An Investigation of the Linguistic Complexity of IELTS Writing Topics Based on the Levels of Discourse Representation and the Degree of Meaning Coding

References

• Ai, H., & Lu, X. (2013). A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in NNS and NS university students’ writing. In A. Díaz-Negrillo, N. Ballier, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data (pp. 249–20). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Bower, G. H. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology 11, 11(2), 177–220. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(79)90009-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing 28, 4(4), 561–580. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210378031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing 29, 2, 240–260.
   Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–324. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., Hogaboam, T. W., Bell, L. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1980). Short term retention of discourse during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 72, 72(5), 647–655. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the (_Here-and_Now) dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In C. M. Garcı´a-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Jarvella, R. J. (1971). Syntactic processing of connected speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10(4), 409–416. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80040-3
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson, F., Miestamo, M., & Sinnemaki, K. (2008). Introduction: The problem of language complexity. In Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. vii–xiv). Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W., & Greene, E. (1978). The role of culture specific schemata in the comprehension and recall of stories. Discourse Processes, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01638537809544425
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W., & Keenan, J. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 257–274. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90036-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W., Welsch, D. M., Schmalhofer, F., & Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 133–159. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90069-C
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148–161. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 261–284. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.012
   Google Scholar
• Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laufer, B., & Nation, I. S. P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190–208. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrow, D. G., LM, G. S., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Accessibility and situation models in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90122-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasseri, M. (2015). A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in NNS and NS university students’ writing. University of Birmingham.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Measurement for understanding: An organic approach to investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 30(555), 578. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044
   Google Scholar
• Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218–233. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSLW
   Google Scholar
• 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/https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piri, F., Barati, H., & Ketabi, S. (2012). The effects of pre-task, on-line, and both pre-task and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy – The case of Iranian EFL learners’ written production. English Language Teaching, 5(6), 158–168. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n6p158
   Google Scholar
• Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of text based studies. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 91–115). Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Oxford University P2 Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45–107.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7–26). Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz-Funes, M. (2014). Task complexity and linguistic performance in advanced college level foreign language writing. In H. Byrnes & R. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning-insights from and for L2 learning (pp. 163–191). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302
   Google Scholar
• Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect ofnarrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavakoli, P., & Rezazadeh, M. (2014). Individual and collaborative planning conditions: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 argumentative writing. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, (JTLS), 5(4), 85–110.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. University of Hawai, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, W., Lu,, & Weigle, S. C. (2002). Lexical richness of ESL writing and the role of prompt. Paper presented at the 10th Conference for the American Association for Corpus Linguistics (AACL), Atlanta, GA.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, X., & Chen, J. (1989). The techniques to teaching writing. English Teaching Forum, 27(2), 34.
   Google Scholar