assessed first-year L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44 , 51–62. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chu, C.
    (1998) A discourse grammar of Mandarin Chinese. New York, NY: P. Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Crossley, S. , & McNamara, D.
    (2012) Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35 , 115–135. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9817.2010.01449.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x [Google Scholar]
  10. (2014) Does writing development equal writing quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26 , 66–79. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  11. Engber, C.
    (1995) The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4 , 139–155. doi:  10.1016/1060‑3743(95)90004‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferris, D.
    (1994) Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28 , 414–420. doi:  10.2307/3587446
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3587446 [Google Scholar]
  13. Foster, P. , Tonkyn, A. , & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21 , 354–375. doi:  10.1093/applin/21.3.354
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354 [Google Scholar]
  14. Garner, J. , Crossley, S. , & Kyle, K.
    (2019) N-gram measures and L2 writing proficiency. System, 80 , 176–187. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2018.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Grant, L. , & Ginther, A.
    (2000) Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 , 123–145. doi:  10.1016/S1060‑3743(00)00019‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00019-9 [Google Scholar]
  16. Guiraud, P.
    (1960) Problémes et méthodes de la statistique linguistique [Problems and methods of statistical linguistics]. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Halliday, M. , & Matthiessen, C.
    (1999) Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London, UK: Cassell.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Hartshorn, K. , Evans, N. , Merrill, P. , Sudweeks, R. , Strong-Krause, D. , & Anderson, N.
    (2010) Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44 , 84–109. doi:  10.5054/tq.2010.213781
     https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.213781 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hu, R.
    (2021) Jiyu dapei de jufa fuzadu zhibiao jiqi yu hanyu eryu xiezuo zhiliang guanxi yanjiu基于搭配的句法复杂度指标及其与汉语二语写作质量关系研究 [On the relationship between collocation-based syntactic complexity and Chinese second language writing]. Applied Linguistics语言文字应用, 1 , 132–144. doi:  10.16499/j.cnki.1003‑5397.2021.01.017
     https://doi.org/10.16499/j.cnki.1003-5397.2021.01.017 [Google Scholar]
  20. Huang, B. , & Liao, X.
    (2007) Xiandai Hanyu现代汉语 [Modern Chinese Language]. Beijing, China: Higher Education Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hunt, K.
    (1966) Recent measures in syntactic development. Elementary English, 43 , 732–739.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Ishikawa, S.
    (1995) Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4 , 51–69. doi:  10.1016/1060‑3743(95)90023‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90023-3 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jarvis, S.
    (2002) Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19 , 57–84. doi:  10.1191/0265532202lt220oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt220oa [Google Scholar]
  24. Jiang, W.
    (2013) Measurements of development in L2 written production: The case of L2 Chinese. Applied Linguistics, 34 , 1–24. doi:  10.1093/applin/ams019
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams019 [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnson, M.
    (2017) Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37 , 13–38. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnson, M. , Mercado, L. , Acevedo, A.
    (2012) The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 , 264–282. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kormos, J.
    (2011) Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20 , 148–161. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I.
    (2019) Syntactic complexity across proficiency and languages: L2 and L1 writing in Dutch, Italian and Spanish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29 , 192–210. doi:  10.1111/ijal.12256
     https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12256 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kyle, K. , & Crossley, S.
    (2018) Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. Modern Language Journal, 102 , 333–349. doi:  10.1111/modl.12468
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12468 [Google Scholar]
  30. Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (1978) An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12 , 439–448. doi:  10.2307/3586142
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3586142 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1983) Assessing global second language proficiency. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp.287–304). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27 , 590–619. doi:  10.1093/applin/aml029
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2015) Saying what we mean: Making a case for ‘language acquisition’ to become ‘language development’. Language Teaching, 48 , 491–505. doi:  10.1017/S0261444814000019
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000019 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lesonen, S. , Steinkrauss, R. , Suni, M. , & Verspoor, M.
    (2021) Dynamic usage-based principles in the development of L2 Finnish evaluative constructions. Applied Linguistics, 42 , 442–472. doi:  10.1093/applin/amaa030
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa030 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lowie, W. , & Verspoor, M.
    (2015) Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65 , 63–88. doi:  10.1111/lang.12093
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12093 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lu, X.
    (2011) A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45 , 36–62. doi:  10.5054/tq.2011.240859
     https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mazgutova, D. , & Kormos, J.
    (2015) Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for academic purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29 , 3–15. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  38. Miller, K.
    (2000) Academic writers on-line: Investigating pausing in the production of text. Language Teaching Research, 4 , 123–148. doi:  10.1177/136216880000400203
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400203 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mostafa, T. , & Crossley, S.
    (2020) Verb argument construction complexity indices and L2 writing quality: Effects of writing tasks and prompts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49 , 1–13. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100730
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100730 [Google Scholar]
  40. Norris, J. , & Ortega, L.
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30 , 555–578. doi:  10.1093/applin/amp044
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  41. Parkinson, J. , & Musgrave, J.
    (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:  10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Polio, C.
    (1997) Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47 , 101–143. doi:  10.1111/0023‑8333.31997003
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.31997003 [Google Scholar]
  43. Polio, C. , Fleck, C. , & Leder, N.
    (1998) “If I only had more time:” ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 , 43–68. doi:  10.1016/S1060‑3743(98)90005‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  44. Polio, C. , & Shea, M.
    (2014) An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26 , 10–27. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  45. Read, J.
    (2000) Assessing vocabulary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511732942
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732942 [Google Scholar]
  46. Reid, J.
    (1990) Responding to different topic types: A quantitative analysis from a contrastive rhetoric perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.191–210). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524551.017
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.017 [Google Scholar]
  47. Révész, A. , Kourtali, N. , & Mazgutova, D.
    (2017) Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67 , 208–241. doi:  10.1111/lang.12205
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12205 [Google Scholar]
  48. Skehan, P.
    (2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30 , 510–532. doi:  10.1093/applin/amp047
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
  49. Spoelman, M. , & Verspoor, M.
    (2010) Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31 , 532–553. doi:  10.1093/applin/amq001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq001 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ure, J.
    (1971) Lexical density: A computational technique and some findings. In M. Coultard (Ed.), Talking about text (pp.27–48). Birmingham, UK: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. van Hout, R. , & Vermeer, A.
    (2007) Comparing measures of lexical richness. In H. Daller , J. Milton & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp.93–115). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667268.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667268.008 [Google Scholar]
  52. Verspoor, M. , Lowie, W. , & van Dijk, M.
    (2008) Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92 , 214–231. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00715.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00715.x [Google Scholar]
  53. Verspoor, M. , Schmid, M. , & Xu, X.
    (2012) A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 , 239–263. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  54. Vyatkina, N.
    (2012) The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal learner corpus study. Modern Language Journal, 96 , 576–598. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2012.01401.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01401.x [Google Scholar]
  55. Wang, Y.
    (2017) Hanyu eryuzhe cihui fengfuxing yu xiezuo chengji de xianguanxing汉语二语者词汇丰富性与写作成绩的相关性 [The correlation between lexical richness and writing score of CSL learner]. Applied Linguistics语言文字应用, 2 , 93–101. Cite to nonCR doi: 10.16499/j.cnki.1003-5397.2017.02.011
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Wolfe-Quintero, K. , Inagaki, S. , & Kim, H.
    (1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy & complexity. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Wu, J.
    (2016) Yingyu muyuzhe hanyu xiezuo zhong de cihui fengfuxing fazhan yanjiu英语母语者汉语写作中的词汇丰富性发展研究 [Research on lexical richness development in CSL writing by English native speakers]. Chinese Teaching in the World世界汉语教学, 30 , 129–142. Cite to nonCR doi: 10.13724/j.cnki.ctiw.2016.01.013
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Yang, W. , Lu, X. , & Weigle, S.
    (2015) Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28 , 53–67. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  59. Yoon, H. , & Polio, C.
    (2017) The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly, 51 , 275–301. doi:  10.1002/tesq.296
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.296 [Google Scholar]
  60. Yu, Q.
    (2021) An organic syntactic complexity measure for the Chinese language: The TC-unit. Applied Linguistics, 42 , 60–92. doi:  10.1093/applin/amz064
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz064 [Google Scholar]
  61. Zenker, F. , & Kyle, K.
    (2021) Investigating minimum text lengths for lexical diversity indices. Assessing Writing, 47 , 1–15. doi:  10.1016/j.asw.2020.100505
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100505 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/csl.21012.lia
Loading
The effects of linguistic measures in the analysis of L2 Chinese descriptive writing
Chinese as a Second Language. The journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, USA 56, 118 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.21012.lia
/content/journals/10.1075/csl.21012.lia
/content/journals/10.1075/csl.21012.lia
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accuracy; discriminative effect; fluency; L2 Chinese; lexical complexity; predictive effect; syntactic complexity; 准确性; 区分效果; 句法复杂性; 汉语二语; 流利性; 词汇复杂性; 预测效果

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error