Tense and aspect in late stages of child second language acquisition of French a comparative study of child learners (cL2), simultaneously bilingual (2L1) and monolingual
children (L1)
Maria Kihlstedt
Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense
CNRS UMR 7114 MoDyCo
Compared to monolingual first language acquisition (L1), and adult second language
acquisition (aL2), relatively little is known about about child second language acquisition
(cL2). In the literature, differences between aL2 acquisition and L1 acquisition have been
repeatedly confirmed, whereas it is still an open question as to whether cL2 acquisition
proceeds like aL2, like L1 or like the simultaneous acquisition of two first languages (2L1).
The studies on this question, still fairly scarce, are all but conclusive (cf. e.g Unsworth 2005,
Montrul 2008, Tracy & Thoma in press , Meisel 2009).
In a pilot study (Granfeldt, Schlyter and Kihlstedt 2007), this question was adressed in
comparing 14 children attending the same school (Lycée Français de Stockholm).: 7 French
cL2 children (5 and 6 years old), 5 2L1 children and 2 L1 control children of the same age.
Despite similarities in general level (MLU and lexical diversity), a qualitiative difference
existed between cL2 and 2L1 children in four morphosyntactic phenomena (verb agreement,
tense, gender and object clitics). The cL2 children showed similarities with aL2. As regards
tense, this meant omissions of past tense marking (use of a present default form or a non-finite
long form) and little and/or erroneous use of imparfait, which was restricted to state verbs and
used in a small range of its possible values, as observed previously in adult L2 French by
Dietrich et al. 1995, Schlyter 2003, Benazzo & Starren 2007, Howard 2002, Kihlstedt 2002).
However, for past tense morphology, a clear evolution was observed in that the most
advanced L2 children showed no or little difference with the simultaneously bilingual
children.
In the present study, these two most advanced cL2-children are in focus. They are
studied longitudinally from 6 years to 8 years, i.e. from 2 to 4 years of exposure. The data
consists of spontaneous conversations, including questions supposed to elicit past tense and
especially l’imparfait. All verbs forms were coded according to their form and the temporoaspectual function they expressed.
At later stages of French cL2, children seem to catch up with their monolingual or
bilingual peers and use past tense morphology as in (2)L1 (Harley 1992, Devitt 1992, Paradis
& Crago 2000). Little is known however about the temporal relations and the functions
expressed by past tense morphology in children’s L2. These aspects are focused in the present
study and the following questions will be addressed:
1. What tense and aspect forms and functions are used at late stages of cL2 acquisition ?
2. To what extent and in what manner do they differ from
a. simultaneously bilingual children
b. monolingual children
c. adult L2 acquisition
The results clearly show that the gap between the “late” cL2 children and the (2)L1 children
diminishes, and, more importantly, varies according to what aspect of temporality is at stake :
whereas some deviant morphology lingers on even after 4 years of exposure to French,
temporal relations between events and the functions expressed by the imparfait show little or
no difference as compared to the (2) L1 children. These differences will be discussed in the
light of age of onset of acquisition, task variation and cognitive advantages of child L2
acquisition of temporality.
Benazzo, S. & Starren, M. (2007). L’émergence de moyens grammaticaux pour
exprimer les relations temporelles en L2. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue
Étrangère (AILE) 25, 129-158.
Devitt, S. (1992.) Form and function in the developing verb systems of five learners of
French as a second language. PhD. University of Dublin, Trinity college.
Dietrich, R., Klein, W. & Noyau, C. (1995). The Acquisition of Temporality in a Second
Language. Studies in Bilingualism 7. Amsterdam:John Benjamins
Granfeldt, J., Schlyter, S., Kihlstedt M. (2007.) “French as cL2, 2L1 and L1 in preschool children” PERLES Lund University 24, pp.7-42.
Harley, B. (1992) « Patterns of second language development in French immersion ».
Journal of French Language Studies 2:159-183.
Howard, M. (2002). « Les interrelations entre les facteurs contextuels contraignant
l’emploi variable des temps du passé ». Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée
VII-2
Kihlstedt, M. (2002). « Reference to past events in dialogue. The acquisition of tense
and aspect by advanced learners of French. » Salaberry, R., Shirai, Y.Tense-Aspect
Morphology in L2 Acquisition, Amsterdam :John Benjamins. pp. 323-362
Meisel, J. (2009). Age du début de l’acquisition successive du bilinguisme: effets sur le
développement grammatical. In M. Kail, M. Fayol & M. Hickmann (Eds.),
Apprentissage des langues, 245-272. Paris: CNRS Editions.
Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism. Re-examining the Age
Factor. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Paradis, J. & Crago, M. (2000) “Tense and temporality: a comparison between children
learning a second language and children with SLI”. Journal of Speech, Language and
Hearing Research 43(4): 834-847.
Schlyter, S.(2003) "Development of verb morphology and finiteness in children and
adults acquiring French."In C. Dimroth & M. Starren (eds) Information structure,
linguistic structure, and the dynamics of learner language (pp. 15-45). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Tracy, R. & Thoma, D. (sous presse). Convergence on finite V2 clauses in L1, bilingual
L1 and early L2 acquisition. In P. Jordens & C. Dimroth (Eds.), Functional Elements:
Variation in Learner Systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Unsworth, S. (2005) Child L2, Adult L2, Child L1: Differences and Similarities. A Study
on the Acquisition of Direct Object Scrambling in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT. Doctoral
dissertation.