Acquiring the Dutch Plural in a Bilingual Setting: Investigating the Effects of Language Dominance, Overlap, and Variability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Summary: This study aimed to investigate crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of Dutch plural forms by two- and three-year-old children attending bilingual Dutch-English daycare. The roles of variability, overlap, and language dominance were explored as factors influencing crosslinguistic influence. The study hypothesized that children exposed to English would show a stronger preference for -s pluralization in Dutch due to the overlap between the two languages. The research involved 95 children from bilingual environments who participated in an elicited production task. The results did not provide clear evidence of unidirectional crosslinguistic influence from English to Dutch in the form of -s overgeneralizations. However, the findings highlighted the influence of variability, as children made more overgeneralizations when rhyme and sonorancy contradicted. Furthermore, English exposure appeared to facilitate the correct production of the -s affix, and children who overgeneralized the -s affix were predominantly those exposed to English at home, suggesting a role for language dominance in the preference for the -s affix.

Overall, the study provides a well-structured and clear account of its objectives, methodology, and findings. However, there are some minor issues (listed below) that deserve clarification. 

Terminology: what is called stress/rhythmic factor in section 1.2.1, is called rhyme in section 1.3.

Section 1.2

The positions on the categorical-variable spectrum that the author assigns to Dutch and English raises some questions. Considering that English has three productive plural allomorphs ([s], [z], [ɪz]), besides improductive patterns (feet, sheep, children, etc.), should it be put on the categorical side if Dutch, which has two productive plural allormorphs (-s, -en) besides improductive patterns (kinderen, steden), is put on the opposite variable side? 

The author also states that “[o]n the variable end of the spectrum, phenomena are placed that have two forms that are both as frequently used.” Where would a language like German with many more pluralization patterns be on this spectrum?

Section 1.2.1

“in English plurals can only be formed by adding the -s affix”. Unlike the Dutch suffix -s, the phonetic value of the English suffix -(e)s can be [s], [z], or [ɪz], depending on the final sound of the word. The choice between the Dutch suffixes -s and -en depends on phonological factors as well. This raises doubts about the assigned positions on the categorical-variable spectrum.

About sonority: aren’t all sounds except for plosives more sonorous than [s]? It seems to be most important for a plural word to end in a trochaic stress pattern. There are few Dutch words ending in an unaccented syllable ending in a plosive, but some loanwords (hačeks, iPads, gadgets, fiats, kajaks) form counterexamples to sonority as a factor in pluralization. Also consider tablétt-en vs. táblet-s, in which sonority does not seem to matter but the stress pattern does, and words ending in schwa which can take both plural suffixes: bodes/-n, kades/-n, lades/-n, methodes/-n, and words that move the stress based on the plural suffix: proféssor, professór-en (or proféssor-s) (examples from Booij 2019: Morphology of Dutch, 2nd ed.). 

“In these conflict cases, it differs which factor wins, leading to many grey areas in Dutch pluralization that might be susceptible to crosslinguistic influence.” Can the author provide examples of these grey areas?

Section 2.1

It is mentioned that only children who attend bilingual daycare are tested, even if they had little to no exposure to English outside the daycare. Is there any research on how Dutch children who were not exposed to English at home or school acquire the plural suffixes, and to what extent they overgeneralize? What are the researcher’s thoughts on testing children who were not exposed to English at home or school as a control group?

Section 2.2.1

“If both affixes are correct, no overgeneralizations can occur.” Both suffixes may be correct according to dictionaries, but that does not mean that both are actually used. It could be found that bilinguals use the s-plural of aardappel more than monolinguals do.

Independent of stress, nouns ending in -s always get the en-suffix: saláriss-en, dréumes-en, cúrsuss-en. This factor could, besides stress and sonority factors, also influence children’s choice of plural suffix for the test item fiets, but is not mentioned in the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Reply

Reviewer 3 Report

Firstly, congratulation on the excellent work! Nevertheless, there is one crucial issue regarding the age of the children who participated  in the interviews, were they two and three or two to four? 

The organization and clarity of the manuscript is amazing! 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf