1887
Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Resumen

El objetivo del presente estudio fue analizar el controvertido estatus de tres medidas lingüísticas ampliamente utilizadas en la investigación empírica de Adquisición de Segundas Lenguas, como son la longitud promedio de la unidad terminal, la longitud promedio de la cláusula y la longitud promedio de la oración. Sesenta y cinco aprendientes griegos de español como lengua extranjera realizaron dos tareas escritas y su actuación se evaluó con base en un total de 24 medidas de precisión, fluidez y complejidad sintáctica y léxica. Mediante la aplicación del Análisis Factorial Común se pudo constatar que las medidas de longitud (longitud promedio de la unidad terminal y de la cláusula) y de subordinación cargan en factores diferentes y, más que fluidez, dichas medidas evalúan diferentes facetas del constructo de complejidad sintáctica. En cuanto a la longitud promedio de la oración, los resultados sugieren que esta medida se ve influenciada por factores relacionados con su cómputo, con la extensión de los textos analizados, así como por las convenciones lingüísticas que rigen la lengua materna o extranjera.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.15028.mav
2019-07-24
2019-12-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bardovi-Harlig, K. , y Bofman, T.
    (1988) A second look at T-unit analysis. Comunicación presentada en 22ndAnnual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Chicago, IL. Disponible en: files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED295478.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bulté, B. , y Housen, A.
    (2012) Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. En A. Housen , F. Kuiken , y 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]
  3. Celaya, M. L. , Pérez-Vidal, C. , y Torras, M. R.
    (2000/2001) Matriz de criterios de medición para la determinación del perfil de competencia lingüística escrita en inglés (LE). RESLA, 14, 87–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Checa García, I.
    (2005) Medidas de madurez sintáctica aplicadas a lecturas de ELE. Interlingüística, 16(1), 273–285.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Conway, J. M. , y Huffcutt, A. I.
    (2003) A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6(2), 147–168. doi:  10.1177/1094428103251541
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103251541 [Google Scholar]
  6. Costello, A. B. , y Osborne, J. W.
    (2005) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7). Disponible en: pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cowan, N.
    (2001) The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–115. doi:  10.1017/S0140525X01003922
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922 [Google Scholar]
  8. DeKeyser, R.
    (2016) Of moving targets and chameleons: Why the concept of difficulty is so hard to pin down. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 353–363. doi:  10.1017/S0272263116000024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000024 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dewaele, J. M. , y Pavlenko, A.
    (2003) Productivity and lexical diversity in native and non-native speech: A study of cross-cultural effects. En V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp.120–141). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853596346‑009
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596346-009 [Google Scholar]
  10. de Winter, J. C. F. , Dodou, D. , y Wieringa, P. A.
    (2009) Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 147–181. doi:  10.1080/00273170902794206
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170902794206 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fabrigar, L. R. , Wegener, D. T. , MacCallum, R. C. , y Strahan, E. J.
    (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. doi:  10.1037/1082‑989X.4.3.272
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fidell, L. S. , y Tabachnick, B. G.
    (2003) Preparatory data analysis. En I. B. Weiner , J. A. Schinka , y W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology (Vol.2, pp.115–141). New York: Wiley. 10.1002/0471264385.wei0205
    https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0205 [Google Scholar]
  13. Field, A.
    (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Foster, P. , Tonkyn, A. , y Wigglesworth, G.
    (2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375. doi:  10.1093/applin/21.3.354
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gilabert, R.
    (2005) Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production (Tesis doctoral inédita, Universitat de Barcelona). Disponible en: hdl.handle.net/2445/35007
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hair, J. F. Jr. , Black, W. C. , Babin, B. J. , y Anderson, R. E.
    (2010) Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Holmes, D. I.
    (1985) The analysis of literary style: A review. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General), 148(4), 328–341. doi:  10.2307/2981893
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2981893 [Google Scholar]
  18. Housen, A. , y Kuiken, F.
    (2009) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. doi:  10.1093/applin/amp048
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048 [Google Scholar]
  19. Housen, A. , Kuiken, F. , y Vedder, I.
    (2012) Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. En A. Housen , F. Kuiken , y I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.1–20). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.01hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.01hou [Google Scholar]
  20. Hunt, K. W.
    (1965) Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Johansson, V.
    (2008) Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Lund Working Papers in Linguistics, 53, 61–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kobayashi, M.
    (2009) Hitting the mark: How can text organisation and response format affect reading test performance?New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. Kormos, J. , y Dénes, M.
    (2004) Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32(2), 146–164. 10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kormos, J. , y Trebits, A.
    (2012) The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62(2), 439–472. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00695.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x [Google Scholar]
  26. 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, 27(4), 590–619. doi:  10.1093/applin/aml029
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2009) Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 579–589. doi:  10.1093/applin/amp043
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp043 [Google Scholar]
  28. Laufer, B. , y Nation, P.
    (1995) Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. doi:  10.1093/applin/16.3.307
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lu, X.
    (2012) The Relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190–208. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2011.01232.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232.x [Google Scholar]
  30. MacWhinney, B.
    (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Martínez Arbelaiz, A.
    (2004) Índices de progreso en la producción escrita de estudiantes de español en situación de inmersión. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 3, 115–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mavrou, I.
    (2013) Precisión lingüística y complejidad sintáctica: ¿hasta qué punto compiten entre sí por los recursos limitados del aprendiz?Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas, 14, 75–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2015) Análisis factorial exploratorio: Cuestiones conceptuales y metodológicas. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas, 19, 71–80. doi:  10.26378/rnlael019283
    https://doi.org/10.26378/rnlael019283 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2016) Complejidad, precisión, fluidez y léxico: Una revisión. Moderna språk, 110(1), 49–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. McCarthy, P. M. , y Jarvis, S.
    (2007) Vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Teaching, 24(4), 459–488. doi:  10.1177/0265532207080767
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207080767 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2010) MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. doi:  10.3758/BRM.42.2.381
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.381 [Google Scholar]
  37. Meara, P. M. , y Miralpeix, I.
    (2007) Vocabulary size estimator. Swansea: Lognostics.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Meara, P. M., y Miralpeix, I.
    (2016) Tools for vocabulary research. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096473
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096473 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mohammadzadeh Mohammadabadi, A. , Dabaghi, A. , y Tavakoli, M.
    (2013) The effects of simultaneous use of pre-planning along +/−Here-and-Now dimension on fluency, complexity, and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ written performance. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(3), 49–65. doi:  10.5861/ijrsll.2012.168
    https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2012.168 [Google Scholar]
  40. Moreno, A.
    (1991) Un modelo computacional para el análisis y generación de la morfología del español (Tesis doctoral inédita, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid). Disponible en: https://repositorio.uam.es/handle/10486/12294
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Moreno, A. , y Goñi, J. M.
    (1995) GRAMPAL: a morphological processor of Spanish implemented in Prolog. En M. Alpuente y M. I. Sessa (Eds.), Proceedings of Joint Conference on Declarative Programming (GULP-PRODE 95) (pp.321–331). Salerno, Italy: Palladio Editrice.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Muñoz, C.
    (2006) The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF Project. En C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp.1–40). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853598937‑003
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598937-003 [Google Scholar]
  43. Nariman-Jahan, R. , y Rahimpour, M.
    (2011) The effects of planning and proficiency on language production of writing task performance. Educational Research, 2(9), 1528–1537.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Navés, T.
    (2007, abril). Analytical measures of learners’ written interlanguage. Comunicación presentada en el XXV Congreso Internacional de AESLA, Universidad de Murcia, España.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Navés, T. , Torras, M. R. , y Celaya, M. L.
    (2003) Long-term effects of an earlier start. En S. Foster-Cohen y S. Pekarek (Eds.), EUROSLA-Yearbook. Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association (pp.103–130). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ortega, L.
    (2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. doi:  10.1093/applin/24.4.492
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2012) Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. En B. Szmrecsanyi y 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]
  48. Palloti, G.
    (2009) CAF: defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. doi:  10.1093/applin/amp045
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045 [Google Scholar]
  49. Rahimpour, M. , y Hosseini, P.
    (2010) The impact of task complexity on L2 learners’ written narratives. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 198–205. 10.5539/elt.v3n3p198
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n3p198 [Google Scholar]
  50. Richards, B.
    (1987) Type/token ratios: what do they really tell us?Journal of Child Language, 14(2), 201–209. doi:  10.1017/S0305000900012885
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900012885 [Google Scholar]
  51. Richards, B. , y Malvern, D.
    (2000, September). Measuring vocabulary richness in teenage learners of French. Comunicación presentada en British Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff University.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Rietveld, T. , y van Hout, R.
    (1993) Statistical techniques for the study of language and language behaviour. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110871609
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871609 [Google Scholar]
  53. Roberto, J. A. , Martí, M. A. , y Salamó, M.
    (2012) Análisis de la riqueza léxica en el contexto de la clasificación de atributos demográficos latentes. Procesamiento de Lenguaje Natural, 48, 97–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Salimi, A. , y Fatollahnejad, S.
    (2012) The effects of strategic planning and topic familiarity on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ written performance in TBLT. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2308–2315. doi:  10.4304/tpls.2.11.2308‑2315
    https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.11.2308-2315 [Google Scholar]
  55. Schmidt, R. W.
    (1992) Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(4), 357–385. doi:  10.1017/S0272263100011189
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011189 [Google Scholar]
  56. Šišková, Z.
    (2012) Lexical richness in EFL students’ narratives. University of Reading Language Studies Working Papers, 4, 26–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Skehan, P.
    (2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1–14. doi:  10.1017/S026144480200188X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X [Google Scholar]
  58. (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]
  59. Skehan, P. , y Foster, P.
    (1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211. doi:  10.1177/136216889700100302
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2001) Cognition and tasks. En P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.181–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.009 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sotillo, S. M.
    (2000) Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Torras, M. R. , y Celaya, M. L.
    (2001) Age-related differences in the development of written production. An empirical study of EFL school learners. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 130–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Torres González, A. N.
    (1993) Madurez sintáctica en estudiantes no universitarios de la zona metropolitana de Tenerife (Tesis doctoral, Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife). Disponible en: dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=463
    [Google Scholar]
  64. (1997) Complejidad sintáctica en escritores de las islas canarias. REALE, 8, 105–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Torres López, M. C.
    (1999) Índices primarios de madurez sintáctica: análisis comparativo en alumnos de COU. REALE, 12, 93–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Towell, R. , y Dewaele, J. M.
    (2005) The role of psycholinguistic factors in the development of fluency amongst advanced learners of French. En J. M. Dewaele (Ed.), Focus on French as a foreign language: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp.210–239). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853597688‑011
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853597688-011 [Google Scholar]
  67. 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. En S. Jarvis y M. Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp.79–104). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.47.05ch3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.47.05ch3 [Google Scholar]
  68. Unsworth, N. , y Engle, R. W.
    (2006) Simple and complex memory spans and their relation to fluid abilities: Evidence from list-length effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(1), 68–80. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2005.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  69. (2007) On the division of short-term and working memory: An examination of simple and complex span and their relation to higher order abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 133(6), 1038–1066. doi:  10.1037/0033‑295X.114.1.104
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.104 [Google Scholar]
  70. Vajjala, S. , y Meurers, D.
    (2012, June). On improving the accuracy of readability classification using insights from second language acquisition. Comunicación presentada en7th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, The Association for Computational Linguistics, Montréal, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Véliz, M.
    (1996) Recurrencia textual y competencia narrativa en escolares de educación básica y media. REALE, 5, 107–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. (1999) Complejidad sintáctica y modo del discurso. Estudios Filológicos, 34, 181–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Vercellotti, M. L.
    (2012) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency as properties of language performance: The development of the multiple subsystems over time and in relation to each other (Tesis doctoral inédita, University of Pittsburgh). Disponible en: d-scholarship.pitt.edu/12071/1/Vercellotti_CAF_v3.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Weir, C. J.
    (2005) Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230514577
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230514577 [Google Scholar]
  75. Wolfe-Quintero, K. , Inagaki, S. , y Kim, H. Y.
    (1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy & complexity (Technical Report 17). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Yang, W. , y Sun, Y.
    (2015) Dynamic development of complexity, accuracy and fluency in multilingual learners’ L1, L2 and L3 writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(2), 298–308. doi:  10.17507/tpls.0502.09
    https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0502.09 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/resla.15028.mav
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.15028.mav
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