| Chapter 2: | Research on Bilingual First Language Acquisition |
|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
to characterise the speech that children hear and how they might make use of it. There is no reliable way of comparing input with “uptake” in bilingual acquisition. Moreover, there is a difference between implicit and explicit learning.
Overheard input in polyadic situations is a kind of implicit learning. The significance of other sources of input is undeniable, but the nature and effect of other sources of input on bilingual acquisition remain unclear. It is too simplistic to suppose a linear relationship between quantity and variety of input and a child’s progress. Such an assumption ignores curvilinear and dynamic relationships—threshold, stage-related input sensitivity and other interconnected effects. It is incomplete to claim that the mere amount of input causes progress in every domain of language acquisition, rather than its quality and timing and the context in which it is embedded: “A little of the right kind of evidence for the child’s current level is often all that is required to induce an advance to the next level” (Nelson, Denniger, Bonvillian, Kaplan, & Baker, 1984, p. 48). Does input from peers, siblings, and other sources always improve learning? To what extent and in what way can bilingual speech production be attributed to input from peers, siblings, or other sources? Are there any qualitative or quantitative differences from one child to the next in the developmental course from child language to target language owing to the input of these sources? For example, peer input can be confrontational, whereas the input of parents or other adults tends to be more accommodating to children’s needs. Investigation into the role of input from siblings, peers, overheard speech, and other sources in bilingual acquisition can certainly shed light on the role of input on child language acquisition in general. Chapter 6 demonstrates that overheard speech and peer or sibling input likely triggered James’s correct use of first-person and second-person pronouns.
2.4. The Role of Context
It has been suggested that data on bilingual children interacting with their parents are inappropriate for the investigation of language differentiation