First Language Attrition 1991
DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511620720.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The study of first language attrition: an overview

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
66
0
1

Year Published

2002
2002
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 145 publications
(72 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
5
66
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This view was prevalent in early research on language attrition, as for example illustrated by Seliger & Vago's (1991) model which makes reference to two types of language learner systems first proposed by Ervin & Osgood (1954): Compound Bilingualism (labelled Compound I Bilingualism by Seliger & Vago), in which the L1 is the source for hypotheses about the target language and both grammars are subserved by a common knowledge base from the L1 (if the learner fails to progress beyond this stage, fossilization will occur). In Coordinate Bilingualism, on the other hand, both languages exist largely independently of each other and traffic in either direction is minimal.…”
Section: The Scope Of Attrition Effectsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…This view was prevalent in early research on language attrition, as for example illustrated by Seliger & Vago's (1991) model which makes reference to two types of language learner systems first proposed by Ervin & Osgood (1954): Compound Bilingualism (labelled Compound I Bilingualism by Seliger & Vago), in which the L1 is the source for hypotheses about the target language and both grammars are subserved by a common knowledge base from the L1 (if the learner fails to progress beyond this stage, fossilization will occur). In Coordinate Bilingualism, on the other hand, both languages exist largely independently of each other and traffic in either direction is minimal.…”
Section: The Scope Of Attrition Effectsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Nonetheless, discussions of attrition in such contexts are also relevant to BFLA, assuming that the term L1 refers to both languages acquired by the child and that attrition can affect either of them. Seliger and Vago (1991) describe L1 attrition as disintegration of the structure of a first language in contact situations with a second language. Seliger (1991) argues that L1 attrition in the case of bilinguals is marked by an increased dominance of the majority language and lessened exposure to the L1.…”
Section: Language Attrition and Language Reactivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The effects of transfer may take different forms, including simplification and overregularization (Albirini et al, 2011;Altenberg, 1991;Cornips & Hulk, 2006;Klee, 1996;Montrul, 2004Montrul, , 2010Montrul et al, 2008;Polinsky, 1997), borrowing (Altenberg, 1991;Pavlenko, 2000;Pavlenko & Jarvis, 2002), avoidance (Albirini et al, 2011;Pavlenko, 2004;Rothman, 2007), omission (Moag, 1995;Montrul & Bowles, 2009;Polinsky, 2008;Song, O'Grady, Cho, & Lee, 1997), restructuring (Pavlenko, 2000(Pavlenko, , 2004Schmid, 2002;Seliger & Vago, 1991), convergence (Pavlenko, 2000(Pavlenko, , 2004, and misinterpretation (Montrul & Ionin, 2010). For example, Cornips and Hulk (2006) report that heritage speakers overgeneralize the unspecified, default value of nonneuter for the Dutch definite determiner, which is acquired early by monolingual children.…”
Section: Language Transfer Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%