Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T03:52:07.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUBORDINATE CLAUSES IN GERMAN AND SWEDISH AS L2S

A Theoretical and Methodological Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2014

Kristof Baten  and
Gisela Håkansson
Kristof Baten*
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)
Gisela Håkansson
Affiliation:
Lund University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kristof Baten, Linguistics Department, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. E-mail: Kristof.Baten@UGent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we aim to contribute to the debate about the use of subordination as a measure of language proficiency. We compare two theories of SLA—specifically, processability theory (PT; Pienemann, 1998) and dynamic systems theory (DST; de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007)—and, more particularly, how they address the development of subordinate clauses. Whereas DST uses measures from the complexity, accuracy, and fluency research tradition (see Housen & Kuiken, 2009), PT uses the emergence criterion to describe language development. We focus on the development of subordinate clauses and compare how subordination as such is acquired and how the processing procedures related to a specific subordinate clause word order are acquired in the interlanguage of second language German and Swedish learners. The learners’ language use shows that the use of subordination (as measured by a subordination ratio) fluctuates extensively. From the beginning of data collection, all learners use subordinate clauses, but their use of subordinate clauses does not increase linearly over time, which is expected by DST. When focusing on processability and the emergence of subordinate clause word order, however, a clear linear developmental sequence can be observed, revealing a clear difference between the nonacquisition and the acquisition of the subordinate clause word order rules. Our learner data additionally reveal a different behavior regarding lexical and auxiliary or modal verbs.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 517 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Abrahamsson, N. (2013). Developmental sequences. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 173–177). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. W. (1978). An implicational model for second language research. Language Learning, 28, 221–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K. (2013). The acquisition of the German case system by foreign language learners. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaman, K. (1984). Coordination and subordination revisited: Syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In Tannen, D. (Ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 45–80). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Boss, B. (1996). German grammars for beginners: The teachability hypothesis and its relevance to the classroom. The University of Queensland Papers in Language and Linguistics, 1, 93–100.Google 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 (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caspi, T. (2010). A dynamic perspective on second language development (Doctoral thesis, University of Groningen, the Netherlands). Retrieved fromhttp://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/329338412Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 219–242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J., & Pienemann, M. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache: der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter [German as a second language: The language acquisition of foreign workers]. Tübingen, Germany: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., Thorne, S. L., & Verspoor, M. (2013). Dynamic systems theory as a theory of second language development. In Mayo, M., Gutierrez-Mangado, M., & Adrián, M. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2005). Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (2008). Order of subject, object, and verb. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D., & Comrie, B. (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online (Chapter 81). Retrieved from http://wals.info/chapter/81Google Scholar
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gayraud, F., & Martinie, B. (2008). Does structural complexity necessarily imply processing difficulty? Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 37, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 389–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haberzettl, S. (2005). Der Erwerb der Verbstellungsregeln in der Zweitsprache Deutsch durch Kinder mit russischer und türkischer Muttersprache [The acquisition of verb-position rules in German as a second language by school-age native speakers of Turkish and Russian]. Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. (2001). Tense morphology and verb-second in Swedish L1 children, L2 children and children with SLI. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Dooley Collberg, S. (1994). The preference for modal + neg: An L2 perspective applied to L1 acquisition. Second Language Research, 10, 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Nettelbladt, U. (1993). Developmental sequences in L1 and L2 acquisition of Swedish syntax. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C. (2007). Processability theory applied to written and oral L2 Swedish. In Mansouri, F. (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 81–94). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C. (2010). Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning, 60, 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
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. (1977). Implicational patterns in interlanguage syntax variation. Language Learning, 27, 383–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1941). Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze [Child language, aphasia, and phonological universals]. Uppsala, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Jansen, L. (2008). Acquisition of German word order in tutored learners: A cross-sectional study in a wider theoretical context. Language Learning, 58, 185–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 148–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 590–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complexity systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Meerholz-Härle, B., & Tschirner, E. (2001). Processability theory: Eine empirische Untersuchung [An empirical study]. In Aguado, K. & Riemer, C. (Eds.), Wege und Ziele: Zur Theorie, Empirie und Praxis des Deutschen als Fremdsprache (und anderer Fremdsprachen). Festschrift für Gert Henrici [Paths and goals: On theory, empirical evidence and professional practice of German as a second language (and other languages). Festschrift for Gert Henrici] (pp. 155–175). Hohengehren, Germany: Schneider.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2013). Development in second language acquisition. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 165–173). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, N. (1993). Komplexe Sätze. Der Erwerb von COMP und von Wortstellungsmustern bei bilingualen Kindern (Französisch/Deutsch) [Complex sentences. The acquisition of COMP and word order rules by bilingual children (French/German)]. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohser, E. (2000). Politische Karikaturen, Zeichnungen, Illustrationen und alle Bildgeschichten Vater und Sohn [Political cartoons, drawings, illustrations and all picture stories of Father and Son]. Konstanz, Germany: Südverlag.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2007). An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 28, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining, and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2013, August). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Paper presented at the EuroSLA conference, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Philipsson, A. (2007). Interrogative clauses and verb morphology in L2 Swedish: Theoretical interpretations of grammatical development and effects of different elicitation techniques (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stockholm University, Sweden.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1980). The second language acquisition of immigrant children. In Felix, S. (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 41–56). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Håkansson, G. (1999). A unified approach toward the development of Swedish as L2: A processability account. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 383–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahkonen, M., & Håkansson, G. (2008). Production of written L2-Swedish—processability or input frequencies? In Kessler, J.-U. (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 135–161). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönström, K. (2010). Tvåspråkighet hos döva skolelever: Processbarhet och narrativ struktur i svenska och svenskt teckenspråk [Bilingualism in deaf pupils: Processability and narrative structure in Swedish and Swedish sign language] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stockholm University, Sweden.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2009). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. In Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 275–300). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development in accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31, 532–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). Theories in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (2011). A dynamic systems approach to second language development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92, 214–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. (2004). Processing constraints, categorial analysis, and the second language acquisition of the Chinese adjective suffix -de(ADJ). Language Learning, 54, 437–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y. (2005). Processing and formal instruction in the L2 acquisition of five Chinese grammatical morphemes. In Pienemann, M. (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 155–177). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar