French-English Bilingual Childrens Acquisition of the Past Tense - - PDF document

1

French-English Bilingual Children’s Acquisition of the Past Tense

Johanne Paradis, University of Alberta Elena Nicoladis, University of Alberta Martha Crago, Université de Montréal

Usage-Based Theory and Bilingual Acquisition

• Input structure and frequency key

mechanisms underlying acquisition patterns and rates (Tomasello, 2003)

• Simultaneous bilinguals have less exposure

to each language than monolinguals

• UB Theory predicts that bilingual children

would lag behind monolinguals in achieving acquisition milestones (Tomasello, 2004)

– Globally or selectively?

2

Bilingual Acquisition of Morphosyntax

• Conflicting findings on whether bilinguals

always lag behind monolinguals (Erdos et al, 2005;

Gathercole & Thomas, 2005; Marchman et al, 2004; Nicoladis et al, in press; Paradis & Genesee, 1996; Paradis et al, 2003, 2005/2006)

• Variations in language input at home &

school influence bilingual children’s rate of acquisition (Erdos et al, 2005; Gathercole, 2002; 2006)

• Transparency/opacity of target structure

influences bilingual children’s rate of acquisition (Gathercole, 2002, 2006; Gathercole & Hoff, in

press)

Questions for this Study

• Do French-English bilingual preschoolers lag

behind monolinguals in their acquisition of the past tense?

• Is dominance a factor in bilingual-

monolingual differences?

– dominant language = language in which the child has received more input

• Is the transparency/opacity distinction a

factor in bilingual-monolingual differences?

– transparent = regular; opaque = irregular

3

Defining Transparency/Opacity:

• Bybee’s exemplar-based model of the

lexicon - inflectional morphology

• Past tense forms in French and

English

Exemplar-Based Model of the Lexicon

• Multi-morphemic words stored fully inflected

and inter-connected by – phonological form – Semantic features

• Token frequency in input and output =

increases lexical strength of stem and stem +morpheme constructions

Bybee (1995; 2001; 2002)

4

Exemplar-Based Model of the Lexicon

• Type frequency (number of unique stem+morpheme

constructions in lexicon) increases schema strength

– Schema = rules like [verb [-ed]] = past tense reference – Type frequency = critical mass for productive and accurate use of inflection

• Irregular forms = inflectional islands

– Sensitive to token frequency in becoming established – Subject to overregularization due to superior strength of regular schema

Bybee (1995; 2001; 2002)

Past Tense in French and English

• English simple past

– regular [-ed] and irregular strong verbs

he walks / he walked; she takes / she took / *she taked

• French passé composé

– avoir/être + past participle – 1st conjugation: “regular” (based on type frequency)

marcher: Il marche / Il a marché (er = é)

– 2nd & 3rd conjugation: families of “irregulars”

prendre: elle prend / elle a pris / *elle a prendu / *elle a prenné

• uvrir: Il ouvre / il a ouvert / *il a ouvri / *il a ouvré

5

Exemplar-Based Model and the Past Tense

• Transparent morphology = high type frequency of

schema

• Irregular verbs are more opaque than regular verbs -

fewer types for each pattern/unique types for some patterns

• Irregulars would be later-acquired than regulars
• Irregulars particularly vulnerable in case of reduced

input

• NB: Words & Rules similar predictions for regulars

and irregulars

Acquisition of the Past Tense in English and French

• Regular past tense

– 89% correct at 4;6-4;11 in English (Rice & Wexler,

2001)

– >90% correct at 4;0-6;0 in French (Jakubowicz &

Nash, 2001; Paradis & Crago, 2001)

• Irregular verbs

– Accuracy with irregulars as a group lags behind regular verbs in both English and French (Rice &

Wexler, 2001; Nicoladis et al, in press)

– Overregularization errors found in both English and French (Marchman & Bates, 1994; Marcus et al, 1992;

Nicoladis et al, in press; Nicoladis & Paradis, 2006)

6

Predictions for This Study

 Difference between bilinguals and monolinguals smaller for bilinguals’ dominant language  Difference between bilinguals and monolinguals more pronounced for irregular past tense  No difference in bilinguals and monolinguals in acquisition sequences

• regulars >> irregulars
• verregularization errors

Participants

• 25 French-English bilingual children aged

4;0-5;5 (simultaneous and very early sequential) – 14 English-dominant; 11 French dominant

• 12 French monolingual children (same

age range)

• All children

– in Edmonton or Montreal, Canada – attending French-language daycare, preschool

• r kindergarten

7

Procedures

• Parental questionnaire on French and

English input

• Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III: Dunn

& Dunn, 1997)

• Échelle de vocabulaire en image Peabody

(EVIP: Dunn et al, 1993)

• Past tense probe from the Test of Early

Grammatical Impairment (TEGI: Rice & Wexler, 2001)

• Passé composé probe (experimenter-made)

Past Tense Probe: TEGI

“Here, the boy is painting. Now he is

• done. Tell me what he did”

8

Passé Composé Probe

“Camille vend du lait aux élèves dans sa classe. Maintenant elle a fini. Dis-moi ce qu’elle a fait.” Camille is selling milk to the pupils in her class. Now, she’s finished. Tell me what she did.

Language Dominance & Age- Matching

• Dominant language = language for which child has

received more input

• Measures for determining dominance

– simultaneous versus early sequential – rating scales of use of that language in the home – EVIP and PPVT z scores: (verify categorization)

• No significant difference in ages in months:

– Bilinguals vs. monolinguals (57 vs. 54, t(35) = 1.683, p = .10) – English dominant and French dominant bilinguals (58 vs. 55,

t(23) = 1.533, p = .139)

9

Two-way ANOVA (bilinguals only): Significant interaction between dominance and past tense type (Wilk’s Λ = .53, F(1,21) = 18.33, p = .000). Independent samples t-tests showed English dominant > French dominant for regulars; no difference for irregulars

*

Counting overregularized verbs: English dominant vs. French dominant bilinguals (t(21)= 2.87, p = .009). One-sample t-tests = English dominant bilinguals = monolinguals for reg and overreg, < monolinguals for irreg; French dominant bilinguals < monolinguals

*

10

Two-way ANOVA: Significant main effects only, for language groups (F(2,34) = 4.09, p = .026) and past tense type (Wilk’s Λ = .391, F(1,34) =

52.86,p = .000). Post hoc LSD tests showed French dominant >

English dominant; no difference for other between-group comparisons Counting overregularized verbs: Univariate ANOVA yielded no significant between-group differences (F(2,34) = 2.24, p = .122)

11

Summary of Results

• Bilinguals show the same acquisition patterns

as monolinguals overall – regulars > irregulars in English and in French – overregularization errors in English and French

• Bilinguals = monolinguals in their dominant

language for regular & overregularized

• Bilingual/monolingual differences apparent

for irregular verbs in English even for English dominant

Theoretical Implications

• Bilingual acquisition is vulnerable to these children’s

reduced input - but not global delay – Interacting factors of transparency/opacity of target structure and dominance important

• Critical mass effects, or bilingual children never lag

behind in their dominant language?

• Why no difference between monolinguals and

bilinguals in French? Crosslinguistic differences?

(Nicoladis et al, in press)

– French = high type/token freq for regulars; high type freq for irregs; English = high type/low token for regs, low type/high token for irregs – Bilingual acquisition more resilient in French because of high type freq for both regs and irregs

12

Applied Implications

• Difference versus Delay: bilingual acquisition

differentially affected by dual language input

• School readiness / language assessment:

– language dominance of child and transparency/opacity of target structure being probed are crucial to keep in mind – 39% of all these bilinguals scored below age- expected criterion on the TEGI past tense – 13% of English-dominant bilinguals did so – 0% of English dominant bilinguals did so for regular verbs Many thanks to research assistants Aimée Berubé, Heather Golberg, and Carole Bélanger This research was funded by the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

johanne.paradis@ualberta.ca http://www.ualberta.ca/~jparadis/

13

References

• Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive

Processes, 10, 425-455.

• Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

• Bybee, J. (2002). Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword
• sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 215-221.
• Dunn, L.M. & Dunn, L.M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III. Circle

Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.

• Dunn, L.M., Thériault-Whalen, C.M., Dunn, L.M. (1993). Échelle de vocabularie

en image Peabody. Toronto, Canada: Psycan.

• Erdos, C., Genesee, F. & Crago, M. Debas, K. (2005). Does Bilingual Input

Decelerate the Acquisition of Grammatical Schemas? Poster presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston, MA.

• Gathercole, V. M. (2002). Monolingual and bilingual acquisition: Learning

different treatments of that-trace phenomena in English and Spanish. In K. D. Oller & R. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 220- 254). Clevendon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

References

• Gathercole, V.M. (2006). Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: Morpho-

syntactic development in bilingual children. Manuscript, University of Wales Bangor.

• Gathercole, V.M. & Thomas, E.M. (2005). Minority language survival: input

factors influencing the acquisition of Welsh. In J. Cohen, K.T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, and J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium

• n Bilingualism (pp. 852-874). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
• Gathercole, V.M. & Hoff, E. (in press). Input and acquisition of language: Three
• questions. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.) The handbook of language development.

Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

• Jakubowicz, C. & Nash, L. (2001). Functional categories and syntactic
• perations in (Ab)normal language acquisition. Brain and Language, 77, 321-

339.

• Marchman, V. & Bates, E. (1994). Continuity in lexical and morphological

development: A test of the critical mass hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 21, 339-366.

• Marchman, V, Marítinez-Sussman, C. & Dale, P. (2004). The language-specific

nature of grammatical development: Evidence from bilingual language learners. Developmental Science, 7, 212-224.

14

References

• Marcus, G., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T.J., & Xu, Fei (1992).

Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57.

• Nicoladis, E. & Paradis, J. (October, 2006). The role of frequency in cross-

linguistic differences in bilingual children’s past tense acquisition. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference on the Mental Lexicon, McGill University, Montreal, QC.

• Nicoladis, E., Palmer, A. & Marentette, P. (in press). The importance of a critical

mass of past tense verbs in using past tense morphemes correctly. Developmental Science.

• Paradis, J. & Crago, M. (2001). The morphosyntax of Specific Language

Impairment in French: Evidence for an Extended Optional Default Account. Language Acquisition, 9(4), 269-300.

• Paradis, J. & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children:

autonomous or interdependent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 1- 25.

References

• Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F. & Rice, M. (2003). Bilingual children

with specific language impairment: How do they compare with their monolingual peers? Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research,46, 1-15.

• Paradis, J., Crago, M. & Genesee, F. (2005/2006). Domain-specific

versus domain-general theories of the deficit in SLI: Object pronoun acquisition by French-English bilingual children. Language Acquisition, 33-62.

• Rice, M. & Wexler, K. (2001). Test of Early Grammatical Impairment:

Examiner’s Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

• Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of

language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• Tomasello, M. (2004). Lunchtime Debate: Where does language come

from? 29th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, M.A.