Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Assessing Writing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/asw
Beyond linguistic complexity: Assessing register flexibility in EFL writing across contexts
Wenjuan Qina,b,*, Paola Uccellib a Fudan University, 220 Handan Road, Shanghai 200433, China b Harvard University, 14 Appian Way, Cambridge, MA 02138, United States
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: The present study examines adolescent and adult English-as-Foreign-Language (EFL) Learners’ Linguistic complexity linguistic complexity and register flexibility in writing across academic and colloquial contexts. A Register flexibility total of 263 EFL learners from three first language (L1) backgrounds (Chinese, French, and English as a foreign language (EFL) Spanish) participated in this study. Each participant produced two written texts on the same Cross-linguistic influence topic: a personal email to a close friend and an academic report to an educational authority. A Writing assessment total of 526 texts were analyzed for lexical, syntactic, and discourse organizational features. Multilevel modeling results revealed positive associations between participants’ English profi- ciency and their textual linguistic complexity. In contrast, the association between English pro- ficiency and register flexibility was not consistent across the different linguistic levels analyzed and across the three L1 groups. Findings inform the design of pedagogical practices that an- ticipate the unique communicative challenges faced by EFL learners and teach communicative functions of complex linguistic forms.
1. Introduction
In second and foreign language teaching and research, linguistic complexity in writing has been used as an indicator of learners’ language proficiency. In general, more proficient learners are more skillful at using diverse vocabulary and complex grammatical structures in textual production than less proficient learners (Ortega, 2003; Pallotti, 2015). In language teaching practices, however, we observe many learners, especially those learning English as a foreign language (EFL), who could extensively use complex vo- cabulary and sentences in writing but encounter difficulty adjusting the register and stance to address the needs of different com- municative contexts (Gennaro, 2013). For instance, they sometimes sound too formal in colloquial context or overly use colloquial language in academic writing. In the present study, we consider linguistic complexity in writing a necessary but not sufficient construct to measure English proficiency. Using a sample of texts written by adolescent and adult EFL learners, we explore learners’ writing ability to navigate different communicative contexts, defined as Register Flexibility. This construct is inspired by previous research on functional lin- guistics (Halliday, Matthiessen, & Matthiessen, 2014), developmental language studies (Berman, 2008; Ravid & Tolchinsky, 2002), and genre theories (Swales, 1990). Register refers to the co-occurrence of “a variety of linguistic features associated with a particular situation of use” (Biber & Conrad, 2009, p. 6). Accordingly, Register Flexibility is defined as the ability to flexibly use a variety of linguistic resources – at the lexical, syntactic and discourse levels, with the awareness of which are the most appropriate for the communicative contexts at hand. Register is a broad concept that could be analyzed at various levels of specificity (Biber & Conrad,
⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (W. Qin). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100465 Received 5 December 2019; Received in revised form 28 April 2020; Accepted 28 April 2020 W. Qin and P. Uccelli
2009). In the present study, for the clarity of communication, register is narrowly used to refer to the collection of EFL learners’texts written in response to an academic versus a colloquial register elicitation condition. We compare learners’ writing performances across these two elicited register conditions: a personal email written to a close friend (colloquial) and an academic report written to an educational authority (academic). Register flexibility is measured quantitatively as the degree of differentiation in linguistic features displayed in EFL participants’texts across communicative contexts. In view of the widely spread concerns for the reliability and subjectivity in holistic human scoring (East, 2009), this quantitative perspective might be complementary in assessing writing in a relatively transparent and objective way. The present study is driven by two goals: 1) to examine the association between English proficiency and the linguistic complexity displayed in EFL writing, at the lexical, syntactic and discourse levels; 2) to examine the association between English proficiency and register flexibility at the same levels. Whereas the first goal entails a replication of previous research, it is necessary as a first step to address the second, more innovative goal of the present study. This study is motivated by the need to document EFL learners’ strengths and weaknesses when writing across communicative contexts with the ultimate goal of informing the design of pedagogical approaches that enhance their ability to convert linguistic knowledge into real-world communicative competence.
2. Literature review
2.1. Linguistic complexity in writing
Linguistic complexity is defined as the capacity to use more advanced linguistic forms and functions, which are typically acquired later in second or foreign language development (Ellis, 2009). At the lexical level, several measures have yielded consistent results in capturing differences associated with English proficiency, such as lexical richness (Laufer & Nation, 1995), use of academic words (Nagy & Townsend, 2012) and lexical sophistication (Kyle & Crossley, 2016). Among these measures, lexical diversity – a measure of how many distinct words are used in an oral or written text – stands out as a measure consistently found to be a reliable indicator of proficiency in writing. Lexical diversity has been shown to increase throughout language development and to be associated with texts of higher quality in both first and second language (Crossley, Salsbury, McNamara, & Jarvis, 2011). At the syntactic level, a variety of measures have yielded mixed findings in relation to learners’ language proficiency and de- velopment (Bi & Jiang, 2020; Norris & Ortega, 2009). Syntactic complexity measures can be generally classified into three types: length-based, clausal subordination, and phrasal complexity measures. Length-based measures (e.g., number of words per utter- ance) have been widely adopted in studies on early first language acquisition assuming that longer utterances are, in general, more complex (Brown, 1973). However, sentence-level length measures are insufficient to measure later language development and L2 writing because longer sentences do not always signal more complex syntactic structure (Rimmer, 2008), as is the case of run-on sentences (Lu, 2011). In contrast, clausal subordination measures are used in the L2 research as a standard way of operationalizing syntactic complexity. This view prioritizes clausal structure over length, such that a short sentence with multiple clauses is considered more complex than a longer one with a single clause (Lambert & Kormos, 2014). Examination of the relation between clausal subordination and language proficiency, however, has yielded mixed findings (Norris & Ortega, 2009). More recently, Biber and his colleagues offered persuasive evidence to show that phrasal complexity, particularly noun phrase complexity, is a more valid indicator of proficiency in academic writing, whereas clausal subordination is associated with proficiency in the spoken register (Biber, Gray, & Poonpon, 2011; Biber, Gray, & Staples, 2016). Aligned with Biber and colleagues’ findings, studies with ESL/EFL students document that phrasal complexity, but not clausal subordination, is associated with language proficiency in academic writing (Bulté & Housen, 2014; Lu, 2011; Mazgutova & Kormos, 2015). These findings highlight the need to attend to communicative contexts when assessing syntactic complexity in writing. Compared to previous research on lexical and syntactic measures, fewer studies have examined EFL writers’ complexity at the discourse level. A variety of measures could certainly be selected to measure different aspects of discourse complexity. In the present study, we focus exclusively on one type of discourse skills - metadiscourse (Hyland, 2005). Metadiscourse refers to how writers’ language choices reflect their consideration for the audience, i.e., mechanisms to engage their reader through elaboration, clar- ification, guidance and/or interaction (Crismore, 1989; Hyland, 2005, 2017). Compared to first language (L1) English speakers, EFL learners often face considerable challenges in appropriately deploying metadiscourse resources in writing, and their writing is often assessed as “uncontextualized, incoherent and inappropriately reader-focused” (Hyland, 2005, p. 176). In writing, metadiscourse markers are indicative of two important skills: 1) the writer’s management of the information flow to guide readers through the discourse organization of a text, the interactive dimension; 2) the writer’s addition of markers to alert readers to the author’s stance towards certain propositions, the interactional dimension. Since the interactional dimension has been discussed extensively in a separate paper (Qin & Uccelli, 2019), the present study focuses on writers’complexity in using linguistic devices to explicitly signal the discourse organization of a text, referred to as discourse organizational markers. Studies that investigated the relation between use of discourse organizational markers and writing quality repetitively demonstrated that higher-rated writing tends to contain more frequent and diverse use of discourse organizational markers, in both second language writers (Crossley, Kyle, & McNamara, 2016) and first language English speakers (Dobbs, 2014). Linguistic complexity cannot be measured using a single linguistic index (Pallotti, 2015). Understanding linguistic complexity as a multidimensional construct, the present study focuses on examining complexity at various linguistic levels through a (certainly non- exhaustive) selection of measures extensively validated by prior research. Through the application of measures widely used in the field, our first goal is to test if complexity features such as lexical diversity, sophisticated syntactic structure, and explicit discourse organization are associated with English proficiency in EFL learners’ persuasive writing across communicative contexts.