Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Similar f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs have recently been made with respect to adjective-noun word order <strong>in</strong> Italian-German bil<strong>in</strong>gual acquisition and attrition (Kupisch 2012), where <strong>the</strong> heritage speakers areargued to pay attention to frequency and structural difference.Aga<strong>in</strong>st this backdrop, we re-evaluate <strong>the</strong> Anderssen & Westergaard (2012) data <strong>in</strong> this paperand argue that frequency is a more important factor <strong>in</strong> attrition than complexity or structuralsimilarity. We also provide some fur<strong>the</strong>r data on double def<strong>in</strong>iteness (cf. 2b) from one bil<strong>in</strong>gualchild as well as a number of heritage speakers and compare <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs to monol<strong>in</strong>gualacquisition (Anderssen 2006). Given that double def<strong>in</strong>iteness is both complex and <strong>in</strong>frequent, weexpect it to be vulnerable <strong>in</strong> both bil<strong>in</strong>gual groups, as it is <strong>in</strong> monol<strong>in</strong>guals, who have been shownto omit <strong>the</strong> prenom<strong>in</strong>al determ<strong>in</strong>er for an extended period of time, cf. (4). Our f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs show that<strong>the</strong> bil<strong>in</strong>gual child <strong>in</strong>vestigated to a large extent omits <strong>the</strong> suffix (55.6%, 10/18)), cf. example (5),even though this is produced <strong>in</strong> a target-consistent manner <strong>in</strong> her simple def<strong>in</strong>ites. The heritagespeakers, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, are found to omit <strong>the</strong> prenom<strong>in</strong>al determ<strong>in</strong>er as often as 57% (37/65)(and <strong>the</strong> suffix only 3.1%, 2/65), despite its structural similarity to English, cf. (6).(4) store trollet (Ina, 2;1.0)big troll.DEF (Target: det store trollet)(5) den stor ball (Emma 2;7.10)<strong>the</strong> big ball(Target: den store ballen)(6) engelske skolen (coon_valley_WI_sep_03gm)English school.DEF (Target: den engelsk skolen)We argue that our results support <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis that complexity plays a more important role thanfrequency <strong>in</strong> acquisition. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, structural similarity may be a factor <strong>in</strong> bil<strong>in</strong>gualacquisition. In attrition, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, frequency and structural difference seem to be <strong>the</strong>most important factors, account<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>the</strong> heritage speakers’ lack of prenom<strong>in</strong>al determ<strong>in</strong>ers <strong>in</strong>double def<strong>in</strong>ites as well as <strong>the</strong>ir overuse of postnom<strong>in</strong>al possessives <strong>in</strong> Anderssen & Westergaard’s(2012) data.ReferencesAnderssen, M. 2006. The Acquisition of Compositional Def<strong>in</strong>iteness <strong>in</strong> Norwegian. Doctoral dissertation,University of Tromsø.Anderssen, M. & M. Westergaard. 2010. Frequency and economy <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> acquisition of variable wordorder. L<strong>in</strong>gua 120.11, 2569-2588.Anderssen, M. & M. Westergaard. 2012. Tospråklighet og ordstill<strong>in</strong>g i norske possessivkonstruksjoner.Norsk L<strong>in</strong>gvistisk Tidsskrift 30, 170-197.Lødrup, H. 2012. Forholdet mellom prenom<strong>in</strong>ale og postnom<strong>in</strong>ale possessive uttrykk. H.-O. Enger, J. T.Faarlund & K. I. Vannebo (eds.), Grammatikk, bruk og norm, 189-203. Oslo: Novus.Kupisch, T. 2012. Language <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>in</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g vs. end-state grammars and <strong>the</strong> concept of “crossl<strong>in</strong>guisticovercorrection”. Poster presented at CASTL Decennium conference, University of Tromsø.2