Borrowing and shift-induced interference: contrasting patterns in French-Germanic contact in Brussels and Strasbourg

The main aim of the present article is to test hypotheses derived from the model for contact- induced language change as formulated in Thomason and Kaufman (1988 et seq.). As the model correctly predicts the asymmetries between the mutual influences of the Germanic and the Romance varieties in Brussels and Strasbourg it is a very powerful tool for describing the contact patterns in these cities. The analysis shows that the contact patterns are very similar, both from a quantitative and from a qualitative point of view, despite important differences in the sociolinguistic situation of both cities. The striking similarities in the outcome of language contact seem to find a plausible explanation in the fact that the language contact situations in both cities are similar from a typological point of view: in each city a variety of French is in contact with a Germanic variety (Alsatian and Brussels Dutch). Thus, the claim of the present article is that the structure of the languages plays a more prominent role in the outcome of language contact than the sociolinguistic history of the speakers.

Chercher pour or chercher après: arguing the case for contact-induced linguistic innovation in different varieties of French

This paper provides evidence for the claim made in Baetens Beardsmore (1971) that the grammatical collocation "chercher après" «to look for», which is very frequent in Brussels French, is the result of transfer from the contact language, Brussels Dutch. A detailed quantitative analysis of this construction in different varieties of French which have more or less contact with a Germanic language was made to investigate the likelihood of influence from the Germanic substrate. The differences between the meaning of "chercher" and "chercher après" are also analysed in some depth, to find out whether or not the particle is redundant. According to Trudgill (2004) redundant constructions are more often found in contact situations involving long-term, stable contact and child bilingualism. The particle "après" was found to add a particular shade of meaning to "chercher", and is thus not redundant. Therefore no evidence could be obtained from the current data for Trudgill’s (2004) claim.

Brussels French une fois: Transfer-induced innovation or system-internal development?

In language contact studies, specific features of the contact languages are often seen to be the result of transfer (interference), but it remains difficult to disentangle the role of intra-systemic and inter-systemic factors. We propose to unravel these factors in the analysis of a feature of Brussels French which many researchers attribute to transfer from (Brussels) Dutch: the adverbial use of une fois. We compare the use of this particle in Brussels French with its occurrence in corpora of other varieties of French, including several that have not been influenced by a Germanic substrate or adstrate. A detailed analysis of the frequency of occurrence, the functions and the distribution of the particle over different syntactic positions shows that some uses of une fois can be traced back to sixteenth-century French, but that there is also ample evidence for overt and covert transfer (Mougeon and Beniak, 1991) from Brussels Dutch.

Where have all the linguists gone? The position of Linguistics in British German Studies from the mid-19th century until 2000

Retrospectively, Linguistics - understood as a scientific study of language - has been an important part of British German Studies. In fact, the establishment of modern language as academic disciplines in the UK is closely related to the Germanic philology and the interest in the history, and structure of languages. However, over the last few decades, a demise of Linguistics in the departments of modern languages has been observed. The aim of this paper is to survey the position of linguistic research and teaching in the discipline of German Studies in the UK. To begin with, I will give a brief account of the history of linguistic/ language studies in the discipline. Subsequently, the current position of Linguistics in research and teaching will be scrutinised. Finally, this paper will discuss the importance of linguistic insights for the discipline of German Studies, with particular reference to teaching.

Early, late or very late? Timing acquisition and bilingualism

Research on child bilingualism accounts for differences in the course and the outcomes of monolingual and different types of bilingual language acquisition primarily from two perspectives: age of onset of exposure to the language(s) and the role of the input (Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004; Meisel, 2009; Unsworth et al., 2014). Some findings suggest that early successive bilingual children may pattern similarly to simultaneous bilingual children, passing through different trajectories from child L2 learners due to a later age of onset in the latter group. Studies on bilingual development have also shown that input quantity in bilingual acquisition is considerably reduced, i.e., in each of their two languages, bilingual children are likely exposed to much less input than their monolingual peers (Paradis & Genesee, 1996; Unsworth, 2013b). At the same time, simultaneous bilingual children develop and attain competence in the two languages, sometimes without even an attested age delay compared to monolingual children (Paradis, Genesee & Crago, 2011). The implication is that even half of the input suffices for early language development, at least with respect to ‘core’ aspects of language, in whatever way ‘core’ is defined.My aim in this article is to consider how an additional, linguistic variable interacts with age of onset and input in bilingual development, namely, the timing in L1 development of the phenomena examined in bilingual children’s performance. Specifically, I will consider timing differences attested in the monolingual development of features and structures, distinguishing between early, late or ‘very late’ acquired phenomena. I will then argue that this three-way distinction reflects differences in the role of narrow syntax: early phenomena are core, parametric and narrowly syntactic, in contrast to late and very late phenomena, which involve syntax-external or even language-external resources too. I explore the consequences of these timing differences in monolingual development for bilingual development. I will review some findings from early (V2 in Germanic, grammatical gender in Greek), late (passives) and very late (grammatical gender in Dutch) phenomena in the bilingual literature and argue that early phenomena can differentiate between simultaneous and (early) successive bilingualism with an advantage for the former group, while the other two reveal similarly (high or low) performance across bilingual groups, differentiating them from monolinguals. The paper proposes that questions about the role of age of onset and language input in early bilingual development can only be meaningfully addressed when the properties and timing of the phenomena under investigation are taken into account.

Third language acquisition in adulthood

In recent years, researchers have acknowledged that the study of third language acquisition cannot simply be viewed as an extension of the study of bilingualism, and the present volume’s authors agree that a point of departure that embraces the unique properties that differentiate L2 acquisition from L3/Ln acquisition is essential. From linguistic, sociological, psychological, educational and cognitive viewpoints, it has become increasingly apparent that the study of L3/Ln acquisition can provide new evidence to help resolve ongoing debates in these areas of study. This volume uniquely provides a wide-ranging overview of current trends in the study of adult additive multilingualism from formal, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives, adding new insights into adult multilingual epistemology. This collection includes critical reviews of L3/Ln morphosyntax, phonology, and the lexicon, as well as individual studies with unique language pairings including Romance, Germanic, Slavic, and Asian languages.

Ratings of age of acquisition of 299 words across 25 languages: is there a cross-linguistic order of words?

We present a new set of subjective age-of-acquisition (AoA) ratings for 299 words (158 nouns, 141 verbs) in 25 languages from five language families (Afro-Asiatic: Semitic languages; Altaic: one Turkic language: Indo-European: Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Hellenic, Slavic, and Romance languages; Niger-Congo: one Bantu language; Uralic: Finnic and Ugric languages). Adult native speakers reported the age at which they had learned each word. We present a comparison of the AoA ratings across all languages by contrasting them in pairs. This comparison shows a consistency in the orders of ratings across the 25 languages. The data were then analyzed (1) to ascertain how the demographic characteristics of the participants influenced AoA estimations and (2) to assess differences caused by the exact form of the target question (when did you learn vs. when do children learn this word); (3) to compare the ratings obtained in our study to those of previous studies; and (4) to assess the validity of our study by comparison with quasi-objective AoA norms derived from the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories (MB-CDI). All 299 words were judged as being acquired early (mostly before the age of 6 years). AoA ratings were associated with the raters’ social or language status, but not with the raters’ age or education. Parents reported words as being learned earlier, and bilinguals reported learning them later. Estimations of the age at which children learn the words revealed significantly lower ratings of AoA. Finally, comparisons with previous AoA and MB-CDI norms support the validity of the present estimations. Our AoA ratings are available for research or other purposes.