Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai

AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ Vytautas Magnus University DIFFICULTIES IN ACQUIRING THE GRAMMATICAL FEATURES OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE IN AN ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ENVIRONMENT KEYWORDS: language acquisition, bilingualism, coherent narrative, children’s language. INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, as attention has turned to Lithuanians living in other countries, studies have begun to emerge seeking to identify the ties of Lithuanians living abroad with other Lithuanians and their experiences of settling in a new environment (Liubinienė 2009), their understanding of identity and connections with Lithuania (Čiubrinskas, Kuznecovienė 2008). Alongside social topics, there is discussion of the preservation and use within families and communities of the Lithuanian language, which is also considered a feature of Lithuanian identity. Lithuanian-language education and the challenges of Lithuanian education abroad are more often examined (Dautartas 2005; Celešiūtė 2008; Aleksandravičius, Kuzmickaitė 2008; Tamošiūnaitė 2012), as are parents’ attitudes toward Lithuanian-language education (Šutinienė 2009), factors determining the maintenance of the heritage language among first-, second-, and third-generation emigrants (Tamošiūnaitė 2008), and approaches to language management in families to preserve the mother tongue (Jakaite-Bulbukiene 2014, 2015a, 2015b), among other topics. Several larger-scale studies are worth mentioning: these sought to determine the relationship between languages used in Lithuania’s major cities and ethnic identity (the project Cities and Languages1, Ramonienė 2010), investigate the linguistic behavior, linguistic repertoires, and language attitudes of Lithuanian emigrants (the project The Language of Emigrants2, Ramonienė 2015), and examine the characteristics of the Lithuanian language in the diaspora, proficiency levels, causes of language attrition, and other matters (the project The Lithuanian Language in the Diaspora: Proficiency, Use, Attrition3). Research increasingly focuses on linguistic aspects of the interaction between two languages and the influence of the dominant language on the heritage or home language. For example, Lionginas Pažūsis (2009) studied the features of code-switching among North American Lithuanians and the influence of English on Lithuanian, and partly described some signs of Lithuanian language attrition. In order to determine the Lithuanian language 1 The project was carried out at Vilnius University in 2007–2009, under the direction of Prof. Dr. Meilutė Ramonienė, and funded by the Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation (see the project website: http://projektai.vu.lt/miestaiirkalbos/). 2 The project was carried out at Vilnius University in 2011–2013, under the direction of Prof. Dr. Meilutė Ramonienė. 3 The project is being carried out at Vilnius University in 2015–2017, under the direction of Prof. Dr. Meilutė Ramonienė (see the project website: http://wp.eln.lt/apie-projekta/). BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai the characteristics of acquisition in the environment of another language, and the factors that promote or hinder language development; attention was paid to children’s speech. Using various longitudinal observational and experimental methods, researchers examined lexical and grammatical characteristics of bilingual children’s acquisition of their native Lithuanian in German-language environments (Balčiūnienė, Kalninyte, Krivickaitė 2011) and English-language environments (Blažienė 2015). The speech of bilingual (Lithuanian–English, Russian–Lithuanian) and monolingual children was also compared (Kalninyte 2013; Balčiūnienė, Kalninyte 2013; Krivickaitė 2014;); Lithuanian grammatical characteristics and code-switching were investigated in both first- and second-language (foreign-language) contexts (Dabašinskienė, Čubajevaitė 2009; Dabašinskienė, Balčiūnienė, Kalninyte 2014), as was the loss of native Lithuanian during childhood when another language is rapidly acquired, in cases of international adoption (Ramonaite 2013). Although the number of studies examining the characteristics of Lithuanian spoken by emigrants is growing, more extensive and larger-scale research is needed to help developers of methodological resources preparing Lithuanian language teaching and learning materials focus on the linguistic characteristics of Lithuanian acquired in the environment of another language. Such research is also important for teachers in Lithuanian schools abroad and speech therapists working both with children who experience difficulties learning their native Lithuanian in another-language environment and with children who have returned to live in Lithuania and whose Lithuanian knowledge and skills do not match the Lithuanian language abilities of their peers in Lithuania. Taking into account these several aspects mentioned above, as well as many others, a large-scale study was conducted to identify the lexical and grammatical characteristics of Lithuanian acquired in an English-language environment4. The aim of the article is to discuss several grammatical characteristics of native Lithuanian acquired in an English-language environment (the selection of inflectional paradigms, agreement and government, and the use of the genitive of negation) that pose difficulties for children. 1. RESEARCH MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY The study was conducted from April to June 2013. Data were collected at four Lithuanian schools in London, which had been operating for between one and ten years in different London districts. A total of 156 children’s narratives were collected using a picture-based connected-narrative elicitation task; a sociolinguistic survey of the participants’ parents (guardians) was also conducted in order to 4A dissertation is being prepared on the basis of the study, one part of which discusses in detail the lexical and grammatical characteristics of bilingual children’s Lithuanian. This article focuses on grammatical characteristics, particularly those that also pose difficulties for monolingual children acquiring Lithuanian. BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai to establish the child’s living environment, the languages used in the family, the frequency with which each language was used, and so on. The questionnaire data showed that the participants were highly diverse; therefore, the study included children whose parents’ native language was Lithuanian and who were either born in an English-language environment (95% of all participants) or born in Lithuania but moved to an English-language environment before the age of one (5% of all participants). Thus, a total of 100 children who met the stated criteria were selected, and the connected narratives they produced were examined. The participants were divided by age into six one-year age groups (see table). TABLE. Data on the participants Age group Mean age of group Number of children Sex Country of birth Girls Boys United Kingdom Lithuania (LT) 4–4;11 years 4;7 15 9 6 15 – 5–5;11 years 5;4 27 13 14 27 – 6–6;11 years 6;4 15 10 5 14 1 child (lived in LT for 6 months) 7–7;11 years 7;5 17 15 2 13 4 children (lived in LT for: 3 months; 6 months; 7 months; 10 months) 8–8;11 years 8;3 16 10 6 16 – 9–9;11 years 9;3 10 3 7 10 – Total: 100 60 40 95 5 The study aimed to survey as many children as possible; therefore, the number in each age group was not limited and varies. The fewest participants (10) are in the 9–10-year-old age group, because the number of children of this age (and older) attending Lithuanian schools decreases considerably, as they choose to attend other clubs, most often those held at English-language schools or other educational institutions where instruction is in English. It was mentioned that the children heard their native Lithuanian from both parents; Lithuanian was the predominant language in the families, and the children were encouraged to speak it both with their parents and with their siblings. The questionnaire survey data showed that all the children were able to communicate in English, and that this language was used for half of the day by most participants in the 4–8-year-old age groups, and for 75 percent of the day by children aged 9–9;11. Most children in all age groups had attended a Lithuanian heritage school for about two years, visited Lithuania once a year, and spent about two weeks there. While in Lithuania, the children communicated in Lithuanian with their grandparents, other family members, and peers. BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai The research data were collected using the method of eliciting a coherent narrative. The children were asked to play—to tell a story based on the sequence of the six plot pictures shown below, arranged in a horizontal row from left to right in front of the child (see figure). Neither the time allowed to prepare the story nor its duration was limited. While the child was telling the story, the researcher did not interrupt, ask questions that might suggest the plot, or correct the child’s different names for the characters, but encouraged the child with words of affirmation (yes, mm-hmm, good). Any story created by a child was evaluated positively, and the child was praised. Both before and during the study, the researcher communicated with the child in Lithuanian. FIG. Sequence of plot pictures for eliciting a coherent narrative (Hickmann 2003; Gagarina et al. 2012) The method of telling a story based on a sequence of pictures was chosen because this activity is familiar and recognizable to children, is used in both preschool and school education, and does not cause stress. In addition, creating a coherent narrative is a linguistic activity that requires selecting words and morphological forms, applying grammatical rules and text-linking devices, and using other storytelling strategies so that the listener can understand the narrator’s story. The language of coherent narratives and its analysis provide data on the lexical, grammatical, and other linguistic features of native Lithuanian acquired and used in an English-language environment (see stories told by several participants5): INF14: once there were some four little birds / and there was a mother bird and three other little birds wanted to eat then / the mother bird flew off to get a worm and got a worm / and then the cat saw and wanted to eat those little birds / and then saw / and 5 Here and elsewhere, the abbreviation INF (informant) and a number are given at the beginning of examples to indicate that informants in the research material were ordered from youngest to oldest, after which each participant was assigned a code to ensure anonymity. Slashes separate utterances, that is, stretches of speech before and/or after a pause or breath taken by the child, while the symbol +... marks an unfinished utterance. In these and other examples, punctuation has been added according to the punctuation rules approved by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, while grammatical errors have been retained as spoken by the child. BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai then the puppy saw too and then I grabbed [= grabbed] by the tail / and then the cat ran / and then the puppy runs after the cat (4;116). INF81: one day there lived three pigeons, one mother pigeon / and then the mother pigeon flew off to get food / and then the cat saw: there are little pigeon chicks / and then that cat climbed onto the tree / the puppy then comes further along / then the cat looked up, into the trees, at those little pigeons and then started climbing the tree / then the puppy came and sees that +... / and then looks, thinks that it will take those little birds / and then after that the puppy bit the cat on the tail [= bit the cat on the tail?] / the mother pigeon flew back, gives worms to eat / and then the puppy ran after that cat so it would not be seen anymore / and then with those little pigeons food the mother gave [= and then the mother gave food to those little pigeons] (8;5). The coherent narratives were recorded on a voice recorder that was not visible to the children. The recordings collected were transcribed in accordance with the international standards for transcribing children’s speech, CHAT (Codes for the Human Analysis of Transcripts), and morphologically coded7, that is, the grammatical categories of every word used in the narrative (part of speech, number, gender, tense, etc.) were indicated. This work was performed semi-automatically, but because of the morphological ambiguity of language, the researcher had to review ambiguous words and select the appropriate morphological coding option. Every grammatically incorrect word or phrase found in each narrative was marked with a special tag indicating the level of the grammatical error (morphology, syntax) and its type (number agreement error, case-government error, etc.), so that the program could automatically identify errors of the relevant type during error analysis. This study aimed to discuss certain features of grammar-level acquisition identified by examining grammatical errors found in coherent narratives, which, in studies of children’s language, most often indicate a particular stage of language development and its characteristic features. 2. DIFFICULTIES IN ACQUIRING LITHUANIAN GRAMMAR Lithuanian is a language with rich and complex morphology; however, as language acquisition studies show (Savickienė 1999, 2003; Wójcik 2000; Balčiūnienė 2009; Kamandulytė 6 The notation 4;11 indicates that the child is 4 years and 11 months old. 7 The research data were coded using the methodology for compiling the Corpus of Spoken Lithuanian, developed by Ineta Dabašinskienė and Laura Kamandulytė (Kamandulytė, Savickienė 2007, Dabašinskienė, Kamandulytė 2009). BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai 2009), although they experience difficulties at certain periods, children ultimately acquire their native language successfully. An examination of the language in coherent Lithuanian narratives produced by one hundred bilingual children aged 4–9 revealed, at various levels (lexical, morphological, syntactic, and word-formation), features typical of monolingual children acquiring their native language, as well as features arising specifically from the interaction of the two languages. As noted, the following discussion of native-language acquisition in an English-language environment focuses on three aspects that pose difficulties: selecting inflectional paradigms, agreement and government, and the use of the genitive of negation. 2.1. Selection of an inappropriate inflectional paradigm Dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje (DLKG 2006: 69) skiriamos penkios daiktavardžių linksniuotės, kuriose pagal atskirų linksnių formų ypatybes esama 12 paradigmų8. Lietuvių kalbos daiktavardžio įsisavinimo tyrimai rodo (Savickienė 1999, 2001), kad pati produktyviausia vyriškosios giminės paradigma yra pirmoji, šiek tiek mažiau produktyvios trečioji ir penktoji9, o pati produktyviausia moteriškosios giminės – aštuntoji paradigma, šiek tiek mažiau produktyvios šeštoji, septintoji. Kitos paradigmos (devintoji, vienuoliktoji, ketvirtoji, antroji ir dešimtoji) laikytinos neproduktyviomis. Minėtų paradigmų produktyvumą lemia tai, kad jų galūnės dažniausiai vartojamos integruojant skolinius, sudarant naujus žodžius, taip pat jose vyksta galūnių kaita (Dressler ir kt. 1995–1996; Dressler, Thorton 1996; Savickienė 2001, 2003; Savickienė, Kazlauskienė, Kamandulytė 2004). Pastarojo reiškinio – galūnių kaitos – atvejų rasta dvikalbių vaikų rišliuose pasakojimuose. One of the most frequent cases found in narratives across all age groups is the noun šuo ‘dog’ being inflected according to the third rather than the eleventh paradigm, for example: (1) INF22: and the cat ran away from šunio (5;9). (2) INF16: and Mom says: didn’t you talk to the cat and to šuniu? (5;5). (3) INF62: and that šunis took the cat by the tail and tried to drag [it] away (7;7). (4) INF82: and šunis bit off the tail (8;0). (5) INF99: when the cat climbed onto a tree branch, šunis bit the cat on the tail (9;6). 8 (i)a declension is assigned paradigms 1–3, (i)u declension paradigms 4–5; (i)o declension paradigms 6–7; ē declension paradigm 8, i declension paradigms 9–12. 9 Masculine and feminine inflectional paradigms are listed starting with the most productive. BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai The examples provided show that some children chose to inflect the noun šuo according to the more frequent and productive inflectional paradigm. The forms expressing the various cases of the noun (nom. šunis; gen. šunio; instr. šuniu) indicate that the children have thoroughly acquired the case endings of the third paradigm. On the other hand, these cases (and those discussed below in this subsection) of selecting an inappropriate paradigm could be related to their parents’ dialect10. Hearing certain words inflected in their parents’ dialect, a child may have acquired that pattern of inflection for the corresponding word. In some narratives, the word katis was used in various cases instead of the noun katinas (katė), for example: (6) INF12: katis wants to eat (4;4). (7) INF30: and katis came (5;8). (8) INF24: later a puppy came, looked at the cat, what it is doing (5;7). These cases can be explained in several ways. It is possible that the children first shortened the word katinas by dropping the suffix (kat-in-as), then chose to inflect it according to the third, rather than the first, paradigm (cf. katas): katis (cf. dantis). Shortening the word may be linked to the principle of economy characteristic of spoken language, whereby consonants are omitted, word endings shortened, and vowel reduction, assimilation, and so on occur in order to speak more quickly and fluently (see Dabašinskienė 2008 for more); the third paradigm may have been selected by analogy, since the word was inflected according to the same paradigm as the word šuo discussed above (cf. šunis and katis). On the other hand, the word katis may have entered the Lithuanian of Lithuanian–English bilingual children not by shortening the word katinas, but by adapting the English word cat to Lithuanian by adding the third-paradigm ending -is (cat+is). It is important to note that instances of the noun šuo being inflected according to the third paradigm (šunis) occur in all age groups from 4 to 9 years. By contrast, most instances of the noun katinas being inflected according to the third paradigm (katis) were found in the 4–5-year-old groups (14 instances)11, with only two instances in the narrative of one child aged 9–9;11. In view of this, it can be argued that both younger and older children tend to simplify the inflectional system by choosing more frequent and 10 The sociolinguistic questionnaire did not include a question about the parents’ dialect, so precise data on the dialect of each participant’s parents are unavailable. However, it is worth noting that while collecting the research data, the researcher visited Lithuanian schools every day and spoke with children and parents; it was therefore possible to hear that some children’s speech exhibited dialectal features, code-switching, or other linguistic features similar to those in their parents’ speech. 11 Fourteen instances were found in these age groups: 12 instances of the singular nominative form katis and 2 instances of the singular accusative form katį. BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai more productive declension paradigms. The replacement of productive paradigms (in this case, the first with the third) disappears from the speech of older children, thus indicating that the declension system has been acquired. In the narratives of children from all age groups, 11 cases occurred in which masculine nouns were declined according to feminine paradigms, for example: (9) INF13: and šuniuka ran very fast (4;2). (10) INF15: then katina ran away from the puppy like that (4;4). (11) INF64: and then they flew over to her lizdos (7;6). (12) INF73: and the dog comes and found the kitten (7;6). (13) INF9: and there katinei drags (4;10). (14) INF81: he climbed up the medžios12 (8;2). (15) INF50: once, in one medžioje tree, three little birdies and their mother live (6;2). In the examples presented, nouns belonging to the most productive masculine paradigms—the first (šuniukas, katinas, lizdas) and third (medis)—were declined according to the most productive feminine paradigms: the sixth (šuniuka, katina), eighth (katinei), and seventh (singular genitive medžios; singular locative medžioje). Three cases were found in which feminine nouns were declined like masculine words, for example: (16) INF30: māmas13 already love (5;8). (17) INF53: and māmas comes to him (6;1). (18) INF64: and they cried out like that and said, “I want to eat,” to the mamyčiams already (7;6). In examples 16 and 17, the feminine noun of the sixth declension (mama) was declined according to the first masculine declension (māmas, cf. namas). Given that English nouns do not have specific morphemes that distinguish masculine from feminine gender, the cases discussed could indicate the attrition of grammatical gender in Lithuanian: masculine gender is selected as the unmarked form. Another creative instance (example 18) shows that a feminine noun (mama) is used with the masculine form of the diminutive suffix -ytis, -ytė (mamytis), and accordingly In both examples (14–15), the children stressed the first syllable of the word: 12medžios, medžioje. In both instances (16–17), the children stressed the first syllable of the word: 13māmas. BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai is declined according to the third paradigm – plural dative mamyčiams (cf. brolytis, brolyčiams). The latter example should be regarded as an individual case, but it shows that an inflection paradigm that is grammatically incorrect may also be selected when declining diminutive nouns. It should be emphasized that although examples 9–15 and 16–18 shift to more productive paradigms or paradigms of another gender, the case endings of those paradigms are used when declining the nouns. Declining nouns according to more productive paradigms is a common phenomenon at the beginning of noun acquisition, as this allows children to simplify the complex inflection system. However, as established by examining the course of this process, by approximately age 3;5 the child has successfully acquired the inflection system (see Savickienė 2003 for more). The inflection paradigm cases discussed in this study show that bilingual children aged 4–9 have grasped the inflection systems of individual paradigms, especially productive ones; nevertheless, even older children find it difficult to select the appropriate inflection paradigm for a noun. This may indicate that the inflection system has not been properly mastered, and that less frequently used words, or those whose inflection paradigm is unclear to the child, are declined according to the most productive and frequent paradigms. 2.2. Inappropriate cases of agreement and control One feature of syntactic relations in Lithuanian is agreement, whereby the morphological forms (case, number, gender) of the dependent word(s) are selected according to the head word (DLKG 2006). For some participants in this study, agreeing dependent words with head words in gender and/or number posed difficulties. For example, there are instances in which the gender of a noun and an adjective does not agree (19) INF96: katė buvo alkanas and wanted very much to eat (9;7), as well as cases in which forms of case and/or gender and/or number do not agree, for example: (20) INF14: vieną kartą buvo kažkokios keturi paukščiukas (4;11). (21) INF53: tokia trys maži nori valgyti (4;11). (22) INF16: ir sako mama viščiukas: jūs, viščiukas maži, niekur neikite (5;5). (23) INF76: ir tėtis džiaugėsi, kad vaikai buvo saugi (8;2). (24) INF83: vieną dieną gyveno mama su trys paukšteliais (8;2). (25) INF86: ir šunis atėjo pamatė katę (8;5). BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai It can be seen that in some instances different adjectival parts of speech do not agree with nouns in case (one day mom lived with three [= three] little birds), or in gender and number (the children were safe [= safe]; some kind of [= some kind of] four little bird [= little birds]). Attention should be drawn to example 23, which could also be considered a case of confusion between adjective declension types. The participants may have selected the plural form safe of the adjective safe by analogy with the plural good of the frequently used adjective good (cf. the children are good and the children are safe). The adjectival parts of speech used in the examples provided (adjectives, pronouns, numerals, and participles) (see example 25) show that the children have acquired the gender and number endings of these parts of speech, and are therefore able to form masculine and feminine, singular and plural forms as appropriate. With regard to case usage, it can be seen that the nominative is selected for all the parts of speech mentioned, even in cases where the vocative (see example 22) or instrumental (see example 24) is required. It can be argued that when it is not known how to make adjectival parts of speech agree with nouns in gender, case, and number, one form of gender and/or number is selected (not necessarily the same one), and the nominative is used as a general substitute for other cases. One more case is worth mentioning, which seems to show an adjective whose gender does not agree with the noun, for example: (26) INF35: then flew away big pigeon (5;2). (27) INF35: and big bird opened its beak (5;2). The nominative ending of feminine nouns in the ninth declension paradigm is –is (cf. eye, night). Thus, if we consider that in the examples provided the children may have assigned the noun pigeon to the ninth declension paradigm, the accompanying feminine adjective big is justified (cf. a big eye). Therefore, these examples should be considered cases of confusion between declension paradigms, rather than gender agreement. Studies show (Savickienė 2000; 2005) that the most frequently used case in Lithuanian is the nominative, followed in frequency by the genitive, accusative, dative, instrumental, and locative. The government errors found in bilingual children's narratives are mostly associated with the most frequently used cases—the nominative, genitive, and accusative. Analysis of connected narratives suggests that children have properly acquired the nominative case and use it to indicate the subject of a sentence, for example: mom flew away to look for the little birds BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai to eat (4;11); then mother returned with food (7;3); but dog saw it and then bit the cat on the tail (9;0). However, instances were found in which the nominative was used incorrectly—instead of the accusative to indicate the object with transitive verbs, for example: (28) INF13: and the puppy chased cat [= cat (accusative)] (4;2). (29) INF27: and wanted to take bird [= bird (accusative)] (5;11). (30) INF35: and the big [= big (masculine)] bird opened [= opened (transitive)] mouth (5;2). (31) INF50: then the kitty came and found three baby birds [= three baby birds (accusative)] (6;2). (32) INF55: but the puppy came and frightened cat (6;4). (33) INF58: and the cat wanted small bird [= small bird (accusative)] to eat (6;0). (34) INF91: once there lived a little bird, where it had another three little birds (9;5). It can be seen that the nominative is used generally instead of the accusative to express the direct object of transitive verbs. A few instances were found in which the genitive was used with transitive verbs, for example, INF63: and then mother embraced [= hugged] them (genitive) [= them (accusative)] (7;4); the dative was also used, for example, INF63: and he bit the tail and then pushed to her [= her, according to the sentence context] down (7;4). Errors in the accusative case governed by transitive verbs are also found in other studies of bilingual children. Ramutė Skripkienė (2001: 82), who examined the state-language Lithuanian skills of Russian–Lithuanian schoolchildren, found that there are instances in which second-graders use the nominative and locative cases with transitive verbs, e.g.: I have dog; opened in refrigerator. When acquiring the case system, students learning Lithuanian as a foreign language also tend to use the nominative instead of the accusative, e.g.: here you meet friend (Dabašinskienė, Čubajevaitė 2009: 51–52). As can be seen, using the nominative, locative, or other cases instead of the accusative is characteristic of the acquisition of the expression of the direct object governed by transitive verbs. As the data from this study showed, the youngest participants (4–6 years old) have not yet learned to use transitive verbs well: alongside correct uses, many coherent narratives contain incorrect ones. The few instances of incorrect government of transitive verbs found in the narratives of older children (7 and 9 years old) may indicate that this rule, characteristic of the native language, is understood relatively late. The native language of older children is also influenced by the fact that they BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai increasingly uses the dominant English language, which lacks a case system and the expression of cases through different endings. Attention should be drawn to the use of prepositional constructions in the Lithuanian retellings produced by bilingual children. Instances were found in which children used certain prepositions incorrectly with inappropriate cases, for example: (35) INF15: and then dragged from [= behind] by the tail (4;4). (36) INF24: later the bird came with a worm (5;7). (37) INF35: then the cat climbed onto a tree (5;2). (38) INF54: and then came with something (6;3). (39) INF73: here is a bird with its little bird (7;6). (40) INF87: ir mama galėjo su beibius pabūti (8;3). (41) INF96: the cat jumped down and started running away from the dog (9;7). (42) INF100: and then the little bird went back to its own little birdsto say that everything was all right (9;2). The examples above show that children know the meanings of prepositions well, but even the oldest participants have difficulty selecting the appropriate case. The incorrect prepositional constructions produced by the youngest participants in the study (aged 4–6) may be explained by the fact that prepositions are acquired much later than word endings (see Savickienė 2003). In view of this, it can be argued that, in a dominant-language environment, prepositional constructions in the native language take longer to learn and are used correctly only later. As for the incorrect case selection with certain prepositions in the speech of older children (aged 7–9), one may consider that this rule has still not been acquired (learned) even by older children, or perhaps such errors are caused by older children’s increasingly frequent use of English, in which the words that accompany prepositions do not inflect for case. The children’s utterances also reveal other tendencies. There are instances in which the prepositions used violate the verb’s syntactic valency, for example: (43) INF63: he behind by the tail bit and pushed [= dragged?] her [= her] down (7;4). (44) INF76: but the dogs [= the dog] him on by the tail bit (8;2). BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai The examples provided show that children have no difficulty memorizing the formulas for prepositional constructions (už + gen., ant + gen.), but they use them incorrectly because they do not take verb valency into account. In examples 43–44, the noun uodega ‘tail’ is linked to the verb įkąsti ‘bite’, which governs the accusative case and is used with the preposition į ‘into’; instead, it is preceded by the preposition už or ant and expressed in the genitive case. Another feature of preposition use worth mentioning is their omission: that is, the preposition į ‘into’ may be omitted in constructions, for example: (45) INF78: katinas vos paėmė ančiukus, kol tas šunis [= šuo] Øi14 uodegą įkando jai (8;11). (46) INF83: and how Øi bit the tail, he (8;1). (47) INF46: and the cat climbed Øi the tree (6;11). (48) INF54: the cat went [= climbed?] Øi upwards (6;3). (49) INF63: and then she started climbing Øi the tree (7;4). (50) INF64: and the bird flew Øi upwards (7;6). (51) INF77: after that the cat climbed Øi the tree (8;8). (52) INF82: and the puppy came and saw that cat climbing Øi that tree (8;0). (53) INF83: is climbing Øi the tree (8;1). It has been established that as children acquire prepositional constructions, prepositions are initially omitted and later replaced with premorphemes15, such as a or o, until eventually (at around 2;5 years of age) they learn to use most prepositions and prepositional constructions (Savickienė 1999: 20). Bilingual children learning Lithuanian as their native language may also omit prepositions, and this is done not only by younger children but also by older children (aged 6–8). It may be suggested that the cause of this phenomenon is not only the protracted acquisition of prepositions but also English grammar. This idea is supported by the fact that in the coherent narratives elicited in Lithuanian, the preposition į is not used in those phrases (sentences) where its equivalents in English (to, into, at, towards, etc.) are not used, for example: cat climbed up (the cat went [= 14 The symbol Ø indicates that the preposition written next to it was not used. 15 A premorpheme is a prosodically expressed word part that has no semantic meaning, used at the earliest stage of morphological acquisition (the premorphological stage), and replaces a word part (an ending, prefix, or suffix) or an entire word (e.g., a preposition) (Savickienė 1999: 15). BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai climb?] up; example 48); bird flew up (the bird flew up; example 50); climb the tree (climbs tree; example 53). One more instance found in the narratives of two participants is worth mentioning: instead of a preposition, the sound o is used, which can be called a premorpheme because of its function—it marks a morphological element that the child does not yet know how to use well, e.g.: (54a) INF58: and dog cat grabbed o tail [= by the tail] BET (54b) INF58: the dog saw the cat in the tree (6;0). (55a) INF69: and the dog saw that the cat was climbing o tree [= in the tree] BET (55b) INF69: and the dog bit the tail of the cat and then chased it away (7;9). In the examples given (54a and 55a), the genitive used with the so-called premorpheme o shows that the children know the rule that in prepositional constructions, words used together with prepositions must take certain cases. Other instances of preposition use found in the same children's narratives (54b and 55b) show that when children know how to use a particular preposition well and are confident that the prepositional construction will be correct, they use that preposition rather than a premorpheme. These instances reflect a creative solution: producing a grammatically correct construction (consisting of two components) by using auxiliary linguistic elements to fill the gap where the appropriate morphological element is lacking—that is, by using a premorpheme. Clearly, some bilingual children, even the oldest ones, have still not fully acquired prepositional constructions. In some cases, it appears that the use of prepositional constructions in Lithuanian is influenced by the grammatical rules of the dominant English language, which the older children have already learned. 2.3. Use and non-use of the genitive in negation Language acquisition involves encountering a complex phenomenon—the distinction between a marked and an unmarked direct object. In Lithuanian, the object may be expressed in the accusative (perku obuolius) ‘I am buying apples’, while an indefinite quantity is expressed in the genitive (perku obuolių) ‘I am buying some apples’. The direct object of transitive verbs is expressed in the accusative (statysiu namą) ‘I will build a house’, but in negative sentences these BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai veiksmažodžių objektas reiškiamas kilmininku (nestatysiu namo) (DLKG 2006). Nors lietuvių kalboje žymėto ir nežymėto objekto raiška yra sudėtinga dėl sąsajos su morfologija, sintakse, semantika, tyrimai rodo (Dabašinskienė 2015: 380), kad paprastai vaikai tai nesunkiai įsisavina ir nuo 2,5 metų vaikų kalboje vis daugiau randasi atvejų, kai, nurodant objekto dalį, ar su neigiamaisiais tranzityviniais veiksmažodžiais vartojamas kilmininkas. Tačiau iš atliktos analizės matyti, kad 5, 7, 8 metų dvikalbiams vaikams kalbant lietuviškai vis dar sunku taisyklingai vartoti neiginio kilmininką, pvz.: (56) INF16: and mother was protecting the chicks so that the dog would not take small chicks (5;5). (57) INF27: then mother told them that she would not leave [= would not leave] her own babies (5;11). (58) INF68: the dog came to rescue those little birds so that the cat would not take them (7;2). (59) INF85: and he did not want something to do (8;3). In the examples presented, the accusative rather than the genitive is used with negative transitive verbs, e.g.: nepaimtų mažus viščiukus, nebepaliks beibius, nenorėjo kažką, nepaimtų juos. These instances suggest that the children know the rule that, in affirmative sentences, the object of transitive verbs is expressed in the accusative; however, they have not yet fully learned (or have not learned) the rule that the object is expressed in the genitive with transitive verbs containing the negation marker ne-. These errors may also have arisen under the influence of English, in which the form of the object does not change in either affirmative or negative sentences, e.g.: want to buy a house; I do not want to buy a house. More examples need to be collected in order to determine precisely the cause of this usage. It should be noted that the correct use of the genitive under negation also poses difficulties for bilingual (Russian–Lithuanian) children who use Lithuanian as a second or state language. An examination of the Lithuanian language skills of second-grade pupils found that, in the case under discussion, children tended to use the instrumental or accusative instead of the genitive, e.g.: nemėgstu košė; nemėgstu kiaušinius; nemėgstu bulvės (pl. nom.) (Skripkienė 2001: 82). Errors of this type also occur among learners of Lithuanian as a foreign language. It has been found that students learning Lithuanian use the accusative instead of the genitive with negative transitive verbs, e.g.: aš nežiūriu televizorių; karvė neduoda pieną (Dabašinskienė, Čubajevaitė 2009: 55). These studies show that expressing the object is not easily acquired (learned) not only by monolinguals, but also by bilinguals (or multilinguals) who use Lithuanian as a native, state, or foreign language. BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai CONCLUSIONS The analysis of coherent narratives revealed the difficulties children face in acquiring inflectional paradigms, the agreement of grammatical forms (case, number, gender), case government, and the use of the genitive of negation in an English-language environment. The data showed that, in interaction between two languages, the inflectional system of the native Lithuanian language can be acquired successfully, although this process takes longer for some bilingual children than for monolingual children—until the age of five or six. It should be emphasized that both younger and older children tend to simplify the inflectional system and therefore tend to inflect nouns from non-productive paradigms or less frequently used nouns according to productive paradigms. There are cases in which an inflectional paradigm is selected by analogy with other words, but this is more characteristic of the youngest study participants. Analysis of the agreement of grammatical forms showed that children can correctly select endings that indicate number, masculine and feminine gender, and case; however, even older children (7–8 years old) still have difficulty selecting the morphological forms of a dependent word (‑ų) (‑ių) according to the head word. Analysis of case government showed that the accusative used with transitive verbs to express the object is often replaced by the nominative, genitive, or another case. A similar tendency is found in monolingual children as they acquire transitive verbs, until they learn to use the accusative with these verbs. However, the data from the present study show that using transitive verbs with the accusative still poses difficulties for older (7- and 9-year-old) bilingual children. In addition, both younger and older (7–8-year-old) children have difficulty using the genitive of negation correctly. With negative transitive verbs, children expressed the object in the accusative rather than the genitive. The use of prepositions and prepositional constructions has several notable features. First, nouns accompanying a preposition cannot always be expressed in the cases used with those prepositions. Second, a grammatically correct preposition–noun pattern may be formed (e.g., from + gen.), yet the resulting prepositional construction may be incorrect when the preposition–noun pattern is used without regard to the verb’s syntactic valency. This indicates that bilingual children find it harder to learn to use prepositional constructions appropriately than to form them correctly. Third, the preposition into constructions are influenced by BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai English grammar: this preposition is omitted in Lithuanian in those word combinations in which it is also not used in English. The several grammatical features discussed in this article make it possible to note that, when acquiring Lithuanian in an English-dominant environment, children pass through the same (or similar) stages as monolingual children in Lithuania. However, bilingual children find some rules difficult to acquire in the other-language environment, and this takes longer than it does for monolingual children. This may be influenced by the fact that, alongside Lithuanian, English is used increasingly intensively and frequently in daily life and is beginning to assume a dominant position, especially after children start school at around age four. LITERATŪRA A l e k s a n d r a v i č i u s D., K u z m i c k a i t ė D. 2008: Emigracija ir šeima: Vaikų ugdymo problemos ir iššūkiai, Vilnius: Versus Aureus. B a l č i ū n i e n ė I. 2009: Pokalbio struktūros analizė kalbos įsisavinimo požiūriu. Dak taro disertacija, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. B a l č i ū n i e n ė I., K a l n i n y t ė A. 2013: Narrative production in Lithuanian TD Mono- and Bilingual 5–6-year Olds, pranešimas skaitytas tarptautinėje mokslinėje konferencijoje Child Language Seminar–2013. Mančesterio universitetas. B a l č i ū n i e n ė I., K a l n i n y t ė A., K r i v i c k a i t ė E. 2011: Lietuvių kilmės vaikų, gyvenančių Vokietijoje, kalba: nuostatos, tendencijos, rekomendacijos. Vokietijos šeštadieninių lituanistinių mokyklų vadovų ir mokytojų seminaras. Hiutenfeldas, Vokietija. B l a ž i e n ė A., 2015: Dvikalbių vaikų rišliojo pasakojimo produktyvumas ir leksinė įvairovė. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 7. Prieiga internete: http://mif.vu.lt/ojs/index.php/taikomoji-kalbotyra/article/view/54/50 (žiūrėta 2016 06 25). C e l e š i ū t ė I. 2008: Lituanistinio vaikų ugdymo užsienio šalyse ypatumai. – Oikos 2 (6), 52–72. Č i u b r i n s k a s V., K u z n e c o v i e n ė J. (sud.). 2008: Lietuvių identiteto trajektorijos, Kaunas: VDU leidykla. D a b a š i n s k i e n ė I. 2015: Growing knowledge in differential object marking: the view from L1 Lithuanian. – Revue roumaine de linguistique LX (369–382). D a b a š i n s k i e n ė I., B a l č i ū n i e n ė I., K a l n i n y t ė A. 2014: Links between lexicon and grammar in narrative production: Lithuanian as L1 and L2 in bilingual children, 13th International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Amsterd amas. BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai Dabašinskienė I., Čubajevaite L. 2009: Acquisition of case in Lithuanian as L2: Error analysis. – Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat = Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics 5, 47–65. Dabašinskienė I., Kamandulytė L. 2009: Corpora of spoken Lithuanian. – Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat = Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics 5, 67–77. Dabašinskienė I. 2008: Trumpinimas ir dažnumo poveikis šnekamojoje kalboje. – Darbai ir dienos 50, 109–117. Dautartas J. 2005: Lituanistinio ugdymo JAV raidos aspektai. – Pedagogika 79, 189–193. Dressler W. U., Tornton A. M. 1996: Italian nominal inflection. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 55–57, 1–26. Dressler W. U., Drąžyk R. D., Dziubalska-Kołaczyk K., Jagła E. 1995–1996: On the earliest stages of acquisition of polish declension. – Wiener Linguistische Gazette 53–54, 1–21. DLKG 2006 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. V. Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Gagarina N., Klop D., Kunnari S., Тантеле K., Välimaa T., Balčiūnienė I., Bohnacker U., Walters J. 2012: Multilingual assessment instrument for narrative analysis (MAIN), Berlin: ZAS. Hickmann M. 2003: Children’s discourse: Person, space and time across languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jakaitė-Bulbukienė K. 2014: Lietuvių kalbos išsaugojimas emigrantų šeimoje: JAV atvejis. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 5. Prieiga internete: http://mif.vu.lt/ojs/index.php/taikomoji-kalbotyra/article/view/40/34 (žiūrėta 2016 07 02). Jakaitė-Bulbukienė K. 2015a: Lietuvių emigrantų šeima: kalba ir tapatybė. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Jakaitė-Bulbukienė K. 2015b: Lietuvių kalbos išlaikymą emigrantų šeimoje lemiantys veiksniai: JAV atvejis. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 7. Prieiga internete: http://mif.vu.lt/ojs/index.php/taikomoji-kalbotyra/article/view/69/62 (žiūrėta 2016 07 02). Kamandulytė L. 2009: Lietuvių kalbos būdvardžio įsisavinimas: leksinės ir morfosintaksinės ypatybės. Daktaro disertacija. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai Kamandulytė L., Savickienė I. 2007: The corpus of spoken Lithuanian. – Human Language Technologies. The Third Baltic Conference Proceedings, 127–133. Kalninytė A. 2013: Lietuvių vaikų, gyvenančių anglakalbėje aplinkoje, rišliojo pasakojimo ypatybės, pranešimas skaitytas tarptautinėje taikomosios kalbotyros konferencijoje Kalbos ir žmonės: dialogas ir kontaktai. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Krivickaitė E. 2014: Netikrų žodžių kartojimo testas: lietuvių vienakalbių ir dvikalbių vaikų kalbos tyrimas. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 4. Prieiga internete: http://mif.vu.lt/ojs/index.php/taikomoji-kalbotyra/article/view/33/28 (žiūrėta 2016 07 02). Liubinienė N. 2009: Migrantai iš Lietuvos Šiaurės Airijoje: „savos erdvės“ konstravimas. Daktaro disertacija. Kaunas. Pažūsis L. 2009: Šiaurės Amerikos lietuvių kalba (dvikalbystės sąlygojamų reiškinių tyrinėjimai). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Ramonaitė J. T. 2013: Italų kaip antrosios kalbos įsisavinimas: įvaikinimo iš Lietuvos situacija. Daktaro disertacija. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Ramonienė M. (red.) 2015: Emigrantai: kalba ir tapatybė: kolektyvinė monografija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Ramonienė M. (red.) 2010: Miestai ir kalbos, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Savickienė I. 1999: Lietuvio vaiko daiktavardžio morfologija. Daktaro disertacija. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Savickienė I. 2000: Linksniai šnekamojoje kalboje. – Darbai ir dienos 24, 89–99. Savickienė I. 2001: Linksniavimo paradigmų formavimasis vaiko kalboje. – Lituanistica 3 (47), 58–68. Savickienė I. 2003: The Acquisition of Lithuanian Noun Morphology, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Savickienė I. 2005: Linksnių vartojimo dažnumas ir daiktavardžių reikšmė. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 52, 59–65. Savickienė I., Kazlauskienė A., Kamandulytė L. 2004: Naujas požiūris į lietuvių kalbos daiktavardžio linksniavimo tipus pagal natūraliosios morfologijos teoriją. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 50, 79–98. Skripkienė R. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos gebėjimų lygmenys: nelietuvių mokyklų pradinukų kalbinės raiškos valstybine kalba tyrimai. – Pedagogika 55, 78–86. BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai Šutinienė I. 2009: Lietuvių kalbos gramatinių ypatybių įsisavinimo anglų kalbos aplinkoje sunkumai. – Filosofija. Sociologija 20 (4), 310–317. Tamošiūnaitė A. 2012: Lituanistinės mokyklos iššūkiai: mokinių nuostatos ir kalbos vartojimo polinkiai. Pranešimo skaidrės. Čikagos lituanistinė mokykla. Prieiga internete: http://www.svietimotaryba.org/index.htm (žiūrėta 2016 07 04). Tamošiūnaitė A. 2008: The Lithuanian Language in the United States: Shift or Maintenance? – Lituanus 54(3), 60–78. Wójcik P. 2000: The Acquisition of Lithuanian Verb Morphology: a Case Study, Krakow: Quartis. Įteikta 2016 07 26 Priimta 2016 09 07 AGNĖ BLAŽIENĖ Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas Humanitarinių mokslų fakulteto Lietuvių kalbos katedra Kristijono Donelaičio g. 52–205, LT–44244 Kaunas [email protected] BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204