1. Topling:Paths in Second Language acquisition Maisa Martin Åsa Palviainen Riikka Alanen University of Jyväskylä, Finland

2. SLATE www.slate.eu.org 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 Book: www.eurosla.org

3. CEFLING PROJECT http://www.jyu.fi/cefling The linguistic basis of the Common European Framework levels: Combining second language acquisition and language testing research

5. Starting point Writing for a function (CEFR) > Functional levels of writing > What is linguistically typical at a given functional level? Are there typical developmental paths? Comparison –Across age groups –Across languages

6. Research questions: development How and to what extent do the individual developmental paths of SLA, examined longitudinally, concur with or deviate from the developmental patterns reported by cross- sectional studies? What is the influence of different contextual factors in the development of proficiency?

7. Research questions: methods In what ways can the results of cross- sectional and longitudinal studies be compared and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach? In what ways can the development of complexity in learner language be described and compared across linguistic features and languages?

8. Data (1) L2 writing samples of Finnish, English and Swedish (+ some L1 data) –each was rated by 3-4 raters –two rating scales: CEFR and National Curricula Four genres: informal and formal messages, argumentative and narrative texts Educational levels: –Grades 1–6 Finnish, English –Grades 7–9 and upper secondary: Finnish, English, Swedish –University: Swedish, English

9. Data (2) PrimaryLower secondary Upper secondary University Finnish1397647340 English17261115 1058 409 Swedish1109954200

10. Quality of ratings Ratings were analysed with the Multifaceted Rasch analysis software Facets Almost all raters were found to be sufficiently good (only one removed from analyses) Both the CEFR and the National Curriculum scales were found to work as rating scales

11. On-going research On the tasks On the scales On the rating On the contexts On many linguistic features (structures, vocabulary, pragmatics …) In this presentation only examples of some approaches to the data

12. Examples of Analyses What is typical on a given functional level? Writing process The development of a given structure across the levels Comparison across languages

13. SWEDISH AS L2

14. Swedish What is typical on a given functional level? (Sinikka Lahtinen and Outi Toropainen) –Greetings (e-mails) –Interrogative clauses (e-mails) –Transfer from other languages –Argumentative skills –CEFR as an assessment tool for L1 vs L2 (evaluators’ comments, argumentative text)

15. Swedish Writing fluency University students –Swedish as L2; years 1, 2 and 3 –English as L2, year 1 Narratives and argumentative texts in Scriptlog

16. Proficiency levels CEFR Total writing time (min) Total tokens in final text Deleted tokens Proportion of pause time B1 N=13 Mean 111036223.64 Std. Dev. 3 233 95.09 B2 N=31 Mean 161099296.58 Std. Dev. 6 387187.10 C1 N=44 Mean 221375643.52 Std. Dev. 9 928849.12 C2 N=15 Mean 3921861364.51 Std. Dev. 1111501238.08 TABLE 1. L2 writing outcomes (N = 103) by English and Swedish majors assessed on the CEFR scale and characterized by some process and outcome measures. (Palviainen et al. 2012)

17. Fluency measures in relation to the CEFR proficiency levels narratives & argumentative texts: Swedish as L2 ** * Significant differences between B1-B2 (Mann-Whitney)

18. Fluency measures in relation to the CEFR proficiency levels narratives & argumentative texts: English as L2 No differences in- between levels (Mann-Whitney)

19. Swedish Stimulated recall interviews (Adobe Captivate) Argumentative texts Female third-year-student –Practice has improved her writing fluency in L2 –Little focus on grammar, more on ideas –Change of grammatical gender (den>det>de) –Lexical retrieval processes (Fi. menestyä, Sw. lyckas med, Eng. succeed)

20. Further and other studies Pause distributions in narratives (with Victoria Johansson, L1 vs L2) Longitudinal studies Master’s theses: –Tense morphology (upper secondary school texts) –Expressions of politeness (upper secondary school texts) –Grammatical complexity (in texts of univ students)

21. FINNISH AS L2

22. The development of a given structure across the levels The DEMfad model Construction-based approach Examples of research –Indirect references –Existential constructions –Transitive constructions Tentative overall results

23. DEMfad Model (Franceschina et al. 2006) D EM f a d D = Domain (here relative clauses) E = Emergence M = Mastery f = frequency/1000 words a = accuracy d = distribution

24. Indirect references (Seilonen 2013) Zero person (no subject) the most common way at CEFR levels A1 – B2 Passive constructions at levels C1-C2 Idiomatic use by young learners from A1 on Adults show more variation Sinä-expressions emerge early, highest in frequency at B1-B2 level Ihminen-expressions typical of learner language

25. Existential constructions (Mikko Kajander, forthcoming) Common at all levels Accuracy reached earlier by young writers More variability among adults Occurrance of abstrat entities in the constructions grows A>B>C but much task- related

26. Transitive constructions (Nina Reiman 2011) The use grows sharply between A2 and B1 Accuracy grows between B1 and B2 Subordinate uses more frequent than coordinate uses from A1 on The development of complexity qualitative

27. Other research Local cases (concrete vs. abstract uses) Time expressions Noun phrases Vocabulary (overall, common verbs, derivation) Questions Etc.

28. Tentative overall results The development of young learners differs from that of adults Construction-based approach: young learners produce more idiomatic language, adults show more variability and qualitative complexity The increased use of a structure precedes the increase in accuracy.

29. ENGLISH AS L2 (FINNISH AND SWEDISH AS L2)

30. The Development of the Pragmatic Functions of L2 Finnish, L2 English and L2 Swedish Questions Across CEFR Proficiency Levels Riikka Alanen, Paula Kalaja, Maisa Martin, Sinikka Lahtinen & Outi Toropainen

31. Research Questions (1) How do Finnish, English and Swedish L2 learners form questions in a written task at the CEFR proficiency levels A1-B2? (2) What are the pragmatic functions of these questions? (3) Are there differences in how questions are used by Finnish, English and Swedish L2 learners at various proficiency levels?

32. Data Texts (Message to your teacher) written by learners of –L2 Finnish (N=89) (grades 7, 9 and 10) –L2 English (N=156) (grades 7 &10) –L2 Swedish (N= 174) (grades 8, 10 & college freshmen)

33. 33 Task instructions Message to your teacher You’ve been away from school for a week. Soon you’ll have an English exam. To practice your English, you’ve promised to always write to your teacher in English. Send an email message to your teacher: Tell her why you’ve been away. Ask two things about the exam. Ask two things about the English lessons that were held during the week. Remember to begin and end the message appropriately. (translated into English from the Finnish original)

34. Classification of questions Ultan 1978, Phillipson 2007 1. Yes/No questions –Intonation (indicated by a question mark) –Inversion (word order) –Question particle (-kO in Finnish) 2. Wh-questions –Wh-fronting 3. Subordinate questions

35. Results: RQ 3 Research Question 3: Are there differences in how questions are used by Finnish, English and Swedish L2 learners at various proficiency levels? Fewer Wh-questions, more Yes/No questions in higher level performances across all three languages Very low number of subordinate questions in L2 English (8.3 % of all questions in B2 texts), in constrast to L2 Finnish (30.4 %) & L2 Swedish (33.8 %)

36. Conclusions Subordinate / indirect questions develop relatively late both in L2 English and L2 Swedish Indirect wh-questions both in Swedish and English have the same word order as in Finnish direct (and indirect) questions –I wonder when they come  Milloin he tulevat? [when they come?] –Finnish learners of English have a tendency to transfer this structure at lower levels of proficiency (not so in Swedish) whereas learners of L2 Finnish appear to have little trouble in forming questions

37. Conclusions Learners’ choice of grammatical structures interacts with the pragmatic meanings associated with that structure Use of questions constrained by sociolinguistic context of this particular instance of language use (politeness), language proficiency -- and likely by relative difficulty / developmental stage of question formation in each of the languages

38. Conclusions Language use as action: task provided the context for language use, with varying affordances  Leaners seemed to relate the task demands to their own communicative ability Only evident when three languages were available for comparison Further study needed

39. To be done: Individual longitudinal paths to be compared with the overall results Practical aim: description of language needed for functional writing for adults and young learners. Better definition of complexity