Cover not available

In:Current Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics
Edited by Diego Pascual y Cabo and Idoia Elola
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 27] 2020
► pp. 39–62

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 2
Organic models for measuring Spanish learners’ linguistic complexity

 | Northern Arizona University
 | Northern Arizona University
Published online: 4 June 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.27.02col
Abstract
Second language acquisition (SLA) researchers measure linguistic complexity to assess pedagogical effectiveness and depict development (Norris & Ortega, 2009). Yet, from linguistic and cognitive perspectives, commonly used approaches oversimplify complexity. Furthermore, such approaches do not consider the morphological complexities of a highly inflected L2 like Spanish. Norris and Ortega (2009) encourage SLA researchers to develop empirically and theoretically valid measures of linguistic complexity through an organic (i.e., iterative and data-driven) investigative process; resulting models should be multidimensional and developmentally sensitive. This study delineates three multidimensional models of Spanish L2 linguistic complexity based on a principal component analysis of a corpus of learners participating in a task-based activity at the beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels of university instruction.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Shortcomings in current metrics of linguistic complexity
    • 2.2Conceptualizing complexity
    • 2.3Cognitive characteristics of linguistic complexity
  • 3.An ‘organic’ approach to operationalizing L2 linguistic complexity
  • 4.Research questions
  • 5.Method
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Task
    • 5.3Corpus
    • 5.4Dataset
    • 5.5Analysis
  • 6.Results
    • 6.1Syntax
    • 6.2Morphology
    • 6.3Corpus samples
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Note
  • References
References (22)
References
Asención-Delaney, Y., & Collentine, J. (2011). A Multi-dimensional analysis of a written L2 Spanish corpus. Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 299–322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Davies, M., Jones, J., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2006). Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: A multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora, 1, 1–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33(1), 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26(December), 42–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collentine, J., & Collentine, K. (2015). Input and output grammar instruction in tutorial CALL with a complex grammatical structure. CALICO Journal, 32(2), 273–298. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (1991). Effects of length and syntactic complexity on initiation times for prepared utterances. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(2), 210–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Housen, A., Pierrard, M., & Van Daele, S. (2005). Rule complexity and the efficacy of explicit grammar instruction. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 235–269). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson, D., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marwa, R. (2014). Building a syntactically-annotated corpus of learner English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2000). Understanding syntactic complexity: The measurement of change in the syntax of instructed L2 Spanish learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining, and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, Y. (2017). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of second language writing proficiency and writing quality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York, NY: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Restrepo-Ramos, Falcon & Nofiya Denbaum-Restrepo
2022. The Syntactic and Discourse Properties of Second Person Singular Forms of Address inPaisaSpanish. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 15:2 ► pp. 453 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue