gisela håkansson: complexity and language development

8/4/2019 Gisela Hkansson: Complexity and language development

1/26

Complexity and language

developmentGisela HkanssonLund University


2/26

Please cite as:

Hkansson, Gisela (2011). Complexity and languagedevelopment. Presentation delivered at 11th PALA

Symposium Processability Approaches to Language

Acquisition. Innsbruck, Austria, September 12-13, 2011


3/26

Do language learners really develop from less

complex to more complex language? Language development is often described in the

CAF triad Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency

Complexity is measured by type/token ratios,nominal/verbal style, subordination etc


4/26

Is subordination complex?

As a general rule, hypotactic constructions are consideredmore complex than paratactic constructions; thus

subordination can be regarded as a feature of complexity

(e.g. Givn 1979). But what about learner language?

Subordination is not a valid measure for languages like Finnish,since subordination in Finnish does not demand changes in wordorder or morphology just the learning of the subjunction (Martin

et al 2010)


5/26

Research questions: RQ 1. Is subordination a valid measure for

L2 Swedish? RQ 2. Is language complexity in the form of

subordination restricted by grammatical

proficiency or is it an individual featureand the same in L1 and L2 ?


6/26

Subordination in Swedish(Svenska Akademins Grammatik: SAG 1999)

A subordinate clause is A syntactically subordinated clause, i.e. a clause

that is a constituent in another clause. Structural properties:

1. Introduced by a complementizer/subjunction2. The internal word order is different from main clause

WO: subject and negation are in front of the finite verb

(MC: V2, V+neg, SC: SVO, neg+V)3. The auxiliary har is optional


7/26

The acquisition of Swedish subordination

L1 (Lundin 1987) An early stage ofpreconjuctional clauses

Lisa look daddy come door, Relative clauses emerge around the age of two years The internal subordinate clause word order is learned in twostages:

First negation in front of main verb, then negation + AUX Acquisition completed around the age of 3 years

L2 (Hyltenstam 1977 etc) Different from L1: No stage of preconjunctional clauses,

combining by complementizers quite early Same as L1: delayed development of the internal word order

in the same two stages


8/26

PT hierarchy for Swedsih

5 Subordinate clause procedure Gram information between clauses, differentiation between main

clause and subordinate clause word order (SC: Negation in front offinite verb, Cancel inversion)

4 S-procedure Grammatical information between phrases (pred agr, INVERSION)

3 Phrasal procedure Gram information between words, within phrases (attr agreement)

2 Category procedure No gram information between words (past, plural)

1 Word/lemma, invariant forms


9/26

RQ 1: Is subordination a valid measure forSwedish L2?

A study comparing the relation between subordination and

PT level:(Norby & Hkansson 2007) Data from the project Swedish inside and outside

Swedish

University students in Malm and in Melbourne Written and spoken data collected three times over a year For the comparison, data was used from four Melbourne

learners: Brett, Jason, Jenni & Lynn Written essays, 8 months between


10/26

Results Subordination

At Time I, low levels ofsubordination (compared to NS)in all learners except for Brett.

At Time II, Jenni and Lynn havemore subordinate clauses, Brett

and Jason fewer PT

Brett & Jenni no PT developmentJason & Lynn from stage 4 to 5

Combination Brett +/- PT, - subordination Jennie +/- PT, +/- subordination Jason + PT, - subordination Lynn + PT, + subordination

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

Brett Jenni Jason Lynn NS g5

sublcl

PT

0

0,1

0,20,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

Brett2 Jenni2 Jason2 Lynn2 NS g5

sublcl

PT


11/26

These results show that

there is no direct relation between subordinationand PT level

the fact that a learner uses subordination does notimply that level 5 (the subordination clause level)is processable

there is a large amount of individual variation


12/26

A closer look at Brett

essay onChildhood memory

Vem jag var liten, 3 eller 4 r, jag tyckte om segelbtar. Jag hade en liten matroskostym och enmatroshatt vid jag stta p mig varje plats gick jag

(Vem should be nr, vidshould be som)When I was young, 3 or 4 years, I liked sailing boats.I had a small costume and a sailers hat which I put onwhereever I went


13/26

Brett, interview data (complementizers marked in bold)

Int: varfr brjade du lsa svenska?!B: jag jag ville lsa ah norska men jag eh(.) tittar p eh ah nr nr nej nej SKRATTARTILL var va- so- (.) vilket!

Int: jaha ja !B: u- universitetet .hh (.) ha- (.)th-!Int: ja vilket universitet som? !B: har (.) som(.) somha norska(.) och jageh jag sg Edinburgh och Oxford (.) s (.)

jag (.) jag hrs (detta) universitetet i!

Int: mmmmm!B: Melbourne ah har svenska (.) och svenskar mycket likt till norska!


14/26

A closer look at Jason

essay

Childhood memory

Jag lskade basketball, och jag spela basketball varjedag med min vnner. Jag lskade ocks fotball, och

jag spela fotball med min vnner varje middag, fr

mnga timmar! Efter fotball, promenerade vi hemmahos mig fr middag.

I loved basketball and I play basketball everyday withmy friends. i loved also forball and I play foortball

with my friends every midday, for many hours. Afterfootball, we walked home for dinner


15/26

Jason, interview data

J: !h (.) ahm (.) jag har (.) eh och jag hadeva- eh jag hade ls:at ahm (.) franska franska !

Int:mm! J: !ehm (.) tyska och eh whats the other one?

(.) latin?! Int:latin ! J: !ja latin (.) ahm och ehm ja ehm och jag ha-

hade mnga svensk vnner och dansk vnner (.)

och dom e:h!


16/26

Summarizing:

Some learners increase their use of subordinate clauseswhen reaching stage 5 and are able also to use the internalsubclause word order (Lynn)

Some learners - risk-takers - use subordinate clauses atstage 3 (Brett)

Some learners - avoiders - decrase their use ofsubordinate clauses at all when they approach stage 5(Jason)


17/26

What would they have done in their L1? This leads to the second question:

RQ 2. What is the relation between subordination in theL1 and in the L2? Hypothesis: If complexity is a proficiency measure, learners

should use more subordination in the L1 than in the L2


18/26

RQ2. Material and method Participants

Fifteen L2 learners of Swedish from LundUniversity 4 with English as L1, 11 with German as L1

Control group: six native speakers of Swedish Data collection

written essays My weekend, A trip WhyI cannot come to the lecture

First in L2 Swedish, then in L1


19/26

Analyses Complexity measures

sentence lengthsubordination

Grammaticality topicalization (Level 3 in PT) inversion (Level 4 in PT)


20/26

Results Complexity

Sentence length All participants have longer sentences in their L1 essays than in the

L2 essays Subordination

Seven learners have more subordination in L1 than in L2 Eight learners have the same amount of subordination in L1 and L2

PT levels Topicalization (level 3 ADV) 14 out of 15 learners have more topicalization in L1 than in L2 Inversion (level 4)

All German learners had more inversion in L1 than in L2


21/26

Example 1: Farmin (Eng) SVO/PT2 Jag brukar get upp p klockan tio in helgen. Jag brukar

frsta sprk till familj fr ett lng tid och g fr frukost ochlunch. Jag ter ggstanning, brd eller pasta, frukt dryck,

grnsaker. Jag then g p rum till tittar filmer alla dageftersom jag lskar filmer My morning starts with giving a call to my family back

home. Around 12 pm I go for my brunch. I enjoy havebrunches on my weekends because they give me a relaxedpleasant feeling. After brunch I make a cup of tea and sit inmy room and watch movies.


22/26

Example 2: Sarah (Ger) PT 3 I helgenjag gjorde inte mycket. Lrdagjag sovade till

klockan nio och t frukost. Klockan trejag trffademina kompisar och vi gick till nationen och t semlor.

(..) Eftersom jag har ett tentamen idagjag studerademycket. Erst einmal habe ich natrlich schn lange

ausgeschlafen und in Ruhe gefrhstckt. Anschlieendhabe ich mir vor allem den Grammatikteil im Buchnoch einmal angeschaut.


23/26

Example 3: Adrian (Ger) Vi ocks lyssnade p konserten igr. Den var

roligt. 4, 5 w/sentence, only SVO, no subordination

Gestern waren wir auf einem Konzert das auchsehr gut war 11 words/sentence, inverted word order, subordinate

clause


24/26

Comparing L2 Swedish lower level and

higher level participants

Lower level learners (PT 2 and 3) have slightly more subordination less topicalization

This means that their restricted grammar is not ahindrance for language complexity in lower levellearners

On the contrary!

One can speculate whether lower level grammar

implies less awareness of ones own restrictions


25/26

Summary of results RQ1. Comparison L2 complexity and PT level

No clear relation between complexity (degree ofsubordination) and PT level

RQ2. Comparison L1 - L2 writing L1 writing have longer sentences and more

topicalizations the results is mixed for subordination (eight learners

had the same amount) Subordination as such cannot be used as a

profieiency measure for L2 Swedish


26/26

Thank you!

gisela håkansson: complexity and language development

Documents