Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T05:43:49.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vocabulary does not equal language, but neither does morphosyntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2016

THERES GRÜTER
THERES GRÜTER*
Affiliation:
University of Hawai‘i
*
Address for correspondence: Theres Grüter, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Department of Second Language Studies, 1890 East-West Road, Moore Hall, rm570, Honolulu, HI 96822, U.S.A.theres@hawaii.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of bilingual development has been, and must be, an interdisciplinary endeavor; Carroll (Carroll) presents us with a perspective from within one particular discipline, that of generative linguistics. From this vantage point, she provides us perhaps most importantly with the reminder that language is not a unitary construct, and cautions against extrapolating from findings on the learning of one particular aspect of language, such as vocabulary, to language acquisition more broadly. I wholeheartedly agree (for a similar point, see Paradis & Grüter, 2014). I do not agree, however, with Carroll's implication that such unwarranted extrapolation is characteristic of current research on input and bilingual development. A number of recent studies have looked specifically at the differential relation between input (in a wide sense) and bilingual children's acquisition of different linguistic phenomena. Unsworth (2014), for example, reported different effects of input variation on Dutch–English bilingual children's acquisition of grammatical gender versus indefinite object scrambling.

Keywords

inputage of onsetchildhood bilingualism
Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 17 - 18
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bedore, L.M., Peña, E.D., Summers, C.L., Boerger, K.M., Resendiz, M.D., Greene, K., Bohman, T.M., & Gillam, R.B. (2012). The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 616–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, S.E. Exposure and input in bilingual development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi:10.1017/S1366728915000863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Señor, M., & Parra, M. (2012). Dual language exposure and early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 39, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meisel, J. M. (2013). Sensitive phases in successive language acquisition: The Critical Period Hypothesis revisited. In Boeckx, C. & Grohmann, K. (Eds.), Handbook of Biolinguistics (pp. 69–85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J., & Grüter, T. (2014). Introduction to ‘Input and experience in bilingual development.’ In Grüter, T. & Paradis, J. (Eds.) Input and experience in bilingual development (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., Tremblay, A., & Crago, M. (2014). French-English bilingual children's sensitivity to child-level and language-level factors in morphosyntactic acquisition. In Grüter, T. & Paradis, J. (Eds.) Input and experience in bilingual development (pp. 161–180). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pearson, B.Z., Fernández, S.C., Lewedeg, V., & Oller, D.K. (1997). The relation of input factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2014). Comparing the role of input in bilingual acquisition across domains. In Grüter, T. & Paradis, J. (Eds.) Input and experience in bilingual development (pp. 181–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar