Testing the DomainbyAge model: inflection and placement of Dutch verbs

1
Testing the Domain-by-Age model inflection and
placement of Dutch verbs

• Elma Blom
• University of Amsterdam/Amsterdam Center for
  Language and Communication
• http//home.hum.uva.nl/variflex/

2
Research question

• To what extent does age of onset influence
  language acquisition?
• Literature a.o. Penfield Roberts (1959)
  Lenneberg (1967) Chomsky (1975) Johnson
  Newport (1989, 1991) Birdsong (1999) Bialystok
  (2001) McDonald (2000) DeKeyser (2001)
  Hyltenstam Abrahamsson (2003) Meisel (2007).

3
Why child L2 acquisition?

• Comparison between child L1, child L2 and adult
  L2 acquisition to distinguish
• L1 transfer
• Age
• Literature Schwartz (1992, 2003) Unsworth
  (2005) Meisel (2007).

4
Domain-by-Age Model (DAM)

• In the domain of inflectional morphology, child
  L2 acquisition is more like child L1 acquisition,
  and in the domain of syntax, child L2 acquisition
  is more like adult L2 acquisition. (Schwartz
  2003 47)
• Does age of onset only influence inflectional
  morphology, and is syntax not affected by age of
  onset?
• Some other literature suggesting an age-related
  asymmetries between domains Goldowsky and
  Newport (1993) Prévost and White (2000)
  Lardiere (1998, 2000) Hazendar (2001) Meisel
  (2007).

5
Overview support DAM
6
Testing the DAM

• Two closely related linguistic variables, one in
  the domain of inflection the other in the
  domain of syntax.
• Same experimental task for child and adult
  participants (elicited production/sentence
  completion).
• Control for L1 background.
• Control for L2 proficiency.
• Literature on proficiency measures see Unsworth
  (2005) for an overview.

7
Overview participants
8
Proficiency

• Sentence repetition task distinction between
  high and low proficiency (TAK Verhoeven et al.
  1986, 2002).
• Matched groups participants excluded to obtain
  more comparable groups (Turkish level 1, Moroccan
  level 2).

9
Linguistic variables

• Dutch Verb Placement (syntax)
• OV language, Verb Second in main clauses
• Dutch Subject-Verb Agreement (inflection)
• Present tense indicative paradigm
• Person number 3 contrasting forms (stem, -t
  and en)
• Present tense plural is similar to infinitival
  form (-en suffix)

10
Dutch L1 acquisition

• Omission of finite verb use of infinitival
  clauses (root infinitives)
• Hardly any errors with verb placement
• Few mistakes verb inflection
• If mistake overuse of bare stem or suffix t.
• No overuse of suffix en in finite position.
• Literature De Haan (1987) Jordens (1990) A.
  de Haan (1996) Wijnen (2000) Zuckerman (2001)
  Blom (2003) Blom, Polienská Weerman
  (2006/2007).

11
What do the L2 children and L2 adults do?

• 1. Verb placement
• 2. Subject-Verb Agreement

12
Verb Placement Accuracy Turks (all parts.)
13
Verb placementAccuracy Moroccans (all parts.)
14
Summary Verb Placement

• Child L2 and adult L2 learners differ
• Children are accurate in all conditions
• Adults are only accurate in SVO condition
• L2 Adults make more different errors than L2
  children SVO overgeneralizations.
• Adult L2 errors cannot be explained by L1
  transfer only.
• Literature Meisel, Clahsen Pieneman (1981)
  Meisel (2007).

15
Subject-Verb AgreementAccuracy Turks (level 1)
16
Subject-Verb AgreementAccuracy Moroccans (level
2)
17
Subject-Verb AgreementCorrect use of t suffix
18
Subject-Verb AgreementIncorrect use of -en
19
Summary Subject-Verb Agreement

• L2 Adults make more different errors than L2
  children
• Adults have problems with t suffix, whereas
  children overuse this suffix.
• Adults overuse the en suffix in finite position,
  whereas children only overuse this suffix in
  non-finite position (root infinitives).
• Literature Grondin White (1996) Prévost
  (2001) but see also Tran (2005) Meisel (2007).

20
Example

• Root infinitive
• (1) Peter bal pakken Peter 201.27
• Peter ball get-INF
• Adult en error
• (2) De man tekenen zon Turkish adult
• The man draw sun

21
Evaluation DAM

• Does age of onset only influence inflectional
  morphology, and is syntax not affected by age of
  onset?
• Verb placement
• child L1 and child L2 learners make few errors
• adult L2 learners make many errors show
  overgeneralization of the SVO order (irrespective
  of properties of L1 syntax).
• Subject-Verb Agreement
• adult L2 learners make more errors than child L1
  and child L2 learners
• adult L2 learners make different errors (i)
  problems with t suffix, (ii) overgeneralization
  of en suffix in finite contexts.
• ? No, both inflection and syntax are influenced
  by age.

22
Summary

• Transfer
• In this dataset only observed in adult L2
  acquisition of syntax.
• Age of Onset
• Affects both syntax and inflection.

23

• Bialystok, E. (2001) Bilingualism in
  Development Language, Literacy, and Cognition.
  Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
• Blom, E. (2003) From root infinitive to finite
  sentence, Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht
  University.Blom, E., D. Polienská and F.
  Weerman (2006/2007) Effects of age of the
  acquisition of agreement inflection. Morphology
  16, 313-336.Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on
  Language. New York Pantheon.
• DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical
  period effects in second language acquisition.
  Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22
  499-533.
• Goldowsky, B. N. and Newport E. (1993). Modeling
  the effects of processing limitations on the
  acquisition of morphology The less is more
  hypothesis. In The Proceedings of the 11th WCCFL,
  J. Mead (ed). Stanford, CA CSLI.Haan, A. de
  (1996) De verwerving van de morfologische
  finietheid in het Nederlands. MA thesis,
  Groningen, RUG.Grondin, N and White, L. (1996).
  Functional categories in child L2 acquisition of
  French. Language Acquisition 5, pp. 1-34.
• Haan, G. de (1987) A theory-bound approach to
  the acquisition of verb placement in Dutch, in
  G. de Haan and W. Zonneveld (eds), Formal
  parameters of generative grammar OTS Yearbook
  1987, ICG, Dordrecht.Haznedar, B. (1997) L2
  acquisition by a Turkish-speaking child evidence
  for L1 influence. In Hughes, E., Hughes, M. and
  Greenhill, A., editors, Proceedings of the 21st
  Annual Boston University Conference on Language
  Development. Cascadilla Press, 245-256.Haznedar,
  B. (2001) The acquisition of the IP system in
  child L2 English. Studies in Second Language
  Acquisition, 231-39.Hyltenstam, K. and
  Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints
  in SLA. In Handbook of second language
  acquisition, C.J. Doughty and M.H. Long (eds),
  539-599. Malden, MA Blackwell.
• Johnson, J. and Newport, E. 1989. Critical
  period effects in second language learning the
  influence of maturational state on the
  acquisition of English as a second language.
  Cognitive Psychology 21 60-99.

24

• Johnson, J. and Newport, E. (1991). Critical
  period effects on universal properties of
  language the status of subjacency in the
  acquisition of a second language. Cognition 39
  215-258.
• Jordens, P. (1990) The acquisition of verb
  placement. Linguistics 28, 1407-1448.Lardiere,
  D. (1998) Dissociating syntax from morphology in
  a divergent end-state grammar. Second Language
  Research 14, 359-375.
• Lardiere, D. (2000) Mapping features to form in
  second language acquisition. in J. Archibald
  (ed.) Second language acquisition and Linguistic
  theory. Malden, MA Blackwell (pp. 102 129).
• Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of
  language. New York Wiley.McDonald, J. (2000).
  Grammaticality judgments in a second language
  influences of age of acquisition and native
  language. Applied Psycholinguistics 21 395-423.
• Meisel, J. (2007) Exploring the limits of the
  LAD. Working papers in multilingualism 80.
• Meisel, J., Clahsen H. and Pienemann, M. (1981)
  On determining developmental stages in natural
  second language acquisition. Studies in Second
  language Acquisition, 3 (2), 109-135.Penfield
  Roberts (1959)
• Prévost, P. (2003) Truncation and missing
  surface inflection in initial L2 German.
  Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25,
  65-97.Prévost, P. and White, L. (2000) "Missing
  surface inflection or impairment in second
  language acquisition? Evidence from tense and
  agreement." Second Language Research 16(2)
  103-133.Schwartz, B.D. (1992) Testing between
  UG-based and problem-solving models of L2A
  Developmental sequence data. Language
  Acquisition 2, 1-19.Schwartz, B.D. (2003) Why
  child L2 acquisition? In Kampen, J. van and S.
  Baauw (eds.) Proceedings of GALA 2003, vol. 1,
  Utrecht, 47-66.Tran, J.(2005) Verb position and
  verb form in English-speaking childrens L2
  acquisition of German. Proceedings BUCLD 29.
  Somerville MA Cascadilla Press, pp. 592-603.

25

• Unsworth, S. (2003) Child L1, Child L2, and
  Adult L2 Acquisition Differences and
  Similarities. In A. Brugos, L. Micciulla, and
  C. E. Smith (eds.) Proceedings of the 28th annual
  Boston University Conference on Language
  Development. Medford, MA Cascadilla Press, pp.
  633-644.Unworth, S. (2005) Child L1, Adult L2,
  Child L1 Differences and Similarities. Doctoral
  dissertation, Utrecht University.Verhoeven, L.,
  Vermeer, A. and C. van de Guchte (1986, 2002)
  Taaltoets allochtone kinderen diagnostische
  toets voor de mondelinge vaardigheid Nederlands
  bij allochtone kinderen van 5-9 jaar (TAK
  onderbouw). Tilburg Zwijsen.Weerman, F.,
  Bisschop, J. and L. Punt (2006) L1 and L2
  acquisition of Dutch adjecival inflection. ACLC
  Working Papers 20061 (free accessible though
  website of Amsterdam Center for Language and
  Communication).Zuckerman, S. (2001) The
  acquisition of optional movement, Doctoral
  dissertation, Groningen University.
• A hand-out of this presentation is available at
• http//home.medewerker.uva.nl/w.b.t.blom/