Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Early, late or very late?

View through CrossRef
Research on child bilingualism accounts for differences in the course and the outcomes of monolingual and different types of bilingual language acquisition primarily from two perspectives: age of onset of exposure to the language(s) and the role of the input (Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004;Meisel, 2009;Unsworth et al., 2014). Some findings suggest that early successive bilingual children may pattern similarly to simultaneous bilingual children, passing through different trajectories from child L2 learners due to a later age of onset in the latter group. Studies on bilingual development have also shown that input quantity in bilingual acquisition is considerably reduced, i.e., in each of their two languages, bilingual children are likely exposed to much less input than their monolingual peers (Paradis & Genesee, 1996;Unsworth, 2013b). At the same time, simultaneous bilingual children develop and attain competence in the two languages, sometimes without even an attested age delay compared to monolingual children (Paradis, Genesee & Crago, 2011). The implication is that even half of the input suffices for early language development, at least with respect to ‘core’ aspects of language, in whatever way ‘core’ is defined.My aim in this article is to consider how an additional, linguistic variable interacts with age of onset and input in bilingual development, namely, the timing in L1 development of the phenomena examined in bilingual children’s performance. Specifically, I will consider timing differences attested in the monolingual development of features and structures, distinguishing between early, late or ‘very late’ acquired phenomena. I will then argue that this three-way distinction reflects differences in the role of narrow syntax: early phenomena are core, parametric and narrowly syntactic, in contrast to late and very late phenomena, which involve syntax-external or even language-external resources too. I explore the consequences of these timing differences in monolingual development for bilingual development. I will review some findings from early (V2 in Germanic, grammatical gender in Greek), late (passives) and very late (grammatical gender in Dutch) phenomena in the bilingual literature and argue that early phenomena can differentiate between simultaneous and (early) successive bilingualism with anadvantage for the former group, while the other two reveal similarly (high or low) performance across bilingual groups, differentiating them from monolinguals. The paper proposes that questions about the role of age of onset and language input in early bilingual development can only be meaningfully addressed when the properties and timing of the phenomena under investigation are taken into account.
Title: Early, late or very late?
Description:
Research on child bilingualism accounts for differences in the course and the outcomes of monolingual and different types of bilingual language acquisition primarily from two perspectives: age of onset of exposure to the language(s) and the role of the input (Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004;Meisel, 2009;Unsworth et al.
, 2014).
Some findings suggest that early successive bilingual children may pattern similarly to simultaneous bilingual children, passing through different trajectories from child L2 learners due to a later age of onset in the latter group.
Studies on bilingual development have also shown that input quantity in bilingual acquisition is considerably reduced, i.
e.
, in each of their two languages, bilingual children are likely exposed to much less input than their monolingual peers (Paradis & Genesee, 1996;Unsworth, 2013b).
At the same time, simultaneous bilingual children develop and attain competence in the two languages, sometimes without even an attested age delay compared to monolingual children (Paradis, Genesee & Crago, 2011).
The implication is that even half of the input suffices for early language development, at least with respect to ‘core’ aspects of language, in whatever way ‘core’ is defined.
My aim in this article is to consider how an additional, linguistic variable interacts with age of onset and input in bilingual development, namely, the timing in L1 development of the phenomena examined in bilingual children’s performance.
Specifically, I will consider timing differences attested in the monolingual development of features and structures, distinguishing between early, late or ‘very late’ acquired phenomena.
I will then argue that this three-way distinction reflects differences in the role of narrow syntax: early phenomena are core, parametric and narrowly syntactic, in contrast to late and very late phenomena, which involve syntax-external or even language-external resources too.
I explore the consequences of these timing differences in monolingual development for bilingual development.
I will review some findings from early (V2 in Germanic, grammatical gender in Greek), late (passives) and very late (grammatical gender in Dutch) phenomena in the bilingual literature and argue that early phenomena can differentiate between simultaneous and (early) successive bilingualism with anadvantage for the former group, while the other two reveal similarly (high or low) performance across bilingual groups, differentiating them from monolinguals.
The paper proposes that questions about the role of age of onset and language input in early bilingual development can only be meaningfully addressed when the properties and timing of the phenomena under investigation are taken into account.

Related Results

Stratigraphy and Palaeobiogeography of Mesozoic Benthic Foraminifera - Part 3
Stratigraphy and Palaeobiogeography of Mesozoic Benthic Foraminifera - Part 3
The Adriatic Carbonate Platform (AdCP), was a separate shallowmarine depositional system characterized by a lack of terrigenous input and was connected to Gondwana towards the Sout...
Stratigraphy and Palaeobiogeography of Mesozoic Benthic Foraminifera - Part 2
Stratigraphy and Palaeobiogeography of Mesozoic Benthic Foraminifera - Part 2
The Adriatic Carbonate Platform (AdCP), was a separate shallowmarine depositional system characterized by a lack of terrigenous input and was connected to Gondwana towards the Sout...
Stratigraphy and Palaeobiogeography of Mesozoic Benthic Foraminifera - Part 1
Stratigraphy and Palaeobiogeography of Mesozoic Benthic Foraminifera - Part 1
The Adriatic Carbonate Platform (AdCP), was a separate shallowmarine depositional system characterized by a lack of terrigenous input and was connected to Gondwana towards the Sout...
Flodfund - Bronzealderdeponeringer fra Gudenåen
Flodfund - Bronzealderdeponeringer fra Gudenåen
River findsBronze Age metalwork from the river GudenåBronze Age metalwork (primarily swords and other weapons) found in European rivers has aroused interest for many years, but lit...
Modified Bottle Cap for Improving Children’s Arithmetic Ability
Modified Bottle Cap for Improving Children’s Arithmetic Ability
The preliminary study showed that the main problem, however, faced by kindergarten students are lack of mathematics skill, such arithmetic ability in kindergarten Galis. Therefore,...
Early Childhood Learning Quality in Pandalungan Community
Early Childhood Learning Quality in Pandalungan Community
The challenge for rural communities to provide quality education for early childhood in Indonesia is difficult. National politics, policies, and economic and cultural conditions af...
RESEARCH OF THE EFFICIENCY OF THE GRAIN RECEPTION LINE OPERATION FROM AUTO TRANSPORT AT THE PROCUREMENT PRODUCTION GRAIN ELEVATOR
RESEARCH OF THE EFFICIENCY OF THE GRAIN RECEPTION LINE OPERATION FROM AUTO TRANSPORT AT THE PROCUREMENT PRODUCTION GRAIN ELEVATOR
The results of the study of the characteristics of the technological line for grain reception from auto transport at the procurement production grain elevator of LLC ―Agricultural ...

Back to Top