Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:22:45.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammatical gender in L2 Swedish in Finnish-speaking immersion students: A comparison with non-immersion students

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2021

Eeva-Liisa Nyqvist Open the ORCID record for Eeva-Liisa Nyqvist [Opens in a new window]  and
Sinikka Lahtinen
Eeva-Liisa Nyqvist*
Affiliation:
Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian studies, PL 24, 00014 Helsingin yliopisto, Finland
Sinikka Lahtinen
Affiliation:
Pohjoismaiset kielet, School of Languages and Translation Studies, 20014 Turun yliopisto, Finland
*
Email for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Swedish grammatical gender is challenging for Finnish-speaking learners of Swedish due to its abstract meaning, the complex nature of Swedish NPs and the low salience of the morphology used to mark gender. Our study compares the expression of gender in texts written in Swedish by Finnish-speaking 12- and 15-year-old immersion students with that of 16-year-old non-immersion students. The results show that NPs with gender agreement, i.e. those with several morphemes marking gender, are more difficult than NPs with only one marker. In all informant groups, uter is significantly easier than neuter, but uter is also overused, as approximately 75% of all Swedish nouns are uter in modern Swedish. Comparisons between different informant groups show that non-immersion students often reach a significantly higher level of accuracy than immersion students, which indicates that formal teaching has a positive effect.

Keywords

complexityfrequencygender agreementgrammatical genderimmersionSwedish as L2
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , December 2021 , pp. 281 - 303
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Nordic Association of Linguistics

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

Audring, Jenny. 2019. Canonical, complex, complicated? In Garbo, Francesca Di, Olsson, Bruno & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Grammatical Gender and Linguistic Complexity: vol. 1: General Issues and Specific Studies (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 26), 15–52. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Andersson, Anders-Börje. 1992. Second Language Learner’s Acquisition of Grammatical Gender in Swedish. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Andersson, Anders-Börje. 1994. On the acquisition of gender in Swedish. In Strömqvist, Sven (ed.), Proceedings of the XIVth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics and the VIIIth Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics: Special Session on Language Development (Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 74), 27–38. Gothenburg: Department of Linguistics, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Axelsson, Monica. 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.Google Scholar
Bergroth, Mari. 2007. Kielikylpyperheet Valokeilassa. Taustat ja odotukset [Immersion families in the spotlight: Their background and expectations]. Vaasa: Publications of the University of Vaasa. http://www.uva.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_978-952-476-204-5.pdf, retrieved 29 January 2021.Google Scholar
Bergroth, Mari. 2015. Kotimaisten Kielten Kielikylpy [Immersion in the national languages in Finland]. Vaasa: Publications of the University of Vaasa. http://www.uva.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_978-952-476-617-3.pdf, retrieved 29 January 2021.Google Scholar
Bergroth, Mari & Björklund, Siv. 2013. Kielikylpyohjelman tutkimustuloksia Suomessa [Results from immersion studies in Finland]. In Tainio, Liisa & Harju-Luukkainen, Heidi (eds.), Kaksikielinen Koulu – tulevaisuuden monikielinen Suomi/Tvåspråkig skola – ett flerspråkigt Finland i framtiden [Bilingual school: A plurilingual Finland of the future] (Studies in Pedagogy 62), 91–114. Jyväskylä: Finnish Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, Ute. 2003. Nominal phrases. In Håkansson, Gisela, Josefsson, Gunlög & Platzack, Christer (eds.), Acquisition of Swedish Grammar, 195–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Braüner Kappelgaard, Sofie & Bruun Hjorth, Hannah. 2017. Det stærkeste køn. En undersøgelse af genusrealisering i dansk blandt teenagere i flersprogede miljøer i Køge og på Amager [The strongest gender: A study of gender marking in the Danish of teenagers in multilingual environments in Køge and Amager] (Københavnerstudier i tosprogethed 75 [Copenhagen studies in bilingualism 75]). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. https://andetsprogsforskning.ku.dk/forskning/koebenhavnerstudier_i_tosprogethed_/manuskripter/Bind_75_-_Det_St_rkeste_K_n_-_2017.pdf, retrieved 29 January 2021.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2008. Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In Robinson, Peter & Ellis, Nick C. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, 216–236. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Collins, Laura, Trofimovich, Pavel, White, Joanna, Cardoso, Walcir & Horst, Marlise. 2009. Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. Modern Language Journal 93(3), 336–353.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00894.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2013. Sex-based and non-sex-based gender systems. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/31.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, Robert. 2005. What makes learning second language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55(S1), 1–25.10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2016. Salience, cognition, language complexity, and complex adaptive systems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38(2), 341–351.10.1017/S027226311600005XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. & Wulff, Stefanie. 2015. Usage-based approaches to SLA. In VanPatten, Bill & Williams, Jessica (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, 75–93. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2006. Modelling learner difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27(3), 431–463.10.1093/applin/aml022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Rod & Barkhuizen, Gary. 2005. Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 2006. Norsk referansegrammatikk [Norwegian: A reference grammar]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
FNBE. 2014a = Finnish National Board of Education. 2014. Koulutuksen tilastollinen vuosikirja 2014 [Statistical Annals of Education 2014]. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. https://www.oph.fi/fi/tilastot-ja-julkaisut/julkaisut/koulutuksen-tilastollinen-vuosikirja-2014, retrieved 29 January 2021.Google Scholar
FNBE. 2014b = Finnish National Board of Education. 2014. Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet [Core Curriculum for Basic Education]. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. https://www.oph.fi/fi/koulutus-ja-tutkinnot/perusopetuksen-opetussuunnitelman-perusteet, retrieved 29 January 2021.Google Scholar
FNBE. 2015 = Finnish National Board of Education. 2015. Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet [Core Curriculum for General Upper Secondary Schools]. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. http://www.oph.fi/download/172124_lukion_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2015.pdf, retrieved 29 January 2021.Google Scholar
Genesee, Fred. 1987. Learning through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Glahn, Ester, Håkansson, Gisela, Hammarberg, Björn, Holmen, Anne, Hvenekilde, Anne & Lund, Karen. 2001. Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23, 389–416.10.1017/S0272263101003047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, Jennifer & DeKeyser, Robert. 2001. Explaining the “natural” order of L2 morpheme acquisition in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 51(1), 1–50.10.1111/1467-9922.00147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government Decree. 422/2012. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2012/20120422#Lidp450669344, retrieved 29 January 2021. [English translation at http://www.oph.fi/download/179422_distribution_of_lesson_hours_in_basic_education_2012.pdf, retrieved 29 January 2021.]Google Scholar
Håkansson, Camilla, Lyngfelt, Benjamin & Brasch, Matilda. 2019. Typfall och mönsterigenkänning – konstruktionsbaserad andraspråksundervisning i praktiken [Typical cases and pattern recognition: Constructions-based L2 instruction in practice]. In Bianchi, Marco, Håkansson, David, Melander, Björn & Pfister, Linda (eds.) Svenskans beskrivning 36 [Describing Swedish 36], 107–117. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Heltoft, Lars. 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog [The Danish grammar]. Copenhagen: Det Danske sprog- og litteratursellskab [The Danish Language and Literature Society].Google Scholar
Harley, Birgit. 1993. Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2), 245–260.10.1017/S0272263100011980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Birgit. 1998. The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In Doughty, Catherine & Williams, Jessica (eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, 156–174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Housen, Alex & Simoens, Hannelore. 2016. Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38(2), 163–175.10.1017/S0272263116000176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, Kenneth. 1988. Att tala svenska som en infödd – eller nästan [To speak Swedish as a native speaker – almost]. In Hyltenstam, Kenneth & Lindberg, Inger (eds.), Första symposiet om svenska som andraspråk. Volym 1 [First Symposium in L2 Swedish, vol. 1], 138–156. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Centre for Research on Bilingualism.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, Kenneth. 1992. Non-native features of near-native speakers: On the ultimate attainment of childhood L2 learners. In Harris, Richard (ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals, 351–368. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61505-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaakkola, Hanna. 2000. Kielitiedosta kielitaitoon [From knowledge about languages to language proficiency]. In Kaikkonen, Pauli & Kohonen, Viljo (eds.), Minne menet kielikasvatus? Näkökulmia kielipedagogiikkaan [Where are you going, language education? Viewpoints into language pedagogy], 145–156. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott. 2002. Topic continuity in L2 English article use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(3), 387–418.10.1017/S0272263102003029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juurakko-Paavola, Taina & Takala, Sauli. 2013. Ylioppilastutkinnon kielikokeiden tulosten sijoittaminen lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteiden taitotasoille [How to place the results of the language test in the matriculation examination in the scales used in the core curriculum for general upper secondary schools]. Matriculation Examination Board. https://www.ylioppilastutkinto.fi/images/sivuston_tiedostot/Raportit_tutkimukset/FI_2013_kielikokeet_taitotasot.pdf, retrieved 29 January 2021.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 2017. Finnish: A Comprehensive Grammar. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315743547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kathy Minhye & Godfroid, Aline. 2019. Should we listen or read? Modality effects in implicit and explicit knowledge. The Modern Language Journal 103(3), 648–664.Google Scholar
Lahtinen, Sinikka. 1998. Genuskongruens och genus i finska gymnasisters inlärarsvenska [Gender agreement and grammatical gender by Finnish-speaking secondary school students’ L2 learners of Swedish]. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Lyster, Roy. 2004. Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(3), 399–432.10.1017/S0272263104263021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, Roy. 2007. Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, Roy. 2010. Enseignement centré sur la forme et acquisition du genre grammatical en français L2. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 13(1), 73–94.Google Scholar
Nistov, Ingvild, Gustafsson, Hana & Cadierno, Teresa. 2018. Bruksbaserte tillnærminger till andrespråkslærning [Usage-based approaches to SLA]. In Gujord, Ann-Kristin Helland & Randen, Gunhild Tveit (eds.), Norsk som andrespråk – perspektiver på læring og utvikling [L2 Norwegian: Perspectives on acquisition and development], 107–132. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.Google Scholar
Nyqvist, Eeva-Liisa. 2013. Species och artikelbruk i finskspråkiga grundskoleelevers inlärarsvenska. En longitudinell undersökning i årskurserna 7–9 [Definiteness and use of articles in the Swedish of Finnish L2-learners: A longitudinal study from 7th to 9th grade in a comprehensive school]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Turku. http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/91519, retrieved 29 January 2021.Google Scholar
Nyqvist, Eeva-Liisa. 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 2018(1), 57–84.10.1075/jicb.17001.nyqCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyqvist, Eeva-Liisa. 2018b. Species och artikelbruk hos finska språkbadselever i årskurs 6 [Definiteness and use of articles by 12-year-old Finnish-speaking immersion students]. Folkmålsstudier 56, 73–104.Google Scholar
Pettersson, Thore. 1976. Bestämda och obestämda former [Definite and indefinite forms]. In Gårding, Eva (ed.), Kontrastiv fonetik och syntax med svenska i centrum [Contrastive phonetics and syntax with Swedish in focus], 119–142. Lund: Liber Läromedel.Google Scholar
Philipsson, Anders. 2004. Svenskans morfologi och syntax i ett andraspråksperspektiv [Swedish morphology and syntax from an L2 perspective]. In Hyltenstam, Kenneth & Lindberg, Inger (eds.), Svenska som andraspråk – i forskning, undervisning och samhälle [Swedish as an L2: In research, instruction and society], 117–151. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Plunkett, Kim & Strömqvist, Sven. 1990. The Acquisition of Scandinavian Languages (Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 59). Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Prentice, Julia, Loenheim, Lisa, Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Olofsson, Joel & Tingsell, Sofia. 2016. Bortom ordklasser och satsdelar: konstruktionsgrammatik i klassrummet [Beyond word classes and sentence constituents: Construction grammar in the classroom]. In Gustafsson, Anna W., Holm, Lisa, Lundin, Katarina, Rahm, Henrik & Tronnier, Mechtild (eds.), Svenskans beskrivning 34 [Describing Swedish 34], 385–397. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Ragnhildstveit, Silje. 2017. Genus og transfer når norsk er andrespråk [Gender and transfer in L2 Norwegian]. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Ragnhildstveit, Silje. 2018. Genusmarkering i norsk som andrespråk er styrt av genusmarkørenes signalvaliditet [Gender marking in Norwegian is driven by cue validity]. Nordand 13(2), 168–191.10.18261/issn.2535-3381-2018-02-04CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svartholm, Kristina. 1978. Svenskans artikelsystem. En genomgång av artikelbruket i vuxenspråket och en modell för analys av bruket i barnspråket [The articles in Swedish: A survey of article use in adult language and a model for analysis of the use in child language] (MINS 3). Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Svensk Ordbok [Swedish dictonary]. 1999. Gothenburg, Nordstedts Ordbok. 3rd edn.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999a. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik [Grammar of the Swedish Academy], vol. 2. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999b. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik [Grammar of the Swedish Academy], vol. 3. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Toropainen, Outi, Lahtinen, Sinikka & Åberg, Anne-Maj. 2020. Metaspråklig kunskap i andraspråksskribenters reflektioner [Metalinguistic knowledge in the reflections of L2 learners]. Nordand 15(2), 111–126.10.18261/issn.2535-3381-2020-02-05CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, G. Richard, Lambert, Wallace E. & Rigault, André. 1977. The French Speaker’s Skill with Grammatical Gender. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110805413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2012. Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar