Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:27:33.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The acquisition of tense in English: Distinguishing child second language from first language and specific language impairment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

JOHANNE PARADIS ,
MABEL L. RICE ,
MARTHA CRAGO  and
JANET MARQUIS
JOHANNE PARADIS*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
MABEL L. RICE
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
MARTHA CRAGO
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University
JANET MARQUIS
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Johanne Paradis, Department of Linguistics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E7, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study reports on a comparison of the use and knowledge of tense-marking morphemes in English by first language (L1), second language (L2), and specific language impairment (SLI) children. The objective of our research was to ascertain whether the L2 children's tense acquisition patterns were similar or dissimilar to those of the L1 and SLI groups, and whether they would fit an (extended) optional infinitive profile, or an L2-based profile, for example, the missing surface inflection hypothesis. Results showed that the L2 children had a unique profile compared with their monolingual peers, which was better characterized by the missing surface inflection hypothesis. At the same time, results reinforce the assumption underlying the (extended) optional infinitive profile that internal constraints on the acquisition of tense could be a component of L1 development, with and without SLI.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 689 - 722
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beck, M.-L. (1998). L2 acquisition and obligatory head movement: English-speaking learners of German and the local impairment hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 311–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedore, L., & Leonard, L. (1998). Specific language impairment and grammatical morphology: A discriminant function analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1185–1192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgemeister, B., Hollander Blum, L., & Lorge, I. (1972). Columbia Mental Maturity Scale. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2002). Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 215–221.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crago, M., & Paradis, J. (2003). Two of a kind? Commonalities and variation in languages and language learners. In Levy, Y. & Schaeffer, J. (Eds.), Language competence across populations: Towards a definition of specific language impairment (pp. 97–110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2005, June). Variations in English words and phrases. Retrieved from http://view.byu.edu/Google Scholar
Déprez, V., & Pierce, A. (1993). Negation and functional projections in early grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 25–67.Google Scholar
De Villiers, J., & de Villiers, P. (1973). A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 267–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, A., & Dunn, A. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Gavruseva, E. (2002). Is there primacy of aspect in child L2 English? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 109–130.Google Scholar
Gavruseva, E. (2004). Root infinitives in child second language English: An aspectual features account. Second Language Research, 20, 335–371.Google Scholar
Grüter, T. (2005). Comprehension and production of French object clitics by child second language learners and children specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 363–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadley, P., & Rice, M. (1996). Emergent uses of BE and DO: Evidence from children with specific language impairment. Language Acquisition, 5, 209–243.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. (2001). Tense morphology and verb-second in Swedish L1 children, L2 children and children with SLI. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, Y.-H. (1997). The partial availability of universal grammar in second language acquisition: The “failed functional features hypothesis.” Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, B. (2001). The acquisition of the IP system in child L2 English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 1–39.Google Scholar
Haznedar, B. (2006). Persistent problems with case morphology in L2 acquisition. In Lleo, C. (Ed.), Interfaces in multilingualism: Acquisition and representation (pp. 179–206). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B. D. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In Hughes, E., Hughes, M., & Greenhill, A. (Eds.), BUCLD 21: Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 257–268). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., & Wexler, K. (2002). Why is “is” easier than “s”? Acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by child L2-English learners. Second Language Research, 18, 95–136.Google Scholar
Jia, G., & Fuse, A. (2007). Acquisition of English grammatical morphology by native Mandarin-speaking children and adolescents: Age-related differences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1280–1299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakshmanan, U. (1994). Universal grammar in child second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–375.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2000). Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In Archibald, J. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 102–129). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2005). On morphological competence. In Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Liljestrand, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 178–192). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lin, H. (2001). A grammar of Mandarin Chinese. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (1994). Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Newcomer, P. L., & Hammill, D. D. (1988). Test of Language Development 2—Primary. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2004). The relevance of specific language impairment in understanding the role of transfer in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 67–82.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2005). Grammatical morphology in children learning English as a second language: Implications of similarities with specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 36, 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J. (2008). Tense as a clinical marker in English L2 acquisition with language delay/impairment. In Haznedar, B. & Gavruseva, E. (Eds.), Current trends in child second language acquisition: A generative perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2000). Tense and temporality: Similarities and differences between language-impaired and second-language children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 834–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2001). The morphosyntax of specific language impairment in French: Evidence for an extended optional default account. Language Acquisition, 9, 269–300.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2004). Comparing L2 and SLI grammars in French: Focus on DP. In Prévost, P. & Paradis, J. (Eds.), The acquisition of French in different contexts: Focus on functional categories (pp. 89–108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or interdependent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 1–25.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., & Prévost, P. (2004). Functional categories in the acquisition of French. In Prévost, P. & Paradis, J. (Eds.), The acquisition of French in different contexts: Focus on functional categories (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pierce, A. (1992). Language acquisition and syntactic theory: A comparative analysis of French and English child grammars. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000a). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000b). Accounting for morphological variation in second language acquisition: Truncation of missing inflection? In Friedemann, M.-A. & Rizzi, L. (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax (pp. 202–235). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L. (2003). A unified model of specific and general language delay: Grammatical tense as a clinical marker of unexpected variation. In Levy, Y. & Schaeffer, J. (Eds.), Language competence across populations: Towards a definition of specific language impairment (pp. 63–94). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L., Noll, K. R., & Grimm, H. (1997). An extended optional infinitive stage in German-speaking children with specific language impairment. Language Acquisition, 6, 255–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, M. L., & Wexler, K. (1996). Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 39, 1236–1257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. L., & Wexler, K. (2001). Test of early grammatical impairment. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K., & Cleave, P. (1995). Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 38, 850–863.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K., & Hershberger, S. (1998). Tense over time: The longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 1412–1431.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K., & Redmond, S. (1999). Grammaticality judgments of an extended optional infinitive grammar: Evidence from English-speaking children with SLI. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 42, 943–961.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1993/1994). Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition, 3, 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (2004). Why child L2 acquisition? Proceedings of GALA 2003 (Vol. 1). Utrecht University, LOT Occasional Series.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2003). The role of input in the acquisition of third person singular verbs in English. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 46, 863–877.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12, 7–39.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1998). Morphosyntactic triggers in adult SLA. In Beck, M.-L. (Ed.), Morphology and its interfaces in second language knowledge (pp. 89–113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (2003). Lennenberg's dream: Learning, normal language development, and specific language impairment. In Levy, Y. & Schaeffer, J. (Eds.), Language competence across populations: Towards a definition of specific language impairment (pp. 11–62). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106, 23–79.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1994). Optional Infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivations. In Lightfoot, D. & Hornstein, N. (Eds.), Verb movement (pp. 305–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003a). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003b). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 129–142.Google Scholar
Zobl, H., & Liceras, J. (1994). Functional categories and acquisition orders. Language Learning, 44, 159–180.Google Scholar