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