Complexity and language development

Gisela Hkansson
Lund University

Please cite as:

Hkansson, Gisela (2011). Complexity and language development. Presentation delivered at 11th PALA Symposium Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition. Innsbruck, Austria, September 12-13, 2011

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

Is subordination complex?

As a general rule, hypotactic constructions are considered more 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 word order or morphology just the learning of the subjunction (Martin et al 2010)

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 prociency or is it an individual feature and the same in L1 and L2 ?

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/subjunction
2. The internal word order is different from main clause WO: subject and negation are in front of the nite verb (MC: V2, V+neg, SC: SVO, neg+V)
3. The auxiliary har is optional

The acquisition of Swedish subordination

L1 (Lundin 1987)

An early stage of preconjuctional clauses
Lisa look daddy come door,

Relative clauses emerge around the age of two years

The internal subordinate clause word order is learned in two stages:

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

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 of nite 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

 RQ 1: Is subordination a valid measure for Swedish 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

Results

Subordination

At Time I, low levels of subordination (compared to NS) in all learners except for Brett.
At Time II, Jenni and Lynn have more subordinate clauses, Brett and Jason fewer

0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 Brett Jenni Jason Lynn NS g5 sublcl PT

PT

Brett & Jenni no PT development Jason & Lynn from stage 4 to 5

0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 Brett2 Jenni2 Jason2 Lynn2 NS g5 sublcl PT

Combination

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

These results show that

there is no direct relation between subordination and PT level
the fact that a learner uses subordination does not imply that level 5 (the subordination clause level) is processable
there is a large amount of individual variation

A closer look at Brett

essay on Childhood memory

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


(Vem should be nr, vid should 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 on whereever I went

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 SKRATTAR TILL var va- so- (.) vilket! Int: jaha ja ! B: u- universitetet .hh (.) ha- (.)th-! Int: ja vilket universitet som? ! B: har (.) som (.) som ha norska(.) och jag eh jag sg Edinburgh och Oxford (.) s (.) jag (.) jag hrs (detta) universitetet i! Int: mmmmm! B: Melbourne ah har svenska (.) och svenska r mycket likt till norska!

essay Childhood memory

Jag lskade basketball, och jag spela basketball varje dag med min vnner. Jag lskade ocks fotball, och jag spela fotball med min vnner varje middag, fr mnga timmar! Efter fotball, promenerade vi hemma hos mig fr middag.
I loved basketball and I play basketball everyday with my friends. i loved also forball and I play foortball with my friends every midday, for many hours. After football, we walked home for dinner

A closer look at Jason 

Jason, interview data

J: !h (.) ahm (.) jag har (.) eh och jag hade va- eh jag hade ls:at ahm (.) franska franska ! Int:mm! J: !ehm (.) tyska och eh what s the other one? (.) latin?! Int:latin ! J: !ja latin (.) ahm och ehm ja ehm och jag hahade mnga svensk vnner och dansk vnner (.) och dom e:h!

Summarizing:

Some learners increase their use of subordinate clauses when reaching stage 5 and are able also to use the internal subclause word order (Lynn)
Some learners - risk-takers - use subordinate clauses at stage 3 (Brett)
Some learners - avoiders - decrase their use of subordinate clauses at all when they approach stage 5 (Jason)

What would they have done in their L1?

This leads to the second question:

RQ 2. What is the relation between subordination in the L1 and in the L2?

Hypothesis: If complexity is a prociency measure, learners should use more subordination in the L1 than in the L2

RQ2. Material and method

Participants

Fifteen L2 learners of Swedish from Lund University

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 I cannot come to the lecture
First in L2 Swedish, then in L1
Why

Analyses

Complexity measures

sentence length
subordination

Grammaticality

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

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

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 och lunch. Jag ter ggstanning, brd eller pasta, frukt dryck, grnsaker. Jag then g p rum till tittar lmer alla dag eftersom jag lskar lmer
My morning starts with giving a call to my family back home. Around 12 pm I go for my brunch. I enjoy have brunches on my weekends because they give me a relaxed pleasant feeling. After brunch I make a cup of tea and sit in my room and watch movies.

Example 2: Sarah (Ger) PT 3

I helgen jag gjorde inte mycket. Lrdag jag sovade till klockan nio och t frukost. Klockan tre jag trffade mina kompisar och vi gick till nationen och t semlor. (..) Eftersom jag har ett tentamen idag jag studerade mycket.
Erst einmal habe ich natrlich schn lange ausgeschlafen und in Ruhe gefrhstckt. Anschlieend habe ich mir vor allem den Grammatikteil im Buch noch einmal angeschaut.

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 auch sehr gut war

11 words/sentence, inverted word order, subordinate clause

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 a hindrance for language complexity in lower level learners

On the contrary!

One can speculate whether lower level grammar implies less awareness of one s own restrictions

Summary of results

RQ1. Comparison L2 complexity and PT level

No clear relation between complexity (degree of subordination) 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 proeiency measure for L2 Swedish

Thank you!