Transcript No Slide Title

Tense - aspect
in early stages of child L2
acquisition
Suzanne Schlyter
Lund 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 – adL2
Past 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)
Learner
HENRY
Exposure
months
MLU
%past
marking
Henry1
2-3
3,3
43%
Henry2
3-4
3,9
58%
Learner
BJÖRN
Exposure
months
MLU
%past
marking
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
Learner
HENRY
Exp
mo
mlu
%
past
mk
PC
IMPF
Long Form
PRS
short default
Henry1
2-3
3,3
43%
1T ai oubli
PF
2T j’ai a bu
Pa
a comprendre Pa
1A ai contrôlé Pa
4S était
avais
1T?
comprendE
2T entrE
téléphoné
4S
est j’ai Pa
connaît Pa
3A
marche Pa
parle
Pa
cherche Pa
1T?traduis Pa
2A étudiE
fonctionnE
all Pa
Henry2
3-4
3,9
58%
5 T j’ai oublié
j’ai appris PF
a vu
Pa
2A
a travaillé
Pa
4S
avais
était
1T oubliE Pa
4AtravaillE Pa
mangE Pa
dormi Pa
3S est
adL2 learners – verb forms for past reference
Learner
BJÖRN
Exposure
mlu
%pa
mk
PC
Impf
LongForms
Present
Björn 1
3m
5,3
25%
(cf *allons allE T)
3S était
1T prenE
2A
étudiE
jouE
(+many LF
for prs)
3S c’est
2A fait
4T prend
allons V
allons
Björn 2
7m
(7,0)
30%
4T j’ai écrit PF
ai composé x PF
changé trouvé Pa
7A étude PF
dorm dormE Pa
e joué
Pa
essayé couché Pa
(aux: nous avons)
2S était
1A jouait
2T allE
demandE
6A jouE
couchE
continuE
faire
1S avoir
14S 12c’est
avons
4A étude
attende
5T prend
allons
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 ref
2L1 - 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 tombé
Dany: est tombé
Father: il est tombé
Child
ANNE
age
MLU
%past
marking
Anne3
2;8
2,7
83
Anne4
2;10
2,4
100
Anne5
2;11
3;2
91
Child
MIMI
age
MLU
% past
marking
Mimi2
2;2
3,2
88
Mimi3
2;6
3,5
94
Mimi4
2;10
3,5
100
Child
ANNE
age
mlu
%past
mark
PC
IMPF
LongF
PRS
Anne3
2;8
2,7
83
7T+ cassé PF
tombé PF
3T fait
PF
-
-
-
Anne4
2;10
2,4
100
1T+ fini PF
2T donné PF
collé PF
2A mangé PF
-
-
-
Anne5
2;11
3;2
91
7T+ parti PF
passé
PF
trouvé
PF
1S avait
1A il jouE
-
-
2L1 – forms for past reference, from first occ of PC with avoir
Child
MIMI
Mimi2
age
mlu
2;2
3,2
% past
marking
88
Passé Composé
Impf
LongForm
Present
3 T+ vu
tombé
trouvé
4 T écrit
fait x
-
1T écrit PF
-
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
Mimi3
2;6
3,5
94
3 T+
cassé tombé PF
4T
mangé x
PF
fait x
PF
renversé PF
5 AT fait x PF ?
mangé
PF
1 A – joué Pa
ai fait
Pa
-
-
1T+TombePF
Mimi4
2;10
3,5
100
2T+ tombé PF
8T 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)
Child
VIO
Age
/ expo
MLU
%past
marking
Viola1
6;11/
7 mo
2,3
(66%)
Viola2
7;7/
12mo
3,6
50%
Child
PAT
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
Child age
VIO
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 Pa
3A
a regardé
a mangé
a dansé
Pa
2S
s’appellaient
(imit) Pa
voulait
1A
écoutE Pa
6S
veut V
sont
1A regarde
1T va
vont V
Child L2 : forms for reference to past from first occ of PC with avoir
Child
PAT
age
Mlu
%
past
mk
PC
IMPF
LF
PRS
Patrik1
6;2
3,5
44%
4 T a vu
a écrit PF
a revenu
-
2T
venE Pa
posE PF
3T
coupe PF
ouvre PF
ferme PF
1T
trouvait Pa
2S
trouvé Adj
voulu
2A dansE
chantE
5T allé
venu
araveillé
se couchE
2S
il y a
Pa
sont Adj Ps
2T
va Pa
Patrik2
6;11
2,6
44%
Pa
8T e allé, a vu
Pa
e (de)venu Pa
e arveillé Pa
2A
a rigolé
Pa
a regardé Pa
1S
y a été 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 references
Ayoun, 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