Normas constitucionales aplicables

The Biber Tagger is a text analysis tool that has been predominately used to conduct multidimensional analyses (MDA) of language variation (e.g, Biber, 1988; Biber et al., 2004). The Biber Tagger calculates over a hundred lexical and lexico-grammatical indices. Recent research using the Biber Tagger (Biber et al., 2011) has suggested that traditional clause-based measures of syntactic complexity may not be indicative of academic writing but rather indicative of informal speech. For instance, Biber et al. (2011) compared the frequency of a number of clause and phrase-based features (see Table 2.1 for an overview of these features, and Biber et al., [2004] for a comprehensive description of each) between a corpus of informal spoken conversations and a corpus of academic journal articles. With regard to structural type, they found that the spoken texts contained more finite dependent clauses, while the written academic texts contained more dependent phrases. With regard to syntactic function, they found that spoken texts contained more constituents in clauses while written academic texts contained more constituents in noun phrases. The results of the comparative corpus analysis suggest that

traditional clause-based indices may not be not appropriate for L2 developmental writing studies because clausal complexity is a feature of informal spoken texts and not of academic written texts. Biber et al., further propose a number of developmental stages wherein the characteristics of learner language move from informal spoken language to academic written language.

Yang (2013), however, notes that the L1 reference corpus used in Biber et al. (2011) cannot clearly answer questions regarding L2 development. To make such claims, one needs to measure the development of language learners’ speech and writing, either longitudinally or cross-

sectionally. An analysis of this type would allow for stronger claims to be made about L2

development. In their rebuttal, Biber, Gray, & Poonpon (2013) argue that if the goal of language learners is to become members of the English academic community, they will need to develop language skills that are congruent with that community. Thus, students of English for academic purposes (EAP) should focus more on complex noun phrases and less on clausal subordination as evidenced in L1 writing samples.

Yang's (2013) concerns notwithstanding, Biber et al. (2011) propose a number of indices that are likely important indicators of L2 academic writing development (Biber et al., 2013). The work of Biber et al. and others (Norris & Ortega, 2009) have prompted a new wave of studies comparing clausal and phrase-based features. A few of these studies have used indices based on the Biber Tagger, which are reviewed below, while others (e.g., Crossley & McNamara, 2014) have used alternative noun phrase complexity indices, which are reviewed in a later section.

Table 2.1 Biber-tagger based indices relevant to syntactic complexity proposed in Biber et al. (2011)

Category Index

Finite adverbial clauses

Total finite adverbial clauses Because clause

If clause

Although clause Finite Complement Clauses

verb + that clause verb + WH clause adjective + that clause noun + that clause Finite noun modifier clauses

that relative clauses WH relative clauses Nonfinite adverbial clauses

to adverbial clause Nonfinite complement clauses

verb + -ing clause verb + to clause adjective + -ing clause adjective + to clause noun + of + -ing clause noun + to clause Nonfinite noun modifier clauses

nonfinite relative clause Adverbials

adverbs as adverbials

prepositional phrases as adverbials Noun modifiers

attributive adjectives

nouns as nominal premodifiers

total prepositional phrases as nominal modifiers of as postmodifier

in as postmodifier on as postmodifier with as postmodifier for as postmodifier Note. Adapted from Biber et al. (2011)

Taguchi, Crawford, & Wetzel (2013) investigated differences in L2 writing using six clause-level complexity measures (subordinating conjunctions, verb complements, noun

complements, adjective complements, that-relative clauses, and WH-relative clauses) and nine phrase-level complexity measures (a number of qualifiers, quantifiers, determiners, articles, conjunctions, adjectives and prepositional phrases). Using these clausal and phrasal complexity measures, they compared a high group and a low group of L2 writers (based on holistic scores). It is difficult to objectively interpret the results of this study because inferential statistics were not used. Nonetheless, (Taguchi et al., 2013) report that the high and low groups demonstrated similar clausal complexity (though subordinating conjunctions and that- relative clauses used more often by the low group and that- clause verb complements were used more by the high group). With regard to the phrasal complexity features, two differences were reported: attributive adjectives and post-noun-modifying prepositional phrases were used more by the high group. To reiterate, although differences were reported at both clausal and phrasal level, no inferential statistic use was reported, limiting the conclusions noted by the authors.

Biber et al. (2014) conducted an analysis similar to the one conducted in Biber et al. (2011), but instead of analyzing L1 reference corpora, they analyzed responses to the speaking and writing performance tasks that are part of the Test of English as a Foreign Language

(TOEFL). They divided the texts in to four categories: independent and integrated speaking and independent and integrated writing. Generally, they found that similar differences existed between L2 texts as were found in the L1 texts used in Biber et al. (2011). For instance, writing samples were reported to have more complexity at the phrasal level (particularly with regard to noun phrases), while spoken texts include more finite clauses and verb + to constructions. With regard to development, a full factorial analysis indicated that only two indices significantly interacted with holistic score: high scoring written integrated texts included more attributive adjectives and verb + that clause constructions. Further analysis indicated that a combined

spoken/written features index (derived from a multi-dimensional analysis) indicated small, positive relationships between the spoken tasks and the integrated written task and holistic scores. A medium, positive relationship was observed between the combined index and independent written responses. Overall, this study supports the claims made in Biber et al. (2011), but does not provide strong evidence that phrasal features are indicators of writing development.

Parkinson & Musgrave (2014) examined the writing of 21 “upper intermediate” international English for academic purposes (EAP) students and 16 MA TESOL international students. Following Biber et al.'s (2011) position that complex noun phrases are the hallmark of academic writing, they examined the differences in the use of 20 noun modifier types between the EAP and MA TESOL students that fell along Biber et al.’s proposed cline of writing development. Based on their analysis, they concluded that the EAP students showed

characteristics of lower levels of development (i.e., reliance on attributive adjectives), while the MA students demonstrated the characteristics of higher levels of development (e.g., phrasal modifiers). These results seem to contradict the findings of Biber et al. (2014), who found that attributive adjectives were indicative of highly scored integrated essays. Some important limitations of the study are that neither writing prompt nor genre was controlled for nor was proficiency controlled, making the results difficult to interpret.