Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

What linguistic advantages do heritage language speakers have over second language learners? Oksana Laleko (SUNY New Paltz) Maria Polinsky (Harvard) Seventh.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "What linguistic advantages do heritage language speakers have over second language learners? Oksana Laleko (SUNY New Paltz) Maria Polinsky (Harvard) Seventh."— Presentation transcript:

1 What linguistic advantages do heritage language speakers have over second language learners? Oksana Laleko (SUNY New Paltz) Maria Polinsky (Harvard) Seventh Heritage Language Research Institute Chicago, IL June 17-21

2 HLSs and L2 learners: Acquisition scenarios O Two distinct paths to (imbalanced) adult bilingualism

3 HLSs and L2 learners: Acquisition scenarios O Different circumstances of target language exposure O HLSs: early consecutive or sequential bilinguals who begin acquisition in a family setting (cf. early L1 leaners) O Adult L2s: late bilinguals, lg exposure in a structured setting

4 HLSs and L2 learners: Points of convergence O Both groups display deficits in the domain of inflectional morphology and narrow syntax O E.g., case, gender, agreement, long- distance dependencies (Benmamoun et al. 2010; Montrul 2002; Montrul et al. 2008; Polinsky 1997, 2006; 2008a, b; 2011; Rothman 2007)

5 HLSs and L2 learners: Points of convergence O Both groups exhibit difficulties with discourse pragmatics O Infelicitous linguistic choices in contexts that require discourse tracking or resolving contextual optionality (Laleko 2010; Montrul 2004, Serratrice et al. 2004; Laleko & Polinsky, 2012; in press).

6 What we learned last year O Topic and subject marking in Japanese and Korean (Laleko & Polinsky, 2012; in press) (1) a. Sakana-wa tai-ga oisii.J fish-TOP red snapper-NOMdelicious Speaking of fish, red snapper is delicious b. Sayngsen-un yene-ka massissta.K fish-TOPsalmon-NOM delicious Speaking of fish, salmon is delicious.

7 What we learned last year O Topic marker: establishes discourse relations (1) a. Sakana-wa tai-ga oisii.J fish-TOP red snapper-NOMdelicious Speaking of fish, red snapper is delicious b. Sayngsen-un yene-ka massissta.K fish-TOPsalmon-NOM delicious Speaking of fish, salmon is delicious.

8 What we learned last year O Nominative case marker: marks the syntactic subject (1) a. Sakana-wa tai-ga oisii.J fish-TOP red snapper-NOMdelicious Speaking of fish, red snapper is delicious b. Sayngsen-un yene-ka massissta.K fish-TOPsalmon-NOM delicious Speaking of fish, salmon is delicious.

9 What we learned last year O 1) TOP marking is more difficult than NOM marking for both HLSs and L2 learners in Japanese and in Korean (Laleko & Polinsky, 2012; in press) O discourse > narrow syntax (Givón 1979, Koornneef 2008, Langacker 2000, Reuland 2011)

10 What we learned last year O 2) The level of proficiency in the HL matters O Higher-proficiency HLSs (Korean) > L2 learners O Lower-proficiency HLSs (Japanese) = L2 learners

11 What we learned last year O 3) Advantages exhibited by the higher- proficiency HLSs over L2 learners are selective O Korean HLSs were overall target-like on all conditions involving NOM (syntax), O but non-target-like on TOP omissions (discourse)

12 New Questions O What other areas of linguistic knowledge might reveal selective differences between HLSs and L2 learners?

13 New Questions O What would these results tell us about... O language architecture? O ways to optimize classroom instruction?

14 Phenomena to be discussed O Lower-proficiency HLSs (Japanese) O Subject honorification O Word order variations (scrambling) O Use of classifiers

15 Phenomena to be discussed O Higher-proficiency HLSs (Korean) O Word order variations O Use of classifiers

16 Japanese

17 Subject Honorification O Japanese is rich in linguistic encoding of formality; multiple polite forms (Shibatani, 1990; Iwasaki, 2002) O Subject Honorification (SH): a formal (morpho- syntactic) way of marking the speakers respect for individuals who hold a socially high rank O Cf. agreement in other lgs

18 Subject Honorification O Expressed by the verbal complex o-VERB-ni naru (2)Syachou -ga daijina -koto -o o -hanashi –ni naru President -NOM important-things-ACC HON–talk-HON The president is discussing important things

19 Subject Honorification O Individuals judged to be worthy of respect (Harada, 1976; Shibatani, 1977). (3) a.Gakusei-ga Mary-o matu. student-NOM Mary-ACC wait The student waits for Mary b. Sensei-ga Mary-o o-mati-ni naru. teacher-NOM Mary-ACC HON-wait-HON The teacher waits for Mary

20 Subject Honorification O Individuals judged to be worthy of respect (Harada, 1976; Shibatani, 1977). (3) a.Gakusei-ga Mary-o matu. student-NOM Mary-ACC wait The student waits for Mary b. Sensei-ga Mary-o o-mati-ni naru. teacher-NOM Mary-ACC HON-wait-HON The teacher waits for Mary

21 Subject Honorification O In addition to pragmatic appropriateness, appropriate use of SH requires the linguistic knowledge of O syntax O morphology O phonology

22 SH: Syntactic Knowledge O SH only applies to subjects! O Hence often used as a formal linguistic diagnostic of subjecthood in Japanese

23 SH: Syntactic Knowledge (4) a.* Gakusei-ga kouchousensei-o o-naguri-ni naru Student–NOM school president-ACC HON-hit-HON A student hit the school president. b. * Dorobou-ga kyouzyu -no ofisu-o o-yogoshi-ni naru thief-NOM professor–GEN office-ACC HON-dirty-HON A thief broke into the professors office

24 SH: Morphological Knowledge O Obligatory morphological marking with the circumfix o-…-ni (5) Syachou -ga daijina -koto -o *(o)-hanashi-*(ni) naru president -NOM important-things-ACC HON–talk-HON The president is discussing important things

25 SH: Phonological Knowledge O Vowel epenthesis with roots that end in consonants O verb root ends in a vowel: o-VERB-ni yame quit o-yame-ni naru O verb root ends in a consonant: o-VERB-i-ni kak write o-kak-i-ni naru

26 SH: Questions for Our Study O Which aspects of the SH construction are problematic for heritage language speakers and L2 learners? O phonology O syntax O morphology

27 SH: Questions for Our Study O In what areas, if any, might HLSs exhibit advantages over L2ers?

28 The Study: Participants Language JAPANESE Group L2 (N=31) HL (N=29) Age27.524.75 Age of arrival to U.S.N/A4.0 Age of switch to EnglishN/A4.8 Daily use of Japanese (%)12.422.9 Self-rated proficiency in Japanese (1-5)3.013.62

29 The Study: Procedure O Compared with native monolingual controls (baseline speakers), N=13 O Ratings elicited on Amazon Mechanical Turk

30 The Study: Procedure O Sentences rated on a 1-5 scale in the following conditions: O Acceptable use O Phonological violations O Syntactic violations O Morphological violations

31 Results O Both HLSs and L2 learners differed significantly from the baseline controls in all conditions

32 Results O For L2 learners, all aspects of the SH construction were equally hard O For HLSs, not all aspects of the SH construction were equally hard

33 Results: L2

34 no difference

35 Results: Heritage

36 Results: HL (Japanese) no difference

37 Results: Heritage ratings more accurate

38 Subject Honorifics: Summary O For HLSs, phonological constraints appear to be the least difficult aspect of the Subject Honorification construction O morphology and syntax more problematic

39 Subject Honorifics: Summary O Findings consistent with existing studies involving low-proficiency HLSs (Au, Knightly, Jun, & Oh, 2002)

40 Subject Honorifics: Summary O Overall, low-proficiency HLS of Japanese as a group do not demonstrate apparent advantage over L2 learners

41 Subject Honorifics: Summary O Possibly because the SH construction is mostly attested in formal registers, to which HLSs receive the least amount of exposure O HL =home language, informal colloquial styles

42 Phenomena attested in colloquial registers O Word order variations (scrambling) O syntactic constraints O Use of classifiers O semantic and syntactic constraints

43 Scrambling Taro bought comics at a bookstore. (6) a.Taroo-ga honya-de manga-o katta. Taro-NOM bookstore-at comic-ACC bought b.Taroo-ga manga-o honya-de katta. Taro-NOM comic-ACC bookstore-at bought c. Manga-o honya-de Taroo-ga katta. Comic-ACC bookstore-at Taro-NOM bought

44 Constraints on scrambling O The verb needs to come last (7) a. *Oishisouna tsukurimas yusyoku-o otouto-no-tameni Taroo-ga Deliciously make supper-ACC young brother-GEN-for Taro-NOM Taro makes delicious supper for his young brother.

45 Constraints on scrambling Restrictions on moving subjects out of embedded clauses (7) b. *Sono kukki-ga [Misaki-ga amai to omo -tteiru] That cookie-NOM Misaki-NOM sweet that think -ING Misaki thinks that cookie is sweet.

46 Constraints on scrambling O Case particles, conjunctions, and postpositions cannot be separated from their nouns (7) c. *To Taroo-ga Hanako sugaku-o benkyou-shi-ta With Taro-NOM Hanako math-ACC study -do-past. Taro studied math with Hanako.

47 Question for our study Do HLSs and L2 learners have the syntactic knowledge that would allow them to recognize violations on scrambling in Japanese?

48 Scrambling: Results

49 significant difference

50 Scrambling: Results no difference

51 Scrambling: Summary O The lack of significance may reflect heritage speakers reluctance to rate ungrammatical sequences low (so called yes-bias, cf. Laleko and Polinsky, in press; Polinsky, in press; Orfitelli and Polinsky, submitted)

52 Classifiers O Mark a conceptual classification of the nouns referent (Tsujimura, 2007): O San-nin three people O San-mai three thin and flat objects O San-bon three long and cylindrical objects O San-gen three houses O San-biki three animals

53 Classifiers O A sentence containing a numeral must also contain the appropriate classifier: (6) a. San-nin-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita. three-CL-GEN child-NOM house-to came Three children came to my house b.Taroo-ga san-mai-no kami-o katta. Taro-NOM three-CL-GEN paper-ACC bought Taro bought three sheets of paper

54 Classifiers O A sentence containing a numeral must also contain the appropriate classifier: (7) a. # San-mai-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita. three-CL-GEN child-NOM house-to came Three children came to my house b.# Taroo-ga san-nin-no kami-o katta. Taro-NOM three-CL-GEN paper-ACC bought Taro bought three sheets of paper

55 Classifiers O In addition to semantic constraints on the use of classifiers, there are syntactic constrains governing their use

56 Classifiers (8) a.San-nin-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita. three-GEN child-NOM house-to came Three children came to my house b.Kodomo-ga san-nin uti-e kita. child-NOM three house-to came Three children came to my house

57 Classifiers (8) a.San-nin-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita. three-GEN child-NOM house-to came Three children came to my house b.Kodomo-ga san-nin uti-e kita. child-NOM three house-to came Three children came to my house Quantifier Float

58 Classifiers O Quantifier Float is subject to syntactic constraints (Fukuda and Polinsky, 2013 and further references therein ): (9) a. Gakusei-ga san-nin [VP sake-o nonda]. student-NOM three sake-ACC drank Three students drank sake b.*Gakusei-ga[VP sake-o san-nin nonda] student-NOM sake-ACC three drank Three students drank sake

59 Classifiers: Main Question O How do HLSs and L2 learners of Japanese perform with respect to semantic and syntactic violations on the use of classifiers?

60 Classifiers: Results

61 more accurate

62 Classifiers: Results O Both groups diverged from the L1 controls (HLS = L2) O no apparent advantage of being heritage O Both groups had more difficulties with semantics than with syntax

63 Summary so far O Difficulties are not equal O discourse > syntax (HLS and L2) O semantics > syntax (HLS and L2) O morphosyntax > phonology (HLS)

64 Summary so far O Low-proficiency HLSs do not exhibit apparent advantage over L2 learners O Statistically indistinguishable from L2 (classifiers) or outperformed by L2 (scrambling) O What about high-proficiency HLS?

65 Korean

66 Participants Language KOREAN GroupL2 (N=16)HL (N=35) Age25.824.5 Age of arrival to U.S.N/A3.2 Age of switch to EnglishN/A3.0 Daily use of Korean (%)23.529.6 Self-rated proficiency in Korean (1-5)3.394.35

67

68 Phenomena to be examined O Same conditions as in Japanese: O Scrambling (~syntax) O Use of classifiers (~syntax and semantics)

69 Question for our study O Do HLSs and L2 learners have the syntactic knowledge that would allow them to recognize violations on scrambling in Korean?

70 Scrambling: Results

71 significant difference

72 Scrambling: Results no difference

73 Scrambling: Results O L1 and HL groups exhibit a significant difference (p < 0.05) between grammatical and ungrammatical conditions

74 Scrambling: Results O L2 group are not sensitive to syntactic violations on scrambling (p > 0.05)

75 Scrambling: Results O High-proficiency HLS > L2 on syntax O What about semantics? O Lets consider classifiers

76 Classifiers O Same design as in Japanese O Main questions: O Is there a difference between HLSs vs. L2? O Is there a difference in processing syntax vs. semantics?

77 Classifiers: Results

78 significant difference

79 Classifiers: Results no difference

80 Classifiers: Results

81 different

82 Classifiers: Results different same

83 Classifiers: Results O High-proficiency HLSs: O pattern with L1 controls in recognizing semantic and syntactic violations on the use of classifiers O no difference in syntax vs. semantics

84 Classifiers: Results O L2 speakers: O Non-target-like knowledge of classifiers O Syntax is easier than semantics

85 Summary O What areas of linguistic knowledge are more difficult? O Discourse more difficult than syntax (Laleko, 2010; Laleko & Polinsky, 2012: in press) O Semantics more difficult than syntax for L2 (Korean) O Semantics more difficult than syntax for L2 and HLSs (Japanese)

86 The big picture O The hierarchy of structure-building and interpretation (cf. Givon, 1979; Langacker, 2000; Reinhart, 2006; Kornneef, 2008; Reuland, 2011) syntax < semantics < discourse [less costly] [more costly]

87 Summary O What advantages do HLSs exhibit over L2 learners? O Phonology (Japanese) O Semantics (Korean) O Syntax? O Japanese HLS < L2 or HLS = L2 O Korean HLS > L2

88 Summary O Advantage varies across the proficiency continuum

89 Thank you! O And thanks to Aika Taguchi, Shin Fukuda, Sandy Kim, Sun-Hee Bae, Miwako Hisagi O Funding: Funding: Heritage Language Resource Center (UCLA), CASL (U of Maryland)


Download ppt "What linguistic advantages do heritage language speakers have over second language learners? Oksana Laleko (SUNY New Paltz) Maria Polinsky (Harvard) Seventh."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google