Towards an Organic Approach to Investigating CAF in Instructed SLA: The Case of Complexity

By J. Norris, L. Ortega. 2009

1,150 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f53af039f382a19ff2978b02fed38fea0e9007a9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work (2012, background): “Norris and Ortega (2009) argue for the combined use of these three different measures, since they gauge three different subconstructs: subclausal complexity, overall complexity, and complexity via subordination.”
Measuring Syntactic Complexity in L2 Writing Using Fine‐Grained Clausal and Phrasal Indices (2018, methodology): “However, as noted by Norris and Ortega (2009), this index is similarly flawed from an interpretation standpoint because clauses can be lengthened both by the addition of complements and through phrasal elaboration.”
The Development of Second Language Writing Complexity in Groups and Individuals: A Longitudinal Learner Corpus Study (2012, methodology): “For choosing measures of linguistic complexity, this study relied on recent recommendations that Norris and Ortega (2009) derived from a comprehensive research review and synthesis.”
MEASURING COGNITIVE TASK DEMANDS USING DUAL-TASK METHODOLOGY, SUBJECTIVE SELF-RATINGS, AND EXPERT JUDGMENTS (2015, background): “By now, some useful guidelines have been produced on how to arrive at valid representations of the multidimensional and dynamic nature of CAF constructs (e.g., Norris & Ortega, 2009 ), to which researchers increasingly adhere.”
Phrasal complexity in academic writing: A comparison of abstracts written by graduate students and expert writers in applied linguistics (2018, methodology): “Most of the proposed indices have taken on the form of ratios, frequencies or formulas (Norris & Ortega, 2009), and are calculated using one of the following criteria: (a) the length of the production unit, (b) the amount of subordination, (c) the amount of coordination, (d) the range of syntactic…”
Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview (2020, background): “While common, T-units features are problematic because they often report conflicting results across studies (Bardovi-Harlig, 1992; Ortega, 2003; Stockwell & Harrington, 2003) and can be difficult to interpret (Norris & Ortega, 2009).”
Language learning and study abroad (2018, background): “…547) observe that ‘we now know from recent studies that many aspects of language development are nonlinear and . . . multivariate and dynamic’ and that each subcomponent may interact with other subcomponents and exhibit its own developmental dynamics (Larsen-Freeman 2006; Norris & Ortega 2009).”
Task Complexity, Focus on L2 Constructions, and Individual Differences: A Classroom-Based Study. (2011, result): “This finding confirms the importance of recent calls (Bygate & Samuda, 2005; Mochizuki & Ortega, 2008; Norris & Ortega, 2009; Robinson, 2007; Robinson & Ellis, 2008) for employing both general and specific measures when investigating the link between task complexity and the quality of speech…”
Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality (2015, background): “Norris and Ortega (2009) usefully propose examining syntactic complexity as a multi-dimensional construct.”
The Role of Task Complexity, Modality, and Aptitude in Narrative Task Performance (2012, background): “Niwa (2000) also investigated the relationship between a resourcedirecting task aspect of task complexity (simple vs. complex reasoning demands) and three ability variables: intelligence, aptitude and working memory.”
Examining the impact of flipped classroom on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency: a case of EFL students (2020, result): “…& Storch, 2009) have been widely used in the previous studies ( Abrams & Byrd, 2017; Amiryousefi, 2016; Bult e & Housen, 2012; Knoch et al., 2015; Norris & Ortega, 2009; among others ), we preferred these measures for the sake of better comparability of our findings with those of previous…”
Assessing syntactic sophistication in L2 writing: A usage-based approach (2017, background): “Additionally, and of critical importance, is the lack of a cohesive theoretical rationale for the use of indices of syntactic complexity (Bulté & Housen, 2012; Norris & Ortega, 2009).”
The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes (2016, background): “Instead, he argues that it also reveals the marketisation and neo-liberalisation of higher education, which is most definitely not a neutral activity (Pennycook, 1997, pp. 258–259).”