Open Access
Issue
SHS Web of Conferences
Volume 27, 2016
5e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 07006
Number of page(s) 19
Section Linguistique et Didactique (français langue première, français langue seconde)
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162707006
Published online 04 July 2016
  1. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 390-395.
  2. Bartning, I., & Kirchmeyer, N. (2003). Le développement de la compétence textuelle à travers les stades acquisitionnels en français L2. Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère, 19, 9-39.
  3. Bartning, I., & Schlyter, S. (2004). Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en français L2. Journal of French language studies, 14(3), 281-299. [CrossRef]
  4. Beaman, K. (1984). Coordination and subordination revisited: Syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. Dans D. Tannen (Ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 45-80). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
  5. Berman, R. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development of text-production abilities: Speech and writing. Written Language & Literacy, 5(1), 1-43. [CrossRef]
  6. 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. [CrossRef]
  7. Bulté, B. (2013). The development of complexity in second language acquisition: a dynamic systems approach. (thèse de doctorat), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel.
  8. Byrnes, H. (2009). Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20, 50-66. [CrossRef]
  9. Cosme, C. (2007). Clause linking across languages. A corpus-based study of coordination and subordination in English, French and Dutch. (thèse de doctorat), Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve.
  10. Dahl, Ö. (2009). Testing the assumption of complexity Invariance: the case of Elfdalian and Swedish. Dans G. Sampson, D. Gil & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (pp. 50-63). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375. [CrossRef]
  12. Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461-473. [CrossRef]
  13. Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [CrossRef]
  14. Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Champaign, Ill: National Council of Teachers of English.
  15. IBM. (2015). IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 23.0).
  16. Jarvis, S., & Daller, M. (Eds.). (2013). Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. [CrossRef]
  17. Kerr-Barnes, B. (1998). The acquisition of connectors in French L2 narrative discourse. Journal of French language studies, 8(2), 189-208. [CrossRef]
  18. Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1997). The Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13(4), 301-347. [CrossRef]
  19. Kirchmeyer, N. (2002). Étude de la compétence textuelle des lectes d’apprenants avancés. Aspects structurels, fonctionnels et informationnels. Cahiers de la Recherche 20. (Thèse de doctorat), Université de Stockholm, Stockholm.
  20. Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62(2), 439-472. [CrossRef]
  21. Kortmann, B., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (Eds.). (2012). Linguistic complexity, second language acquisition, indigenization, contact. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. [CrossRef]
  22. 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, 2014, 1-9.
  23. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  24. Malvern, D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Duran, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [CrossRef]
  25. Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, Where are you? New York: Dial Press.
  26. Miestamo, M. (2008). Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. Dans M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. 23-41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [CrossRef]
  27. Miestamo, M. (2009). Implicational hierarchies and grammatical complexity. Dans G. Sampson, D. Gil & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable (pp. 80-97). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Miestamo, M., Sinnemäki, K., & Karlsson, F. (Eds.). (2008). Language complexity: Typology, contact, change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [CrossRef]
  29. 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. [CrossRef]
  30. Ortega, L. (2012). Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. Dans B. Kortmann & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.), Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact (pp. 127-155). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
  31. Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590-601. [CrossRef]
  32. Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(1), 117-134. [CrossRef]
  33. Paprocka-Piotrowska, U., Martinot, C., & Gerolimich, S. (Eds.). (2013). La complexité en langue et son acquisition. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Kul Katolicki Uniwersytet Jana Pawla II.
  34. Pierrard, M., & Housen, A. (2013). Complexité linguistique et efficacité d’un enseignement grammatical explicite. Dans U. Paprocka-Piotrowska, C. Martinot & S. Gerolimich (Eds.), La complexité en langue et son acquisition (pp. 285-304). Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Kul Katolicki Uniwersytet Jana Pawla II.
  35. Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Index of productive syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 1-22. [CrossRef]
  36. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  37. Skehan, P. (2009). Performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. Dans In B. J. Richards, M. Daller, D. Malvern, P. Meara, J. Milton & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application (pp. 107-124). London: Palgrave Macmillian. [CrossRef]
  38. Szmrecsanyi, B. (2004). On operationalizing syntactic complexity. Présenté à la conférence JADT 2004, Louvain la Neuve.
  39. Szmrecsanyi, B., & Kortmann, B. (2012). Introduction: Linguistic complexity. Dans B. Kortmann & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.), Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact. Boston: De Gruyter.
  40. Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 239-263. [CrossRef]
  41. Welcomme, A. (2013). Connecteurs et complexité syntaxique dans les récits d’apprenants néerlandophones de FLE : premiers résultats. Dans U. Paprocka-Piotrowska, C. Martinot & S. Gerolimich (Eds.), La complexité en langue et son acquisition (pp. 261-284). Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Kul Katolicki Uniwersytet Jana Pawla II.
  42. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.