Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The present paper employs a corpus-based approach to track the longitudinal language development of university students. Compared to many other longitudinal studies, the present study tracks development over a relatively long period of time (two years) for a relatively large group of students ( = 22). However, the most important difference from previous research is that the study explores the linguistic characteristics of disciplinary writing, across levels of education and academic disciplines, investigating the writing tasks required for disciplinary content courses over two years of university education. We focus on grammatical complexity features associated with the hypothesized stages of development proposed in Biber et al. (2011). Methodologically, the study proposes research designs and statistical approaches that permit investigation of longitudinal development in an unbalanced corpus of natural texts. And linguistically, the results generally support the hypothesized stages of development, documenting a decline in the use of dependent clause complexity features and an increase in the use of phrasal complexity features. As such, the study adds to the growing body of research that emphasizes the importance of phrasal complexity in the development of academic writing.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ansarifar, A., Shahriari, H., & Pishghadam, R.
    2018 Phrasal complexity in academic writing: A comparison of abstracts written by graduate students and expert writers in applied linguistics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 58–71. 10.1016/j.jeap.2017.12.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.12.008 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, P. & Egbert, J.
    (Eds.) 2016Triangulating methodological approaches in corpus-linguistic research. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315724812
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315724812 [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, D.
    1988Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  4. 1992 On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes, 15, 133–163. 10.1080/01638539209544806
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544806 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2006University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D. & Gray, B.
    2010 Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2–20. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    2013Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking responses on the TOEFL iBT. (TOEFL iBT Research Report No. 19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D. & Gray, B.
    2011/2016 Grammar emerging in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics, 15, 223–250. [Reprinted 2016 in the20th Anniversary Collection, English Language and Linguistics.]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2016Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511920776
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511920776 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
    2011 Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. 10.5054/tq.2011.244483
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2013 Pay attention to the phrasal structures: Going beyond T-units. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 192–201. 10.1002/tesq.84
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.84 [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, D., Gray, B. & Staples, S.
    2016 Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639–668. 10.1093/applin/amu059
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu059 [Google Scholar]
  13. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    1999The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J.
    (to appear). Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Biber, D., Reppen, R., & Staples, S.
    (2017) Exploring the relationship between TOEFL iBT scores and disciplinary writing performance. TESOL Quarterly51(4), 948-960. 10.1002/tesq.359
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.359 [Google Scholar]
  16. Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E.
    2011 Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24, 183–202. 10.1007/s11145‑010‑9264‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9264-9 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bulté, B. & Housen, A.
    2014 Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2018 Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 147–164. 10.1111/ijal.12196
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12196 [Google Scholar]
  19. Carter, R. & McCarthy, M.
    2006Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Connor-Linton, J. & Polio, C.
    2014 Comparing perspectives on L2 writing: Multiple analyses of a common corpus. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 1–9. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  21. Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S.
    2014 Does writing development equal writing quality?: A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 66–79. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  22. Crosthwaite, P.
    2016 A longitudinal multidimensional analysis of EAP writing: Determining EAP course effectiveness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 166–78. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  23. Egbert, J.
    2015 Sub-register and discipline variation in published academic writing: Investigating statistical interaction in corpus data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20, 1–29. 10.1075/ijcl.20.1.01egb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.1.01egb [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferrari, S.
    2012 A longitudinal study of complexity, accuracy and fluency variation in second language development. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, and I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in SLA (pp.277–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.12fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.12fer [Google Scholar]
  25. Friginal, E. & Weigle, S.
    2014 Exploring multiple profiles of L2 writing using multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 80–95. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gardner, S., Nesi, H., & Biber, D.
    2018 Discipline, level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 40, 646–674. 10.1093/applin/amy005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy005 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gray, B.
    2015Linguistic Variation in Research Articles: When Discipline Tells Only Part of the Story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.71 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gray, B., Staples, S. & Egbert, J., & Biber, D.
    2019 Developmental complexity in BAWE: comparing L1 and L2 English writers. Presentation at10th International Corpus Linguistics 2019 Conference. Cardiff, Wales.
  29. Gunnarsson, C.
    2012 The development of complexity, accuracy and fluency in the written production of L2 French. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, and I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in SLA (pp.247–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.11gun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.11gun [Google Scholar]
  30. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1989Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Huddleston, R.
    1984Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165785
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165785 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E.
    1995 Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773–795. 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 [Google Scholar]
  33. Knoch, U., Rouhshad, A., Oon, S. P., & Storch, N.
    2015 What happens to ESL students’ writing after three years of study at an English medium university?Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 39–52. 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kreyer, R. & Schaub, S.
    2018 The development of phrasal complexity in German intermediate learners of English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 4(1), 82–111. 10.1075/ijlcr.16011.kre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.16011.kre [Google Scholar]
  35. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A.
    2018 Measuring Syntactic Complexity in L2 Writing Using Fine-Grained Clausal and Phrasal Indices. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 333–349. 10.1111/modl.12468
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12468 [Google Scholar]
  36. Larsen-Freeman, D.
    2006 The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 24(7), 590–619. 10.1093/applin/aml029
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029 [Google Scholar]
  37. Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L.
    2008 Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–13. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00714.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00714.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Martínez, A. C. L.
    2018 Analysis of syntactic complexity in secondary education EFLwriters at different proficiency levels. Assessing Writing, 35, 1–11. 10.1016/j.asw.2017.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  39. Nesi, H., Gardner, S., Thompson, P., & Wickens, P.
    2008–2010The British Academic Written English (BAWE) corpus.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    2009 Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578. 10.1093/applin/amp044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ortega, L.
    2012 Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. InKortmann, B., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (Eds.)., Linguistic complexity: second language acquisition, indigenization, contact (pp.127–155). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229226.127
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229226.127 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ortega, L. & Byrnes, H.
    2008The Longitudinal Study of Advanced L2 Capacities. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Ortega, L. & Iberri-Shea, G.
    2005 Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 26–45. 10.1017/S0267190505000024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000024 [Google Scholar]
  44. 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. 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Polat, B. & Kim, Y.
    2012 Dynamics of Complexity and Accuracy: A Longitudinal Case Study of Advanced Untutored Development. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 184–207. 10.1093/applin/amt013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt013 [Google Scholar]
  46. 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(4), 532–53. 10.1093/applin/amq001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Staples, S., Biber, D., & Reppen, R.
    2018 Using Corpus-Based Register Analysis to Explore Authenticity of High-Stakes Language Exams: A Register Comparison of TOEFL iBT and Disciplinary Writing Tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 310–332. 10.1111/modl.12465
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12465 [Google Scholar]
  48. Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    2016 Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33, 149–183. 10.1177/0741088316631527
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316631527 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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 Quarterly, 47, 420–430. 10.1002/tesq.91
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.91 [Google Scholar]
  50. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & van Dijk, M.
    2008 Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–31. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00715.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00715.x [Google Scholar]
  51. Wells, R.
    1960 Nominal and verbal style. InT. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp.213–220). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Yan, X. & Staples, S.
    (2019, early view) Fitting MD analysis in an argument-based validity framework for writing assessment: Explanation and generalization inferences for the ECPE. Language Testing. 10.1177/0265532219876226
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219876226 [Google Scholar]
  53. 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. 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): disciplinary writing; grammatical complexity; language development
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