Cover not available
Part of
Foreign Language Education in Multilingual Classrooms
Edited by Andreas Bonnet and Peter Siemund
[Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity 7] 2018
► pp. 331–357

“One day a father and his son going fishing on the Lake.” – A study on the use of the progressive aspect of monolingual and bilingual learners of English

 | University of Hamburg, Germany
The development towards an ever more multilingual society has an influence on the awareness of (multiple) language acquisition, the need for mastering foreign languages and the fact that nowadays, school children within one class do not come from just one but a number of societies and have differing linguistic backgrounds. This study aims to present evidence that there is a difference in the performance of English between monolingual and bilingual learners. Additionally, as a minor sub-section, it calls attention to resulting consequences for language instruction in multilingual classrooms. The scope of the investigation is the progressive aspect: monolingual and bilingual 12 and 16-year-old school children wrote an English text based on a picture story. This corpus, together with social background information of the participants, is the basis of the analysis.
Keywords: bilingualism, heritage language, language acquisition, multilingualism, progressive aspect
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Tense and aspect: Progressive
  • 3.First, second, and third language
  • 4.Specificity of learners of English
  • 5.Methodology of the study
  • 6.Descriptive analysis
  • 7.Statistical analysis
  • 8.Discussion
  • 9.Consequences for language instruction
  • 10.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hsld.7.15lor
References (42)
References
Die Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration. 2012. 9. Bericht der Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration über die Lage der Ausländerinnen und Ausländer in Deutschland. <[URL]> (4 January 2018).
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1992. The relationship of form and meaning: A cross-sectional study of tense and aspect in the interlanguage of learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics 13: 253–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. 2007. Migrationsbericht 2006. Berlin: Bundesministerium des Inneren.Google Scholar
Bickel, B. & Nichols, J. 2013. Inflectional synthesis of the verb. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (13 December 2017).Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. 2013. The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus on multilingualism. Language Teaching 46(1): 71–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2001. A note on mood, modality, tense and aspect affixes in Turkish. In The Verb in Turkish [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 44]. E. E. Taylan (ed.), 47–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. 2016. First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. 2007. Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10: 221–240.Google Scholar
2013. Implications for language teaching policy and practice. In Multilingualism and Language Diversity in Urban Areas: Acquisition – Identities – Space – Education [Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity 1], P. Siemund, I. Gogolin, M. E. Schulz & J. Davydova (eds), 289–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Angelis, G. 2007. Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 2013. Position of tense-aspect affixes. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (13 December 2017).Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2015. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. 2008. Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gogolin, I. & Neumann, U. (eds). 2009. Streitfall Zweisprachigkeit. The Bilingualsim Controversy. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hammarberg, B. 2010. The languages of the multilingual: Some conceptual and terminological issues. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48(2–3): 91–104.Google Scholar
2014. Problems in defining the concepts of L1, L2 and L3. In Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Contexts. Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives, A. Otwinowska & G. De Angelis (eds), 3–18. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoff, E. & Tian, C. 2005. Socioeconomic status and cultural influences of language. Journal of Communication Disorders 38: 271–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iggesen, O. A. 2013. Asymmetrical case-marking. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (13 December 2017).Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. 2002. Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing 19(1): 57–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jessner, U. 2006. Linguistic awareness in multilinguals: English as a third language. Edinburgh: EUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
König, E. & Gast, V. 2012. Understanding English-German Contrasts. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2006. The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27(4): 590–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N. 2015. How to Do Linguistics with R. Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LiMA, Linguistic Diversity Management in Urban Areas-LiPS, LiMA Panel Study. 2009–2013. Projektkoordination LiPS: Prof.Dr.Dr. H.C. Ingrid Gogolin; ©LiMA-LiPS 2013. Hamburg: LiMA.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. 2008. Nutzung der Mehrsprachigkeit von Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund. Expertise für das Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. Hamburg: University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Ngô, B. N. 2001. The Vietnamese language learning framework. Part one: Linguistics. Journal of Southeast Asian Language and Teaching 10: 1–23.Google Scholar
Nguyễn, Đ. 1997. Vietnamese [London Oriental and African Language Library 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohser, E. 2014. Vater und Sohn – Zwei, die sich verstehen. Konstanz: Südverlag.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. 2002. Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use. In Portraits of the L2 User, V. Cook (ed.), 257–302. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pohlan, J., Achim, S. & Kaiser, A. 2012. Sozialmonitoring Integrierte Stadtteilentwicklung [Bericht 2011]. Hamburg: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. <[URL]> (13 December 2017).Google Scholar
Rothman, J. 2010. L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research 27(1): 107–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S. 2004. Structuring Events. A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Siemund, P. 2013. Varieties of English. A Typological Approach. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Englisch als weitere Sprache im Kontext herkunftsbedingter Mehrsprachigkeit. In Sprachentwicklung im Kontext von Mehrsprachigkeit – Hypothesen, Methoden, Forschungsperspektiven, J. Duarte, I. Gogolin, T. Klinger, B. Schnoor & M. Trebbels (eds). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Taylan, E. E. 2001. Introduction. In The Verb in Turkish [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 44], E. E. Taylan (ed), vii–xvii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. 1957. Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 66: 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, A. 2000. Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing 17 (1): 65–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wade, T. L. B. 1992. A Comprehensive Russian Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Müller‐Lancé, Johannes
2025. Language Comparison in Plurilingual Learning and Processing. In The Handbook of Plurilingual and Intercultural Language Learning, ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Agustín-Llach, María-del-Pilar
2024. Some good news for the school: the levelling effect of the EFL class in FL vocabulary production and FL categorization of autochthonous learners and heritage speaker learners. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 12:2 ► pp. 492 ff. DOI logo
Efeoglu, Gulumser
2024. Acquisition of –Ing in English by Multilingual Adult Speakers in Germany and the US. Sakarya University Journal of Education 14:2 ► pp. 308 ff. DOI logo
Siemund, Peter
2018. Modeling World Englishes from a cross-linguistic perspective. In Modeling World Englishes [Varieties of English Around the World, G61], ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.