Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T17:37:11.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of verb form, sentence position, home language, and second language proficiency on subject–verb agreement in child second language Dutch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2012

ELMA BLOM  and
HARALD R. BAAYEN
ELMA BLOM*
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
HARALD R. BAAYEN
Affiliation:
University of Tübingen and University of Alberta
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Elma Blom, University of Amsterdam, Department of Dutch Linguistics, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam. E-mail: w.b.t.blom@uva.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been argued that children learning a second language (L2) omit agreement inflection because of communication demands. The conclusion of these studies is that L2 children know the morphological and syntactic properties of agreement inflection, but sometimes insert an inflectional default form (i.e., the bare verb) in production. The present study focuses on factors that explain errors with subject–verb agreement in the speech of children learning Dutch as their L2. Analyses of experimentally obtained production data from 4- to 9-year-old L2 children reveal that verb form, sentence position, home language, and L2 proficiency determine accuracy with subject–verb agreement in the L2. Most errors were omissions of inflection, in line with the above hypothesis. However, in more exceptional contexts, the children also substituted verb forms, which is more difficult to reconcile with the claim that L2 children's errors reflect insertion of a default form.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , July 2013 , pp. 777 - 811
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A. (2004). Beyond morphology. Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedore, L., & Leonard, L. (1998). Specific language impairment and grammatical morphology: A discriminant function analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1185–1192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blom, E., & De Korte, S. (2011). Dummy auxiliaries in child and adult second language acquisition of Dutch. Lingua, 121, 906–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom, E., Orgassa, A., & Polišenská, D. (2008). FlexiT: Elicitatie-materiaal voor de inventarisatie van de mondelinge taalvaardigheid van werkwoordsvervoeging, werkwoordsplaatsing, vervoeging van het bijvoeglijk naamwoord en lidwoordtoekenning bij diverse taalleerders van het Nederlands [Elicitation material for the collection of oral profiency data on verbal inflection, verb placement, adjectival inflection and definite articles in various learners of Dutch]. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Blom, E., Polišenská, D., & Weerman, F. (2008). Articles, adjectives and age of onset: The acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender. Second Language Research, 24, 289–323.Google Scholar
Blom, E., Paradis, J., & Sorenson-Duncan, T. (in press). Effects of input properties, vocabulary size and L1 on the development of third person singular -s in child L2 English. Language Learning.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, M., & Julien, M. (2000). Diagnostiek van spraak-en taalproblemen bij meertalige kinderen, Geen diagnose zonder anamnese meertaligheid. Logopedie en Foniatrie, 13–17.Google Scholar
Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (2002). Modern Language Aptitude Test: Manual 2002 edition. Bethesda, MD: Second Language Testing, Inc.Google Scholar
Castilla, A. P., Restrepo, M. A., & Perez-Leroux, A. T. (2009). Individual differences and language interdependence: A study of sequential bilingual development in Spanish–English preschool children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12, 565–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, C., & Hadi, A. S. (2006). Regression analysis by example (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilla, S. (2008). Erstsprache, Zweitsprache, Spezifische Sprachentwicklungsstörung? Eine Untersuchung des Erwerbs der deutschen Hauptsatzstruktur durch sukzessiv-bilinguale Kinder mit türkischer Erstsprache [First language, second language, specific language impairment? The acquisition of German sentence structure by successive-bilingual Turkish–German children]. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
Dalal, R. H., & Loeb, D. F. (2005). Imitative production of regular past tense -ed by English-speaking children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 40, 67–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Jong, J. (1999). Specific language impairment in Dutch: inflectional morphology and argument structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Groningen University.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenbeiss, S. (2010). Using production methods in language acquisition research. In Blom, E. & Unsworth, S. (Eds.), Experimental methods in language acquistion research (pp. 11–34). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabiano-Smith, L., & Barlow, J. A. (2010). Interaction in bilingual phonological acquisition: Evidence from phonetic inventories. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabiano-Smith, L. & Goldstein, B. (2005). Phonological cross-linguistic effects in bilingual Spanish–English speaking children. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3, 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, G. A., & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & MacKay, I. R. A. (1995). Factors affecting strength of perceived foreign accent in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3125–3134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002a). Command of the mass/count distinction in bilingual and monolingual children: An English morphosyntactic distinction. In Oller, D. K. & Eilers, R. E. (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 175–206). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002b). Grammatical gender in bilingual and monolingual children: A Spanish morphosyntactic distinction. In Oller, D. K. & Eilers, R. E. (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 207–219). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002c). Monolingual and bilingual acquisition: Learning different treatments of that-trace phenomena in English and Spanish. In Oller, D. K. & Eilers, R. E. (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 220–254). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2007). Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: Constructivist account of morpho-syntactic development in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 224–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, H., & White, L. (2004). Ultimate attainment of L2 Inflection. Effects of L1 prosodic structure. In Foster-Cohen, M., Sharwoord-Smith Sorace, A., & Ota, M. (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 4 (pp. 119–145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goad, H., & White, L. (2008). Prosodic structure and the representation of L2 functional morphology: A nativist approach. Lingua, 118, 577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golberg, H., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2008). Lexical acquisition over time in minority first language children learning English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the “Natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. (1997). Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 30, 425–449.Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (Eds.), The view from building 20, essays in linguistics in honour of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H., & Noyer, R. (1999). Distributed morphology. Glot International, 4, 3–9.Google Scholar
Haznedar, B. (2001). The acquisition of the IP system in child L2 English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In Hughes, E., Hughes, M., & Greenhill, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 257–268). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Herschensohn, J., Stevenson, J., & Waltmunson, J. (2005). Children's acquisition of L2 Spanish morphosyntax in an immersion setting. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoogland, J. (1996). Marokkaans Arabisch, een cursus voor zelfstudie en klassikaal gebruik. Amsterdam: Bulaaq.Google Scholar
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A. (2006). Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15, 651–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., & Wexler, K. (2002). Why is “is” easier than “s”? Acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by child L2-English learners. Second Language Research, 18, 95–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jia, G., & Fuse, A. (2007). Acquisition of English grammatical morphology by native Mandarin-speaking children and adolescents: Age-related differences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1280–1299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joseph, K., Serratrice, L., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2002). Development of copula and auxiliary BE in children with specific language impairment and younger unaffected controls. First Language, 22, 137–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1975). The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning, 26, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Lin, H. (2001). A grammar of Mandarin Chinese. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (1991). Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. (2000). Grammaticality judgments in a second language: Influences of age of acquisition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 395–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2009). Second language acquisition in early childhood. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 28, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (2004). Learning at a distance: I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 127–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J. (2005). Grammatical morphology in children learning English as a second language: Implications of similarities with specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 36, 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 213–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J., Rice, M., Crago, M., & Marquis, J. (2008). The acquisition of tense in English: Distinguishing child second language from first language and specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 689–722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prévost, P. (2003). Truncation and missing surface inflection in initial L2 German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 65–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, M., & Wexler, K. (1996). Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 39, 1239–1257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santelmann, L., & Jusczyk, P. (1998). Sensitivity to discontinuous dependencies in language learners: Evidence for processing limitations. Cognition, 69, 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (2004). Why child L2 acquisition?. In van Kampen, J. & Baauw, S. (Eds.), The proceedings of GALA 2003 (pp. 47–66). Utrecht: LOT Occasional Series.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, J. Y., Sundara, M., & Demuth, K. (2009). Phonological constraints on children's production of English third person singular -s. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 623–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenge, J. (2006). Bilingual children with specific language impairment: Additionally disadvantaged? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (2004). Phonological priming and irregular past. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strobl, C., Mallay, J., & Tutz, G. (2009). An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging and random forrests. Psychological Methods, 14, 323–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Kneib, T, Augustin, T., & Zeileis, A. (2008). Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics, 9, 307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tagliamonte, S., & Baayen, R. H. (2010). Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trommelen, M. (1989). Lettergreepstruktuur en woordkategorie. De Nieuwe Taalgids, 82, 64–77.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S., & Blom, E. (2010). Comparing L1 children, L2 children and L2 adults. In Blom, E. & Unsworth, S. (Eds.), Experimental methods in language acquistion research (pp. 201–222). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2010). All acquisition begins with the projection of a bare verb phrase. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 332–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Wouden, T., Schuurman, I., Schouppe, M., & Hoekstra, H. (2003). Harvesting Dutch trees: Syntactic properties of spoken Dutch. In Gaustad, T. (Ed.), Computational linguistics in the Netherlands 2002: Selected papers from the 13th CLIN meeting (pp. 129–142). Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, L., Steenge, J., & Van Balkom, H. (2011). Verb morphology as clinical marker of specific language impairment: Evidence from first and second language learners. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1186–1193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2002). Taaltoets Alle Kinderen [Children's language assessment]. Tilburg: Zwijsen.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., Schaeffer, J., & Bol, G. (2004). Verbal syntax and morphology in typically developing Dutch children and children with SLI: How developmental data can play an important role in morphological theory. Syntax, 7, 148–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, S. (2003). Lexically specific constructions in the acquisition of inflection in English. Journal of Child Language, 30, 75–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wode, H. (1983). One the systematicity of L1 transfer in L2 acquisition. In Wode, H. (Ed.), Papers on language acquisition, language learning and language teaching (pp. 144–149). Heidelberg: J. Groos.Google Scholar
Yavaş, M., & Barlow, J. (2006). Acquisition of #sC clusters in Spanish–English bilingual children. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 4, 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zdorenko, T., & Paradis, J. (2008). The acquisition of articles in child second language English: Fluctuation, transfer or both? Second Language Research, 24, 227–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. (1980). The formal and developmental selectivity of L1 influence in L2 acquisition. Language Learning, 30, 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar