Cited by 804EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?

BIBER, DOUGLAS, GRAY, BETHANY, POONPON, KORNWIPA·2011·TESOL Quarterly

Abstract

Studies of L2 writing development usually measure T‐units and clausal subordination to assess grammatical complexity, assuming that increased subordination is typical of advanced writing. In this article we challenge this practice by showing that these measures are much more characteristic of conversation than academic writing. The article begins with a critical evaluation of T‐units and clausal subordination as measures of writing development, arguing that they have not proven to be effective discriminators of language proficiency differences. These shortcomings lead to the question of whether these measures actually capture the complexities of professional academic writing, and if not, what alternative measures are better suited? Corpus‐based analyses are undertaken to answer these questions, investigating 28 grammatical features in research articles contrasted with conversation. The results are surprising, showing that most clausal subordination measures are actually more common in conversation than academic writing. In contrast, fundamentally different kinds of grammatical complexity are common in academic writing: complex noun phrase constituents (rather than clause constituents) and complex phrases (rather than clauses). Based on these findings, we hypothesize a sequence of developmental stages for student writing, proposing a radically new approach for the study of complexity in student writing development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5054/tq.2011.244483

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
BIBER, D., GRAY, B., & POONPON, K.
Affiliations
  • Northern Arizona University (US)
  • Khon Kaen University (TH)
Venue
TESOL Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-03
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
5-35
ISSN
  • 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7249
OpenAlex
W1986963833
Cited by
804
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 74 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 109 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 87 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 4
FWCI
131.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
TESOL Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
grammatical complexity, L2 writing development, T-units, academic writing, conversation, complex noun phrases, 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