Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:09:08.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of language dominance in cross-linguistic syntactic influence: A Korean child's use of null subjects in attriting English*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2012

SANG-GU KANG
SANG-GU KANG*
Affiliation:
Korea University
*
Address for correspondence: Institute of Foreign Language Studies, 145 Anam-Ro, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 136–701, Korea[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While Hulk and Müller (2000) predict that the direction of cross-linguistic syntactic influence is unidirectional when the construction involves syntax–pragmatics interface and surface overlap between two languages, they explicitly rule out language dominance as a factor involved. This study questions their latter claim and argues that the syntax of the dominant language can influence that of the weaker, based on a Korean–English bilingual boy's attriting English data; Korean null subjects triggered English subject drop when his Korean became more dominant. Thus, I propose a revised model of cross-linguistic influence that accounts for both Hulk and Müller's proposal and my data.

Keywords

attritioncross-linguistic influenceEnglish null subjectlanguage dominancesyntactic transfer
Type
Research Notes
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 219 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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 in part by the generous fund from YB Min Scholarship. I thank all my participants and their parents for inviting me to be a part of their lives and the three anonymous BLC reviewers for their comments. I would also like to thank my talented wife, Min Sun, for drawing the best pictures for my experiments.

References

Bentivoglio, P. (1983). Topic continuity and discontinuity in discourse: A study of spoken Latin-American Spanish. In Givón, T. (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, pp. 255–311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 491–504.Google Scholar
Cho, S.-W. (1994). The grammar of null arguments in early child Korean. In Kim-Renaud, Y.-K. (ed.), Theoretical issues in Korean linguistics, pp. 443–462. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1993). Competence and performance in child language. In Dromi, E. (ed.), Language and cognition: A developmental perspective, pp. 141–171. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Francis, N. (2011). Imbalances in bilingual development: A key to understanding the faculty of language. Language Sciences, 33, 76–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Givón, T. (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, pp. 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacohen, A., & Schaeffer, J. (2007). Subject realization in early Hebrew/English bilingual acquisition: The role of crosslinguistic influence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10 (3), 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, B. (2010). Transfer at the syntax–pragmatics interface: Pronominal subjects in bilingual Turkish. Second Language Research, 26 (3), 355–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 531–374.Google Scholar
Hulk, A. (2000). Non-selective access and activation in child bilingualism: The syntax. In Döpke, S. (ed.), Cross-linguistic structures in simultaneous bilingualism, pp. 57–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3 (3), 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, S.-G. (2011). English attrition in Korean–English bilingual children. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1994). Bilingual first language acquisition: French and German grammatical development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, N., & Hulk, A. (2001). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4 (1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, N., Hulk, A., & Jakubowicz, C. (1999). Object omissions in bilingual children: Evidence for cross-linguistic influence. In Greenhill, A., Littlefield, H. & Tano, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 23), pp. 482–494. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Nicoladis, E. (2002). What's the difference between ‘toilet paper’ and ‘paper toilet’? French–English bilingual children's crosslinguistic transfer in compound nouns. Journal of Child Language, 29, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Brien, K., Grolla, E., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Long passives are understood by young children. In Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T. & Zaller, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 30), pp. 441–451. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2001). Do bilingual two-year olds have separate phonological systems? International Journal of Bilingualism, 5, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or interdependent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, H. (2004). A minimalist approach to null subjects and objects in SLA. Second Language Research, 20 (1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, C. (1999). The vulnerable C-domain. Brain and Language, 77 (3), 364–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, pp. 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., & Paoli, S. (2004). Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax–pragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in English–Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (3), 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F. (2004). First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8 (3), 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M., Pancheva, R., Love, T., Yee, E., Swinney, D., & Hickok, G. (2005). Neural correlates of lexicon and grammar: Evidence from the production, reading, and judgment of inflection in aphasia. Brain and Language, 93 (2), 185–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vainikka, A., & Levy, Y. (1999). Empty subjects in Finnish and Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 17 (3), 613–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1985). The “pro-drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2000). Syntactic transfer in a Cantonese–English bilingual child. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3 (3), 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2007). The bilingual child: Early development and language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar