Studies on L1- and L2-acquisition of German and Dutch have shown that the particles too/also and again hamper the realization of finiteness while the particle not promotes it. In this study the authors ask whether adversative but also affects the realization of finiteness. By applying a structural-functional approach to finiteness and its acquisition they investigate the morpho-syntactic development of aber-clauses in the first 12 months of aber-production in four monolingual German children. The analysis reveals that finiteness becomes realized in aber-clauses considerably later than in auch-clauses. Syntactically well-formed aber-clauses appear when finiteness becomes realized in main clauses not containing any particle or connective. However, it takes the children two to four more months to realize finiteness in the aber-clauses. The authors argue that the information-structural properties assumed to cause the delay raised by the particles too/also and again are not fully applicable to but. Particle-specific effects also have to be taken into consideration. In case of but this includes the complexity of information-structural alignment and discourse integration of the twofold contrast established by aber-clauses. Managing this communicative task reduces the capacities for realizing primarily structural conditions which are still not automatized.
BartzD.BittnerD. (forthcoming). Contrast relations in the early aber-clauses of German-speaking infants. Linguistics Vanguard.
2.
BehrensH. (2006). The input-output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 2–24.
3.
BittnerD. (2003). The emergence of verb inflection in two German-speaking children. In: BittnerD.DresslerW. U.Kilani-SchochM. (Eds.), Development of verb inflection in first language acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 53–88). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
4.
BraußeU. (1998). Was ist Adversativität? Aber oder Und? [What is adversativity? But vs. And] In GrosseS.EromsH.-W.HarrasG.StickelG. (Eds.), Deutsche Sprache [The German language] (pp. 138–157). Berlin, Germany: Erich Schmidt-Verlag.
5.
ClahsenH. (1986). Verb inflections in German child language: Acquisition of agreement markings and the functions they encode. Linguistics, 14, 79–121.
6.
DietrichR.GrommesP. (1998). ‘nicht’ – Reflexe seiner Bedeutung und Syntax im Zweitspracherwerb [Not – reflexes of its meaning and semantics in second language acquisition]. In WegenerH. (Ed.), Eine zweite Sprache lernen. Empirische Untersuchungen zum Zweitspracherwerb [Learning a second language. Empirical investigations in second language acquisition] (pp. 173–202). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
7.
DimrothC. (2002). Topics, assertions and additive words: How L2 learners get from information structure to target language syntax. Linguistics, 40, 891–923.
8.
DimrothC. (2009). Stepping stones and stumbling blocks. Why negation accelerates and additive particles delay the acquisition of finiteness in German. In DimrothCh.JordensP. (Eds.), Functional categories in learner language (pp.137–170). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
9.
DimrothC.SchimkeS.VerhagenJ. (2009, September). Is verb-raising influenced by information structure?Poster presented at the 19th European Second Language Association Conference (EuroSLA), Cork, Ireland.
10.
Evers-VermeulJ.SandersT. (2009). The emergence of Dutch connectives: How cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 36, 829–854.
11.
GülzowI.BartlitzV.KuehnastM. (2015). Monologic and dialogic uses of the adversative connectives aber and but in two dense production corpora. In ZaharovV. P.MitrofanovaO. A.KhokhlovaM. V. (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference ‘Corpus Linguistics 2015’ (pp. 1–9). St. Petersburg, Russia: St. Petersburg University Press.
12.
HamannC.LindnerK.PennerZ. (2001). Tense, reference time and language impairment in German children. In FéryC.SternefeldW. (Eds.), Audiatur vox sapientiae. Festschrift für Arnim von Stechow (pp. 182–213). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
13.
JordensP. (2002). Finiteness in early child Dutch. Linguistics, 40, 687–765.
14.
JordensP. (2012). Language acquisition and the functional category system. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
15.
JordensP.DimrothCh. (2006). Finiteness in children and adults learning Dutch. In GagarinaN.GülzowI. (Eds.), The acquisition of verbs and their grammar (pp. 173–200). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
16.
KleinW. (1998). Assertion and finiteness. In DittmarN.PennerZ. (Eds.), Issues in the theory of language acquisition (pp. 225–245). Bern, Switzerland: Lang.
17.
KleinW.von StutterheimC. (2002). Quaestio and L-perspectivation. In GraumannC. F.KallmeyerW. (Eds.), Perspective and perspectivation in discourse (pp. 59–88). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
18.
LangE.UmbachC. (2002). Kontrast in der Grammatik: spezifische Realisierungen und übergreifender Konnex [Contrast in grammar: specific realizations and common background]. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, 79, 145–186.
19.
MacWhinneyB. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
MillerM. (1979). The logic of language development in early childhood. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
21.
MüllerA.HöhleB.SchmitzM.WeissenbornJ. (2009). Information structural constraints on children’s early language production: The acquisition of the focus particle auch (also) in German learning 12-to-36-month olds. First Language, 29, 373–399.
22.
NederstigtU. (2003). ‘Auch’ and ‘noch’ in child and adult German. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
23.
NederstigtU. (2006). Additive particles and scope marking in child German. In van GeenhovenV. (Ed.), Semantic in acquisition (pp. 303–328). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
24.
PennerZ.TracyR.WeissenbornJ. (2000). Where scrambling begins: Triggering object scrambling at the early stage in German and Bernese Swiss German. In HamannC.PowersS. (Eds.), The acquisition of scrambling and cliticization (pp. 127–164). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
25.
PoeppelD.WexlerK. (1993). The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language, 69, 1–33.
26.
SæbøK. J. (2003). Presupposition and contrast: German aber as a topic particle. In WeisgerberM. (Ed.), Proceedings of SuB7 (pp. 257–271). Constance, Germany: University of Constance.
27.
SchimkeS.VerhagenJ.DimrothC. (2008). Particules additives et finitude en Néerlandais et allemand L2 [Additive particles and finiteness in L2 Dutch and German]. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère, 26, 191–210.
28.
SchimkeS.VerhagenJ.TurcoG. (2011). The different role of additive and negative particles in the development of finiteness in early adult L2 German and L2 Dutch. In WatorekM.BenazzoS.HickmannM. (Eds.), Comparative perspectives to language acquisition: Tribute to Clive Perdue (pp. 73–91). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
29.
WinklerS. (2006). Finiteness in first and second language acquisition. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (Annual Report 2006). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: MPI for Psycholinguistics.
30.
WinklerS. (2009). The acquisition of syntactic finiteness in German L1: A structure-building approach. In DimrothC.JordensP. (Eds.), Functional categories in learner language (pp. 97–134). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
