1887
Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study partially replicates Paquot’s (20182019) study of phraseological complexity in L2 English by investigating how phraseological complexity compares across proficiency levels as well as how phraseological complexity measures relate to lexical, syntactic and morphological complexity measures in a corpus of L2 French argumentative essays. Phraseological complexity is operationalized as the diversity (root type-token ratio; RTTR) and sophistication (pointwise mutual information; PMI) of three types of grammatical dependencies: adjectival modifiers, adverbial modifiers and direct objects. Results reveal a significant increase in the mean PMI of direct objects and the RTTR of adjectival modifiers across proficiency levels. In addition to phraseological sophistication, important predictors of proficiency include measures of lexical diversity, lexical sophistication, syntactic (phrasal) complexity and morphological complexity. The results provide cross-linguistic validation for the results of Paquot (20182019) and further highlight the importance of including phraseological measures in the current repertoire of L2 complexity measures.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.20015.van
2021-10-11
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ågren, M., Granfeldt, J., & Schlyter, S.
    (2012) The growth of complexity and accuracy in L2 French: Past observations and recent applications of developmental stages. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.95–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.05agr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.05agr [Google Scholar]
  2. Bartning, I., & Schlyter, S.
    (2004) Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en français L2. Journal of French Language Studies, 14(3), 281–299. doi:  10.1017/S0959269504001802
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269504001802 [Google Scholar]
  3. Batista, R., & Horst, M.
    (2016) A new receptive vocabulary size test for French. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 72(2), 211–233. doi:  10.3138/cmlr.2820
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2820 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bestgen, Y., & Granger, S.
    (2018) Tracking L2 writers’ phraseological development using collgrams: Evidence from a longitudinal EFL corpus. InS. Hoffmann, A. Sand, S. Arndt-Lappe, & L. M. Dillmann (Eds.), Corpora and lexis (pp.277–301). Leiden: Brill Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004361133_011
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004361133_011 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blanche-Benveniste, C., & Adam, J.-P.
    (1999) La conjugaison des verbes: Virtuelle, attestée, defective. Recherches Sur Le Français Parlé, 15, 87–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bulté, B.
    (2013) The development of complexity in second language acquisition: A dynamic systems approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
  7. Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
    (2012) Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. InA. Housen, I. Vedder, & F. Kuiken (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.21–46). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul [Google Scholar]
  8. Candito, M., Nivre, J., Denis, P., & Anguiano, E. H.
    (2010) Benchmarking of statistical dependency parsers for French. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2010: Poster Volume), 108–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Church, K. W., & Hanks, P.
    (1989) Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 76–83. doi:  10.3115/981623.981633
    https://doi.org/10.3115/981623.981633 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cobb, T., & Horst, M.
    (2004) Is there room for an academic word list in French?InP. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language : Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp.15–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lllt.10.04cob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.10.04cob [Google Scholar]
  11. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) The common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Coxhead, A.
    (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. doi:  10.2307/3587951
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 [Google Scholar]
  13. De Clercq, B.
    (2015) The development of lexical complexity in second language acquisition: A cross-linguistic study of L2 French and English. EUROSLA Yearbook, 15(1), 69–94. doi:  10.1075/eurosla.15.03dec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.15.03dec [Google Scholar]
  14. (2016) The development of linguistic complexity: A comparative study on L2 French and L2 English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
  15. De Clercq, B., & Housen, A.
    (2017) A cross-linguistic perspective on syntactic complexity in L2 development: Syntactic elaboration and diversity. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 315–334. doi:  10.1111/modl.12396
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12396 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2019) The development of morphological complexity: A cross-linguistic study of L2 French and English. Second Language Research, 35(1), 71–97. 10.1177/0267658316674506
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316674506 [Google Scholar]
  17. Demol, A., & Hadermann, P.
    (2008) An exploratory study of discourse organisation in French L1, Dutch L1, French L2 and Dutch L2 written narratives. InG. Gilquin, S. Papp, & M. B. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research (pp.255–282). Amsterdam: Brill. doi:  10.1163/9789401206204_011
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401206204_011 [Google Scholar]
  18. Denis, P., & Sagot, B.
    (2012) Coupling an annotated corpus and a lexicon for state-of-the-art POS tagging. Language Resources and Evaluation, 46, 721–736. doi:  10.1007/s10579‑012‑9193‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-012-9193-0 [Google Scholar]
  19. Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N.
    (2009) To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations?International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(2), 157–177. doi:  10.1515/iral.2009.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.007 [Google Scholar]
  20. Erman, B., Denke, A., Fant, L., & Forsberg Lundell, F.
    (2015) Nativelike expression in the speech of long-residency L2 users: A study of multiword structures in L2 English, French and Spanish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 160–182. doi:  10.1111/ijal.12061
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12061 [Google Scholar]
  21. Forsberg, F., & Bartning, I.
    (2010) Can linguistic features discriminate between the communicative CEFR-levels?: A pilot study of written L2 French. InI. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing (pp.133–157). European Second Language Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Forsberg Lundell, F., Lindqvist, C., & Edmonds, A.
    (2018) Productive collocation knowledge at advanced CEFR levels: Evidence from the development of a test for advanced L2 French. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 74(4), 627–649. doi:  10.3138/cmlr.2017‑0093
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2017-0093 [Google Scholar]
  23. Garner, J., Crossley, S. A., & Kyle, K.
    (2018) 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]
  24. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Granger, S., & Bestgen, Y.
    (2014) The use of collocations by intermediate vs. advanced non-native writers: A bigram-based study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(3), 229–252. doi:  10.1515/iral‑2014‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2014-0011 [Google Scholar]
  26. Greenwell, B.
    (2017) pdp: An R package for constructing partial dependence plots. The R Journal, 9(1), 421–436. 10.32614/RJ‑2017‑016
    https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-016 [Google Scholar]
  27. Greenwell, B., Boehmke, B., & Gray, B.
    (2019) vip: Variable importance plots. Retrieved fromhttps://cran.r-project.org/package=vip
  28. Guiraud, P.
    (1954) Les charactères statistiques du vocabulaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gyllstad, H., Granfeldt, J., Bernardini, P., & Källkvist, M.
    (2014) Linguistic correlates to communicative proficiency levels of the CEFR: The case of syntactic complexity in written L2 English, L3 French and L4 Italian. EuroSLA Yearbook, 14(1), 1–30. doi:  10.1075/eurosla.14.01gyl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.14.01gyl [Google Scholar]
  30. Hothorn, T., Buehlmann, P., Dudoit, S., Molinaro, A., & Van Der Laan, M.
    (2006) Survival ensembles. Biostatistics, 7(3), 355–373. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxj011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxj011 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
    (2000) Pattern grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
  32. Levshina, N.
    (2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lindqvist, C., Gudmundson, A., & Bardel, C.
    (2013) A new approach to measuring lexical sophistication in L2 oral production. InC. Bardel, C. Lindqvist, & B. Laufer (Eds.), L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use: New perspectives on assessment and corpus analysis (Eurosla Monographs Series 2) (pp.109–126). European Second Language Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lonsdale, D., & Le Bras, Y.
    (2009) A frequency dictionary of French: Core vocabulary for learners. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203883044
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203883044 [Google Scholar]
  35. Michalke, M.
    (2019) koRpus: An R package for text analysis (Version 0.12-1).
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. doi:  10.1093/applin/amp044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ortega, L.
    (2012) Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. InB. Szmrecsanyi & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact (pp.127–155). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229226.127
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229226.127 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ovtcharov, V., Cobb, T., & Halter, R.
    (2006) La richesse lexicale des productions orales: Mesure fiable du niveau de compétence langagière. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 107–125. doi:  10.3138/cmlr.63.1.107
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.107 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pallotti, G.
    (2015) A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(11), 117–134. doi:  10.1177/0267658314536435
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314536435 [Google Scholar]
  40. Paquot, M.
    (2018) Phraseological competence: A missing component in university entrance language tests? Insights from a study of EFL learners’ use of statistical collocations. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(1), 29–43. doi:  10.1080/15434303.2017.1405421
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2017.1405421 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2019) The phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research. Second Language Research, 35(1), 121–145. doi:  10.1177/0267658317694221
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317694221 [Google Scholar]
  42. Paquot, M., & Granger, S.
    (2012) Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(2012), 130–149. doi:  10.1017/S0267190512000098
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000098 [Google Scholar]
  43. Peters, E., Velghe, T., & Van Rompaey, T.
    (2019) The VocabLab tests: The development of an English and French vocabulary test. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(1), 53–78. doi:  10.1075/itl.17029.pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.17029.pet [Google Scholar]
  44. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
    (2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. doi:  10.1111/lang.12079
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 [Google Scholar]
  45. Porte, G.
    (2012) Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved on27 July 2021fromhttps://www.r-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Rosenthal, R.
    (1994) Parametric measures of effect size. InH. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis (pp.231–244). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Rubin, R., Housen, A., & Paquot, M.
    (2021) Phraseological complexity as an index of L2 Dutch writing proficiency: A partial replication study. InS. Granger (Ed.), Perspectives on the L2 phrasicon: The view from learner corpora (pp.101–125). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788924863‑006
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788924863-006 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schäfer, R.
    (2015) Processing and querying large web corpora with the COW14 architecture. InP. Bański, H. Biber, E. Breiteneder, M. Kupietz, H. Lüngen, & A. Witt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-3), 28–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Schäfer, R., & Bildhauer, F.
    (2012) Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. InN. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. U. Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), 486–493.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Skehan, P.
    (2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. doi:  10.1093/applin/amp047
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
  52. 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(2), 149–183. doi:  10.1177/0741088316631527
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316631527 [Google Scholar]
  53. Stengers, H., Boers, F., Housen, A., & Eyckmans, J.
    (2011) Formulaic sequences and L2 oral proficiency: Does the type of target language influence the association?International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(4), 321–343. doi:  10.1515/iral.2011.017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.017 [Google Scholar]
  54. Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Kneib, T., Zeileis, T., & Achim, A.
    (2008) Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics, 9(307). 10.1186/1471‑2105‑9‑307
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-307 [Google Scholar]
  55. Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Zeileis, A., & Hothorn, T.
    (2007) Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics, 8(25). 10.1186/1471‑2105‑8‑25
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 [Google Scholar]
  56. Treffers-Daller, J.
    (2013) Measuring lexical diversity among L2 learners of French: an exploration of the validity of D, MTLD and HD-D as measures of language ability. InS. Jarvis & M. Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp.79–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.47.05ch3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.47.05ch3 [Google Scholar]
  57. Tutin, A., & Grossman, F.
    (2014) L’écrit scientifique: Du lexique au discours. Autour de Scientext [Scientific writing: From lexis to discourse. Overview of Scientext]. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L.
    (2009) Python 3 Reference Manual. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Vanderbauwhede, G.
    (2012) Le déterminant démonstratif en français et en néerlandais à travers les corpus: Théorie, description, acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, Paris, France.
  60. Vandeweerd, N.
    (2021) fsca: French syntactic complexity analyzer. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 7(2), 259–274. 10.1075/ijlcr.20018.van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.20018.van [Google Scholar]
  61. Vanhove, J.
    (2018) Computer code for cleaning, tagging, and analysing the texts. Retrieved on27 July 2021fromhttps://osf.io/479um/
  62. Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X.
    (2012) A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  63. Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, J.
    (1995) Comparative stylistics of French and English. Translated byJ. Sager & M.-J. Hamel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.11 [Google Scholar]
  64. Welcomme, A.
    (2013) Jonction interpropositionnelle et complexité syntaxique dans les récits d’apprenants néerlandophones et locuteurs natifs du français. InU. Paprocka-Piotrowska, C. Martinot, & S. Gerolimich (Eds.), La complexité en langue et son acquisition [The Complexity of language and its acquisition] (pp.261–284). Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Kul Katolicki Uniwersytet Jana Pawla II.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.20015.van
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.20015.van
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): CEFR; collocations; complexity; L2 French; phraseology; replication
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