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

Henrik Gyllstad | Lund University

Jonas Granfeldt | Lund University

Petra Bernardini | Lund University

Marie Källkvist | 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

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.html

Alderson, C.J

2007 “The CEFR and the need for more research.” The Modern Language Journal 911: 658–662.

Bachman, L

2004 Statistical Analyses for Language Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.html

Beacco, J., Bouquet, S. and Pourquier, R

2004 Niveau B2 pour le français: un référentiel. Paris: Didier.

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.

DeVellis, R.F

1991 Scale Development. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications.

Field, A

2005 Discovering Statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.

Figueras, N

2012 “The impact of the CEFR.” The English Language Teaching Journal 661: 477–485.

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.html

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.

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.

Housen, A. and Kuiken, F

2009 “Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition”. Applied Linguistics 301: 461–473.

Hulstijn, J.H

2007 “The Shaky Ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency.” The Modern Language Journal 911: 663–667.

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.html

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 291: 203–221.

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.html

Leung, C. and Lewkowicz, J

2012 ”Language communication and communicative competence: A view from contemporary classrooms”. Language and Education 11: 1–17.

Little, D

2007 “The common European framework of reference for languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy.” The Modern Language Journal 911: 645–655.

MacWhinney, B

2000 The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, 3rd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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.html

Norris, J.M. and Ortega, L

2009 “Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity”. Applied Linguistics 301: 555–578.

North, B

2007 “The CEFR illustrative descriptor scales.” The Modern Language Journal 911: 656–659.

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.

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.

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. and Kim, H

1998 Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, & Complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Cited by

Cited by 19 other publications

Abu Sufi, Mohd. Khairul & Engku Haliza Engku Ibrahim

2021. Mapping IIUM Students’ English Language Writing Proficiency to CEFR. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 29:S3

Barrot, Jessie S. & Joan Y. Agdeppa

2021. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency as indices of college-level L2 writers’ proficiency. Assessing Writing 47 ► pp. 100510 ff.

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.

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

Bulté, Bram & Hanne Roothooft

2020. Investigating the interrelationship between rated L2 proficiency and linguistic complexity in L2 speech. System 91 ► pp. 102246 ff.

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.

Khushik, Ghulam Abbas & Ari Huhta

2022. Syntactic complexity in Finnish-background EFL learners’ writing at CEFR levels A1–B2. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 10:1 ► pp. 142 ff.

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

Kuiken, Folkert, Ineke Vedder, Alex Housen & Bastien De Clercq

2019. Variation in syntactic complexity: Introduction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics

Lecouvet, Mathieu

2021. Non-canonical word order as a measure of syntactic complexity in advanced L2 German. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0:0

Menke, Mandy R. & Paul A. Malovrh

2021. In Advancedness in Second Language Spanish [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 31], ► pp. 2 ff.

Menke, Mandy R. & Paul A. Malovrh

2021. In Advancedness in Second Language Spanish [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 31], ► pp. 18 ff.

Mäkilä, Mari

2021. Syntaktisk komplexitet och korrekthet i finska universitetsstudenters skriftliga inlärarsvenska: en jämförelse mellan två färdighetsnivåer. Nordand 16:2 ► pp. 134 ff.

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.

Santucci, Valentino, Filippo Santarelli, Luciana Forti & Stefania Spina

2020. Automatic Classification of Text Complexity. Applied Sciences 10:20 ► pp. 7285 ff.

Vandeweerd, Nathan

2021. fsca . International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 7:2 ► pp. 259 ff.

Vandeweerd, Nathan, Alex Housen & Magali Paquot

2021. Applying phraseological complexity measures to L2 French. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 7:2 ► pp. 197 ff.

Vanek, Norbert

2017. In Tense-Aspect-Modality in a Second Language [Studies in Bilingualism, 50], ► pp. 145 ff.

Wisniewski, Katrin

2017. Empirical Learner Language and the Levels of theCommon European Framework of Reference. Language Learning 67:S1 ► pp. 232 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 april 2022. 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.