Keywords
generic pronouns
implicit and explicit learning
difficulty
immersion
Svenska som L2
generiska pronomen
implicit och explicit inlärning
svårighet
språkbad
How to Cite
Abstract
This is a study of the use of generic pronouns in Swedish as a second language (L2) by L1 Finnish immersion students. We compare two groups, 12-year-olds, and 15-year-olds, to see if there is a difference and to identify which the most challenging cases are in both groups. Norm deviations are compared to see if they mainly consist of overuse of generic pronouns or more formal aspects, such as the pronoun which is chosen, and the understanding of the relation between the generic subject, object, possessive and reflexive pronouns. Both groups use generic pronouns in the subject position in a manner which mostly follows the standard, and mainly have problems with possessive pronouns in connection to generic pronouns. It is possible that object generic pronouns would also be problematic, but there are none in our data. Generic pronouns are sometimes left out as subjects, which is ungrammatical in Swedish. There is also occasional overuse of man where it is not idiomatic, and some mixed forms with man and s-passive. Results show possible transfer from the first language (L1) of the learners, but less in the older group. Furthermore, there also appears to be transfer from L3 English, which our informants are learning at school. This seems more present in the older group.
References
Axelsson, M. (1994). Noun phrase development in Swedish as a second language: A study of adult learners’ acquiring definiteness and the semantics and morphology of adjectives. Stockholm: Stockholm University Centre for Research and Bilingualism.
Bergroth, M. (2007). Kielikylpyperheet valokeilassa. Taustat ja odotukset. Vasa: Vasa universitet.
Bergroth, M. (2015). Kotimaisten kielten kielikylpy. Vasa: Vasa universitet. http://www.uva.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_978-952-476-617-3.pdf [läst 12.05.2021].
Bergroth, M. & Björklund, S. (2013). Kielikylpyohjelman tutkimustuloksia Suomessa. [I:] L. Tainio & H. Harju-Luukkainen (red.), Kaksikielinen koulu – tulevaisuuden monikielinen Suomi/Tvåspråkig Skola – ett flerspråkigt Finland i Framtiden (s. 91–114). Jyväskylä: Finnish Educational Research Association.
Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. [I:] P. Robinson & N.C. Ellis (red.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (s. 216–236). New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. [I:] C.J. Doughty & M. Long (red.), The handbook of second language acquisition (s. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch11
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
Ellis, N.C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 305–352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X
Ellis, N.C. (2016). Salience, cognition, language complexity, and complex adaptive systems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 341–351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600005X
Ellis, N.C & Robinson P. (2008). An introduction to cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and language instruction. [I:] P. Robinson & N.C. Ellis (red.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (s. 3–24). New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203938560
Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling Learning Difficulty and Second Language Proficiency: The Differential Contributions of Implicit and Explicit Knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27, 431–463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml022
Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldschneider, J.M. & 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
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 245–260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011980
Haspelmath, M. (2017 [2001]). Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, P. & Hinchliffe, I. (2013). Swedish: A Comprehensive Grammar. 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203381670
Hyltenstam, K. (1988). Att tala svenska som en infödd – eller nästan. [I:] K. Hyltenstam & I. Lindberg (red.), Första symposiet om svenska som andraspråk. Volym 1 (s. 138–156). Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.
ISK=Hakulinen, A. m.fl. (2004). Iso Suomen Kielioppi. Helsingfors: Finska litteratursällskapet.
Jensen, T. J. (2009). Generic variation? Developments in use of generic pronouns in late 20th century spoken Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 41, 83–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03740460903364128
Josephson, O. (2018). Språkpolitik. Språkrådets skrifter 25. Stockholm: Morfem.
Juurakko, T. (1996). Prepositioner i finskspråkiga gymnasisters inlärarsvenska. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä universitet.
Järvinen [Nyqvist], E-L. (2004). Passiv diates samt man-konstruktion i finskspråkiga gymnasisters skriftliga inlärarsvenska. Opublicerad pro gradu-avhandling. Åbo: Åbo Universitet.
Kantola, K. (2001). Passiven och man-konstruktionen i ett urval abiturientuppsatser från våren 1997. Opublicerad pro gradu-avhandling. Åbo: Åbo universitet.
Karlsson, F. (2012). Finsk grammatik, nionde, utökade och reviderade upplagan. Helsingfors: Finska Litteratursällskapet.
Leino, P. & Östman, J-O. (2003). Language change, variability, and functional load – Finnish genericity from a constructional point of view. [I:] J. Leino (red.) Constructional reorganization (s. 37–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.5.03lei
Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition. [I:] P. Robinson & N.C. Ellis (red.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (s. 168–196). New York: Routledge.
LoCoco, V. (1976). A Comparison of Three Methods for the Collection of L2 Data: Free Composition, Translation, and Picture Description (s. 59–86). Working Papers on Bilingualism 8.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content. A counter-balanced approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.18
Löflund, J. (1998). Suomen kirjoitetun yleiskielen passiivi. Åbo: Åbo Akademis förlag.
Meriläinen, H. (1984). Beskrivning av språket i ett urval abiturientuppsatser från år 1980. Del 2 – Felanalys. [I:] A. J. Pitkänen (red.), Interlingua-studier II (s. 1–92). Tammerfors: Tammerfors universitet.
Nyqvist, E-L (2013). Species och artikelbruk i finskspråkiga grundskoleelevers inlärarsvenska. En longitudinell undersökning i årskurserna 7–9. En doktorsavhandling publicerad i elektronisk form. Åbo: Åbo universitet. https://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/91519.
Nyqvist, E-L. (2018a). Definiteness and Use of Articles in Written Swedish by Finnish-speaking Immersion Pupils at the End of Immersion: a Comparison with Non-immersion Students. Journal of Immersion and Content-based Language Education 6, 57–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17001.nyq
Nyqvist, E-L. (2018b). Species och artikelbruk hos finska språkbadselever i årskurs 6. Folkmålsstudier 56, 73–104. https://journal.fi/folkmalsstudier/article/view/89161.
Nyqvist, E-L. (2018c). Mastering complex Swedish NPs: A comparison of non-immersion pupils and immersion L1 Finnish pupils. Journal of European Second Language Association, 14–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.33
Nyqvist, E-L. (2020). Interrogativa bisatser hos 12- och 15-åriga språkbadselever. En jämförelse med traditionell undervisning. [I]: C. Wide, E. Ingman, K. Lankinen & V. Vaakanainen (red.), Svenskan i Finland 18 (s. 164–180). Åbo: Åbo universitet. https://www.utupub.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/150838/Wide_mfl_2020_Svenskan_i_Finland.pdf.
Nyqvist, E-L. (2021a). Komplexa svenska nominalfraser hos finskspråkiga språkbadselever. Norsk lingvistisk tidskrift 39, 69–95.
Nyqvist, E-L. (2021b). Subject-verb word order in narratives in Swedish by Finnish-speaking immersion and non-immersion students. Journal of Language teaching and Research 12(5), 641–653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1205.02
Nyqvist, E-L & Lahtinen, S. (2021). Grammatical gender in L2 Swedish by Finnish-speaking immersion students. A comparison with non-immersion students. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 44(2), 281–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586520000256
Nyqvist, E-L & Lindström Tiedemann, T. (2021). Hur behärskar finska språkbadselever de svenska passivkonstruktionerna? NordAnd 1/2021, 36–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2535-3381-2021-01-03
Ragnarsdóttir, H. & Strömqvist, S. (2005). The development of generic maður/man for the construction of discourse stance in Icelandic and Swedish. Journal of pragmatics 37, 143–155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.08.007
Roehr-Brackin, K. (2015). Explicit knowledge about language in L2 learning. [I:] P. Rebuschat (red.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (s. 117–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.48.06roe
Teleman, U. et al. (1999a). Svenska Akademiens Grammatik 2. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.
Teleman, U. et al. (1999b). Svenska Akademiens Grammatik 4. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.
Trenkic, D. & Pongpairoj, N. (2013). Referent salience affects second language article use. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16, 152–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000156
Savijärvi, M. (2013). Miten lapset oppivat kielikylpykieltä päiväkodin arkitilanteissa? [I:] L. Tainio & H. Harju-Luukkainen (red.), Kaksikielinen koulu – tulevaisuuden monikielinen Suomi/Tvåspråkig Skola – ett flerspråkigt Finland i Framtiden (s. 115–140). Jyväskylä: Finnish Educational Research Association.
Skärlund, S. (2014). Har folk blivit ett pronomen? Utvecklingen av ordet folk under perioden 1300–2013. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 129, 245–280.
Skärlund, S. (2016a). Blir en ny hen? Om den ny(gamla) användningen av en som generiskt pronomen. [I:] A. W. Gustafsson, L. Holm, K. Lundin, H. Rahm & M. Tronnier (red.), Svenskans beskrivning 34 (s. 413–427). Lund: Lunds universitet.
Skärlund, S. (2016b). Gammalt folk, hederligt folk eller bara folk–blir ordet folk ett pronomen? [I:] Studier i svensk språkhistoria 13: Historia och språkhistoria (s. 263–277). Institutionen för språkstudier, Umeå universitet.
Skärlund, S. (2017a). Man, en och du. Generiska pronomen i svenskans historia. Lund: Lunds universitet.
Skärlund, S. (2017b). Does you mean I? Generic du (‘you’) as a case of informalization and subjectification in Swedish. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 35, 129–146. http://ojs.novus.no/index.php/NLT/article/view/1402.
Stora finsk-svenska ordboken. (2023). ’Ihminen’. Helsingfors: Institutet för de inhemska språkens webbpublikationer 52. URN:NBN:fi:kotus-201840. Senaste uppdatering 17.12.2020 [Senast hämtad 21 juni 2023]. https://kaino.kotus.fi/finsk-svensk.
Törnudd-Jalovaara, E. (1997). Blir du talspråkets man? [I:] S. Haapamäki (red), Svenskan i Finland 4 (s. 227–231). Åbo: Åbo Akademi.
Utbildningsstyrelsen (2014). Koulutuksen tilastollinen vuosikirja 2014. Helsingfors: Utbildningsstyrelsen. http://www.oph.fi/download/163331_koulutuksen_tilastollinen_vuosikirja_2014.pdf.
Vilkuna, M. (1996). Suomen lauseopin perusteet. Helsingfors: Edita.
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Eeva-Liisa Nyqvist & Therese Lindström Tiedemann
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.