‘I me Mine’ The Acquisition of Dutch Pronominal Possessives by L1 Children, L2 Children and L2 Adults

2008 ◽  
Vol 155 ◽  
pp. 23-52
Author(s):  
Elma Nap-Kolhoff ◽  
Peter Broeder
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Young Children ◽  
First Language ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Speech Data ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Dutch Language ◽  
L1 Acquisition

This study compares pronominal possessive constructions in Dutch first language (L1) acquisition, second language (L2) acquisition by young children, and untutored L2 acquisition by adults. The L2 learners all have Turkish as L1. In longitudinal spontaneous speech data for four L1 learners, seven child L2 learners, and two adult learners, remarkable differences and similarities between the three learner groups were found. In some respects, the child L2 learners develop in a way that is similar to child L1 learners, for instance in the kind of overgeneralisations that they make. However, the child L2 learners also behave like adult L2 learners; i.e., in the pace of the acquisition process, the frequency and persistence of non-target constructions, and the difficulty in acquiring reduced pronouns. The similarities between the child and adult L2 learners are remarkable, because the child L2 learners were only two years old when they started learning Dutch. L2 acquisition before the age of three is often considered to be similar to L1 acquisition. The findings might be attributable to the relatively small amount of Dutch language input the L2 children received.

‘I me Mine’ The Acquisition of Dutch Pronominal Possessives by L1 Children, L2 Children and L2 Adults

2008 ◽  
Vol 155 ◽  
pp. 23-52
Author(s):  
Elma Nap-Kolhoff ◽  
Peter Broeder
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Young Children ◽  
First Language ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Speech Data ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Dutch Language ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Abstract This study compares pronominal possessive constructions in Dutch first language (L1) acquisition, second language (L2) acquisition by young children, and untutored L2 acquisition by adults. The L2 learners all have Turkish as L1. In longitudinal spontaneous speech data for four L1 learners, seven child L2 learners, and two adult learners, remarkable differences and similarities between the three learner groups were found. In some respects, the child L2 learners develop in a way that is similar to child L1 learners, for instance in the kind of overgeneralisations that they make. However, the child L2 learners also behave like adult L2 learners; i.e., in the pace of the acquisition process, the frequency and persistence of non-target constructions, and the difficulty in acquiring reduced pronouns. The similarities between the child and adult L2 learners are remarkable, because the child L2 learners were only two years old when they started learning Dutch. L2 acquisition before the age of three is often considered to be similar to L1 acquisition. The findings might be attributable to the relatively small amount of Dutch language input the L2 children received.

The acquisition of word order in Dutch and German as L1 and L2

1988 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Jordens
Keyword(s):  
Simple Model ◽  
Adult Learners ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
German Word ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

In a recent paper, Clahsen and Muysken (1986) argue that children acquiring German as their first language have access to the 'move alpha' matrix when constructing a grammar for German. This should explain why children have SOV base order and the rule of verb-fronting from the very beginning. In this paper, it is argued that children's OV utterances cannot be related trans formationally to VO utterances. Initially, children acquire OV and VO with different sets of verbs.Clahsen and Muysken (1986) also claim that interlanguage rules of adult L2 learners are not definable in linguistic theory. Du Plessis et al. (1987) reply to this in arguing that the interlanguage rules of adults acquiring L2 German word order fall within the range of systems permitted by the Headedness parameter, the Proper Government parameter, and the Adjunction parameter. Therefore, these adult learners should have access to Universal Grammar (UG). It is argued here that it is not necessary to make this assumption. The L2-acquisition data can be easily accounted for within a simple model of L1-structural transfer.

De Derde Persoon

2001 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 23-39
Author(s):  
Ineke van de Craats
Keyword(s):  
Mother Tongue ◽  
Older Children ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Third Person ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
The Third Person

This paper deals with the question in which respects L1 acquisition differs from L2 acquisition. For this purpose, the way children learning Dutch as their mother tongue acquire possessive constructions is compared to how children and adults learning Dutch as a second language acquire them. The comparison is restricted to the third person role as possessor. Although L1 and L2 learners have many learner variants in common, L2 learners - both children and adults - are initially guided by the structure of their mother tongue. The influence of the L1 can even be resistent for a long time in the preference of one of the two possessive patterns of Dutch. A more conspicuous outcome is that young children are much more susceptibe to weak pronouns in the environmental input and use them at an earlier time than adults and older children.

scholarly journals An exploratory study of the use of a Thai politeness marker by Thai-English bilingual adolescents

2009 ◽  
Vol 158 ◽  
pp. 31-56
Author(s):  
Supamit Chanseawrassamee ◽  
Sarah J. Shin
Keyword(s):  
Exploratory Study ◽  
First Language ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
Time Of Arrival ◽  
Potential Conflict ◽  
English Bilingual ◽  
Speech Data ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Thai English ◽  
The U.S

Abstract This study examines the use of a Thai politeness marker, khráb (ครับ), by two Thai-English bilingual brothers, aged 11 and 15, during their 3-year stay in the U.S. By examining spontaneous speech data collected over eleven months (from Month 15 to Month 25 from time of arrival in the U.S.) in the boys’ home in the U.S., we show that the two brothers used progressively less khráb (ครับ) in speaking to their mother as time passed. The boys’ declining use of the politeness marker is explained in part by their greater use of other casual Thai particles as substitutes and, in the case of the younger brother, the English filler, ‘uh-huh.’ When the boys used khráb (ครับ), it was often for reasons other than for expressing politeness, such as to soften short responses and mitigate potential conflict. This paper argues that the boys’ use of this politeness marker reflects their ability to adapt to a new setting where there is less pressure to supply socially appropriate linguistic forms in Thai. By focusing on the continuing development of the first language of L2 learners of English, this paper presents a critical look at the changing linguistic needs of sojourners.

Specificity in Spanish

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 57-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Borgonovo ◽  
Joyce Bruhn de Garavito ◽  
Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes ◽  
Philippe Prévost ◽  
Elena Valenzuela
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
First Language ◽  
Brazilian Portuguese ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Null Objects ◽  
Interface Phenomena ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Semantic Notion

Recent proposals argue that interface areas such as syntax/semantics and syntax/pragmatics are particularly difficult for adult learners, in comparison to purely syntactic phenomena (Sorace 2003, 2004). In contrast, other research shows that L2 learners are able to acquire target representations even when the interpretation is not readily available in the input (Borgonovo, Bruhn de Garavito and Prévost 2005, Dekydtspotter and Sprouse 2001). In this paper we add to the growing literature on the acquisition of interpretational properties by showing that adult L2 learners can acquire knowledge of the syntactic correlates of the semantic notion of specificity in constructions involving topicalisation and null objects in Spanish. The learners’ first language (L1) is Brazilian Portuguese, where specificity does not play the role in these constructions that it plays in Spanish. Results show that learners can go beyond their L1 with respect to the acquisition of interface phenomena, suggesting that native-like grammars are attainable in L2 acquisition.

The computation and suspension of presuppositions by L1-Mandarin Chinese L2-English speakers

2021 ◽  
pp. 026765832199387
Author(s):  
Shuo Feng
Keyword(s):  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
First Language ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Similar Response ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Precise Understanding ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
External Interface ◽  
Discourse Interface

The Interface Hypothesis proposes that second language (L2) learners, even at highly proficient levels, often fail to integrate information at the external interfaces where grammar interacts with other cognitive systems. While much early L2 work has focused on the syntax–discourse interface or scalar implicatures at the semantics–pragmatics interface, the present article adds to this line of research by exploring another understudied phenomenon at the semantics–pragmatics interface, namely, presuppositions. Furthermore, this study explores both inference computation and suspension via a covered-box picture-selection task. Specifically, this study investigates the interpretation of a presupposition trigger stop and stop under negation. The results from 38 native English speakers and 41 first language (L1) Mandarin Chinese learners of English indicated similar response patterns between native and L2 groups in computing presuppositions but not in suspending presuppositions. That is, L2 learners were less likely to suspend presuppositions than native speakers. This study contributes to a more precise understanding of L2 acquisition at the external interface level, as well as computation and suspension of pragmatic inferences.

scholarly journals DOMAIN-GENERAL AUDITORY PROCESSING EXPLAINS MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS OF L2 ACQUISITION IN ADULTHOOD

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Kazuya Saito ◽  
Hui Sun ◽  
Magdalena Kachlicka ◽  
John Robert Carvajal Alayo ◽  
Tatsuya Nakata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Initial Phase ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Multiple Dimensions ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Primary Determinant ◽  
Proficiency Scores ◽  
L1 Acquisition

ABSTRACT In this study, we propose a hypothesis that domain-general auditory processing, a perceptual anchor of L1 acquisition, can serve as the foundation of successful post-pubertal L2 learning. This hypothesis was tested with 139 post-pubertal L2 immersion learners by linking individual differences in auditory discrimination across multiple acoustic dimensions to the segmental, prosodic, lexical, and morphosyntactic dimensions of L2 proficiency. Overall, auditory processing was a primary determinant of a range of participants’ proficiency scores, even after biographical factors (experience, age) were controlled for. The link between audition and proficiency was especially clear for L2 learners who had passed beyond the initial phase of immersion (length of residence > 1 year). The findings suggest that greater auditory processing skill benefits post-pubertal L2 learners immersed in naturalistic settings for a sufficient period of time by allowing them to better utilize received input, which results in greater language gains and leads to more advanced L2 proficiency in the long run (similar to L1 acquisition).

Assessing Differences and Similarities between Instructed Heritage Language Learners and L2 Learners in Their Knowledge of Spanish Tense-Aspect and Mood (TAM) Morphology

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvina Montrul ◽  
Silvia Perpiñán
Keyword(s):  
Heritage Language ◽  
Language Instruction ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Tense And Aspect ◽  
Classic Problem ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Advanced Proficiency ◽  
L1 Acquisition

The acquisition of the aspectual difference between the preterit and imperfect in the past tense and the acquisition of the contrast between subjunctive and indicative mood are classic problem areas in second language (L2) acquisition of Spanish by English-speaking learners (Collentine, 1995, 1998, 2003; Salaberry, 1999; Slabakova & Montrul, 2002; Terrell, Baycroft & Perrone, 1987). Similarly, Spanish heritage speakers in the U.S exhibit simplification of the preterit/imperfect contrast and incomplete acquisition/attrition of subjunctive morphology (Merino, 1983; Montrul, 2002, 2007; Potowski, Jegerski & Morgan-Short, 2009; Silva-Corvalán, 1994). This raises the question of whether the linguistic knowledge of a developing L2 learner is similar to incomplete L1 acquisition in heritage language (HL) learners. Because heritage speakers are exposed to the heritage language from infancy whereas L2 learners begin exposure much later, Au et al. (2002, 2008) have claimed that heritage speakers are linguistically superior to L2 learners only in phonology but not in morphosyntax. The present study reexamines this claim by focusing on the interpretation of tense, aspect and mood (TAM) morphology in 60 instructed HL learners and 60 L2 learners ranging from low to advanced proficiency in Spanish. Results of four written tasks showed differences between the groups both in tense and aspect and in mood morphology, depending on proficiency levels. Implications of these findings for heritage language instruction are discussed.

scholarly journals Understanding individual variation in levels of second language attainment through the lens of critical period mechanisms

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 930-931 ◽  
Author(s):  
REBECCA REH ◽  
MARIA ARREDONDO ◽  
JANET F. WERKER
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Category Learning ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
First Language ◽  
Visual Language ◽  
Phonetic Category ◽  
Critical Periods ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Language Discrimination ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Mayberry and Kluender (2017) present an important and compelling argument that in order to understand critical periods (CPs) in language acquisition, it is essential to disentangle studies of late first language (L1) acquisition from those of second language (L2) acquisition. Their primary thesis is that timely exposure to an L1 is crucial for establishing language circuitry, thus providing a foundation on which an L2 can build. They note that while there is considerable evidence of interference from the L1 on acquisition of the L2 – especially in late L2 learners (as in our work on cascading influences on phonetic category learning and visual language discrimination, e.g., Werker & Hensch, 2015 and Weikum, Vouloumanos, Navarra, Soto-Faraco, Sebastián-Gallés & Werker, 2013, respectively) – there are other examples of ways in which the L1 can scaffold L2 acquisition. Mayberry and Kluender take this evidence of L1 scaffolding L2 as undermining the value of considering CPs as useful in understanding L2 acquisition.

Betrouwbaarheid Van Spontane Kindertaalanalyses

2010 ◽  
Vol 83 ◽  
pp. 67-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. van Severen ◽  
R. van den Berg ◽  
I. Molemans ◽  
Paul Govaerts ◽  
Steven Gillis
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
Speech Data

Consonant inventories are commonly used phonological measures for analysing spontaneous speech data of young children with a normal or disordered language development. However, a standard procedure is lacking. In this study, different consonant inventories are derived following the guidelines of various existing procedures. Consonant inventories have usually been drawn from speech samples varying substantially in size. The size of the consonant inventories, however, is strongly related to the amount of speech data analyzed. Therefore, speech samples of equal sizes across children and across observation sessions should be used, a requirement often neglected in language acquisition studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document