Deutsch als schwächere Sprache bei deutsch-polnisch bilingualen Kindern: Studie zur Negation- und Verbstellung

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-297
Author(s):  
Aldona Sopata ◽  
Kamil Długosz
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Language Use ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Striking Difference ◽  
Final Position ◽  
Development Characteristic ◽  
Processing Mechanisms ◽  
Constrained Input

AbstractThis article examines the acquisition of German as the weaker language in the cases of German-Polish bilingual children. Focusing on negation and verb position, phenomena that have frequently been taken as diagnostic when distinguishing between the course of language development characteristic for first (L1) and second language acquisition (L2), we analyse experimental and productive data from six simultaneously bilingual children. Due to the constrained input, German is their weaker language. The results in Forced Choice and Grammaticality Judgements tasks are compared with the results of monolingual children. We show that in the area of negation the acquisition of German as the weaker language resembles L1, and in the area of inversion and verb final position the development of the weaker language is delayed. The striking difference between bilinguals’ results in the experimental vs. productive tasks points to specific processing mechanisms in bilingual language use. In narrative contexts of the production tasks the language of the performance is activated, while the other is inhibited, which leads to a target-like performance. Structural properties of the stronger language tend to be activated, however, in the experimental tasks involving the weaker language, resulting in non-target-like responses.

Cross-linguistic influence, input and the young bilingual child

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELIZABETH LANZA
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Young Child ◽  
Language Development ◽  
First Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
Bilingual Child

The field of bilingual first language acquisition has focused on several important and interrelated issues: whether or not the young child acquiring two languages simultaneously differentiates his or her two languages from the onset of acquisition, what role the input plays in the acquisition of two languages, and whether the path of acquisition is similar to that of monolingual peers (see De Houwer, 1990). As a member of the DUFDE team, Natascha Müller has in previous work argued forcefully and convincingly for the bilingual child's separate development of his or her two languages, and hence how language-acquiring bilinguals behave like monolinguals. In her keynote article, Müller invokes the notion of transfer, a well-known term from research into second language acquisition, and proposes to consider transfer from the perspective of the input to which the young bilingual child is exposed. When this input is ambiguous, so that is there is variation in the input regarding one of the languages, the child will resort to transfer from the other language as a so-called relief strategy. In the following, I address the issue of cross-linguistic influence in language development and highlight the implications Müller's proposals may have for the field of bilingual first language acquisition. In conclusion I will relate these issues to the complexity of the notion of input in early bilingualism.

scholarly journals Towards a usage-based model of early code-switching: Evidence from three language pairs

2019 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorota Gaskins ◽  
Maria Frick ◽  
Elina Palola ◽  
Antje Endesfelder Quick
Keyword(s):  
Language Use ◽  
Code Switching ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Spontaneous Language ◽  
Naturalistic Interactions

AbstractUsage-based studies trace children’s early language back to slot-and-frame patterns which dominate spontaneous language use. We apply the Traceback method to data from three bilingual children with English as one of their languages and Polish, German, or Finnish as the other to examine what these children’s code-switching has in common and how it differs in light of the genealogical distance between the languages used. Their bilingual constructions are derived from individual corpora of naturalistic interactions of each child respectively and traced back to monolingual language produced previously to establish whether they are unprocessed chunks or partially schematic units. Based on this, we propose a model of switching which helps us to distinguish between the qualitative aspects of bilingual use in these two types of combinations. Our results show that all three children filter out some mixing occurring in chunks before these give basis to longer units. Whatever bilingual combinations remain frozen in those units can be explained by phonological overlap of the children’s two languages, which is highest in the acquisition of English-German due to their genealogical proximity.

Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual acquisition: subject omission in learners of Inuktitut and English

2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 893-909 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELIZABETH E. ZWANZIGER ◽  
SHANLEY E. M. ALLEN ◽  
FRED GENESEE
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
English Only ◽  
Target Languages ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence ◽  
Cross Language ◽  
Language Pair

This study investigates subject omission in six English-Inuktitut simultaneous bilingual children, aged 1;8–3;9, to examine whether there are cross-language influences in their language development. Previous research with other language pairs has shown that the morphosyntax of one language can influence the development of morphosyntax in the other language. Most of this research has focused on Romance-Germanic language combinations using case studies. In this study, we examined a language pair (English-Inuktitut) with radically different morphosyntactic structures. Analysis of the English-only and Inuktitut-only utterances of the children revealed monolingual-like acquisition patterns and subject omission rates. The data indicate that these bilingual children possessed knowledge of the target languages that was language-specific and that previously identified triggers for crosslinguistic influence do not operate universally.

scholarly journals Predicting bilingual preschoolers’ patterns of language development: Degree of non-native input matters

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (05) ◽  
pp. 1189-1219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Unsworth ◽  
Susanne Brouwer ◽  
Elise de Bree ◽  
Josje Verhagen
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Language Skills ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Input Quantity ◽  
Input Quality ◽  
Family Constellation ◽  
The Impact

AbstractWhile numerous studies have recently shown that variation in input quantity predicts children’s rate of acquisition across a range of language skills, comparatively little is known about the impact of variation in input quality on (bilingual) children’s language development. This study investigated the relation between specific quality-oriented properties of bilingual children’s input and measures of children’s language development across a number of skills while at the same time taking family constellation into account. Participants were bilingual preschoolers (n = 50) acquiring Dutch alongside another language. Preschoolers’ receptive and productive vocabulary and morphosyntax in Dutch were assessed. Parental questionnaires were used to derive estimates of input quality. Family constellation was first operationalized as presence of a native-speaker parent and subsequently in terms of patterns of parental language use. Results showed that proportion of native input and having a native-speaker parent were never significant predictors of children’s language skills, whereas the degree of non-nativeness in the input, family constellation in terms of parental language use, and language richness were. This study shows that what matters is not how much exposure bilingual children have to native rather than non-native speakers, but how proficient any non-native speakers are.

scholarly journals Acquisition of Turkish Grammatical Categories in Bilingual Context

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-46
Author(s):  
Хрісто Кючуков
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Mother Tongue ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Turkish Children ◽  
Children's Narratives ◽  
Turkish Language

The paper presents results form a study on acquisition of Turkish grammatical categories by first grade Turkish speaking minority children in Bulgarian primary school. Two groups of children speakers of Turkish are tested: ethnic Turks and ethnic Roma. The Roma are Muslims and are also speakers of Turkish. Both groups speak the Northeast variety of Turkish, spoken in the surroundings of Varna, Bulgaria. The author examines the lexical reaches, syntax complexity and narrative knowledge of the children and predicts that the low results on mother tongue tests will be a reason for difficulties in the second language acquisition - Bulgarian. The author connects the results of mother tongue knowledge of the children with the language interdependence theory of Cummins (1991), where the level of  the mother tongue is  a predictor of second language acquisition. References Aarssen, J. (1994) Acquisition of discourse anaphora in Turkish children’s narratives. VII International Conference of Turkish Linguistics. Mainz. Akıncı, M. (2016) From emergent bilingualism to biliteracy competences of French-Turkish bilingual children and teenagers in France. The Future of Multilingualism in the German Educational System, Berlin, March 3-4. Aksu-Koç and Slobin (1985) Acquisition of Turkish. In: The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition: Vol. 1. The Data, (pp. 839-878). D. I. Slobin (Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Aksu- Koç, A. (1994) Development of linguistic forms: Turkish. In: Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. R. Berman and D. Slobin, (Eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Boeschoten, H. (1990) Acquisition of Turkish by immigrant children: a multiple case study of Turkish children in the Netherlands aged 4 to 6. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Boeschoten, H. & Verhoeven, L. (1987). Turkish language development of Turkish children in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the Conference on Turkish Linguistics, A. Aksu-Koç & E. Erguvanli-Taylan (Eds.), Istanbul, 1984. Boaziçi University Press, (269-280). Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In: Language Processing in Bilingual Children. (pp. 70-89). E. Bialystock (Ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620652.006 Küntay, A. (1997) Extended Discourse Skills of Turkish Preschool Children Across Shifting Con­texts. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Berkeley. Kyuchukov, H. (2000) Introducing referents in Turkish children's narratives. Psychology of Language and Communication, 4(1), 65-74. Kyuchukov, H. (2007) Turkish and Roma Children Learning Bulgarian. Veliko Tarnovo: Faber. Kyuchukov, H. (2019) Za Mefkure Mollova i neyniyat prinos za izsledvane na turskite dialekti v Bulgaria. [About Mefkure Mollova and her commitment for researching the Turkish dialects in Bulgaria]. Veliko Tarnovo: Faber Luria, A. R. and Yudevich, F. Ia. (1959) Speech and the Development of Mental Processes in the Child. London: Strapless Press. Pfaff, C. (1993) Turkish language development in Germany. In: Immigrant Languages in Europe, G. Extra and L. Verhoeven (Eds) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Verhallen, M. and Schoenen, R. (1993) Lexical knowledge of monolingual and bilingual children. Applied Linguistics, 14, 344-363. Verhoeven, L. (1993) Acquisition of narrative skills in a bilingual context. In: Current Issues in European Second Language Acquisition Research. V. Ketteman and W. Wieden, (Eds). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

scholarly journals How bilingual development is the same as and different from monolingual development

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika Hoff
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
English Learning ◽  
Old Spanish ◽  
Language Exposure ◽  
Bilingual Development ◽  
Language Growth ◽  
Growth Differences

Based on data from two longitudinal studies of 2- to 5-year-old Spanish- and English-learning bilingual children and English-learning monolingual children, we compare the processes and outcomes of simultaneous bilingual development to those of monolingual development. We find, in essence, that the processes are the same. The outcomes differ, however, because the immediate environments and larger sociocultural contexts of bilingual and monolingual development differ. Common processes include a dependence of language growth on the quantity and quality of language exposure and a relation between children’s own language use and their language growth. Differences in outcomes include the rate of language development and the profiles of expressive and receptive skills. 

You’ve got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. Linguistic complexity and instruction in SLA

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick De Graaff
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Teaching Practice ◽  
Task Complexity ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Linguistic Complexity ◽  
Language Pedagogy ◽  
Instructed Second Language Acquisition ◽  
The One

In this epilogue, I take a teaching practice and teacher education perspective on complexity in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. I take the stance that it is essential to understand if and how linguistic complexity relates to learning challenges, what the implications are for language pedagogy, and how this challenges the role of the teacher. Research shows that differences in task complexity may lead to differences in linguistic complexity in language learners’ speech or writing. Different tasks (e.g. descriptive vs narrative) and different modes (oral vs written) may lead to different types and levels of complexity in language use. On the one hand, this is a challenge for language assessment, as complexity in language performance may be affected by task characteristics. On the other hand, it is an opportunity for language teaching: using a diversity of tasks, modes and text types may evoke and stretch lexically and syntactically complex language use. I maintain that it is essential for teachers to understand that it is at least as important to aim for development in complexity as it is to aim for development in accuracy. Namely, that ‘errors’ in language learning are part of the deal: complex tasks lead to complex language use, including lexical and syntactical errors, but they are a necessary prerequisite for language development.

LANGUAGE USE BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE HOST IN HITAM PUTIH TALK SHOW

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nurmaliana Sari ◽  
Sumarsih Sumarsih ◽  
Busmin Gurning
Keyword(s):  
Language Use ◽  
The Other ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Talk Show ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Domestic Activities ◽  
Female Host ◽  
Negative Connotation ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

This study discusses about language use occurred by male and female host in Hitam Putih talk show. The method of this research is descriptive qualitative. The subjects of this study are male and female host in Hitam Putih talk show. The data are the utterances produced by male and female host in Hitam Putih talk show. This research focuses on the show broadcasted on October 2016 by taking 4 videos randomly. The objective of this study is to describe kinds of the language use uttered by male and female host in Hitam Putih talk show. The findings showed that the kinds of language use consist of 6 parts. The dominant language use uttered by male host is expletive, because male’s utterances are frequently stated in a negative connotation. On the other hand, female host utterances are found in specialized vocabulary as the most dominant because female host has more interest in talking family affairs, such as the education of children, clothes, cooking, and fashion, etc. Women also tended to talk about one thing related to the home and domestic activities. However, the representation of language use uttered by male and female are deficit, dominance and different. Keywords: Language Use, Gender, Talk Show

scholarly journals Do Bilinguals Acquire Similar Words to Monolinguals? An Examination of Word Acquisition and the Similarity Effect in Japanese–English Bilinguals’ Vocabularies

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-182
Author(s):  
Aya Kutsuki
Keyword(s):  
Vocabulary Acquisition ◽  
Vocabulary Development ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Word Category ◽  
Word Acquisition ◽  
English Bilingual ◽  
Similarity Effect ◽  
Japanese English

Previous research has paid much attention to the overall acquisition of vocabularies among bilingual children in comparison to their monolingual counterparts. Much less attention has been paid to the type of words acquired and the possible transfer or cross-linguistic effects of the other language on vocabulary development. Thus, this study aims to explore similarities and dissimilarities in the vocabularies of simultaneous bilinguals and Japanese monolinguals and considers the possible cross-linguistic similarity effect on word acquisition. Six simultaneous Japanese–English bilingual children (mean age = 34.75 months (2.56)) were language–age-matched with six Japanese monolinguals; their productive vocabularies were compared regarding size and categories. Additionally, characteristic acquired words were compared using correspondence analyses. Results showed that, although delayed due to the reduced inputs, young bilinguals have a similar set of vocabularies in terms of word category as monolinguals. However, bilingual children’s vocabularies reflect their unevenly distributed experience with the language. Fewer interactive experiences with language speakers may result in a lower acquisition of interactive words. Furthermore, there is a cross-linguistic effect on acquisition, likely caused by form similarity between Japanese katakana words and English words. Even between languages with great dissimilarities, resources and cues are sought and used to facilitate bilingual vocabulary acquisition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document