This study investigates the influences of early and intense L2 exposure on children’s L1 causative verb production, assessed by an experimental causative verb production task. Turkish expresses causality by morphological and lexical means, whereas English does so by periphrastic and lexical means. Learning L2 English might enhance L1 Turkish causative verb production by highlighting the parallels and contrasts in causal expressions between the languages, which may result in an enriched L1 causative use. Five-, 7 -, and 9-year-old L1-Turkish L2-English bilingual (n = 80) and L1-Turkish monolingual (n = 80) children participated in the study in L1-Turkish. Results indicated that language group differences only emerged for the use of morphological causative verbs in favor of 5-year-old bilinguals compared with monolingual peers. Age group differences occurred only for the monolingual group and only for morphological verbs. Specifically, monolingual 7- and 9-year-olds performed better than monolingual 5-year-olds. Causative verb-type differences were only seen for 5-year-old monolinguals, who performed better for lexical than morphological verbs; in contrast, 5-year-old bilinguals performed equally well on the two types of causatives, and better than 5-year-old monolinguals on morphological causatives. Overall, these findings indicate that learning an L2 with structural similarities and differences compared with L1 might enhance children’s awareness and correct use of causal linguistic structures.
Aktan-ErciyesA. (2021). İkinci Dil Ediniminin Okul Öncesi ve Okul Çağı Çocuklarında Anlatı Becerilerinin Kurgusal, Dilbilimsel ve Algısal Süreçlerine Olan Etkisi: Boylamsal Bir Çalışma [The Effect of Second Language Acquisition on Narrative Skills in Preschool and School-Age Children: A Longitudinal Study on Fictional, Linguistic, and Perceptual Processes] (Project No: 219K247). TÜBİTAK.
2.
Aktan-ErciyesA.GöksunT. (2023). Early parental causal language input predicts children’s later causal verb understanding. Journal of Child Language, 50, 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000921000805
3.
Aktan-ErciyesA.GöksunT.TekcanA. I.Aksu-KoçA. (2020). Children’s thinking-for-speaking: Bidirectional effects of L1 Turkish and L2 English for motion events. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism,11(5), 669–699. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.19027.akt
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
BatesE.BrethertonI.SnyderL. (1988). From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100009256
9.
BatesE.GoodmanJ. C. (2001). On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition. In TomaselloM.BatesE. (Eds.), Language development (pp. 134–162). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909697386628
10.
BermanR. A.SlobinD. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.2307/415747
11.
BerumentS. K.GüvenA. G. (2010). Turkish expressive and receptive language test: Receptive vocabulary sub-scale (TIFALDI-RT). Turkish Psychological Society.
12.
BonawitzE.ShaftoP.GweonH.ChangI.KatzS.SchulzL. (2009). The double-edged sword of pedagogy: Modelling the effect of pedagogical contexts on preschoolers’ exploratory play. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2, 1575–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.001
BowermanM. (1982). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In WannerE.GleitmanL. R. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 319–346). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700009968
15.
CandanA.KüntayA. C.YehY. C.CheungH.WagnerL.NaiglesL. R. (2012). Language and age effects in children’s processing of word order. Cognitive Development, 27(3), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2011.12.001
16.
CookV.WeiL. (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.374
EscamillaJ. M. (2012). An updated typology of causative constructions: Form-Function mappings in Hupa (Californian Athabaskan), Chungli Ao (Tibeto-Burman) and beyond [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]: University of California.
22.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
23.
FisherC.JinK. S.ScottR. M. (2020). The developmental origins of syntactic bootstrapping. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(1), 48–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12447
24.
FurmanR.KüntayA. C.ÖzyürekA. (2014). Early language-specificity of children’s event encoding in speech and gesture: Evidence from caused motion in Turkish. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(5), 620–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.824993
25.
GalambosS. J.Goldin-MeadowS. (1990). The effects of learning two languages on levels of metalinguistic awareness. Cognition, 34(1), 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90030-n
26.
GathercoleV. C. M.Pérez-TattamR.Stadthagen-GonzálezH.ThomasE. M. (2014). Bilingual construction of two systems: To interact or not to interact? In ThomasE. M.MennenI. (Eds.), Approaches to the study of bilingualism (pp. 63–89). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783091213-004
27.
GentnerD. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In KuczajS. A. (Ed.), Language development, vol. 2: Language, thought, and culture (pp. 301–334). Erlbaum.
28.
GerE.KüntayA. C.GöksunT.StollS.DaumM. M. (2022). Do typological differences in the expression of causality influence preschool children’s causal event construal?Language and Cognition, 14(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2021.26
29.
GerE.StuberL.KüntayA. C.GöksunT.StollS.DaumM. M. (2021). Influence of causal language on causal understanding: A comparison between Swiss German and Turkish. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 210, 105–182.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105182
30.
GerE.YouG.KüntayA. C.GöksunT.StollS.DaumM. M. (2022). Gradual route to productivity: Evidence from Turkish morphological causatives. Cognitive Science, 46(12), Article e13210. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13210
GökselA.KerslakeC. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar [Third reprint 2010]. Routledge.
33.
GöksunT.Hirsh-PasekK.GolinkoffR. M. (2010). Trading spaces: Carving up events for learning language. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691609356783
34.
GöksunT.KüntayA. C.NaiglesL. R. (2008). Turkish children use morphosyntactic bootstrapping in interpreting verb meaning. Journal of Child Language, 35(2), 291–323. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000907008471
GopnikA.GlymourC.SobelD. M.SchulzL. E.KushnirT.DanksD. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.3
37.
GrosjeanF. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Harvard University Press.
38.
IlgazH.Hirsh-PasekK. (2012). Commentary on ‘Language and age effects in children’s processing of word order’ by A. Candan, A. Kuntay, Y. Yeh, H. Cheng, L. Wagner, and L. R. Naigles. Cognitive Development, 27, 222–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2012.02.005
39.
JarvisS.PavlenkoA. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge.
40.
KaneroJ.ImaiM.OkadaH.HoshinoN. (2015). Do classifiers make the syntactic count/mass distinction? Insights from ERPs in classifier processing in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.002
41.
KetrezF. N. (1999). Early verbs and the acquisition of Turkish argument structure [MA thesis]. Bogazici University.
42.
KornfiltJ. (1997). On the syntax and morphology of relative clauses in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8, 24–51.
43.
LoY. Y.MacaroE. (2012). The medium of instruction and classroom interaction: Evidence from Hong Kong secondary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(1), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.588307
44.
LuoY.KaufmanL.BaillargeonR. (2009). Young infants’ reasoning about physical events involving inert and self-propelled objects. Cognitive Psychology, 58(4), 441–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.11.001
45.
MichotteA. (1963). The perception of causality (MilesT. R.MilesE., Trans.). Methuen (Original work published 1946)
46.
MuentenerP.BonawitzE. B. (2017). The development of causal reasoning. In WaldmannM. R. (Ed.), The oxford handbook of causal reasoning (pp. 677–698). Oxford University Press.
NaiglesL.GleitmanH.GleitmanL. (1993). Children acquire word meaning components from syntactic evidence. In DromiE. (Ed.), Language and cognition: A developmental perspective (Vol. 5, pp. 104–140). Ablex Publishing.
49.
NakipogluM.UzundagB. A.SarıgülÖ. (2021). Young minds’ quest for regularity: Evidence from the Turkish causative. Journal of Child Language, 49(6), 1214–1241. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000921000208
50.
OdlinT. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge University Press.
51.
PiagetJ. (1954). The development of object concept (CookM., Trans.). In PiagetJ.CookM. (Trans.), The construction of reality in the child (pp. 3–96). Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.1037/11168-001
52.
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
53.
SaxeR.TenenbaumJ. B.CareyS. (2005). Secret agents: Inferences about hidden causes by 10-and 12-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 16(12), 995–1001.
