Cover not available

Article In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2026
Edited by Remco Knooihuizen, Marloes Oomen and Alex Reuneker
[Nota Bene 3:2] 2026

Thematic role interpretation and morphosyntactic transfer in Dutch-speaking children using pseudowords

 | University of Groningen
ORCiD logo with link | University of Groningen
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This study examined how first-language knowledge influences children’s comprehension of morphosyntactic cues for thematic role assignment. Twenty Dutch-speaking children (aged 10;0–12;0) completed a picture-selection task testing their interpretation of subject- and object-initial sentences constructed with pseudowords and the morphosyntax of either Dutch (N = 6), German (N = 7), or French (N = 7). Dutch and French share comparable plural-noun marking, whereas Dutch and German share verb morphology. Children exposed to Dutch and French stimuli selected target images accurately in subject-initial structures. In object-initial sentences they selected the reversed image, indicating that they interpreted these sentences as SVO. These children rely on canonical word order cues over cues of subject-verb agreement. No consistent pattern emerged in the German condition. These results suggest that noun morphology (French) is transferred, but no evidence is found for transfer of verb morphology (German). These findings highlight the importance of further research into how morphosyntactic transfer operates across language families.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Transfer and cues
    • 1.2Intelligibility and receptive multilingualism
    • 1.3Memory
    • 1.4Dutch, German and French morphosyntax
    • 1.5The current study
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials and design
    • 2.3Procedure
    • 2.4Statistical analysis
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Author queries
  • References
References (17)
References
Bates, Elizabeth, and Brian MacWhinney. 1982. Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner and L. Gleitman (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art, 173–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouma, Gerlof Johannes. 2008. Starting a sentence in Dutch: A corpus study of subject- and object-fronting. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.
Clahsen, Harald, Monika Rothweiler, Andreas Woest, and Gary F. Marcus. 1992. Regular and Irregular Inflection in the Acquisition of German Noun Plurals. Cognition 45(3): 225–255. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte. 2019. Receptive multilingualism. In Simona Montanari and Suzanne Quay (eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on multilingualism, 149–174. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte, and Femke Swarte. 2017. Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of mutual intelligibility between Germanic languages. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 40(2): 123–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilton, Nanna Haug, Charlotte Gooskens, Wilbert Heeringa, and Nelleke Vanmolkot. 2013. The influence of non-native morphosyntax on the intelligibility of a closely related language. Lingua 1371: 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koda, Keiko. 1993. Transferred L1 strategies and L2 syntactic structure in L2 sentence comprehension. The Modern Language Journal 77(4): 490–500. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 1992. Transfer and competition in second language learning. Advances in Psychology 831: 371–390. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, and Zhe Gao. 2025. Six advances in research on bilingualism. Brain and Language 2681: 105614. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manyasa, Jonace. 2021. When language transfer is negative: Analysis of morpho-syntactic interference errors by learners of French in Tanzanian higher learning institutions. Journal for Foreign Languages 13(1): 165–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Odlin, Terence. 1989. Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perani, Daniela, and Jubin Abutalebi. 2005. The neural basis of first and second language processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 15(2): 202–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pienemann, Manfred, Gisela Di Biase, and Sarah Kawaguchi. 2009. Processing constraints on L1 transfer. In Judith F. Kroll and Annette M. B. De Groot (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, 128–153. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pili-Moss, Diana, Kara Morgan-Short, and Michael T. Ullman. 2020. Contributions of declarative and procedural memory to accuracy and automatization during second language practice. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23(3): 639–651. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ringbom, Håkan, and Scott Jarvis. 2009. The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. In Michael H. Long and Catherine J. Doughty (eds.), The handbook of language teaching, 106–118. Oxford: Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schouwenaars, Atty, Angeliek van Hout, and Petra Hendriks. 2014. Word order overrules number agreement: Dutch children’s interpretation and production of which-questions. In Chia-Ying Chu, Caitlin E. Coughlin, Beatriz Lopez Prego, Utako Minai, and Annie Tremblay (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2012), 60–71. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ullman, Michael T. 2001. The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30(1): 37–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue