Cited by 350Second Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds

Lu, Xiaofei, Ai, Haiyang·2015·Journal of Second Language Writing

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 61 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 349

Metadata

Authors
Lu, X., & Ai, H.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
Corresponding author
Lu, Xiaofei
Venue
Journal of Second Language Writing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-09
Volume
29
Pages
16-27
ISSN
1060-3743 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W794495026
Cited by
350
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 5
FWCI
28.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Second Language Writing (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Keywords
syntactic complexity, L1 background, EFL learners, argumentative essay, second language writing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review