Maisa Martin University of Jyväskylä, Finland

1. The many faces of distribution: tracing the development of linguistic structures in learner writing Maisa Martin University of Jyväskylä, Finland

2. Development of linguistic skills • Three dimensions of development: fluency, accuracy and complexity. • All difficult to operationalize but complexity particularly so. • The topic: many faces of complexity – in search for measures. • Related concepts: • distribution • context

3. Stucture of the presentation • The Cefling Project and the SLATE network • DEMfad Model • Grammatical complexity measures • Problems and solutions (?) • Discussion

4. CEFLING:The linguistic basis of the Common European Framework levels: Combining second language acquisition and language testing research

5. SLATE • Second Language Acquisition and Testing in Europe • An informal network to bring together researchers from SLA and Testing • Research around the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels and their relationship to linguistic development

6. Cefling Rationale CEFR very influential in Finland: • * school curricula • * adult education curricula • * National Certificates of Proficiency • * citizenship requirements

7. Research Question • What combinations of linguistic features characterise learners’ performance at the proficiency levels defined in the Common Framework and its Finnish adaptations?

8. Subjects and Languages • Written performances of adults taking the National Certificate of Proficiency examination (3 texts per participant) • Similar texts on similar tasks from young learners (grades 7 – 9, ages 13-16) • L2 Finnish – L1 varies • L2 English – L1 Finnish or Swedish • L1 control groups • Tasks: formal and informal messages, argumentative texts, narratives

9. Rating of the Data • functional can-do scales, no reference to language • three – four trained raters per writing sample • inclusion for main data: complete interrater agreement or two in agreement, one + or – one level • Problems with certain levels • not enough A1 for adults and C1 and C2 for young writers

10. Coding of the Data • CHILDES (.chat format, CLAN tools) • Basic coding for all data, structural features as needed (several for Finnish, fewer for English at the moment) • Automatic analyses for English only

11. D f a E M d DEMfad MODEL(Franceschina et al. 2006) D = Domain E = Emergence M = Mastery f = frequency a = accuracy d = distribution

12. DEMfad MODEL • Domain = linguistic structure or vocabulary area in focus • Emergence = first occurrence (chunk or not) • Mastery = 80 – 90 % occurrence in obligatory contexts • Frequency per 1000 words (~ Fluency) • Accuracy (%, criteria defined for each D) • Distribution ~ Complexity?

13. Complexity measures • Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998 • Larsen-Freeman 2006 • Verspoor et al. 2004 • Banerjee et al. 2007

14. Wolfe-Quintero et al. • Clauses, T-units, sentences • Reduced clauses, dependent clauses, passives, passive sentences, adverbial clauses, adjective clauses, nominal phrases, prepositional phrases, preposed adjectives, pronouns, articles, connectors, transitional connectors, subordinating connectors, coordinating connectors.

15. Larsen-Freeman et al. • grammatical complexity = average number of clauses per t-unit • many other measures as well, but listed as measures of fluency, accuracy, or lexical complexity

16. Verspoor et al. • Development is defined as greater fluency (more words per entry, fewer Dutch words, longer sentences, and more complexity) and/or accuracy (fewer misspellings, fewer grammatical errors, and so on). • i.e. do not separate grammatical complexity from other features (choice below mine): • the number of conjunctions used to connect clauses, • the use of tenses • the word order • determiners • prepositions

17. Banerjee et al. • T-units • Main clauses • Dependent clauses: relative • Dependent clauses: adverbial • Dependent clauses: non-finite • Fragments • ’Double’ embedded clauses • Ellipsis

18. Problems • Overlap between frequency, accuracy, and complexity: is this a problem? • No, if overall development is the aim • Yes, if more detailed profile is sought • Low predictive value • Concentration on syntax – morphology can be complex as well • Is complexity processability? • Is complexity computational? • Is complexity desirable?

19. Complexity as processability • Processability Theory • Processing capacity a feasible factor in the growth of complexity + • Clear framework with spelled-out methodology + • Addresses limited area of the growth of complexity (syntax) - • Dependent on one grammatical theory (Lexical-Functional Grammar) -

20. Example 1: Computational complexity. Error % by word type

21. Is complexity desirable?Example 2 • Subordinate clauses per T-unit • What if • Subordination is a simple matter of starting the clause with a conjunction – with adults the idea of subordination exists > why complex? • The culture values short and clear sentences and lengthy and complicated expressions are not considered good style?

22. Other approaches • Construction Grammar: growth as extension of constructions (semantic, lexical, structural) • Growth as distribution: number of contexts of a structure • ”Close distribution” (mandatory arguments, Paavola 2008) • Growth at several levels: layers of morphology and syntax (Nieminen 2007 in L1)

23. Conclusion • Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998: ”the goal of - - grammatical complexity studies should be to correlate individual measures for a wide variety of structures - - but that is largely uncharted territory.”

24. References • Banerjee J, Franceschina F, Smith AM. 2007 Documenting features of written language production typical at different IELTS band score levels. In: IELTS Research Reports 7. London: British Council. • Franceschina, F. 2007 Aspects of the development of number marking in L2 English. Paper presented at AFinLA Conference, Kouvola, Finland, 9-10 November 2007. http://www.jyu.fi/hum/laitokset/kielet/cefling/en/pub • 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 27/4: 590–619. • Martin, M. 2007 Emergence, mastery and distribution. Can acquisition criteria be combined? Paper presented at EUROSLA 17 Conference, 11-14 September 2007, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK. http://www.jyu.fi/hum/laitokset/kielet/cefling/en/pub • Nieminen, L. A complex case: a morphosyntactic approach to complexity in early child language 2007. Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities. • Paavola, V. 2008 Haluatko menna muunkansa kalastaman? Verbiketjujen kehkeytyminen suomi toisena kielenä -oppijoiden kielessä. MA thesis. University of Jyväskylä. • Verspoor, M.H., K. de Bot & W.M. Lowie, “Dynamic systems theory and variation: a case study in L2 writing.” In H. Aertsen, M. Hannay & R. Lyall, Words in their places: a Festschrift forJ. Lachlan Mackenzie. Amsterdam: VU, 2004. pp. 407-421. • Wolfe-Quintero, K. & Inagaki, S. & Kim, H.-E. 1998 Second language development in writing: measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Technical report #17. Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. University of Hawai’i at Mãnoa.