Cross-linguistic influence in bilingualism

Blom, Elma; Cornips, L.; Schaeffer, Jeannette

doi:10.1075/sibil.52.01blo

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the original articulation of the surface overlap hypothesis (Hulk and Müller, 2000;Müller and Hulk, 2001), the inherent characteristics of the structural property, whether grammatically narrow or pertaining to the interface between syntax and pragmatics/discourse (as in the complementizer domain), have been proposed as an additional condition that constrains crosslinguistic influence in bilingual first language acquisition (for an overview, see Blom et al, 2017). The structural phenomenon in this study does not pertain to the grammar-pragmatics interface.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Structural surface overlap and derivational complexity in crosslinguistic transfer: Acquisition of English genitive alternation by Egyptian Arabic-speaking learners

Azaz

2019

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article adopts the surface overlap and derivational complexity hypotheses to study crosslinguistic transfer in the adult second language (L2) acquisition of English genitive alternation (between the s-genitives and the of genitives) by intermediate and advanced Egyptian Arabic-speaking learners. While the s-genitive (e.g. the boy’s shirt) and the of-genitive (e.g. the shirt of the boy) are allowed in principle to denote possession, the s-genitive is the native option when the possessor is human and the possessum is nonhuman. In standard syntactic analyses, the s-genitive is held to be more complex than the of-genitive, since it involves raising the possessor in the determiner phrase (DP). Egyptian Arabic is also known for its genitive alternation; it uses the synthetic genitive (the construct state), and the analytic genitive (the free state) that both overlap partially or significantly with the of-genitive. The results of an elicited production task showed that the intermediate group tended to produce the of-genitives in contexts in which the s-genitives were the target construction. The advanced group, on the other hand, produced the more complex s-genitives. These findings suggest that the surface overlap involved between the of-genitives and the corresponding genitive constructions in Egyptian Arabic conspired to trigger this crosslinguistic transfer. Also, resorting to the overlapping of-genitive option can be viewed as a strategy to avoid the more complex s-genitive option. The results of the advanced group imply that the acquisition of English genitive alternation undergoes two developmental stages. In the first, learners favor the less complex and overlapping of-genitives. In the second, they acquire the syntactic derivation in the s-genitives that raises the possessor in the DP.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Structural surface overlap and derivational complexity in crosslinguistic transfer: Acquisition of English genitive alternation by Egyptian Arabic-speaking learners

Azaz

2019

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, a study by Blom and Paradis (2013) found that children who are exposed to multiple languages from an early age may develop a more flexible syntax, as they learn to adapt to the different structures of each language. However, the study also found that these children may have difficulty mastering the syntax of each language, particularly if they are not exposed to consistent and correct usage of each language.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the Impact of Multilingualism on Language Development: A Case Study Approach

Hafsa Ahsan,

Amna Shahid,

Sabeen Qureshi

et al. 2024

PJLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research study follows the effects of a multilingual setting on the language development of a toddler. The participant of this research grew up in a household where three languages were spoken. The case study investigates the participant's language development via observational analysis, unstructured child interviews, and parental questionnaire. The findings conclude that the respected individual’s language development progressed at a slower pace compared to normal language development patterns. Her exposure to different linguistic structures and limited peer-peer interactions affected her language development, resulting in code mixing and cross linguistic influence. Moreover, there is also a comparison of the participant’s language milestones to the normal pattern of speech development in this study. Lastly, the study concludes that multilingualism can have both positive and negative influence on language development, and early intervention strategies are recommended for children with language delay in multilingual environments. Further research is encouraged to explore the impact of cross linguistic influence on multilingualism in diverse populations.

show abstract

“…As indicated above, L2 onset of the participants took place at ages 2-3. Research characterizes bilingual children whose age of first exposure to L2 was between 1 and 4 years as early sequential bilinguals (Blom et al 2017;Meisel 2009). The early sequential bilinguals are different from simultaneous bilinguals by the sequence of L2 acquisition and some grammatical knowledge acquisition in L1 before L2 (Montrul 2008).…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Russian noun pluralization in bilingual children: Evidence from four countries. Part 1. Qualitative analysis

Minkov

Polinsky

Protassova

et al. 2021

JALL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Russian language is confronted with a variety of other languages from around the world on the individual level. Russian is spoken by a large proportion of the population in some countries. As a result, it is necessary to investigate how the home / family or the first language (L1) interacts with the language of the environment in early childhood and how this influences the acquisition results at various stages. The aim of the study was: (1) to compare the pattern of noun pluralization in Russian (L1) among monolingual Russianspeaking and bilingual (L1) Russian-speaking children; (2) to examine the possible role of L2 background in production of noun plurals in L1 Russian. The participants included four groups of 4-to 5-year-old bilingual children with Russian as L1 and English, German, Finnish, or Hebrew as L2, who were compared to monolingual children in Russia in two age groups (3-4 and 4-5 years of age). A semi-structured elicitation test was conducted. Our findings revealed no qualitative difference between the groups on noun pluralization. Even if this is the case, some minor negative influence was evident in the children with English as L2, which is characterized by most regular noun pluralization. The presence of a grammar category in L2 plays the central role in the acquisition of this category in L1. Still, it is not clear what the role of L2 is: maybe the bilingual children are so good with Russian plural marking because their L2 has plural marking or because Russian is their dominant language and they have had a lot more input in it, so that the status of their L2 is irrelevant. The article actually consists of two parts, each dealing with qualitative and quantitative analysis, respectively.

show abstract

Cross-linguistic influence in bilingualism

Cited by 4 publications

References 30 publications

Structural surface overlap and derivational complexity in crosslinguistic transfer: Acquisition of English genitive alternation by Egyptian Arabic-speaking learners

Structural surface overlap and derivational complexity in crosslinguistic transfer: Acquisition of English genitive alternation by Egyptian Arabic-speaking learners

Investigating the Impact of Multilingualism on Language Development: A Case Study Approach

Russian noun pluralization in bilingual children: Evidence from four countries. Part 1. Qualitative analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About