Cover not available
Article published In:
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 5:1 (2016) ► pp.65–96

An exploratory study into the dynamics of Chinese L2 writing development

The present study is inspired by the often heard Chinese university level students’ complaint that they do not improve in English proficiency during their university courses. With a pre-post design, the study explores the potential gains in language development in free response data (writing samples) of three groups of L2 learners: a senior high school group and two university groups of different proficiency levels. Four writing samples, two collected at the beginning and two at the end of the students’ respective courses, were scored holistically on general proficiency and analytically on 47 complexity measures in a computerized tool (Synlex Analyzer). The holistic scores showed some improvement over time for the high school group, but not for the university groups. The analytical measures showed improvements in fairly different aspects of the written language for the three groups, suggesting that at different levels of proficiency different variables may develop. The highest level group actually regressed in almost all syntactic variables, but additional hand coded measures point to a subtle move toward a more academic style of writing with more non-finite constructions. The findings suggest that no single complexity measure is robust for all proficiency levels and that for the highest levels, other metrics tapping into inter-clausal complexity should be added.
Keywords: Chinese learners, syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, non-linear growth, language development, L2 proficiency, dynamic usage-based approach, holistic rating
Published online: 8 July 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.5.1.04loe
References (68)
Adamson, B., & Xia, B. (2011). A case study of the college English test and ethnic minority university students in China: Negotiating the final hurdle. Multilingual Education, 1(1), 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, A.H. (1995). Negotiating coherence in dialogue. In M.A. Gernsbacher & T. Givon (Eds.), The negotiation of coherence (pp. 41–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harliga, K., & Bofmana, T. (1989). The attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 17–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B. (2013). The development of complexity in Second Language Acquisition: A dynamic system approach. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Brussels.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2009). Emergent l2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 50–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caspi, T. (2010). A dynamic perspective on second language development. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Crossley, S.A., & McNamara, D.S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 119–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, R.A., & Dressler, W.U. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics, Vol. 21. London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K. (2008). Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 166–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Engber, C.A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D.R. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foltz, P.W. (2007). Discourse coherence and LSA. In T. Landauser, D. McNamara, D. Simon, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp.167–184). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., & Louwerse, M.M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text? In A.P. Sweet & C.E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London/New York: Cassell.Google Scholar
Henry, K. (1996). Early L2 writing development: A study of autobiographical essays by university-level students of Russian. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 309–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howell, D. (2009). Statistical methods for psychology. Australia: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). What features of language distinguish levels of learner proficiency? In-depth analysis of task performance in the context of the speaking scale development. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 29–49.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, S. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(1), 51–69. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kern, R.G., & Schultz, J.M. (1992). The effects of composition instruction on intermediate level French students’ writing performance: Some preliminary findings. The Modern Language Journal, 76(1), 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, D., & Manning, C.D. (2003). Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics . DOI logo
Langacker, R.W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kenner (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 439–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 140–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–616. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size & use: Lexical richness in L2 written productions. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English based on the British national corpus. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic measurement of syntactic complexity in child language acquisition. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(1), 3–28. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Minnen, G., Carroll, J., & Pearce, D. (2001). Applied morphological processing of English. Natural Language Engineering, 7(3), 207–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2000). Understanding syntactic complexity: The measurement of change in the syntax of instructed L2 Spanish learners. (Doctoral dissertation). Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F.H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Penris, W., & Verspoor, M. (in press). Academic writing development: A complex, dynamic process.
Polio, C. (2003). Research on second language writing: An overview of what we investigate and how. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 35–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Read, J. (Eds.). (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, M.S., Verspoor, M.H., & MacWhinney, B. (2011). Coding and extracting data. In M.H. Verspoor, K. De Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 39–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smiskova, H., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2012). Conventionalized ways of saying things (CWOSTs) and L2 development. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 125–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smiskova-Gustafsson, H. (2013). Chunks in L2 development: A usage-based perspective. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M.H. (2010) Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics 311, 532–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, G.R., & Harrington, M.W. (2003). The incidental development of L2 proficiency in NS-NNS email interactions. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 337–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C., & Singer, Y. (2003). Feature-Rich Part-Of-Speech Tagging with a Cyclic Dependency Network. In Proceedings of the 2003 Human language technology conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 252–259). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: The Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Tanskanen, S.K. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Templin M.C. (1957). Certain language skills in children. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Urquhart, V., & McIver, M. (2005). Teaching writing in the content areas. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, M., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2011) Variability and DST. In M.H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 55–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M.H., De Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (2011). A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M.H., Schmid, M.S., & Xu, X. (2012) A dynamic usage-based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 211, 239–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M.H., Lowie, W., & Van Dijk, M. (2008) Variability in L2 development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 921, 214–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warren, B. (2005). A model of idiomaticity. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 35–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, E. (2009). Language as dialogue: From rules to principles of probability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wen, Q., Wang, L., & Liang, M. (2005). Spoken and written English corpus of Chinese learners. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Xu, X. (2010). English language attrition and retention in Chinese and Dutch university students. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Zareva, A., Schwanenflugel, P., & Nikolova, Y. (2005). Relationship between lexical competence and language proficiency - variable sensitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(4), 567–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Duan, Shiping & Zhiliang Shi
2024. A longitudinal study of formulaic sequence use in second language writing: Complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Teaching Research 28:2 ► pp. 497 ff. DOI logo
Pienemann, Manfred, Anke Lenzing & Howard Nicholas
2024. Can dynamical systems theory be applied to second language acquisition? The issues of reductionism and intentionality. Second Language Research DOI logo
Hao, Yuxin, Zihan Jin, Qihao Yang, Xuelin Wang & Haitao Liu
2023. To predict L2 writing quality using lexical richness indices: An investigation of learners of Chinese as a Foreign Language. System 118 ► pp. 103123 ff. DOI logo
Wu, May Y., Rasmus Steinkrauss & Wander Lowie
2023. The reliability of single task assessment in longitudinal L2 writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing 59 ► pp. 100950 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Ting, Hanneke Loerts & Rasmus Steinkrauss
2022. The impact of second- and third-language learning on language aptitude and working memory. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25:2 ► pp. 522 ff. DOI logo
McCallum, Lee & Philip Durrant
2022. Shaping Writing Grades, DOI logo
Huang, Ting, Rasmus Steinkrauss & Marjolijn Verspoor
2021. Variability as predictor in L2 writing proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing 52 ► pp. 100787 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Ting, Rasmus Steinkrauss & Marjolijn Verspoor
2022. Learning an L2 and L3 at the same time: help or hinder?. International Journal of Multilingualism 19:4 ► pp. 566 ff. DOI logo
Maamuujav, Undarmaa
2021. Examining lexical features and academic vocabulary use in adolescent L2 students’ text-based analytical essays. Assessing Writing 49 ► pp. 100540 ff. DOI logo
Fogal, Gary G. & Marjolijn H. Verspoor
2020. Introduction. In Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 54], ► pp. ix ff. DOI logo
Durrant, Philip, Joseph Moxley & Lee McCallum
2019. Vocabulary sophistication in First-Year Composition assignments. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Hou, Junping, Hanneke Loerts & Marjolijn H. Verspoor
2018. Chunk use and development in advanced Chinese L2 learners of English. Language Teaching Research 22:2 ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Hou, Junping, Hanneke Loerts & Marjolijn H. Verspoor
2020. Chapter 2. Coordination of linguistic subsystems as a sign of automatization?. In Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 54], ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 september 2024. 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.