Abstract
In successful writing development, English as a foreign language (EFL) learners not only need to acquire grammatical complexity (GC) features but also know when and how to use them flexibly across communicative contexts, known as register flexibility. The present study, guided by the sociocultural theory of language learning, examines descriptive features and developmental patterns of register flexibility, operationalized as cross-register variations in GC features in academic and colloquial writing. The sample contains 205 late adolescent and adult EFL learners, each completing two writing tasks designed to address distinct audiences, purposes, and channels of communication. Using corpus-based descriptive measures (i.e., Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English), the study analyzes a variety of structural forms and syntactic functions relevant to differentiating academic and colloquial registers. Results reveal that EFL learners show clear cross-register variations in GC features prevalent in the academic register (e.g., finite noun-complement clauses and phrasal noun modifiers) but a lack of cross-register variation in GC features prevalent in the colloquial register (e.g., non-finite adverbial and verb-complement clauses). English proficiency is found to be associated with register flexibility in only one GC feature: phrasal noun modifiers. The study adds to the growing body of research that emphasizes combining grammatical forms and communicative functions in EFL writing instruction and measurement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Al Masaeed, K., Waugh, L. R., & Burns, K. E. (2018). The development of interlanguage pragmatics in L2 Arabic: The production of apology strategies. System, 74, 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.001
Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.010
Ansarifar, A., Shahriari, H., & Pishghadam, R. (2018). Phrasal complexity in academic writing: A comparison of abstracts written by graduate students and expert writers in Applied Linguistics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.12.008
Atak, N., & Saricaoglu, A. (2021). Syntactic complexity in L2 learners’ argumentative writing: Developmental stages and the within-genre topic effect. Assessing Writing, 47, 100506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100506
Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? which genre? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5
Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9264-9
Berman, R. (2001). Narrative development in multilingual contexts: A cross-linguistic perspective. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.) Narrative Development in a Multilingual Context (pp. 419–428). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Berman, R. A. (2005). Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(2), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.08.003
Berman, R. A., Ragnarsdóttir, H., & Strömqvist, S. (2002). Discourse stance: Written and spoken language. Written Language & Literacy, 5(2), 255–289. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.2.06ber
Bi, P., & Jiang, J. (2020). Syntactic complexity in assessing young adolescent EFL learners’ writings: Syntactic elaboration and diversity. System, 91, 102248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102248
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2011). Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language & Linguistics, 15(2), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674311000025
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483
Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J. (2020a). Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 46, 100869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100869
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
Biber, D., Reppen, R., Staples, S., & Egbert, J. (2020b). Exploring the longitudinal development of grammatical complexity in the disciplinary writing of L2-English University students. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 6(1), 38–71. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.18007.bib
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005
Casal, J. E., & Lee, J. J. (2019). Syntactic complexity and writing quality in assessed first-year L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.005
Casal, J. E., Lu, X., Qiu, X., Wang, Y., & Zhang, G. (2021). Syntactic complexity across academic research article part-genres: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 52, 100996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100996
Casal, J. E., Shirai, Y., & Lu, X. (2022). English verb-argument construction profiles in a specialized academic corpus: Variation by genre and discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 66, 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.01.004
Cazden, C. B. (2001). The language of teaching and learning. Heinemann.
Chang, C. F. (2012). Fostering EFL college students’ register awareness: Writing online forum posts and traditional essays. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2012070102
Chen, C. F. E. (2006). The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 35–55.
Chen, Y. S. (2015). Developing Chinese EFL learners’ email literacy through requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 75, 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.009
Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (1997). Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. Cassell.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2016). Variation in evaluations of the (im)politeness of emails from L2 learners and perceptions of the personality of their senders. Journal of Pragmatics, 106, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.10.00
EF, 2014. EFSET Technical Background Report. https://www.efset.org/research/
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042
Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20050
Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J., & Cox, B. E. (2006). Understanding the language demands of schooling: Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(3), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3803_1
Heath, S. B. (2012). Words at work and play: Three decades in family and community life. Cambridge University Press.
Hernández, T. A. (2021). Explicit instruction for the development of L2 Spanish pragmatic ability during study abroad. System, 96, 102395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102395
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Jagaiah, T., Olinghouse, N. G., & Kearns, D. M. (2020). Syntactic complexity measures: Variation by genre, grade-level, students’ writing abilities, and writing quality. Reading and Writing, 33(10), 2577–2638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10057-x
Kormos, J. (2011). Task Complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2018). Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12468
Lahuerta Martínez, A. C. (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.2017.11.002
Lan, G., & Sun, Y. (2019). A corpus-based investigation of noun phrase complexity in the L2 writings of a first-year composition course. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.001
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
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. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859
Lu, X., & Ai, H. (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.2015.06.003
Lu, X., Casal, J. E., Liu, Y., Kisselev, O., & Yoon, J. (2021). The relationship between syntactic complexity and rhetorical move-steps in research article introductions: Variation among four social science and engineering disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 52, 101006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101006
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (third edition): Volume I: Transcription format and programs, Volume II: The database. Computational Linguistics, 26(4), 657. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2000.26.4.657
Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J. (2015). Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for academic purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.004
Nasseri, M., & Thompson, P. (2021). Lexical density and diversity in Dissertation abstracts: Revisiting English L1 vs. L2 text differences. Assessing Writing, 47, 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100511
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (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/amp044
Ortega, L. (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/24.4.492
Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314536435
Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2016). Same language, different functions: A cross-genre analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 3-17.
Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22-39.
Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2020). Beyond linguistic complexity: Assessing register flexibility in EFL writing across contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 100465.
Ravid, D., & Berman, R. A. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school age: A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723709350531
Ravid, D., & Cahana-Amitay, D. (2005). Verbal and nominal expressions in narrating conflict situations in Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(2), 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(04)00193-6
Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29(2), 417–447. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000902005111
Uccelli, P., Barr, C. D., Dobbs, C. L., Galloway, E. P., Meneses, A., & Sánchez, E. (2015). Core academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(5), 1077–1109. https://doi.org/10.1017/s014271641400006x
Wei, Y., & Lei, L. (2011). Lexical bundles in the academic writing of advanced Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 42(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688211407295
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. University of Hawaii Press.
Yoon, H. J. (2020). Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: Effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse. Reading and Writing, 34(3), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10085-7
Yoon, H. J., & Polio, C. (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.296
Zhang, X., & Lu, X. (2022). Revisiting the predictive power of traditional vs. fine-grained syntactic complexity indices for L2 writing quality: The case of two genres. Assessing Writing, 51, 100597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100597
Zhang, X., Lu, X., & Li, W. (2022). Beyond differences: Assessing effects of shared linguistic features on L2 writing quality of two genres. Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 168–195. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amab078
Acknowledgements
We express our gratitude to Dr. Paola Uccelli and Dr. Yongyan Zheng for their valuable feedback and support to this work, and to members of the LEAD Lab at Fudan University—including Xuwen Zhang, Roujia Jia, Qinglin Feng, and Jiayi Deng—for their intellectual contribution and intensive work in data coding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix A: Communicative writing instrument (CW-I)
Scenario 1: Suggestion for a friend (colloquial register)
Your school offered an opportunity to study abroad during the upcoming academic year, but participating in it will result in a 1 year delay of your graduation. Your best friend at the school was very interested in participating, but she/he also had some concerns. Therefore, she asked for your suggestion. Please write to your friend, analyzing the pros and cons of the program and providing your suggestions. Your writing is expected to be no less than 100 words. Typically, an effective response would be approximately 300 words.
Scenario 2: Write an argumentative essay (academic register)
Some educators believe that studying abroad offers students a good opportunity to enrich their experience in a globalizing world, whereas some others believe that such experience will cause interruption for their study due to the missing course work, increased financial obligation and even delay of graduation. You are asked to write an argumentative essay on the topic: “Studying-abroad during the academic year: interruption or enrichment”. The essay will be published in an academic report for educational leaders (school principals, college presidents) who need to decide if they should invest in study abroad opportunities. Your writing is expected to be no less than 100 words. Typically, an effective response would be approximately 300 words.
Appendix B: Coding scheme of GC features
See Table 6.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Qin, W., Zhang, X. Do EFL learners use different grammatical complexity features in writing across registers?. Read Writ 36, 1939–1967 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10367-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10367-2