Dominant language transfer in the comprehension of L2 learners and heritage speakers

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Lee
Keyword(s):  
Language Transfer ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
L2 Learners

Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage speakers

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvina Montrul
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Contact ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Language Transfer ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Transfer Effects ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
L2 Learners

The effects of language transfer have been amply documented in second language (L2) acquisition and, to a lesser extent, in the language contact/loss literature (Cook, 2003). In both cases, the stronger and often dominant language encroaches into the structure of the less dominant language in systematic ways. But are transfer effects in these two situations comparable: is first language (L1) influence in adult L2 learners similar to L2 influence in the L1 of early bilinguals? The current study addresses this question by investigating knowledge of Spanish clitics, clitic left dislocations, and differential object marking (DOM) in 72 L2 learners and 67 Spanish heritage speakers. The contact language, English, is assumed to not instantiate these syntactic properties. Results of an oral production task and a written acceptability judgment task indicated overall advantages for the heritage speakers in some areas, but similar effects of transfer from English in the two groups. Transfer effects were less pronounced with core aspects of grammar (syntax proper in the case of clitics) than with aspects of grammar that lie at the interfaces of syntax and semantics/pragmatics, as in the case of clitic left dislocations and DOM. These findings have implications for current views on the vulnerability of certain linguistic interfaces in language development (Sorace, 2004; Serratrice et al., 2004; Tsimpli and Sorace, 2006; White, 2009) and for theories that stress the role of age in L2 acquisition and permanent transfer effects.

Sentence comprehension in heritage language: Isomorphism, word order, and language transfer

2021 ◽  
pp. 026765832199790
Author(s):  
Anna Chrabaszcz ◽  
Elena Onischik ◽  
Olga Dragoy
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Heritage Language ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Language Transfer ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
Sequence Of Events ◽  
Linguistic Transfer

This study examines the role of cross-linguistic transfer versus general processing strategy in two groups of heritage speakers ( n = 28 per group) with the same heritage language – Russian – and typologically different dominant languages: English and Estonian. A group of homeland Russian speakers ( n = 36) is tested to provide baseline comparison. Within the framework of the Competition model (MacWhinney, 2012), cross-linguistic transfer is defined as reliance on the processing cue prevalent in the heritage speaker’s dominant language (e.g. word order in English) for comprehension of heritage language. In accordance with the Isomorphic Mapping Hypothesis (O’Grady and Lee, 2005), the general processing strategy is defined in terms of isomorphism as a linear alignment between the order of the sentence constituents and the temporal sequence of events. Participants were asked to match pictures on the computer screen with auditorily presented sentences. Sentences included locative or instrumental constructions, in which two cues – word order (basic vs. inverted) and isomorphism mapping (isomorphic vs. nonisomorphic) – were fully crossed. The results revealed that (1) Russian native speakers are sensitive to isomorphism in sentence processing; (2) English-dominant heritage speakers experience dominant language transfer, as evidenced by their reliance primarily on the word order cue; (3) Estonian-dominant heritage speakers do not show significant effects of isomorphism or word order but experience significant processing costs in all conditions.

Selective vulnerability and dominant language transfer in the acquisition of the Chinese cleft construction by heritage speakers

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-227
Author(s):  
Ziyin Mai ◽  
Xiangjun Deng
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Selective Vulnerability ◽  
Language Transfer ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
Different Types

Abstract This study investigates effects of selective vulnerability and dominant language transfer in heritage grammar. Mandarin Chinese has a shì…de cleft construction, which, despite its superficial similarities with the it-cleft in English, is subject to additional conditions. Four experimental tasks elicited eighteen adult heritage speakers’ implicit knowledge of the word order and the temporal, telicity and discourse conditions associated with the Chinese cleft. The heritage speakers demonstrated target-like representation of the conditions. Meanwhile, their sensitivity to the telicity and discourse conditions is weaker than that of native speakers in Beijing, suggesting selective vulnerability in the heritage grammar. By comparing the heritage speakers with adult second language learners of Chinese, we concluded that the vulnerability of the heritage grammar in the discourse domain did not result from cross-linguistic influence from English. In different types of Chinese-English bilinguals, the dominant language affects the weaker language in different ways.

scholarly journals Metalinguistic Intuitions and Dominant Language Transfer in Heritage Spanish Syllabification

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 288-307
Author(s):  
Michael Shelton ◽  
David Counselman ◽  
Nicolás Gutiérrez Palma
Keyword(s):  
English Translation ◽  
Language Transfer ◽  
Transfer Effects ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
Heritage Speaker ◽  
Paper And Pencil ◽  
Vocalic Sequences ◽  
Heritage Speakers Of Spanish ◽  
English Heritage

While heritage speakers of Spanish have been shown to differ from monolingual speakers along many morphosyntactic lines, comparatively few studies in heritage linguistics have focused on phonology. To test whether the knowledge of English phonotactics would influence Spanish-English heritage speaker syllabification patterns in Spanish, 29 heritage and 29 monolingual speakers of Spanish completed a paper-and-pencil syllabification task in which they divided 80 Spanish words into syllables. Stimuli were controlled for comparisons between Spanish and English phonotactic constraints. Specific attention was placed on the syllabification of vocalic sequences as diphthongs or hiatus. Based on the distribution of diphthongs in English, and the findings of cognate effects in a similar study by Zárate-Sández (2011), heritage speakers were predicted to break diphthongs into hiatus more often in cognates than noncognates, more often when the English translation of a cognate presented hiatus, more in rising diphthongs than in falling diphthongs, and more often when a rising diphthong contained a palatal rather than velar glide. These effects were all present in heritage speaker results. No significant effects were found for monolingual controls. These findings offer new data to the understudied field of heritage phonology and to the ongoing discussion of dominant language transfer effects.

Dominant language influence in acquisition and attrition of binding: Interpretation of the Korean reflexive caki

2009 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
JI-HYE KIM ◽  
SILVINA MONTRUL ◽  
JAMES YOON
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Korean Immigrants ◽  
Structural Constraints ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Value Judgment ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
English Dominant ◽  
Language Influence

This study investigates how the dominant language of Korean heritage speakers (English) influences Korean (minority language) in the domain of binding interpretations by comparing the performance of Korean immigrants in English dominant context with that of incomplete learners of Korean and L2 learners of Korean. Four groups (10 Korean immigrants, 17 simultaneous bilinguals, 14 late L2 learners, and 30 Korean native speakers) were tested. Differences between English and Korean in Governing Category and structural constraints were tested through a Truth Value Judgment Task with stories. Overall results showed that Korean immigrants (attriters) did not differ from Korean controls, while simultaneous bilinguals (incomplete learners) and late L2 learners of Korean showed behavior different from Korean control when two languages were different in their binding properties.

Metalinguistic Intuitions and Dominant Language Transfer in Heritage Spanish Syllabification

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 288-306
Author(s):  
Michael Shelton ◽  
David Counselman ◽  
Nicolás Gutiérrez Palma
Keyword(s):  
English Translation ◽  
Language Transfer ◽  
Transfer Effects ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
Heritage Speaker ◽  
Paper And Pencil ◽  
Vocalic Sequences ◽  
Heritage Speakers Of Spanish

While heritage speakers of Spanish have been shown to differ from monolingual speakers along many morphosyntactic lines, comparatively few studies in heritage linguistics have focused on phonology. To test whether the knowledge of English phonotactics would influence SpanishEnglish heritage speaker syllabification patterns in Spanish, 29 heritage and 29 monolingual speakers of Spanish completed a paper-and-pencil syllabification task in which they divided 80 Spanish words into syllables. Stimuli were controlled for comparisons between Spanish and English phonotactic constraints. Specific attention was placed on the syllabification of vocalic sequences as diphthongs or hiatus. Based on the distribution of diphthongs in English, and the findings of cognate effects in a similar study by Zárate-Sández (2011), heritage speakers were predicted to break diphthongs into hiatus more often in cognates than noncognates, more often when the English translation of a cognate presented hiatus, more in rising diphthongs than in falling diphthongs, and more often when a rising diphthong contained a palatal rather than velar glide. These effects were all present in heritage speaker results. No significant effects were found for monolingual controls. These findings offer new data to the understudied field of heritage phonology and to the ongoing discussion of dominant language transfer effects.

scholarly journals Auditory Processing of Gender Agreement across Relative Clauses by Spanish Heritage Speakers

Languages ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 8
Author(s):  
Daniel Vergara ◽  
Gilda Socarrás
Keyword(s):  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Age Of Onset ◽  
Spanish Language ◽  
Auditory Task ◽  
Auditory Modality ◽  
Gender Agreement ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Spanish Heritage Speakers

Processing research on Spanish gender agreement has focused on L2 learners’ and—to a lesser extent—heritage speakers’ sensitivity to gender agreement violations. This research has been mostly carried out in the written modality, which places heritage speakers at a disadvantage as they are more frequently exposed to Spanish auditorily. This study contributes to the understanding of the differences between heritage and L2 grammars by examining the processing of gender agreement in the auditory modality and its impact on comprehension. Twenty Spanish heritage speakers and 20 intermediate L2 learners listened to stimuli containing two nouns with gender mismatches in the main clause, and an adjective in the relative clause that only agreed in gender with one of the nouns. We measured noun-adjective agreement accuracy through participants’ responses to an auditory task. Our results show that heritage speakers are more accurate than L2 learners in the auditory processing of gender agreement information for comprehension. Additionally, heritage speakers’ accuracy is modulated by their Spanish language proficiency and age of onset. Participants also exhibit higher accuracies in cases in which the adjective agrees with the first noun. We argue that this is an ambiguity resolution strategy influenced by the experimental task.

Assessing Differences and Similarities between Instructed Heritage Language Learners and L2 Learners in Their Knowledge of Spanish Tense-Aspect and Mood (TAM) Morphology

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvina Montrul ◽  
Silvia Perpiñán
Keyword(s):  
Heritage Language ◽  
Language Instruction ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Tense And Aspect ◽  
Classic Problem ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Advanced Proficiency ◽  
L1 Acquisition

The acquisition of the aspectual difference between the preterit and imperfect in the past tense and the acquisition of the contrast between subjunctive and indicative mood are classic problem areas in second language (L2) acquisition of Spanish by English-speaking learners (Collentine, 1995, 1998, 2003; Salaberry, 1999; Slabakova & Montrul, 2002; Terrell, Baycroft & Perrone, 1987). Similarly, Spanish heritage speakers in the U.S exhibit simplification of the preterit/imperfect contrast and incomplete acquisition/attrition of subjunctive morphology (Merino, 1983; Montrul, 2002, 2007; Potowski, Jegerski & Morgan-Short, 2009; Silva-Corvalán, 1994). This raises the question of whether the linguistic knowledge of a developing L2 learner is similar to incomplete L1 acquisition in heritage language (HL) learners. Because heritage speakers are exposed to the heritage language from infancy whereas L2 learners begin exposure much later, Au et al. (2002, 2008) have claimed that heritage speakers are linguistically superior to L2 learners only in phonology but not in morphosyntax. The present study reexamines this claim by focusing on the interpretation of tense, aspect and mood (TAM) morphology in 60 instructed HL learners and 60 L2 learners ranging from low to advanced proficiency in Spanish. Results of four written tasks showed differences between the groups both in tense and aspect and in mood morphology, depending on proficiency levels. Implications of these findings for heritage language instruction are discussed.

Who did what to whom, and what did we already know?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Ionin ◽  
Maria Goldshtein ◽  
Tatiana Luchkina ◽  
Sofya Styrina
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Heritage Languages ◽  
Heritage Speaker ◽  
Narrow Focus ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Speakers Of Other Languages ◽  
Prior Literature

Abstract This paper reports on an experimental investigation of what second language (L2) learners and heritage speakers of Russian know about the relationship between word order and information structure in Russian. The participants completed a bimodal acceptability judgment task, rating the acceptability of SVO and OVS word orders in narrow-focus contexts, under neutral prosody. Heritage speakers behaved like the control group of baseline speakers, preferring SVO order in answer to object questions, and OVS order in answer to subject questions. In contrast, L2 learners preferred SVO order regardless of the context. While the heritage speaker group was more proficient than the L2 group, proficiency alone cannot account for differences in performance: specifically, with regard to acceptance of OVS order for subject narrow focus, heritage speakers improved with proficiency, but L2 learners did not. It is proposed that heritage speakers have an advantage in this domain due to early age of acquisition (cf. Montrul, 2008). This finding is consistent with prior literature on narrow focus with heritage speakers of other languages, and suggests that this phenomenon is not particularly vulnerable in heritage languages.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document