Cover not available

Article published In: International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 6:1 (2020) ► pp.38–71

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

Exploring the longitudinal development of grammatical complexity in the disciplinary writing of L2-English university students

 | Northern Arizona University
 | Northern Arizona University
 | University of Arizona
 | Northern Arizona University
Published online: 14 April 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.18007.bib
Abstract
The present paper employs a corpus-based approach to track the longitudinal language development of university students. Compared to many other longitudinal studies, the present study tracks development over a relatively long period of time (two years) for a relatively large group of students (N = 22). However, the most important difference from previous research is that the study explores the linguistic characteristics of disciplinary writing, across levels of education and academic disciplines, investigating the writing tasks required for disciplinary content courses over two years of university education. We focus on grammatical complexity features associated with the hypothesized stages of development proposed in Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. 2011. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar. Methodologically, the study proposes research designs and statistical approaches that permit investigation of longitudinal development in an unbalanced corpus of natural texts. And linguistically, the results generally support the hypothesized stages of development, documenting a decline in the use of dependent clause complexity features and an increase in the use of phrasal complexity features. As such, the study adds to the growing body of research that emphasizes the importance of phrasal complexity in the development of academic writing.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus, linguistic analysis, and statistical methods
  • 3.Linguistic complexity features included in the study
  • 4.True longitudinal comparisons
  • 5.Quasi-longitudinal analyses
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (53)
References
Ansarifar, A., Shahriari, H., & Pishghadam, R. 2018. Phrasal complexity in academic writing: A comparison of abstracts written by graduate students and expert writers in applied linguistics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 311, 58–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, P. & Egbert, J. (Eds.). 2016. Triangulating methodological approaches in corpus-linguistic research. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1992. On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes, 151, 133–163. 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, 91, 2–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. 2013. Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking responses on the TOEFL iBT. (TOEFL iBT Research Report No. 19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. & Gray, B. 2011/2016. Grammar emerging in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics, 151, 223–250. [Reprinted 2016 in the 20th Anniversary Collection, English Language and Linguistics.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. 2011. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Pay attention to the phrasal structures: Going beyond T-units. TESOL Quarterly, 471, 192–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B. & Staples, S. 2016. Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639–668. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J. (to appear). Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes.
Biber, D., Reppen, R., & Staples, S. (2017). Exploring the relationship between TOEFL iBT scores and disciplinary writing performance. TESOL Quarterly 51(4), 948-960. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. 2011. Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 241, 183–202. 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, 261, 42–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 281, 147–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connor-Linton, J. & Polio, C. 2014. Comparing perspectives on L2 writing: Multiple analyses of a common corpus. Journal of Second Language Writing, 261, 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S. 2014. Does writing development equal writing quality?: A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 261, 66–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crosthwaite, P. 2016. A longitudinal multidimensional analysis of EAP writing: Determining EAP course effectiveness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 221, 166–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrari, S. 2012. A longitudinal study of complexity, accuracy and fluency variation in second language development. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, and I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in SLA (pp. 277–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friginal, E. & Weigle, S. 2014. Exploring multiple profiles of L2 writing using multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 261, 80–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardner, S., Nesi, H., & Biber, D. 2018. Discipline, level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 401, 646–674. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, B., Staples, S. & Egbert, J., & Biber, D. 2019. Developmental complexity in BAWE: comparing L1 and L2 English writers. Presentation at 10th International Corpus Linguistics 2019 Conference. Cardiff, Wales.
Gunnarsson, C. 2012. The development of complexity, accuracy and fluency in the written production of L2 French. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, and I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in SLA (pp. 247–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. 1995. Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 901, 773–795. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knoch, U., Rouhshad, A., Oon, S. P., & Storch, N. 2015. What happens to ESL students’ writing after three years of study at an English medium university? Journal of Second Language Writing, 281, 39–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreyer, R. & Schaub, S. 2018. The development of phrasal complexity in German intermediate learners of English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 4(1), 82–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. 2018. Measuring Syntactic Complexity in L2 Writing Using Fine-Grained Clausal and Phrasal Indices. The Modern Language Journal, 1021, 333–349. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2006. The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 24(7), 590–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. 2008. Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martínez, A. C. L. 2018. Analysis of syntactic complexity in secondary education EFLwriters at different proficiency levels. Assessing Writing, 351, 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nesi, H., Gardner, S., Thompson, P., & Wickens, P. 2008–2010. The British Academic Written English (BAWE) corpus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 301, 555–578. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, L. 2012. Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. In Kortmann, B., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (Eds.)., Linguistic complexity: second language acquisition, indigenization, contact (pp. 127–155). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, L. & Byrnes, H. 2008. The Longitudinal Study of Advanced L2 Capacities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, L. & Iberri-Shea, G. 2005. Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 251, 26–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parkinson, J. & Musgrave, J. 2014. Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 141, 48–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polat, B. & Kim, Y. 2012. Dynamics of Complexity and Accuracy: A Longitudinal Case Study of Advanced Untutored Development. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 184–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spoelman, M. & Verspoor, M. 2010. Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 532–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Staples, S., Biber, D., & Reppen, R. 2018. Using Corpus-Based Register Analysis to Explore Authenticity of High-Stakes Language Exams: A Register Comparison of TOEFL iBT and Disciplinary Writing Tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 310–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B. 2016. Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 331, 149–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., Crawford, W., & Wetzel, D. Z. 2013. What linguistic features are indicative of writing quality? A case of argumentative essays in a college composition program. TESOL Quarterly, 471, 420–430. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & van Dijk, M. 2008. Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wells, R. 1960. Nominal and verbal style. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 213–220). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yan, X. & Staples, S. (2019, early view). Fitting MD analysis in an argument-based validity framework for writing assessment: Explanation and generalization inferences for the ECPE. Language Testing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, W., Lu, X., & Weigle, S. 2015. Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 281, 53–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (30)

Cited by 30 other publications

Biber, Douglas, Tove Larsson, Gregory R. Hancock, Randi Reppen, Shelley Staples & Bethany Gray
2025. Comparing theory-based models of grammatical complexity in student writing. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 11:1 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Yingzhao
2025. Evaluating the potential of ChatGPT-reformulated essays as written feedback in L2 writing. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 9 ► pp. 100500 ff. DOI logo
Hwang, Haerim
2025. Growth of lexical and syntactic complexity, accuracy, and fluency in spoken production of first language and second language children. System 132 ► pp. 103695 ff. DOI logo
Larsson, Tove & Gaëtanelle Gilquin
2025. Corpus Analysis of Learner Language. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Jinlu, Ming Wu & Haitao Liu
2025. Investigating the dynamic relationship of lexical and syntactic complexity in L2 writing across proficiency levels: A CDST-inspired study. System 131 ► pp. 103678 ff. DOI logo
Pan, Fan & Ming Nie
2025. Diachronic change of noun phrase complexity in the IMRD sections of medical research articles (1970–2020). Journal of English for Academic Purposes 74 ► pp. 101488 ff. DOI logo
Potter, Andrew, Mitchell Shortt, Maria Goldshtein & Rod D. Roscoe
2025. Assessing academic language in tenth grade essays using natural language processing. Assessing Writing 64 ► pp. 100921 ff. DOI logo
Rubin, Rachel, Bram Bulté, Magali Paquot & Alex Housen
2025. Exploring complexity at the lexis-grammar interface: Diversity and sophistication of verb-argument structures in L2 Dutch writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 67 ► pp. 101183 ff. DOI logo
Siu, Barbara Wing Yee, Muhammad Afzaal, Hessah Saleh Aldayel & Qiuhan Lin
2025. Exploring the grammatical complexity of L2 on non-English major learners’ writing: taking engineering students as a case study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12:1 DOI logo
俞, 一帆
2025. A Study of Syntactic Differences in Abstracts of Different Disciplines from the Perspective of Social Constructivism—Taking Computer Science and Applied Linguistics as an Example. Modern Linguistics 13:07 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Abe, Mariko, Yuichiro Kobayashi & Yusuke Kondo
2024. Capturing chronological variation in L2 speech through lexical measurements and regression analysis. Applied Corpus Linguistics 4:3 ► pp. 100105 ff. DOI logo
Qin, Wenjuan, Huixian Li & Yongyan Zheng
2024. Group trends and individual variability in writing development: a descriptive grammatical complexity analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 62:1 ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Reppen, Randi
2024. Exploring individual longitudinal development in a corpus of ‘natural’ disciplinary writing: what could it mean for teaching?. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 62:1 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Su, Hang & Jun Ye
2024. Local Grammar Approach to Investigating Advanced Chinese EFL Learners’ Development of Communicative Competence in Academic Writing: The Case of ‘Exemplification’. Corpus-based Studies across Humanities 1:1 ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Hao
2024. Neural networks application based on language features in the classification of complex English textbooks granularity. Intelligent Decision Technologies 18:2 ► pp. 855 ff. DOI logo
Jadoulle, Pauline
2023. L1 novice writing as a missing piece in the Learner Corpus Research puzzle. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9:2 ► pp. 180 ff. DOI logo
Qin, Wenjuan & Xizi Zhang
2023. Do EFL learners use different grammatical complexity features in writing across registers?. Reading and Writing 36:8 ► pp. 1939 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Yiran & J. Elliott Casal
2023. Navigating complexity in plain English: A longitudinal analysis of syntactic and lexical complexity development in L2 legal writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 62 ► pp. 101059 ff. DOI logo
Dutra, Deise Prina, Bárbara Malveira Orfanò, Annallena de Souza Guedes, Jessica Ceritello Alves & João Gabriel Fekete
2022. The learner corpus path: a worthwhile methodological challenge. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 38:2 DOI logo
Kerz, Elma, Stella Neumann & Paula Niemietz
2022. Assessing linguistic complexity and register flexibility in advanced second language learners. Register Studies 4:1 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Naismith, Ben, Na-Rae Han & Alan Juffs
2022. The University of Pittsburgh English Language Institute Corpus (PELIC). International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 8:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
O'Keeffe, Anne & Geraldine Mark
2022. Principled pattern curation to guide data-driven learning design. Applied Corpus Linguistics 2:3 ► pp. 100028 ff. DOI logo
Paquot, Magali, Tove Larsson, Hilde Hasselgård, Signe O. Ebeling, Damien De Meyere, Larry Valentin, Natalia J. Laso, Isabel Verdaguer & Sanne van Vuuren
2022. The Varieties of English for Specific Purposes dAtabase (VESPA): Towards a multi-L1 and multi-register learner corpus of disciplinary writing. Research in Corpus Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sarte, Kayla Marie & Ksenia Gnevsheva
2022. Noun phrasal complexity in ESL written essays under a constructed-response task: Examining proficiency and topic effects. Assessing Writing 51 ► pp. 100595 ff. DOI logo
Sommer-Farias, Bruna, Aleksey Novikov, Adriana Picoral, Mariana Centanin-Bertho & Shelley Staples
2022. A multilingual learner corpus for less commonly taught languages. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 8:2 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Meixiu & Wenting Chen
2022. Assessing collaborative writing in the digital age: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing 57 ► pp. 100868 ff. DOI logo
Bychkovska, Tetyana
2021. Effects of explicit instruction on noun phrase production in L2 undergraduate writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 54 ► pp. 101040 ff. DOI logo
Crawford, William J. & Meixiu Zhang
2021. How can register analysis inform task-based language teaching?. Register Studies 3:2 ► pp. 180 ff. DOI logo
Larsson, Tove, Magali Paquot & Douglas Biber
2021. On the importance of register in learner writing. In Corpus-based approaches to register variation [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 103], ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2025. Corpus Linguistics for Language Learning Research [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 12], 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