A Study of Syntactic Complexity via Coh-Metrix: Similarities and Differences of Ph.D. Dissertations Written by Iranian University Students and English Native Speakers

سال انتشار: 1398
نوع سند: مقاله ژورنالی
زبان: انگلیسی
مشاهده: 481

فایل این مقاله در 23 صفحه با فرمت PDF قابل دریافت می باشد

استخراج به نرم افزارهای پژوهشی:

لینک ثابت به این مقاله:

شناسه ملی سند علمی:

JR_RELT-7-2_003

تاریخ نمایه سازی: 18 آذر 1398

چکیده مقاله:

The present study sought to identify the similarities and/or differences between texts written by Iranian university students of English teaching major and those written by English natives in terms of syntactic complexity. To this end, an automated computational web tool, namely Coh-Metrix was used to scrutinize a corpus containing 83 text excerpts extracted from 10 dissertations written by Iranian Ph.D. students as well as a comparison corpus including 94 text excerpts selected from 10 Ph.D. dissertations written by English native speakers in terms of four specific measures representing syntactic complexity. The results indicated that among the four measures, Mean Number of Modifiers and Sentence Syntax Similarity functioned as distinctive factors differentiating between the first language (L1) and second language (L2) texts, whereas Left Embeddedness and Minimal Edit Distance were found to be similar between the two corpora. The findings may have several implications for EFL practitioners.

نویسندگان

Masoud Azadnia

Department of Foreign languages, Isfahan (Khorasgan), Islamic Azad University

Ahmadreza Lotfi

Department of Foreign languages, Isfahan (Khorasgan), Islamic Azad University

Reza Biria

Department of Foreign languages, Isfahan (Khorasgan), Islamic Azad University

مراجع و منابع این مقاله:

لیست زیر مراجع و منابع استفاده شده در این مقاله را نمایش می دهد. این مراجع به صورت کاملا ماشینی و بر اساس هوش مصنوعی استخراج شده اند و لذا ممکن است دارای اشکالاتی باشند که به مرور زمان دقت استخراج این محتوا افزایش می یابد. مراجعی که مقالات مربوط به آنها در سیویلیکا نمایه شده و پیدا شده اند، به خود مقاله لینک شده اند :
  • Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford etc.: ...
  • Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Bofman, T. (1989). Attainment of syntactic and ...
  • Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic ...
  • Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we ...
  • https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 ...
  • Buckingham Jr, H. W. (1979). Linguistic aspects of lexical retrieval ...
  • Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity (pp. ...
  • Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section ...
  • Connor, U., & Johns, A. M. (1990). Coherence in Writing: Research ...
  • Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computationally assessing ...
  • Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Understanding expert ...
  • Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Does writing ...
  • Crossley, S. A., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. ...
  • Gilquin, G. (2003). Causative get and have: so close, so ...
  • Giv ́on,  T. (1991). Markedness in grammar: distributional, communicative and ...
  • Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice ...
  • Ferreira F. (1991). Effects of length and syntactic complexity on ...
  • Ferris, D. R. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL ...
  • Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning ...
  • Field, Y., & Oi, Y. L. M. (1992). A comparison ...
  • Flowerdew, L. (2000). Investigating errors in a learner corpus. In ...
  • Foster, P. & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task ...
  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & ...
  • Greenbaum, S & Quirk, R. (2010). A Student’s grammar of ...
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1991). Language as system and language ...
  • Henry, K. (1996). Early L2 writing development: A study of ...
  • Hinkel, E. (1995). The use of modal verbs as a ...
  • Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. ...
  • Hinkel, E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 ...
  • Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L1 and L2 ...
  • Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: features of sentences in ...
  • Indrasuta, C. (1988). Narrative styles in the writing of Thai ...
  • Jalilifar, A. R. (2010). Research article introductions: Sub-disciplinary variations in ...
  • Jalilifar, A. R., Hayati, A. M., & Namdari, N. (2012). ...
  • Johns, A. M. (1984). Textual cohesion and the Chinese speaker ...
  • Johnson, P. (1992). Cohesion and coherence in Malay and English. ...
  • Khalil, A. (1989). A study of cohesion and coherence in ...
  • Kyle, K. (2016). Measuring syntactic development in L2 writing: fine grained ...
  • Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, ...
  • Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method sections of management research ...
  • Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second ...
  • Lu, X., & Ai, H. (2013).A corpus-based comparison of syntactic ...
  • Mauranen, A. (1996). Discourse competence: Evidence from a thematic development ...
  • McCarthy, P. M., Lehenbauer, B. M., Hall, C., Duran, N. ...
  • McCarthy, P. M., Lewis, G. A., Dufty, D. F., & ...
  • McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. ...
  • Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to ...
  • Perkins, K. (1980). Using objective methods of attained writing proficiency ...
  • Parkinson, J & Musgrave, J (2014). Development of noun phrase ...
  • Qi, D. (2014). Syntactic complexity of EFL, ESL and ENL: ...
  • Ramanathan, Vai & B. Kaplan, Robert. (2000). Genres, Authors, Discourse ...
  • Reid, J. R. (1992). A computer text analysis of four ...
  • Shirani, S., & Chalak, A. (2016). A genre analysis study ...
  • Swales, J. (1990). Non-native speaker graduate engineering students and their ...
  • Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second ...
  • نمایش کامل مراجع