The phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Lower-level interlanguage writing often lacks phraseological sophistication and associative strength.
“lower-level interlanguage writing often lacks this phraseological sophistication and associative strength”
From ARE AI DETECTORS FAIR TO EFL LEARNERS? A LIBRARY RESEARCH ON DETECTION BIAS AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY (2026) · cites this paper as Paquot, 2019
One empirically observable property of interlanguage writing is its constrained lexical and syntactic profile.
“One of the empirically observable properties of interlanguage writing is its constrained lexical and syntactic profile.”
From ARE AI DETECTORS FAIR TO EFL LEARNERS? A LIBRARY RESEARCH ON DETECTION BIAS AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY (2026) · cites this paper as Paquot, 2019
Cites
Formulaic Language and the Lexicon
Wray, A. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511519772 · Cited by 2,873 · see citing works
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.42.2.381 · Cited by 905 · see citing works
Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations
Hanks, P. (2013) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001 · Cited by 358 · see citing works
Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use
Wood, D., & Schmitt, N. (2006) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/40264535 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Linguistic complexity in second language acquisition
Kuiken, F. (2023) · Linguistics Vanguard · doi:10.1515/lingvan-2021-0112 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Linguistic complexity as the predictor of EFL independent and integrated writing quality
Zhang, Y., & Ouyang, J. (2023) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100727 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
ARE AI DETECTORS FAIR TO EFL LEARNERS? A LIBRARY RESEARCH ON DETECTION BIAS AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Patty, J., & Matatula, M. Y. (2026) · J-Shelves of Indragiri (JSI) · doi:10.61672/jsi.v8i1.3557
“Furthermore, while advanced learners eventually develop sophisticated phraseological patterns, lower-level interlanguage writing often lacks this phraseological sophistication and associative strength (Paquot, 2019).”
- Authors
- Paquot, M.
- Affiliations
- UCLouvain (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Paquot, Magali
- ORCID
- Paquot, Magali
- Venue
- Second Language Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- 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