Article published in:
EUROSLA Yearbook: Volume 14 (2014)
Edited by Leah Roberts, Ineke Vedder and Jan H. Hulstijn
[EUROSLA Yearbook 14] 2014
► pp. 1–30

Linguistic correlates to communicative proficiency levels of the CEFR

The case of syntactic complexity in written L2 English, L3 French and L4 Italian

| Lund University
| Lund University
| Lund University
| Lund University
This study is a contribution to the empirical underpinning of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), and it aims to identify linguistic correlates to the proficiency levels defined by the CEFR. The study was conducted in a Swedish school setting, focusing on English, French and Italian, and examined the relationship between CEFR levels (A1–C2) assigned by experienced raters to learners’ written texts and three measures of syntactic complexity (based on length of t-unit, subclause ratio, and mean length of clause (cf. Norris & Ortega, 2009)). Data were elicited through two written tasks (a short letter and a narrative) completed by pupils of L2 English (N = 54) in years four, nine and the final year of upper-secondary school, L3 French (N = 38) in year nine and the final year of upper-secondary school, and L4 Italian (N = 28) in the final year of upper-secondary school and first year of university. The results showed that, globally, there were weak to medium-strong correlations between assigned CEFR levels and the three measures of syntactic complexity in English, French and Italian. Furthermore, it was found that syntactic complexity was homogeneous across the three languages at CEFR level A, whereas syntactic complexity was different across languages at CEFR level B, especially in the data for English and French. Consequences for the empirical validity of the CEFR framework and the nature of the three measures of complexity are discussed.
Published online: 05 August 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.14.01gyl
References

References

Alanen, R., Huhta, A. and Tarnanen, M.
2010 “Designing and assessing L2 writing tasks across CEFR proficiency levels.” In Communicative Proficiency and Linguistic Development: Intersections between SLA and Language Testing Research [Eurosla Monographs Series 1], I. Bartning, M. Martin and I. Vedder (eds), 21–56. European Second Language Association. http://​eurosla​.org​/monographs​/EM01​/EM01home​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Alderson, C.J.
2007 “The CEFR and the need for more research.” The Modern Language Journal 91: 658–662. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L.
2004 Statistical Analyses for Language Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bartning, I., Martin, M. and Vedder, I.
(eds) 2010 Communicative Proficiency and Linguistic Development: Intersections between SLA and Language Testing Research [Eurosla Monographs Series 1]. European Second Language Association. http://​eurosla​.org​/monographs​/EM01​/EM01home​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Beacco, J., Bouquet, S. and Pourquier, R.
2004 Niveau B2 pour le français: un référentiel. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Bernardini, P.
2013 “Abilità comunicativa (QCER) ed effettive produzioni linguistiche in italiano L4.” Paper presented at XCIS, X Congresso Italianisti Scandinavi Reykjavík , 13–15 July, 2013.
Council of Europe
2001 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeVellis, R.F.
1991 Scale Development. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Field, A.
2005 Discovering Statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Figueras, N.
2012 “The impact of the CEFR.” The English Language Teaching Journal 66: 477–485. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forsberg, F. and Bartning, I.
2010 “Can linguistic features discriminate between the communicative CEFR-levels? A pilot study of written L2 French.” In Communicative Proficiency and Linguistic Development: Intersections between SLA and Language Testing Research [Eurosla Monographs Series 1], I. Bartning, M. Martin and I. Vedder (eds), 133–158. European Second Language Association. http://​eurosla​.org​/monographs​/EM01​/EM01home​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Granfeldt, J., Bernardini, P., Gyllstad, H. and Källkvist, M.
Forthcoming. “Linguistic complexity in the CEFR and in L2 English, L3 French and L4 Italian: On the role of target language typology for measuring language proficiency“. Paper accepted for ReN workshop at the AILA 2014 Conference , Brisbane.
Granfeldt, J. and Ågren, M.
2013 “Stages of processability and levels of proficiency in the common European framework of reference for languages. The case of L3 French.” In Language Acquisition and Use in Multilingual Contexts. Theory and Practice [Travaux de l’Institut de linguistique de Lund 52], A. Flyman-Mattsson and C. Norrby (eds), 28–38. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.A. and Filipović, L.
2012 Critical Features in L2 English. Specifying the Reference Levels of the Common European Framework [English Profile Studies 1]. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Housen, A. and Kuiken, F.
2009 “Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition”. Applied Linguistics 30: 461–473. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J.H.
2007 “The Shaky Ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency.” The Modern Language Journal 91: 663–667. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J.H., Alderson, J.C. and Schoonen, R.
2010 “Developmental stages in second-language acquisition and levels of second-language proficiency: Are there links between them?” In Communicative Proficiency and Linguistic Development: Intersections between SLA and Language Testing Research [Eurosla Monographs Series 1], I. Bartning, M. Martin and I. Vedder (eds), 11–20. European Second Language Association. http://​eurosla​.org​/monographs​/EM01​/EM01home​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J.H., Schoonen, R., de Jong, N.H., Steinel, M.P. and Florijn, A.
2012 “Linguistic competences of learners of Dutch as a second language at the b1 and b2 levels of speaking proficiency of the common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR)”. Language Testing 29: 203–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., Vedder, I. and Gilabert, R.
2010 “Communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2 writing.” In Communicative Proficiency and Linguistic Development: Intersections between SLA and Language Testing Research [Eurosla Monographs Series 1], I. Bartning, M. Martin and I. Vedder (eds), 81–100. European Second Language Association. http://​eurosla​.org​/monographs​/EM01​/EM01home​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Leung, C. and Lewkowicz, J.
2012 ”Language communication and communicative competence: A view from contemporary classrooms”. Language and Education 1: 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Little, D.
2007 “The common European framework of reference for languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy.” The Modern Language Journal 91: 645–655. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
2000 The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, 3rd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Martin, M., Mustonen, S., Reiman, N. and Seilonen, M.
2010 “On becoming an independent user.” In Communicative Proficiency and Linguistic Development: Intersections between SLA and Language Testing Research [Eurosla Monographs Series 1], I. Bartning, M. Martin and I. Vedder (eds), 57–80. European Second Language Association. http://​eurosla​.org​/monographs​/EM01​/EM01home​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Norris, J.M. and Ortega, L.
2009 “Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity”. Applied Linguistics 30: 555–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
North, B.
2007 “The CEFR illustrative descriptor scales.” The Modern Language Journal 91: 656–659. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prodeau, M., Lopez, S. and Véronique, D.
2012 “Acquisition of French as a second language: Do developmental stages correlate with CEFR levels?” Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies 6 (1): 47–68.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, J.
2011 Existe-t-il des corrélations entre les stades de développement morphosyntaxique et les niveaux proposés du Cadre européen commun de référence ? Une étude de productions écrites par des apprenants suédophones de français L2. Unpublished Bachelor thesis in French Linguistics. Centre for Languages and Literature: Lund university.
Skehan, P.
1998 A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. and Kim, H.
1998 Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, & Complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Advancedness in Second Language Spanish [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 31], Crossref logo
No author info given
2021.  In Advancedness in Second Language Spanish [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 31], Crossref logo
Bartning, Inge, Klara Arvidsson & Fanny Forsberg Lundell
2015. Complexity at the phrasal level in spoken L1 and very advanced L2 French. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 6:2 ► pp. 181 ff. Crossref logo
Bernardini, Petra & Jonas Granfeldt
2019. On cross‐linguistic variation and measures of linguistic complexity in learner texts: Italian, French and English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics Crossref logo
Bulté, Bram & Hanne Roothooft
2020. Investigating the interrelationship between rated L2 proficiency and linguistic complexity in L2 speech. System 91 ► pp. 102246 ff. Crossref logo
Khushik, Ghulam Abbas & Ari Huhta
2020. Investigating Syntactic Complexity in EFL Learners' Writing across Common European Framework of Reference Levels A1, A2, and B1. Applied Linguistics 41:4 ► pp. 506 ff. Crossref logo
Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder
2019. Syntactic complexity across proficiency and languages: L2 and L1 writing in Dutch, Italian and Spanish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics Crossref logo
Kuiken, Folkert, Ineke Vedder, Alex Housen & Bastien De Clercq
2019. Variation in syntactic complexity: Introduction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics Crossref logo
Paquot, Magali
2018. Phraseological Competence: A Missing Component in University Entrance Language Tests? Insights From a Study of EFL Learners’ Use of Statistical Collocations. Language Assessment Quarterly 15:1 ► pp. 29 ff. Crossref logo
Santucci, Valentino, Filippo Santarelli, Luciana Forti & Stefania Spina
2020. Automatic Classification of Text Complexity. Applied Sciences 10:20 ► pp. 7285 ff. Crossref logo
Vanek, Norbert
2017.  In Tense-Aspect-Modality in a Second Language [Studies in Bilingualism, 50], ► pp. 145 ff. Crossref logo
Wisniewski, Katrin
2017. Empirical Learner Language and the Levels of theCommon European Framework of Reference. Language Learning 67:S1 ► pp. 232 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 december 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.