1 BILINGUAL CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SYSTEMS – TO INTERACT OR NOT TO INTERACT ? 1 Virginia C. Mueller Gathercole Rocío Pérez Tattam Hans Stadthagen-González Address for Correspondence: V. Mueller Gathercole Linguistics Program Florida International University Miami, FL 33199 USA [email protected] 305-348-6390 In E. M. Thomas & I. Mennen (Eds.) (in press). Unravelling bilingualism: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 1 Acknowledgments: This work is supported in part by WAG grants on "Standardised measures for the assessment of Welsh" and on "Continued development of standardised measures for the assessment of Welsh" (Gathercole PI, Thomas co-investigator), ESRC grant RES-062-23-0175 (Gathercole PI, Thomas co-investigator), and ESRC/WAG/HEFCW grant RES-535-30-0061 (Deuchar, Gathercole, Baker, & Thierry). Many thanks to the schools, teachers, parents, children, and adults who participated in these studies. Without their generous cooperation, this work could not be accomplished. We are also grateful to Ruba Moawad, Emily Roberts, Catrin Hughes, Emma Hughes, Nia Young, Leah Jones, Nestor Viñas Guasch, Cynog Prys, Kelly Davis, Sinead Dolan, Katie Gibbins, Craig Harris, Cheryl King, Siwan Long, Hannah Perryman, Mirain Rhys, and Kathryn Sharp, who collected a portion of the data in conjunction with other projects, with their final year projects, or as paid hourly assistants. 2 ABSTRACT This chapter focuses on bilingual children’s construction of their linguistic system(s), with attention to the question of where interaction between the two languages is or is not observed. We examine data concerning the development and relationship of the morphosyntactic systems and the organization of the semantic systems. With regard to the acquisition of the morphosyntactic system in each language, the role of the input, influences on the timing of development, and the question of possible acceleration when there are commonalities across the languages are discussed. In relation to semantics, the influence of linguistic differences across the two languages and the fact that the construction of the semantic system(s) is grounded in a common cognitive space will be proposed as key. A model of development is presented according to which predictions regarding interaction revolve around this construction of the two languages linked to a common cognitive base. 3 One of the key questions concerning the acquisition of language in bilingual children is the extent to which the two languages the child is learning interact and influence one another in development. Are developments in the two languages different from corresponding developments in the linguistic systems of their monolingual peers, and if so, where do the differences lie? A great deal of research on these questions has focused on grammatical development. A number of theoretical stances make predictions concerning the most likely components of the grammar to undergo interaction and concerning the nature of the relationship between the grammars of the two languages necessary for such interaction to occur. Recent research has also focused increasingly on semantic knowledge in bilinguals, and has documented a wide variety of cases of interaction (Ameel, Storms, Malt, & Sloman, 2005; Ameel, Malt, Storms, & Van Assche, 2009; Brown & Gullberg, 2008a, 2008b; Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008; Pavlenko, 2003, 2009; Wolff & Ventura, 2009) between the two systems. This chapter will explore the question of interaction in these two domains. First, we will examine whether predictions regarding morphosyntactic systems hold in relation to Welsh-English-speaking children's acquisition of grammatical forms in their two languages. The data will suggest that any relationship that is observed in acquisition is more likely due to cognitive, metalinguistic, and metacognitive advances in the child than it is to specific grammatical comparisons across the two languages. The chapter will then examine possible interactions in the semantic systems of bilinguals. We will present some of the work we have been doing to examine this question, and will argue for a model in which the semantic systems of the bilingual's languages interact with that bilingual's cognitive understanding of the world. Finally, a model of development that draws on constructivist-emergentist approaches to language learning in children can help to explain the effects documented here—the low occurrence of interaction in developing morphosyntactic systems, and the higher incidence of convergence in the bilingual's semantic systems. BACKGROUND The question of the nature and location of influence between the two languages of a bilingual has longstanding roots in even the earliest work on second language acquisition. 4 Researchers in that tradition have long concerned themselves with the question of when "transfer" occurs, in which direction (L1 to L2, but also L2 to L1?), and under what conditions (Gass, 1980; Dulay & Burt, 1974a, 1974b; Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982; Krashen, 1982; Lado, 1957). Early on, researchers recognized that there may need to be some similarity between the two languages for transfer to occur (e.g., Andersen's (1983) "Transfer to Somewhere" principle and Wode's (1978) "Crucial Similarity Measure"; but see Kellerman's (1995) "transfer to nowhere" principle) -- but it was also recognized that transfer does not always occur in cases of structural similarity in the two languages, because of speakers' expectations about what might possibly be transferable (Kellerman, 1978, 1983; Krashen, 1983). In more recent years, such questions addressing L2 acquisition have re-emerged in relation to simultaneous bilinguals. In examining the types of transfer that may or may not occur, researchers working within a Chomskyan, modular tradition have proposed that language interaction in bilinguals is not likely to occur within the "internal interfaces" of a grammar (i.e., within the morphological, syntactic, and semantic modules of the grammar), but are highly likely to occur within the "external interfaces" of the grammar – at the points at which, e.g., syntax and pragmatics come together (Sorace 2003, White 2009, Tsimpli & Sorace 2006; Hulk & Müller, 2000). Thus, one might predict that bilinguals carry over from one language to the other the syntactic means through which pragmatic elements such as topic-comment relations are expressed, but not, for example, the verbal endings from one language to the other. Some have proposed in addition that there must be overlap, or similarity, across the surface structures of the two languages in order for the child to carry over aspects from one language to the other (Hulk & Müller 2000, Döpke 2000, Paradis & Genesee 1996). (See Gathercole, 2007, for discussion.) Very recently, as there has been growing recognition that (a) the developmental progression of bilinguals follows much the same route as it does in monolinguals (Gathercole & Hoff, 2007; Gathercole, 2007; Rieckborn, 2005, 2006; Kupisch, 2004; Håkansson, Salameh & Nettelbladt, 2003; Li & Associates, Inc., 2005) and that (b) the progression of bilinguals may initially be timed slightly behind that of monolinguals (Gathercole & Hoff, 2007; Gathercole & Thomas, 2005; 5 Gathercole, Thomas, & Laporte, 2001; Pearson, 2002; Kupisch, 2004; Rieckborn, 2005, 2006; Pearson, Fernandez, & Oller, 1993; Oller & Eilers, 2002), researchers have been taking a closer look at potential interactions between the bilingual's two grammatical systems as they develop. The clearest evidence for such interaction would be if the progression for some particular structures in one of the bilingual's languages is out of line with the general progression one might expect given the general level of exposure by the bilingual child to that language. It might be, for example, that the acquisition of some aspect of one of the languages can "boost" the development of a comparable form in the child's other language, resulting in acceleration in the acquisition of that form; or, conversely, it might be that when there are differences between the structures in the two languages, this might make their discovery in either language harder, leading to a greater delay in acquisition than might be expected. Indeed, some research suggests that similarity of form across languages might help boost the bilingual child's acquisition of forms in one of her languages. This might be particularly true in cases in which the forms in one language are more complex than they are in the other, so the ease of acquisition in the latter may help facilitate acquisition in the former. A nice example can be found in Fernández Fuertes & Liceras' (2010) study of the acquisition of copulas in two Spanish-English bilingual children. These researchers asked whether the more functionally prominent copulas, ser and estar, in Spanish might help these children to discover and use the copula be in English earlier than their monolingual counterparts do. These authors point out that (a) Spanish has two copulas, ser and estar – ser for individual-level predicates (permanent) and estar for stage-level predication (temporary state), (b) ser and estar help Spanish-speaking children to establish inflectional categories early, and (c) English-speaking monolingual children show high omission of copula be (Becker, 2000, 2004) (e.g., "I in the kitchen" (Nina, 2;01; Suppes, 1974, CHILDES). So, they reasoned, perhaps the early development of inflectional categories in Spanish will help Spanish-English (S-E) bilinguals develop inflectional categories in English, and thus promote the early correct use of overt be. Given that the common progression in development in English is for early non-use of be followed by later insertion of be as 6 the child matures (Brown, 1973; Becker 2000, 2004), would Spanish-English bilingual children show earlier movement to the non-omission of be in English than their monolinguals peers? These researchers found that the two S-E bilingual children they studied did indeed show earlier use of explicit be than monolinguals do. The earlier use was documented to occur whether the use of be was broken down by adjective type (into individual-level adjectives, which occur with ser in Spanish, versus stage-level adjectives, which occur with estar) or into uses with two predicate types (nominal predicates, which take ser, versus locative predicates, which take estar). See Tables 1 and 2, adapted from Fernández Fuertes & Liceras (2010). They document the bilinguals' earlier use of be for all types, but especially for uses corresponding to estar in Spanish. Complementary data, also from Spanish-English simultaneous bilingual children, come from Silva-Corvalán (2005, 2009). In her work, Silva-Corvalán examined two S-E bilingual children's use of overt subjects in Spanish and English. Spanish is a null subject language, English uses non-null subjects, and Spanish-speaking monolingual children show early and continued use of null Subjects. Silva-Corvalán examined whether either language influenced the other in these two children's use of subjects. One of the children, from early on, showed correct use of null subjects in Spanish. The other, however, showed overuse (incorrect use) of overt subjects in Spanish, presumably because of the influence of overt subjects in English. Such findings suggest that there may indeed be cases in which the grammar of one language affects the other in bilingual children. Two factors are of note, however. One is that language dominance effects may play a role (e.g., in Silva-Corvalán's subjects, one was dominant in Spanish, the other dominant in English). The other is that there may be additional factors in operation, such as a possible preference for overt forms over covert forms, in such cases. In another study, Serratrice and Sorace discovered that even Italian-Spanish bilinguals (speaking two languages both of which have null subjects) over-used overt subjects (Serratrice et al., 2009; Sorace et al., 2009; Sorace & Serratrice, 2009). It is crucial in examining questions regarding interaction and regarding any potential facilitation or acceleration in bilinguals that the issues be viewed within the broader perspective in 7 which other factors, such as normal processes of acquisition, frequency of exposure, and languagespecific complexity, are taken into account. As noted above, all things being equal, bilingual children's timing of development, but not sequence (Gathercole, 2007), is generally dependent on relative amount of exposure to the language in question (Gathercole, 2007; Gathercole & Hoff, 2007). Thus, for example, in the Welsh-English context, the development of Welsh is in advance in children who come from homes in which only Welsh is spoken relative to those from homes in which both Welsh and English or only English are spoken, but the acquisition of English proceeds in advance in children who come from homes in which only English is spoken relative to those from homes in which both Welsh and English or only Welsh are spoken, and so forth (Gathercole, in press; Gathercole & Thomas, 2009). At the same time, all children learn aspects of Welsh that are less complex earlier, in sequence, than aspects that are more complex. For example, grammatical gender, which is quite opaque in Welsh, is learned quite late (and may never be fully mastered) by children from all home language backgrounds (Gathercole, Laporte & Thomas, 2005; Gathercole & Thomas, 2005, 2009; Thomas & Gathercole, 2005, 2007). Keeping these factors in mind, in the following sections, we examine, first, the grammatical development in Welsh-English bilinguals more closely for potential interactions, and, second, potential interactions in another realm, that of linguistic semantics. GRAMMATICAL ABILITIES In order to examine the children's knowledge of grammatical structures in each language, we developed receptive grammatical tests in each language that covered roughly comparable structures in the two languages and that could be expected to develop over a protracted period of development (see Gathercole et al, in press, for further details). Thirteen sets of structures were chosen for inclusion in the tests, namely the following: Active Sentences Negation Passive (truncated) Comparative 8 Superlative Present Perfect Future Time Conjunctions (before/after/until) OS Relative Clauses SS Relative Clauses SO Relative Clauses Quantification, Universal or Exhaustive (every, both) Quantification, Existential or Non-exhaustive (some, not all) An example of each type of structure for English and Welsh is shown in Table 3. PLACE TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE. These structures are listed in Table 3 in an order that we predicted might correspond to the relative difficulty and timing of acquisition, as judged by work in the literature. Thus, for example, we can expect simple active sentences and simple negatives to be learned fairly early in the two languages (Bloom, 1973; Borsley & Jones, 2001; Brown, 1973; Crain & Lillo-Martin, 1999). Passives, Comparatives, Superlatives, Present Perfects, and Futures are expected to be learned between approximately 3 ½ and 5 years of age (Budwig, 2001; Gathercole, 2009; Weist, 2008). Time conjunctions are expected to be understood perhaps somewhat later (age 5 or 6) (Clark, 2003; Coker, 1978; Gathercole, 2009), and relative clauses perhaps somewhat later than that (Hamburger & Crain, 1982; Kidd & Bavin, 2002). Quantifiers take even longer for children to gain a full understanding (Gathercole, 2009; Hurewitz, Gelman, & Schnitzer, 2006; Papafragou, 2003, 2006; Papafragou & Musolino, 2003; Papafragou & Schwarz, 2006). The structures chosen were "roughly comparable" in the sense that they expressed comparable functions, not necessarily in the sense that they involved any similar formation of the structure itself. In fact, we can divide the structures into three types – those that share comparable structural properties in the two languages; those that are mixed, sharing some features of their formation, but differing in other aspects; and those that are clearly distinct in formation. Those that 9 fall into the first type and the last type can be the most instructive in examining whether children "bootstrap" from one language to the other. The prediction would be, if such bootstrapping occurs, that in the case of comparable structures, bilingual children may have an advantage, and in the case of distinct structures, they may have a disadvantage. The structures can be grouped as follows: A. Similar structures: Comparative E: A-er than; W: A-ach na Superlative E: A-est; W: A-af Future: E: will+V; W: wneith+V Universal or Exhaustive Quantification (every, both) E: Q (the) N; W: (yr) Q N Existential or Non-exhaustive Quantification (some, not all) E: not all (of the) N; some (of the) N; W: Neg Aux pob N ddim; rhai (o'r) N The comparative in both languages involves the use of a suffix on the adjective (-er in English, -ach in Welsh) followed by a standard marker (than in English, na in Welsh) introducing the standard of comparison; the superlative is marked by the addition of a suffix on the adjective; (one form of) the future is constructed using a future auxiliary plus the non-finite form of the main verbi; and quantifiers in both languages are pre-nominal (every N, pob N; some of the N, rhai o'r N). B. Those that are structurally dissimilar are the following: Passive E: BE/GET + PP; W: GET Poss V Present Perfect: E: have+PP; W: wedi+V(non-finite) Time conjunctions E: before SV(finite)(O), pro V(finite)(O) W: cyn i SV(non-finite)(O), V(finite) 10 OS Relative Clauses: E: N[that/who V]; W: N[V] SS Relative Clauses: E: N[that/who V]; W: N[V] SO Relative Clauses: E: N[that NP V]; W: N[Art/Complementizer Aux NP O-poss V] The passive in English is formed with an auxiliary be or get followed by the past participle of the main verb, whereas the passive in Welsh is formed with the auxiliary cael 'get' followed by the verb modified by a possessive adjective – the Welsh passive in Table 3 is literally 'got the clown his push'. In the formation of the present perfect, English uses a form of the auxiliary have in combination with the past participle of the verb (e.g., eaten), whereas Welsh uses the auxiliary bod 'be' in combination with the preposition wedi 'after' and the infinitival form of the verb. For structures involving time conjunctions, English and Welsh both have introductory conjunctions (before, cyn), but English before usually introduces a finite clause (before the teacher fell…), while Welsh cyn introduces a non-finite structure (cyn i'r athrawes ddisgyn…. 'before to the teacher falling….' [cf. the relatively formal (and hence unlikely to occur in input to children in English) prior to the teacher falling….]). Finally, relative clauses are also constructed differently. For SO relatives, in English the subject is followed by the relative clause introduced by the (optional) complementizer that, and there is no resumptive pronoun for the direct object in the embedded clause, as in (1): (1) a. The policeman [ that a lady called ___ ] was wearing red shoes. b. The card [ that a painting showed ___ ] had a flower on it. In the equivalent sentences in Welsh, as in (2), there may or may not be a complementizer (here yr) and there may be a resumptive pronoun in the form of a possessive adjective (ei) modifying the embedded verb, as in (2b): 11 (2) a. Roedd yr was plismon [ wnaeth y ddynes ffonio] yn the policeman [ did the lady b. Roedd y cerdyn [ yr oedd was the card [ the was y llun gwisgo sgidiau coch. call] PRT wear yn shoes red ei ddangos ] efo blodyn arno. the picture PRT its show ] with flower on Similarly, with OS and SS relatives, English uses a complementizer, as in (3), whereas Welsh may not, as in (4): (3) A pig smelled the elephant [that ___ was eating an orange ]. (4) Naeth y did mochyn ogleuo'r the pig llyffant [ ___ oedd yn bwyta oren smell-the elephant [ ___ was PRT eat ]. orange ] C. Finally, those constructions that have some structural similarities and some differences are the following: Active E: SVO, W: VSO, AuxSVO Negation: E: S Aux Neg V…; W: Neg-Aux S Neg V English uses SVO as the dominant word order; Welsh uses two word orders, VSO and (more frequently in colloquial speech) AuxSVO. In negation, English uses single negation, with the negative not occurring between the auxiliary and the verb, while Welsh allows double negation, often with a negative particle sentence-initially and the negative form dim internally, although this is oversimplifying a lot (see, e.g., Borsley, 2005). As noted, for the purposes of examining crosslinguistic interaction in development, the most relevant examinations will entail the structures shown in (A), where acceleration might be predicted to occur, and those in (B), where deceleration might be predicted to occur. It should be added as well that, if interaction is more likely to occur in cases involving the interface between syntax and pragmatics, then we could predict interaction especially in the case of those structures that involve pragmatics for their proper use and interpretation. Here, the relevant structures would 12 be the comparative, the superlative, and the quantifier constructions, as these all involve the use of conversational implicature for their proper interpretation (see Gathercole, 2009). Method Stimuli: Three sentences were drawn up for each of the thirteen sets of structures for each of two versions of the test in each language. Two versions of the tests, A and B, were prepared for both languages, so that a given child would not receive the same pictures or translation-equivalent sentences across the two languages. The pictures and items for version A in the two languages were the same, and the pictures and items for version B in the two languages were the same. In each version, each type of grammatical structure was tested with the three trials in a forced-choice picture task, with four picture choices for each trial. The lexical items appearing in versions A and B were the same, but their occurrence was balanced so that they would be heard on distinct trials and in distinct structures across the versions. Approximately half the children received version A in English and B in Welsh, and half version B in English and A in Welsh. Procedure: For each trial, a set of four computerised pictures was presented, and the child was asked to pick the picture that went best with the sentence s/he heard. All verbal stimuli were presented aurally. Five practice trials unrelated to the structures of interest were administered initially, in the relevant language, to familiarize the child with the procedure. Participants: For the English receptive grammar task, 376 children were tested, including monolinguals and bilinguals, and for the Welsh receptive grammar task, all 278 of the bilinguals were tested. The children came from four distinct home language groups, according to the language(s) reported by parents to be the language(s) spoken by them to children in the home: monolingual English, bilinguals with only English at home ("OEH"), bilinguals with both Welsh and English at home ("WEH"), and bilinguals with only Welsh at home ("OWH"). 13 Children came from four distinct age groups, 2-3 (mean age 3;3, range 2;1-4;0), 4-5 (mean age 5;0, range 4;1-6;8), 7-8 (mean age 8;1, range 7;0-8;11), and 13-15 (mean age 14;8, range 13;015;8). The number of children tested at each age is shown in Table 4 by home language. The breakdown of ages, with means and median ages for each home language group at each age, is shown in Table 5. PLACE TABLES 4 & 5 ABOUT HERE. Results General Findings: The full report of the overall results from the study can be found in Gathercole et al. (in press). To summarize the general results: Children from all home language groups progressed in the same sequence across structures, but at the earliest ages, for both languages, those children who had the greatest amount of input in the given language performed in advance of those from homes in which less input in that language was available. The general progression by home language group and age is shown in Figures 1 and 2 (from Gathercole et al., in press). PLACE FIGURES 1 AND 2 ABOUT HERE. Comparisons across the ages showed the greatest differences across home language groups at the youngest ages, and subsequent convergence in performance with age. Thus, at the youngest ages, home language groups tended to perform differently, according to the level of exposure to the language in question. In English, at ages 2-3 and 4-5, Mon E children generally performed significantly differently from OEH, WEH, and OWH children; and at age 7-8, while OEH children no longer performed differently from Mon E children, WEH and OWH children still performed less well than the Mon E children. In Welsh, at ages 4-5 and 7-8 the differences across home language groups was most apparent, with OEH children most clearly distinct from OWH children, with the WEH children performing between these two. 14 As children got older, the home language groups gradually became less distinguishable. By ages 13-15, all children in both languages performed in an equivalent fashion. Thus, early differences across groups became neutralized with age. Within that general progression, however, it is possible that bilinguals experienced acceleration in the case of some structures. In order to explore this possibility, two further sets of analyses were conducted – first, correlations between the English and Welsh performance were examined; second, the relative performance of the home language groups at each age on the individual structures was investigated. Again, the reasoning with regard to correlations was that if some type of bootstrapping was occurring, we might expect correlations on the performance in English and Welsh in cases in which English and Welsh were comparable in structure, but not where English and Welsh differ in structure. If, on the other hand, correlations occurred in cases in which the structures were dissimilar, this would suggest that some other factor – e.g., requisite cognitive preparation for use of the structures in question or a more general linguistic advancement, such as expanded MLU length – might account for correlations in performance. Correlational analyses of scores on the two tests, reported in Gathercole et al. (in press), showed that, indeed, there were significant correlations between the total scores on the English and Welsh tests at ages 2-3, r = .552, p = .000, at ages 7-8, r = .353, p = .001, and at ages 13-15, r = .384, p = .001, but not at age 4-5, r = .144, n.s. There were significant correlations on the following sub-scores: At age 2-3: Similar structures: comparatives r = .405, p=.012; future r = .395, p= .014; Dissimilar structures: time conjunctions r = .481, p = .002; SO relatives: r = .480, p = .002. At age 4-5: Similar structures: comparatives r = .279 p = .022; existential/non-exhaustive quantification r = .319, p = .010; Dissimilar structures: passive r = .241, p=.050; OS relatives r = .276, p = .024. At age 7-8: Similar structures: existential/non-exhaustive quantification r = .441, p = .000; Dissimilar structures: SO relatives r = .241, p = .029; 15 Other: actives: r = .296, p = .006. At age 13-15: Similar structures: universal/exhaustive quantification r = .410, p = .000; Dissimilar structures: passive r = .297, p = .010; present perfect r = .299, p = .010. Note that the correlations that hold at the different ages on substructures of the two languages do so for both comparable structures (e.g., the comparative) and dissimilar structures (e.g., relative clauses, passives). This suggests that, rather than children bootstrapping from the syntactic structures of one language to the other, there may be a certain cognitive preparedness or a general linguistic preparedness that allows children to map some cognitive understanding or linguistic advance they have gained with the linguistic means for expressing that in each language. For example, for proper use of the comparative (in any language), one must come to a certain level of appreciation of comparison between entities, and of the relative position of two values on a given scale (see Gathercole, 2009). For the proper use of relative clauses, there must be, among other things, an ability to hold multiple components of a sentence in memory and an ability to coordinate multiple grammatical/theta roles for nominal elements expressed in the sentence, or a meta-linguistic appreciation that such multiple relations can hold within a single sentence. Such advances could easily affect advances in both languages at the same time. Acceleration by Group? To examine the question of possible acceleration more closely, one further set of analyses would be relevant. We can examine the relative performance across the home language groups at each age on the relevant structures – those for which similarity might encourage transfer and those for which dissimilarity might lead to depressed performance. But which bilinguals are most likely to show a boost? There are several possible predictions regarding performance across home language groups, if interaction does indeed lead to acceleration. First, it is possible that all bilinguals gain a boost, relative to monolinguals, from a structure in language B in learning language A. If so, their performance relative to monolinguals on that structure should exceed expectations, in relation to the general level of their performance, and might even exceed that of the monolinguals (as in, e.g., the data reported by Fernández-Fuertes & 16 Liceras, 2010). So, for example, let's say that the OEH children generally perform across structures with mean scores approximately 20% lower than the scores obtained by the English monolinguals. With a boost on a particular structure, the OEH children might perform at only 10% below the monolinguals, at the same rate, or even higher than the monolinguals. Similar expectations would hold for the WEH and the OWH children on the same structures, relative to their overall performance. A second possible prediction regarding which bilinguals might show a boost in language A might concern only those bilingual children who are most advanced in language B. These more advanced bilinguals might be the ones who are best placed for transferring from language B to language A, given their greater grounding/knowledge of language B. This would mean, for example, that the greatest boost in English would occur in the OWH children because of transfer from their dominant language, Welsh, and the greatest boost in Welsh would occur in the OEH children because of transfer from their dominant language, English. (These same bilinguals would be predicted to show some delay as well in the cases of those structures that differed in the two languages.) A final possible prediction of which bilinguals might show a boost concerns those bilinguals who are most balanced in their knowledge of the two languages. These bilinguals may be better able to draw connections between language A and language B than those who are dominant in one of the languages, and therefore may be more likely to transfer back and forth between the two languages than either of the other two groups. In this case, the prediction would be that boosts would occur in our data in the WEH group for both languages, insofar as these children are the most likely to receive input in both languages on a consistent basis. (Again, the prediction would also be that these bilinguals would show the greatest delay in those structures that differed in the two languages.) These three possibilities are shown in columns 3 and 4 of Table 6. PLACE TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE. 17 In order to examine performance, to determine whether any of the three types of predictions are substantiated by the data, mean scores [out of 3] for each structure at each age by each home language group were examined. The mean scores are shown in Table 7 for English and Table 8 for Welsh. Scores for structures that are similar in Welsh and English are shown in the top half of the Tables, those that are dissimilar in the bottom half. The average mean scores for all 13 structures for each home language group are also shown for each age at the bottom of each Table. To assess whether acceleration or deceleration occurred in any given instance, the following calculations were performed. First, at each age, the relation between the mean score of each home language group to that of those who were most proficient in the language – the monolinguals for English and the OWH group for Welsh—was determined. This relation is expressed as a percentage at the bottom of Tables 7 and 8. (E.g., for English, at age 2-3, the OEH children's scores were generally 24.5% lower than those of the monolinguals; the WEH children's were 47.2% lower; and the OWH children's were 50.0% lower.; for Welsh, at age 2-3, the WEH children's scores were 25.3% lower than the OWH children's, and the OEH children's scores were 45.6% lower; and so forth.) Given this overall relative performance at each age for each home language group, each sub-score was then examined to see if it fell within the normal performance for that home language group. An arbitrary leeway margin was set at 10% of the monolingual score around the mean range for the given group. Any scores that did not fall within the given mean range plus or minus that 10% are shown boxed in bold in the Tables. Those above the expected range are shown boxed with solid bold lines; those below that range are shown boxed with broken bold lines. PLACE TABLES 7 AND 8 ABOUT HERE. On examination of these data, we can see the following. First, there are relatively few cases of acceleration, at least as defined here. There are only two cases for English, five for Welsh -- in contrast to 20 cases of depressed scores for English and 25 for Welsh. Secondly, the cases in which acceleration is observed fall into both the upper and lower structures in the charts – i.e., in both cases where acceleration could be predicted to occur and cases for which deceleration might be 18 predicted. The specific cases here where possible acceleration is shown are, in English, in the 2- to 3-year-old OWH children's performance on the comparative, and the 4- to 5-year-old OEH children's performance on the SO relatives; and in Welsh, in the WEH children's performance on the future at age 2 to 3 and on partial quantification, the present perfect, SS relatives, and SO relatives at ages 4 to 5. Note that the cases in which possible deceleration is observed also fall into both the upper and lower structures. About half fell into the upper structures (9 of 20 in English and 13 of 25 in Welsh) and half into the lower. Such data provide little support for any of the predicted cases under an acceleration hypothesis. That is, there does not appear to be any strong evidence in favor of children's learning how to say X in language A by transferring what they've learned about how to say X in language B. Any cases of relatively advanced performance are few and dispersed, and they do not show a strong advantage for any one sub-group of bilinguals. If that is the case, how, then can we best account for those cases in which acceleration does appear to have occurred? As conjectured above in relation to correlations occurring across the two languages, one plausible explanation is that, rather than reflecting children's bootstrapping from one structure to the other, the effects observed reflect a cognitive, metalinguistic, or metacognitive advance that affects performance in both languages. This would mean, not the transfer of one grammar to the other, but, for example, gaining the cognitive underpinnings necessary for the processing of the structures in question and applying that cognitive knowledge or facility to the acquisition of both languages. Or, alternatively, it could mean gaining a metalinguistic or metacognitive awareness of a message or meaning that can be encoded by language and applying that awareness to the acquisition of both languages. For example, a child may discover (metalinguistically) in one language that future time or recent past time can be a linguistically relevant notion to be encoded, and this may make the discovery of the means to express that in the other language more viable. In summary, careful analysis of bilingual children's abilities in English and Welsh at four ages failed to provide support for an approach positing direct interaction between the 19 morphosyntactic systems of these children's two languages. Any evidence we have seen suggesting that acquisition in the two languages might be "informed" by a common source appear to be better explained as deriving from the child's knowledge at some other level – most likely metalinguistic, cognitive, or metacognitive. SEMANTIC KNOWLEDGE Let us turn to possible interaction in another realm, linguistic semantics. Our particular focus is on lexical semantics encoded differently in bilinguals' two languages. Specifically, in order to examine bilinguals' knowledge of the semantics of their two languages, we have been carrying out a series of studies to examine bilinguals' linguistically related categorization, in particular in cases in which the two languages differ. No two languages cut up the semantic space in exactly the same ways. Thus, for example, English has one word for many types of brush, whereas Spanish distinguishes brushes for hair (cepillo) from brushes for painting (brocha); Spanish categorizes stairs and ladders as one sort of thing (escalera), whereas English mandatorily differentiates stairs from ladders. English has one word, key, for keys to open doors and keys on a computer keyboard, whereas some dialects of Welsh have two totally separate categories for these, goriad vs. allwedd; but Welsh has one word that can be used for both thumbs and big toes, bawd, while English necessarily keeps these separate. English has one word, tree, for all kinds of trees, while Arabic distinguishes deciduous trees, shajarah, from date trees, nakhla; in contrast, Arabic has one category for clocks and watches, saeah, while English keeps these separated into two categories. The question is how bilingual speakers handle such differences internal to the semantics of words in their two languages. We know that one of the tasks of a word-learning child is to learn what the boundaries of application are for words. They make frequent errors of underextension and overextension, indicating that this process is far from simple (Anglin, 1977; Bowerman, 1978; Clark, 1973; Dromi, 1987, 2009; Kay & Anglin, 1979). It is also clear that children are guided by the structure of their specific language in establishing semantic categories; this is widely attested for a wide range of semantic fields (Berman & Slobin, 1994; Bowerman, 1996a, b; Bowerman & 20 Choi, 2001; Choi, 2006; de León, 2009; Gathercole & Min, 1997; Gathercole, Thomas, & Evans, 2000; Imai & Gentner, 1997; Li, 2009; Narasimhan & Brown, 2009; Weist, 2008). Yet, at the same time, the possible semantic organization children entertain is far from random – it is to some extent informed by the (nonlinguistic) cognitive knowledge of the child. Thus, for example, children's overextensions are often based on similarity of shape and function, seldom by similarity of color or size (Clark, 1973). That is, children's semantic hypotheses are affected by their cognitive knowledge of what is likely to be judged as "similar" on some level. We hypothesized that bilinguals' establishment of semantic categories in their two languages would be influenced by the two languages in question, in interaction with their growing cognitive understanding of the world. This would be especially true of early bilinguals, such as simultaneous bilinguals and early L2 bilinguals, less likely with late L2 bilinguals. In the latter case, categorization in the L1 has been established by the time the acquisition of the L2 begins, so the hypothesis was that such bilinguals are more likely to exemplify L1-to-L2 transfer of semantic categories than L2-to-L1. We also hypothesized that the level of interaction would depend on the type of category. In our research, we have grouped semantic, language-specific categories into three major types, based on the semantics of the wider words (e.g., brush, escalera, key, bawd, tree, and saeah in the examples above). First, a "classical category" is one that contains items whose membership, despite the fact that they are objectively, "-etically"ii, distinguishable, is specifiable in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. Thus, for example, among the categories mentioned above, bawd in Welsh (containing both thumbs and big toes) can be defined as 'the largest of 5 digits extending from any of the 4 limbs of a human', escalera in Spanish (containing both stairs and ladders) as 'a multi-runged vertical construction used to ascend by foot to a higher height', and saeah in Arabic (clocks and watches) as 'a timepiece'. A second major type or category is a "radial category" (Lakoff, 1987), in which a central application of a word has been conventionally extended in a motivated fashion beyond the central use, but for which membership cannot be specified with necessary and sufficient conditions. Thus, for example, aien in Arabic has as its 21 central application eyes, but it is also used, by metaphorical, but conventionalized, extension to stove burners; pintura in Spanish refers centrally to paint, but it also is used for the product of paint, a painting; pen in Welsh refers to a head, but also to the end or top of something, such as the top of a list; and glass in English refers centrally to the material, but has been conventionally extended to drinking receptacles made from this material, and then also any similar drinking receptacle, even if it is made of plastic. We might represent such classical and radial types as F1 and F2 in the hypothetical language A at the top in Figure 3 (from Gathercole & Moawad, 2010: 7). F1 represents a lexical form that refers in the cognitive space to –etically distinguishable referents, x and y, but the language pulls these together by F1 under a common meaning, m1, with m1 specifiable via necessary and sufficient conditions. F1 is an example of a classical category in language A.iii F2 is an example of a radial category. It represents a lexical form that refers in the cognitive space to distinguishable referents, a and b, that are linked in some way, by similarity of shape, function, association, or the like, but, crucially, a and b do not share a set of criterially defining features. The language pulls a and b together by F2 under a (complex) meaning structure m2. PLACE FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE. These can be compared with a third type, homophones, represented by F3 in Figure 3. Homophones are words that share the same form (phonological shape), but they refer to items so distant in the cognitive space, p and q, that no speaker of language A would consider the referents to belong to the same category, even though the language could be considered to be "inviting" them to do so. These contrast with the categories in the hypothetical language B, in Figure 3, in which each of the referents shown in the conceptual space—x, y, a, b, p, and q—all have distinct labels or forms in language B, and, hence, belong to distinct categories, each of which corresponds to a different semantic meaning. Our primary question has been how bilinguals process categories such as those shown in Figure 3, when their two languages categorize referents in distinct fashion. We have focused on 22 cases in which one language has a wider category than the other and subsumes two distinct categories from that other language, as in F1 versus f1 and f2 in Figure 3. We have been examining this question with various types of bilinguals from a variety of language pairs, including ArabicEnglish (Gathercole & Moawad, 2010; Gathercole, Moawad, et al., 2009), Welsh-English (Tomos, 2011), and Spanish-English (Gathercole, Stadthagen-González, et al., 2009, 2010, 2011; Gathercole, Thomas, et al., 2008; Stadthagen-González, Pérez-Tattam, et al., 2009). Typical data are those reported for Arabic-English bilinguals (Gathercole & Moawad, 2010; Gathercole, Moawad, et al., 2009). In that case, two sets of bilinguals were studied, early L2 learners of English (beginning E before age 6) and late L2 learners (beginning English after age 12), as well as monolingual speakers of Arabic and English. Speakers were asked to judge which pictures, out of 6, could be labelled by a given word, either in Arabic or English. Words included half in which English had the wider category (like tree), and half in which Arabic had the wider category (like saeah). When the word was from the wider language, two pictures were appropriate; when it was from the narrower language, one picture was appropriate. Words came from classical, radial, and homophonic category types. The results from that study are shown in Figure 4 (from Figure 2, Gathercole & Moawad, 2010: 7) . Those bilinguals tested in English performed much lower than monolingual English speakers when English had a wider category than Arabic. When English was narrower, the bilinguals performed well on the radial and homophonic categories, but on the classical categories, they performed below the monolinguals, especially the early L2 bilinguals. That is, the early bilinguals carried over the wider classical category from Arabic to their L2, English. Those bilinguals tested in Arabic, on the whole, performed similarly to their monolingual Arabic-speaking counterparts. The main exception to this was in performance on classical categories for which English had the wider scope. Here, the early L2 bilinguals applied the wider categorization from English to their L1, Arabic. We have been obtaining similar results in cases of simultaneous bilinguals (Tomos, 2011; Gathercole & Moawad, 2010; Gathercole, StadthagenGonzález, et al., 2009, 2010, 2011; Gathercole, Thomas, et al., 2008; Stadthagen-González, Pérez- 23 Tattam, et al., 2009), and have found as well that language dominance in the community also plays an important role in how all bilingual groups perform. Our interpretation of such data are that semantic interaction phenomena in bilinguals are, first, widespread, and, secondly, most apparent in the case of categories that bring together items in the conceptual space that are close together—namely, classical categories. Semantic interaction between the two languages is least likely to occur in cases in which the referents are distant conceptually, that is, in the case of homophones. MODEL OF CONSTRUCTING A LANGUAGE How can we account for results such as those above? What model can collectively provide for (1) minimal interaction at the local level (within morphosyntactic constructs); (2) the influence of cognitive, metalinguistic, and metacognitive abilities; and (3) a higher level of interaction within the semantic realm than elsewhere? These phenomena seem to fall out naturally when seen within an emergentist perspective on language development and given the fact that the two languages are being constructed in a single individual with a single brain and cognition. That is these effects are natural consequences of the emergent nature of two languages developing in a single individual. First, certain principles have been documented over the last half century regarding the processes of learning a first language (see Gathercole, 2007). These include the following: 1. Piecemeal acquisition. Children initially accumulate bits and pieces of knowledge in a haphazard fashion. Initially, these pieces may not be linked, and they become linked later only as more and more connections between them are accumulated. 2. Acquisition in context. Children's initial knowledge is embedded within context—including both the situational and real-life context and the linguistic context in which linguistic items are experienced. The latter includes statistical learning, for which there is wide-ranging evidence in acquisition at all levels of the language (e.g., Croker, Pine & Gobet, 2000; Freudenthal, Pine, & Gobet, 2002; Jusczyk, 1999; Li, 2003, 2009; Li, Farkas, & MacWhinney, 2004; Pelucchi, Hay, & Saffran, 2009; Saffran, 2003). 3. Emergence of structure from accumulated knowledge. As the initially piecemeal knowledge 24 grows and begins to form interconnecting links, structural properties emerge, leading often to reorganization and higher-level abstractions of such knowledge (Bowerman, 1982; Elman, et al., 1997; Karmiloff-Smith, 1978. 1979; ). 4. Influence of language on timing and sequence of acquisition. Language is learned in languagespecific fashion. Complexity has to do to a large extent with language-specific properties, including the relative opacity of structures (Gathercole, 2002c; Gathercole, 2007; Gathercole & Hoff, 2007; Gathercole & Montes, 1997; Gathercole, Thomas, & Laporte, 2001; Lieven, 1994; Thomas, 2001; Moawad, 2006), cue reliability, and form-function pairings (MacWhinney, Bates, & Kliegl, 1984; McDonald, 1987). 5. Role of exposure for timing/speed of acquisition. Finally, the speed of acquisition of a language has partly to do with the level of exposure to a language (Li & Associates, Inc., 2005). If we take the first two and the fourth of these and examine their import for bilingual acquisition, the implication is that initial acquisition will respect the contexts in which forms are heard. On the nonlinguistic level, this means we can expect distributed learning – e.g., knowing how to say things in one context in one language, but in another context in the other language. On the linguistic level, this means associating linguistic forms – morphemes, affixes, etc.—with the linguistic contexts in which they have been heard. Children are excellent at picking up the constellations of constructs that they hear together in the input (e.g., Jusczyk, 1999; Saffran, 2003), even in cases of homonymic forms (Clark & de Marneffe, in press; Veneziano & Parisse, 2010). Bilingual children are good at keeping given morphemes, especially bound morphemes, associated with forms with which they have occurred (Gathercole, 2007; Gathercole, 2002a, 2002b; see Deuchar & Vihman, 2005, for early mixing involving predicates). It is not surprising, then, that at a local level, within the morphosyntactic systems of their two languages, bilingual children keep the two languages fairly separate, since they have occurred in separate linguistic constellations in the input. If we take the third principle, whereby some level of abstraction is occurring through multiple linkages, we can expect some interaction between the child's two languages to begin 25 occurring in the places where the two languages might "meet" in such multiple linkages. Where is that likely to occur? Precisely in the place where the two languages must of necessity meet – one of these is at the common cognition through which the languages are being learned and processed. What is included in that common cognition? We can expect it to include at least the following: (1) the child's emerging understanding of the world – including judgments of similarity and differences (of shape, of function, of properties, etc.), of social interaction, and the like; (2) the child's processing abilities – including short term memory span, long term memory, speed of processing phonological input, and the like; (3) the child's growing understanding of the linguistic purposes of language – including what constitutes a proposition, abstraction of what types of meaning can commonly get encoded (e.g., specification of time in the past; spatial relations; quantities; relative quantities), and the like; (4) the child's growing understanding of the pragmatic purposes of language – including the pragmatic structure of discourse into topics and comments, even perhaps the combinatorial potential of oral and gestural communication. We have seen evidence of the first of these, a common understanding of similarity, linked with semantic organization in the bilingual's two languages in our work and others' work on semantic interaction in bilinguals in relation to categorization: The closer in the conceptual space the members of categories are, the more susceptible crosslinguistically non-isomorphic categories are to convergence. The second, the child's processing abilities, we have suggested may be key in relation to the potential acceleration observed above in the area of some types of relative clauses: potential growth in processing capacity may underlie advances in both languages in such areas. Effects related to the third, a meta-cognitive understanding of the uses of language, would include evidence indicating, for example, shared word order across a bilingual's two languages for expressing arguments of propositions; shared use of overt markers for essential elements of propositions, such as subjects; potential acceleration in the expression of general linguistic encoding such as past or future tense marking; and the like. And the fourth, the growing understanding of the pragmatic uses of language, would be operative in cases in which the child discovered, e.g., a particular word order for expressing topics. The full range of expectations still 26 needs to be worked out, but the overriding principle is that it is the unified cognitive and meaning base with which the two languages connect that leads to shared associations between the two languages. This perspective on interactive influences in the languages of bilinguals is radically different from one in which the modules of language are seen as distinct and in which interaction occurs at the interface between those modules. That type of model cannot account for the morphosyntactic facts laid out here, and it lacks power for predicting and explaining interactions of the semantic type explored here, CONCLUSION We have attempted to examine in detail potential evidence for interaction between a bilingual speaker's two systems at two levels, that of morphosyntax and of semantics. Careful analysis of bilingual children's abilities in English and Welsh at four ages failed to provide support for an approach positing direct interaction between the morphosyntactic systems of these children's two languages. Any evidence we have seen suggesting that acquisition in the two languages might be "informed" by a common source appear to be better explained as deriving from the child's knowledge at some other level – most likely metalinguistic, cognitive, or metacognitive. At the same time, evidence on speakers' processing of linguistically encoded categories that differ in their two languages suggest very prolific interactions between the bilingual's two semantic systems. This appears especially true in cases where the semantics encoded have to do with closely related cognitive spaces, and especially in those bilinguals whose linguistic and cognitive development take place contemporaneously, as in simultaneous bilinguals or early L2 learners. Such phenomena can be explained through an emergentist perspective on language development. Principles that appear operative in language acquisition in both monolinguals and bilinguals can help provide insight into the reasons why interaction is observed in some areas and not in others. Such a view leads to further predictions for linguistic phenomena in bilinguals beyond those explored here; future research can help to test the extent to which such predictions are borne out. 27 REFERENCES Ameel, E., Malt, B. C., Storms, G., & Van Assche, F. (2009). Semantic convergence in the bilingual lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 270-290. Ameel, E., Storms, G., Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2005). How bilinguals solve the naming problem. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 60-80. Andersen, R. W. (1983). Transfer to somewhere. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 177-201). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Anglin, J. M. (1977). Word, object, and conceptual development. N.Y.: Norton. Becker, M. (2000). The development of the copula in child English: The lightness of Be. PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Becker, M. (2004). Copula omission is a grammatical reflex. Language Acquisition, 12 (2), 157167. Berman, R.A. & Slobin, D.I. (1994). Narrative structure. In R.A. Berman & D.I. Slobin (eds.) Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study (pp. 39 – 84). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Bloom, L. M. (1973). One word at a time: The use of single word utterances before syntax. The Hague: Mouton. Borsley, R. D. (2005). A new approach to Welsh negation. Paper presented at Twelfth Welsh Syntax Seminar at Gregynog, July 4-5, 2005. Borsley, R. D., & Jones, B. M. (2001), Negation in colloquial Welsh, In R. Cann, C. Grover, & P. Miller (eds.), Grammatical Interfaces (pp. 33-50). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Bowerman, M. (1978). Systematizing semantic knowledge: Changes over time in the child’s organization of word meaning. Child Development, 49, 977–987. Bowerman, M. (1982). Starting to talk worse: Clues to language acquisition from children's late speech errors. In S. Strauss (ed.), U shaped behavioral growth (pp. 101 145). New York: Academic Press. 28 Bowerman, M. (1996a). Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M.F. Garrett (eds.), Language and space (pp. 385-436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bowerman, M. (1996b). The origins of children's spatial semantic categories: Cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In J.J. Gumperz & S.C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 27–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowerman, M. & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and languagespecific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman & S.C. Levinson (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475-511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2008a). Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1-L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 225-251. Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2008b). L1-L2 convergence in speech and gesture: Manner of motion in Japanese and English. Paper presented at International Conference on Models of Interaction in Bilinguals, Bangor, Wales, Oct. 24-26, 2008. Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Budwig, N. (2001). An exploration into children's use of passives. In M. Tomasello & E. Bates (eds.), Language development: The essential readings (pp. 227-247). Oxford: Blackwell. Choi, S. (2006). Influence of language-specific input on spatial cognition: Categories of containment. First Language, 26 (2), 207-232. Clark, E. V. (1973). What's in a word? On the child's acquisition of semantics in his first language. In T. E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 65-110). N.Y.: Academic Press. Clark, E. V. (2003). First language acquisition. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Clark, E.V., & de Marneffe, M.-C. (in press). Constructing verb paradigms in French: Adult construals and emerging grammatical contrasts. Morphology. 29 Coker, P. L. (1978). Syntactic and semantic factors in the acquisition of before and after. Journal of Child Language, 5, 261-77. Crain, S., & Lillo-Martin, D. (1999). An introduction to linguistic theory and language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Croker, S., Pine, J. M., & Gobet, F. (2000). Modelling optional infinitive phenomena. Paper presented at 3rd International Conference on Cognitive Modelling, Groningen, Netherlands. de León, L. (2009). Mayan semantics in early lexical development: The case of the Tzotzil verbs for 'eating' and 'falling down'. In V.C.M. Gathercole (ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman (pp. 69-94). N.Y.: Psychology Press. Deuchar, M., & Vihman, MMV. (2005). A radical approach to early mixed utterances. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 137-157. Döpke, S. (2000). The interplay between language-specific development and crosslinguistic influence. In S. Döpke (ed.) Cross-linguistic structures in simultaneous bilingualism (pp. 79–103). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dromi, E. (1987). Early lexical development. London: Cambridge University Press. Dromi, E. (2009). Old data—new eyes: Theories of word meaning acquisition. In V. C. Mueller Gathercole (ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman (pp. 39-59). N.Y.: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis. Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974a). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-43. Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974b). A new perspective on the creative construction process and child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 253-278. Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press. Elman, J.L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1997). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 30 Fernández Fuertes, R., & Liceras, J. M. (2010). Copula omission in the English developing grammar of English/Spanish bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Models of Interaction in Bilinguals, 13, 525-551. Freudenthal, D., Pine, J., & Gobet, F. (2002). Subject omission in children’s language: The case for performance limitations in learning. In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Fairfax, VA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gass, S. (1980). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language learners. In S.D. Krashen & R.C. Scarcella (eds.), Research in second language acquisition (pp. 132-141). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Gathercole, V. (2002a). Command of the mass/count distinction in bilingual and monolingual children: An English morphosyntactic distinction. In D.K. Oller and R. Eilers (eds.) Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 175-206). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gathercole, V. (2002b). Grammatical gender in bilingual and monolingual children: A Spanish morphosyntactic distinction. In D.K. Oller and R. Eilers (eds.) Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 207-219). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gathercole, V. (2002c). Monolingual and bilingual acquisition: Learning different treatments of that -trace phenomena in English and Spanish. In D.K. Oller and R. Eilers (eds.) Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 220-254). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gathercole, V. C. M. (2007). Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: Constructivist account of morpho-syntactic development in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10 (3), 224-247. Gathercole, V. C. M. (2009). "It was so much fun. It was 20 fun!" Cognitive and linguistic invitations to the development of scalar predicates. In V. C. M. Gathercole (ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman (pp. 319-443). N.Y.: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis. 31 Gathercole, V., & Hoff, E. (2007). Input and the acquisition of language: Three questions. In E. Hoff and M. Shatz (eds), The handbook of language development (pp. 107_127). Oxford: Blackwell. Gathercole, V. C. M., Laporte, N., & Thomas, E. M. (2005). Differentiation, carry-over, and the distributed characteristic in bilinguals: Structural "mixing" of the two languages? In J. Cohen, K. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 838-851). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Gathercole, V., & Min, H. (1997). Word meaning biases or language-specific effects? Evidence from English, Spanish, and Korean. First Language, 17, 31-56. Gathercole, V. C. M., & Moawad, R. 2010. Semantic interaction in early and late bilinguals: All words are not created equally. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (4), 1-22. Gathercole, V. C. M., Moawad, R. A., Stadthagen-González, H., Thomas, E. M., Pérez-Tattam, R., Yavas, F., Campusano, G., Morrish, H., & Tomos, H. (2009). The semantics-cognition interface in bilingual systems: Not all words are created equally. Paper presented at MindContext Divide: Language Acquisition and Interfaces of Cognitive-Linguistic Modules, Iowa City, Iowa, USA, Apr 30-May 2, 2009. Gathercole, V., & Montes, C. (1997). That-trace effects in Spanish-and English-speaking monolinguals and bilinguals. In A. Perez-Leroux & W. Glass (eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish, Vol. 1: Developing grammars (pp. 75-95). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Gathercole, V. C. M., Stadthagen-González, H., Pérez-Tattam, R., Thomas, E. M., Yavas, F., Campusano, G., & Miller, J. (2010). Semantics-cognition synergies in bilinguals: Interaction in Spanish-English bilinguals. Poster presented at the Donostia Workshop on Neurobilingualism, San Sebastian, Sept. 30-Oct. 2, 2010. Gathercole, V. C. M., Stadthagen-González, H., Pérez-Tattam, R., & Yavas, F. (2011). Semantic organization in bilinguals: Impact of co-construction of semantic and cognitive systems in 32 simultaneous and early L2 bilinguals. Paper presented at the 8th International Symposium on Bilingualism, Oslo, Norway, June 15-18, 2011. Gathercole, V. C. M., Stadthagen-González, H., Pérez-Tattam, R., Yavas, F., Viñas Guasch, N., Moawad, R. A., Campusano, G., Morrish, H., Tomos, H., & Hermans, L. (2009). Not all categories are created equally: Semantics and cognition in the emergence of categories in bilinguals. Poster presented at the International Conference on Neurobilingualism, Bangor, Wales, Sept. 19-20, 2009. Gathercole, V. C. M., & Thomas, E. M. (2005). Minority language survival: Input factors influencing the acquisition of Welsh. In J. Cohen, K. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (eds.): ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 852874). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Gathercole, V. C. M., & Thomas, E. M. (2009). Bilingual first-language development: Dominant language takeover, threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12 (2), 213-237. Gathercole, V.C.M, Thomas, E.M., & Evans, D. (2000). What's in a noun? Welsh-, English-, and Spanish-speaking children see it differently. First Language, 20, 55-90. Gathercole, V. C. M., Thomas, E. M., & Laporte, N. (2001). The acquisition of grammatical gender in Welsh. Journal of Celtic Language Learning, 6, 53-87. Gathercole, V. C. M., Thomas, E. M., Stadthagen-González, H., Pérez-Tattam, R., & Yavas, F. (2008). Crosslinguistic categorization and effect of category type in bilingual processing. Poster presented at the International Conference on Models of Interaction in Bilinguals, Bangor, Wales, October 24-26, 2008. Gathercole, Virginia C. Mueller, Thomas, Enlli Môn, Roberts, Emily, Hughes, Catrin, & Hughes, Emma K. In press. Why assessment needs to take exposure into account: Vocabulary and grammatical abilities in bilingual children. To appear in V. C. Mueller Gathercole (ed.), Issues in the Assessment of Bilinguals. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 33 Håkansson, G., Salameh, E-K. & Nettelbladt, U. (2003). Measuring language development in bilingual children: Swedish–Arabic children with and without language impairment. Linguistics, 41 (2), 255–288. Hamburger, H., & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In S. Kuczaj (ed.), Language development: Vol. 1. Syntax and semantics (pp 245-274). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3 (3), 227-244. Hurewitz, F., Papafragou, A., Gleitman, L., & Gelman, R. (2006). Asymmetries in the acquisition of numbers and quantifiers. Language Learning and Development, 2 (2), 7796. Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A crosslinguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169-200. Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. N.Y.: Routledge. Jusczyk, P. (1999). How infants begin to extract words from speech. Trends in Cognitive Science, 3 (9), 323-328. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1978). The interplay between syntax, semantics and phonology in language acquisition processes. In R. N. Campbell & P. T. Smith (Eds.), Recent advances in the psychology of language (pp. 1-23). NY: Plenum. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A functional approach to child language. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press. Kay, D. A. & Anglin, J.M. 1979. Overextension and underextension in the child's receptive and expressive speech. SRCD, San Francisco, Calif., March. Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 15, 59-92. Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don't. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.), Language transfer in Language Learning (pp. 112-134). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. 34 Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistic, 15, 125-150. Kidd, E., & Bavin, E. L. (2002). English-speaking children’s comprehension of relative clauses: Evidence for general-cognitive and language-specific constraints on development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31 (6), 599-617. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. D. (1983). Newmark's "Ignorance Hypothesis" and current second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 135153). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Kupisch, T. (2004). On the relation between input frequency and acquisition patterns from a crosslinguistic perspective. In J. van Kampen & S. Baauw (eds.), Proceedings of GALA 2003 (pp. 199–210). Utrecht: LOT Occasional Series 3. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Li, P. (2003). Language acquisition in a self-organising neural network model. In P. Quinlan (ed.), Connectionist models of development: Developmental processes in real and artificial neural networks (pp. 115–149). Hove, UK & New York: Psychology Press. Li, P. (2009). Meaning in acquisition: Semantic structure, lexical organization, and crosslinguistic variation. In V. Gathercole (ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman. N.Y.: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis. Li, P., Farkas, I., & MacWhinney, B. (2004). Early lexical development in a self-organizing neural network. Neural Networks, 17, 1345–1362. 35 Li, R., & Associates, Inc. (2005). Childhood bilingualism: Current status and future directions, April 22-23, 2004: Workshop summary. Workshop held in Washington, D.C., funded by US Department of Education and US Department of Health and Human Services. Lieven, E. (1994) Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural aspects of language addressed to children. In C. Gallaway & B. Richards (eds.), Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp. 5673). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127150. McDonald, J. (1987). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 379-413. Moawad, R. (2006). The acquisition of the Arabic gender and number systems. PhD thesis, University of Wales Bangor. Narasimhan, B., & Brown, P. (2009). Getting the INSIDE story: Learning to express containment in Tzeltal and Hindi. In V.C.M. Gathercole (ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman (pp. 97-132). N.Y.: Psychology Press. Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. E. (eds.) (2002). Language and literacy in bilingual children. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Papafragou A. (2003). Scalar implicatures in language acquisition: Some evidence from Modern th Greek. Proceedings from the 38 Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Papafragou, A. (2006). From scalar semantics to implicature: Children's interpretation of aspectuals. Journal of Child Language, 33, 721-757. Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semanticspragmatics interface. Cognition, 86, 253-282. Papafragou, A., & Schwarz, N. (2006). Most wanted. Language Acquisition, 13, 207-251. 36 Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition: Autonomous or interdependent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 1-25. Pavlenko, A. (2003). Eyewitness memory in late bilinguals: Evidence for discursive relativity. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7 (3), 257-281. Pavlenko, A. (2009). Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. In A. Pavlenko (ed.) The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 125-160). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pearson, B. (2002). Narrative competence among monolingual and bilingual school children in Miami. In D.K. Oller & R. Eilers (eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 135-174). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pearson, B., Fernández, S. and Oller, D.K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43, 93-120. Pelucchi, B., Hay, J. F., & Saffran, J. R. (2009). Statistical learning in a natural language by 8month-old infants. Child Development, 80, 674-685. Rieckborn, S. (2005). The development of tense and aspect in balanced and unbalanced bilingual children. Paper presented at ISB5, Barcelona, March, 2005. Rieckborn, S. (2006). The development of forms and functions in the acquisition of tense and aspect in German-French bilingual children. In C. Lleó (ed.), Interfaces in multilingualism: Acquisition and representation (pp. 61-89). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12 (4), 110-114. Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., Filiaci, F. and Baldo, M. (2009). Bilingual children's sensitivity to specificity and genericity: Evidence from metalinguistic awareness. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 239-267. Silva-Corvalán, C. (2005). La adquisición del sujeto en el proceso de desarrollo simultáneo del inglés y el español. Memorias, Vol. I (pp. 321-329). XIV Congreso Internacional ALFAL, Monterrey: Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. 37 Silva-Corvalán, C. (2009). La adquisición bilingüe (y trilingüe): Aspectos sintácticos, morfosintácticos y léxicos. In R. M. Ortiz Ciscomani (ed.), IX Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste (pp. 13-14). Hermosillo: Unison. Sorace, A. (2003). Near-nativeness. In M. Long & C. Doughty (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 130-152). Oxford: Blackwell. Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 195210. Sorace, A., Serratrice, L. Filiaci, F. and Baldo, M. (2009). Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: Testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. Lingua, 119, 460477. Stadthagen-González, H., Pérez-Tattam, R., Yavas, F., & Campusano, G. (2009). Language dominance and interaction of LA and LB in Spanish-English adults in Miami. Paper presented at the 7th International Symposium on Bilingualism, Utrecht, The Netherlands, July 8-11, 2009. Thomas, E. (2001). Aspects of gender mutation in Welsh. PhD thesis, University of Wales Bangor. Thomas, E. M., & Gathercole, V. C. M. (2005). Minority language survival: Obsolescence or survival for Welsh in the face of English dominance? In J. Cohen, K. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (eds.): ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 2233-2257). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Thomas, E. M., & Gathercole, V. (2007). Children’s productive command of grammatical gender and mutation in Welsh: An alternative to rule-based learning. First Language, 27 (3), 251278. Tomos, H. (2011). Semantic categorisation of actions and objects in monolingual and bilingual children. PhD Thesis, Bangor University. 38 Tsimpli, I.M., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax semantics and syntax discourse phenomena. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, BUCLD 30 (pp. 653-664). Somerville, MA.: Cascadilla Press. Veneziano, E., & Parisse, C. (2010). The acquisition of early verbs in French: Assessing the role of conversation and of child-directed speech. First Language, 30, 287-311. Weist, R. M. (2008). One-to-one mapping of temporal and spatial relations. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, S. Ervin-Tripp, N. Budwig, S. Özçalişkan & K. Nakamura (eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 69–80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. White, L. (2009). Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. Paper presented at MindContext Divide: Language Acquisition and Interfaces of Cognitive-Linguistic Modules, Iowa City, Iowa, USA, Apr 30-May 2, 2009. Wode, H. (1978). Developmental sequences in naturalistic L2 acquisition. In E. Hatch (ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 101-117). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Wolff, P., & Ventura, T. (2009). When Russians learn English: How the semantics of causation may change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 153-176. 39 ! "! #$ %&' !" (!!) *+*!, - . /, +- 0!12!3- , 2420- 5!36- , +- 7!8 !&19- , *7!: ; <" <=!>?!*[email protected] - 9+1A- !+?. - (! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 40 2 TABLE 2. Data reported in Fernández Fuertes & Liceras (2010) by predicate type. 41 3 Table 3. Types of Structures Tested in Receptive Grammar Tasks. STRUCTURE TYPE ENGLISH Examples WELSH Examples Active The elephant smelled the horse. Gwnaeth yr eliffant ogleuo’r ceffyl. Negation The goats aren’t eating. Tydi'r geifr ddim yn bwyta. Passive (Truncated) The clown was pushed. Cafodd y clown ei wthio. Comparative The tree is taller than the house. Mae'r goeden yn dalach na'r tŷ. Superlative The apple is lowest. Yr afal sydd isaf. Present Perfect He has jumped. Mae o wedi neidio. Future The ducks will jump over the rock. Mi (w)neith y hwyaid neidio dros y garreg. Time Conjunction (before/after/until) Before the teacher fell, she took her hat off. Cyn i'r athrawes ddisgyn, mi dynnodd hi ei het. Relative Clause, OS A circle covers the box that has a ring in it. Mae're cylch yn gorchuddio'r bocs sydd efo modrwy ynddo. Relative Clause, SS The donkey that kicked a cow was wearing socks. Roedd yr asyn (w)na'th gicio'r fuwch yn gwisgo sanau. Relative Clause, SO A dancer that the girl called had a ring. Roedd y dawnsiwr (w)na'th y ferch ffonio efo modrwy. Quantifier, Universal / Exhaustive (every, both) Every princess is on a tractor. Mae pob tywysoges ar dractor. Quantifier, Existential / Not Exhaustive (not all, some) Some of the dancers are wearing dresses. Mae rhai o'r dawnswyr yn gwisgo ffrogiau. 42 ! "! #$%&' !( )!!* $+, -. -/$0, 12!304&-15!$06!7 ' &15!8' . ' /, -9' !: +$; ; $+!< ' $1=+' 12!%>!$4' !4+? =/!$06!5? ; ' !&$04=$4' @! ! ! Age MON E OEH WEH OWH TOT 2-3 23 11 18 22 74 4-5 38 25 20 23 106 7-8 17 30 22 33 102 13-15 20 18 25 31 94 98 84 85 109 376 ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 MON E = monolingual English (only tested in English); OEH = bilingual with only English at home; WEH = bilingual with Welsh and English at home; OWH = bilingual with only Welsh at home ! 43 6 Table 5. Mean (and Median) Ages for Participants, English and Welsh Receptive Grammar Measures, by age group and home language2 Age MON E 2-3 3;6 3;2 3;1 3;1 3;3 (3;7) (3;2) (3;0) (3;1) (3;3) 5;0 5;0 5;1 4;10 5;0 (4;10) (5;0) (5;3) (4;9) (4;11) 7;9 8;1 8;1 8;2 8;1 (7;7) (8;2) (8;1) (8;2) (8;1) 14;7 14;7 14;8 14;9 14;8 (14;10) (15;1) (14;11) (14;9) (14;10) 4-5 7-8 13-15 2 OEH WEH OWH TOT MON E = monolingual English; OEH = bilingual with only English at home; WEH = bilingual with Welsh and English at home; OWH = bilingual with only Welsh at home 44 4 TABLE 6. Predictions regarding acceleration or delay by home language group Prediction A. Similar structures: Comparative Superlative Future Universal / Exhaustive Quantification Existential / Non-Universal Quantification B. Dissimilar structures: Passive Present Perfect Time conjunctions OS Relative Clauses SS Relative Clauses SO Relative Clauses In whom? 1. ALL BILINGUALS: Bilinguals will exceed monolinguals 2. DOMINANT IN OTHER LANGUAGE: Those dominant Acceleration in other language will carry over to this language 3. BALANCED BILINGUALS: Balanced bilinguals will transfer between languages Deceleration ENGLISH WELSH BILS > MONS n.a. OWH > OEH, WEH OEH > OWH, WEH WEH > OEH, WEH WEH > OEH, WEH 1. ALL BILINGUALS BILS < MONS n.a. 2. DOMINANT IN OTHER LANGUAGE OWH < OEH, WEH OEH < OWH, WEH 3. BALANCED BILINGUALS WEH < OEH, WEH WEH < OEH, WEH 45 ! "! #$ %&' !( )!!' * +&, - . !/012314 5670!89!: ;1<7;<10=!5>0=!56? [email protected] 0!A56><5>0!! ! Structures 2-3 4-5 M OEH WEH OWH M OEH WEH OWH M A. Similar: Comparative Superlative Future Universal / Exhaustive Quantification Existential / Non-exhaustive Quantification B. Dissimilar: Passive Present Perfect Time conjunctions OS Relative Clauses SS Relative Clauses SO Relative Clauses AVERAGE, all structures MON - % ! ! ! 7-8 OEH WEH OWH M 13-15 OEH WEH OWH .78 .90 .69 1.13 1.79 1.58 1.32 1.59 3.00 2.79 2.64 2.66 2.95 2.89 2.92 2.94 .83 .91 .91 .60 .80 .60 .54 .39 .54 .56 .50 .44 1.50 1.08 1.68 1.04 1.04 1.08 1.32 1.26 1.26 .82 .91 .91 2.41 2.07 2.12 1.66 2.41 2.52 1.86 2.00 2.32 2.09 1.72 2.28 2.80 2.72 2.80 2.50 2.85 2.78 2.88 2.40 2.80 2.94 2.65 2.71 1.00 .80 .31 .50 1.47 1.42 1.37 1.18 2.71 2.55 2.36 2.41 3.00 2.89 2.84 2.94 1.13 1.00 1.30 .87 .78 1.00 .70 .60 .70 .80 .62 .54 .62 .69 .46 .81 .69 .44 .44 .25 2.26 2.40 1.71 1.40 .95 1.96 2.13 1.04 1.58 1.08 1.84 1.63 1.37 1.32 1.11 1.86 .91 1.27 1.18 .77 2.82 2.71 2.47 2.53 2.24 2.79 2.66 2.03 2.59 2.07 2.55 2.55 1.73 2.41 2.18 2.69 2.31 2.13 2.28 1.91 2.95 2.85 2.70 2.75 2.85 2.94 2.89 2.89 2.56 2.67 2.96 2.84 2.72 2.72 2.60 2.77 2.71 2.81 2.71 2.65 .87 .50 .69 .44 1.08 1.58 1.26 1.09 2.53 2.38 2.09 1.94 2.75 2.56 2.72 2.71 1.06 .83 24.5 .66 47.2 .63 50.0 1.71 1.53 10.5 1.50 12.3 1.25 26.9 2.58 2.43 5.8 2.32 10.0 2.30 10.9 2.86 2.79 2.4 2.79 2.4 2.79 2.4 46 10 TABLE 8. WELSH Performance by structure, age, and home language Structures 2-3 OEH WEH OWH -- 4-5 OEH WEH OWH -- 7-8 OEH WEH OWH -- 13-15 OEH WEH OWH A. Similar: Comparative Superlative .60 .60 .46 .77 .94 .69 .78 .87 1.26 1.05 1.55 1.55 2.35 1.76 2.50 2.05 2.63 2.23 2.89 2.61 2.92 2.56 2.87 2.84 Future .10 .39 .25 .48 .68 .91 .69 1.05 1.60 1.83 1.96 2.68 Universal / Exhaustive Quantification .20 .69 .88 1.00 1.21 1.55 2.41 2.18 2.50 2.89 2.72 2.71 Existential / Non-exhaustive Quantification .50 .46 .81 .91 1.58 1.27 2.45 2.27 2.73 3.00 2.88 2.87 .40 .31 1.13 .91 1.00 1.68 2.17 2.50 2.77 2.83 3.00 2.68 Present Perfect .70 .69 1.06 1.26 1.63 1.36 2.41 2.59 2.50 2.56 2.80 2.65 Time conjunctions OS Relative Clauses SS Relative Clauses .20 .30 .40 .69 .08 .23 .81 .56 .38 1.04 .70 .65 1.26 1.00 1.16 1.32 1.55 .82 1.97 1.97 1.48 1.91 1.96 1.68 2.07 1.93 1.87 2.78 2.28 2.44 2.60 2.32 2.44 2.68 2.55 2.77 SO Relative Clauses .10 .54 .63 .61 1.21 .86 1.28 1.55 1.67 2.06 2.24 2.42 .43 45.6 .59 25.3 .79 .97 33.6 1.30 11.0 1.46 2.03 12.5 2.13 8.2 2.32 2.61 4.4 2.64 3.3 2.73 -- B. Dissimilar: Passive AVERAGE, all structures OWH - % 47 ! "! #$%&' ( !) *!!+( ' , - ' . /01( !- 0!20%3$45!6( 1( 78$9( !: ' /. . /' !; <!=%( !/0>!? - . ( [email protected]/0%&/%( !! ! ! ! ! 3 9 .0 0 ! 3 6 .0 0 ! ! 3 3 .0 0 ! 3 0 .0 0 ! ! 2 7 .0 0 M O N E O E H W E H O W H 2 4 .0 0 2 1 .0 0 1 8 .0 0 1 5 .0 0 1 2 .0 0 9 .0 0 6 .0 0 3 .0 0 0 .0 0 ! 2 3 4 5 7 8 1 3 1 5 M O N E 1 3 .6 6 2 2 .4 0 3 2 .6 5 3 6 .9 0 O E H 1 0 .0 0 1 9 .1 6 3 0 .8 3 3 5 .9 4 W E H 5 .8 3 1 9 .0 0 2 9 .9 1 3 5 .8 8 O W H 5 .9 1 1 6 .3 9 2 9 .3 0 3 6 .2 6 48 8 Figure 2. Performance on Welsh Receptive Grammar by Age and Home Language 3 9 - O E H W E H O W H 3 6 3 3 3 0 2 7 2 4 2 1 1 8 1 5 1 2 9 6 3 0 2 3 4 5 7 8 1 3 1 5 O E H 5 .0 9 1 3 .3 2 2 5 .8 7 3 4 .0 0 W E H 5 .5 6 1 6 .8 5 2 6 .8 2 3 4 .3 2 O W H 7 .6 8 1 8 .9 1 2 9 .5 8 3 5 .4 5 - 49 11 FIGURE 3. Model of distinct semantic organization in two languages (from Gathercole & Moawad, 2010) 50 12 FIGURE 4. Performance on English and Arabic by Bilinguals and Monolinguals (from Gathercole & Moawad, 2010) ENGLISH DATA ARABIC DATA 51 FOOTNOTES i Welsh has another future form, in which the verb takes a finite inflection. That form was not tested here. ii This term is taken from the phonetics/phonemic distinction – the former has to do with the raw, objective nature of sounds, the latter with the structuring and functioning of the sound system and contrasts in it in the particular language. iii This type of category is most similar to phonemic categories in phonology—we can specify the phoneme on the basis of shared phonetic features, and the phones brought together by that phoneme are often treated as indistinguishable by native speakers of the language.