27 * T T 1. 1994 Casanave 1994 Ishikawa 1995 Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998 CAF CAF 2010 Ellis 2009 Robinson et al. 2009 Norris & Ortega 2009 Larsen-Freeman complexity accuracy and fluency Perkins 1980 Cumming & Mellow 2009 Housen & Kuiken 2009 Skehan 2009 CAF Pallotti 2009 2007 2010 2010 2. 2. 1 Ellis 2009 Hunt 1965 T 60 T 2. 2 80 variation sophistication CAF CAF Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998 69 Foster & * 08XYY007
28 Skehan 1996 303 Ishikawa 1995 Sharma 1980 Housen & Kuiken 2009 463 Hunt 1965 Cooper 1976 Monroe Hunt 1965 1975 Sharma 1980 T 1. 2 2 Halliday Halliday Halliday 2004 Halliday 1987 it ll ve been going to ve been being tested every day for the past fortnight soon 2. 3 Halliday & Matthiessen 1999 Ellis 2009 rank shift Halliday 2004 656 70 1 In order to argue that this is not so he simply points out that there are no synonyms in mental language. 2 The argument to the contrary is basically an appeal to the lack of synonymy in mental language. 2 1 the argument to the contrary an appeal to the T lack of synonymy in mental language T T there are no synonyms the lack of synonymy he points out an T appeal to this is not so the contrary to argue the argument Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998 73 T Wolfe-Quintero ibid 75 21 1 frequency ratio
29 Norris & Ortega 2009 559 70 Wolfe-Quintero et al. T 1998 Norris & Ortega 2009 559 c-unit c communicative AS-unit AS Analysis of Speech Homburg 1984 T 1 2 3 4 1 3. 2 2 St4 1041 3. 3 CLEC CLEC 3 3 305 3. 3 3. 1 Wolfe-Quintero et Evola et al. 1980 CLEC 5 1 10 al. 1998 T 89% 1 T Hunt 1965 1. 1 1
30 3. 3 SPSS15. 0 One-way ANOVA Post 3. 3. 1 hoc comparisons 2 T 2 1 4 9 p =. 54 10 15 mean Std. Deviation F p1 2. 62 1. 48 2. 79 1. 66 3. 61 1. 99 3. 68 2. 00 3. 08 1. 56 3. 06 1. 37 3. 65 1. 70 4. 32 1. 80 3. 65 1. 71 4. 44 1. 96 6. 45 2. 52 6. 87 2. 92 6. 00. 00 7. 84. 81 10. 83. 84 13. 06. 25 6. 09 7. 24 28. 64 17. 23 2. p =. 86 T T p =. 18 p <. 05 T p <. 05 2 p =. 96 3. 3. 2 p <. 05 T p =. 04 Regression Stepwise 3 3 p <. 3 T 05 p =. 37 p <. 05. 54. 86. 96. 04. 00. 37. 18. 65 1 2. 05. p <. 05
31 β R 2 t-value Sig.. 29 T. 12 2. 40. 02. 36 8. 82. 00. 25 5. 38. 00 3. p =. 25 T Ortega 2003 T T Halliday 4. 4. 1 3. 3 4. 2 T 2010 174 Ortega 2003
32 Casanave C. P. 1994. Language development in students journals. Journal of Second Language Writing 3. Cooper T. 1976. Measuring written syntactic patterns of second language learners of German. Journal of Education Research 69. Halliday 2004 Cumming A. & D. Mellow. 1994. An investigation into the validity of written indicators of second language proficiency. In A. Cumming & R. Berwick Eds. Valida- Ortega tion in Language Testing pp. 72-93. Clevedon England Multilingual Matters. 2003 494 Ellis R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford OUP. Ellis R. 2009. The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency complexity and accuracy in L2 Oral Production. Applied Linguistics 4. Evola J. E. Mamer & B. Lentz. 1980. Discrete point versus global scoring for cohesive devices. In J. Woller trade-off hypothesis & K. Perkins eds.. Research in Language Testing pp. 177-181. Rowley MA Newbury House. Foster P. & P. Skehan. 1996. The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3. Halliday M. A. K. 1987. Comprehending Oral and Written Language. Orlando FL Academic Press. Halliday M. A. K. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing Experience Through Meaning A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London & New York Continuum. Halliday M. A. K. 2003. The language of early childhood. In J. J. Webster ed.. The Collected Works of M. A. K Halliday Vol. 4. London & New York Continuum. 2007 Halliday M. A. K. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar 3rd edition. Arnold. 5. Homburg T. J. 1984. Holistic evaluation of ESL compositions Can it be validated objectively. TESOL Quarterly 18. Housen A. & F. Kuiken. 2009. Complexity accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 4. Hunt K. W. 1965. Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3. Champaign IL USA NCTE.
33 Ishikawa S. 1995. Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 4. Larsen-Freeman D. 2009. Adjusting expectations the study of complexity accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 4. Monroe J. 1975. Measuring and enhancing syntactic fluency in French. The French Review 48. Norris J. & L. Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA the case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 4. Ortega L. 2003. Syntactic complexity measure and their relationship to L2 proficiency A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 4. Pallotti G. 2009. CAF defining refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics 4. Perkins K. 1980. Using objective methods of attained writing proficiency to discriminate among holistic evaluations. TESOL Quarterly 14. Sharma A. 1980. Syntactic maturity Assessing writing proficiency in a second language. In R. Silverstein ed.. Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6 pp. 318-325. Carbondale Southern Illinois University. Skehan P. 2009. Modelling second language performance integrating complexity accuracy fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics 4. Wolfe-Quintero K. S. Inagaki & H. Kim. 1998. Second Language Development in Writing Measures of Fluency Accuracy & Complexity. Technical Report #17. University of Hawaii at Manroa Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. 2010 2 2010 1 2007 2007 4 650031 134 Towards the measurement of the grammatical complexity in the writings of the learners of English by ZHAO Junhai & CHEN Huiyuan Abstract This paper theoretically and empirically addresses the issue of measuring the grammatical complexity of English language learners writings. For testing the validity of certain measuring indices the authors gauged the sample articles T-units dependent clauses non-finite verbs and connectors based on Chinese Learners English Corpus and found that these indices are valid in measuring second language learners writing grammatical complexity. Meanwhile T-units non-finite verbs and connectors may well predict the development of the grammatical complexity of the second language learners. The study also discovered that non-finite verb is a trustworthy index in measuring second language learners grammatical complexity in writing for its better performance in the statistical tests of this study. The results indicate that the non-finite verb is a special index in measuring learners language complexity while dependent clauses contribute less significantly to the development of learners grammatical complexity. Key words English language writing grammatical complexity measurement index validity