Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 744

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Corpus‐Based Evaluation of Syntactic Complexity Measures as Indices of College‐Level ESL Writers' Language Development

LU, XIAOFEI·2011·TESOL Quarterly
DOI 10.5054/tq.2011.240859
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article reports results of a corpus‐based evaluation of 14 syntactic complexity measures as objective indices of college‐level English as a second language (ESL) writers' language development. I analyzed large‐scale ESL writing data from the Written English Corpus of Chinese Learners (Wen, Wang, & Liang, 2005) using a computational system designed to automate syntactic complexity measurement with 14 measures that have been proposed in second language writing development studies (Lu, 2010). This analysis allows us to investigate the impact of sampling condition on the relationship between syntactic complexity and language development, to identify measures that significantly differentiate between developmental levels, to determine the magnitude at which between‐level differences in each measure reach statistical significance, to assess the pattern of development associated with each measure, and to examine the strength of the relationship between different pairs of measures. This research provides ESL teachers and researchers with useful insights into how these measures can be used effectively as indices of college‐level ESL writers' language development.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5054/tq.2011.240859

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 10.1007/978-1-349-12396-4_13 · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-12396-4_13
  2. 10.2307/3587016 · DOI
  3. 10.1017/S0272263100007816 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5 · DOI
  5. Breiner‐Sanders K. E., 2001, ACTFL proficiency guidelines—Writing
  6. 10.2307/3586213 · doi:10.2307/3586213
  7. 10.1016/1060-3743(94)90016-7 · DOI
  8. 10.2307/3588174 · doi:10.2307/3588174
  9. 10.1080/00220671.1976.10884868 · DOI
  10. 10.2307/3587446 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.2307/3585974 · doi:10.2307/3585974
  12. 10.2307/3586808 · doi:10.2307/3586808
  13. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01613.x · DOI
  14. 10.2307/3588505 · DOI
  15. Hirano K., 1991, The effect of audience on the efficacy of objective measures of EFL proficiency in Japanese university students, Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 2, 21
  16. 10.2307/3586337 · DOI
  17. Hunt K. W., 1965, Grammatical structures written at three grade levels
  18. 10.2307/3585720 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/1060-3743(95)90023-3 · DOI
  20. Kameen P., 1979, On TESOL ′79: The learner in focus, 343
  21. Klein D., 2003, Advances in neural information processing systems 15, 3
  22. 10.2307/3586142 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Larsen‐Freeman D., 1983, Classroom‐oriented research in second language acquisition, 287
  24. 10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu · DOI · Paper page
  25. Mendelsohn D. J., 1983, The case for considering syntactic maturity in ESL and EFL, International Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 299
  26. Monroe J. H., 1975, Measuring and enhancing syntactic fluency in French, The French Review, 48, 1023
  27. Ortega L., 2000, Understanding syntactic complexity: The measurement of change in the syntax of instructed L2 Spanish learners
  28. 10.1093/applin/24.4.492 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.2307/3586618 · DOI
  30. 10.2307/3586583 · DOI
  31. 10.1111/0023-8333.31997003 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Sharma A., 1980, Occasional papers in linguistics, No. 6, 318
  33. 10.2307/3587400 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Sotillo S. M., 2000, Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication, Language Learning and Technology, 4, 82
  35. 10.1558/cj.v20i2.337-359 · DOI
  36. 10.1111/0026-7902.00060 · DOI
  37. Wen Q., 2005, Spoken and written English corpus of Chinese learners.
  38. Wolfe‐Quintero K., 1998, Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity.
  39. Yau M., 1991, Language, culture and cognition: A collection of studies in first and second language acquisition, 266

Cited by

See all 744

Metadata

Authors
LU, X.
Venue
TESOL Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-03
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
36-62
ISSN
  • 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7249
DOI
10.5054/tq.2011.240859
OpenAlex
W2007231077
Cited by
744
References
1
FWCI
23.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 304 d)

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

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.