This study compared syntactic complexity between undergraduate students’ research papers and published research papers. A 2 (Groups: experts, students) × 4 (Sections: introduction, methods, results, discussions) mixed factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on each of the following variables: T-unit length, clause density, the frequencies of adverbial clauses, relative clauses, and nominal clauses. The analyses showed there were longer T-units and fewer adverbial clauses in the published papers than in the student papers. Section effects were robust. Qualitative analyses were further conducted to reveal how the student research paper is different from the published papers syntactically. Implications for education were discussed.
BeersS. F.NagyW. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre?Read Writing, 22, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5
2.
BiberD.GrayB.PoonponK. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?TESOL Quarterly, 45, 5–35.
3.
ClarkH. H.ClarkE. V. (1977). Psychology and language. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
4.
CrowhurstM. (1980). Syntactic complexity in narration and argument at three grade levels. Canadian Journal of Education, 5, 6–13.
5.
CrowhurstM.PicheG. L. (1979). Audience and mode of discourse effects on syntactic complexity in writing at two grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 101–109.
6.
FaigleyL. L. (1979). Generative rhetoric as a way of increasing syntactic fluency. College Composition and Communication, 30(2), 176–181.
7.
GagneC. L. (2002). The competition-among-relations-in-nominals theory of conceptual combination: Implications for stimulus class formation and class expansion. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 551–565.
8.
GebhardA. O. (1978). Writing quality and syntax: A transformational analysis of three prose samples. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 211–232.
9.
GeeJ. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies. Routledge.
10.
GrabeW.KaplanR. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. Longman.
11.
HuntK. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written and three grades level (Research Report No. 3). National Council of Teachers of English.
12.
HuntK. W. (1966). Sentence structures used by superior students in grade four and twelve and by superior adults. Florida State University.
13.
HuntK. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Society for Research in Child Development Monograph, 35(1), 67.
14.
KyleK.CrossleyS. E. (2018). Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 wiring using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 333–349.
15.
Larsen-FreemanD.StromV. (1977). The construction of a second language acquisition index of development. Language Learning, 27, 123–134.
16.
LawlorJ. (1983). Sentence combining: A sequence for instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 84(1), 52–62.
17.
LinL.EvansS. (2012). Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 150–160.
18.
LuX. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62.
19.
LuX.AiH. (2015). Syntactic complexity in college level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 16–27.
20.
MadiganR.JohnsonS.LintonP. (1995). The language of psychology: APA style as epistemology. American Psychologist, 50, 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.6.428
21.
MoffettJ. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Houghton Mifflin.
22.
NippoldM. A.MansfieldT. C.BillowJ. L. (2007). Peer conflict explanations in children, adolescents, and adults: Examining the development of complex syntax. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2007/022)
23.
O’DonnellR. C. (1976). A critique of some indices of syntactic maturity. Research in the Teaching of English, 10, 31–38.
24.
O’DonnellR. C.GriffinW. J.NorrisR. C. (1967). Syntax of kindergarten and elementary school children: A transformational analysis. National Council of Teachers of English.
25.
OrtegaL. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 Proficiency: A research synthesis of College-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492–518.
26.
PerronJ. D. (1977, April). Written syntactic complexity and the modes of discourse [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (ERIC Document 139 009), New York.
27.
QuirkR.GreenbaumS. (1973). A concise grammar of contemporary English. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
28.
ReitherJ. A.VipondD. (1989). Writing as collaboration. College English, 51(8), 855–867.
29.
RichardsonL.St PierreE. A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). SAGE.
30.
StaplesS.EgbertJ.BiberD.GrayB. (2016). Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33(2), 149–183.
31.
StewartM. F. (1978). Freshman sentence combining: A Canadian project. Research in the Teaching of English, 12(3), 257–165.
32.
StewartM. F.GrobeC. H. (1979). Syntactic maturity, mechanics of writing, and teachers’ quarterly ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 133(3), 207–215.
33.
Taraban. (2008). What is undergraduate research, and why should we support it? In TarabanR.BlantonR. L. (Eds.), Creating effective undergraduate research program in science (pp. 3–10). Teachers College Press.
34.
TarabanR.BennettB.ZengX. (2010, August). Analyzing discourse functions in student research reports to assess gains due to research experiences. Poster presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Portland, OR.
35.
TarabanR.HaroldS.ZengX. (2011, November). Measures of quality in research papers. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Society for Computers in Psychology (SCiP), Seattle, WA.
36.
WitteS. P.DavisA. S. (1980). The stability of T-unit length: A preliminary investigation. Research in the Teaching of English, 141(1), 5–17.
37.
Wolfe-QuinteroK.InagakiS.KimH.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity (Technical Report No. 17). Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
38.
WrightL. J. (2008). Writing science and objectification: Selecting, organizing, and decontextualizing knowledge. Linguistics and Education, 19, 265–293.
