Morphological complexity in written L2 texts

Morphological complexity (MC) is a relatively new construct in second language acquisition (SLA). After critically discussing existing approaches to calculating MC in first- and second-language acquisition research, this article presents a new operationalization of the construct, the Morphological Complexity Index (MCI). The MCI is applied in two case studies based on argumentative written texts produced by native and non-native speakers of Italian and English. Study 1 shows that morphological complexity varies between native and non-native speakers of Italian, and that it is significantly lower in learners with lower proficiency levels. The MCI is strongly correlated to proficiency, measured with a C-test, and also shows significant correlations with other measures of linguistic complexity, such as lexical diversity and sentence length. Quite a different picture emerges from Study 2, on advanced English learners. Here, morphological complexity remains constant across natives and non-natives, and is not significantly correlated to other text complexity measures. These results point to the fact that morphological complexity in texts is a function of speakers’ proficiency and the specific language under investigation; for some linguistic systems with a relatively simple inflectional morphology, such as English, learners will soon reach a threshold level after which inflectional diversity remains constant.

[1]  Steven Gillis,et al.  Quantifying the Development of Inflectional Diversity , 2010 .

[2]  Ryan Keith Shosted,et al.  Correlating complexity: A typological approach , 2006 .

[3]  Scott E. Page,et al.  Diversity and Complexity , 2010 .

[4]  Gabriele Pallotti,et al.  A simple view of linguistic complexity , 2015 .

[5]  Peter Skehan,et al.  The Influence of Planning and Task Type on Second Language Performance , 1996, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[6]  Raphael A. Finkel,et al.  Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm , 2013 .

[7]  Monika S. Schmid,et al.  A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing , 2012 .

[8]  C. F. Hockett.  Two Models of Grammatical Description , 1954 .

[9]  Manfred Pienemann,et al.  Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability theory , 1998 .

[10]  R. Dekeyser.  WHAT MAKES LEARNING SECOND-LANGUAGE GRAMMAR DIFFICULT? AREVIEW OF ISSUES , 2005 .

[11]  R. Dekeyser.  OF MOVING TARGETS AND CHAMELEONS , 2016, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[12]  F. Kuiken,et al.  Rating written performance: What do raters do and why? , 2014 .

[13]  Attainment and acquirability in second language acquisition , 2006 .

[14]  R. Ellis,et al.  The Effects of Pre‐Task Planning and On‐Line Planning on Fluency, Complexity and Accuracy in L2 Monologic Oral Production , 2003 .

[15]  Matthew Baerman,et al.  Understanding and measuring morphological complexity , 2015 .

[16]  Robert Malouf,et al.  Morphological Organization: The Low Conditional Entropy Conjecture , 2013 .

[17]  Alex Housen,et al.  INTRODUCTION: COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVES ON DIFFICULTY AND COMPLEXITY IN L2 ACQUISITION , 2016, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[18]  How is inflectional morphology learned , 2009 .

[19]  R. Ellis,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF PLANNING ON FLUENCY, COMPLEXITY, AND ACCURACY IN SECOND LANGUAGE NARRATIVE WRITING , 2004, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[20]  Raphael A. Finkel,et al.  Morphological Typology: List of Abbreviations , 2013 .

[21]  Niels Taatgen,et al.  Constraints on Generalization: Why are past-tense irregularization errors so rare? , 2003 .

[22]  A. Carstairs-McCarthy.  The Evolution of Morphology , 2010 .

[23]  W. Dressler,et al.  On the role of morphological richness in the early development of noun and verb inflection , 2011 .

[24]  W. Johnson,et al.  Studies in language behavior: A program of research , 1944 .

[25]  David Malvern,et al.  Lexical Diversity and Language Development , 2004 .

[26]  David Malvern,et al.  Lexical Diversity and Language Development: Quantification and Assessment , 2004 .