Lexical acquisition over time in minority first language children learning English as a second language

2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
HEATHER GOLBERG ◽  
JOHANNE PARADIS ◽  
MARTHA CRAGO
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
First Language ◽  
Receptive Vocabulary ◽  
Vocabulary Test ◽  
Lexical Resources ◽  
Lexical Development ◽  
Second Language Development ◽  
Mental Age ◽  
Language Sampling

ABSTRACTThe English second language development of 19 children (mean age at outset = 5 years, 4 months) from various first language backgrounds was examined every 6 months for 2 years, using spontaneous language sampling, parental questionnaires, and a standardized receptive vocabulary test. Results showed that the children's mean mental age equivalency and standard scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Third Edition nearly met native-speaker expectations after an average of 34 months of exposure to English, a faster rate of development than has been reported in some other research. Children displayed the phenomenon of general all-purpose verbs through overextension of the semantically flexible verb do, an indicator of having to stretch their lexical resources for the communicative context. Regarding sources of individual differences, older age of second language onset and higher levels of mother's education were associated with faster growth in children's English lexical development, and nonverbal intelligence showed some limited influence on vocabulary outcomes; however, English use in the home had no consistent effects on vocabulary development.

scholarly journals The Lexical Development of Canadian-Born Romanian L1 Bilingual Kindergarteners

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Claudia Petrescu ◽  
Rena Helms-Park
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
First Language ◽  
Receptive Vocabulary ◽  
Vocabulary Test ◽  
Peabody Picture Vocabulary ◽  
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test ◽  
Lexical Development ◽  
Definitive Evidence ◽  
Academic Register

This study charts the lexical development of three sequential bilingual kindergarteners whose first language, Romanian, was acquired naturalistically at home, and whose second language, English, was acquired in kindergarten. The children’s lexical development in English and Romanian was assessed at five different points over a two-year period via the PPVT-4 (peabody picture vocabulary test 4) and a specially adapted PPVT-4 for Romanian. The children’s lexical repertoires were further analyzed to uncover home versus school and cognate versus non-cognate acquisitional differences. In addition, because there is no database of lexical items acquired by monolingual Romanian children, the PPVT-4 adapted for Romanian was administered to 22 monolingual six-year-old Romanian children in Sibiu, Romania. The findings indicate the following: (i) the three bilinguals’ receptive vocabulary in English was below average when they joined kindergarten, and at or above average two years later; (ii) their lexical growth in Romanian was steady; (iii) the bilinguals’ scores for words belonging to a home register reflected ceiling effects in English and Romanian (i.e., were very well known); (iv) academic words were known to an equal extent in English and Romanian, but scores were lower than for the home register; and (v) there was no definitive evidence of cognate facilitation. A comparison of the monolingual and bilingual Romanian repertoires reflects the following: (i) equally high scores for home items; (ii) differences in scores in the academic register in favour of the Romanian monolinguals; and (iii) important lifestyle and cultural differences between the groups. The Romanian children, for example, were more familiar than their Canadian counterparts with items related to home maintenance, such as șmirghăluiește (‘sanding’) and mistrie (‘trowel’), or items probably learned in school, such as foca (‘walrus’) and broască țestoasă (‘tortoise’).

scholarly journals The Lexical Development of Canadian-Born Romanian L1 Bilingual Kindergarteners

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Claudia Petrescu ◽  
Rena Helms-Park
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
First Language ◽  
Receptive Vocabulary ◽  
Vocabulary Test ◽  
Peabody Picture Vocabulary ◽  
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test ◽  
Lexical Development ◽  
Definitive Evidence ◽  
Academic Register

This study charts the lexical development of three sequential bilingual kindergarteners whose first language, Romanian, was acquired naturalistically at home, and whose second language, English, was acquired in kindergarten. The children’s lexical development in English and Romanian was assessed at five different points over a two-year period via the PPVT-4 (peabody picture vocabulary test 4) and a specially adapted PPVT-4 for Romanian. The children’s lexical repertoires were further analyzed to uncover home versus school and cognate versus non-cognate acquisitional differences. In addition, because there is no database of lexical items acquired by monolingual Romanian children, the PPVT-4 adapted for Romanian was administered to 22 monolingual six-year-old Romanian children in Sibiu, Romania. The findings indicate the following: (i) the three bilinguals’ receptive vocabulary in English was below average when they joined kindergarten, and at or above average two years later; (ii) their lexical growth in Romanian was steady; (iii) the bilinguals’ scores for words belonging to a home register reflected ceiling effects in English and Romanian (i.e., were very well known); (iv) academic words were known to an equal extent in English and Romanian, but scores were lower than for the home register; and (v) there was no definitive evidence of cognate facilitation. A comparison of the monolingual and bilingual Romanian repertoires reflects the following: (i) equally high scores for home items; (ii) differences in scores in the academic register in favour of the Romanian monolinguals; and (iii) important lifestyle and cultural differences between the groups. The Romanian children, for example, were more familiar than their Canadian counterparts with items related to home maintenance, such as șmirghăluiește (‘sanding’) and mistrie (‘trowel’), or items probably learned in school, such as foca (‘walrus’) and broască țestoasă (‘tortoise’).

scholarly journals The Lexical Development of Canadian-Born Romanian L1 Bilingual Kindergarteners

Languages ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Maria Claudia Petrescu ◽  
Rena Helms-Park
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
First Language ◽  
Receptive Vocabulary ◽  
Vocabulary Test ◽  
Peabody Picture Vocabulary ◽  
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test ◽  
Lexical Development ◽  
Definitive Evidence ◽  
Academic Register

This study charts the lexical development of three sequential bilingual kindergarteners whose first language, Romanian, was acquired naturalistically at home, and whose second language, English, was acquired in kindergarten. The children’s lexical development in English and Romanian was assessed at five different points over a two-year period via the PPVT-4 (peabody picture vocabulary test 4) and a specially adapted PPVT-4 for Romanian. The children’s lexical repertoires were further analyzed to uncover home versus school and cognate versus non-cognate acquisitional differences. In addition, because there is no database of lexical items acquired by monolingual Romanian children, the PPVT-4 adapted for Romanian was administered to 22 monolingual six-year-old Romanian children in Sibiu, Romania. The findings indicate the following: (i) the three bilinguals’ receptive vocabulary in English was below average when they joined kindergarten, and at or above average two years later; (ii) their lexical growth in Romanian was steady; (iii) the bilinguals’ scores for words belonging to a home register reflected ceiling effects in English and Romanian (i.e., were very well known); (iv) academic words were known to an equal extent in English and Romanian, but scores were lower than for the home register; and (v) there was no definitive evidence of cognate facilitation. A comparison of the monolingual and bilingual Romanian repertoires reflects the following: (i) equally high scores for home items; (ii) differences in scores in the academic register in favour of the Romanian monolinguals; and (iii) important lifestyle and cultural differences between the groups. The Romanian children, for example, were more familiar than their Canadian counterparts with items related to home maintenance, such as șmirghăluiește (‘sanding’) and mistrie (‘trowel’), or items probably learned in school, such as foca (‘walrus’) and broască țestoasă (‘tortoise’).

scholarly journals Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level constraints

2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 571-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
CLAUDIA FELSER ◽  
IAN CUNNINGS
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
First Language ◽  
Nonnative Speakers ◽  
Binding Condition ◽  
Reflexive Pronouns ◽  
German Speaking ◽  
Nonnative Speakers Of English ◽  
Language Influence

ABSTRACTWe report the results from two eye-movement monitoring experiments examining the processing of reflexive pronouns by proficient German-speaking learners of second language (L2) English. Our results show that the nonnative speakers initially tried to link English argument reflexives to a discourse-prominent but structurally inaccessible antecedent, thereby violating binding condition A. Our native speaker controls, in contrast, showed evidence of applying condition A immediately during processing. Together, our findings show that L2 learners’ initial focusing on a structurally inaccessible antecedent cannot be due to first language influence and is also independent of whether the inaccessible antecedent c-commands the reflexive. This suggests that unlike native speakers, nonnative speakers of English initially attempt to interpret reflexives through discourse-based coreference assignment rather than syntactic binding.

Effects of first language processes and representations on second language perception: The case of vowel epenthesis by Japanese speakers

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Nomura ◽  
Keiichi Ishikawa
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
First Language ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
English Word ◽  
Consonant Cluster ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Vowel Epenthesis ◽  
Japanese Speakers ◽  
Language Perception

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions: Japanese speakers are known to perceive “illusory vowels” within consonant clusters illicit in their language. The present study examines how this perceptual vowel epenthesis is affected by first language (L1) processes (restoration of vowels devoiced through Japanese high vowel devoicing), L1 representations (loanword representations in Japanese speakers’ lexicons), and proficiency in English. Design/methodology/approach: The participants judged the presence or absence of a mora (e.g., ム /mu/) in an auditorily presented English word (e.g., homesick). The 40 test items contained a heterosyllabic consonant cluster with four different voicing patterns to examine whether the vowel restoration process is related to vowel epenthesis. Twenty of the test items are frequently used as loanwords in Japanese, meaning that they are stored in the L1 lexicon with a vowel inserted inside the consonant cluster (e.g., /hoomusikku/). The other 20 are low-frequency items that are virtually nonwords for the non-native participants. Data and analysis: The vowel epenthesis rates and reaction times (RTs) were obtained from 14 introductory learners, 15 intermediate learners, and 19 native speakers. Findings/conclusions: The results show the main effects of Voice, Loanword Representation, and Proficiency, as well as the interaction among the three factors. Negative correlations between vowel epenthesis rates and RTs were also observed for the learners. The results indicate differential effects of vowel restoration and loanwords on perceptual epenthesis by learners of different proficiency levels. Originality: The present study was one of the first attempts to test the relation between proficiency and perceptual vowel epenthesis using real English words. Significance/implications: The findings demonstrate the robustness of L1 processes and representations in second language perception while substantiating the existing argument for early vowel epenthesis. They also raise questions regarding the effects of training and the role of native speaker input.

scholarly journals ‘Pre-enactment’ in team-teacher planning talk

Pragmatics ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 675-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Leyland
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
First Language ◽  
Lesson Planning ◽  
Shared Vision ◽  
Analytic Study ◽  
Teacher Planning ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
The Future ◽  
Japanese Schools

Recent years have seen a growing body of research concerned with objects in interaction and the numerous interactional methods and functions of creating a shared vision of some non-present scene. This multimodal Conversation Analytic study of second language interaction uncovers a combination of these two foci, showing the ways in which people use objects to create a shared vision of these objects may be used in the future. This frequently used practice of ‘pre-enactment’ is uncovered from a corpus of video recorded lesson planning discussions between English ‘native’ and ‘non-native speaker’ teachers who ‘team-teach’ together in Japanese schools. To these discussions, participants bring various objects that will be used in upcoming collaborative classes, such as clocks, word cards, and other printouts. By shifting from describing to demonstrating how such objects may be used, an authentic and pervasive image of a possible future is created. This has many functions, such as informing the current planning talk and providing a platform for other important actions to take place, such as suggesting alternatives or making requests. By examining this manipulation of objects, this study considers the ways people switch between the present and a possible future in planning talk. As such, this study adds an important layer of understanding to practices utilized in future-oriented interaction, particularly those involving people who do not share a first language.

scholarly journals Listeners’ Linguistic Experience Affects the Degree of Perceived Nativeness of First Language Pronunciation

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Kornder ◽  
Ineke Mennen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
First Language ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
Language Background ◽  
Linguistic Experience ◽  
English Bilingual

The aim of this study was to explore if and to what extent Austrian-English late sequential bilinguals who have been living in a second language (L2) environment for several decades are perceived to sound native in their first language (L1) when being compared to monolingual Austrian German (AG) control speakers. Furthermore, this investigation aimed to identify if listeners differ in their judgments of nativeness of L1 pronunciation depending on their own language background. For this purpose, two groups of native Austrian German listeners (N = 30 each), who differed regarding their linguistic background (Austrian German monolingual and Austrian German-English bilingual listeners) were asked to rate spontaneous speech samples produced by Austrian English bilingual and Austrian German monolingual speakers. Results showed that the bilingual L1 speech was perceived to sound overall less native compared to monolingual control speech. It was further observed that the two listener groups significantly differed in their perception of nativeness: Bilingual listeners were overall less likely to judge bilingual L1 pronunciation to sound non-native compared to monolingual listeners. To date, this is the first study to show that listener experience influences their perception of nativeness of L1 pronunciation and, thus, adds a new dimension to the notion of the native speaker.

Construct operationalization, L1 effects, and context in second language processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 694-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALAN JUFFS
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
First Language ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Second Language Processing

Cunnings (2016) provides welcome insights into differences between native speaker (NS) sentence processing, adult non-native speaker processing (NNS), and working memory capacity (WMC) limitations. This commentary briefly raises three issues: construct operationalization; the role of first language (L1); and context.

scholarly journals On L1 attrition and the linguistic system

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 212-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika S. Schmid
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
First Language ◽  
Quantitative Difference ◽  
Highly Active ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Native Language Proficiency

One of the most puzzling observations for linguists is the difference between learning a language from birth and later in life: while all normally developing children can attain full native language proficiency, there is considerable variability in ultimate attainment among older speakers who attempt to acquire a second language (L2). There is an ongoing controversy in linguistic research on whether this discrepancy is due to a maturationally constrained window of linguistic development making language learning difficult or impossible after puberty, or to general cognitive factors linked to the fact that the later an L2 is established, the stronger the competition it has to overcome from the more deeply entrenched first language (L1). Studies attempting to resolve this controversy have so far focussed exclusively on the development of L2 skills. New insights may be provided by investigating the first language skills of migrants who have become dominant in the L2 (referred to as L1 attriters). Such speakers learned their L1 as monolinguals during childhood, and were therefore not impeded by maturational constraints in the acquisitional process. Having lived in an L2 environment for a long period of time, however, their seldom-used L1 shows signs of the influence of their highly active L2. A systematic comparison of L1 attriters and L2 learners may therefore be able to shed some light on the question of whether there is a qualitative or merely a quantitative difference between L1 acquisition in childhood and L2 acquisition later in life: If being a native speaker is maturationally constrained, even attrited L1 systems should remain native-like. But if the persistent problems of L2 learners are due to issues such as lack of practice and exposure, and competition between their two language systems, bilinguals who use their second language dominantly should become more similar to L2 speakers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document