1887
Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

On the basis of a longitudinal corpus of English produced by German intermediate learners, the present paper explores how noun phrase (NP) complexity develops in terms of global measures of complexity (length, number of modifiers per 1,000 words) in learner data on an intermediate level of competence and describes how the use of individual NP-modification structures changes as learners progress through their three final years of secondary school. An additional objective is to test Biber et al.’s (2011) hypothesized stages of acquisition against our data of intermediate learner English, complementing the data of advanced learner English provided by Parkinson & Musgrave (2014) . Our results show that global measures of NP complexity remain stable as learners progress from grades 10 to 12. Zooming in on individual learners and features, the results lend tentative support to Biber et al.’s (2011) stages of acquisition. However, individual variation influences the frequency of noun-phrasal modifiers.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.16011.kre
2018-05-31
2019-10-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aarts, F. G. A. M.
    1971 “On the distribution of noun-phrase types in English clause-structure”, Lingua26, 281–293. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(71)90013‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(71)90013-1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baten, K. & Håkansson, G.
    2015 “The development of subordinate clauses in German and Swedish as L2s. A theoretical and methodological comparison”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition37(3), 517–547. doi: 10.1017/S0272263114000552
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000552 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beers, S. F. & Nagy, W. E.
    2009 “Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre?”, Reading and Writing22(2), 185–200. doi: 10.1007/s11145‑007‑9107‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2011 “Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation”, Reading and Writing24(2), 183–202. doi: 10.1007/s11145‑010‑9264‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9264-9 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D. & Conrad, S.
    2009Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D. & Gray, B.
    2011 “Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use”, English Language and Linguistics15(2), 223–250. doi: 10.1017/S1360674311000025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000025 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D. , Gray, B. , & Poonpon, K.
    2011 “Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?”, TESOL Quarterly45(1), 5–35. doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.244483
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. , & Finegan, E.
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bulté, B.
    2013The Development of Complexity in Second Language Acquisition: A Dynamic Systems Approach. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Brussels.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–46. doi: 10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul [Google Scholar]
  11. Cambridge English Language Assessment
    Cambridge English Language Assessment. n.d: online. Common European Framework. Available at: https://www.ielts.org/ielts-for-organisations/common-european-framework (accessedDecember 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Carlsen, C.
    2012 “Proficiency level: A fuzzy variable in computer learner corpora”, Applied Linguistics33(2), 161–183. doi: 10.1093/applin/amr047
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr047 [Google Scholar]
  13. Crossley, S. A. , Louwerse, M. M. , McCarthy, P. M. , & McNamara, D. S.
    2007 “A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts”, Modern Language Journal91(2), 15–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00507.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00507.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S.
    2008 “Assessing L2 reading texts at the intermediate level: An approximate replication of Crossley, Louwerse, McCarthy & McNamara (2007)”, Language Teaching41(3), 409–429. doi: 10.1017/S0261444808005077
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005077 [Google Scholar]
  15. de Haan, P.
    1993 “Noun phrase structure as an indication of text variety”. In A. Jucker (Ed.), The Noun Phrase in English: Its Structure and Variability. Heidelberg: Winter, 85–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, N. C.
    2012 “What can we count in language, and what counts in language acquisition, cognition, and use?”. In S. Th. Gries & D. Divjak (Eds.), Frequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 7–33. doi: 10.1515/9783110274059.7
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274059.7 [Google Scholar]
  17. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1989Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Martin, J. R.
    1993Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1996Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hasko, V.
    2013 “Capturing the dynamics of second language development via learner corpus research: A very long engagement”, The Modern Language Journal97(1), 1–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2012.01425.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01425.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Hessisches Kultusministerium
    Hessisches Kultusministerium 2010a: online. “Lehrplan Englisch: Gymnasialer Bildungsgang. Jahrgangsstufen 5G bis 9G”. Available at: https://kultusministerium.hessen.de/sites/default/files/media/go-englisch.pdf (accessedJanuary 2018).
  22. Hessisches Kultusministerium
    Hessisches Kultusministerium 2010b: online. “Lehrplan Englisch: Gymnasialer Bildungsgang. Gymnasiale Oberstufe”. Available at: https://kultusministerium.hessen.de/sites/default/files/media/go-englisch.pdf (accessedJanuary 2018).
  23. Hessisches Kultusministerium
    Hessisches Kultusministerium. n.d.: online. “Bildungsstandards und Inhaltsfelder: Das neue Kerncurriculum für Hessen, Sekundarstufe I – Gymnasium. Moderne Fremdsprachen”. Available at: https://kultusministerium.hessen.de/sites/default/files/media/kerncurriculum_moderne_fremdsprachen_gymnasium.pdf (accessedJanuary 2018).
  24. Housen, A. & Kuiken, F.
    2009 “Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition”, Applied Linguistics30(4), 461–473. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp048
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048 [Google Scholar]
  25. König, E. & Gast, V.
    2009Understanding English-German Contrasts. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kreyer, R.
    2015 “The Marburg corpus of intermediate learner English (MILE)”. In M. Callies & S. Götz (Eds.), Learner Corpora in Language Testing and Assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2017 “‘Multilinguality’ in learner corpora: The case of the MILE”. In A. Nurmi , T. Rütten & P. Pahta (Eds.), Challenging the Myth of Monolingual Corpora. Leiden: Brill, 200–219.10.1163/9789004276697_011
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004276697_011 [Google Scholar]
  28. Larsen-Freeman, D.
    2006 “The emergence of complexity, fluency and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English”, Applied Linguistics27(4), 590–619. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml029
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lim, G. S. , Geranpayeh, A. , Khalifa, H. , & Buckendahl, C. W.
    2013 “Standard setting to an international reference framework: Implications for theory and practice”, International Journal of Testing13(1), 32–49. doi: 10.1080/15305058.2012.678526
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2012.678526 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lowie, W. & Verspoor, M.
    2015 “Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation”, Language Learning65(1), 63–88. doi: 10.1111/lang.12093
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12093 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lu, X.
    2011 “A corpus‐based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college‐level ESL writers’ language development”, TESOL Quarterly45(1), 36–62. doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.240859
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859 [Google Scholar]
  32. Meunier, F. & Littre, D.
    2013 “Tracking learners’ progress: Adopting a dual ‘corpus cum experimental data’ approach”, The Modern Language Journal97(1), 61–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2012.01424.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01424.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Myles, F.
    2012 “Complexity, accuracy and fluency: The role played by formulaic sequences in early interlanguage development”. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 71–94. doi: 10.1075/lllt.32.04myl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.04myl [Google Scholar]
  34. Ninio, A.
    2011Syntactic Development, its Input and Output. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565962.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565962.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L.
    2009 “Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity”, Applied Linguistics30(4), 555–578. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ortega, L.
    2003 “Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing”, Applied Linguistics24(4), 492–518. doi: 10.1093/applin/24.4.492
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2012 “Interlanguage complexity”. In B. Kortmann & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.), Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact. Berlin: De Gruyter, 127–155.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Ortega, L. & Byrnes, H.
    2008 “Theorizing advancedness, setting up the longitudinal research agenda”. In L. Ortega & H. Byrnes (Eds.), The Longitudinal Study of Advanced L2 Capacities. New York, NY: Routledge, 281–299.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ortega, L. & Iberri-Shea, G.
    2005 “Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics25, 26–45. doi: 10.1017/S0267190505000024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000024 [Google Scholar]
  40. Pallotti, G.
    2007 “An operational definition of the emergence criterion”, Applied Linguistics28(3), 361–382. doi: 10.1093/applin/amm018
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm018 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2015 “A simple view of linguistic complexity”, Second Language Research31(1), 117–134. doi: 10.1177/0267658314536435
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314536435 [Google Scholar]
  42. Parkinson, J. & Musgrave, J.
    2014 “Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes14, 48–59. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pienemann, M.
    1984 “Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition6(1), 186–214. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100005015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100005015 [Google Scholar]
  44. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2017R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Taguchi, N. , Crawford, W. , & Wetzel, D. Z.
    2013 “What linguistic features are indicative of writing quality? A case of argumentative essays in a college composition program”, TESOL Quarterly47(2), 420–430. doi: 10.1002/tesq.91
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.91 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tracy-Ventura, N. & Myles, F.
    2015 “The importance of task variability in the design of learner corpora for SLA research”, International Journal of Learner Corpus Research1(1), 58–95. doi: 10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.03tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.03tra [Google Scholar]
  47. Verspoor, M. , Lowie, W. , & van Dijk, M.
    2008 “Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective”, The Modern Language Journal92(2), 214–231. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00715.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00715.x [Google Scholar]
  48. Vyatkina, N. , Hirschmann, H. , & Golcher, F.
    2015 “Syntactic modification at early stages of L2 German writing development: A longitudinal learner corpus study”, Journal of Second Language Writing29, 28–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wasow, T.
    1997 “Remarks on grammatical weight”, Language Variation and Change9, 81–105. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500001800
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001800 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.16011.kre
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.16011.kre
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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