Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:25:11.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Variation in L2 Syntactic Complexity: A Case Study on Subordinate Clauses in Swedish as a Foreign Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2018

Martje Wijers
Martje Wijers*
Affiliation:
University of Ghent, Department of Linguistics, Institute for Scandinavian studies, Ghent, 9000, Belgium. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This paper critically examines the exclusive use of the relative frequency of subordinate clauses as a measure of syntactic complexity in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) L2 acquisition and as an indicator of Second Language (L2) development. Following Lambert & Kormos (2014), it is argued that it is important to also take into account: (i) different subordinate clause types, (ii) item-based frequencies, and (iii) text genre. Longitudinal written data was collected among 21 Dutch-speaking foreign language learners of Swedish. Based on these data, the study shows that the subordination ratio (a common measure for syntactic complexity) alone was found to be insufficient as an indicator of syntactic complexity and L2 development, as hardly any significant differences were observed in the subordination ratios of the learners and native speakers. The study shows that other aspects are also relevant in determining the learners’ level of syntactic complexity as well as their L2 development, such as the internal structure and context of subordinate clauses, subordinate clause types, and especially the type-token ratio of subordinators used. The results showed a significant negative correlation between the subordination ratio of texts and the type-token ratio of subordinators. The aim of the study is to acknowledge the variation in the learners’ use of subordinate clause, in addition to the general subordination ratio, in order to arrive at a more nuanced view of syntactic complexity in second language acquisition.

Keywords

subordinationSwedishforeign language acquisitiondevelopmentsyntactic complexity
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , May 2018 , pp. 75 - 116
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K. & Håkansson, G.. 2015. The Development of subordinate clauses in German and Swedish As L2S. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37 (03), 517–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B. & Housen, A.. 2012. Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA, 21–46. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, T. 1976. Measuring written syntactic patterns of second language learners of German. Journal of Educational Research 69, 176–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. 2014. Constructions, complexity, and word order variation. In Newmeyer, F. J. & Preston, L. B. (eds.), Measuring Grammatical Complexity, 148–178. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2005. Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, volume 11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2009. The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics 30 (4), 474–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flahive, D. & Snow, B.. 1980. Measures of syntactic complexity in evaluating ESL compositions. In J. W. O. & Perkins, K. (eds.), Research in Language Testing, 171–176. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ganuza, N. 2011. Syntactic variation in the Swedish of adolescents in multilingual urban settings—a thesis summary. In Källström, R. & Lindberg, I. (eds.), Young Urban Swedish. Variation and Change in Multilingual Settings (Göteborgss ed.), 89–103. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Glahn, E., Håkansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., Hvenekilde, A. & Lund, K.. 2001. Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23 (3), 389–416.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. & Hansson, K.. 2000. Comprehension and production of relative clauses: a comparison between Swedish impaired and unimpaired children. Journal of Child Language 27 (2), 313–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Håkansson, G. & Nettelbladt, U.. 1993. Developmental sequences in L1 an L2 acquisition of Swedish syntax. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 3, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G. & Norrby, C.. 2010. Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning 60 (3), 628–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammarberg, B. & Viberg, Å. 1977. The place-holder constraint, language typology and the teaching of Swedish to immigrants. Studia Linguistica 31, 106–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298 (5598), 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmberg, P. & Wirdenäs, K.. 2010. Skrivpedagogik i praktiken. Språk och stil 20 (1), 105–131.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. & Thompson, S.. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465–497.Google Scholar
Housen, A. & Kuiken, F.. 2009. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30 (4), 461–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 1977. Implicational patterns in interlanguage syntax variation. Language Learning 27, 383–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, V. 2009. Developmental Aspects of Text Production in Writing and Speech. Lund.Google Scholar
Kusters, W. 2003. Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. PhD thesis, Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. & Kormos, J.. 2014. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 35 (5), 607–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson-Hall, J. 2010. A Guide to Doing Statistics in Second Language Research Using R (web editio ed.)., volume 20. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lord, C. 2002. Are subordinate clauses more difficult? In Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 223–233. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Menn, L., Duffield, C., Newmeyer, F. & Preston, L. 2014. Looking for a ‘Gold Standard’ to measure language complexity: what psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics can (and cannot) offer to formal linguistics. Measuring Grammatical Complexity, 281–302. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miestamo, M. 2008. Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Miestamo, M., Sinnemäki, K. & Karlsson, F. (eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, 23–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Miestamo, M., Sinnemäki, K. & Karlsson, F.. (eds.). 2008. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Monroe, J. 1975. Measuring and enhancing syntactic fluency in French. The French Review 48, 48, 1023–1031.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. & Preston, L. B. (eds.). 2014. Measuring Grammatical Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J. M. & Fanning, J. L.. 2005. Persuasive writing in children, adolescents and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic development. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 36 (2), 125–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L.. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: the case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 555–578.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. 2009. CAF: defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics 30 (4), 590–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. 2014. A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research 31 (1), 117–134.Google Scholar
Perkins, K. 1980. Using objective methods of attained writing proficiency to discriminate among holistic evaluations. TESOL Quarterly 14, 61–69.Google Scholar
Petersson, D. 2014. The Highest Force Hypothesis Subordination in Swedish. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Sampson, G., Gil, D. & Trudgill, P. (eds.) 2009. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sangarun, J. 2005. The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, 111–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P.. 1999. The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning 49 (1), 93–120.Google Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S. & Andersson, E.. 1999. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Trotzke, A. & Bayer, J.. (eds.). 2015. Syntactic Complexity across Interfaces. Berlin/Boston/Munich: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wijers, M. Forthcoming. The development of Complex Clause Constructions in Swedish as a Second Language. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar