Using the British Academic Written English corpus, this study focuses on the use of grammatical complexity features in university level texts written by first language (L1) English writers to demonstrate knowledge and perform other specialized tasks required of advanced academic writers. While the primary focus of the analysis is on writing development from first-year undergraduate to graduate students, we also consider interactions with discipline and genre. The study goes beyond most previous work on grammatical complexity in writing by investigating the use of phrasal as well as clausal features. The results show that as academic level increases, the use of phrasal complexity features in writing also increases. On the other hand, the use of clausal complexity features in student writing, particularly finite dependent clauses, decreases as academic level increases. Results further indicate that the extent of the differences across level is mediated by discipline and genre, reflecting patterns observed in research on disciplinary variation in professional academic writing.
BeersS. F.NagyW. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre?Reading and Writing, 22, 185-200.
2.
BeersS. F.NagyW. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24, 183-202.
3.
BiberD. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BiberD. (1992). On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes, 15, 133-163.
5.
BiberD. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
6.
BiberD. (2014). Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. Languages in Contrast, 14(1), 7-34.
7.
BiberD.ConradS. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BiberD.GrayB. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2-20.
9.
BiberD.GrayB. (2011). The historical shift of scientific academic prose in English towards less explicit styles of expression: Writing without verbs. In BathiaV.SánchezP.Perez-ParedesP. (Eds.), Researching specialized languages (pp. 11-24). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
10.
BiberD.GrayB. (2013a). Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT Test: A lexico-grammatical analysis (TOEFL iBT Research Report iBT-19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
11.
BiberD.GrayB. (2013b). Nominalizing the verb phrase in academic science writing. In AartsB.LeechG. (Eds.), The English verb phrase: Corpus methodology and current change (pp. 99-132). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BiberD.GrayB. (2016). Grammatical complexity in Academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
BiberD.GrayB.PoonponK. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?TESOL Quarterly, 45, 5-35.
14.
BiberD.GrayB.PoonponK. (2013). Pay attention to the phrasal structures: Going beyond T-units—A response to WeiWei Yang. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 192-201.
15.
BiberD.GrayB.StaplesS. (2014). Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/applin/amu059
16.
BiberD.JohanssonS.LeechG.ConradS.FineganE. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London, UK: Longman.
17.
BrownG.YuleG. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
CarterR.McCarthyM. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
ChafeW. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In TannenD. (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35-54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
20.
CrossleyS.WestonJ.McLain SullivanS.McNamaraD. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28, 282-311.
21.
EgbertJ. (2015). Publication type and discipline variation in published academic writing: Investigating statistical interaction in corpus data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20, 1-29.
22.
GardnerS.NesiH. (2013). A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 25-52.
23.
GrayB. (2015). Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
24.
HaswellR. H. (2000). Documenting improvement in college writing: A longitudinal approach. Written Communication, 17, 307-352.
25.
HuddlestonR. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
HughesR. (2005). English in speech and writing: Investigating language and literature. New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
HuntK. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
28.
HylandK. (2008). As can be seen: Lexial bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4-21.
29.
LuX. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writer’s language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 36-61.
30.
NesiH.GardnerS. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Available from http://bit.ly/slWnd5
31.
NesiH.GardnerS.ThompsonP.WickensP. (2008-2010). The British Academic Written English (BAWE) corpus.
32.
NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555-578.
33.
ParkinsonJ.MusgraveJ. (2014). Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for academic purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 48-59.
34.
RavidD.BermanR. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school age: A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30(3), 3-26.
35.
StaplesS.ReppenR. (in press). Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing.
36.
TaguchiN.CrawfordW.WetzelD. Z. (2013). What linguistic features are indicative of writing quality? A case of argumentative essays in a college composition program. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 420-430.
37.
WrightL. J. (2008). Writing science and objectification: Selecting, organizing, and decontextualizing knowledge. Linguistics and Education, 19, 265-293.
38.
ZhuW. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 29-48.
