Multi-competence and effects of age
D. Singleton and Z. Lengyel (eds.), The
Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters, 1995, 51-66
term 'multi-competence' was introduced
to describe 'the compound state of a mind with two grammars', contrasted with 'mono-competence',
the state of the mind with only one (Cook, 1991).
While the underlying concept has often been taken for granted in
bilingualism research, it is by no means widely accepted in Second Language
Acquisition research, which tends, as we shall see, to treat L2 competence as if
the second language is in a different mind from the first.
A series of papers has looked at the use of multi-competence in different
contexts (Cook, 1992; to appear). The
present paper relates multi-competence to the issue of age, mostly within the
Universal Grammar theory of Second Language Acquisition.
This means first of all establishing the nature of a multi-competence SLA
programme, then seeing how it might accommodate age.
effects of age on second language learning are far from as clear-cut as popular
wisdom, or indeed some linguists, would have us believe.
In their respective reviews of age, Krashen, Long and Scarcella (1979),
Cook (1986), and Singleton (1989) come to general, if tentative, solutions,
expressed by David Singleton as follows: 'The one interpretation of the evidence
which does not appear to run into contradictory data is that in naturalistic
situations those whose exposure to a second language begins in childhood in
general eventually surpass those whose exposure begins in adulthood, even though
the latter usually show some initial advantage over the former.'
Cook (1986) concentrated on the methodological limitations of the
research literature, looking particularly askance at the over-reliance on
educated immigrants as subjects, on English as the second language, on
Indo-European languages as the first language, on the USA as the main country of
immigration, on the limited aspects of language tested in the research, and on
the learners' date of arrival rather than on their age of start.
Within the overall framework of Second Language Acquisition research the
benefits and disadvantages of age still seem far from established.
Certainly it is hard to find an overall Critical Period effect with a
particular cut-off age. In addition
it should not be forgotten that age is a factor from birth to death.
The relationship of age to Second Language Acquisition is not just the
difference between children and adults but might also involve Second Language
Acquisition in old age, for instance Clyne (1977).
Multi-competence and 'failure'
cursory reading of the first language acquisition literature comes up with a
picture of excitement and wonder at the child's amazing ability to acquire
language. A similar reading of the
second language literature soon produces the opposite impression; most
researchers seem perplexed and concerned by how bad people are at learning
second languages. All children
magically acquire their first language to a high level of knowledge after a few
years. Many second language learners
achieve only a minimal L2 competence after long years of struggle and effort.
A main goal for Second Language Acquisition research is seen as
explaining this dismal failure. One
historical basis for the concept of interlanguage was Selinker's observation
that 95% of L2 learners fail to achieve 'absolute success in a second language'
(Selinker, 1972). The general
negative view can be exemplified more recently in Bley-Vroman (1989, p.43) for
instance, who discusses 'nine fundamental characteristics of adult foreign
language learning' of which 'few are controversial'; the first two are 'lack of
success' and 'general failure'. This
'failure' is used by Schachter (1988) and Bley-Vroman (1989) in particular to
argue that Second Language Acquisition differs from first language acquisition
in being cut off from Universal Grammar and has to find a substitute channel for
acquiring language. One argument is
that knowledge of the L2 is not so complete or so good as knowledge of the L1;
Schachter (1988, p.224) claims 'Most proficient ESL speakers do not have fully
formed determiner systems, aspectual systems, or tag question systems'.
L2 learners rarely attain the same level of knowledge in their L2 as in
their L1. This is taken to indicate
lack of access to UG. Furthermore,
L2 learners regularly get 'fossilised' at some stage rather than progressing
inevitably to full native competence. Schachter's
example is the over-use of the present indicative tense by English learners of
Spanish. As no L1 children get stuck
in this way, UG is not available for learning the L2.
no-access argument has been related to the learner's age in experiments by
Johnson and Newport (1991). Their
main testing area is the subjacency relation seen in ungrammatical sentences
*What did Sally watch how Mrs Gomez makes?
versus grammatical sentences such as:
What did the teacher know that Janet liked?
Subjacency is a highly technical area of principles and parameters theory that was fashionable during the 1980s but became largely subsumed under other areas such as the Empty Category Principle (Cook and Newson, 1995) as the theory developed. Syntactic movement in human languages is limited by the constraint that the element that is being moved must not cross more than one of certain types of boundaries called 'bounding nodes'. Sentences like:
*What did Sally watch how Mrs Gomez makes?
are ruled out because what crosses more than one bounding node. Johnson and Newport tested Chinese learners of English who would not have needed subjacency for syntactic movement in Chinese. The results showed that the ability to detect the ungrammaticality of such sentences varies straightforwardly with age: the younger the learners had arrived in the US the better they were at subjacency, ranging from those who had arrived aged 4-7 up to those who had arrived as adults (i.e. not age of start but age of arrival, when they might or mught not have encountered English previously). One of the causes of L2 failure, even within the UG model, seems to be the age of the learner.
is the source of this aura of failure that envelopes Second Language Acquisition
research? A person learning to skate
does not normally consider themselves a failure for not competing in the Olympic
Games; the child who is learning physics at school is not considered a failure
for not mastering quantum theory; a child learning a first language is not
thought of as a defective adult native speaker but as a child in his or her own
right. In all these other cases the
learner's progress is not measured against an external target of perfection but
set against standards appropriate to the learner's own nature.
Yet Second Language Acquisition research has somehow accepted that the
valid target for the L2 learner is the monolingual.
Most research compares L2 learners implicitly with L1 speakers; the
typical research methodology uses grammaticality judgments, obligatory contexts,
or elicited imitation, all defined by native usage.
The target the learners are supposedly aiming at, even if few of them
achieve, is the competence of the monolingual, not the competence peculiar to L2
speakers. Failure is defined with
reference to monolingual native speakers - the one thing that L2 learners can
never be by definition. The goal of
Second Language Acquisition is Selinker's successful 5% - the 'balanced'
bilingual or 'ambilingual', as Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens (1964) neatly
call it. Yet such ambilinguals form
a small minority of those who have learnt an L2.
Taking them as the paradigm example automatically leads to negative
conclusions about L2 learning. Measured
against the yardstick of 100% monolingual competence, the L2 knowledge of a
learner ranges from 0% to 100%. As
learners seldom approach the upper limit, L2 learning has been seen in terms of
lack of success; few bilinguals succeed in achieving or maintaining an equal
balance between L1 and L2 knowledge.
suppose the L2 learner is acquiring something extra rather than a pale imitation
of the L1 - the vocabulary, syntax, and so on, of the L1 plus
the vocabulary, syntax, and so on, of the L2.
The knowledge of the L2 increases the L2 user's capabilities beyond those
of a monolingual, rather than being confining them to defective L1 knowledge.
Measured against the 100% of a person who knows one language, the
balanced bilingual is functioning at 200%; L2 learners of lesser achievement are
functioning at levels between 100% and 200%.
Those who start from the balanced bilingual see the L2 learner as a
failure for not achieving full L2 competence; even bilinguals, according to
Grosjean (1989), 'often assume and amplify the monolingual view and hence
criticise their own language competence'. Those
who start from the bilingual view see the learners as a success in their own
right in going beyond the initial L1, to whatever degree.
many ways the Second Language Acquisition literature could be considered
discriminatory. We (and I include
myself in these strictures as much as anybody) have been looking down at the
pitiful attempts of the L2 user to attain the lofty heights of the monolingual.
Perhaps L2 users should have been looking down from their
lofty heights at the impoverished lives of monolinguals straitjacketed by one
language, one culture, one way of thinking.
Whatever the L2 user has achieved exceeds the capabilities of
monolinguals, rather than falling short. The
pejorative terminology applied to L2 learners resembles a power play by natives
who want to keep control of their language, and so deny the rights of
non-natives, parallel to the attempts to maintain the position of English across
the world at the expense of the Third World (Phillipson, 1992).
In other research areas linguists have learnt to speak in terms of
differences between people rather than deficits - race, sex, class, and so on;
we should try to recognise the difference of the L2 user as a unique human being
rather than as a defective monolingual, just as blacks are not defective whites,
women are not defective men, and academics are not defective navvies.
discussion of age in L2 learning is indeed dominated by failure or success in
native terms. One example is the
question of accent. Asher and Garcia
(1969) had native speakers judge 'accent'; Seliger et al (1975) asked learners
to report how long they took to lose their 'foreign accent'; Oyama (1975)
measured assessment of learners' foreign accent by linguistic students.
One might point to the looseness and subjectiveness of the concept of
accent as compared, say, to a proper phoneme and allophone inventory of the
learner's speech. But what could
betray more blatantly that monolingual standards are being applied than using
native accent as the yardstick? Why
are L2 users considered deficient if they do not sound
like natives? Are women condemned
for not sounding like men? Why
should the ability to have this nebulous accent be so crucial?
For example a test of the teachability of pronunciation showed that 18
hours of pronunciation teaching could make 9 out of 20 Canadians
indistinguishable from native speakers of Japanese (Neufeld, 1978).
What's the point? They are
not Japanese and will never for a moment be able to pass for Japanese; they
should sound like effective bilinguals.
early work on interlanguage drew on the 1960s independent grammars assumption
(Cook, 1993) - the belief that the child should be treated as a speaker of a
language of its own rather than as a defective speaker of adult language who has
inefficiently mastered the rules, perhaps first articulated in McNeill (1966).
Taking this seriously means discovering the learner's own grammar, not
measuring how successfully he or she approximates the monolingual grammar, thus
avoiding what Bley-Vroman (1983) calls the Comparative Fallacy.
Methodologically the criteria in the age research always seem to be
derived from native grammars. Johnson
and Newport (1990) for instance asked whether L2 learners come up to scratch
compared to native speakers. Tut tut
they don't. But might the learners
have an alternative grammar rather than a defective grammar?
Research based on the monolingual grammar is confined to making
conclusions about similarities and differences; it can never reveal a system
that is totally different from the native and show the true nature of
multi-competent knowledge unfiltered by the native grammar.
foundation of Second Language Acquisition research has to be multi-competence -
the complex supersystem of language knowledge possessed by those who use more
than one language. The effects of
age should be ascertained by looking at the language of L2 learners in their own
right, not by seeing how they fall short of natives.
However much the interlanguage researchers protested that they treated
the learner's system as independent their very research techniques sooner or
later involved the native target. The
question about the relationship of age to Second Language Acquisition should not
then be couched in terms of failure; young learners may or may not acquire
different knowledge of the L2 than older learners; this is an empirical fact
that current research has still not established properly.
What is crucial is to discover their own grammars, however different
these may be from natives'.
entry point to the discussion of age and multi-competence is the development of
growth and non-growth models of UG. The
growth version of UG associated with Borer and Wexler (1987) claims that the
principles and parameters of UG do not all necessarily come into being at the
same time; a biologically-predetermined programme allows them to appear
gradually in the child's mind. The
non-growth version suggests that all the principles and parameters are present
from the outset; they cannot be seen in the child's speech because of the
various processing systems for language the child has not yet evolved, say the
short term memory capacity necessary to produce longer sentences.
In terms of L1 acquisition the choice between these alternatives is
impossibly hard to decide; how can you tell an invisible principle that is
present in the child's mind but never used because of the other restrictions on
the child from a principle that is altogether absent from the child's mind, if
you do not have a full psychological account of the development of language
processing, since in both cases something will be missing from the child's
further problem is what is meant by age. Chronological
age is a meaningless variable in itself; like time, we can only perceive it in
terms of change: no change, no age. Hence
age might mean change in the physiology of the brain areas, muscles, or auditory
equipment involved in speech; older learners may be physically different from
younger learners. Or age might mean
mental change - where the person is on the Piagetan sequence of cognitive
development, how their short-term memory capacity or structures have developed,
and so on. Or age might be social
development - the forms of interaction typical at particular ages.
All of these have indeed been put forward to explain the alleged effects
of age and the age changes are in some way verifiable independently of the
second language evidence. But none
of them are directly relevant to the UG model of acquisition, since this does
not take account of language development, only of the logical problem of
language acquisition, and does not see the language faculty as depending in any
way on other mental faculties. Blaming
one or other of these for age effects is talking in terms of another model.
need then to look for other solutions. Why
do the grammars of L2 users apparently vary according to the age at which they
started L2 learning, judging from Johnson and Newport's work with subjacency?
One possibility is indeed that UG is not available to the older L2
learners. But much of the L2
research, such as Bley-Vroman et al (1988), shows that UG is not completely
unavailable; scores are always better than chance even if consistently below
natives'. Older L2 learners have
poor access to UG rather than no access. Another
possible solution is a variation on the growth model.
Children acquire the L1 in sequence; perhaps subjacency has to come at a
particular time in the sequence to be usable, like Konrad Lorenz imprinting his
ducks within the critical period. L2
learners of different ages are at different points in this developmental
unfolding of principles and parameters. Getting
subjacency in the L2 out of step with the maturational sequence may be a
handicap and stop it being used as efficiently.
other possibility is, however, to invoke the nature of multi-competence.
Why should multi-competent speakers of two languages have the same
grammar of either language?
My own research has suggested that multi-competence should be treated as
a single system; the L1 and L2 systems are symbiotic within the same mind, as is
clearly evident for example in the complex phenomenon of code-switching.
The effects of a UG principle are not therefore necessarily the same for
this compound multi-competent state as for a monolingual state.
Again the L2 user's grammar must be treated as having its own nature, not
as deviant from the monolingual. Some
aspects of UG might indeed only become apparent in people who know more than one
language. The question is then: do
L2 learners who start at different ages acquire different multi-competences?
Age and simultaneous bilingualism
of the questions that immediately arises with multi-competence is whether the
two languages form one overall system in the mind (wholistic multi-competence)
or two (separatist multi-competence). This
is a derivative question the answer to which does not affect the notion of
multi-competence itself since, at some level, the two languages form part of the
same mind by definition, otherwise we would be dealing with people with two
heads. Cook (1992) reviewed evidence
that minds with two language are in general different from those with only one -
that multi-competence is a different state of mind from monolingualism -
concluding that this is true to some extent of L1 and L2 knowledge,
metalinguistic awareness, and cognitive processing.
several areas of psychology the problem of whether the L2 user has two systems
or one might well be considered a non-question.
Anderson (1983) for example considers 'the adult human mind is a unitary
construction'. He refuses to
distinguish language from other cognitive systems and, by extension, the first
language from the second; they are all part of the same network.
Indeed he often uses classroom L2 learning as an example of his
all-purpose theory of learning. This
is discussed further in Cook (1993). Other
network theories such as connectionism appear equally committed to the mind as a
single organism, with L2 learning being a matter of increasing the strength of
certain connections (Gasser, 1990; Sokolik & Smith, 1992).
More crucially for our current concerns it appears to be a standard axiom
in bilingualism research that bilinguals are not two monolinguals in the same
head: 'it is clear that a reasonable account of bilingualism cannot be based on
a theory which assumes monolingual competence as its frame of reference'
(Romaine, 1989). The overall
emphasis in bilingualism studies is on acceptance of the L2 user as
an L2 user to be measured by the standards of L2 users, not by those of
monolinguals. The L2 user is not an
imitation monolingual in the L2 but a genuine bilingual.
The 'ultimate attainment' of a second language is not, and could never
be, monolingual competence.
is mainly then within Second Language Acquisition research that the concept of
multi-competence needs to be asserted. As
Sridhar and Sridhar (1986) point out, 'Paradoxical as it may seem, Second
Language Acquisition researchers seem to have neglected the fact that the goal
of SLA is bilingualism'. The
question is at what level or in what areas the mind separates the two languages
into separate systems. It might be
that the core UG areas are inseparable in the two languages, hence the powerful
influence of L1 parameter settings on the knowledge of the L2, or it might be
that UG cannot be used for an L2 and so the two systems are organised in utterly
different ways, as those who support alternatives to UG in L2 learning suggest.
It might be that there is a single lexicon for both languages in which
each word is branded with its language. Cook
(1992) examined the evidence for wholistic versus separatist multi-competence in
the areas of the lexicon, code-switching, language processing, physical storage
of language in the brain, and the relationship between L1 and L2 proficiency,
but not syntax, concluding that 'the two systems are more closely linked than
had been previously suspected'.
these types of evidence are largely concerned with adults who have reached their
final state of L2 learning. The
division between separatist and wholistic multi-competence may however depend on
age, defined in terms both of the mental state at the time at which the people
were tested and at the time at which the L2 acquisition started.
Let us take the extreme test-case of the simultaneous acquisition of two
languages in young children. Again,
as with bilingualism, one should not perhaps be too pernickety about defining
simultaneous acquisition. The most
extreme form is perhaps de Houwer (1990) for instance who records the languages
used to her subject in the maternity ward ('English spoken to her by her mother,
and Dutch by her father and various members of the nursing staff').
Like the usual arguments against the idealisation to linguistic
competence, the balanced bilingual and the child identically exposed to two
languages may be fictions that obscure the normal situation.
If Second Language Acquisition is restricted to those who achieved
balanced bilingualism, it excludes all but a minute proportion of L2 learners;
if we restrict simultaneous acquisition to those children who have equal amounts
of both languages from maternity ward onwards, these would be so rare as to be
virtually non-existent. This does
not mean of course that such cases are not interesting as the 'purest' evidence
and hence the easiest to research.
questions that researchers have usually asked about simultaneous bilingualism
are whether the child's two languages develop separately - sometimes called the
independent development hypothesis - and whether bilingual acquisition follows
the same path as monolingual acquisition. The
evidence that is cited is extremely mixed and goes back many years, usually at
least to Ronjat (1913) and Leopold (1939-49); reviews can be found in McLaughlin
(1984) and de Houwer (1990). McLaughlin's
review reports, mostly in terms of language processing and memory, that
'research with bilingual children does not support the notion of a dual language
system' (McLaughlin, 1984, p.195). On
the other hand de Houwer (1990) finds largely the same literature much more
ambivalent when restricted to genuinely simultaneous acquisition; 'there is as
little positive evidence for the position that bilingual children develop two
separate linguistic systems from the earliest stages of acquisition on as there
is for the claim that bilingual children start out with a single linguistic
system which is later differentiated or separated into two linguistic systems'
(de Houwer, 1990, p.49).
us then review briefly the evidence in some of the relevant areas of research
with young bilingual children. While
there are many general studies, those directed at any specific area of language
seem small in number and far from satisfactory.
question that has been most researched is whether children mix the vocabularies
of the two languages in the same sentence. Ronjat
(1913) originally claimed there was no lexical confusion between languages.
Burling (1959), however, reported a boy who first used Garo sentence
structure with English words, later the reverse.
Leopold (1939) found that 'Words from the two languages did not belong to
two speech systems but to one ...'. Taeschner
(1983) studied 2 children learning Italian and German; she found an initial
stage at which the children had one lexical system, which separated at the next
stage into two lexicons with one syntax. Tabouret-Keller
(1962) found mixed early sentences with unequal proportions from the vocabulary
of the two languages. Swain and
Wesche (1975) described lexical mixing between French and English with examples
such as Quelle couleur your poupée?;
de Houwer (1990) observed a Dutch child learning English and Dutch and found
only 4.3% mixed sentences addressed to Dutch speakers, 3.9% to English, and 2.5%
and 0.9% that were balanced between the two languages ("Dutlish", as
she calls it). While attacking
Taeschner's methodology and analysis, de Houwer herself does not use vocabulary
in her conclusions other than to point to the non-existence of an early stage at
which the children have a single lexicon for both languages.
of this research is notionally about vocabulary in that it simply categorises
the words that occur in the children's speech into L1 or L2.
This provides little information on what the child means by the words it
uses - are meanings constant across languages, is a word misused in one language
because of its meaning in another language, and so on?
The research does not use linguistic ideas of vocabulary or modern ideas
of vocabulary acquisition, say the acquisition of argument structure; it uses
words as isolated atoms of language which either occur or don't occur.
It is not a question of two vocabulary systems so much as two word-lists.
This commonly-found separation between the two lexicons contrasts with
the extensive research with adults that shows a single shared lexicon, for
example Beauvillain and Grainger (1987). It
might be that the two concepts of vocabulary and the two approaches to research
are incommensurable, or it might be that there is a genuine difference between
children who keep the lexicons separate and adults who have integrated the two
lexicons into one. Without more
specific research there is little to show whether the two lexicons, as opposed
to the two word-lists, form one system or two.
of the bilingualism research simply ignores pronunciation, for example de Houwer
(1990). Much of the relevant
research furthermore does not use systematic ideas of phonology.
Leopold (1947) reports some confusion between the sounds of the two
languages and some carryover of phonological processes from one language to the
other, as does Ruke-Dravina (1967); Fantini (1985) and Burling (1959) describe
children in whom the phonology of one language takes over.
Oksaar (1970), however, studied a child who kept the pronunciation of the
two languages separate. Essentially
these case studies represent every possibility from totally merged systems to
totally separate. At best they can
provide counter-instances to any absolute claim that all bilingual
children necessarily have merged or separate pronunciation systems.
Much phonetic work has indeed shown that adult bilinguals effectively
have a single phonological system for Voice Onset Time, for example Nathan
is usually handled in the earlier literature of simultaneous bilingualism as an
offshoot of the study of vocabulary and pronunciation rather than in its own
right. The question as always is:
does the child keep the two systems separate?
Ronjat (1913) found few signs of syntactic interference between the two
languages. The initial stage of the
child's word order in Leopold (1939) appeared to belong to neither language but
to express semantic meaning. The
sentences produced by the child in Burling (1959) belonged clearly to one
language or the other, even when the vocabulary was mixed.
Morphological borrowing from English to Estonian occurred in Vihman
(1982). Swain and Wesche (1975)
found some French structures occurring in English, for example They open, the windows? Volterra
and Taeschner (1978) however described a stage when children had two lexicons
but a single syntactic system that was neither Italian nor German; the child
expressed possession in both languages as Noun + Noun Giulia
Buch (Julia's book) or Giulia giamma
Houwer (1990) concentrated on the question of whether the two syntactic systems
are separate, finding that the languages (Dutch and English) are kept distinct
in gender; bound morphemes such as plural stay in one language; the child mostly
uses OV word order in Dutch and VO in English.
At all stages the child keeps the languages separate.
However, apart from word order, as she points out, Dutch and English are
fairly similar in syntax. She also
finds 'It is quite striking that the many changes in Kate's two language systems
take place at the same time.'
DUFDE group directed by Jürgen Meisel, reported for example in Meisel (1990a),
have looked at young children learning French and German simultaneously.
Meisel (1990b) finds the evidence provided by Volterra and Taeschner
(1978) unconvincing as a demonstration of a clear stage of a single syntactic
system; the children had distinct word orders in the two languages, similar but
not identical to monolingual children. His
conclusion is that 'fusion is not necessarily a characteristic of bilingual
language development, but mixing may occur until code-switching is firmly
established as a strategy of bilingual pragmatic competence'.
sum up, the consensus seems to be that, after an initial semantically organised
phase, children keep the systems of the two languages distinct, essentially the
model presented in Volterra and Taeschner (1978) or Swain and Wesche (1975),
except in so far as code-switching and mixing are a normal part of bilingual
behaviour, both of the child's and the parents' (Genesee, 1989).
The greatest contrast is with the research into adult bilingualism where
mostly at the vocabulary level, and sometimes at the phonological level, a
single system seems to be involved. But,
as we have seen, the evidence is in fact shaky; a consistent account treating
language rigorously in terms of vocabulary, pronunciation, and syntax does not
what for multi-competence? At first
sight the implication is that lack of mixing shows two systems; mixing shows
one. But keeping two languages
separate does not mean that they do not form part of the same system.
The system I use for hand-writing is quite different from the one I use
for word-processing; there is no way in which I mix them; yet noone would claim
that I speak two languages simply because I have two different ways of realising
written English. The polylectalists
pointed out that all speakers switch continuously from one system to another,
else they would not be able to understand children or old age pensioners,
Bristol shop assistants or High Court judges.
'Competence is polylectal' (Bailey, 1973).
Any language use involves switching from one style or register to
another. We do not therefore claim
that monolingual speakers have many language systems in their minds and marvel
how they keep them separate; instead we believe they have a single language
system. Lack of mixing in children
no more shows that two systems are involved than does the fact I consistently
speak to my cat differently than to the university vice-chancellor.
The research into simultaneous acquisition has usually answered the
question whether children differentiate two languages, not the question whether
the languages form one system. Genesee
claims for example 'To uphold the unitary system hypothesis one would need to
establish that, all things being equal, bilingual children use items from both
languages indiscriminately in all contexts' (Genesee, 1989, p.165); this same
criterion would prove that monolinguals speak many languages.
Arbitrary mixing would indeed show no system at all rather than one
system, which might well distinguish different forms or vocabulary for different
uses, as it does in monolinguals.
us put this within the context of current UG theory.
The lexical parameterisation hypothesis claims that parameters are part
of the lexicon; we do not know the values for the governing category principle
in Binding Theory for English, Japanese or Icelandic; we know the setting of the
lexical items himself, zibun, or hann (Wexler and
Manzini, 1987). The functional
parameterisation hypothesis extends this by claiming that parameters are
attached to the lexical entries for functional categories (Ouhalla, 1991).
To take the example of the Agreement Phrase, the English AGRP has set the
opacity parameter to opaque and so forbids Verb movement, while the French AGRP
has set the value to transparent and so allows Verb movement; hence the
normality of Jean embrasse souvent Marie
(John kisses often Marie) and the abnormality of *John
kisses often Marie; the English verb kiss
cannot cross over the boundary of the English AGRP (Pollock, 1989).
of these hypotheses take the view that syntax is invariant; languages differ in
their lexicons: 'language acquisition is in essence a matter of determining
lexical idiosyncrasies' (Chomsky, 1989, p.44).
Lexical parameterisation takes the view that the lexicon consists of
lexical entries for substantive items such as nouns, verbs, reflexive anaphors,
etc, giving their meaning, phonological form and syntactic properties.
Children learn these essentially one at a time; when they learn himself
they acquire its setting for the governing category parameter.
The functional parameterisation view envisages an extended lexicon which
includes entries for more abstract functional categories such as the Complement
Phrase and Agreement Phrase with parameter settings.
When children acquire a functional phrase, they start acquiring the
parameter settings that go with it.
parameterisation then fits neatly with the picture of early bilingualism we have
been reporting. Children separate
the substantive vocabularies because each lexical entry is separate: English man
and French homme are two items in one extended vocabulary, as they are for
adult bilinguals. As such the
entries project their own syntactic properties on sentences in which the words
occur. It is no more surprising that
children fail to mix vocabularies than that English adults fail to mix the words
cat and chewing gum. There is
one multi-competence lexicon with separate entries for each item.
parameterisation raises a further range of issues that require specific research
to tackle. There might be separate
entries for functional categories in each language, each with a parameter value
assigned to it. In this case there
is a single overall knowledge of language relying on principles and parameters
with language separation maintained as different lexical entries.
There might be only one entry possible for each functional category with
a parameter attached that has two strengths, switching from one to the other
according to which language is involved. The
choice between these alternative can be tested through code-switching.
In the one case the choice is either/or; a functional phrase in
code-switching should keep to one language in terms of its parametric values.
This could be interpreted as an extension of the government model of
code-switching proposed by Di Sciullo et al (1986) in which governed elements
stay in the same language as their governor or as a variant on the Matrix
Language Frame Model of Myers-Scotton (1992) in which one language acts as the
dominant matrix. In the other case
the choice is more/less. Functional
phrases mix elements within the phrase with a less clear demarcation.
J.R. (1983a), The Architecture of Cognition, Harvard University Press
J., & Garcia, G. (1969), 'The optimal age to learn a foreign language', Modern
Language Journal, 38, 334-341
C-Y. (1973), Variation and Linguistic Theory, Center for Applied
Linguistics, Arlington, Virginia
R.W. (1983), 'The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: the case of
systematicity', Language Learning, 33, 1-17
R.W. (1989), 'The logical problem of second language learning', in Gass, S.,
& Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language
Acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 41-68.
R.W., Felix, S., and Ioup, G.L. (1988), 'The accessibility of Universal Grammar
in adult language learning', Second Language Research, 4 (1):
H., & Wexler, K. (1987), 'The maturation of syntax', in Roeper, T., &
Williams, E. (eds.), Parameter Setting, Dordrecht, Reidel, 123-187
R. (1959), 'Language development of a Garo and English speaking child', Word,
N. (1989), 'Some notes on economy of derivation and representation', MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 43-74
M.G. (1977), 'Bilingualism of the elderly', Talanya, 4, 45-56
V.J. (1986), 'Experimental approaches applied to two areas of second language
learning research: age and listening-based teaching methods', in V.J. Cook
(ed.), Experimental Approaches to Second Language Learning, Pergamon
V.J. (1991), 'The poverty of the stimulus argument and multi-competence', Second
Language Research, 7, 2, 103-117
V.J. (1992), 'Evidence for multi-competence', Language Learning, 42, 4,
V.J. (1993), Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, Basingstoke:
V.J. (to appear), 'The metaphor of access to Universal Grammar', in Ellis, N.
(ed.), Implicit Learning and Language, LEA
V.J., and Newson, M. (1994), Chomsky's Universal Grammar, second edition,
Houwer, A. (1990), The Acquisition of Two Languages from Birth: a Case Study,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sciullo, A-M., Muysken, P., & Singh, R. (1986), 'Government and
code-mixing', Journal of Linguistics, 22, 1-24
A. (1974), Language Acquisition of a Bilingual Child,
Battleboro: The Experiment Press
M. (1990), 'Connectionism and universals of Second Language Acquisition', Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 2, 179-200
F. (1989), 'Early bilingual development: one language or two?', Journal of
Child Language, 16, 161-179
H. (1986), 'Language acquisition and linguistic theory', in P. Fletcher & M.
Garman (eds.), Language Acquisition: Studies in First Language Development,
F. (1989), 'Neurolinguists, beware! The
bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person', Brain and Language, 36,
M.A.K., McIntosh, A., and Strevens, P. (1964), The Linguistic Sciences and
Language Teaching, London, Longman
J.S., & Newport, E.L. (1991), 'Critical period effects on universal
properties of languages: the status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second
language', Cognition, 39, 215-58
S., Long, M., & Scarcella, R. (1979), 'Accounting for child-adult
differences in second language rate and attainment', TESOL Quarterly, 13,
W.F. (1939-1949), Speech Development of a Bilingual Child: A Linguist's
Record, Volume I Vocabulary Growth in the First Two Years, Volume II
Sound Learning in the First Two Years, Volume III Grammar and General Problem in
the First Two Years, Volume IV Diary from Age Two, Evanston, Northwestern
B. (1984), Second Language Acquisition in Childhood: Volume I Pre-school
Children, Erlbaum, New Jersey
D. (1966), 'Developmental psycholinguistics' in Smith, F., & Miller, G.
(eds.), The Genesis of Language, Cambridge, Mass, MIT
J.M. (ed.) (1990a), Two First Languages: Early Grammatical Development in
Bilingual Children, Dordrecht, Foris
J.M. (1990b), 'Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children', in
Hyltenstam, K., & Obler, L.K. (eds.), Bilingualism across the Lifespan,
C. (1992), 'Constructing the frame in intrasentential code-switching', Multilingua,
G.S. (1987), 'On second-language acquisition of voiced stops', Journal of
Phonetics, 15, 313-322
G. (1978), 'On the acquisition of prosodic and articulatory features in adult
language learning', Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 163-174
E. (1970), 'Zum Spacherwerb des Kindes in Zweisprachiger Umgebung', Folia
Linguistica, 4, 330-358
J. (1991), Functional Categories and Parametric Variation, Routledge,
S. (1976), 'A sensitive period for the acquisition of of a non-native
phonological system', Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 261-285
R. (1992), Linguistic Imperialism, OUP
J-Y. (1989), 'Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP', Linguistic
Inquiry, 20, 365-424
S. (1989), Bilingualism, Blackwell, Oxford
J. (1913), Le développement du langage observé chez un enfant bilingue,
V. (1967), Mehrsprachigkeit im Vorschulalter, Gleerup, Lund
J. (1988), 'Second language acquisition and its relationship to Universal
Grammar', Applied Linguistics, 9, 3, 219-235
H., Krashen, S., & Ladefoged, P. (1975), 'Maturational constraints in the
acquisition of second languages', Language Sciences, 38, 20-22
D. (1989), Language Acquisition: The Age Factor, Multilingual Matters,
M.E., & Smith, M.E. (1992), 'Assignment of gender to French nouns in primary
and secondary language: a connectionist model', Second Language Research,
8, 1, 39-58
K.K., & Sridhar, S.N. (1986), 'Bridging the paradigm gap; second language
acquisition theory and indigenised varieties of English', World Englishes,
5, 1, 3-14
M., & Wesche, M. (1975), 'Linguistic interaction: case story of a bilingual
child', Language Sciences, 37, 17-22
A. (1962), 'L'acquisition du langage parlé chez un petit enfant en milieu
bilingue', Problemes de Psycho-linguistiques, 8, 205-219
T. (1983), The Sun is Feminine, Springer, Berlin
M.M. (1982), 'The acquisition of morphology by a bilingual child', Applied
Psycholinguistics, 3, 141-160
V., & Taeschner, T. (1978), 'The acquisition and development of language by
bilingual children', Journal of Child Language, 5, 2, 311-326
K., & Manzini, M.R. (1987), 'Parameters and learnability', in Roeper, T.,
& Williams, E. (eds.), Parameters and Linguistic Theory, Reidel,