The weaker language in early child bilingualism: Acquiring a first language as a second language?

Abstract

Past research demonstrates that first language (L1)-like competence in each language can be attained in simultaneous acquisition of bilingualism by mere exposure to the target languages. The question is whether this is also true for the "weaker" language (WL). The WL hypothesis claims that the WL differs fundamentally from monolingual L1 and balanced bilingual L1 and resembles second language (L2) acquisition. In this article, these claims are put to a test by analyzing "unusual" constructions in WLs, possibly indicating acquisition failure, and by reporting on analyses of the use of French by bilinguals whose dominant language is German. The available evidence does not justify the claim that WLs resemble L2. Instead, it shows that WL development can be delayed, but does not suggest acquisition failure. Finally, reduced input is unlikely to cause acquisition failure. The fundamental issue at stake is to explore the limits of the human language making capacity.Past research on child bilingualism has provided a large body of evidence that strongly supports the claim that simultaneous acquisition of two or more languages can justly be qualified as an instance of multiple "first language" (L1) acquisition (see de Houwer, 1995;and Meisel, 2004, for state-of-the-art summaries). The most crucial findings on which this assessment is based are that (a) linguistic systems are differentiated from early on, (b) grammatical development proceeds through the same developmental sequences as in monolingual acquisition, and (c) grammatical knowledge ultimately attained in each of the languages of bilingual children is identical in nature to that of their respective monolingual counterparts. It is plausible to assume that all three properties can be attributed to capacities made available by the innate human language faculty. Within the theoretical framework of universal grammar (UG), one can thus conclude that multilingual as well as monolingual acquisition is guided by principles of UG.The fact that multiple L1 development can be achieved by mere exposure to more than one language, without specific coaching or other types of additional

Defining an “ideal” heritage speaker: Theoretical and methodological challenges Reply to peer commentaries

“…Kupisch and Meisel remind us that, since the 1980s, a vast and important body of research has been conducted on child bilingualism and bilingual first language acquisition in Europe (De Houwer 2009, Deuchar and Quay 2000, Döpke 1992, Ezeizabarrena Segurola 2001, Lanza 2004, Meisel 1994, 2007, Müller and Hulk 2001, and, we would like to add, in Canada (Genesee 1989, Genesee et al 1995. This work has shown that young children keep their two linguistic systems separate from the onset of bilingual acquisition and go through the same developmental milestones in each language that monolingual children do.…”

The (in)consistent ergative marking in early Basque: L1 vs. child L2

“…The second group corresponds to children who live in a mostly monolingual Spanish speaking area -only 6% of the population speaks Basque -and their exposure to the L2 language Basque started with immersion schooling very early on around age 2 or 3, and their longstanding exposure to this language is basically reduced to the school context. The reason for referring to it as child L2 or cL2 responds to the necessity of distinguishing this very early L2 from adult L2, which typically takes place after the critical period, and from eL2, which refers to the earliest stages of L2 acquisition (Meisel, 2007;Hawkins and Casillas, 2008). Data collection consists of elicited oral narratives with the following procedure: first an adult told a story to a group of children and then each child retold it to another child with the support of a wordless picture-book.…”

Testing the Interface Hypothesis: The evidence from fossilized errors in the use of Turkish case markers

“…Such language behaviour has been reported in bilingual acquisition and the question of why erroneous forms perpetually appear along with the correct ones in the production of bi/multilinguals has been discussed several times (Grosjean, 2001;Meisel, 2007 among many others). It was suggested that such language behaviour of bi/multilinguals cannot be attributed to the inability to acquire the correct form, but most probably is related to the difficulty to control the native/dominant languages of bi/multilinguals while performing in the foreign/minority language, which in turn might be triggered by various interand intra-linguistic factors.…”

“…Though there are few errors observed in the use of the dative case marker, these errors are single instances occurring along with the correct uses of the dative case marker with the same verbal forms, which allows me to speculate that the performance of the participants here might be due to the peculiarities of bilingual acquisition and production (Grosjean, 2001;Meisel, 2007). In the use of the accusative case, on the other hand, the errors are significantly more numerous if compared with the dative case, and the absolute majority of them is of the same pattern, that is due to the omission of the accusative case marker in common nouns, which may indicate that the Russian-Turkish participants seem to have acquired the use of the accusative case marker in this particular domain incompletely, as the absolute majority of the common nouns in the data, both definite and indefinite are used without any case marker.…”