Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:55:39.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Production and processing asymmetries in the acquisition of tense morphology by sequential bilingual children*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

VASILIKI CHONDROGIANNI  and
THEODOROS MARINIS
VASILIKI CHONDROGIANNI*
Affiliation:
University of Reading, School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences, UK
THEODOROS MARINIS
Affiliation:
University of Reading, School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Vasiliki Chondrogianni, University of Reading, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, Reading RG6 6AL, UK[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the production and online processing of English tense morphemes by sequential bilingual (L2) Turkish-speaking children with more than three years of exposure to English. Thirty-nine six- to nine-year-old L2 children and twenty-eight typically developing age-matched monolingual (L1) children were administered the production component for third person -s and past tense of the Test for Early Grammatical Impairment (Rice & Wexler, 2001) and participated in an online word monitoring task involving grammatical and ungrammatical sentences with presence/omission of tense (third person -s, past tense -ed) and non-tense (progressive -ing, possessive 's) morphemes. The L2 children's performance on the online task was compared to that of children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) in Montgomery and Leonard (1998, 2006) to ascertain similarities and differences between the two populations. Results showed that the L2 children were sensitive to the ungrammaticality induced by the omission of tense morphemes, despite variable production. This reinforces the claim about intact underlying syntactic representations in child L2 acquisition despite non-target-like production (Haznedar & Schwartz, 1997).

Keywords

tense morphemesL2 childrenproductiononline processing
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 15 , Special Issue 1: Bilingual children with Specific Language Impairment , January 2012 , pp. 5 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council research grant ‘Real-time processing of syntactic information in children with English as a Second Language & children with Specific Language Impairment’ awarded to Theo Marinis (RES-061-23-0137). We would like to thank Halit Firat for collecting the data from the L2 children, the schools and families for participating in this project, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

References

Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM) (Version 2.5 (English)). Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 210–223.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2008). Lexical access in bilinguals: Effects of vocabulary size and executive control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 522–538.Google Scholar
Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). Test for reception of grammar, Version 2 (TROG-2). London: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The view from building 20, pp. 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crutchley, A., Conti-Ramsden, G., & Botting, N. (1997). Bilingual children with specific language impairment and standardised assessments: Preliminary findings from a study of children in language units. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1, 117–134.CrossRefGoogle 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, 245–258.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L. M., Whetton, C., & Burley, J. (1997). The British Picture Vocabulary Scale, 2nd edn. Windsor: NFER–Nelson.Google Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language. The acquisition of grammatical gender. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A compehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Golberg, H., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2008). Lexical acquisition over time in minority L1 children learning English as a L2. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 1–25.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 5, 1–50.Google Scholar
Grüter, T. (2005). Comprehension and production of French object clitics by child second language learners and children with specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 363–391.Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The view from building 20, pp. 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (2007). Emergent and innate sources of knowledge in the early L2 acquisition of English verbal morphology. In Radford, A. (ed.), Martin Atkinson – The minimalist muse, pp. 135–156. Essex: University of Essex.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research 13, 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22, 269–301.Google 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., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In Hughes, E., Hughes, M. & Greenhill, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual 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 second language learners of English. 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
Kail, R. V. (1994). A method for studying the generalized slowing hypothesis in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 418–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilborn, K., & Moss, H. (1996). Word monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 689–694.Google Scholar
Kohnert, K., Kan, P. F., & Conboy, B. T. (2010). Lexical and grammatical associations in sequential bilingual preschoolers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 684–698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lardiere, D. (1998a). Case and Tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research, 14, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998b). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–375.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 (GASLA 2004), pp. 178–192. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahon, M., & Crutchley, A. (2006). Performance of typically-developing school-age children with English as an additional language on the British Picture Vocabulary Scales II. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 22, 333–351.Google Scholar
Marchman, V. A., Fernald, A., & Hurtado, N. (2010). How vocabulary size in two languages relates to efficiency in spoken word recognition by young Spanish–English bilinguals. Journal of Child Language, 37, 817–840.Google Scholar
Marinis, T. (2007). On-line processing of passives in L1 and L2 children. In Belikova, A., Meroni, L. & Umeda, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA), pp. 265–276. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Marinis, T. (2008). On-line processing of sentences involving reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns in L1 and L2 children. In Gavarró Algueró, A. & Freitas, M. J. (eds.), Language acquisition and development. Proceedings of GALA 2007, pp. 348–358. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Marinis, T., & Chondrogianni, V. (2010). Production of tense marking in successive bilingual children: When do they converge with their monolingual peers? International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 19–28.Google Scholar
Marinis, T., & Chondrogianni, V. (2011). Comprehension of reflexives and pronouns by child L2 learners. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24, 202–212.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R., & van der Lely, H. K. J. (2006). A challenge to current models of past tense inflection: The impact of phonotactics. Cognition, 100, 302–320.Google Scholar
Montgomery, J. W., & Leonard, L. B. (1998). Real-time inflectional processing by children with specific language impairment: Effects of phonetic substance. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 1432–1443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, J. W., & Leonard, L. B. (2006). Effects of acoustic manipulation on the real-time inflectional processing of children with Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 49, 1238–1256.Google Scholar
Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. E. (2002). Language and literacy in bilingual children. London: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2010). Bilingual children's acquisition of English verb morphology: Effects of language dominance, structure difficulty, and task type. Language Learning, 60, 651–680.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., & Gopnik, M. (1997). Compensatory strategies in genetic dysphasia: Declarative memory. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 10, 173–185.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., Rice, M. L., Crago, M., & Marquis, J. (2008). The acquisition of tense in English: Distinguishing child second language from first language and specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 689–722.Google Scholar
Prévost, P. (2003). Truncation and missing inflection in initial child L2 German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 65–97.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, M. L., & Wexler, K. (2001). Rice/Wexler test of early grammatical impairment. New York: The Psychological Corporation, Hartcourt Assessment Company.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 and Hearing Research, 38, 850–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K., & Redmond, S. (1999). Grammaticality judgments of an extended optional infinitive grammar: Evidence from English-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 943–961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorace, A. (2000). Syntactic optionality in non-native grammars. Second Language Research, 16, 93–102.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. (2003). Clitics and articles in L2 Greek. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H. & Goodluck, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002), pp. 331–339. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The Interpretability Hypothesis: evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23, 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Mastropavlou, M. (2008). Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners. In Goodluck, H., Liceras, J. & Zobl, H. (eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition, pp. 143–183. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996a). The early stages in adult L2 syntax: Additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research, 12, 140–176.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996b). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12, 7–39.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1998a). The initial state in the L2 acquisition of phrase structure. In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G. & O'Neil, W. (eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition, pp. 17–88. Somerville, MA: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1998b). Morphosyntactic triggers in adult SLA. In Beck, M.-L. (ed.), Morphology and its interfaces in second language knowledge, pp. 89–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2010). All acquisition begins with the projection of a bare verb phrase. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 332–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivations in child grammar. In Lightfoot, D. & Hornstein, N. (eds.), Verb movement, pp. 305–350. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (2009). Some questions about feature re-assembly. Second Language Research, 25, 343–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H., & Liceras, J. (1994). Functional categories and acquisition orders. Language Learning, 44, 159–180.Google Scholar