Cover not available
Part of
Psycholinguistic Approaches to Production and Comprehension in Bilingual Adults and Children
Edited by Leigh B. Fernandez, Kalliopi Katsika, Maialen Iraola Azpiroz and Shanley E.M. Allen
[Benjamins Current Topics 117] 2021
► pp. 11–38

Processing strategies used by Basque-French bilingual and Basque monolingual children for the production of the subject-agent in Basque

| Iker UMR 5478 (CNRS/Bordeaux3/UPPA)
ORCID logo | Octogone-Lordat EA 4156, University of Toulouse
We sought to describe the strategies used by 2L1 and L2 Basque-French bilingual children and monolingual Basque children to express subject-agent function in a free elicitation context in Basque. Based on a three-year longitudinal study, the analysis focused on transitive constructions requiring a subject-agent noun marked for ergative case. The results showed that the children mastered production of the ergative case marker at different ages, and used different psycholinguistic strategies to refer to the subject-agent. The majority of the bilingual children favoured topological strategy (i.e., marking of the subject-agent in the first position through subject-verb-object word order). However, the children with L1 Basque seemed to engage more in morphological strategy, through the use of the nominal ergative suffix. These data allowed us to discuss variations in the performance of bilingual children in light of the cue cost and cue validity concepts elaborated by the Competition Model applied to language production.
Keywords: sentence production strategies, early bilingual children, ergative case
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Competition Model: A model for language comprehension and production
    • 2.1Cue validity
    • 2.2Cue cost
    • 2.3Application of the Competition Model to language production
  • 3.Ergative case marking in Basque and its acquisition
  • 4.The study
  • 5.Method
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Task and procedure
  • 6.Results
    • 6.1Data from Session 1
    • 6.2Data from Session 2
    • 6.3Data from Session 3
    • 6.4Summary of the results
  • 7.Discussion
    • 7.1Local strategy (ergative noun marking) versus topological strategy (word order)
    • 7.2One local strategy (ergative noun marking) versus another local strategy (ergative verb marking)
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.117.02dug
References (53)
References
Akinci, M. A. (1999). Développement des compétences narratives des enfants bilingues turc-français en France âgés de 5 à 10 ans. Doctoral dissertation. Lyon: University of Lumière-Lyon 2.Google Scholar
Akinci, M. A., & Jisa, H. (2001). Développement de la narration en langue faible et forte: Le cas des connecteurs. AILE, 14, 87–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, S. E. M. (2013). The acquisition of ergativity in Inuktitut. In S. Stoll & E. L. Bavin (Eds.), The acquisition of ergativity (pp. 71–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amy, G., & Vion, M. (1986). Les indices de traitement des phrases clivées chez l’enfant. Bulletin de Psychologie, 39, 377–386.Google Scholar
Austin, J. (2012). The case-agreement hierarchy in acquisition: evidence from children learning Basque, Lingua, 122, 289–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Ergativity in child Basque. In S. Stoll & E. L. Bavin (Eds.), The acquisition of ergativity (pp. 5–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barreña, A. (1995). Gramatikaren jabekuntza-garapena eta haur euskaldunak [Grammatical acquisition and development in Basque-speaking children]. Vitoria-Gasteiz: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & Devescovi, A. (1989). Cross-linguistic studies of sentence production. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 225–256). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–73). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bavin, E. L. (2013). The acquisition of the ergative case in Warlpiri. In S. Stoll & E. L. Bavin (Eds.), The acquisition of ergativity (pp. 107–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, R., & Slobin, D. (1994). Relating Events in Narrative. A Cross-Linguistic Developmental Study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1996). The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: Cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 145–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dordain, M., & Nespoulous, J. L. (1992). Le traitement des syntagmes nominaux par l’aphasique agrammatique : Une illustration des corrélations (directes?) existant entre “complexité structurale” et “complexité procédurale”. Revue de Neuropsychologie, 2(4), 395–417.Google Scholar
Duguine, I. (2015). Gestion des cas absolutif et ergatif par des bilingues précoces basques-français, Lapurdum, XIX, 195–211.Google Scholar
Duguine, I., Köpke, B., & Nespoulous, J. L. (2014). Variations dans l’acquisition du marqueur ergatif en basque par des enfants bilingues basque-français, Language Interaction and Acquisition, 5(2), 227–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elosegi, K. (1998). Kasu eta preposizioen jabekuntza-garapena haur elebidun batengan [The acquisition of case and prepositions by a bilingual child]. Doctoral dissertation. Bilbao: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
Erdocia, K., Laka, I., Mestres-Missé, I., & Rodriguez-Fornells, A. (2009). Syntactic complexity and ambiguity resolution in a free word order language : Behavioral and electrophysiological evidences from Basque, Brain and Language, 109, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ezeizabarrena, M. J. (1996). Adquisición de la morfologia verbal en euskera y castellano por ñiños bilinguës. Vitoria-Gasteiz: University of Basque Country.Google Scholar
(2012). The (in)consistent ergative marking in early Basque: L1 vs. child L2, Lingua, 122, 303–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ezeizabarrena, M. J., & Larrañaga, M. (1996). Ergativity in Basque: A problem for language acquisition? Linguistics 34(5), 955–992. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, M. (2003). Children’s discourse: Person, space and time across languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I., & Ortiz de Urbina, J. (2003). A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huarte, M. (2007). The acquisition of the Basque ergative case. An experimental study. Anuario del Seminario de Filología vasca “Julio de Urquijo”, XLI(2), 131–144.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F., & Norcliffe, E. (2009). The cross-linguistic study of sentence production. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 866–887. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kail, M. (1997). L’acquisition du langage: Comparer pour généraliser. In C. Martinot (Ed.), Actes du colloque international sur l’acquisition de la syntaxe en langue maternelle et en langue étrangère (pp. 107–134). Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté.Google Scholar
(1999). Linguistic variations diversity and cognitive constraints in the processing and the acquisition of language. In C. Fuchs & S. Robert (Eds.), Language diversity and cognitive representations (pp. 179–194). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Acquisition syntaxique et diversité linguistique. In M. Kail & M. Fayol (Eds.), L’acquisition du langage Vol.2 (pp. 9–45). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
(2002). Variabilités en psycholinguistique développementale. In J. Lautrey, B. Mazoyer, & P. van Geert (Eds.), Invariants et variabilités dans les sciences cognitives (pp. 157–173). Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Le développement morphosyntaxique du langage: recherches interlangues. In M. N. Metz-Lutz, E. Demont, C. Seegmuller, M. de Agostini, & N. Bruneau (Eds.), Développement cognitif et troubles des apprentissages (pp. 123–150). Marseille: Solal.Google Scholar
(2012). Online sentence processing in children and adults: General and specific constraints. A cross-linguistic study in four languages. In M. Watorek, S. Benazzo, & M. Hickmann (Eds.), Comparative perspective on language acquisition. A tribute to Clive Perdue (pp. 586–612). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kail, M., & Charvillat, A. (1986). Linguistic cues and processing types in French sentence comprehension. In I. Kurcz, G. W. Shugar & J. H. Danks (Eds.), Knowledge and language (pp. 349–357). Amsterdam: North Holland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kail, M., & Fayol, M. (2000). L’acquisition du langage. Le langage en développement. Paris: Presse Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Kolk, H. (2001). Does agrammatic speech constitute a regression to child language? A three-way comparison between agrammatic, child and normal ellipsis. Brain and Language, 77, 340–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, L., & Kail, M. (2001). Le traitement en temps réel des marques morphologiques d’accord dans des phrases françaises. L’Année Psychologique, 101(4), 561–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). Applying the Competition Model to bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 315–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Second language acquisition and the Competition Model. In A. M. B. De Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism. Psycholinguistic perspectives, (pp. 113–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2005a). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005b). Extending the Competition Model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 69–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The logic of the Unified Model. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 211–227). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marian, V., & Shook, A. (2012). The cognitive benefits of being bilingual. Cerebrum: The Dana Forum on Brain Science, 2012 (13).Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
Munarriz, A., Ezeizabarrena, M. J., & Gutierrez-Mangado, J. (2016). Differential and selective morpho-syntactic impairment in Spanish-Basque bilingual aphasia. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(4), 810–833. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narasimhan, B. (2013). Ergative case-marking in Hindi child-caregiver speech. In E. L. Bavin & S. Stoll (Eds.), The acquisition of ergativity (pp. 209–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespoulous, J. L. (2006). La morphologie dans tous ses états: Linguistique, psycholinguistique et neuropsycholinguistique. Une composante linguistique universelle? De la labilité de sa gestion par le cerveau/esprit humain. Rééducation Orthophonique, 225, 7–18.Google Scholar
Schlyter, S. (2011). Tense and aspect in early french development in aL2, 2L1 and cL2 learners. In E. Rinke & T. Kupisch (Eds.). The development of grammar. Language acquisition and diachronic change. In honour of Jürgen M. Meisel (pp. 47–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serratrice, L. (2007). Referential cohesion in the narratives of bilingual English-Italian children and monolingual peers. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1058–1087. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoll, S., & Bavin, E. L. (2013). The acquisition of ergativity. In E. L. Bavin & S. Stoll (Eds.), The acquisition of ergativity (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sridhar, S. N. (1989). Cognitive structures in language production: A cross-linguistic study. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 209–224). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vion, M., & Amy, G. (1984). Comprendre les relations agent-patient dans les énoncés simples en français: Une étude génétique du traitement des structures clivées. Archives de Psychologie, 52, 209–229.Google Scholar
Wang, J., & Xu, C. (2015). Cue competition between animacy and word order: Acquisition of Chinese notional passives by L2 learners. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 5, 213–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar