Ar,cle omission in German by successive bilingual Turkish

1 Ar#cle omission in German by successive bilingual Turkish-­‐German children and ar#cle drop in colloquial German Manuela Schönenberger (University of Geneva and University of Oldenburg) [email protected] NIAS, April 10th-­‐11th 2014 The emergence of linguis#c competence in mul#-­‐language contexts 2 Outline of this talk Acquisi#on of DP in German with focus on determiner omission -­‐
Data from successive bilingual children -­‐
Data from monolingual children (literature) Main finding Persistence of determiner omission in successive bilingual data Research Ques#on What is the source of prolonged ar#cle omission? Comparison: ar#cle omission in bilingual data vs. ar#cle drop in colloquial German Conclusions 3 D-­‐words in German Definite and indefinite ar#cles das Kamel "the camel", die Kamele "the camels", ein Kamel "a camel" Possessives sein Hund "his dog" Demonstra#ves dieser Esel "this donkey" Numerals zwei Enten "two ducks" Quan#fiers kein Kamel "no camel", alle Hunde "all dogs", welcher Esel "which donkey" 4 What we focus on Rate of omission Presence vs. absence of D-­‐words in obligatory contexts independent of morphological shape (1)  Lass das Finger los. (Fikret) "Let my finger go." (2)  Hörst du meine S#mme? (Eser)
"Can you hear my voice?" (3)  Wenn Mumel rauskommt (Faruk)
wenn eine Murmel rauskommt "when a marble comes out" (overt D-­‐word; incorrect form) (overt D-­‐word: correct form) (missing D-­‐word) % omission = Total missing D-­‐words × 100 Total missing D-­‐words + Total overt D-­‐words 5 Monolingual German children Omission of D-­‐words in children without SLI less than 10% at age 3 (Eisenbeiss 2000, 2002, Penner & Weissenborn 1996) Omission of D-­‐words in children with SLI over 10%, large varia#on (Clahsen 1991) Petra Klaus Jonas Andreas (3;8, 3 recordings, ini#al MLU 2.1)
(4;6, 2 recordings, ini#al MLU 2.0)
(6;6, 2 recordings, ini#al MLU 2.8)
(7;0, 2 recordings, ini#al MLU 1.7)
28%, 44%, 30% 38%, 48% 61%, 13% 77%, 96% 6 Turkish Turkish has no ar#cle system -­‐
no definite ar#cle -­‐
but: bir "one" or "a" (different distribu#on) (Kornfilt 1997, von Heusinger & Kornfilt 2005) aL2 learners of German Adult learners of German with ar#cle-­‐less L1 (e.g. Turkish) omit D-­‐words in German more olen than learners whose L1 has ar#cles (Romance). (Parodi, Schwartz & Clahsen 2004) cL2 learners of German Child learners of German with L1 Turkish persist in omimng ar#cles. (Pfaff 1992) 7 The children of this study 5 successive bilingual children with L1 Turkish (Schönenberger 2010, 2011, to appear, submined) Faruk
AO 2;9
Gül
AO 3;0
Eser
AO 3;0
Zeren AO 3;0
Fikret AO 4;2
(8 recordings, ME6–ME24) (10 recordings, ME8–ME 30,5) (10 recordings, ME9–ME 30,5) (11 recordings, ME16–ME30) (9 recordings, ME8–ME29,5) AO = Age of Onset ME = Month of Exposure Data from project "Specific language impairment and early second language acquisi#on: differen#a#ng devia#ons in morphosyntac#c acquisi#on", funded by a grant to Monika Rothweiler by the German Research Founda#on (DFG) from 2002–2011 8 Predictions for these cL2 learners These children with L1 Turkish may not benefit from their L1 in acquiring ar#cles in L2 German. Transfer from Turkish could result in a prolonged period of ar#cle omission in German. The children may leave out definite ar#cles more olen than indefinite ones. The children of this study may perform bener than the children in Pfaff's study. The children of this study anended a German-­‐
speaking kindergarten (in Hamburg). The children of Pfaff's study anended a bilingual Turkish-­‐German kindergarten (in Berlin). 9 Rate of determiner omission How olen do the Turkish-­‐German children omit a determiner? Do the Turkish-­‐German children perform similarly to the monolingual German children? 10 Overview of mono-­‐ and bilingual children Children AO Age range MLU Monolinguals n.a. 1;11–3;06 1.2–4.1 62 3379 Bilinguals 2;9–4;2 3;05–6;08 (ME6–ME30,5) 1.6–4.3 48 3426 (n=5) (n=5) No of datasets D-­‐contexts 11 What was included in the counts? All contexts in which adults would use a D-­‐word and the child did or did not use a D-­‐word (i.e. ar#cles, possessives, demonstra#ves, numerals and quan#fiers) in SG and PL contexts (1)
(2)
(3)
Wir machen ein(en) Kuchen? "We are making a cake." Hier darf man keine Flaschn schmeissn. "One is not allowed to throw away bonles here." Das is __ Flasche.
(eine Flasche) "This is a bonle." The same criteria are applied to child L2 German data as to child L1 German data (in Eisenbeiss 2000). 12 cL1 German data (based on Eisenbeiss 2000) Annelie (2;4-­‐2;9, MLU 2.0-­‐3.1) Leonie (1;11-­‐2;11, MLU 1.6-­‐2.9) 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 2;4 2;5 2;6 2;7 2;8 2;9 0% Hannah (2;0-­‐2;7, MLU 1.2-­‐2.9) Svenja (2;9-­‐3;3, MLU 3.3-­‐4.1) 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 2;0 2;1 2;2 2;3 2;4 2;5 2;6 2;7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 cL2 German data Eser 100% 80% Faruk 100% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 D-­‐contexts (all) 100% 6 7 8 9 10 1 D-­‐contexts(Eisenbeiss) 2 3 4 D-­‐contexts (all) 5 6 7 8 D-­‐contexts (Eisenbeiss) Fikret 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4 D-­‐contexts (all) 5 6 7 8 9 D-­‐contexts (Eisenbeiss) Zeren 100% 80% Gül 100% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 1 2 3 4 D-­‐contexts (all) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 D-­‐contexts (Eisenbeiss) 1 2 3 4 D-­‐contexts (all) 5 6 7 8 9 D-­‐contexts (Eisenbeiss) 10 14 Rate of determiner omission The data from the bilingual children clearly differ from those of the monolingual children. In what sense do they differ? 15 Plateau effect in cL2 German (i) Eser Faruk 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 1 2 3 4 D-­‐contexts (all) 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 D-­‐contexts(Eisenbeiss) 2 3 4 D-­‐contexts (all) 6 7 8 D-­‐contexts (Eisenbeiss) Child Period Eser 12 months 4 10–21% all 12 months 4 11–22% criteria (Eisenbeiss) 18 months 7 4–14% all but PP contexts 12 months 5 17–27% all 14 months 6 18–20% criteria (Eisenbeiss) Faruk No of datasets % Omission 5 Data used 16 Plateau effect in cL2 German (ii) Fikret 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 D-­‐contexts (all) Child Period 4 5 6 7 8 9 D-­‐contexts (Eisenbeiss) No of datasets % Omission Data used Fikret 14.5 months 6 10–20% all 14.5 months 6 4–20% criteria (Eisenbeiss) 17 Plateau effect in cL2 German (iii) Zeren 100% 80% Gül 100% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 1 2 3 4 D-­‐contexts (all) 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 11 3 4 D-­‐contexts (all) D-­‐contexts (Eisenbeiss) Child Period 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 D-­‐contexts (Eisenbeiss) No of datasets % Omission Data used Zeren -­‐ -­‐ 17–61% all -­‐ -­‐ 11–54% criteria (Eisenbeiss) -­‐ -­‐ 15–58% all but PP contexts -­‐ -­‐ 18-­‐100% all -­‐ -­‐ 13-­‐100% criteria (Eisenbeiss) 6.5 months 6 14-­‐24% all but dice-­‐throwing context Gül 18 Dice-­‐throwing context (Gül) Gül: Hast du Vier? have you four "Did you get a four?" Interviewer: Ja. Schon wieder ne Vier. yes already again a four "Yes. A four again." In dataset +ArDcle -­‐ArDcle 7 2 4 8 1 6 9 3 6 10 16 28 19 Findings on determiner omission In the last recording at ME24/ME30 four of the five successive bilingual children omit determiners to a larger extent than monolingual children at age 3 (ME36). A direct comparison is difficult to make (different quality and quan#ty of input). There is a clear developmental trend in the child L1 data: Aler some fluctua#on in determiner produc#on there is a rapid decrease in determiner omission. There is a plateau effect in the child L2 data (not in Zeren's data). 20 What kind of overt determiners do the Turkish-­‐German children use? (i) Are these determiners olen ar#cles? (ii) Do ar#cles occur in the appropriate contexts? 21 Overt articles in cL2 German 100% 80% 60% 40% Fikret 20% 0% 1 2 3 Ar#cle 4 5 6 Other determiner 7 8 9 Omission 100% 80% 60% 40% Gül 20% 0% 1 2 3 Ar#cle (Schönenberger, to appear) 4 5 6 Other determiner 7 8 Omission 9 10 22 Overt articles and missing D in cL2 German In general, ar#cles are used in the appropriate contexts. There are only a few examples of ar#cle misuse. Eser is drawing a snake and asks the interviewer for another sheet of paper. (1a)
(1b)
Ich will den Neuen haben (Eser: ME24.5) I want the.ACC.masc. new.ACC.masc. have "I want to have the new one." Ich will ein Neues haben. (target) I want a.ACC.neut. new.ACC.neut. Have "I want to have a new one." When a determiner is missing, it cannot be determined with certainty whether an ar#cle or another D-­‐word has been omined. Video-­‐recorded data can provide good informa#on about linguis#c and situa#onal context. 23 Article use in cL2 German data (4 datasets) Faruk (n=151) correct ar#cle incorrect ar#cle (Schönenberger 2011) null ar#cle 80 60 40 20 0 Eser (n=150) correct ar#cle incorrect ar#cle null ar#cle 80 60 40 20 0 [definite] [indefinite] [definite] Gül (n=67) correct ar#cle incorrect ar#cle [indefinite] Fikret (n=48) null ar#cle 80 60 40 20 0 correct ar#cle incorrect ar#cle null ar#cle 80 60 40 20 0 [definite] [indefinite] [definite] [indefinite] 24 What kind of ar#cles do the Turkish-­‐German children produce? (iii) Can ar#cles be realized as reduced forms? (iv) Do the children use such reduced forms? 25 Articles in German (Lléo & Demuth 1999) Unreduced ar#cles: independent prosodic words PWd[F[der]] PWd[F[Mann]]
PPh[PWd[F[noch]] PWd[F[ein]] PWd[F[Kipper]]]
"the man" "another truck Reduced ar#cles: encli#cs PPh[PWd[F[noch] n]] PWd[F[Kipper]]]
"another truck" Predic#on: The successive bilingual children will have more difficulty in producing reduced than unreduced ar#cles (which are independent prosodic words like the numeral bir "one"). 26 Reduced vs. unreduced articles (aL1 German) SILKE (60 unreduced vs. 183 reduced (=75% reduced ar#cles)) einen ein/eine n/ne EIN -­‐-­‐-­‐ 44 95 EINEN 1 5 27 EINE -­‐-­‐-­‐ 15 56 VERA (115 unreduced vs. 94 reduced (=45% reduced ar#cles)) einen ein/eine n/ne EIN -­‐-­‐-­‐ 55 28 EINEN 1 20 5 EINE -­‐-­‐-­‐ 59 41 (Schönenberger 2011) 27 Articles in cL2 German (Schönenberger 2011) The bilingual children generally produce unreduced ar#cles, although they must hear many reduced forms in the input. (1)
Ich hab eine Ente gesehn. "I've seen a duck." (2)
Ich hab ein Pferd gesehn. "I've seen a horse." But just like the adults, the children do not produce einen: (3)
Ich hab ein Hund gesehn. "I've seen a dog." They may produce ein because they do not know that the underlying form is einen. 28 Findings on article use Overt determiners are more olen ar#cles than other D-­‐words. There are very few examples of ar#cle misuse. These involve the use of a definite ar#cle in an indefinite context. Definite ar#cles are more olen omined than indefinite ones. There is a prosodic panern in Turkish corresponding to definite ar#cles. There is none corresponding to reduced indefinite ar#cles. These are realized as unreduced forms by the children. 29 Does ar#cle omission in the bilingual child data look like ar#cle drop in colloquial German? 30 Article drop in colloquial German In topicalized DPs
(cf. Kupisch 2008)
(1) Fenster hab ich zugemacht. window have I closed "I closed the window." In 'lexical' PPs
(2) Ich gehe Park, mache Bilder… (cf. Wiese 2013 (direc#on/#me) I go park make pictures "I'll go to the park, take pictures…" In light-­‐verb construc#ons (3) Ich hab Führerschein gemacht. ('colloca#ons')
I have driving-­‐licence made "I got my driving-­‐licence." 31 Article drop in colloquial German (BB i) (1a)
Weltzeitung haben wir gestern gesehen. Weltzeitung have we yesterday seen "We saw the Weltzeitung yesterday." (1b)
Messer hab ich auch dabei. knife have I also with "I have a knife with me." (2a)
Dann hab ich Strassenbahn genommen. then have I tram taken "Then I took the tram." (2b)
Wir haben InsDtutsfest gemacht im Sommer. we have department party made in-­‐the summer "We had the/a departmental party in the summer." 32 Article drop in colloquial German (BB ii) (3a)
Das ist so ne halbe Stunde mit Auto. this is so a half hour with car "It takes about half an hour by car." (3b) Wie läul das so mit Verlag? how goes this so with publisher "How does it work with the publisher?" (4)
Parallel hänen wir auch Friedrichstrasse gehen können. parallel had we also Friedrichstrasse go could "Instead we could have walked along Friedrichstrasse." 33 Article drop in Swiss German (1)
Velo han i a nò gha. bicycle have I also s#ll had "I also s#ll had a bicycle." (2)
Da isch eifach Hammer. this is simply hammer "This is just great." (3) Itaalie bin i früener seer vil gsi. Italy was I earlier on very olen been "I was olen in Italy in the past." 34 Article drop in English (AE/BE) (see Schönenberger 2010) (1)
Sounds like him. Jerk was always comparing people to movie stars and stuff. (Kathy Reichs "Devil Bones") (2)
A: It's a possibility. B: PreLy good possibility, don't you think. (Kathy Reichs "Monday Mourning") (3)
No. Two million pounds from a very old lady. You can't help but wonder how much coercion that involved. Confused old lady changes her will in favour of some sweet talker … (Kate Atkinson "One Good Turn") (4)
"Real homes for real people," Jessica said. "Word on the pavement is that Graham Haner's going down." (Kate Atkinson "One Good Turn") 35 Article drop in colloquial Dutch Dat is een meisje van twee huizen verderop. Meisje van een jaar of zes/zeven. This is a girl who lives nearby. Girl aged six/seven years. (Guas#, De Lange, Gavarró & Caprin 2004) Dutch-­‐speaking children omit ar#cles for a longer period of #me than children acquiring a Romance language because they also have to discover under which pragma#c condi#ons ar#cle drop is licensed. (see Guas# et al. 2004) 36 Article drop in cL2 German? (i) (1) Hier dürfen keine Autos fahren bei (target: auf dem) Fussweg. (Eser ME16) here may no cars drive at (on the) footpath
"No cars are allowed to drive on the footpath." (2) … was ich zu Hause geguckt habe auf (target: im) Fernsehen (Faruk ME18) what I at home watched have on TV "what I watched at home on TV" (3) Hab Angst vor (target: vor der) Biene. (Fikret ME27.5) have fear of (of the) bee "I'm afraid of the bee." (4) Das sieht wie (target: wie ein) Junge aus. (Gül ME24) this looks like (like a) boy verbal par#cle
"This (girl) looks like a boy." 37 Article drop in cL2 German? (ii) (1) Hier ist Kreuz (target: das Kreuz). (Faruk ME24) here is cross (the cross) "Here is the cross." (2) Hier ist ToileLe (target: die Toilene). (Eser ME18.5) here is toilet (the toilet)
"Here is the toilet." (3) Wo ist Gefängnis (target: das Gefängnis)? (Gül ME29.5) where is prison (the prison) "Where is the prison?" (4) Hier ist Haus (target: das Haus). (Zeren ME23.5) here is house (the house)
"Here is the house." 38 Article drop in cL2 German? (iii) (1) Ich hab hier (einen) Stern . (Faruk ME15) I have here (a) star "I have a star here." (2) Hast du (den) Clown mit Socken? (Gül ME25) have you (the) clown with socks
"Do you have the clown with socks?" (3) Ich hab (eine) Brotdose. (Zeren ME25) I have (a) breadbox "I have a breadbox." 39 Article drop in cL2 German? (iv) (1) dass das Arzt mich (eine) Spritze gmacht hat (Eser ME16.5) that the doctor me (an) injec#on made has "that the doctor gave me an injec#on" (2) Das hat (die) Erzieherin gemacht. (Eser ME24.5) this has (the) educator made "The kindergarten teacher made this." (3) Ich nehme (das) Flugzeug. (Fikret ME15) I take (the) plane
"I'll take the plane." (4) Wo kommt (der) Hund hin? (Zeren ME30) where comes (the) dog verbal par#cle "Where does the dog go?" 40 Tentative conclusions Ar#cle drop in German is part of a special register and is not a new phenomenon. It is not clear which contexts allow ar#cle drop in colloquial German (topicalized DPs √, certain PPs √, colloca#ons?). The existence of ar#cle drop in colloquial German may well render ar#cle acquisi#on more difficult. This is true for monolingual as well as bilingual children. Ar#cle omission persists in cL2 German but not cL1 German. Ar#cle omission in cL2 German does not look like ar#cle drop in colloquial German. Thank you very much for your attention. J 41 References (i) Clahsen, H. 1991. Child Language and Developmental Dysphasia. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Eisenbeiss, S. 2000. The acquisi#on of the DP in German child language. In M.A. Friedemann & L. Rizzi (eds.) Acquisi>on of syntax. Issues in compara>ve developmental linguis>cs, 26–62. London: Longman. Eisenbeiss, S. 2002. Merkmalsgesteuerter Gramma>kerwerb: Eine Untersuchung zum Erwerb der Struktur und Flexion der Nominalphrase. Ph.D. disserta#on, Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf. Guas#, M. T., J. De Lange, A. Gavarró & C. Caprin. 2004. Ar#cle omission: Across child languages and across special registers. In J. Van Kampen & S. Bauuw (eds.) Proceedings of GALA 2003, 199–210. Utrecht: LOT Occasional Series. Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish Grammar. London: Routledge. Kupisch, T. 2008. Determina#ve, Individual-­‐ und Massennomen im Spracherwerb des Deutschen: Diskussion des Nominal Mapping Parameters. Linguis>sche Berichte 214, 129–160. 42 References (ii) Heusinger, von K. & J. Kornfilt. 2005. The case of the direct object in Turkish: Seman#cs, syntax and morphology. Turkic languages 9, 3–44. Lleó, C. & K. Demuth. 1999. Prosodic constraints on the emergence of gramma#cal morphemes: Cross-­‐linguis#c evidence from Germanic and Romance languages. In A. Greenhill, H. Linlefield & C. Tano (eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Child Language Development, 407–418. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press. Parodi, T., B. Schwartz & H. Clahsen. 2004. On the L2 acquisi#on of the morphosyntax of German nominals. Linguis>cs 42(3), 669–705. Penner, Z. & J. Weissenborn. 1996. Strong con#nuity, parameter semng and the trigger hierarchy: On the acquisi#on of DP in Bernese Swiss German and High German. In H. Clahsen (ed.) Genera>ve Perspec>ves on Language Acquisi>on, 161–200. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pfaff, C. W. 1992. The issue of gramma#caliza#on in early German second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisi>on 14, 273–296. 43 References (iii) Schönenberger, M. 2010. Parameter seRng and transfer effects in language acquisi>on. Habilita#onsschril, University of Oldenburg. Schönenberger, M. 2011. Are difficul#es with the prosodic representa#on the origin of prolonged ar#cle omission? In J. Herschensohn and D. Tanner (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th Genera>ve Approaches to Second Language Acquisi>on Conference (GASLA 2011), 135–142. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Schönenberger, M. to appear. The acquisi#on of determiners in child L2 German. Folia Linguis#ca. Schönenberger, M. submined. Prolonged determiner omission in L2 German by successive bilingual children with L1 Turkish, and with and without Specific Language impairment. Wiese, H. 2013. What can new urban dialects tell us about internal language dynamics? The power of language diversity. In W. Abraham & E. Leiss (eds.) Dialektologie in neuem Gewand, 207–245. Hamburg: Buske.