The linguistic organization of grammatical text complexity: comparing the empirical adequacy of theory-based models

Douglas Biber; Tove Larsson; Gregory R. Hancock

doi:10.1515/cllt-2023-0016

Abstract

Although there is a long tradition of research analyzing the grammatical complexity of texts (in both linguistics and applied linguistics), there is surprisingly little consensus on the nature of complexity. Many studies have disregarded syntactic (and structural) distinctions in their analyses of grammatical text complexity, treating it instead as if it were a single unified construct. However, other corpus-based studies indicate that different grammatical complexity features pattern in fundamentally different ways. The present study employs methods that are informed by structural equation modeling to test the goodness-of-fit of four models that can be motivated from previous research and linguistic theory: a model treating all complexity features as a single dimension, a model distinguishing among three major structural types of complexity features, a model distinguishing among three major syntactic functions of complexity features, and a model distinguishing among nine combinations of structural type and syntactic functions. The findings show that text complexity is clearly a multi-dimensional construct. Both structural and syntactic distinctions are important. Syntactic distinctions are actually more important than structural distinctions, although the combination of the two best accounts for the ways in which complexity features pattern in texts from different registers.

Keywords: grammatical complexity; linguistic co-occurrence; syntactic functions; text complexity; theory-based models

Corresponding author: Douglas Biber, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA, E-mail: douglas.biber@nau.edu

References

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621024Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1992. On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes 15. 133–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544806.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2014. Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. Languages in Contrast 14. 7–34. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.1.02bib.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas & Bethany Gray. 2016. Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511920776Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Bethany Gray, Shelley Staples & Jesse Egbert. 2020. Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 46. 100869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100869.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Bethany Gray, Shelley Staples & Jesse Egbert. 2022. The register-functional approach to grammatical complexity. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781003087991Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 2021. Grammar of spoken and written English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Previously published in 1999 by Longman].10.1075/z.232Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Tove Larsson & Gregory R. Hancock. 2023. Dimensions of text complexity in the spoken and written modes: A comparison of theory-based models. Journal of English Linguistics.10.1177/00754242231222296Search in Google Scholar

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: Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.32.02bulSearch in Google Scholar

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.Search in Google Scholar

Carter, Ron & Michael McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Crystal, David. 1997. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165785Search in Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Search in Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.). 2012. Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110229226Search in Google Scholar

Larsson, Tove, Luke Plonsky & Gregory R. Hancock. 2021. On the benefits of structural equation modeling for corpus linguists. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17. 683–714. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2020-0051.Search in Google Scholar

Lu, Xiaofei. 2010. Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15. 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu.Search in Google Scholar

Lu, Xiaofei. 2011. A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writer’s language development. TESOL Quarterly 45. 36–61. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859.Search in Google Scholar

Lu, Xiaofei. 2017. Automated measurement of syntactic complexity in corpus-based L2 writing research and implications for writing assessment. Language Testing 34. 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217710675.Search in Google Scholar

McWhorter, John. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5. 125–166. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2001.001.Search in Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2001. The Prague school and North American functionalist approaches to syntax. Journal of Linguistics 37. 101–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226701008593.Search in Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J. & Laurel B. Preston (eds.). 2014. Measuring grammatical complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1984. Functional theories of grammar. Annual Review of Anthropology 13. 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.13.100184.000525.Search in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 2013. The vertical archipelago: Adding the third dimension to linguistic geography. In Peter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stukenbrock & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.), Space in language and linguistics: Geographical, interactional, and cognitive perspectives. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110312027.38Search in Google Scholar

Norris, John M. & Lourdes Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30. 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044.Search in Google Scholar

Ortega, Lourdes. 2015. Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing 29. 404–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008.Search in Google Scholar

Pallotti, Gabriele. 2009. CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics 30. 590–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045.Search in Google Scholar

Pallotti, Gabriele. 2015. A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research 31. 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314536435.Search in Google Scholar

Purpura, James E. 2004. Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511733086Search in Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Sampson, Geoffrey, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.). 2009. Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199545216.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Siegel, Jeff, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Bernd Kortmann. 2014. Measuring analyticity and syntheticity in Creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29. 49–85. https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.29.1.02sie.Search in Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2009. Typological parameters of intralingual variability: Grammatical analyticity versus syntheticity in varieties of English. Language Variation and Change 21. 319–353. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394509990123.Search in Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2015. Recontextualizing language complexity. In Jocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Change of paradigms: New paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics. Applications of cognitive linguistics, vol. 31, 347–360. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110435597-020Search in Google Scholar

Willis, Dave. 2003. Rules, patterns and words: Grammar and lexis in English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511733000Search in Google Scholar

Wolfe-Quintero, Kate, Shunji Inagaki & Hae-Young Kim. 1998. Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. Technical Report No. 17.Search in Google Scholar

Supplementary Material

This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2023-0016).

Received: 2023-02-14

Accepted: 2023-05-03

Published Online: 2023-06-15

Published in Print: 2024-05-27

You are currently not able to access this content.

Supplementary Material

The linguistic organization of grammatical text complexity: comparing the empirical adequacy of theory-based models

Abstract

References

Supplementary Material

Articles in the same Issue

Articles in the same Issue