1. Is child L2 French like 2L1 or like adult L2? Suzanne Schlyter & Jonas Granfeldt Lund University IASCLXI, Edinburgh, 28th July to 1st August

2. Questions If there is a qualitative difference between (2)L1 and adL2 acquisition, at what age is the cut-off point? (5, 4, 3 … years?) To what extent do early successive bilinguals differ from 2L1 children and adult and older child L2 learners? In which domains do these children follow L1-like or L2-like patterns?

3. Structure of the presentation A: The 2007 study (GSK07): Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihlstedt 2007 In: PERLES 24 B: Complementary study of two younger children

4. GSK07: Children studied Swedish-French Children 5 and 6 years from Lycée Francais St Louis, Stockholm Swedish as L1 or one of 2L1: –2 cL2 beginners 5 ys (6 mths expos to French) AO 5 –3 cL2 beginners 6 ys (6 mths expos to French) AO 6 –2 cL2 advanced 6 ys (2 years exposure to Fr) AO 3;6 –3 2L1 5 ys (simultaneous bilinguals) AO birth –2 2L1 6 ys (simultaneous bilinguals) AO birth No bilingual child here has clearly weaker French Controls: –2 L1 monolingual French 6 ys AO birth

5. GSK07: 1) Finite vs non-finite forms in finite contexts (French)

6. cL2 2L1 L1

7. GSK07: 2) Past Tense Morphology (PC/Impf), results

8. cL2beg cL2adv 2L1 L1

9. GSK07: 3) Gender agreement, results

10. cL2beg 2L1 L1 cL2adv 23% 14% 9% 0%

11. GSK07 cL2 = aL2 ≠ L12L1 = L1 ≠ (a/c)L22L1 = cL2 ≠ L1  Non-finite verb forms (*il prendre etc. frequent in cL2)  Past tense marking (default forms frequent in cL2)  Object clitics (post- position occurs in cL2)  Gender agreement (around 25% errors in initial stages in cL2)  Non-finite verb forms (no errors)  Past tense marking (no errors)  Object clitics (erroneous intermediate position in (2)L1 and cL2)  Gender agreement (more errors in 2L1 and cL2 than in L1) Table 9. Summary of findings (overview)

13. Complementary study – AO under 4 Early child L2 French: Rachel, AO 3;5 (MLU Fr 1,4 - MLU Sw 3,5 at first recording) Matching 2L1, French Weaker Lg: Arlette (MLU Fr 1,7 - MLU Sw 2,2 at first recording) Compared to late cL2 French Viola, Hannes, Valentine, AO ca 6 (first recording) Partly compared to younger 2L1 Sw-Fr (Schlyter 1993)

14. Table 2. Ages, exposure; MLU and VocD French ; MLU Swedish Child, rec, Age of Onset age at rec months expos MLU F DirPr MLU F Clan VocD FMLU Swe Arl 1 AO birth3;3 school 4 m2,01,7332,2 Arl 23;6sc 73,53,2283,7 Arl 33;9sc 103,03,1413,0 Rach 1 AO 3;53;94 m1,41,2-3,5 Rach 24;292,52,9(10)5,3 Rach 34;3103,53,7216,0 Vio 1 AO 6;46;117 m2,41,6274,6 Han 1 AO 6;67;173,73,5244,7 V-tine AO 6;77;274,84,0295,6

15. Hypotheses / Questions Arlette, 2L1 French Weaker Lg, will behave - like L1 - like early cL2? Rachel, early cL2, will behave -like late cL2 -like Arlette?

16. Linguistic phenomena studied finite and non-finite forms after (clitic) subjects (correct je prends vs incorrect *je prendre) morphological marking of past reference (correct Hier, j’ai joué vs incorrect *je joue/*il vu) gender of Determiners (correct le chat vs incorrect *la chat )

17. Matching levels A rough classification into three groups of linguistic level, according to their MLU: MLU under 2 / French exposure at school 4 months (ecL2 Rachel 1, 2L1 Arlette 1 ) MLU 2 – 3 / French exposure at school 7 – 9 months (ecL2 Rachel 2, lcL2 Viola 1 ) MLU 3,2 – 3,7; VocD over 20 / French exposure at school 7 – 14 m (2L1 Arlette 2-3; ecL2 Rachel3; lcL2 Hannes1, lcL2 V-tine1)

18. Results 1)Finite / nonfinite forms in finite contexts (French)

19. 2. Percentage finite (vs nonfinite) forms, after subject (’est’ discarded) Child, rec, Age of Onset age at rec MLU clan %finite forms ( nonfin/total) Arl 1 AO birth3;31,7 50 (2/4) Arl 23;63,2100 (0/13) Arl 33;93,1100 (0/57) Rach 1 AO 3,53;91,4-- Rach 24;22,5 75 (5/20) Rach 34;33,5 94 (3/50) Vio 1 AO 6,46;112,4100* Han 1 AO 6;67;13,7 74 (12/46) V-tine 1 AO 6;77;24,0 80 (8/41) * overextension of finite/short/stem form

20. Exemples non-finite forms cL2 Rachel 2, early cL2: *INV:et qu+est+ce+que c ' est ? *CHI:ils # ça] [//] il [/] il faire ça. they that he do.INF that Hannes 1, late cL2 *CHI:et le chien qui &oua [?= voit] et [/] and the dog who sees ? *CHI: et # il # prendre # le # chat # dans # euh ça. and he take.INF the cat in that

21. Examples from 2L1 Arlette, for discussion 1) subject + nonfinite form *INV:et là maintenant qu+est+ce qu ' il fait le père Noël ? *CHI:elle # assis *INV:et son petit chat qu+est+ce+qu ' il fait ? *CHI:elle jouE

22. Examples from 2L1 Arlette, for discussion 2) Time reference of Root Infinitives (2)L1 children, see next slide: parti, fini, cassé (immediate past) manger! boire! donner! (desired imm future) Arlette1 (3;3 ys, MLU 2,0): *INV:qu+est+ce+qu ' il fait ? *CHI:dormir *INV:oui qu+est+ce+qu ' il fait là ? *CHI:dormir *INV:et qu+est+ce+que tu fais ? *CHI:jouE aussi *INV:et qu+est+ce+que tu fais dans la classe ? *CHI:mm jouE

23. Child, rec, Age of Onset Swe-Fr 2L1 age at rec MLU FR nonfinite forms after subject cl/N and Root Infinitives Jean 1 AO birth1;101,70/0 (+3 RI, corr Time Ref) Jean 22;01,10/1 (+9 RI, corr TR) Jean 32;21,70/0 (+6 RI, corr TR) Anne 1 AO birth2;31,4- Anne 22;61,90/0 (+2 RI, corr TR) Anne 32;82,70/0 (+1 RI, corr TR) Anne 4 AO birth2;102,40/(1) Mimi 12;02,1-- Mimi 22;23,20/0 (+3 RI, corr TR) Dany 1 AO birth2;21,20/0 (+3 RI, corr TR) Dany 22;61,80/2 (pati nours) Dany 32;103,10/0 (+1 RI?) Léo 3 AO birth but FR Weak 2;62,00/1 (jag dormir)

24. Finiteness, summary Arlette 2-3 has no nonfinite forms (but some in Arl 1) All the cL2 learners, early and late, use nonfinite forms (mostly with scl), i.e. = aL2 Earlier studied 2L1 Sw-Fr have no scl+nonfinite forms >> The difference is essentially between 2L1 vs cL2, but certain problems with Arlette 1 (French WL)

25. Results 2) Past Tense Morphology (French)

26. Past tense morphology: percentage of marking of past reference (PC or Impf) Child, rec, Age of Onset age at rec MLU clan % past tense morphology (no marking/total) Arl 1 AO birth3;31,7-- Arl 23;63,2100 (-/20) Arl 33;93,1100 (-/18) Rach 1 AO 3,53;91,4-- Rach 24;22,512 (1/8) Rach 34;33,546 (6/13) Vio 1 AO 6,46;112,467 (2/3) Han 1 AO 6;67;13,775 (6/8) V-tina1 AO 6;77;24,017 (1/6)

27. Past tense: 2L1=L1, ecL2=lcL2 Marking of past tense: Rachel, e cL2, patterns with late cL2 and adL2 learners Exemples from Rachel 2: *INV:et qu+est+ce+que tu as fait là bas chez s@farmor ? *CHI:moi ## je fais +/. *INV:alors tu avais pas dormi chez s@farmor ? *CHI:moi [/] moi aussi dormir [alt=dormi]. *CHI:après il a met ça dans la +... *ASS:et dans la boîte ? *CHI:il trouvé ça.

28. Difference 2L1 and e cL2 Same elicitation situation, Aux in 2L1, no Aux in cL2: 2L1 Arlette: *INV:qu+est+ce+qui s ' est passé Arlette ? *CHI:il a tombé. *INV:oui et qu+est+ce qui s ' est passé avec sa jambe [//] avec sa patte? *CHI:il a tombé. early cL2 Rachel: *INV:qu+est+ce+qui s ' est passé avec sa tête ? *CHI:il [/] il tombé. *INV:mon cochon qu+est+ce+qui s ' est passé ? *CHI:il tombé.

29. Results 3) Gender agreement Det-Noun

30. Gender Det-Noun Child, rec, Age of Onset age at rec MLU clan % gender errors Det-sg Arl 1 AO birth3;31,70 (/5) Arl 23;63,20 (/5)* Arl 33;93,115 (12/79)** Rach 1 AO 3,53;91,4-- (3/3 imit) Rach 24;22,535 (9/26) Rach 34;33,537 (10/27) Vio 1 AO 6,46;112,424 (6/25) Han 1 AO 6;67;13,725 (18/71) V-tine1 AO 6;77;24,025 /18/76) *only masculine; **strong overextension of masculine

31. Arlette 2L1 Why correct first but many gender errors later? Proposal: school jargon (cf. Schlyter 2007)

32. Tableau 6 : Enfants 2L1 de six ans en 2006 et 1991, et monolingues fL1 2006. (Schlyter 2007) 2L1 enreg 2006 % erreurs genre % erreurs accord S-V (contexts/*errors) Lina 4,6 35 (13/*7) Valeria 10,5 22 ( 7/*2) Tore 1 11 ( 8/*1) 2L1 enreg 1991 Anne 1,6 0 (19/*-) Mimi 1,6 0 (15/*-) Jean 0 0 (12/*-) Dany 1 0 ( 3/*-) fL1 2006 André0 0 Antoine0 0 Légende : * nombre d’erreurs ; S-V = Sujet-Verbe, calculé sur les verbes dont la forme de personne se distingue des formes par défaut

33. Summary, Discussion French in early/late cL2 and 2L1? Early cL2 Rachel = late cL2 and aL2 2L1 (Fr Weak Lg) Arlette - more like L1 >> cut-off point before age 4 >> cut-off when child has access to the entire tree structure?

34. Which phenomena are concerned? Clearest difference (2)L1 – c/aL2 in Past TENSE Marking Least difference in GENDER agr TENSE: cognitive development (Weist 2002) = central syntactic development? (Cinque) GENDER: less rule governed, more input-related?

35. Thanks! To the children and their parents To Sylvie and Anne from LFSL who gave us a marvellous help in this research To Elisabeth Rausing memorial foundation, for financial support To this auditory!