Child Second Language Development in Immersion Education
A Study on Generic Determiner Phrases in L2 German and L2 French
Summary
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Preface
- Vorwort
- Acknowledgements
- Table of Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- List of Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Generic Reference in English, German, and French
- 1.1 Introduction
- 1.2 Crosslinguistic Variation of Determiner Phrases with Generic Reference in English, German, and French
- 1.2.1 Count and Mass Nouns in Subject and Object Position
- 1.2.1.1 Determiner Phrases in Subject Position with Individual- and Stage-Level Predicates
- 1.2.1.2 Determiner Phrases in Object Position with Intensional and Extensional Predicates
- 1.3 Theoretical Approaches to Generic Reference
- 1.3.1 The Nominal Mapping Parameter (Chierchia 1998)
- 1.3.2 The Universal Scale of Definiteness (Dayal 2004)
- 1.4 Summary
- Chapter 2 Child Second Language Acquisition of Generic Reference
- 2.1 Introduction
- 2.2 Child Second Language Acquisition
- 2.2.1 Influential Factors
- 2.2.2 Child Second Language Development
- 2.2.3 Individual Variation
- 2.2.4 Child Second Language Acquisition in Immersion Education
- 2.2.4.1 The Immersion Program at Waddell Academy
- 2.2.5 Theoretical Approaches to Second Language Acquisition
- 2.2.5.1 Full Transfer/Full Access Model (Schwartz and Sprouse 1994, 1996)
- 2.2.5.2 Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (Lardiere 2009)
- 2.2.5.3 Bottleneck Hypothesis (Slabakova 2008, 2016)
- 2.2.6 Summary
- 2.3 Child Second Language Acquisition of Determiner Phrases with Generic Reference in English, German, and French
- 2.3.1 A Review of the Literature
- 2.3.2 Learnability of Generic Reference in Child Second Language Acquisition in L2 German and L2 French
- 2.4 Research Questions and Hypotheses
- Chapter 3 The Empirical Study
- 3.1 Introduction
- 3.2 Procedure
- 3.3 Participants
- 3.4. Predictions for the Experiments
- 3.4.1 Predictions for the Acceptability Judgment Task (AJT)
- 3.4.2 Predictions for the Truth Value Judgment Task (TVJT)
- 3.5 Second Language Proficiency
- 3.5.1 Student Oral Proficiency Assessment (SOPA)
- 3.5.1.1 Methodology, Materials, and Procedure
- 3.5.1.2 Participants
- 3.5.1.3 Results in L2 German and L2 French
- 3.5.2 Cloze Test
- 3.5.2.1 Methodology, Materials, and Procedure
- 3.5.2.2 Participants
- 3.5.2.3 Results in L2 German and L2 French
- 3.5.3 Proficiency Overall: L2 German and L2 French
- 3.6 Acceptance and Interpretation of Generic Determiner Phrases
- 3.6.1 Experiment 1: Acceptability Judgment Task
- 3.6.1.1 Methodology, Materials, and Procedure
- 3.6.1.2 Participants
- 3.6.1.3 Results
- 3.6.1.4 Discussion
- 3.6.2 Experiment 2: Truth Value Judgment Task
- 3.6.2.1 Methodology, Materials, and Procedure
- 3.6.2.2 Participants
- 3.6.2.3 Results
- 3.6.2.4 Discussion
- 3.6.3 Summary
- Chapter 4 Discussion
- 4.1 Introduction
- 4.2 Discussion of Main Findings
- 4.2.1 The Child L2 Learner’s Learning Tasks
- 4.2.2 Complexity of the Learning Tasks
- 4.2.3 L2 Developmental Course
- 4.2.4 Maturational Constraints
- 4.2.5 Synthesis
- 4.3 Implications for Second Language Teaching in Immersion Education
- 4.4 Limitations of the Present Study
- 4.5 Future Research
- 4.6 Summary
- Conclusion
- References
- Appendix
- Series Index
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: The syntactic structure of the DP (Chierchia, Guasti and Gualmini 2001: 5)
Figure 1.2: The syntactic structure of the DP (Lyons 1999: 43)
Figure 1.3: The semantic structure of the DP (Chierchia et al. 2001: 7)
Figure 1.4: Count and mass nouns as predicates and arguments (based on Chierchia 1998)
Figure 1.5: Nouns as predicates and arguments (based on Chierchia 1998)
Figure 1.6: The semantics of common nouns in type 2 languages (Chierchia et al. 2001: 43)
Figure 2.1: Child second language acquisition
Figure 2.2: Timeline: Age of onset and the corresponding language acquisition populations
Figure 2.4: Child second language acquisition in the context of adult L2/L3 acquisition populations
Figure 2.5: Illustration of the Domain by Age Model (Schwartz 2009)
Figure 2.6: Illustration of the Domain by Age Model, second version (Slabakova 2016: 147)
Figure 3.1: AJT – L2 German versus L2 French – acceptance of bare plurals/bare mass singulars
Figure 3.3: AJT – L2 German versus L2 French – acceptance of definite plurals
Figure 3.4: AJT – L2 German versus L2 French – individual results – acceptance of definite plurals
Figure 3.5: AJT – L1 control groups – acceptance by group and condition
Figure 3.6: AJT – L2 German – accuracy by group and condition
Figure 3.7: AJT – L2 French – accuracy by group and condition
Figure 3.8: AJT – L2 German – accuracy by group and condition with generic and non-generic reference
←21 | 22→Figure 3.9: AJT – L2 French – accuracy by group and condition with generic and non-generic reference
Figure 3.10: AJT – L2 German – accuracy by group and condition in subject and object positions
Figure 3.11: AJT – L2 French – accuracy by group and condition in subject and object positions
Figure 3.12: AJT – L2 German versus L2 French – individual results: filler items
Figure 3.13: AJT – L2 German versus L2 French – accuracy by group: filler items
Figure A.1: Student Oral Proficiency Assessment – rating scale
List of Tables
Table 1.9: Typology of article versus bare noun systems in Germanic and Romance (adapted from Chierchia et al. 2001: 13)
Table 3.1: Number of participants per task
Table 3.2: Characteristics of study participants
Table 3.3: Overview of the L2 learners’ language background
Table 3.4: Overview of the L1 speakers’ language background
Table 3.5: SOPA – characteristics of study participants
Table 3.6: SOPA – proficiency results
Table 3.7: Cloze test – rating scale
Table 3.8: Cloze test – characteristics of study participants
Table 3.9: Cloze test – proficiency results
←23 | 24→Table 3.10: Proficiency results (SOPA + cloze test)
Table 3.11: AJT – characteristics of study participants
Table 3.12: AJT – characteristics of study participants grouped according to LoE
Table 3.13: TVJT – evaluation and distribution of [±generic] interpretations for definite plurals in French, German, and English (Kolb 2014)
Table 3.14: TVJT – characteristics of study participants
Table 3.15: TVJT – characteristics of study participants grouped according to LoE (Kolb 2014: 6)
Table A.1: SOPA – results for L2 German
Table A.2: SOPA – results for L2 French
Table A.3: Cloze test – results for L2 German
Table A.4: Cloze test – results for L2 French
Introduction
From a global perspective, growing up with more than one language is the norm, whether it be from birth or any time later in childhood (Ansaldo et al. 2008; Wiese et al. 2010). Many countries have more than one official language, and as a consequence, children often attend daycare, elementary, and secondary schools run in a language other than the child’s first language (L1), i.e., many children spend their school day immersed in a second language (L2). A great number of these children are child second language (cL2) learners who have already acquired one language and are first exposed to a second language between 4 and 7 years of age (the defining criterion of child second language acquisition or cL2A). Child L2 learners are more cognitively mature than children acquiring their first language but less cognitively mature than adults acquiring an L2. Successful second language acquisition (henceforth L2A or SLA) requires that learners be exposed to age-appropriate meaningful linguistic L2 input.
The importance of cL2A and its role in the formal study of SLA has only been recognized relatively recently. Traditionally, SLA studies that included cL2 populations did so such as to have a comparison group for the target acquisition population or to contrast cL2 and target L2 groups in terms of specific factors, such as age and ultimate attainment. However, examining the interlanguage development and L2 endstate in cL2 learners shows that they must be regarded and studied as a significant group in their own right, since cL2 learners do not align with any other language acquisition population (Schwartz 2009). Child L2 populations differ from (bilingual) L1 children in that they have linguistic experience from the L1 and also differ from child and adult third language (L3) populations, who may have access to another previously acquired language in addition to the L1. They are further distinguished from adult L2 and L3 populations due to being cognitively less mature and depending on age, may still be in the process of acquiring their L1. Thus, cL2A can also provide important evidence on cognitive development and its interdependence with general linguistic development (e.g., Paradis 2008, 2010, 2011; Rothman, Long, Iverson, Judy, Lingwall, and Chakravarty 2016). More research on cL2A ←27 | 28→is needed and will advance the field of SLA in important ways, including filling knowledge gaps and informing debates through data complementary to other SLA groups.
Details
- Pages
- 298
- Year
- 2022
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783631876404
- ISBN (ePUB)
- 9783631876411
- ISBN (Hardcover)
- 9783631817124
- DOI
- 10.3726/b19621
- Open Access
- CC-BY
- Language
- English
- Publication date
- 2022 (July)
- Keywords
- multilingualism Mehrsprachigkeit second language acquisition Zweitspracherwerb transfer Transfer generic reference generische Referenz multilingual education mehrsprachige Bildung
- Published
- Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2022. 298 pp., 35 fig. b/w, 30 tables.
Biographical notes
Nadine Kolb (Author)
Nadine Kolb holds a PhD degree in English linguistics from the University of Cologne, Germany. She is an Associate Professor in English language in the Department of Cultural Studies and Languages at the University of Stavanger, Norway, and currently a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow in the AcqVA Aurora Center at UiT The Arctic University of Norway. Her research focuses on child second and third language acquisition, heritage language bilingualism and multilingual education.
