Table 8 - uploaded by Maria Juan-Garau
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
The present article reports on the findings of a case study of bilingual first language acquisition in Catalan and English. It first presents a general overview of a child's syntactic development from the age of 1;3 to 4;2 and then focuses on the question of subject realization in the two contrasting languages he is acquiring simultaneously. In thi...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... was so in order to maintain the same type of sociolinguistic environment in the two corpora, for, as a mother- researcher, Pe Ârez-Vidal would not have been able to play naturally with the child while at the same time observing the situation objectively. This lack of Catalan data in the second corpus does not affect the possibility of drawing the comparisons necessary for the analysis intended in this study, as there were always some Catalan productions (see Table 8, to which we will return for further discussion) when Andreu was recorded in English contexts. Record- ings took place every fortnight, on average, hence the two corpora together comprise a total of 77 recording sessions with an approximate duration of 30 minutes each. ...
Context 2
... unanalyzed chunks of speech which the child used as if they constituted lexical units have been identi®ed because none of their constitutive elements had appeared indepen- dently before. Table 8 presents the results of subject realization separately for Catalan and English from the time when subjects ®rst made their appearance at 1;10 until the moment when Andreu's basic clause structure in English seemed to have been acquired. The different columns present the most characteristic sequences found in the data, namely, Subject±Verb± (Object), Verb±(Object)±Subject, and Null Subject± Verb±(Object). 10 Column T presents the total number of clauses with an expressed subject. ...
Similar publications
We analyze the growth, complexity, and generativity of the digital platform Otto.de, a revelatory case of a large German company that has opened up its internal IT platform to outside developers. We find indication for a superlinear growth pattern fueled by external developers and the introduction of microservices as well as the emergence of a stru...
Citations
... The overuse of overt subject pronouns in null subject languages in bilingual contexts has been studied both in combinations involving one null subject language and one non-null-subject language (Paradis and Navarro 2003, Haznedar 2007, Serratrice 2002, Dal Pozzo 2012, Hinzelin 2003, Juan-Garau and Perez-Vidal 2000, Zwanziger et al. 2005, Serratrice 2013, Argyri and Sorace 2007, Villa-García and Suárez-Palma 2016 and those involving two null subject languages (Bonfieni 2018, Bel 2003. One common explanation is that the null/overt subject alternation is a phenomenon at the syntax/discourse interface Filiaci 2006, Sorace 2011) which makes it more vulnerable, especially in 2L1 acquisition. ...
The present paper charts the acquisition of Romanian subjects in a Romanian-Hungarian bilingual context, on the basis of two longitudinal corpora. The main results reveal early acquisition of subject use and relatively early sensitivity to the pragmatic constraints governing overt pronominal subjects. A higher percentage of overt subjects which differs both from the input and from what has been reported for L1 Romanian may however indicate that this is an area vulnerable in bilingual acquisition as a syntax/pragmatics interface phenomenon.
https://bwpl.unibuc.ro/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/3_BWPL_2018_special_issue_Tomescu.pdf
... While there seems to be a widespread tendency to overproduce overt subjects in bilinguals' null-subject languages between the ages of 1;09-4;06, work with older children (between ages 6;0-10;0) showed that this pattern only continues if children are dominant in the overt-subject language(Serratrice, 2006;Sorace & Serratrice, 2009). 1 According toLiceras et al.'s (2012) work, the opposite trend -that is, to transfer null subjects from a null-subject language to an overt one-is highly unlikely. This group of researchers hypothesized that the lack of robust evidence for null subjects in English, as well as the impossibility of combing them with inflected verbs would prevent children from transferring the distribution of null and overt subjects from Spanish to English, thus converging into a pro-drop grammar.Liceras et al.'s (2012) most 1 Contrary to these studies,Hinzelin (2003),Juan-Garau & Pérez-Vidal (2000) andLiceras et al. (2012aLiceras et al. ( , 2012b report that young bilinguals do not seem to necessarily exhibit difficulty in "setting the null subject parameter to its respective value in each of their two languages"(2003,19). ...
... While there seems to be a widespread tendency to overproduce overt subjects in bilinguals' null-subject languages between the ages of 1;09-4;06, work with older children (between ages 6;0-10;0) showed that this pattern only continues if children are dominant in the overt-subject language(Serratrice, 2006;Sorace & Serratrice, 2009). 1 According toLiceras et al.'s (2012) work, the opposite trend -that is, to transfer null subjects from a null-subject language to an overt one-is highly unlikely. This group of researchers hypothesized that the lack of robust evidence for null subjects in English, as well as the impossibility of combing them with inflected verbs would prevent children from transferring the distribution of null and overt subjects from Spanish to English, thus converging into a pro-drop grammar.Liceras et al.'s (2012) most 1 Contrary to these studies,Hinzelin (2003),Juan-Garau & Pérez-Vidal (2000) andLiceras et al. (2012aLiceras et al. ( , 2012b report that young bilinguals do not seem to necessarily exhibit difficulty in "setting the null subject parameter to its respective value in each of their two languages"(2003,19). ...
This paper investigates the development of English and Spanish subject produc- tion in 8 heritage bilingual children (age range: 4;1–5;3; mean age: 4;7). Oral production of overt and null subjects was assessed using a picture-based story re-telling task and a description task. Subjects were coded according to type (overt or null), and pragmatic function (new information, topic continuation, recovery, contrast and change of topic). Results indicate a robust distribution
of pragmatically appropriate subjects in Spanish; however, non adult-like null subjects were also found in a subset of the English utterances. We propose that cross-linguistic in uence from Spanish encouraged children to have more than one grammar available (Amaral & Roeper 2014), with the option to treat English as a null-subject language.
... By examining the time-course of acquisition of null and overt subjects in Spanish, we hope to also illuminate syntactic research. As previous studies on English-Catalan and English-Spanish bilinguals have not focused on the issue of SV/VS (see Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal, 2000;and Paradis and Navarro, 2003), with the exception of Silva-Corvalán (2014), the current project intends to investigate this aspect of acquisition in more detail. Despite Pierce's (1992) claims that postverbal subjects have special status in child grammars, we believe that examining the trajectory of acquisition of preverbal and postverbal subjects in the evolving Spanish grammar of bilingual children acquiring Spanish alongside a non-pro-drop language like English is necessary. ...
... With respect to longitudinal research, there have been studies investigating the degree of CLI in the acquisition of English and different pro-drop languages (Gutiérrez-Clellen, Simon-Cerejido, and Wagner, 2008;Hacohen and Schaeffer, 2007;Haznedar, 2010;Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal, 2000;Liceras, Fernández-Fuentes, and Pérez-Tattam, 2008;Liceras, Fernández-Fuentes, and Alba de la Fuente, 2012;Paradis and Navarro, 2003;Schmitz, Patuto, and Müller, 2012;Serratrice, Sorace, and Paoli, 2004;Silva-Corvalán, 2014;Zwanziger, Allen, and Genesee, 2005). As Serratrice and Hervé (2015) note, the studies conducted by Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal (2000), , Silva-Corvalán (2014), andZwanziger et al. (2005) did not find evidence in support of CLI based on the relative proportion of null and overt subjects in children's naturalistic productions (see also Gutiérrez-Clellen, Simon-Cerejido, andWagner, 2008 andLiceras et al., 2012); their performance regarding the rate of non-overt and lexical subjects was reminiscent of that of monolinguals, challenging the CLI hypothesis. ...
This study assesses the scope of the Crosslinguistic Influence (CLI) hypothesis’ predictions with regard to early bilingual acquisition. To this end, we analyze longitudinal corpus data from four bilinguals attesting the acquisition of subjecthood (null versus overt; preverbal versus postverbal) and the pragmatic adequacy of early null and overt subjects in a null-subject language (i.e., Spanish) in combination with a language differing in its pro-drop parameter setting (i.e., English). Our results indicate that CLI barely affects the development of subjects in the null-subject language at the initial stages, namely at the outset of null and overt subjects, and in turn support the Separate Development Hypothesis. Our bilingual cohort patterns with their Spanish-acquiring monolingual peer in that both groups display comparable proportions of null subjects as well as acquisitional trajectories of null and overt subjects at the early stages of acquisition. Much like monolinguals, bilinguals begin to produce preverbal and postverbal subjects concurrently. The bilingual children and the monolingual child of this study actually produce extremely high rates of pragmatically appropriate covert and overt subjects, which are for the most part target-like from the start, thus pointing to the absence of CLI effects. In light of monolingual and bilingual data, the paper also revisits the hotly debated issue of the ‘no overt subject’ stage of Grinstead (1998, et seq. ), its existence in child Spanish being questionable.
... In this respect they behave similarly to L1 acquirers, as reported in Serratrice (2002), where 3-year old acquirers of non-pro-drop English supply over 60% of lexical subjects, compared to about 30% for learners of a pro-drop language (Italian, Portuguese, Spanish), a figure close to their mature native counterparts. This happens regardless of mastery of morphological person and number marking on the verb even in the case of bilingual acquirers, as reported in Juan-Garau, Pérez-Vidal (2000), where Andreu, a child acquiring Catalan-English, was close to ceiling with subject realization in English by the age of 3;2 despite the absence of practically any finite verb forms in English. Overt subjects in Catalan, instead, were realized at a rate of 27%, again similarly to mature natives. ...
This article traces the developmental path of Italian L2 learners towards native-like use of Italian subject realisation. Italian is a pro-drop, head-marking language located towards the less configurational end of the typological spectrum, characterised by rich morphology and flexible syntax, highly sensitive to discourse-pragmatic choices. In prodrop languages such as Italian the job of marking Subject Person is unambiguously performed by verbal morphology, whereas in obligatory (or non-null) subject languages such as English this function is performed by the overt subject, including pronouns. It would not be reasonable to expect that L1 acquirers of Italian or L2 learners of Italian acquire the full range of morphological person marking in the verb before they learn to drop the overt expression of the subject. Yet this seems to be the (probably unintended) consequence of a parameter-setting approach for learners of a pro-drop L2 if their L1 is not pro-drop because they would have to learn both that null subjects are permitted in the L2 and the conditions under which that language uses overt expression of subjects (e.g., White, 1989, p. 87). However this is not, indeed, the case in Italian L2. We study this phenomenon within the framework of Processability Theory or PT (Pienemann 1998; Pienemann et al., 2005) which is devoted
to the developmental problem of language acquisition rather than focus on the source of linguistic knowledge. PT attempts to explain why learners, irrespective of L1, appear to follow a similar (universal) path towards the L2. Secondly we consider the developmental path as a whole from the early stages of the grammaticalization process, rather than concentrating on specific features in more advanced learners (see, e.g., Belletti et al. 2007). The third difference is methodological, in that , in line with PT psycholinguistic basis, we rely on more spontaneous production data rather than grammaticality judgements (see e.g., Sorace, Filiaci, 2006). Evidence supporting our developmental hypotheses come from a cross sectional data set comprising 15 learners, (9 females, 6 males) with a wide range of competence in Italian L2, with L1 backgrounds including Arabic, Czech, English, French, German, Japanese, Mongolian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian and Tigrinya.
... While cross-linguistic influence has often been documented with regard to borrowed words, code-switches and calques, research on language contact suggests that it can also affect diverse grammatical aspects. For instance, Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal (2000) examined subject realization in the syntactic development of a Catalan/English bilingual child, Andreu (aged 1;3 to 4;2), to explore the possibility of Catalan, his dominant null subject language, influencing English, his heritage non-null subject. The question of subject realization and subject optionality has often been discussed in relation to the early grammars of children learning English, since they have been observed to go through a period where the obligatoriness of subjects is not well established in their grammatical systems. ...
Over the last decades, the amount of research on heritage language (HL) use and maintenance has increased exponentially, and a picture is beginning to emerge of the developmental patterns that are seen to take place and of the main factors that impinge on HL use and maintenance in increasingly multilingual set- tings. The present paper aims at providing a short account of relevant findings in this area and situating the studies in this special issue against that background. More specifically, we will consider the difficulties associated with HL mainte- nance at home, the impact of the different linguistic and cultural experiences HL learners go through on their identity, cross-linguistic influence between HLs and other languages present in the community, and issues related to HL education, particularly teacher language competencies.
... According to this hypothesis, children exposed to two languages simultaneously use their languages as if they were a single system, in terms of phonology, lexicon, syntax, and pragmatics until the age of three. After the age of three, children start to use languages in their own systems by separating both language systems (Garau et al., 2000). ...
A lot of children in the world today acquire one language as their mother tongue and afterwards learn another language. However there are also quite a number of children who are acquiring two or more languages at the same time during their early childhood because of being raised in a bilingual family or society. Since bilingualism brings advantages to the child's future development, understanding how a bilingual child acquires the lexicon becomes a question of interest. As De Houwer (1990) suggests, children who receive primary input in each language from different interlocutors (such as a mother, father or siblings) may acquire different lexical repertoires in each language because different people talk about different things. Thus this study aimed to examine, assess and describe the sources of the differences in the receptive and productive vocabulary size of a bilingual boy in English and Turkish. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT) by Dunn & Dunn (1997) was used as a tool in measuring a bilingual boy's (3; 10) productive and receptive vocabulary. The results suggested that the child performed better in English than Turkish. He produced 96 % correct vocabulary in English whereas the number declined to 67% in Turkish. However the child's receptive vocabulary was almost equal in both languages. The study revealed that the frequency of exposure and differences in context cause differences in vocabulary size of a bilingual child. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dr. Zafer Bekirogullari of Cognitive - Counselling, Research & Conference Services C-crcs.
... Por ello, y probablemente tras las aportaciones fundamentales sobre los resultados del proceso de inmersión en lengua francesa realizados en Quebec con la población infantil anglófona (Cummins, 1979;Grosjean, 1982), se extiende la hipótesis del desarrollo diferenciado de las dos gramáticas del bilingüe, reforzada por estudios de bilingüismo temprano que abordan situaciones de contacto de lenguas, cada vez más diversas: holandés-inglés, alemán-francés, francés-inglés, etcétera (De Houwer, 1991;Genesee, 2000;Lanza, 1997Lanza, , 1998Meisel, 2001Meisel, , 2004. También en el Estado Español son numerosos los estudios en esta línea: catalán-español (Bel, 2001;Vila y Cortés, 1991), catalán e inglés (Juan-Garau y Pérez-Vidal, 2000;Pérez-Vidal, 1998), euskera-castellano (Almgren y Barreña, 2001;Barreña, 2001;Ezeizabarrena, 1996), gallego-castellano (Pérez-Pereira y García-Soto, 2003), e incluso en el ámbito de la percepción lingüística precoz de los bilingües (Bosch y Sebastián-Gallés, 1997. ...
This paper examines the influence of the amount of language exposure in the communicative development of 1,378 Basque children between 8 and 30 months of age with different degrees of exposure to Basque. Communicative development was measured by adapting the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories to Basque. A first approach of the data reveals that there are no differences among children aged between 8 and 15 months with varied degrees of exposure to the Basque language, in contrast to the data of children aged 16-30 months. Among the latter, monolinguals obtained higher scores than bilinguals in all the scales analysed. A more detailed study of the degree of exposure to Basque shows that variations found in vocabulary and grammar development do not differ between monolinguals and bilinguals with a high degree of exposure to Basque, but rather between those who have higher exposure to Basque (whether monolingual or not) and those who are less exposed to it (medium or low level), although this difference only appears at the age of 26-30 months.
... Por ello, y probablemente tras las aportaciones fundamentales sobre los resultados del proceso de inmersión en lengua francesa realizados en Quebec con la población infantil anglófona (Cummins, 1979;Grosjean, 1982), se extiende la hipótesis del desarrollo diferenciado de las dos gramáticas del bilingüe, reforzada por estudios de bilingüismo temprano que abordan situaciones de contacto de lenguas, cada vez más diversas: holandés-inglés, alemán-francés, francés-inglés, etcétera (De Houwer, 1991;Genesee, 2000;Lanza, 1997Lanza, , 1998Meisel, 2001Meisel, , 2004. También en el Estado Español son numerosos los estudios en esta línea: catalán-español (Bel, 2001;Vila y Cortés, 1991), catalán e inglés (Juan-Garau y Pérez-Vidal, 2000;Pérez-Vidal, 1998), euskera-castellano (Almgren y Barreña, 2001;Barreña, 2001;Ezeizabarrena, 1996), gallego-castellano (Pérez-Pereira y García-Soto, 2003), e incluso en el ámbito de la percepción lingüística precoz de los bilingües (Bosch y Sebastián-Gallés, 1997. ...
En este artículo se estudia la influencia del grado de exposición a la lengua en el desarrollo comunicativo de 1.378 niños vascos de entre 8 y 30 meses de edad con diferentes grados de exposición al euskera o lengua vasca. El desarrollo comunicativo se ha medido mediante la adaptación a esta lengua de los inventarios MacArthur- Bates Communicative Development Inventories. Una primera aproximación a los datos revela la ausencia de diferencias entre los niños de 8 a 15 meses de edad con distintos grados de exposición a la lengua vasca, contrariamente a los datos de niños de 16 a 30 meses, entre los que sí se encuentran diferencias, ya que los monolingües arrojan puntuaciones más elevadas que los bilingües en todas las escalas analizadas. Sin embargo, un estudio más detallado permite comprobar que las diferencias detectadas en el desarrollo léxico y gramatical no distinguen a los monolingües de los bilingües con alta exposición al euskera, sino a los grupos con mayor grado de exposición al euskera (monolingües o no) respecto de los bilingües con menor exposición (media o baja) a esta lengua, si bien esta diferencia sólo se manifiesta entre los 26 y los 30 meses.
... According to this hypothesis, children exposed to two languages simultaneously use their languages as if they were a single system, in terms of phonology, lexicon, syntax, and pragmatics until the age of three. After the age of three, children start to use languages in their own systems by separating both language systems (Garau et al., 2000:174; Macrory, 2006: 164; Nicoladis, 1998:105; Petitto et al., 2001:455; Schelletter; 2002: 93). ...
In this empirical study focuses on acquisition of Turkish of Russian-Turkish bilingual children in early childhood. The population of the study includes bilingual children at the age of 5 – 6 living in Antalya/Turkey. The sampling of the study consisted of 40 Russian-Turkish bilingual children in total (20 children are for control group and 20 children are for experiment group). During the collection of data have been used Descoeudres Dictionary Test (DDT) and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). Both of the groups were applied pre test and post test. Language – Focused Curriculum (LFC) was applied to experiment group for 16 weeks. Two factor ANOVA and t test were used in the analyses of data. As a conclusion, it was understood that LFC is effective at developing Turkish receptive and expressive language of bilingual children.
