Bilinguallanguageacquisition
byKoreanschoolchildrenin
NewYorkCity*
UniversityofMaryland,BaltimoreCounty
LESLEYMILROY
UniversityofMichigan
ThispaperexaminesthebilinguallanguagedevelopmentofyoungKorean±Americanchildrenwithrespecttotheir
acquisitionofEnglishgrammatica
addresstwospeci®cissues:(1)``doL1andL2learnersacquirethegrammaticalfeaturesofagivenlanguageinthesame
quence?''and(2)``doL2learnersofdifferentL1backgroundslearnthegrammaticalfeaturesofagivencond
languageinthesamequence?''Comparisonofourresultswiththoofothermorphemeacquisitionstudiessuggests
thatL1andL2learnersormore,there
ividencethat®rstlanguagein¯sofanexperimentalstudyof
pluralmarkingsuggestthatthebilingualchildreninmost,butnotall,respectsfollowsimilar,butdelayedpatternsof®rst
languageacquisitionofKoreanandsuccessiveacquisitionofEnglish.
Inthispaper,weexamineaspectsofthebilingual
languagedevelopmentof®rst-gradeKorean±Amer-
gupasmembersofthe
KoreanimmigrantcommunityinNewYorkCity,
thechildrendiscusdherehaveallenteredschool
withKoreanastheirmothertongue,andacquire
introductory
ction,webrie¯yreviewrelevantworkonbilingual
languageacquisition,withaspecialemphasison
successiveacquisitionofacondlanguage,speci®-
ettingoutsalient
socialanddemographicfeaturesoftheNewYork
Koreancommunity,wediscussmethodological
equentctionswe®rstexaminethe
NewYorkCityKoreanchildren'sacquisitionof
grammaticalmorphemesinEnglishandcomparethe
resultswiththepatternsfoundinotherstudiesof
both®rst-andcond-languagelearnersofEnglish.
Wethenprenttheresultsofanexperimentalstudy
designedtoinvestigatepluralmarkinganddraw
inferencesabouttheextentofacquisitionofKorean
andEnglishbytheKorean±Englishbilingualchil-
icleconcludeswithasummaryofmajor
conclusions.
Muchoftherearchonsuccessivelanguage
acquisitionbychildrenhasfocudonwhether
younglearnermploysimilarlinguisticandcogni-
tivestrategiesintheacquisitionofa®rstanda
ingBrown's(1973)®nding
thatthereisacommon,invariantquenceofacqui-
sitionforatleast14boundmorphemesbychildren
acquiringEnglishastheir®rstlanguage,veral
rearchershaveexaminedthedevelopmental-
quencesfollowedbychildrenacquiringEnglishasa
tudieshaveattemptedto
determinewhetherthequencefoundbyBrownwas
alsofoundinchildrenacquiringEnglishasacond
languageandwhetherchildrenofdifferent®rstlan-
guagebackgroundsacquiregrammaticalmorphemes
omescholarsclaimthat
L1andL2developmentalquencesaresimilar(e.g.
Ravem,1968,1974;Milon,1974;Dato,1970;Ervin-
Tripp,1974),otherrearchersarguethatatleast
someaspectsofthetwoprocessaredifferent±
effectivelythatL2childlearnersoperateinamanner
moresimilartoadultL2learnersthantochildren
acquiringa®rstlanguage(,1976,1978;
Cancino,RosanskyandSchumann,1974,1975;
Hakuta,1976).
Morerecently,rearchersworkinginthetradi-
tionofUniversalGrammar(UG)havepropod
®-
cally,anumberofrationalistapproachestocond
languageacquisitionhaveassumedfundamentaldif-
ferencesin®rstandcondlanguageacquisition(e.g.
Felix,1984;Clahn,1990;Meil,1991;Bley-
Addressforcorrespondence
DepartmentofEducation,UniversityofMaryland,BaltimoreCounty,1000HilltopCircle,Baltimore,MD21250,USA
E-mail:shin@
Bilingualism:LanguageandCognition2(2),1999,147±167#1999CambridgeUniversityPress147
*Wearegratefultothefollowingpeoplefortheirhelp:Susan
GelmanandJohnSwalesforcommentsonearlierversionsof
thisarticle;CarolynMaddenfordiscussionsofmorpheme
acquisitionstudies;SookWhanChoforhelpin®ndingstudies
onchildren
Âs
acquisitionofKoreanclassi®ers;andthreeanon-
si-
bilityforanyshortcomingsisourown.
Vroman,1990).ThescholarsclaimthatwhileL1
learnershaveaccesstoUG,
accountforL2acquisition,theypropoaproces-
rast,Piene-
mann(1998)arguesthatUGandlanguage
processingdonotformadichotomy,andproposa
``ProcessabilityTheory''toaccountforbothL1and
L2acquisitionwhileallowingfundamentaldifferences
betweenL1andL2acquisitiontobemaintained.
Otherrearchers,however,arguethat®rstand
condlanguageacquisitionaresimilarandthat
adultL2learnershaveaccesstoUG(ka&
Young-Scholten,1994;Schwartz&Sprou,1994;
White,1989).Atprent,however,thecentralissues
inthisdebatearedif®culttoresolve,chie¯ybecau
thislinguisticrearchhastodatemadelittleuof±
andindeedhardlyemstobecognizantof±relevant
contemporaryrearchincognitivescienceandneu-
roscience(efurtherCarroll,1998;Schachter,1998).
Itislikelythatonlythuscanadvancesbemadein
specifyingdetailsofprocessingmodelsandofthe
grammarsthemlveswhichlearnersconstructonthe
r,inaddressingthe
issueofdevelopmentofEnglishasL2byyoung
Korean±Englishbilingualchildren,weprovideevi-
denceinthisarticlewhichisrelevanttothedebate.
AsidefromcomparingL1andL2developmental
quences,somestudies,especiallythoconcerned
withcond-languagepedagogy,havetakenupthe
questionofwhethercommondevelopmental-
quencesarefoundincondlanguagelearnerswith
different®ross-c-
tionalstudiesbyDulayandBurt(1973,1974)found
thatsome250Spanish-andChine-speakingchil-
dren,aged6to8,learningEnglishintheUSA,
exhibitedstatisticallysigni®cantlyrelatedaccuracy
orderingof11Englishboundmorphemelicited
usingtheBilingualSyntaxMeasure(BSM),a
comparingsubjects'successrateincorrectlysup-
plyingamorphemeinanobligatorycontext,they
measuredaccuracyofu,whichwasassumedto
re¯ectorderofacquisition.
GiventheverydifferentgrammarsofChineand
Spanish,DulayandBurtarguedthatuniversallan-
guageprocessingstrategiesarethebasisforthe
child'sorganizationofacondlanguage,andthatit
istheL2system,ratherthantheL1systemthat
l
studiesofadultEnglishlearnersusingtheBilingual
SyntaxMeasure(BSM)(,Maddenand
Krashen,1974;Larn-Freeman,1975;)alsoindicate
thatdespitedifferencesinamountofinstruction,
exposuretoEnglish,and®rstlanguage,thereisa
highdegreeofagreementastotherelativedif®culty
ofthetofgrammaticalmorphemesstudied(e
alsoLarn-FreemanandLong(1991,pp.88±92)for
areviewofsubquentmorphemestudiesdoneusing
differentdatacollectionandanalysisprocedures).
ZoblandLiceras(1994)drewsimilarconclusions
fromtheiranalysisofearlierstudiesofEnglishL1
andL2morphemeacquisitionordersbadona
functionalcategoriesframework.
However,somerearchonEnglishmorpheme
acquisitiondoesnotsupporttheconclusionofa
universalorderofacquisitionamongallcond-
andCancino(1977)have
arguedthatthemanticcomplexityofthemor-
phemesvariesinaccordancewiththelearner'snative
aimthatacond-languagelearner
who®rstlanguagedoesnotmakethesamediscri-
minationsasthetargetlanguageexperiencemore
dif®cultyinlearningtouthemorphemesthan
learnerswho®rstlanguagemakesthemantic
mple,Hakuta's(1976)Japa-
ne-speakingchildexperiencedgreatdif®cultywith
thede®nite/inde®nitecontrast±Japanebeinga
languagethatdoesnotmarkthisdistinctioninthe
kaandYoung-Scholten
(1994)arguedthatthequenceofacquisitionof
GermanphrastructurebyadultKoreanand
TurkishlearnersofGermanisin¯uencedbytheirL1.
Hakuta(1976)alsoshowedthattheacquisition
orderofhisJapanesubjectwasverydifferentfrom
thatofDulayandBurt's(1974)Chine-speaking
rly,Pak(1987),
whoemployedBSMelicitationprocedures,showed
thattheorderofEnglishgrammaticalmorpheme
acquisitionofagroupofKorean-speakingchildren
livinginTexaswassigni®cantlydifferentfromthatof
DulayandBurt's(1974)tudies
provideabasisforexaminingtheNewYorkCity
Koreanchildren'smorphologicaldevelopmentalpat-
erction,wecompareourowndatain
turnwiththoofBrown's(1973)monolingual
English-speakingsubjects,DulayandBurt's(1974)
Chine-speakingandSpanish-speakingchildren,
Hakuta's(1976)Japane-speakingchildandPak's
(1987)Koreanchildrentoassstheextentofsimila-
ritiesanddifferencesamongtheacquisitionordersof
thevariousgroups.
Thequestionofwhetherornot®rst-andcond-
languagedevelopmentalquencesarethesame
whereyoungchildrenacquiretwolanguagessucces-
sivelyhasbeenaddresdinrearchwithTurkish
childreninGermanyandintheNetherlands(e.g.
Pfaff,1992,1993,1994;Boeschoten,1990;Ver-
hoeven,1988;VerhoevenandBoeschoten,1986;Ver-
hoevenandVermeer,1985).Thestudiesinvestigate
inparticularthegrammaticaldevelopmentofthe®rst
dLesleyMilroy
language(h)byTurkish±Germanand
Turkish±gthedevel-
opmentofTurkish±Germanbilingualchildrenina
longitudinalstudy,Pfaff(1993)foundthatwhilethe
bilingualchildrenofherstudymaderelativelyfew
errorsinTurkishmorphology,therewerenonetheless
systematicdifferencesingrammaticalerrorsin
TurkishmadebyTurkish-dominantchildrenand
foundthatTurkishdevelopmentofGerman-domi-
nantchildrenwasslowerthanthatoftheirTurkish
monolingualpeersinanL1tting,reachingapoint
example,ithasbeenreportedthatmonolingual
Turkishchildrencompletetheacquisitionof®nite
andnon-®nitegerundsinTurkishbytheageof2
(Slobin,1988).However,Pfaff(1993)foundthat
gerundformswereprentinthespeechofher
Turkish-dominantbilingualsubjectsbutabntin
thespeechofGerman-dominantbilinguals.
ComparedwiththeTurkishchildreninGermany,
theubybilingualchildrenintheNetherlandsof
gerundsofanytypeixtremelyrestricted(Ver-
hoeven,1988).Verhoevenreportsonlythreeoccur-
rencesofparticiplesandgerundsinnarrativesby
eightchildren,interviewedtwiceattheagesof7and
erenoinstancesatage7,andonlythreeat
r,toachievetheircommunicative
goalsthechildrenmadeextensiveuofadverbial
cohesivedevicesofakindtypicallyudby5-year-
vensuggeststhat
this``stagnation''isrelatedtorestrictedL1inputin
thecondlanguageenvironmentandcharacterizes
theuofadverbialsasa``compensationstrategy''
r,datareportedby
Boeschotenfor12youngerchildren,interviewed
threetimesatages4,5and6,showconsiderable
individualvariation(Boeschoten,1990).Only®veof
thechildrenudanygerundformsatall,whileall
udadverbials,usuallyincombinationwithnon-
®nitegerundsorwithcomplexverb®niteforms.
Incontrasttothispictureofrelativelyerror-free,if
restricted,acquisitionofTurkishmorphology,
Germanmorphologyisfarmoredif®cultforthe
bilingualchildrenthanformonolingualGerman-
speakingchildren(Pfaff,1994).Forexample,Pfaff
foundthateventheGerman-dominantchildrenin
herstudymademanyerrorsinGerman,thusapprox-
imatingmoreclolytopatternsofcond-language
acquisitionofGermanobrvedforadultsandolder
childrenthantopatternsof®rst-languageacquisition
uggests
thatthisapparentdif®cultywithGermanmor-
phologyisnotsimplyduetothestructuralcom-
rhoeven(1988),Pfaff
(1994)suggeststhatthebilingualchildrenofher
studyhavelittleeffectivecontactwithGerman,re-
ceivingrestrictedinputinthecondlanguageenvir-
venandVermeer(1985)foundthat
therateofacquisitionofDutchbyTurkishchildren
intheagerangeof4±8yearsclearlylagsbehindthat
eresultsofthe
investigationsofsuccessivelanguageacquisitionby
childreninmind,wereportlatertheresultsofan
experimentwhichinvestigatesthemannerinwhich
theNewYorkCityKoreanchildrenhandlediffer-
encesinnominalpluralizationsystemsinboth
spluralnounsarereg-
ularlyformedbyattachingtheappropriateallo-
morphpluralsuf®xmorpheme//s//tothenounin
English,pluralityinKoreanismarkedbyanumeral
andaclassi®erplacedafterthenoun,whichitlfis
ingtheprocedures
spelledoutbyPfaffinparticular,dataelicitedfrom
thebilingualchildrenofthisstudyarecomparedwith
patternsreportedformonolingualEnglish-speaking
turn®rsthowevertoanaccountofthesocialcontext
oflanguageacquisitionfortheKorean-American
childrenofourstudy.
TheNewYorkCityKoreancommunity
KoreanAmericansareamongthemorerecentim-
migrantgroupstoenterAmericansociety,withover
two-thirdsoftheprentKoreanpopulationinthe
UnitedStateshavingarrivedafter1970,sincethe
passageoftheUSImmigrationandNaturalization
sianandPaci®cIslander
populationintheUSA,Koreansranked®fthin
number(about800,000in1990)aftertheChine,
Filipino,
1990UScensusindicatedthatKoreanAmericansare
urbandwellers:95percentofKoreanAmericans
livedincities,whileonly5percentlivedinrural
kstatecontainedthecond-largest
Koreanpopulation(76,029)afterCaliforniaamong
the50USstates.
First-generationimmigrantconversationsamong
KoreanAmericanstakeplaceverylargelyinKorean;
veralsurveyshaveindicatedthatthislanguageis
udforover75percentofspousalcommunication
and72percentofparent±childcommunication(Kim,
SawdeyandMeihoefer,1980;HurhandKim,1984).
Forthemostpart,KoreanAmericanscontractin-
formalsocialtiesprimarilywithotherKoreanAmer-
icans,regardlessofsocioeconomicstatus,geographic
location,orthesizeorconcentrationofthelocal
Koreanpopulation(Kim,B.-L.,1988:265).Hurhand
Kim's(1984)studyoftheLosAngelesKoreanpopu-
149Bilinguallanguageacquisition
lationindicatedthathighproportionsofKoreans
(75±90percent)reportedanetworkofclokin,
neighbors,
thanhalfofthekinandathirdoftheneighborswere
thirdhadwhitefriends,andtheweremostlypeople
reans
workinraciallymixedttings,andthowhooperate
smallbusinessoftenhaveregularcommercial
contactwithCaucasianandAfricanAmerican,
ChineandLatinoAmericancustomers(,
1981;HurhandKim,1984;Goldberg,1995).
However,therelationshipsarecon®nedtothework-
placeandremainforthemostpartformalandof
socialnetworksare
thustypicallycompodofotherKoreanswhomay
befamily,friends,recreationalcolleagues,andfellow
ormalsocialorganization
ofthecommunityinwhichthechildrendescribed
belowliveandinteractisthusverylikelytoprovide
themwithopportunitiestospeakandhearKorean.
Subjects
Koreanchildren
TwelveKoreanchildren,sixmaleandsixfemale,
12subjectswere-
lectedonthebasisthattheywereallinthesame®rst
gradeclassof27studentsandhadKoreanastheir
ild'sname,x,ageatthe
beginningofthe®eldworkperiod(May,1995),and
sMatthew,
Joshua,Abel,andKyung,whowerebornintheUSA,
andGina,whowasborninArgentina,allother
childrenwereborninKoreaandsubquentlymoved
'sfamily
hadmovedtoMexicosoonafterhisbirthandcameto
forDavid
who®'s
®rstgradeclass,allthechildrenattendedEnglish-
speakingkindergartenintheUSAbeforebecoming
®imeofthisstudy,10outofthe12
Koreanchildrenwereenrolledinadailypull-out
Korean/EnglishbilingualclassandESLclass.
MatthewandKyunghadpasdtheschoolboard's
Englishpro®ciencytestatthebeginningoftheschool
thetestwasadministeredagain,inApril1995,Grace,
Kathy,Gina,andSoHeealsoachievedpassingscores
andwouldbeexemptfromthebilingualandESL
classwhentheystartedcondgrade.
Thehighproportionofrecentimmigrantpopula-
tioninthispartofNewYorkCityisre¯ectedinthe
romthe12Korean
students,thereare®veChine,oneAfghan,one
Russian,andsixHispanicstudentswhonative
twooutofthe27studentsarenativespeakersof
bout970studentnrolledinthe
school,around700speakEnglishasacondlan-
rmore,morethanhalfthestudent
populationatthisschoolisofAsiandescent.
Theteacher
,thehomeroomteacher,immigratedtothe
UnitedStatesattheageofvenwithherfamilyfrom
hen,shehasreceivedherelementary,
condary,
herabilityinKoreanhasnotadvancedmuchsince
hermovetoAmerica,converin
Koreanwellenoughtocommunicatewiththemono-
snotraceof
KoreanaccentinherEnglish,butsomeofherKorean
studentsattemptedtospeaktoherinKoreaninthe
orted
havingspeci®callyinstructedherKoreanstudentsnot
tospeaktoherinKoreanoutofconsiderationforthe
tthat10of
her12Koreanstudentshadtheopportunitytospeak
Koreaninthedailypull-outbilingualKorean/English
classalsoledhertoinsistonEnglishasthemain
r,althoughshe
didnotallowherKoreanstudentstoaddressherin
Korean,notattempttopreventthem
speakingKoreanamongthemlves.
Datacollection
Recordingequipment
Eachsubjectworeasmalllightweightwirelessradio
microphone,fromwhichsoundsignalsweretrans-
dLesleyMilroy
subjects
NameSexAgeESL/Biling.
DavidM7:2yes
KwonM7:0yes
MatthewM7:0no
JaeM6:9yes
JoshuaM6:7yes
AbelM6:6yes
SoHeeF7:4yes
KathyF7:0yes
GinaF6:11yes
YooniF6:9yes
KyungF6:7no
GraceF6:7yes
mittedtotheradioreceiverconnectedtoacastte-
recorderplacedinaboxinthebackcornerofthe
ghtweightwirelesstransmitter-re-
ceiversystemrecordedspeechfromanypartofthe
classroomwhileallowingchildrentomovefreelyin
theircustomaryfashion.
Elicitationproceduresforspontaneousspeech
The®eldworker(the®rstauthor),abilingual
Korean/Englishspeaker,adoptedtheroleofaclass-
roomassistant,participatinginthedailyroutinesof
lowedhertocollectatape-recorded
corpusofspontaneousspeechandtoobrvechil-
dren'slanguagechoiceandlanguagemixingpatterns
participantobrvationproceduresallowobrvation
ofclassroomparticipantswithminimumobrver
effect(Milroy,1987;ealsoMoffattandMilroy
(1992)forareportofasimilarstudyofagroupof
bilingualchildrenatschool).
'valuationsofstudents'
languagepro®ciency,the12Koreanstudentswere
organizedassixpairssuchthatmembersofeachpair
showedcomparablepro®ciencyinbothEnglishand
Korean,asshowninTable2.
Audio-recordingsweremadeinthreesituations:
(1)storytelling:tellingtothepartneraspontaneously
createdstoryorsomeotheraccountbadupon
anactivityinclass.
(2)math:thisactivitytypeinvolvedcountinginsome
form,suchasinbuyingandllingtoygoodsin
animaginarystore,sortingandcountingdifferent
plasticshapes,ormeasuringhowfarasnail
travelsinagivenamountoftime.
(3)play:aspartofthe``LearningCenter''inwhich
childrenarefreetoplayeducationalgameswith
oneanother(e.g.,variousboardgames,wooden
blocks,andjigsawpuzzles).
TheData
TherecordingsforeachKorean±Koreanstudentpair
foreachactivitytypelastedbetween20and75
minutes(foranaveragedurationof33minutes),
yieldingatotalofapproximately10hoursofre-
nolingualEnglishntences
wereudandmixedKoreanandEnglishutterances
ultingcorpus
containedaconsiderablylargernumberofmorpheme
tokensforeachsubjectthanthetotalreportedfor
eachsubjectinDulayandBurt(1974).Thusalarger
numberoftokensforeachmorphemecanbeba-
lancedagainstthesmallernumberofsubjectsinthe
currentstudy.
Scoringproceduresforthemorphemestudy
Theproceduresforscoringmorphememployedby
DulayandBurt(1974)intheircross-ctionalstudy
ghsocalled``mor-
phemestudies''ofthetypeexempli®edbytheirwork
havebeensubjecttoconsiderablecriticism(e
furtherthelastparagraphunder``comparisonwith
othermorphemestudies''),weshalleshortlythat
the®ndingswhichemergefromthemarerather
probablybecau,despitepro-
blemsintheirdesignandintheirassumptionsabout
thenatureoftheacquisitionprocess,theyre¯ect
underlyingprocessingconstraintsofthekindwhich
currenttheoriessuchasthoofPienemann(1998)
cularlyimportant
factorinourdecisiontofollowamorpheme-scoring
procedureistheavailabilityofearlierworkofthis
typeonbothKoreanandJapane,asdiscusd
ogetherwithsubstantialrearchon
theacquisitionofthemorphemesofEnglishand
thoofotherlanguagesdistantfromKorean,the
®ndingsofFathmanandHakutaallowustorelate
ourown®ndingstothoofotherinvestigations
whicharemethodologicallyatleastpartlycompar-
3showsthe10Englishgrammatical
morphemesinvestigated.
Theanalysisincorporatesthenotionof``obliga-
toryoccasion''adaptedfromBrown'sstudy,adopted
toryoccasionsare
de®nedasstretchesoftalkconsistingofmorethan
onemorphemetocreateutteranceswhereparticular
mple,
intheutterance``sheiating'',maturenative
speakersofEnglishdonotomitthemorphemeing,
whichisobligatorilyattachedtoanyverbinEnglish
inthecontextBEV_#.Achildwhoisintheprocess
oflearningacondlanguagewillinstantiatesuch
obligatoryoccasions,butmaynotfurnishthere-
151Bilinguallanguageacquisition
jectsampleshowingpairing
arrangementsforKoreanPool1studentswith
KoreanPool2students
KoreansPool1KoreansPool2
KyungMatthew
YooniGrace
KathyGina
KwonJoshua
AbelJae
DavidSoHee
ybeomittedaltogether,asin
``helikehamburgers'',ormisformed,asin``heeated
hislunch'',wheretheregularpastform-edisincor-
ligatoryoccasionforagram-
maticalmorphemewastreatedasa``testitem'',and
scoredasfollows:
nomorphemesupplied=0(shetakeit)
misformedmorphemesupplied=1(shetakedit)
correctmorphemesupplied=2(shetookit)
Detailsofitemsscoredareasfollows:
(1)Pronounca:pronounswerescoredforcorrect
ca-markingwhenevertheyappeared,i.e.,in
subjectposition(i.e.,he,she,they,we,I),in
indirectordirectobjectposition(i.e.,him,her,
them,us,me),andimmediatelyfollowingprepo-
oucouldnotbescoredforca
astheformremainsthesameinallpositions.
(2)Article:tokensofbothaandthewerecombined
underthegeneralcategory``article.''1
(3)Copula:singularandpluralaswellasprent
andpastcopulatokensweretalliedtogether.
(4)Progressive:-ingwastalliedwhenprecededby
swerenot
includedinthetally.
(5)Plural:onlytheso-called``shortplurals''were
included,i.e./s/and/z/allomorphsattachedto
nouns,suchasdesk-sandcircle-s.2
(6)Auxiliary:Prentandpastaswellassingular
andpluralformsofbewerecombinedunderone
tegoryexcludedmodals(e.g.
may,can,will).
(7)Pastregular:Allallomorphsofthepastregular
(/t/,/d/,and/Id/)wereincluded.
(8)Pastirregular:theincludedonlymainverbs,
suchasate,stole,got,swherea
childoffered``eated'',pastirregularwasscored
asamisformation.
(9)Posssive:posssivemarker'sonnounsaswell
asposssivepronounsweretallied.
(10)Thirdpersonsingular:thewerescoredwhen-
everasingularnounphraorpronounap-
pearedinsubjectpositionimmediatelyfollowed
dhasudasmainverbs
werenotincludedinthetally.
Thegroupscoreforaparticularmorphemeis
obtainedbycomputingaratiowhodenominatoris
thesumofallobligatoryoccasions(whereeach
occasionisworth2points)forthatmorphemeacross
all12childreninthegroup,andwhonumeratoris
thesumofthescoresforeachobligatoryoccasionof
thatmorphemeacrossallchildren,andmultiplying
stratethe
scoringmethod,consider®veutterancesproducedby
threechildrenandcomputethegroupscoreforthe
PastIrregular:
RawscoreOccasion
Child1:Heeatedit.12
Thismantakeditaway.12
Child2:Hebiteit.02
Child3:Hestoleit.22
Thedogtookit.22
______
Total610
GroupScore=6/10x100=60
1Thethreestudiesthataresubquentlycomparedwiththe
currentstudy(,1973;DulayandBurt,1974;and
Hakuta,1976)combineinde®niteandde®nitetokensintheir
litatecomparability,thetwotypesaremerged
inthescoringoftheNYCKoreanchildren'sdata.
2ThereweretwoparatecategoriesforthepluralinDulayand
Burt(1974):(1)``shortplurals''±/s/and/z/allomorphs;and(2)
``longplurals''±/Iz/allomorphasin``churches''.However,there
wereonlyahandfuloflongpluralsinthecurrentNYCKorean
children'sdatasothatafaircomparisonwithshortpluralscould
ore,thelongpluralsinthecurrentdatawere
excludedsothatonlytheshortpluralscanlaterbecompared
withtheshortpluralsinDulayandBurt'sstudy.
dLesleyMilroy
10EnglishgrammaticalmorphemesinvestigatedintheNewYorkCitystudy
MorphemesStructuresExamples
PronouncaPro-(Aux)-(Neg)-V-(Pro)shedoesn'tlikehim
Article(Prep)-Det-(Adj)-NPthegirlwantedapumpkin
CopulaNP-(be)-AdjorNPit'smyturn
ProgressiveNPorPro-(be)-V+ingthey'recleaningup
PluralNP+plcircles
AuxiliaryNPorPro-be-V-ingthey'recleaningup
PastregularNPorPro-V+pst-NPorProshewantedaball
PastirregularNPorPro-V+pst-NPorProIknewwegotit
PosssiveN+possmybook;John'sbook
ThirdpersonNPorPro+sing-V-tns-(Adv)thecirclegoeshere
Theprocedurethenwastorankthe10gramma-
ticalmorphemesaccordingtodecreasinggroup
YorkCityKoreanchildren'srank
orderofacquisitioniscomparedinturnwiththe
following:Brown's(1973)monolingualEnglish-
speakingsubjects;DulayandBurt's(1974)Chine-
speakingandSpanish-speakingchildren;Hakuta's
(1976)JapanechildlearningEnglish;Pak's(1987)
groupofKorean-speakingchildrenlearningEnglish
ultsofariesofSpearmanRank
OrderCorrelationtestsarediscusdwithreference
topreviousclaimsregardingcondlanguageacqui-
sitionofgrammaticalmorphemes.
Materialsfortheexperimentalstudyonplural
markingbyNewYorkCityKoreanchildren
Thixperimentud48laminated¯ashcards(8in.x
5in.)witheitherphotographsorcoloreddrawingsof
commonobjectsoranimalstoelicitchildren'sre-
rdillustratedeitheroneortwoofa
givenitemandprentationswereorderedsothata
singleitemcardprecededacardwithtwoofthesame
items(e.g.,card#1illustratedonewatch,card#2,
twowatches,card#3,onechair,card#4,twochairs,
card#5,onesock,card#6,twosocks,andsoon).
Twomatchedstacks,eachwith24cards(12different
items),#1
wasprentedwithinstructioninEnglishandStack
#temillustrated
inStack#1correspondedtoamanticallyrelated
iteminStack#salsotakentoensurethat
awordwhichisaknownestablishedborrowingin
Stack#1(e.g.,camera)wouldcorrespondtosuchan
iteminStack#2(e.g.,TV).Onegroupofsixstudents
receivedStack#1beforeStack#2,whiletheothersix
receivedthestacksinthereverorder(eTable2
above).
Elicitationproceduresfortheexperimentalstudyon
pluralmarking
Theprimarygoaloftheexperimentalstudywasto
investigatethemannerinwhichtheKoreanAmerican
childrenmanagedifferencesinpluralmarking
betweenKoreanandEnglishnouns,andatthispoint
weneedtocommentbrie¯yonrelevantdifferences
hexpress
quanti®cationinvariousways,oftenasadnominal
modi®cationofthenoun(``twocandies'')orofa
reprentativecounter(``twopiecesofcandy''),orasa
nounsubstitute(``Iwanttwo[ofthem]).Different
languagesshowdifferentdegreesof¯exibilityinthe
quanti®is
fairly¯exible,butsomeofthepossibleconstructions
rtothe
Englishallomorphpluralsuf®x//s//,asuf®x,-tul,
r,-tulisoptionaland
isudrelativelyinfrequentlyinthelanguageandis
almostneverudoninanimatenouns(Martin,1992).
TwoclassofwordsmodifythenouninKorean:
numeralsandclassi®i®erwhichoccurs
afteranumeralcanbeoneofmainlytwotypes:unit
lassi®ercountsindividualin-
stancesofacountablenounasin(1)through(3).
(1)chaykhankwen3bookone[CLASS]``onebook''
(2)kaytwumalidogtwo[CLASS]``twodogs''
(3)payychekboatthree[CLASS]``threeboats''
Incomparison,ameasureclassi®erregistersthe
amountofameasurablenounasin(4),orofmoney
asin(5).
(4)chahancanteaone[CLASS]``onecupoftea''
(5)chenwenthousand[CLASS]``athousandwen''
SomeKoreancountablenounshavespeci®cunit
classi®ers,butmanyotherslackspeci®cclassi®ers
andnumberixpresdbythenumeralalone;in
fact,thebarenumeralwithoutaclassi®ercanbeud
tispossibleforsome
nounstooccurinconstructionswhereanumeralis
placedprenominally,aswouldbethecawhena
unitcounter(``person''inhaksaynghan
salam``onestudent'')isudasafreenoun(e.g.
[salam]hansalam``oneperson''),themostcommon
orderinKoreanisNoun-Num-(CLASS)(Martin,
3WeutheYaleSystemofRomanizationforutterancesin
Korean(Martin,1992).
153Bilinguallanguageacquisition
estedinthepluralmarking
experimentaltask
Stack#1Stack#2
watchclock
chairtable
sockshoe
catdog
tree¯ower
knifespoon
carairplane
applewatermelon
blockball
snakebird
pencilbook
cameraTV
1992).Forexample,whilethokkihana±rabbitone,
``arabbit''andtalkhana±chickenone,``achicken''
areacceptable,*hanthokki±onerabbit,``arabbit''
or*hantalk±onechicken,``achicken''arenot.
Theexperimentalstudyonpluralmarkingcon-
sistedoftwodifferenttasks±theexperimentaltask
asks,
whichweshalldescribeinturn,wereadministered
xperimental
task,eachchildsatindividuallywiththeexperi-
menter(the®rstauthor)andrespondedtowhatwas
beingaskedinattingsimilartoanoralinterview.
Inthegametask,amorespontaneoustypeof
languagedatawasobtainedbyhavingtwostudents
rts
oftheexperimentalstudywereaudio-recorded.
Theexperimentaltaskprocedurewasasfollows.
Twostacksof¯ashcards,onetobeprentedwithan
instructioninKoreanandtheotherwithaninstruc-
tioninEnglish(eTable4),wereparatelyplaced
experimenterrequestedthechildtopickupacardon
thetopofthedesignatedstack,placeitinfrontof
himandstatethenameoftheitem(e.g.``watch/a
watch'').Ifthechilddidnotmentionthenumber
(i.e.,``one''),theexperimenterasked``howmany?''to
whichthechildresponded``one.''Theexperimenter
thenrephradtheresponbysayingemphatically,
``ONEwatch,right?''Thechildagreedandthen
pickedupthenextcardfromthepile,placediton
topofthe®rstcardandstated``twowatch(es).''
Again,ifthechilddidnotmentionthenumber(i.e.,
``two''),theexperimenterasked``howmany?''to
whichthechildresponded``two.''Theexperimenter
thensaid``Okay,sothereareTWO±what?''to
whichthechildeitherresponded``watches''or
``watch''.Theexperimenterthenrepeatedthechild's
responbysaying``Canyousaytwowatch(es)?''
Afterthreeorfourrepetitions,childrenunderstood
thedesiredpatternofresponsandphradtheir
hisprocedurewascom-
pletedwiththerestofthestack,thecondstackof
¯ashcardswasintroducedintheotherlanguageby
theexperimenter.
Inordertominimizetheordereffect,sixsubjects
wererandomlylectedtoreceive¯ashcardStack#1
withtheEnglishinstruction®rst,andtheremaining
sixsubjectsreceivedStack#2withtheKorean
instruction®rst(eTable5).Twonativespeakersof
Englishinthesameclassperformedthesametaskas
acontrolgroup,withinstructionsforbothstacks
giveninEnglish.
Thegametaskwasdesignedtoinvestigatewhether
thechildren'suofthepluralmarkerintheinter-
viewttingwasconsistentwiththeiruinsponta-
eanchildreninapair(e
Table2)
childwasgivenStack#1andtheotherStack#2,and
bothchildrenwereinstructedinEnglishtoplaya
gameinwhicheachchilddescribesitemsshownon
thecardstohis/erimenterin-
structedthechildrennottoshowtheircardstotheir
partnersuntilthey®
explainedthattheyweretoprovideeachotherwith
descriptionsofobjectsshownonthecardsincluding
size,shape,colorandnumbersoastoenablethe
expectedtoobtain
fromthegametaskwereoccasionsfortheplural
morphemeembeddedinspontaneousspeechwhich
includedvariouspartsofspeechsuchasverb,noun,
number,ackscontainedcards
prentingtheinstructions,theexperimenterleft
theareatoensurethatthechildrenspokewitheach
otherratherthanwiththeexperimenter.
AcquisitionofgrammaticalmorphemesinEnglish
Resultsofthemorphemestudy
Figure1showsindescendingorderaccuracyrates
achievedbytheNewYorkCityKoreanAmerican
noutof
the10morphemes,scoresarehigherthan90percent.
Thethreemorphemetypesthatfallwellbelowthis
levelarethearticle,thirdpersonsingular-s,and
r®ndingsarereportedbystudiesthat
haveinvestigatedthepatternsofacquisitionof
EnglishgrammaticalmorphemesbyKoreanand
mple,Pak(1987),who
examinedtheacquisitionrateofEnglishmorphemes
byKoreanchildren(ages5to12years)livingin
Texas,reportedthattheinde®nitearticle,thethird
personsingular-s,andthepluralmorphemepre-
ntedthegreatestdif®cultyforherKoreansubjects.
Furthermore,Hakuta(1976)showedthatscoresfor
theEnglishpluralneverreachedthecriteriallevelfor
dLesleyMilroy
ftestingfortheexperimentaltaskon
pluralmarking
Stack#1®rstStack#2®rst
KyungAbel
JaeKathy
GraceJoshua
GinaKwon
DavidMatthew
YooniSoHee
acquisitionduringhis13monthsofinvestigationofa
youngJapanechildlearningEnglishasacond
language.4Ascanbeenfromthecomparisonsin
Figure1,theNYCKoreanchildren,liketheTexas
Koreanchildren,experiencedparticulardif®culty
withtheinde®nitearticle,thethirdpersonsingular-s,
astheregular
Englishpluralmorphemewhichprentedthe
greatestdif®cultyforthisgroupasforHakuta's
erylowscorecanbeinter-
pretedasincompleteacquisitionofthisparticular
grammaticalfeature,anissuetowhichwereturn
whenwediscusstheresultsoftheexperimentalstudy
onpluralmarking(however,ebelowinthisction
foradiscussionofKoreanphonologyregarding
word-®nal/s/).
Turningnowtoerrorsinvolvingarticles,it
appearsthattheabnceofthisgrammaticalcategory
inKoreanin¯uencesitsacquisitionbytheNYC
iclesystemismoreover
manticallycomplexinEnglish,encodingacontrast
betweende®niteandinde®ars
fromtheworkofHakuta(1976)andFathman(1975)
thatchildrenwho®rstlanguageisJapaneor
Korean(neitherofwhichhasanarticlesystem)have
moredif®cultylearningtheEnglisharticlesystem
thanforexample,Spanish-speakingchildren,who
havenativelyacquiredalanguagewithanarticle
stingly,Frauenfelder(1974)reports
thatEnglish-speakingchildreninaFrenchimmersion
programinCanadaneverconfudthede®nite-inde-
®nitecontrast,althoughtheymademanyerrors
involvinggenderonarticles±adistinctionnot
ingtothe®ndings,
Hakuta(1987)arguesthatitistheabnceofa
grammaticallymarkedmanticdistinctionbetween
de®niteandinde®nitereferencewhichcauspro-
blemsfortheJapaneandKoreanchildren,rather
shallprovideadditionalsupportforthisclaiminthe
nextction.
Theproblemwiththethirdpersonsingularmor-
pheme,the®nalelementshowninFigure1to
prentproblemsfortheNYCKoreanchildren,
emstobeofaratherdifferentkind,sinceinvestiga-
tionsofboth®rstandcondlanguageacquisitionof
Englishhavefoundthismorphemetobeacquired
relativelylate(Brown,1973;DeVilliersandDe
Villiers,1985;Hakuta,1976;DulayandBurt,1974).
Lowperceptualsaliencehasbeendiscusdasa
majorfactorinitslateacquisitionbyboth®rst-and
cond-languagelearners,anditismoreovervariably
deletedinsomedialectsofEnglish(eforexample,
Labov,1972;CheshireandMilroy,1993).Besides
theplausibleexplanationshowever,aphonological
factorotherthansaliencymayalsobeinvolvedin
Koreanchildren'sdif®cultywiththeEnglishthird
personsingularagreementmarker(aswellasthe
Englishpluralmarkerdiscusdabove)±namely
thatnowordsinKoreaneverendin/s/.Whenthis
phonemeoccursword-®nally,itiitherneutralized
to/t/,asinos``clothes''(pronounced[ot]),oris
deleted,asinkaps``price''(pronounced[kap]).This
4HakutaudBrown's(1973)scoringmethodswherethepointof
acquisitionwasde®nedas``the®rstspeechsampleofthree,such
thatinallthreethemorphemeissuppliedinatleast90%ofthe
contextsinwhichitisclearlyrequired''(Hakuta1976,p.334).
155Bilinguallanguageacquisition
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Gr
o
u
p
s
c
o
r
e
Pr
o
n
o
u
n
c
a
s
e
Pr
o
g
r
e
s
s
P
o
s
s
.
C
o
p
ul
a
P
a
s
t
r
e
g
.
A
u
xi
l
l
a
r
y
P
a
s
t
i
r
r
e
g
.
Ar
t
i
cl
e
Pl
u
r
al
3
r
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
cyrankingofEnglishmorphemesfortwelveKoreansubjects.
couldimpedeKoreanchildren'sabilitytotakenote
oftheEnglishmorphemesthatarerealizedasword-
®nal/s/.Inthefollowingction,wecomparein
moredetailtheresultsshowninFigure1withtho
reportedinotherstudiesofEnglishgrammatical
morphemeacquisition.
Comparisonwithothermorphemestudies
Inthisctionweattemptsystematicallytoaddress
thetwomajorissuestoutintheIntroduction,
®rst
questioniswhetherL2learnersofEnglishacquire
theEnglishmorphemesinthesamequenceasL1
learners,andthecondiswhethercond-language
learnersacquiretheEnglishmorphemesinthesame
quence,nd-
languagelearnersofEnglishacquirethegrammatical
morphemesinthesamequenceasspeakersof
Englishasanativelanguageassomestudieshave
claimed,weshouldeastatisticallysimilarrank
orderingofthegrammaticalmorphemesinBrown's
(1973)monolingualEnglish-speakingchildrenand
therhand,
adifferentrankorderingwouldsuggestthatacquisi-
tionbythetwogroupsdoesnotproceedinthesame
manner,atleastwithregardtothetofgrammatical
rmore,ifchildrenre-
constructEnglishsyntaxinsimilarwaysregardlessof
®rst-languagebackground,weshouldeacommon
orderingofthemorphemesbyKorean,Chine,
JapaneandSpanish-speakingchildren(Dulayand
Burt,1974;Hakuta,1976).Ontheotherhand,
statisticallysigni®cantdifferencesintherankorder-
ingswouldargueagainstuniversallanguageproces-
singinSLA.
FollowingDulayandBurt(1973)inassuming
thataccuracyrankre¯ectsorderofacquisition,we
cancomparetherankordersofacquisitionofthe
10EnglishmorphemesfortheKoreanchildrenwith
6showstherank
orderfornativespeakersofEnglish(column
English);forSpanishandChinechildren(column
Sp.&Ch.);5foraJapanechild(columnJapane);
fortheNYCKoreanchildren(columnNYCK.);
foranothergroupofKoreanchildreninTexas
(columnTexasK.).Sincetheorderofacquisition
forthefourcond-languagegroups(Sp.&Ch.,Ja-
pane,NYCK.,andTexasK.)isclearlydifferent
fromthatofthe®rst-languagegroup(English),our
ownNewYorkstudy,inconjunctionwiththedata
reportedhere,supportstheclaimthatchildrenwho
acquireEnglishasacondlanguagedonotacquire
thegrammaticalmorphemesinthesamequence
aschildrenwhoacquireEnglishasa®rstlanguage
(efurtherHakuta,1987;Clahn,1990;Meil,
1991).
DulayandBurt(1973)attributedthisdiscrepancy
between®rst-andcond-languageacquisitionpat-
ternstothedifferentcognitiveandconceptualabil-
itiesofchildrenatdifferentstagesofdevelopment,so
thattheacquisitionpatternsofmoresophisticated
olderlearnersarenecessarilydifferentfromthoof
younger®rst-languagelearnersofthesamelanguage.
Hakutafurthersuggeststhata5-year-oldcond-
languagelearnerbehavesmorelikeanadultcond-
languagelearnerthana5-year-old®rst-language
rguments,togetherwithourresult,
supporttheassumptionthattherearefundamental
differencesin®rstandcondlanguageacquisition,
otherwiknownastheFundamentalDifference
Hypothesis(Bley-Vroman,1990).
Wecanaddressthecondissuetoutatthe
beginningofthisction±whethercond-language
learnersacquiretheEnglishmorphemesinthesame
quence,regardlessofL1background,bycom-
paringthefourcond-languagegroups(Columns
Sp.&Ch.,Japane,NYCK.,TexasK.)inTable6.
Infact,cleardifferencesareevidentbetweentherank
orderingsreportedbyDulayandBurt(1974)
(columnSp.&Ch.)andthointheotherthree
studies(Hakuta(1976),currentstudy,andPak
(1987);columnsJapane,NYCK.,TexasK.)6
Hakutareportedthattheacquisitionorderofhis
Japanesubject(columnJapane)wasverydif-
ferentfromthatofDulayandBurt'ssubjects
(columnSp.&Ch.)withaSpearmanrhoof+.20for
the9morphemesthatthetwostudieshadin
,resultsofSpearmanrankorder
correlationforDulayandBurt'ssubjects(column
Sp.&Ch.)withtheNYCKoreanchildren(column
NYCK.)andalsowiththeTexasKoreanchildren
(columnTexasK.)showthattheaccuracyordering
ofeachofthetwoKoreangroupsissigni®cantly
differentfromthatoftheSpanishandChine
groupsofDulayandBurt'sstudy.
AriesofSpearmanRankOrdertestsonthe
datareportedinTable6revealedthefollowing
correlations:
5DulayandBurt(1973)reportthattheorderisvirtuallythesame
forboththeirSpanishandChinespeakingsubjects(Spearman
rankordercorrelationsofSpanishandChinegroups:+.95
(p<.001)),anissuetowhichwereturnlater.
originallylisted14morphemes,ofwhichDulayandBurtinvesti-
investigated17,thecurrentstudy
10,andPak12.
dLesleyMilroy
lish+0.07(notsigni®cant)
.&Ch.+0.35(notsigni®cant)
ane+0.78(p<.01)
asK.+0.90(p<.001)
Sp.&ane+0.20(notsigni®cant)
.&Ch.+0.35(notsigni®cant)
ane+0.77(p<.025)
Itisclearthenthatorderofacquisitionforthe
twoKoreangroupsandtheJapanegroupis
similar,butthatthegroupsdifferfromtheEnglish,
sultispecially
noteworthybecauthetwoKoreanstudiesdiffered
fromtheJapanestudywithrespecttobothdata
collectionandscoringprocedures;whilebothKorean
studieswerecross-ctionalandorderedthemor-
phemesintermsofaccuracyofu,theJapane
studywaslongitudinalandreportedaquential
urmithatifthedata
collectionandscoringprocedureshadbeenuniform
acrossthethreestudies,thecorrelationwouldhave
vent,thestrongestcorrelation
amongthe®vegroupsinTable6isfoundbetween
thetwoKoreanstudies(asK.).The
factthattheresultsofthestudiesconvergedespite
differencesinelicitationprocedures(Pakemployed
theBilingualSyntaxMeasure(BSM)whilethe
currentstudyudspontaneousspeech)strengthens
the®rmore,whenPak(1987)
iscomparedwithDulayandBurt(1974)(columns
.&Ch.),therankorderingsdonot
correlatesigni®cantlyeventhoughbothstudiesud
e
resultshaveimplicationsforthereliabilityofthe
patternreportedfortheNYCKoreanchildren,
suggestingthattheabnceofasigni®cantcorrela-
tionbetweentheacquisitionorderoftheNYC
KoreanchildrenandDulayandBurt'ssubjectscan
notbeaccountedforbydifferentmethodologies.
Rather,itisthe®rstlanguageofthedifferentgroups
ofbilingualchildrenwhichemstodeterminecorre-
lationbetweenordersofacquisition.
SinceKoreanandJapaneareverysimilarin
morphology,syntaxandgeneraltypologicalcriteria
(Martin,1966;Kim,Y.,1997),thehighcorrelation
betweentheKoreanandtheJapanerankorders
showninTable6mayfurtherbeexplainedbythe
ghthe
historicalrelationshipbetweenthetwolanguagesis
stillcontroversial,itislikelythatJapaneisrelated
toKorean(Martin,1966).However,Koreanissyn-
tacticallyandmorphologicallyverydifferentfrom
Chine,althoughithasborrowednumerousChine
words(Martin,1992).Andofcourthereisno
relationshipatallbetweenSpanishandKorean.
Giventhefactsaboutmorphosyntacticsimilari-
tiesanddifferencesinthelanguagesinvolvedinour
comparison,itappearsthatthechild'snativelan-
guageindeedplaysaroleintheacquisitionofthe
condlanguage,contrarytotheclaimthatall
condlanguageacquisitionisguidedbysomesortof
ularly,given
thatbothKoreanandJapanechildlearnersof
EnglishconsistentlyperformpoorlyontheEnglish
articleandtheplural-sandgiventhatbothofthe
languageslackthegrammaticalcategories,items
reasonabletoconcludethatthelearner's®rstlan-
guagein¯uencestheacquisitionofthecondlan-
guage,atleastwithrespecttotheacquisitionof
kaandYoung-
Scholten(1994)drawsimilarconclusionsregarding
thein¯uenceofL1ontheacquisitionofGerman
phrastructurebyadultKoreanandTurkish
ereforesurprisingthatthetwo
groupsofchildrenwithSpanishandChineas®rst-
languagebackgroundsstudiedbyDulayandBurt
(1974)acquiredEnglishmorphemesinasimilar
order,sincethetwolanguagesarestructurallyvery
ltakeamomentatthispointto
considertheapparentlyinconsistent®ndings,
whichinfactareindicativeofanunresolvedissuein
theliterature.
SeveralstudiesusingtheBilingualSyntax
Measure(BSM)havereportedahighlevelofsimi-
larityinthedif®cultyexperiencedbybothchildren
andadultsacrossavarietyofL1backgroundsin
acquiringparticulargrammaticalelements(Dulay
157Bilinguallanguageacquisition
facquisitionofEnglishgrammatical
morphemesby®rst-andcond-languagelearnersin
®vedifferentstudies
EnglishSp.&.
Pronouncan/a1n/a1n/a
Progressive14121
Plural259108
Pastirregular38776
Posssive49234
Article525871
Pastregular67855
Thirdperson710699
Copula83342
Auxiliary96463
Key:English=Brown(1973);Sp.&Ch.=DulayandBurt
(1974);Japane=Hakuta(1976);NYCK.=currentinvesti-
gation;TexasK.=Pal(1987).
1thisrankreprentsacombinedaverageofde®niteand
inde®nitetokens(fourthandninthplacerespectively).
andBurt,1973,1974;Bailey,Madden,andKrashen,
1974).However,itisnotclearwhetherthereported
similarorderingsaretosomeextentanartifactofthe
speechelicitationmeasure(butethediscussion
aboveofPak'suofthismeasure).Othercriticisms
ofthemethodologyudinmorphemestudiesare
wellknown,andarenotedhere(forreviewseLong
andSato,1984;Ellis,1994,pp.90±96).
Oneofthemainconcernsaboutmorphemeorder
studiesisthescoringprocedureusingaggregated,
omerearchers
claimthattheorderobtainedfromcross-ctional
groupdataisnotsustainedbylongitudinaldataon
individuals(e.g.,Rosansky,1976),othersclaimthat
individualandgroupedmorphemedatacorrelate
signi®cantly(e.g.,Krashen,1977;Andern,1978).
Onewonderswhetherthesurprising®ndingreported
byDulayandBurtthatSpanishandChinechildren
donotdifferinmorphemeordersofacquisitionisa
conquenceofgroupingdiversi®edindividualdata.
Anothermajorcriticismofmorphemeorderstudies
isthe``weak''natureoftheinferentialstatisticaltests
suchasSpearmanorKendallrankordercorrelations
forestablishingthesimilarityofordersofacquisition
(Brown,1983).Alternativeproceduresforcomparing
developmentalquenceshaveincludedimplicational
scaling(Andern,1978)andtarget-likeu(TLU)
analysis,inwhichsubjects'performanceinsupplying
morphemesinnon-obligatorycontextsinadditionto
obligatorycontextsixamined(own,
SpadaandWallace,1980;Lightbown,1983).
However,theapproachesarenotwithoutproblems
mple,StaubleandLarn-
Freeman(1978)pointouttheinadequacyofimplica-
tionalscalingforthestudyofcondlanguageacqui-
sition,namelythatitdistortsthegradientand
variablenatureoftheinterlanguageofacond
languagelearner,sinceacquisitionornon-acquisition
(1990,pp.
196±199)discussanumberofcriticisms(including
thisone)whichhavebeenleveledbysociolinguistsat
implicationalscalingtechniquesasaprocedurefor
capturingstructuredvariabilityinthespeechcommu-
,despitetheirlimitations,whichareac-
knowledgedhere,wejudgedthemorphemeorder
approachtoprovideareasonablemeansofcom-
paringcross-ctionallanguagedatawithlongitu-
aoftherearch
reportedhere,thesimilarityinacquisitionalorderof
morphemesamongtheJapaneandKoreangroups
isimportant,despitedifferentdatacollectionand
-FreemanandLong
(1991)reportthatanumberofstudiesusingdifferent
datacollectionandanalysisprocedureswithsubjects
fromIndo-Europeanandnon-Indo-EuropeanL1
backgroundshavefoundcommonordersofacquisi-
r,theresultsofourown
analysisreportedabovedonotsupportthe®nd-
ings,sincetheyrevealacorrelationbetweenKorean
andJapaneordersofacquisitionwhichdoesnot
emergewhencomparabledatafromEnglish,Spanish
andChinegroupsisconsidered.
Bilingualacquisitionpatternsandlanguagechoice
Inthisctionwediscusstheresultsofthetwo-part
experimentalproceduredescribedabove(theexperi-
mentaltaskandthegametaskrespectively)which
investigatedacquisitionofthedifferentplural
prentinformationontheKoreanchildren'slan-
guagechoicepatternswhichemergedinthecourof
formationisincludedfor
theinsightitoffersonthepreferenceofparticular
childrenforonelanguageortheother,whichappears
tosomeextenttore¯y,
crosslinguisticdifferencesinlanguageacquisitionare
discusdwithspeci®creferencetotheKoreanac-
quiredbytheNYCKoreanchildren.
Results:Experimentaltask
Recallthattheexperimentaldesign(describedunder
``Elicitationproceduresfortheexperimentalstudyon
pluralmarking'')providedforinstructionstobe
prentedtothechildreninbothEnglishand
smaywishtorefertotheaccounts
toutthereofdifferencesinnumbermarking
systemsinKoreanandEnglish.
Table7tsoutresponlicitedby12items
prentedtothechildrenwithinstructionsinEnglish,
andthehighnumbersincolumn``Incorrect''shows
thatmostoftheNYCKoreanchildrengenerallydo
heitem
``chair''ismarkedcorrectlybytwochildren,the
items``watch'',``sock'',and``block''areeachmarked
correctlybyonlyonechild(column``Correct'').
RecallthattheKoreanpluralsuf®x-tulisoptional
ctmaycontributeto
theapparentdif®cultythatKorean-speakingchildren
havewiththeobligatoryEnglishpluralsuf®xmor-
eralpatternofnopluralmarkingon
eithersingularorpluralnounscanbeobrvedinall
oftheworditemswiththeexceptionof``sock''.All
butoneofthechildrenmarkaspluralbothsingular
andpluralformsofthisword(column``Overmark''),
mostprobablybecau``sock''ismoreoftenud
andsohasbeenlearnedinthepluralratherthanthe
singularform.
InTable8,whichtsoutthechildren'srespons
totheKoreaninstruction,thenumberofpossible
dLesleyMilroy
responpatternsincreasto®vebecausome
childrenchotorespondinEnglishwhileothers
respondedinKorean±Kathy,Kwon,Jae,andGina
consistentlyrespondedinKoreanfortheentirestack
ofcards,whiletheothereightsubjectsrespondedin
childrenappearedtobeawareofthechangeinthe
languageoftheinstruction,andwhentheKorean
instructionwasread,somechildrenexplicitlyaskedif
erinwhich
thetwotsof¯ashcardswereprenteddidnot
appeartoin¯uencetheobrvedresponpatterns±
thesixsubjectswhoheardtheKoreaninstruction
®rstdidnotnecessarilyproducemoreKoreanre-
sponsormoreincorrectpluralmarkingsinEnglish
thanthesixsubjectswhorespondedtotheEnglish
instruction®rst.
Columns``Incorrect'',``Correct'',and``Over-
mark''ofTable8showthesamepatternofEnglish
ghthenumber
ofresponsforcolumn``Incorrect''isfewerinTable
8thaninTable7,thegeneraltendencytoavoid
pluralmarkingonbothsingularandpluralnouns
remainsclearlyevident.7Notealsothatresponsfor
theitem``shoe''incolumn``Overmark''showa
patternsimilartothatshownfor``sock''inTable7.
Since``shoe''isalsomostlyudinthepluralform,
thisresultsupportstheexplanationofferedearlierfor
the``sock''responswereeither
correct(column``CorrectK''),axempli®edby(6)
and(7),orincorrect(column``IncorrectK''),as
exempli®edby(8)and(9),dependingonwherethe
numbermarkerwasplacedinrelationtothenoun.8
Although(9)isacceptablewithsomeKoreannouns,
themostcommonorderisthatfoundin(6)and(7)
(+Number+(Classi®er))(Martin,1992).
Thewordordershownin(9)appearstoreprenta
borrowingfromEnglish(forfurtherdiscussionofthe
variantwordorder,ethe®nalparagraphinthis
ction).
(6)swupakhankay
watermelononeCLASS
(``onewatermelon'')
(7)swupakhana
watermelonone
(``onewatermelon'')
(8)*hankayswupak
oneCLASSwatermelon
(9)?hanswupak
onewatermelon
TheKoreanresponsshowthatthebilingual
childrenexperiencesomedif®cultyinusingKorean
classi®ers,andalsoraitheissueofwhetherthey
acquiretheclassi®ersysteminthesamewayas
monolingualchildrenacquiringKorean.K.-
(1997)investigatedpatternsofacquisitionofa
numberofKoreanclassi®ersbymonolingualKorean
thatKoreanhasveral
dozenclassi®erswhichmarkdifferentmanticcate-
goriesofnouninthenounphra(e.g.,ccakfor
shoes,maliforanimalssuchasdogsandbirds,songi
for¯owers,andtayforairplanes).Leefoundthatthe
numberofresponswithcorrectclassi®ersgenerally
®rstpartoftheexperiment
whereutteranceswereelicitedwithouttheprovision
ofspeci®cclassi®ers,67percentand72percentofthe
responsgivenby6-and7-year-oldsrespectively
containedcorrectclassi®econdpartofthe
7ThetwomonolingualEnglish-speakingchildrentestedascon-
trolsinthecurrentstudymarkedall24ofthepluralnouns
correctly,includingtheitems``sock''and``shoe'',withwhich
mostoftheirKoreanpeershaddif®sultisconsistent
withearlierstudiesofmonolingualEnglish-speakingchildren
(,1973;DeVilliersandDeVilliers,1985)whichhave
reportedtheplural-sasoneoftheearliestgrammaticalmor-
phemestobeacquiredbymonolingualEnglish-speakingchil-
dren.
8AsmallnumberofresponsthathavemixedKoreanand
Englishwords(pal``twoshoes'')wereassignedto
eitherColumn``CorrectK''or``IncorrectK''dependingonthe
wordorder.
159Bilinguallanguageacquisition
typesof12KoreanAmerican
childreninthepluralmarkingtask(instructionin
English)
WorditemsIncorrectCorrectOvermark
watch1110
chair1020
sock0111
cat1200
tree1200
knife1200
car1200
apple1200
block1110
snake1200
pencil1200
camera1200
Key:
Incorrect:nopluralmarkingoneithersingularorplural
noun(e.g.,onewatch,twowatch).
Correct:nomarkingonsingularnoun,pluralmarkingon
pluralnoun(e.g.,onechair,twochairs).
Overmark:pluralmarkingonbothsingularandplural
nouns(e.g.,onesocks,twosocks).
experiment,thechildrenwereprovidedwithaclassi-
®erinthequestionandtherateofcorrectrespons
increadto93percentforthe6-year-oldsand96
ntheresults,
Leeconcludedthatbytheageof7,Koreanmono-
lingualchildrenaremoreorlessabletouand
distinguishcorrectlyvariousKoreanclassi®ers.
Incontrast,theNYCKoreanchildrenfailedto
produceappropriateclassi®ersfordifferentclassof
yclassi®erthattheNYCKorean
childrenuforallofthenounsiskay,which,
accordingtoUnterbeck(1994)(1995),isa
generalclassi®ercoveringawidermanticscope
thanotherKoreanclassi®hisitemco-
occurswithnounsreferringtosmall-andmedium-
sizedcountableobjects,italsoreplacesothermore
speci®cclassi®erswhichareudwithvariousinani-
mple,theclassi®erforvolumes
ofpapers,``kwen''in``chaykhankwen''(``one
book'')canbereplacedby``kay''asin``chaykhan
kay''.(1995)reportsthatmonolingualKorean
childrenoverukayintheearlystagesofacquisition
andgraduallydecreaitsuasotherclassi®ersare
ributesthisphenomenontothewide
sthen,bad
ontheobrvations,thattheNYCKoreanchildren
areatanearlierstageofacquisitionofKoreanas
comparedwiththeirsame-agemonolingualKorean
peers.
However,theoverallpictureofthechildren's
Koreanacquisitioniscomplicatedbythefactthat,in
additiontooverusingtheclassi®erkay,theNYC
Koreanchildrenproduceincorrectwordorder(i.e.
number+(classi®er)+noun),apatternnotfoundin
,it
emsthatKorean±Englishbilingualchildrenfollow
monolingualKoreanchildren'sacquisitionalpatterns
withrespecttothemanagementofthemanticsof
Koreanclassi®ers,butnotwithrespecttowordorder
®ndingissimilarinimpor-
tantrespectstoPfaff's(1993,p.126)®ndingthatthe
TurkishdevelopmentofGerman-dominantbilingual
childrenislikethatofmonolingualTurkishchildren
onlyinsomerespects,whilesomestructuresdonot
developtothesameextent,rmore,
Pfaff(1996)reportsthatherTurkish±Germanbilin-
gualsubjectsshowsimilarpatternsofacquisitionof
thatthecanonicalwordordersofthelanguagepairs
inquestionareparallel(±SOV,English±
SVO;Turkish±SOV,German±SVO),ourown
result,alongwithPfaff's(1996)result,raisthe
questionofwhetherwordorderacquisitionshouldbe
treatedasanissueparatefromacquisitionof
grammaticalmorphemes.
Results:gametask
Asdescribedearlier,thegametaskwasdesignedto
supplementtheexperimentalinvestigationofhowthe
lof
thistaskwastoelicitanapproximationtonatural
speechbyenablingthechildrentodescribethe
pictureditemstooneanotherwithouttherearch-
er'sintervention±andofcourthismeantthata
gooddealofcontrolovertheformofthedatawas
relinquished.
Interestingly,all12childrenchotocarryoutthe
hedif®cultiesin
analyzingtheresultsofthegametaskwasthata
straightone-to-onecomparisonwiththeresultsof
heex-
perimenterdidnotintervene,somechildrenspoke
lsonot
uncommontoesomechildrenswappingcardswith
theirpartnersorsometimesskippingsomeitems
ethedif®cultieshowever,certain
generalpatternmerged.
Aswemightexpectfromtheresultsoftheexperi-
mentaltask,noneofthe12childrenmarkedallofthe
dLesleyMilroy
typesof12KoreanAmerican
childreninthepluralmarkingtask(instructionin
Korean)
WorditemsIncorrectCorrectOvermarkCorrectKIncorrectK
Clock61050
Table71004
Shoe00823
Dog71022
Flower71022
Spoon80013
Airplane71022
Watermelon70023
Ball61014
Bird80013
Book71013
TV80022
Key:
Incorrect:nopluralmarkingoneithersingularorpluralnoun
(e.g.,oneclock,twoclock).
Correct:nomarkingonsingularnoun,pluralmarkingonplural
noun(e.g.,oneclock,twoclocks).
Overmark:pluralmarkingonbothsingularandpluralnouns(e.g.,
oneshoes,twoshoes).
CorrectK:correctKoreanwordorder:Noun+Number+
(CLASS).
IncorrectK:incorrectKoreanwordorder:Number+(CLASS)+
Noun.
Englishnounscorrectly,butahigherproportionof
pluralnounswererealizedwiththepluralmorpheme
-sthanintheexperimentaltask(Tables7and8).In
thelessstructuredgametask,19outofthetotal24
worditemlicitedcarriedtheplural-satleast50
percentofthetimeandonlyfortheremaining®ve
itemswasthepluralrealized40percentofthetimeor
hythelatter®vewords(i.e.``knife'',
``camera'',``airplane'',``watermelon'',``TV'')were
moreproblematicfortheKoreanchildren,thereare
someplausibleexplanations.``Camera''and``TV''
areattestedloanwordsintoKorean,andassuchwere
possiblytreatedbysomeofthechildrenasKorean
tion,thechildren'sdif®cultywith
`knife'mayre¯ectthefactthatitexhibitsanexcep-
tionalstem-®nalalternationintheplural(i.e.
``knives'',not*``knifes'').Onemayalsoquestion
whethertheproblemwith``airplane''and``water-
melon''wascaudbythefactthattheyaretheonly
eexperimentaltask,
theitems``shoe''and``sock''alwayscarriedthe
plural-swhethersingularorpluralwasintended.
Sincegroupingdataoftenmasksindividualvaria-
tion(eRosansky,1976;Krashen,1977;Andern,
1978,ddata),
Table9showsresponstothegametasktout
12NYCKoreanchildren
differedwidelyintermsofcorrectEnglishplural
marking,asshownbythebroadrangeof%-s
markingonpluralnouns(14%±83%).Eightofthe12
childrenmarkedthepluralcorrectlyatleast50
percentofthetimewhilefourchildrenscored43
estrateofcorrectplural
markingiseninDavid(14%),theleastpro®cient
speakerofEnglishamongthe12Korean-English
bilingualchildren.
Sincediscrepanciesofthekindreportedhere
betweenexperimentallyelicitedandmoresponta-
neousdataarereportedelwhereintheliterature
(etal.,1992;Marcus,1995),itisworth
suggestingheresomepossiblereasonsforthechil-
dren'sapparentlygreatersuccessincorrectly
markingEnglishpluralsinspontaneousspeech.
First,itislikelyinageneralwaythatexperimental
conditionsimpodarti®cialconstraintsonthechil-
dren'srespons,and,ashoped,thegametaskmade
possiblethegatheringofmorespontaneousdataby
reducingtheamountofinterviewerinputandal-
lowingthechildrentoconverfreelywithone
eci®callyhowever,itispossiblethat
thefocusonlexicalidenti®cationalongwithnumber
wordsandclassi®ersintheexperimentaltaskreduced
thecommunicativemotivationformarkingthenoun
asplural,sincetheexperimenterspeci®callyelicited
u-
ble
asthixplanationmightbe,however,itisimportant
tonotethattherateofEnglishpluralmarkingbythe
NYCKoreanAmericanchildrenstillfallsshortof
thatofthetwonativeEnglishspeakerswhoscored
perfectlyonallitemveninthemoreconstrained
ttingoftheexperimentaltask.
Whenweexaminethespontaneousmonolingual
EnglishspeechoftheNYCKoreanchildrengathered
outsideofthegametask,we®ndthatEnglishplural
nounsareinfactvariablymarked,similartothe
essuchas(10),
(11)and(12)arequitecommoninthemonolingual
Englishcorpusandcon®rmtheresultsofboththe
experimentalandthegametasks.
(10)Yooni:Iliketwoshapeupthere.
(11)Kathy:Balloonis®ftydollar.
(12)Joshua:That'dbehundreddollar.
Inacquisitionalterms,thevariablemarkingof
pluralswhichemergesbothinspontaneousandin
experimentallyelicitedspeechindicatesthattheNYC
Korean±Englishbilingualchildrenhavenotfully
d
thestudiesofTurkishchildrenintheNetherlands
(VerhoevenandBoeschoten,1986;Boschoten,1990;
Verhoeven,1988;VerhoevenandVermeer,1985)
whichrevealedthattheTurkish±Dutchbilingual
children'sdevelopmentinthetwolanguagesisgen-
erallyslowerthanthatoftheirTurkish-speakingand
Dutch-speakingmonolingualpeersinanL1tting.
Similarly,theKorean±Englishbilingualchildrenof
thecurrentstudyareinadevelopmentalstagein
161Bilinguallanguageacquisition
nceof-sonpluralnounsforeach
subject
al%-smarkingon
nounsspokenpluralnouns
Abel1258%
Kathy757%
Joshua743%
Kwon863%
Matthew1861%
SoHee875%
Yooni1182%
Grace1283%
Jae743%
David714%
Kyung1155%
Gina520%
whichtheyfallshortoftheacquisitionallevelofboth
English-speakingandKorean-speakingmonolingual
childrenofthesameage.
Languagechoice
Recallthateachchildwhoparticipatedintheexperi-
mentaltaskdescribedabovelectedtherespon
ldren'schoicesilluminatedtheir
languagepreferences,andwereskewedinaninter-
leneithertheKoreannorthe
Englishinstructionspeci®edwhichlanguageshould
beud,theKoreaninstructionelicitedsomeEnglish
respons,buttheEnglishinstructiononlyEnglish
obablethatthechildrenwho
respondedinEnglishtoboththeKoreanandthe
EnglishinstructionslectedEnglishasthepreferred
(andindeedof®cial)r,
thepreferenceofthechildrenwhoudsomeKorean
ismostplausiblyexplainednotbytheeffectof
situationalnormsbutbyasuperiorKoreancompe-
dMilroy(forthcoming)prentdata
suggestingthatcode-switchingismotivatedbya
limitedcompetenceinEnglishonthepartofoneof
rly,
Extract(1)belowshowxamplesofcode-switching
motivatedbyalimitedcompetenceinKoreanby
Kyung,oneofthemostpro®cientspeakersof
Englishamongthe12KoreanAmericanchildren.
Inline1,therearcherelicitsKyung'srespon
fortheitem``watch''thatKyung's
Englishresponinline2(i.e.``oneclock'')isin-
correctsincetheeliciteditemisawatchratherthana
r,thisresponisprobablyrelatedto
thefactthattheKoreantermsikyey(``watch'',
``clock'')coversthemanticrangeofboth``clock''
and``watch''4,apparentlyinter-
pretingtherearcher'srepairinitiator``um?
(what?)''asarequesttoswitchlanguages,Kyung
reformulatesherresponinKorean.A3-condgap
hereisprobablybestinterpretedasaprocessing
pauwhilesheremembersthecorrectKoreanword
11,thecardwithapictureofa
tableelicitstherespon``hanuyca''(onechair).
NotethatinadditiontoanEnglishwordorder(i.e.
numeral+noun)whichshowstheeffectofEnglish,
Kyunghasnotproducedthecorrectlexicalitem,
probablyduetoagapinherbilingualvocabulary.
Aftertherearcher'srepeatedrequestforclari®-
cationinlines12and13,Kyungattemptstorepair
herresponinEnglish(line14)butsubquently
startstoreformulateherresponinKorean(line15)
knowingthataKoreanresponisrequired.
However,the1-condpau,followedbyaswitchto
Englishwhensheofferstheword``desk''suggests
thatshedoesnotknowtheKoreanwordfor``table''
andsoisunabletocompletetheutteranceinKorean.
Referringtoswitchesofthiskind,MoffatandMilroy
(1992)suggestthatoneofthemotivationsforcode-
switchinginchildrenisto®lllexicalgapsinthe
ral,Kyungemstobe
morecomfortablewithEnglishnouns,sinceshe
choostorespondinEnglish(lines18,20and22)
despitetherearcher'sconsistentuofKorean.
Extract(1):
1Res:ikemweya?/
thiswhatis
(whatisthis?)
2Kyung:oneclock?/
3Res:um?/
(what?)
4Kyung:Imean(3.0)sikyey/
Watch(orclock)
(Imeanwatch(orclock).)
5Res:um/
(yeah)
6ikenun?/
thisTOP
(Howaboutthis?)
7Kyung:sikyey?/
(watch?)
8Res:myechkayis?/
howmanyclassi®eris
(Howmanyarethere?)
9Kyung:twukay/
twoclassi®er
(two)
10Res:um/
(yeah)
11Kyung:hanuyca?/
onechair
(onechair?)
12Res:ikeyuyca?/
thischair
(thisischair?)
13(2.0)uycaya?/
chairis
(Isitchair?)
14Kyung:IImean/
15han(1.0)Imeanonedesk?/
(one)
16Res:uhhuh/
17ikemweya?/
thiswhatis
(whatisthis?)
18Kyung:twotable/
19Res:Ike-nmweya?/
This-TOPwhatis
(Asforthis,whatisit?)
20Kyung:oneshoes/
dLesleyMilroy
21Res:Ike-nmwentey?/
This-TOPwhatwouldbe
(Asforthis,whatwoulditbe?)
22Kyung:twoshoes/
Kyung'spreferenceforEnglishisshowneven
moreclearlyinExtract(2),where,aftershehas
offeredveralEnglishresponstoquestionsin
Korean,therearcherexplicitlydirectshertospeak
Korean(line3).Notethatinline6,themixed
utterance``twoswupak''(twowatermelon)again
showstheeffectofEnglishwordorder(+
noun).Fromline9,allofKyung'sresponsarein
Englishfortherestofthession,andveral
attemptsbytherearchertoinducehertorespond
inKoreanareapparentlyunsuccessfulasKyung
,lan-
guagepreferenceassociatedwithagreatercompe-
tenceinEnglishemslargelytohavedetermined
languagechoiceinKyung'r,asnoted
inShinandMilroy(forthcoming),theroleofthe
interlocutorindetermininglanguagechoiceisalso
tsurmithatthechildren's
knowledgeoftherearcher'sbilingualismaffected
theoutcomeoftheexperiment,inthatamonolingual
KoreanspeakeradministeringtheKoreanportionof
thetestmighthaveelicitedmoreKoreanrespons.
Extract(2):
1Res:Ike-n?/
This-TOP
(Asforthisone?)
2Kyung:awatermelon/
3Res:hankwukmallomal-halay?/
Koreanintalk-would
(WouldyoutalkinKorean?)
4Kyung:swupak/
(watermelon)
5Res:um/
(yeah)
6Kyung:twoswupak/
(watermelon)
7Res:uhhuh/
8Ike-nmweya?/
This-TOPwhatis
(Asforthis,whatisit?)
9Kyung:um(2.5)oneball?/
10Res:uhhuh/
11Ikenun?/
thisTOP
(Howaboutthis?)
12Kyung:twoball/
Inthefollowingction,weshalldescribepatterns
ofthechildren'sbilinguallanguageacquisition,sug-
gestinghowinherentdifferencesinthestructureof
languagescanhelpexplainthepatternsofacquisition
inabilingualchild.
Crosslinguisticdifferencesinlanguageacquisition
Crosslinguisticinvestigationsof®rstlanguageacqui-
sition(e.g.,Slobin,1985,1997)haveidenti®edsig-
ni®cantlydifferentpatternsofdevelopmentin
morphosyntacticmarkingofparallelconstructions
examinetheNewYorkCityKoreanchildren'spat-
ternsofuofin¯ectionalmorphologyinKorean,we
®ndthattheyareverysimilartothoofmonolin-
istrueevenfortheEnglish-dominantchildreninthis
studywhomakeveryfewerrorsinKoreanmor-
phologyinareassuchascaandten-mood-aspect
therhand,wehaveenthatthe
NYCKoreanchildrenacquireEnglishgrammatical
morphemesinanorderverydifferentfromthat
reportedformonolingualEnglish-speakingchildren.
AsidefromthefactthatEnglishisbeingacquiredas
acondlanguagebytheKoreanchildrenofthis
study,inherentstructuraldifferencesinthetwolan-
guagesmayexplaindifferencesinpatternsoflan-
guageacquisition.
Languageacquisitionstudiesofmonolingual
KoreanchildrenindicatethatKorean-speakingchil-
drenhavenodif®cultyproducingbothverbalin¯ec-
tionsandnominalparticles9(Kim,1997).Kim
reportsthatavarietyofverbalin¯ectionalaf®xes
expressingdifferenttens,aspects,moods,modal-
ities,conjunctions,andspeechlevelsareudproduc-
tivelybefore2yearsofage,anderrorsintheuof
verbalin¯ectionalendingsaregenerallyrare,ifnot
in¯ectionalendingsareprent
intheone-wordstage,andchildrendonotmake
errorsintherialorderofin¯(1997)
alsonotesthatchildrenacquiringKoreanasanative
languagebegintoproduceadultformsofnegationas
earlyas1:7,andbythebeginningofthethirdyear,
theyudistinctlexicalformsofnegationtoexpress
differentmanticfunctionssuchasnon-existence,
prohibition,rejection,denial,inabilityandignorance.
Inaddition,theemergenceofrelativeclausin
children'sproductionsamplesiarlycomparedwith
reportsfromotherlanguages;Koreanchildrenbegin
toproducerelativeclausataround2:ui-
sitionofcomplementphrasalconstructionsisalso
early;Koreanchildrenproductivelyudifferent
in®nitivalcomplementconstructionsbetweenthe
ages1:9and2:Koreanchildrengenerally
followthepatterns.
9ForadetaileddescriptionofKoreangrammar,eMartin
(1992).
163Bilinguallanguageacquisition
Kim(1997)notesthatingeneral,Koreanchil-
dren'sspeechatveryearlystagesisverysimilarto
thatofKoreanadults,comparedwiththeirpeers
childrenarebornequippedwithUniversalGrammar,
thenwhydoesittakeconsiderablylongerfor
English-speakingchildrentoproduceadult-like
speechthanforyoungKoreanspeakersacquiring
Korean?Itissuggestedthattheadultgrammarsof
EnglishandKoreanmaydifferincrucialsyntactic
aspects,mostprobablywithrespecttofunctional
categories(Kim,1997:436).Kimreasonsthatif
somefunctionalcategoriesareabntoraresyntacti-
callyinactiveinKoreanadultgrammar±for
example,ifnominativeCASEisnotassignedby
INFLasinEnglish,butbydefault±someofthe
differencesintheacquisitionpatternsbetween
KoreanandEnglishwouldbereadilyaccountedfor.
Asimilarpatternofcrosslinguisticdifferencesin
languageacquisitionisfoundbyPfaff(1993),who
reportsthatalthoughtheirearlyexposuretoboth
languagesinitiallyledhertoexpectthatthedevelop-
mentalpatternsofherTurkish±Germanbilingual
subjectswoulddisplaythecharacteristicsofsimulta-
neousacquisitionoftwolanguages,heranalysis
indicatedthattheyinsteadfollowedapatternof
Turkish®rstlanguageacquisitionwithasuccessive
hechildren'sacquisi-
tionofTurkishproceededesntiallyonthelinesthat
havebeenreportedforTurkishmonolinguals,their
acquisitionofGermandifferedstrikinglyfromthat
reportedforGermanmonolingualsandwasinsome
respectssimilartothepatternscharacteristicof
naturalcondlanguageacquisitionofGermanby
tion,shefoundthat
theTurkish-dominantchildren'sin¯ectionalmor-
phologywasalmostidenticaltothatofTurkish
monolingualchildrenandeventheGerman-dominant
childreninherstudiesmadefewererrorsinTurkish
attributesthedifferencesinthechildren'sacquisi-
tionalpatternsofTurkishandGermantotherelative
opacityofGermanmorphosyntaxascomparedto
Turkishmorphosyntax(whichisgenerallymuch
moreregular).Similarly,theNYCKoreanchildren's
almosterror-freeacquisitionofKorean(exceptfor
wordorderinthenounphraasdiscusdinthe
previousction)anderror-riddenacquisitionof
Englishappeartobein¯uencedbytheinherent
structuraldifferencesbetweenthotwolanguages.
Conclusion
ThisarticleexaminedvariousaspectsoftheNew
YorkCityKorean±Americanchildren'sbilinguallan-
guagedevelopmentbyinvestigatingthechildren's
acquisitionofEnglishgrammaticalmorphemesand
bymeansofanexperimentalstudyofpluralmarking
speci®cally
attemptedtoaddresstwoissuesinlanguageacquisi-
tion:(1)``doL1andL2learnersacquirethegramma-
ticalfeaturesofaparticularlanguageinthesame
quence?''and(2)``docond-languagelearnersof
different®rst-languagebackgroundslearnthegram-
maticalfeaturesofagivencondlanguageinthe
samequence?''Wefoundthatamongthe10
Englishgrammaticalmorphemexamined,theNew
YorkCityKorean±Americanchildrendemonstrated
experiencingthegreatestdif®cultywiththeplural-s,
e
differentmorphemeacquisitionstudieswerecom-
pared,therewerecleardifferencesinrankorderof
acquisitionofmorphemesbetweenmonolingual
English-speakingchildrenandcond-languagelear-
ultssuggestthatL1andL2
learnersofEnglishdonotacquireEnglishgramma-
er,con-
trarytotheclaimthatcondlanguageacquisition
followsthesamequentialpathregardlessofthe
speakers'®rstlanguagebackground,wehavefound
evidencefor®rstlanguagein¯uenceonthecourof
mple,therewere
cleardifferencesinrankorderofacquisitionof
EnglishmorphemesbetweenSpanish-speakingand
Chine-speakingchildrenontheonehand(Dulay
andBurt,1974)andKorean-speakingchildrenonthe
r,therankordersoftheJapane
childandtheKorean-speakingchildrencorrelatedat
astatisticallysigni®hefactthat
JapaneandKoreanaremorphosyntacticallyvery
similar,thisresultsuggeststhattherearelanguage-
speci®cin¯
whetherornottheyounglearnerscontinueto
accessUGprinciples(andsurelytheymust),theirL2
acquisitionstrategiesappeartobeaffectedbythe
knowledgetheyhaveacquiredoftheir®rstlanguage.
Withrespecttotheexperimentalstudyonplural
marking,wefoundthattheNewYorkCityKorean
childrengenerallydonotmarkEnglishnounsfor
onolingualEnglish-speakingchildren
ofsimilarageproducedthepluralformscorrectly,it
wasconcludedthattheKoreanchildrenhavenot,at
leastinthisrespect,reachedthelevelofacquisitional
maturityoftheirmonolingualEnglish-speaking
rly,theNewYorkCityKorean
childrenwerefoundtofallshortoffullacquisition
oftheKoreanclassi®mple,while
monolingualKorean-speakingchildrenofsimilar
agearereportedtobeproducingvariousclassi®ers
inKorean,theNewYorkCityKoreanAmerican
dLesleyMilroy
childrenproducedonlykay,ageneralclassi®er
whichisdocumentedtobeoverudinearlystages
ofmonolingualKoreanchildren'sacquisitionof
Koreanclassi®foundingfactorinthis
overallpatternofdelayedacquisitionofKoreanis
thechildren'smanagementofwordorderinthe
nounphrainvolvingnumeralandclassi®-
®cally,whiletheacquisitionofthemanticsof
classi®ersisgenerallyunaffectedbythebilingual
children'sknowledgeofEnglish,variantwordorder
inKoreanisin¯uencedbythechildren'sknowledge
ofEnglishwordorder.
SincetheNewYorkCityKoreanchildrenappear
generallytofollowapatternof®rstlanguageacquisi-
tionofKoreanandcondlanguageacquisitionof
English,thixceptionmaysuggestthatwordorder
acquisitionpatternsneedtobeconsideredparately.
Thisgeneralpatternisnotunexpected,sincethe
children'xposuretoEnglishislaterinlife,most
signi®r,whetherandhow
thechildren'slanguagepreference/dominancepat-
ternsmaychangeinthecourofthedevelopmentof
n
availableinformationonbilingualspeakersinthe
Koreanandotherimmigrantcommunities,itix-
pectedthattheKoreanAmericanchildrenofthis
studywouldspeakincreasinglysmalleramountsof
KoreansincetheuofEnglishisparticularlyen-
children'scurrenterrorsinEnglishgrammarare
likelytodisappearastheybecomefullycompetentin
English,whiletheirabilityinKoreanislikelyto
weakenprogressivelyuntileventuallytheycanclaim
onlyapassiveknowledgeoftheirnativelanguage.
References
Andern,R.(1978).Animplicationalmodelforcond
geLearning,28,221±282.
Bailey,N.,Madden,C.,&Krashen,S.(1974).Istherea
``naturalquence''inadultcondlanguagelearning?
LanguageLearning,21,235±243.
Bley-Vroman,R.(1990).Thelogicalproblemofcond
sticAnalysis,20,3±49.
Boeschoten,H.(1990).AcquisitionofTurkishbyimmigrant
children:AmultiplecastudyofTurkishchildrenin
,Tilburg
University.
Brown,J.D.(1983).Anexplorationofmorpheme-group
,
(eds.),Secondlanguageacquisitionstudies,pp.25±40.
Rowley,MA:NewburyHou.
Brown,R.(1973).A®rstlanguage:-
bridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Cancino,H.,Rosansky,E.J.,&Schumann,J.H.(1974).
Testinghypothesaboutcondlanguageacquisition:
g
PapersinBilingualism,3,80±96.
Cancino,H.,Rosansky,E.J.,&Schumann,J.H.(1975).
TheacquisitionoftheEnglishauxiliarybynative
uarterly,9,421±430.
Carroll,S.E.(1998).OnProcessabilityTheoryandcond
ualism:LanguageandCog-
nition,1,23±24.
Cheshire,J.,&(1993).Syntacticvariationinnon-
standarddialects:and
(eds.),RealEnglish,pp.3±:
Longman.
Clahn,H.(1990).Thecomparativestudyof®rstand
sinSecondLan-
guageAcquisition,12,135±153.
Dato,D.P.(1970).Americanchildren'sacquisitionof
inary
®uteofInter-
2±7±002637,May.
DeVilliers,J.G.,&DeVilliers,P.A.(1985).Theacquisi-
(ed.),Thecrosslinguistic
studyoflanguageacquisition,pp.27±ale,
NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Dulay,H.C.,&Burt,M.K.(1973).Shouldweteach
childrensyntax?LanguageLearning,23,245±58.
Dulay,H.C.,&Burt,M.K.(1974).Naturalquencesin
geLearning,
24,37±53.
Ellis,R.(1994).Thestudyofcondlanguageacquisition.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Ervin-Tripp,S.(1974).Iscondlanguagelearninglikethe
®rst?TESOLQuarterly,8,111±127.
Fasold,R.(1990).:
Blackwell.
Fathman,A.(1975).Languagebackground,age,andthe
rentedatthe
TESOLConvention,LosAngeles.
Felix,S.W.(1984).Maturationalaspectsofuniversal
,
(eds.),Interlanguage,pp.133±rgh:Edin-
burghUniversityPress.
Frauenfelder,U.(1974).TheacquisitionofFrenchgender
-
publishedniorhonorsthesis,UniversityofWash-
ington.
Goldberg,J.(1995).ork,28
(April10),42±51.
Hakuta,K.(1976).AcastudyofaJapanechild
ge
Learning,26,321±351.
Hakuta,K.(1987).Thecond-languagelearnerinthe
,on(eds.),Childhood
bilingualism:Aspectsoflinguistic,cognitive,andsocial
development,pp.31±ale,NJ:Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Hakuta,K.,&Cancino,H.(1977).Trendsincond
dEducational
Review,47,294±316.
165Bilinguallanguageacquisition
Hurh,W.M.,&Kim,K.C.(1984).Koreanimmigrantsin
America:Astructuralanalysisofethniccon®nement
ford:FairleighDick-
insonUniversityPress.
Kim,B.-L.(1988).ThelanguagesituationofKorean
(eds.),
Languagediversityproblemorresource?:Asocialand
educationalperspectiveonlanguageminoritiesinthe
UnitedStates,pp.252±:Heinle&Heinle.
Kim,B.-L.,Sawdey,B.,&Meihoefer,B.(1980).The
Korean±Americanchildatschoolandathome:An
analysisofinteractionandinterventionthroughgroups.
ProjectReport(9±30±1978through6±30±1980).
Projectfundedbyadministrationforchild,youthand
families,USDepartmentofHealth,Educationand
Welfare,Grant#90±C-1335(01).
Kim,I.(1981).Newurbanimmigrants:theKoreancommu-
ton,NJ:PrincetonUniversity
Press.
Kim,Y.(1997).
(ed.),Thecrosslinguisticstudyoflanguageacquisition,
pp.335±ale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAs-
sociates.
Krashen,S.(1977).SomeissuesrelatingtotheMonitor
,(eds.),
OnTESOL``77,pp.144±gton,DC:
TESOL.
Labov,W.(1972).Languageintheinnercity:Studiesinthe
elphia:Universityof
PennsylvaniaPress.
Larn-Freeman,D.(1975).Theacquisitionofgrammatical
morphemesbyadultlearnersofEnglishasacond
tation,University
ofMichigan.
Larn-Freeman,D.,&Long,M.H.(1991).Anintroduc-
:
Longman.
Lee,J.(1995).Hankwukeswupwunlyusauyuymipwunk
(AmanticanalysisofKoreannumeralclassi®ers).
Mastersthesis,SangMyungWomen'sUniversity.
Lee,K.-O.(1997).Personalcommunication.
Lightbown,P.(1983).Exploringrelationshipsbetween
developmentalandinstructionalquencesinL2ac-
(eds.),Class-
room-orientedrearchincondlanguageacquisition,
pp.217±,MA:NewburyHou.
Lightbown,P.,Spada,N.&Wallace,R.(1980).Some
effectsofinstructiononchildandadolescentESL
n(eds.),Re-
archincondlanguageacquisition,pp.162±172.
Rowley,MA:NewburyHou.
Long,M.,&Sato,C.(1984).Methodologicalissuesin
interlanguagestudies:
,(eds.),Interlan-
guage,pp.253±rghUniversityPress.
Marcus,G.(1995).Children'sovergeneralizationsof
Englishplurals:lof
ChildLanguage,22,447±59.
Marcus,G.,Ullman,M.,Pinker,S.,Hollander,M.,Ron,
T.J.,&Xu,F.(1992).Overregularizationinlanguage
aphsoftheSocietyforRearchin
ChildDevelopment,57(rialno.228).
Martin,S.E.(1966).LexicalevidencerelatingKoreanto
ge,42,185±251.
Martin,S.E.(1992).AreferencegrammarofKorean:A
completeguidetothegrammarandhistoryofthe
d,VT:
Company.
Meil,J.M.(1991).PrinciplesofUniversalGrammarand
strategiesoflanguageu:Onsomesimilaritiesand
differencesbetween®rstandcondlanguageacquisi-
(ed.),Point-counterpoint:Universal
Grammarinthecondlanguage,pp.231±-
sterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Milon,J.(1974).ThedevelopmentofnegationinEnglish
uarterly,8,
137±143.
Milroy,L.(1987).Obrvingandanalysingnaturallan-
:Blackwell.
Moffatt,S.,&Milroy,L.(1992).Punjabi/Englishlanguage
alternationintheclassroomintheearlyschoolyears.
Multilingua,11,355±384.
Pak,Y.(1987).Agedifferencesinmorphemeacquisition
amongKoreanESLlearners:Acquisitionorderand
tation,Universityof
Texas,Austin.
Pfaff,C.W.(1992).Theissueofgrammaticalizationin
sinSecond
LanguageAcquisition,14,273±296.
Pfaff,C.W.(1993).Turkishlanguagedevelopmentin
ven(eds.),Im-
migrantlanguagesinEurope,pp.119±on:
MultilingualMatters.
Pfaff,C.W.(1994).EarlybilingualdevelopmentofTurkish
&ven(eds.),
Thecross-linguisticstudyofbilingualdevelopment,pp.
75±-Holland,Amsterdam:RoyalNether-
landsAcademyofArtsandSciences.
Pfaff,C.W.(1996).Bilingualismandlanguagedevelop-
mentininfancy:AcquisitionofTurkishandGerman
prentedat
theSymposiumonEarlyBilingualismattheInterna-
tionalConferenceonInfantStudies,Providence,RI
April19.
Pienemann,M.(1998).DevelopmentaldynamicsinL1and
L2acquisition:ProcessabilityTheoryandgenerative
ualism:LanguageandCognition,
1,1±20.
Ravem,R.(1968).Languageacquisitioninacondlan-
ationalReviewofApplied
LinguisticsinLanguageTeaching,6,175±185.
Ravem,R.(1974).ThedevelopmentofWh-questionsin
®ds
(ed.),Erroranalysis:Perspectivesoncondlanguage
acquisition,pp.134±:Longman.
Rosansky,E.(1976).Methodsandmorphemesincond
geLearning,26,
409±425.
dLesleyMilroy
Schachter,J.(1998).Theneedforconvergingevidence.
Bilingualism:LanguageandCognition,1,34±35.
Schwartz,B.D.&Sprou,R.A.(1994).Wordorderand
nominativecainnonnativelanguageacquisition:A
longitudinalstudyof(L1Turkish)GermanInterlan-
tz(eds.),
LanguageacquisitionstudiesinGenerativeGrammar,
pp.317±dam:JohnBenjamins.
Shin,S.J.&Milroy,L.(forthcoming).Conversational
code-switchingamongKorean-Englishbilingualchil-
ernationalJournalofBilingualism.
Slobin,D.I.(ed.)(1985/1992).Thecrosslinguisticstudyof
ale,NJ:Lawrence
ErlbaumAssociates.
Slobin,D.I.(1988).Thedevelopmentofclauchainingin
Ë(ed.),Studieson
Turkishlinguistics,pp.27±:MiddleEast
TechnicalUniversity.
Slobin,D.I.(ed.)(1997).Thecrosslinguisticstudyof
languageacquisition,ale,NJ:Lawrence
ErlbaumAssociates.
Stauble,A.,&Larn-Freeman,D.(1978).Theuof
variablerulesindescribingtheinterlanguageofcond
persinTESL,pp.72±87.
UniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles.
Unterbeck,B.(1994).Koreanclassi®-
Renaud(ed.),TheoreticalissuesinKoreanlinguistics,
pp.367±rd:CSLIPublications.
Vainikka,A.,&Young-Scholten,M.(1994).Directaccess
toX'-theory:EvidencefromKoreanandTurkish
raandB.D.
Schwartz(eds.),LanguageacquisitionstudiesinGen-
erativeGrammar,pp.265±dam:JohnBen-
jamins.
Verhoeven,L.T.(1988).Acquisitionofdiscourcohesion
Ë(ed.),StudiesonTurkishlinguis-
tics,pp.437±:MiddleEastTechnical
University.
Verhoeven,L.T.,&Boeschoten,H.E.(1986).First
languageacquisitioninacondlanguageenviron-
dPsycholinguistics,7,241±256.
Verhoeven,L.T.,&Vermeer,A.(1985).Ethnicgroup
differencesinchildren'soralpro®
(eds.),Ethnicminoritiesand
Dutchasacondlanguage,pp.105±cht,
Holland:ForisPublications.
White,L.(1989).UniversalGrammarandcondlanguage
dam:JohnBenjamins.
Wode,H.(1976).Developmentalquencesinnaturalistic
gPapersonBilingualism,11,
1±31.
Wode,H.(1978).Developmentalquencesinnaturalistic
(ed.),Secondlanguage
acquisition:Abookofreadings,pp.101±,
MA:NewburyHou.
Zobl,H.,&Liceras,J.(1994).Functionalcategoriesand
geLearning,44,159±80.
ReceivedJanuary26,1999RevisionacceptedMay12,1999
167Bilinguallanguageacquisition
本文发布于:2022-12-27 20:21:56,感谢您对本站的认可!
本文链接:http://www.wtabcd.cn/fanwen/fan/90/42429.html
版权声明:本站内容均来自互联网,仅供演示用,请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系,我们将在24小时内删除。
留言与评论(共有 0 条评论) |