Origins of Complex Syntax in Interlanguage Development

Abstract

Functionalist analyses of interlanguage (IL) development have been concerned to establish the discoursepragmatic foundations of morphosyntax. A number of domains have been investigated in such work, including referentiality, topiccomment encoding, and temporal reference. The present study extends the focus to the encoding of simple and complex propositions in IL. · Through a longitudinal analysis of conversational data from two Vietnamese learners of American English, the study examines propositional syntax with direct reference to discoursepragmatic factors in face-to-face interaction, in particular, to learners' reliance on the collaboration of their (Englishspeaking) interlocutors. Syntacticization -movement from highly context-dependent, •paratactic• speech to more explicit, morphosyntactically enco9ed speech -is observed in (1) high proportions of propositional utterances in both learners' speech, (2) a tendency to distribute propositional content over single utterances, and (3) little interlocutor collaboration in the encoding of complex propositions. Parataxis is found in the encoding of complex propositions: a low rate of multipropositional utterances (MPOs) is observed throughout the study, as well as a preference for juxtaposed rather than morphologically bound MPUs. Of note is a difference in the developmental paths of complementation and modification. Production of the former but not the latter appears to be facilitated by the existence of specific lexical entry points.

The Development of Second Language Writing Complexity in Groups and Individuals: A Longitudinal Learner Corpus Study

“…The most frequent SC type by far was the complementizer dass (‘that’): Each of the 2 participants used it 10 times. This is in line with Sato (), who found that complement clauses were the most frequent type of subordination used by beginning learners. However, the 2 focal learners differed in the range of lexical items and structures governing the complementizer dass .…”

Speech fluency in phrases: teaching English oral fluency in distance learning

“…Defined as "a main clause plus all subordinate clauses and nonclausal structures attached to or embedded in it" (Hunt, 1970, p. 189), the T-unit was originally used to measure the syntactic complexity of children's written language. Measures of syntactic complexity for spoken discourse range from semantic units (Sato, 1988;Pica et. al., 1989;Kroll 1977) to intonational units (Crystal & Davy, 1975;Chafe, 1980;Crookes & Rulon, 1985;Ellis et al, 1994;Foster & Skehan, 1996) to syntactic units (Quirk et al, 1985;Kroll, 1977;Hunt, 1970).…”

Pragmatic, Semantic, and Syntactic Constraints and Grammaticalization

“…Bruner, 1978) and has recently attracted serious attention in second language acquisition (SLA) research. Whereas some studies try to describe the emergence of grammar as an overall and continuous development on different grammatical levels (Clahsen, Meisel, & Pienemann, 1983;Klein & Dittmar, 1979), recent longitudinal studies depart from the idea that particular prototypical words and structures have the function of precursors in early learner varieties and are grammaticalized in competition with cognate words and structures that are acquired successively in later stages of the learning process (Dittmar & Kuhberg, 1988;Meisel, 1987;Sato, 1988;Schumacher & Skiba, 1991). These investigations are more detailed in the sense that they describe-according to theoretical approach-selected grammatical variables, communicative functions, or semantic concepts.…”

“…among other studies Dittmar, 1981;Dittmar & Kuhberg, 1988;Klein, 1982;Meisel, 1987;Sato, 1986;Schumann, 1978). Recently, the emergence of complex syntax and interpropositional relations (complementation, coordination, and modification) has been described within a functional framework by Sato (1988), who adopted the notion of syntactization from Givon's (e.g., Givon, 1979) work on functional grammar. Syntactization is defined by Sato (1986) as "the process through which the targetlike use of morphosyntactic devices in IL [interlanguage] increases over time, while the reliance on discourse pragmatic context declines" (p. 24).…”

“…NOTES 1. There are no precise criteria or features for cutting between the syntactic or pragmatic component; this transition is referred to by Givon (1979) and Sato (1988) only metaphorically. As yet, the state of the research does not allow us to draw such a distinction.…”