Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Acquisition L1 ou L2? Sur le développement de la finitude
chez les adultes, les jeunes enfants (2L1)
et les enfants bilingues (cL2)
Suzanne Schlyter, Lund University
En collaboration avec:Jonas Granfeldt et Maria Kihlstedt
L1 or L2 acquisition? Development of finiteness
in adult L2, in young children (2L1) and in bilingual children (cL2)
Suzanne Schlyter, Lund University
In collaboration with
Jonas Granfeldt, Lund University and Maria Kihlstedt, Paris X
Perdue, in press
« En ce qui concerne la finitude, il existe deux grandes différences évidentes entre les apprenants enfants et adultes d'une langue.
(…) contrairement aux premiers, il est exceptionnel que des apprenants adultes acquièrent la maîtrise de la morpho-syntaxe de la langue nouvelle. »
Structure of the speech
• Introduction
• Part I: adult L2 acquisition
• Part II: first language (L1) acquisition
• Part III: child L2 acquisition
• Part IV: Discussion
• Hypothesis: Those children who have acquired INFL+COMP before the L2 acquisition starts, will develop L2 French like adult L2 learners
Why finiteness?
• Central for the syntactic development – the I(NFL) category
Spec
C
Spec
I
Spec
VP
VP’
IP
IP’
CP
CP’
V DP
Illustration - Syntactic structure
- que Pierre a t cassé la voiture
Different positions on acquisition of finiteness and syntactic structure
• A) Structure building:• L1 and L2, initial stages: only lexical elements (only
VP, no INFL) (Perdue, Jordens, Hawkins, Myles …)
• B) Complete syntactic representation in L1 and L2from initial stages (L1: e.g. Wexler, Platzack, … )
• > adL2 learners have access to INFL, COMP etc from start (White); lack of finite marking in L2 is a superficial problem (Missing Surface Inflection) (Lardière, Prevost, …)
• C) Structure building in L1, complete syntax in L2 (Herschensohn 2000, Granfeldt 2003, Schlyter 2005) Possibly syntactic growth = cognitive growth (Schlyter 2008)
Marking of finiteness in FRENCHin children and adults
• Subject clitic as ’prefix’je mets / il marche
• Subject-Verb Agreementla fille … apprend / les filles … apprennent
• Tense-Aspect markingje vois / hier j’ai vu …
• Difference finite – nonfinite formsje mange / j’ai mangé
il prend / il va prendre
Only this last type of finiteness will be studied here
PART IADULT SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION adL2
adL2 – adult second lg acquisition
• Finite verb forms – a well known difficulty (ESF program, Prévost & White 2000, Herschensohn 2001, Schlyter 2004, Schlyter & Bartning 2005 etc)
• (Prévost 2008): finite forms like il boit and non-finite verb forms in finite contexts: *il prendre des vêtements / *nous faire la cuisine
• Proportion nonfinite verbs in finite contexts: ESF data Abdelmalek 24%, Zahra 22%
• Prevost adL2 data: On all verbs: 27-2.5, 32-1.3, 15-0.7, 9-0.0% with growing stage. On lexical verbs only: 39-3.4, 54-2.6, 27-1.5, 15-0.0
Swedish-French adL2
• Schlyter 2004: je comprendre, la dame comprendre‘I understand-INF, the lady understand-INF’
je ne connaître pas ‘I NEG know-INF NEG’
eh quand on voir français eh … ‘eh when one see-INF French eh’
>> If V+Neg then IP; if CP then IP
>> Finiteness in syntactic sense is there – but still nonfinite verbs
Schlyter & Bartning 2005nonfinite verbs forms in adL2
• Initial stages (Stades 1 à 2, <9 months exposition):
• Corpus Lund (Schlyter): • nonfinite forms 34% (of lexical verbs) • (= 64% finite forms)• Corpus InterFra (Bartning)• Nonfinite forms 22% (=78% finite f)• Thomas, A. (forthc) ca 50%
• Advanced stages (from Stage 4 B&S):
• practically NO nonfinite forms (cf. Prévost 2008 ’High Intermediate’)
74%174810Karl 2
61%34538Karl 1 NG
62%15245Björn 2
58%16233Björn 1 NG
64%1526< 3Henry 1-2 NG
58%576 (24heures)Caroline G
% de
formes
finies
présent,
formes
non-finies
présent,
formes
finies
mois d’
exposition
Corpus LUND
Groupe ou
appr/enreg
AdL2: Formes finies/non-finies, corpus Lund
94%Plus de trois ans d’exposition dans le
pays ; ou après l’école et un semestre
d’université
80%Groupe intermédiaire
66%Moins de 9 mois d’exposition
formes
finies, %
Apprenants
AdL2: Formes finies/non-finies dans 3 groupes d’InterFra
100%11633InterFra
4 appr univ
Int 1-4
86%78464InterFra
8 lycéens
Int 1-2
78%92329InterFra
6 débutants
Int 1-4, 1er
sem
% de fo
finies
Présent
fo non-fi
présent
fo finiesApprenants/
groupes
Summary adult L2 acq (Sw>Fr)
• Many nonfinite forms in finite contexts
• Simultaneously with AUX, MOD and SUBJUNCTIONS (=INFL, COMP), also in very early stages
• Later: development towards correct finiteness
• >> access to INFL from start
PART II(BILINGUAL) FIRST LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION (2)L1
(2)L1 – first lg acquisition of finiteness in French
• Initial stage without marking of finitenesspleure, le bébé ‘ weeps, the baby’
• Soon complete marking without errors, correct syntax, evidence for acq of INFL(Pierce 1992, Meisel 1994, Schlyter 2004, etc)
j’ai trouvé! ’I (have) found!
n'aime pas celle-là ’like not (=don’t like) that one’
• NEVER nonfinite forms after scl, like *je aimer, *il boire etc.
2L1 Swedish – French children
• Children growing up with Swedish and French (Schlyter 2004, 2005, Granfeldt 2003 etc.)
• Next slide: Occ of subject + nonfinite form, e.g.
*il prendre, *je boire
vs scl+V, in early stages (on ca 2600 utterances)
• Result:
NO subj-clitic+Nonfinite form
1?/1 2,02;6Léo 3 AO birth
but FR Weak
0/723,12;10Dany 3
0/151,82;6Dany 2
0/11,22;2Dany 1 AO birth
0/583,22;2Mimi 2
0/132,12;0Mimi 1
0/24 2,42;10Anne 4
0/23 2,72;8Anne 3
0/17 1,92;6Anne 2
0/21,42;3Anne 1 AO birth
0/3 1,72;2Jean 3
0/1 1,12;0Jean 2
0/4-13 1,71;10Jean 1 AO birth
nonfinite forms
after subject cl
/all subj+Verb
MLU
FR
age
at rec
Child, rec,
Age of Onset
Swe-Fr 2L1
Illustration: the verb ”donner” at different ages:
il les donne à maman et papa3;5Jean 10
il faut donner beaucoup3;3Jean 9
il a donné des chewinggums2;11Jean 7
donné Estelle2;4Jean 4
donne!2;0Jean 1
constructionageRec
Summary 2L1 acquisition (Sw+Fr)
• Initially no evidence for INFL
• Later, evidence for INFL: Scl+finite verbs, aux, mod (PC, FutPr)
• > Structure building
• No incorrect use of scl+nonfinite forms
PART IIICHILD SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION chL2
Why interesting?
• Bilingual daycare, bilingual schools
• The age factor
• If Critical Period, when does it stop?
puberty (Lenneberg); 6-7 ys (Rottweiler & Kroffke, Tracy
& Thoma); 3-4 ys (Meisel, Unsworth). Depends on phenomena? on language?
• If gradual decline (Montrul 2008), what declines?
Previous studies on chL2 French
• Meisel (to appear), children AO 3-4 years:
Many have nonfinite forms >> = adL2
• Prévost 2004, children Kenny, Greg:
Nonfinite forms like in L1 acq
• Prévost 2008, same children:
Few nonfinite forms (2.2 – 5.7%) >> = L1
>> contradictions!
Present study:(Swedish >) French Child L2
• Children: RACHEL, PATRICK, VIOLA, VALENTINA, HANNES, from LFSL Stockholm (see Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihlstedt 2007)
• L1 Swedish, L2 French
• Age of Onset 3;4 to 6;6 years
• Levels defined in Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) and VocD/10:
Development cL2 children - MLU + VocD/10(Arlette 2L1), Rachel, Patrick, Viola, Hannes, Valentine
MLU, VocD cL2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
arl1
arl2
arl3
arl4
arl5
rach
1ra
ch2
rach
3ra
ch4
rach
5
patr1
patr2
patr3
patr4
patr5 vio
1vio
2vio
3vio
4vio
5
han1
han2
han3
han4
han5 va
l1va
l2va
l3va
l4
mlu F
D F gm 10
Nonfinite forms in cL2 from very early
Patrick 6;1 years, input 7 m
*INV: regarde, qu+est+ce+qu' elle fait avec la fleur ?
‘look what she does with the flower’*CHI: il [/] il [/] il &pernde [= peint] .
‘he he he paint.INF’
Hannes 7;1 ys, input 7 m
*CHI: et le chien qui &oua [?= voit] et [/]
‘and the dog who sees’*CHI: et # il # prendre # le # chat # dans # euh ça .
‘and he take.INF the cat in that’
Finite forms (of lexical verbs with subject) in cL2
0%0%4,94,710+4V-tin2
12%19%2,94,07;27V-tin1 AO 6;7
0%0%3,66,310+4Han 2
19%28%2,43,77;17Han 1 AO 6;6
5%33%3,93,710+4Vio 2
001,81,6 (2,0*)6;117Vio 1 AO 6,4
10%60%2,82,6 (3,1*)7;120+4Patr 2
8%14% 1,71,9 (2,3*)6;410+7Patr 1 AO 4;9
6%10% 2,13,54;310Rach 3
6%16% 22,54;29Rach 2
---1,43;94Rach 1 AO 3;5
%non-finite
forms
of total
%non-
fin forms
of lex V
VocD
/10
MLU
clan
Age
at rec
Months
input
at rec
Child, rec,
Age of Onset
*MLU sans ’oui’
Verb forms in chL2, Swe - French
00%1310075602013val2
1219%428169253834val1
0
00%91009478009han2
1928%4772671711334han1
0
533%3662217512vio2
00%3100144003vio1
0
39%229163348220patr4
98%129254370111patr3
1060%5402917632patr2
814%228634120319patr1
0
610%5890103440652rach3
616%258471440421rach2
00rach1
%errors=nonfinon total
%errors =nonfin on Vlex
totsub
%sub+fin
/ Vlextot sub+v
sub+axm
0+nonfin
su+nonfin
sub+prs
Comparison between groupsSwedish > French in earliest stages
• Nonfinite forms in finite contexts:
(Lexical Verbs only)
• adL2: around 30% below 8months expos
• (2)L1: 0 % continously
• chL2: around 23% at 7 months expos
but rapidly reach 0%
>> these chL2 initially more like adL2 than L1
PART IVDISCUSSION
Previous proposals for chL2
• Meisel: Fundamental Difference Hypothesis, Critical Period for grammar ends ca 3-4 years, then chL2 (French) = AdL2
Previous proposals for adL2 acq
• adL2 learners have acquired INFL, COMP etc through their L1, and have access to them in L2 (Schwartz, White,…)
• Cf Perdue fortc• [les apprenants adultes] maîtrisent la
manière dont la finitude est exprimée dans leur L1 et leur tâche d'apprentissage consiste (principalement) à découvrir de nouveaux moyens linguistiques pour exprimer ce concept.
Our proposal for cL2 (Granfeldt, Schlyter, Thomas)
• We know that children acquire the entire syntactic structure at about 3 – 4 years, i.e. VP > INFL > COMP
• HYP: Those children who have acquired INFL+COMP before the L2 acquisition starts, will develop L2 French like adult L2 learners – not because of age but because of previous development
• These chL2 learners have access to the corresponding cognitive categories (Schlyter forthc)
• chL2 or adL2 learners resort to default forms in the L2 to express these functional / cognitive categories (Thomas forthc)
THANK YOU! MERCI!
• Thanks also to
• LFSL school
• Sylvie and Anne
• The children and their parents
• The Magnus Bergwall Foundation
References
• Bartning, I. & Schlyter, S. (2004) “Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en français L2”. French Language Studies. 14(3): 281-299
• Granfeldt, J. (2003) L’Acquisition des Catégories Fonctionnelles. Étude comparative du développement du DP français chez des enfants et des apprenants adultes. Etudes romanes de Lund, 67. Institut d'Etudes romanes de Lund, Université de Lund. Doctoral dissertation.
• Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihlstedt (2007): French in cL2, 2L1 and L1 in pre-school children. PERLES 24, Studies in Romance Bilingual Acquisition – Age of Onset and Development of French and Spanish. ed. J.Granfeldt (SOL, Lund Univ.)
• Herschensohn, J. (2000): The second time around: Minimalism and L2 acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
• Lardiere, D. (1998) “Case and Tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state”. Second Language Research 14: 1-26.
• Meisel, J.M. (1994) “Getting FAT: Finiteness, agreement and tense in early grammars”. In J.M. Meisel (ed.), Bilingual First Language Acquisition (pp. 89-129). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Meisel, J.M. (2008) “Child second language acquisition or successive first language acquisition?” In B. Haznedar & E. Gavruseva (eds.) Current Trends in Child Second Language Acquisition: A Generative Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Meisel, J.M. (forthc) : Age of onset in successive acquisition of bilingualism: effects on grammatical development. in: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft.
• Montrul,S. (2008): Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism. Re-examining the Age Factor. Benjamins
References, cont.
• Pierce, A.E. (1992) Language Acquisition and Syntactic Theory: A Comparative Analysis of French and English Child Grammars. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer.
• Prévost, P. (2004b) “The semantic and aspectual properties of child L2 root infinitives”. In P.Prévost & J. Paradis (eds.) The Acquisition of French in Different Contexts (pp. 305-331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Prévost, P. (2008): Knowledge of morphology and syntax in early adult L2 French: Evidence for the Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis. In: Liceras, J., Zobl, H. & Goodluck, H. (eds): The role of Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition. Erlbaum
• Schlyter, S. (2003) : "Development of verb morphology and finiteness in children and adults acquiring French." in: Dimroth,C. & Starren, M. (eds): Information structure, linguistic structure, and the dynamics of learner language (Benjamins, Studies in Bilingualism), pp 15-45.
• Schlyter, S. (2005): “Adverbs and functional categories in L1 and L2 acquisition of French”. in J.M. Dewaele (ed.) Focus on French as a Foreign Language: Multidisciplinary Approaches. Multilingual Matters. p. 36-62.
• Schlyter, S. (submitted 2008). ”Input, cognitive-linguistic development, and rate of acquisition.” Comment on Target paper by J.M.Meisel, in: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft.
• Schlyter, S. & Bartning, I. (2005) ”L’accord sujet-verbe en français L2 parlé ». In J. Granfeldt & S. Schlyter (eds.) Acquisition et production de la morphologie flexionnelle. Actes du « Festival de la morphologie », mars 2005 à Lund. PERLES 20 (Petites Études Romanes de Lund, Extra Seriem)
• Thomas, A. (forthc.) (Doctoral dissertation, Univ. Lund)• White, L. (2003): Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambrigde
U.P