Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 36:2 (2023) ► pp.436–466

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

Constructional complexity as a predictor of Korean EFL learners’ writing proficiency

ORCiD logo with link | Yonsei University
ORCiD logo with link | Palacký University Olomouc
ORCiD logo with link | Gyeongin National University of Education
Published online: 10 May 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.20066.kim
Abstract
Based on usage-based constructionist approaches to language development, this study investigates the validity of constructional complexity as a predictor of writing proficiency of Korean EFL learners. We analyzed argumentative essays produced by Korean EFL learners and compared a prediction model that uses English argument structure constructions with a conventional T-unit-based model. We first tested the predictive power of a discriminant function model with argument structure constructions as predictors for assessing writing proficiency of lower- and higher-level learners. We then compared the construction-based model to another model that included T-unit measures as predictors. The results validated the contribution of argument structure constructions for predicting L2 writing proficiency: The construction-based model yielded higher prediction accuracy than the T-unit-based model did, confirming that constructional complexity is closely aligned with writing proficiency. These findings demonstrate the significance of a construction-based model as a reliable tool for diagnosing EFL learners’ writing proficiency.
Resumen
Complejidad constructiva como factor de predicción del dominio de la escritura de los estudiantes coreanos de EFL
A partir de los enfoques construccionistas basados en el uso para el desarrollo del lenguaje, este estudio investiga la validez de la complejidad constructiva como factor de predicción del dominio de la escritura de los estudiantes coreanos de EFL (inglés como lengua extranjera). Analizamos ensayos argumentativos elaborados por estudiantes coreanos de EFL y comparamos un modelo de predicción que utiliza construcciones de estructura argumental en inglés con un modelo convencional basado en unidades T. En primer lugar, probamos el poder predictivo de un modelo de función discriminante con construcciones de estructuras argumentales como factores de predicción para evaluar el dominio de la escritura de estudiantes de nivel inferior y superior. A continuación, comparamos el modelo basado en construcciones con otro modelo que incluía medidas de unidades T como factores de predicción. Los resultados validaron la contribución de las construcciones de estructuras argumentales para predecir el dominio de la escritura L2: El modelo basado en la construcción arrojó una mayor precisión de predicción que el modelo basado en las unidades T, lo que confirma que la complejidad constructiva está estrechamente relacionada con el dominio de la escritura. Estos resultados demuestran la importancia de un modelo basado en la construcción como herramienta fiable para diagnosticar el dominio de la escritura de los alumnos de EFL.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Syntactic complexity measures in L2 writing
  • 3.Constructional approaches to language development
  • 4.L2 acquisition of English ASCs
  • 5.Present study
    • 5.1Research question 1: Constructional model
      • 5.1.1Method
        • 5.1.1.1Data collection
        • 5.1.1.2Variable selection and coding
      • 5.1.2Results and discussion
        • 5.1.2.1Multivariate analysis of variance
        • 5.1.2.2Discriminant function analysis
    • 5.2Research question 2: Testing model validity
      • 5.2.1Method
      • 5.2.2Results and discussion
        • 5.2.2.1Multivariate analysis of variance
        • 5.2.2.2Discriminant function analysis
        • 5.2.2.3Comparison of the models
  • 6.General discussion and conclusion
  • References
References (69)
References
Bacha, N. (2001). Writing evaluation: What can analytic versus holistic essay scoring tell us? System, 29(3), 371–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 390–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 185–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2009). Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics, 47(2), 383–411. 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
Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. W. (Eds.). (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chien, B. C., Lin, J. Y., & Yang, W. P. (2006). A classification tree based on discriminant functions. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 22(3), 573–594.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, Y. J., & Jeon, M. G. (2015). hankwuke swuyongseng phantanuy silhempangpeplon pikyo yenkwu [A comparative study of acceptability judgment collection methods in Korean]. The Journal of Linguistics Science, 721, 397–416.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing, 29(2), 243–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 365–378). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. (2015). Usage-based language learning. In B. MacWhinney, & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 163–180). John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friginal, E., Li, M., & Weigle, S. C. (2014). Revisiting multiple profiles of learner compositions: A comparison of highly rated NS and NNS essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 231, 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Constructionist approach. In G. Trousdale, & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Casenhiser, D. (2008). Construction learning and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 197–215). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 182–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 163–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (Research Report No. 3). National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). Twistin’ the night away. Language, 73(3), 534–559. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D., & Ferris, D. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 377–403. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, H., Hwang, H., & Rah, Y. (2017). Young EFL students’ reliance on path-breaking verbs in the use of English argument structure constructions. Journal of Cognitive Science, 18(3), 341–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, H., & Rah, Y. (2016). Effects of verb semantics and proficiency in second language use of constructional knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 716–731. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, H., Shin, G-H., & Hwang, H. (2020). Integration of verbal and constructional information in the second language processing of English dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(4), 825–847. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kyle, K. (2016). Measuring syntactic development in L2 writing: Fine grained indices of syntactic complexity and usage-based indices of syntactic sophistication [PhD dissertation]. Georgia State University.
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2017). Assessing syntactic sophistication in L2 writing: A usage-based approach. Language Testing, 34(4), 513–535. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lan, G., Liu, Q., & Staples, S. (2019). Grammatical complexity: ‘What does it mean’ and ‘So what’ for L2 writing classrooms? Journal of Second Language Writing, 461, 100673. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, J.-H., & Kim, S.-S. (2016). Korean college students’ knowledge on English argument structure constructions depending on English proficiency. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 16(2), 121–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, X., & Ai, H. (2015). Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing, 291, 16–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McClure, K., Pine, J. M., & Lieven, E. V. (2006). Investigating the abstractness of children’s early knowledge of argument structure. Journal of Child Language, 33(4), 693–720. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyers, L., Gamst, S. G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oh, S. (2006). Investigating the relationship between fluency measures and second language writing placement test decisions [MA thesis]. University of Hawai‘i.
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 291, 82–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(1), 117–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rah, Y-O. (2014). Effects of construction-grammar-based instruction on the sentence production ability of Korean college learners of English [PhD dissertation]. Seoul National University.
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In W. Geuder (Ed.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 97–134). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rhee, S.-C., & Jung, C. K. (2012). Yonsei English Learner Corpus (YELC). Proceedings of the first Yonsei English Corpus symposium (pp. 26–36). Seoul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rimmer, W. (2006). Measuring grammatical complexity: The Gordian knot. Language Testing, 23(4), 497–519. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sethuraman, N. (2002). The acquisition of verbs and argument structure construction [PhD dissertation]. University of California at San Diego.
Sethuraman, N., Goldberg, A. E., & Goodman, J. C. (1997). Using the semantics associated with syntactic frames for interpretation without the aid of non-linguistic context. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Child Language Research Forum. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shim, J. Y., & Dikken, M. D. (2007). The tense of resultatives: The case of Korean. In K. Moulton, M. Walkow, & E. Elfner (Eds.), NELS 38: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 337–350). GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shin, G.-H. (2020). People also avoid repetition in sentence comprehension: Evidence from multiple postposition constructions in Korean. Linguistics Vanguard, 6(1), 20190043. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2001). On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 771, 324–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, F. J. (1995). Biometry. Freeman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sung, H. (2019). Korean EFL learners’ processing of English caused-motion construction. English Teaching, 74(1), 49–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sung, M., & Kim, H. (2022). Effects of verb-construction association on second language constructional generalizations in production and comprehension. Second Language Research, 38(2), 233–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Maslen, R., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2012). The acquisition of the active transitive construction in English: A detailed case study. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1), 91–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhelst, N., van Avermaet, P., Takala, S., Figueras, N., & North, B. (2009). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage-based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whong-Ваrr, M. (2005). Morphology, derivational syntax and second language acquisition of resultatives [PhD dissertation]. Durham University.
Wiseman, C. S. (2012). A comparison of the performance of analytic vs. holistic scoring rubrics to assess L2 writing. International Journal of Language Testing, 2(1), 59–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolff, P. (2007). Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1361, 82–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kim, Hyunwoo & Gyu-Ho Shin
2025. The interplay of verbs and argument structure constructions in second language processing: roles of verb’s lexical properties and verb–construction association. Cognitive Linguistics 36:1 ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 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