Icelandic plus English: language differentiation and functional categories in a successively bilingual child

This thesis investigates the formal and functional properties of the linguistic knowledge of a young bilingual child 'Katla' who successively acquires Icelandic (L1, from birth) and English (L2, from age 1:3). I present new longitudinal natural speech data which I collected in both Icelandic and English from Katla at regular intervals. Audio-recordings were made roughly three times per month at age 1 ;0-4;7 and transcribed in adapted CHILDES/CHAT format. Using a generative framework, I analyse Katla's data qualitatively and quantitatively, focusing on her morphology and syntax during the period 1;6-3;6: determiners and word order in nominals, copula constructions, progressive constructions, imperatives, negation, verb placement, verb inflections, auxiliaries, and periphrastic do. Katla's development is compared with monolingual English-speaking and Icelandic-speaking children, and, where applicable, with other bilinguals. Particular attention is paid to early grammar differentiation and cross- language influence, and to the relationship between child language and input (construction types and frequencies). The empirical results are evaluated in the light of current theories of language acquisition and generative approaches to syntax. Katla's first multi-word combinations (1;6) show productive use of functional morphology (determiners, copulas). Early on, there is evidence of movement into the DP, IP and CP domains, indicating continuity of these functional categories. Moreover, translational equivalents, language-specific functional morphemes and language-specific word orders in Katla's Icelandic and English bear evidence of early language differentiation in successive child bilingualism. The longitudinal development of morpho-syntax largely progresses along separate lines for Katla's two languages; there is no cross- language influence as regards head parameter and movement parameter settings. Some construction transfer occurs where L1 and L2 linear orders are similar. Ensuing implications for transfer and (de)learnability are addressed

How to start a V2 declarative clause: Transfer of syntax vs. information structure in L2 German

This paper discusses V2 word order and information structure in Swedish, German and non-native German. Concentrating on the clause-initial position of V2 declaratives, the ‘prefield’, we investigate the extent of L1 transfer in a closely related L2. The prefield anchors the clause in discourse, and although almost any type of element can occur in this position, naturalistic text corpora of native Swedish and native German show distinct language-specific patterns. Certain types of elements are more common than others in clause-initial position, and their frequencies in Swedish differ substantially from German (subjects, fronted objects, certain adverbs). Nonnative cross-sectional production data from Swedish learners of German at beginner, intermediate and advanced levels are compared with native control data, matched for age and genre (Bohnacker 2005, 2006, Rosén 2006). The learners’ V2 syntax is largely targetlike, but their beginnings of sentences are unidiomatic. They have problems with the language-specific linguistic means that have an impact on information structure: They overapply the Swedish principle of “rheme later” in their L2 German, indicating L1 transfer at the interface of syntax and discourse pragmatics, especially for structures that are frequent in the L1 (subject-initial and expletive-initial clauses, and constructions with så (‘so’) and object det (‘it/that’))

Character introductions in oral narratives of Swedish-German bilingual preschoolers

Closely related Swedish and German both mark information status of referents morphologically, though little is known about its acquisition. This study investigates character introductions in the narratives of 4- and 6-year-old Swedish–German bilinguals (N = 40) in both languages, elicited with MAIN Cat/Dog. We analyse effects of age group, language and animacy (human vs nonhuman characters) on the type of referring expression (indefinite NP and pronoun), as well as effects of language proficiency and exposure on the use of indefinite NPs for each language. We also explore which syntactic constructions indefinite NPs occur in. A significant difference was found between the two age groups, but not between languages. No effect was found of language skills or exposure. Four-year-olds used more pronouns and a lower proportion of indefinite NPs than 6-year-olds. Pronouns were more frequent for the human character than for nonhuman animate characters. Whilst animacy (humanness) promoted the use of pronouns, it did not affect the choice of morphological form for lexical NPs (indefinite/definite). The age groups differed in how indefinite NPs were used. Four-year-olds produced fewer narrative presentations (where a character is introduced as part of a typical story opening, e.g. Once upon a time there was a cat) than 6-year-olds, and more labellings (with only an NP, or a clausal predicative, e.g. That’s a cat). Qualitative analyses suggest that the children’s indefinite NPs in labelling constructions can be both referential (when setting the narrative scene), and type-denoting (when naming referents in individual pictures). Whilst the children’s abilities to introduce story characters develop measurably from 4 to 6 years in Swedish and German, appropriateness of character introductions not only depends on whether an indefinite NP is chosen, but also on the syntactic construction this indefinite NP is used in.Peer Reviewe

Turkish- and German-speaking bilingual 4-to-6-year-olds living in Sweden: Effects of age, SES and home language input on vocabulary production

This paper investigates vocabulary production in the minority home languages of 40 Turkish-Swedish and 38 German-Swedish bilingual preschoolers aged 4;0–6;11, growing up in Sweden. We explore how age, SES, and exposure via mother-tongue instruction and home language use in the family affect child vocabulary skills. This has not previously been investigated in Sweden. Cross-linguistic Lexical Tasks (CLTs; Haman, Łuniewska & Pomiechowska, 2015) were used to test noun and verb production in Turkish and German. Background information was collected using a parental questionnaire. The two bilingual groups performed equally well in their respective home languages, Turkish and German. There were no effects of age, socio-economic status (SES) or mother-tongue instruction on vocabulary. However, input in the home setting had a clear effect. Children whose parents used the home language to the child and to each other had significantly higher vocabulary production scores. Having additional home-language input providers such as friends also affected the scores. These results from a Swedish context echo findings from studies of other language combinations and reveal the importance of input for the development of expressive vocabulary

From V2 to V2: Swedish learners of German

Germanic verb second (V2) is often said to be difficult for L2ers irrespective of their L1. Recent work on Swedish/German (e.g. vulnerable C-domain (Platzack 2001), processability (Håkansson, Pienemann & Sayehli 2001)) claims that speakers of a V2-language learning another V2-language start with a non-V2 interlanguage grammar, i.e. they don’t transfer V2, but follow a universal developmental path of verb placement. The author contests this claim, presenting quantified new oral production data from 6 post-puberty L1 Swedish ab-initio learners (4 & 9 months of exposure to classroom German). She documents extremely early productive use of non-subject-initial V2 declarative clauses after only 4 months, at a time when the informants’ interlanguage syntax elsewhere is nontargetlike (e.g. head-initial VPs (VO)), cf. Bohnacker 2005. She also documents a categorical difference between informants depending on whether they have prior knowledge of L2 English. Swedish informants acquiring German as their first L2 produce 100% targetlike V2, but informants with substantial previous exposure to English only produce 45% targetlike V2 in their L3 German, also allowing nontargetlike V3 (Adv-SVX). This suggests that there is no universal developmental route to L2/L3 German verb placement, that learners make use of their V2-L1 syntax (Swedish), and that knowledge of a non-V2 language (English) can make it initially more difficult to acquire another V2 language (German). The findings are interpreted as strong empirical support for transfer approaches to the nonnative acquisition of syntax (e.g. Schwartz & Sprouse 1994, 1996)

Imperatives in bilingual child Icelandic-English

The syntax of imperatives makes an interesting test case when investigating word order, verb raising and cliticisation across languages and their acquisition. This paper looks at language differentiation, i.e. language-specific parameter setting, in the imperative constructions of a bilingual child, "Katla", acquiring a verb-raising language, Icelandic, as well as English, not a verb-raising language

Developmental sequences and (in)vulnerable domains in German interlanguage syntax

Many models of the nonnative acquisition of syntax build on the assumption that target lexical projections are developmentally prior to target functional projections (e.g. Minimal Trees (Vainikka & Young-Scholten 1994), Modulated Structure Building (Hawkins 2001)), or that learners only have to grapple with the acquisition of the topmost levels of syntactic structure (e.g. Vulnerable C-domain (Platzack 2001)). Germanic verb second (V2) is often said to be difficult for L2 learners irrespective of their L1. Targetlike finite verb placement in non-subject-initial root clauses (V2) has been described as being dependent on targetlike nonfinite verb placement (VO/OV) having been acquired first. Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, English, Swedish as well as Turkish and Korean learners of German have been reported to acquire German-style OV long before V2 (e.g. duPlessis et al. 1987; Vainikka & Young-Scholten 1996b; Pienemann 1998; Schwartz & Sprouse 1994; Vainikka & Young-Scholten 1994, 1996a, b). Recent work on Swedish/German (e.g. Vulnerable C-domain (Platzack 2001), Processability (e.g. Håkansson, Pienemann & Sayehli 2002)) claims that speakers of a V2-language learning another V2-language start with a non-V2 interlanguage grammar, i.e. they do not transfer V2, but follow a universal developmental path of verb placement. The present paper contests the above claims, presenting quantified oral production data from 6 L1 Swedish adult ab-initio learners of German (4 & 9 months of exposure to classroom German) as well as oral and written production data from 23 L1 Swedish 16-year-old intermediate learners (3 years of classroom German). I document productive use of non-subject-initial V2 declarative clauses after only 4 months of exposure to German, at a time when the informants’ interlanguage syntax elsewhere is nontargetlike – and this, notably, includes head-initial VPs (VO). There is also a categorical difference between informants depending on whether they have prior knowledge of L2 English. Of the Swedish adult ab initio learners, 3 were acquiring German as their first L2, and they produce 100% targetlike V2. However, the other informants who had substantial previous exposure to English, only produce 45% targetlike non-subject-initial V2 in their L3 German, also allowing nontargetlike V3, i.e. Adv-SVX (cf. Bohnacker 2005a, 2005b). This suggests that the non-V2 syntax of their L2 English influences their acquisition of L3 German, a potential confound that was not controlled for in earlier studies such as Håkansson, Pienemann & Sayehli (2002) and Platzack (2001). The results suggest that there is no universal developmental route to L2/L3 German verb placement, that the C-domain is not vulnerable per se, that the V-domain is not invulnerable per se, that learners make use of their V2-L1 syntax (Swedish), and that knowledge of a non-V2 language (English) can make it initially more difficult to acquire another V2 language (German). The findings are interpreted as strong empirical support for transfer approaches to the nonnative acquisition of syntax (e.g. Schwartz & Sprouse 1994, 1996). Going beyond the findings reported in Bohnacker (2005a, b), I look at nonfinite verb placement (VO/OV) in the interlanguage German of the Swedish learners in more detail. Here, the learners show awareness of German being OV early on (by 9 months), in contrast to Swedish. However, alongside targetlike OV productions, the ab initio learners continue to produce 30% nontarget VO utterances. This also holds for a large subgroup of the 16-year-old intermediate learners who exhibit sizeable percentages of nontarget head-initial VPs (VO) after 3 years of exposure. Yet there is no correlation between VO and V2 violations, nor between targetlike OV and perfect V2. Nonfinite verb placement (VP headedness), especially in oral production, is a lot less targetlike than their finite verb placement (i.e. V2). However, VP headedness appears to interact with syntactic context in quirky construction-specific ways. For instance, when embedding a VP under a finite auxiliary, learners overwhelmingly stick to head-final VPs (cf. (1)), but when coordinating VPs, they tend to produce a head-initial VP in the second conjunct (cf. (2)). I will address some of the implications these findings may have for current models of L2 syntax acquisition. (1)ich will ein Hund haben. I want a dog have ‘I want to have a dog.’ (2)L2er: ich will nach Paris fahren und schreiben Poesie und Dichte. I want to Paris go-INF and write-INF poetry and poems Target: ich will nach Paris fahren und Poesie und Gedichte schreiben. ‘I want to go to Paris and write poetry (and poems).

Residual Word order problems in advanced adult L2 Swedish and German.

Abstract not availabl

Misgivings about universal developmental sequences in nonnative acquisition of syntax

Several recent international publications (e.g. Platzack 1996, 2001; Håkansson, Pienemann & Sayehli 2002; Pienemann 1998; Pienemann & Håkansson 1999) have claimed that learners take the same developmental route in the acquisition of syntax of a second or foreign language, irrespective of their first language (L1). Targetlike verb placement in a Germanic V2 language like German, Dutch or Swedish (finite verb in second position in main clauses), is seen as an exceptionally difficult phenomenon/constraint/parameter to acquire. Even if both the L1 and L2 are V2 languages, learners are said to acquire V2 late, only partially, or never. As empirical support for these claims, cross-sectional data have been adduced from Swedish children learning German at school and German adults learning Swedish at university. Violations of V2 by learners with a V2 mother tongue are taken as support for the resurrection of a hypothesised universal developmental path in L2 German verb placement – essentially the developmental stages Clahsen & Muysken 1986 proposed on the basis of Romance L2ers. Explanations propounded in the literature are (1) the so-called “vulnerability” of the C-domain (the left periphery of the clause in Minimalist syntactic theory terms, Platzack 2001), (2) SVX being a more basic word order (e.g. Platzack 1996, building on Kayne 1994), and (3) “canonical” SVX word order and XSV word order (i.e. V3, with a fronted element before the subject) being “easier to process” than XVS (i.e. V2). Easier processability of SVX and XSV is argued for by e.g. Håkansson 2001, Håkansson, Pienemann & Sayehli 2002, Pienemann 1998, Pienemann & Håkansson 1999 and Sayehli 2001. (For quite a different view, see e.g. Eubank 1993, Bohnacker 2003.) Vulnerable C-domain, processability, and the idea of a universal developmental path have also found their way into the linguistics and teacher training courses and reading lists at a number of institutes of higher education in Sweden and are not seldom uncritically presented as axioms and as the basis of classroom teaching methods. This, however, may be premature, and it may unduly skew the ideas our teachers-to-be entertain about language acquisition. The present paper aims to show (a) that the above studies suffer from some methodological flaws, (b) that other studies of learners of a V2 language (German) with a V2 L1 (Swedish) yield strikingly different results, and therefore (c) that the empirical underpinnings for a proposed universal developmental path in L2 verb placement are shaky at best. I will present quantitative (and some qualitative) data from 2 completed and 3 ongoing studies of the acquisition of German verb placement by tutored post-puberty learners. The data come from several oral and written corpora, all of which are new, by teenage school pupils, students at university-level, and old-age pensioners attending German classes at a community centre. Cross-sectional data: • 23 16-year-old pupils, elementary-intermediate (exposure: 3 yrs classroom German): 23 recordings of oral productions (narrative); 10 written productions (essay/letter) • 100 university students, advanced (exposure: 5-8 yrs classroom German): 200 written productions • 6 adult academics, highly advanced (exposure: 4 yrs classroom German plus 3 yrs immersion in Germany), oral and written production (Bohnacker 2003) Quasi-longitudinal data: • 6 adults, old age pensioners, ab initio learners, oral productions (narrative, dialogue), recorded after 4 months and 9 months of exposure to classroom German • monolingual German native speaker control Oral data was transcribed, oral and written data tagged by hand and sorted. Findings for the cross-sectional data: (I) Irrespectively of length of exposure and proficiency level, learners produce a high number of subject-initial and of non-subject initial clauses, with no strong preponderance of SVX. Non-subject initial clauses constitute on average ca. 40%, subject-initial clauses ca. 60% of all main clauses (with a range of 20%-70%, depending on the individual learner). (II) Across all learners, virtually all non-subject initial main clauses show targetlike verb second. V2 violations are exceedingly rare, ranging from 0% to 2% between individuals. The claim that V2 is universally hard to acquire must therefore be rejected. Yet how can these findings be reconciled with those of Håkansson 2001, Håkansson, Pienemann & Sayehli 2002 and Sayehli 2001, who attest V2 violations? Are the learners in the present study simply too advanced? Or are other factors at work? Note that Håkansson, Pienemann and Sayehli only look at Swedes learning German as a third language, after substantial exposure to English (3-6yrs). But in this case, before attributing V2 violations to a universal developmental route, possible influence of English (non-V2) on L3 German would need to be ruled out first. In order to do this, I carried out a microcomparative study of truly ab initio learners of German: a. 3 adult Swedish learners of ab initio German (with no English), versus b. 3 matched learners (with L2 English). Findings for the ab initio learners: (i) Similarity: Both a.- and b.-learners produce many subject-initial clauses (67%), but also non-subject-initial clauses (ca. 30%). SVX never is the exclusive word order, neither at 4 nor 9 months. (ii) Categorial difference: a.-learners don’t violate V2 in their interlanguage German (0%-0.1%), but b.-learners do (20%-50%). This is a crucial finding, (iii) Similarity: Both a.- and b.-learners productively use V2 after 4 months of exposure, (b.-learners in 65% of all non-subject-initial main clauses). This is an important result too. (iv) Interlanguage syntax in other areas can be nontargetlike for a.- and b.- learners, e.g. early head-initial VPs (VO) giving way to German-style head-final VPs (OV) over time. The paper will present more detailed quantification of the bulked and individual data, alongside qualitative results (which type(s) of clause-initial non-subject elements; comparison with native control, etc.). The findings suggest that ab initio learners do not necessarily start out with SVX (see (i)). If there exists a “canonical word order” at all, it is certainly not exclusive, contra current claims in the literature. The findings also clearly show that Germanic V2 is not hard to acquire per se, contra e.g. Håkansson, Pienemann & Sayehli 2002: For Swedish ab initio learners of German (a.-group), V2 is targetlike already after 4 months (see (ii)). Knowledge of a non-V2 language (English) can make it initially harder to acquire another V2 (see (ii)), but at the same time, V2-L1 syntax is also made use of to some extent (iii). Combining these results with studies of other learners (Romance, Turkish, Korean, English,) we find divergent L2 developmental routes for groups of learners with typologically distinct L1s (e.g. Schwartz & Sprouse 1994, Young-Scholten & Vainikka 1994). Therefore, theories that postulate a vulnerable C-domain and universal SVX and XSV are misguided, and should be abandoned in favour of L1 transfer approaches (e.g. Schwartz & Sprouse 1996). Methodologically sound comparative empirical studies of interlanguage will need to be carried out for a larger variety of L1/L2 language combinations, and before results from these are in, extreme caution is advised when propounding “universals” for the acquisition of syntax

Turkish Mother Tongue Instruction in Sweden

Home language education has a long tradition in Sweden and includes the teaching of Turkish to children who grow up bilingually with Swedish as their societal language and Turkish as their home and heritage language. The present paper characterises Turkish mother tongue instruction (MTI) and discusses its current status in the light of Swedish language policy, as it is reflected in official documents (legislation, policy papers and curricula) vis-a-vis its practical implementation by the municipalities. The paper also presents findings from a research project on Turkish-speaking preschool and primary school children and their families, concerning MTI attendance and attitudes towards Turkish, as well as on the experiences of Turkish MTI teachrs in a Swedish setting