When Frequency Is Not
Enough: Explaining Bilingual
Children’s Morphological
Acquisition
Johanne Paradis, University of Alberta
Elena Nicoladis, University of Alberta
Martha Crago, Université de Montréal
Child Language Seminar, Newcastle upon Tyne, July 2006
Usage-Based Theory and Bilingual
Acquisition
• Input structure and frequency key mechanisms
underlying acquisition patterns (Tomasello, 2003)
• Simultaneous bilinguals have their input space
divided between two languages, so less
exposure to each language
• UB Theory predicts that bilingual children
would lag behind monolinguals in achieving
acquisition milestones (Tomasello, 2004)
1
Bilingual Acquisition of
Morphosyntax
• School-age children:
-language-at-home & language-at-school input
measures impact on bilingual children’s rate of
morphosyntactic acquisition (e.g. Gathercole, 2002; 2006)
• Preschool/kindergarten children:
– Conflicting findings on whether bilinguals
always lag behind monolinguals (Erdo et al, 2005;
Gathercole & Thomas, 2005; Marchman et al, 2004; Nicoladis et al, in
press; Paradis & Genesee, 1996; Paradis et al, 2003)
Critical Mass, Complexity and Morphology
• Ceiling in performance (unlike vocabulary), so bilinguals
may “catch up” faster to monolinguals
• Critical mass of input needed varies depending on
complexity of morphology to be acquired
– Transparent vs. opaque
• Bilingual-monolingual differences are in rate, not sequences
of acquisition
§ Among bilingual homes, does dominant language make a
difference?
§ How is transparency/opacity defined?
(N. Ellis, 2002; Gathercole, 2002, 2006; Gathercole & Hoff, in press)
2
Defining Opacity/Transparency:
• 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)
3
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)
4
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
ouvrir: Il ouvre / il a ouvert / *il a ouvri / *il a ouvré
Exemplar-Based Model and
the Past Tense in French and English
• 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
5
Acquisition of the Past Tense
in English and French
• Regular past tense
– >90% 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)
Do bilinguals lag behind monolinguals
in their acquisition of the past tense?
1. Difference between bilinguals and monolinguals
smaller for bilinguals’ dominant language
2. Difference between bilinguals and monolinguals
smaller for regular than irregular past tense
3. No difference in bilinguals and monolinguals in
acquisition sequences
• regulars >> irregulars
• overregularization errors
6
Participants
•
•
•
•
23 French-English bilingual children aged
4;0-5;5 (simultaneous and early sequential)
6 French monolingual children same age
range (more to come…)
Children residing in Edmonton, Canada
All children were attending French-language
preschool or kindergarten
Procedures
•
•
Parental questionnaire on input patterns
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III:
•
Échelle de vocabulaire en image Peabody
•
Past tense probe from the Test of Early
Grammatical Impairment (TEGI: Rice & Wexler, 2001)
Passé composé probe (experimenter-made)
•
Dunn & Dunn, 1997)
(EVIP: Dunn et al, 1993)
7
Past tense probe: TEGI
“Here, the boy is painting. Now he is done. Tell
me what he did”
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.
8
Language Dominance
• Dominant language = language for which child
receives more input
• Measures
– simultaneous versus early sequential
– rating scales of use of that language in the home by
each parent to the child
– EVIP and PPVT z scores: verify categorization; break a
tie for two children
• Children grouped as French or English dominant
English criterion-referencing
(TEGI)
• 61% of all bilinguals scored at or above
the age-expected criterion score for
typical language development on past
probe as a whole (regular and irregular
combined)
• 87% of English-dominant bilinguals
scores at or above criterion for probe as
a whole
9
10
Irregular finite = irregular verbs correct + “overregularized”
2X3 mixed ANOVA produced significant main effects for language group and
past tense type, but no significant interaction. Regulars > irregulars. French
dominant bilinguals = monolinguals for regulars and irregulars
11
Irregular finite = irregular verbs correct + “overregularized”
Discussion and Implications
• 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 past tense & irregular past finite
• Bilingual-all/monolingual differences smaller in older
children in English
• Bilinguals more difficulties with irregular verbs in English
than in French
– English irregular verbs = greatest differences between
bilinguals and monolinguals
12
Discussion and Implications
• Bilingual morphosyntactic acquisition is vulnerable
to these children’s reduced and variable input
(predicted by UB Theory) - but not global delay
• Interacting factors important - no bilingualmonolingual differences for transparent
morphology
• School readiness/language assessment: language
dominance of child and transparency/opacity of
target structure being probed are crucial to keep in
mind
Many thanks to research assistants Aimée Berubé, Heather
Golberg, and Tamara Sorenson
This research was funded by the Alberta Heritage Foundation
for Medical Research and by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada
[email protected]
http://www.ualberta.ca/~jparadis/
13
Selected References
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425-455.
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee (2002). Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. SSLA, 24, 215-221.
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. SSLA, 24, 143-188.
Gathercole, V. (2002b).Monolingual and bilingual acquisition: Learning different treatments of that-trace
phenomena in English and Spanish. In D. K. Oller & R. Eilers (eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual
children (pp.220-254). Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.
Gathercole, V. (2006). Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: Morphosyntactic development in bilingual
children. Manuscript.
Gathercole, V., & 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.) ISB4: Proceedings (pp. 852-874).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Gathercole, V. & Hoff, E. (in press). Input and the acquisition of language: Three questions. In E. Hoff & M.
Shatz (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Development, Blackwell Publishers.
Jakubowicz, C. & Nash, L. (2001). Functional categories and syntactic operations 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., Martínez-Sussman, C. and Dale, P. (2004). The language-specific nature of grammatical
development: Evidence from bilingual language learners, Developmental Science, 7, 212-224.
Marcus, G., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T.J., and Xu, Fei (1992). Overregularization in
language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Resesarch in Child Development, 57(4).
Selected References
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., 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. (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.
Paradis, J., Crago, M. & Genesee, F. (in press). Domain-specific versus domain-general
theories of the deficit in SLI: Object pronoun acquisition by French-English bilingual children. Language
Acquisition.
Rice, M. & Wexler, K. (2001). Test of Early Grammatical Development: 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 (2004). Lunchtime Debate: Where does language come from? 29th Annual Boston University
Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
14