Tense - aspect in early stages of child L2 acquisition Suzanne Schlyter Lund University Sweden Eurosla 18 Aix-en-Provence sept 2008

Child second language acquisition - chL2 Child second language acquisition, chL2: start 3 – 8 years Is chL2 more like L1 or more like adL2 acquisition? Role of the Age of Onset of the Acquisition? Unsworth (2005), Meisel (2006, 2008), Bonnesen (2008), Thoma (2008) etc

Structure of the speech Study 1) chL2 - L1 - 2L1 of same age: various phenomena Study 2) chL2 - 2L1 - adL2 in initial stages: Tense-Aspect

Study 1, GSK07 Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihlstedt 2007: French as cL2, 2L1 and L1 in pre-school children PERLES 24, SOL, Lund university

Background Open question whether chL2 proceeds like 2L1 (same age, same input, but AOA birth) (Unsworth 2005; Kroffke & Rothweiler 2004; Meisel 2007, 2008; Bonnesen 2008; Tracy, Gawlizek & Thoma) Meisel (2006-7): adL2 fundamentally different from L1 - Where is the cut off point, age ?

Study 1 (GSK07) Research questions, chL2 acquisition vs L1 and 2L1, in children of same age, same input? If so, in what phenomena? Studied here: in French L1, 2L1, chL2 6 ys –Finite and non-finite forms –Marking of past tense reference –Object clitics –Gender

Study 1: General summary of Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihlstedt 2007 French in child L2 patterns with adult L2, but differs from 2L1 of the same age. These phenomena are: –Non-finite verb forms –Past tense marking –Object clitics –Gender

STUDY 2 Tense and Aspect development in adL2, 2L1 and cL2 Use of French Tense-Aspect marking in initial stages of acquisition, Swedish-French adL2 (19-50 ys) 2L1 children (1;10 – 4 ys) chL2 children (6 ys)

Differences TA in L1 – adL2 Past reference (2)L1: start with morphology; very correct development: all past contexts are marked; adverbs appear later; discourse very late adL2: start with discourse (PNO etc.); temporal adverbs; past contexts often not marked by verb morphology (Meisel 1985, 1987; Rieckborn 2007) Weist (2002): “For untutored L2 learners, the inflectional morphology is the last thing to be acquired in stark contrast to first language learning children. Hence, from this global perspective, L1 and L2 acquisition are as different as they can get.”

AH – the Aspect-before-Tense Hypothesis Ayoun & Salaberry 2008:556 ” The AH states that, in the early stages of acquisition, verbal morphology encodes inherent semantic aspectual distinctions, i.e. does not encode tense or grammatical aspect (…). (…) the initial stages of development of tense and aspect marking are constrained by lexical aspectual classes: states, activities, accomplishments and achievements (…)” AH is considered similar in L1 and adL2 acquisition (e.g. Ayoun 2008)

Study 2: Comparisons 2L1, adL2 and chL2 Matching point: the first moment from which the learners clearly refer to past using at least some past tense forms (PC or Impf). (cf. Rieckborn 2007) Children chL2 Viola, Patrick, Hannes, Valentina (6 ys) are compared to: 2L1 Jean, Dany, Anne, Mimi (2 ys) adL2 Henry, Björn, Sara, Martin (>20 ys)

adL2 - Adult second language learners

adL2 – forms for past reference, from first occ of marked past ref Adult L2 learners: HENRY, BJÖRN, MARTIN, SARA Studied: Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) Rate of past tense marking Different verb forms used Lexical aspect (Telic, Activity, State) Temporal reference (PF = Perfect/ Imm past, vs Pa = Remote past)

Learner HENRY Exposure months MLU%past marking Henry12-33,3 43% Henry23-43,9 58% Learner BJÖRN Exposure months MLU%past marking Björn 13m5,325% Björn 27m(7,0)30%

Exemple adL2 production (5) Björn 1, MLU 5,3, exposure to French 3 months: *INT: tu peux raconter de de ce voyage? *BJö: voyage # eh nous eh fait le auto auto-stop. *BJö: et c'est - he he - plus difficile. *BJö: eh # eh nous commence en à Porte de la Chapelle. *BJö: et prenE auto. c'est un petit eh auto eh avec un homme et une fille et ils eh # hm il fait (…). *BJö: et à eh eh à airport. (…) … *BJö: donc eh nous eh # allons, oui? (…) *BJö: nous allons aller # à une le un xx. *BJö: c'est eh peut-être eh # psh trente-cinq cinq kilomètres. (…) *BJö: un bon eh # place. *BJö: c'était eh pas le bon place. *BJö: pour # c'était # eh pas votre dir direction. *BJö: c'était un autre direction.

adL2 learners – verb forms for past reference Learner HENRY Exp mo mlu% past mk PCIMPFLong FormPRS short default Henry12-33,3 43% 1T ai oubli PF 2T j’ai a bu Pa a comprendre Pa 1A ai contrôlé Pa 4S était avais 1T? compren- dE 2T entrE téléphoné 2A étudiE fonctionnE all Pa 4S est j’ai Pa connaît Pa 3A marche Pa parle Pa cherche Pa 1T?traduis Pa Henry23-43,9 58% 5 T j’ai oublié j’ai appris PF a vu Pa 2 A a travaillé Pa 4S avais était 1T oubliE Pa 4A- travaillE Pa mangE Pa dormi Pa 3S est

adL2 learners – verb forms for past reference Learner BJÖRN Expo- sure mlu%pa mk PCImpfLongFormsPresent Björn 13m5,325%(cf *allons allE T)3S était 1T prenE 2A étudiE jouE (+many LF for prs) 3S c’est 2A fait 4T prend allons V allons Björn 27m(7,0)30%4T j’ai écrit PF ai composé x PF changé trouvé Pa 7A étude PF dorm dormE Pa e joué Pa essayé couché Pa (aux: nous avons) 2S était 1A jouait 2T allE demandE 6A jouE couchE continuE faire 1S avoir 14S 12c’est avons 4A étude attende 5T prend allons

Result adL2 learners adL2 learners behave very similarly to what is shown in many studies of (French) L2 acquisition. The AH is not evident: Telic verbs in PRS and IMPF, Activity verbs in PC PC and IMPF is used from start to refer to remote past (i.e. Tense is marked early)

2L1 – children with two first languages, age 2 – 3 years (French stronger language)

2L1 – forms for past reference, from first occ of marked past ref 2L1 - two first languages = simultaneous bilingual children : ANNE, MIMI, JEAN, DANY Studied: Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) Rate of past marking Different verb forms used Lexical aspect (Telic, Activity, State) Temporal reference (PF = Perfect/Imm past, vs Pa = Remote past)

Exemples 2L1 production Dany 2;6 (MLU 1,8) Dany: (a) pati à (kako) Père: tu es parti à l’école Watching ski competition on tv, Child sees someone falling: Dany: (a) tombé! Father: il est tombé Dany: est tombé Father: il est tombé

Child ANNE ageMLU%past marking Anne32;82,7 83 Anne42;102,4100 Anne52;113;2 91 Child MIMI Mimi2 age 2;2 MLU 3,2 % past marking 88 Mimi32;63,594 Mimi42;103,5100

Child ANNE agemlu%past mark PCIMPFLongFPRS Anne32;82,7 837T+ cassé PF tombé PF 3T fait PF --- Anne42;102,41001T+ fini PF 2T donné PF collé PF 2A mangé PF --- Anne52;113;2 917T+ parti PF passé PF trouvé PF 1S avait 1A il jouE --

2L1 – forms for past reference, from first occ of PC with avoir Child MIMI Mimi2 age 2;2 mlu 3,2 % past marking 88 Passé Composé 3 T+ vu PF tombé PF trouvé PF 4 T écrit PF fait x PF Impf - LongForm 1T écrit PF Present - Mimi32;63,5943 T+ cassé tombé PF 4 T mangé x PF fait x PF renversé PF 5 AT fait x PF ? mangé PF 1 A – joué Pa ai fait Pa --1T+TombePF Mimi42;103,51002T+ tombé PF 8T fait x PF effacé mis PF enlèvé PF ---

Results 2L1 children Behave very similarly to what is shown in many studies of (French) L1 or 2L1 acquisition (Antinucci & Miller, Meisel, Rieckborn, Weist...) No overextension of default forms for past ref Evidence for AH : 1-1 relation Telic verbs and PC ( est cassé, est tombé, a trouvé, a fini etc.) PC is used initially only for Resulting state (=Perfect) or Immediate past

chL2 - Child L2 learners, AOA ca 6 years like (2)L1 or adL2 ?

Child L2 forms for past reference, from first occ of PC with avoir Children: VIOLA, PATRICK, VALENTINA, HANNES Studied: Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) Rate of past marking Different verb forms used Lexical aspect (Telic, Activity, State) Temporal reference (PF = Perfect/Imm past, vs Pa = Remote past)

Child VIO Age / expo MLU%past marking Viola1 6;11/ 7 mo 2,3 (66%) Viola2 7;7/ 12mo 3,6 50% Child PAT Age /expo MLU%past marking Patrik16;2/ 7 mo 3,544% Patrik26;11/ 12 mo 2,644%

Child L2 : forms for reference to past, from first occ of PC with avoir Child VIO agemlu%past mark PCIMPFLFPRS Viola1 6;11 2,3 (66%) 2 T e venu Pa--1A mange Viola2 7;7 3,6 50% 4 T e venu a allé * a acheté x Pa 3 A a regardé a mangé a dansé Pa 2 S s’appellaient (imit) Pa voulait 1A écoutE Pa 6 S veut V sont 1A regarde 1T va vont V

Child L2 : forms for reference to past from first occ of PC with avoir Child PAT ageMlu% past mk PCIMPFLFPRS Patrik16;23,544%4 T a vu a écrit PF a revenu Pa -2T venE Pa posE PF 3T coupe PF ouvre PF ferme PF Patrik26;112,644%8T e allé, a vu Pa e (de)venu Pa e arveillé Pa 2A a rigolé Pa a regardé Pa 1S y a été Pa 1T trouvait Pa 2S trouvé Adj voulu 2A dansE chantE 5T allé venu araveillé se couchE 2S il y a Pa sont Adj Ps 2T va Pa

Exemples cL2 Patrick1, exp 7 months: *INV:et qu+est+ce+qu ' il a fait avec la porte ? *CHI:il ouvre. *INV:et là qu+est+ce+qu ' il a fait avec la porte ? *CHI:euh il &freme [= ferme]. Viola 1, exp 7 months: *INV:qu+est+ce+que tu as fait au café ? tu es allée boire des cafés ? *CHI:non. *INV:tu as mangé du café ? *CHI:non. *INV:qu+est+ce+que tu as fait ? *CHI:mange. *INV:tu as mangé ? mhm d ' accord. Viola2, exp 13 mois: *INV:elles étaient allées à la plage après ? *CHI: oui. *INV:et qu+ est+ce+qu ' elles y avaient fait ? *CHI:elle [alt=elles] a regardé de soleil.

Results chL2 children AH is not evident: Telic verbs in PRS and IMPF, Activity verbs in PC PC and IMPF used from start to refer to remote past (i.e Tense marked early) >> similar to adL2 learners

Discussion Why cL2 like adL2 rather than 2L1? Hypotheses: -Conceptual development (Weist 2002) -Syntactic development (White 2003, Giorgi & Pianesi 1997) GSK07: When the child has developed the entire syntax (DP > VP > IP > CP) then cL2 is like adL2

MERCI! THANK YOU!

Acknowledgements Jean-Luc Montois, Sylvie Renard The children and their parents Elisabeth Rausing Memorial Foundation for Research (grant nov 2007)

Some references Ayoun, D. & Salaberry, R. (2008). Acquisition of English Tense-Aspect Morphology by Advanced French Instructed Learners. Language learning 58:3, sept 2008 Meisel, J.M. (2008) “Child second language acquisition or successive first language acquisition?” In B. Haznedar & E. Gavruseva (eds.) Current Trends in Child Second Language Acquisition: A Generative Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rieckborn, S. (2008) Erst- und Zweitsprachenerwerb im Vergleich. Eine Studie zum Erwerb von Tempus und Aspekt im Deutschen und Französischen. PHILOLOGIA, Bd 99, Hamburg. Unsworth, S. (2005) Child L2, Adult L2, Child L1: Differences and Similarities. A Study on the Acquisition of Direct Object Scrambling in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT. Doctoral dissertation. Weist, R. (2002) The first language acquisition of tense and aspect: A review. Salaberry, R.& Shirai,Y. (eds) The L2 acquisition of Tense-Aspect Morphology. Benjamins