Cited by 175Second Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningLanguage Development and Disorders

The phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research

Open access
Paquot, Magali·2019·Second Language Research

Abstract

This article reports on the first results of a large-scale research programme that aims to define and circumscribe the construct of phraseological complexity and to theoretically and empirically demonstrate its relevance for second language theory. Within this broad agenda, the study has two main objectives. First, it investigates to what extent measures of phraseological complexity can be used to describe second language (L2) performance at different proficiency levels. Second, it compares measures of phraseological complexity with traditional measures of syntactic and lexical complexity. Variety and sophistication are postulated to be the first two dimensions of phraseological complexity, which is approached via relational co-occurrences, i.e. co-occurring words that appear in a specific structural or syntactic relation (e.g. adjective + noun, adverbial modifier + verb, verb + direct object). Phraseological diversity is operationalized as root type–token ratio computed for each syntactic relation. Two methods are tested to approach phraseological sophistication. First, sophisticated word combinations are defined as academic collocations that appear in the Academic Collocation List (Ackermann and Chen, 2013). Second, it is approximated with the average pointwise mutual information score as this measures has been shown to bring out word combinations made up of closely associated medium to low-frequency (i.e. advanced or sophisticated) words. The study reveals that unlike trad…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0267658317694221

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paquot, M.
Affiliations
UCLouvain (BE)
Corresponding author
Paquot, Magali
Venue
Second Language Research
Published
2017-03-22
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
121-145
ISSN
  • 0165-9960 (ISSN-L)
  • 0267-6583
  • 1477-0326
OpenAlex
W2598862120
Cited by
175
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
14.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Second language Research (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
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 › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
second language proficiency, syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, word combinations, collocations, pointwise mutual information, language development, CEFR proficiency levels

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