Lexical Growth Patterns in a Bilingual Infant: The

This article was downloaded by: [Open University] On: 19 June 2015, At: 05:40 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

Lexical Growth Patterns in a Bilingual Infant: The Occurrence and Significance of Equivalents in the Bilingual Lexicon Ursula Lanvers Published online: 26 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Ursula Lanvers (1999) Lexical Growth Patterns in a Bilingual Infant: The Occurrence and Significance of Equivalents in the Bilingual Lexicon, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2:1, 30-52, DOI: 10.1080/13670059908666245 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670059908666245

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content

should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [Open University] at 05:40 19 June 2015

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Lexical Growth Patterns in a Bilingual Infant: The Occurrence and Significance of Equivalents in the Bilingual Lexicon Ursula Lanvers


Department of Education, University of Exeter, 76 Rollestone Crescent, Exeter EX4 5EF, UK This article gives a detailed account of the lexical growth in a bilingual child (German and English) and discusses its theoretical implications. Evaluating the ‘Principle of Contrast’ (Clark, 1987, 1988) in bilingual acquisition, it is concluded that evidence of lexical equivalent learning and usage of equivalents can contribute to the debate on language separation in bilingual infants. The child in this study generally showed acquisition patterns of language-specific words to be related to the (varying) amount of input, changes in the language environment having a delayed effect on the dominance shift in the lexicon. New equivalents were learned very regularly from age 1.7 onwards, making up, on average, 30% of monthly new words. The time gap examination in the emergence of these equivalents showed patterns relating to the input: changes of input greatly increased equivalent learning. The patterns of equivalent learning, together with evidence of appropriate usage of these from the age of 1.7 onwards, were interpreted as evidence of emerging lexical separation around the age of 1.6. Furthermore, lexical acquisition in one language was not proportionate to the amount of exposure to that language, an observation of interest for the general theoretical discussion of the relation between input and acquisition.

Introduction This paper is concerned with the lexical growth in a bilingual child (German and English) and the theoretical implications of these findings. Lexical acquisi1 tion patterns in the bilingual infant have received some attention in the past because the degree to which the infant learns (cross-linguistic) equivalents may indicate the separation process in the first linguistic stage. Evidence of some equivalent learning alone may not indicate separation; patterns of equivalent learning, on the other hand, allow some inferences about the bilingual acquisition process, in particular if related to other aspects of bilingual development such as dominance and input. The data on lexical learning in this child is therefore complemented by information about language choices and (varying) input patterns of the two languages. The overall aim of the study is to identify patterns of equivalent learning, which may indicate that the bilingual child actively seeks to build up equivalent knowledge. It is argued that such evidence can give an insight into the (absence of) separation in the pre-syntactical stage, and, if combined with distributional 2 information about language choices, can reveal regularities in the process of separation. The lexical learning patterns are related to the input of either language, to assess the extent lexical growth and equivalent learning are dependent on the environment. Given the observational advantage of bilingual data in this regard, these findings may have significance beyond bilingual 1367-0050/99/01 0030-23 $10.00/0 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

30

©1999 U. Lanvers Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999

Lexical Growth Patterns

31

research, contributing to the theoretical discussion of the relation between input and acquisition. In the first part of this paper, I will discuss the theoretical considerations of studying equivalents in the bilingual lexicon, and present other findings on the subject. This part concludes with a formulation of specific goals for this study. The second part presents methodology and data of this research, which is evaluated in the light of the current discussion of separation in Bilingual First Language Acquisition (hereafter BFLA).


Equivalents and the Principle of Contrast A fundamental question is whether, and if so to what extent, equivalents can indicate lexical separation. Both Quay (1995) and Zurer-Pearson et al. (1995) discuss the possibility of equivalents being simply used as (inter-language) synonyms. They cite Clark’s (1993) Principle of Contrast (hereafter Principle) to demonstrate the dilemma: the Principle states that the child seeks to map different meanings to different forms, and thus avoids lexical synonyms (in one language). Its validity is much discussed in Child Language Research, and is significant for the theoretical debate of BFLA: if we embrace the Principle, cross-linguistic equivalents (in the absence of synonyms) could indeed indicate lexical separation. If, however, we reject the Principle, we could expect both equivalents and synonyms, thus not knowing whether a ‘lexical pair’ would constitute a cross-linguistic equivalent or not. As Ferguson (1984) put it, apparent cross-language equivalents could actually be used in two very different ways from the adult way, i.e. in complementation, where words cover different semantic fields, or in free variation, that is as inter-language synonyms (if rejecting the Principle). Before assessing the validity of the Principle for bilingual data, I will briefly present its current discussion. The Principle predicts that ‘every two forms should contrast in meaning’ (Clark, 1988: 318), hence that synonymy is avoided, whilst polysemy is allowed. Clark understands the Principle to be working as soon as words are acquired, whilst others (Merriman & Bowman, 1989) believe it develops shortly after the second birthday. Nelson (1988) and Levy & Nelson (1994) dispute the idea of (absolute) constraints in lexical learning, citing evidence of children accepting two names with one meaning, but they concede that a bias (e.g. for contrast) may develop during acquisition. Gathercole (1989), also contradicting the Principle, points out that its logic leads to difficulties when applied to grammatical features such as irregular forms and allomorphs: acquisition patterns show that children, from an early age, use different forms with identical meaning. She proposes that, whilst there is some constraint against synonyms (applicable to adults as well as children), children are observed to use additional linguistic and non-linguistic information to map meaning onto form, enabling the child to use, for example, allomorphs and apparent synonyms correctly. Evidence by Marcus et al. (1992) about over-regularisation (e.g. of past tense and plural morphemes) equally supports the view that forms with identical meanings can co-exist for periods of time. Golinkoff et al. (1994) oppose the Principle as presented by Clark (1988), and


32

Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

propose a set of six heuristic principles for the learning of object nouns, one of them resembling the Principle of Contrast in that ‘novel names map onto unnamed categories’ (p. 126). Their principles are understood to be of transitional value, each one being constructed anew so that the child can move onto the next (and faster) level of learning (p. 151). Markmann (1994) sees some limits in the Principle in that it may be overridden if a word is discovered to be a subordinate to a familiar word (e.g. terrier — dog), and if explicit input (e.g. parental correction) contradicts the Principle. Merriman and Bowman (1989) propose that a ‘bias for mutual exclusivity’ (p. 23ff.) in the meaning of words develops during the third year of life, and cite empirical evidence for their hypothesis. They thus reject the notion that infants seek to contrast meaning at all times. This brief overview shows that most researchers currently consider it to be a strategic principle that is developed in the learning process, rather than a (possibly innate) constraint (see Golinkoff et al. 1994: 128). Whilst children may be biased against learning two forms with one meaning, there is no justification for an absolute Principle of Contrast. However, Clark (1988) doubts the existence of inter-language synonyms, arguing that all synonyms contrast at least in connotation. In her view, the Principle will compel the child at all learning stages to contrast meaning, so that even slight differences (e.g. of register) will be attended to. This proposal has raised criticism, since assumptions about subtle differences in meaning in the lexicon of infants cannot be verified (Merriman & Bowman, 1989: 14). Bearing in mind this concession, the presence of synonyms or words with nearly identical meanings in the early lexicon could count as supporting evidence against the Principle. Clark maps out the bilingual lexical acquisition process according to the Principle, assuming an initial fused language system: In fact, an early solution chosen by very young bilinguals appears to be to produce a label for a particular category from only one of their two languages, despite exposure to labels from both. That is, these children may initially treat their production lexicon as a single system in which all these terms contrast. But implicit and explicit rejection of second labels seems to occur at most for only a few months; it may cease when children have fewer than 50 words in production (Quay, 1993). [¼] As soon as children realise that they are dealing with two systems, they need only apply contrast within each language. They should then accumulate doublets freely [¼], and they do. (Clark, 1993: 95ff.) Her claim that equivalents do not appear in the earliest lexicon is not supported by studies of equivalent learning (see below), and no bilingual study reports examples of the (more or less explicit) rejection of equivalents in the early stages. In addition, some bilingual studies report that early equivalent pairs were used interchangeably, i.e. as inter-language synonyms, thus violating the Principle. The overview of the discussion of the Principle of Contrast concludes that synonymy in the early lexical stage is not excluded, even if it is rare. In contrast


33

to this, equivalents may make out a significant part of the lexicon, as the next section shows.


Studies on Equivalents The well known three-stage model by Volterra and Taeschner (1978) predicts that there will be no equivalents in the early lexicon (up to 18–24 months), and that Stage II is marked by the appearance of (more or less regular) equivalent learning. Both the vague nature of these definitions and inconsistencies within 3 the model have made it difficult for researchers to apply the model to their data. The studies of lexical acquisition in bilingual children vary greatly in their information value, some reporting on equivalents only (no relation to overall lexicon), some giving selected information about months or days only. Table 1 summarises the findings on early equivalents, and, if available, their relation to the total vocabulary. Table 1 Other studies on equivalents in the early lexicon Study Vihman (1985) Quay (1995)

Zurer-Pearson et al. (1995) Leopold (1939) Taeschner (1983)

Ronjat (1913) Kielhöfer and Jonekeit (1983) Jekat (1985) Mikes (1990) (3 trilingual children)

Equivalent Knowledge English with Estonian equivalents: 29% at 1.6; 47% at 1.8; 59% at 1.9; 76% at 2.01 2 pairs at 1.0; 6 at 1.4; 24 at 1.6; 125 at 1.10 26 new pairs (average) per month from 1.7 onwards (46% of total vocabulary at 1.10) Average of 30% of total vocabulary in first 90 words, 59% in the first 500 words2 First pair 1.0; 6 pairs at 1.6; 10 pairs at 1.11 (8% at 1.3; 22% at 1.6; 24% at 1.8; 24% at 1.11) 6 pairs at 1.1 (Lisa); 12 pairs at 1.6 (Giulia); 152 pairs at 2.10 (Lisa); 139 pairs at 2.4 (Giulia) (9% at 1.1, Lisa; 17% at 1.6, Giulia; 36% at 2.10, Lisa; 33% at 2.4, Giulia) First pair at 1.4; 5 pairs at 1.8 First pair at 1.3 (first child) 18 pairs at 1.8; 81 at 2.8 (31% at 1.8; 23% at 2.8) Vuk at 1.5: 12 bilingual pairs Uva at 1.11: 13 bilingual pairs + 5 triplets Eg on at 1.6: 15 bilingual pairs + 4 triplets (Vuk 26%; Uva 36% bi- or trilingual pairs; Egon 38% bior trilingual pairs)

Notes: 1. The percentages of Estonian (dominant language) words with English equivalents are not given. 2. 90 words are here used to mark — tentatively — the boundary to Stage II. Results match neither the predictio n of ‘almost all words’ (Volterra & Taescher, 1978) nor ‘about a third with equivalents’ (Taeschner, 1983).

All studies report some equivalents before age two. It is thus not the (possibly fortuitous) learning of early equivalents that will be investigated, but their ratio to the total vocabulary, their growth rate, and their overall significance for the discussion of language separation. Despite the great variety of the studies, some common traits can be identified: up to around age 1.6, there are few equivalent


34


pairs, but in the next six months, equivalent learning rises from about 30% to 50% or more of the total lexicon, most bilingual children having more words with equivalents than without at their second birthday. The ‘growth spurt’ in equivalents around 1.6, observed in many studies, leads Vihman (1985) to conclude that there is a ‘clear trend towards two lexical systems’ (p. 299) from age 1.6 onwards. The only larger-scale study by Zurer-Pearson et al. (1995), using 4 the CDI (Communicative Development Inventory, MacArthur, 1989) revealed similar patterns to other studies, despite its different methodological approach. However, individual variation was significant (e.g. some had 50% equivalents at the lexical stage of 90 words). The authors concluded that some children may actively seek equivalents, whilst others avoid them. Further data is needed to determine to what extent such preferences may be linked to personal learning strategies, or may be input-related. Zurer-Pearson and Fernandez (1994) offer some support for the latter hypothesis, as two children were observed to show a preference for acquiring equivalents. As their input charts show, both children were exposed to substantial changes in the input, to be followed — in the next 5 months — by a high rate of equivalent learning (p. 638f). Different claims are made about the distribution and meaning of the identified equivalents: Ronjat (1913: 104) and Kielhöfer and Jonekeit (1983) claimed that 6 equivalents were always used correctly; Quay (1993) found that this was the case from 1.8 onwards. Taeschner (1983) claimed that the pairs covered different meanings, and that even if equivalents were explicitly taught by the respective parents, the child could not map the meaning of the two items (p. 35); Leopold (1939, Vol.3: 175) did not consider equivalents sufficient evidence for separation. Jekat (1985) felt unable to decide whether the pairs constituted cross-linguistic equivalents, or carried a different meaning. Nicoladis and Genesee (1996) investigated equivalent usage in children, assuming that appropriate choice would be in evidence once separation occurs. Unfortunately, dates of emergence of these equivalents are not given, but their distribution shows clearly that once the child uses mainly the appropriate language (i.e. from 1.9 onwards), inappropriate choices of equivalents virtually disappear (p. 460). Due to infrequent recording sessions (every six weeks, 45 minutes), the number of equivalents found is very small (p. 460: the highest number is 12, after conflating all transcripts of one child). Quay (1995) constitutes a systematic study of the time delay in equivalent learning. The average delay was found to be 19 days, but the fastest pair was learned in eight days (p. 380). Taeschner (1983: 30), reporting only fragmental evidence, observed equivalents to be learned with a time delay of a month.

Concept vocabulary The number of equivalents can also be shown by measuring the difference between total vocabulary (in both languages) and Total Concept Vocabulary, that is all words expressing a different concept (excluding translation words). On a monthly basis, many more new concept words (about 65%) than equivalents (about 35%) are acquired. The large-scale studies (Zurer-Pearson et al., 1993; Zurer-Pearson & Fernandez, 1994) show that at no time did children learn more equivalents than new concept words.


35


Most children learn new concept vocabulary in both languages (Zurer-Pearson & Fernandez, 1994), even in their weaker language. However dominant a child may be, some concept words will always be known in one language that are not 7 known in the other (Zurer-Pearson et al., 1993). To summarise, the overwhelming evidence of early equivalent learning contradicts Clark’s predictions concerning bilingual learning. There are two alternative explanations for the findings: (1) As current discussions of the Principle suggest, learning of synonyms in infants does indeed occur, and, given their increased exposure to such ‘doublets’, bilingual infants learn many more of them than monolinguals. This model assumes an initial fused system, in which equivalents are treated as synonyms. (2) Bilingual infants contrast the languages from a very early age, and learn equivalents as belonging to two different language systems. This model is compatible with the Principle of Contrast (albeit not a necessary component). The possibility that equivalents cover different meanings has to be considered as a variant of Model A, since both rely on the fused system model. The difference, of course, is that this variant is compatible with the Principle of Contrast. Distributional usage of equivalents constitutes valid data to test both models. However, we also need to consider how lexical learning patterns may differ in these models. The predictions (e.g. about occurrences of equivalents and concept word learning) will serve as hypotheses to be tested in this study.

Aims for this Study In Model A the child would not show a preference for either of the two equivalents, and learning of equivalents would show no particular patterns, other perhaps than reflecting the input patterns at any given time. As well as using equivalents interchangeably, children would show little desire to learn equivalents (conservative attitude, preferring the known to the new), and concentrate on learning new concept words. In Model B, however, we could expect equivalent learning to be a regular feature of bilingual learning, since the child actively and consciously develops both languages, and equivalent learning should increase or decrease with other aspects of bilingual competence, e.g. bilingual awareness, language choices. Assuming Model B to be more worthy of investigation, this study focuses on patterns of equivalent learning. Furthermore, the role of input in this process needs to be considered, as a low rate of equivalents could simply result from lack of opportunity to learn them, rather than from some ‘avoidance strategy’ on the part of the child. The above case studies mostly stem from children in a bilingual home environment, so they have ample opportunity to learn equivalents. However, some incidental evidence suggests that changes in the input increase equivalent learning (see above). This aspect needs to be investigated systematically: if equivalent learning is indeed dependent upon input and changes therein, we might conclude that sociolinguistic circumstances, rather than purely linguistic development or

36



neuro-linguistic processes, determine the separation process. Pursuing this hypothesis further, it is possible to make some assumptions about the patterns and time gaps observed in equivalent learning in Model B: · Continuous input of both languages leads to continuous equivalent learning, the actual time gap being influenced both by sociolinguistic factors like (parental) tolerance to wrong language choices and opportunity to learn them. · Relatively little exposure to one language can nonetheless lead to proportionally high equivalent learning, as the child actively seeks to fill vocabulary gaps. · Input changes in favour of the weaker language would lead to an immediate seeking of equivalents for words known well in one language, and hence show increased equivalent learning of pairs with a long gap. · Equivalents would preferably be acquired simultaneously in situations where language demands are imperative, i.e. the child socialises with monolinguals. The prediction of Model A, assuming initial fusion, would be: · There are no true cross-linguistic equivalents in the first stage. · The more the child learns to separate, the shorter the gap in learning equivalent pairs. This study therefore investigates the lexical growth patterns under the following aspects: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

lexical growth in each language; emergence of equivalents, their ratio to the knowledge of the total lexicon; distribution of equivalents; changing patterns of equivalent learning, especially in relation to input; time gaps in the acquisition of equivalents; and their relation to input.

This data allows the identification of some bilingual learning patterns, their relation to the input, and may permit some inferences about bilingual learning strategies in the acquisition of the lexicon.

Method The data derives from a first-born male child (Louis) observed by the author, his mother, from birth to 2.11 years, using a diary and monthly tape recordings. Growing up in a bilingual home in Britain (the father speaking English, the mother German), he has ample opportunity to learn equivalents, but some activities are experienced in one language only (e.g. nursery in English). The diary contains a day-by-day account of his lexical growth, hence taking account of, for example, idiosyncratic word creations and word meanings. As well as information about vocabulary (which receives almost daily entries from about 1.6 onwards), the diary gathers material about the (changing) input patterns, dialogue extracts and child monologues the mother overheard, and morphosyntactical development. The fact that the mother was the main data collector constituted an observational advantage in gathering German material, which



37

was corrected in several ways: the father was invited to contribute to diary entries, and checked the lexical lists established at the end of each month for English equivalents of the noted German items; the mother regularly overheard father-child interactions and made notes; tape recordings provided a further source for the lexical lists. An extract of the diary is given in Appendix 1 Tape-recordings took place, on average (allowing for child illnesses, trips abroad etc.), twice a month, with both parents present (about 70% of recorded time) as well as one alone (about 15% of recorded time, with mother and father respectively). Each recording lasted 30–45 minutes, the child playing with familiar toys in the home environment, or sharing a meal with parents. Recordings usually took place at weekends, when all family members had time to interact in play and other activities; recording thus represents a part of the continuum in normal family interaction. Transcripts were done as soon as possible after recordings, and those between father and child alone were composed by both parents, the father giving additional information about non-linguistic interaction etc. Of the transcripts, 10% were checked for reliability by a competent English–German bilingual with a linguistic background. Transcripts are orthographic unless pronunciation (a) did not allow identification of a standard English or German word or (b) concerned English–German cognates. These near-homophones (e.g. house — Haus) deserve particular attention because language-specific pronunciation may indicate that they are language-specific items and are therefore transcribed phonologically. An extract of a transcript is given in Appendix 2. In the recordings, parents were observed to use their respective language consistently. The parents speak English when together, but address the child in their mother tongue. However, as Goodz (1989) has demonstrated, parental claims about their language choices are not always accurate. The one parent–one language rule may of course been violated outside recordings; in addition, the parents are aware of some house rules, which regularly involve parents using their non-native language: · reading books and singing nursery rhymes; · the mother would address a group of children in English if her children were amongst them, and use English in front of adults if she wanted them to participate in parent–child conversation; · some ‘family words’ used in preference to the equivalent, by both parents. Examples are Wurst, sweeties, under the stairs, Kaffee und Kuchen etc. Most of these have some culturally-bound link to the language, and are marked as non-language specific in the list. Bilingual families often report such routine violations of the one parent–one language rule, and it is argued that their regularity does not cause children to question or doubt the general one parent–one language rule (e.g. Kielhöfer & Jonekeit, 1983). Inappropriate language choices were in general accepted by the parents, although a range of insistence strategies (see Döpke, 1986, 1988) were used in times of dominance, especially by the mother.

Defining a word In line with other researchers (Bloom, 1991; Clark, 1993), I counted as a word

38



8

a meaningful utterance that has been used at least twice to refer to the same concept, regardless of standard meaning or pronunciation (e.g. [sAsE] , from Zähne, was used for toothbrushing at age 1.4). The criteria for identifying a word can be described as child-centred rather than target language-centred. Vihman and McCune (1994) propose a methodical identification process of ‘words’, suggesting a number of criteria which the current research has taken into consideration: contextual information, or ‘determinative context’, is seen as the main criterion, together with ‘vocalisation shape’. ‘Multiple occurrence’ of the unit as well as ‘maternal identification’ (i.e. mother interprets the unit and reacts accordingly) are further crucial context-based criteria. As for phonetic realisation, the authors consider neither partial (e.g. two phonetic segments) nor exact match to adult pronunciation as sufficient criteria for word determination. Of all the above criteria, I gave most weight to contextual information, that is recurrence in different circumstances (‘multiple use and multiple episodes’, in Vihman’s and McCune’s terms, 1994). The criteria ‘maternal identification’ and evidence of understanding of the word in question became — de rigueur — part of this parent–researcher data collection. In line with Vihman and McCune (1994), I concluded that the criterion ‘phonetic realisation’ can only be useful in combination with others, such as the absence or presence of inappropriate usages of the unit in question. However, a stable phonological shape (my criterion) can help in the identification of a word. This criterion was useful in some instances where the pronunciation was, from the adult perspective, confusing (e.g. at age 1.7, he used [b^gis] with the meaning of bike, not buggy). The identification criteria are believed to be stringent enough to withstand over-interpretation in that two unrelated instances of determinative context need to be observed, and (apparent) inappropriate usage would cause modification to or deletion of the entry. Safeguards against over-interpretation are considered especially important for the parent–researcher, eager to collect data, but biased in his/her highly emotional relationship with the child. Data on the lexical growth is as complete as possible; however, completeness of the data cannot be guaranteed once knowledge exceeds 50 words (for Louis, at age 1.6, see Dromi, 1987: 18–21). Vocabulary lists thereafter may not fully represent the active vocabulary. After age two, this ‘observation gap’ increases again due to the volume of data, so that from this age onwards, the accurate active vocabulary may be estimated above (possibly 10–20%) that recorded. Regarding some special cases, the following practice has been applied: · proper names, be they of people, towns etc. were not included, with the exception of product names for a specific (e.g. household) object, e.g. Weetabix, Maxicosi (= baby car seat); · in cases of clear over-extension or under-extension of words, the same word may be entered twice, when the standard meaning is learned at a later stage; · words immediately repeated after the parent (or other person) do not count as active vocabulary; · onomatopoeic and infant expressions that differ in the languages (e.g. choo-choo for train in English, a tuff-tuff in German), were counted as language-specific. Many items could not be clearly labelled as English or German; they are



39

classified as non-language specific items (NLS). This group consists mainly of homophones and near-homophones, i.e. those that the child perceives as identical words with variant pronunciation because of phonemic similarity (e.g. Ball and ball). Infants are particularly inventive in the use of blends, the use of a single phonological form to express the same concept in either language (Lanza, 1997: 9 164) (e.g. genough from enough and genug, my example). In languages as closely related as German and English, it is often difficult to determine whether the child used a blend of e.g. house and Haus, book and Buch etc. at a stage where pronunciation is still imperfect and many nouns are shortened anyway (Leopold, (1939) Vol. II: 230.). Thus, both cognates and invented blend forms may count as forms of blending. A second group of NLS items are onomatopoeia that cannot be attributed to one language, as well as idiosyncratic pronunciations or the child’s own inventions which do not recognisably belong to either language. This group will comprise some words in the first recorded months, but very few in the following months, as the child’s speech resembles more the adult model. Another group of words listed in this category are culture-specific words for which no direct equivalent exists, e.g. Christkind, Weetabix. Although a ‘donor language’ can be made out in these cases, it was considered important to differentiate these from language-specific words which can have equivalents.

Defining an equivalent Equivalents were, in this study, seen as words that for the child can express the same idea, even if the standard adult translation would be different. For example, Louis uses sorry in English at the age of 1.8 if he wants to get past a person, and bei, meaning ‘vorbei’, in German. The percentage of equivalents compared to the total vocabulary is given in two ways: first, the number of equivalents is given as a proportion of total vocabulary, that is including NLS items. The second calculation takes account of 10 the fact that NLS items cannot have an equivalent by their very nature. The method of calculation can alter the percentage outcome significantly, as Pye (1986) has shown. The percentage of equivalents compared to the total vocabulary is therefore given in two ways, in proportion to total vocabulary, that is including non-language specific items, and without NLS items. The latter percentage gives a more accurate picture of realised equivalents in relation to potential equivalents. If a (near-)homophone was learned as one item (blend), the item was first entered under NLS, and again under language-specific vocabulary (with equivalent) if pronunciation became distinct at a later stage. The relative time lapse in the acquisition of all equivalents was noted, so as to establish under which circumstances the child learns equivalents. Three time relations were differentiated: · Simultaneous Acquisition (SA): if the child has learned both words within a month, e.g. horse — Pferd in the same month. · Slightly Delayed Acquisition (SD): if the child already possesses one concept

40


in one language and learns its translation equivalent within the following two months, this is considered to be a small time gap. · Time Gap (TG): if the equivalent of a word is learned any later than two months after the first word, this is considered to be delayed acquisition of 11 an equivalent.


12

This relatively coarse classification was adopted in order to condense the substantial information of this longitudinal study into comparative data. Information about the (changing) environment and language choices is given in monthly rhythms, so that the categories of time gaps are immediately transferable to this data. In the following discussion of the data, I will use the term dominance. Whilst there is no generally accepted definition of this term in BFLA, I have applied a working definition for the purposes of this study only, labelling as dominant the 13 language in which more lexical items are learned in any given month.

Results Louis’ data on synonyms First, in order to address the question of synonymity, the lexical data of this child was searched for early inter-language synonyms. These consisted mostly of onomatopoeic expressions, especially of animal sounds, and (more) adult words, 14 e.g. wow-wow — dog. Fourteen synonyms of onomatopoeia or ‘baby words’ appear until age two, as opposed to 192 equivalents. Thus, this child showed no rejection of learning synonyms, even in the earliest months of speech, but synonyms remain marginal in comparison to equivalents. The significant quantitative difference of equivalent and synonym learning can be accounted for by the bilingual situation. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that some apparent equivalents are learned as synonyms; distributional information about such items can give an answer to this. Louis’ rejection of equivalents Secondly, to test Clark’s claim about equivalent rejection, Louis’ data was searched for evidence of equivalent rejection. In Louis’ data, no evidence of rejection could be found before age 2.2. In his third year of life, however, when equivalents were well established in terms of number and correct distribution, very explicit forms of rejection appeared, e.g.: Louis: Father: L:

That’s a blaues car. Blue. No, Daddy, blau, blau. (age 2.2)

Mother: L:

Und das ist der Himmel. Nein Mami, is’ nicht Himmel. It’s a sky. Aeroplane in. brum brum. (age 2.2)

M: L:

Ja, das kann ich lesen. Das ist Deutsch. Nein, das ist German. (age 2.4)

L:

Mami, a roundabout!



M: L:

41

Ich sag’ Kreis. Ich sagt roundabout. (age 2.5)

The vehemence of rejection increased the more English-dominant Louis became in his third year. Louis’ examples thus seem to support the hypothesis of a bias towards contrast emerging in the third year (Merriman & Bowman, 1989), were it not for the fact that, by this age, he has already mastered the contrast of the two languages as systems in many respects (e.g. he knows more words with equivalents than without, shows mainly correct language choices and bilingual awareness). We would thus expect him to contrast the meaning of items within one language, but not across languages. I suggest that Louis’ equivalent rejections may indeed result from a ‘bias of mutual exclusivity’, which overlaps with bilingual learning strategies in this case. I will return to this phenomenon in the Conclusion. Figure 1 and Tables 2 and 3 show the monthly breakdown of new English, German, NLS words and equivalents. The total concept vocabulary acquired in one month is calculated by adding English, German and NLS items and subtracting equivalents. If a NLS item becomes differentiated (boat and Boot) and replaces the former blend pronunciation, the new equivalent pair does, however, not constitute a new concept. There are only six months (1.5, 1.10, 2.0, 2.4, 2.5, 2.10) with relatively balanced learning in both languages. Louis was German-dominant in his lexical acquisition until 1.7, after which he showed English-dominant learning until 2.4; only the isolated months 2.4 and 2.9 show German-dominant learning thereafter. The months 1.6/1.7 see a steep learning curve, both in quantity of total vocabulary and equivalents, as Table 2 shows. Table 3 gives the monthly percentages of equivalents, as well as some significant changes in the language environment. Equivalent percentages are given for the total amount of new vocabulary each month (including NLS), as well as for language-specific words only (see above).

Discussion Recordings show that the most frequent six of the earliest pairs (no — nein at 1.2, shut — zu at 1.4, yes — ja, please — bitte, bye-bye — Tschüss at 1.5) were used with consistent correctness. Frequency of other pairs was not sufficient to allow such definite conclusions, but 14 out of 34 equivalents up to age 1.6 were observed to be used in inappropriate contexts. Inappropriate use of equivalents occurs only once in the recordings after 1.7, but reappears at a much later stage in Louis’ second year, during strong English dominance. Before age 1.7 then, some equivalents appeared in the wrong context; distribution of the six most frequent equivalents, however, suggests that at least these words were language-specific as soon as the pair was learned. From 1.7 onwards (at the latest), equivalent learning becomes regular and systematic, making up 30% (on average) of monthly lexical acquisition: this knowledge is used to increase correct language choices wherever possible (i.e. where equivalents are available). The data is consistent with the hypothesis that new lexical items are learned as language-

Figure 1 English, German, non-language specific and total concept vocabulary per month

Downloaded by [Open University] at 05:40 19 June 2015 42 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism


43


Table 2 Number of equivalents per month Age 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 Total

Equivalents

Of which SA

Of which SD

Of which TG

2 4 11 3 10 5 4 4 6 6 5 10 10 7 8 1 7 2 6 111

2 5 9 8 11 15 20 11 6 11 6 8 23 15 11 6 4 17 17 10 215

6 4 7 7 7 7 6 16 19 19 17 18 20 11 13 20 21 30 8 256

1 2 13 18 26 21 32 32 22 26 36 31 30 51 45 29 27 25 45 47 24 583

Key: SA: equivalents acquired in the same month; SD: equivalents acquired within two months; TG: equivalents acquired with a gap of over two months.

specific, once the child shows consistent attempts to differentiate the languages, here in the form of equivalents. The steady learning of equivalents means that he knows equivalents for the majority of words: at 2.11, he knows English equivalents for 70% of his German words and German equivalents for 58% of his English words (average 65%). Even at his second birthday, he knows German words for 55% of his English words, and English equivalents for 58% of his German words. From the age of 1.8 onwards, he consistently knows more words with translation equivalents than without.

Ratio between new concept words and equivalents on a monthly basis From 1.7 onwards, he acquired on average 30% equivalents per month, compared to total new words. New concept words, on the other hand, indicate the learning of a new word as well as its meaning, and one could speculate that high equivalent learning may coincide with low concept learning and vice versa. However, this is not always the case: the lexical growth spurt at 1.6 shows a much increased number of concept words (74, compared to 30 in the previous month)

44



Table 3 Percentages of equivalents Age 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Total % equi

2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 Av.

E + G % equi Significant changes in input

4

8.5

8 30 20 36 24 27 32 24 30 30 25 30 1 40

10.5 32 23 39 27 29 33 25 32 32 26 31 42

37 26 25 27 41 2 44 26 25

39 27 27 27 42 44 27 27

From now on German visitors in family 11-day trip to Germany

10 days in Germany

Start of holiday with G relatives 14 days with G relatives, 1 week with Swiss friends

Birth of baby sister 12 days with G relatives G relatives visit family

Notes: 1. 27 G vocabulary gaps filled. 2. 29 G vocabulary gaps filled. Key: E: English item: G: German item; equi: equivalents; total: total concept vocabulary acquired in one month.

as well as of equivalents. Equally, the months 1.9, 2.1, and 2.2 show fast concept learning (that is, around 80), whilst the equivalent learning remains average or above (29, 32 and 26% respectively). Low concept learning can correlate with a high percentage of equivalents, e.g. at 1.7 (46 concepts, 39% equi) and 2.10 (60 concepts, 44% equi). Here, the shift towards equivalents shows a direct link to changing input, that is new German input leading to German gap filling. Equally, at 2.4 and 2.5, German equivalent learning is increased due to recent German contact, but the number of new concept words is not reduced. Linguistic data alone cannot explain why high concept word learning occurs together with high equivalent learning in some months, but not in others. It seems likely that developmental factors such as memory capacity and general cognitive growth may account for the difference: at 1.6 as well as around age two, he seems to rapidly increase his lexical learning


45


capacity, whereas at other times, concentration on equivalents leads to a slight decrease in concept words.

Relation to input The table shows much increased equivalent learning in some months, whilst the average in other months stays around 27% of all new words. The months of high equivalent learning see a change of linguistic environment, providing more input in the formerly weaker language (mostly, this is German). Sometimes, the effect of new input continues in the following month, e.g. at 2.5: the family is back in the English-dominant environment, yet he continues to learn many German equivalents. Similarly, the contact with German relatives in 2.10 is shorter than in 2.9, nevertheless, the ratio of equivalent learning increases (44%, compared to 42% in 2.9). In the month 2.4, he fills 27 German vocabulary gaps, and at 2.10, 29 German vocabulary gaps. All these are learned after some time gap, and the gap increases with age (at 2.4, most of them were still SD, at 2.10, most TG). Even in unchanged circumstances, equivalent learning remains steady and never drops below 25%. The data suggests that, from 1.7 onwards at the latest, the child uses a learning strategy that enables increasing separation of the lexica. Time gaps in the learning of equivalents Most equivalents (44%) are acquired after some time (TG): as could be expected, the number of TG equivalents rises with age, as the opportunity for Louis increases to find equivalents of words he has long known in one language. Before age two, most equivalents (50%) are SD, but thereafter, TG tend to outnumber SD equivalents (37% in total). TG equivalents are greatest in the months of continuous G dominance, e.g. 2.1–2.3 and 2.8. At age 2.4 and 2.9, on the other hand, he acquires an unusual number of SD German equivalents: when presented with new motivation to learn German equivalents, he learns those of relatively newly acquired English words. Only in the following months, after the shift towards German, does he fill gaps of older English words, as the higher number of TG equivalents in the months 2.5 and 2.10 shows. Equivalent learning due to changing input thus seems to occur in reversed order to word learning in the stronger language. This pattern does, however, not extend to simultaneous equivalent learning. Only 19% of all equivalents are acquired in the same month (SA). Simultaneous learning is slightly more important before age two (27%), but bears no obvious relation to (changes in) input. The high number of SA in the months 2.4 and 2.5 is proportional to the overall equivalent learning in these months. Only 1.7 and 1.9 stand out with proportionally high (42% and 32% respectively) simultaneous learning. These types of equivalents indicate that they relate to general cognitive growth, e.g. learning colours in both languages at 1.9, or new events like eating a breakfast egg, or Christmas. A third group, making up about a third of SA equivalents before age two, are those blend pronunciations (acquired first) that become distinct later, e.g. hat — Hut, enough — genug. I conclude that the longer the English dominance, the higher the percentage of TG learning. Simultaneous learning is not prominent at any time, but can be related to new experiences and cognitive growth. The equivalent knowledge of

46



65% (at 2.11, he knows equivalents for 65% of the combined total of his English and German words) is achieved by continuous vocabulary gap filling, even in strong dominance. During the months of English dominance, he is motivated to learn English equivalents of (known) German words, for German usage would contradict his language preference. The fact that monthly new concept words outnumber new equivalents 2:1 (on average) seems to favour new concepts at first glance, but we have seen that delayed equivalent acquisition leads to the overall high rate of equivalent knowledge.

Balance and equivalent learning One could assume that the balanced child (as defined above) would be most inclined to learn equivalents (possibly simultaneously), and that strong dominance impedes equivalent learning, but this is not necessarily the case: the last recorded months (2.9, 2.10, 2.11) indicate high balance, correct language choices being over 90% in both language settings, but simultaneous acquisition negligible; the previous English dominance means that Louis mostly catches up on new German equivalents. Equivalent acquisition in these months is not motivated by simultaneous learning, but by filling of vocabulary gaps. Thus balance does not mean that he acquires new English as much as new German equivalents: what kind of equivalents he acquires depends on the dominance in previous months. Neither fast vocabulary acquisition nor balance thus correlate with equivalent learning, but dominance shift can guarantee a high rate of equivalents.

Conclusion Summarising the findings, most months show a definite language preference in lexical acquisition; however, dominant lexical learning is not proportionate to the amount of input: a reduced input (here, of German) nonetheless triggers disproportionally high lexical learning in that language. This finding has significance for the theoretical discussion of the role of input in acquisition, suggesting that quality in input may be more decisive than quantity. This evidence may support the hypothesis that the child’s learning is not determined by the general language input; rather, he/she will concentrate on what is of pragmatic importance in communicative situations, i.e. learn some elements of 15 both languages in a bilingual environment. A few equivalents were used correctly (with the respective parent) in all observed instances before age 1.7. From 1.8 onwards, the child knew more words with equivalents than without. Furthermore, equivalent learning continued in very dominant months. Changes in the input in favour of the weaker language, particularly after longer dominance, were identified as conditions which enhance equivalent learning. Considering monthly acquisition, the data seems to confirm the ‘new concept words before equivalents’ hypothesis (Zurer-Pearson & Fernandez, 1994), but we must emphasise that equivalent knowledge at all times (from 1.8 onwards) is higher than that of concept words without equivalents. I shall return to the hypothesis that languages are separated from an early age, and compare the findings with the predictions concerning lexical learning: Louis’ data shows, that from 1.7 onwards, the continuous input of both languages leads to continuous learning of equivalents. As predicted, the actual time gap in their



47

acquisition is determined by opportunities to learn them (e.g. lack of exposure to German in the nursery environment), as well as the need to use them (in monolingual situations, e.g. trips to Germany). As in the case of general lexical learning, equivalent learning was not proportionate to exposure time; instead, relatively little exposure to one language led to high equivalent learning. Furthermore, input changes in favour of the weaker language led to an immediate filling of vocabulary gaps, showing increased equivalent learning of pairs with a long time gap. Both findings confirm the hypothesis that the child actively seeks to fill vocabulary gaps. There was no evidence for the prediction that there would be preference for simultaneous acquisition of equivalents in situations where language separation is imperative; however, the subject interacted with proficient bilinguals most of the time (in all recordings, at home), so that he proved a poor candidate for testing this prediction. Simultaneous equivalent acquisition seemed determined by cognitive growth and new experiences, but did not present a reliable criterion for assessing separation. The prediction of the initial fusion model that the time gap between the learning of pairs would get increasingly shorter was contradicted by the data. The findings suggest that from around 1.7 onwards at the latest, Louis’ lexical learning facilitates separation, Louis actively seeking equivalents. It seems likely that language-specific words from that time onwards are learned as English or German. Further evidence for this derives from phonetic differentiation of cognates, e.g. at age 1.7, he was observed — for the first time — to differentiate pronunciations of hat — Hut and baby — Baby. The following months were spent trying to further differentiate similar words he learned as one, e.g. swimming — schwimmen. The task of language separation and equivalent seeking does not impede general lexical growth: as we have seen, the child demonstrates high equivalent as well as high concept vocabulary learning in many months. A possible explanation for this apparent ease in equivalent learning is that the concept is already familiar to the child; he/she only needs to map a new form onto it. This process becomes established very quickly, as soon as the child differentiates the languages. This phenomenon appears to constitute a bilingual learning strategy, which the child develops for learning both new concept words and equivalents in an effective way. In analogy to the bilingual syntactical ‘bootstrapping’ proposed by Gawlitzek-Maiwald and Tracy (1996), I name this strategy bilingual ‘lexical bootstrapping’: when learning equivalents, the child maps a new form onto an existing concept; old and new forms are contrasted as belonging to different languages. This model does, however, not explain the rejections of equivalents Louis showed in his third year, when language systems were differentiated on many levels. Embracing Merriman and Bowman’s hypothesis of emerging bias for contrast around this age, it remains possible that this newly discovered bias is over-extended to cross-linguistic equivalents, in a (conscious) attempt to reduce the task of separation. Rather than indicating a fused system, equivalent refusals are thus seen as evidence that the child is aware of his/her bilingual learning situation, but attempts to simplify it.


48


The learning of equivalents, their distributional usage and time gaps in their acquisition are cited here as evidence for early lexical separation. Whilst the separate development hypothesis currently dominates in the area of grammatical learning, the available data does not (yet) permit such conclusions about lexical 16 learning. The patterns of equivalent learning, their distributional usage and the gradual phonetic differentiation of cognates point towards a (rapid) differentiation in the second year. Separation may occur in a similar way as we have observed it in near-homophones, that is with language-specific words replacing initial NLS items. After the ‘kick-start’ of equivalent learning around 1.6/1.7, the child seemed to learn most new words as belonging to one language. It remains possible that some bilingual infants have one and some two lexica, and this may be determined not so much by personality or other invariable factors, but type of language input (Quay, 1995). The language environment of this child may have encouraged equivalent learning, in that he was exposed to both languages at home and received additional care from monolinguals of both languages. Further studies, e.g. on bilingual infants living in two monolingual environments, are needed to investigate the relation between input and separation. If lexical separation is shown to be largely input-related, the debate on ‘one system or two?’ in BFLA should take on a largely sociolinguistic dimension, and the binary phrasing of the question may not be an appropriate way of describing bilinguals’ acquisition strategies. This study suggests that significant changes in the linguistic input foster the development and application of bilingual learning strategies, which in turn increase separation. The separation process, then, develops as a function of the environment.

Correspondence Correspondence can be sent to Ursula Lanvers at the following e-mail address: [email protected]. Notes 1. Using De Houwer’s definition (1995, 1990) of Bilingual First Language Acquisition, i.e. a regular and fairly balanced exposure to two languages from birth. 2. See e.g. Köppe (1996), Quay (1993). 3. Volterra and Taeschner (1978) are frequently criticised for inconsistency in their three-stage model. In 1978, they state that ‘almost every word’ will have an equivalent in Stage II (p. 312), yet Taeschner claimed‘about a third’ will have equivalents (1983). Furthermore, they identified equivalents before age two themselves. See ZurerPearson et al. (1995). Understandably, deciding whether a child is Stage I or II (e.g. with 15% equivalents of total vocabulary) becomes impossible. See Jekat (1985). 4. The CDI is not designed to record the complete lexicon; idiosyncratic usages (e.g. over-extensions) are not included, and potential translation equivalents can be overlooked, or equivalents could be wrongly matched. The authors are aware of these problems (see e.g. Zurer-Pearson et al. 1993: 117) and suggest that, because of common under-extension of one word in an equivalent pair, some new concept words may be overlooked, and equivalent counts overestimated (1993: 116). However, the system remains efficient for conducting large-scale studies of lexical growth. 5. However, one child (Child 11) experiences changes in input and does not display higher equivalent learning.



49

6. Unlike Quay, however, these authors provide no distributional data, e.g. recordings, to confirm the observation. 7. The authors conclude that the bilingual lexicon must not be measured in one language alone, as these concepts would be disregarded (1993: 114). 8. However, Dromi (1987: 109) only counted words observed three times. 9. Blend creations may occur in monolingual data, as clear (created form close and near (Myers-Scotton, 1993: 54). 10. Apart from near-homophones that are realised as variants, e.g. Ball-ball. These are treated as one lexical item until phonological differentiation emerges and they are treated as equivalents. 11. Where possible (i.e. if there was a detectable time gap in so-called SA), the term that was known first was marked in italics. Frequently, the child learns more than one translation of an expression (e.g. anders rum — upside down, other way round), in which case each newly acquired pair is entered in the monthly file; expressions like anders rum will therefore count as having two equivalents. 12. It omits exact information about time lapses in days, with the result that, for example, delays of both two and 30 days are labelled SA. Shorter observation periods would allow one to give the time delay in days, as Quay (1993) demonstrates. 13. In virtually all months, this language also showed a higher percentage of correct language choices, so that the criteria ‘dominant lexical acquisition’ and ‘higher correct language choice’ overlap. Exceptions are 1.6, when English correctness is slightly higher, despite dominant German lexical learning, and 2.9, when Louis learned many more German items, whilst English correct language choices were slightly higher. 14. Whilst acknowledging the difference of register, these synonyms are nevertheless fully acceptable for a 1.6 year old (e.g. moo for cow), whilst usage of the inappropriate language-specific word (e.g. Kuh) would not be. 15. Further studies are needed to investigate this hypothesis; bilingual data offers a methodological advantage in that different inputs can be easily distinguished. A promising study would be to observe bilingual lexical patterns in infants interacting in monolingual environments, where (some) learning of either language is indeed a communicative imperative, and to relate these findings to input patterns. 16. However, Pye (1986) claims that all lexical items are language-specific from the start.

Appendix 1: Diary Extract — age 2.3.27–2.4.1 Linguistic environment The family is on holiday in France (until 2.4.10), meeting up with German relatives. Louis spends most of the day playing with his (slightly older) German cousins. English input, provided by father only, is reduced to c. 10%. Lexicon German Würfel (2.3.28), Autobahn (2.3.28), hart (2.4.1), bezahlen (2.4.1), Prost (2.0.2), Quatsch! (2.4.0), ich zuerst! (2.4.1), das war gar nix! (2.4.1), Berg (2.4.1) English Squeeze (2.3.28), motorway (2.3.28), watch out! (2.3.28), windmill (2.4.1). Equivalents (word acquired second in italics): motorway-Autobahn (SA), hill-Berg (used as equivalents, SA), cheers — Prost (TG), pay — bezahlen (TG)

Morphosyntax The German past participle morpheme-t is increasingly over-extended, e.g. abgeschlosst, geschlaft, gegesst.

50


Observed dialogues, monologues, utterances (elements pronounced as English in italics): L: L:

was machen die? Mami, die hopsing. Mami, I geb dir das. (looking at book, talking to himself) Englisch — das ist nicht Englisch. ich will habe ein guck. (to mother) was you machen? was mann macht? (to mother) that’s a seahorse. Mami says pferd. (to father)

L: L: L:

Appendix 2: Extract of Transcript — age 2.3.20


Setting: with mother (M) and father (F) in the living room, playing hiding etc. L: M: L: M: L: M: L: M: L: M: L: F: L: F: L: F: F:

I lost meiner, I lost meiner. (looking for a toy car) Ehrlich. Wo? da. / (pointing at running tape recorder, expecting to hear music) kommt’s? Nee, jetzt grad kommt nix. Wir nehmen auf. wo ist mein? I lost meiner? Louis, ich such ihn wieder, aber du mußt dich auf’s Töpfchen setzen. no, I find it. I finden one, I finden. Du willst ihn wiederfinden? Ich finde ihn für dich. (pause) oh, was ’n das? / Ein Clown. nein, nein. You don’t like that? I don’t / no / not like that. What’s that? You don’t like that? no. (pause) What war that? [wotwaDat] You tell me, Louis. What was that? (long pause) Oh, Dad’s too tired for racing, Dad’s got too tired. I tell you what, Louis. Why don’t you do racing on your own and I’ll time you. Is that a good idea, if I time you? L: no, I hiding now. F: Oh, okay. You go and hide and I’ll come and find you. M: Ich sag dir mal ’n gutes Versteck. Soll ich dir mal ’n gutes Versteck zeigen? L: ja. wo’s ’n guten?

Glossary Full stops and commas mark the end of an utterance; lower case orthography of child’s utterances, apart from in proper names and I, are in line with research conventions. Abbreviations L: Louis; M: mother; F: father; /: short pause up to 5 sec.; longer pauses marked pause.

References Bloom, L. (1991) Language Development from Two to Three. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



51

Clark, E. (1987) The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (ed.) Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp. 2–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Clark, E. (1988) On the logic of contrast. Journal of Child Language 15, 317–35. Clark, E. (1990) On the pragmatics of contrast. Journal of Child Language 17, 417–31. Clark, E. (1993) The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Houwer, A. (1990) The Acquisition of Two Languages from Birth: A Case Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Houwer, A. (1995) Bilingual language acquisition. In P. Fletcher and B. MacWhinney (eds) The Handbook of Child Language (pp. 219–95). Oxford: Blackwell. De Houwer, A.(1986) Discourse strategies in bilingual families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7, 493–507. Döpke, S. (1988) The role of parental teaching techniques in bilingual English–German families. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 72, 101–12. Dromi, E. (1987) Early Lexical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson, C. (1984) Auf Deutsch, duck: Language separation in young bilinguals. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 9, 39–60. Gathercole, V. (1989) Contrast: A semantic constraint? Journal of Child Language 16, 685–702. Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I. and Tracy, R. (1996) Bilingual bootstrapping. Linguistics (5), 901–26. Golinkoff, R., Mervis, C. and Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1994) Early object labels: The case for a developmental lexical principle framework. Journal of Child Language 21 (1), 125–56. Goodz, N. (1989) Parental language mixing in bilingual families. Infant Mental Health Journal 10, 25–44. Jekat, S. (1985) Die Entwicklung des Wortschatzes bei bilingualen Kindern (Dt-Franz) in den ersten vier Lebensjahren. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Romance Languages, Hamburg University. Kielhöfer, B. and Jonekeit, S. (1983) Zweisprachige Kindererziehung. Tübingen: Stauffenberg Verlag. Köppe, R. (1996) Language differentiation in bilingual children: The development of grammatical and pragmatic competence. Linguistics 34 (5), 927–54. Lanza, E. (1997) Language Mixing in Infant Bilingualism: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leopold, W. (1939–49) Speech Development of a Bilingual Child: A Linguist’s Record (4 Volumes: Vol.I: Vocabulary growth in the first two years. Vol.II: Sound learning in the first two years. Vol.III: Grammar and general problems. Vol.IV: Diary from age 2). Evanston: Northwest University Press. Levy, E. and Nelson, K. (1994) Words in discourse: A dialectical approach to the acquisition of meaning. Journal of Child Language 21 (3), 367–89. MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory (1989) San Diego: University of California, Centre for Research in Language. Marcus, G., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T.J. and Zu, F. (1992) Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development No. 228 57, 4. Markmann, E. (1994) Constraints on word meaning in early language acquisition. Lingua 92, 199–227. Merriman, W. and Bowman, L. (1989) The mutual exclusivity bias in children’s word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development No. 220 54, 3–4. Mikes, M. (1990) Some issues of development in early bi- and trilinguals. In G. Conti-Ramsden and C. Snow (eds) Children’s Language (pp. 103–20) (Vol.7). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993) Duelling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nelson, K. (1988) Constraints on word learning? Cognitive Development 3, 221–46. Nicoladis, E. and Genesee, F. (1996) A longitudinal study of pragmatic differentiation in young bilingual children. Language Learning 46 (3), 439–64.


52


Pye, C. (1986) One lexicon or two? An alternative interpretation of early bilingual speech. Journal of Child Language 13, 591–3. Quay, S. (1993) Language choice in early bilingual development. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge. Quay, S. (1995) The bilingual lexicon: Implications for studies of language choice. Journal of Child Language 22 (2), 369–87. Ronjat, J. (1913) Le Développement du langage observé chez un enfant bilingue. Paris: Champion. Taeschner, T. (1983) The Sun is Feminine: A Study of Language Acquisition in Bilingual Children. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Vihman, M. (1985) Language differentiation by the bilingual infant. Journal of Child Language 12, 292–342. Vihman, M. and McCune, L. (1994) ‘When is a word a word?’ Journal of Child Language 21 (3), 517–42. Volterra, V. and Taeschner, T. (1978) The acquisition and development of language by bilingual children. Journal of Child Language 5, 311–26. Zurer-Pearson, B. and Fernandez, S. (1994) Patterns of interaction in the lexical growth in two languages in bilingual toddlers and infants. Language Learning 44 (4), 617–53. Zurer-Pearson, B., Fernandez, S. and Oller, K. (1993) Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning 43, 93–120. Zurer-Pearson, B., Fernandez, S. and Oller, K. (1995) Cross-language synonyms in the lexicons of bilingual infants: One language or two? Journal of Child Language 22, 345–64.