Word-formation complexity: a learner corpus-based study

封面

如何引用文章

详细

This article explores the word-formation dimension of learner text complexity which indicates how skilful the non-native speakers are in using more and less complex - and varied - derivational constructions. In order to analyse the association between complexity and writing accuracy in word formation as well as interactive effects of task type, text register, and native language background, we examine the materials of the REALEC corpus of English essays written by university students with Russian L1. We present an approach to measure derivational complexity based on the classification of suffixes offered in Bauer and Nation (1993) and then compare the complexity results and the number of word formation errors annotated in the texts. Starting with the hypothesis that with increasing complexity the number of errors will decrease, we apply statistical analysis to examine the association between complexity and accuracy. We found, first, that the use of more advanced word-formation suffixes affects the number of errors in texts. Second, different levels of suffixes in the hierarchy affect derivation accuracy in different ways. In particular, the use of irregular derivational models is positively associated with the number of errors. Third, the type of examination task and expected format and register of writing should be taken into consideration. The hypothesis holds true for regular but infrequent advanced suffixal models used in more formal descriptive essays associated with an academic register. However, for less formal texts with lower academic register requirements, the hypothesis needs to be amended.

作者简介

Olga Lyashevskaya

National Research University Higher School of Economics; Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: olesar@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8374-423X

Professor at the School of Linguistics, National Research University “Higher School of Economics” and a Senior Research Fellow at the Vinogradov Russian Language Institute, RAS

room 519, building A, 21/4, Staraya Basmannaya ul., Moscow, Russia

Julia Pyzhak

National Research University Higher School of Economics

Email: jeneavas41@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3439-9788

student at the Department of Humanities

room 519, building A, 21/4, Staraya Basmannaya ul., Moscow, Russia

Olga Vinogradova

National Research University Higher School of Economics

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: olgavinogr@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5928-1482

Associate Professor at the School of Linguistics

room 519, building A, 21/4, Staraya Basmannaya ul., Moscow, Russia

参考

  1. Abrahamsson, Niclas. 2013. U-shaped learning and overgeneralization. In Peter Robinson (ed.), The routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition, 663-664. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203135945
  2. Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, 899-919. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213881.2.899
  3. Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett (eds.). 2015. Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723769.001.0001
  4. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Theodora Bofman. 1989. Attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11(1). 17-34.
  5. Bauer, Laurie & Paul Nation 1993. Word families. International Journal of Lexicography 6(4). 253-279.
  6. Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Brezina, Vaclav & Gabriele Pallotti. 2019. Morphological complexity in written L2 texts. Second Language Research 35(1). 99-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316643125
  8. Brezina, Vaclav, Pierre Weill-Tessier & Antony McEnery. 2020. #LancsBox v. 5.x. URL: http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox (accessed 25.05.2021).
  9. Brown, Dale, Tim Stoeckel, Stuart Mclean & Jeff Stewart. 2020. The most appropriate lexical unit for L2 vocabulary research and pedagogy: A brief review of the evidence. Applied Linguistics, amaa061. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa061
  10. Bulté, Bram & Alex Housen. 2012. Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Alex Housen, Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, 21-46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
  11. Bulté, Bram & Alex Housen. 2014. Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing 26. 42-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005
  12. Capel, Annette. 2010. A1-B2 vocabulary: Insights and issues arising from the English Profile Wordlists project. English Profile Journal 1(1). 2-7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2041536210000048
  13. Crossley, Scott. 2020. Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview. Journal of Writing Research 11(3). 415-443. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.11.03.01
  14. de la Torre García, Nuria, María Cecilia Ainciburu & Kris Buyse. 2021. Morphological complexity and rated writing proficiency: The case of verbal inflectional diversity in L2 Spanish. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 172(2). 290-318. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.20009.del
  15. Dobson, Annette J. 1990. An Introduction to Generalized Linear Models. London: Chapman and Hall.
  16. Ehret, Katharina & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2019. Compressing learner language: An information-theoretic measure of complexity in SLA production data. Second Language Research 35(1). 23-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316669559
  17. Hassanzadeh, Fatemeh & Iraj Kazemi. 2017. Regression modeling of one-inflated positive count data. Statistical Papers 58(3). 791-809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00362-015-0726-7
  18. Hay, Jennifer & R. Harald Baayen. 2002. Parsing and productivity. In Geert E. Booij & Jaap Van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2001, 203-235. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3726-5_8.
  19. Hollander, Myles & Douglas A. Wolfe. 1973. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  20. Horst, Marlise & Laura Collins. 2006. From faible to strong: How does their vocabulary grow? Canadian Modern Language Review 63(1). 83-106. https://doi.org/10.1353/cml.2006.0046
  21. Kimppa, Lilli , Yury Shtyrov, Suzanne C.A. Hut, Laura Hedlund, Miika Leminen & Alina Leminen. 2019. Acquisition of L2 morphology by adult language learners. Cortex 116. 74-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.01.012
  22. Lahuerta, Ana Cristina. 2018. Study of accuracy and grammatical complexity in EFL writing. International Journal of English Studies 18(1). 71-89. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2018/1/258971
  23. Laufer, Batia, Stuart Webb, Su Kyung Kim & Beverley Yohanan. 2021. How well do learners know derived words in a second language? The effect of proficiency, word frequency and type of affix. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 172(2). 229-258. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.20020.lau
  24. Laws, Jacqueline & Chris Ryder. 2014. Getting the measure of derivational morphology in adult speech a corpus analysis using MorphoQuantics. University of Reading Language Studies Working Papers 6. 3-17. http://morphoquantics.co.uk/Resources/Laws%20&%20Ryder%20(2014).pdf (accessed 25.06.2021)
  25. Leontjev, Dmitri. 2016. L2 English derivational knowledge: Which affixes are learners more likely to recognise? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 6(2). 225-248. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.2.3
  26. Lyashevskaya, Olga, Irina Panteleev & Olga Vinogradova. 2021. Automated assessment of learner text complexity. Assessing Writing 49, article 100529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100529
  27. Lyashevskaya, Olga, Olga Vinogradova & Anna Scherbakova. (forthc.) Accuracy, syntactic complexity, and task type at play in examination writing: A corpus-based study. In Agnieszka Leńko-Szymańska & Sandra Götz (eds.), Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in learner corpus research.
  28. Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. 2nd ed. Munich: C. H. Beck.
  29. Nation, Paul. 2021. Thoughts on word families. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43(5). 969-972. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226312100067X
  30. Norris, John & Lourdes Ortega. 2009. Measurement for understanding: An organic approach to investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 555-578. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044
  31. Plakans, Lia, Atta Gebril & Zeynep Bilki. 2019. Shaping a score: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in integrated writing performances. Language Testing 36(2). 161-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216669537
  32. Plag, Ingo, Christiane Dalton-Puffer & Harald Baayen. 1999. Morphological productivity across speech and writing. English Language & Linguistics 3(2). 209-228.
  33. R Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org (accessed 25.06.2021).
  34. Robinson, Peter. 2001. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22(1). 27-57. https://doi-org.proxylibrary.hse.ru/10.1093/applin/22.1.27
  35. Robinson, Peter. 2011. Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance, 3-39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1
  36. Skehan, Peter. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  37. Skehan, Peter. 2009. Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 510-532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
  38. Stein, Gabriele. 2007. A Dictionary of English Affixes: Their Function and Meaning. Munich: Lincom Europa.
  39. Tywoniw, Rurik & Scott Crossley. 2020. Morphological complexity of L2 discourse. In Eric Friginal & Jack A. Hardy (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus approaches to discourse analysis, 269-297. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259982-17
  40. van der Slik, Frans, Roeland van Hout & Job Schepens. 2019. The role of morphological complexity in predicting the learnability of an additional language: The case of La (additional language) Dutch. Second Language Research 35(1). 47-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317691322
  41. Vasylets, Olena, Roger Gilabert & Rosa M. Manchón. 2017. The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning 67(2). 394-430 https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.1222
  42. Vinogradova, Olga, Olga Lyashevskaya & Irina Panteleeva. 2017. Multi-level student essay feedback in a learner corpus. In Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies. Proceedings of the International Conference Dialogue 2017. 373-387. Moscow.
  43. Yee, Thomas W. 2015. Vector Generalized Linear and Additive Models. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2818-7
  44. Yoon, Hyung-Jo. 2017. Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issues of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality. System 66. 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.007

版权所有 © Lyashevskaya O., Pyzhak J., Vinogradova O., 2022

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##