Transcript No Slide Title

• Presentation at the international conference:
“Language Acquisition – comparative
perspectives”,
Homage to Clive Perdue
December 5-6 2008,
University of Paris 8
L1 or L2 acquisition?
Development of finiteness
in adult L2, in young children (2L1)
and in bilingual children (cL2)
Suzanne Schlyter, Lund University
In collaboration with
Jonas Granfeldt, Lund University and Maria
Kihlstedt, Paris X
Structure of the speech
• Introduction
• Part I: adult L2 acquisition
• Part II: first language (L1) acquisition
• Part III: child L2 acquisition
• Part IV: Discussion
• Working Hypothesis: Those children who have
acquired INFL+COMP before the L2 acquisition
starts, will develop L2 French like adult L2
learners
Why finiteness?
• Central for the syntactic
development – the I(NFL) category
Illustration - Syntactic structure
CP’
CP
Spec
IP’
C
IP
Spec
VP’
I
VP
Spec
V
- que
Pierre
a
t
cassé
DP
la voiture
Different positions on acquisition of
finiteness and syntactic structure
• A) Structure building:
• L1 and L2, initial stages: only lexical elements (only
VP, no INFL) (Perdue, Jordens, Hawkins, Myles …)
• B) Complete syntactic representation in L1 and L2
from initial stages (L1: e.g. Wexler )
• > adL2 learners have access to INFL, COMP etc
from start (White 2003); lack of finite marking in L2 is
a superficial problem (Missing Surface Inflection)
(Lardière, Prevost, …)
• C) Structure building in L1, complete syntax in L2
(Granfeldt 2003, Schlyter 2005)
Possibly syntactic growth = cognitive growth (Schlyter 2008)
Meisel (2006, 2007, 2008) :
(2)L1 vs adL2
• Fundamental difference L1-L2, only
L1 UG-guided >> Critical Period
• ”The FDH (…) enables us to make specific claims
ablut the grammatical domains in which L2 is
expected to differ from (2)L1”
• (2)L1: on Subj-Verb Agr never errors
(i.e. always je prends, never *je
prendre etc)
Marking of finiteness in FRENCH
in children and adults
• Subject clitic as ’prefix’
je mets / il marche
• Difference finite – nonfinite
forms
je mange / j’ai mangé
il prend / il va prendre
PART I
ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION adL2
adL2 – adult second lg acquisition
• Finite verb forms – a well known difficulty
(ESF program, Prévost & White 2000, Herschensohn 2001,
Schlyter 2004, Schlyter & Bartning 2005 etc)
• (Prévost 2008): finite forms like
il boit and nonfinite verb forms in finite contexts: *il prendre des
vêtements / *nous faire la cuisine
• Proportion nonfinite verbs in finite contexts: ESF
data Abdelmalek 24%, Zahra 22%
• Prevost adL2 data: On all verbs: 27-2.5, 32-1.3,
15-0.7, 9-0.0% with growing stage. On lexical
verbs only: 39-3.4, 54-2.6, 27-1.5, 15-0.0
Swedish-French adL2
• Schlyter 2004:
*je comprendre, la dame comprendre
‘I understand-INF, the lady understand-INF’
*je ne connaître pas
‘I NEG know-INF NEG’
*eh quand on voir français eh …
‘eh when one see-INF French eh’
>> If V+Neg then IP; if CP then IP
>> Finiteness in syntactic sense is present – still nonfinite verbs
Schlyter & Bartning 2005
nonfinite verbs forms in adL2
• Initial stages (Stades 1 à 2, <9 months exposition):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Corpus Lund (Schlyter):
nonfinite forms 34% (of lexical verbs)
(= 64% finite forms)
Corpus InterFra (Bartning)
Nonfinite forms 22% (=78% finite f)
Thomas, A. (forthc) ca 50%
• Advanced stages (from Stage 4 B&S):
• practically NO nonfinite forms (cf. Prévost 2008 ’High
Intermediate’)
AdL2: Formes finies/non-finies, corpus Lund
Apprenants
formes
finies, %
Moins de 9 mois d’exposition
66%
Groupe intermédiaire
80%
Plus de trois ans d’exposition dans le
pays ; ou après l’école et un semestre
d’université
94%
Corpus LUND
Groupe ou
appr/enreg
mois d’
exposition
présent,
formes
finies
présent,
formes
non-finies
% de
formes
finies
Caroline
6 (24heures)
7
5
58%
Henry 1-2 NG
<3
26
15
64%
Björn 1
3
23
16
58%
5
24
15
62%
8
53
34
61%
10
48
17
74%
G
NG
Björn 2
Karl 1
Karl 2
NG
AdL2: Formes finies/non-finies dans 3 groupes d’InterFra
présent
fo finies
Présent
fo non-fi
% de fo
finies
InterFra
6 débutants
Int 1-4, 1er
sem
329
92
78%
InterFra
8 lycéens
Int 1-2
464
78
86%
InterFra
4 appr univ
Int 1-4
1633
1
100%
Apprenants/
groupes
Summary adult L2 acq (Sw>Fr)
• Many nonfinite forms in finite contexts
• Simultaneously AUX, MOD and
SUBJUNCTIONS (=INFL, COMP), also in
very early stages
• Later: development towards correct
finiteness
• >> access to INFL from start
PART II
(BILINGUAL) FIRST LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION (2)L1
(2)L1 – first lg acquisition of
finiteness in French
• Initial stage without marking of finiteness
pleure, le bébé
‘ weeps, the baby’
• Soon complete marking without errors,
correct syntax, evidence for acq of INFL
(Pierce 1992, Meisel 1994, Schlyter 2004, etc)
j’ai trouvé!
’I (have) found!
n'aime pas celle-là
’like not (=don’t like) that one’
• NEVER nonfinite forms after scl (like *je aimer, *il boire etc.)
2L1 Swedish – French children
• Children growing up with Swedish and French
(Schlyter 1993, 2004, 2005, Granfeldt 2003 etc.)
• Next slide: Occ of subject + nonfinite form
(like *il prendre, *je boire )
vs scl+V, in early stages (on ca 2600 utterances)
• Result:
NO subj-clitic+Nonfinite form
Child, rec,
Age of Onset
Swe-Fr 2L1
age
at rec
MLU
FR
nonfinite forms
after subject cl
/all subjVerb
Jean 1 AO birth
1;10
1,7
0/4-13
Jean 2
2;0
1,1
0/1
Jean 3
2;2
1,7
0/3
Anne 1 AO birth
2;3
1,4
0/2
Anne 2
2;6
1,9
0/17
Anne 3
2;8
2,7
0/23
Anne 4
2;10
2,4
0/24
Mimi 1
2;0
2,1
0/13
Mimi 2
2;2
3,2
0/58
Dany 1 AO birth
2;2
1,2
0/1
Dany 2
2;6
1,8
0/15
Dany 3
2;10
3,1
0/72
Léo 3 AO birth
but FR Weak
2;6
2,0
1?/1
Illustration: the verb ”donner” at different ages:
Rec
age
construction
Jean 1
2;0
donne!
Jean 4
2;4
donné Estelle
Jean 7
2;11
il a donné des chewinggums
Jean 9
3;3
il faut donner beaucoup
Jean 10
3;5
il les donne à maman et papa
Summary 2L1 acquisition (Sw+Fr)
• Initially no evidence for INFL
• Later, evidence for INFL: Scl+finite verbs,
aux, mod (PC, FutPr)
• >> Structure building
• No incorrect use of scl+nonfinite forms
PART III
CHILD SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION chL2
Why interesting?
• Bilingual daycare, bilingual schools
• The age factor
• If Critical Period, when does it stop?
puberty (Lenneberg); 6-7 ys (Rottweiler & Kroffke, Tracy
& Thoma); 3-4 ys (Meisel, Unsworth). Depends on
phenomena? on language?
• If gradual decline (Montrul 2008), what declines?
Previous studies on chL2 French
• Meisel (to appear), children AO 3-4 years:
Many have nonfinite forms >> = adL2
• Prévost 2004, children Kenny, Greg:
Nonfinite forms like in L1 acq
• Prévost 2008, same children:
Few nonfinite forms (2.2 – 5.7%) >> = L1
>> contradictions!
Present study:
(Swedish >) French Child L2
• Children: RACHEL, PATRICK, VIOLA, VALENTINA,
HANNES, from LFSL Stockholm (see Granfeldt,
Schlyter & Kihlstedt 2007)
• L1 Swedish, L2 French
• Age of Onset 3;4 to 6;6 years
• Levels defined in Mean Length of Utterance (MLU)
and VocD/10:
Development cL2 children - MLU + VocD/10
(Arlette 2L1), Rachel, Patrick, Viola, Hannes, Valentine
MLU, VocD cL2
8
7
6
5
mlu
4
D F gm
3
2
1
0
l1
ar
l2
ar
l3
ar
l4
ar
l5
ar
1
2
3
4
5
ch a ch a ch a ch a ch
ra
r
r
r
r
tr1 a tr2 a tr3 a tr4 a tr5
pa
p
p
p
p
o1
vi
o2
vi
o3
vi
o4
vi
o5
vi
n1 a n2 a n3 a n4 a n5
ha
h
h
h
h
l1
va
l2
va
l3
va
l4
va
Nonfinite forms in cL2 from very early
Patrick 6;1 years, input 7 m
*INV: regarde, qu+est+ce+qu' elle fait avec la fleur ?
‘look what
she does with the flower’
*CHI: il [/] il [/] il &pernde [= peint] .
‘he he he paint.INF’
Hannes 7;1 ys, input 7 m
*CHI:
et le chien qui &oua [?= voit] et [/]
‘and the dog who sees’
*CHI: et # il # prendre # le # chat # dans # euh ça .
‘and he take.INF the cat in
that’
Finite forms (of lexical/all verbs with subject) in cL2
Child, rec,
Age of Onset
Months
input
at rec
Age
at rec
MLU
clan
VocD
/10
%nonfin forms
of lex V
Rach 1 AO 3;5
4
3;9
1,4
-
--
Rach 2
9
4;2
2,5
2
16%
6%
Rach 3
10
4;3
3,5
2,1
10%
6%
Patr 1 AO 4;9
10+7
6;4
1,9 (2,3*)
1,7
14%
8%
Patr 2
20+4
7;1
2,6 (3,1*)
2,8
60%
10%
Vio 1 AO 6,4
7
6;11
1,6 (2,0*)
1,8
0
0
Vio 2
10+4
3,7
3,9
33%
5%
Han 1 AO 6;6
7
3,7
2,4
28%
19%
Han 2
10+4
6,3
3,6
0%
0%
V-tin1 AO 6;7
7
4,0
2,9
19%
12%
V-tin2
10+4
4,7
4,9
0%
0%
*MLU sans ’oui’
7;1
7;2
%non-finite
forms
of total
Verb forms in chL2, Swe - French
su+
non
fin
sub
+prs
0+
non
fin
sub
+ax
m
rach1
%sub+
fin
/ Vlex
tot
sub+v
%errors
=nonfin on Vlex
totsub
0
%errors
=nonfin
on total
0
rach2
21
4
0
44
71
84
25
16%
6
rach3
52
6
0
44
103
90
58
10%
6
0
patr1
19
3
0
12
34
86
22
14%
8
patr2
2
3
6
17
29
40
5
60%
10
patr3
11
1
0
37
54
92
12
8%
9
patr4
20
2
8
34
63
91
22
9%
3
0
vio1
3
0
0
4
14
100
3
0%
0
vio2
2
1
5
17
22
66
3
33%
5
0
han1
34
13
1
17
67
72
47
28%
19
han2
9
0
0
78
94
100
9
0%
0
0
val1
34
8
3
25
69
81
42
19%
12
val2
13
0
2
60
75
100
13
0%
0
Comparison between groups
Swedish > French in earliest stages
• Nonfinite forms in finite contexts
(Lexical Verbs)
• adL2: around 30% below 8m exp
• (2)L1:
0 % continously
• chL2: around 23% at 7 m exp
but rapidly reach 0%
>> these chL2 more like adL2 than L1
PART IV
DISCUSSION
Previous proposals for chL2
• Meisel: Fundamental Difference
Hypothesis, Critical Period for
grammar ends ca 3-4 years, then
chL2 (French) = AdL2
Previous proposals for adL2 acq
• adL2 learners have acquired INFL, COMP
etc through their L1, and have access to
them in L2 (Schwartz, White,…)
• Cf Perdue fortc
• [les apprenants adultes] maîtrisent la
manière dont la finitude est exprimée dans
leur L1 et leur tâche d'apprentissage
consiste (principalement) à découvrir de
nouveaux moyens linguistiques pour
exprimer ce concept.
Our proposal for cL2
(Granfeldt, Schlyter, Thomas)
• We know that children acquire the entire syntactic structure
at about 3 – 4 years, i.e. VP > INFL > COMP
• HYP: Those children who have acquired
INFL+COMP before the L2 acquisition starts, will
develop L2 French like adult L2 learners – not
because of age but because of previous
development
• These chL2 learners have access to the corresponding
cognitive categories (Schlyter forthc)
• chL2 or adL2 learners resort to default forms in the L2 to
express these functional / cognitive categories (Thomas
forthc)
THANK YOU! MERCI!
•
•
•
•
Thanks also to
LFSL school
Sylvie and Anne
The children and their parents
• The Magnus Bergwall Foundation
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bartning, I. & Schlyter, S. (2004) “Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de
développement en français L2”. French Language Studies. 14(3): 281-299
Granfeldt, J. (2003) L’Acquisition des Catégories Fonctionnelles. Étude
comparative du développement du DP français chez des enfants et des
apprenants adultes. Etudes romanes de Lund, 67. Institut d'Etudes romanes de
Lund, Université de Lund. Doctoral dissertation.
Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihlstedt 2007: ” French in cL2, 2L1 and L1 in pre-school children ”
PERLES 24, SOL, Lund
Lardiere, D. (1998) “Case and Tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state”. Second
Language Research 14: 1-26.
Meisel, J.M. (1994) “Getting FAT: Finiteness, agreement and tense in early
grammars”. In J.M. Meisel (ed.), Bilingual First Language Acquisition (pp. 89129). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Meisel, J.M. (2008) “Child second language acquisition or successive first
language acquisition?” In B. Haznedar & E. Gavruseva (eds.) Current Trends in
Child Second Language Acquisition: A Generative Perspective. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Meisel, J.M. forthc : ”Age of onset in successive acquisition of bilingualism:
effects on grammatical development.”
Montrul,S. 2008: Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism. Re-examining the Age
Factor. Benjamins
Pierce, A.E. (1992) Language Acquisition and Syntactic Theory: A Comparative
Analysis of French and English Child Grammars. Dordrecht, Boston and
London: Kluwer.
References, cont.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prévost, P. (2004b) “The semantic and aspectual properties of child L2 root
infinitives”. In P.Prévost & J. Paradis (eds.) The Acquisition of French in Different
Contexts (pp. 305-331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Prévost, P. 2008: ”Knowledge of morphology and syntax in early adult L2 French:
Evidence for the Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis”. In: Liceras, J., Zobl, H. &
Goodluck, H. (eds): The role of Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition.
Erlbaum
Schlyter, S. (1993): ”The weaker language in bilingual Swedish-French children”. In:
Hyltenstam,K. & Å.Viberg (eds): Progression & Regression in Language. Cambridge
Univ. Press
Schlyter, S. (2003) : "Development of verb morphology and finiteness in children
and adults acquiring French." in: Dimroth,C. & Starren, M. (eds): Information
structure, linguistic structure, and the dynamics of learner language (Benjamins,
Studies in Bilingualism), pp 15-45.
Schlyter, S. (2005): “Adverbs and functional categories in L1 and L2 acquisition of
French”. in J.M. Dewaele (ed.) Focus on French as a Foreign Language:
Multidisciplinary Approaches. Multilingual Matters. p. 36-62.
Schlyter, S. (submitted 2008). ”Input, cognitive-linguistic development, and rate of
acquisition.” Comment on Target paper by J.M.Meisel, in: Zeitschrift für
Sprachwissenschaft.
Schlyter, S. & Bartning, I. (2005) ”L’accord sujet-verbe en français L2 parlé ». In J.
Granfeldt & S. Schlyter (eds.) Acquisition et production de la morphologie
flexionnelle. Actes du « Festival de la morphologie », mars 2005 à Lund. PERLES
20 (Petites Études Romanes de Lund, Extra Seriem)
Thomas, A. forthc (Doctoral dissertation, Univ. Lund)
White, L. 2003: Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambrigde
U.P