Cover not available
Part of
The Acquisition of Turkish in Childhood
Edited by Belma Haznedar and F. Nihan Ketrez
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 20] 2016
► pp. 361–388

L2 children do not fluctuate

Production and on-line processing of indefinite articles in Turkish-speaking child learners of English

 | University of Edinburgh
 | University of Reading, United Kingdom
In this study, we examined whether Turkish-speaking child L2 learners of English omitted or substituted indefinite articles in a production task that comprised a referential specific and a non-referential predicational semantic context. We also examined the source of children’s errors using a self-paced listening task where children heard grammatical and ungrammatical sentences with indefinite articles present or omitted. L2 children’s performance was compared with that of an age-matched English-speaking L1 group and a younger L1 group. Results showed that all groups distinguished between the two semantic contexts in both tasks. Although children primarily omitted articles, in the on-line processing task, all groups detected the ungrammaticality related to article omission. We interpret these results within the Missing Surface Inflection and Feature Reassembly hypotheses.
Keywords: Childhood bilingualism, sequential bilingual children, (in)definiteness, specificity, articles, Fluctuation Hypothesis, English, Turkish, Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis, Missing Surface inflection Hypothesis.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Indefinite articles in English and Turkish
  • 3.L1 acquisition of English indefinite articles
  • 4.Child L2 acquisition of English articles
  • 5.Present study
  • 6.Method
    • 6.1Participants
    • 6.2Materials
      • 6.2.1Production task
      • 6.2.2Self-paced listening task
    • 6.3Procedure
  • 7.Results
    • 7.1Production task
      • 7.1.1Descriptive statistics
      • 7.1.2On-line processing task
  • 8.Discussion
    • 8.1Fluctuation or transfer?
    • 8.2Production-processing (a)symmetries
  • 9.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 18 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.20.16cho
References (41)
References
Avrutin, S. & Coopmans, P. 2000. Children who build bridges. In BUCLD 24:Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 24, S.C., Howell, S.A. Fish & T. Keith-Lucas (eds), 90–102. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, D.V.M. 2003. Test for Reception of Grammar, version 2 (TROG-2). London: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Blom, E. & Vasić, N. 2011. The production and processing of determiner-noun agreement in child L2 Dutch. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1: 265–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. London: Penguin Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, G.N. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Chondrogianni, V. & Marinis, T. 2012. Production and processing asymmetries in the acquisition of tense morphology by sequential bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12: 1–19.Google Scholar
2015. Production of definite and indefinite articles in typically developing English-speaking children and children with SLI. Lingua 155: 9–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chondrogianni, V., Marinis, T., Edwards, S. & Blom, E. 2015. Production and on-line comprehension of definite articles and clitic pronouns in Greek-speaking typically developing L2 children and monolingual children with SLI. Applied Psycholinguistics 36: 1155–1191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chondrogianni, V., Vasić, N., Marinis, T. & Blom, E. 2015. Production and on-line comprehension of definiteness in English and Dutch by monolingual and sequential bilingual children. Second Language Research 31: 309–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cat, C. 2011. Information tracking and encoding in early L1: Linguistic competence vs. cognitive limitations. Journal of Child Language 38: 828–860. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J. & de Villiers, P. 1973. A cross sectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2: 267–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J., Schafer, R. Pearson, B. Z. & Seymour, H. N. 2000. Control of article use in SAE- & AAE-speaking children. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Dunn, L.M., Dunn, L.M., Whetton, C. & Burley, J. 1997. The British Picture Vocabulary Scale, 2nd edn. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
Emslie, H.C. & Stevenson, R.J. 1981. Pre-school children’s use of the articles in definite and indefinite referring expressions. Journal of Child Language 8: 313–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enç, M. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı, E. 1984. The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.D. & Sag, I.A. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goad, H. & White, L. 2004. Ultimate attainment of L2 inflection: Effects of L1 prosodic structure. In EUROSLA Yearbook 4, S. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace & M. Ota (eds), 119–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2006. Ultimate attainment in interlanguage grammars: A prosodic approach. Second Language Research 22: 243–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guasti M.T., Gavarrò, A.J., Lange, C. & Caprin, C. 2008. Article omission across child language. Language Acquisition 15: 89–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.A. 1991. On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27: 405–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, B. & Schwartz, B.D. 1997. Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In BUCLD 21: Proceedings of the 21st Boston University Conference on Language Development, E. Hughes, M. Hughes & A. Greenhill (eds), 257–268. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Indefinite and Definite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Ko, H. & Wexler, K. 2004. Article semantics in L2 acquisition. The role of specificity. Language Acquisition 12: 3–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., Zubizaretta, M. & Philippov, V. 2009. Acquisition of article semantics by child and adult L2-English learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12: 337–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelepir, M. 2001. Topics in Turkish Syntax. Clausal Structure and Scope. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2009. DOM and two types of DSM in Turkish. In Differential Object Marking, H. de Hoop & P. de Swart (eds), 79–112. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. 2009. Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 25: 173–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maratsos, M. 1976. The Use of Definite and Indefinite Reference in Young Children. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Medical Research Council psycholinguistic database 1997. Oxford: Medical Research Council.Google Scholar
Nilsson, B. 1985. Case Marking Semantics in Turkish. PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Öztürk, B. 2005. Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure [Linguistik Aktuelll/Linguistics Today 77]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, J. & Matthewson, L. 2005. Grammar and pragmatics in the acquisition of article systems. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 53–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schafer, R. & de Villiers, J. 2000. Imagining articles: What a and the can tell us about the emergence of the DP. In BUCLD 24: Proceedings of the 24 Boston University Conference on Language Development, S.C. Howell, S.H. Fish & T. Keith-Lucas (eds), 609–620. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B.D. & Sprouse, R. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research 12: 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Hout, A., Harrigan, K. & de Villiers, J. 2010. Asymmetries in the acquisition of definite and indefinite NPs. Lingua 20: 1973–1990. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L. 2003. Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition 6: 129–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zdorenko, T. & Paradis, J. 2008. The acquisition of articles in child second language English: Fluctuation, transfer or both? Second Language Research 24: 227–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Articles in child L2 English: When L1 and L2 acquisition meet at the interface. First Language 21: 1–25.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Saban-Dülger, Nur Seda & Esra Özcebe
2024. Language Assessment in Bilingual Turkish-Speaking Preschoolers With Developmental Language Disorders: A Tutorial. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups 9:3 ► pp. 655 ff. DOI logo
PONTIKAS, George, Ian CUNNINGS & Theodoros MARINIS
2023. Online processing of which-questions in bilingual children: Evidence from eye-tracking. Journal of Child Language 50:5 ► pp. 1082 ff. DOI logo
Pontikas, George, Ian Cunnings & Theodoros Marinis
2024. Sentence processing in bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:4 ► pp. 476 ff. DOI logo
Chondrogianni, Vicky
2018. Chapter 6. Child L2 acquisition. In Bilingual Cognition and Language [Studies in Bilingualism, 54], ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2024. Erratum to “Language Assessment in Bilingual Turkish-Speaking Preschoolers With Developmental Language Disorders: A Tutorial”. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups 9:5 ► pp. 1456 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 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.