Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T10:01:33.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bilingual language acquisition and theories of diachronic change: Bilingualism as cause and effect of grammatical change*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2010

JÜRGEN M. MEISEL
JÜRGEN M. MEISEL*
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg & University of Calgary
*
Address for correspondence: University of Calgary, Department of Linguistics, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Children acquiring their first languages are frequently regarded as the principal agents of diachronic change. The causes and the precise nature of the processes of change are, however, far from clear. The following discussion focuses on possible changes of core properties of grammars which, in terms of the theory of Universal Grammar, can be characterized as reflecting different settings of parameters. In such cases, learners develop grammatical competences differing from those of speakers of the previous generation who provided the primary data serving as input for the developmental processes. It has been argued that reanalyses of this type must be conceived of as instances of transmission failure. Yet acquisition research has demonstrated that the human Language Making Capacity is extraordinarily robust, thus leading to the question of what might cause unsuccessful acquisition. Changing frequencies in use or exposure to data containing ambiguous or even contradictory evidence are unlikely to suffice as causes for this to happen. Language acquisition in multilingual settings may be a more plausible source of grammatical reanalysis than monolingual first language development. The study of contemporary bilingualism can therefore contribute to an explanation of diachronic change. Yet one such insight is that simultaneous acquisition of two languages (2L1) typically leads to a kind of grammatical knowledge in each language which is qualitatively not different from that of the respective monolinguals, obliging us to look for other sources of transmission failure. 2L1 acquisition in settings where one language is “weaker” than the other has been claimed to qualify as such. But I will argue that even such problematic cases do not provide convincing evidence of reanalysis. If, on the other hand, children receive sustained input from second language learners, or if their onset of acquisition is delayed, this can indeed lead to incomplete acquisition. I conclude that successive acquisition of bilingualism plays a crucial role as a source of grammatical change. In order for such changes to happen, however, grammar-internal and language-external factors may have to concur.

Keywords

diachronic syntaxbilingual first language acquisitionparametric change
Type
Keynote
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 121 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This study has been carried out as part of the research project Multilingualism as Cause and Effect of Language Change, funded from 1999 through 2011 by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Science Foundation) as part of the Collaborative Research Center on Multilingualism, established at the University of Hamburg. The support by the DFG is gratefully acknowledged. The present paper is a thoroughly revised version of a text which I first presented as a keynote address at the 3rd International Symposium on Bilingualism, at the University of the West of England, Bristol, April 2001. A first revision appeared in 2001 as a working paper in the series Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit – Working Papers in Multilingualism, University of Hamburg: Collaborative Research Center on Multilingualism. Substantial parts of this further revised and elaborated version were presented in an invited lecture at the conference on Transmission and Diffusion, Nijmegen, January 2008. I want to thank the organizers of both conferences for offering me the opportunity to present these ideas, and the audiences for giving me valuable feedback. I am particularly grateful to Susanne E. Carroll, Martin Elsig, Gisella Ferraresi, Maria Goldbach, François Grosjean, Gisela Håkansson, Georg A. Kaiser, Silvina Montrul, Robert W. Murray, Esther Rinke, Monika Rothweiler and Suzanne Schlyter for reading and commenting on one or more drafts of this paper. Finally, I also want to thank three anonymous reviewers for their helpful criticisms, comments and suggestions.

References

Adams, M. (1987). Old French, null subjects, and verb second phenomena. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services.Google Scholar
Almgren, M., & Barreña, A. (2005). El desarrollo de la morfología de futuro en castellano y euskera en niños monolingües y bilingües. Cognitiva, 17, 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. (1973). Abductive and deductive change. Language, 49, 765–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. W. (ed.) (1983). Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. W. (1984). What's gender good for, anyway? In Andersen, R. W. (ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective, pp. 77–99. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Auer, P., & Schmidt, J. E. (eds.) (2010). Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation (vol. 1): Theories and methods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing, pp. 3–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bernardini, P., & Schlyter, S. (2004). Growing syntactic structure and code mixing in the weaker language: The Ivy Hypothesis. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (1), 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. (ed.) (2008). The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, pp. 141–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blom, E., Polišenská, D., & Weerman, F. (2008). Articles, adjectives, and age of onset: The acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender. Second Language Research, 24, 297–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnesen, M. (2007). V2 ou V3? La position du verbe fléchi en français chez des enfants bilingues français–allemand. AILE (Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère), 25, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnesen, M. (2009). The status of the “weaker” language in unbalanced French/German bilingual language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12 (2), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnesen, M., & Kroffke, S. (2007). The acquisition of questions in L2 German and French by children and adults. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 83. University of Hamburg, Research Center on Multilingualism.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1984). Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowern, C. (2008). Syntactic change and syntactic borrowing in generative grammar. In Ferraresi, G. & Goldbach, M. (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction, pp. 187–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandner, E., & Ferraresi, G. (1996). Introduction. In Brandner, E. & Ferraresi, G. (eds.), Language change and generative grammar, pp. 7–21. Opladen: Westdeutscher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (1989). Language acquisition studies and a feasible theory of grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (1999). Input and SLA: Adults’ sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 49, 37–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1989). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 43–74.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1991). Constraints on parameter setting: A grammatical analysis of some acquisition stages in German child language. Language Acquisition, 1, 361–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Houwer, A. (1995). Bilingual language acquisition. In Fletcher, & MacWhinney, (eds.), pp. 219–250.Google Scholar
Diez, F. (1882 5). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. Drei Theile in einem Bande. Bonn: Weber.Google Scholar
Döpke, S. (1998). Competing language structures: The acquisition of verb placement by bilingual German–English children. Journal of Child Language, 25, 555–584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Döpke, S. (2000a). Generation of and retraction from cross-linguistically motivated structures in bilingual first language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3 (3), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döpke, S. (2000b). The interplay between language-specific development and crosslinguistic influence. In Döpke, (ed.), pp. 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döpke, S. (ed.) (2000c). Cross-linguistic structures in simultaneous bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Elsig, M. (2009). Verb second effects in Old French and Middle High German: Considerations from the language border. Ms., Universität Hamburg.Google Scholar
Fletcher, P., & MacWhinney, B. (eds.) (1995). The handbook of child language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Flores, C. (2008). A competência sintáctica de falantes bilingues luso–alemães regressados a Portugal. Um estudo sobre erosão linguística. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade do Minho, Braga.Google Scholar
Flores, C. (2010). The effect of age on language attrition: Evidence from bilingual returnees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (4), 533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1998). Unambiguous triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritzenschaft, A., Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I., & Tracy, R. (1990). Wege zur komplexen Syntax. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 9, 52–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granfeldt, J., & Schlyter, S. (2004). Cliticisation in the acquisition of French as L1 and L2. In Prévost & Paradis (eds.), pp. 333–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2000). The bilingual's language modes. In Nicol, J. L. (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, pp. 1–15. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hale, M. (1998). Diachronic syntax. Syntax, 1, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Franceschina, F. (2004). Explaining the acquisition and non-acquisition of determiner–noun gender concord in French and Spanish. In Prévost, & Paradis, (eds.), pp. 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, B. (2003). The status of functional categories in child second language acquisition: Evidence from the acquisition of CP. Second Language Research, 19, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, Th., de Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (3), 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R., & Petrova, S. (2008). From V1 to V2 in Older Germanic. Ms., Humboldt University Berlin.Google Scholar
Hulk, A. (2000). Non-selective access and activation in child bilingualism: The syntax. In Döpke, (ed.), pp. 57–78.Google Scholar
Hulk, A., & Cornips, L. (2006). Between 2L1 and child L2 acquisition. In Lleó, (ed.), pp. 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3 (3), 227–244. [Special Issue, F. Genesee (ed.), Syntactic aspects of bilingual acquisition.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulk, A., & Van Der Linden, E. (1996). Language mixing in a French–Dutch bilingual child. In Kellerman, E., Weltens, B. & Bongaerts, Th. (eds.), EUROSLA 6: A selection of papers. Toegepaste Taalkunde in Artikelen, 55 (2), 89–102.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in second language acquisition. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 539–588. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Johansson, C. (1997). A view from language: Growth of language in individuals and populations. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Kaiser, G. A. (1998). Verb – Zweit-Effekte in der Romania: Eine diachronische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Französischen. Habilitation thesis, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Kaiser, G. A. (2000). Dialect contact and language change: A case study on word order change in French. Working Papers in Multilingualism, 3. University of Hamburg, Research Center on Multilingualism.Google Scholar
Kaiser, G. A. (2002). Verbstellung und Verbstellungswandel in den romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, G. A., & Meisel, J. M. (1991). Subjekte und Null-Subjekte im Französischen. In Olsen, S. & Fanselow, G. (eds.), DET, COMP und INFL: Zur Syntax funktionaler Kategorien und grammatischer Funktionen, pp. 110–136. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köppe, R. (1994). The DUFDE project. In Meisel, (ed.), pp. 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1973). Lateralization, language learning and the critical period: Some new evidence. Language Learning, 23, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (2001). Syntactic change. In Baltin, M. (ed.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, pp. 699–729. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kroch, A., & Taylor, A. (1997). Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In van Kemenade, A. & Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters and morphosyntactic change, pp. 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kroffke, S., & Rothweiler, M. (2006). Variation im frühen Zweitspracherwerb des Deutschen durch Kinder mit türkischer Erstsprache. In Vliegen, M. (ed.), Variation in Sprachtheorie und Spracherwerb. Akten des 39. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Amsterdam, pp. 145–154. Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1975). On the use of the present to explain the past. In Heilmann, L. (ed.), 11th International Congress of Linguists, pp. 825–851. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2007). Transmission and diffusion. Language, 83, 344–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakshmanan, U. (1994). Universal Grammar in child second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1997). Catastrophic change and learning theory. Lingua, 100, 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1999). The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (2000). How long was the nineteenth century? D.E.L.T.A., 16 (No Especial), 81–98.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (2006). How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lleó, C. (ed.) (2006). Interfaces in multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. (2001). Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism and etymology: The history of French chez. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1991). Principles of Universal Grammar and strategies of language use: On some similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. (ed.), Point–counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language, pp. 231–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1993). Simultaneous first language acquisition: A window on early grammatical development. D.E.L.T.A., 9 (No Especial), 353–385.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (ed.) (1994). Bilingual first language acquisition: French and German grammatical development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1995). Parameters in acquisition. In Fletcher, & MacWhinney, (eds.), pp. 10–35.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1997). The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German: Contrasting first and second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 13, 227–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2001). The simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: Early differentiation and subsequent development of grammars. In Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. (eds.), Trends in bilingual acquisition, pp. 11–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2004). The bilingual child. In Bhatia, T. K. & Ritchie, W. C. (eds.), The handbook of bilingualism, pp. 91–113. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2007a). The weaker language in early child bilingualism: Acquiring a first language as a second language? Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2007b). On autonomous syntactic development in multiple first language acquisition. In Caunt-Nulton, H., Kulatilake, S. & Woo, I.–H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 26–45. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2007c). Morphology as a problem space in child second language acquisition. Presented at the University of Toronto (Department of Linguistics), November 30, 2007.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2008a). Child second language acquisition or successive first language acquisition? In Haznedar, B. & Gavruseva, E. (eds.), Current trends in child second language acquisition: A generative perspective, pp. 55–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2008b). Âge du début de l'acquisition successive du bilinguisme. Effets sur le développement grammatical. In Kail, M., Fayol, M. & Hickman, M. (eds.), Apprentissage des langues premières et secondes, pp. 245–272. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2009). Second language acquisition in early childhood. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 28, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möhring, A. (2001). The acquisition of French by German children of pre-school age: An empirical investigation of gender assignment and gender agreement. In Foster-Cohen, S. & Nizegorodcew, A. (eds.), Eurosla Yearbook, 1, pp. 171–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Potowski, K. (2007). Command of gender agreement in school-age Spanish–English bilingual children. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 11, 301–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, N. (1994). Parameters cannot be reset: Evidence from the development of COMP. In Meisel, (ed.), pp. 235–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, R. W. (2010). Language and space: The Neogrammarian tradition. In Auer, & Schmidt, (eds.), pp. 70–86.Google Scholar
Niyogi, P., & Berwick, R. C. (1995). The logical problem of language change. MIT, Center for Biological and Computational Learning: AI Memo No.1516/C.B.C.L Paper No. 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, H. (1880, 19205). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle a.S.: Niemeyer. [19759, Tübingen: Niemeyer.]Google Scholar
Pfaff, C. W. (1992). The issue of grammaticalization in early German second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 273–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability Theory and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, C. (1995). The loss of verb second in English and French. In Battye, A. & Roberts, I. [G.] (eds.), Clause structure and language change, pp. 200–226. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S., & Levey, S. (2010). Contact-induced grammatical change: A cautionary tale. In Auer, & Schmidt, (eds.), pp. 391–418.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & Paradis, J. (eds.) (2004). The acquisition of French in different contexts: Focus on functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, E. (1903). Zur Entwicklung der romanischen Wortstellung aus der lateinischen. Halle a. S.: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rinke, E., & Meisel, J. M. (2009). Subject-inversion in Old French: Syntax and information structure. In Kaiser, G. A. & Remberger, E.-M. (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop “Null-subjects, expletives, and locatives in Romance” (University of Constance, Working Paper 123), pp. 93–130.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. G. (1993). Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (1999). Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2 (3), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothweiler, M. (2006). The acquisition of V2 and subordinate clauses in early successive acquisition of German. In Lleó, (ed.), pp. 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruben, R. J. (1997). A time frame of critical/sensitive periods of language development. Acta Otolaryngologica, 117, 202–205CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sankoff, G. (2005). Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in sociolinguistics. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. J. & Trudgill, P. (eds.), An international handbook of the science of language and society, pp. 1003–1013. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G., & Blondeau, H. (2007). Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montréal French. Language, 83, 560–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 6, 93–124.Google Scholar
Schlyter, S. (1993). The weaker language in bilingual Swedish–French children. In Hyltenstam, K. & Viberg, A. (eds.), Progression and regression in language: Sociocultural, neuropsychological and linguistic perspectives, pp. 289–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schlyter, S., & Håkansson, G. (1994). Word order in Swedish as the first language, second language and weaker language in bilinguals. Scandinavian Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 49–66.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (2004). On child L2 development of syntax and morphology. Lingue e Linguaggio, 3, 97–132.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). Language contact and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2003). Linguistic consequences of reduced input in bilingual first language acquisition. In Montrul, S. & Ordóñez, F. (eds.), Linguistic theory and language development in Hispanic languages, pp. 375–397. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Sitaridou, I. (2005). A corpus-based study of null subjects in Old French and Old Occitan. In Pusch, C. D., Kabatek, J. & Raible, W. (eds.), Romance corpus linguistics II: Corpora and diachronic linguistics, pp. 359–374. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Smith, N., & Tsimpli, I.-M. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sopata, A. (2008). Finiteness in child second language acquisition. Presented at the Colloquium on Language Acquisition and Change: Across the Lifespan and across Generations, University of Hamburg, June 2008.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax–discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 143–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. Grey, & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurneysen, R. (1892). Zur Stellung des Verbums im Altfranzösischen. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 16, 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Tracy, R. (1991). Sprachliche Strukturentwicklung: Linguistische und kognitionspsychologische Aspekte einer Theorie des Erstspracherwerbs. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Tracy, R. (1995). Child languages in contact: Bilingual language acquisition (English/German) in early childhood. Habilitation thesis, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Tracy, R. (1998). Transfer versus coexistent systems. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (3), 185–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter resetting in L2? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149–169.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F. (2004). First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Weerman, F. (1993). The diachronic consequences of first and second language acquisition: The change from OV to VO. Linguistics, 31, 901–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar