Transcript שקופית 1 - Bar-Ilan University

Barriers for first and
second language
acquisition. When delay
leads to deviance.
37-975-01
Challenges to Language Acquisition:
Bilingualism and Language Impairment
Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem
Bar Ilan University
Simultaneous Bilinguals - Two
systems or one? 2 L1s?
“Under what conditions are the two languages of
a bilingual child differentiated?” (e.g. Genesee,
2001; Muller & Hulk, 2000).


Unitary-language system hypothesis - The
language systems are not differentiated right
from the beginning - the child does not have
resources to do it
Differentiated (dual)-language systems
hypothesis - The language systems are
differentiated right from the beginning
Age
People
Word
18 mos idzi = Itsi
First words of a
bilingual child (Shelli) –
classified
From: Berman, R.
1977. The role of
proper nouns at the
one-word stage. TAU
ms.
Berman, R. 1978.
Early verbs. Int'l J
Psycholinguistics 5: 2129
uti= Ruti
lala= Lela
aba
Dadi =
David
19;0
19;15
aba ~ idzi
Mimi
Bele
eli/ali =
Shelly
miyi =
Miri
ima ~ uti
aba
Gloss
father
mother
sister
Daddy
Daddy,
cousin
cousin
Yonti,
self
haw-haw
buw
haw
dyo
xexexexe
sleeping
horsieback
animals in book
airplane
(category-label)
dog, horse, etc.
'moo'
dog
camel, horsie
cat
sitter
Oyi!
mother
only her
Dad
20
20;15
Sya = Siya dog
Koko
dog
(Shar)on
cousin
(R)oni
eli ~ ali
Nursery words
Word
Gloss
alo = hello phone
cousin
self in
mirror
shshsh
dyo
xxxx
grgrgr
Other
Word
am =
xam
doi
lo ~ now
oto
Gloss
hot
dog, Dolly
no
car, tractor, bus
bo
(d)ubi
kele(v)
inne
come ms. Imp.
teddy
dog
here [deictic]
surprise
lililili
give me
i?o
kuku
donkey
cock
li
bu
do
uki
ke(n)
to-me
book
doll
cookie
yes
upala
digdi
(n)umi
all-fall-down
tickle
sleepies
oto
pele
bay-bay
dele(t)
kxi
zuzi
zse
hine
ship (in picture)
pelican
kuku
peekaboo
od
say
may(im)
door, open
take, Fem. Imp
move, Fem. Imp
wanting
when asked
where X is
more
outside
Water (category)
tap, sprinkler,
bottle, coffee,
bath
Volterra and Taeschner (1977) three stages
Diary studies of simultaneous bilinguals (one parent - one language)
 Words from both languages are included without differentiation

Children mixed words from both languages
 A word in one language almost never had a corresponding word with
the same meaning in the other language

The two lexicons are differentiated but not the syntax (~ 2)

Two different words pertaining to the two languages describe the same
event or object
 The pragmatic context influenced the choice of words

There are two linguistic codes distinguished in lexicon and in syntax
(~3)

Both languages are used correctly at the lexical and the syntactic levels
Verbs & nouns in the bilingual
mental lexicon
Schelletter, C. (2005) Bilingual Children's Lexical
Development: Factors Affecting the Acquisition of Nouns
and Verbs and Their Translation Equivalents. In ISB4:
Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
Bilingualism, ed. James Cohen, Kara T. McAlister, Kellie
Rolstad, and Jeff MacSwan, 2095-2103. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press.
Translation equivalents




Adult bilinguals - particular groups of words and their
translation equivalents have a closer relationship and are
translated faster as a result.
Kroll & Stewart (1994), Kroll & de Groot (1997) and van
Hell & de Groot (1998) - there is an effect of form
similarity. Nouns that are similar in sound and spelling
are translated faster in both translation directions.
The conceptual feature model (Kroll & De Groot 1997) form similar words have a feature overlap in their
conceptual representations in the two languages.
What about children? Can the previous findings on
form similar nouns be also be extended to verbs?
A case study



German/English bilingual girl
Age of 1;11 to 2;8 in German and 2;2 to 2;9 in
English.
Three sub-periods: period 1 from 1;11 to 2;3,
period 2 from 2;4 to 2;6 and period 3 from 2;7 to
2;9.
Lindholm and Padilla (1977(
Language samples (2;10 and 6;2) - one
experimenter/one language
 Two separate linguistic systems from an
early age.
 Mixing (2% of utterances) mostly occurs at
the lexical level - substitutions of nouns.
 Mixing is due to lexical gaps or familiarity

Genesee (1989)
“bilingual children’s mixed utterances are
modeled on mixed input produced by
others” (p. 169).
Lanza (1992)
Longitudinal study
 A great impact of language input, the
context of the conversation, and parental
strategies toward child language mixing,
dominance.
 Mixing per se is not enough in order to
determine that the child does not
differentiate his two languages

Quay (1995)
Longitudinal study
 By 1;10 - Over 50 pairs

Sequential Bilingual: The role of
Universal Grammar (UG) in L2A Transfer vs. Access.




Full Transfer/No Access
No Transfer/Full Access (e.g., Ritchie, 1978;
Felix, 1988, Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono
1996)
Full Transfer/Full Access (e.g., Schwartz &
Sprouse 1996)
Partial Transfer/Full Access (e.g. Eubank 1994,
Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1994; 1996)
Full Transfer/No Access

No aspect of UG, not instantiated in the native
language (L1), is available to the learner (cf.
Bley-Vroman 1989, Clahsen 1988). Thus the
learner has to rely only on her knowledge of L1
and on some learning strategies.

Since UG is not available to the learner,
similarities to first language acquisition will be
viewed as artifacts that might reflect the
influence of L1, rather than evidence for access
to UG.
No Transfer/Full Access
UG in full constrains Second Language
Acquisition. L1 does not affect L2; there is
no transfer of any principles, parameters,
or rules from L1 to L2.
 These assumptions entail a similar course
of acquisition for L1 and L2.

Full Transfer/Full Access


The process starts with transfer from L1
parameters and values to L2, but the correction
by the L2 learner is made by parameter resetting
which is constrained by UG.
The duality of FT/FA predicts that the
development of the grammar in L2 follows a
similar path to the one seen in the development
of L1. Any divergence from this path is attributed
to the L1 influence.
Partial Transfer/Full Access

L1 structure is available to L2 learners with
underspecified slots, i.e. with no features. L1
structure is the baseline, but UG is accessed in
order to specify the slots and set the features to
the L2 values.

The Minimal Trees hypothesis
These hypotheses were made for adult
learners. Does it matter? Are children
different? Is there a critical period for
access to UG?
Subject omission
Allen, S. (2006) Language acquisition in inuktitutenglish bilinguals. Paper presented at the Conference on
Language Acquisition and Bilingualism: Consequences
for a Multilingual Society, Boston University
6 Inuktitut-English bilingual children
 aged 1;8 to 2;11 at onset, taped for one year
 5 children have two bilingual Inuit parents
 1 child has English-speaking father and bilingual
mother
 naturalistic data collected via videotape
(Allen, Genesee, Fish & Crago 2002)

Contrastive analysis
English
 overt subjects usually required (e.g. John ate the
cake.)
 subject omission allowed in imperatives and
certain colloquial instances (e.g. ____ Eat the
cake!)
Inuktitut
 overt subjects only required for emphasis or
disambiguation
 subject omission allowed in all other instances
(Zwanziger, Allen & Genesee 2005)
Predictions
If no crosslinguistic influence
 subject omission rates similar to
monolinguals in both languages
If crosslinguistic influence
 subject omission rates different from
monolinguals in one or both languages
(Zwanziger, Allen & Genesee 2005)
Inuktitut
(Zwanziger, Allen & Genesee 2005)
English
Object omission
Yip, V. and S. Matthews (2005) Dual Input and
Learnability: Null Objects in Cantonese-English Bilingual
Children. In ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International
Symposium on Bilingualism, ed. James Cohen, Kara T.
McAlister, Kellie Rolstad, and Jeff MacSwan, 2421-2431.
Somerville,MA: Cascadilla Press.

Simultaneously bilinguals , Cantonese/English,
Longitudinal recordings, ages 1;6 - 3;6.
Null objects in ML
Roeper (1981, 140( “All
subcategorizations are obligatory until
positive evidence shows that they are
optional”.
 Ingham (1993:109) - Naomi 1;08-1;11,
4.8% (12/251 tokens).
 Huang (1999) - Adam 2;05–2;09, 3.5%

Why? An analysis of null objects
Mueller (1998:153) - Input ambiguity: transfer may occur
when “two different grammatical hypotheses are
compatible with the same surface string.”
(a) the target analysis applicable to adult English, in which
the missing object is not syntactically present, but
interpreted semantically as generic:
eat β
[+generic]
(b) the analysis based on Chinese grammar (see examples
22-25), in which the missing object is syntactically
present, coreferential with a null topic and therefore
interpreted as specific:
[TOPIC ]i eat x i
[+specific]
Is there a critical period for L1
acquisition?



Lennenberg (1967) – A biological basis to the critical
period. Around puberty when left hemisphere
lateralization is complete. Child aphasics can recover
language function, whereas adults cannot.
Seliger (1979) – Plasticity of the left hemisphere. Multiple
critical periods. Genie, Chelsea.
Newport (1990) – Three groups of deaf children exposed
to ASL at different ages (early childhood, 4-6, 12)
>>> There are several sensitive periods for learning
different language functions.
Sign Language (Mayberry 1993)
Brain Studies
Is there a critical period for
L2 acquisition?
Kim & Hirsch (1997)


fMRI study
Two groups of bilingual people:




Group 1 – Child L2 learners
Group 2 – Adult L2 learners
Task: think of what you did that day, first in L1 then in L2.
Findings:



both groups used the same part of Wernicke's area for both
languages
Group 1 used the same part of Broca's area for L1 and L2
Group 2 used a part of Broca's area next to the L1 processing
area for L2
Possible explanations
In childhood all language is hardwired in
one area. Once hardwiring is complete a
different area of the brain must be used –
critical period
 L2 Acquisition vs. L2 learning - Different
kinds of input are stored in different parts
of the brain

Johnson & Newport (1989)

“Critical period effects in second language
learning; The influence of maturational state on
the acquisition of English as a second
language”. Cognitive Psychology60-99 :21
A clear relationship between age of arrival to
USA (of 46 Korean or Chinese speakers) and
the ability to judge grammaticality of English
sentences (containing 12 different types of rules(
Long, M. H. 1990. Maturational constraints on
language development .Studies in Second
Language Acquisition12:251-285



Adults proceed through early stages of
morphological and syntactic development faster
than children (where time and exposure are held
constant).
Older children acquire faster than younger
children (again in early stages of morphology
and syntax, where time and exposure are held
constant0.
Child starters outperform adult starters in the
long run.
Flynn & Manuel (1992).
“Age dependent effects in language
acquisition: An evaluation of critical period
hypothesis."
 More than one critical period. UG is
available for adults too .

Birdsong, D. 1992. Ultimate attainment in second
68:706-753 Language .language acquisition

L2 learners’ success/ failure to reach
ultimate attainment in the L2 is due to the
similarity/ variance between the L1 and the
L2.
DeKeyser, R. M. 2000. The robustness of
critical period effects in second language
acquisition .Studies in Second Language
Acquisition.
 The affect of language aptitude. The affect
of structural saliency .

Bialystok 1997

Criticism of Johnson & Newport on every possible level:
experimental technique, age related factors, etc.
Observations:

Knowing a system in L1 facilitates its learning in L2 (German and
English speakers learning French nominal system).
 Length of residence affects judgment, not age of arrival (Chinese
speakers’ grammaticality judgment in English(
 Different experimental techniques may lead to different conclusions
 Children’s successful attainment is due to different learning style

Conclusion:

All kinds of knowledge are acquired in the same way, the only difference
being the amount of past experience which is brought into the process.
 There is no evidence for critical period for language learning
Questions:






Why does the influence of L1 on L2 entail that there is no
critical period?
Why can’t different tasks affect the results if there is a
critical period?
Correcting written samples is more natural for adult
learners
Is translation the same a natural processing?
Isn’t translation the thing that adult learners do, but
young ones don’t?
Is it the case that there is no critical period for language
learning but there is a critical period for language
replacement?
Definiteness in L2 Hebrew of bilingual children with
L1 Russian (Armon-Lotem 2005)




Russian immigrant children aged 10 to 12, who
have been exposed to Hebrew for six or seven
years
Both parents speak Russian at home, though all
know Hebrew.
Children speak Russian with parents, and
Hebrew with siblings and friends
All children study at the same school and are
from middle SES
Focus of study: Barriers to second
language acquisition (Bialystok, 1997)
Amount and type of exposure (Snow &
Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978)
 Length of residence
 Difference in learning style
 Different motivation between children
and adults.

Method

Test groups:
 Three
groups of L2 Hebrew children, according to
age of arrival (3, 4;6, and 6)
 Two groups of L1 Hebrew controls (aged 10 and
12).
 10 subjects in each group

Tasks
 A yes/no
judgment task
 A picture elicitation task
The yes/no judgment Tasks
11 categories of pragmatic and syntactic
environment where the definite article
should, or shouldn’t be used (cf.
Fruchtman 1982)
 Both grammatical and ungrammatical
sentences.
 Subject were asked to mark sentences as
linguistically correct and incorrect

The picture elicitation task
5 categories of pragmatic and syntactic
environment where the definite article
should, or shouldn’t be used (cf.
Fruchtman 1982)
 Subjects were presented with a picture
and were asked to complete a description
of the picture.

Findings - Judgment Task
Number and percentage of correct results:
a cross-group comparison
77%
66%
90%
66%
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
3/7, L2 4/6, L2 6/6, L2
Groups
10, L1
12, L1
Correct answers
85%
A cross-group comparison



Children who were exposed to Hebrew from the
age of three scored significantly better than
those arriving at a later age.
They scored marginally lower than their age
matched controls.
Children who were exposed to Hebrew after the
age of 4;6 scored significantly lower than their
age matched controls.
Group profile: Individual scores
within groups
Number of correct responses [N= 26]
28
26
24
3/7, L2
22
4/6, L2
20
6/6, L2
18
10, L1
16
12, L1
14
12
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Comparing the groups on the
different categories





On nine of the eleven categories, 3/7 scored better than
the 6/6 group, on one category they scored the same,
and on one worse, but this was not significant.
On eight of the eleven categories, 3/7 scored better than
the 4/6 group, on two category they scored the same,
and on one worse, but this was not significant.
There was no significant difference between the 4/6 and
6/6 groups.
Only three categories showed negative correlation
between success and age for all three groups.
Both control groups scored better (average of 88%
correct answers) on all categories, except one, on which
the youngest L2 children scored better.
Findings - Picture Elicitation
Task
Percentage of correct results: a cross-group
comparison
100%
80%
3/7
60%
81.46%
66.69%
4/6
64.78%
6/6
40%
20%
0%


Similar results of a negative correlation between
success and age were found on the picture elicitation
task, with the 3/7 group scoring significantly better
then the other two groups.
On three of the five categories, 3/7 scored better than
both groups, and on one categories they scored the
same. All groups scored at ceiling on the fifth category
Comparison across tasks
Percentage of correct results across tasks
90%
80%
77%
81%
66% 67%
70%
66% 65%
60%
50%
Judgment
40%
Elicitation
30%
20%
10%
0%
3/7
4/6
6/6
No significant differences were found
between the two tasks
Conclusion



Given the young age of arrival for all three
groups and the long period of exposure,
the differences are striking.
The major factor for success in L2
acquisition by children is age of first
exposure rather than length of residence,
difference in learning style, or difference in
task.
For children, the critical period is most
critical, though it’s effects might fade away
with time.
Length of Exposure, Age of
Exposure and Success on L2
Standardized tests. Results from
the BMBF funded Consortium
“Migration and societal Integration”.
Grant No. 01UW0702B.
Participants
Germany (N=65)
Israel (N=78)
Age
Mean=65.78, range 47-86mo
Mean=70.04, range 58-81mo
Gender
33 male, 32 female
35 male, 43 female
Home language
All 65 Russian-dominant
71/78 Russian-dominant
Age of L2 Onset
Mean=28.34mo, R=12-46mo
Mean=34.79mo, R=0-66mo
Length of L2 Exposure
Mean=37mo, range 13-65mo
Mean=36.85mo, R=5-75mo
Birth order
35 firstborn, 30 laterborn
39 firstborn, 39 laterborn
Family size
Mean=1.89, range 1-5
Mean=1.86, range 1-4
Parent education M/F
Parents occupation
M=12.61/12.75
See next two figures
M=14.35/13.42
Fathers’ Occupational Status
30
25
20
15
F ather's O c c upation
G erman
10
F ather's O c c upation
Is raeli
5
0
P rofes s ional
S killed
S emi-s killedUnemployed
Mothers’ Occupational Status
35
30
25
20
Mother's O c c upation
G erman
15
Mother's O c c upation
Is raeli
10
5
0
P rofes s ional
S killed
S emi-s killedUnemployed
‫משך חשיפה ושפה ‪ -‬גורלניק (אבוטבול‪-‬‬
‫עוז ‪(2009‬‬
‫משך חשיפה לעברית‬
‫‪ 47-75‬חודשים‬
‫‪(25(to‬‬
‫חודשים‬
‫‪26-46 Language‬‬
‫‪Exposure‬‬
‫‪the Hebrew‬‬
‫(‪(11‬‬
‫)‪High (n=11‬‬
‫)‪Mid (n=25‬‬
‫‪ 10-25‬חודשים (‪(19‬‬
‫)‪Low (n=19‬‬
‫‪0‬‬
‫‪-0.5‬‬
‫‪-0.52‬‬
‫‪-1‬‬
‫‪-0.94‬‬
‫‪-1.5‬‬
‫‪-2‬‬
‫‪-2.03‬‬
‫‪-2.5‬‬
‫‪Mean Z scores of Sum Results‬‬
‫ציון גורלניק בסטיות תקן‬
L2/Hebrew Acquisition: Israeli Cohort
1 Age of L2 Onset: Goralnik standardized
test and two subtests (Vocabulary,
Sentence Imitation)
2 Length of Exposure: Goralnik standardized
test and two subtests (Vocabulary,
Sentence Imitation)
Age of L2 Onset - Standardized Hebrew Tests
1
0.5
Z-scores
0
-0.5
Imitation
-1
Vocabulary
-1.5
Total score
-2
-2.5
-3
<24mo
25-36mo
>36mo
Age of L2 Onset
Significant difference between the group with the oldest age
of onset (after the age of 3) and the two other groups with no
significant difference between the two other groups.
Length of Exposure - Standardized Hebrew Tests
1
0.5
Z-scores
0
-0.5
Imitation
-1
Vocabulary
-1.5
Total score
-2
-2.5
-3
<24mo
25-48mo
>48mo
Length of Exposure
Significant difference between the group with the least length
of exposure (up to two years) and the two other groups, with
no significant difference between the two other groups.
L2/German Acquisition: German Cohort
AGE: Significant for all tasks 4s vs. 5s & 6s
1 Length of exposure: Standardized test
2 Length of exposure: Linguistic tasks
Length of Exposure and Normed z-score
0
z-score
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
<24mo
25-48mo
>48mo
Length of exposure
All three groups score within the monolingual norm, but
below the monolingual mean -- with older children and
children with length of exposure of over 4 years barely
reaching the monolingual mean.
Length of Exposure - Linguistic Tasks
Perposition
Imitation
1
Z-scores
0.5
Complex
syntax
Imitation
0
Sentence
Compleion
-0.5
-1
Naming
-1.5
<24mo
25-48mo
Length of Exposure
>48mo
Points for discussion
When is it appropriate/meaningful to use a
standardized test?
 How should such tests be used?

What of this is relevant for SLI?
The answer depends on the cause for SLI
is.
 The answer depend on the nature of SLI

Appendix
Categories for use of definite
article: Judgment task.

Cat1 - First vs. second reference:
I ate an/*the apple. The/*an apple was tasty.

Cat2 - Abstract and Generic nouns
What did you do for the/*a world

Cat3 - Unique term
The history of the western world is important

Cat4 - Noun-Adjective agreement
Dan ra’a et ha-mexonit *(ha-)aduma
Dan saw acc the-car the red
‘Dan saw the red car’

Cat5 - Quantifier -Noun
All the children entered

Cat6 - definiteness for possession:
koev li ha-rosh.

Cat7 - Noun + Free Possessor
ata makir et ha-ben sheli?

Cat8 - Noun+bound possessor - Adjective
agreement
xaveri ha-blondini me’od nexmad

Cat9 - conjunction
The boys and the girls left

Cat10 - Supperlative forms
Yerushalayim hi ha-ir ha-yafa beyoter

Cat11 - Definiteness resistant areas
kaniti me’at matanot la-yeled
Categories for use of definite
article: Picture elicitation task

Generic nouns (Cat1)
Where does the light come from?
It comes from _________ (the sun)

First vs. second reference (Cat2&3)
David picked _______ (a/*the ball).
He through _____ (the/*a ball) to Jenny.

Noun + Possessive pronoun (Cat4)
David maca ________(et
ha-maftexot) shelo
David found __________ acc the-keys
‘David found his keys’
his