Measuring Syntactic Complexity in Spoken and Written Learner Language: Comparing the Incomparable?

• Authors: Pekka Lintunen , Mari Mäkilä
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Spoken and written language are two modes of language. When learners aim at higher skill levels, the expected outcome of successful second language learning is usually to become a fluent speaker and writer who can produce accurate and complex language in the target language. There is an axiomatic difference between speech and writing, but together they form the essential parts of learners’ L2 skills. The two modes have their own characteristics, and there are differences between native and nonnative language use. For instance, hesitations and pauses are not visible in the end result of the writing process, but they are characteristic of nonnative spoken language use. The present study is based on the analysis of L2 English spoken and written productions of 18 L1 Finnish learners with focus on syntactic complexity. As earlier spoken language segmentation units mostly come from fluency studies, we conducted an experiment with a new unit, the U-unit, and examined how using this unit as the basis of spoken language segmentation affects the results. According to the analysis, written language was more complex than spoken language. However, the difference in the level of complexity was greatest when the traditional units, T-units and AS-units, were used in segmenting the data. Using the U-unit revealed that spoken language may, in fact, be closer to written language in its syntactic complexity than earlier studies had suggested. Therefore, further research is needed to discover whether the differences in spoken and written learner language are primarily due to the nature of these modes or, rather, to the units and measures used in the analysis.

Keywords

EN

EFL; complexity; written language; spoken language

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 12
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 377-399

Dates

published

2014-12-30

Contributors

author

Pekka Lintunen

• University of Turku

author

Mari Mäkilä

• University of Turku

References

• Bardovi-Harlig K. 1992. A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly 26 (2): 390–395. DOI: 10.2307/3587016
• Baron N. 2000. Alphabet to Email. London: Routledge.
• Beaman K. 1984. Coordination and subordination revisited: syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In D. Tannen (ed.) Spoken and Written Language: exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex: 45–80.
• Bergman P. and T. Abrahamsson. 2004. Bedömning av språkfärdigheten hos andraspråkselever. In K. Hyltenstam and I. Lindberg (eds) Svenska som andraspråk – i forskning, undervisning och samhälle. Lund: Studentlitteratur: 597–626.
• Biber D., S. Conrad and G. Leech. 2002. Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Bourdin B. and M. Fayol. 1994. Is written language production more difficult than oral language production? A working memory approach. International Journal of Psychology 29 (5): 591–620. DOI: 10.1080/00207599408248175
• Brown G. and G. Yule. 1983. Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bulté B. and A. Housen. 2012. Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken and I. Vedder (eds) Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 21–46.
• Chafe W. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In D. Tannen (ed.) Spoken and Written Language: exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex: 35–53.
• Cleland A. A. and M. J. Pickering. 2006. Do writing and speaking employ the same syntactic representations? Journal of Memory and Language 54: 185–198. DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2005.10.003
• Ellis R. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ellis R. and G. Barkhuizen. 2005. Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Foster P., A. Tonkyn and G. Wigglesworth. 2000. Measuring spoken language: a unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics 21 (3): 354–375. DOI: 10.1093/applin/21.3.354
• Gaies S. 1980. T-Unit analysis in second language research: Applications, problems and limitations. TESOL Quarterly 14 (1): 53–60. DOI: 10.2307/3586808
• Gilabert R. 2007. The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and (+/- here-and-now): Effects on oral production. In M. P. Garcia Mayo (ed.) Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters: 44–68.
• Halleck G. 1995. Assessing oral proficiency: A comparison of holistic and objective measures. The Modern Language Journal 79 (2): 223–234. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05434.x
• Halliday M. A. K. 1979. Differences between spoken and written language: Some implications for literacy teaching. In G. Page, J. Elkins and B. O’Connor (eds) Communication through reading: Proceedings of the Fourth Australian Reading Conference Vol. 2. Adelaide: Australian Reading Association: 37–52.
• Halliday M. A. K. 1989. Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Holger D. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Housen A. and F. Kuiken. 2009. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30 (4): 461–473. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amp048
• Housen A., F. Kuiken and I. Vedder. 2012a. Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken and I. Vedder (eds) Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 1-20.
• Housen A., F. Kuiken and I. Vedder (eds). 2012b. Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Hunt K. 1965. Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
• Ishikawa S. 1995. Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 4 (1): 51–69. DOI: 10.1016/1060-3743(95)90023-3
• Ishikawa T. 2007. The effect of manipulating task complexity along the [+/- Here-and-Now] dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In M. P. García Mayo (ed.) Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters: 136–156.
• Iwashita N. 2006. Syntactic complexity measures and their relation to oral proficiency in Japanese as a foreign language. Language Assessment Quarterly 2 (4): 151–170. DOI: 10.1207/s15434311laq0302_4
• Kuiken F. and I. Vedder. 2007. Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In M. P. García Mayo (ed.) Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters: 117–135.
• 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
• Larsen-Freeman D. and V. Storm. 1977. The construction of a second language acquisition index of development. Language Learning 27 (1): 123–134. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00296.x
• Larson-Hall J. 2010. A Guide to Doing Statistics in Second Language Research Using SPSS. New York: Routledge.
• Leech G., M. Deuchar and R. Hoogenraad. 1982. English Grammar for Today. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
• Mellow D. J. 2006. The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics 27: 645–670. DOI: 10.1093/applin/aml031
• Norris J. M. and L. Ortega. 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
• 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
• Ortega L. 2009. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
• Pallotti G. 2009. CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics 30 (4): 590–601. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amp045
• Pica T., L. Halliday, N. Lewis and L. Morgenthaler. 1989. Comprehensible outputs as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11 (1): 63–90. DOI: 10.1017/S027226310000783X
• Pietilä P. 1999. L2 Speech: Oral Proficiency of Students of English at University Level. Anglicana Turkuensia No 19. Turku: University of Turku.
• Polio C. 2001. Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of text-based studies. In T. Silva and P. K. Matsuda (eds) On Second Language Writing. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum: 91–115.
• Robinson P. 2001. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 27–57. DOI: 10.1093/applin/22.1.27
• Robinson P. 2007. Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning. Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics 45 (3): 193–213. DOI: 10.1515/iral.2007.009
• Scarborough H. S. 1990. Index of productive syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics 11: 1–22. DOI: 10.1017/S0142716400008262
• Sharma A. 1980. Syntactic maturity: Assessing writing proficiency in a second language. Language Learning 37: 469–481.
• Silva M. L., V. Sánchez Abchi and A. Borzone. 2010. Subordinated clauses usage and assessment of syntactic maturity: A comparison of oral and written retellings in beginning writers. Journal of Writing Research 2 (1): 47–64. DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2010.02.01.2
• Skehan P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Skehan P. and P. Foster. 2005. Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (ed.) Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 193–216.
• Storch N. and G. Wigglesworth. 2007. Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. In M. P. García Mayo (ed.) Investigating Tasks on Formal Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters: 157–177.
• Szmrecsányi B. M. 2004. On operationalizing syntactic complexity. JADT: 7e Journées internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles. Retrieved October 2014 from www.benszm.net/omnibuslit/Szmrecsanyi2004.pdf.
• Tanskanen S.-K. 2006. Collaborating Towards Coherence: Lexical Cohesion in English Discourse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Tavakoli P. and P. Foster. 2008. Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning 5 (2) 439–473. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x
• Towell R. 2007. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition research. In S. Van Daele, A. Housen, F. Kuiken, M. Pierrard and I. Vedder (eds) Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Second Language Use, Learning and Teaching. Brussels: Contactforum: 260–272.
• Tonkyn A. 2012. Measuring and perceiving changes in oral complexity, accuracy and fluency. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken and I. Vedder (eds) Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 221–245.
• Vyatkina N. 2013. Specific syntactic complexity: Developmental profiling of individuals based on an annotated learner corpus. The Modern Language Journal 97 (S1): 11–30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01421.x
• Wolfe-Quintero K., S. Inagaki and H.-Y. Kim. 1998. Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
• Zhang B. 2013. An analysis of spoken language and written language and how they affect English language learning and teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 4 (4): 834–838. DOI:10.4304/jltr.4.4.834-838

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/rela-2015-0005