Unlocking the Linguistic Code: How Native Language Shapes English Learning Among Finnish and Pakistani Students
In the realm of language acquisition, much fascination surrounds how learners progress through varying levels of proficiency, particularly within frameworks like the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). A groundbreaking study by G.A. Khushik delves deep into the intricacies of syntactic development among English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners from disparate linguistic backgrounds—Finnish and Sindhi speakers—shedding new light on the pivotal role that one’s native tongue plays in shaping English syntactic complexity.
Syntactic complexity—the architectural scaffolding underlying sentence construction—has been widely studied, yet remains a multifaceted construct. Previous research has underscored its close ties to language proficiency, with specific attention to CEFR levels. However, Khushik’s study ventures beyond mere proficiency measurements, focusing intently on the phrasal components of syntactic complexity, an aspect often overshadowed by broader structural analyses. Employing advanced automated natural language processing tools, the research scrutinizes fourteen precise indices of syntactic complexity, encompassing not just sentence length but the nuanced patterns and density of phrase structures.
One of the study’s most significant innovations lies in its comparative approach. By analyzing eighth-grade learners from two completely different linguistic milieus—Finnish speakers from Finland and Sindhi speakers from Pakistan—Khushik systematically controls for CEFR level, age, and grade, ensuring that syntactic distinctions arise from native language influence rather than educational or developmental discrepancies. This rigorous method allows for cleaner insights into how L1 backgrounds uniquely sculpt English syntactic performance.
While prior work, notably by Khushik and Huhta (2020), hinted at L1 effects in syntactic complexity across broader cohorts, the present study refines these observations through granular control of confounding variables. This sharp focus affirms that native language exerts persistent influence even when learners possess similar English proficiency and are matched for age and academic standing. It pushes forward the frontier of research by emphasizing the durability of L1 imprints during early to intermediate stages of English oral and written expression.
The investigation reveals significant variation between Finnish and Sindhi learners in syntactic complexity measures from CEFR levels A1 to B1, highlighting that at ostensibly lower proficiency levels—where syntactic sophistication is generally nascent—deep-rooted differences still emerge. This finding challenges simplistic notions that EFL learners, irrespective of background, develop similar language structures linearly with proficiency gain, instead emphasizing a heterogeneous developmental landscape shaped by linguistic heritage.
Delving deeper into the observed divergences, the study contextualizes them within the socio-cultural and linguistic environment of Pakistan, where English occupies a distinctive sociolinguistic niche. Pakistani English, characterized by code-switching phenomena and a rich tapestry of lexical borrowings, has been shaped by historical and contemporary interactions with native tongues such as Sindhi. Such environmental and linguistic factors contribute to the unique syntactic patterns seen in Pakistani EFL learners, including increased prepositional usage and noun phrase elaboration.
Examining specific syntactic features, Khushik identifies that Sindhi learners, particularly at the B1 level, produce longer and denser noun phrases compared to their Finnish peers. This aligns with documented trends in Pakistani English, where noun phrase density outstrips that of British or American English corpora. Moreover, Sindhi learners tend to employ left-embedded structures more frequently, meaning elements appear before the main verb, leading to longer and more complex phrasal chains. These morpho-syntactic tendencies underscore how the L1 not only influences vocabulary choices but deeply impacts grammatical configurations.
Interestingly, the study does not find meaningful differences in gerund and infinitive usage between the two language groups. While previous analyses of Pakistani English suggested a higher prevalence of gerund forms, these distinctions do not manifest strongly at the early CEFR levels under scrutiny, possibly due to limited syntactic maturity among learners or task-related constraints. Hence, infinitive density appears less sensitive as a diagnostic index of L1 influence in this context.
An intriguing nuance surfaces around negation patterns, influenced by the specific writing prompt employed—“No cell phones allowed in school.” The prompt’s negative construction may have elicited certain response tendencies among Sindhi learners, notably a lower frequency of explicit negation compared to Finnish students. This finding invites contemplation on how task design can interact with innate linguistic and cultural norms to modulate syntactic output, suggesting that syntactic complexity is not only a product of learner competence but also shaped by immediate contextual factors.
The heterogeneity within the Pakistani learner group is another pivotal factor in interpreting syntactic variability. Pakistani students hailed from diverse institutional settings, including public, semi-private, and private schools, each with distinctive curricular approaches and varying teacher proficiencies. Such disparity in educational quality and language exposure likely accentuates syntactic developmental variability, corroborating previous observations that inconsistent instruction and resource availability can hamper cohesive EFL progression. This educational mosaic may explain why Sindhi learners exhibit broader ranges of syntactic complexity than their Finnish counterparts, who generally experience more standardized pedagogical environments.
Cumulatively, these findings advance the understanding that syntactic complexity in EFL learners is inextricably intertwined with their native linguistic framework, socio-cultural contexts, and educational conditions. The study’s methodological rigour—controlling for proficiency, age, and grade while leveraging automated linguistic analysis—sets a precedent for future research aiming to dissect the multifarious influences on second language development.
This exploration into the syntactic underpinnings of language learning not only enriches theoretical linguistics but has practical repercussions for educational policy and curriculum design. Recognizing the nuanced imprint of L1 backgrounds suggests tailoring instruction to accommodate diverse syntactic sensitivities rather than adopting a monolithic pedagogical approach. For instance, in multilingual classrooms comprising students from contrasting L1 backgrounds, educators might incorporate differentiated strategies that respect these inherent processing differences.
Moreover, the intersection of linguistic and cultural elements detailed in the study raises profound questions about the evolving nature of English itself. With global Englishes exhibiting localized syntactic features, future research must attend to these dynamic, context-driven variations to redefine notions of proficiency, standardness, and effective communication. The impact of syntactic complexity indices as measurable proxies for such variations provides a promising analytic toolkit for such endeavors.
Khushik’s meticulous comparative investigation paints a vivid picture of how foundational language structures are both resilient and malleable, reflecting learners’ linguistic antecedents while adapting to foreign language demands. This duality challenges educators, linguists, and policymakers alike to reconsider assumptions about linguistic universality in language education.
Moving forward, integrating complementary methodologies—such as longitudinal tracking, qualitative discourse analysis, and cross-linguistic typological comparison—could deepen insights into the fluid interplay between L1 influence and syntactic development. Combining quantitative syntactic measures with qualitative context-sensitive interpretations may offer the most fruitful path toward holistic understanding.
In sum, this landmark study spotlights the indelible mark left by native languages on EFL learners’ syntactic trajectories. By foregrounding the nuanced differences between Finnish and Sindhi learners within the CEFR framework, it not only enhances scientific knowledge but also beckons educational stakeholders to embrace a more informed, inclusive vision for second language acquisition. The journey from “Pinglish” to “Finglish” thus emerges as a testament to language’s enduring complexity and human adaptability—a narrative worthy of the scientific and pedagogical spotlight it now commands.
Subject of Research: Influence of first language (L1) on syntactic complexity development in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners from Finnish and Sindhi backgrounds within CEFR levels A1 to B1.
Article Title: Pinglish vs. Finglish: comparative insights into L1 influence on syntactic development in Finnish and Pakistani EFL learners (CEFR A1-B1)
Article References:
Khushik, G.A. Pinglish vs. Finglish: comparative insights into L1 influence on syntactic development in Finnish and Pakistani EFL learners (CEFR A1-B1). Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1688 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05848-y
Image Credits: AI Generated
