Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:05:52.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The status of the “weaker” language in unbalanced French/German bilingual language acquisition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2009

MATTHIAS BONNESEN
MATTHIAS BONNESEN*
Affiliation:
Research Centre of Multilingualism, University of Hamburg
*
Address for correspondence: Research Centre of Multilingualism, University of Hamburg, Max-Brauer-Allee 60, 22765 Hamburg, Germanymatthias.bonnesen@uni-hamburg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I investigate the status of the so-called “weaker” language, French, in French/German bilingual first language acquisition, using data from two children from the DuFDE-corpus (see Schlyter, 1990a), Christophe and François. Schlyter (1993, 1994) proposes that the “weaker” language in the unbalanced children she studied has the status equivalent to that of a second language (L2). I will verify this assumption on the basis of certain grammatical phenomena, such as the use of subject clitics, null subjects and negation, with respect to which L1 and L2 learners show different developmental patterns. The results indicate that the “weaker” language of the children analyzed in this study cannot be interpreted as an L2. Both children behave predominantly like monolingual and balanced bilingual L1 learners in both languages.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 177 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

Footnotes

*

This study was carried out as part of the research project “Simultaneous and successive acquisition of multilingualism”, directed by Jürgen M. Meisel, funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Science Foundation) within the Collaborative Research Center on Multilingualism, established at the University of Hamburg. For their useful comments, I wish to thank Jürgen M. Meisel, Regina Köppe, Noemi Kintana, Susanne Rieckborn, Claudia Stöber and the anonymous reviewers.

References

Arias, J., Kintana, N., Rakow, M. & Rieckborn, S. (2005). Sprachdominanz: Konzepte und Kriterien (Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, Folge B/Working Papers in Multilingualism, series B, 68). University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Bernardini, P. & Schlyter, S. (2004). Growing syntactic structure and code-mixing in the weaker language: The ivy hypothesis. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 49–69.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.Google Scholar
Bonnesen, M. (2005). Der Erwerb der linken Satzperipherie bei Französisch/Deutsch bilingual aufwachsenden Kindern. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hamburg. http://www.sub.uni-hamburg.de/opus/volltexte/2005/2585 (retrieved 19 December 2008).Google Scholar
Bonnesen, M. (2006). Is the left periphery a vulnerable domain in unbalanced first language acquisition? (Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, Folge B/Working Papers in Multilingualism, series B, 77). University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Bonnesen, M. (2007). V2 ou V3? La position du verbe fléchi en français chez des enfants bilingues français–allemand. AILE (Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère), 25, 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnesen, M. & Meisel, J. M. (2005). Die “Subjekt-Verb Inversion” in Interrogativkonstruktionen des gesprochenen Französischen: Zum Problem der syntaktischen Variation. In Kaiser, G. (ed.), Deutsche Romanistik – generativ, pp. 31–48. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Cantone, K. F. (2004). Code-switching in bilingual children (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 37). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Cantone, K. F., Kupisch, T., Müller, N. & Schmitz, K. (2008). Rethinking language dominance in bilingual children. Linguistische Berichte, 215, 307–343.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe, pp. 145–234. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. W. (eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition, pp. 123–146. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1988). Parameterized grammatical theory and language acquisition: A study of the acquisition of verb placement and inflection by children and adults. In Flynn, S. & O'Neil, W. (eds.), Linguistic theory and second language acquisition, pp. 47–75. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cat, C. (2000). Left- and right-dislocations as adjunctions in early child French (Newcastle and Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 6). University of Durham.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A. (1990). The acquisition of two languages from birth: A case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döpke, S. (1992). Approaches to first language acquisition: Evidence from simultaneous bilingualism. Australian Review in Applied Linguistics, 15, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferdinand, A. (1996). The development of functional categories: The acquisition of the subject in French. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Friedemann, M.-A. & Rizzi, L. (eds.) (2000). The acquisition of syntax: Studies in comparative developmental linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E. & Paradis, J. (1995). Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 22, 611–631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Granfeldt, J. & Schlyter, S. (2001). Acquisition of French subject pronouns in child and adult learners. In Cantone, K. F. & Hinzelin, M.-O. (eds.), Proceedings from the Colloquium on Structure, Acquisition and Change of Grammars: Phonological and Syntactic Aspects (Working Papers in Multilingualism 26), pp. 89–105. University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Granfeldt, J. & Schlyter, S. (2004). Cliticisation in the acquisition of French as L1 and L2. In Prévost, & Paradis, (eds.), pp. 333–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grondin, N. & White, L. (1996). Functional categories in child L2 acquisition of French. Language Acquisition, 5 (1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinen, K. S. & Kadow, H. (1990). The acquisition of French by monolingual children: A review of the literature. In Meisel, (ed.), pp. 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herschensohn, J. (2001). Missing inflection in L2 French: Accidental infinitives and other verbal deficits. Second Language Research, 14 (3), 273–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, A.-C. (1997). L'omission du pronom sujet par des apprenants de Français. Ms., Institut d'Etudes Romanes, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Kaiser, G. (1994). More about INFLection and agreement: The acquisition of clitic pronouns in French. In Meisel, (ed.), pp. 131–159.Google Scholar
Kaiser, G. & Meisel, J. M. (1991). Subjekte und Null-Subjekte im Französischen. In Fanselow, G. & Olsen, S. (eds.), “Det, Comp und Infl”: Zur Syntax funktionaler Kategorien und grammatischer Funktionen (Linguistische Arbeiten 263), pp. 110–136. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, H.-W. & Kleineidam, H. (1995). Grammatik des heutigen Französisch. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag.Google Scholar
Köppe, R. (1994). The DuFDE project. In Meisel, (ed.), pp. 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T. (2001). The acquisition of the DP in French as the weaker language (Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, Folge B/Working Papers in Multilingualism, series B, 31). University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Lanza, E. (1997). Language mixing in infant bilingualism: A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leopold, W. F. (1939–1949). Speech development of a bilingual child. Evanston, IL: Nordwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1990). INFL-ection: Subjects and subject–verb agreement. In Meisel, (ed.), pp. 237–298.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (ed.) (1990a). Two first languages: Early grammatical development in bilingual children. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1991). Principles of Universal Grammar and strategies of language use: On some similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition. In Eubank, L.. (ed.), Point, counter-point: Universal Grammar in the second language acquisition, pp. 231–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1994). Getting FAT: The role of finiteness, agreement and tense in early grammars. In Meisel, (ed.), pp. 89–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (ed.) (1994a). Bilingual first language acquisition: French and German grammatical development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1995). Parameters in acquisition. In Fletcher, P. & MacWhinney, B. (eds.), Handbook of child language, pp. 10–35. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1997). The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German: Contrasting first and second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 13, 227–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2007). The weaker language in early child bilingualism: Acquiring a first language as a second language? Applied Psycholinguistics, 28 (3), 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (to appear). Age of onset in successive acquisition of bilingualism: Effects on grammatical development. In Kail, M., Fayol, M. & Hickman, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on First and Second Language Acquisition. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. & Müller, N. (1992). Finiteness and verb placement in early child grammars: Evidence from simultaneous acquisition of French and German in bilinguals. In Meisel, J. M. (ed.), The acquisition of verb movement, pp. 109–139. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möhring, A. (2005). Erst- und Zweitspracherwerb im Vergleich (Französisch/Deutsch): Der Erwerb der Wortstellung bei bilingualen Kindern und erwachsenen Lernern. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hamburg. http://www.sub.uni-hamburg.de/opus/volltexte/2005/2459/ (retrieved 19 December 2008).Google Scholar
Müller, N. (2004). Null-arguments in bilingual children: French topics. In Prévost, & Paradis, (eds.), pp. 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, N. & Kupisch, T. (2003). Zum simultanen Erwerb des Deutschen und des Französischen bei (un)ausgeglichen bilingualen Kindern. Vox Romanica, 62, 145–169.Google Scholar
Müller, N., Kupisch, T., Schmitz, K. & Cantone, K. (2006). Einführung in die Mehrsprachigkeitsforschung. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Nicoladis, E. (1998). First clues to the existence of two input languages: Pragmatic and lexical differentiation in a bilingual child. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J. (1998). The emergence of tense and agreement in child L2 French. Second Language Research, 14 (3), 227–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J. & Navarro, S. (2003). Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of input? Journal of Child Language, 30, 371–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parodi, T. (1990). The acquisition of word order regularities and case morphology. In Meisel, (ed.), pp. 158–190.Google Scholar
Penfield, W. & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and brain mechanisms. New York: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Pierce, A. (1992). Language acquisition and syntactic theory: A comparative analysis of French and English child grammars. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prévost, P. & Paradis, J. (eds.) (2004). The acquisition of French in different contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prévost, P. & White, L. (2000). Accounting for morphological variation in second language acquisition: Truncation or missing inflection? In Friedemann, & Rizzi, (eds), pp. 202–235.Google Scholar
Randall, J. (1992). The catapult hypothesis: An approach to unlearning. In Weissenborn, J., Goodluck, H. & Roeper, T. (eds.), Theoretical issues in language acquisition: Continuity and change in development, pp. 93–138. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rasetti, L. (2000). Null subjects and root infinitives in the child grammar of French. In Friedemann, & Rizzi, (eds.), pp. 236–286.Google Scholar
Rieckborn, S. (2006). Die Entwicklung der “schwachen Sprache” im unbalancierten L1-Erwerb (Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, FolgeB/Working Papers in Multilingualism, series B, 73). University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Rieckborn, S. (2007). Erst- und Zweitspracherwerb im Vergleich: Eine Studie zum Erwerb von Tempus und Aspekt im Deutschen und im Französischen (Philologia – Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungsergebnisse 99). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1993/1994). Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition, 3 (4), 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of grammar, pp. 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Y. (1986). On doubling and null argument languages. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS) 16, 388–402.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. & Rohrbacher, B. (1994). Null subjects in early child English and the theory of economy of projection (IRCS Technical Reports 162). University of Pennsylvania. http://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/162/ (retrieved 19 December 2008).Google Scholar
Schlyter, S. (1990a). Introducing the DuFDE project. In Meisel, (ed.), pp 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlyter, S. (1990b). The acquisition of tense and aspect. In Meisel, (ed.), 87–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlyter, S. (1993). The weaker language in bilingual Swedish–French children. In Hyltenstam, K. & Vilberg, A. (eds.), Progression and regression in language, pp. 289–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schlyter, S. (1994). Early morphology in Swedish as the weaker language in French–Swedish bilingual children (Scandinavian Working Papers on Bilingualism 9). University of Lund.Google Scholar
Schmitz, K. (2006). Indirect objects and dative case in monolingual German and bilingual German/Romance language acquisition. In Hole, D., Meinunger, A. & Abraham, W. (eds.), Datives and other cases: Between argument structure and event structure, pp. 239–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar