��ࡱ�>�� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �R��bjbj�W�W�2�=�=��`K�������������������@)|�,b���^�1.�1�1 3a5a5a5a5a5a5a$�d�RgJYa�6Ca..�16C6CYa��^�a2W2W2W6C� ��3a2W6C3a2W2WV�^@w�c_������' ���L��^ a�a0,b�^x�g�P��gc_c_�gw_��1�c5�2W�7�9K �1�1�1YaYa�S��1�1�1,b6C6C6C6C���������������������������������������������������������������������g�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1� �:  Assessing L2 Learners� Lexical Richness and Syntactic Complexity: A Longitudinal Study by Zhang Huiting Under the Supervision of Bao Gui and Chen Haitao Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts English Department School of Foreign Languages Nanjing University of Technology June, 2008 Declaration I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person or material which has to a substantial extent been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at any university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgment has been made in the text. Signature: _gawZ Name: Zhang Huiting Date: June 10th, 2008 Table of Contents Acknowledgements& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & .i Abstract (English)& & & & & & ���������������������ii Abstract (Chinese)������������������������������iv 1. Introduction �����������...������������.....................��...1 1.1 Need for the study��������...�������.��..........................................1 1.2 Research purpose��������...��...���.........................................................2 2. Literature Review ����������������...������..����� ..3 2.1 Lexical richness��������...������������..................................3 2.1.1 Lexical variance���������������������������4 2.1.2 Lexical sophistication��������������������...����5 2.2 Syntactic complexity ............................................................................................................6 2.2.1 T-unit complexity ratio�����������������������.. ..7 2.2.2 DC/C������������������������������... 8 2.3 Problems in the previous studies����������������������...8 3. Methodology���������...................�����..................................................10 3.1 Research questions���������������������������...10 3.2 Variables and operational definitions��������������������...10 3.2.1 Lexical richness��������������������������..10 3.2.2 Syntactic complexity ������������������������..11 3.3 Data collection���.�������������������������....12 3.4 Data analysis����������������������������........13 4. Results and Discussion�� ���������������..���.���. ��.14 4.1 Results�������������������������������.....14 4.1.1 Differences in lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three grades���14 4.1.2 Differences in the growth rates of lexical richness and syntactic complexity��. at the two intervals�������������������������16 4.1.3 Relationship between lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three��. grades..������������������������..�..���..17 4.2 Discussion������������������������������....17 4.2.1 Non-linear development of lexical richness and syntactic complexity�����..18 4.2.2 Lexical richness in no relation to syntactic complexity�����������.19 5. Conclusion������������������������������.�...21 5.1 Major findings of the study�����������������������...21 5.2 Implications�����������������������������...21 5.2.1 Theoretical implications����������������������...21 5.2.2 Pedagogical implications����������������������.22 References���������������������������������23 Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all the people who have ever helped me in this paper. My sincere and hearty thanks and appreciations go firstly to my supervisors, Mr. Bao Gui and Mr. Chen Haitao, whose encouragement and suggestions have given me so remarkable insights into linguistic studies. I am extremely grateful for their valuable academic instructions during my study. The work would not have been possible without their patient guidance, continuous encouragement and generous support. It has been a great privilege and joy to study under their guidance and supervision. Furthermore, it is my honor to benefit a lot from their personalities and diligence, which I will treasure in my whole life. Special thanks go to Lin Ling, a graduate student, who has imparted to me so much valuable knowledge and given me guidance, assistance and concern in every aspect of my study. I also appreciate her academic advice and emotional support for the preparation of my thesis. I would like to thank all the other teachers for their enlightenment, knowledge, encouragement and help throughout my study at Nanjing University of Technology. Finally, my gratitude is given to my dear friends and fellow students, who have accompanied me throughout the four years at the university. Abstract This paper reports a longitudinal study on the developmental patterns of lexical richness and syntactic complexity of the Chinese L2 learners based on their oral production in three years. It addresses the following three research questions: (1) Do the L2 learners increase their lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three years? (2) Are there any great differences in the growth rates of the L2 learners� lexical richness and syntactic complexity at the first interval (from Year One to Year Two) and the second interval (from Year Two to Year Three)? (3) Is there any relationship between the L2 learners� lexical richness and their syntactic complexity in each year? In this study, the subjects were 50 English majors enrolled in a key university in 2001. They were asked to perform an oral task by producing a three-minute monologue in the language lab. The spoken data were collected in three consecutive years. The developmental changes of lexical richness were measured in terms of two objective indexes - lexical variance and lexical sophistication while those of syntactic complexity were measured by (C+VP) /T (T�unit complexity ratio) and DC/C (dependent clause ratio). Multivariate and correlation analyses as well as T-test reveal the following results. First, lexical richness and syntactic complexity progress in a non-linear way, as only the third year witnesses a significant growth of them. Second, the growth rates of lexical richness and syntactic complexity are different in L2 learners� different developmental stages. Although no obvious difference exists between them in the first interval (Year One to Year Two), syntactic complexity grows faster than lexical variance but at the same rate as lexical sophistication in the second interval (Year Two to Year Three). Third, the L2 learners� lexical richness is in no relation to their syntactic complexity in each year. They develop independent of each other. The present study enriches the research on the developmental patterns of lexical richness and syntactic complexity in oral production and sheds light on the teaching and testing of spoken English and L2 learners� acquisition of L2 vocabulary and syntax. It is suggested that L2 teachers and learners should raise their awareness of the importance of lexical richness and syntactic complexity in language development. Most importantly, L2 learners should attach equal importance to both lexical richness and syntactic complexity, balancing the growth of the two and developing them simultaneously. Key words: lexical richness syntactic complexity lexical variance lexical sophistication T�unit complexity ratio dependent clause ratio -N�eXd�� ,g�e�e(W�~Txvz�N�f[`N� Nt^f[`N-N�S틧N�Q�v͋Gl0N�['`�T�S�l YBg'`�SU\�v�R`!j_0;N���VT{�N N N*N�� 1. �N�f[`N��v͋Gl0N�['`�T�S�l YBg'`(W Nt^-N�v�SU\`�R�YUO� 2. �N�f[`N��v͋Gl0N�['`�T�S�l YBg'`�v�X���^(W$N*N6��k�,{N6��k�1 �2t^�~�,{�N6��k�2 �3t^�~ �/f&TX[(W>fW��v�]_� 3. �N�f[`N��v͋Gl0N�['`�T�S�l YBg'`(W N Tt^�~-N�vsQ�|�YUO� ,gxvz-N �f[`N�틙e�n�N2001t^�eQ�g͑�p'Yf[�v50 T��NN,g�yuޏ�~ Nt^(W���[���[̑�[b�v�S4Ypenc0penc{|�W:N3R���v�r}v0,gxvz �(u͋Gl�v�SS'`0͋Gl�v YBg'`�TTUSMO YBg'`�k�s0�N^\�S�k�sR+R�Nh�͋Gl0N�['`�T�S�l YBg'`eg�c"}f[`N��S������R�v�SU\!j_0 �ǏY�Sϑ�e�]R�g0�vsQR�g�TT�h�� ��_�Q�N N�~�g��1 ��N�f[`N��v͋Gl0N�['`�T�S�l YBg'`HT^��~'`_�SU\ �N0�Nt^�~�v�SU\ Nf>f �FO(W Nt^�~�e�SU\f>f��2 �(W�N�f[`N������R�SU\�v N T6��k �͋Gl0N�['`�T�S�l YBg'`�v�X���^ N=\�v T�(W,{N6��k�1 �2t^�~ ��N��v�X��s�l g>fW��v�]_ �FO(W,{�N6��k�2 �3t^�~ ��S�l YBg'`�v�SU\�k͋Gl�SS'`�X��v��^�_ �FON͋Gl YBg'`�v�X���^�l g>fW��v�]_��3 �(WT*Nf[`N6��k ��N�f[`N�͋Gl0N�['`N�S�l YBg'`v^*gh��s�Q>fW��v�vsQ'` �HT�r�z_�SU\���R0 ,gxvz0N�[�N�N�f[`N�͋Gl0�S�l YBg'`�SU\!j_�vxvz � T�e�[�N��S�Yef[0KmՋ�S�N㉌N�f[`N��S�͋Gl0�S�l`N�_�vyr�pwQ gN�[�v/T�S�TPt�aIN0(W�����R�v�SU\Ǐ z-N ��N�Ye^�Tf[`N��^S_�[͋Gl0N�['`�T�S�l YBg'`�~�N��Y�vsQ�l0dkY ��N�f[`N��^S_(W N T�v�SU\6��k�[͋Gl0N�['`�T�S�l YBg'`�~�N TI{ z�^�v͑Ɖ �O�N���Y�_0Rs^a��SU\0 sQ.�͋�͋Gl0N�['` �S�l YBg'` ͋Gl�SS'` ͋Gl YBg'` TUSMO YBg'`�k�s �N^\�S�k�s 1. Introduction Language development, which refers to characteristics of a learner s output that reveal some point or stage along a developmental continuum (Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki & Kim, 1998), moves along three dimensions: fluency, accuracy and complexity. As opposed to the other two dimensions, linguistic complexity, consisting of lexical complexity (also called lexical richness) and syntactic complexity, is most relevant to change and the opportunities for development and growth in the interlanguage system and thus will be the research focus of the current study. 1.1 Need for the study Though a great number of studies have been carried out to investigate lexical richness or syntactic complexity separately at home and abroad (Hunt, 1970; Crowhurst, 1980, 1983; Laufer, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1998; Bardovi-Harlig, 1992; Vermeer, 2000; Wu & Chen, 2000; Ortega, 2003; Liu, 2003; Yu, 2004; Wen, 2006a, b; Qin, 2007), studies on the developmental tendency of the lexical richness and syntactic complexity from a longitudinal perspective as well as the interaction between lexical richness and complexity (Morris & Crump, 1982) are scanty and far from conclusive. What�s more, as Wen (2006a) claims, lexical characteristics and syntactic characteristics have been heavily explored in EFL writing (Engber, 1995; James, 2002; Laufer, 1991, 1998; Shaw & Liu, 1998; Li & Cai, 2001; Ni, 2000; Wen, 2003, 2004 ) while similar researches on the spoken data of EFL learners are much rarer (Vermeer, 2000; Wen, 2006a, b ). Accordingly, a longitudinal study on the changes in Chinese L2 learners� vocabulary and syntax is necessary. This line of study should be undertaken in the Chinese context also because the corollary of it will have significant practical implications for L2 lexis and syntax instruction. It is known that Chinese L2 teachers lay more emphasis on grammatical accuracy than on complexity both in instructing and assessing writing, which leads to L2 learners� more frequent use of simple vocabulary and syntactic structures, a detriment to their language development. At present, we still lack a clear picture of the developmental patterns of lexical richness and syntactic complexity for Chinese L2 learners, which will undoubtedly shed light on Chinese L2 teaching. 1.2 Research purpose This study is undertaken with the aim of exploring the developmental patterns of L2 learners� lexical richness and syntactic complexity. Specifically, the purpose of the present study is three-fold: firstly, to reveal the developmental patterns of L2 learners� lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three years; secondly, to compare the growth rates of lexical richness and syntactic complexity in their oral output at the two intervals; thirdly, to examine the relationship between the L2 learners� lexical richness and their syntactic complexity in three years respectively. 2. Literature review In the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research, language competence can be studied from different aspects. As for productivity, language competence can move along two dimensions: lexical complexity (also called lexical richness) and syntactic complexity. Additionally, according to Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998), complexity means that a wide variety or a wide range of both basic and sophisticated structures and words are available and can be accessed quickly. In Wolfe-Quintero�s definition, the first half refers to syntactic complexity while the latter refers to lexical richness. This chapter consists of three parts. The first part focuses on lexical richness, the second part on syntactic complexity and the third part on problems in the previous studies. 2.1 Lexical richness Many scholars (Linnarud, 1986; Nihanani, 1981; Hyltenstam, 1988; Engber, 1995) have done some researches on lexical richness. Laufer (1994) defined lexical richness as consisting of lexical variance, lexical density, lexical sophistication and lexical originality. Several types of ratio measures have been utilized in research on second language lexical development in writing. Lexical variance was measured by a type/token ratio (Laufer, 1991). Lexical density was calculated by dividing the number of types by the number of lexical tokens (Engber, 1995). Lexical sophistication was measured by the ratio of the advanced lexemes to the total number of words, as done in Engber (1995). Lexical originality was calculated by dividing the number of tokens unique to a writer by the total number of tokens (Linnarud, 1986). Among these measures, lexical variation measure and lexical sophistication measure are most frequently used. Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) noted that lexical complexity was manifest in writing primarily in terms of the range (lexical variation) and size (lexical sophistication) of a second language writer�s productive vocabulary. They concluded that measures of lexical variation and sophistication appeared to best relate to second language development. Although lexical variation and sophistication measures have not been systematically investigated in many studies or for many program levels, they did offer promise as indicators of language development. This thesis aims to review lexical variance and lexical sophistication as two indicators of lexical richness. 2.1.1 Lexical variance In Linnarud�s (1986) study, lexical variance was defined as the total number of different lexical items or word types divided by the total number of lexical words in a text. The subjects fell into two groups: the L2 learner group - 17-year-old Swedish learners (L2 high school juniors), and the native speaker group at the same school level. They were asked to write a picture description essay in 40 minutes. Linnarud (1986) compared the compositions in lexical variance between the two groups. She found a clear difference in lexical variance between the L2 learners and the native speakers: the L2 learners lacked lexical variation. She also had each composition holistically scored in order to examine whether there was a significant relationship between lexical variance and L2 writing quality. As a result, no relationship was found between the holistic scores and this measure for both the L2 learner group and the native speaker group. In Nihanani�s (1981) study, lexical variance was defined as the total number of different lexical items divided by the total number of lexical words in a text. Nihanani (1981) collected the take-home essays written by L2 university students. She counted each lexical variance score based on the given definition and had each essay holistically scored. The same result as Linnarud�s (1986) was found: there was no significant relationship between the holistic scores and lexical variance. In Hyltenstam�s (1988) study, the L2 learners were second year high school students. They were asked to write a summary and response to a 20-minute film without time limit. Unlike Nihanani (1981) and Linnarud (1986), Hyltenstam (1988) controlled for the text length when calculating a lexical variance score. However, Hyltenstam (1988) found a similar result: there was no relationship between lexical variance and L2 writing quality. In Engber (1995) and Linnarud (1986), lexical variance was defined in the same way. However, Engber (1995) found a different result. In her study, the L2 learners were students at an intermediate to high-intermediate levels of language proficiency. They were required to write on the same topic within 35 minutes. The topic was chosen from a pool of topics that had been proven to be suitable for eliciting responses at different levels. She used a holistic scoring scheme to measure the quality of each composition. The quality scores were then compared with the quantitative measures of lexical variance. Her calculation of a lexical variance score was unique: she divided every essay into 126-word segments, each segment was treated as a separate unit and an average lexical variance score for the essay was then calculated as the ratio of the sum of the different words per segment to the sum of the total number of lexical words per segment. She calculated the measure of lexical variance first with lexical errors included and then with errors eliminated, and found moderately high, statistically significant correlations between the writing quality and either of both measures. A comparison of the means for these two measures showed a higher correlation for lexical variation without error (r = 0.57) than for that with error (r = 0.45). Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998, p. 109) held that this measure captured the intuition that second language writers at a higher proficiency level will command a larger vocabulary size and will be able to use significantly more lexical word types than writers at a lower proficiency level. 2.1.2 Lexical sophistication A number of researchers (Laufer, 1991; Linnarud, 1986; Liu, 2003) used lexical sophistication to measure how many low frequency or advanced words were used in a text. Linnarud (1986) defined lexical sophistication as the number of sophisticated lexical words divided by the total number of lexical words in a text and sophisticated lexical words as those English words that were generally introduced at grade 9 and above in the Swedish educational system. He found that native language writers used significantly more sophisticated words than second language writers (0.25 versus 0.21), but found a low correlation between the ratio of sophisticated words and the holistic ratings of the compositions. The low correlation may be understandable, since the students were at a lower language proficiency level and had no command of a large active vocabulary. Laufer (1994) defined lexical sophistication as the ratio of the total number of sophisticated word types divided by the total number of word types. She analyzed four different measures of sophistication on pre- and post-compositions by two advanced university classes. In two of the analyses, she counted sophisticated words as words not on a 2000-word frequency list and words on a university-level word list, and found the measures significant for both groups. In the other two analyses, she counted sophisticated words as words not on any of her frequency lists, and found no significant effect. Liu Donghong (2003) used the Lexical Frequency Profile in calculating lexical sophistication scores. Unlike Linnarud (1986), she defined lexical sophistication as the number of sophisticated words divided by the total number of words tokens in a text. In her study, advanced words were defined as words in AWL and Off-list (beyond 2, 000). Her subjects were 57 second-year college students at a Chinese university. They were required to write on a given topic within 30 minutes. After the compositions were collected, holistic rating was used on a 15-point scale, according to the criteria of College English Test Band Four in China. Before obtaining advanced words by running VocabProfile (Nation & Heatley, 1994), software for word frequency statistics, she deleted misspelled words from advanced words, for the VocabProfile package counts misspelled words as off-list words. In addition, she counted different inflected forms of a sophisticated word as one word type and so repetitive counting of the same words (lexemes) was avoided. As a result, Liu Donghong (2003) found that lexical sophistication did not affect L2 writing quality. Liu Donghong�s (2003) result seemed to be justifiable, too, since her students were second-year non-English majors, who could not freely use a lot of advanced words and so displayed little difference in using sophisticated words. Besides, Laufer (1991) defined lexical sophistication as the percentage of "advanced words" in the text. To conclude, lexical sophistication explains lexical richness in terms of the size of a learner�s productive vocabulary (Wolfe-Quintero, et al., 1998, p. 101). The size is reflected by the use of advanced words (low frequent words) in a text in that, high frequency words, used by both low and high level learners, cannot show the �size� difference between them while low frequency words are not shared by learners of different proficiency levels equally, i.e., high level students tend to use more low frequency words than low level students. 2.2 Syntactic complexity In Ortega�s (2003) study, syntactic complexity (also called syntactic maturity or linguistic complexity) referred to the range of forms that surfaced in language production and the degree of sophistication of such forms. This construct is important in second language research because of the assumption that language development entails, among other processes, the growth of an L2 learner�s syntactic repertoire and her or his ability to use that repertoire appropriately in a variety of situations. Syntactic complexity measures are of two types: those that analyze the clauses, sentences, or T-units in terms of each other (e.g., clauses per sentence, dependent clauses per T unit, T units per sentence); and those that analyze the presence of specific grammatical structures in relation to clauses, T units, or sentences (e.g., passives per sentence, Kameen, 1979; complex nominals per T-unit, Cooper, 1976). In the past two decades, these various measures of syntactic complexity were used by many researchers (Cragg & Nation, 2006; Nippold, Hesketh, & Duthie, 2005; Nippold, Mansfield, & Billow, 2007; Ortega, 2003; Wolfe-Quintero et al, 1998). Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) looked cumulatively at the strength of the T-unit, mean length of clause, clauses per T-unit, dependent clauses per clause and many other indices of syntactic complexity and concluded that clauses per T-unit (C/T) and dependent clauses per clause or per T-unit (DC/C or DC/T) were the most satisfactory measures, because they were associated linearly and consistently with their programs or proficiency levels. However, compared with dependent clauses per T-unit (DC/T), dependent clauses per clause (DC/C) was more frequently applied in previous experimental studies. Therefore, in this study, we adopt an advanced T-unit complexity ratio, the clauses plus verb phrases per T-unit measure ((C+VP)/T), which was derived from C/T, and dependent clauses per clause (DC/C) as two indices of syntactic complexity. 2.2.1 T-unit complexity ratio Hunt (1965) first developed the T-unit as a measure of children�s syntactic maturity in writing, defining the T-unit as a minimal terminable unit consisting of a main (independent) clause plus whatever subordinate clauses and phrases that happen to be attached to and embedded within it. Following Hunt (1965, 1970), T-unit is used as the production unit in this study. The T-unit complexity ratio is to measure how grammatically complex the writing of a learner is, under the assumption that the more clauses per T-unit there are, the more complex the writing is (Wolfe-Quintero, 1998). However, the previous studies based on it found mixed results. Some of them found a significant relationship between proficiency and the T-unit complexity ratio while others did not. Hirano (1991) found a relationship between program level and clauses per T-unit, but not between CELT scores and clauses per T-unit. Cooper (1976) and Monroe (1975) found a relationship between school level and clauses per T-unit. Flahive and Snow (1980) found a relationship between holistic ratings and clauses per T-unit for the first, second, third, and sixth program levels, but not for the fourth or fifth levels. Bardovi-Harling and Bofman (1989) and Perkins (1980) did not find a relationship between clauses per T-unit and pass/fail ratings of advanced learners, nor did Ishikawa (1995) find a relationship between clauses per T-unit and pre- and post-tests with two groups of beginning learners. Casanave (1994) found an overall increase in clauses per T-unit after three semesters of journal writing, but did not test the differences statistically. Neither Kameen (1979) nor Sharma (1980) found a relationship between clauses per T-unit and low-intermediate versus advanced groups. Beers & Nagy (2007) examined the relationship of clauses per T-unit with rated quality for two genres of text produced by middle school students. A sample of 41 seventh and eighth grade students composed a narrative and persuasive essays. Texts were rated for quality and coded for clauses per T-unit. Clauses per T-unit was positively correlated with quality for narratives, but negatively correlated with quality for essays. Generally speaking, T-unit complexity ratio (C/T) is a comparatively reliable index of syntactic complexity among all of the developmental indices. However, it is found that it neglects verb phrases, another kind of grammatical structures reflecting syntactic complexity as well. As a consequence, an advanced T-unit complexity ratio (C+VP)/T is proposed and will be adopted in the present study to measure syntactic complexity. 2.2.2 DC/C The dependent clause ratio is a measure that examines the degree of embedding in a text, by counting the number of dependent clauses as a percentage of the total number of clauses (DC/C). It should be pointed out that few researchers defined clearly what they meant by dependent clauses in their studies except Kameen (1979), who implied in his discussion that they included adverbial, adjective, and nominal clauses. Among previous related studies, Hirano (1991)�s study found that this measure significantly differentiated all three program levels based on CELT score ranges, but only weakly correlated with CELT scores themselves. Such a result was found for many measures, which means that the actual scores were not directly related to a measure such as this but that writers with the same proficiency range did have something in common on this and other measures. Her three groups ranged from average of .18 (low) to .25 (mid) to .33 (high) dependent clauses per T-unit. However, Kameen (1979) did not find a significant difference between two groups based on holistic ratings of their writing (.40 dependent clauses per clause for the good writers and 37 for the poor writers). Kameen (1979) suggests that good writers produce longer T-units as a result of using more words rather than more clauses, most likely because they reduce clauses to prepositional, infinitive and participle phrases. 2.3 Problems in the previous studies Although researches in lexical richness and syntactic complexity increase in number and come up with a lot of interesting results, there are still some problems in the previous studies. First of all, most of the extant studies on lexical richness and/or syntactic complexities are cross-sectional ones (Crowhurst, 1980, 1983; Bardovi-Harlig, 1992; Wu & Chen, 2000; Liu, 2003; Yu, 2004; Qi, 2007) and longitudinal ones are much rarer (Wen, 2006a, b). What�s more, in recent years, researchers at home and abroad show an increasing interest in L2 learners� writing performance (Engber, 1995; James, 2002; Laufer, 1991, 1998; Shaw & Liu 1998; Li & Cai, 2001; Ni, 2000), but only few of them (Altman, 1997; We, 2003, 2004) focus on the oral performance of L2 learners. Additionally, in Wolfe-Quintero (1998)�s synthesis of literature review on all the previous studies of developmental indexes, it was concluded that C/T and DC/C are two discriminant indicators of syntactic complexity with high construct validity. However, both of the two mainly focus on the degree of subordinating and diametrically neglect verbal phrases, including participles, gerunds and infinitives, which could reflect complexity of syntactic constructions in oral or written data as well. Thus, a better developmental index, like(C+VP)/T may be preferable to analyze L2 learners� syntactic complexity. Lastly, quite a few studies investigate the relationship among three dimensions of language development: fluency, accuracy and complexity or the relationship between any two of them (Yu, 2004; Qin, 2007), or compare the lexical richness and syntactic complexity of Chinese L2 learners with those of international L2 learners (Li, 2007) or with native speakers (Wen, 2006a; Zhang, 2007), and yet the dynamic and interactive research on the developmental patterns of lexical and syntactic complexity and the interaction between them from a longitudinal perspective is still non-existent, whether at home or abroad. To sum up, the previous empirical studies are rather fragmentary, making it hard to draw consistent general conclusions, which will justify the need for the present study. 3. Methodology 3.1 Research questions The current study investigates the developmental patterns of L2 learners� lexical richness and syntactic complexity along their three years� learning, different growth rates of them and the relationship between them in the three years. The specific research questions are as follows: (1) Do the L2 learners increase their lexical richness and syntactic complexity in three years? (2) Are there any great differences in the growth rates of the L2 learners� lexical richness and syntactic complexity at the first interval (from Year One to Year Two) and the second interval (from Year Two to Year Three)? (3) Is there any relationship between the L2 learners� lexical richness and their syntactic complexity in each year? 3.2 Variables and operational definitions 3.2.1 Lexical richness Lexical richness is measured in terms of two most revealing indices: lexical variance (LV) and lexical sophistication (LS) in this study. Lexical variance (LV) is defined as the type/token ratio (TTR), i.e., the ratio in percentage between the different lexemes (types) in the test and the total number of words (tokens) (Laufer, 1991, 1994a, b). When this study counted types, the different inflectional forms of a word were regarded as one lexeme, for instance, �run, runs, running and ran� were counted as the same lexeme �run�. For this purpose, the online lemmatizer (http://nl2.ijs.si/analyze/cgi/testlem.cgi.) would be adopted to process all the transcribed spoken data. However, few words in the same form but with different meanings were lemmatized in a wrong way by the online lemmatizer, so they were corrected with the aid of manual checking. For example, the word �means� is likely to be the third person singular of the verb �mean�, which means �to convey or denote some facts or opinions�, or the noun which refers to �a method or way of doing something� as well. These exceptional cases entail careful manual check. At last, the TTR values of each sample will be standardized on a 100-word basis (the minimal length of the transcribed monologue is 119 running words). This procedure was followed to level out the effect of text length on the type-token ration. The formula is LV =No. of typesNo. of tokens Lexical sophistication (LS) is defined as the percentage of �advanced words� in the text. What is labeled �advanced� would depend on the level of the learners tested (Laufer, 1991). In our study, which examines the spoken data of L2 learners, advanced vocabulary was taken to be the Base wordlist 2 (998 word families, 3708 words), Base wordlist 3 (570 word families, 3107 words) and the words Not In Lists, excluding the incorrect ones, in Range designed by P. Nation & A. Coxhead (2002). What is noteworthy is that the transcribed texts were lemmatized by the online lemmatizer beforehand. Consequently, lexical sophistication (LS) was counted as the ratio of correct advanced lexemes to the word tokens in the text. The formula is LS =No. of advanced lexemes (types)No. of tokens 3.2.2 Syntactic complexity Syntactic complexity is defined as great length and subordination of T-unit. Approaches to syntactic complexity in this study are of ratio type instead of frequency one, for it has been pointed out that frequency measures may be doubtful because of the lack of a fixed delimiter and quite a few related experimental studies could not lend their support to them. Therefore, based on the literature review, the modified T-unit complexity ratio ((C + VP) / T) and dependent clause ratio (DC/C) with high construct validity were used as measures of complexity in syntactic development. The formulas are shown as follows: CV/T = (C + VP) / T DC/C = DC/C Notes: T= T-units; C=clauses; VP= verbal phrases; DC=Dependent clauses. The terms in the formulas need explanation. T-unit is used as the basic unit of ratio analysis of syntactic complexity in the present study. T-units rather than C-units are used because the task performance is monologic and contains few elided utterances (See Foster, Tonkyn, & Wigglesworth, 2000, for a discussion of the relative merits of using T-units or C-units). Following Hunt (1970), a T-unit is seen as one main or independent clause plus whatever subordinate or dependent clauses are attached to or embedded with it. As for the number of T-unit, it can be thought of as nothing more than a representation of the independent clauses in each written or spoken sample, since each T-unit consists of one independent clause (Hunt, 1965). A clause is operationalized as a structure with an overt subject and a finite verb (Hunt, 1965) in this study. This definition of clause includes independent / main clauses, as well as three types of dependent/subordinate clauses: adverbial clauses, adjective/relative clauses, and nominal clauses. Following Bardovi-Harlig and Bofman (1989)�s definition of Verb phrase (VP), it can be classified as three types: participle, gerund, and infinitive in this study while dependent clauses (DC) are defined as adverbial, adjectival, and nominal (Kameen, 1979). In counting these units, this study made a modification. As in the oral tests, there are some repeated fillers or false starts on account of hesitation, self-correction, etc., which may affect the measurement of syntactic complexity, the researcher excluded them from each oral sample when tagging the transcribed texts. 3.3 Data collection The participants in this study were 50 English majors who were enrolled in a key university in 2001 and asked to complete an oral task by producing a three-minute monologue after three minutes� preparation in a language lab. Their spoken English data was collected three times in December of the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, and then transcribed for further data analysis. The topics for their oral tasks were all argumentative, rather similar in nature and relative to their college life. The reasons for not repeating exactly the same topics over long periods of longitudinal study is that the potential for diminished interest (and even demotivation or boredom), as well as practice effects, among participants, would be a clear danger to the validity of the data (Ortega & Iberri-Shea, 2005). The collecting time, topics and the running words of oral data in each year are described in detail in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Description of the oral data Collecting TimeTopics for oral testsOverall tokens (running words) of oral dataYear 1 (Num. 50)December, 2001Is it appropriate for a college student to rent an apartment and live outside the campus?13,681Year 2 (Num. 50)December, 2002Make critical comments on the use of electronic dictionaries among college students.13,985Year 3 (Num. 50) December, 2003Do you think it is appropriate for college students to get married? Give your opinions and reasons.14,016 3.4 Data analysis Analysis of the transcribed oral data consists of four stages: applying Wordsmith 4.0 to calculate the value of lexical variance in each essay and Range 32 to obtain that of advanced lexemes and the overall tokens for lexical sophistication in the same essay; tagging indexes concerning syntactic complexity including T-units, clauses, verb phrases and dependent clauses; computation of lexical sophistication and syntactic complexity measures according to the corresponding formulae; calculation of the growth rates of four developmental indices, i.e., dividing the value of each index in one year by that of the preceding year. After attaining all the lexical richness and syntactic complexity indices of the data sets, the researcher applied a multivariate analysis and T-test in SPSS 13.0 to compare the differences of L2 learners� lexical and syntactic complexity in three years and of their growth rates in the two consecutive periods (Year1-Year 2; Year 2-Year 3). Then Pearson correlation analysis was made to find out whether there was a significant relationship between the L2 learners� lexical richness and that of their syntactic complexity in the three years. 4. Results and Discussion 4.1 Results The present study attempted to answer three questions, as were raised in the methodology part: (1) Do the L2 learners increase their lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three years? (2) Are there any great differences in the growth rates of the L2 learners� lexical richness and syntactic complexity at the first interval (from Year One to Year Two) and the second interval (from Year Two to Year Three)? (3) Is there any relationship between the L2 learners� lexical richness and their syntactic complexity in each year? In order to achieve the purpose, this study collected the L2 learners� oral data at three developmental years, counted different developmental indexes, which were processed by SPSS 13.0. 4.1.1 Differences in lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three years The first question was answered by presenting the descriptive statistics and making multiple comparisons. Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 4.1. As indicated in Table 4.1, the means of each variable in three years are approximate. Comparatively speaking, however, the mean of each variable at Year 3 is a little larger than that in the other two years. Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics LVGradeMeanStd. DeviationN1.5335.04594502.5329.04390503.5712.0370850 LS1.0481.01297502.0510.01298503.0599.0160550 CV/T12.0522.390035022.0144.320825032.6988.4813250 DC/C1.3344.08688502.3282.08877503.4044.0952250Notes: LV stands for lexical variance, LS for lexical sophistication, CV/T for syntactic complexity measure by T-unit plus verbal phrase complexity ratio, and DC/C for syntactic complexity measured by dependent clause ratio. A GLM multivariate analysis was made to examine further whether there was a significant difference in the four developmental indexes in the case of the same L2 learners in different years. The results are displayed in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 A multiple comparison of different indexes LVYearYearMean differenceStd. ErrorSig.95% Confidence IntervalLower BoundUpper Bound12 3-3.7696 -3.7696*.84957 .84957.998 .000-5.8705 -5.87052.1553 -1.668721 3-.0544 -3.8240*.84957 .84957.998 .000-2.1553 -5.92492.0465 -1.723131 23.8240* 3.8240*.84957 .84957.000 .000-2.1553 -5.92492.0465 -1.7231LS12 3-.2900 -1.1715*.28145 .28145.589 .000-.9860 -1.8675.4060 -.475521 3-.8816 -.8816*.28145 .28145.589 .009-.4060 -1.5776.9860 -.185631 21.1715* .8816*.28145 .28145.009 .009.4755 .18561.8675 1.5776 CV/T12 3.0378 -.6466*.08056 .08056.896 .000-.1614 -.8458-.4474 -.447421 3-.0378 -.6844*.08056 .08056.896 .000-.2370 -.8836.1614 -.485231 2.6466* .6844*.08056 .08056.000 .000.4474 .4852.8458 .8836 DC/C12 3.0062 -.0700*.01807 .01807.943 .001-.0385 -.1147.0509 -.025321 3-.0062 -.0762*.01807 .01807.943 .000-.0509 -.1209.0385 -.031531 2.0762* .0762*.01807 .01807.001 .000.0253 .0315.1147 .1209Note: The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. As indicated in Table 4.2, there is no significant difference in all the four developmental indexes between Year 1 and Year 2 (p>.05) while all the four developmental indexes present a significant difference between Year 3 and either of the other two years (p<.05). In other words, the L2 learners did not increase their lexical richness and syntactic complexity linearly as they progressed from Year 1 through Year 2 to Year 3. Their lexical and syntactical development was in Year 3, an advanced L2 learning stage. 4.1.2 Differences in the growth rates of lexical richness and syntactic complexity at the two intervals The second question was answered by comparing the respective growth rates of lexical richness and grammatical complexity (represented by four indexes) at the first and second intervals. Table 4.3 displays the results, which are explained in reference to paired samples t-test statistics. Table 4.3 A comparison of growth rates of lexical richness and syntactic complexity          Notes: LV stands for lexical variance, LS for lexical sophistication, CV/T for syntactic complexity measured by T-unit plus verbal phrase complexity ratio, and DC/C for syntactic complexity measured by dependent clause ratio. Although no statistically great difference exists in the growth rate among the four indexes (p >.05) at the first interval, there is tendency that the L2 learners� lexical sophistication increases fastest and their lexical variance and CV/T show no sign of growth, with DC/C in between. The obvious growth occurs at the second interval, though the growth rate of the indexes presents a wide difference. Syntactic complexity represented by CV/T and DC/C grows much faster than lexical variance (p<.05). Moreover, as illustrated in the table 4.3, syntactic complexity tends to grow faster than lexical sophistication at the second interval, though no significant difference is found statistically between them (p>.05). Therefore, there is a greater increase in syntactic complexity than in lexical richness in the second period between Year Two and Year Three. If viewed in a global way, the growths of lexical richness and syntactic complexity exhibit the following features: firstly, though lexical variance exhibits discontinuity from the first period to the second period like other three developmental indices, it invariably progresses slowest. Contrastingly, lexical sophistication shows a steadily high growth rate. In addition, despite the fact that lexical sophistication tends to present the fastest growth in the first period, the two indices representing syntactic development outperforms it in the second period. 4.1.3 Relationship between lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three grades The third question was answered by examining whether there was any relationship between the L2 learners� lexical richness and their syntactic complexity in the three years or grades. Concretely, a correlation analysis was made to find out whether there was a significant relationship between the L2 learners� lexical richness and their syntactic complexity in the three years. The statistical result is displayed in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 Correlations between lexical richness and syntactic complexity Pearson Correlation LV Sig. (2-tailed)Grade 1Grade 2Grade 3CV/TDC/CCV/TDC/CCV/TDC/C.068 .640.012 .936.147 .307.074 .609-.110 .448-.014 .921Pearson Correlation LS Sig. (2-tailed).156 .279.125 .385.070 .631-.078 .592-.122 .398-.220 .124 As revealed in Table 4.4, there is no significant correlation between lexical richness (represented by lexical variance and lexical sophistication) and syntactic complexity (represented by CV/T and DC/C) (p>.05) in each grade. It is concluded that the L2 learners� development of lexical richness is independent of their development of syntactic complexity. 4.2 Discussion Section 4.1 reported the statistical results, which can be summarized in three aspects. To start with, the development of the L2 learners� lexical richness and grammatical complexity is non-linear. Concretely speaking, there is no significant difference in lexical richness and grammatical complexity between the L2 learners� first two years while there is greater development in lexical richness and grammatical complexity in the third year than in the first two years. Furthermore, the growth rates of lexical richness and grammatical complexity indexes are not the same at the L2 learners� developmental stages. At the first interval, there is no obvious difference between the growth rate of lexical richness and that of syntactic complexity. At the second interval, however, syntactic complexity grows faster than lexical variance, but at the same rate as lexical sophistication. Finally, across the three years, the L2 learners� lexical richness develops independent of their syntactic complexity, and vice versa. This section provides tentative explanations. 4.2.1 Non-linear development of lexical richness and syntactic complexity Although it was expected that the L2 learners increased their lexical richness and syntactic complexity as years progressed, it was found statistically that the learners did not show any sign of lexical richness or syntactic development from Year 1 to Year 2 but rather displayed their greater lexical richness and syntactic complexity at Year 3 alone. There might be several reasons for this. To start with, as the learners own a smaller vocabulary size in the first and second year, two elementary learning stages, than in the third year, an advanced learning stage, they could have rather limited word choices in the first two years, partly contributing to no difference in lexical variance between the first and second years but a great difference between the third and either of the first two years. Secondly, non-basic vocabulary is more difficult in the sense that it is only acquired in later stages of the language acquisition process (Larsen-Freeman, 2006). The use of non-basic items in spontaneous speech reveals a high proficiency. This is maybe a plausible account for no significant growth of L2 learners� lexical sophistication in the first period (Year 1-Year 2) but in the second period (Year 2-Year 3). Thirdly, the learners produced more simple sentences in both the first and second years than the third year, contributing to no difference in syntactic complexity between the first and second years but a great difference between the third and either of the first two years. Finally, the non-linear developmental patterns of L2 learners� lexical richness and syntactic complexity in this study was also proved in Wen (2006)�s study, where the period between Year 2 and Year 3 saw the most noticeable progress. This could possibly be accounted for by �the prime period for learning� hypothesis (Wen, 2006), which states that the period between Year 2 and Year 3 is an optimal stage for language development during four years� undergraduate study. As the teaching methods and learning environment in the university are quite different from those in the high school, the students need to adapt to them during the first year at university. As a consequence, the obvious growth of lexical and syntactic complexity occurs in the later period. 4.2.2 Lexical richness in no relation to syntactic complexity With regard to the relationship between lexical richness and syntactic complexity, the present study yields a surprising yet enlightening result: they progress independent of each other in three years. This is consistent with Li (2007)�s study focusing on the written data. This may indicate that Chinese L2 learners do not develop their lexical richness and syntactic complexity simultaneously or in balance, no matter in their written English or spoken English. However, Li (2007) also concluded that, compared with Swedish L2 learners, Chinese L2 learners exhibited comparable lexical richness but quite a large gap in syntactic complexity in writing, which indicates that more attention should be drawn to syntactic development. Different from that, the present study shows that in L2 learners� spoken performance lexical sophistication enjoys a fastest growth in the first period while syntactic complexity measured by (C+VP)/T and DC/C outperforms it in the second interval. Therefore, L2 learners� growth of lexical richness and syntactic complexity in the oral output reveals its unique features, which are quite distinct from those in their written production. Generally speaking, in spoken performance, L2 learners put more weight on lexical development in the first interval, in particular the expansion of advanced vocabulary while in the second interval they apparently turn more attention to the growth of syntactic complexity, thus indicating separate developmental trajectories of lexical richness and syntactic complexity in different periods. Concerning lexical development, lexical sophistication constantly displays a relatively fast and steady growth while lexical variance progresses slowest among four developmental indices, which corresponds to the fact that Chinese L2 learners usually attach much importance to acquisition of a large quantity of words, in particular those less frequent words while ignoring the diversity of lexical choices. Besides, the finding that lexical sophistication and lexical variation do not develop in tandem may also suggest that the growth of lexical sophistication does not necessarily mean varied word choices, especially in spoken English. It is a common phenomenon that L2 learners with abundant advanced vocabulary may only have a limited active word repertoire and thus could not diversify their use of L2 vocabulary. As for the development of syntactic complexity represented by (C+VP)/T and DC/C, something enlightening could be discerned in this study. Though the developmental curves of the two syntactic indices in table 4.3 do not show much wide differences, it could still be observed that DC/C grows at a faster pace than (C+VP)/T in the first period while (C+VP)/T surpasses it in the second interval. This indicates that the development of syntactic complexity is featured much by subordination in the first period while verbal phrases, including participles, gerunds and infinitives, present a faster and more noticeable growth in the second interval, for, though both (C+VP)/T and DC/C measure complexity through subordination, (C+VP)/T also draws upon great varieties of verbal phrases. 5�Conclusion 5.1 Major findings of the study The findings of the statistic analyses in Chapter Four can be summarized as follows: First, it is found that both lexical richness and syntactic complexity of L2 learners� oral output show non-linear progression along their three years� learning. Specifically speaking, only the third year witnesses a significant growth of their lexical richness and syntactic complexity. Second, lexical richness and syntactic complexity develop at a different pace in two periods. In the first interval between Year One and Year Two, there is no apparent difference between the growth rate of lexical richness and that of syntactic complexity. In the second interval between Year Two and Year Three, syntactic complexity grows at a faster rate than lexical variance, but at the same rate as lexical sophistication. Lastly, there is no significant correlation between lexical richness and syntactic complexity in each year. It is concluded that the L2 learners� development of lexical richness is independent of their development of syntactic complexity. 5.2 Implications Theoretical and pedagogical implications elicited from the findings of this study are discussed in the following two sections. 5.2.1 Theoretical implications This study enriches the research on the development of L2 lexical richness and syntactic complexity in speaking from two perspectives. Firstly, few longitudinal studies in this area were carried out in the context of China, especially on oral output (Wen, 2006a). Consequently, this study proves to be meaningful by furthering our understanding of the dynamic patterns of lexical richness and syntactic complexity of Chinese L2 learners in their oral performance. Secondly, based on C/T, this study proposes a new developmental index for measuring syntactic complexity�(C+VP)/T, which takes verbal phrases into account besides the degree of subordinating when measuring syntactic complexity, and is proved valid and reliable in the present study. It opens up a new way for assessing syntactic complexity for future research. 5.2.2 Pedagogical implications The present study also provides insights into the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax for learners in China as well as the teaching and testing of oral English. One implication is related to the result that lexical richness and syntactic complexity neither develop simultaneously nor at the same rate. Such a result indicates that L2 learners should pay equal attention to both lexical and syntactic development and balance the growth of the two. In particular, at the beginning stage, L2 learners should also lay emphasis on the growth of their syntactic complexity besides that of their lexical richness. Another implication comes from the fact that lexical variance progresses at the slowest pace among four developmental indices (LV, LS, (C+VP)/T, DC/C) no matter in the first period or in the second period. The efficiency and precision of the students� acquisition process may be improved by encouraging increased class and /or individual student awareness of lexical choices. Students should also learn to increase their stock of lexical choices and try to use more varied words in oral production. What is also worth mentioning is that L2 learners should attach much importance to the acquisition and application of verbal phrases in the development of syntactic complexity in addition to that of variegated subordinate clauses. The last implication is for teachers. This study indicates that better spoken performance is featured by greater diversity of lexical choices, more use of relatively sophisticated words and syntactic constructions. So, teachers are hereby advised to devote more attention to such aspects of vocabulary and syntax in L2 learners� oral production through some activities, such as timely comments on students� oral performance, giving them more opportunities to communicate with native speakers and introducing to them diversified syntactic constructions and vocabulary and the like. References Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bofman, T. (1989). Attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 17-34. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 390-395. Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2007). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and writing (online), pp. 1-16. Netherlands: Springer. Casanave, C. (1994). Language development in students' journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 179-201. Cooper, T. C. (1976). Measuring written syntactic patterns of second language learners of German. The Journal of Educational Research, 69, 176-183. Cragg, L., & Nation, K. (2006). Exploring written narrative in children with poor reading comprehension. Educational Psychology, 26, 55�72. Crowhurst, M. (1980). Syntactic complexity and teachers� quality ratings of narrations and arguments. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 223�231. Crowhurst, M. (1983). Syntactic complexity and writing quality: A review. Canadian Journal of Education, 8, 1�16. Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of L2 compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4 (2), 139-155. Flahive, D. E., & Snow, B. G.. (1980). Measures of syntactic complexity in evaluating ESL compositions. In J. W. Oller & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp.171-176). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken Language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354-75. Gitsaki, C. (1999). Second language lexical acquisition: A study of the development of collocational knowledge. San Francisco-London-Bethesda: International Scholars Publications. Hirano, K. (1991). The effect of audience on the efficacy of objective measures of EFL proficiency in Japanese university students�. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 2, 21-30. Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written and three grade levels. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35 (134), 1-67. Hyltenstam, K. (1988). Lexical characteristics of near-native second-language learners of Swedish. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9, 67-84. Ishikawa, S. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 51-70. James, M. (2002). Process writing and vocabulary development: Comparing lexical frequency profiles across drafts. System, 30, 225-235. Kameen, P. T. (1979). Syntactic skill and ESL writing quality. In C. Yorio, K. Perkins, & J. Schachter (Eds.), On TESOL� 79: The learner in focus (pp. 343-364). Washington, D. C.: TESOL. Larsen�Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27 (4), 590-619. Laufer, B. (1991). The development of L2 lexis in the expression of the advanced learner. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 440-448. Laufer, B. (1994). The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time? RELC Journal, 25, 21-33. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 307-322. Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19 (2), 255- 271. Li, C. S. [Ng�u], 2007, -N�V'Yf[u/f&Tw���͋Gl YBg�^�Ny��W�NSWECCLf[`N�틙e�^�vxvz. _lςY�Yef[xvz (1): 26-300 Li, J. Q., & Cai, J. T. [Ngof�l !�ё�N], 2001, -N�Vf[u�틙Q\O-N�v�Q͋�(u�sa�  y��W�N틙e�^�vxvz. �>e�QY�V�f[b�f[�b (6): 58-620 Linnarud, M. (1986). Lexis in composition: A performance analysis of Swedish L2 learner s written English. Malm�: CWK Gleerup. Liu, D. H. [RNy�], 2003, ͋Glϑ(W�틙Q\O-N�v\O(u. �s�NY� (2): 180-1970 Morris, T. N., & Crump, D.W. (1982). Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(2), 163-172. Nation, P., & Coxhead, A. (2002). Range. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from http://www.Vuw.ac.nz./lals /staff/paul.Nation Nation, P., & Heatley, A. (1994). VocabProfile: A program for analyzing vocabulary in texts. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington. Ni, L. [WXYZ[mo��������ȷ���wfwTBfw1 h�(5�CJOJQJ\�^JaJ#h�(5�CJOJQJ\�^JaJ o(#hQ+$5�CJOJQJ\�^JaJ o( h�(5�CJOJQJ\�^JaJ, h�(5�CJOJQJ\�^JaJ h9�h�(CJ,OJQJ^JaJ,h�V�CJ,OJQJ^JaJ,o(h�(CJ,OJQJ^JaJ,o( h�(5�CJ,OJQJ\�^JaJ,#h�(B*CJ,OJQJ^JaJ,ph#h9�B*CJ,OJQJ^JaJ,ph&h�V�B*CJ,OJQJ^JaJ,o(phXYZ[^mno������ , M Y ^ j o � � ������������������������ �0d�WD�`�0gd�(d�gd�(gd�( $dha$gd�(dhgd�(��Y Z ] ^ j � � ,  Z t v   " 2 4 6 8 B ����ù������r��i�`U`i�J?hQQ�5�CJ aJ o(hZt�5�CJ aJ o(h�:�>*CJaJo(h�(>*CJaJh�(CJaJo(h�x�h�(>*CJaJo(h�x�>*CJaJo(h�x�h�x�>*CJaJo(h�x�h�(>*CJaJh�(B*CJaJphh�(CJaJh�(B*CJ,ph�hZt�5�CJ,o(h�&)5�CJ,o( h�(5�CJ, h�(5�CJOJQJ\�^JaJ #h�(5�CJOJQJ\�^JaJ,o(� �  v � 4 6 8 : < > @ B D F H J n p �������������������� $dha$gdQQ�dhgdQQ�gd�( �0WD�`�0gd�( �<�0WD�`�0gd�x� �0d�WD�`�0gd�(B D H J n p ~ � � � ,?GHIJK[j����������0IJWY^���������������������Ǒ���zsl���zsl�a�hD�5�CJPJo( hQQ�CJo( h�O+CJo( h�Q�CJo(hQQ�B*CJph hQQ�CJ h�O+CJhQQ�5�CJPJhQQ�5�CJo(hsl5�CJo( hsl5�CJ h�GE5�CJ h�Q�5�CJ hQQ�5�CJhQQ�CJ aJ hQQ�5�CJ aJ h�&)5�CJ aJ o(h�Q�5�CJ aJ o(h�^�5�CJ aJ o(&p � K��J��@�:y�Y������������������� ��dhWDd`��gd�& �hdhgdQQ� �XdhWD�`�XgdQQ������dhUD��WDd]���`��gd}X ��dhWDd`��gdQQ�dhgdQQ� $dha$gdQQ�^_xz������������������  #367:=>?@CDNOXw}�������������������ȡ����������ȍ�������������~ȡ�����h��hQQ�CJ h9�CJ h9�CJo( h�O+CJ h�Q�CJo( h�O+CJo( h�Q�CJhQQ�B*CJphh�6hQQ�CJ hQQ�CJo( hQQ�CJhQQ�5�CJo(h�O+5�CJo( hQQ�5�CJh�Q�5�CJo( h�Q�5�CJhD�5�CJo(1�������*459^qtuwxy|���������  ?PSUXcdt������������������������������ƽ���������֗�����������֊���� hslCJ h9�CJo( h�& CJh�Q�5�CJo(h�O+5�CJo( h�Q�5�CJ hQQ�5�CJhQQ�5�CJo(hQQ�5�CJPJ h�Q�CJo( h�O+CJ h�Q�CJh�m�hQQ�CJ hQQ�CJ hQQ�CJo( h�O+CJo(6���������� -6:;=>@ALPQZ\]ilnqruvwyz|}����������������������������øï������������y�s h�CJhQQ�5�CJo(h�Q�5�CJPJo(h,W5�CJPJo(h�5�CJPJo(h�O+h�O+5�CJPJh�Q�5�CJPJhD�5�CJPJo(h�O+hQQ�5�CJPJo(h�O+h�O+5�CJPJo( h�Q�CJ hQQ�CJo( h�O+CJo( h�Q�CJo( h�O+CJ-��A}�]����������lX�����dhUD��WD ]���`��gd�Q� ������dhUD��WD�]���`�gdu� ����������dhUD��VDWD��]���^��`���gd�Q� ���dhWD�`�gdu�����dhUD��WD�]���`�gdu������dhUD��WDd]���`��gdu� �hdhgd�O+ ��dhWDd`��gdQQ�dhgdQQ� ��������ENY[\]r��������������    ����������»�Ψ΢��������΄���΄}��w}wpw�� h|aCJo( h�~�CJ h� �CJo( h�~�CJo( h�& CJh�^�h�& CJo( h�^�CJo( h�^�CJhp�hQQ�CJh�:�hQQ�CJo( h�& CJo( hu�CJ h�CJhp�hQQ�CJo( hQQ�CJo( h�CJo( hslCJo( h�Q�CJo( hslCJ h�Q�CJ* 5=?@AC��������������6GMNPRSTet�����������������������������羷���������ǎǕ�{��ǎ�{��� hQQ�CJo(h�:�hQQ�5�CJo( hu�CJo(h�(�hQQ�CJh�d 5�CJo(h�Q�5�CJo( h�d 5�CJ h�Q�5�CJhQQ�5�CJo( h�d CJo( h�d CJ h�Q�CJo( h�& CJ h�Q�CJhp�hQQ�CJo( h�& CJo( h}XCJo(0D��T���*+,-./01���������������� ��dhWD�`��gd�= $a$gdu� ��dhWD,`��gdQQ� ��dhWD�`��gdQQ������dhUD��WDd]���`��gdu�dhgdQQ� �XdhWD�`�XgdQQ� ��dhWDd`��gdQQ�����������&')*./01ABCD ��������ƽ��������w�rjaZaZPh4�h�= CJ\� h�= CJo(hY Hh�= CJhu�hu�o( hu�o(h�= hu�B*o(ph�h�x�B*ph�hu�B*o(ph�hR05�CJo(h�d 5�CJo( hu�5�CJ hQQ�5�CJ h�Q�5�CJhQQ�5�CJo(h��hQQ�CJo( h�d CJo( h�d CJ h�Q�CJ hQQ�CJo( h�V�CJo( hu�CJo( h}XCJo(1BCD�&4�cdfoqrh��"!!$h&�������������������� ��dh`��gd�= �XdhWD�`�Xgd�= gd�= gd�= dhgd�= ��dhWD�`��gd�= ��dhWD�`��gd�= gdu�gdu�(AB\jqrx�������� #$@ARS���������%&GWY]`�����245KSilz{�����������������������������������������Դ���ŭ�ԤԤԝ���������� hVH�h�= h�)�h�= CJ h�)�h�= h�c4h�= CJh�s�h�= o( h�= CJhVH�h�= CJ h�= CJo(h.o�h�= CJhY Hh�= CJh4�h�= CJ\�h�= CJ\�o(>��������cdefopqrhor������ .7Udgosy��������!"��� � !!!Y"\"g"h"�"�"�"����������˾�˹��������������������h�gWh�= CJo( h�= CJh*�h�= CJh*�h�= CJo( h�&)o(h�= h�= B*o(ph� h�= o(h�= h�s�h�= CJo(h�)�h�= CJo(hVH�h�= CJ h�= CJo( h[ CJo(;�"�"�"�"#"#%#_#g#i#m#q#z##�#�#�#�#�#�#�#�#$$[$b$�$�$�$�$h&i&s&�&�&�&'$'%'( ( (�-�->.@.������������������������������������������}�w hhjCJh�&)h�= 5�CJOJQJo(h�&)h�= CJOJQJo(h�= 5�CJ OJaJ o(hu�h�= 5�CJ aJ o( h�&)o( hu�o(h�&)hu�CJo(h�&)h�= CJh�&)h�= CJo(h�&)h�= 5�CJo(h�p~h�= CJo( h�= CJo( h�= CJ-h&i&�&''''''''' ' ' ' ' '''''''����������������������dhgdu�� ���dhVD:WD��^� `���gd�&)����dhWD��^�`���gd�= ��dh`��gd�= ''''''''''''' '!'"'#'$'&' ( (x(�(:)|)������������������������ ��dh`��gd�= $dha$gd�= $dha$gdu�dhgdu�|)�*x,�-�-.@.B.b.d.c1d1{1�5������������s ��dhWD�`��gd�Q� dh@&gd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�4$����dhWD�^��`��a$gd�Q����vdhVD�WD1^��`�vgd�= ���P�dhWDx�^��`�P�gd�= ���}�dhWD��^��`�}�gd�= ��dhWD�`��gd�= ��dh`��gd�= @.B.b.d.a1b1c1d1{1�1%2&2s2t2z2|2�2�2�2�2�2�2�2�2b4c4t4u4}4~4�4�4�4�4�4�455�588'8:r:s:�����ö�ן�����������������������������è�z� h�4h�Q�B*CJKH\�phhCkbh�6�CJo(hCkbh� �CJo(hCkbh�Q�CJh�4h�Q�5�CJPJaJhF �5�CJPJaJo(h�4h�Q�CJ aJ h�4h�4CJh�4h�Q�CJh�Q�5�CJ aJ o(h�Q�5�CJ PJaJ o( h�Q�CJo(,�588'8s:t:u:v:w:x:y:z:�:�:�=�=�=�>�@�C������������������� ��dhWD�`��gd� � ��dhWD�`��gd�Q�$��dhWD�`��a$gd�Q� dh@&gd�Q�$����dhWD�^��`��a$gd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q�s:y:�:�:�:;O;V;a;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;<<< < < <<<<<<<<<#<$<(<)<-<.<3<4<7<8<=<><A<B<K<L<O<P<S<T<V<W<Y<Z<_<`<c<d<������������ȿ�ؿؿؿؿؿؿؿؿؿؿؿؿؿؿ��ؿؿؿؿؿؿؿؿؿؿؿؿؿ�h�?;h�Q�CJh0uh�Q�CJh0uh�Q�CJo( h�Q�CJ h�Q�CJo( h�Q�o(h�Q�5�CJ PJaJ o(h�4h�Q�5�CJ PJaJ Hd<h<i<k<l<z<{<�<�<�<�<�<�<�<�<�<�<== =�=�=�=�=�=�=�=�=�=�=�=�=>>> >>?>@>B>I>Q>�>?)?0?1?9?Q?\?]?d?f?l?m?�?�?�?������������������������Ƚ�����������������������h�a�h�Q�CJh�Dh�Q�CJo(h�Q�5�CJPJaJo(h'K�h�Q�5�CJKHh�(l5�CJKHo(h�Q�CJ aJ h� �CJo(h0uh�Q�CJo( h�Q�CJh�?;h�Q�CJ h�Q�CJo(h0uh�Q�CJ9�?�?�?�?�?�?�?�?�?�?�?$@A@B@T@U@\@t@�@�@�@�@�@�@�@�@�@.A/APAQAmArAsA�A�ABB4B;B h�Q�CJo(h�h�Q�CJh}*>h�Q�CJ h�Q�CJ h�Q�CJo(h�a�h�Q�CJ>�C�C�C�C�G�IKK�P�Q�Q�QpR"U{W?]__`_y_na c@gAg_g�h����������������������� ��WD�`��gd�Q��`�gd�Q� �hdhWD�`�hgd�Q� dh@&gd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q�XDgDjD�D�D�D�D�D:EWE^E�E�E�E�E�E�EeFgF�F�F�F�FG>G�G�G�G�GOHPH�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I J"J0J1JLJKKyK�K�K�K�K�K�K�K�K�K�K�K�KILKLWLYL�L�L�L�LM McMeMvMzM�M�M�M�M�����������������������������������������������������������������������������h��h�Q�CJo(h��h�Q�CJhSw h�Q�CJo(hSw h�Q�CJ h�Q�CJ h�Q�CJo(hQYh�Q�CJM�MN"NrNtN O OvOzO�O�O!P#P$P%P�P�P�P�P�P�P�P�P�P0Q1Q=QBQ�Q�Q�Q�Q�Q�Q�Q�Q�Q�QRRR RoRpRZS[S�S������������������������������ͽ���������ׇv�h0/�h�Q�CJo( hF �CJo(h0/�h�Q�CJ h�Dh�Q�5�B*mH ph�sH hJ,�h�Q�5�B*CJph�h�Q�5�B*CJo(ph�hJ,�h�Q�5�B*CJo(ph�hCK�h�Q�CJo( h�Q�CJh�?;h�Q�CJ h�Q�CJo(h��h�Q�CJo(h��h�Q�CJ.�S�S]TaT!URUzU�U�U�V�V{WW�W�W�W�W�W�WXX�X�X�X�XY!YqYsY�Y�Y�Y�Y5Z6ZyZzZ�Z[R[{[|[[�[�[�[�[\\\$\>\@\h\m\�\�\�\�\�\�\]]=]>]?]M]���������������������������������������������������������������̼�h�Q�B*CJph�h�2mh�Q�CJ hCkbCJo(h�f?h�Q�CJo(h�f?h�Q�CJ h�Q�CJ h�Q�CJo(h0/�h�Q�CJh0/�h�Q�CJo(BM]�]�]�]�]�]�]7^U^^___`_c_d_n_o_x_y_�_�_�_�_�_�_�_�_ ``�`�` aamana�a�abbWbXb�b�b�b���������������������܇���z�z��m�m�m�m�mhZr�h�Q�B*CJph�h�h�Q�B*CJph�h�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h�Q�5�CJPJaJo(h0h0h�Q�5�CJPJaJo(h0h0h�Q�5�CJPJaJhJ�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h�2mh�Q�mH o(sH h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h�Q�B*CJph�hl!h�Q�B*CJph�*�b�b�b�b c c$c2cGcHcScWcXc`cec�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�cdd`dfdgd�d�d�d�d�d�d�d�d�d�dee ee)e�e�e�e�e[f����������ݵее���е�����ݵݍ݀�ݍ�ݵݍ�ݍ�ݍ�h�/�h�Q�B*CJph�h�/�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�hS�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h�Q�B*o(ph�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h�h�Q�B*CJph�h�Q�B*CJph�hZr�h�Q�B*CJph�h� ;B*CJo(ph�/[flf~f�f�f�f�f�f�fgggg&g>g?g@gAg^g_gdgzg�g�g�g�g�g=h>h�h�h�h�h�h�h�h�h������̽�����褚��r�r�r�r�r�r�r�erh+V�h�Q�B*CJph�hw h�Q�B*CJph�h�Q�5�B*CJph�h9B)h�Q�5�B*CJph�h�+Dh�Q�CJo(h�S�h�Q�B*CJph�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h�#h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h6D�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h�#h�Q�B*CJph�h�Q�B*CJph�h6D�h�Q�B*CJph�$�h�h�h�hVi]i�i�i�i�iLjMjSjZjbjcjwk~k?l@lAlBl�l�l�l�l3m:m�m�m�m�m�m�m�m�m#nBnDnJnLnOnPnXn�n�����������������̼̼������̼̼̼̼̼̳����{h?0h�Q�CJKH#h?0h�Q�CJKHOJQJ^Jo( h?0h�Q�CJKHOJQJ^Jh?0h�Q�CJo(h?0h�Q�CJ h�Q�CJo(h�SFh�Q�CJh�SFh�Q�CJo(h�Q�B*CJo(ph�hw h�Q�B*CJph�h�Q�B*CJph� hw h�Q�,�hcj�o�q�q�qOs%w&wKwxyKz�|�������������������� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q���dhVDWD�`��gd�Q���dh@&WD�`��gd�Q�WD�gd�Q� dh@&gd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd� ; ��WD�`��gd�Q��n�n�n�no o�o�o�o�o�o�q�q�q�q�q�q�qhr�r�rNsOsesfsos|s�s�s�s�s�s�s�s�s�s�s�s�s't.t�����������»������t�gt�t���t��������t�th��h�Q�B*CJph�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h�Q�B*CJph�hDlh�Q�B*CJo(ph� h�Q�o(hz�h�Q�CJo(h^N�h�Q�5�CJh�Q�5�CJo( h�Q�5�CJh��h�Q�CJh�SFh�Q�B*CJph�h�SFh�Q�CJ h� ;CJo(h?0h�Q�CJKHh?0h�Q�CJKHo((.t5t?tKuLuXuYu�u�u�u�uKvMv%w&wJwKwawww�w�w�w�w�wxxx{x|x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x��������������ʿ������������y�ym^ymyhJx�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h� ;B*CJo(ph�hJx�h�Q�B*CJph�hg4�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�$h�@h�Q�5�B*CJPJaJph� h�Q�CJ h�Q�CJo(hg4�h�Q�CJo(h�Q�5�CJPJaJh�Dh�Q�5�CJPJaJo(h�s h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h�Q�B*CJph�$�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�xyyy y y!y:y=yRyUy_ypytyvywyxy}y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y�y z zzzzzz������������ؿ�����嵦�����妿����̦�̿�̿�̦��̦���̦�hg4�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h�Q�B*CJph�hg4�h�Q�B*CJph�h� ;B*CJo(ph�hJx�h�Q�B*CJph�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�hJx�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�Azz&z*zJz�z�z@{C{�{�{D|J|s|~|�|�|f}h}r}t}�}�}�}�}�}�}~~~~(~)~1~=~@~`~a~e~z~{~�~�~�~#,���������������������������������������������������۸��������h��h�Q�5�CJ PJaJ o(h��h�Q�o( h�Q�CJo(h�Ch�Q�CJh�Ch�Q�CJo(h� ;B*CJo(ph�hg4�h�Q�B*CJph�h�Q�B*CJph�hg4�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�h�Q�B*CJo(ph�7������h�H����������a�q�v��������������������x$IfWD2`�xgd*5� $Ifgd�Av ��dhWD�`��gd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q�dhgd�Q�$��dhWD�`��a$gd�Q�����������πրـ����W�e�g�h���������Ɂҁ�������� � ��.�2�3�6�:�>�?�D�G�H�}�~�������������ſϿ����{�{�{�{�{�{�{�{�{�{�{�{�{�{�{�{�{�{�h�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph#h c�h�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph�h�Q�B*CJKH\�phh�v�h�Q�CJKH\�h�v�h�Q�CJ h�Q�CJhE"�h�Q�CJo( h�Q�CJo(h�Q�5�CJPJaJo(hV:h�Q�5�CJ PJaJ o(h�Q�5�CJ PJaJ o(0�������������U�Z�^�}���������� �1�?�M�O�_�j�o�q��������:�<�m�n����*���������_�p�����������������������������������������������h�Hnh�Q�CJh� �h�Q�CJh�z�h�Q�CJ h�8CJo( h�Q�CJo( h�Q�CJh�U�h�Q�CJh�Q�5�CJo(h��h�Q�5�CJ#h��h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�phh�Q�CJ aJ o(hE"�h�Q�CJo(h�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph.p�q�s�v���������R�X�|�}������������������+�K�M�}����������������*�+�c�d�t�~��������������������������Ћx�y�̌͌؍܍��������������������������������������޼���������������������h�Q�5�CJo(h��h�Q�5�CJh*5�h�Q�CJaJh�w�h�Q�CJo( h�8CJo(h^;Dh�Q�6�CJ h�Q�CJo( h�Q�CJh*5�h�Q�CJo(h*5�h�Q�CJh^;Dh�Q�CJ>������������x$IfWD2`�xgd*5� $Ifgd�Avekd$$IfT�l4�0���� �< t��6�������������4�4� la�p�����yt*5��T������t���������w��$IfWDd`��gd*5� $$Ifa$gd*5�dhgd�Q�ekd�$$IfT�l4�0���� < t��6�������������4�4� la�p�����yt*5��T������������H$IfWD^`�Hgd*5� $Ifgd�Avgkd($$IfT�l4�I�0����  t��6�������������4�4� la�p�����yt*5��T������Ћ9�M�Y������������wiw]iww �hdh^�hgd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q�dhgd�Q� $dha$gd�Q�gkd�$$IfT�l4�k�0���   t��6�������������4�4� la�p�����yt*5��T �9�=�M�Q�X�Y�_�`����������������Վ֎�����������d�e�������������������a�e�ڗۗ������������������������ù�������㥜��������������������xh�85�CJo( h� �CJo(h��h�Q�5�CJh?U�h�Q�CJo(h5w�h�Q�CJh�Q� h�8CJo(h$h�Q�CJh?U�h�Q�aJo( h�Q�aJo( h�Q�aJh0s�h�Q�aJh>�h�Q�CJo( h�Q�CJh�Q�B*KH\�aJo(ph h�Q�CJo(/����������ʘ˘̘ܘ������������� dh$Ifgd*5���dh$IfWD�`��gd*5� $dha$gd� �dhgd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q� ������������ŘƘɘʘ̘ۘܘ���� � ����&�'�.�/���������%�&�-�.���������������ʚ͚>�L�������������ʛћL�k�����������ʝv����������������������ûûûûûû÷�������������������������� h�Q�CJo( h�Q�CJh��h�Q�5�CJ h�Q�o(h�Q�h�w\h�Q�o( h�w\h�Q�h�w\h�Q�;�h*5�h�Q�;�hSM�h�Q�5�CJo( h�Q�5�CJhSM�h�Q�5�CJh�Q�5�CJo(=��&�0�?���J>>>> dh$Ifgd*5��kdX$$If�l��\�@ t"�������p t��0�t"���������������������4�4� la�lp�(��������yt*5������������8,, dh$Ifgd*5��kd<$$If�l��\�@ t"�������p t��0�t"���������������������4�4� la�lp�(��������yt*5���dh$IfWD�`��gd*5�����������,�kd $$If�l��\�@ t"�������p t��0�t"���������������������4�4� la�lp�(��������yt*5���dh$IfWD�`��gd*5� dh$Ifgd*5��%�/�0�?�������������dh$IfWD�`��gd*5� dh$Ifgd*5���������4�J<4& ��dhWD�`��gd�Q�dhgd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q��kd$$If�l��\�@ t"�������p t��0�t"���������������������4�4� la�lp�(��������yt*5�v�w�~��������������ɞΞ������?�A�L�P�R�S�X�Y�\�]�i�j�t�u������������������������ѱ����~q~�eT h�]uh�Q�B*CJKH\�phh�]uh�Q�5�CJo(h�=�5�CJ PJaJ o(hh�Q�5�CJ PJaJ o(h�Q�5�CJPJo(h�!g5�CJ PJaJ h�Q�5�CJ PJaJ o(#h�3 h�Q�B*CJKH\�o(phh�Q�B*CJKH\�phh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph#h�Qh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph h�Q�CJ h�Q�CJo(4�S�T�U�V�W�X�Y�Z�t�u���S�T���?��������������������dhWD�`��gd�Q�l�� �Y ��dh7$8$H$WD�`��gd�Q� �Y dh7$8$H$gd�Q�dhgd�Q�$��dhWD�`��a$gd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q�������=�A�G�H������������֠ڠ۠ޠ���� ������� �X�Y�����ݡޡ��S�T�q�z���������O������޾������������������������������ެ����x��h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�ph h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�o(ph&hg!�h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�o(ph#hg�h�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph#hY= h�Q�B*CJKH\�o(phh�Q�B*CJKH\�phh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph#h�]uh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph.O�P�T�X�[�]�^�c�u�w�~�������������ӣף����� �������&�'�0�1�4�7�S����������������������ᨖ�������sbs h*5�h�Q�B*KH\�aJph#h*5�h�Q�B*KH\�aJo(ph h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�o(ph#h�]uh�Q�5�B*CJKH\�ph h�(laJo(#h�.�h�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph#h�z�h�Q�B*CJKH\�o(phh�Q�B*CJKH\�phh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(phh� �B*CJKH\�o(ph#��1�2�3�4�7�=�B�Q�S�����������$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5� �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5�$ �Y dh7$8$H$a$gd� ���dhWD�`��gd�(ll�� S�T�-�kd�$$If�l4����r�� �l� `�Gpo t��0�������6�������������������������4�4� la�lp�2����������yt*5�S�T�W�d�g�h�k�x�{�}����������������������������ˤΤϤ֤פ٤�����������������*�-�.�/�1�>�A�C�E�R�U�V�]�������������������������������ܻ���������������������#h�Uh�Q�B*KH\�aJo(ph h�Uh�Q�B*KH\�aJph#h*5�h�Q�B*KH\�aJo(phh*5�h�Q�B*KHaJph h*5�h�Q�B*KH\�aJph#h*5�h�Q�5�B*KH\�aJph:T�U�W�]�d�g������$��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�g�h�-�kd$$If�l4����r�� �l� ��G�po t��0�������6�������������������������4�4� la�lp�2����������yt*5�h�i�k�q�x�{������$��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�{�|�-�kdN$$If�l4����r�� �l� ��G�po t��0�������6�������������������������4�4� la�lp�2����������yt*5�|�}�������������$��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�����-�kdo $$If�l4����r�� �l� ��G�po t��0�������6�������������������������4�4� la�lp�2����������yt*5���������������������$��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5� �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�����-�kd� $$If�l4��I�r�� �l� `��G�po t��0�������6�������������������������4�4� la�lp�2����������yt*5������������������$��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�����-�kd� $$If�l4��h�r�� �l� ��G�po t��0�������6�������������������������4�4� la�lp�2����������yt*5�������ĤˤΤ�����$��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�ΤϤ-�kd� $$If�l4��h�r�� �l� ��G�po t��0�������6�������������������������4�4� la�lp�2����������yt*5�ϤҤפ٤���������$��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5� �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5���-�kd$$If�l4��T�r�� �l� `��G�po t��0�������6�������������������������4�4� la�lp�2����������yt*5���������������$��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5����-�kdL$$If�l4��h�r�� �l� ��G�po t��0�������6�������������������������4�4� la�lp�2����������yt*5���� ��������$��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5���-�kdm$$If�l4��h�r�� �l� ��G�po t��0�������6�������������������������4�4� la�lp�2����������yt*5�����#�*�-�������$��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5� �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�-�.�-�kd�$$If�l4��T�r�� �l� `��G�po t��0�������6�������������������������4�4� la�lp�2����������yt*5�.�/�1�7�>�A������$��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�A�B�-�kd�$$If�l4��h�r�� �l� ��G�po t��0�������6�������������������������4�4� la�lp�2����������yt*5�B�C�E�K�R�U������$��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �Y ��dh$7$8$H$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�U�V�7�8�-%%dhgd�Q��kd�$$If�l4��h�r�� �l� ��G�po t��0�������6�������������������������4�4� la�lp�2����������yt*5���������ť������5�6�7�8�:�����������*�+�>�R�S�V�Z�[�������������ɺɺɺɺ����u�k\Sh*5�h�Q�aJh*5�h�Q�B*KHaJphh*5�h�Q�aJo( h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�o(ph hLc5�B*CJKH\�o(ph&h�\h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�o(phh� �B*CJKH\�o(phh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(phh�Q�B*CJKH\�ph h�(laJo(#h�Uh�Q�B*KH\�aJo(phh�Q�B*KH\�aJo(ph8���S�V�[�`�p�{������������������������������Ff� �d�$Ifgd*5�$ �d�$Ifa$gd*5�$ ���d�$IfWD�`��a$gd*5� ���d�$IfWD�`��gd*5�$��dhWD�`��a$gd� � ��dhWD�`��gd� �[�\�_�`�p�����������������������������ΧЧ�� � ��V�W�[�\�^������������������� �>�?�C�D�F���������������ةܩݩߩ!�"�&�'�)�g�h�j�n�r��������������������������������������׺����ͨ������������ͨ�#h*5�h�Q�B*KH\�aJo(ph%h*5�h�Q�B*KHOJQJaJphh*5�h�Q�aJo(h*5�h�Q�aJh*5�h�Q�B*KHaJph h*5�h�Q�B*KHaJo(phB��������������������ǧЧקާ������������������������� �d�$7$8$H$Ifgd*5� ���d�$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5� ���d�$IfWD�`��gd*5�Ff�$ ���d�$IfWD�`��a$gd*5����� � � ����&�-�2�7�?�G�N�V�W�X�Z�\���������������������Ff]" �d�$7$8$H$Ifgd*5� ���d�$IfWD�`��gd*5�Ff� ���d�$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5�\�^�f�n�u�|���������������������������ƨͨ��������������������FfC& �d�$7$8$H$Ifgd*5� ���d�$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5� ���d�$IfWD�`��gd*5�ͨҨרި�������������� ����"�)�1����������������������d�$IfWD�`��gd*5� d�$Ifgd*5� ���d�$IfWD�`��gd*5�Ff * ���d�$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5�1�7�>�?�@�B�D�F�N�U�\�c�h�m�s�y�������������������������Ff�1 �d�$7$8$H$Ifgd*5� ���d�$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5� ���d�$IfWD�`��gd*5�Ff�-��d�$IfWD�`��gd*5���������������������������©ɩЩשة٩۩ݩ��������������������Ff�5 �d�$7$8$H$Ifgd*5� ���d�$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5� ���d�$IfWD�`��gd*5�ݩߩ�������� ���!�"�#�%�'�)�0�7�>�E���������������������Ff)9 �d�$7$8$H$Ifgd*5� ���d�$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5� ���d�$IfWD�`��gd*5�E�J�O�U�[�a�g�h�i�j�o�q�s�u�{��������������������������������� �d�$7$8$H$Ifgd*5� ���d�$IfWD�`��gd*5�Ff�< ���d�$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5�r�s�u��������������F�G�M�����������������[�_�p�s�~����������"�(�,�a�e���������������˿����~p~p~p~p~p~p~p~p~p~p~p~h�Q�B*CJKH\�phh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph#h+&!h�Q�B*CJKH\�o(phh?U�h�Q�KHaJo(h�Q�KHaJo(h�lZh�Q�KHaJh�lZh�Q�KHaJo(%h*5�h�Q�B*KHOJQJaJphh*5�h�Q�B*KHaJphh*5�h�Q�aJo(h*5�h�Q�aJ)������������������ŪͪԪ۪�����������������������������Ff=D �d�$7$8$H$Ifgd*5� ���d�$IfWD�`��gd*5�Ff�@ ���d�$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5��������$�)�.�4�:�@�F�G��������������������� ��K���dhVD��WD�^�K�`��gd�Q�Ff�G �d�$7$8$H$Ifgd*5� ���d�$7$8$H$IfWD�`��gd*5� ���d�$IfWD�`��gd*5������������s�t�w�y�z�{�|�}���������������$��dh$IfWD�`��a$gd�Av($ �����dh$���& #$/��IfUD �WD�]��`��a$gd�Av $dha$gd� � ��dhWD�`��gd�Q� �Y dh7$8$H$gd�Q� ��K���dhVD��WD�^�K�`��gd�Q���������������ĭȭѭݭ߭�������������G�^�h��������۸����۩�����vgWvWh�Uh�Q�5�B*CJ\�phh�Q�5�B*CJ\�o(ph"h�Uh�Q�5�B*CJ\�o(phh� �B*CJKH\�o(ph#h�Uh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(phh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph#hg!�h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�ph h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�o(ph&hg!�h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�o(ph h� �5�B*CJKH\�o(phh�r�s�t�v�w�x�}�~������������������������������������������������z�zh�z�z�z�z�zW h�Uh�Q�B*KH\�aJph#hY#�h�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph#h�Uh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph.jh�Q�B*CJKHU\�mHnHphuh�Uh�Q�B*CJphh�Uh�Q�B*CJo(ph h�Uh�Q�B*CJKH\�ph"h�N�h�Q�5�B*CJ\�o(ph7jh�Uh�Q�B*CJKHU\�mHnHo(phu}����������������������{ZZZZZZZ $ ����K���dhUD �VD��WD�]��^�K�`��a$gd�Q�nkd#J$$If�l�������E 6 ������0�������6������������4� la�yt�Av$��dh$IfWD�`��a$gd�Av ������������|�}� �������hV ���dhWD�`��gd�Q� �Y X �����dh7$8$H$UD��WD�]���`��gd�Q� �Y X ����Hdh7$8$H$UD��VD�]���^�Hgd�Q�$ �Y �g���dh7$8$H$UD��WD�]�g�`��a$gd�Q�$ �����dhUD �WD�]��`��a$gd�Q� $ ����K���dhUD �VD��WD�]��^�K�`��a$gd�Q���������� �4�:�>�d�z�{�}���������װذ������ �h�i�m���������̱ٱ߱�����Ȳ̲����������������޲������������r���������������#h|Jh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(phh�Q�B*CJKH\�phh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph h�Uh�Q�B*CJKH\�ph#h�Uh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(phh�Ah�Q�KH\�aJh�Ah�Q�KH\�aJo(h�Q�B*KH\�aJo(ph#h�Uh�Q�B*KH\�aJo(ph,�&�3�4�;�J�K�`�g���������������,�/�W�e����� �����1�9�A�e�f�g�h�i�{�~�϶ж�� ��������������ʹ�������� �{�{�{��m���������h�_#h�Q�CJKH\�o( h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�o(ph&h/Yqh�Q�5�B*CJKH\�o(ph&h>^.h�Q�5�B*KH\�aJo(phh��h�Q�CJKH\�o(h�Q�CJKH\�o(h�Q�CJKH\�h�$Bh�Q�CJKH\�h�Q�B*CJKH\�phh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph* ��h���]�^�_�s�x����������q�� ���dh$IfUD �]��gd*5� �����dh$IfUD �WD�]��`��gd*5� ����N���dhUD �VD��WD�]��^�N�`��gd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q� ���dhUD �]��gd�Q� ����K���dhUD �VD��WD�]��^�K�`��gd�Q� �-�8�_�d���������ͷϷڷ޷���*�\�]�r�s�u�x���������������������������°ž�m�\mJmJ"h*5�h�Q�5�B*KH\�o(ph h*5�h�Q�B*KHaJo(ph#h*5�h�Q�B*KH\�aJo(phh*5�h�Q�5�B*KH\�phh*5�h�Q�B*KHaJph#h�hh�Q�5�B*CJKH\�ph#h�!�h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�ph h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�o(phh�Q�5�B*CJKH\�phh�Q�B*CJKH\�phh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph�����������$��dh$1$IfWD�`��a$gd*5�$ �����dh$IfUD �WD�]��`��a$gd*5�����������������¸̸͸ѸҸ׸ظ�����-�.�8�9�C�D�s�t�u���I�K�m�p�|�}�ܺ����������˻���۬�ˬ������ی{�m�m�m�h�Q�B*CJKH\�ph h�&h�Q�B*CJKH\�phh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(ph h*5�h�Q�B*KHaJo(phh*5�h�Q�B*KHaJphh*5�h�Q�5�B*KH\�phh*5�h�Q�B*KH\�o(ph"h*5�h�Q�5�B*KH\�o(ph#h*5�h�Q�B*KH\�aJo(ph$������D( �����dh$IfUD �WD�]��`��gd*5��kd�J$$IfT�l4��\���Q�(#`(� pg t��0��������#���������������������4�4� la�p�(��������yt*5��T����������������¸Ǹȸ͸ҸӸظݸ޸������������������������������ �����dh$IfUD �WD�]��`��gd*5�Ff�L �����dh$IfUD �WD�]��`��gd*5�����������.�3�4�9�>�?�D�I�J�O�U�V�[�a�b�g������������������������ ���dh$IfUD �]��gd*5�FfDP �����dh$IfUD �WD�]��`��gd*5�g�m�n�s�t�u�ۺܺ���c�����������v ����dhUD��]���gd�Q������dhVDU�WD�^���`��gd�Q� ���dhUD �]��gd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q�" �,�g������dh7$8$H$UD��VDU�WD�]�g�^���`��gd�Q�Ff�S �����dh$IfUD �WD�]��`��gd*5� ܺ��u�v������������ �0�1�<�@�g�h�}�����������мӼ���;�<�j�o���{��������������8�@�I�a�c�|���������Ҿ������Ҿ������������������������Ұ������h�nh�Q�CJKHo(h�l�h�Q�5�CJKHo(h�Q�5�CJKHo(hwX h�Q�5�CJKHo(h�Q�h�Q�CJKHo(h�Q�CJKHh�Q�CJKHo( h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�o(ph&h�O~h�Q�5�B*CJKH\�o(ph2|�������������οӿܿ��U�Y�_�c����������������� ���)�*�,�7���6�:���������$�&�2�6�>�^�`�{������4�8�:�;�<�U�X���������'�,�5�6�����������������������������������������������������·��������خh�HmCJKHo(h��h�Q�CJKHh Urh�Q�CJKHhy�h�Q�CJKHh�Q�CJKHh�Q�CJKHo(h�nh�Q�CJKHo(h�nh�Q�CJKH@c�����)�;�5�7�v� ������������������������������������$��dhWD�`��a$gd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q� ����N���dhUD �VD��WD�]��^�N�`��gd�Q� ����dhUD��]���gd�Q� ������dhUD��WD�]���`��gd�Q�6�>�E�`�t�v�w�v�z�������l�m�t�v�w�{���������A�I�����t�|�����z�{�������� �5�<�j�l�����������������E�M��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������˷� h�Q�CJh�ENh�Q�CJh�ENh�Q�CJKHh�Q�CJKHo(h�Q�CJKHh�i`h�Q�CJKHh�l�h�Q�5�CJKHo(h�Q�5�CJKHo(D��������� �0�1�1�3��������� ������1�6��������������������������+�|�}��������������üüüüüüî�����ß��������҄Ä}vmhAU5�CJo( h�CJo( h�HmCJo(h(%�h�Q�CJ#h�f�h�Q�B*CJKH\�o(phh�Q�B*CJKH\�o(phh�Q�B*CJKH\�ph h�Q�CJo( h�Q�CJh6G`h�Q�CJ h�Q�5�CJh�R�h�Q�5�CJh~h�Q�5�CJ PJaJ o(h�Q�5�CJ PJaJ o()���[�|�)���+�����S������'�����z�a�����������������������������$��dhWD�`��a$gd�Q� ��dhWD�`��gd� ��dhWD�`��gd�Q�dhgd�Q�������A�C��� �"�� � ��'�!�(�@�C�Z�]�����U�V�h�������h�����������)�*�P�W�������������]�`������������������������������������������������������������潬���hov�h�NuCJaJo(hov�h�Q�5�CJ PJ\�aJ !hov�h�Q�5�CJ PJ\�aJ o(hov�h,WCJh�{hh�Q�CJh�V�5�CJo( h�Q�5�CJ h�Q�CJo( h�Q�CJh(%�h�Q�CJh(%�h�Q�5�CJ5����d��������1���;�����)�����%���\���f�!���a���f��������������������������G� �dhVD�WD8�^�G`� �gd�Q���� �dh7$8$H$VD�WD8�^��`� �gd�Q�gd�Nu����0�V�X�Z�����������������`�l�m�|��������������������^�_�s����������� ��$�&�(�0�1�����������������˶����⑅ԅw�����⑅����⅑����hov�h�p�6�CJaJo(hov�h�Q�6�CJaJhov�h�Q�CJaJhov�h�p�6�CJKHo(hov�h�Q�6�CJKHhov�h�Q�CJKHhov�h�Q�CJo(hov�h�Q�CJhov�h�Q�6�CJaJo(hov�h�Q�CJaJo(!hov�h�Hm5�CJ PJ\�aJ o(.�������������&�'�0�2�3�:�;�E�F�����������������������F�G�\�x�y�z����������������������������!�(�)�=�a�c������������������������������������������¨������������������������hov�hy;6�CJaJo(hov�h5'�CJaJo(hov�h5'�6�CJaJo(hov�h�Q�CJaJo(hov�h�Q�6�CJaJo(hov�hy;CJaJo(hov�h�Q�CJaJhov�h�Q�6�CJaJ<����_�`�b�h�i�������������k��������������P�R�S�T�������������'�(�/�0�9�:�P�Q�W�X�[�]���������������������!�'�@����������������������������������������������ϩ������hov�hx�CJaJhov�hY�CJaJo(hov�hY�6�CJaJo(hov�h�p�CJaJo(hov�hy;CJaJo(hov�h�Q�6�CJaJhov�h�Q�6�CJaJo(hov�h�Q�CJaJo(hov�h�Q�CJaJ8@�A�M�N�Y�Z�f�g�v�w����������������������������������������������%�&�.�/�7�R�S�V�`�a���������������@�T�U�W���������������������࿱�����������������������������h�e:h�Q�6�CJaJh�4�h�Q�CJaJh�Q�CJaJo(h5<�h�Q�6�CJaJo(h5<�h�Q�6�CJaJh�Nh�Q�6�CJaJh5'�CJaJo(h�Q�CJaJhov�h�Q�CJaJhov�h5'�CJaJo(8W�X�Y�Z�[�d�e����������� ����"�J�V�h�l�|���������������:�<�N�P�z���������������"�J����������������������������������ynynynyny�hPCt6�CJaJo(h�]dhPCt6�CJaJhPCtCJaJh"1CJaJh�m�h"1CJaJh�m�h"1CJaJo(h"1CJaJo(h�]dh�Q�6�CJaJh�Q�CJaJh5<�CJaJo(h�Q�CJaJo(h5<�h�Q�6�CJaJh5<�h�Q�6�CJaJo(h5<�6�CJaJo(+f�����P�N���<���K�`�� ��$ ������������������� �dh7$8$H$VD�WD8�^��`� �gd�H*��� �dh7$8$H$VD�WD8�^��`� �gdPCt��� �dh7$8$H$VD�WD8�^��`� �gd"1��� �dh7$8$H$VD�WD8�^��`� �gd�Q�J�N�r�z���������&�(�<�>�b�d�r�t�����������������������������������!�+�;�<�F�I�Q�R�^�_�c�e�����������������������������������Ź�ܱ�������zh�ah�aCJo(h�ah�a6�CJo(h�ahPCt6�CJh�ahPCtCJaJo(h�ahPCtCJaJh�Q�CJaJh�e:h�Q�6�CJaJh�e:h�Q�6�CJaJo(h-fKCJaJo(h�Q�CJaJo(h"1CJaJh"1CJaJo(hPCtCJaJo(/e�o�s�y�z���������������I�J�K�� ^`p�����n�����������������͵�����������̓z�n`n�h�e:h�Q�6�CJaJo(h�e:h�Q�6�CJaJh�Q�CJaJo(hO�h�Q�CJaJh�ah�Q�6�CJaJo(h�ah-fKCJaJo(h�ah"1CJaJUh�ah"1CJaJo(h�ah�Q�CJaJo(h�ah�Q�CJaJh�ah�H*CJaJo(h�p�h�p�CJh�ah�H*CJo(h�ah�H*CJ"*P�\], 2000, ��NN�Nt^�~f[u�Q\O͋Gl�vxvz. �VYY�Yef[ (2): 38-410 Nihanani, N. K. (1981). The quest for the L2 index of development. RELC Journal, 12, 50-56. Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., & Duthie, J. K. (2005). Conversational versus expository discourse: A study of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1048 1064. Nippold, M. A., Mansfield, T. C., & Billow, J. L. (2007). Peer conflict explanations in children, adolescents, and adults: Examining the development of complex syntax. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 179 188. 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. Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005).Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 26-45. Perkins, K. (1980). Using objective methods of attained writing proficiency to discriminate among holistic evaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 61-69. Qin, X. Q. [�ySftf], 2007, -N�V'Yf[u�틙Q\O���R�SU\ĉ�_Nyr�pxvz. S�N: -N�V>yO�yf[�QHr>y0 Sharma, A. (1980). Syntactic maturity: Assessing writing proficiency in a second language. In R. Silverstein (Ed.), Occasional papers in linguistics, 6, (pp. 318-325). Carbondale: Southern Illionois University. Shaw, P., & Liu, E. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19, 225-254. Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17 (1), 65-83. Wen, Q. F. [�e�y��], 2006, ��NNf[u�S�͋Gl�SS�v���RNyr�p. Y�Yef[Nxvz(3): 189-1950 Wen, Q. F. [�e�y��], 2006, ��NNf[u�S�͋Glۏek!j_xvz. Y�5uSYef[ (4): 3-80 Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Hae-Young, K. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Manoa: University of Hawai i. Wu, X.D., & Chen, X.Q. [4T�eN H�Sf�^], 2000, -N�V��f[u��X�s�X N͋Gl���R�v�SU\. �s�NY� (4): 349-3600 Yu, H. [�ONS], 2004, -N�Vf[u�틙Q\O-N�v�S�lЏ(u �W�N틙e�^�vR�g. Ux�Xxvzu���e, ^NY�Y8�'Yf[0 Zhang, P. [ _ �], 2007, N T�N�f[`N�͋Gl YBg�^�v틙e�^�[�kxvz. -N�VY� (3): 54-590      PAGE 1  PAGE 22  PAGE iii WS�N�]N'Yf[,g�yu�kN��������e �  PAGE 21 Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 3 Methodology WS�N�]N'Yf[,g�yu�kN��������e � Chapter 2 Literature review WS�N�]N'Yf[,g�yu�kN��������e � Chapter 3 Methodology Chapter 4 Results and discussion WS�N�]N'Yf[,g�yu�kN��������e � Chapter 5 Conclusion References  PAGE 23 LS 3� CV/T DC/C LV Year 2� 1.40 1.30 1.20 Mean 1.10 1.00 ����Bhj�����������  02VXtv����������  46Z^fj�� hlpr�n������������߽���������������������ӽ��߽߽������ӽ�߽�Ӑh�7�h�Q�CJaJh-fKh�Q�6�CJaJo(h-fKCJaJo(h�4�h�Q�CJaJh�Q�CJaJh�e:h�Q�6�CJaJo(h�e:h�Q�6�CJaJh�Q�CJaJo(hO�h�Q�CJaJh-fKh�Q�6�CJaJ8�����������     " $ 8 < D F � �  " $ 6 8 L V X n p � � � �������ֿ������ֿ�����߳������{�{�ofh�3rCJaJo(h�4�h�3rCJaJo(hY�CJaJo(hY�6�CJaJo(h�p�6�CJaJo(hpIh�Q�6�CJaJo(h�4�h�Q�CJaJh�4�h�Q�CJaJo(hiH�h"1CJaJhiH�h"1CJaJo(h"1CJaJo(h�Q�CJaJo(h�7�h�Q�CJaJh-fKh�Q�6�CJaJ$$ � � � 2 � �"��������������������������dhgd�H��� �dh7$8$H$VD�WD8�^��`� �gd`+���� �dh7$8$H$VD�WD8�^��`� �gd"1��� �dh7$8$H$VD�WD8�^��`� �gd�Q���� �dh7$8$H$VD�WD8�^��`� �gdY�� � � � � � � � � � �  8 D | ~ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � n �����Ǽ��۴�ۨ���ۂ��v�k_k_Sh�Ih�Q�CJaJo(h�4�h�Q�CJaJo(h�4�h�Q�CJaJh�E7h�Q�CJaJo(h-fKh�Q�6�CJaJhy h�Q�CJaJo(h4�h�Q�6�CJaJo(h4�h�Q�6�CJaJh�Q�CJaJh�E7h-fKCJaJh-fKh-fKCJaJh-fKCJaJo(h�Q�CJaJo(h�E7h�Q�CJaJ h^4 hY�B*CJaJo(ph�n � � � � � � � �  . 0 2 V ^ � � � � � (*:<XZ��������28:@F�����ú������������������������������u�u�hw�h�Q�CJaJo(h`+�CJaJo(h-fK6�CJaJo(h�|h�Q�6�CJaJh� �CJaJo(h�Q�CJaJh"1CJaJh"1CJaJo(h�4�h�Q�CJaJo(h�Ih�Q�CJaJo(h-fKh�Q�6�CJaJo(h�Q�CJaJo(hZy^h�Q�6�CJaJo()FRvz�������������� "8<BJNvz�������������������������������������������������׶��������������{jh�Q�0JUh�Q� h�Q�o(h/jh/Uh`+�h�Q�CJPJ\�o(h`+�B*CJaJo(phh`+�B*CJKHaJo(phh�Q�CJaJhh2CJaJo(h�Q�CJaJo(h`+�CJaJo(hw�h�Q�CJaJo(hw�h�Q�CJaJ/������������68PR�����������������������������gd�Av$&dP��a$gd�|agde8,$a$gd��$a$$a$gd�Av���������������� 468:FHLNPR�������������νθخ���������ztz�zo�c�^Zh}� h}�o(h��h��CJaJo( h,Wo( h,W0Jjh,W0JUh�w he8,h�GE he8,o(h�Av h}Xo(hF �0JmHnHu hI2C0JjhI2C0JU h��o(h�0JmHnHu h��0Jjh��0JUhcW� h�x�o(h�Q�h�Q�0JmHnHujh�Q�0JU h�Q�0J#����2>@Bdfhx������*,BDFRTXZ\^`dfhjlnr��������������������������ľijĮ������z�qh�Q�CJaJo(#h�Q�B*CJOJPJ^JaJphhPe�h�Q�o( h�H�h�Q�h�H�h�Q�B*CJaJphh/ h,Wo(h�0JmHnHu h,W0Jjh,W0JU h� �o( h5P�o( h�!go(h�|a h�|ao(hcW�h�Q� h�Q�o(h�Q� h�Q�o(h�w )�>@Bfh�����*,BD\^`fhjlp�������������������������gd�Q�$a$ &dP��gd�!ggd�Avgd�Q�pr|��������������������������������������������������gd�Av$a$gd�Q�gd�Q�����������������������������������������z�zs�zl�[��T�zK�zh��h�Q�aJ h�Q�aJo( hs�h�Q�B*PJ\�aJph h @�< �(h��$a$5�CJ OJQJ\�^J< @< slu��$ �9r G$a$CJaJ)@� slu�xN@"N slu� w'$ �9r &dG$P��a$CJaJDR@2D �Q�ck�e�e,g)ۏ 2��dh`�� B*ph�f��Cf �Q�Q *B*ph���@�s� �Q�xQŖ�W_:V�0j��������� �� $1$a$��;B*`Jph�x�/�x `+� Documentation7$ ���<�7�0�1$UDVD�WD��]�<^�7`�0�a$ CJKHaJPK!����[Content_Types].xml���j�0E����ж�r�(��΢Iw},��-j��4 ��w�P�-t#bΙ{U�����T�U^h�d}㨫���)��*1P�'�� �^��W��0)��T�9<�l�#��$yi}��;�~@��(���H����u�* Dנz��/0�ǰ���� $�� X��3aZ����,�D0j~�3߶�b��~i>���3�\`�?�/�[���G��\�!�-�Rk.�s�Ի�..���a濭?��PK!�֧��6 _rels/.rels���j�0 ���}Q��%v/��C/�}�(h"���O� ������=������ ����C?�h�v=��Ʌ��%[xp��{۵_�Pѣ<�1�H�0���O�R�Bd���JE�4b$��q_����6L��R�7`�������0̞O��,�En7�Li�b��/�S���e��е������PK!ky���theme/theme/themeManager.xml �M � @�}�w��7c�(Eb�ˮ��C�AǠҟ����7��՛K Y,� �e�.���|,���H�,l����xɴ��I�sQ}#Ր���� ֵ+�!�,�^�$j=�GW���)�E�+& 8���PK!�m�Qtheme/theme/theme1.xml�YMoE�#�F{oc'vGu�رh�F�[��x=ޝzvg53N�j�HH��z����Z $ʯI)*E�_�����N�&IA�!��>��Ǽ3�x�N��>���U�W L0�Č߫�߿z��}rx���{���h9T�8�T/���χ�?����xY����'�~���3S����~����O_|w��)��ӈHt��=�a�+��d NG�1-RlƁ�1�RJ�wT蠯M1K����"�o he�˓ێ½PL-�|%����E��hY7�'qP.\L��=���d�q�ķ3I�ofi�����.ñ���B�Rb�-J��P_p�G ݢ��i�K�t�dӌh�F�i��o�7;7Q��2��Ⱦ�����D�>a�/��Q�>�X��W� ˔�M�_�u��H�q�)�h� ���+:Vi�w�4r�B�qϫ��"r���!��2l��a��C�b��U|����!8^8�>�ܠ���,A���б�V�t���׎�~ls���14��_=,ɬ��ožTV �G��"�Ѧ��bH�����'�.�4��x޵�w-��Ϸ�E�|�F;��v��`�b3"G '�e����\�fH��O �������'�$��i_wp��� �>�*�8���i&�LY%\���,���xҕ=������������ r6f� ��3���T�ʅ�)��:ªZ�K��L�s��&C �M��ܛ0� [�˫p@ע�`�j�۽7 ���Y�H�xH�i��cT5A�r��@��H��ZAZC�}i' RQ\m��,zo�,�gQ�u{�Y\,N���ר/�=����L _��.�̇Y7C�6�-fS�h62��"��5�����NH�T[X�65̫4X�%Y����ֳ2�f�kh����i~tCKF#�b� +�w�1m�|����4`��!�:U��!�p5a:�~�{4�m��m�i�o� ήc��8m��D�J�pSǹ橠�V��1�����?#S�i�?3E�'pS�2���W`���q�B]( ��08���w��� n��A��[s��)k8�= Aa?R� dڒɾc�Uӽ˲d)#�Queb��}������C!���&i0����>�4��S�7���{���z�� F�}� 4��sKvUKoȳ��h�~1�jYU���V�H��5U8�Vk;֜���L9��Ű�D �� ��?*|FL� �����"��A3����>g��]��dm2iVֵ�褽�m�g<��r�8[kv�x����p�sj�,��z��][�j�����Qv�1�1�iu���-�ߟ0%M2�oJ���3u�o%ҍ���PK! ѐ��'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels��M �0���wooӺ�&݈Э���5 6?$Q�� �,.�a��i����c2�1h�:�q��m��@RN��;d�`��o7�g�K(M&$R(.1�r'J��ЊT���8��V�"��AȻ�H�u}��|�$�b{��P����8�g/]�QAsم(����#��L�[������PK-!����[Content_Types].xmlPK-!�֧��6 +_rels/.relsPK-!ky���theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!�m�Q�theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ��'� theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]� !$*06<>DJ���������������������������������� �������������������������������� !$*06<>DJM ��\ s e)�+;5q���)�[�����0����<0�����0�����0����1����L1�����1�����1����2����<2����x2�����2���� +9999LLYYYq�����������������������00000FFFFFFRRR___b�B ^��� ���"@.s:d<�?XD�M�SM]�b[f�h�n.t�xz���p����v���O�S���[�r���h�������ܺ|�6�����������@�W�J�e���� n F�����}�������������������������������������������������������   � p �1h&'|)�5�C�h�������������������4��S�T�g�h�{�|�������������ΤϤ�������-�.�A�B�U�8�����\�ͨ1���ݩE������}��� ���������g�c�����f�$ ��p��~������������������������������������������������������������������������� %(+26LSVRY\b!���!���!���!���!����@�  @��������� ��Z�( � ��� � � �<����������"�?�� ��� � � �B� ���������"�?�� � �PB � 3 ��!/��"�?���� � � �6���������"�?� � ��� � � �6���������"�?�� ��� � � �6���������"�?�� ��PB � 3 ��!/��"�?���PB � @ 3 ��!/��"�?���PB � @ 3 ��!/��"�?���PB � @ 3 ��!/��"�?���PB � @ 3 ��!/��"�?���� �  � �6������ ���"�?�� ��� � � �6� ��������"�?�� � �� � � �6� ��������"�?�� � �� � � �6� ��������"�?�� � �� � � �6���������"�?�� ��PB �@ 3 ��!/��"�?���� �  ��B�C�DE� F���>X���!/��������� ��@����C"����?���� �  ��B�C� DE� F���.�H��!/�������� � ;�@����C"����?���� � 3 �B�CSDE� F�������������!/�������S� �@����S"��`���?� ��� �  ��B�C[DE� F���|(}��!/�������[� >�@����C"����?� ��� �@ � �6���������"�?� � ��� �@ � �6� ��������"�?�� � �� � � �6���������"�?�� ��� � � �6���������"�?� � ��PB �� 3 ��!/��"�?���PB �� 3 ��!/��"�?���B �S ���� ?��H��0�( � ��������������� àĠǠȠʠРҠӠԠՠ֠נڠݠ��������<�t tf :tfQ:t�)@*t ��@�t �� @� t �v @w t �:@;tK��t��Qt��t�����x�t�7H{ t�����etj �� �tD�D�tD�E|th �� *t����t � �t �6��t���.t�F��t��Dt(#0*Xt�0��t���*t�� OLE_LINK2 OLE_LINK1������������@�93���93����93���93���93|���93���93����93���93����93���93����93���93����93���93����93���93����93���93\���93����93����93\���93����93\���93����93����93\���93����93���93����93����93���93\���93����93����93���93����93���93\���93����93����93��93\��93���93���93\��93,,��934���93t���93����934���93t���93����93t���93����93����934���93t���93����93����934���93t���93����93���,,444�9��� 4 � q � � � �#%Z&:5;5�BAKAK�X�bWj;t�t�t�t�t�y�y}����������w�����ݞn�����a�ƩƩk������������Y�Y�/�/�j�j���      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?3>>9:�>��� 9 � v � � � $"%_&@5@5CFKFK�X�b\j@t�t�t�t�t�y�y }����������|������s�����f�ȩȩp�������$�����[�[�8�8�l�l���  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?;=*�urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags�chsdate�9?*�urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags�place�=>*�urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags �PlaceType�=@*�urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags �PlaceName�8"*�urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags�City�B)*�urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags�country-region�</*�urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags�chmetcnv� ����0�1�12�1899�2006�30�4.2�4.3�a�Day�False�HasSpace �IsLunarDate �IsROCDate�Month�Negative �NumberType �SourceValue�TCSC�True�UnitName�Year@?>= = = = = = = = =  = = = = = /  /  /  =  =  =  )?=  =  /  =  ?""?"?= = ?"?"/  "?=  /  ?"=  ?"= =  )?/  )?"?"?"?el������-0`g:=>AOUSW�������������!",1MSg������./01S`�I N Y ^ c j d"q"h#q##�#�#�#�#�#�%�%�%�%�%�%�%�%U&X&///'///9/A/G/~/�/�0�0 1&1�1�1&2.2U5_5�6�699�9�9v:�:�:�:�;�;�;�;�;�;)<3<�<�<�<�<�<=5C;CCCKC�C�CuF{F�H�H:IBIsKK�K�K�KL�L�LFMPM1N7N#T)T9TAT�T�T�T�T�T�T�T�T�TU�\�\Z]i]n]t]x^�^_ _6d �?�B�K�N�W�g�i�o�x�y������ �?�B�O�a�c�g�t�u�~�����������������������������������������������/�@����������$�U�V���[]��uw�������� �    9 >A��be����������aeil����  �W�W�b�b�v�v{�|�8�;�r�s�~���/�9��0�/�R��3�z�������`����������1�����>�A�B�������(�Z�[�{� �?�����"�m��������2�C������� �C���.�N��������������`����������&����2�i��X�{��� �'�(�,�e�����)�?�h�z���-�b�v�������������������U�V���3333333333333333s3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333Yo����2g��QS�"�"�./�y�y�|�|�|#}����E�r�����i���֋���Ȑc�������۩Z���Ȫ�������������4�d��2������� �����'�����8�K��� ���������������������O�e�g�}���������������&�:�<�F�U�V�X�\�]�_�h�j�l�n�u�w�x�z�~������������������������"�"�.�.VCXC���������a�b�y�y�z�z�����}�~������������������������������ �������������������������������!�/�@�O�g�n�o�p�q�}����������������������������������������$�&�-�.�/�0�:�<�H�U�V�V�Y�Y�Z�Z�[�[�\�\�^�^�_�_�i�i�j�j�m�m�n�n�v�v�w�w�y�y�z�z���������������������������������������������������������S�aЎ����������O�W~��������������x�yf����������t�0��t^�t`�0�o(�� ���\���^��`�\��h�H)� ���\���^��`�\��h�H.� �4�\��4^�4`�\��h�H.� �� �\��� ^�� `�\��h�H)� �| �\��| ^�| `�\��h�H.� � �\�� ^� `�\��h�H.� ���\���^��`�\��h�H)� �h�\��h^�h`�\��h�H.�h����h^�h`���o(.� �H�\��H^�H`�\��h�H)� ���\���^��`�\��h�H.� ���\���^��`�\��h�H.� �4�\��4^�4`�\��h�H)� �� �\��� ^�� `�\��h�H.� �| �\��| ^�| `�\��h�H.� � �\�� ^� `�\��h�H)� ���\���^��`�\��h�H.� ���� ^� `���o(.� ���\���^��`�\��h�H)� ���\���^��`�\��h�H.� �4�\��4^�4`�\��h�H.� �� �\��� ^�� `�\��h�H)� �| �\��| ^�| `�\��h�H.� � �\�� ^� `�\��h�H.� ���\���^��`�\��h�H)� �h�\��h^�h`�\��h�H.��S��x�O�W������������������X�        �766        T�J        ��Od�c�8P=[ ^4 �& �= �w ,WLc�AU"1/|a�z�d -G!Q+$�(�&)� *�H*�O+e8,R0h2�4� ;y;I2C�GE�HDbK-fK�Q� U}X�LZ�|aCkbf.e�!gR jhj�(lsl�Hm�3r".sPCt�Nu�Av�H�a�Q��|�QQ�5P��t��V�F �ov�5<�^��~�*5�Zt�x�}��^�u�� ����Y��:�`+��g�x�cW�����9�� �5'���8N�# ��Q��6��=�8\��p��A�DK�D�� ��V��X��x������@������N�����--SS!S�S�S�S�S������@� �@�(�`@����@������@���Unknown������������ G��*�Ax� �Times New Roman5��Symbol3.� �*�Cx� �Arial;=�� ���|�8ўSOSimHei;���(�[SOSimSun]� AdvPTimesBTimes New RomanO�$F$Times New Romane� �SansSerifMapInfo CartographicA���� B�Cambria Math!q��hf,!�-! *�#&�"z��#&�"z�!-!),.:;?]}����    & 6"0000 0 0 00000��� � �����=�@�\�]�^���([{�  0 0 00000��;�[�����������2|�|� 3�q��HP��?�����������������������(2!xx��� _�`wZ Administrator   �������Oh��+'��0�Ax��� �� � � � (��Ż���NormalAdministrator12Microsoft Office Word@| �@�}�� �@��& �"�#&�G�@���� Rt�? P &" WMFCJm � �-lah Rt EMF�-F ���iO   ah% �% �Rp�������[SO � x� �� �QK[x� p� �� \� TQK[x� p�  qvU]p� x�  @q"�vU]������� ������/���X ;���(�[SOSimunm�K[:H�� �,S��� �1N](�� �� �{L](� @q"dv% % % Rp�����@Times New Roman �  x� �� �QK[x� p�  �� \� TQK[x� p�  qvU]p� x�  ����<)��vU]������������/���XG��*�Ax� �Times ew Roman�L��� �1N](�� �� �{L](� <)�dv% % %  % % %  TT� u5 �UU�@v@�@� �LahP K!ah" ����RpI������[SO � x� �� �QK[x� p� �� \� TQK[x� p�  qvU]p� x�  @q"�vU]������� ������/���X ;���(�[SOSimunm�K[:H�׬��D��� �1N](�� �� �{L](� @q"dv% % % RpI����@Times New Roman �  x� �� �QK[x� p�  �� \� TQK[x� p�  qvU]p� x�  ���� 7��vU]������������/���XG��*�Ax� �Times ew Roman�U��� �1N](�� �� �{L](�  7�dv% % %  % % % TT� S5 !UU�@v@�@� �LahP K% % % % % % % % %  % % % T��$ ]UU�@v@�@6LahxAssessing L2 Learners �GGRGG3f\.z].zQ\QfQRG/% % % TT$ �Q ]UU�@v@�@$ 6LahP .% % % T�R ��]UU�@v@�@R 6LahxLexical Richness and {Q\3Q\3.�3QffQGG.\ff.RpI������[SO � x� �� �QK[x� p� �� \� TQK[x� p�  qvU]p� x�  @q"�vU]������� ������/���X ;���(�[SOSimunm�K[:H��h�h��� �1N](�� �� �{L](� @q"dv% % % RpI����@Times New Roman �  x� �� �QK[x� p�  �� \� TQK[x� p�  qvU]p� x�  �������vU]������������/���XG��*�Ax� �Times ew Roman�X��� �1N](�� �� �{L](� ��dv% % %  % % % TH,���UU�@v@�@,r*Lah�Syntactic Complexity: A Longitudinal Studyf\f=\Q=3Q.�\�f3Q\3=\=$z.z\f\3=ff3f\2.]=ff\% % % TT����UU�@v@�@�rLahP K % % % TTO��UU�@v@�@O�LahP K % % % TTOD�UU�@v@�@O�LahP K % % % TTO��N UU�@v@�@O' LahP KRp�������[SO � x� �� �QK[x� p� �� \� TQK[x� p�  qvU]p� x�  @q"�vU]������� ������/���X ;���(�[SOSimunm�K[:H���,��,��� �1N](�� �� �{L](� @q"dv% % % Rp�����@Times New Roman �  x� �� �QK[x� p�  �� \� TQK[x� p�  qvU]p� x�  ����<��vU]������������/���XG��*�Ax� �Times ew RomantD��� �1N](�� �� �{L](� <�dv% % % % % % % % %  % % % TX� � % = UU�@v@�@� " LahPby;:% % % TT& � p = UU�@v@�@& " LahP K % % % TTx� � UU�@v@�@x� LahP :% % % T��� ]  UU�@v@�@�� LahhZhang HuitingG;4:;T; !::% % % TT^ � �  UU�@v@�@^ � LahP lK % % % TTOM �� UU�@v@�@O� LahP K % % % TTO �� UU�@v@�@O~ LahP K % % % T 5� s b UU�@v@�@5G Lah�Under the Supervision of Bao GuiT;;4' ;4A:;4&:!-!:;;'M4;T:!% % % TTt � � b UU�@v@�@t G LahP % % % T�� � �b UU�@v@�@� G Lahland Chen Haitao3;;M;3;T4 !4:% % % TT�� �b UU�@v@�@�G LahP K % % % TTO� �+UU�@v@�@OLahP K % % % TTOr��UU�@v@�@O�LahP K % % % T@\;��UU�@v@�@\�SLah�Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of lA;;Y!! 4;!;@4' !3!A; ' !!Y4;!:' ;4N3;:!'4Y4; .';'!:4T4;'44;'N43;3!:';' % % % Td� O �UU�@v@�@� lLahTArtsT'!-% %&WMFC� �- % TTP � �UU�@v@�@P lLahP K % % % TTO��PUU�@v@�@O5LahP K % % % TTO��UU�@v@�@O�LahP K % % % Td`��UU�@v@�@�LahTEnglG;:!% % % T��`� �UU�@v@�@��Lahhish Department .;T3;4&!Y4; % % % TT� ` �UU�@v@�@� �LahP K % % % T�:)� �UU�@v@�@:�Lah�School of Foreign Languages A4:;:!:'A;'3 ;;G3;:;3;3.:% % % TT� ) �UU�@v@�@� �LahP K % % % T �� uUU�@v@�@�Z Lah�Nanjing University of TechnologyT4; !:;T: ;4&. !9;'?44:;: ;;9% % % TT �U uUU�@v@�@ ZLahP K % % % T���! >UU�@v@�@�# LahdJune, 2008 .:;4::;;9% % % TT" �l >UU�@v@�@" #LahP K % �% �6h6ah6a66g6`g6`66f6_f6_66e6^e6^66d6]d6]66c6\c6\66b6[b6[66a6Za6Z66`6Y`6Y6 6 _6X_6X 6  6 ^6W^6W 6  6 ]6V]6V 6  6 \6U\6U 6  6 [6T[6T 6 6Z6SZ6S66Y6RY6R66X6QX6Q66W6PW6P66V6OV6O6  JS.���"System��?��͠?�| qqpctrayQQPC--���������---����@Times New Roman------  2 0SH ,HS'�����������---����@Times New Roman------ 2 [0SH ------------,2 �^SHAssessing L2 Learners�     --- 2 �7SH ---+2 �=SHLexical Richness and �    ���������---����@Times New Roman------J2 �a*SHSyntactic Complexity: A Longitudinal Study            --- 2 ��SH --- 2 �GSH --- 2 �GSH --- 2 GSH ���������---����@Times New Roman------------2 7)SHby--- 2 77SH --- 2 OSH ---2 O  SHZhang Huiting --- 2 O]SH --- 2 gGSH --- 2 GSH ---;2 �� SHUnder the Supervision of Bao Gui   --- 2 �_SH ---"2 �cSHand Chen Haitao  --- 2 ��SH --- 2 �GSH --- 2 �GSH ---�2 �HSSHSubmitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of       ---2 �$SHArts --- 2 �<SH --- 2 GSH --- 2 (GSH ---2 @�SHEngl --- 2 @SHish Department  --- 2 @hSH ---52 X�SHSchool of Foreign Languages  --- 2 X�SH ---;2 p� SHNanjing University of Technology  --- 2 p�SH ---2 � SHJune, 2008 --- 2 �VSH --HHSSHHRRHHRRHHRRHHRRHHRRHHRRHHRRGGRRGGRRGGQQGGQQGGQQGGQQGGQQGGQQFFQQFFQQFFPP����՜.��+,��0� X`lt|� ������z|�   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������     ���� !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCD����FGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwx����z{|}~���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Root Entry�������� �F�' ���Data �������������U1Table����E�gWordDocument�����2SummaryInformation(������������y BDocumentSummaryInformation8���������CompObj������������u������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ���� �F#Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 �ĵ� MSWordDocWord.Document.8�9�q
Baidu