Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:54:38.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining bilingual learning outcomes in terms of exposure and input

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2016

SUSANNE E. CARROLL
SUSANNE E. CARROLL*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Susanne E. Carroll, Linguistics, Languages & Cultures, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canadasusanne.carroll@ucalgary.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I had several goals in writing my keynote “Exposure and input in bilingual development”. The first was to emphasize that there are two components to the study of environmental effects on language learning. The first is the stuff ‘out there’ (exposure) that we want to observe and count and whose effects we want to assess; the second is the internal, mentally represented stuff (my input) that is logically related to a particular learning problem. Both exposure and input are indissociable from assumptions about what language acquisition mechanisms do and the nature of linguistic cognition. Accordingly, for example, a decision to count ‘words’ in child-directed speech (CDS) or via a parental questionnaire is not an innocent one. Not only can one find radically different views on what a ‘word’ is (Krause, Bosch & Clahsen, 2015), one can find work that questions the need to postulate such a unit at all (see discussion in MacWhinney, 2000). It follows that adopting a clear position, about which abstract mentally represented elements are crucial cues to learning some phenomenon, is an essential step in deciding what to count in CDS.

Keywords

Exposureinputbilingual language learning
Type
Author's response
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 37 - 41
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

Armon-Lotem, S. Disentangling bilingualism from SLI: Dissociating exposure and input. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000377 Google Scholar
Bernardini, P. Weak interest in the weaker language. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000341 Google Scholar
De Houwer, A. Bilingual language input environments, intake, maturity and practice. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000298 Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. Straw man: Who thought exposure was the ONLY factor? Bilingualism: Language & Cognition. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000316 Google Scholar
Grüter, T. Vocabulary does not equal language, but neither does morphosyntax. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000286 Google Scholar
Hurtado, A., Grüter, T., Marchman, V. A., & Fernald, A. (2014). Relative language exposure, processing efficiency and vocabulary in Spanish-English bilingual toddlers. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 17, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krause, H., Bosch, S., & Clahsen, H. (2015). Morphosyntax in the bilingual mental lexicon: An experimental study of strong stems in German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 597–621.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The Competition Model . In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, pp. 249–308. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). Lexicalist connectionism. In Broeder, P. & Murre, J. (eds.), Models of language acquisition. Inductive and deductive approaches, pp. 9–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2004). A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 31, 883–914.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. Exposure is not enough. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000328 Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (eds.) (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Leinbach, J. (1991). Implementations are not conceptualizations: Revising the verb learning model. Cognition, 40, 121–57.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Leinbach, J., Taraban, R., & McDonald, J. (1989). Language learning: Cues or rules? Journal of Memory & Language, 28, 255–77.Google Scholar
Marinis, T., & Armon-Lotem, S. (2015). Sentence repetition. In Armon-Lotem, S., de Jong, J. & Meir, N. (Eds.), Assessing multilingual children: Disentangling bilingualism from language impairment, pp. 95–123. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Mougeon, R., & Beniak, E. (1991). Linguistic consequences of language contact and restriction: The case of French in Ontario, Canada. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mougeon, R., & Rehner, K. Input and the learning of variable grammar: The influence of classroom input and community exposure on the learning of variable grammar. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000304 Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A.-T. The untouchables. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000365 Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A.-T., & Kahnemuyipour, A. (2014). News, somewhat exaggerated: A reply to Ambridge, Pine and Lieven. Language, 90, e115–e125. DOI: 10.1353/lang2014.0049 Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Thordardottir, E., & Brandeker, M. (2013). The effect of bilingual exposure versus language impairment on nonword repetition and sentence imitation scores. Journal of Communication Disorders, 46, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weisleder, A. Towards a bioecological model of bilingual development. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000389 Google Scholar