Abstract
The present study attempted to investigate the writing proficiency differences between the two groups of EFL and ESL writers considering the lexical, syntactic, and morphological complexity measures. Additionally, it aimed to disclose the association between writing proficiency and the utilization of the New General Service List (NGSL). To these ends, a corpus of 1331 argumentative essays accumulated from EFL and ESL writers on a single topic was examined. The findings of the analysis in the measures of linguistic complexity showed that the writings of the ESL group scored slightly higher than those of the EFL group in every corresponding sub-construct; that is, ESL writers were found moderately more proficient than EFL writers concerning the lexical, syntactic, and morphological complexity of their writings. However, the outcomes showed that EFL writers utilized more NGSL words in their essays, leading to the consideration that NGSL use may be negatively associated with proficiency levels. Hence, contextual diversity leads to distinct levels of proficiency, and lexical coverage can be considered a great indicator of writing skill and quality.
Zusammenfassung
Die vorliegende Studie untersuchte die Unterschiede in der Schreibfertigkeit zwischen zwei Gruppen von EFL- und ESL-Schreibern unter Berücksichtigung von lexikalischen, syntaktischen und morphologischen Komplexitätsmaßen. Darüber hinaus wurde versucht, den Zusammenhang zwischen der Schreibfertigkeit und der Nutzung der Neuen Allgemeinen Wortschatzliste (New General Service List, NGSL) aufzudecken. Zu diesem Zweck wurde ein Korpus von 1331 Argumentationsessays von EFL- und ESL-Schreibern zu einem einzigen Thema untersucht. Die Ergebnisse der Analyse der Maße für linguistische Komplexität zeigten, dass die Essays der ESL-Gruppe in allen entsprechenden Teilbereichen geringfügig höhere Punktzahlen erzielten als die der EFL-Gruppe. Das heißt, ESL-Schreiber waren in Bezug auf die lexikalische, syntaktische und morphologische Komplexität ihrer Texte moderat versierter als EFL-Schreiber. Die Ergebnisse zeigten jedoch, dass EFL-Schreiber in ihren Aufsätzen mehr NGSL-Wörter verwendet haben, was darauf hindeutet, dass die Verwendung der NGSL in negativem Verhältnis zu dem Niveau der Schreibfertigkeit in Verbindung stehen könnte. Somit führt kontextuelle Vielfalt zu unterschiedlichen Sprachfertigkeitsniveaus, wobei der lexikalische Umfang als ein guter Indikator für Schreibfähigkeiten und -qualität betrachtet werden kann.
Resumen
El presente estudio se trata de investigar las diferencias en la aptitud escrita entre los dos grupos de escritores de inglés como lengua extranjera (EFL) e inglés como Segunda Lengua (ESL) teniendo en cuenta las medidas de complejidad léxica, sintáctica y morfológica. Asimismo, se apuntó a divulgar la asociación entre dominio de escritura y la utilización de la Nueva Lista de Servicios Generales (NGSL, New General Service List). A este respecto, se examinaba un conjunto de 1331 ensayos argumentativos acumulados de los escritores de EFL y ESL basándose en un tema único. Los resultados del análisis en las medidas de complejidad lingüística indicaron que las escrituras del grupo ESL alcanzaron ligeramente una puntuación algo superior a las del grupo EFL en cada Subconstructo respectivo; o sea, los escritores de ESL fueron moderadamente encontrados más competentes que los escritores de EFL con respecto a la complejidad léxica, sintáctica y morfológica de sus escrituras. No obstante, los resultados mostraron que los escritores de EFL utilizaron más palabras NGSL en sus ensayos, lo cual lleva a considerar que el uso de NGSL puede estar asociado en forma negativa con los niveles de competencia. Por consiguiente, la diversidad contextual lleva a distintos niveles de competencia, y la cobertura léxica se puede considerar un gran indicador de la competencia y calidad de la escritura.
References
Ai, Haiyang & Xiaofei Lu. 2013. A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in NNS and NS university students’ writing. In Ana Díaz-Negrillo, Nicolas Ballier, & Paul Thompson (eds.), Automatic Treatment and Analysis of Learner Corpus Data, 249–264. John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.59.15aiSearch in Google Scholar
Azkarai, Agurtzane & Ron Oliver. 2019. Negative feedback on task repetition: ESL vs. EFL child settings. The Language Learning Journal 47(3). 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.119638510.1080/09571736.2016.1196385Search in Google Scholar
Bhaskaran Nayar, P. 1997. ESL/EFL Dichotomy today: Language politics or pragmatics? TESOL Quarterly 31(1). 9-37. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587973 10.2307/3587973Search in Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay Kumar. 2004. Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. Continuum. Search in Google Scholar
Bi, Peng & Jyingyang Jiang. 2020. Syntactic complexity in assessing young adolescent EFL learners’ writings: Syntactic elaboration and diversity. System 91. 102248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.10224810.1016/j.system.2020.102248Search 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 & Kornwipa Poonpon. 2011. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45(1). 5–35. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.24448310.5054/tq.2011.244483Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Bethany Gray & Shelley Staples. 2016. Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics 37(5). 639–668. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu05910.1093/applin/amu059Search in Google Scholar
Bulté, Bram & Alex Housen. 2012. Defining and operationalizing L2 complexity. In Alex Housen, Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, 21–46. John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.32.02bulSearch in Google Scholar
Bulté, Bram, Alex Housen, Michel Pierrard & Siska Van Daele. 2008. Investigating lexical proficiency development over time: the case of Dutch‐speaking learners of French in Brussels. Journal of French Language Studies 3(18). 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095926950800345110.1017/S0959269508003451Search in Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav & Dana Gablasova. 2015 a. Is there a core general vocabulary? Introducing the new general service list. Applied Linguistics 36(1). 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt01810.1093/applin/amt018Search in Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav & Dana Gablasova. 2015 b. English vocabulary tool. http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/vocabSearch in Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav & Gabriele Pallotti. 2015. Morphological complexity tool. http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/vocab/analyse_morph.phpSearch in Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav & Gabriele Pallotti. 2019. Morphological complexity in written L2 texts. Second Language Research 35(1). 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765831664312510.1177/0267658316643125Search in Google Scholar
Browne, Charlie. 2014. The New General Service List 1.01: Getting better all the time. Korea TESOL Journal. 11(1). 35–50.Search in Google Scholar
Browne, Charlie. 2021. The NGSL project: Building wordlists and resources to help EFL learners (and teachers) to succeed. Teaching with Technology 2020 Selected papers from the JALTCALL2020 Conference. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.37546/jaltsig.call2020.110.37546/JALTSIG.CALL2020.1Search in Google Scholar
Browne, Charlie, Brent Culligan & Joseph Phillips. 2013. The New General Service List. http://www.newgeneralservicelist.orgSearch in Google Scholar
Collentine, Joseph & Barbara F. Freed. 2004. Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(2). 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310426201510.1017/S0272263104262015Search in Google Scholar
Collins, Laura & Carmen Muñoz. 2016. The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. The Modern Language Journal 100(S1). 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.1230510.1111/modl.12305Search in Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott A., Tom Cobb & Danielle S. McNamara. 2013. Comparing count-based and band-based indices of word frequency: Implications for active vocabulary research and pedagogical applications. System 41(4). 965–981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.00210.1016/j.system.2013.08.002Search in Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott A. & Danielle S. McNamara. 2009. Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18(2). 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.00210.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002Search in Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott A., Tom Salsbury & Danielle S. McNamara. 2012. Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing 29(2). 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553221141933110.1177/0265532211419331Search in Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott A., Tom Salsbury, Danielle S. McNamara & Scott Jarvis. 2011. Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing 28(4). 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553221037803110.1177/0265532210378031Search in Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott A., Jennifer L. Weston, Susan T. McLain Sullivan & Danielle S. McNamara. 2011. The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication 28(3). 282–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/074108831141018810.1177/0741088311410188Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.71Search in Google Scholar
De Clercq, Bastien & Alex Housen. 2019. The development of morphological complexity: A cross-linguistic study of L2 French and English. Second Language Research 35(1). 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765831667450610.1177/0267658316674506Search in Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2006. Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review 19(1). 42–68. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.05dor10.1075/aila.19.05dorSearch in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 1988. The effects of linguistic environment on the second language acquisition of grammatical rules. Applied Linguistics 9(3). 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.3.25710.1093/applin/9.3.257Search in Google Scholar
Ferris, Dana R. 1994. Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly 28(2). 414–420. https://doi.org/10.2307/358744610.2307/3587446Search in Google Scholar
Figueredo, Lauren. 2006. Using the known to chart the unknown: A review of first-language influence on the development of English-as-a-second-language spelling skill. Reading and Writing 19(8). 873–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9014-110.1007/s11145-006-9014-1Search in Google Scholar
Flowerdew, John. 2013. Discourse in English language education. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203080870Search in Google Scholar
Frase, Lawrence T., Joseph Faletti, April Ginther & Leslie Grant. 1999. Computer analysis of the TOEFL test of written English. Educational Testing Service. 10.1002/j.2333-8504.1998.tb01791.xSearch in Google Scholar
Granena, Gisela. 2013. Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning 63(4). 665–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.1201810.1111/lang.12018Search in Google Scholar
Ha, Myun Jeong. 2022. Syntactic complexity in EFL writing: Within-genre topic and writing quality. Computer Assisted Language Learning 23(1). 187–205.Search in Google Scholar
Hamada, Megumi & Keiko Koda. 2008. Influence of first language orthographic experience on second language decoding and word learning. Language Learning 58(1). 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9922.2007.00433.x10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00433.xSearch in Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
He, Ling & Ling Shi. 2012. Topical knowledge and ESL writing. Language Testing 29. 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553221243665910.1177/0265532212436659Search in Google Scholar
Higginbotham, George & Jacqui Reid. 2019. The lexical sophistication of second language learners’ academic essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 37. 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.00210.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.002Search in Google Scholar
Housen, Alex, Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder. 2012. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency: Definitions, measurement, and research. In Alex Housen, Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, 1–21. John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.32Search in Google Scholar
Hurd, Stella. 2007. Anxiety and non-anxiety in a distance language learning environment: The distance factor as a modifying influence. System 35(4). 487–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.05.00110.1016/j.system.2007.05.001Search in Google Scholar
Ishikawa, Shin’ichiro. 2013. The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. In Shin’ichiro Ishikawa (ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the world, 91–118. Kobe University. https://language.sakura.ne.jp/icnale/Search in Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott. 2013. Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning 63(S1). 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9922.2012.00739.x10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00739.xSearch in Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott, Leslie Grant, Dawn Bikowski & Dana Ferris. 2003. Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing 12(4). 377–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.00110.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001Search in Google Scholar
Jiang, Jingyang, Peng Bi & Haitao Liu. 2019. Syntactic complexity development in the writings of EFL learners: Insights from a dependency syntactically-annotated corpus. Journal of Second Language Writing 46. 100666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.10066610.1016/j.jslw.2019.100666Search in Google Scholar
Juffs, Alan. 2005. The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research 21(2). 121–151. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658305sr255oa10.1191/0267658305sr255oaSearch in Google Scholar
Jun Zhang, Lawrence. 2001. Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness 10(4). 268–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965841010866703910.1080/09658410108667039Search in Google Scholar
Karbalaei, Alireza. 2010. A comparison of the metacognitive reading strategies used by EFL and ESL readers. The Reading Matrix 10(2). 169–180.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Ji-young. 2014. Predicting L2 writing proficiency using linguistic complexity measures: A corpus-based study. English Teaching 69(4). 27–51. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.69.4.201412.2710.15858/engtea.69.4.201412.27Search in Google Scholar
Kyle, Kristopher & Scott Crossley. 2016. The relationship between lexical sophistication and independent and source-based writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 34. 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.10.00310.1016/j.jslw.2016.10.003Search in Google Scholar
Laufer, Batia & Paul Nation. 1995. Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics 16(3). 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.30710.1093/applin/16.3.307Search in Google Scholar
Longcope, Peter. 2009. Differences between the EFL and the ESL language learning context. Studies in Language and Culture 30(2). 203–320.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Dilin & Ping Jiang. 2009. Using a corpus‐based lexico-grammatical approach to grammar instruction in EFL and ESL contexts. The Modern Language Journal 93(1). 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–4781.2009.00828.x10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00828.xSearch in Google Scholar
Lu, Xiaofei. 2009. Automatic measurement of syntactic complexity in child language acquisition. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(1). 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.1.02lu10.1075/ijcl.14.1.02luSearch in Google Scholar
Lu, Xiaofei. 2010. Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(4). 474–496. https://aihaiyang.com/software/l2sca/ https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02luSearch in Google Scholar
Lu, Xiaofei. 2011. A corpus‐based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college‐level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly 45(1). 36–62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.24085910.5054/tq.2011.240859Search in Google Scholar
Lu, Xiaofei. 2012. The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal 96(2). 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–4781.2011.01232_1.x10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.xSearch in Google Scholar
Lu, Xiaofei & Haiyang Ai. 2015. Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing 29. 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.00310.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003Search in Google Scholar
Malvern, David D. & Brian J. Richards. 2012. Measures of lexical richness. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 1–5. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal075510.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0755Search in Google Scholar
Malvern, David D., Brian J. Richards, Ngoni Chipere & Pilar Duran. 2004. Lexical diversity and language development. Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511804Search in Google Scholar
Martínez, Ana Cristina Lahuerta. 2018. Analysis of syntactic complexity in secondary education EFL writers at different proficiency levels. Assessing Writing 35. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.11.00210.1016/j.asw.2017.11.002Search in Google Scholar
Masgoret, Anne-Marie & Robert C. Gardner. 2003. Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta‐analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning 53(S1). 167–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–9922.0022710.1111/1467-9922.00227Search in Google Scholar
McCarthy, Philip M. & Scott Jarvis. 2007. vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing 24(4). 459–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207080767 10.1177/0265532207080767Search in Google Scholar
McCarthy, Philip. M. & Scott Jarvis. 2010. MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods 42(2). 381–392. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.38110.3758/BRM.42.2.381Search in Google Scholar
McLean, Stuart. 2018. Evidence for the adoption of the flemma as an appropriate word counting unit. Applied Linguistics 39(6). 823–845. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw05010.1093/applin/amw050Search in Google Scholar
McNamara, Danielle. S., Scott A. Crossley & Philip M. McCarthy. 2010. Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication 27(1). 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/074108830935154710.1177/0741088309351547Search in Google Scholar
McNamara, Danielle S., Arthur C. Graesser., Philip M. McCarthy & Zhiqiang Cai. 2014. Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press. http://141.225.61.35/cohmetrix201710.1017/CBO9780511894664Search in Google Scholar
Meara, Paul & Imma Miralpeix. 2016. Tools for researching vocabulary. Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783096473Search in Google Scholar
Nasseri, Maryam & Paul Thompson. 2021. Lexical density and diversity in dissertation abstracts: Revisiting English L1 vs. L2 text differences. Assessing Writing 47(2). 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.10051110.1016/j.asw.2020.100511Search in Google Scholar
Nation, Paul & Robert Waring. 1997. Vocabulary size, text coverage, and word lists. In Norbert Schmitt & Michael McCarthy (eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy, 6–19. Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Norris, John M. & Lourdes Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp04410.1093/applin/amp044Search in Google Scholar
Ortega, Lourdes. 2003. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 24(4), 492–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.49210.1093/applin/24.4.492Search in Google Scholar
Ortega, Lourdes. 2012. Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. In Bernd Kortmann & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.), Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact, 127–155. Walter De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110229226.127Search in Google Scholar
Pallotti, Gabriele. 2015. A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research 31(1). 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765831453643510.1177/0267658314536435Search in Google Scholar
Polio, Charlene & Hyung-Jo Yoon. 2018. The reliability and validity of automated tools for examining variation in syntactic complexity across genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28(1). 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.1220010.1111/ijal.12200Search in Google Scholar
Qin, Wenjuan & Paola Uccelli. 2020. Beyond linguistic complexity: Assessing register flexibility in EFL writing across contexts. Assessing Writing 45. 100465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.10046510.1016/j.asw.2020.100465Search in Google Scholar
Quero, Betsy. 2017. A Corpus Comparison Approach for Estimating the Vocabulary Load of Medical Textbooks Using the GSL, AWL, and EAP Science Lists. TESOL International Journal 12(1). 177–192.Search in Google Scholar
Ranta, Leila & Amy Meckelborg. 2013. How much exposure to English do international graduate students really get? Measuring language use in a naturalistic setting. Canadian Modern Language Review 69(1). 1–33. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.98710.3138/cmlr.987Search in Google Scholar
Read, John. 2000. Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511732942Search in Google Scholar
Richards, Brian J. & David D. Malvern. 2000. Measuring vocabulary richness in teenage learners of French. Presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, 7–10 September.Search in Google Scholar
Richards, Brian J. & David D. Malvern. 2004. Investigating the validity of a new measure of lexical diversity for root and inflected forms. In Kate Trott, Sushie Dobbinson & Patrick Griffiths (eds.), The child language reader, 81–89. Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, Peter. 2001. Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes, and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 17(4). 368–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583010170040510.1177/026765830101700405Search in Google Scholar
Samburskiy, Denis. 2020. The Effect of a Dual Coding Technique on Idiom Interpretation in ESL/EFL Learners. International Journal of Instruction 13(3). 187–206. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13313a10.29333/iji.2020.13313aSearch in Google Scholar
Sato, Masatoshi & Neomy Storch. 2020. Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context. Language Teaching Research. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216882092358210.1177/1362168820923582Search in Google Scholar
Schauer, Gila A. 2006. Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning 56(2). 269–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023–8333.2006.00348.x10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.xSearch in Google Scholar
Scheele, Ana F., Paul P. M. Leseman & Aziza Y. Mayo. 2010. The home language environment of monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics 31(1). 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640999019110.1017/S0142716409990191Search in Google Scholar
Schumann, John H. 1975. Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition. Language Learning 25(2). 209–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–1770.1975.tb00242.x10.1111/j.1467-1770.1975.tb00242.xSearch in Google Scholar
Skehan, Peter. 2003. Task‐based instruction. Language Teaching 36(1). 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X10.1017/S026144480200188XSearch in Google Scholar
Spada, Nina & Patsy M. Lightbown. 1999. Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 83(1). 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026–7902.0000210.1111/0026-7902.00002Search in Google Scholar
Tabachnick, Barbara G. & Linda S. Fidell. 2013. Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education. Search in Google Scholar
Tedick, Diane J. 1990. ESL writing assessment: Subject-matter knowledge and its impact on performance. English for Specific Purposes 9(2). 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(90)90003-U10.1016/0889-4906(90)90003-USearch in Google Scholar
Ward, Jeremy & Jitlada Chuenjundaeng. 2009. Suffix knowledge: Acquisition and applications. System 37(3). 461–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.01.00410.1016/j.system.2009.01.004Search in Google Scholar
West, Michael. 1953. A general service list of English words. Longmans Green and Co. Ltd. Search in Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, Kate., Shunji Inagaki & Hae-Young Kim. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity (no. 17). University of Hawaii Press.Search in Google Scholar
Xanthos, Aris & Steven Gillis. 2010. Quantifying the development of inflectional diversity. First Language 30(2). 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/014272370935923610.1177/0142723709359236Search in Google Scholar
Yang, Weiwei., Xiaofei, Lu. & Sara Cushing Weigle. 2015. Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing 28. 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.00210.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002Search in Google Scholar
Yang, Yang., Yap, Ngee Thai., & Ali, Afida Mohamad. 2022. A review of syntactic complexity Studies in context of EFL/ESL writing. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 12(10). 441–454.10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i10/14843Search in Google Scholar
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.2017.03.00710.1016/j.system.2017.03.007Search in Google Scholar
Yoon, Hyung-Jo & Charlene Polio. 2017. The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly 51(2). 275–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.29610.1002/tesq.296Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Frontmatter
- Co-constructing devices in narrative sequences of multilingual preschool children
- Exploring multilingual writers in secondary education: insights from a trilingual corpus
- Vocabulary Instruction in Textbooks of Italian as a Foreign Language: A Descriptive Analysis
- Passive Sentences and Abstract Agents in German School Books
- When correct spelling hardly matters: Teenagers’ production and perception of spelling error corrections in Dutch social media writing
- The teachers’ perspective on teaching languages to Polish seniors
- The use of the semi-lexical word ‘while’ by non-native (Polish) and native users of English based on corpora studies
- Illuminating the Impacts of Contextual Diversity on L2 Writing Proficiency: A Corpus-Based Analysis in the Measures of Linguistic Complexity
- Second Language Learners Listening to their Peers: Is There a Shared L1 Effect for L2 Comprehensibility and Accentedness?
- Some good news for the school: the levelling effect of the EFL class in FL vocabulary production and FL categorization of autochthonous learners and heritage speaker learners
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Frontmatter
- Co-constructing devices in narrative sequences of multilingual preschool children
- Exploring multilingual writers in secondary education: insights from a trilingual corpus
- Vocabulary Instruction in Textbooks of Italian as a Foreign Language: A Descriptive Analysis
- Passive Sentences and Abstract Agents in German School Books
- When correct spelling hardly matters: Teenagers’ production and perception of spelling error corrections in Dutch social media writing
- The teachers’ perspective on teaching languages to Polish seniors
- The use of the semi-lexical word ‘while’ by non-native (Polish) and native users of English based on corpora studies
- Illuminating the Impacts of Contextual Diversity on L2 Writing Proficiency: A Corpus-Based Analysis in the Measures of Linguistic Complexity
- Second Language Learners Listening to their Peers: Is There a Shared L1 Effect for L2 Comprehensibility and Accentedness?
- Some good news for the school: the levelling effect of the EFL class in FL vocabulary production and FL categorization of autochthonous learners and heritage speaker learners