Breaking the Syntax Barrier: Syntactic Simplification as Avoidance Strategy in L3 Indonesian

Authors

  • Bambang Yulianto

    Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya 60213, Indonesia
  • Margana

    Faculty of Languages, Arts, and Culture, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia
  • Muhammad Zaim

    Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Padang, Padang 25131, Indonesia
  • Prima Vidya Asteria

    Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya 60213, Indonesia
  • Abdul Kholiq

    Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya 60213, Indonesia
  • Rozanah Katrina Herda

    Faculty of Languages, Arts, and Culture, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia
  • Muflihatuz Zakiyah

    Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Padang, Padang 25131, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i12.11691
Received: 18 August 2025 | Revised: 1 September 2025 | Accepted: 12 September 2025 | Published Online: 3 November 2025

Abstract

Syntactic avoidance is a recurring yet underexplored phenomenon in third language (L3) acquisition. This study investigates how learners of Indonesian as an additional language simplify or circumvent complex structures in order to sustain communication. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, oral tasks, and written samples from eight multilingual participants representing six different first language (L1) backgrounds. Thematic analysis identified consistent avoidance patterns, including the omission of subordinate clauses, avoidance of passive voice marked with the di- prefix, simplification of conjunctions, and substitution of relative clauses and modifiers with simpler alternatives. These strategies were found to be shaped by cognitive processing limitations, structural divergence between Indonesian and learners' prior languages, and sociocultural concerns such as politeness and risk of negative evaluation. The study also revealed modality differences, with avoidance more frequent in oral than in written production, suggesting that planning opportunities reduce syntactic simplification. These findings confirm that avoidance is not merely a sign of deficiency but an adaptive interlanguage strategy consistent with cognitive and sociocultural models of multilingual development. Pedagogically, the results highlight the importance of scaffolding complex syntax through sequenced tasks, cross-linguistic awareness, and supportive classroom practices that encourage experimentation. Beyond the classroom, the study underscores the value of understanding avoidance as a dynamic adaptation that reflects multilingual learners' agency in managing communication. The study concludes by recommending future longitudinal and cross-linguistic research to further explore the interplay of cognitive, pragmatic, and sociocultural factors in L3 Indonesian acquisition.

Keywords:

Syntactic Avoidance; Third Language Acquisition; Interlanguage Strategies; Cognitive And Sociocultural Influence; BIPA Pedagogy

References

[1] UNESCO, 2022. Global education monitoring report 2022: Non-state actors in education. UNESCO: Paris, France.

[2] OECD, 2022. Education at a glance 2022: OECD indicators. OECD: Paris, France.

[3] ASEAN Secretariat, 2022. ASEAN statistical yearbook 2022. ASEAN Secretariat: Jakarta, Indonesia.

[4] Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa, 2022. Laporan Kinerja Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa tahun 2022. Kemendikbud: Jakarta, Indonesia. (in Indonesian)

[5] Kirkpatrick, A., 2010. English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong University Press: Hong Kong, China.

[6] Lamb, M., Wedell, M., 2015. Cultural contrasts and commonalities in inspiring language learning motivation. Language Teaching Research. 19(2), 207–227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541716

[7] Gil, J., 2021. The Rise of Chinese as a Global Language: Prospects and Obstacles. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76171-4

[8] Spolsky, B., 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

[9] Dewi, E.K., Asteria, P.V., 2022. Pengembangan bahan ajar BIPA madya kompetensi plurilingual dengan strategi flipped learning. Bapala. 9(3), 11–25. (in Indonesian)

[10] Ortega, L., 2003. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics. 24(4), 492–518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492

[11] Schachter, J., 1974. An error in error analysis. Language Learning. 24(2), 205–214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00502.x

[12] Kleinmann, H.H., 1977. Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning. 27(1), 93–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00294.x

[13] Canale, M., Swain, M., 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1(1), 1–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1

[14] De Angelis, G., 2007. Third or additional language acquisition. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, UK.

[15] Jessner, U., 2008. A DST model of multilingualism and the role of metalinguistic awareness. Modern Language Journal. 92(2), 270–283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00718.x

[16] Odlin, T., 1989. Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

[17] Kramsch, C., 1998. Language and Culture. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

[18] Skehan, P., 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

[19] Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S., 1993. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

[20] Bialystok, E., 1990. Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use. Basil Blackwell: Oxford, UK.

[21] Cenoz, J., Gorter, D., 2020. Pedagogical translanguaging: An introduction. System. 92, 102269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102269

[22] Asteria, P.V., Afni, A.N., 2023. Prototype of plurilingual and pluricultural learning based on Javanese culture in BIPA learning. Paramasastra: Jurnal Ilmiah Bahasa Sastra dan Pembelajarannya. 10(1), 113–127. (in Indonesian)

[23] Tarone, E., 1981. Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly. 15(3), 285–295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3586754

[24] Williams, S., Hammarberg, B., 1998. Language switches in L3 production: Implications for a polyglot speaking model. Applied Linguistics. 19(3), 295–333.

[25] Bardel, C., Falk, Y., 2007. The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research. 23(4), 459–484.

[26] Selinker, L., 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 10(3), 209–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209

[27] Larsen-Freeman, D., 2011. A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In: Atkinson, D. (ed.). Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. pp. 48–72.

[28] Kim, Y., Payant, C., 2017. Impacts of task complexity on the development of L2 oral performance over time. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 55(2), 197–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0066

[29] Al-Saidat, E.M., 2012. Acquisition of the inflectional morphology of English as a foreign language: an error analysis approach. The Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics. 5, 19–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5750/bjll.v5i0.211

[30] Kormos, J., 2006. Speech production and second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA.

[31] Foster, P., Skehan, P., 1996. The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 18(3), 299–323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047

[32] Ringbom, H., 2007. Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, UK.

[33] Izquierdo, J., Collins, L., 2008. The facilitative role of L1 influence in tense–aspect marking: A comparison of Hispanophone and Anglophone learners of French. The Modern Language Journal. 92(3), 350–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00751.x

[34] Pan, Y., Hu, S., Wang, C., 2022. The negative transfer of Chinese syntax in English writing: Evidence from Chinese ESL learners’ written materials. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Humanities Education and Social Sciences (ICHESS 2022), Xi’an, China, 28–30 October 2022; pp. 2742–2754. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-89-3_313

[35] Krashen, S.D., 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon: Oxford, UK.

[36] LoCastro, V., 2012. Pragmatics for language educators: A sociolinguistic perspective. Routledge: New York, NY, USA.

[37] López Otero, J., Bleotu, A.C., 2025. Divergence and avoidance in the production of DOM in Romanian and Spanish among Romanian-speaking L2 speakers of Spanish. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics. 10(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.16581

[38] García, O., Li, W., 2014. Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765

[39] Cenoz, J., Gorter, D., May, S., 2017. Language awareness and multilingualism. Springer: Cham, Switzerland.

[40] Margana, M., Rasman, 2022. Translanguaging and minoritized language maintenance: Lessons from Indonesia. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. 27(2). DOI: http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2021-2702-01

[41] Sandelowski, M., 2000. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health. 23(4), 334–340.

[42] Richards, K., 2003. Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK.

[43] Creswell, J.W., Poth, C.N., 2018. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 4th ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

[44] Aronin, L., Singleton, D., 2012. Multilingualism. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands.

[45] Jessner, U., Allgäuer-Hackl, E., Hofer, B., 2016. Emerging multilingual awareness in educational contexts. Canadian Modern Language Review. 72(2), 157–182.

[46] Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

[47] Dörnyei, Z., 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

[48] Talmy, S., 2010. Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument to social practice. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 30, 128–148.

[49] Gillham, B., 2005. Research interviewing: The range of techniques. Open University Press: Maidenhead, UK.

[50] Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2), 77–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

[51] Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., White, D.E., et al., 2017. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16(1), 1–13.

[52] McHugh, M.L., 2012. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica. 22(3), 276–282.

[53] Silverman, D., 2020. Interpreting Qualitative Data, 6th ed. Sage: London, UK.

[54] Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Saldaña, J., 2020. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 4th ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

[55] Gass, S.M., Selinker, L., 2021. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, 5th ed. Routledge: New York, NY, USA.

[56] Hinkel, E., 2016. Teaching English Grammar to Speakers of Other Languages, 1st ed. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315695273

[57] Ishikawa, T., 2007. The effect of manipulating task complexity along the here-and-now dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In: García Mayo, M.d.P. (ed.). Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, UK. pp. 136–156.

[58] Hao, Y., Wang, X., Wu, M., et al., 2021. Syntactic networks of interlanguage across L2 modalities and proficiency levels. Frontiers in Psychology. 12, 643120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643120

[59] Hinkel, E., 2001. Teaching grammar in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. TESOL Quarterly. 35(2), 299–321.

[60] Collins, L., 2007. The acquisition of complex structures: Crosslinguistic influence in L2 English learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 29(1), 1–30.

[61] Rahayu, D.I., Margana, M., 2018. Comparing the effects of L2-based with code-switching-based instruction on EFL speaking classes. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 9(5), 946–952. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0905.07

[62] Zaim, M., Refnaldi, R., Kholis, M., et al., 2024. The effect of students’ perceptions of teachers’ beliefs and teaching strategies on students’ motivation and achievement in English. TEFLIN Journal. 35(2), 370–385.

[63] Margana, M., Widyantoro, A., 2017. Developing English textbooks oriented to higher order thinking skills for students of vocational high schools in Yogyakarta. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 8(1), 26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0801.04

[64] Rasman, R., Margana, M., 2022. Constructing translanguaging space in EFL classrooms in Indonesia: Opportunities and challenges. In: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on Teaching Foreign Languages in Multilingual Settings: Pedagogical Implications. Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK. pp. 118–133.

[65] Kholiq, A., Yulianto, B., Suhartono, T., et al., 2024. Code mixing in the acquisition of Indonesian as a third language in BIPA students. Arbitrer: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia. 6(3), 1237–1248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30598/arbitrervol6no3hlm1237-1248 (in Indonesian)

[66] Yulianto, B., Suwarno, P., Maneechukate, S., et al., 2025. Culturally adaptive AI in BIPA classrooms: Learner voices and pedagogical implications. In Proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences, Online, 2025; pp. 02014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202564002014

[67] Zaim, M., Serly, V., Al Hafizh, M., et al., 2025. Investigating students’ needs for TPACK elements in listening materials for an English for economics and business e-book. Studies in English Language Education (SiELE). 12(1), 83–102.

Downloads

How to Cite

Yulianto, B., Margana, Zaim, M., Asteria, P. V., Kholiq, A., Katrina Herda, R., & Zakiyah, M. (2025). Breaking the Syntax Barrier: Syntactic Simplification as Avoidance Strategy in L3 Indonesian. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(12), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i12.11691

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 12 (December 2025): In progress

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Bambang Yulianto, Margana, Muhammad Zaim, Prima Vidya Asteria, Abdul Kholiq, Rozanah Katrina Herda, Muflihatuz Zakiyah

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.