The intent of this research is a qualitative and quantitative description of the consequence of bilingualism in the productive morphology in the first 2 classs of primary school in contrast with kids that are native talkers of Grecian linguistic communication.

Theoretical background of linguistic communication acquisition

Everyone in their first old ages of life and under normal physiological and societal conditions learn to talk the linguistic communication of their environment, their first linguistic communication. First linguistic communication is defined as the linguistic communication that a individual acquires during the first old ages of his life through the contact with the environment in which he grows. Harmonizing to recent surveies, the first linguistic communication a kid learns is non needfully the female parent lingua but besides the linguistic communication of any other individual is in changeless contact with the kid ( Papapavlou, AN, 1997 ) . Man, though, by nature can talk more than one linguistic communications. Therefore, it is possible during his development to larn a 2nd or a foreign linguistic communication. A 2nd linguistic communication is defined as the linguistic communication a individual learns either at the same time through the acquisition of the female parent lingua or after its incorporate or semi-integrated development. The term bilingualism refers to the alternate usage of two linguistic communications by the same individual in order to function the demand for communicating in a linguistic communication environment different from his ain at a day-to-day degree. ( Skourtou, Ltd.,1997 )

Theoretical Models of Language Acquisition

Since the early ’50s scientists began to analyze linguistic communication acquisition by kids. During this process of acquisition the factors individual and environment are involved and during the survey neither the one nor the other factor can be neglected. The scientists ‘ chief job was focused on how the kid learns the linguistic communication and the extent of engagement of the environment and the individual in it. ( Mitsis, N. , 2003 ) . The most popular theories that have been formulated in order to explicate the acquisition of linguistic communication is:

Behaviorist theory

Fans of the philosophy of behaviourism until mid 50s were experimenting with animate beings in order to analyze the phenomenon of acquisition. Harmonizing to Pavlov and Skinner ‘s experiments larning is the consequence of stimulus-response form. ( Pervin, A.L. – John, P.O, 1999 ) . When the reaction is desirable it is honoring so as the coveted behaviour is repeated and reinforced. ( Athanasiou, L. , 2001 ) . Based on the reading of larning in animate beings behaviourists interpret linguistic communication acquisition in kids every bit good. Thus, acquisition is the consequence of the stimulation which an person receives from the environment and his reactions to them. They argue that kids are born without cognizing anything, as a tabula rasa, and are shaped by the stimulations they receive, a procedure in which the of import function drama imitation and support. ( Athanasius, L. , 2001 )

Nativist or biological theory

The geneticists ‘ theory is based in that linguistic communication is acquired by the unconditioned abilities of the persons. This theory, whose chief representative is Chomsky, argues that the ability of linguistic communication acquisition is predetermined as the kid is born with a mental Language Acquisition Device ( LAD ) , which allows it to treat the lingual stimulation of its environment by seeking to detect the regulations which govern the linguistic communication that it is listening. ( Cole M.-Cole A.S.,2001 )

Cognitive theory

Learning harmonizing to cognitive theory is based on the corresponding development of cognitive maps, which are indispensable for acquisition, and therefore, the linguistic communication acquisition. The chief representatives of this theory are Piaget, Bruner and Vygotsky, and they argue that the overall kid ‘s development is the consequence of both the interaction that the single receives from the environment and the single itself, a procedure which is non one manner but it instead runs through different phases. ( Mitsis, N. , 2003 ) Harmonizing to Piaget a kid passes through certain procedures to make the completion of larning in general and the acquisition of linguistic communication every bit good, and they are as follows: ( Cole M. -Cole AS, 2001 )

Sensori-motorA phase ( birth to 2 old ages )

Pre-operational stageA ( 2 – 6 )

Concrete operationalA phase ( 6 – 2 )

Formal operationalA phase ( 12 – 19 )

( Cole M.-Cole A.S. , 2001 )

Social interaction theory

This theory focuses on the societal context in which the kid lives and particularly the interaction exerted between him and the grownups. Harmonizing to this theory, the elements that help us understand how linguistic communication is acquired is the kid ‘s ability to pass on with the environment and the interaction exerted by communicating. The function of the household background and particularly the female parent ‘s is really of import and it has been proven that the richer the environment is, the greater opportunities the kid has in order to larn the linguistic communication. ( Athanasius, L. , 2001 )

Phases of Language Acquisition

The development of communicating accomplishments begins in babyhood, before the visual aspect of the first word.

A Until so the kid cognitively, returns to familiar sounds, links words with familiar objects he understands when person is addressed to him and responds when they call him. Expressively, he babbles, uses address and sounds to inquire for something, he uses deixis in order to pass on and he has already said his first 1 to 2 words. A kid 1 to 2 old ages old perceptually, shows some parts of his organic structure, carries out simple bids and replies simple inquiries, he may listen to a really simple narrative, vocals and shows images when we name them. Expressively, the kid is invariably developing his vocabulary and he makes sentences of two words. Furthermore, he uses the why and where type inquiries ; Within 2 to 3 old ages of age the kid is able to understand simple oppositional constructs such as in-out, little – big, responds to 2-step bids, such as choice up the book and set them on the tabular array and eventually, he listens to larger narratives. At this age your kid uses words for all familiar objects and his sentences are up to three words. He has besides developed the phonemes k, g, degree Fahrenheit, T, vitamin D and N, and his address is understood by his milieus. Between 3 and 4 he listens when person is naming him from another room, he merely answers the inquiries who? “ ” What? “ ” Where? ” and “ why? “ He besides speaks about the kindergarten activities. His address is understood by other people apart from the household. He uses many sentences that have 4 or more words. Until the age of 5 a kid is cognitively capable of paying attending to a short narrative and replies simple inquiries about it. He listens and understands most of what is said both at place and at school. Expressively, he uses sentences that give many inside informations, communicates with other kids and grownups easy ; he articulates most phonemes and sounds right. He knows some letters and Numberss. Finally, he uses the same grammar with the remainder of the household. ( hypertext transfer protocol: / / www.asha.org )

Morphosyntactically a kid under the age of 6 should bring forth sentences from 4 to 8 words and his phrases have acquired the rudimentss. Subsequently on, his sentences become more complex and he develops comparative clauses, infinitive sentences and makes usage of the gerund. Furthermore, he uses genitive pronouns, personal and automatic pronouns, future tenses and the grammatical morphemes of “ shall ” every bit good as past tenses, plural, conditional clauses and the grades of comparing of adjectives. ( Pollock, K.E. & A ; Price, J.R.,2005 )

Acquisition of morphology

A

The morphological component in linguistic communication acquisition concerns the production of words, which is achieved through internalized regulations which govern the combinations of morphemes. Morpheme is the smallest conceptual lingual unit which can non be divided. Wordss consist of one or more morphemes. Some morphemes may organize a word by themselves, but most words consist of combinations of morphemes. Different combinations of morphemes may organize different words. Syntax, severally, is referred to the regulations regulating the signifier of sentences. It specifies the order of words and the organisation of assorted types of sentences ( interrogative, affirmatory, etc. ) . It allows combinations of words in phrases and sentences and their transmutation into other types of sentences. Phrases can be noun-phrases, when they are based on the noun and should needfully include a noun and optionally other elements ( adjectives, etc. ) or verbal, when based on the verb and needfully include a verb and other elements ( adverbs etc. ) optionally. The regulations of formation of other types of sentences ( active-passive ) and the formation regulations are besides included in sentence structure. When the kid acquires the aforesaid maps he is considered to hold morphosyntactic consciousness, a map which enables him to reproduce and bring forth well-structured semantic units. ( Tzouriadou, 1995 )

Acquisition of productive morphology

I- I?I»IZI?I?I± IµI?I?I±I?A I­I?I±A IˆI?I»I…I?I?I?I?IµI„I? I?I?I?I„I·I?I± IˆI?I… I±IˆI?I„IµI»IµI?I„I±I? I±IˆI?A I?I?I¬I†I?I?I± I»IµI?I„I?I…I?I?I?I?I¬ I?I…I?I„I±I„I?I?I¬.A I?I?I±A I±IˆI? I„I± I?I…I?I„I±I„I?I?I¬ I„I?I…A IµI?I?I±I? I· I?I?I?I†I?I»I?I?I?I± . I- I?I?I?I†I?I»I?I?I?I± I±I?I‡I?I»IµI?I„I±I? I?Iµ I„I·I? IµI?I‰I„IµI?I?I?I® I?I?I?I¬I?I‰I?I· I„I‰I? I»I­I?IµI‰I?

( Cruse, A 2001 ) . I?I?I?I†I‰I?I± I?Iµ I„I?I? I?I?I?I?I?I? I„I?I… Trask, I?I? I»I­I?IµI?I‚ I?I?I?I¶I?I?I„I±I? I?I±I? I?I»I‰I?I?I?I?I­I‚ I?I?I?I¬I?IµI‚ I?IµI?I±I»I?I„IµI?IµI‚ I±IˆI? I­I?I± I?I?I?I†I·I?I± I?I±I? I?I?I?I?I?I„IµI?IµI‚ I±IˆI? I?I?I± I†I?I¬I?I· . I?I?I?I†I®I?I±I„I±A IµI?I?I±I?A I?I?I?A IˆI?I?I?I?I»I?IµI‚ , IµI»IµI?I?IµI?IµI‚ I?I±I? I?IµI?I?IµI…I?I­I?IµI‚.A I”I‰I?IµI¬I?A I?I?I?I†I®I?I±I„I±IµI?I?I±I?

I±I?IµI?I¬I?I„I·I„I· I?I±I?A I?IˆI?I?IµI? I?I± I?I„I±I?IµI?A I?I?I?I· I„I·I‚.A I?I„I·I?I±I?I?I»I?I?I®A I?I»IZI?I?I±A I?IˆI?I?I?I?I?Iµ I?I± I?I?I?I?I?IµA IˆI?I»I»I¬

IˆI±I?I±I?IµI?I?I?I±I„I± I„I‰I?A I?I‰I?IµI¬I?A I?I?I?I†I®I?I±I„I± , A A«IˆI±I?I‡I?I?I?I?A» , I?IˆI‰I‚ I· A«I?IµI?I¬I»I·A» , A A«I±I?I?I?I?A»I?I±I?A A«I?I¬I„I±A» , A IµI?IZA I?I„I·I? IµI»I»I·I?I?I?I®

I?I»IZI?I?I±A I?IµI? I…IˆI¬I?I‡I?I…I?A IˆI?I»I»I¬ IµI»IµI?I?IµI?I±I?I?I?I†I®I?I±I„I±.A I?IµI?I?I?I¬ IˆI±I?I±I?IµI?I?I?I±I„I±A I?I„I·I? IµI»I»I·I?I?I?I® I?I»IZI?I?I±A IµI?I?I±I?A /A tiA /A I„I± I?IˆI?I?I±

I?I·I?I±I?I?IµI?A I„I? , A /A PUA /A IˆI?I… I?I·I?I±I?I?IµI?A I„I?I? I„I?IˆI? I?I±I?A /A neA /IˆI?I… I?I·I?I±I?I?IµI?A I?I±I?.A BoundA I?I?I?I†I®I?I±I„I±

IYI?A I?I?I±I?I?I±I„I?I?I­I‚A I»I­I?IµI?I‚-I?I»IµI?I?I?I¬A I®A I?IµI?I?I„IµI‚A IˆI?I…A I?IµI?I?IˆI?I?I?I?I? I?I± I»IµI?I„I?I…I?I?I®I?I?I…I? I±I?IµI?I¬I?I„I·I„I±.A I I?I­IˆIµI?A I?I± IµI?I?I±I?

I?I?I± I„I·I? IµI»IµI?I?IµI?I·A I?I?I?I†I®I?I±I„I±A I®A I?IµA I¬I»I»I±I?I…I?I?IµI?IµI?I­I?I± I?I?I?I†I®I?I±I„I±A ( I I?I?I?IµI? , A 1995 ) .

The productive usage of formation regulations have been observed in kids spontaneously speech from the age of 3 old ages old. Clark ( 1981 ) argues that kids as grownups originate in order to make full the spreads in their vocabulary, in other words kids create new words to show their wants when they do non hold registered footings in their vocabulary. For illustration, alternatively of a auto machinist they invent compound words such as fix-man. ( Clark, 1981, Clark, Gelman & A ; Lane, 1985 )

The acquisition of productive morphology in kids is largely studied in kids of school age. Berko ( 1958 ) suggests that preschool kids and first class pupils can non bring forth appropriate derived functions. Recent research, nevertheless, by Carlisle & A ; Nomanbhoy ( 1993 ) argues that when the derivative retains the phonological individuality of the root of the word intact, the per centums of right response reach 40 % , whereas when the derivative requires phonological alteration of the root the response rates were 11.2 % . One possible account for the different consequences in the 2 surveies is that Berko used pseudo words as a root, whereas Carlisle & A ; Nomanbhoy used existent words that kids may cognize.

The production, of one of the chief mechanisms of noun formation, is the instruction during which the productive elements are added to the root, which are called “ postfixs ” . The postfixs that are placed on the left of the root are called prefixes while those on the right, postfixs. A particular instance of noun formation is the production by adding to the root older and modern and modern lexical elements that have no independent presence in Modern Greek. That type of lexical elements in contrast to the usual prefixes, are called lexical prefixes and lexical postfixs. ( Claire, C. – Babiniotis, C. 2005 )

Prefixs

As prefixes for noun creative activity may function the undermentioned prepositions:

e.g.adi- ( adi-p’roeI?ros )

Lexical Prefixs

Lexical prefixes may run conventional elements which come from older words or constitute portion of Modern Greek without independent presence in address.

e.g.arO«i- ( arO«i-tektoni’ci )

Suffixs

New nouns through postfixs are chiefly produced by other nouns, verbs and adjectives.

Production of nouns that indicate a individual or profession.

Production of nouns that indicate topographic point.

Production of nouns that indicate instrument or vas.

Production of nouns that indicate action or the consequence of an action.

Production of abstract nouns that indicate province or quality.

Production of nouns that indicate theory and scientific disciplines.

Derivative nouns that province workss.

Production of nouns that indicate pet name.

Production of nouns that indicate colorss.

Production of nouns that indicate expansion.

( Claire, Ch. – Babiniotis, G. 2005 )

Research purposes, inquiries and hypotheses

The purpose of this research is to analyze the public presentation in productive morphology in bilingual kids of first and 2nd class. The inquiries that are stated by the research that is traveling to be held are:

If bilingualism is traveling to impact the productive morphology and if there is traveling to be some impact which will be. accordingA toA the questionsA posedA forA thisA research, A expectedA mattersA isA thatA bilingualismA wouldA affectA theA productiveA morphologyA and childrenA whoA are non A bilingualA will hold betterA consequences.