Journal of Second Language Writing, 26



Download 136.71 Kb.
Page2/3
Date04.05.2017
Size136.71 Kb.
1   2   3

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the Institute for Education Sciences (IES R305A080589 and IES R305G20018-02). Ideas expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IES.



References

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 390-395.

Biber, D. (1985). Investigating macroscopic textual variation through multi-feature/

multi-dimensional analyses. Linguistics, 23, 337–360. doi:10.1515/ling.1985.

23.2.337.

Biber, D. (1986). Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the

contradictory findings. Language, 62, 384–414. doi:10.2307/414678.

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1), 5-35.

Casanave, C. (1994). Language development in students’ journals. Journal of Second



Language Writing, 3, 179–201. doi:10.1016/1060-3743(94)90016-7.

Charniak, E. (2000). A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. Proceedings of the First



Conference on North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 132-139). San Francisco: Morgan Kauffmann.

Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international student persuasive writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 2 (4), 67-87.

Connor-Linton, J. & Polio, C. (2014) Introduction: Comparing Perspectives on L2 Writing: Multiple Analyses of a Common Corpus. Journal of Second Language Writing, X:Y, x-y..

Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42 (3), 475-493.

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The role of cohesion, readability, and lexical difficulty. Journal of Research in Reading, 35 (2), 115-135.

Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R. D., McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. (2011) Predicting human scores of essay quality using computational indices of linguistic and textual features. In G. Biswas, S. Bull, J. Kay, and A. Mitrovic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. (pp. 438-440). New York: Springer.

Crossley, S. A., Weston, J., McLain Sullivan, S. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28 (3), 282-311.

Eckman, F., Moravcsik, E., & Wirth, J. (1989). Implicational universals and interrogative

structures in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Language Learning, 39, 173-205.

Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J., & Cox, B. (2006). Understanding the language demands of schooling: Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 247–273. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3803_1.

Ferris, D. R. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 414–420. doi:10.2307/3587446.

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.

Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29 (2), 327-344.

Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M. & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193–202.

Grant, L. & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 123–145.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London, England: Cassell.

Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.

Hempelmann, C.F., Rus V., Graesser, A.C., & McNamara, D.S. (2006). Evaluating state-of-the-art treebank-style parsers for Coh-Metrix and other learning technology environments. Natural Language Engineering, 12, 131-144

Henry, K. (1996). Early L2 writing development: A study of autobiographical essays

by university-level students of Russian. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 309–326. doi:10.2307/329438.

Higgins, D., Xi, X., Zechner, K., & Williamson, D. (2011). A three-stage approach to the automated scoring of spontaneous spoken responses. Computer Speech and Language, 25 (2), 282-306. DOI: 10.1016/j.csl.2010.06.001

Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. Research

Report No. 3. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Ishikawa, S. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing.



Journal of Second Language Writing, 4 (1), 51-69.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12,

439–448. doi:10.2307/3586142.

Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15 (4), 474-496

Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1), 36-62.

McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57-86. doi:10.1177/0741088309351547

McNamara, D., & Graesser, A. (2012). Coh-Metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2

proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492–518. doi:10.1093/applin/24.4.492.

Reppen, R. (1994). Variation in elementary student language: A multi-dimensional perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Schumann, J. H. (1979). The acquisition of English negation by speakers of Spanish: A review of the literature. R. W. Andersen (Ed.), In The acquisition and use of Spanish and English as first and second languages. (pp. 3-32). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Selinker, L., Swain, M., & Dumas, G. (1975). The interlanguage hypothesis extended to children. Language Learning, 25, 139-152.

Stockwell, G., & Harrington, M. (2003). The incidental development of L2 proficiency in NS-NNS email interactions. CALICO Journal, 20, 337–359.

Street, J. H. (1971). Readability of UCLA materials used for foreign students. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of California, Los Angeles.

Wells, R. (1960). Nominal and verbal style. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language

(pp. 213–220). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

White, L. (1996). Clitics in child L2 French. In H. Clahsen (Ed.) Generative perspectives on language acquisition: Empirical findings, theoretical considerations and crosslinguistic comparisons (pp. 335-368). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Witten, I. A., Frank, E., & Hall, M. A. (2011). Data Mining. San Francisco, CA: Elsevier.

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second Language Development in



Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.



Table 1

Within subjects ANOVA: Differences between beginning and end of semester

Index

1st essay mean (SD)

3rd essay mean (SD)

F

p

η2

Incidence of all clauses (matrix, coordinating, and embedded clauses)

171.40 (25.12)

158.26 (23.31)

9.405

0.003

0.144

Number of modifiers per noun phrase

0.65 (0.14)

0.73 (0.20)

7.813

0.007

0.122

Syntactic similarity score

0.14 (0.04)

0.13 (0.03)

6.888

0.011

0.110

Number of verb phrases

0.77 (.0.04)

0.75 (0.05)

6.429

0.014

0.103

Number of words before main verb

3.25 (1.16)

3.74 (1.37)

5.420

0.024

0.088

Incidence of negation ‘not’

1.54 (1.65)

2.30 (2.59)

4.050

0.049

0.067

Incidence of prepositional phrases

94.89 (21.59)

102.26 (20.96)

3.401

0.070

0.057

Incidence of subject relative clauses

0.60 (0.92)

0.98 (1.55)

2.563

0.115

0.044

Incidence of ‘that’ verb complements

12.72 (5.63)

12.30 (5.76)

0.267

0.607

0.005

Incidence of S-Bars

47.67 (14.71)

46.57 (14.96)

0.189

0.665

0.003

Incidence of infinitives

6.04 (4.80)

6.18 (4.04)

0.038

0.846

0.001



Table 2










Confusion matrix for Naïve Bayes classification














First essay

Last essay

LOOCV set

First essay

45

12




Last essay

31

26



Table 3










Precision and recall findings for Naïve Bayes classification













LOOCV set

 

 

 

Text set

Recall

Precision

F1

First essay

0.79

0.59

0.68

Last essay

0.46

0.68

0.55




Table 4







Pearson correlations: Syntactic values to language use scores






Index

r

p

Incidence of all clauses (matrix, coordinating, and embedded clauses)

-0.295

0.002

Incidence of ‘that’ verb complements

0.249

0.008

Incidence of infinitives

0.234

0.013

Number of verbs phrases

-0.229

0.015

Average number of modifiers per noun phrase

0.211

0.025

Incidence of negation ‘Not’

0.194

0.039

Incidence of preposition phrases

0.179

0.058

Sentence syntax similarity score

-0.169

0.074

Mean number of words before the main verb

0.120

0.204

Incidence of S-Bars

-0.093

0.327

Incidence of subject relative clauses

0.084

0.376


Table 5

Linear regression analysis to predict language use scores: Training set




Entry

Variable Added

r

r2

B

SE

Beta

Entry 1

Incidence of all clauses (matrix, coordinating, and embedded clauses)

0.295

0.087

-0.031

0.006

-0.403

Entry 2

Incidence of infinitives

0.429

0.184

0.145

0.039

0.317

Entry 3

Incidence of ‘that’ verb complements

0.514

0.264

0.103

0.030

0.285

Notes: Estimated Constant Term is 13.408; B is unstandardized Beta; SE is standard error; B is standardized Beta




Table 6







Pearson correlations: Syntactic values to combined scores

 

 

Index

r

p

Incidence of all clauses (matrix, coordinating, and embedded clauses)

-0.350

0.001

Infinitives

0.321

0.001

Negation (Not)

0.263

0.005

Number of verbs phrases

-0.237

0.012

Incidence of preposition phrases

0.229

0.015

Average number of modifiers per noun phrase

0.213

0.023

‘that’ verb complements

0.199

0.034

Mean number of words before the main verb

0.174

0.065

Sentence syntax similarity

-0.157

0.097

Incidence of s-bars

-0.130

0.168

Subject relative clauses

0.099

0.297


Download 136.71 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page