User:Katiesobon/sandbox

Crosslinguistic influence (CLI)

Crosslinguistic influence (CLI) is a common term for different ways in which one language affects the other. It typically involves two languages with effects of the influence seen either in a monolingual or bilingual speaker. Additionally, it can be characterized in terms of comprehension or production that is non-existent in monolinguals of that particular language.^[1] A brief example of crosslinguistic influence is the influence of Korean on a Korean native speaker who is learning Japanese or French. Less typically, it could also refer to an interaction between different dialects in the mind of a monolingual speaker. Crosslinguistic influence can be observed across subsystems of languages including pragmatics, semantics, syntax, morphology, phonology, phonetics, and orthography.^[2] Discussed further in this article are particular subcategories of crosslinguistic influence--transfer, interference, attrition, avoidance, the Complementarity Principle, and additional theories.

Origins

There are several proposed hypotheses that examine the internal representation of a bilinguals' languages in bilingual language acquisition. The oldest hypothesis, the Single System Hypothesis, stated that children start out with one single system that develops into two systems. This hypothesis proposed that bilingual children go through three stages of acquisition.

In Stage I, there is a single lexicon that contains words from both languages and a single syntactic system. If there are two words with the same meaning in the two languages, one of the words almost never exists. Also, it is common for the child to use two different languages in a single utterance. The syntactic rules are hard to define because of the lack of two-word and three-word utterances by the bilingual child.

In Stage II, there are two lexicons, but one syntactic system. Because of the two separate lexicons, there are corresponding words in both languages that have the same meaning. These different words in the two languages with the same meaning are commonly known as translation equivalents. In addition, there is a separation between the two languages because utterances do not combine languages. Across both languages, the same syntactic rules are applied.

In Stage III, there are two lexicons and two syntactic systems, with adult-like separation of the languages. When a child reaches the end of this stage, they are commonly categorized as "bilingual."^[3]

In response to the Single System Hypothesis, a different hypothesis developed regarding the idea of two separate language systems from the very beginning. It was based off evidence of monolinguals and bilinguals reaching the same milestones at approximately the same stage of development.^[4]^[5] For example, bilingual and monolingual children go through identical patterns of grammar development. This hypothesis, called the Separate Development Hypothesis, held the notion that the bilinguals acquiring two languages would internalize and acquire the two languages separately. More evidence of this hypothesis comes from no instances of transfer, or the incorporation of one grammatical property in another.^[6] and no instances of acceleration, or the acquisition of a feature in language A influencing the acquisition of a feature in language B.^[7] In a study of Dutch/English bilingual children, there was no transfer across elements of morphology and syntactic development, indicating that the two languages developed separately from each other.^[8] In addition, in a study of French/English bilingual children, there were no instances of acceleration because finiteness appeared much earlier in French than it did in English, suggesting that there was no influence of the acquisition of finiteness in English based on the acquisition in French.^[6] In general, bilingual acquisition would be equivalent to monolingual children acquiring the particular languages.^[8]

In response to both the previous hypotheses mentioned, the Interdependent Development Hypothesis emerged with the idea that there is some sort of interaction between the two language systems in acquisition. This hypothesis is also known as the Crosslinguistic Hypothesis, developed by Hulk and Müller. The Crosslinguistic Hypothesis states that influence will occur in bilingual acquisition in areas of particular difficulty, even for monolingual native language acquisition. It re-examined the extent of the differentiation of the language systems due to the interaction in difficult areas of bilingual acquisition.^[9]^[10] Evidence for this hypothesis comes from delay, acceleration, and transfer in particular areas of bilingual language acquisition.^[6] Delay is the acquisition of a property of language A later than normally expected because of the acquisition of language B. Acceleration, as previously stated, is the acquisition of a feature in language A influencing the acquisition of a feature in language B. Transfer, as previously stated, is the incorporation of a grammatical property in another.^[6] Crosslinguistic influence is seen when the child has a dominant language, such as Cantonese influencing English when Cantonese is the dominant language,^[11] and it will only occur in certain domains. Below are the two proposals represented in the Crosslinguistic Hypothesis where crosslinguistic influence may occur.

It may occur where there is an interface.^[9] An interface, for example, could be between the syntax and meaning of dislocation in a sentence. Dislocations, or a syntactic representations that have different meanings, have been studied in French-English bilinguals with the position of the word, dat "that." The placement of dat in French is transferred to the dislocated position in English. These children produced significantly more dislocations in English than in monolingual English children.^[12]
It may occur where is an overlap between two languages with language A allowing only one option and language B allowing two options. One option of language B overlaps with an option in language A.^[9] For example, French allows adjectives before and after a noun, but English only allows adjectives before the noun. There is an overlap in the correct placement of adjectives between these two languages.^[13]

Since the development of the Crosslinguistic Hypothesis, much research has contributed to the understanding of crosslinguistic influence in areas of structural overlap, directionality, dominance, interfaces, the role of input, and the role of processing and production.^[1]

Further research

Crosslinguistic influence has been heavily studied by scholars, but there is still much more research needed because of the multitude of components that make up the phenomenon. Firstly, the typology of particular language pairings need to be researched to differentiate crosslinguistic influence from the general effects bilingualism and bilingual acquisition. Also, research is needed in specific areas of overlap between particular language pairings and the domains that influence and discourage crosslinguistic influence.^[1]

More generally, an area of research to be further developed are the effects of crosslinguistic influence in multilingual acquisition of three or more languages. There is limited research on this occurance that could, potentially, give rise to information regarding multilingualism, multilingual acquisition, and the role of crosslinguistic influence in this area of linguistics.

Resources

(what i typed out)

Serratrice, Ludovica. (2013). Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual development Determinants and mechanisms. Linguistic approaches to bilingualism, 3, 3-25.

Dopke, S. (1998). Competing language structures: The acquisition of verb placement by bilingual German-English children. Journal of Child Language, 25, 555-584.

Cantone, K. (1999). Das Genus im Italienischen und Deutschen: Empirische Untersuchung zum bilingualen Erstspracherwerb. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hamburg.

Müller, N. (1990). Developing two gender assignment systems simultaneously. In J. Meisel (Ed.), Two first languages. Early grammatical development in bilingual children (pp. 194-243). Dordrecht: Foris.

Paradis, J., & Genessee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or interdependent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 1-25.

Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 227-244.

Müller, N., & Hulk, A. (2001). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 1-53. Volterra, Virginia, and Traute Taeschner. 1978. The Acquisition and development of language by bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 5, 243-264.

Overall concerns

grammar

Resources and citations--everything should have an example--citations missing from many sections
in text citations vs. numerical references--numerical
crosslinguistic vs. cross-linguistic short--choose one and stick to it
phrases/sentences in different language to explain the point within the example
bold/italicize words/phrases
content deliverer??--email Helaine
development of history section--single system, separate, then cross linguistic hypothesis (same as interdependent put in evidence--cite Yip and Matthews)

opening section: Cross-linguistic influence---easier and shorter definition, brief example of CLI; include subcategories of CLI that will be talked about later in the article; what CLI affects (handbook of second language acquisition); types of influence

History: beginnings of CLI (Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual development Determinants and mechanisms) Hulk and Muller 2000/200, also in LINGUA article

Separate development hypotheses vs. Interdependent Development hypotheses (G&L pg 131)

simultaneous vs. successive bilingualism and the differences in CLI between the two types

Subcategories of CLI: transfer (similarities between languages ex. prepositions) positive transfer--structure acquired more easily and negative transfer--interference, transfer in reverse (attrition), avoidance, interdependence??, influence??, convergence??

systematic? competence and performance (G&L pg 132) affects comprehension and production

Opposing theories of CLI: contact-variety parental input vs. grammar-based internal process vs. performance reasons no theory is 100%

examines the role of input vs. linguistics structures in CLI (Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual children: Can input frequency account for it?)

What needs to be done in the future in regards to further understanding CLI (Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual development Determinants and mechanisms)

References