Subordinate questions in Swedish by 12- and 15-year-old Finnish immersion students

Main Article Content

Eeva-Liisa Nyqvist

Abstract

The present study explores how 12- and 15-year-old immersion students (n=75 and n=73) produce subordinate questions in Swedish on a written test. Previous studies are sparse, but they report difficulties with both subject-verb word order and use of the subjunctor om and the subject marker som occurring in these clauses; informants with varying ages and competence levels struggle with similar problems. However, the acquisition order between these two types of constructions, a central theme in this study, has gained less attention. Analyses of the actual data show significant differences with varying effect sizes in accuracy between the different subcategories of subordinate questions and both informant groups. Insertion of grammatical words was mastered by significantly fewer informants than word order. Also, effect sizes were large in these contexts. Older informants do better than the younger ones, but the differences are not always statistically significant, as certain constructions are already mastered at a high level by the younger informants, whereas other constructions are still difficult for the older ones.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Nyqvist, E.-L. (2021). Subordinate questions in Swedish by 12- and 15-year-old Finnish immersion students. Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia, 30, 15-25. https://doi.org/10.2478/fsp-2021-0002
Section
Linguistics

References

  1. Bergroth, M. (2007). Kielikylpyperheet valokeilassa. Taustat ja odotukset. Vaasa: Publications of the University of Vaasa.
  2. Bergroth, M. (2015). Kotimaisten kielten kielikylpy. Publications of the University of Vaasa. Retrieved from http://www.uva.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_978-952-476-617-3.pdf. (10.06.2020)
  3. Bergroth, M., Björklund, S. (2013). Kielikylpyohjelman tutkimustuloksia Suomessa. In: L. Tainio & H. Harju-Luukkainen (eds.), Kaksikielinen koulu – tulevaisuuden monikielinen Suomi/Tvåspråkig Skola – ett flerspråkigt Finland i Framtiden (pp. 91–114). Jyväskylä: Finnish Educational Research Association.
  4. Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In: P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–236). New York: Routledge.
  5. Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  6. Collins, L. et al. (2009). Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. Modern Language Journal 93, 336–353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00894.x
  7. De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  8. DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In: C.J. Doughty & M. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  9. DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55/S1, 1–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.x
  10. Ellis, N. C., Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In: B. VanPatten & J. Williams (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp.75–93). New York: Routledge.
  11. FNBE 2014=Finnish National Board of Education. (2014). Koulutuksen tilastollinen vuosikirja 2014. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/download/163331_koulutuksen_tilastollinen_vuosikirja_2014.pdf. (10.06.2020)
  12. Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D. (2008). Construction learning and second language acquisition. In: P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 197–215). New York: Routledge.
  13. Goldschneider, J., DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the “natural” order of L2 morpheme acquisition in English: A meta- analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 51, 1–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00147
  14. Hakulinen, A. et al. (2004). Iso suomen kelioppi. Helsinki: The Finnish Literature Society.
  15. Hammarberg, B., Viberg, Å. (1979). Platshållartvånget, ett syntaktiskt problem i svenskan för invandrare. Stockholm University, Institution of Linguistics.
  16. Hammarberg, B. (2008). Konstruktioner som produkt och process – en studie av hur L1- och L2-talare utnyttjar “det är”. Nordisk tidsskrift for andraspråksforskning 3, 79–107.
  17. Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisi¬tion 15, 245–260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100011980
  18. Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In: C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Holmes, P., Hinchcliffe, I. (1994). Swedish: A comprehensive grammar (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
  20. Housen, A., Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263116000176
  21. Hultman, T., Westman, M. (1977). Gymnasistsvenska. Lund: Liber Läromedel.
  22. Hyltenstam K. (1992). Non-native features of near-native speakers. On the ultimate attainment of childhood L2 learners. In: R. Harris (ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 351–368). Elsevier Science Publishers.
  23. Hyltenstam, K., Lindberg, I. (1983). Invandrares svenska. En kritisk genomgång av materialet i projektet svenska för invandrare (Josefson 1979), särskilt med avseende på dess vidare användningsmöjligheter. In: B. Hammar¬berg, (ed.), Studium av ett invandrarsvenskt språkmaterial (pp. 5–51). SSM Report 9, Stockholm University.
  24. Håkansson, C. et al. (2019). Typfall och mönsterigenkänning – konstruktionsbaserad andra¬språksundervisning i praktiken. In: M. Bianchi et al. (eds.), Svenskans beskrivning 36 (pp. 107–117). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
  25. Jörgensen, N. (1978). Underordnade satser och fraser i talad svenska: funktion och byggnad. Lund: Walter Ekstrands.
  26. Korhonen, R. (2009). Että ja letkeät lainat. Kielikello 3/2009. Retrieved from https://www.kielikello.fi/-/etta-ja-letkeat-lainat (10.06.2020).
  27. Källström, R. (2000). Man vet inte riktit va e detta. In: A. G. Grönberg et al. (eds.), Sett och hört – en vänskrift tillägnad Kerstin Nordenstam på 65-årsdagen (pp. 201–211). Gothemburg University.
  28. Lahtinen, S., Toropainen, O. (2015). Användningen av frågor i en L2-korpus bestående av finska och svenska inlärartexter. NordAnd 10, 81–108.
  29. Larson-Hall, J. (2016). A Guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.
  30. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  31. Ó Duibhir, P. (2009). The spoken Irish of sixth-class pupils in Irish immersion schools. Dublin: University of Dublin, Trinity College, Centre for Language and Communication Studies.
  32. Nakata, T., Suzuki, Y. (2019). Mixing grammar exercises facilitates long-term retention: Effects of blocking, inter¬leaving, and increasing practice. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 629–647. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12581
  33. Nistov, I. et al. (2018). Bruksbaserte tillnærminger till andrespråkslærning. In: A-K. H. Gujord & G. Tveit Randen (eds.), Norsk som andrespråk – perspektiver på læring og utvikling. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
  34. Nyqvist, E-L. (2020). Interrogativa bisatser hos 12- och 15-åriga språkbadselever. En jämförelse med traditionell undervisning. In: C. Wide et al. (eds.), Svenskan i Finland 18 (pp. 164–180). Turku: University of Turku.
  35. Philipsson, A. (2007). Interrogative clauses and verb morphology in L2 Swedish. Theoretical interpretations of grammatical development and effects of different elicitation techniques. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
  36. Prentice, J. et al. (2016). Bortom ordklasser och satsdelar: Konstruktionsgrammatik i klassrummet. In: A. W. Gustafsson et al. (eds.), Svenskans beskrivning 34 (pp. 385–397). Lund: Lund University.
  37. Rahkonen, M., Håkansson, G. (2008). Production of written L2-Swedish – processability or input frequencies? In: J-U. Kessler (ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 135–161). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  38. Sullivan, G. M., Feinn R. (2012). Using effect size – or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education 4, 279–282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1
  39. Teleman, U. et al. (1999a). Svenska Akademiens grammatik Vol. 1. Stockholm: Nordstedts Ordbok.
  40. Teleman, U. et al. (1999b). Svenska Akademiens grammatik Vol. 4. Stockholm: Nordstedts Ordbok.
  41. Viberg Å. (1990). Bisatser i inlärarsperspektiv. In: G. Tingbjörn (ed.), Andra symposiet om svenska som andra-språk i Göteborg 1989 (pp. 388–362). Stockholm: Scriptor.