UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Negative constructions in nonliterate learners’ spoken L2
Finnish
Taina Tammelin-Laine
LESLLA 2014
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Contents
 Background
 Participants
 Data collection and analysis
 Classroom as the interactional setting of the study
 Verb conjugation and negative construction in Finnish
 Data
 Results
 Conclusions
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Background
 This study is a part of my on-going PhD study on how
non-literate adults learn Finnish as their L2
 Hardly any previous research on the field in Finland
 ”We have almost no findings on the SLA processes of
members of [ ] low-literate and illiterate adult learners.”
and ”As a result, we do not know how literacy level
affects the acquisition of oral L2s.” (Tarone, Bigelow, &
Hansen 2009, p. 2, 22.)
 The study is not firmly based on any SLA theory but the
general premise of it is the usage-based theory of
additional language learning
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Data collection and analysis
 Two language and literacy classes at two adult
education centers
 August−December 2010, January−May 2011
 Participant observation (notes, audiotaping)
 Analysis both quantitative and qualitative
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Participants
Participant AEC Age* Country of
origin
Amina
Husna
A
A
Rana
A
Asra
B
L1
45 Afghanistan Dari
45 Afghanistan Dari
Kurdish
28 Iran
(sorani)
24 Afghanistan Dari
L2s
Length of
residence*
Russian 15 months
−
16
Farsi
12
Farsi
18
*In August 2010, in the beginning of the data collection
AEC = Adult education center
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Classroom as the interactional setting
of the study
 For the participants the main place for encountering
Finnish
 Classroom interaction mostly lead by the teacher:
(teacher’s) initiation (I)
(learner’s) response (R)
(teacher’s) feedback (F)
 In real interactional situations, almost no corrective
feedback given by the teacher
 The main focus of teaching
– A: reading skills
– B: reading skills alongside oral skills
 Negative construction only mentioned in the reader
used especially at adult education center A
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Verb conjugation and negative
construction in Finnish
Conjugation of the verb asua ‘to live’ in affirmative and
negative forms (present tense, the indicative mood)
Affirmative
(minä) asun
(sinä) asut
Negative
(minä) en asu
(sinä) et asu
hän asuu
(me) asumme
hän ei asu
(me) emme asu
(te) asutte
(te) ette asu
he asuvat
he eivät asu
negative construction:
auxiliary ei + lexical verb
inflected in
person and
number
bare stem
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Data
Amina
Asra
Husna
Rana
Total
Number of words
669
512
387
635
2203
Number of turns
264
241
179
270
954
Declarative turns with verb(s)
44
53
13
60
170
Interrogative turns with
verb(s)
13
20
8
6
47
Percentage of turns with
verb(s)
21.6
29.9
11.7
24.4
22.7
Number of different verbs
used
15
19
12
14
31
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Data
Amina
Asra
Husna
Rana
Total
Number of words
669
512
387
635
2203
Number of turns
264
241
179
270
954
Declarative turns with verb(s)
44
53
13
60
170
Interrogative turns with
verb(s)
13
20
8
6
47
Percentage of turns with
verb(s)
21.6
29.9
11.7
24.4
22.7
Number of different verbs
used
15
19
12
14
31
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Negative constructions in the data
Total of turns with
verb(s)
Neg. declaratives with
lexical verb(s)
Neg. declaratives with
no lexical verb(s)
Neg. interrogatives
with lexical verb(s)
Neg. interrogatives
with no lexical verb(s)
Total of neg. constr.
Percentage of neg.
constr.
Amina
Asra
Husna
Rana
Total
57
73
21
66
217
6
3
0
3
12
15
38
4
34
91
2
3
0
0
5
4
1
0
4
9
27
45
4
41
117
47.4
61.6
19.0
62.1
53.9
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Negative constructions in the data
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
The first occurrence of the negative
construction type
 October
– Amina: EI without a lexical verb in DECLARATIVE
Tämä ei (target: Sitä en tiedä)
This no+SG3 ’That one I don’t know’
– Asra: EI without a lexical verb in DECLARATIVE
Koti ei (target: Hän ei ole kotona)
Home no+SG3 ’He is not at home’
– Rana: EI without a lexical verb in DECLARATIVE
Ei hyvä mies (target: Mies ei ole hyvä)
No+SG3 good man ’The man is not good’
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
The first occurrence of the negative
construction type cont.
 January:
– Asra: EI + a lexical verb in DISJUNCTIVE QUESTION
Kirja ei kirja? (target: Kirjoitanko vai en?)
Write+SG3 no+SG3 write+SG3? ’Shall I write or not?’
 March:
– Amina: EI without a lexical verb in QUESTION
Ei koira? (target: Eikö sinulla ole koiraa?)
No+SG3 dog? ’Don’t you have a dog?’
– Asra: EI + a lexical verb in QUESTION
Ei kirjoita? (target: Enkö kirjoita tätä?)
No+SG3 write+NEG ’Shall I not write this?’
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
The first occurrence of the negative
construction type cont.
 March
– Asra: EI + a lexical verb in DECLARATIVE
Minä ei tiedä (target: (Minä) en tiedä)
I no+SG3 know+NEG ’I don’t know’
– Husna: EI without a lexical verb in DECLARATIVE
Käsi ei hyvä (target: Käsi ei ole terve)
Hand no+SG3 good ’The hand is not fine’
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
The first occurrence of the negative
construction type cont.
 April
– Amina:
• EI + a lexical verb in DECLARATIVE
Tämä ei kirjoittaa (target: Tätä en kirjoita)
This no+SG3 write+SG3 ’This one I don’t write’
• EI + a lexical verb in DISJUNCTIVE QUESTION
Lukee…ei kirjoita (target: Luenko vain, en kirjoita?)
Read+SG3 no+SG3 write+NEG ’Shall I just read this, not write?’
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
The first occurrence of the negative
construction type cont.
 May
– Rana:
• EI + a lexical verb in DECLARATIVE
Ei nukkuu (target: En nuku)
No+SG3 sleep+SG3 ’I don’t sleep’
• EI without a lexical verb in DISJUNCTIVE QUESTION
Hyvä ja ei hyvä (target: Onko tämä hyvä vai ei?
Good and no+SG3 good ’Is this good or not?’
• EI without a lexical verb in QUESTION
Ei kotona opettaja? (target: Eikö mennä kotiin, opettaja?)
No+SG3 at home teacher ’Don’t we go home, teacher?’
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Conclusions
 Typical of all the participants:
– low use of verbs in general
– EI without a lexical verb in declarative utterance occurs first
– no conjugation of EI
– wide use of EI without a lexical verb both in declaratives and
questions throughout the data collection period (cf. Eskildsen
2012)
– the lexical verb used with EI is mostly in correct form – only the
conjugation of EI is missing (cf. En asun pattern in Puro 2002)
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Conclusions cont.
 Individual differences in
– the number of negative constructions
– the time of the first occurrence of EI without a lexical verb
– the order and time of the first occurrence of the negative
construction types other than EI without a lexical verb
– the complexity of negative constructions
 The most complex negative constructions (EI + a
lexical verb in a question / disjunctive question) are
used only by the most fluent readers
 The less fluent reader uses the less negative
constructions and verbs in general
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Conclusions cont.
 To learn the more complex use of negative
construction than just the word EI the participants
need more focused instruction − affordances
encountered in real interactive situations during the
teaching are not enough
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
References
 Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). L2 negation constructions at
work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335−372.
 Puro, T. (2002). Suomi toisena kielenä -aikuisoppijan
verbien kehittyminen alkeiskurssilla [The development
of verbs by adult L2 Finnish learners during the course
in basic language skills] (Unpublished licentiate
dissertation). University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
 Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., & Hansen, K. (2009). Literacy
and second language oracy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Thank you!
[email protected]