Tense - aspectin early stages of child L2

acquisition

Suzanne SchlyterLund University

Sweden

Eurosla 18 Aix-en-Provence sept 2008

Child second language acquisition

- chL2 • Child second language acquisition,

chL2: start 3 – 8 years

• Is chL2 more like L1 or more like adL2 acquisition?

• Role of the Age of Onset of the Acquisition?

Unsworth (2005), Meisel (2006, 2008), Bonnesen (2008), Thoma (2008) etc

Structure of the speech

Study 1) chL2 - L1 - 2L1 of same age: various

phenomena

Study 2) chL2 - 2L1 - adL2 in initial stages: Tense-

Aspect

Study 1, GSK07

• Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihlstedt 2007:

French as cL2, 2L1 and L1 in pre-school children

PERLES 24, SOL, Lund university

Background

• Open question whether chL2 proceeds like 2L1 (same age, same input, but AOA birth) (Unsworth 2005; Kroffke & Rothweiler 2004; Meisel 2007, 2008; Bonnesen 2008; Tracy, Gawlizek & Thoma)

• Meisel (2006-7): adL2 fundamentally different from L1 - Where is the cut off point, age 3-4-5-6?

Study 1 (GSK07)Research questions,

• chL2 acquisition vs L1 and 2L1, in children of same age, same input?

• If so, in what phenomena?

• Studied here: in French L1, 2L1, chL2 6 ys– Finite and non-finite forms– Marking of past tense reference– Object clitics– Gender

Study 1: General summary of Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihlstedt 2007

• French in child L2 patterns with adult L2, but differs from 2L1 of the same age.

• These phenomena are:– Non-finite verb forms– Past tense marking– Object clitics– Gender

STUDY 2 Tense and Aspect

development in adL2, 2L1 and cL2

• Use of French Tense-Aspect marking in initial stages of acquisition, Swedish-French

• adL2 (19-50 ys)• 2L1 children (1;10 – 4 ys)• chL2 children (6 ys)

Differences TA in L1 – adL2Past reference

• (2)L1: start with morphology; very correct development: all past contexts are marked; adverbs appear later; discourse very late

• adL2: start with discourse (PNO etc.); temporal adverbs; past contexts often not marked by verb morphology

(Meisel 1985, 1987; Rieckborn 2007)

• Weist (2002): “For untutored L2 learners, the inflectional morphology is the last thing to be acquired in stark contrast to first language learning children. Hence, from this global perspective, L1 and L2 acquisition are as different as they can get.”

AH – the Aspect-before-Tense Hypothesis

• Ayoun & Salaberry 2008:556

• ”The AH states that, in the early stages of acquisition, verbal morphology encodes inherent semantic aspectual distinctions, i.e. does not encode tense or grammatical aspect (…). (…) the initial stages of development of tense and aspect marking are constrained by lexical aspectual classes: states, activities, accomplishments and achievements (…)”

• AH is considered similar in L1 and adL2 acquisition (e.g. Ayoun 2008)

Study 2: Comparisons 2L1, adL2 and chL2

• Matching point: the first moment from which the learners clearly refer to past using at least some past tense forms (PC or Impf).

• (cf. Rieckborn 2007)

• Children chL2 Viola, Patrick, Hannes, Valentina (6 ys) are compared to:

• 2L1 Jean, Dany, Anne, Mimi (2 ys)• adL2 Henry, Björn, Sara, Martin (>20 ys)

adL2 - Adult second language learners

adL2 – forms for past reference, from first occ of marked past ref

Adult L2 learners: HENRY, BJÖRN, MARTIN, SARA

• Studied:

• Mean Length of Utterance (MLU)• Rate of past tense marking• Different verb forms used• Lexical aspect (Telic, Activity, State)• Temporal reference (PF = Perfect/ Imm

past, vs Pa = Remote past)

LearnerHENRY

Exposuremonths

MLU %pastmarking

Henry1 2-3 3,3 43%

Henry2 3-4 3,9 58%

LearnerBJÖRN

Exposuremonths

MLU %pastmarking

Björn 1 3m 5,3 25%

Björn 2 7m (7,0) 30%

Exemple adL2 production• (5) Björn 1, MLU 5,3, exposure to French 3 months:

*INT: tu peux raconter de de ce voyage?*BJö: voyage # eh nous eh fait le auto auto-stop.*BJö: et c'est - he he - plus difficile.*BJö: eh # eh nous commence en à Porte de la Chapelle.*BJö: et prenE auto. c'est un petit eh auto eh avec un homme et une fille et ils eh # hm il fait (…).*BJö: et à eh eh à airport. (…)…*BJö: donc eh nous eh # allons, oui? (…)*BJö: nous allons aller # à une le un xx.*BJö: c'est eh peut-être eh # psh trente-cinq cinq kilomètres. (…)*BJö: un bon eh # place.*BJö: c'était eh pas le bon place.*BJö: pour # c'était # eh pas votre dir direction.*BJö: c'était un autre direction.

adL2 learners – verb forms for past reference

LearnerHENRY

Expmo

mlu %pastmk

PC IMPF Long Form PRSshort default

Henry1 2-3 3,3 43%

1T ai oubli PF2T j’ai a bu Paa comprendre Pa 1A ai contrôlé Pa

4S était avais1T? compren-dE

2T entrEtéléphoné

2A étudiEfonctionnE all Pa

4Sest j’ai Paconnaît Pa3Amarche Paparle Pacherche Pa1T?traduis Pa

Henry2 3-4 3,9 58%

5 T j’ai oublié j’ai appris PF a vu Pa2 A a travaillé Pa

4Savaisétait

1T oubliE Pa4A-travaillE PamangE Padormi Pa

3S est

adL2 learners – verb forms for past reference

LearnerBJÖRN

Expo-sure

mlu %pamk

PC Impf LongForms Present

Björn 1 3m 5,3 25% (cf *allons allE T) 3S était1T prenE

2AétudiEjouE(+many LF for prs)

3S c’est2A fait4T prendallons Vallons

Björn 2 7m (7,0) 30% 4T j’ai écrit PFai composé x PFchangé trouvé Pa7A étude PF dorm dormE Pa e joué Paessayé couché Pa(aux: nous avons)

2S était1A jouait

2T allEdemandE6A jouEcouchEcontinuEfaire1S avoir

14S 12c’est avons4A étudeattende5T prendallons

Result adL2 learners

• adL2 learners behave very similarly to what is shown in many studies of (French) L2 acquisition.

• The AH is not evident: Telic verbs in PRS and IMPF, Activity verbs in PC

• PC and IMPF is used from start to refer to remote past (i.e. Tense is marked early)

2L1 – children with two first languages, age 2 – 3 years

(French stronger language)

2L1 – forms for past reference, from first occ of

marked past ref2L1 - two first languages = simultaneous

bilingual children : ANNE, MIMI, JEAN, DANY

• Studied:• Mean Length of Utterance (MLU)• Rate of past marking• Different verb forms used• Lexical aspect (Telic, Activity, State)• Temporal reference (PF = Perfect/Imm

past, vs Pa = Remote past)

Exemples 2L1 production

Dany 2;6 (MLU 1,8)Dany: (a) pati à (kako)Père: tu es parti à l’école

Watching ski competition on tv, Child sees someone falling:Dany: (a) tombé!Father: il est tombéDany: est tombéFather: il est tombé

ChildANNE

age MLU %past marking

Anne3 2;8 2,7 83

Anne4 2;10 2,4 100

Anne5 2;11 3;2 91

ChildMIMI

Mimi2

age

2;2

MLU

3,2

% pastmarking

88

Mimi3 2;6 3,5 94

Mimi4 2;10 3,5 100

ChildANNE

age mlu %past mark

PC IMPF LongF PRS

Anne3 2;8 2,7 83 7T+ cassé PF tombé PF3T fait PF

- - -

Anne4 2;10 2,4 100 1T+ fini PF2T donné PF collé PF2A mangé PF

- - -

Anne5 2;11 3;2 91 7T+ parti PFpassé PFtrouvé PF

1S avait1A il jouE

- -

2L1 – forms for past reference, from first occ of PC with avoir

ChildMIMIMimi2

age

2;2

mlu

3,2

% pastmarking

88

Passé Composé

3 T+ vu PF tombé PF trouvé PF4 T écrit PF fait x PF

Impf

-

LongForm

1T écrit PF

Present

-

Mimi3 2;6 3,5 94 3 T+cassé tombé PF4 T mangé x PFfait x PFrenversé PF5 AT fait x PF ? mangé PF1 A – joué Paai fait Pa

- - 1T+TombePF

Mimi4 2;10 3,5 100 2T+ tombé PF8T fait x PF effacé mis PF enlèvé PF

- - -

Results 2L1 children

• Behave very similarly to what is shown in many studies of (French) L1 or 2L1 acquisition (Antinucci & Miller, Meisel, Rieckborn, Weist ...)

• No overextension of default forms for past ref

• Evidence for AH : 1-1 relation Telic verbs and PC (est cassé, est tombé, a trouvé, a fini etc.)

• PC is used initially only for Resulting state (=Perfect) or Immediate past

chL2 - Child L2 learners, AOA ca 6 years

• like (2)L1 or adL2 ?

Child L2 forms for past reference, from

first occ of PC with avoir• Children: VIOLA, PATRICK, VALENTINA,

HANNES

• Studied:• Mean Length of Utterance (MLU)• Rate of past marking• Different verb forms used• Lexical aspect (Telic, Activity, State)• Temporal reference (PF = Perfect/Imm

past, vs Pa = Remote past)

ChildVIO

Age/ expo

MLU %past marking

Viola1 6;11/ 7 mo

2,3 (66%)

Viola2 7;7/ 12mo

3,6 50%

ChildPAT

Age/expo

MLU %past marking

Patrik1 6;2/7 mo

3,5 44%

Patrik2 6;11/12 mo

2,6 44%

Child L2 : forms for reference to past, from first occ of PC with avoir

ChildVIO

age mlu %past mark

PC IMPF LF PRS

Viola1 6;11

2,3 (66%) 2 T e venu Pa - - 1A mange

Viola2 7;7 3,6 50% 4 T e venu a allé *a acheté x Pa3 Aa regardé a mangéa dansé Pa

2 Ss’appellaient(imit) Pavoulait

1AécoutE Pa

6 Sveut Vsont 1A regarde1T va vont V

Child L2 : forms for reference to past from first occ of PC with avoir

ChildPAT

age Mlu %past mk

PC IMPF LF PRS

Patrik1 6;2 3,5 44% 4 T a vu a écrit PFa revenu Pa

- 2T venE PaposE PF

3Tcoupe PFouvre PFferme PF

Patrik2 6;11 2,6 44% 8T e allé, a vu Pae (de)venu Pa e arveillé Pa2Aa rigolé Paa regardé Pa1Sy a été Pa

1Ttrouvait Pa

2Strouvé Adjvoulu 2A dansEchantE5T allévenuaraveillése couchE

2Sil y a Pasont Adj Ps2T va Pa

Exemples cL2 Patrick1, exp 7 months:*INV: et qu+est+ce+qu ' il a fait avec la porte ?*CHI: il ouvre .*INV: et là qu+est+ce+qu ' il a fait avec la porte ?*CHI: euh il &freme [= ferme] .

Viola 1, exp 7 months:*INV: qu+est+ce+que tu as fait au café ? tu es allée boire

des cafés ?*CHI: non .*INV: tu as mangé du café ?*CHI: non .*INV: qu+est+ce+que tu as fait ?*CHI: mange .*INV: tu as mangé ? mhm d ' accord .

Viola2, exp 13 mois:*INV: elles étaient allées à la plage après ? *CHI: oui .*INV: et qu+ est+ce+qu ' elles y avaient fait ?*CHI: elle [alt=elles] a regardé de soleil .

Results chL2 children

• AH is not evident: Telic verbs in PRS and IMPF, Activity verbs in PC

• PC and IMPF used from start to refer to remote past (i.e Tense marked early)

• >> similar to adL2 learners

Discussion

• Why cL2 like adL2 rather than 2L1?

• Hypotheses: - Conceptual development (Weist 2002)

- Syntactic development (White 2003, Giorgi & Pianesi 1997)

GSK07: When the child has developed the entire syntax (DP > VP > IP > CP) then cL2 is like adL2

MERCI! THANK YOU!

Acknowledgements

• Jean-Luc Montois, Sylvie Renard

• The children and their parents

• Elisabeth Rausing Memorial Foundation for Research (grant nov 2007)

Some referencesAyoun, D. & Salaberry, R. (2008). Acquisition of

English Tense-Aspect Morphology by Advanced French Instructed Learners. Language learning 58:3, sept 2008

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.

Rieckborn, S. (2008) Erst- und Zweitsprachenerwerb im Vergleich. Eine Studie zum Erwerb von Tempus und Aspekt im Deutschen und Französischen. PHILOLOGIA, Bd 99, Hamburg.

Unsworth, S. (2005) Child L2, Adult L2, Child L1: Differences and Similarities. A Study on the Acquisition of Direct Object Scrambling in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT. Doctoral dissertation.

Weist, R. (2002) The first language acquisition of tense and aspect: A review. Salaberry, R.& Shirai,Y. (eds) The L2 acquisition of Tense-Aspect Morphology. Benjamins