La présentation est en train de télécharger. S'il vous plaît, attendez

La présentation est en train de télécharger. S'il vous plaît, attendez

Cliticisation in the Acquisition of Child French L2: a Cross-Learner Comparison Jonas Granfeldt Lund University

Présentations similaires


Présentation au sujet: "Cliticisation in the Acquisition of Child French L2: a Cross-Learner Comparison Jonas Granfeldt Lund University"— Transcription de la présentation:

1 Cliticisation in the Acquisition of Child French L2: a Cross-Learner Comparison Jonas Granfeldt Lund University

2 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Outline INTRODUCTION –The project –Hypothesis & Approaches to the Critical Period Hypothesis –L1 & L2 acquisition –Rationale and research questions –Clitics in French: Framework & previous research METHOD –Children, Data & Procedures –Object Clitic elicitation task RESULTS –Pronoun use in elicitation task –Evaluating cliticisation in production data: Syntactic properties Prosodic / morpho-phonological properties Semantic / referential properties SUMMARY & DISCUSSION

3 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Approaching the Critical Period(s) Hypothesis in Language Acquisition The hypothesis is that the human Language Making Capacity (LMC) is subject to maturation, i.e. neural maturation opens a window of opportunity for multiple L1 acquisition. (Meisel, 2008) The Critical Period(s) Hypothesis wrst the acquisition of grammar (wide sens) has been approached in at least three ways. In a comparison with (2)L1, the dependent variable has been: 1.The properties of L2 grammars at the end stage (ultimate attainment) (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003) 2.The properties of L2 grammatical development 3.The properties of L2 grammars at the initial stage(s)

4 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Initial Stage(s) and Development in (2)L1 and Adult L2 (I) Initial stage(s) in (2)L1 wrst syntax: 1.Short utterances 2.Functional Categories are not instantiated (absence of determiners, pronouns, auxiliaries, lack of case marking etc.) 3.2L1 shows limited and specfic influence from the other language(s) Initial stage(s) of adult L2 wrst syntax: 1.Rather long utterances 2.Functional Categories are instantiated early (determiners,pronouns, auxiliaries, subjunctions…) 3.Shows important and general influences from the other languages (L1 or other L2s)

5 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Initial Stage(s) and Development in (2)L1 and Adult L2 (II) Grammatical development in (2)L1 : 1.Stages of development 2.Uniform & Principled (route & rate & end) 3.Changes are typically swift and can effect more than one area at the time (clustering) Syntax and morphology develop together Grammatical development in adult L2: 1.Stages of development (but not necessarily the same as in (2)L1) 2.Individual differences & variation (especially rate & end) 3.Changes are typically slow and typically affect one area at the time (or even a lexical domain) at the time. Syntax and morphology develop separately (dissociation)

6 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Questions for cL2 Acquisition Compared to the findings in L1 and and adult L2, the question wrst cL2 acquisition is at least threefold: A.When does (2)L1 acquisition stop and (adult) L2 acquisition begin? B.Which linguistic areas are affected? C.What does linguistic development in cL2 look like? Closer to aL2 or to (2)L1?

7 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Some Answers… Wrst A: Meisel (2008) suggests that the relevant AOs are: –(2)L1 < 4 years –Child L2 4 and 8 years –Adult L2 8 years Wrst B: Considerable debate: –Schwartz (2003) « Domain-by-age » [cL2 = aL2] L1 wrst development of syntax [cL2 = L1] aL2 wrst development of inflectional morphology –Meisel (2008): The other way around! –Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihstedt (2007) – Inflectional morphology in cL2 is more similar to aL2 in early stages.

8 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Rationale & Research Questions We need to include also the third question (C) – linguistic development in cL2 « A major task for future research is, I believe,….. to find out whether cL2…shares qualitative commonalities with (2)L1 development » (Meisel, 2008) Clitics and cliticisation is a good candidate since it involves clustering effects (expected in (2)L1 acquisition): –Syntactic properties –Prosodic / morpho-phonological properties –Semantic / referential properties Research questions: –What are the properties of cL2 grammars wrst cliticisation in the Initial stage? –Is there a development of cliticisation over time in cL2 grammars and how does this development proceed?

9 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Properties of Pronouns - Overview Cardinaletti & Starke (1999) Sw Fr

10 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood The French Structures (syntactic cliticisation)

11 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Syntax [- VP at spell-out] *[ IP Elle croit [ VP la]] [ IP Elle la i croit [ VP t i ]] Cliticisation Semantics / Referential properties Subject Clitic doubling [ Le chat [il monte Le bébé il peut pas Morpho-phonology Restructuration (elision) jessaie vs *je (#) essaie lécole vs *le école Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004 (2)L1 Sw./Fr Adult L2 L1 = Sw. > 3 years of immersion Important variation No real development

12 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood METHOD Data and Procedures Children from the French school Lycée Français St Louis de Stockholm –Instruction in French (except for some hours of Swedish) –Maternelle: Petite section (3ys) / Moyenne section (4ys) / Grande section (5ys) Data (present study) –L1 children (N=6) –2L1 children (N=3) –cL2 children (N=6) –Longitudinal study over 3 years (so far) Learner matching –2L1 and cL2s are proficiency Matched on the basis of MLU and Vocabulary Diversity (D) (Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihstedt, 2007) Lower Proficiency Group (Range: MLU 2,3 – 4,7; D 22 – 32) Higher Proficiency Group (Range: MLU 4,0 – 8,6; D 30 – 49) Procedures: –Picture elicitation tasks: object clitics, narratives, tense –Structured conversation: past, present, future events –Free conversation p>0.05

13 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood METHOD Object clitics Elicitation: Children and Data cL2 children, recordings –Rachel 4,6 (AO = 3;5) –Patrick 1, 3 (AO = 4;8) –Viola 1,3 (AO = 6;4) –Hannes 1, 7 (AO = 6;6) –Valentine 1,3,7 (AO = 6;5) 2L1 children, recordings –Lars 1,3 –Louise 1,3 –Linnea 1,3 L1 children –Gaspard, Chloé, Noa, Felicie, For information on ages, time of exposure etc. see separate sheet

14 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood METHOD Object Clitics Elicitation: Procedure B. *INV: regarde, quest-ce quil a dans la main Pierre? *CHI: une carrotte *INV: oui et quest-ce quil pense/va faire avec la carrotte –*CHI: il va LA manger > Pronoun –*CHI: manger > Omission –*CHI: (il) (va) manger la carrotte > DP C. *INV: regarde, quest-ce quil a devant lui Pierre? *CHI: des oeufs *INV: oui et regarde ici maintenant quest-ce quil a fait avec les oeufs *CHI: il LES a cassés > Pronoun etc.

15 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood RESULT (Overview) L1 vs 2L1 vs cL2 : Production in elicitation task Lower Proficiency Group

16 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood RESULT (Detail) cL2: : Production in elicitation task AO 3;5AO 4;8 AO 6;5

17 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Examples – cL2 children cL2 Valentine 1 (7;4 Exposure: 0;7) *INV:et [/] et [/] et c ' est quoi qu ' il a devant lui ? *CHI:c ' est le café. *INV:d ' accord. *INV:et qu+est+ce+qu ' il va faire avec le café ? *CHI:boire [= brar] le [/] le café. [DP] cL2 Valentine 1 (8;4 Exposure: 1;7) *ASS:et qu+est+ce+que tu penses qu ' il a dans sa tasse ? *CHI: du café. *ASS: du café oui. *ASS: et qu+est+ce+qu ' il va faire avec le café ? *CHI: il va LE boire.

18 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Examples – cL2 children cL2 Patrick 1 (6;5, Exposure: 1;7) *INV:revoilà Maxelme. *INV:tu vois Maxelme c' est un bon garçon. *INV:il passe l' aspirateur chez lui. *INV:il fait le ménage, tu vois ? *INV:et qu+est+ce+qu' il a fait avec les chaises ? *CHI:il poser [= posE ] sur le table. [Omission] *INV:oui il LES a posées sur la table. cL2 Patrick 3 (7;5, Exposure: 2;7) *INV:alors voilà Philip qui fait le ménage chez lui. *CHI:oui avec l ' aspirateur. *INV:avec l ' aspirateur oui. *INV:mais qu+est+ce+qu ' il a fait avec les chaises ? *CHI:il s [/] il LES [/] LES s met sur la table. *INV:oui. *INV:c ' était avant donc. *INV:avant de passer l ' aspirateur. *INV:qu+est+ce+qu ' il a fait avec les chaises ? *CHI:il [/] il LE monté sur la table.

19 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Summary: Production in Elicitation Task L1 –L1 almost completely on target (1 omission) –Also the youngest child Chloé – 4 year old –Easy task for L1 cL2 –First recordings lacking responses with pronouns (1 occ.) –Parallel use of DP and Omission strategy –Clear, successive and stable development in cL2 learners over 2-3 years –cL2 reaches L1-level < 3 years (Valentine and Hannes) cL2 with different AOs – no clear differences –But Rachel (with A0 3;5) highest rate of omissions 2L1 –Often not on target (in Lower Proficiency Group) –Surprisingly similar to cL2 (use of DP-strategy) –Development over 1 year (not shown here)

20 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Syntactic Properties (Distribution of Object clitics) Clitics can not appear in VP at spell-out *[ IP Elle croit [VPla]] L1 – never left in VP – no placement errors (Hamann et al., 1996, Rasetti, 2003, Hamann & Belletti, 2008) Uses all positions correctly from the time of emergence (Jakubowicz et al., 1996) 2L1 – never left in VP (Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004, Hamann & Belletti, 2008, Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihlstedt, 2007) (one possible exception the child Anouk, Hulk, 2000)

21 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Syntactic Properties (Distribution of Object Clitics) 123 *V(erb) CL AUX CL V [-FIN] CL V [+FIN] CL TempAux V [+ptc] *Je vois laJe le vois Je veux le voir *Jai le vu Je lai vu Adult L2: Developmental sequence of object clitics (Towell & Hawkins, 1994, Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004, Hamann & Belletti, )

22 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood RESULT L1: Distribution of object pronouns (all data)

23 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood RESULT 2L1: Distribution of object pronouns (all data)

24 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood RESULT cL2: Distribution of object pronouns (all data) *Je vois le *Jai le vu Je lai vu

25 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Summary: Distribution of Object Pronouns L1 –Frequent use of positions from all three stages –Also in the youngest child Chloé (4;x) –Corroborating findings in the literature 2L1 –In between aL2 and cL2 –Occurrences of incorrect intermediate position (*Jai le vu) –Development over the data collection period cL2 –Exclusive initial use of the *V CL (*je vois le) position (5/6 children) –Development following the aL2 developmental sequence –Reaches Stage 3 in 2-3 years cL2 with different AOs –Rachel (AO 3;4) does, at least not so far, display evidence of the aL2 developmental sequence –Rachel uses Stage 3 structure (je lai vu) in conversation but not in the test (cf. above)

26 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Prosodic / Morpho-phonological Properties Clitics are [- word accent] and [+ restructuration] Elision of pronouns and determiners might be considered a specific case of restructuration. –Je # essaie > Jessaie / le # école > lécole Elision is a good diagnostic of clitic status (Herschensohn, 2001: 292) In adult L2 G&S found an initial correlation between the syntactic non-clitic properties of object and subject pronouns and the absence of elision.

27 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood RESULT cL2: Elision of pronouns and determiners

28 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood RESULT cL2: Elision as a function of object clitic stages *Je vois le *Jai le vu / Je veux le voir / Je le vois Je lai vu

29 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Summary: Prosodic/Morpho-phonological properties (elision) cL2 There seems to be a strong and systematic correlation between the object clitic stages and and the development of elision Possible interpretation: The restructuration property preceeds and might act as trigger for syntactic cliticisation. cL2 with different AOs: –Rachel is again different in not displaying any clear occurrences of non-elided subject pronouns and determiners.

30 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Semantic / Referential properties Clitic doubling (Le chat il monte) Young (2)L1 children almost obligatory double lexical DP subjects (Meisel, 1990, Pierce, 1992, Kaiser, 1994, Ferdinand, 1996, Hamann et al. 1996, Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004 among others) Adult L2 learners do not double lexical DP subjects to any great extent (Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004) BUT: In somewhat older L1 French children subject clitic doubling tend to disappear and become more restricted to certain referential functions (Hickmann & Hendriks, 1999, Jisa, 2000) Consequences: important to take into consideration –Relevant L1 baseline data at the age of 5-7 years –The referential functions of clitic doubling at the relevant ages

31 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood The Cat Story Example: L1 Félicie (5;5) *CHI:il y a une maman # oiseau. *AS2:mhm. *CHI:qui a fait naître ses ## bébés. *CHI:et après elle [MA] s ' envole. *CHI:et puis il y a un chat qui vient. *CHI:et puis le chat il [MA] regarde en l ' air. *CHI:et puis il [MA] grimpe. *CHI:et puis le chien il [INTR] voit sa queue. *CHI:et puis le chien il attrappe [MA] la queue du chat. *CHI:et puis sa [//] la maman [oie] oiseau elle [REIN] revient avec un ver de terre pour nourrir euh ses [//] les [//] ses enfants. *CHI:et puis après elle [MA]LE donne pour l ' en [//] à ses enfants. *CHI:et puis le chat et le chien il [REIN] part. MA = Referent MAintenance REIN = Referent REINtroduction

32 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood This confirms the suggestion of Hickmann & Hendriks (1999) that NOUN+PRO becomes specialized to REIN contexts for the five- and seven-year olds (Jisa, 2000: 611)

33 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood RESULT (preliminary) L1, 2L1 & cL2: Referential expressions cL2: Hardly any DP+Pro expressions in the functions of reference MAINTENANCE or REINTRODUCTION

34 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Is Rachel Different (again)? (AO 3;5) a. *INV:où est ce qu ' ils sont les petits oiseaux ? *INV:là. *CHI:il chat il [REIN] mange ça. *INV:oui le chat il voudrait bien manger les oiseaux. b. *INV:et après qu+est+ce+qui se passe là ? *CHI:maman il [REIN] arrive. *INV:la maman arrive. c. *INV:pourquoi ils courent ? *CHI:il [//] la chien il [REIN] veut prendre la chat dans la +... *INV:dans la queue. d. *ASS:et là le chat grimpe. *CHI:mais le chien il [REIN] prend le chat dans la +//. *ASS:oui il prend dans la queue. *ASS:il prend le chat dans la queue.

35 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Summary: Semantic / Referential properties (clitic doubling) cL2 –The children practically never use clitic doubling in REIN function –Instead they use DPs and pronouns cL2 with different AOs –Rachel might again be different in using clitic doubling but further analysis is needed

36 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Syntax [- VP at spell-out] Cliticisation Semantics / Referential properties Clitic doubling Prosody / Morpho- phonology Restructuration (elision) cL2 A0 >4 y Adult L2 > 3 years Important variation No real development SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Very sharp increase preceeding stage years Intervening age factor Passed this stage?

37 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood DISCUSSION Tentative conclusions (I) Initial stage: cL2 (with AO above 4) = aL2 –cL2 is the only group with post-verbal clitics –Systematic absence of elision in the initial stage –Interpretation: no cliticisation and a transfer effect (Swedish has strong/weak pronouns) Development: cL2 (with AO above 4) shows some ressemblance to (2)L1 –cL2 shows clustering effects (morpho-phonology & syntax) –cL2 seems to develop faster than aL2 –BUT: cL2 still follow the adult developmental sequence (object clitics) – presumably as an effect of the initial stage.

38 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Tentative conclusions (II) Furthermore: –cL2 with AO below 4 years might, in fact, be different both wrst the initial stage and to development thus confirming Meisels age ranges (2008) (cf. Rachel). More children are with AO below 4 need to be investigated. –BUT: The 2L1 children in this study are qualitatively different from the ones previously studied (Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004) and in some areas they look more like the cL2 children. Further research is needed here.

39 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood Thank You!

40 Hamburg June Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood RESULT L1 vs. 2L1: Production in elicitation task L1 children 2L1 children Lower Proficiency Group


Télécharger ppt "Cliticisation in the Acquisition of Child French L2: a Cross-Learner Comparison Jonas Granfeldt Lund University"

Présentations similaires


Annonces Google