CLI in possessive constructions of Norwegian-Italian bilinguals: production and judgment data

 

This study investigates cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in Norwegian-Italian bilingual children, specifically in possessive structures where both languages feature two syntactic variants with contrasting pragmatic functions. CLI occurs when the languages of a bilingual influence each other, particularly when there is (i) surface structure overlap and (ii) interaction between syntax and pragmatics (Hulk & Müller, 2001). Prior research indicates that overlapping variants affect language production (Bernardini, 2003; Kupisch, 2014; Rizzi et al., 2013; Westergaard & Anderssen, 2015) and processing (Sorace et al., 2009) in bilinguals. In Norwegian, the postnominal possessive (PostN) is unmarked in neutral contexts, while the prenominal (PreN) form signals contrast or emphasis. In Italian, the functions are reversed (Table 1). This context-sensitive contrast offers a unique test case for CLI, although the direction and contributing factors remain theoretically unexplored.

Two tasks were designed: an elicitation task and an acceptability judgment task (AJT). Both tasks tested neutral (characters interacting with their own objects) and contrastive contexts (characters interacting with objects belonging to other characters). Twenty-nine Norwegian-Italian bilingual children aged 4-10 (mean=6;3) residing in Norway were tested in both languages. Bilingual controls were also included: 12 Italian-English (ages 4;0-7;5) and 15 Norwegian-English (ages 4;4-9;8) children. We ran glmer models for each language and task, along with some additional comparisons.  

The elicitation task reveals (i) more PostN in the contrast condition in Italian (p<0.05) indicating some intuition on the pragmatic use of the variants, and a (ii) a strong interaction of condition and language (p<0.001) signaling a higher usage of marked forms in the contrast conditions in Norwegian, thus being more target-like. Thus, the children used the unmarked variant almost exclusively in the Italian task, but both variants were used in the Norwegian task and quite accurately so (Figure 1).

Interestingly, we saw a different pattern emerge from the AJT (figure 2). For the Italian responses, we found a stark increase of the marked variant selection (PostN) in the contrast condition (p<.001). No difference was found in the Norwegian task: there was a marginal preference in the intercept, meaning that the unmarked variant is overall slightly preferred: and we see that for the neutral condition the PostN variant amounts to about 55%. So, the representations of the two variants seems to be more stable for Italian than for Norwegian. Comparisons with the controls provided insight into CLI effects. In Italian, controls exhibited significantly weaker PostN selection (p<0.05), potentially due to English influence. In Norwegian, controls showed a slightly stronger contrastive difference (p<0.01), hinting at subtle CLI effects among our target group.

The combined findings from the elicitation task and AJT reveal complementary CLI patterns: while Norwegian production is stable, the AJT reveals more precise contextual acquisition in Italian; highlighting the importance of multiple methodologies in assessing bilingual capabilities. The elicitation results align with heritage language trends (Montrul, 2010), where Italian production shows a simplification toward unmarked forms. This tendency cannot be attributed solely to CLI from Norwegian, as greater exposure to Norwegian would likely increase PostN usage. In the AJT, the majority language does not seem to befit from the dual variants of possessives in both languages. This suggests that CLI operates bidirectionally: as the presence of the two variance in Norwegian makes the bilingual child more aware of this structure in Italian; but the same effect shows disadvantage in Norwegian, even though the children are making the correct uses of the two variants in spoken language.

 

 

 

 

 

           

 

Figure 1: Proportion of responses in the elicitation task                    Figure 2: Proportion of responses in the AJT

 

REFERENCES

Bernardini, P. (2003). Child and adult acquisition of word order in the Italian DP. In N. Müller (Ed.), (In)vulnerable

Domains in Multilingualism (pp. 41-81). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2001). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(3), 227-244. Kupisch, T. (2014). Adjective placement in simultaneous bilinguals (German–Italian) and the concept of cross linguistic overcorrection. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 222-233. Montrul, S. (2010). Current issues in heritage language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 3-23. Rizzi, S., Gil, L. A., Repetto, V., Geveler, J., & Müller, N. (2013). Adjective placement in bilingual Romance-German and Romance-Romance children. Studia Linguistica, 67(1), 123-147. Sorace, A., Serratrice, L., Filiaci, F., & Baldo, M. J. L. (2009). Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: Testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. 119(3), 460-477. Westergaard, M., & Anderssen, M. (2015). Word order variation in Norwegian possessive constructions: Bilingual acqusition and attrition. In J. Bondi Johanessen & J. C. Salmons (Eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Acquisition attrition and change (pp. 21-45). John Benjamins Publishing Company.