The role of crosslinguistic influence in Greek child and adult learners' acquisition of English as a Foreign Language
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Oxford
Department Name: Education
Abstract
The focus of 2L1 research on crosslinguistic influence has been the syntax-discourse interface (Hulk & Muller, 2000). Based on the observation that children acquire this interface (and thus, the processes it regulates) late, Hulk and Muller (2000) posited the Interface Hypothesis. According to the hypothesis, if a bilingual child's first language is ambiguous (using two structures to express a syntax-discourse interface phenomenon), but her second language is unambiguous (using one of the structures for the same phenomenon), she would use the structure that both languages manifest, even in contexts where her first language would require the other structure. Under this light, the distribution of null and overt subject pronouns (a process that pertains to the syntax-discourse interface) became a fruitful research topic that gave rise to numerous studies. These suggest that, as Hulk and Muller (2000) predicted, bilingual children's use of null and overt pronouns is characterised by crosslinguistic influence from the non-null-subject language (which uses only overt subject pronouns) to the null-subject language (which uses both overt and null subject pronouns) (e.g. Argyri & Sorace, 2007; Paradis & Navarro, 2003; Serratrice, Sorace & Paoli, 2004). Indeed, crosslinguistic influence caused bilingual participants in these studies to produce more overt subjects in their null-subject language than monolingual speakers of the language. Notably, some of the aforementioned studies emphasised that language dominance might play an important role in crosslinguistic influence (Argyri & Sorace, 2007). Albeit groundbreaking, these studies do not involve large samples and, therefore, cannot provide generalizable results. In fact, Argyri and Sorace (2007) conducted one of the few large(r) scale investigations of the phenomenon, but included eight-year-old participants and, consequently, cannot reveal how bilingual children's language development proceeds in its earliest stages.
The approach of L2 research on crosslinguistic influence was different: instead of focusing on structural matters, researchers in the field postulated that feature-mismatch between the learner's first and second language is the cause of crosslinguistic influence (Tsimpli & Roussou, 1991). According to Tsimpli and Roussou (1991), to learn that their language allows null subjects, children must also learn that the number and person features that the subject would otherwise express must be imprinted on the verb. Having acquired their first language's features, children might face difficulties when learning a second or foreign language whose features (and their expression) differs. Under this light, the distribution of subject pronouns became, once again, the main topic of investigation. The studies that were produced under this framework focused on native speakers of a null-subject language (where person and number features are linked to the verb) who were learning a non-null-subject language (where these features are linked to the noun). They suggested that the idea of feature-mismatch was able to explain crosslinguistic influence from the null to the non-null-subject language (e.g. Prenza, 2014; White, 1985). Indeed, according to these investigations, learners produced more null subjects in their non-null-subject language than monolingual speakers of that language, while proficiency was seen as an important factor in decreasing the robustness of crosslinguistic influence (Prenza, 2014). However, these studies included small, non-generalisable samples and focused on adult learners; thus, not unlike 2L1 investigations, they cannot elucidate the process of bilingual language development.
The two strands of research are similar despite their differences. Both agree that crosslinguistic influence is prominent in language development and occurs due to linguistic reasons. The precise linguistic reasons differ - with 2L1 research suggesting structural ambiguity, and L2 resea
The approach of L2 research on crosslinguistic influence was different: instead of focusing on structural matters, researchers in the field postulated that feature-mismatch between the learner's first and second language is the cause of crosslinguistic influence (Tsimpli & Roussou, 1991). According to Tsimpli and Roussou (1991), to learn that their language allows null subjects, children must also learn that the number and person features that the subject would otherwise express must be imprinted on the verb. Having acquired their first language's features, children might face difficulties when learning a second or foreign language whose features (and their expression) differs. Under this light, the distribution of subject pronouns became, once again, the main topic of investigation. The studies that were produced under this framework focused on native speakers of a null-subject language (where person and number features are linked to the verb) who were learning a non-null-subject language (where these features are linked to the noun). They suggested that the idea of feature-mismatch was able to explain crosslinguistic influence from the null to the non-null-subject language (e.g. Prenza, 2014; White, 1985). Indeed, according to these investigations, learners produced more null subjects in their non-null-subject language than monolingual speakers of that language, while proficiency was seen as an important factor in decreasing the robustness of crosslinguistic influence (Prenza, 2014). However, these studies included small, non-generalisable samples and focused on adult learners; thus, not unlike 2L1 investigations, they cannot elucidate the process of bilingual language development.
The two strands of research are similar despite their differences. Both agree that crosslinguistic influence is prominent in language development and occurs due to linguistic reasons. The precise linguistic reasons differ - with 2L1 research suggesting structural ambiguity, and L2 resea
Organisations
Studentship Projects
| Project Reference | Relationship | Related To | Start | End | Student Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ES/P000649/1 | 01/10/2017 | 30/09/2027 | |||
| 1923609 | Studentship | ES/P000649/1 | 01/10/2017 | 30/09/2021 | Faidra Faitaki |
| Description | Phase I: I conducted a substantive pilot in order to determine the best oral language production method (repetition vs elicitation) for testing English-Greek sequential bilingual preschool children's use of two linguistic constructions: subject pronouns and subordinate clause markers. I tested 52 Greek children between 3;7 and 6;4. Of those, 21 attended a submersion programme (where all of the instruction takes place in English) and 31 attended an immersion programme (where half of the instruction takes place in English). Results: - The choice of task affects children's production. All children performed better at the repetition task than at the elicitation task, for both linguistic structures. - The two educational groups had similar scores on the vocabulary test, but children in submersion had higher scores on the grammar test. - In the repetition task, the two educational groups performed alike. Yet, in the elicitation task, children in submersion scored higher than children in immersion for both structures. - There was a strong link between grammar test scores and the use of both linguistic structures in the elicitation task. This finding suggests that the better one's grammar score is, the more accurate his/her use of the two structures in the elicitation task will be. - There were no links between grammar or vocabulary tests scores and the use of either linguistic structure in the repetition task. This finding challenges the task's efficacy. Phase II: I am conducting two studies in order to determine the role of crosslinguistic influence (CLI) on English-Greek sequential bilingual preschool children's production of the aforementioned linguistic structures. Study 1 aims to assess whether CLI results from differences in the structure of the languages that bilinguals are learning and focuses on Greek children with English as an Additional Language (EAL) in the UK. Rather, Study 2 aims to assess whether CLI stems from differences in the amount of input that bilinguals receive in their two languages, and targets Greek children who learn English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in Greece. Study 1 involves 75 participants (25 EAL, 25 English monolingual and 25 Greek monolingual) between 4;0 and 6;5, while Study 2 involves 190 participants (40 in submersion, 42 in immersion, 36 in EFL programmes, 36 Greek monolingual and 42 Greek monolingual) of the same age range. Emerging results (data collection and analysis are still in progress): - Bilingual children were expected to experience CLI from English to Greek in the case of subject pronouns. This would lead them to produce more overt subjects in Greek than their Greek monolingual counterparts. This prediction was not met, as there are appear to be no significant differences between bilinguals and monolinguals in Greek. - In general, bilingual and monolingual Greek children seem to produce a lot of null subjects in Greek, in both experimental items (which require null subjects) and control items (which require overt subjects). Children are found to have a preference for null or overt subjects, and use their preferred type irrespective of the context. - Bilingual children were expected to experience no CLI from English to Greek in the case of subordinate clause markers. The lack of CLI would lead them to produce the same amount of markers in Greek than Greek monolinguals. This prediction was met, as there appear to be no significant differences between the groups in Greek. - Sometimes, bilingual and monolingual Greek children seem to omit subordinate clause markers, thus producing ungrammatical sentences (e.g. 'he wants eat sandwich' instead of 'he wants to eat a sandwich'). - Although the quantity of input children receive in Greek does not appear to affect the amount of CLI they experience, it does appear to affect their linguistic proficiency in Greek. Indeed, children in immersion outperform all other groups (including Greek monolinguals) in terms of vocabulary scores. |
| Exploitation Route | Phase I: The starting point of the pilot was to find if the tasks give rise to different results. The data can be taken forward by researchers and practitioners. From a researcher's perspective it appears that the repetition task is inappropriate for measuring children's linguistic abilities; instead it might be measuring other competencies, such as children's ability to store, retrieve and (re)produce linguistic information, but without taking note of the linguistic properties of the utterance that they are repeating. From a teacher's perspective, drilling exercises (which are often used in the classroom) might be fitting for specific purposes (e.g. correcting pronunciation) but not for others (e.g. reinforcing vocabulary). As such, teachers should consider the aims of a drilling exercise before using it. Phase II: The aim of the DPhil's two studies was to determine the role of CLI in sequential bilingualism. An additional aim was to note differences in the linguistic outcomes of children who attend three different educational programmes in Greece. As before, the data can also be of interest to researchers and practitioners. However, it would not be advisable to make recommendations for research and practice before the end of data collection and analysis. |
| Sectors | Education |
| URL | https://osf.io/r4zt7/ |
| Description | One of the main findings of the substantive pilot I conducted in 2018 was that Greek children who attended a submersion programme (where all the instruction takes place in English) had stronger grammatical knowledge of English than children who attended an immersion programme (where half of the instruction takes place in English). I included this finding in a report that I sent to the participating schools. I also explained that grammatical knowledge can be developed without explicit instruction, but requires continuous and sufficient exposure to the language. Reviewing the report, the school that operated the immersion programme decided to change their English language provision. So, instead of halving the instruction, they decided to have a Greek and an English teacher co-exist in the classroom throughout the day and teaching all sessions together in order to allow a continuous and sufficient exposure to English which would allow children to develop their grammatical abilities with greater ease. |
| Sector | Education |
| Impact Types | Cultural,Societal |
| Description | Theatres Seed Fund |
| Amount | £2,996 (GBP) |
| Organisation | University of Oxford |
| Department | The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities TORCH |
| Sector | Academic/University |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Start | 01/2020 |
| End | 05/2020 |
| Description | Presentation at Parents' Evening |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Schools |
| Results and Impact | I gave a talk at one of the Greek schools that I collaborate with as part of my doctoral research project. The talk took place at the start of the parents' evening. It was open to all parents with children in Reception, and 50 parents were in attendance. In the talk, I gave an overview of my research in plain language, focusing on the effects of bilingual programmes on children's linguistic and educational outcomes. The latter was of interest to the parents as the school operates a bilingual immersion programme (such that children are instructed in both Greek and English). After my talk, I was approached by many parents who were interested to find out more about the topic of sequential bilingualism and the findings of my research project. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |