Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T01:54:19.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's Second Language Acquisition of English Complex Syntax: The Role of Age, Input, and Cognitive Factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2017

Johanne Paradis ,
Brian Rusk ,
Tamara Sorenson Duncan  and
Krithika Govindarajan
Johanne Paradis
Affiliation:
University of Alberta, [email protected]
Brian Rusk
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Tamara Sorenson Duncan
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Krithika Govindarajan
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The goal of this study was to determine (a) the similarities and dissimilarities between child L2 and L1 acquisition of complex sentences and (b) the individual difference factors predicting L2 children's acquisition of complex sentences. We analyzed language samples from 187 English L2 children with diverse L1s (Agemean = 5;10 [years;months]; English exposuremean = 17 months). Children used various types of complex sentences at all levels of L2 exposure, including sentences with relative clauses, which are late-acquired by L1 learners. Mixed logistic regression modeling revealed that longer exposure to English in school, richer English environments outside school, larger L2 vocabulary, superior verbal memory and visual analytic reasoning contributed to greater use of complex sentences. L1 typology did not impact complex sentence use in the L2. Overall, L2 children used more complex sentences within a few months of English L2 exposure than what is reported for L1 children aged 2;0–4;0, revealing an advantage for an older age of acquisition. The predictive role of input and cognitive factors, as well as vocabulary, in children's use of complex sentences is more consistent with constructivist than generativist accounts of L2 syntactic acquisition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 37 , September 2017 , pp. 148 - 167
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2017 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59 (2), 249–306.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armon-Lotem, S., Walters, J., & Gagarina, N. (2011). The impact of internal and external factors on linguistic performance in the home language and in L2 among Russian-Hebrew and Russian-German preschool children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1 (3), 291–317.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2015). lme4 package for linear mixed-effects models using “eigen” and S4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48.Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2008). Corpora in language acquisition research: History, methods, perspectives. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blom, W. B. T., & Bosma, E. (2016). The sooner the better? An investigation into the role of age of onset and its relation with transfer and exposure in bilingual Frisian-Dutch children. Journal of Child Language, 43, 581–607.Google Scholar
Blom, E., & Paradis, J. (2013). Past tense production by English second language learners with and without impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 1–14.Google Scholar
Blom, E., Paradis, J., & Sorenson Duncan, T. (2012). Effects of input properties, vocabulary size and L1 on the development of third person singular –s in child L2 English. Language Learning, 62 (3), 965–994.Google Scholar
Bohman, T. M., Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Mendez-Perez, A., & Gillam, R. B. (2010). What you hear and what you say: Language performance in early sequential Spanish–English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 325–344.Google Scholar
Burgemeister, B., Hollander Blum, L., & Lorge, I. (1972). Columbia Mental Maturity Scale. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Chondrogianni, V., & Marinis, T. (2011). Differential effects of internal and external factors on the development of vocabulary, morphology and complex syntax in successive bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 223–248.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, E., & Street, J. (2006). Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Language Sciences, 28, 604–615.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Thordardottir, Elin. (2008). Language-specific effects of task demands on the manifestation of specific language impairment: A comparison of English and Icelandic. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 922–937.Google Scholar
Eisenbeiss, S. (2009). Generative approaches to language learning. Linguistics, 47 (2), 273–310.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. M. (2007). Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: A constructivist account of morpho-syntactic development in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 224–247.Google Scholar
Hoff, E., Welsh, S., Place, S., & Ribot, K. (2014). Properties of dual language input that shape bilingual development and properties of environments that shape dual language input. In Grüter, T. & Paradis, J., Input and experience in bilingual development (pp. 119–140). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J., & Hedges, L. V. (2010). Sources of variability in children's language growth. Cognitive Psychology, 61 (4), 343–365.Google Scholar
Jia, G., & Fuse, A. (2007). Acquisition of English grammatical morphology by native Mandarin-speaking children and adolescents: Age-related differences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50 (5), 1280–1299.Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Chen, A., Chiu, J. (2015). Cross-linguistic influence in simultaneous Cantonese–English bilingual children's comprehension of relative clauses. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 438–452.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Murphy, V., & Evangelou, M. (2016). Early childhood education in English for speakers of other languages. London, UK: British Council. Retrieved from www.britishcouncil.org.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, R. (1974). Syntactic differences between speech and writing. American Speech, 49, 102–110.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1 (3), 213–237.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., & Jia, R. (2016). Bilingual children's long-term outcomes in English as a second language and sources of individual differences in their rate of English development. Developmental Science, 20 (1), e12433. doi: 10.1111/desc.12433Google Scholar
Paradis, J., & Kirova, A. (2014). English second-language learners in preschool: Profile effects in their English abilities and the role of home language environment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38 (4), 342–349.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., Rice, M., Crago, M., & Marquis, J. (2008). The acquisition of tense in English: Distinguishing child L2 from L1 and SLI. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 1–34.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., Tulpar, Y., & Arppe, A. (2016). Chinese L1 children's English L2 verb morphology over time: Individual variation in long-term outcomes. Journal of Child Language, 43, 553–580.Google Scholar
Purcell-Gates, V. (2001). Emergent literacy is emerging knowledge of written, not oral, language. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 92, 7–22.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Essex, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2015). The R project for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org/Google Scholar
Roesch, A. D., & Chondrogianni, V. (2016). “Which mouse kissed the frog?” Effects of age of onset, length of exposure, and knowledge of case marking on the comprehension of “wh”-questions in German-speaking simultaneous and early sequential bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 43 (3), 635–661.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., Long, D., Iverson, M., Judy, T., Lingwall, A., & Chakravarty, T. (2016). Older age of onset in child L2 acquisition can be facilitative: Evidence from the acquisition of English passives by Spanish natives. Journal of Child Language, 43, 662–686.Google Scholar
Schneider, P., Dubé, R. V., & Hayward, D. (2005). The Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument. Retrieved from University of Alberta Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine website: www.rehabresearch.ualberta.ca/enniGoogle Scholar
Statistics Canada. (2011). Linguistic characteristics of Canadians (Catalog No. 98-314-X2011001). Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-314-x/98-314-x2011001-eng.pdfGoogle Scholar
Thomas, E. M., Williams, N., Jones, L. A., Davies, S., & Binks, H. (2014). Acquiring complex structures under minority language conditions: Bilingual acquisition of plural morphology in Welsh. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17 (3), 478–494.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2016). Early child L2 acquisition: Age or Input effects? Neither, or both? Journal of Child Language, 43 (3), 608–634.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S., Argyri, F., Cornips, L., Hulk, A., Sorace, A., & Tsimpli, I. (2014). On the role of age of onset and input in early child bilingualism in Greek and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 765–805.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H., & Huttenlocher, J. (2008). Emergence of syntax: Commonalities and differences across children. Developmental Science, 11 (1), 84–97.Google Scholar
Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar