1. Chapter One: Introduction
2.5 Second language writing development
2.5.1.1 Complexity
Following Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) who distinguished between syntactic and lexical
complexity, in this section just the measures associated with syntactic complexity are reviewed.
By syntactic complexity in second language writing it is meant the range of syntactic structures
that are produced and the degree of sophistication of such structures (Lu, 2011). Syntactic
complexity has been recognized as an important construct in L2 writing teaching and research, as
the growth of a learner’s syntactic repertoire is an integral part of his or her development in the target language. For Foster and Skehan (1996: 303) development in syntactic complexity meant “progressively more elaborate language" and "a greater variety of syntactic patterning. Wolfe- Quintero et al. (1998: 70) continue that idea saying "grammatical complexity means that a wide
variety of both basic and sophisticated structures are available and can be accessed quickly,
54
can be accessed".Syntactic maturity and linguistic complexity are also the two terms used for
syntactic complexity (Ortega, 2003).
In a thorough study of L2 writing development research focusing on CAF , Norris and Ortega
(2009) have categorised different complexity measures into global or general complexity,
complexity by subordination, complexity via phrasal elaboration, and complexity by
coordination. For each category sets of metrics have been introduced and novice researchers
have been advised to apply the most appropriate ones according to their research purposes,
learners and the educational contexts. They show that overall complexity is measured through
calculating mean length of T-unit, complexity by subordination through mean number of clauses
per T-unit, and mean length of clause is calculated for complexity by subclausal or phrasal
elaboration. Amount of coordination as proposed by Bardovi-Harlig (1992) is a metric for data at
initial levels of L2 development. Norris and Ortega (2009, p 558) believe "[that] coordination
might be potentially more sensitive than subordination measures, when complexification must be
captured at incipient levels of L2 competence". The reason for this claim could be the need for
the expression of ideas first by means of coordination or the sequencing of self-standing words,
sentences, and clauses at early stages of proficiency. At intermediate levels, subordination should
be a useful and powerful index of complexification. This is an index that by definition is a
resource to express the logical connection of ideas via grammatically intricate texts. In the
following section the procedure(s) applied to assess complexity by subordination is reviewed.
In order to quantify the conceptualization of syntactic complexity different measures have been
55
text: length of production unit, amount of subordination or coordination, range of syntactic
structures, and degree of sophistication of certain syntactic structures. Although Wolfe-Quintero
et al. (1998) identified over 30 syntactic complexity measures in different L2 writing
development studies, in most cases clauses, sentences, or T-units have been considered as
production units and have been analysed in terms of length (e.g., mean length of T-unit) or in
relation to either one another (e.g., clauses per T-unit) or particular syntactic structures (e.g.,
complex nominals per T-unit) (Lu 2011). Mean length of production in general and mean length
of T-unit in particular, however, have been employed as a measure of fluency, not complexity by
a number of researchers (Ishikawa 2007, Storch and Wigglesworth 2007).
One group of researchers conducted cross-sectional studies to investigate how well these
syntactic complexity measures discriminate independently determined proficiency levels
(Bardovi-Harlig and Bofman, 1989; Ferris, 1994; Henry, 1996; Homburg, 1984; Larsen-
Freeman, 1978; Ortega, 2003) while another group did longitudinal studies to pursue learners'
language development over time (Casanave, 1994; Hunt, 1970; Ishikawa, 1995; Ortega, 2000,
2003; Stockwell and Harrington, 2003). Although these studies share a common goal, they differ
from one another in several dimensions of which large variety of measures, inconsistency of
defined production units and syntactic structures, and incomparability of varied
conceptualizations of proficiency are the most notable ones.
More recent researchers have focused on the effects of different learner, task, and context-related
factors on the relationship of syntactic complexity to language proficiency. See for example,
56
syntactic complexity in advanced ESL writers’ output, Way, Joiner, and Seaman (2000) on the effects of different writing tasks and prompts on syntactic complexity, Ortega (2003) on the
impact of instructional setting and proficiency sampling criterion on the relationship between
proficiency and syntactic complexity, Ellis and Yuan (2004) on how planning conditions affect
syntactic complexity, and Beers and Nagy (2009) on how genre affects the relationship of
syntactic complexity measures to rated quality of writing samples produced by middle school
students. In Ortega's (2003) study, it was found that ESL learners produced writing of higher
syntactic complexity than EFL learners and that studies using holistic rating as the proficiency
sampling criterion yielded narrower ranges of complexity values than those using program level.
Several studies examined the role of syntactic complexity in L2 writing instruction or
assessment. Buckingham (1979), Perkins (1983), Silva (1993), and Hinkel (2003) are just some
of these studies in which various measures of complexity have been calculated. According to Lu
(2011) despite all these variations in the measures used in these studies, they suggest that
research on developmental measures of syntactic complexity has useful applications in L2
writing instruction and assessment. Ortega (2003: 492), on the importance of measuring syntactic
complexity writes:
“In L2 writing research, specifically, syntactic complexity measures have been used to evaluate the effects of a pedagogical intervention on the development of grammar, writing ability, or
both; to investigate task-related variation in L2 writing; and to assess differences in L2 texts written by learners across proficiency levels and over time”.
57
Defining syntactic complexity measures: In the framework developed for calculating the CAF
components by Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998), the three main production units are clauses (C), T-
units (T), and sentences (S). Two types of measures are considered for syntactic complexity:
those that analyse the clauses, sentences, and T-units in terms of each other (e.g., clauses per
sentences, dependent clauses per T-unit, T-units per sentence); and those that analyse the
presence of specific grammatical structures in relation to clauses, T-units, or sentences (e.g.,
passives per sentences, nominals per T-unit). Although different researchers have defined these
production units differently, the following definitions have been used more frequently:
Clause = a phrase dominated by VP or S (Bardovi-Harlig and Bofman, 1989)
or
a structure with a subject and a finite verb (Hunt, 1965; Polio, 1997)
With respect to sentence fragments
a clause can include sentence fragments with no overt verb (Bardovi-Harlig and Bofman, 1989)
a clause does not include fragments unless they are a complete thought (Ishikawa, 1995)
T-Unit = a main clause plus any subordinate clauses (Hunt, 1965):
With respect to sentence fragments
a T-unit can include sentence fragments punctuated by the writer (Bardovi-Harlig and Bofman,
1989; Tapia, 1993)
a T-unit does not include sentence fragments (Ishikawa, 1995; Hirano, 1991; Vann, 1979)
With respect to pronunciation
58
a T-unit can occur only within sentences punctuated by the writer (Homburg, 1984; Ishikawa,
1995)
Sentence = group of words punctuated by the writer (Hunt, 1965; Tapia 1993)
Bardovi-Harlig (1992) criticized the definition of T-unit as a production unit in the CAF
measures because it contains subordination but not coordination which will result in obscuring
inappropriate coordination by separating them into different T-Units. She then argues for the
sentence as a more psychologically and pedagogically real production unit for adult second
language learners. Ishikawa (1995) on the other hand, suggests that the clause may be a better
production unit for analysing beginning level writing because it is smaller than a T-unit and
therefore, a smaller context for examining language growth in a variety of ways would be
provided.
As far as types of clauses and their definition is concerned, Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998)
distinguished four types of finite clauses: independent clauses (i.e. main clauses), adverbial
clauses, adjective clauses (i.e. relative clauses), and nominal clauses (i.e. noun clauses, including
both that-clauses and interrogative clauses). Accordingly, researchers such as Bardovi-Harlig and
Bofman (1989: 20) defined a complex sentence as "a multiclausal sentence exhibiting
subordination."
In addition to clause-related measures as indicators of syntactic complexity in writing, other
59
et al., 1980) have been investigated. Perkins (1980) calculated his complexity score on the basis
of sentences whereas Flahive and Snow (1980) did so on the basis of T-units.
Regarding the types of measures used in syntactic complexity, as mentioned above Wolfe-
Quintero et al. (1998) characterized these measures in regard to 'frequency count', ' ratio', and
'index'. In the studies in which frequency counts were calculated as an indicator of complexity
measure one or more of the 15 grammatical structure/item as listed here were calculated: reduced
clause, dependent clause, passives, passive sentences, adverbial clauses, adjective clauses,
nominal clauses, prepositional phrases, preposed adjectives, pronouns, articles, connectors,
transitional connectors, subordinating connectors, and coordinating connectors. In order to
increase the validity of these frequency measures as compared with ratio measures, some
researchers have counted the number of occurrences of the determined item in a written text
within a time limit (Evola et al., 1980; Homburg, 1984; Kameen, 1979; Kawata, 1992).
Three types of grammatical complexity ratios have been used in the studies reviewed by Wolfe-
Quintero et al. (1998): 1) the general complexity measures (clauses per T-unit (C/T) and clauses
per sentences (C/S)), 2) the dependent clause measures, and 3) the coordination measures. In
general complexity measures, the first type, the proportion of all clause types to a larger unit
such as the sentence or T-unit is considered. In the second type, the relationship between
dependent and independent clauses is calculated. Examples are adverbial clauses per T-unit (Adv
C/T), dependent clause per clause (DC/C), dependent clauses per T-unit (DC/T), and dependent
infinitives per T-unit (DI/T). Norris and Ortega (2009) consider these complexity ratio measures
60
coordinate clauses or coordinate phrases per T-unit (CC/T or CP/T) the relationship between
coordination and independent clauses is taken into account.
Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998: 94-97) identified three index based type of measures of syntactic
complexity in the studies conducted by Casanave (1994), Flahive and Snow (1980), Perkins
(1980), and Tapia (1993). These three complexity indices were 'coordination index' (number of
independent clause coordinations divided by total number of combined clauses-clause minus
sentences), 'complexity formula' (score of weighted structures divided by number of sentences),
and 'complexity index’ (sum of T-unit scores divided by number of T-units, where T-unit score =
score of weighted structures plus number of words in T-unit divided by number of words in T-
unit). Since it has been reported that "none of [these] three grammatical complexity indices
significantly relate to second language development", no further review seems necessary at this
point.