Termout.org logo/LING


Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) complexity (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: complexity


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines424 - : Reciprocity, as a semantic concept, is usually understood as a relation in which at least two participants are in a situation of a symmetric nature whose main semantic characteristic is bidirectionality (Faller, 2007; Evans, 2008). The symmetric nature of these situations explains their complexity: it entails at least two subevents and two participants both acting as Agent and Patient of the main event . Most of the works only take into account basic reciprocal events (BRE), that is, those where only two participants can be identified and, to our knowledge, the event structure (ES) of multiple reciprocal events (MREs) has not been exhaustively studied.

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines463 - : This paper is part of a comprehensive study on the psycholinguistic processing of causality and counter-causality in discourse. The particular aim is to analyze the articulation between the semantic and syntactic information during this process. That is, how the syntactic complexity is related to the processing complexity when readers have to understand pieces of discourse that express particular semantic relationships: causal and counter-causal . One of the main objectives will be to study how the performance pattern changes when the possibility / impossibility to involve world knowledge conditions the process. We present a psycholinguistic experiment, which aims at analyzing the comprehension of causal and counter-causal relations, expressed by sentences with different syntactic structure -coordinates and subordinates- and in two conditions regarding the type of information: every-day items -the speaker may involve their world knowledge- and technical items -this intervention of previous

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines463 - : world knowledge is not possible-. Results show that this factor determines the processing pattern and significantly modifies the articulation between syntactic complexity and processing complexity: only in the absence of prior knowledge, syntactic complexity is reflected directly in processing complexity .

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines464 - : Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research . En A. Housen, F. Kuiken & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 199-220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [ [132]Links ]

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines464 - : Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning and performance. En P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp . 203-236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins . [ [148]Links ]

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines517 - : Rojas Nieto, C. (en prensa). Constructional grounding in emerging constructions in Spanish acquisition complexity: Early . En C. C. Z. Estrada & A. Álvarez (Ed.), Diachronic aspects of syntactic complexity: Inter and intra-typological diversity (pp. 1-31). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins . [ [119]Links ]

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines534 - : apply to how the non-triviality of poetic topics affected opinions on the development of reading skills. While most students acknowledged that interesting topics increased their motivation to read in English, those participants who disagreed expressed a concern regarding the complexity of the topics dealt with, as evidenced in the following comment: ‘Developing reading skills with poetry is counterproductive as the topics are generally complicated and they do not invite you to continue reading’ .

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines577 - : In their article “Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness”, ^[75]Biber and Gray (2010: 2 ) contest the stereotypical view of academic writing in English as “grammatically complex, with elaborated structures, and with meaning relations expressed explicitly”. They propose the view of formal academic English writing as structurally compressed, with a recurring use of phrasal (non-clausal) modifiers embedded in noun phrases. These linguistic features make the expression of contents concise and meanings less explicit and informationally dense (^[76]Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad & Finegan, 1999). Leech, Hundt, Mair and Smith (^[77]2009: 245) also refer to densification as a defining characteristic of registers that oppose colloquialisation (i.e. registers that exhibit spoken grammar features). Biber and Gray (^[78]2016: 326) point out that greater reliance on phrasal rather than clausal patterns/structures (characteristic of formal academic writing in

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines577 - : To explore syntactic complexity in relation to phrase structures, the verb phrases of dependent clauses were coded and categorized into the following subtypes: VPs formed by non-finite (to+inf ., -ing, -ed) clauses and VPs of finite dependent clauses (relative, complement, adverbial and comparative). This categorization was expected to provide information on the structural constituency of the phrasal post-modifiers of noun phrases and the syntactic complexity of the verbal predicates. Other constructs that measure syntactic complexity and elaboration, namely, average mean of words per sentence (sentence length) ([95]Table 1) were also considered for interpreting the functional associations of the grammatical features identified in the coded material.

Evaluando al candidato complexity:


1) syntactic: 9 (*)
2) processing: 5 (*)
3) semantic: 4 (*)
5) topics: 4
7) participants: 4
9) academic: 4
13) expressed: 3
14) phrasal: 3 (*)
15) biber: 3
19) reading: 3 (*)
20) clauses: 3 (*)

complexity
Lengua: eng
Frec: 114
Docs: 57
Nombre propio: 2 / 114 = 1%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 6
Puntaje: 6.832 = (6 + (1+5.52356195605701) / (1+6.84549005094438)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
complexity
: Beers, S. & Nagy, W. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24, 183-202.
: Beers, S. F. & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 185-200. DOI: 10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5
: Biber, D. & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration and explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2-20. [197]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
: Culicover, P.W. (2013). Grammar & complexity. Language at the intersection of competence and performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
: Cárdenas, J. P., Losada, J. C., Moreira, A., Torre, I. G. & Benito, R. M. (2011). Topological complexity in natural and formal languages. Int. J. Complex Systems in Science, 1(2), 221-225.
: Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind hidden complexity. Nueva York: Basic Books
: Gennari, S. & Poeppel, D. (2003). Processing correlates of lexical semantic complexity. Cognition, 89, 27-41.
: Givón, T. (2009). The genesis of syntactic complexity. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. & Hofstetter, R. (1994). Syntactic complexity in Spanish narratives: A developmental study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 645-54.
: Hawk, B. (2007). A counter-History of composition: Toward methodologies of complexity. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
: Housen, A., Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Nueva York: John Benjamins.
: Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). Complexity theory. En S. Gass & A. Mackay (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 73-87). Nueva York: Routledge .
: Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474-496.
: Mercer, S. (2011a). Language learner self-concept: Complexity, continuity and change. System, 39(3), 335-346.
: Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555-578.
: Nota. Fuente: Adaptado de ^[80]Vercellotti, M.L. (2012). Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency as Properties of Language Performance: The Development of the Multiple Subsystems over Time and in Relation to Each Other (p.73). Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Pittsburg, Estados Unidos.
: Polio, C. & Yoon, H. J. (2018). The reliability and validity of automated tools for examining variation in syntactic complexity across genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 165-188.
: Rayner, K. & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 14,191-201.
: Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Sanders, T. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. En D. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. Le Draoulec & L. Vieu (Eds.), Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the exploration and modelling of meaning (pp. 105-114).
: Schröder, J., Wendelstein, B. & Felder, E. (2010). Language in the preclinical stage of Alzheimer’s Disease. Content and complexity in biographic interviews of the ILSE study. Klinische Neuropsysiologie, 41, 360.
: Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532.
: Spoelman, M. & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 532-553.
: Spooren, W. & Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 40(12), 2003-2026.
: Van Dijk (2002: 150) further points to the complexity involved in defining the debate:
: Vercellotti, M. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency as properties of language performance: The development of the multiple subsystems over time and in relation to each other. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Pittsburg, Estados Unidos.
: Vercellotti, M. (2015). The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 1-23.
: Vine, B. (2009). Directives at work: Exploring the contextual complexity of workplace directives. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1395-1405.
: Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Hae-Youn, K. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
: Zukerman, I., Albrecht, D., Nicholson, A. & Doktor, K. (2000). Trading off granularity against complexity in predictive models for complex domains. Proc. 6^th Int'l Pacific Rim Conf. Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, pp. 1274-1279.