L1 loss in an L2 environment: Dutch immigrants in France

Abstract

Introduction In his typology of non-pathological language attrition, Van Els (1986) distinguishes four different types, taking as points of reference what is lost – either the first or the second language – and the environment in which it is lost – either in an L1 environment or an L2 environment: Loss of L1 in an L1 environment, e.g. first language loss by aging people; Loss of L1 in an L2 environment, e.g. loss of native languages by immigrants; Loss of L2 in an L1 environment, e.g. foreign language loss; Loss of L2 in an L2 environment, e.g. second language loss by aging migrants. An overview of research in this area is to be found in Weltens (1987). The present investigation falls within the second category: L1 loss in an L2 environment. Most research in this category has been concerned with migrant groups rather than with individuals (see for instance Fishman 1966; Jamieson 1980; Clyne 1980). In the migrant studies sociological characteristics of the different ethnic groups are compared with each other in order to find the cluster of factors that determine either language maintenance or loss. Excellent examples of this approach are Clyne (1982) and Fishman et al . (1985). Empirical research on individual L1 loss in an L2 environment has started only recently. In the investigation described below we tried to find within-group characteristics that might influence language maintenance and loss in such a setting.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 101 citations exist upstream.