scholarly journals The acquisition of dative alternation by German-English bilingual and English monolingual children

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Woods
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
Dative Alternation ◽  
English Bilingual ◽  
Interface Phenomena ◽  
L1 Attrition ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
English Monolingual

The vulnerability of the syntax–semantics interface in simultaneous bilingual first language acquisition is still up for debate; while some scholars have found crosslinguistic transfer at this interface, others found no such influence. To determine which kinds of syntax–semantics interface phenomena may be vulnerable, this study examines the acquisition and use of dative alternation by German-English bilingual children and adults compared with English monolingual children and German and English monolingual adults. The study shows that bilingual children interpret and comprehend dative constructions in English like their monolingual peers but their production of dative constructions in German is influenced by English. This suggests that syntax–semantics interface phenomena relating to the representation of verbs’ objects are vulnerable to influence. However, bilingual adults perform like monolinguals in both languages. These results suggest that any indeterminacy in the use of dative alternation in the adult state is due to L1 attrition rather than incomplete L1 acquisition.

The impact of typological factors in monolingual and bilingual first language acquisition

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Katharina Ochsenbauer ◽  
Helen Engemann
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
Developmental Patterns ◽  
English Bilingual ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
The Impact

The present study compares (1) monolingual English vs. French adults and children and (2) simultaneous French-English bilingual children who describe caused motion events. The results concerning L1 speakers showed developmental progressions in both languages, e.g., utterance complexity increases with age. However, response patterns differed considerably across languages in that responses were denser and more compact in English than in French. The results concerning bilingual children showed unidirectional crosslinguistic interactions. Responses elicited in English paralleled monolingual developmental patterns, whereas bilinguals’ French productions differed from those of monolingual French peers. The findings suggest that bilingual children transfer lexicalisation patterns from one of their languages to the other when the former provides more transparent means of achieving high semantic density.

scholarly journals Different sources of delay and acceleration in early child bilingualism

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Natascha Müller
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
First Language ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
Efficient Computation ◽  
Linguistic Development ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Acquisition Delay ◽  
Different Sources

AbstractThe present article argues that the two effects observed in bilingual first language acquisition, delay and acceleration, have different sources. Whereas delay can be due to cross-linguistic influence on the competence or the performance level and to the mere cognitive burden to process two languages, acceleration is always rooted in efficient computation in a non-linguistic sense. The evidence for the difference between delay and acceleration effects stems from children who are raised bilingually from birth and who are studied during spontaneous speech production. It falls out rather naturally that linguistic development is immune to acceleration, while it can be delayed in bilingual children as compared to monolinguals.

Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aafke Hulk ◽  
Natascha Müller
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
External Factors ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
Internal Factors ◽  
Surface Level ◽  
Language Dominance ◽  
Starting Point

This paper has as its starting point the assumption that in acquiring two languages from birth, bilingual children separate their grammars from very early on. This does not, however, exclude cross-linguistic influence – the possible influence of one language on the other. The main focus of the paper is on the acquisition of syntax in a generative framework. We argue that cross-linguistic influence can occur if (1) an interface level between two modules of grammar is involved, and (2) the two languages overlap at the surface level. We show that both conditions hold for object drop, but not for root infinitives. Root infinitives satisfy the first condition: they involve the interface between syntax and pragmatics. However, they do not satisfy the second condition. Therefore, we expect cross-linguistic influence to occur only in the domain of object drop and not in the domain of root infinitives. Comparing the development of the two phenomena in a bilingual Dutch–French and a German–Italian child to the development in monolingual children, we show that this prediction is borne out by our data. Moreover, this confirms the hypothesis that cross-linguistic influence is due to language internal factors and not to language external factors such as language dominance: the periods during which we observe influence in the domain of object drop and non-influence in the domain of root infinitives are identical.

Evidence for transfer in bilingual children?

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 177-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
AAFKE HULK ◽  
ELISABETH VAN DER LINDEN
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
Early Language ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Bilingual Child ◽  
Language Differentiation ◽  
Established Fact ◽  
The Way

The paper by Natascha Müller follows the new way of studying bilingual first language acquisition which has been advocated in the last few years by several researchers (Döpke, 1996, 1997; Gawlitzek-Maiwald & Tracy, 1996; Hulk & Van der Linden, 1996; Hulk, 1997). In this new approach, while it is taken as an established fact that bilingual children are capable of early language differentiation, at the same time a lot of attention is given to cross-linguistic influence as an important characteristic of bilingual first language acquisition. We will discuss the nature of differentiation and transfer here as presented by Müller's paper and the way we see it ourselves. We will illustrate our position with examples from the French-Dutch bilingual child we have been studying for some time.

Ambiguity and transfer in bilingual first language acquisition?

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
JEANINE TREFFERS-DALLER
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Subordinate Clause ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
Correct Position ◽  
Subordinate Clauses ◽  
German Child ◽  
Finite Verb

Natascha Müller presents a very interesting analysis of the structure of the German subordinate clause in bilingual first language acquisition. The main issue in this paper is to explain the fact that some bilingual children – but not all of them – display non-target language structures in German subordinate clauses. That is, the finite verb does not appear in the final position of the subordinate clause. These non-target structures can in part be explained by transfer, but this cannot be the whole story, because some monolingual children produce these structures as well. Bilingual children, though, appear to have problems with the German subordinate clause more frequently than monolingual children. Interestingly, acquiring the target structures is a slow process for children who produce non-target structures. Ivar, the French-German child Müller discusses in most detail, for example, needs two years to acquire the correct position of the finite verb in German subordinate clauses. Müller argues that the problems arise because the input children receive is ambiguous: the finite verb does not always appear in the finite position in German subordinate clauses in adult speech. The ambiguity of this situation opens the way to transfer. In their uncertainty, the children turn to their other language as a relief strategy.

scholarly journals Bilingual and Monolingual First Language Acquisition Experience Differentially Shapes Children’s Property Term Learning: Evidence from Behavioral and Neurophysiological Measures

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnes Groba ◽  
Annick De Houwer ◽  
Hellmuth Obrig ◽  
Sonja Rossi
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Near Infrared ◽  
First Language ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Choice Task ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy ◽  
Neurophysiological Data ◽  
Forced Choice Task

Studies of novel noun learning show bilingual children rely less on the Mutual Exclusivity Constraint (MEC) for word learning than monolinguals. Shifting the focus to learning novel property terms (adjectives), the present study compared 3.5- and five-year-old bilingual and monolingual preschoolers’ adherence to the MEC. We found no bilingual-monolingual differences on a behavioral forced-choice task for the 3.5-year-olds, but five-year-old monolinguals adhered more to the MEC than bilinguals did. Older bilinguals adhered less to the MEC than younger ones, while there was no difference in MEC adherence between the younger and older monolinguals. In the 5-year-olds, we additionally acquired neurophysiological data using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to allow for a first explorative look at potential neuronal underpinnings. The data show that, compared to bilinguals, monolinguals reveal higher activation over three brain regions (right frontal, left temporo-parietal, and left prefrontal) that may be involved in exploiting the MEC, building on conflict detection, inhibition, solution of a disjunction, and working memory processes. Taken together, our behavioral and neurophysiological findings reveal different paths towards novel property term learning depending on children’s language acquisition context.

First language acquisition... second language acquisition: ‘What’s Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba?’

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-344
Author(s):  
Susan Foster-Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Research Question ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2

Second language (L2) research appeals to first language acquisition research frequently and standardly. It is important, however, to take stock from time to time of the uses that second language acquisition (SLA) makes of its sister field. Whether we use first language (L1) research to generate or bolster the importance of a particular research question, to argue for a fundamental similarity or a fundamental difference between the two sorts of acquisition, or to offer guidance in the formulation of research paradigms, it is important that we do so with our critical eyes open.This article examines the possible and specific relationships between L1 acquisition and SLA, with the aim of showing that a number of assumptions warrant closer inspection. It begins by examining the expressions ‘first language acquisition’ and ‘second language acquisition’, suggesting that the syntactic and lexical parallelism between the two masks important issues internal to the fields involved. It then explores problems in distinguishing L1 from L2 acquisition from three different perspectives: individual language learner histories, the data, and the mechanisms proposed to account for the two types of acquisition. Finally, it takes a brief look at the sociology of L1 and L2 studies, and suggests that second language study has yet to assume fully its rightful place in the academy.

Entrenchment effects in code-mixing: individual differences in German-English bilingual children

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antje Endesfelder Quick ◽  
Ad Backus ◽  
Elena Lieven
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Cognitive Linguistics ◽  
First Language ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Code Mixing ◽  
English Bilingual ◽  
Theory Of Language

Abstract Following a usage-based approach to language acquisition, lexically specific patterns are considered to be important building blocks for language productivity and feature heavily both in child-directed speech and in the early speech of children (Arnon, Inbal & Morten H. Christiansen. 2017. The role of multiword building blocks in explaining L1-L2 differences. Topics in Cognitive Science 9(3). 621–636; Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press). In order to account for patterns, the traceback method has been widely applied in research on first language acquisition to test the hypothesis that children’s utterances can be accounted for on the basis of a limited inventory of chunks and partially schematic units (Lieven, Elena, Dorothé Salomo & Michael Tomasello. 2009. Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3). 481–508). In the current study, we applied the method to code-mixed utterances (n = 1,506) of three German-English bilingual children between 2 and 4 years of age to investigate individual differences in each child’s own inventory of patterns in relation to their input settings. It was shown that units such as I see X as in I see a Kelle ‘I see a trowel’ could be traced back to the child’s own previous productions. More importantly, we see that each child’s inventory of constructions draws heavily on multiword chunks that are strongly dependent on the children’s language input situations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document