Presentation at the colloquium:

Workshop on Grammatical development

in honor of Jürgen M. MeiselMarch 12-14 2009

University of Hamburg

Early and late child L2 learners after a year in a

French school. Suzanne Schlyter

In collaboration with Jonas Granfeldt, Malin Ågren & Anita

Thomas

Jürgen Meisel on cL2 acquisition

• Communication Paris january 2006:

Age of onset in successiveacquisition of bilingualism: Effects on grammatical

development

Meisel 2006/2008

(…) Language Making Capacity which guides L1 development is not fully accessible any more to L2 learners. My claim is that it becomes inaccessible as a consequence of neural maturation, supporting thus the Critical Period Hypothesis. (…) Age of onset of acquisition is consequently argued to be the single most important factor distinguishing acquisition types. As for the age periods at which crucial changes happen, my claim is that they occur significantly earlier than is commonly assumed. (…) between age 3 and 4

Child L2 acquisition

• L1-like development before AO 6 ys:

• Chilla (2008)• Rottweiler & Kroffke/Chilla • Tracy, Gawlizek-Maiwald, Thoma• Blom• Prévost

• L2-like after AO 3-4 ys:• Meisel (2006; 2008)• Unsworth (2005)

Swedish-French child L2 learners

• Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihlstedt (2007):

• Phenomena studied (clearly differing in L1A and adult L2A of French)

• Finite vs nonfinite forms• Past tense marking• Gender• Object clitics

2L1 not= cL2cL2 = aL2

2L1 partly = L1

• Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihlstedt 2007:

• Child L2 learners (cL2) differ from simultaneous bilinguals (2L1) matched for MLU, VocD etc

• The cL2 learners (AO 3;6 – 6;6) have initial problems in French with all these phenomena, behave like adult L2 learners

• MLU-matched 2L1 learners behave like monolinguals (FL1) as for finite forms and past tense markings (no errors), but not always for object clitics and gender

This study

• Does the Age of Onset of French in cL2 make a difference?

• Studied: children with AO 3;4 (early cL2) vs 6;6 (late cL2) years of age

Hypotheses

• Assuming a Critical Period

• If late cL2 has similar profile as early cL2 >> Critical Period ends before 3;6 (Meisel)

• If early cL2 is more L1-like and late cL2 more adult-like >> Critical period ends later than 3;5 but earlier than 6;6 (Chilla, Rothweiler)

Children studied

- Two siblings- Both parents are Swedish-speaking- Children acquire French in Lycée Francais de

Stockholm- Longitudinal study

Hannes AO 6;6 (late cL2)Rachel AO 3;4 (early cL2)

Compared also to - Viola, Valentine (late cL2 AO 6;6 ca) and to- Arlette (2L1, age and MLU matched with Rachel)

(Work in progress: next child AO 3;0 starts school 2009-09)

Input

• Teachers all French speaking• Children in school:- French-Swedish bilinguals (2L1) ca 1/3- Trilinguals Sw-Fr (+Arabic etc) ca 1/3- French monolinguals- Swedish monolinguals (max 10%)

• Outside school: - Bilingual Swedish-French island

”Essingen”

Table 1. MATCHING at lower level: Age of onset of French;months of exposure, MLU and VocD in French (preliminary)

Child rec

AO French

age at rec

month exp

MLU F VocD F

late cL2 m 3,4

Han1 6;6 7;1 7m 3,7 22

Val1 6;7 7;2 7m 4,0 29

Vio1 6;4 6;11 7m 2,3 23

Vio2 ” 7;8 1y4m 3,7 39

early cL2

m 3,3

Rach2 3;5 4;2 9m 2,9 (10)

Rach3 ” 4;3 10m 3,7 21

2L1

Arl2 birth 3;6 3y6m 3,2 28

Arl3 ” 3;9 3y6m 3,1 41

Table 2. MATCHING at higher level: Age of onset of French;months of exposure, MLU and VocD in French (preliminary) Child rec AO

Frenchage at rec

month exp

MLU F VocD F

l ate cL2 m 4,8

Han2aHan2b

6;6 7;9 1y4m 6,35,4

3744

Val2 6;7 7;9 1y4m 4,7 49

Vio2 ” 7;8 1y4m 3,7 39

Vio3 6;4 7;11 1y7m 3,8 44

early cL2 m 4,3

Rach4 3;5 4;7 1y3m 3,6 21

Rach5 ” 4;8 1y4m 4,9 49

2L1

Arl4 birth 4;2 4y2m 3,1 47

Arl5 4;3 4y3m 3,3 49

Results Verb forms

A) VERB FORMS lower level

Child rec

finite forms%of all verbs

finite forms%of Vlex only

%past tense marking(marking/contexts)

3p plur(mark/cont)

Late cL2

Han 1 76 (51/67) 74 (34/46) 75 (6/8) -

Val 1 86 (59/69) 80 (34/42) 17 (1/6) -

Vio 1 100* (/9) 100* (/4) 67 (2/3) -

(Vio 2 89 (25/28) 50 (3/6) 60 (12/20) 50(3/6))

Early cL2

Rach2 93 (65/70) 84 (21/25) 12 (1/8) -

Rach3 94 (96/102) 72 (34/47) 46 (6/13) -

2L1

Arl2 100 (/13) 100 100 (/20) -

Arl3 100 (/57) 100 100 (/18) -

* ’Finite forms’ are short default forms

A) VERB FORMS higher level

Child rec

Fin forms%of all verbs

Fin forms%of Vlex only

%past tense marking(mark/contexts)

3p plur(mark/con)

Late cL2

Han2aHan2b

10097 (34/35)

100 (/66)(2/3)

49 (45/92)85 (23/27)

100 (11/11)

Val 2 100 100 91 (50/55) 0 (/18)

Vio 2 89 (25/28) 50 (3/6) 60 (12/20) 50 (3/6)

Vio 3 -- -- -- --

Early cL2

Rach4 94 (114/122)

94 (34/36) 71 (32/45) 50 (1/2)

Rach5 99 (88/89) 96 (22/23) 90 (30/33) 11 (2/18)

2L1

Arl4 100 (/58) 100 (/22) 100 (/13) 0/1

Arl5 100 (/61) 100 (/17) 95 (18/19) 1/10

Finite vs nonfinite verb forms

’short forms’ (finite) vs ’long forms’ (non-finite) after subject (normally clitic subject)

Examples

Hannes 1, late cL2 (7m expo):*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

Rachel 2, early cL2 (9m expo):*INV: et qu+est+ce+que c ' est ?*CHI: ils # ça] [//] il [/] il faire ça . they that he do.INF that

>> both are similar to adult L2 acquisition (diff from 2L1)

Past tense markingAll cL2 at lower level: 12-75% marked

forms. Higher level not yet perfect2L1 Arlette perfect mastering of past tense

• Exemples from Rachel 2, e cL2:

*INV: et qu+est+ce+que tu as fait là bas chez s@farmor ?

*CHI: moi ## je fais +/.*INV: alors tu avais pas dormi chez s@farmor ? *CHI: moi [/] moi aussi dormir

*CHI: après il a met ça dans la +... *ASS: et dans la boîte ?*CHI: il trouvé ça

>> late cL2 and early cL2 similar to adL2, diff from 2L1

Past Tense, lower level: Difference 2L1 and e cL2

• Same elicitation situation, Aux in 2L1, no Aux in cL2:

• 2L1 Arlette: *INV: qu+est+ce+qui s ' est passé Arlette ? *CHI: il a tombé .

*INV: oui et qu+est+ce qui s ' est passé avec sa jambe [//] avec sa patte? *CHI: il a tombé .

• early cL2 Rachel: *INV: qu+est+ce+qui s ' est passé avec sa tête ? *CHI: il [/] il tombE .

*INV: mon cochon qu+est+ce+qui s ' est passé ? *CHI: il tombE .

3person pluralFrom the plural elicitation procedure’Voyage d’Italie’ (Ågren 2008)

• Hannes 2, late cL2 (14m expo):*CHI: euh là y a un garçon qui avait [?] chantE *CHI: et après il vont y aller .

Rachel 5, early cL2 (14m expo):*INV: le soir , qu' est ce qu' elles vont faire ?*CHI: ils va manger .

>> Rachel early cL2 : like adL2 or like age-matched 2L1?

Result Verb forms, summary

• Early cL2 Rachel = late cL2 Hannes, Valentine, Viola as for

• Past tense marking• Finite/ nonfinite forms

• Possible difference as for 3ps plur:

Late cL2 Hannes, Viola: OK, early cL2 Rachel problems

Results Object clitics

A) OBJECT CLITICS, lower level

Child rec

omissions svo, ça preV:_Vf/_Vinf/ _Aux

Total contexts

Late cL2

Han 1

11 1 svo 2 14

Val 1 0 7 DP 3-5 12

Vio1 4 1 svo, 1 DP

0 6

Vio 2 - - 0 0

Early cL2

Rach2

? 5 ça 0 5

Rach3

10 5-8 ça + 3? svo

3 24 ?

2L1

Arl2 2 1 ca 1 4

Arl3 4 - 3? 7

B) OBJECT CLITICS, higher level

Childrec

omissions svo, ça preV:_Vf/_Vinf/

_Aux

Total contexts

L cL2

Han 2 0 0 15 15

Val 2 - - - 0

Vio2 - - - 0

Vio 3 9 - 2 14

E cL2

Rach4 8 20? ça 11 ( l’a) 41?

Rach5 1 1 14 (l’a) 17?

2L1

Arl4 11 0 9 20

Arl5 4 0 8 13

Exemples

• Rachel 3, early cL2 (10m exposure):

• *INV: où est ce qu ' ils sont les petits oiseaux ?

• *INV: là .• *CHI: il chat il mange ça

Object clitics: results, summary

• early cL2 Rachel is similar to late cL2 Hannes at both levels

• All cL2 have initially more postverbal

objects (svo) : full DP, ça , or SV-le (il mange le)

>> all cL2 similar to adL2 (but possibly less clear target-deviant)

• 2L1 Arlette has ocl or omissions, no svo>> similar to L1

Results: gender

A) GENDER Lower level

Child rec %corr genderD-N (Total)

L Cl2

Han 1 75% (T 71)

Val 1 75% (T 76)

Vio 1 75% (T 25)

Vio 2 92% (T 12)

E Cl2

Rach2 65% (T 26)

Rach3 63% (T 27)

2L1

Arl2 100% (T 5)

Arl3 85% (T 79)

B) GENDER Higher level

Child rec %corr genderD-N (Total)

l cL2 .

Han2 85% (28/33)

Val 2 75% (15/20)

Vio 2 92% ((T12)

Vio 3 40% (T10)

e cL2 .

Rach4 61% (22/36)

Rach5 74% (26/35)

2L1 .

Arl4 62% (T21)

Arl5 79% (T31)

Results: Gender

• Early cL2 Rachel is similar to late cL2 Hannes etc., but possibly has less correct gender than late cL2

• 2L1 child Arlette has at both levels many gender errors. This differs from FL1 acquisition, but supports the data on 2L1 children from this school (GSK07)

General results

• All cL2 children, with early or late AO, develop in a similar way, more like adL2 than like L1 or 2L1

• The matching 2L1 child Arlette develops, as for finite verb and tense marking, like L1

• Arlette develops like earlier studied 2L1 children from this school (GSK07) in most respects, also gender and ocl, which are not target-like

Discussion:Late cL2 better than early

cL2?• Late cL2 Hannes has possibly a

better/faster development than early cL2 Rachel in some respects:

• 3p plur marking at 14m expo (100% in Hannes but mostly unmarked in Rachel)

• Gender: - late cL2 Hannes 75/85% corr - early cL2 Rachel 64/ 61, 72% corr

- >> against predictions that earlier is better (cf. Paradis in press: older is better)

General result and discussion

• Early cL2 learner not better or more L1-like than matching late cL2 learners.

• >> in favour of end of a Critical Period before 3;4

• Problems: late cL2 possibly better learner than early cL2 ?

• Alternative proposal (GSK07): when VP,IP,CP are well developed in the child’s first language, then the child will acquire these like adL2 learners.

• = Developmental factor, not age factor

Argument for such a developed L1 position

• Rachel has a very well developed Swedish even before the recordings (many subordinates etc.). See next Table.

• Tense marking and postposed object pronouns are acquired early in Swedish. The child may try to find substitutes (default forms, postverbal pronouns) for categories acquired without yet having target forms (separation syntax – morphology in L2).

• The search for forms for already acquired functional (cognitive?) categories may lead to more rapid learning – late cL2 better than early cL2.

• To be investigated further…

Development in SWEDISH at start of the recordings

Childrec

age atrec

Monthexpos

MLU F

VcD F

MLUSwe

VocD Swe

L Cl2

Han 1AO6;6

7;1 7m 3,7 22 4,7 69

Val 1 7;2 7m 4,0 29 4,3 35

Vio1 6;11 7m 2,3 23 4,6 ?

Vio 2 7;8 14m 3,7 39 5,1 43

E Cl2

Rach2AO3;5

4;2 9m 2,9 (10) 5,3 55

Rach3 4;3 10m 3,7 21 6,0 59

2L1

Arl2 3;6 3;6 3,2 28 3,7 63

Arl3 3;9 3;6 3,1 41 3,0 46

THANK YOU!

• Thanks also to• LFSL school• Sylvie and Anne• The children and their parents

• The Magnus Bergwall Foundation

Some references

• Chilla, S. (2008). Erstsprache, Zweitsprache, Spezifische Sprachentwicklungsstörung? Eine Untersuchung des Erwerbs der deutschen hauptsatzstrukktur durch sukzessiv-bilinguale Kinder mit türkischer Erstsprache. Hamburg: Kovac

• Granfeldt, J., Schlyter,S. & Kilhstedt, M. (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

• 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. (2008). Age of onset in successive acquisition of bilingualism: effects on grammatical development. / Âge du début de l’acquisition successive du bilinguisme : effets sur le développement grammatical. In: Kail, M. , Fayol, M. & Hickmann, M. (eds): Apprentissage des langues premières et secondes . Paris: éditions CNRS

• Paradis, J. (in press). Maturation: for better or for worse? Comment on J.M.Meisel: Second language acquisition in early childhood. in: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft.

• Tracy, R. & Thoma, D. (2008). Convergence on finite V2 clauses in L1, bilingual L1 and early L2 acquisition. In: Jordens, P. & Dimroth, C. (eds): Functional elements: variation in learner systems. Studies on Language Acquisition (SOLA). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter