1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 36, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 36, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Based on usage-based constructionist approaches to language development, this study investigates the validity of constructional complexity as a predictor of writing proficiency of Korean EFL learners. We analyzed argumentative essays produced by Korean EFL learners and compared a prediction model that uses English argument structure constructions with a conventional T-unit-based model. We first tested the predictive power of a discriminant function model with argument structure constructions as predictors for assessing writing proficiency of lower- and higher-level learners. We then compared the construction-based model to another model that included T-unit measures as predictors. The results validated the contribution of argument structure constructions for predicting L2 writing proficiency: The construction-based model yielded higher prediction accuracy than the T-unit-based model did, confirming that constructional complexity is closely aligned with writing proficiency. These findings demonstrate the significance of a construction-based model as a reliable tool for diagnosing EFL learners’ writing proficiency.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.20066.kim
2023-05-10
2024-12-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/resla.20066.kim
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bacha, N.
    (2001) Writing evaluation: What can analytic versus holistic essay scoring tell us?System, 29(3), 371–383. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(01)00025‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00025-2 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (1992) A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 390–395. 10.2307/3587016
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3587016 [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 Writing, 22(2), 185–200. 10.1007/s11145‑007‑9107‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5 [Google Scholar]
  4. Behrens, H.
    (2009) Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics, 47(2), 383–411. 10.1515/LING.2009.014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.014 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. W.
    (Eds.) (2015) Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110378528
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110378528 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chien, B. C., Lin, J. Y., & Yang, W. P.
    (2006) A classification tree based on discriminant functions. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 22(3), 573–594.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cho, Y. J., & Jeon, M. G.
    (2015) hankwuke swuyongseng phantanuy silhempangpeplon pikyo yenkwu [A comparative study of acceptability judgment collection methods in Korean]. The Journal of Linguistics Science, 721, 397–416.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W.
    (2005) Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786. 10.3758/BF03196772
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772 [Google Scholar]
  10. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2012) Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing, 29(2), 243–263. 10.1177/0265532211419331
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211419331 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis, N. C.
    (2006) Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review, 19(1), 100–121. 10.1075/aila.19.08ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.08ell [Google Scholar]
  13. (2013) Construction grammar and second language acquisition. InT. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.365–378). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
    (2009) Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00896.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U.
    (2015) Usage-based language learning. InB. MacWhinney, & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp.163–180). John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118346136.ch7
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346136.ch7 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F.
    (2004) The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84. 10.1017/S0272263104261034
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104261034 [Google Scholar]
  17. Friginal, E., Li, M., & Weigle, S. C.
    (2014) Revisiting multiple profiles of learner compositions: A comparison of highly rated NS and NNS essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 231, 1–16. 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.10.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (2013) Constructionist approach. InG. Trousdale, & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.15–31). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldberg, A. E., & Casenhiser, D.
    (2008) Construction learning and second language acquisition. InP. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp.197–215). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D.
    (2005) Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676. 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gries, S. Th., & Wulff, S.
    (2005) Do foreign language learners also have constructions?Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 182–200. 10.1075/arcl.3.10gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.10gri [Google Scholar]
  26. (2009) Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 163–186. 10.1075/arcl.7.07gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.07gri [Google Scholar]
  27. Hunt, K. W.
    (1965) Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (Research Report No. 3). National Council of Teachers of English.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Jackendoff, R.
    (1997) Twistin’ the night away. Language, 73(3), 534–559. 10.2307/415883
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415883 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D., & Ferris, D.
    (2003) Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 377–403. 10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kim, H., Hwang, H., & Rah, Y.
    (2017) Young EFL students’ reliance on path-breaking verbs in the use of English argument structure constructions. Journal of Cognitive Science, 18(3), 341–366. 10.17791/jcs.2017.18.3.341
     https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2017.18.3.341 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kim, H., & Rah, Y.
    (2016) Effects of verb semantics and proficiency in second language use of constructional knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 716–731. 10.1111/modl.12345
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12345 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim, H., Shin, G-H., & Hwang, H.
    (2020) Integration of verbal and constructional information in the second language processing of English dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(4), 825–847. 10.1017/S0272263119000743
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000743 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kyle, K.
    (2016) Measuring syntactic development in L2 writing: Fine grained indices of syntactic complexity and usage-based indices of syntactic sophistication [PhD dissertation]. Georgia State University.
  34. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S.
    (2017) Assessing syntactic sophistication in L2 writing: A usage-based approach. Language Testing, 34(4), 513–535. 10.1177/0265532217712554
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217712554 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lan, G., Liu, Q., & Staples, S.
    (2019) Grammatical complexity: ‘What does it mean’ and ‘So what’ for L2 writing classrooms?Journal of Second Language Writing, 461, 100673. 10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100673
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100673 [Google Scholar]
  36. Langacker, R. W.
    (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lee, J.-H., & Kim, S.-S.
    (2016) Korean college students’ knowledge on English argument structure constructions depending on English proficiency. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 16(2), 121–142. 10.15738/kjell.16.2.201606.121
     https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.16.2.201606.121 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lu, X.
    (2010) Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. 10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu [Google Scholar]
  39. (2011) A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62. 10.5054/tq.2011.240859
     https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lu, X., & Ai, H.
    (2015) Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing, 291, 16–27. 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  41. McClure, K., Pine, J. M., & Lieven, E. V.
    (2006) Investigating the abstractness of children’s early knowledge of argument structure. Journal of Child Language, 33(4), 693–720. 10.1017/S0305000906007525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007525 [Google Scholar]
  42. Meyers, L., Gamst, S. G., & Guarino, A. J.
    (2006) Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. 10.1093/applin/amp044
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  44. O’Brien, R. M.
    (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690. 10.1007/s11135‑006‑9018‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6 [Google Scholar]
  45. Oh, S.
    (2006) Investigating the relationship between fluency measures and second language writing placement test decisions [MA thesis]. University of Hawai‘i.
     [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. 10.1093/applin/24.4.492
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2015) Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 291, 82–94. 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  48. Pallotti, G.
    (2015) A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(1), 117–134. 10.1177/0267658314536435
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314536435 [Google Scholar]
  49. Pinker, S.
    (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Rah, Y-O.
    (2014) Effects of construction-grammar-based instruction on the sentence production ability of Korean college learners of English [PhD dissertation]. Seoul National University.
  51. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.
    (1998) Building verb meanings. InW. Geuder (Ed.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp.97–134). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Rhee, S.-C., & Jung, C. K.
    (2012) Yonsei English Learner Corpus (YELC). Proceedings of the first Yonsei English Corpus symposium (pp.26–36). Seoul.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Rimmer, W.
    (2006) Measuring grammatical complexity: The Gordian knot. Language Testing, 23(4), 497–519. 10.1191/0265532206lt339oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt339oa [Google Scholar]
  54. Sethuraman, N.
    (2002) The acquisition of verbs and argument structure construction [PhD dissertation]. University of California at San Diego.
  55. Sethuraman, N., Goldberg, A. E., & Goodman, J. C.
    (1997) Using the semantics associated with syntactic frames for interpretation without the aid of non-linguistic context. InProceedings of the 27th Annual Child Language Research Forum. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Shim, J. Y., & Dikken, M. D.
    (2007) The tense of resultatives: The case of Korean. InK. Moulton, M. Walkow, & E. Elfner (Eds.), NELS 38: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (pp.337–350). GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Shin, G.-H.
    (2020) People also avoid repetition in sentence comprehension: Evidence from multiple postposition constructions in Korean. Linguistics Vanguard, 6(1), 20190043. 10.1515/lingvan‑2019‑0043
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0043 [Google Scholar]
  58. Snyder, W.
    (2001) On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 771, 324–342. 10.1353/lan.2001.0108
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0108 [Google Scholar]
  59. Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, F. J.
    (1995) Biometry. Freeman.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Sung, H.
    (2019) Korean EFL learners’ processing of English caused-motion construction. English Teaching, 74(1), 49–73. 10.15858/engtea.74.1.201903.49
     https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.74.1.201903.49 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sung, M., & Kim, H.
    (2022) Effects of verb-construction association on second language constructional generalizations in production and comprehension. Second Language Research, 38(2), 233–257. 10.1177/0267658320932625
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320932625 [Google Scholar]
  62. Theakston, A. L., Maslen, R., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M.
    (2012) The acquisition of the active transitive construction in English: A detailed case study. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1), 91–128. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0004 [Google Scholar]
  63. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Verhelst, N., van Avermaet, P., Takala, S., Figueras, N., & North, B.
    (2009) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 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. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  66. Whong-Ваrr, M.
    (2005) Morphology, derivational syntax and second language acquisition of resultatives [PhD dissertation]. Durham University.
  67. Wiseman, C. S.
    (2012) A comparison of the performance of analytic vs. holistic scoring rubrics to assess L2 writing. International Journal of Language Testing, 2(1), 59–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y.
    (1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. University of Hawaii Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Wolff, P.
    (2007) Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1361, 82–111. 10.1037/0096‑3445.136.1.82
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.82 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.20066.kim
Loading
Constructional complexity as a predictor of Korean EFL learners’ writing proficiency
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 36, 436 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.20066.kim
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.20066.kim
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.20066.kim
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): análisis de función discriminante; constructionist approach; discriminant function analysis; enfoque construccionista; escritura en segunda lengua; estudiantes coreanos de EFL; Korean EFL students; second language writing; T-unit; unidad T

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