Yabancı Dil Yazımında Metin Bağlaşıklığı ve İnce Ayrıntılı Sözdizimsel Karmaşıklık İndeksleri: Genel Yazım Puanlarıyla İlişkileri

Öz

Bu çalışma, Metin Bağlaşıklığı Otomatik Analiz Aracı (TAACO) ile ölçülen çeşitli bağlaşıklık indeksleri ile Sözdizimsel Sofistike ve Karmaşıklık Otomatik Analiz Aracı (TAASSC) ile ölçülen sözdizimsel karmaşıklık indeksleri arasındaki ilişkiyi ve bunların Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce (EFL) öğrenenlerin yazma kalitesine etkisini araştırmaktadır. Nicel bir araştırma paradigmasını takip eden bu çalışma, derlenen öğrenci korpusunu korelasyon ve regresyon testleri yoluyla analiz etmiştir. Bağlaşıklık araçları ile yazma kalitesi arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunamazken, sözdizimsel karmaşıklık, ileri düzeydeki EFL yazarları ile daha az yetkin olanları ayırt etmek için kritik bir faktör olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Cümle uzunluğu ve cümle başına düşen karmaşık isim tamlamalarının kullanımı gibi metrikler, ileri düzey dil yetkinliğini işaret eden sofistike bir yazma tarzına katkıda bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca, öğrenci yazılarının genel yazma kalitesi puanlarındaki varyansın %50'si, yalnızca metin uzunluğu ve dil yeterlilik seviyesi bağımsız değişken olarak modele eklendiğinde regresyon modeli ile açıklanabilmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları ilgili literatür ve gelecekteki araştırma yönelimleri çerçevesinde tartışılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bağlaşıklık
• ikinci dil yazımı
• metin uzunluğu
• Otomatik yazma değerlendirmesi
• sözdizimsel karmaşıklık
• yazma yeterliliği

Text Cohesion vs. Fine-Grained Indices of Syntactic Complexity in L2 Writing: Their Relations to Overall EFL Writing Scores

Öz

The purpose of this study is to determine how various cohesion indices (CI), as determined by the Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Cohesion (TAACO), and syntactic complexity indices, as determined by the Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Syntactic Sophistication and Complexity (TAASSC), relate to the writing quality evaluations of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. This study employs a quantitative research methodology, using regression and correlation analysis to examine the collected learner corpus. Although there was no noticeable relationship between coherence devices and writing quality, syntactic complexity is a key differentiator between proficient and less proficient EFL writers. Metrics such as clause length, and use of complex nominals per clause contribute to a sophisticated writing style, signaling advanced linguistic capability. Furthermore, 50% of the variance in the overall writing quality scores of the learners was explained by the regression model only when text length (TL) and proficiency level were added as confounding variables. The study's findings are discussed in light of the related literature and future directions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Automated writing assessment
• cohesion
• second language writing
• syntactic complexity
• text length
• writing proficiency.

Destekleyen Kurum

yok

Etik Beyan

Etik kurul belgesi dosyalar bölümüne yüklenmiştir

Teşekkür

yok

Kaynakça

1. Ai, H., & Lu, X. (2013). A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in NNS and NS university students’ writing. In Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data (pp. 249-264). John Benjamins publishing company.https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.59.15ai
2. 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
3. Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".
4. Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, 32, 21.
5. Bychkovska, T., & Lee, J. J. (2023). Nominalization in high-and low-rated L2 undergraduate writing. International Journal of English for Academic Purposes: Research and Practice, 3(2), 135-158.
6. Crossley, S. A. (2020). Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview. Journal of Writing Research, 11(3), 415–443. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.11.03.01
7. Crossley, S., & McNamara, D. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 32, No. 32). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n5908qx
8. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Understanding expert ratings of essay quality: Coh-Metrix analyses of first and second language writing. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 21(2-3), 170–191. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCEELL.2011.040197

9. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x
10. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Say more and be more coherent: How text elaboration and cohesion can increase writing quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7 (3), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.07.3.02
11. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & Dascalu, M. (2019). The Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Cohesion 2.0: Integrating semantic similarity and text overlap. Behavior research methods, 51, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1142-4
12. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.003
13. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior research methods, 48, 1227–1237. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7
14. Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Predicting human scores of essay quality using computational indices of linguistic and textual features. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: 15th International Conference, AIED 2011, Auckland, New Zealand, June 28–July 2011 15 (pp. 438–440). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21869-9_62
15. Crossley, S., & McNamara, D. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 32, No. 32). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n5908qx
16. De Wilde, V. (2023). Lexical characteristics of young L2 English learners’ narrative writing at the start of formal instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 59, 100960.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100960
17. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84.doi:10.1017/S0272263104026130
18. Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139-155.https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7
19. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 36(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564
20. Grant, L. & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(00)00019-9
21. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (2014). Cohesion in english. Routledge.https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-642-21869-9_62
22. Hao, Y., Wang, X., Bin, S., Yang, Q., & Liu, H. (2024). How syntactic complexity indices predict Chinese L2 writing quality: An analysis of unified dependency syntactically-annotated corpus. Assessing Writing, 61, 100847.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100847
23. Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves, and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19 (1), 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt220oa
24. Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D., & Ferris, D. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of second language writing, 12(4), 377-403.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001
25. Kyle, K. (2016). Measuring syntactic development in L2 writing: Fine-grained indices of syntactic complexity and usage-based indices of syntactic sophistication [Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University]. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss/35
26. Lin, Y., Su, Y., Peng, Y., & Liu, H. (2024). Profiling text cohesion in developing L2 Chinese reading materials: variation by text level and genre. Reading and Writing, 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10585-w
27. Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers' language development. Tesol Quarterly, 36–62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859
28. Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J. (2015). Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes program. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.004
29. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & Roscoe, R. (2013). Natural Language Processing in an Intelligent Writing Strategy Tutoring System. Behavior Research Methods, 45 (2), 499–515. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0258-1
30. Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38, 39–41.doi/10.1145/219717.219748
31. 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
32. 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
33. Ortega, L. (2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008
34. Peng, Y., Zheng, Y., Sun, J., Jiang, Y., Lin, J., & Zhang, H. (2024). Modeling relationships among large-grained, fine-grained absolute syntactic complexity and assessed L2 writing quality: An SEM approach. Assessing Writing, 61, 100875.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100875
35. Song, R. (2022). A Scientometric Review of Syntactic Complexity in L2 writing based on Web of Science (2010-2022). International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 5(1), 18–27.doi:10.32996/ijllt.2022.5.1.3
36. Stockwell, G. & Harrington, M. (2003). The incidental development of L2 proficiency in NS-NNS e mail interactions. CALICO Journal 20(2), 337–359.https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v20i2.337-359
37. Stockwell, G. (2005). Syntactical and lexical development in NNS-NNS asynchronous CMC. The JALT CALL Journal, 1(3), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v1n3.16
38. Tabari, M. A., & Johnson, M. D. (2023). Exploring new insights into the role of cohesive devices in written academic genres. Assessing Writing, 57, 100749.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100749
39. Abdi Tabari, M., & Wind, A. M. (2025). Dynamic development of cohesive devices in English as a second language writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 63(1), 433-469. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0205
40. Abdi Tabari, M., Johnson, M. & Gao, J. (2024). Using automated indices of cohesion to explore the growth of cohesive features in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0185
41. Treffers-Daller, J., Parslow, P., & Williams, S. (2018). Back to basics: How measures of lexical diversity can help discriminate between CEFR levels. Applied Linguistics, 39(3), 302–327.https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw009
42. Vyatkina, N., Hirschmann, H., & Golcher, F. (2015). Syntactic modification at early L2 German writing development stages: A longitudinal learner corpus study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 28-50.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.006
43. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity (No. 17). University of Hawaii Press.
44. Wondemagegne, E., Simegn, B. & Adugna, E.T. (2024). Exploring syntactic complexity and its relationship with writing quality in EFL argumentative essays. Journal of Language Research - 1(2),13-35.https://doi.org/10.14302/issn.2998
45. Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004
46. Zhang, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2023). Lexical cohesion development in English as a foreign language learners' argumentative writing: A latent class growth model approach. Linguistics and Education, 78, 101255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2023.101255
47. Zhang, L. & liu, H. (2021). Genre Effect on L2 Syntactic Complexity and Holistic Rating for Writing Quality of Intermediate EFL Learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 44(4), 451-469. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2021-0029
48. Zhang, X., & Lu, X. (2024). Testing the Relationship of Linguistic Complexity to Second Language Learners’ Comparative Judgment on Text Difficulty. Language Learning.https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12633