The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing
Abstract
We describe a computational system for automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing using fourteen different measures that have been explored or proposed in studies of second language development. The system takes a written language sample as input and produces fourteen indices of syntactic complexity of the sample based on these measures. The system is designed with advanced second language proficiency research in mind, and is therefore developed and evaluated using college-level second language writing data from the Written English Corpus of Chinese Learners (Wen et al. 2005). Experimental results show that the system achieves very high reliability on unseen test data from the corpus. We illustrate how the system is used in an example application to investigate whether and to what extent each of these measures significantly differentiate between different proficiency levels
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank
Marcus, M. (1993) · doi:10.21236/ada273556 · Cited by 7,405
The Influence of Planning and Task Type on Second Language Performance
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263100015047 · Cited by 1,147 · cited 1×
“Syntactic complexity is manifest in second language writing in terms of how varied and sophisticated the production units or grammatical structures are (Foster & Skehan 1996, Ortega 2003, Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998).”
BackgroundVocabulary and Applied Linguistics
(1992) · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-12396-4 · Cited by 375
Cited by
Linguistic Features Identify Alzheimer’s Disease in Narrative Speech
Fraser, K. C., Meltzer, J. A., & Rudzicz, F. (2015) · Journal of Alzheimer's Disease · doi:10.3233/jad-150520 · Cited by 797
Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring
Mizumoto, A., & Eguchi, M. (2023) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050 · Cited by 647
Defining and operationalising L2 complexity
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012) · Language Learning & Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.32.02bul · Cited by 587
Measuring Syntactic Complexity in L2 Writing Using Fine‐Grained Clausal and Phrasal Indices
KYLE, K., & CROSSLEY, S. A. (2018) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12468 · Cited by 405
Lu, X., & Ai, H. (2015) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003 · Cited by 350
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lu, X.
- Venue
- International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2010-10-29
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 474-496
- ISSN
- 1384-6655 (ISSN-L)
- 1569-9811
- OpenAlex
- W1971020201
- Cited by
- 1,041
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 21.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
- The paper
- Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
