See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341422651

Beyond linguistic complexity: Assessing register flexibility in EFL writing

across contexts

Article  in  Assessing Writing · July 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2020.100465

CITATIONS READS

12 229

2 authors:

Wenjuan Qin Paola Uccelli

Fudan University Harvard University
11 PUBLICATIONS   122 CITATIONS    50 PUBLICATIONS   2,018 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Home Language Environment and Child Cognitive/Language Development View project

Core Academic Language Skills for Reading and Writing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wenjuan Qin on 23 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Assessing Writing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/asw

Beyond linguistic complexity: Assessing register flexibility in EFL

writing across contexts
Wenjuan Qina,b,*, Paola Uccellib
a
Fudan University, 220 Handan Road, Shanghai 200433, China
b
Harvard University, 14 Appian Way, Cambridge, MA 02138, United States

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: The present study examines adolescent and adult English-as-Foreign-Language (EFL) Learners’
Linguistic complexity linguistic complexity and register flexibility in writing across academic and colloquial contexts. A
Register flexibility total of 263 EFL learners from three first language (L1) backgrounds (Chinese, French, and
English as a foreign language (EFL) Spanish) participated in this study. Each participant produced two written texts on the same
Cross-linguistic influence
topic: a personal email to a close friend and an academic report to an educational authority. A
Writing assessment
total of 526 texts were analyzed for lexical, syntactic, and discourse organizational features.
Multilevel modeling results revealed positive associations between participants’ English profi-
ciency and their textual linguistic complexity. In contrast, the association between English pro-
ficiency and register flexibility was not consistent across the different linguistic levels analyzed
and across the three L1 groups. Findings inform the design of pedagogical practices that an-
ticipate the unique communicative challenges faced by EFL learners and teach communicative
functions of complex linguistic forms.

1. Introduction

In second and foreign language teaching and research, linguistic complexity in writing has been used as an indicator of learners’
language proficiency. In general, more proficient learners are more skillful at using diverse vocabulary and complex grammatical
structures in textual production than less proficient learners (Ortega, 2003; Pallotti, 2015). In language teaching practices, however,
we observe many learners, especially those learning English as a foreign language (EFL), who could extensively use complex vo-
cabulary and sentences in writing but encounter difficulty adjusting the register and stance to address the needs of different com-
municative contexts (Gennaro, 2013). For instance, they sometimes sound too formal in colloquial context or overly use colloquial
language in academic writing.
In the present study, we consider linguistic complexity in writing a necessary but not sufficient construct to measure English
proficiency. Using a sample of texts written by adolescent and adult EFL learners, we explore learners’ writing ability to navigate
different communicative contexts, defined as Register Flexibility. This construct is inspired by previous research on functional lin-
guistics (Halliday, Matthiessen, & Matthiessen, 2014), developmental language studies (Berman, 2008; Ravid & Tolchinsky, 2002),
and genre theories (Swales, 1990). Register refers to the co-occurrence of “a variety of linguistic features associated with a particular
situation of use” (Biber & Conrad, 2009, p. 6). Accordingly, Register Flexibility is defined as the ability to flexibly use a variety of
linguistic resources – at the lexical, syntactic and discourse levels, with the awareness of which are the most appropriate for the
communicative contexts at hand. Register is a broad concept that could be analyzed at various levels of specificity (Biber & Conrad,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: qin_wenjuan@fudan.edu.cn, weq004@mail.harvard.edu (W. Qin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100465
Received 5 December 2019; Received in revised form 28 April 2020; Accepted 28 April 2020
W. Qin and P. Uccelli

2009). In the present study, for the clarity of communication, register is narrowly used to refer to the collection of EFL learners’texts
written in response to an academic versus a colloquial register elicitation condition. We compare learners’ writing performances
across these two elicited register conditions: a personal email written to a close friend (colloquial) and an academic report written to
an educational authority (academic). Register flexibility is measured quantitatively as the degree of differentiation in linguistic
features displayed in EFL participants’texts across communicative contexts. In view of the widely spread concerns for the reliability
and subjectivity in holistic human scoring (East, 2009), this quantitative perspective might be complementary in assessing writing in
a relatively transparent and objective way.
The present study is driven by two goals: 1) to examine the association between English proficiency and the linguistic complexity
displayed in EFL writing, at the lexical, syntactic and discourse levels; 2) to examine the association between English proficiency and
register flexibility at the same levels. Whereas the first goal entails a replication of previous research, it is necessary as a first step to
address the second, more innovative goal of the present study. This study is motivated by the need to document EFL learners’
strengths and weaknesses when writing across communicative contexts with the ultimate goal of informing the design of pedagogical
approaches that enhance their ability to convert linguistic knowledge into real-world communicative competence.

2. Literature review

2.1. Linguistic complexity in writing

Linguistic complexity is defined as the capacity to use more advanced linguistic forms and functions, which are typically acquired
later in second or foreign language development (Ellis, 2009). At the lexical level, several measures have yielded consistent results in
capturing differences associated with English proficiency, such as lexical richness (Laufer & Nation, 1995), use of academic words
(Nagy & Townsend, 2012) and lexical sophistication (Kyle & Crossley, 2016). Among these measures, lexical diversity – a measure of
how many distinct words are used in an oral or written text – stands out as a measure consistently found to be a reliable indicator of
proficiency in writing. Lexical diversity has been shown to increase throughout language development and to be associated with texts
of higher quality in both first and second language (Crossley, Salsbury, McNamara, & Jarvis, 2011).
At the syntactic level, a variety of measures have yielded mixed findings in relation to learners’ language proficiency and de-
velopment (Bi & Jiang, 2020; Norris & Ortega, 2009). Syntactic complexity measures can be generally classified into three types:
length-based, clausal subordination, and phrasal complexity measures. Length-based measures (e.g., number of words per utter-
ance) have been widely adopted in studies on early first language acquisition assuming that longer utterances are, in general, more
complex (Brown, 1973). However, sentence-level length measures are insufficient to measure later language development and L2
writing because longer sentences do not always signal more complex syntactic structure (Rimmer, 2008), as is the case of run-on
sentences (Lu, 2011). In contrast, clausal subordination measures are used in the L2 research as a standard way of operationalizing
syntactic complexity. This view prioritizes clausal structure over length, such that a short sentence with multiple clauses is considered
more complex than a longer one with a single clause (Lambert & Kormos, 2014). Examination of the relation between clausal
subordination and language proficiency, however, has yielded mixed findings (Norris & Ortega, 2009). More recently, Biber and his
colleagues offered persuasive evidence to show that phrasal complexity, particularly noun phrase complexity, is a more valid
indicator of proficiency in academic writing, whereas clausal subordination is associated with proficiency in the spoken register
(Biber, Gray, & Poonpon, 2011; Biber, Gray, & Staples, 2016). Aligned with Biber and colleagues’ findings, studies with ESL/EFL
students document that phrasal complexity, but not clausal subordination, is associated with language proficiency in academic
writing (Bulté & Housen, 2014; Lu, 2011; Mazgutova & Kormos, 2015). These findings highlight the need to attend to communicative
contexts when assessing syntactic complexity in writing.
Compared to previous research on lexical and syntactic measures, fewer studies have examined EFL writers’ complexity at the
discourse level. A variety of measures could certainly be selected to measure different aspects of discourse complexity. In the present
study, we focus exclusively on one type of discourse skills - metadiscourse (Hyland, 2005). Metadiscourse refers to how writers’
language choices reflect their consideration for the audience, i.e., mechanisms to engage their reader through elaboration, clar-
ification, guidance and/or interaction (Crismore, 1989; Hyland, 2005, 2017). Compared to first language (L1) English speakers, EFL
learners often face considerable challenges in appropriately deploying metadiscourse resources in writing, and their writing is often
assessed as “uncontextualized, incoherent and inappropriately reader-focused” (Hyland, 2005, p. 176). In writing, metadiscourse
markers are indicative of two important skills: 1) the writer’s management of the information flow to guide readers through the
discourse organization of a text, the interactive dimension; 2) the writer’s addition of markers to alert readers to the author’s stance
towards certain propositions, the interactional dimension. Since the interactional dimension has been discussed extensively in a
separate paper (Qin & Uccelli, 2019), the present study focuses on writers’complexity in using linguistic devices to explicitly signal
the discourse organization of a text, referred to as discourse organizational markers. Studies that investigated the relation between
use of discourse organizational markers and writing quality repetitively demonstrated that higher-rated writing tends to contain more
frequent and diverse use of discourse organizational markers, in both second language writers (Crossley, Kyle, & McNamara, 2016)
and first language English speakers (Dobbs, 2014).
Linguistic complexity cannot be measured using a single linguistic index (Pallotti, 2015). Understanding linguistic complexity as a
multidimensional construct, the present study focuses on examining complexity at various linguistic levels through a (certainly non-
exhaustive) selection of measures extensively validated by prior research. Through the application of measures widely used in the
field, our first goal is to test if complexity features such as lexical diversity, sophisticated syntactic structure, and explicit discourse
organization are associated with English proficiency in EFL learners’ persuasive writing across communicative contexts.
W. Qin and P. Uccelli

2.2. Pragmatic skills in writing

Does higher linguistic complexity always indicate higher mastery of a foreign language? Perhaps not always. Linguistic com-
plexity, defined as “the capacity to use more advanced language” is often interpreted as the ability to use more diverse vocabulary,
more complex syntax, and more organized discourse; yet, a writer skilled in these domains may still not be capable of “differentiating
when and how to use” the particular words or structures she has mastered across pragmatic contexts (Ellis, 2009, p. 475). Besides
internalizing increasingly sophisticated linguistic resources, foreign language learning requires learners to expand their commu-
nicative competence, which includes learning to flexibly and successfully adapt their language to particular communicative contexts.
A variety of theoretical frameworks have been developed to study the critical issue of communicative competence in language
development. In this study, we draw from two main theoretical frameworks. An influential framework theorized that communicative
competence includes four main competencies: grammatical, sociolinguistic, strategic, and discourse competences (Canale & Swain,
1980). Sociolinguistic competence, in particular, “addresses the extent to which the second language can be used or understood
appropriately in various contexts to convey specific communicative functions” (Hadley, 2001, p. 6). Relately, the field of inter-
language pragmatics (ILP) studies how non-L1 speakers use and acquire the knowledge and skills to learn which linguistic forms
accomplish which communicative intents in particular language varieties and cultural communities (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993).
Another framework relevant to our work adds a developmental lens. The sociocultural-based theory of language development views
language learning “as the result of individuals’ socialization and enculturation histories” (Uccelli et al., 2015, p. 1081) and under-
stands proficiency, in large part, as the result of the specific opportunities L1 or L2 learners have had throughout life to learn and
practice particular language uses across different communicative contexts (Cazden, 2001; Heath, 2012).
Informed by these theories, an insightful and productive line of research has used the Discourse Completion Task (DCT) to study
communicative competence, mostly in oral discourse. Researchers have compared how language learners use different linguistic
moves and pragmatic strategies in making refusals (Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2018; Allami & Naeimi, 2011), requests (Félix-Brasdefer,
2007; Ren, 2019), or apologies (Barron, 2019; Chang, 2010) to orally address different audiences, ranging from close peers to
authoritative figures. Compared to the fruitful research in oral discourse, the understanding of communicative competence in writing
is still underexplored (Carson, 2001). The few studies that compare L2 learners’writing performance across contexts have examined
the effects of mode and genre. A productive line of research has compared L2 learners’ language output during oral and written
testing modes, and reveals that written output tended to display higher-level syntactic and lexical complexity (Tolchinsky & Jisa,
2017; Vasylets, Gilabert, & Manchon, 2017; Vasylets, Gilabert, & Manchón, 2019). On the other hand, genre effects on linguistic
complexity revealed consistently across studies that L2 writers tend to show higher lexical and syntactic complexity in non-narrative
writing (e.g., expository, argumentative) than in narrative writing (Lu, 2011; Qin & Uccelli, 2016). However, writing is a dynamic
social activity involving multiple situational factors besides genre. Even within the argumentative genre, writers are expected to
adjust the language features to address different audiences and communicative purposes. To our knowledge, no study so far has been
conducted to explore pragmatic skills in writing across registers while controlling for the effects of mode and genre. This is the precise
research gap that motivated the design of the present study.

2.3. Register flexibility

The existence of registers – or patterned ways of using language in particular contexts (e.g., language of informal conversations,
language of school texts) – has been widely documented in the literature (Biber & Conrad, 2009; Halliday et al., 2014). Proficient
language users thoughtfully change their oral and written language to address situational characteristics and communicative pur-
poses at hand (Goulart et al., 2020). The language typically used in academic contexts (e.g., research articles, academic essays) and
the language used in casual social interactions (e.g., face-to-face informal conversations, personal emails) offer illustrative examples
of registers, which despite obvious linguistic overlap, present distinct subsets of co-occurring prevalent linguistic features that re-
spond to the pragmatic needs of each context. Extensive textual analysis research has revealed consistent constellations of co-
occurring lexical, syntactic, and discourse features that vary by context, documenting overall that more academic texts are more
lexically diverse, more complex syntactically, and logically organized in more explicit ways than more colloquial texts (Hyland,
2006). Developmental linguists also theorized that as L1 language speakers grew from home-/socially-based language users (e.g.,
talking to parents and peers) to academic language users (e.g., school reading and writing), their discourse structure tended to follow
a continuum from “loosely connected/dialogic structure” to “stepwise logical argumentation with explicit markers of discourse
structure” (Schleppegrell, 2004; Snow & Uccelli, 2009, p. 117). In light of the widely documented register variation in natural
language, it is uncontroversial to claim that EFL learners need to develop register flexibility as part of their communicative com-
petence. We argue in this paper that examining EFL writers’register flexibility at various levels of English proficiency constitutes an
important, yet underexplored, research area.
Our interest in communicative context in EFL learning is influenced by prior L1 findings. Textual analysis from a developmental
linguistics lens reveals that lexical, syntactic, and discourse skills vary not only by age/grade, but also by context in L1 learners
(Berman & Verhoeven, 2002; Berman, 2008). Berman’s program of study has been particularly insightful. Studying cross-sectional
samples of L1 users that span from the primary school years to adulthood, these researchers analyze four language tasks within
individuals: narrative texts (oral and written) and expository texts (oral and written). Berman and colleagues document a continuum
from oral narratives, as the earliest acquired discourse form, to written expository texts, as the latest acquired discourse form, in their
corpus. These two extremes of the continuum also represented the least versus the most lexically diverse, syntactically complex, and
hierarchically organized texts, linguistic features that, in turn, exhibited clear developmental trends (Berman, 2008). Even though
W. Qin and P. Uccelli

this line of research does not focus on register per se (in fact, it conflates register and genre) and does not address EFL learning,
Berman and colleagues’ findings highlight the relevance of paying attention to communicative context in studying language de-
velopment. Inspired by this L1 research, but taking instead a register approach, in this study we seek to examine linguistic complexity
at different levels of English proficiency and across different communicative contexts in developing EFL writers.
Whereas L1 research suggests that L1 speakers tend to master colloquial discourse forms before mastering academic registers, we
cannot necessarily assume the same developmental pattern for EFL learners. Beyond a developmental sequence, extensive research
documents that large proportions of first language English-speaking adolescents struggle with academic language, or the language of
schooling, even when they are skilled conversationalists in colloquial contexts (Bailey, 2007; Uccelli et al., 2015; Uccelli, Galloway, &
Qin, 2018). In contrast, though, EFL learners might struggle more with colloquial registers or might even show difficulties distin-
guishing which forms are more adequate for different contexts, perhaps even at high levels of English proficiency (as measured by
currently available standardized tests). In fact, socio-cultural theories of language development (Ninio & Snow, 1996) would lead us
to hypothesize that for EFL learners who have studied English mostly in formal settings, academic English might be more accessible
than colloquial English, to which they may have been minimally exposed (Chang, 2012). To date, however, scarce research illu-
minates our understanding of these realms of EFL learning. In the EFL context, as discussed above, studies have examined genre
differences, but minimal research has focused on register. One highly relevant EFL study, conducted by Chen (2006), qualitatively
examined one learner’s e-mail literacy practices across contexts over time. Using a critical discourse analysis approach, Chen studied
a Taiwanese graduate student’s e-mail practices addressed to peers and authority figures over two and a half years. Findings revealed
the learner’s struggles in adjusting her writing across contexts.
To our knowledge, no study on EFL writing has investigated whether linguistic skill differs by register within the same genre, in
larger samples of EFL learners, comparing, for instance, formal and informal persuasive writing as we do in this study. Furthermore,
this study combines linguistic analysis with inferential statistics in an attempt to measure the register flexibility construct and to
quantitatively analyze its relation with overall language proficiency in a diverse sample of learners. The present study seeks to answer
the following research questions:

1 Do EFL learners with higher English proficiency produce persuasive writings that display higher linguistic complexity at the
lexical, syntactic, or discourse levels in two communicative contexts?
2 Do EFL learners produce different lexical, syntactic, and discourse organizational features in persuasive writings across two
communicative contexts, referred to as Register Flexibility? Does the degree of differentiation vary by English proficiency and first
language?

Register flexibility is measured quantitatively as the degree of differentiation in linguistic features displayed in EFL participants’
texts across communicative contexts. We hypothesize that EFL learners with higher English proficiency (as measured by a stan-
dardized test of English proficiency) would demonstrate more complex use of linguistic resources in writing – i.e. more diverse
vocabulary, more complex sentence structures and higher frequencies of discourse organizational markers – across both commu-
nicative contexts. Yet, on the basis of observations of the lack of flexibility in the use of English across social settings even for EFL
learners with high English proficiency test scores, we hypothesize that a similar positive association may not exist between English
proficiency and register flexibility for writing across communicative contexts.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample

A total of 263EFL learners, aged between 16 and 27 years, participated in this study. The sample included a slightly larger
proportion of females than males. Participants represented three L1 language groups and a variety of geographic regions, with 63
Chinese speakers from mainland China, 60 French speakers from two European countries (France and Switzerland), and 140 Spanish
speakers from three South American countries (see Table 1), recruited from the same private language education institute, which

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample.
Chinese French Spanish Total
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
[Min - Max] [Min - Max] [Min - Max] [Min - Max]

Sample size (N) 63 60 140 263

Age (Years) 24.7 (5.0) 20.9 (4.0) 21.3 (5.3) 20.5 (5.2)
[16–47] [17–47] [16–42] [16–47]
Countries of Origin China France (55) Chile (30)
Switzerland (5) Colombia (48)
Mexico (62)
English proficiency 43.6 (12.7) 50.5 (10.9) 53.3 (12.1) 50.5 (12.5)
(EFSET) [17–70] [29–76] [17–88] [17–88]
W. Qin and P. Uccelli

used a standard curriculum and instructional approach across all its sites. Based on their performance in a standardized English
proficiency test (EFSET), their EFL proficiency exhibited a wide range that included basic (21.18 %), intermediate (56.43 %) and
advanced levels (22.39 %), as defined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).

3.2. Research instruments and procedure

Trained administrators administered the following instruments in a computer lab under standard conditions as part of partici-
pants’ regular school day.

3.2.1. Communicative writing instrument (CW-I)

CW-I is a 50-minute digital instrument that was previously piloted by the first author and consisted of a series of communicative
writing tasks designed to measure EFL learners’ writing performance across communicative contexts. The current study analyzes
participants’ written response to two specific scenarios:

A writing to persuade a friend in a personal email (colloquial register condition);

B writing to persuade an educational authority in an academic report (academic register condition).

The topic remained the same across both scenarios: the advantages/disadvantages of studying abroad. It is worth acknowledging
that these writing tasks could by no means fully represent characteristics of academic and colloquial writing. However, as register
flexibility, in this study, is phrased and measured as a relative measure of writing proficiency, the two writing tasks were also
characterized as two relative register elicitation conditions. In other words, Scenario A wasconsidered more colloquial than Scenario
B as 1) it addresses a less distanced audience; 2) communicates through a less formal channel.

3.2.2. Standard english proficiency test (EFSET)

Developed and validated by Education First (EF, 2014), EFSET is a 50-minute standardized test that measures general English
proficiency. This computerized multi-stage adaptive test allows the difficulty level of the test content to be adjusted according to the

high correlation with TOEFL iBT (r= 0.85), the widely-used assessment of English proficiency.
test taker’s performance. The scale of EFSET scores ranges from 1 to 100. It has an overall reliability coefficient of 0.94, which has a

3.3. Linguistic measures of the CW-I Corpus

The corpus generated from CW-I consists of 526 texts, two from each of the 263 participants. Texts were originally typed by
participants in a digital platform and exported into plain text files. In order to facilitate accurate computer tagging of linguistic
features and reduce bias in human coding/scoring, we removed all mechanical mistakes (e.g. unconventional spelling, capitalizations
and punctuation mistakes) and coded them in separate files. A variety of lexical, syntactic and discourse measures were generated to
analyze the CW-I corpus data:

3.3.1. Lexico-syntactic measures

- Word token: Using the Computerized Language Analysis Program (CLAN) (MacWhinney, 2000), we first counted the token of
words written by students during the designated amount of time. This measure of text length was used as an important control
variable in subsequent statistical analysis.
- Lexical diversity: The Voc-D index, which offers an estimate of vocabulary diversity in a text, was also generated using CLAN
(MacWhinney, 2000). In comparison to the traditional TTR measure, Voc-D captures lexical diversity more precisely by reducing
the effect of textual length in its algorism (Malvern, Richards, Chipere, & Durán, 2004).
- Noun-phrase complexity: We used the Second Language Syntactic Complexity Analyzer (L2SCA) (Lu, 2010) to generate the
frequency of complex noun phrases per clause. Complex noun phrases comprise: 1) nouns, adjective, possessive, prepositional
phrase, relative clause, participle, and appositive; 2) nominal clauses; and 3) gerunds and infinitives as subjects.
- Clausal subordination: Also utilizing L2SCA, we calculated the number of clauses per T-unit as a measure of subordination. The
index was computed by counting all clauses and dividing them by the total number of T-unit, defined as a main clause plus all
associated dependent clauses (Bardovi-Harlig & Bofman, 1989).

3.3.2. Discourse organizational markers

Discourse organizational markers are linguistic devices used to explicitly signal the global structure of information presented in
the text. They include: a) frame markers which introduce new arguments and shift topics (e.g. first of all, on the other hand); b) code
glosses which signal examples, definitions or paraphrases (e.g., for example, in other words); c) evidential markers which ac-
knowledge the source of a claim (e.g. according to); d) goal markers which express the goal of writing (e.g., this essay aims to…);
and e) conclusion markers which explicitly summarize the text (e.g., to summarize). These markers typically organize the in-
formation in a way that the anticipated audience will find coherent and convincing in the global structure. Transition markers that
build sentence-level coherence (e.g. because, although) were not included in the analysis because their use could also be prevalent in
W. Qin and P. Uccelli

Table 2
Summary of independent and dependent variables.
Independent variables Dependent variables Model Type
Between-individual (Level 1) Within-individual (Level 2)

English proficiency Register Lexical diversity (Voc-D) Linear

First language Noun-phrase complexity (Complex noun-phrases per clause) Linear
Age Clausal subordination (Clauses per T-unit) Linear
Frequency of discourse organizational markers Poisson

colloqual communication.
We coded discourse organizational markers using a pre-defined list compiled in Hyland’s (2005) appendix as a reference corpus.
Then, two human coders verified the use of each linguistic marker in texts to double check its semantic accuracy and functional
appropriateness following a coding scheme. Formative reliability was established between the two coders. Summative reliability
scoring was used to establish interrater reliability using 20 % of the texts. High levels of reliability were established, yielding a
Cohen’s kappa of 0.89.

3.4. Analytic plan

To answer the first research question about the relation between English proficiency and linguistic complexity at each linguistic
level, data were analyzed using multi-level models. In the present study, each participant wrote two texts in response to two different
prompts; thus, the collected texts were nested within students. Writing measures are expected to be more correlated within an
individual (e.g., two different texts written by the same student) than across individuals (e.g., two different texts written by two
different students); thus, multi-level models were required to take into account both within-individual and between-individual
variation (Cunnings, 2012). Models were fit using the mixed-effect modeling package in Stata, MP15. As explained in Table 2, we
built three sets of multi-level linear models using lexical diversity, noun-phrase complexity, and clausal subordination as the de-
pendent variable; a series of multi-level Poisson models using frequency of discourse organizational markers as the dependent
variable, due to the special count-based distribution of these discourse markers (Hall, 2000). For the fixed-effects, the independent
variables were specified at two levels: 1) the within-individual (level 2) variable was register (academic vs. colloquial); 2) the
between-individual (level 1) variables included English proficiency, first language, and age. Register and English proficiency were
two key predictors in the models, first language was hypothesized to be a moderator, and age was not of prime theoretical interest but
was controlled for to account for maturational effects. For the random-effects, we specified random intercepts for individuals, which
allowed the mean values of linguistic measures for each participant to randomly vary. As we only had two observations per in-
dividual, it was not necessary to specify random slopes in this study. To identify the best-fitted models, we formally tested whether a
particular model provided a significantly improved fit to the data over another using likelihood ratio tests.
Building on the models above, to answer the second research question, we specifically tested the interaction between register and
English proficiency to test whether the cross-register differences in each linguistic measure varied by English proficiency level. A
significant interaction would indicate a positive/negative association between English proficiency and register flexibility, the con-
struct of primary interest in the study. First language was also tested as an additional moderator given the significant influence of first
language on second language performance documented in previous studies.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive statistics and variation across contexts

Descriptive statistics revealed that the average length of colloquial texts was 198.25 words, whereas academic texts were slightly
shorter, with 192.65 words per text (Table 3). A repeated-measure ANOVA test indicated no statistically significant difference across
contexts in text length. All linguistic measures captured individual variability across the sample, and the means for some measures
also differed by writing task (colloquial vs. academic). At the lexico-syntactic level, academic texts on average contained more diverse
vocabulary (F = 48.29, p < .001) and more incidences of complex noun-phrases (F = 171.80, p < .001). The two contexts, however,
did not differ by clausal subordination. At the discourse level, academic texts contained significantly more incidences of code glosses
and evidential markers, whereas colloquial texts contained surprisingly more frame markers and goal markers. When added up, there
was no statistically significant difference in the total frequency of discourse organizational markers across contexts.

4.2. Bivariate correlations between linguistic measures

We examined the pairwise correlation matrices for all linguistic measures independently for each communicative context (see
Table 4). Within academic texts, word token was positively and significantly associated with lexical diversity (r = 0.15) and the
frequency of discourse organizational markers (r = 0.41). Meanwhile, there was a significant and positive association between lexical
diversity and phrasal complexity (r = 0.18), but the magnitude was not high enough to raise a concern for collinearity. Similar to
previous research, we found a negative association between the two syntactic measures – complex noun-phrases per clause and
W. Qin and P. Uccelli

Table 3
Descriptive statistics & variation in linguistic features across communicative contexts (N = 263).
Measure Colloquial Academic Repeated-measure ANOVA

Mean (SD) Min - Max Mean (SD) Min - Max F p

Lexico-syntactic Measures
Word token 198.25 (75.4) 89 – 445 192.65 (80.3) 63−552 −1.80 0.18
Lexical diversity 63.53 (16.48) 28.04 – 128.49 70.3 (18.69) 25.97 – 157.1 48.29 < 0.001
Noun-phrase complexity 0.80 (0.26) 0.26 – 2.43 1.11 (0.37) 0.35 – 2.56 171.80 < 0.001
Clausal subordination 2.11 (0.76) 0.94 – 5.5 2.15 (0.77) 0.85 – 6.67 1.20 0.27
Discourse Organizational Markers
Frame markers 0.85 (1.11) 0 – 5 0.67 (1.06) 0 –6 −4.03 0.04
Goal markers 0.26 (0.47) 0 – 2 0.08 (0.28) 0 –1 −21.33 < 0.001
Code glosses 0.63 (0.97) 0 – 6 0.76 (1.03) 0 –5 5.91 0.02
Evidential markers 0.02 (0.12) 0 – 1 0.12 (0.53) 0 –7 17.49 < 0.001
Conclusion markers 0.16 (0.37) 0 – 1 0.24 (0.43) 0 –1 1.27 0.26
Total Frequency 1.92 (1.83) 0 – 9 1.89 (1.94) 0 - 10 0.06 0.81

*Note: Lexical diversity is measured by the voc-D index. Noun phrase complexity is measured by the number of complex nominals per clause. Clausal
subordination is measured by the number of clauses per T-unit.

Table 4
Correlation matrix of all linguistic features and learners’ English proficiency.
Word token Lexical diversity Noun-phrase complexity Clausal subordination Discourse org. Markers English proficiency

Word token – 0.03 −0.06 0.08 0.35** 0.39**

Lexical diversity 0.15* – 0.22** −0.20** 0.13* 0.06
Noun-phrase complexity 0.00 0.18** – −0.03 0.14* 0.01
Clausal subordination −0.02 −0.23** −0.21** – 0.01 0.05
Discourse org. markers 0.41** 0.24** 0.12∼ −0.15* – 0.09
English proficiency 0.43** 0.12* 0.18** −0.07 0.20** –

∼
p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Note: Coefficients below the diagonal indicates pair-wise correlations in academic writing; coefficients above the diagonal indicates pair-wise
correlations in colloquial writing.

clauses per T-unit (r = -0.21), suggesting that they capture distinct constructs of syntactic complexity, i.e., noun phrasal complexity
and clausal subordination. For colloquial texts, pairwise correlations were fairly consistent, even though the magnitudes of significant
bivariate associations were overall lower than those in academic texts. It is also worth noting that the correlations between English
proficiency and linguistic measures were stronger in the academic context than in the colloquial context.

4.3. Associations between english proficiency and linguistic complexity

Using multilevel modeling, we found that EFL learners with higher English proficiency demonstrated more complex linguistic
features, controlling for text length, age, first language, and also for text register. As seen in Table 5, the standardized coefficients of
the key predictor English proficiency indicated that, on average, a one standard deviation (SD) difference in the English proficiency
score was associated with 0.17 SD difference in lexical diversity (p = 0.002), as well as 0.16 SD increment in noun-phrase complexity
(p = 0.001). On the other hand, higher English proficiency was negatively associated with clausal subordination (Beta = -0.13, p =
0.009). In other words, more proficient EFL learners were more skilled at producing texts that display more diverse vocabulary and
more intricate noun-phrases, depending less on clausal subordination than less proficient EFL writers. English proficiency was also
positively associated with the use of discourse organizational markers, with a one SD difference in English proficiency score asso-
ciated with 7% more markers that explicitly signal discourse organization.

4.4. Associations between english proficiency and register flexibility

4.4.1. Register flexibility at the lexical level

While we found significant difference in lexical diversity across all academic and colloquial texts (F = 48.29, p < .001, Table 3),
the degree of differentiation (Register flexibility) is not associated with English proficiency. This was indicated by the non-significant
interaction between English proficiency and register (Beta = 0.06, p = 0.328) (Table 6: M2.1). However, when we looked at the
association by language group, distinct patterns emerged in Model 2.2. Interestingly, a significant three-way interaction was found
between register, English proficiency and L1 group, with the Spanish-speakers showing a different pattern than the Chinese and
French speakers. This significant three-way interaction indicates that: as Spanish speakers’ English proficiency scores increased, the
model predicted more flexibility in their use of vocabulary, i.e., more diverse vocabulary in academic than colloquial writing (as
depicted by the increasing distance between the red and blue lines in Fig. 1-Spanish). In the French speaker sample, learners clearly
W. Qin and P. Uccelli

Table 5
Multilevel models of linguistic complexity at lexical, syntactic, and discourse levels, as predicted by standardized English proficiency score (N =
526).
M1.1 M1.2 M1.3 M1.4
Lexical Diversity Noun-phrase Complexity Clausal Subordination Discourse Org. Markers
Beta Beta Beta Rate

Fixed Parts
Intercept −0.38 −0.59* 0.08 1.68*
Text Register (1=Academic) 0.43*** 0.87*** 0.08 0.99
Word token 0.11* −0.04 0.06 1.38***
Age 0.03** 0.15 −0.02 1.01
L1 - French −0.56*** −0.28* −0.28* 0.80
L1 - Spanish −0.58*** −0.20 0.58*** 0.68*
English Proficiency 0.17** 0.16*** −0.13* 1.07*
Random Parts
Level-2 ψ 0.58 0.44 0.47* 0.49

Level-1 θ 0.73 0.76 0.78 n.a.

ICC 0.38 0.25 0.26 n.a.

∼
p < .10 *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001.
*Notes: We conducted the multilevel Poisson modeling approach when examining the interactive metadiscourse outcomes due to the highly skewed
distribution of data. Total number of words in a text was used as the exposure (µ i ) element of the Poisson models, thus the coefficients are now
interpreted as the overall rate of occurrence of metadiscourse markers out of the total number of words in a text.

Table 6
Multilevel models of at lexical, syntactic, and discourse levels, as predicted by standardized English proficiency score, moderated by first language
(if significant) (N = 526).
M2.1 M2.2 M2.3 M2.4 M2.5
Lexical Diversity Noun-phrase Complexity Clausal Subordination Discourse Org. Markers

Beta Beta Beta Beta Rate

Fixed Parts
Intercept −0.38 −0.41 −0.58* 0.08 1.70*
Text Register (1=Academic) 0.44*** 0.37* 0.86*** 0.08 0.99
Word token 0.11* 0.11* −0.05 0.07 1.38***
Age 0.03** 0.03** 0.01 −0.02 1.01
L1 - French −0.56*** −0.53** −0.28* −0.27* 0.80
L1 - Spanish −0.58*** −0.50** −0.20 0.58*** 0.68**
English Proficiency 0.14* 0.05 0.08 −0.07 1.03
Academic x Proficiency 0.06 −0.11 0.18** −0.15* 1.09
Aca x Fre 0.13
Aca x Spa −0.01
Prof x Fre 0.19
Prof x Spa 0.08
Prof x Aca x Fre 0.11
Prof x Aca x Spa 0.30*
Random Parts
Level-2 ψ 0.58 0.57 0.45 0.47 0.49

Level-1 θ 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.78 n.a.

ICC 0.38 0.38 0.26 0.27 n.a.

∼
p < .10 *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001.
*Notes: We conducted the multilevel Poisson modeling approach when examining the metadiscourse outcomes due to the highly skewed distribution
of the outcome variables. Total number of words in a text was used as the exposure (µ i ) element of the Poisson models, thus the coefficients are now
interpreted as the overall rate of occurrence of metadiscourse markers out of the total number of words in a text.

used different repertoires of vocabulary across registers, but the degree of flexibility did not vary by English proficiency (see Fig. 1-
French). Finally, Chinese speakers demonstrated the most diverse vocabulary on average, but they were the least flexible group, with
the smallest estimated variation in their vocabulary usage across registers (as visualized in the closer gap between red and blue lines
in Fig. 1-Chinese).

4.4.2. Register flexibility at the syntactic level

As shown in Table 3, academic and colloquial texts in the current corpus differed significantly in noun-phrase complexity, but not
in clausal subordination. The cross-context differences in both measures were found to be significantly associated with learners’
English proficiency. First, there was a statistically significant interaction between register and English proficiency in predicting noun-
W. Qin and P. Uccelli

Fig. 1. Register flexibility in lexical diversity as predicted by standardized English proficiency score, and variation by first language group.

phrase complexity (Table 6: M2.3), such that more proficient learners were predicted to use higher frequency of complex noun
phrases in academic than in colloquial writing (Beta = 0.18, p = 0.006). As illustrated in the widening gap between the red and blue
lines in Fig. 2a, the predicted difference between noun-phrase complexity across registers increased as a function of English profi-
ciency. In other words, more proficient learners were more likely to use complex noun phrases in academic writing than in colloquial
writing, whereas less proficient learners demonstrated less variation across registers. We did not find a moderating effect by the L1
variable, indicating that such pattern was representative of all three language groups.
The other syntactic measure, clausal subordination (Table 6: M2.4), however, displayed a different pattern. A significant inter-
action was also identified between register and English proficiency but the moderating effect was in the reverse direction (Beta =
-0.15, p = 0.026). As shown in Fig. 2b, in texts produced by lower-proficiency EFL writers, we found a significantly higher clausal
subordination index in academic writing than in colloquial writing. In contrast, in texts produced by higher-proficiency EFL writers,
clausal subordination was higher in colloquial writing than in academic writing. Results from M2.3 and M2.4 suggested that more
proficient EFL learners tend to rely more on complex noun-phrases, rather than on clausal subordination, as they pack information in
the academic register.

4.4.3. Register flexibility at the discourse level

Cross-context analysis of textual features did not reveal a significant difference in the total frequency of discourse organizational
markers (F = 0.06, p = 0.18, Table 3). Multi-level Poisson analysis also did not yield significant interaction between register and

Fig. 2. Register flexibility in syntactic measures as predicted by standardized English proficiency score.
W. Qin and P. Uccelli

Fig. 3. Register flexibility in the total frequency of discourse organizational markers as predicted by standardized English proficiency score.

English proficiency. That is, even for learners at higher-proficiency levels, we found no evidence for register flexibility at the me-
tadiscourse level (Fig. 3). Two illustrative examples wereprovided in Appendix A to illustrate these quantitative findings.

5. Discussion

5.1. Summary of main findings

The present study examined the relationship between English proficiency and linguistic complexity/register flexibility in EFL
learners’writing across colloquial and academic registers. Consistent with previous research, results showed that more proficient EFL
learners produced written texts that were more lexically diverse, with a higher incidence of complex noun phrases, less clausal
subordination, and higher frequencies of discourse organizational markers. However, higher proficiency was not consistently asso-
ciated with register flexibility for all language groups, and not at all linguistic levels:

• At the lexical level: register exerted an overall significant impact at the lexical level, such that EFL learners’academic texts were
more lexically diverse than their colloquial texts. Interestingly, though, differences on the impact of English proficiency by L1
were also detected.
• At the syntactic level: register also had an overall significant impact on one syntactic measure, i.e., noun phrase complexity.
Additionally, English proficiency was positively associated with register flexibility in noun-phrase complexity across all three
language groups.
• At the discourse level: register did not exert an overall effect on discourse organizational markers. Moreover, no significant
association between English proficiency and register flexibility was detected.

5.2. Higher proficiency indicates higher linguistic complexity

This study confirms that at higher levels of English proficiency, EFL writers would produce texts that display higher levels of
lexical and syntactic complexity, as well as higher frequency of discourse organizational markers. In line with previous research,
using a sample of EFL learners from three language groups, this study identifies a positive relation between English proficiency and
lexical diversity in writing. These findings lend further support for using Voc-D as a valid measure of linguistic complexity in the
context of EFL writing research (Malvern et al., 2004). The two syntactic measures, noun-phrase complexity and clausal sub-
ordination, display distinct relations to English proficiency. Higher-proficiency learners produced texts with higher number of
complex noun-phrases but lower clausal subordination in writing, especially in academic writing. These results are aligned with
Biber’s and colleagues’ argument that T-unit-based measures are not effective discriminators of writing development differences
while skilled writers rely more on noun-phrase constituents, a fundamentally different kinds of syntactic complexity common in
academic writing (Biber et al., 2011, 2016). Finally, the positive association between English proficiency and the overall frequency of
discourse organizational markers suggests that this particular discourse feature could capture proficiency-related variability in the
EFL writing context.

5.3. Higher proficiency does not always indicate more register flexibility

A unique contribution of the present study is its comparative lens on the differential use of linguistic features in colloquial versus
academic writing. Perhaps not surprisingly, the association between English proficiency and register flexibility was not consistent
across the different linguistic levels analyzed.
The most consistent association between proficiency and register flexibility occurred at the syntactic level, in noun-phrase
complexity. Across all three language groups, we observed the expected differences in the use of more complex noun phrases across
registers as a function of English proficiency. In other words, while lower-proficiency learners tended to use similar noun-phrasal
W. Qin and P. Uccelli

structures in both academic and colloquial writing, higher proficiency learners not only showed a higher frequency of complex noun
phrases, but they also made different and conventional choices in the syntactic structures used to convey meanings across different
contexts. This finding illustrates the additional variability that a register flexibility approach at the syntactic level can capture across
EFL learners’ English proficiency levels.
At the lexical level, even though on average, all three groups used more diverse vocabulary in academic than colloquial writing,
the relation between register flexibility and English proficiency differed across language groups. Due to the nature of interlanguage
development of L2 learners, it is evident that the learenrs’L1 and L1 culture could have an influence, positive or negative, on their L2
pragmatic knowledge and writing performance (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993). The Spanish speakers demonstrated limited register
flexibility at the lower proficiency levels, but their degree of register differentiation increased at higher levels of proficiency. Pre-
sumably, one possible explanation for this pattern of results might be the large number of Spanish-English cognates in the English
academic vocabulary repertoire (e.g., pronunciación-pronunciation; globalización-globalization). Spanish-speakers might be able to
appropriately transfer their context-specific uses for these academic forms/functions from their L1, which is knowledge unavailable
to Chinese speakers, who are speakers of a more distanced language (Bravo, Hiebert, & Pearson, 2007). French speakers, on the other
hand, made clear distinctions in vocabulary usage between registers across all proficiency levels. This finding is somewhat surprising
because much academic vocabulary in English was also directly borrowed from French (e.g., religion, attorney, justice) (Bravo et al.,
2007). Compared to the other two language groups, the Chinese-speaking sample demonstrated the highest lexical complexity on
average, but relatively less register flexibility. This pattern might reflect the negative impact of exam-oriented writing instruction that
emphasizes rote learning and memorization of vocabulary in many EFL classrooms (Slomp, 2008) but with limited instruction on how
to adapt vocabulary use to different contexts (Chen, 2006).
In contrast to the lexico-syntactic levels, no statistically significant flexibility was shown in EFL learners’ use of discourse or-
ganizational markers across communicative contexts. A qualitative examination of sample texts revealed that EFL learners used a
similar set of discourse organizational markers in both contexts, and the total frequency of frame markers (e.g., first, on the other hand)
and goal markers (e.g., I’m writing to…) in colloquial writing even outnumbered those in academic writing, on average. Previously, in
most circumstances, metadiscourse markers are employed to analyze specialist written texts, such as research articles, textbooks
(Hyland, 2017), as academic register is presumably considered a “more difficult” context. However, without explicit guidance on the
appropriate forms and functions of metadiscourse markers, EFL learners could easily misuse conventionally more academic meta-
discourse markers in a colloquial context, which might lead to a "foreign" style of communication. Our finding highlights the needs to
account for contextual factors in future metadiscourse research and instruction.

5.4. Limitations and implications

While promising, this work has several limitations. First, we must acknowledge that by operationalizing Register Flexibility as
“the degree of differentiation in linguistic features displayed across contexts”, we have unavoidably equated presence of linguistic
features with appropriacy of use. While the quantitative results are informative, they should be cautiously interpreted, and should be
supplemented with in-depth qualitative analysis of textual data to understand both the frequency of forms and appropriacy of
functions in actual usage. In future studies, it would also be helpful to add a corpus produced by expert L1 English writers as a
comparison to display the optimal level of appropriacy in cross-context communication. Second, the single-time on-demand prompt-
based writing activities cannot possibly reflect learners’ full range of writing knowledge and skills, especially compared to edited
writing in authentic contexts. Though the writing prompts were phrased as authentically as possible, we had no control over learners’
perception of these writing activities. Findings thus reflect EFL learners’ writing performances, not writing profiles. Assessing lear-
ners’writing performance on multiple occasions and times could reduce measurement error and offer a closer approximation to EFL
learners’ writing profiles. Finally, EFL learners constitute a diverse population whose learning outcomes could be affected by many
factors besides first language, such as instructional environment in the local country, opportunities to learn and practice in various
social contexts, among others. Future research could more explicitly explore the sources of learning opportunities and challenges
(e.g., curriculum, teaching practices) to inform effective strategies/interventions targeting the improvement of EFL communicative
competence.
Even though this study does not test a pedagogical intervention and thus cannot offer any conclusions about which practices are
more effective in the classroom, our findings suggest that instruction that intentionally fosters register awareness is worthy of further
exploration. Particularly, the inconclusive association between register flexibility and English proficiency raises a warning for
practitioners and curriculum designers and suggests a direction for future intervention research. First, we have known that language
learners are more likely to master the forms and functions of a new language when these are taught in meaningful contexts (Byrnes,
2019; Goldenberg, 2010). When instruction consists instead of lists of linguistic expressions to be memorized and used in drill
exercises, internalizing which are appropriate contexts of use for different forms is, not surprisingly, challenging for students. The
results of this study are aligned with instructional practices that present new linguistic forms in context and engage students, through
contrastive textual analysis, in reflecting about particular linguistic choices made by various authors for different communicative
purposes and situations. For instance, by comparing different texts, students may discuss how a discourse function can be expressed
through different forms and to analyze the language choices different authors made across genres and registers (e.g., I’m writing to tell
you… in a personal letter; this paper began with the goal of … in an academic paper). These metalinguistic activities have shown to be
effective in supporting students’development of register awareness (Schleppegrell, 2013). Second, it is important for EFL instructors
and learners to view writing as a social activity in which writers interact with a real or imagined audience through thoughtful choices
of language. The Communicative Writing Instrument developed in this study could be used by writing instructors as an entry point to
W. Qin and P. Uccelli

design a variety of writing activities so as to provide ample opportunities for learners to practice the complex linguistic forms they
acquire in different communicative contexts. Thirdly, our study reveals that challenges to pragmatically flexible uses of language vary
at different linguistic levels and by first language background. While most EFL learners can flexibly use lexico-syntactic features
across contexts, the majority of them (even the advanced learners) encounter difficulties at the discourse level. In addition, compared
to the other two language groups, Chinese students in this sample displayed a significantly higher use of highly complex vocabulary,
typically expected in academic communication, in a colloquial context. For EFL instructors, understanding the diverse linguistic and
sociocultural backgrounds that EFL learners bring into their classroom, as well as their own predominant instructional patterns, is
critical to anticipating some of their challenges and adjust their teaching to meet their students’ needs. Newer instructional ap-
proaches that incorporate contrastive textual analysis to foster register awareness seem promising and worth investigating. As a final
note, it is important to emphasize that the proposed construct, register flexibility, is not grounded on a prescriptive conceptualization
of language use as a set of rules, but instead on a descriptive conceptualization of language use as a set of pragmatic and dynamic
options. Thus, instruction aligned with these findings would not foster a rigid matching of forms and contexts. Rather, it would guide
EFL learners, while acquiring an increasing repertoire of complex linguistic features, to also critically reflect on the diverse pragmatic
function these features could serve in real-world communication. The ultimate goal is to enhance EFL learners’ understanding of
writing, not as an accumulation of complex linguistic features but as discourse flexibly constructed to serve specific communicative
purposes.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Humanities and Social Science Foundation of the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic
of China [Grant number: 19YJC740058] and the Shanghai Pujiang Talent Program [Grant number: 2019PJC012] awarded to Dr.
Wenjuan Qin at Fudan University; and the EF Education First Grant at the Harvard Graduate School of Education awarded to Dr.
Paola Uccelli as Principal Investigator. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the funders.
We express our gratitude to Dr. Catherine Snow and Dr. Luke Miratrix for their valuable insights and support to this work. Special
thanks are given to the students, teachers, and research assistants who participated in the study.

Appendix A. Illustrating the lack of register flexibility in metadiscourse: An example

To illustrate the quantitative results regarding the lack of register flexibility in using discourse organizational markers, we se-
lected the following excerpts to show some typical patterns of organizational marker usage observed in the corpus. Both texts were
produced by the same writer, who is an 18-year old EFL learner speaking French as the native language; his English proficiency level
is B2 (relatively high in the sample). The writer used a similar set of discourse organizational markers (e.g., furthermore, nevertheless,
for example, in summary) in both academic and colloquial texts. While the intention is to provide explicit signals so the reader can
follow the discourse structure, the heavy use of these markers in a personal email creates a formal tone that is not expected in this
particular context.

Student #128: Colloquial Writing

Hi my friend, I know you want to live in an academic year so I am writing to tell you the pros and cons of studying abroad. First, in my opinion studying in
another country is very hopeful for you because if you want to learn a new language this is a best thing you can do. You learnt a lot of cultures around the
world. Moreover, the activities in the city like visited a museum or something like that. When I was in class I really liked because this is not like a college...
Furthermore, I think you should go on a family's house because you can speak with us and you will improve you English language fastest. Nevertheless, there
are also the cons. Indeed, this is very difficult to stay in a country without you family and you friends ... For example, you can't watch the TV with us or the
host family are not really at home. In summary, I think you have to try this amazing experience because we have just one life but you should be careful about
the school about you want because there are a lot of problems in several family's house. Bye.

Student #128: Academic Writing

A lot of educators think that go in other country is an enrichment for the young people. Indeed, they can learn a new language. Furthermore, they can discover a
new world because of the different culture and this is very good for the students, this is a chance because a lot of people can't discover a new place. Also, they
can learn a new language and this is very important in the society actual. If you know another language it's can improve your CV because people think that you
know another culture so that really good for the students. For example, when you go in the English city you can learn this very important language.
Nevertheless, many educators think that this is a cause of potential problems because when you started to study in a new country during a long time the
students can have an interruption with their studies and their normal life. In fact, maybe it's difficult for the students to re-adapt about their life and have
school, homework or to find a job. So, for several students this is difficult to adapt about their life before the academic year. For example, this is difficult to
enter in a university during a year or to continue you studies like you study at school... In summary, it can be an enrichment for the students thanks to the
language but they can also be a problem after because the meaning of the academic year it's an interruption in your life.

*Markers that serve local transitional functions (e.g., because, but) were not coded in the excerpts.
W. Qin and P. Uccelli

References

Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2018). Proficiency and preference organization in second language refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 129 , 140–153.
Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics,
43(1), 385–406.
Bailey, A. L. (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic english to the test. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bofman, T. (1989). Attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
11(1), 17–34.
Barron, A. (2019). Using corpus-linguistic methods to track longitudinal development: Routine apologies in the study abroad context. Journal of Pragmatics, 146,
87–105.
Berman, R. (2008). The psycholinguistics of developing text construction. Journal of Child Language, 35(4), 735–771.
Berman, R., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development of text-production abilities: Speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy,
5(1), 1–43.
Bi, P., & Jiang, J. (2020). Syntactic complexity in assessing young adolescent EFL learners’ writings: Syntactic elaboration and diversity. System.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S. (2016). Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics,
37 (5), 639–668.
Bravo, M. A., Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. D. (2007). Tapping the linguistic resources of Spanish–English bilinguals. In R. Wagner, A. Muse, & K. Trannenbaum (Vol.
Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for Reading comprehension: Vol. 140. New York, NY: Guiford.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65.
Byrnes, H. (2019). Affirming the context of instructed SLA: The potential of curricular thinking. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 514–532.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
Carson, J. (2001). Second language writing and second language acquisition. In T. J. Silva, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.). On second language writing (pp. 191–200). Mahwah,
New Yersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chang, C. (2012). Fostering EFL college students’ register awareness: Writing online forum posts and traditional essays. Computer-Assisted Language Learning and
Teaching, 2(3), 17–34.
Chang, Y. (2010). ‘I no say you say is boring’: The development of pragmatic competence in L2 apology. Language Sciences, 32(3), 408–424.
Chen, C. E. (2006). The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 35–55.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Crossley, S., 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.
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2011). Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing,
28(4), 561–580.
Cunnings, I. (2012). An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers. Second Language Research, 28(3), 369–382.
Dobbs, C. L. (2014). Signaling organization and stance: Academic language use in middle grade persuasive writing. Reading and Writing, 27 (8), 1327–1352.
East, M. (2009). Evaluating the reliability of a detailed analytic scoring rubric for foreign language writing. Assessing Writing, 14(2), 88–115.
EF (2014). EF SET technical background reportRetrieved from Cambridge, MA.
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4),
474–509.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2),
253–286.
Gennaro, d. K. (2013). How different are they? A comparison of Generation 1.5 and international L2 learners’ writing ability. Assessing Writing, 18(2), 154–172.
Goldenberg, C. (2010). Improving achievement for English learners: Conclusions from recent reviews and emerging research. In G. Li, & P. A. Edwards (Eds.). Best
practices in ELL instruction. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Goulart, L., Gray, B., Staples, S., Black, A., Shelton, A., Biber, D., ... Wizner, S. (2020). Linguistic perspectives on register. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6, 435–455.
Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context (3 ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle, Cenage Learning.
Hall, D. B. (2000). Zero‐inflated Poisson and binomial regression with random effects: A case study. Biometrics, 56(4), 1030–1039.
Halliday, M., Matthiessen, C. M., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar. New York, NY: Routledge.
Heath, S. B. (2012). Words at work and play: Three decades in family and community life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2016). The relationship between lexical sophistication and independent and source-based writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34,
12–24.
Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language
acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35(5).
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322.
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496.
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1),
36–62.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk: Volume I: Transcription format and programs, volume II: The database. Computational
Linguistics, 26 657-657.
Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development. New York, NY: Springer.
Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J. (2015). Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing,
29 , 3–15.
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 (1), 91–108.
Ninio, A., & Snow, C. E. (1996). Pragmatic development. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.
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.
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.
Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(1), 117–134.
Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2016). Same language, different functions: A cross-genre analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ writing performance. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 33, 3–17.
Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139 , 22–39.
W. Qin and P. Uccelli

Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29 (2), 417–447.
Ren, W. (2019). Pragmatic development of Chinese during study abroad: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 137–149.
Rimmer, W. (2008). Putting grammatical complexity in context. Literacy, 42(1), 29–35.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63, 153–170.
Slomp, D. H. (2008). Harming not helping: The impact of a Canadian standardized writing assessment on curriculum and pedagogy. Assessing Writing, 13(3), 180–200.
Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson, & N. Torrance (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133).
Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. London, U.K: Cambridge University Press.
Tolchinsky, L., & Jisa, H. (2017). The multifaceted development of writing. Writing development in struggling learners. Brill53–72.
Uccelli, P., Barr, C. D., Dobbs, C. L., Galloway, E. P., Meneses, A., & Sánchez, E. (2015). Core academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel
instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(5), 1077–1109.
Uccelli, P., Galloway, E. P., & Qin, W. (2018). The language for school literacy: Widening the lens on language and reading relations. Handbook of reading research, 5. NY:
Longman New York.
Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchon, R. M. (2017). The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67 (2), 394–430.
Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M. (2019). Differential contribution of oral and written modes to lexical, syntactic and propositional complexity in L2
performance in instructed contexts. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 206–227.

Dr. Wenjuan Qin is an assistant professor in applied linguistics at Fudan University. Her research focuses on writing development of EFL learners. Departing from the
pragmatic-based view of language development, she is interested in how EFL writers learn to flexibly and effectively deploy a variety of lexical, syntactic and discourse
features that are attuned to different communicative contexts, genres and registers.

Dr. Paola Uccelli is a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She studies socio-cultural and individual differences in language and literacy devel-
opment throughout the school years. Her research focuses on how different language skills interact with each other to either promote or hinder advances in language
expression and comprehension in monolingual and bilingual students.

View publication stats