Explaining individual differences in young English language learners’ vocabulary knowledge: The role of Extramural English Exposure and motivation

The role of motivation and extramural English exposure in explaining individual differences in young English language learners’ (YELLs’) English performance is unclear. In this study, we hypothesized that different types of extramural English exposure predict YELLs’ (Dutch, N = 262, 10 years old, grade 4) oral and written English receptive vocabulary knowledge, and that motivational factors act as mediators. A distinction was made between YELLs learning English only informally through extramural English exposure and YELLs learning English also formally at school. A path analysis showed that the total impact of familial extramural English exposure and extramural English exposure through entertaining media was greater for the YELLs learning English informally, compared to YELLs learning English also formally. While the sources of extramural English exposure were directly predictive of performance with regard to both oral and written English receptive vocabulary tests for YELLs’ learning English informally, linguistic self-confidence fully mediated these relationships for YELLs learning English formally. Our findings call for further development of theoretical frameworks explaining the relationship between YELLs’ motivation and exposure

Binding and quantification in monolingual and bilingual language acquisition

The present dissertation investigates monolingual and bilingual children’s understanding of the interaction between binding and quantifiers. The binding phenomena studied in this thesis pertain to reflexives and pronouns and local antecedents. These antecedents are either referential NP expressions, such as 'the kangaroo', or quantified NP expressions, such as 'every sheep'. The quantifiers that are examined in the present studies are 'all', 'each' and especially 'every' in Dutch and in English. A new explanation is presented to justify monolingual Dutch and English children’s behaviour on binding tasks. Whereas the standard binding account can only partly explain English children’s performance, the current explanation can account for both the English children’s and the Dutch children’s performance. Monolingual Dutch children are revealed to have a distributive interpretation preference of the quantifiers, while English children prefer the collective reading of 'every'. The present studies show that these children’s diverging quantifier preferences affect their binding performance on sentences containing local quantified NP antecedents. This new explanation also holds for bilingual children. The studies conducted in this dissertation found that English-Dutch bilingual children differ from their monolingual peers regarding their quantifier interpretation preferences. In line with the proposed explanation, these bilingual children also behave differently from their monolingual peers regarding sentences containing local quantified NP antecedents. Thus, this thesis shows that there is an interaction between children’s understanding of binding phenomena and their preferential quantifier interpretations

"Nee nee motorbike there": a case study into bilingualism effects in the simultaneous acquisition of English and Dutch negation

Cross-linguistic influence in simultaneous bilingual children has been a matter of debate. There are linguists who believe the stronger language affects the weaker one (Tomasello, 2003) and there are those who claim cross-linguistic influence happens both ways, regardless of language strength (Döpke, 1999). This thesis investigated cross-linguistic influence in the negation development of an English-Dutch bilingual child (1;06-2;03). English and Dutch negation is comparable, yet there are differences which the child may overgeneralise from one language to another. Two methods were adopted to examine any cross-linguistic influence. The negator frequency in the input and the child’s speech was compared to determine whether the emergence of the negators in the child imitated the input (Cameron-Faulkner et al., 2007). The child indeed started with the negators that were most frequent in the input, which supports a usage-based theory of negation acquisition. A syntactic comparison of the negated utterances showed that the child used some non-target patterns which were not attested in the input. The second method compared monolingual (Hoekstra and Jordens, 1994) and bilingual negation development (Schelleter, 2000). The bilingual child’s development largely conformed to his English and Dutch monolingual peers. Nevertheless, some non-target structures indicated that the child transferred English patterns to Dutch. The findings thus support a language strength hypothesis.

Does a second language develop like a tree: Fractal growth in second language development

A Zipf’s distribution in use of verbs has been found for locative and ditransitive constructions used by natives speakers and second language learners. The current study investigated second language learners’ texts on the basis of sentence constructions (copula, intransitive, monotransitive, ditransitive and complex-transitive), verb variety in these constructions, use of be and have, and use of tenses. It was found that at each level there is fractal growth in sentence constructions, verb variety, use of be and have and use of tenses. In other words, the second language learners’ language systems underwent a similar type of change at each level. It is concluded that these aspects develop simultaneously.

The role of memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar in the first language and in English as a foreign language

Previous studies showed that phonological short-term and working memory spans are related to vocabulary and grammar learning in children learning a second language. Typically, short-term storage, as measured by simple span tasks such as non-word repetition, are connected to vocabulary learning. Grammar learning is generally linked to the working memory system. This system is often tested by complex span tasks that require participants to process and store information simultaneously. Yet, few studies have investigated the role of both memory mechanisms in native and foreign vocabulary and grammar learning longitudinally. The current study determines whether phonological short-term and verbal working memory spans contribute differentially to the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar in Dutch as a first language (L1) and in English as a foreign language (EFL). The participants for this study are monolingual Dutch children (N = 138), in grades 4 and 5 (aged 9;0-11;0), learning EFL in the classroom. An L1 and an EFL non-word repetition task were used to measure phonological short-term memory and verbal working memory was measured with a backward digit span task. Receptive vocabulary and production of grammatical knowledge was measured in Dutch and in English, as well as receptive grammar in English. The data indicated that when the same children are longitudinally followed in both L1 and EFL, only past performance is important for L1 vocabulary learning. Phonological short-term memory does not contribute to L1 vocabulary. As expected, working memory span significantly predicts L1 grammar learning. For EFL vocabulary learning, past performance is most important; L1 vocabulary has a smaller but independent role and in line with previous research, phonological short-term memory also has an independent role. For both receptive and productive EFL grammar learning, contrary to expectations, working memory span did not play a role. In contrast, EFL phonological short-term memory had a small but independent role for receptive grammar learning. EFL vocabulary had a similar role for receptive and productive grammar, which was stronger than EFL phonological short-term memory for receptive grammar. However, past performance had the largest role for both types of grammar learning. In sum, when looking at the initial stages of EFL in a formal setting, we only found a role for working memory span in L1 grammar but not in EFL. Phonological short-term memory only had a role in EFL vocabulary and receptive grammar learning, and was language specific. In all, the current data show that in addition to phonological short-term memory, past performance on vocabulary and grammar contributed significantly to vocabulary and grammar learning and that the role of vocabulary and phonological short-term memory and working memory span in grammar learning is language specific

The role of memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar in the first language and in English as a foreign language

Previous studies showed that phonological short-term and working memory spans are related to vocabulary and grammar learning in children learning a second language. Typically, short-term storage, as measured by simple span tasks such as non-word repetition, are connected to vocabulary learning. Grammar learning is generally linked to the working memory system. This system is often tested by complex span tasks that require participants to process and store information simultaneously. Yet, few studies have investigated the role of both memory mechanisms in native and foreign vocabulary and grammar learning longitudinally. The current study determines whether phonological short-term and verbal working memory spans contribute differentially to the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar in Dutch as a first language (L1) and in English as a foreign language (EFL). The participants for this study are monolingual Dutch children (N = 138), in grades 4 and 5 (aged 9;0-11;0), learning EFL in the classroom. An L1 and an EFL non-word repetition task were used to measure phonological short-term memory and verbal working memory was measured with a backward digit span task. Receptive vocabulary and production of grammatical knowledge was measured in Dutch and in English, as well as receptive grammar in English. The data indicated that when the same children are longitudinally followed in both L1 and EFL, only past performance is important for L1 vocabulary learning. Phonological short-term memory does not contribute to L1 vocabulary. As expected, working memory span significantly predicts L1 grammar learning. For EFL vocabulary learning, past performance is most important; L1 vocabulary has a smaller but independent role and in line with previous research, phonological short-term memory also has an independent role. For both receptive and productive EFL grammar learning, contrary to expectations, working memory span did not play a role. In contrast, EFL phonological short-term memory had a small but independent role for receptive grammar learning. EFL vocabulary had a similar role for receptive and productive grammar, which was stronger than EFL phonological short-term memory for receptive grammar. However, past performance had the largest role for both types of grammar learning. In sum, when looking at the initial stages of EFL in a formal setting, we only found a role for working memory span in L1 grammar but not in EFL. Phonological short-term memory only had a role in EFL vocabulary and receptive grammar learning, and was language specific. In all, the current data show that in addition to phonological short-term memory, past performance on vocabulary and grammar contributed significantly to vocabulary and grammar learning and that the role of vocabulary and phonological short-term memory and working memory span in grammar learning is language specific

The role of memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar in the first language and in English as a foreign language

Previous studies showed that phonological short-term and working memory spans are related to vocabulary and grammar learning in children learning a second language. Typically, short-term storage, as measured by simple span tasks such as non-word repetition, are connected to vocabulary learning. Grammar learning is generally linked to the working memory system. This system is often tested by complex span tasks that require participants to process and store information simultaneously. Yet, few studies have investigated the role of both memory mechanisms in native and foreign vocabulary and grammar learning longitudinally. The current study determines whether phonological short-term and verbal working memory spans contribute differentially to the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar in Dutch as a first language (L1) and in English as a foreign language (EFL). The participants for this study are monolingual Dutch children (N = 138), in grades 4 and 5 (aged 9;0-11;0), learning EFL in the classroom. An L1 and an EFL non-word repetition task were used to measure phonological short-term memory and verbal working memory was measured with a backward digit span task. Receptive vocabulary and production of grammatical knowledge was measured in Dutch and in English, as well as receptive grammar in English. The data indicated that when the same children are longitudinally followed in both L1 and EFL, only past performance is important for L1 vocabulary learning. Phonological short-term memory does not contribute to L1 vocabulary. As expected, working memory span significantly predicts L1 grammar learning. For EFL vocabulary learning, past performance is most important; L1 vocabulary has a smaller but independent role and in line with previous research, phonological short-term memory also has an independent role. For both receptive and productive EFL grammar learning, contrary to expectations, working memory span did not play a role. In contrast, EFL phonological short-term memory had a small but independent role for receptive grammar learning. EFL vocabulary had a similar role for receptive and productive grammar, which was stronger than EFL phonological short-term memory for receptive grammar. However, past performance had the largest role for both types of grammar learning. In sum, when looking at the initial stages of EFL in a formal setting, we only found a role for working memory span in L1 grammar but not in EFL. Phonological short-term memory only had a role in EFL vocabulary and receptive grammar learning, and was language specific. In all, the current data show that in addition to phonological short-term memory, past performance on vocabulary and grammar contributed significantly to vocabulary and grammar learning and that the role of vocabulary and phonological short-term memory and working memory span in grammar learning is language specific