1 / 35

Is child L2 French like 2L1 or like adult L2? Suzanne Schlyter & Jonas Granfeldt Lund University

Is child L2 French like 2L1 or like adult L2? Suzanne Schlyter & Jonas Granfeldt Lund University IASCLXI, Edinburgh, 28th July to 1st August. Questions. If there is a qualitative difference between (2)L1 and adL2 acquisition, at what age is the cut-off point? (5, 4, 3 … years?)

genew
Download Presentation

Is child L2 French like 2L1 or like adult L2? Suzanne Schlyter & Jonas Granfeldt Lund University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Is child L2 French like 2L1 or like adult L2? Suzanne Schlyter & Jonas Granfeldt Lund University IASCLXI, Edinburgh, 28th July to 1st August

  2. Questions • If there is a qualitative difference between (2)L1 and adL2 acquisition, at what age is the cut-off point? (5, 4, 3 … years?) • To what extent do early successive bilinguals differ from 2L1 children and adult and older child L2 learners? • In which domains do these children follow L1-like or L2-like patterns?

  3. Structure of the presentation A: The 2007 study (GSK07): Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihlstedt 2007 In: PERLES 24 B: Complementary study of two younger children

  4. GSK07: Children studied • Swedish-French Children 5 and 6 years from Lycée Francais St Louis, Stockholm • Swedish as L1 or one of 2L1: • 2 cL2 beginners 5 ys (6 mths expos to French) AO 5 • 3 cL2 beginners 6 ys (6 mths expos to French) AO 6 • 2 cL2 advanced 6 ys (2 years exposure to Fr) AO 3;6 • 3 2L1 5 ys (simultaneous bilinguals) AO birth • 2 2L1 6 ys (simultaneous bilinguals) AO birth No bilingual child here has clearly weaker French • Controls: • 2 L1 monolingual French 6 ys AO birth

  5. GSK07: 1) Finite vs non-finite formsin finite contexts (French)

  6. cL2 2L1 L1

  7. GSK07:2) Past Tense Morphology (PC/Impf),results

  8. 2L1 L1 cL2adv cL2beg

  9. GSK07: 3) Gender agreement, results

  10. L1 cL2beg 2L1 cL2adv 23% 9% 0% 14%

  11. Table 9. Summary of findings (overview)

  12. Complementary study – AO under 4 • Early child L2 French: Rachel, AO 3;5 (MLU Fr 1,4 - MLU Sw 3,5 at first recording) • Matching 2L1, French Weaker Lg: Arlette (MLU Fr 1,7 - MLU Sw 2,2 at first recording) • Compared to late cL2 French Viola, Hannes, Valentine, AO ca 6 (first recording) • Partly compared to younger 2L1 Sw-Fr (Schlyter 1993)

  13. Table 2. Ages, exposure; MLU and VocD French ; MLU Swedish

  14. Hypotheses / Questions • Arlette, 2L1 French Weaker Lg, will behave - like L1 - like early cL2? • Rachel, early cL2, will behave • like late cL2 • like Arlette?

  15. Linguistic phenomena studied • finite and non-finite forms after (clitic) subjects (correct je prends vs incorrect *je prendre) • morphological marking of past reference (correct Hier, j’ai joué vs incorrect *je joue/*il vu) • gender of Determiners (correct le chat vs incorrect *la chat )

  16. Matching levels A rough classification into three groups of linguistic level, according to their MLU: • MLU under 2 / French exposure at school 4 months (ecL2 Rachel 1, 2L1 Arlette 1) • MLU 2 – 3 / French exposure at school 7 – 9 months (ecL2 Rachel 2, lcL2 Viola 1) • MLU 3,2 – 3,7; VocD over 20 / French exposure at school 7 – 14 m (2L1 Arlette 2-3; ecL2 Rachel3; lcL2 Hannes1, lcL2 V-tine1)

  17. Results • Finite / nonfinite forms in finite contexts (French)

  18. 2. Percentage finite (vs nonfinite) forms, after subject (’est’ discarded) *overextension of finite/short/stem form

  19. Exemples non-finite forms cL2 Rachel 2, early cL2: *INV: et qu+est+ce+que c ' est ? *CHI:ils # ça] [//] il [/] il faire ça . they that he do.INF that Hannes 1, late cL2 *CHI: et le chien qui &oua [?= voit] et [/] and the dog who sees ? *CHI: et # il # prendre # le # chat # dans # euh ça . and he take.INF the cat in that

  20. Examples from 2L1 Arlette, for discussion1) subject + nonfinite form *INV: et là maintenant qu+est+ce qu ' il fait le père Noël ? *CHI: elle # assis *INV: et son petit chat qu+est+ce+qu ' il fait ? *CHI: elle jouE

  21. Examples from 2L1 Arlette, for discussion2) Time reference of Root Infinitives (2)L1 children, see next slide: parti, fini, cassé (immediate past) manger! boire! donner! (desired imm future) Arlette1 (3;3 ys, MLU 2,0): *INV: qu+est+ce+qu ' il fait ? *CHI: dormir *INV: oui qu+est+ce+qu ' il fait là ? *CHI: dormir *INV: et qu+est+ce+que tu fais ? *CHI: jouE aussi *INV: et qu+est+ce+que tu fais dans la classe ? *CHI: mm jouE

  22. Finiteness, summary • Arlette 2-3 has no nonfinite forms (but some in Arl 1) • All the cL2 learners, early and late, use nonfinite forms (mostly with scl), i.e. = aL2 • Earlier studied 2L1 Sw-Fr have no scl+nonfinite forms >> The difference is essentially between 2L1 vs cL2, but certain problems with Arlette 1 (French WL)

  23. Results 2) Past Tense Morphology (French)

  24. Past tense morphology: percentage of marking of past reference (PC or Impf)

  25. Past tense: 2L1=L1, ecL2=lcL2 • Marking of past tense: Rachel, e cL2, patterns with late cL2 and adL2 learners • Exemples from Rachel 2: *INV: et qu+est+ce+que tu as fait là bas chez s@farmor ? *CHI: moi ## je fais +/. *INV: alors tu avais pas dormi chez s@farmor ? *CHI: moi [/] moi aussi dormir [alt=dormi] . *CHI: après il a met ça dans la +... *ASS: et dans la boîte ? *CHI: il trouvé ça .

  26. Difference 2L1 and e cL2 • Same elicitation situation, Aux in 2L1, no Aux in cL2: • 2L1 Arlette: *INV: qu+est+ce+qui s ' est passé Arlette ? *CHI: il a tombé . *INV: oui et qu+est+ce qui s ' est passé avec sa jambe [//] avec sa patte? *CHI: il a tombé . • early cL2 Rachel: *INV: qu+est+ce+qui s ' est passé avec sa tête ? *CHI: il [/] il tombé . *INV: mon cochon qu+est+ce+qui s ' est passé ? *CHI:il tombé .

  27. Results 3) Gender agreement Det-Noun

  28. Gender Det-Noun *only masculine; **strong overextension of masculine

  29. Arlette 2L1 • Why correct first but many gender errors later? • Proposal: school jargon (cf. Schlyter 2007)

  30. Tableau 6 : Enfants 2L1 de six ans en 2006 et 1991, et monolingues fL1 2006. (Schlyter 2007) Légende : * nombre d’erreurs ; S-V = Sujet-Verbe, calculé sur les verbes dont la forme de personne se distingue des formes par défaut

  31. Summary, DiscussionFrench in early/late cL2 and 2L1? • Early cL2 Rachel = late cL2 and aL2 • 2L1 (Fr Weak Lg) Arlette - more like L1 • >> cut-off point before age 4 • >> cut-off when child has access to the entire tree structure?

  32. Which phenomena are concerned? • Clearest difference (2)L1 – c/aL2 in Past TENSE Marking • Least difference in GENDER agr • TENSE: • cognitive development (Weist 2002) • = central syntactic development? (Cinque) • GENDER: less rule governed, more input-related?

  33. Thanks! • To the children and their parents • To Sylvie and Anne from LFSL who gave us a marvellous help in this research • To Elisabeth Rausing memorial foundation, for financial support • To this auditory!

More Related