Language is a complex system that is broken down into its functional constituents. Language is divided into three major constituents: signifier, content, and usage ( Bloom & A ; Lahey, 1978, as cited in Owens, 2001 ) . Form includes sentence structure, morphology, and phonemics. These constituents connect sounds or symbols in order. Contented encompasses significance or semantics, and usage is termed pragmatics. These five components-syntax, phonemics, semantics, and pragmatics are the basic regulation systems found in linguistic communication.
Syntax and sentence types
The signifiers or construction of a sentence is governed by the regulations of sentence structure. These regulations specify word, phrase, clause, and other sentence organisation, and the relationships between words, word categories, and other sentence elements. Sentences are organized harmonizing to their overall map ( Owens, 2001 ) . For illustration: declaratory sentences make a statement and questions form inquiries. The constitutional parts of a sentence are noun and verb phrases ( Owens, 2001 ) . Radford ( 2007 ) defined sentences as follows: Affirmative sentence-sentence that affirms a proposition, Negative sentence-states that something is non true or wrong, Interrogative sentence-asks a inquiry. They may inquire for information or for verification or denial of a statement, Imperative sentence-a sentence used to publish an order, Declarative sentence-used to do a statement, Comparative sentence-contains two clauses joined by a bipartite comparative component.
British psychologist, Peter Wason investigated the psychological facets of negation ( 1959, 1961 ) . His survey revealed that negation additions comprehension clip. Gough ( 1965 ) and Slobin ( 1966 ) confirmed the findings that subjects took longer clip on negative sentences than on affirmatory sentences. They besides reported that mistakes made were more for negative than for affirmatory sentences. Deese ( 1971 ) suggested that the simplest type of sentence, viz. active, affirmatory, declaratory green goods less intervention with callback of words than any other type of sentence. The 2nd individual pronoun ( you ) enters into the construction of all imperative sentences in English ( Bullokar, 1956 ) . This determination has been supported by several writers ( Jespersen, 1940 ; Sweet, 1960 ) . Since research workers assume that merely pronouns have a 2nd individual signifier they conclude that imperative sentences ever have you as the topic. However, in short signifiers of jussive moods such as, come, sit, eat, etc. the pronoun ( you ) is understood. The topic need non be marked as it is the lone possible topic. Vaidyanathan ( 1988 ) reported the presence of three major categories of questions in Tamil, i.e. yes/no signifier, E-type inquiries matching to the wh-type and the inquiry ticket type. The longitudinal survey carried out by the writer on Tamil talking monolingual kids revealed high frequence of yes/no inquiries and where, what inquiries by 2 old ages 9 months of age. Infrequent presence of who and where inquiries were assumed to increase with age. The writer besides reported that how and when inquiries were seldom asked by kids of 2 old ages 9 months. Research shows grounds that kids by and large have greater trouble groking the negative member of a polar comparative adjective brace than the positive member ( Donaldson & A ; Wales, 1970 ; Gordon, 1972 ; Milligan, 1972 ; Palermo, 1973 ; Weiner, 1971 ) . Clark ( 1969, 1970, 1972 ) attributed these findings to the presence of a simpler generic sense which occurs in the positive comparative entirely. This thought has been argued by Huttenlocher and Higgins ( 1971 ) who stated that several positive comparatives adjectives do non hold a generic sense. They attributed grownups ‘ trouble with less, shorter, worse, etc. , to their inexplicit negativeness. Townsend ( 1974 ) indicated that kids may hold trouble in understanding the relationship between the two clauses of the comparative sentence. The writer reported that this kid ‘s trouble could be due to the failure to understand the semantic dealingss expressed by the clauses, or because he/she has non learned the cue that allow him/her to associate the clauses.
Karanth, Manjula, Geetha & A ; Prema ( 2010 ) carried out a undertaking to develop linguistic communication developing stuff at different lingual degrees. This undertaking was carried out affecting 100 kids in the age scope of 3-13 old ages, 20 kids with linguistic communication troubles and 20 grownups for 10 Indian linguistic communications. The preparation focal point has been on the syntactic and semantic facets of linguistic communication. Subsections for syntax include plurals, tenses, person-number-gender marker, instance markers, transitives, intransitives, causatives, affirmatives, negatives, questions, comparatives, conditionals, conjunctions, quotatives and participial buildings. Within the subdivisions of semantics and sentence structure, the subtests have been listed in an approximative hierarchal mode based on the normative informations consequences obtained in the consequences. The writers reported that through some facets of linguistic communication are acquired by kids every bit early as 2 old ages of age ; other facets such as conditional and participial buildings are mastered merely by 10 old ages.
Bilingualism
Bloomfield ( 1935 ) considers bilingualism as the ability to talk two linguistic communications absolutely where the talker has native like control of the two linguistic communications. Weinreich ( 1953 ) stresses that bilingual person ‘s switch from one linguistic communication to another harmonizing to the appropriate alterations in the address state of affairs but non in an unchanged address state of affairs. Titone ( 1972 ) postulates that bilingual is that individual who can talk a 2nd linguistic communication without rephrasing his/her female parent lingua.
Literature distinguishes three types of bilingualism: compound, co-ordinate and sub-coordinate ( D’Acierno & A ; Rosaria, 1990 ) . Compound bilinguals learn two linguistic communications in the same environment. Thus he/she get one impression with two verbal looks. In the encephalon there is a amalgamate representation of two linguistic communications which are assumed to be mutualist. The two linguistic communications are learned in analogue. Coordinate bilinguals are those persons who get the two linguistic communications in different context ( one at place and the other at school ) . Thus the words of the two linguistic communications belong to two separate systems which are independent. Initially the kid develops one system, and so builds up a 2nd system. Finally, the kid operates the two in analogue. The 3rd type of bilingualism is the sub-coordinate type. It occurs when one linguistic communication predominates on the other. Here, the single interprets words of his/her weaker linguistic communication through the words of his/her stronger linguistic communication. Thus the dominant linguistic communication acts as a filter for the other.
Monolingual versus Bilingual
Research literature on bilingual kids frequently concerns with examining into the comparative advantage or disadvantage of bilingual versus monolingual kids in the country of linguistic communication and knowledge.
Bilingual developmental mileposts: There is great variableness in typical linguistic communication acquisition mileposts. This consequences in trouble in happening statistical differences among age matched monolingual and bilingual groups on any steps of linguistic communication operation. Most of the early linguistic communication mileposts are similar, irrespective of linguistic communication being learnt. Babbling is matured at around 6 months of age and first words typically appear around 12-14 months. The visual aspect of first two-word combinations is observed around 18-25months ( Fenson, Dale, Reznick, Bates, Thal, & A ; Pethick, 1994 ) . Similar mileposts are observed for bilingual kids. Bilingual kids are approximately comparable to a monolingual kid is merely one of the two linguistic communications.
Meisel ( 1994 ) and Genesee, Paradis, & A ; Crago, ( 2004 ) studied the linguistic communication abilities of kids developing two linguistic communication since birth. They concluded that bilingual kids follow the same class and rate of linguistic communication development as their monolingual opposite numbers. Similarities were observed right from the sound system to the grammar acquisition.
Meta-linguistic comparings: Bild & A ; Swain ( 1989 ) stated that bilingual kids prove to stand out at meta-linguistic consciousness, a accomplishment that is associated with larning to read and compose. This accomplishment besides helps kids to larn 3rd linguistic communication. Therefore, the writers chronicled that bilingual kids are non merely equal to monolinguals, but exceed them in linguistic communication accomplishments. This advanced meta-linguistic consciousness is obvious when the bilingual kids manipulate words independently on the sentences they occur in by exchanging names for things/objects being named.
Syntactic acquisition- independent or interdependent: The premise of the hypothesis that by 2 old ages of age bilingual kids have differentiated lingual systems does non reply the inquiry of whether these systems interact over the class of acquisition. It is possible that the two grammars do non interact at all. This allows the bilingual kid ‘s syntactic development to resemble that of two monolinguals. Never the less, it could besides be possible that the two grammars interact with each other during the acquisition period and ensuing in a bilingual kid to look different from monolingual kids geting each linguistic communication. These divergent results can be referred to as independent and mutualist development, severally ( Paradis & A ; Genesse, 1996 ) . Mutuality has besides been called intervention ( Bergman, 1976 ) or invasion ( Vihman & A ; McLaughlin, 1982 ) . Mutuality is defined as a systematic influence of the grammar of one linguistic communication on the grammar of the other linguistic communication during acquisition. This causes differences in a bilingual kid ‘s pattern and rate of development when compared to the monolingual opposite numbers ( Paradis & A ; Genesse, 1996 ) .
Deprez and Pierce ( 1993, 1994 ) reported that finitude of vocabulary appears earlier in a French-English bilingual kid. Thus it might be expected that a French-English bilingual ‘s acquisition of finitude in English would be accelerated due to the influence of French. However, Paradis and Geneese ( 1996 ) found no cases of mutuality.
Three possible manifestations of mutuality have been reported in literature: transportation, acceleration, and hold. Transfer consequences in the incorporation of a grammatical belongings of one linguistic communication into the other. Transfer occurs after the kid reaches an advanced degree of syntactic complexness in one linguistic communication than in the other. Interdependent development is assumed to speed up the acquisition of certain belongingss in one of the two linguistic communications of the bilingual talker. Acceleration states that certain grammatical belongingss emerge earlier than the norm in monolingual acquisition. The 3rd manifestation of mutuality is the overall rate of acquisition. The load of load of geting two linguistic communications could decelerate down the acquisition procedure in bilinguals. This may ensue in detaining the overall advancement of grammatical development in bilingual kids doing them to be behind monolingual equivalents ( Paradis & A ; Genesse, 1996 ) .
Areas of slower development: Vocabulary and morphosyntax are the two countries of grammar that are most sensitive to the sum of linguistic communication exposure. There might be an grounds of slower gait of larning in bilingual kids when compared to their monolingual opposite numbers. However, this difference may non interpret into an academic shortage. Bilingual kids are non hapless word scholars. Bilingual kids have a entire vocabulary ( numbering both linguistic communications ) that is larger than those of the monolinguals response. Besides their production might be tantamount to that of the monolingual kids ( Pearson, Fernandez, & A ; Oller, 1993 ) . However, in the early phases of vocabulary development bilingual kids may cognize fewer words in each linguistic communication ( every bit much as 30 or 50 per cent lupus erythematosus ) .
Language damage and bilingualism: Genesee, Paradis, & A ; Crago, ( 2004 ) demonstrated that bilingual kids with linguistic communication damage show tantamount upsets in both linguistic communications. But the countries of exposure would be different. Thus the existent symptoms of the upsets would be different for each linguistic communication.
Cognition and Bilingualism: Two linguistic communications take up more room in the head than one. Thus we wonder whether the procedure of going bilingual might hinder the mental development of the person by taking up much infinite. The psychological research on the cognitive development of bilingual kids has reported concern about the hapless public presentation on intelligence trials of immigrants in United States. These happening were more outstanding for southern and eastern European beginnings. Lewis Terman & A ; Florence Goodenough believed that the immigrants belonged to groups with low innate intelligence. Therefore they associated the hapless public presentation to be a map of heredity. On the other manus, conservationists argued that bilingualism had an influence on intelligence. They believed that the usage of two linguistic communications resulted in mental confusion. Therefore, the immigrants were of inferior intelligence ( Hakuta, 1985 ) .
Behaviourist psychologist agreed with the conservationist history of the negative effects of bilingualism on intelligence. They attributed the consequence of bilingualism to be apparent as mental confusion in these persons. This behavior is now termed as codification shift ( Smith, 1939 ) .
By late 1950 ‘s the positions on societal scientific disciplines were oriented from the behaviourist to the cognitivist. Noam Chomsky argued efficaciously that linguistic communication and mental capacities are really powerful and can non be ever observed in behaviour. Cognitivist termed head as a machine with wired-in-properties, a job convergent thinker that is stimulated by the environment. But they believed that head is non created by the environment.
Peal and Lambert ( 1962 ) surveies the relation between bilingualism and intelligence. They found that bilingual kids were every bit adept in both their linguistic communications in comparing to a similar group of monolingual kids. Their findings suggested that the bilingual kids performed better on all steps of intelligence. They concluded that bilingualism might hold a positive consequence on intelligence. These happening contradicted the claims of the behaviourist psychologists. Peal and Lambert viewed the bilingual head from the cognitive position. Therefore proposing that head attempts work outing jobs presented by the environment. Assuming that the head has worked on two jobs ( larning two linguistic communications ) it has more experience in work outing jobs than the head that has worked on merely one linguistic communication. Therefore, Peal and Lambert ( 1962 ) qualify bilingual kids as being kids with wider experiences in two civilizations which gives them an advantage over monolingual kids. Intellectually, the experience gained by the bilingual kid with two linguistic communication system leaves him/her with a mental flexibleness, high quality in construct formation, a more diversified set of mental abilities. On contrary, the monolingual kid appears to hold a more unitary construction of intelligence which should be used for all types of rational undertakings.
Need of the survey
The struggle between monolingual and bilingual kid acquisition is still non resolved. Research has shown concern in the difference of syntactic accomplishments exhibited between monolingual and bilingual kids. Predominant surveies have focused on comparing the morphosyntactic structured between the two groups. However, there has been minimum research in comparing the differences in the types of sentences observed in the two groups. Hence, a preliminary survey is warranted to compare the presence of sentence types between monolingual and bilingual kids.
Aim of the survey
The purpose of the survey was to compare the presence of affirmatory, negative, declaratory, imperative, interrogative and imperative sentence types in typically developing monolingual Tamil speech production and bilingual Tamil-English speech production kids. These comparings were made for both comprehension and look of the six sentence types.
