bilingual

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