Acquisition of –Ing in English by Multilingual Adult Speakers in Germany and the US

Year 2024, , 308 - 323, 31.08.2024

Gulumser Efeoglu

https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.1317908

Abstract

The number of the multilingual speakers all over the world has been increasing steadily, which calls for closer analyses of multilingualism as a phenomenon. The current study aims at investigating multilingual speakers’ spoken and written English productions in formal and informal contexts within the boundaries of social context of migration. As for the purposes of the study, data coming from four groups in Germany and the US (32 participants and 24 speakers from RUEG corpus, 56 people in total) via data collection tools such as Language Situations (Wiese 2018), Linguistic Background Questionnaire and c-tests were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. The results were divergent. The comparison of -ing use only revealed that the acquisition of the progressive marker in L3? English differs in Germany and the US while -ing use in total Communication Units (henceforth CU) ratio signaled some cross-linguistic effects. However, there was no difference in within group comparisons obscuring multilingual-monolingual dichotomy within both Germany and the US. Also, task modality and registers were found to have a prominent effect on L3 patterns of English progressive morpheme -ing.

Keywords

Second Language Development, Verbal morphology, English Language Teaching, Multilingualism

Supporting Institution

Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) 2219 International Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship Programme

Project Number

TÜBİTAK-BİDEB-2219-Yurt Dışı Doktora Sonrası Araştırma Bursu

Thanks

I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Heike Wiese for her guidance and constructive feedback throughout the study.

İNGİLİZCE -ING EKİNİN ALMANYA VE AMERİKA BİRLEŞİK DEVLETLERİ’NDE YAŞAYAN ANADİLİ TÜRKÇE, ALMANCA VE RUSÇA OLAN ÇOK DİLLİ YETİŞKİNLER TARAFINDAN EDİNİMİ

Abstract

Dünya üzerinde hızlı bir şekilde artan çok dillilik bilimsel çerçevede incelenmeye muhtaç bir olgudur. Bu kapsamda, güncel çalışma çok dillli konuşucuların resmi ve resmi olmayan bağlamlarda yazılı ve sözlü üretimlerini göç kavramını da ele alarak araştırmayı hedeflemektedir. Çalışma bağlamında, Dil Durumları (Wiese, 2018), Dilbiligisi Geçmisi Ölçeği ve Çıkartmalı Sınav gibi veri toplama araçları anadili ve sonradan edindikleri diller açısından farklılık gösteren dört farklı grupta toplam 56 kişiye uygulanmıştır. Bu gruplardan 32 katılımcı Almanya’da yaşarken 24 katılımcı Amerika Birleşik Devleri’nde yaşamaktadır. Nitel ve nicel olarak toplanan veriler uygun şekilde analiz edilmiş ve bulgular çok çeşitlilik göstermiştir. İngilizce “-ing” süreklilik ekinin kullanımının gruplar arası karşılaştırması Almanya ve ABD’de yaşayan çok dilli katılımcılar arasında farklılık olduğunu ve toplam süreklilik eki kullanımı da gruplar arası farklılıkların önceden edinilen dillerden kaynaklanabileceğini işaret etmektedir. Buna karşın, birebir grup karşılaştırmalarında herhangi bir farklılık gözlemlenmemiştir. Bu da alan yazındaki tek dilli ve çok dilli katılımcılar arasındaki farklılıklarının gittikçe azaldığını göstermektedir. Bunlara ek olarak, etkinlik dili ve resmi ve resmi olmayan gibi farklı kesitlerin üçüncü dil olarak İngilizce süreklilik eki ediniminde önemli bir etkisi olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.

Keywords

İkinci Dil Edinimi, Eylemsi Biçimbilim, İngiliz Dili Eğitimi, Çok Dillilik

Project Number

TÜBİTAK-BİDEB-2219-Yurt Dışı Doktora Sonrası Araştırma Bursu

References

• Aronin, L., & B. Hufeisen. (Eds.). (2009). The Exploration of Multilingualism: Development of Research on L3, Multilingualism and Multiple Language Acquisition. John Benjamins.
• Auer, P. (2005). A postscript: Code-switching and social identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(3), 403-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.010
• Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23(4), 459-484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307080557
• Blevins, M. (2018). Towards a constructional analysis of the progressive aspect in Texas German. Constructions in Contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages, 24-73.
• Borik, O. (2002). Aspect and reference time (LOT Dissertation Series 64). Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.
• Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F. (1998). Psycholinguistic perspectives on multilingualism and multilingual education. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (Vol. 110) (pp.16–32). Multilingual Matters Ltd.
• Clyne, M. (1997). Some of the things trilinguals do. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1(2), 95–116.
• Clyne, M. (2000). Lingua franca and ethnolects in Europe and beyond. Sociolinguistica, 14, 83–89.
• Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.
• Comrie, B. (Ed.). (2009). The world's major languages. Routledge.
• De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition (Vol. 24). Multilingual Matters Ltd.
• De Angelis, G., & Selinker, L. (2001). Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic systems in the multilingual mind. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (Vol. 31) (pp.42–58). Multilingual Matters Ltd.
• De Swart, H. (2012). Verbal aspect. In The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, ed. Robert I. Binnik, 752–780. Oxford University Press.
• Dollnick, M., & Pfaff, C. W. (2013). Entwicklung von Diskursorganisation in verschiedenen Sprachen: Einführung und Schluss in narrativen und in erörternden Texten in Türkisch, Deutsch und Englisch bei Schülern mit türkischer Erstsprache in Berlin.
• Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition Language Learning, 24(1), 37-53.
• Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research, 27(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310386647
• Filip, H. (2012). Lexical aspect. The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 721-751.
• Flynn, S., C. Foley, and I. Vinnitskaya. (2004). The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. The International Journal of Multilingualism 1, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710408668175
• Harris, A. C., & Campbell, L. (1995). Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective (Vol. 74). Cambridge University Press.
• Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2000). The dynamics of third language acquisition. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (Vol. 19) (pp. 84–98). Multilingual Matters Ltd.
• Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism. Multilingual Matters.
• Hermas, A. (2010). Language acquisition as computational resetting: Verb movement in L3 initial state. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(4), 343-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2010.4879.41
• Garcia Mayo, M. P., & Rothman, J. (2012). L3 morphosyntax in the generative tradition: The initial stages and beyond. In J. C. Amaro, S. Flynn & J. Rothman (Eds.), Third Language Acquisition in Adulthood (pp. 9–32). John Benjamins Publishing Co.
• Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta‐analysis of multiple determinants. Language learning, 51(1), 1-50.
• Göksel, A.; Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish. A comprehensive grammar. (Comprehensive Grammars) Routledge.
• Group, R. (2018, October 7). RUEG Language Situations Elicitation 2018/19. Retrieved from osf.oi/qhupg on March 20, 2020.
• Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36(1), 3-15.
• Grotjahn, R., Klein-Braley, C., & Raatz, U. (2002). C-Tests: an overview. University language testing and the C-Test, 93-114.
• Hopp, H., & Lemmerth, N. (2018). Lexical and syntactic congruency in L2 predictive gender processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(1), 171-199. https://doi:10.1017/S02722631160004.37
• Jin, F. (2009). Third Language Acquisition of Norwegian Objects: Interlanguage Transfer or L1 Influence?. Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar, 144-161.
• Leung, Y. K. I., Slabakova, R., Montrul, S., & Prévost, P. (2006). Full transfer vs. partial transfer in L2 and L3 acquisition. Inquiries in linguistic development: in honor of Lydia White. John Benjamins.
• LIMA, Linguistic Diversity Management in Urban Areas-Lips, Lima Panel Study. (2009-2013). Projektkoordination LiPS: Prof. Dr. Dr. H. C. Ingrid Gogolin; ©LiMA-LiPS 2013. Hamburg: LiMA.
• Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. University of Illinois Press.
• Kallmeyer, W. & Inken, K. (2003). Linguistic variation and the construction of social identity in a German-Turkish setting. In: Androutsopoulos, Jannis (Ed.), Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities (pp. 29-46). John Benjamins.
• König, E., & Gast, V. (2012). Understanding English-German contrasts/Grundlagen der Anglistik und Amerikanistik. Erich Schmidt.
• Lorenz, E. (2018). "One day a father and his son going fishing on the Lake." - A study on the use of the progressive aspect of monolingual and bilingual learners of English. In Andreas Bonnet & Peter Siemund (eds.). Foreign Languages in Multilingual Classrooms. Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity. John Benjamins.
• Lorenz, E. & Siemund, P. (2019). Differences in the acquisition and production of English as a foreign language. A study based on bilingual and monolingual students. E. Vetter & U. Jessner (eds), In International Research on Multilingualism. Breaking with the Monolingual Perspective, (pp. 81–102). Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
• Poplack, S. & Levey, S. (2010). Contact-induced grammatical change: a cautionary tale. In: Auer, Peter & Jürgen Erich Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation: Theories and Methods, (pp. 391-419). Mouton de Gruyter.
• Rothman, J. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research, 27(1), 107-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310386439
• Rothman, J. (2015). Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 179-190. https:// doi:10.1017/S136672891300059X
• Sağın-Şimşek, S. Ç. (2006). Third language acquisition: Turkish-German bilingual students' acquisition of English word order in a German educational setting. Waxmann.
• Slabakova, R. (2017). The scalpel model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 651-665. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916655413
• Smith, C. S. (1999). Activities: states or events?. Linguistics and Philosophy, 479-508.
• Şahingöz, Y. (2014). Schulische Mehrsprachigkeit bei türkisch-deutschen bilingualen Schülern: Erwerb und Auswirkungen. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hamburg.
• Szubko-Sitarek, W. (2015). Multilingual lexical recognition in the mental lexicon of third language users. Springer.
• Taylan, E. E. (2001). On the relation between temporal/aspectual adverbs and the verb form in Turkish. In: Eser Erguvalı Taylan (ed.) The verb in Turkish, (pp.97-129). John Benjamins.
• Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (2001). Language contact. Edinburgh University Press.
• Wiese, H. (2018). Language Situations: A method for capturing variation within speakers’ repertoires. In: Yoshiyuki Asahi (Eds.), Methods in Dialectology XVI. (pp. 105-117). Peter Lang.
• Wiese, Heike, Alexiadou, Artemis, Allen, Shanley, Bunk, Oliver, Gagarina, Natalia, İefremenko Kateryna, Zuban, Yulia. (2019). RUEG Corpus (Version 0.2.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3236069
• Williams, S. & Hammarberg, B. (1998). Language switches in L3 production: Implications for a polyglot speaking model, Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 295–333.