'car'; Flugzeug, 'airplane'), as shown below,. PLAYRCQMS i8- blauer Ba11 gelbe lutoS&. eSi3 plciche HUrfil fap. 1 gelbe Klammer. =SC. 1 Luftballon fn 1 Eule.
The Problem of Plurifunctionality in Bilingual Language Acquisition Carol W. Pfaff Freie Universität Berlin
1. Background One of the central problems for language acquisition research is to discover how the meaning and distribution of grammatical morphemes (inflections and function words) are acquired. Not only do these morphemes frequently represent concepts not directly perceptible in them"here and now", but the forms they take frequently are characterized by plurifunctionality and syncretism. Turkish and German, two languages now being acquired sequentially or simultaneously by immigrant children in the Federal Republic of Germany and West Berlin are both characterized by plurifunctionality, though the specifics of the two systems differ greatly in detail (see below). The study addresses the following issues: (1) the role of cognitive development and age of learning in the process of language acquisition (comparison of sequential with simultaneous acquisition) Ll/L2; (2) the role of transfer between languages. The influence of Turkish on German and German on Turkish structures; (3) the effects of greater or lesser contact with native speakers of the two languages being acquired. The present paper focuses on the linguistic effects On grammatical markers on the nominal reference system which are characterized by plurifunctionality and syncretism and draws on the results of two cross-sectional studies of bilingual immigrant children in West Berlin in which I am attempting to integrate sociolinguistic investigation of the effects of the language acquisition setting, with the more traditional psycholinguistic goal of discovering how the meaning and distribution of grammatical morphemes are acquired, The first study of 48 Turkish (and 30 Greek) school children 8-15 years old, was designed to obtain an overview of language proficiency and communicative competence in German (Pfaff/~ortz1981, Pfaff 1984, Portz/~faff1981). The second study, "the EKMAUS study" for which data collection is still in progress, involves 80 Turkish/~ermanbilingual children 5-12 years old plus Turkish and German monolingual control groups. The bilingual groups are defined in terms of age of onset of second language acquisition and extent of contact with native speakers of German. Bilingual group A: bilingual children born in Germany (or immigrated very with little contact with native German peers - young) (n=30),Bilingual group B: bilingual children born in Germany (br immigrated very young) with considerable contact with native German peers (n=30), Bilingual group C: bilingual children born in Turkey, immigrated to Germany after two or more years of school in Turkey (n=20). Control group D: monolingual Turkish children of comparable soctal background, interviewed in Ankara (n=15). Control group E: monolingual German children of comparable social background, interviewed in Berlin (n=15), The sociopolitical settinq, which determines the framework
of language socialization and acquisition is discussed in Pfaff 1981 and Pfaff 1984 a. I will simply note here that the population includes children for whom language development takes place in a clear sequence: L1 ~urkish,acquired in the family followed by L2 German, acquired primarily at school, children who acquire both Turkish and German simultaneously within and outside the family from the outset; and still other children who are German dominant, having lost (or never acquired) competence in aspects of Turkish. The linguistic input is thus highly variable and includes several different types of nonstandard aGd learner varieties spoken by other children and adults, as well as standard and colloquial dialects. In the following sections, i briefly sketch the research goals and hypotheses, the methodologies and a few of the results which bear on issues of plurifunctionality. 2. Hypotheses: Plurifunctionality in Nominal Reference in Turkish and German. Plurifunctionality is here understood in two senses, also distinguished by - Karmiloff-Smith (1979:50-53): "First that a word may take on any one of its several functions... Second plurifunctionality can imply the simultaneous expression of severai different functions". Plurifunctionality of the first type exists in both Turkish and German for the numeral 'onel/indefinitearticle 'a' as in (1):
...,
(1 bir araba/ ein Auto
'one car/a car'
For both languages, we would predict the effect found by KarmiloffSmith 1979 for French, that children pass through a Stage in which the numeral function dominates in first langnage acquisition and simultaneously bilingual acquisition (Groups D,E,B): Whether or not the Same pattern is observed in second language acquisition, particularly where it begins relatively late (Group AI and, especially, Group C), will decide between a strong form of the "identity hypothesis (L2=L1) which predicts that language development processes are parallel in L1 and L2 and a model which predicts that later L2 acquisition procedes along different lines, reflecting the learners' more advanced cognitive development. Plurifunctionality of the second type is exemplified by the pronoun and article forms in German and by the definite accusative inflection in Turkish. In German, case number and gender are fusionally expressed, primarily by the definite and indefinite article f o m s listed. The system is further characterized by a high degree of syncretism, so that forms can have various meaning, for instance: die is both nominative and accusative feminine singular and general plural, der is nominative masculine singular, dative and genetive of feminine singular and genetive of general plural. Den is both accusative of masculine singular as well as dative for general plural. This syncretism, combined with the fact that the grammatical gender assignment is generally unpredictable in either phonological or semantic terms, makes this system difficult for children to acquTre, Studies of German first language acquisition in Mills, Slobin's crosslinguistic acquisition project show delayed acquisition relative to
o t h e r languages and it i s well known a s one of t h e major d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r German second language l e a r n e r s . Maratsos and Chalkley 1980 s u g g e s t t h a t German f i r s t language l e a r n e r s master t h e gender c o r r e l a t i o n s of a r t i c l e forms before case. While t h i s may be t r u e f o r c h i l d r e n r e c e i v i n g s t a n d a r d German i n p u t i n which t h e c o r r e c t forms f o r a c t u a l nouns a r e heard i n t h e environment, t h e s i t u a t i o n can be expected t o be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f o r irnrnigrant c h i l d r e n who may hear German a s much from o t h e r immigrants who have n o t l e a r n e d t h e standard genders a s from n a t i v e speakers who have Turkish i n c o n t r a s t i s an a g g l u t i n a t i v e language with an extremely r e g u l a r phonologically conditioned system of morpheme a l t e r n a t i o n s . Case and number a r e marked by hominai s u f f i x e s , and t h e r e i s no gender -- even f o r t h i r d Person pronouns which r e f e r t o n a t u r a l gender animate nouns. S t u d i e s of t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of Turkish a s a f i r s t language ( ~ k s u - ~ o c / ~ l o b1985 i n and E w i 1979) have shown t h a t t h e i n f l e c t i o n a l system i s acquired e a r l y and with g r e a t accuracy. We hypothesize t h a t thesesubsystems a r e s t a b l e and should be e a s i l y a c q u i r e d by b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n whose exposure t o Turkish i s quantit a t i v e l y l e s s t h a n f o r monolingual c h i l d r e n , and whose Turkish i n p u t may be nonstandard i n o t h e r r e s p e c t s . Ac I r e p o r t e d i n Pfaff 1984 b t h i s i s , i n general, true. Previous a c q u i s i t i o n s t u d i e s have n o t , however, focused on acq u i s i t i o n of some of t h e l e s s t r a n s p a r e n t a s p e c t s of Turkish nominal r e f e r e n c e system, f o r example t h a t t h e a c c u s a t i v e i n f l e c t i o n occurs only on d e f i n i t e s , t h a t d e f i n i t e n e s s i s i n f l e c t i o n a l l y marked only i n t h e a c c u s a t i v e case. Here we might e x p e c t t h e c o n t a c t with German l e a d i n g t o convergence toward a uniform expression t o play a r o l e of d e f i n i t e n e s s i n non- accusative a s w e l l a s a c c u s a t i v e frames, o r t o t h e spread of a c c u s a t i v e marking t o i n d e f i n i t e a s well a s d e f i n i t e reference.
.
-
3, Methodology. To i n v e s t i g a t e t h e s e , among o t h e r , questions, t h e EKMAUS study employs a v a r i e t y of psycho- and s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c methodologies, incorporated i n t o a 1 1/2 2 hour i n t e r v i e w , conducted w i t h i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n i n each language i n s e p a r a t e s e s s i o n s , i n t h e i r k i n d e r g a r t e n s o r a f t e r - s c h o o l day c a r e c e n t e r s . The i n t e r views i n c l u d e f r e e conversation, focused on t h e c h i l d r e n ' s sociol i n g u i s t i c background and d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s : language use, o r i e n t a t i o n t o Turkey o r Germany, contact with n a t i v e speakers of both languages, a s e r i e s of s t r u c t u r e d experimental games with toys adapted from Karmiloff-Smith 1979, i n t e r s p e r s e d with s t o r i e s and e l i c i t e d p e r s o n a l n a r r a t i v e s , ädapted from P f a f f & Portz 1981. I n t h e r e s t of t h i s Paper, I r e p o r t some of t h e r e s u l t s of two of t h e games, PLAYROOMS and ACTIONS. PLAYROOMS e l i c i t s production and comprehension of d e f i n i t e and i n d e f i n i t e forms t o one of unique (1/1) s i m i l a r (1/3s) o r i d e n t i c a l ( 1 / 3 i ) t o y s o r t o a l l t h r e e i d e n t i c a l t o y s ( 3 / 3 i ) which belong t o a g i r l and boy d o l l who a r e p r e s e n t b u t n o t looking a t t h e i r toys and w i l l i n g t o lend them i n response t o e x p l i c i t v e r b a l r e c J e s t s from t h e c h i l d (production) o r t h e i n t e r v i e w e r (comprehension), TO i n v e s t i g a t e case/gender/
-
number marking, the toys are selected to represent Standard German grammatical gender classes, e.g„ masc. (Ball, 'ball'; Hubschrauber, 'helicopter'), fern. (Kuh, 'cow'; Schachtel, 'box'), neut. (Auto, 'car'; Flugzeug, 'airplane'), as shown below,
i8-
PLAYRCQMS
I3~
b l a u e r Ba11
i i [ ~r o te. grtin. g e l b )
I
g e l b e lutoS& 1 braune Schachtel
eSi3 p l c i c h e HUrfil fap
1 g e l b e Klammer
=SC
1 Luftballon
t iiUrf.1
@
1
3 r o t e Klammern
(
3 r e r r c h i e d e n f i r b i q c Luftb.
1
fn 1 Eule
1 Hamner
fm
Variables investisated
1. Determiner usage for visible objects in 4 contexts: 1/1 nique, 1/3s similar, 1/3i identical, 3/3i identical U U 2, Redundant vs, necessary modification 3- Grammatical gender 4, Natural gender a 0
U-
4
3
e
Q U
1, Reaction to definite vs, idenfinite determiner 2. (German version) den and das vs. die 3. Explanation :pragmatic vs. metalinquistic
-
ACTIONS is a production and comprehension game played with Sets of toys, in which girl and boy dolls act on and with a set of various objects, animals and other human dolls, again with unique (1/1), similar (1/3s) and identical (1/3i) participants. In each set, there are several series of actions involving the participants; the actions become increasingly complex as indicated by the example German sentences and glosses. The letters a,b,c,d refer to the patterns of distribution of definite articles in German, to be discussed in the results section. 4. Results. The results from bilingual children (Group A) for PLAYROOMS, definite and indefinite marki~,inboth Turkish and German
.
a r e s i m i l a r t o ~ a r m i l o f f - S m i t h c sf i n d i n g s f o r French monolinguals, Production. While a l l of t h e c h i l d r e n produced d e f i n i t e markers i n most of t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t e x t s , t h e r e were s e v e r a l c h i l d r e n who used no i n d e f i n i t e / n u m e r a l 'onec forms i n t h e i r spontaneous production about 1/3 of t h e Turkish i n t e r v i e w s contained no b i r o r b i r t a n e N , about 1/2 of t h e German i n t e r v i e w s contained no form of e i n i n t h e PLAYROOM production task. Nontheless, from t h e i n s t a n c e s t h a t do occur, t h e r e i s ample evidence f o r t h e primacy of t h e numera l f u n c t i o n over tEe non- specific r e f e r e n c e t o one of a l a r g e r s e t . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y c l e a r i n r a r e examples such a s ( 2 ) and (3) where t h e forms a r e used t o r e f e r t o unique items: ( 2 ) b i r t a n e h e l i k o p t e r 'one h e l i c o p t e r ' (1Aw7D); (3) e i n Kuh ':a/one cow' (4Bum12T) o r w i t h a c o l o r a d j e c t i v e t o r e f e r t o one of t h r e e s i m i l a r t o y s a s i n ( 4 ) : (4) b i r t a n e y e ~ i topu l ' t h e one green b a l l ' (3IwllT) where t h e noun topu i s a l s o marked a s a d e f i n i t e accusative. There i s , however, a l s o evidence t h a t t h e i n d e f i n i t e meaning, one of s e v e r a l , p l a y s a r o l e a s w e l l , a s t h e i r frequency i s much g r e a t e r i n t h e expected c o n t e x t , t o r e f e r t o one of t h r e e i d e n t i c a l t o y s , a s i n ( 5 ) - ( 7 ): (5) b i r t a n e mandal 'one c l o t h e s ~ i 'n (3/4Cm ~ O / ~ L D ) ; ( 6 ) mandalini -- b i r tane 'your c l o t h e s p i n -- 'one' (MHrn 1 0 ) ; ( 7 ) den Auto, e i n e r von d i e s e r d r e i ' t h e c a r , one of t h e s e t h r e e ' (5Mml l D )
--
.
Comprehension. There i s much more evidence from t h e comprehension t a s k , where a l l of t h e c h i l d r e n were -p r e s e n t e d with sentences cont a i n i n g t h e c r u c i a l forms: b i r N ' - - i n Turkish and e i n ( e i n e , e i n e n ) N i n German. D e f i n i t e forms l i k e topu und den B a l l I t h e b a l l ' were c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h very few exceptions; c h i l d r e n chose t h e g i r l s ' room with e x a c t l y one b a l l and gave. j u s t i f i c a t i o n s l i k e 'she has one, he h a s t h r e e ' i n response t o our q u e s t i o n 'how do you know?' I n d e f i n i t e f orms l i k e b i r top and -einen B a l l ' a b a l l ', on t h e o t h e r hand, were f r e q u e n t l y m i s i n t e r p r e t e d ; c h i l ä r e n again chose t h e g i r l ' s room and t h e i r j u s t i f i c a t i o n s a s i n (8-10) a g a i n r e f e r t o number c l e a r l y showing t h e primacy of t h e numeral over t h e indefi n i t e a r t i c l e f u n c t i o n : ( 8 a ) b i r t a n e , onun cok v a r , bunun b i r t a n e 'one t h a t has l o t s , t h i s h a s one' ( 3 / 4 ~ 1 0 / 1 1 ~ )(9b) ; Karin w e i l e r n u r e i n e n B a l l h a t 'K. because he has only one b a l l ' (5MYllD); ( 1 5 ~ )w e i l S u s i den B a l l h a t S u s i h a t nur e i n e n B a l l 'because S u s i has t h e b a l l S u s i h a s only one b a l l (5N210D). Note t h a t i n t h e second German example i n ( 1 5 ) , t h e c h i l d hers e l f c l e a r l y does n o t use e i n t o r e f e r t o a s i n g l e t o n s e t -- she a p p r o p r i a t e l y u s e s t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e , den. F i n a l l y , t o r e t u r n t o t h e comprehension of German d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e forms, I want t o make one l a s t P o i n t about t h e i n f r e q u e n t i n c o r r e c t choices mentioned e a r l i e r . The two forms den and das a r e c o n s i s t e n t l y c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d a s r e f e r r i n g t o s i n g u l a r s by a l l b u t t h e youngest c h i l d r e n , and most r e f e r t o t h e s i n g l e t o n s e t i n
-
-
...
....
-
t h e i r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e i r choice. Some of t h e o l d e r c h i l d r e n spontaneously o f f e r m e t a l i n g u i s t i c comments about t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e form of t h e a r t i c l e and t h e notions of s i n g u l a r i t y . a n d p l u r a l i t y , Two examples a r e given i n (11) and (12): (11) w e i l d a s nur e i n Auto i s t 'because d a s i s o n l y one c a r ' (4Bum12T); (12) w e i l du d i e Mehrzahl n i c h t g e b i l d e t h a s t 'because you d i d n ' t form t h e p l u r a i ' (5MmllD). The s i t u a t i o n i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f o r t h e r e q u e s t w i t h . d i e , a s i n d i e Schachtel Lthe box'. ~ o s cth i l d r e n recognize t h a t d i e can r e f e r t o t h e p l u r a l and some make t h e f a l s e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t h a t it must. Again, some of t h e c h i l d r e n o f f e r e x p l i c i t m e t a l i n g u i s t i c exp l a n a t i o n s t o this e f f e c t a s in (13) and (14): (13) wenn man d i e s a g t , dann i s t ganz v i e l 'when one says d i e , t h e n i t ' s a l w a ~ s t h e p l u r a l ' (5MmllD); (14) wenn e s d i e i s t , dann i s t immer d i e Mehrzahl 'when i t ' s d i e i t ' s always t h e p l u r a l ' ( 5 ~ m l l D ) . T u n i n g n e x t t o t h e Problem of case, number and gender marking i n German, consider f i r s t t h e combined r e s u l t s f o r s i x Turkish s e v e n t h g r a d e r s i n Table 1.
-
-
-
-
Table 1: Case/Gender D i s t r i b u t i o n ( % ) f o r ~ e f i n i t eA r t i c l e F o m s s t d . masc. s u b j e c t s : 67 rn ( s t ä . f o m b s t d . fern. s u b j e c t s : 42 ( s t ä . forn die) a s t d . neut. s u b j e c t s : 21 rn ( s t d . ) f o r s d a s )
der -
2)
1
die
I
-
das
57%
289
7%
149
715
2%
48%
38%
1
-
den dem I -
0%
0%
-
-
-0
other
s t ä . masc. o b j e c t s : rn ( s t d . fern
den)
c s t d . fern. o b j e c t s : E ( s t d . f o r n)&d g s t d . neut, objects: . s t d . f o r n das)
With r e s p e c t t o qender marking, note t h e tendency toward corr e c t use'of d e r and d i e f o r inasculine and feminine nouns, respectivel y , b u t t h a t a l l f o m s occur with nouns from a l l t h r e e s t a n d a r d gender c l a s s e s . For c a s e marking, however, we f i n d an a p p r o p r i a t e i f overgene r a l i z e d d i s t r i b u t i o n of forms: Der i s used o n l y a s s u b j e c t , never a s o b j e c t while den i s never used a s s u b j e c t , b u t i s by f a r t h e most f r e q u e n t form with o b j e c t s . D i e occurs considerably more f r e q u e n t l y a s s u b j e c t than a s o b j e c t , while t h e r e v e r s e i s t r u e f o r das. There a l s o appears t o b e a h i g h e r frequency of 0-forms f o r o b j e c t t h a n f o r s u b j e c t . Thus, it i s c l e a r t h a t c o n t r a r y t o t h e f i r s t language d a t a c i t e d by Maratsos and Chalkley 1980, t h e s e p u p i l s have a more h i g h l y developed System f o r case than f o r gender. An obvious e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e s e f i n d i n g s i s t h e l a c k of a Sec u r e gender assignment f o r t h e nouns i n question. I n f a c t , we may q u e s t i o n whether some of t h e s e p u p i l s -- f o r t h e r e a r e noteable i n have acquired a gender system a t a l l -dividual differences even f o r non- arbitrary n a t u r a l qender items, a s i n d i c a t e d by some
-
-
-
-
-
...
of t h e production responses t o the ACTIONS game i n which the children describe sequences acted o u t with a g i r l and a boy d o l l and various other figures. In (a2) we See d i e Mädchen ' t h e g i r l ' pronominalized with e r 'he' r a t h e r than s i e . I n (c7) and (c8) boy d o l l s a r e r e f e r r e d t y w i t h t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e d i e r a t h e r than der. ( a l ) Die Anke h a t d i e Ball genommen b e i @ Hund und die h a t ge'Anke took b r i n g t b e i @ Kuh und da h a t d i e Anke hingelegt und t h e ' b a l l from dog and she brought it t o t h e cow and l a i d it down ' (a2) Die rechte Mädchen h a t d i e Klammer genommen und there hm die hat - h i - bei äh qenommmen und woanders gelegt äh 'The b e i @ P e t e r s Ecke und h a t e r geiegt und da h a t e r gebleibt. g i r l on t h e r i g h t took t h e clothespin and l a i d it somewhere e l s e (b3) Der i n ~ e t e r ' sCorner and she l a i d it down and stayed there.' Junge h a t den Klammer von den Jungen ausgemacht und übergespringt 'The boy took t h e clothespin off the und zu e i n Mädchen gebringt. (other) boy and jumped over it and brought it t o a g i r l . ' (b4) Der 'The schwarze Haare m i t Mädchen h a t den gleichen Mädchen gebracht. black h a i r e d g i r l took ( t h e clothespin) t o t h e Same g i r l . ' (CS) Die s o h a t das I q e l geschiebt. 'The c a r pushed t h e hedgehog.' ( ~ 6 Die ) 'The hedgehog pushed the car! (c7) Die AnI g e l s c h i e b t das Auto. dreas h a t das r o t e Ball von die ~ u h genimmt und, äh, d i e große Pferd gegibt. 'Andreas took t h e red b a l l from the cow and gave it t o the b i g horse.' (c8) Die r o t e Junge h a t das von d i e Mädchen weiße Mädchen, das Klammer i n seine Haare genimmt und d i e h a t von d i e Mädchen 'The red gehüpft und s i e h a t so gegeht und d i e r o t e Kind gegibt. (haired) boy took t h e clothespin from the white (haired) g i r l ' s hair and he jumped over the g i r l and he went on and gave ( i t )t o the red c h i l d ( c h i l d i n a red d r e s s ) . ' (d9) @ Mädchen h a t den Auto gesetz'The g i r l s a t on the c a r t e n und @ Junge h a t den Auto gesetzen, and t h e boy s a t on t h e c a r . ' (d10) ~ u t o h a t den Igel so, hintergebrixqt. 'The car pushed t h e hedgehog back.' ( d l l ) Den Klammer h a t fl Mädchen, 9 Mädchen h a t den Klammer genehmt und h a t es e i n Junge gegeben. 'The g i r l took the clothespin and gave it t o a boy.' 'A boy (d12) E i n Junge h a t den Klammer den Mädchen Haare gemacht. put t h e .clothespin i n t h e g i r l ' s h a i r . ' The sentences on s e t a-d i l l u s t r a t e a more important point, a s wellt presenting evidence of individual l e a r n e r s ' attempts t o reg u l a r i z e and systematize t h e a r t i c l e paradigm - i n several d i f f e r e n t ways Each one of t h e s e t s of examples under a,b,c and d i s f o r one individual and represents what f o r t h a t individual i s a consist e n t p a t t e r n throughout t h e ACTIONSgame. S e t a. represents d i s t r i butional c o n t r a s t : 0 / ~ r e p „ c a t e g o r i c a l d i e elsewhere (IIm8D); s e t b. shows a functional c o n t r a s t : subject der vs. other den (3~mlOD) S e t C. S ~ O W S a d i f f e r e n t functional c o n t r a s t : d i r e c t object vs. other functions d i e (4UwlO~),and Set d. shows what looks l i k e parall e l d i s t r i b u t i o n : d e f i n i t e n e s s marked only on o b j e c t (1Sw7D). The e x t e n t t o which such rogular p a t t e r n s a r e shared by other speakers remains f o r f u r t h e r analysis.
-
...
...
-
-
-
...
.
-
-
Conclusions. I t seems, t h e n , t h a t the two d i f f e r e n t types of pluri-
f u n c t i o n a l markers which have been discussed have d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s , With t h e numeral/indefinite f u n c t i o n b i r i n Turkish and e i n i n -.s - of German, we f i n d s t r i k i n g constancy i n t h a t t h e r e i s a phase i n which t h e numeral f u n c t i o n i s primary i n b o t h languages, e x a c t l y a s rep o r t e d f o r French monolinguals by ~ a r m i l o f f - S m i t h , a constancy which l i k e l y r e f l e c t s u n i v e r s a l s i n t h e development of t h e underlying cogn i t i v e categories. ,'With t h e p l u r i f u n c t i o n a l i t y of t h e German a r t i c l e forms, on t h e o t h e r hand, we f i n d no such constancy. I n t h e r e s u l t s of t h e ACTIONS experiment, we s e g i n d i v i d u a l interlanguage systems d i f f e r from each o t h e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o which case r o l e s a r e s i n g l e d o u t f o r marked r e f e r e n c e and which forms a r e used. In t h e PLAYROOMS experiment, we f i n d t h a t t h e p l u r a l i t y marking f u n c t i o n of d i e becomes t h e f o c u s f o r many c h i l d r e n . I t i s very c l e a r , however, t h a t , examined i n d i v i d u a l l y , t h a t l e a r n e r s ' approach t o p l u r i f u n c t i o n a l items i s systematic. These r e s u l t s h e r e r e p r e s e n t t h e beginning f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of t h e EKMAUS d a t a . What remains t o be s o r t e d o u t is when t h e v a r i a s f u n c t i o n s of p l u r i f u n c t i o n a l iterns become t h e focus f o r l e a r n e r s -t o ~ h a et x t e n t t h i s i s c o n t e x t dependent, t h a t i s r e l a t e d t o t h e focus of t h e p a r t i c u l a r experimental t a s k ; t o what e x t e n t t h e r e i s i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n ; and how t h i s i s r e l a t e d t o s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a t i o n i n t h e l e a r n e r s l environrnents, These a r e t h e g o a l s f o r subseqgent a n a l y s i s which I hope t o r e p o r t i n f u t u r e Papers, -
P
References Aksu-KOT, Ayhan & Dan. I , Slobin 1985. "Acquisition of Turkish". I n Dan. I. Slobin (ed.) The Cross- Linquistic Study of Language Ac: q u i s i t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , N . J , Erlbaum, Ekmekci, Özden 1979. Acquisition of Turkish: A ~ o n g i t u d i n a lStudy On - t h e Early Language D e v e l o p e n t of a n i r k i s h Child, unpublished D i s s e r t a t i o n : U n i v e r s i t y of Texas a t Austin. Karmiloff-Smith, Annette 1979, A Functional ~ p p r o a c ht o Child Language: A Study of Determiners and Reference. Caxnbridge: C a b r i d g e ü n i v e r s i t y Press. Maratsos, Michael & Mary Anne Chalkley 1980. "The i n t e r n a l language of c h i l d r e n l s Syntax: t h e ontogenesis and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of s y n t a c t i c c a t e g o r i e s . " In K. Nelson (ed.) C h i l d r e n l s Language, Vol. 2. New York: Gardener Press. 127-214. M i l l s , Ann. " Acquisition of Genan". I n D. I. lobi in (ed.) 1985The Cross- Linguistic Study of Language ~ c q u i s i t i o n . ~ i l l s d a l e , N.J. Erlbaum. P f a f f , Carol W. 1980a. " I n c i p i e n t c r e o l i z a t i o n i n ' G a s t a r b e i t e r d e u t s c h r ? An experimental s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c study". I n S t u d i e s i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n 3 . 165-178. 1980b. "Acquisition and development of I ~ a s t a r b e i t e r d e u t s c h ' by migrant workers and t h e i r . c h i l d r e n i n Germany", I n E. Traugott e t a l . (eäs.) Papers from t h e Fourth I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on H i s t o r i c z l L i n g u i s t i c s . Amsterdam: John Benjamin B.V. -------------- 1981. " S o c i o l i z g u i s t i c problems of immigrants:
--------------
Foreign workers and their children in Germany. Review Article. Language in Society 10. -------------- 1984a, "Input and residual transfer effects in ~ u r k ish and Greek children's German. In R. Andersen (ed.) Second Languages. 271-98 -------------- "The developmentof language by ~urkish/Germanbilingual children in Berlin". Paper presented at the 9th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. -------------- to-appear. b. "Functional approaches to interlanuage". In C. Pfaff (ed.) Cross-Linguistic Studies of Language Acquisition.Processes. Rowley MA: Newbury House. -------------- ,Theda Borde & Dina Kohen (in prep. ) . Bericht EKMAUS Teilprojekt: Linguistische und kognitive Entwicklung: Die Beziehung zwischen Erst- und Zweitspracherwerb. -------------- & Renare Portz 1981. "Foreign children's acquisition of German: universals vs. interference". In Dittmar (ed.) Proceedings of the Second German-Scandinavian Conference on Migrant Language. Berlin Freie Universität. Portz, .Renate- & Carol W. Pfaff 1981. SES-~oziolinguistischesErhebungsinstrument zur Sprachentwicklung, Ein Instrument zur Beschreibung der sprach- und ~ommunikationsfähigkeitausländisckr Schüler in deutschen Schulen. Berlin: Pädagogisches Zentrum.
