g. acho que já são suficientemente grandes think that ...... in: Terrell A. Morgan, James F. Lee, and Bill Van Patten (Eds.),. Language and language use: studies ...
Published as:
Flores, Cristina, Rinke, Esther & Azevedo, Cecília (2017). Object realization across generations. A closer look on the spontaneous speech of Portuguese first and second generation migrants. In E. Domenico (ed.), Complexity in Acquisition. Cambridge Scholars, pp. 178-205.
CHAPTER SEVEN OBJECT REALIZATION ACROSS GENERATIONS: A CLOSER LOOK ON THE SPONTANEOUS SPEECH OF PORTUGUESE FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION MIGRANTS CRISTINA FLORES, ESTHER RINKE AND CECÍLIA AZEVEDO
1. Introduction The present study investigates object realization in the Portuguese of Portuguese migrants who live in Germany. We specifically focus on two distinct groups of speakers: 1st generation migrants who moved to the host country as adults, i.e. late second language (L2) learners of German, and 2nd generation speakers who were born in Germany, and acquired Portuguese as their heritage language (HL) in parallel with German as their dominant environmental language. The main aim of this paper is to analyse the realization of objects in the spontaneous speech of these speaker groups and to compare it with the spontaneous production of two age-matched generations of monolingual speakers of European Portuguese (EP) who live in Portugal. We intend to detect potential differences in the linguistic behavior of heritage speakers (HSs) and, in this way, to contribute to the understanding of heritage language acquisition. In the last decade the development of HLs, namely the home languages of speakers with a migration background that in contrast to the majority language is less present in the speakers’ daily life, has received a growing
This research is supported by the Portuguese funding agency Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Project «Portuguese as a Heritage Language and Language Change»; Grant EXPL/MHC-LIN/0763/2013)
180
Chapter Seven
interest in linguistic research on bilingual language acquisition (see, for instance, Benmamoun et al., 2013; Guijarro-Fuentes & Schmitz, 2015; Montrul, 2016; Rothman, 2009). It has repeatedly been shown that adult HSs may not attain the same proficiency as age-matched monolinguals, although they acquired their HL from early on (cf. Montrul, 2008). Hence, it is a major challenge in HL research to identify linguistic domains in which heritage bilinguals may diverge from their monolingual counterparts and to find explanations for possible outcome differences. Research on bilingual language acquisition has shown that discrepancies between monolinguals and bilinguals in certain domains may result from the interaction of three dimensions of the acquisition process: i) the nature of the property under analysis, i.e. its degree of complexity, transparency and saliency, ii) cross-linguistic influence and iii) input factors, i.e. quantity and quality of language exposure (cf. the discussion in Cuza, Pérez-Leroux & Sánchez, 2013). In this paper, we will explore these dimensions on the basis of corpus data from four different speaker groups. The domain of object expression in EP is very suitable to address the first dimension because it is a multifaceted and variable domain, which presents a complex acquisition task even in monolingual language acquisition. European Portuguese has strong and clitic object pronouns. The clitics can vary in form and placement depending on the context in which they occur. In addition, EP – in contrast to other Romance languages - allows relatively freely for specific null objects (Raposo, 1986). The domain of object expression is also adequate to identify effects of cross-linguistic influence because German and Portuguese differ in terms of object realization. In contrast to Portuguese, German does not have special object clitics and does not allow for specific null objects. However, sentence initial topic drop is possible. In the following section, we will describe the background of our investigation in a more detailed way. Section 3 presents the study, starting with the description of the participants (3.1.) and the corpus (3.2). Section 3.3 gives an overview over the different options of object realization in EP and the respective coding conventions, eventually followed by the guiding research questions of this study. Section 4 presents the results and section 5 discusses the implications for the study of heritage bilingualism.
2. Background In regards to the before mentioned first dimension, the nature of the linguistic property, a vast amount of studies on the acquisition of object pronouns by various types of speakers have shown that this domain imposes
Object Realization across Generations
181
challenges cross-linguistically, not only for late L2 learners (Sánchez & AlKasey, 1998; Tsimpli & Mastropavlou, 2007; Valenzuela, 2006), but also for early bilinguals (Cuza, Pérez-Leroux & Sánchez, 2013; Hulk & Müller, 2000; Pérez-Leroux, Pirvulescu & Roberge, 2009; Yip & Matthews 2000). Difficulties may arise from the different syntactic, semantic and pragmatic constraints that regulate pronominal object realization and omission across languages. In EP the domain of clitic production has also proved to be a complex acquisition task for L1 children (Costa & Lobo, 2009), L2 learners (Madeira & Xavier, 2009) and HSs (Flores & Barbosa, 2014; Rinke & Flores, 2014). Protracted development in this domain has been attributed to the high complexity of the EP clitic system, which shows variability in morphology, semantics, syntax and pragmatics (see section 3.3). Rinke & Flores (2014) investigated EP heritage speakers’ knowledge of morphosyntactic features of clitics based on a Grammaticality Judgment Task (GJT), focusing on roughly the same properties that will be analyzed in the present study. The results reveal more insecurities in the HSs’ performance compared to the age-matched group of monolingual controls in many test conditions, especially regarding properties that i) are rare in the input, ii) show variation in colloquial EP or iii) are explicitly trained in school. Competence discrepancies between heritage bilinguals and their monolingual peers are often linked to input differences. It is commonly argued that HSs may show divergent competence because they receive quantitatively less or qualitatively different input than monolinguals (Benmamoun et al., 2013; Scontras et al., 2015). A common pattern in HL development is that at a certain age the heritage child begins to socialize in the majority language and, consequently, the amount of contact with the HL decreases substantially. Studies which focus specifically on the effects of reduced input in bilingual acquisition have, in fact, revealed significant correlations between the amount of exposure to the language and the rate of acquisition of certain linguistic properties (Unsworth, 2014). Furthermore, the type of input that the heritage child receives may itself be different from the monolinguals’ input. Research on 1st generation migrants, who have lived abroad for several decades, suggests that prolonged exposure to the L2 and reduced use of the L1 may affect structural aspects of the native language and lead to subsequent language change/shift, even if the onset of L2 acquisition occurs in adulthood (Gürel, 2008; Sorace, 2000). Consequently, the input that the 1st generation immigrants provide to the 2nd generation may already bear signs of attrition or strong variation, showing patterns of divergence similar to those attested in the heritage grammar. This means that the input provided by the 1st
182
Chapter Seven
generation may even lack certain properties, which are only present in registers not accessible to HSs (e.g. formal varieties of the target language, see Pires & Rothman, 2009, who proposed the hypothesis of Missing Input Competence Divergence). In order to unveil these input effects, it is important to analyse not only heritage bilinguals but also 1 st generation migrants. Another source of competence mismatch between HSs and their monolingual peers may be related to the presence of the majority language in the HSs’ mind, which is commonly the speakers’ preferred language. It has been extensively demonstrated that cross-linguistic influence may play a role in HL acquisition (e.g. Montrul, 2010). Moreover, many studies on HSs are based on experiments that usually require a considerable degree of metalinguistic knowledge (see, for instance, our own study based on a GJT, Rinke & Flores, 2014). It has, however, been repeatedly shown that HSs who have no schooling in their HL have lower metalinguistic skills than age-matched, educated monolinguals or even L2 speakers of the targetlanguage (see e.g. Correa, 2011). This may lead to confusion between metalinguistic knowledge and linguistic competence. Ideally, offline methods typically used in L2 acquisition studies should be complemented with sociolinguistic approaches of corpus analyses in order to ascertain actual patterns of language use and rule out test effects. In this sense, the present study intends to complement the results presented in Rinke & Flores (2014) by comparing systematically the spontaneous speech of bilingual and monolingual speakers of different generations.
3. The Corpus 3.1 Participants The present study analyses spontaneous speech data from 32 native speakers of Portuguese. They belong to four different groups of participants, with 8 speakers per group: two groups of Portuguese migrants living in Germany and two groups of Portuguese monolingual speakers. The two immigrant groups are representative of two generations of Portuguese speakers who live in Hamburg/Germany. The first group, our main experimental group, includes young adults (5 male; 3 female) in the age span between 21 and 31 years (mean age = 27.38; SD = 4.03), who were born in Germany/Hamburg. Since all speakers have Portuguese first generation parents, who immigrated to Germany in the 1960s / 1970s, they are classified as 2nd generation immigrants (henceforth G2_BIL). The linguistic background of the speakers is very similar. All were exposed to
Object Realization across Generations
183
their HL since birth and used it as the main language of communication with their parents. More intensive contact with the majority language German started with the kindergarten up to age three and became stronger after entering the elementary school. In parallel with the regular German school, all speakers attended the heritage language program for Portuguese immigrants in Hamburg, sponsored by the Portuguese government, until the age of 16/17. These extra-curricular afternoon classes were offered once or twice a week for one to two hours with the main aim to train reading and writing skills in Portuguese. During childhood and youth, the heritage bilinguals visited Portugal regularly and had some further contact with their HL through Portuguese immigrant associations as well as through TV. All speakers stated to feel more comfortable in speaking German than Portuguese. Two speakers have a German university degree and the other six have a high school degree with further professional training. None of them is living with their parents, so that Portuguese is no longer the main language of communication at home. All speakers speak significantly more German than their HL at present. None have children of their own. Considering their linguistic profile, these speakers are early simultaneous or successive bilinguals with more intensive exposure to Portuguese during childhood and increasing exposure to German after age six. The main source of linguistic input in EP is the colloquial variety; contact with written and more formal registers is limited. Their parents share the sociolinguistic profile of the first generation group included in this study, i.e. all of them immigrated to Germany in the 1960s/1970s, lack high education and had working class jobs. The second group (G1_BIL) comprises eight Portuguese speakers (3 male; 5 female) who immigrated to Germany / Hamburg during the 1960s and 1970s as young adults. At the time of recording they were between 48 and 70 years old (mean age = 59.88; SD = 6.94) and had lived in Germany for more than 30 years (main length of residence (LOR) = 32.08; SD = 6.09). They had returned to northern Portugal approx. 4 years before the time of recording but continued to visit Germany frequently. All speakers were monolingual when they immigrated for economic reasons and started to learn German as L2 in adulthood, after immersion into German society. All speakers classified their proficiency in German as being intermediate to low. Despite the LOR, these speakers are not functional bilinguals (the designation G1_BIL was chosen merely for distinguishing them from the age-matched monolinguals living in Portugal). All eight speakers were very low-educated (with only a primary school degree, concluded in Portugal) and had working class jobs where speaking German was not a necessity. All
184
Chapter Seven
1st generation speakers had children who they mainly (or exclusively) addressed in Portuguese. First and second generation speakers are not directly related but they belong to the same Portuguese migrant community living in the city of Hamburg. Importantly, they are representative of two different generations of Portuguese migrants living in Germany with two very distinct linguistic profiles. The monolingual groups (G1_MON, G2_MON) match the two immigrant groups in age and education. The younger monolingual speakers (G2_MON) (5 male, 3 female) are between 18 and 32 years old (mean age = 25.25; SD = 5.39). Like the young bilingual group, they have a university (4 speakers) or a high school degree (4 speakers). All speakers live in the north of Portugal and never lived abroad. They speak English as a second language. No one speaks German. The older monolingual group (G1_MON) comprises 4 male and 4 female speakers in the age span between 54 and 74 years (mean age = 64.25; SD = 5.92). Like the older immigrant group, they have a low level of education, that is to say a primary school degree (up to 4th grade: 6 speakers) or a basic school degree (up to 6th grade: 2 speakers) and working class jobs. They live in the north of Portugal and like the younger monolinguals they never lived abroad.
3.2 Corpus Description This study is based on a database consisting of sociolinguistic interviews. All interviews are approximately one hour long and were conducted individually either in the participants’ homes or in a public place, selected by the interviewee. They follow the Labovian guidelines for spontaneous speech elicitation (Labov, 1984) and focus on the interviewee’s life experience. In the case of the G2_BIL group, the interviews were conducted exclusively in Portuguese but occasionally the participants resorted to German words, e.g. in cases of lexical retrieval difficulties. The participants were requested to speak about their biography, their attitudes towards their bilingualism and to compare the Portuguese and the German cultures. A research assistant who was also born in Hamburg but returned to Portugal in adolescence conducted the interviews; consequently, interviewer and interviewee shared common migration experiences. The older migrants spoke mainly about their biographical path, their childhood in Portugal, the decision to emigrate to Germany, episodes associated with the first years of migration and their further lives in Germany. The
Object Realization across Generations
185
monolinguals were interviewed in the framework of a sociolinguistic project conducted at the University of Minho.1 All oral interviews were transcribed and coded according to the conventions described in the following section. A total of 10.880 tokens were coded. The distribution among the four speaker groups is very similar , with 2672 tokens in G1_BIL, 2627 in G2_BIL, 2802 in G1_MON and 2779 G2_MON.
3.3 Coding In the next section we will present the properties, which have been coded in the corpus and explain the methodology of coding. 3.3.1 Options of Object Realization In a first step, the verbs were coded according to their transitivity (‘transitive’, ‘ditransitive’ or ‘other’). We coded every verb as transitive, which is or could potentially be accompanied by an overt pronominal or non-pronominal object (including finite complement clauses). Several options of object realization in Portuguese were distinguished: DP objects (‘DP’, 1a), clitic pronouns (‘clitic’, 1b), demonstratives (‘dem’, 1c), clitic doubling of pronouns (‘double’, 1d), object omission (‘null’, 1e) and whelements (‘wh-element’, 1f) or complement clauses (‘clause’, 1g). (1) a.
... compreendo as pessoas (I) understand the people I do understand people.
DP object (G2_MON)
b.
Escondia-o para ele. hid -it for him He hid it for him.
clitic pronoun (G2_MON)
c.
E eles veem isso logo. and they see DEM immediately And they see this immediately.
demonstrative (G2_BIL)
d.
A mim ajudou-me muito. to me (it) helped-me a lot To me, it helped a lot.
clitic doubling (G2_BIL)
“Perfil Sociolinguístico da Fala Bracarense”, coordinated by Pilar Barbosa. Database available at https://sites.google.com/site/projectofalabracarense/. 1
186
Chapter Seven
e.
porque eu também devo ter _Ø_. because I also may have Ø Because I also may have it/them.
object omission (G2_BIL)
f.
[O que é que] ela disse? what she said What did she say?
wh-element (G1_BIL)
g.
acho que já são suficientemente grandes think that already are enough big I think they are already big enough. complement clause (G2_MON)
Reflexive verbs were marked as ‘other’. Also verbs with the impersonal se-clitic were marked as ‘other’ in the cases when they were not (di)transitive. These occurrences were only analysed concerning clitic position. Additionally three types of object omissions were coded: unspecified objects (2a), VP-ellipsis (2b) and specific null objects (2c). (2) a.
b.
c.
Papá, também recebi hoje! A mamã recebeu __ Papa also received today the mother received e eu também recebi! and I also received Daddy, I was also paid today! Mother was paid and I was also paid! (G1_BIL) - E a sua esposa também toma medicamentos? and the your wife also takes medicines - Também toma __ toma toma toma. also takes takes takes takes - And your wife also takes medicines? - Yes, she does. (G1_MON) A casa? É enorme. Quer que descreva __ em termos…tem adega. the house is big want that describe in terms has cellar The house? It’s big. Do you want me to describe it in terms of... It has a cellar. (G2_MON)
In the first case, the unspecified or implicit object is not mentioned in the previous context and it is inherently non-specific. In typical cases of Portuguese VP-ellipsis such as (2b), the finite verb occurs as an answer to a question in which the respective verb as well as its object(s) have been mentioned. Null objects as in (2c) have a definite and specific antecedent in the previous discourse (a casa / ‘the house’).
Object Realization across Generations
187
3.3.2 Clitic Forms and Clitic Placement Coding of the types of object realization allows us to give an overview of the use of the different options in the spontaneous speech corpora. Given the fact that the choice of a specific option depends on the context, the occurrences of DPs, clitic pronouns, demonstratives and object omissions were checked for (in)appropriateness by two native speakers of EP. Since no pragmatically inappropriate occurrences were found, we concentrated on the quantitative evaluation of different forms of object realization, which are more or less exchangeable within the same pragmatic context, namely clitic pronouns, demonstratives and specific null objects. If we further want to detect potential qualitative differences, we have to zoom in into the specific properties of the different structures of object realization, more specifically to object clitics. Qualitative differences can arise with respect to clitic placement, clitic form or case. Therefore, in a second step, we coded clitic position, clitic form as well as case and marked every deviation from the expected standard norm as ‘norm-deviations’. Note that deviations from the standard norm may not necessarily reflect competence deviations but also variation in the colloquial register, which will ultimately become evident in the comparison of the different groups of speakers. The first phenomenon under consideration is clitic placement. In EP, object clitics are attached to their host (the finite verb) proclitically or enclitically depending on the syntactic context. In affirmative main clauses with preverbal subjects or topics, the clitic occurs to the right of the finite verb (enclisis, 3a), in contexts of negation (as well as after operators and in all types of subordinate clauses), the clitic is attached to the left of the finite verb (proclisis, 3b). (3) a.
b.
O João viu -o. the João saw-him John saw him.
[enclisis]
O João não o viu. the João not him saw John didn’t see him.
[proclisis]
In contexts of restructuring, which include a finite auxiliary/modal verb and a non-finite main verb, the clitic may either be attached to the non-finite verb (4a) or may ‘climb up’ and attach to the finite verb (4b). Clitic climbing is a variable phenomenon and both options are grammatical, although there
188
Chapter Seven
is a strong preference for the climbed option (3b) in the spoken register (Barbosa et al., in press). (4) a.
b.
E vão buscá-los à noite. and will pick-up-them at night And they will pick them up at night. podes-me dar um passaporte alemão can me give a passport German You can give me a German passport.
(G1_MON)
(G2_BIL)
In order to detect potential preferences and/or deviations from the standard norm, we coded all occurrences of clitic pronouns with respect to their position (proclisis vs. enclisis, incl. target-like or norm-deviated position and kind of proclisis trigger). We also coded for the morphological features related to the clitic forms, for allomorphic clitic forms and for strong pronominal objects. Portuguese object clitics express a number of different morphological features, e.g. case and agreement features such as person, number and gender features (e.g. o [Acc., 3P. Sing. Masc.] vs. os [Acc., 3P. Pl. Masc.) vs. lhe (Dat., 3P. Sing.) vs. lhes (Dat., 3P. Pl.). Depending on the phonological context, the clitic object pronouns o(s)/a(s) may also assume a different shape. After nasal verb endings, o(s)/a(s) become no(s)/na(s) (see 5a); with verb forms ending on -r (e.g. infinitival verbs) and on -s (2nd person singular and 1st person plural), the clitic becomes lo(s)/la(s) and verb-final -r/-s drops (5b). Henceforward we will refer to the shaped forms as allomorphic clitic forms. (5) a.
b.
Os meninos viram-no. the boys saw-him The boys saw him. Os meninos vão vê-lo. the boys will see-him The boys will see him.
Strong object pronouns only occur in topicalization and doubling constructions (see 1d). Otherwise, strong pronouns in object position are not grammatical in standard EP (in contrast to Brazilian Portuguese). However, there appears to be a slight variation regarding this phenomenon in spoken registers, in particular with respect to the occurrence of strong dative pronouns as shown in example (6) (cf. Brito, 2008).
Object Realization across Generations
(6)
é isso que também falta a mim. is this what also lacks to me This is also what I miss.
189
(G2_BIL)
3.4 Research Questions The aim of this paper is twofold: First, to find out whether heritage bilinguals indeed differ on the use of different options of object realization in comparison to other groups of speakers, and second, to evaluate different scenarios that have been proposed to explain the linguistic behaviour of heritage bilinguals. In a first step, we will give an overview of the frequency of different options of object realization in the four speech corpora, pursuing the first research question: I. Do 2nd generation HSs use all options of object realization like 1st generation migrants and monolingual speakers? This overview over the frequency of different options of object realization can reveal whether all groups of speakers truly use the various options available and if HSs, in particular, systematically avoid certain constructions or introduce additional (nonstandard) options. Albeit two native speakers considered the discourse appropriateness of each token, we cannot derive solid conclusions concerning the overuse of one option over another because the pragmatic context is not always clearly identifiable in spontaneous speech and often allows for different possibilities of object realization. Nevertheless, there is a context, which can be identified and therefore allows for a quantitative evaluation: namely contexts in which the object refers to a specific discourse antecedent. In these cases, which we will call ’pronominal contexts’, three different options of object realization are possible: a) clitic (and strong) pronouns (cf. 1b, 1d); b) demonstratives (cf. 1c), and c) a subtype of object omissions: specific null objects (2c). Therefore, we will in a second step evaluate quantitatively the realization of the different options of object realization in this context. Ultimately, we intend to assess if HSs use clitic pronouns to the same extent as the other speaker groups or if they reveal a marked tendency to substitute clitics by other structures, particularly by strong pronouns, demonstratives and null objects. The avoidance of clitics may be attributed to direct or indirect crosslinguistic influence from German. In this case, speakers may avoid a structure that is not present in their dominant language and resort to
190
Chapter Seven
alternative structures, which exist in German. Therefore, if cross-linguistic influence plays a role heritage bilinguals will show a significantly higher proportion of demonstratives and/or of strong pronouns. Specific null objects, on the other hand, do not have an equivalent structure in German so that direct influence is not expected. However, German displays topic drop, a superficially similar but structurally completely different construction. If German topic drop is the source of influence of the object omissions in Portuguese, the null object structures produced by the HSs should predominantly show its specific characteristic, such as: verb-initial position and/or a post-verbal subject (øVS; cf. 7). (7) (Denkst du an das Geschenk?) _ Hab ich schon eingepackt. think you Prep. the present _ have I already packed in Do you remember the present? I’ve already packed it in.
In order to detect whether the grammar of the bilingual group differs in systematic ways from the other groups, we will, in a further step, compare all four groups with respect to deviations from the expected standard norm (‘norm-deviations’, see 3.3.2) and, thus, pursue the second research question: II. Do 2nd generation HSs differ from the other groups with respect to so-called ‘norm deviations’? Such deviations may be the outcome of i) proclitic placement in the contexts of enclisis or enclitic placement in the contexts of proclisis (3a-b), ii) target deviant case marking (dative for accusative or accusative for dative), or iii) non-allomorphic forms of clitics in contexts where the norm requires the allomorphs (see 5a/b). If such ‘norm deviations’ occur systematically in the speech of monolingual as well as bilingual speakers, they are very likely to reflect colloquial language use. A higher proportion of deviations in the speech of the heritage bilinguals may be interpreted as reflecting the fact that HL acquisition is mainly based on colloquial input. If, however, specific ‘norm deviations’ only occur in the speech of heritage bilinguals, two different sources may be identified. On the one hand, they may be caused by incomplete knowledge of rules and lexical items. This would be the case of systematic, target-deviant use of clitic allomorphs, denoting incomplete knowledge of the phonetic constraints of allomorphs, and deviant case assignment, due to insufficient lexical knowledge. On the other hand, we have to discuss again whether they can be attributed to cross-linguistic influence from the dominant language. Case
Object Realization across Generations
191
deviations may be the outcome of direct transfer, because the respective verbs require a different case marking in German than in Portuguese. In the case of ungrammatical clitic placement, HSs may produce proclisis in contexts of enclisis due to German OV word order. This would occur preferentially in sentences that superficially resemble German OVstructures, such as subordinate clauses (8a) and analytic verb constructions (8b). (8) a.
(Denkst du an das Geschenk?) think you Prep. the present Ich denke, dass ich es eingepackt habe. I think that I it packed in had Do you remember the present? I think, I’ve packed it in.
b.
(Denkst du an das Geschenk?) Ich hab es eingepackt. think you Prep. the present I have it packed in Do you remember the present? I’ve packed it in.
A strong preference for clitic-climbing structures in the corpus of the heritage bilinguals that is not shared by the other speaker groups could also reflect cross-linguistic influence of German OV-placement. In a last step, we will have a closer look at the speech of the 1st generation migrants and compare their production with the older generation of monolingual speakers. The third research question focuses on input quality: III. Do first generation migrants show differences in comparison to the older generation of monolinguals? If we detect differences between 1st generation migrants, and age and education-matched monolinguals, these differences may be the outcome of L1 attrition and, subsequently, express changes in the input provided to the HSs. This change could also be a potential source of specific particularities in the speech of the heritage bilinguals. Note that due to the self-reported low proficiency of the 1st generation migrants in German, we do not expect differences to be motivated by cross-linguistic influence in this case.
4. Results In this section, we will provide the results of the comparative analysis of object realization in the four speech corpora. In 4.1. we will give a general overview of the frequency of occurrence of different types of object
192
Chapter Seven
realizations in order to test if all options of object realization are equally available to all speaker groups. Then the pronominal contexts will be analysed in more detail. Section 4.2. focuses on the variability of the EP clitic system as it manifests itself in the corpus with respect to clitic placement, clitic allomorphs and clitic climbing.
4.1. Distribution of Objects We start by looking at the frequency of occurrence of different forms of object realization. Table 1 shows the total amount of object forms in raw counts. Note that reflexive pronouns and the impersonal se are not included here. This explains the amount of 9920 tokens (instead of 10.880). Type of object Clause DP Wh-element Demonstrative pronoun Acc/dat clitic Object omission Double clitics and strong pronouns Total
G1_BIL 301 1319 113 64
G2_BIL 534 1233 190 92
G1_MON 363 1334 146 73
G2_MON 474 1375 202 62
Total 1672 5261 651 291
406 151 19
167 180 10
414 248 8
234 197 11
1221 776 48
2373
2406
2586
2555
9920
Table 1. Types of object realization in the four corpora (raw counts) In order to verify whether the four groups differ statistically with respect to the distribution of the different options of object realization, we compared the groups with regard to each option of object realization separately. For this purpose, separate ANOVA (parametric or nonparametric) tests were run for each structure. Results show that the groups do not reveal significant differences regarding the use of DPs, demonstratives, object omissions, whelements or complement clauses, with associated p-values greater than 0.05. Group differences arise, however, with respect to the use of clitic pronouns. In this case, the F statistics of the ANOVA test is equal to 7.4688, associated with a p-value of 0.0008005. The post hoc Tukey test is conclusive in determining which groups in the sample differ. Results show that the 2nd generation heritage speakers produce less clitics than the young monolingual group and both differ significantly from both older generation
Object Realization across Generations
193
groups (1st generation migrant and older monolinguals), which are statistically comparable. Before looking in more detail at the pronominal contexts, a brief remark on the use of DPs in object position: A significantly higher frequency of DPs could signal an overuse of DPs instead of pronominal forms in the case of HSs. This tendency is observed in early stages of native language acquisition (cf. the overview in Wexler, 2014) and is also described in studies on L2 acquisition of clitic pronouns (Madeira & Xavier, 2009; Sánchez & Al-Kasey, 1999; Van Patten, 1987). Sánchez & Al-Kasey (1999), for instance, observe higher rates of overt DPs in production data of English L1 learners of L2 Spanish in contexts where at the discourse level both English and Spanish would resort to a pronoun. The authors interpret this tendency as an avoidance strategy due to deficient knowledge of the Spanish clitic system. As shown in Table 1, however, the raw amount of DPs is very close in all 4 corpora (1233 – 1375 occurrences) and no statistical differences are found between the groups. As already mentioned in 3.3.2. the evaluation of the appropriateness by two native speakers also did not reveal pragmatically inappropriate occurrences of DP objects. Since statistical differences between groups were found only with reference to the use of clitic pronouns, we excluded all non-pronominal objects in a next step focussing on the contexts where accusative and dative clitic pronouns compete at the discourse level with demonstrative pronouns and with object omissions. As mentioned above, there are three types of object omissions in EP: VP ellipsis, unspecified objects and ‘real’ null objects. Since only null objects compete syntactically and discursively with overt clitic pronouns, we further excluded the occurrences of VP ellipsis and unspecified objects and considered only null object structures for the quantitative and qualitative analysis. Table 2 shows the distribution of (accusative and dative) clitics, demonstratives and null objects per group in contexts with specific antecedents.2
2
Since strong pronouns and double objects are very limited in the corpus, we focus only on clitics, demonstratives and object omissions, making a total of 2336 tokens. We will come back to strong pronouns in section 4.2.
194
clitic pronouns demonstratives null objects
Chapter Seven G1_BIL 73.6% 11.6% 14.9%
G2_BIL 44.2% 22.8% 33.1%
G1_MON 64.4% 11.4% 24.3%
G2_MON 55.8% 14.6% 29.6%
Table 2. Object realization in pronominal contexts in the four corpora (in %) A chi-squared test shows that, overall, the four groups reveal significant differences concerning the distribution of object realization in pronominal contexts (X2 (3) = 97.144; p < 0.0001). Concerning the use of dative / accusative clitics, the results show a very high rate of clitic production in the G1_BIL corpus (73.6%) and a considerably lower rate in the group of HSs (only 44.2%). In the monolingual corpora the difference in the rates of clitic realization between the two age groups is not this sharp. Nevertheless, the younger monolinguals produce less clitic pronouns than the older generation (G1_MON: 64.4%; G2_MON: 55.8%). A chi-squared test shows that the differences between all four groups are statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Regarding the use of demonstrative pronouns, the data reveal a significantly higher rate in the HSs’ corpus (22.8%). A chi-squared test reveals that this group, in fact, differs significantly from the other three groups regarding the use of this structure (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the statistical results show that there are no statistically relevant differences between the other groups (p = 0.2496). As a matter of fact, the rate is similar in the older groups (G1_BIL: 11.6%; G1_MON: 11.4%) and close to the corpus of the young monolingual speakers (14.6%). These results indicate that the heritage bilinguals use considerably more demonstrative pronouns in object position than the other speaker groups. With respect to the use of overt pronouns and null objects in pronominal contexts, we find that 2nd generation bilingual speakers omit more objects than the 1st generation migrants (33.1% vs. 14.9%, respectively). This asymmetry is also observed in the monolingual corpora, although it is less obvious there (29.6% vs 24.3%, respectively). A chi-squared test shows that, globally, the differences between the groups, regarding the use of null objects, are significant (p < 0.0001). Further chi-squared tests aimed at finding the groups that are responsible for these differences. They reveal that the younger generations (both bilinguals and monolinguals) do not differ statistically (p = 0.327) with respect to object omissions. Altogether we can say that the data show that 2nd generation HSs generally produce all types of objects in transitive contexts and do not use a
Object Realization across Generations
195
significantly higher rate of DPs compared to the other groups. Yet, looking only at pronominal contexts, the 2nd generation bilinguals reveal a marked tendency to produce less clitic pronouns than the other groups and to resort more often to the use of demonstrative pronouns and null objects instead. In spite of the significant differences, the younger bilingual generation shows some similarities with the younger monolingual speakers who produce less clitics compared to their older counterparts. By contrast, the 1 st generation migrants show a marked tendency to use more clitic pronouns and less null objects than the other groups, hence standing in sharp contrast to the 2nd generation HSs.
4.2 Variation in Clitic Placement and Clitic Form In this section we will analyse the occurrence of structures that are normdeviant in standard Portuguese, focussing on clitic placement, the use of deviant allomorphic clitic forms, the production of strong pronouns instead of clitics and case assignment. Table 3 shows the distribution of clitic placement in the four corpora, focussing on the occurrences of target-like and norm-deviant placement.
Proclisis contexts - use of enclisis Enclisis contexts - use of proclisis
G1_BIL 369 7 (1.9%)
G2_BIL 270 14 (5.2%)
G1_MON 365 15 (4.1%)
G2_MON 321 3 (0.9%)
418 2 (0.5%)
210 5 (2.4%)
382 1 (0.3%)
240 0
Table 3. Clitic placement (raw occurrences, % of norm-deviant placement) Several observations follow from these results. First, there is indeed variation regarding the clitic position in spoken EP; however, the rate of norm-deviant clitic placement is very low in the four corpora (ranging from 0 to 5.2%). Second, the data confirm the well-described asymmetry between norm-deviant enclisis and norm-deviant proclisis placement in EP. In all four groups, there is a stronger tendency to produce enclisis in proclisis contexts (8a - c) than the other way around (8d). For the statistical analysis we ran a regression analysis with two predictor variables, ‘group’ and ‘clitic position’, and ‘verb’ and ‘speaker’ as random factors. The statistical results confirm that ‘clitic position’ is a very significant predictor for the production of target-deviant structures (p < 0.001). The second-generation bilinguals
196
Chapter Seven
produce the highest rate of target-deviant structures in both contexts (5.2% in proclisis and 2.4% in enclisis conditions), but the values are still reduced and close to those of the other groups (e.g. G1_MON produce 4.1% of deviant enclisis instead of proclisis). Interestingly, in the group of HSs, the use of enclisis in contexts of proclisis occurs in 7 (out of 8) speakers, but the 5 instances of proclisis instead of enclisis are all examples from only one speaker. The regression analysis, thus, shows no significant effects of the predictor variable ‘group’ (p =0.048). Additionally, the target-deviant use of enclisis occurs with different triggers of proclisis (negation, subordination, adverbs, quantifiers, see 9) in all groups and with different types of clitics (1st, 2nd, 3rd person, singular and plural, reflexives).3 (9) a.
b.
c.
d.
mas não conheciam-se antes [norm: não se conheciam] but no knew-CLIT before But they didn’t know each other before. (G2_BIL) ele já ouviu-me. he already heard-CLIT He already heard me.
[norm: já me ouviu]
Sim, é como eu digo-lhe yes is like I tell-CLIT Yes, it’s like I tell you.
[norm: eu lhe digo]
(G1_BIL)
(G1_MON)
os meus pais me educaram, pronto, na cultura portuguesa. the my parents CLIT educated well in+the culture Portuguese Well, my parents educated me according to the Portuguese culture. (G2_BIL)
With respect to the context of clitic-climbing as described above, in many restructuring contexts of EP the clitic can be attached to the non-finite verb (4a) or climb up to the modal verb (4b). The entire G2_BIL corpus only contains 34 restructuring structures, whereas in the other corpora the number of structures ranges from 103 to 119 items. This difference is
3
There are also three examples of (ungrammatical) double clitic constructions, with a clitic pronoun in enclitic and in proclitic position. These occurrences were found in the HSs’ corpus (1 occurrence, see ii) and in the monolingual corpora (2 occurrences, one example in i). i. ainda não me tá-me a puxar muito pra Portugal. (G2_BIL) still not CLIT is- CLIT pushing much to Portugal ii. o que te vou fazer-te. ( G1_MON) what CLIT will make-CLIT
Object Realization across Generations
197
expected given the fact that the 2nd generation HSs generally produce less clitic pronouns. G1_BIL 76.5% (91/119)
G2_BIL 73.5% (25/34)
G1_MON 61.1% (69/113)
G2_MON 60.2% (62/103)
Table 4. Restructuring contexts: rate of climbed order in the four corpora (in %) If we look at the rate of climbing/non-climbing in restructuring contexts, the values in the four groups are very similar. In all corpora climbing is significantly more frequent than non-climbing, confirming other studies that show a strong tendency to favour clitic climbing in oral EP (Barbosa et al., in press). Yet, the migrant groups (G1_BIL and G2_BIL) show an even stronger tendency to produce climbed structures than the monolingual groups. In the bilingual groups the rate of clitic climbing is 76.5% (G1_BIL) and 73.5% (G2_BIL), whereas in the monolingual groups the rate of climbing is 61.1% and 60.2%, respectively in the older and the younger group. A chi-square test of homogeneity reveals, however, that these differences are not statistically relevant (p = 0.06434). Furthermore, we looked at case assignment. Since also in this case the number of deviant case assignment is limited we will report the raw counts without statistical results. Generally, the corpus shows that in spoken EP there is some variation concerning deviant case assignment of clitic pronouns, but the phenomenon is very rare. In 1221 instances of clitic realization only 9 clitic pronouns are used in a norm-deviant case form (0.7%). Interestingly, the cases of deviant case assignment are found in the monolingual and not in the bilingual corpora (7 instances in G1_MON and 2 in G2_MON, see 10a/b). (10)a.
b.
Que a geração «Morangos com Açúcar», that the generation Morangos com Açucar que ... lhes influencia bastante. that themDAT influences a lot That the generation «Morangos com Açúcar» (=TV serie) has a lot of influence on them. (G2_MON) E depois eu ainda lhe ajudei and then I still himDAT helped And then I still helped him.
(G1_MON)
198
Chapter Seven
Example (10b) (‘lhe ajudei’ / himDAT helped ), if produced by a bilingual speaker, could be interpreted as an effect of transfer since the German verb ‘helfen’ (help) requires the dative pronoun, whereas Portuguese assigns the accusative. Nevertheless, the fact that a monolingual speaker produced the utterance shows that this type of variation has internal linguistic sources. The deviant cases in 10a/b are therefore not related to differences between bilingual and monolingual speakers but to the fact that we are dealing with natural speech data. Finally, we had a look at allomorphic clitic forms, a domain, which was particularly difficult for heritage speakers in the GJT applied by Rinke & Flores (2014). Since the use of clitic allomorphs is restricted to i) enclisis, ii) accusative contexts, iii) 3rd person pronouns and iv) depends on the verbal ending, allomorphs are overall significantly less frequent in EP than the default clitic forms –o(s) / -a(s). allomorphs of – o(s)/-a(s) norm-deviant allomorphs
G1_BIL 14/406 3.4% 1/14
G2_BIL 9/167 5.4% 0/9
G1_MON 41/414 9.9% 6/41
G2_MON 26/234 11.1% 1/26
Table 5. Allomorphs (raw occurrences, % of norm-deviant forms) In the monolingual corpora the mean rate of allomorphs is about 10.3% (G1_MON: 9.9%; G2_MON: 11.1%) of all clitic occurrences. This number contrasts with the occurrence of these forms in the speech corpora of 1st and 2nd generation migrants where allomorphs are even less frequent. The second-generation bilinguals only produce 9 allomorphic clitic forms out of 167 clitics (5.4%) and the first generation migrants use 14 forms (out of 406: 3.4%). This low frequency explains the apparently low rate of variation in this linguistic domain. The speakers who produced more allomorphs (G1_MON) are also the ones who produced more norm-deviant forms: 6 out of 41 (14.6%) allomorphic forms are not target-like (see examples 11a/b). This confirms that even monolingual speakers sometimes use standard-deviant forms and that they do not consistently produce allomorphic clitic forms. The 1st generation migrant and the secondgeneration monolingual corpora contain only one norm-deviant instance each (1/14, see 11c, and 1/26, respectively), whereas the overall reduced occurrence of allomorphs in the G2_BIL corpus may explain the lack of norm-deviant forms in this group.
Object Realization across Generations
(11)a.
Deviam-o
deixar.
[norm: deviam-no]
should-CLIT let go They should let him go. b.
c.
199
(G1_MON)
Nasci numa ruinha ao lado, were born in+a street nearby chamam-la Cónega, [norm: chamam-na] call-CLIT Cónega I was born in a little street nearby called Cónega. (G1_MON) e nós levamos-a para lá, para ao pé de nós. and we took-CLIT there to near us [norm: levamo-la] And we took her there, to live with us. (G1_BIL)
As mentioned in section 3, in standard EP, strong pronouns in object position are grammatical in topicalization structures and in clitic doubling constructions but not in other types of constructions. Nevertheless, there seems to be some variation in this domain in colloquial EP, especially in dative contexts. In our corpus, however, the number of strong pronouns in object position is reduced: there are only 13 instances in 1269 transitive contexts (therefore we did not include statistics or a table with percentages). Four out of these 13 occurrences correspond to the use of strong pronouns in topicalization structures (see example 12a); thus, only nine are instances of norm-deviant production. One case corresponds to the use of a strong pronoun in an accusative context (see 12b, although this sentence could be interpreted as a construction with a perception verb and an omitted inflected infinitival clause, which would be target-like), produced by a 1st generation migrant. The other eight cases are instances of strong datives instead of clitics (see 12c) used by G1_BIL speakers (3 cases), G2_BIL speakers (4 cases) and one G2 monolingual speaker. Thus, the results do not indicate a tendency for bilingual speakers to substitute clitics with strong pronouns. (12)a.
b.
c.
mas a mim não deixava pena nenhuma a casa. but to me not left pity none the house I didn’t feel sorry for the house. (G1_BIL) e depois ouvi ele and after that heard him And afterwards I heard him. há alguns alemães, até
[norm: ouvi-o]
perguntam a mim.
(G1_BIL)
200
Chapter Seven
are some Germans even ask me [norm: perguntam-me] There are some Germans who even ask me. (G2_BIL) Finally, it should be mentioned that no instances of deviant number and gender agreement were found in the four corpora.
5. Discussion and Conclusions The overarching aim of this study was to identify potential particularities in the speech of 2nd generation bilingual speakers by comparing their use of different options of object realization in Portuguese to 1 st generation migrants and to two groups of monolingual speakers. In a first step and with the aim to answer the first research question, we explored whether 2nd generation HSs make use of all options of object realization in Portuguese and whether they behave in the same manner as the other groups. The results show that all options are systematically present in the speech of all speaker groups and that no obvious signs of pragmatically inadequate overuse of one of the options could be detected in the corpus of the bilingual speakers. In general, the frequencies of the younger generation of bilinguals resemble very much the age-matched monolinguals. Both produce less clitic pronouns and reveal more object omissions than their older counterparts. However, in the case of the HSs the lower rate of clitic production and the higher rate of object omissions is particularly expressive. This group also uses significantly more demonstrative pronouns in object position than the other groups. This performance clearly favours the idea that heritage bilinguals avoid the use of clitic pronouns whenever they can resort to demonstratives and null object constructions. Because null objects do not exist in German and null object constructions in the corpus do not show the typical properties of German topic drop (verb-initial position or post-verbal subjects, cf. 7a), cross-linguistic influence in terms of direct transfer of a German structure is an unlikely explanation for the language use of heritage bilinguals. The fact that German does not display clitic pronouns may, however, have an indirect influence on the speakers’ performance in terms of avoidance of the structure that is not present in the dominant language. Additionally, the complexity of the Portuguese clitic system may reinforce avoidance strategies. As shown above, the use of EP clitic pronouns presupposes knowledge of specific word order triggers, case assignment, morphological features such as person, number and gender and the phonetic rules that constrain the clitic form. Difficulties in merging all these features during
Object Realization across Generations
201
language processing may, therefore, result in a tendency to avoid these structures in spontaneous speech. We will leave this question to further research. In a second step, we investigated whether the quantitative tendency to avoid clitic pronouns and to produce more null objects correlates with deviations concerning clitic placement, case assignment or clitic allomorphs in the speech of 2nd generation HSs. Although the heritage bilinguals produce the highest rates of norm-deviant structures with respect to clitic placement, non-standard structures are found in all groups. Additionally, the values are very low and close to those of the other groups. This reveals that clitic placement shows some variation in colloquial EP, i.e. monolingual native speakers of EP sometimes also produced non-standard word order. In addition, non-standard placement in the speech of HSs goes very much the same direction as in the other groups, namely they replace proclisis with enclisis (except for one speaker). This shows that enclisis is the unmarked order for monolingual as well as for bilingual speakers and that crosslinguistic influence can be ruled out as an explanation for the production of non-standard placement. The few cases of ungrammatical proclisis produced by merely one of the bilingual speakers point to the same direction because none of the equivalent German constructions would require OV order. Furthermore, isolated strong object pronouns were rarely produced in all groups of speakers including the HSs. Similarly, variable clitic placement in restructuring contexts did not cause any problems to the bilingual group. In spite of the evidence that they show a lower number of such contexts, they employ clitic climbing to the same extent as the other groups, i.e. they produce significantly more climbed than non-climbed structures. Concerning the production of clitic forms, the HSs are not significantly distinct from the monolingual groups. Neither do they produce case errors (only the monolinguals produce a few) nor do they construct more nonstandard allomorphic forms than the monolingual groups. However, the heritage bilinguals hardly ever use these forms, which correlates with their overall tendency to avoid the use of clitic pronouns. In order to answer the second research question, we can thus conclude that the 2 nd generation HSs do not differ from the other groups in these domains and that there are no obvious signs of transfer from German. Although they seem to avoid the use of clitics, they do not show signs of incomplete or deviant knowledge. The 1st generation migrants who lived in Germany for more than thirty years resemble the age- and education-matched monolingual speakers in all analysed domains. As an answer to the third research question, we found that the speech of 1st generation migrants does not show any signs of
202
Chapter Seven
language attrition, i.e. the oral input 2nd generation speakers receive does not differ from the oral input provided to monolingual speakers. It has to be noted that the 1st generation speakers tested in this study are not highly proficient L2 speakers of German and used mainly Portuguese in their daily routine even after decades of immersion in the German environment. This is a typical feature of Portuguese 1st generation migrants living in Germany and may explain the high degree of language maintenance among Portuguese migrant communities in Germany (as opposed to Portuguese communities in France, for instance). The fact that no signs of language attrition were observed in these speakers does not rule out the possibility that attrition affects the L1 of 1st generation migrants after long-term exposure to the L2 (cf. Gürel, 2008), especially if the speakers attain high proficiency in the L2 and use it on a daily basis. Additionally, it needs to be said that this study scrutinizes spoken registers and that the interviews were at all times as informal as possible. Contrary to the HSs, whose source of input is mainly restricted to informal and oral registers, monolingual speakers usually dispose of more diversified sources and registers where linguistic structures may occur that have not been taken into account in this study. Taking together all the observations outlined above, we conclude that, although HSs may diverge in a quantitative way from the other speaker groups in their spontaneous production of the different options of object realization in EP, they do not display obvious signs of deviant knowledge. They dispose of all options of object realization, and do not show significant deviations from the target norm in their speech. This means that the acquisition of the properties under analysis occurred in a similar fashion to the monolingual language development. Similar observations have been made in a study on object realization and omission in a corpus of oral speech productions of Spanish 1st and 2nd generation migrants living in Germany (Di Venanzio et al., 2012). Similarly to the Portuguese migrants investigated in the present study, Di Venanzio et al. (2012) demonstrate that the Spanish 1st and 2nd generation migrants show full mastery of all options of object realization and omission in Spanish ruling out effects of language attrition or deviant acquisition. Moreover, the research conducted by Kupisch et al. (2014) shows that HSs of French who live in Germany behave native-like in the domain of morphosyntax. Notwithstanding, the HSs analysed in the present study seem to avoid the use of clitics and their allomorphic forms, i.e. they use them less frequently than the other speakers. Eventually, this may have long-term effects on their knowledge of clitic realization, leading to unstable knowledge, as suggested by the framework proposed by Putnam & Sánchez
Object Realization across Generations
203
(2013). The authors suggest that the lack of activation of certain structures over the HSs’ lifetime may lead to unstable knowledge. This may help to explain the poor results of the HSs tested by Rinke & Flores (2014) in some conditions of the GJT on object realization. The results of this study on object realization in the spontaneous speech of Portuguese 1st and 2nd generation migrants support the view advocated in Rinke & Flores (2014) that the difficulties of the heritage bilinguals in the GJT on clitics are not due to competence deficits concerning the linguistic knowledge of clitic pronouns but to instabilities in their knowledge, i.e. uncertain judgments and low metalinguistic knowledge which may derive from the low frequency of certain forms (e.g. allomorphic clitic forms) in the input and in the output. Overall the picture that emerges from this and previous studies on European Portuguese as heritage language spoken in Germany (see Flores, 2015) is that of a fully developed native language that does not bear signs of language change, at least in morphosyntactic domains.
References Barbosa, Pilar, Conceição Paiva, and Kellen Martins (in press), “Clitic climbing in the speech of Braga and Lisbon,” in: Pilar Barbosa, Conceição Paiva, Celeste Rodrigues (Eds.), Studies on Variation in Varieties of Portuguese. Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Benmamoun, Elabbas, Silvina Montrul, and Maria Polinsky (2013), “Heritage languages and their speakers: opportunities and challenges for linguistics,” Theoretical Linguistics 39, 129–181. Brito, Ana Maria (2008), “Grammar variation in the expression of verb arguments: the case of Portuguese indirect object,” Phrasis. Studies in Language and Literature 49 (2), 31-58. Correa, Maite (2011), “Heritage language learners of Spanish: What role does metalinguistic knowledge play in their acquisition of the subjunctive?“ in: Luis A. Ortiz-López (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 128-138, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Costa, João, and Maria Lobo (2009), “Clitic omission in the acquisition of European Portuguese: Data from comprehension,” in: Acrisio Pires, and Jason Rothman (Eds.), Minimalist inquiries into child and adult language acquisition: Case studies across Portuguese, 63–84. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
204
Chapter Seven
Cuza, Alejandro, Ana T. Pérez-Leroux, and Liliana Sánchez (2013), “The role of semantic transfer in clitic drop among simultaneous and sequential Chinese-Spanish bilinguals.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35(1), 93–125. Di Venanzio, Laura, Katrin Schmitz, and Anna-Lena Rumpf (2012), “Objektrealisierungen und -auslassungen bei transitiven Verben im Spanischen von Herkunftssprechern in Deutschland,” Linguistische Berichte 232, 437-461. Flores, Cristina (2015), “Understanding heritage language acquisition. Some contributions from the research on heritage speakers of European Portuguese,” Lingua 164, 251—265. Flores, Cristina, and Pilar Barbosa (2014), “When reduced input leads to delayed acquisition: a study on the acquisition of clitic placement by Portuguese heritage speakers,” International Journal of Bilingualism 18 (3), 304 -325. Guijarro-Fuentes, Pedro, and Katrin Schmitz (2015), “The nature and nurture of heritage language acquisition,” Lingua 164, Part B, Special Issue on Fundamentally (in)complete grammars? Emergence, acquisition and diffusion of new varieties, 239–250. Gürel, Ayşe (2008), “Research on first language attrition of morphosyntax in adult bilinguals,” Second Language Research 24 (3), 431–449. Hulk, Aafke, and Natascha Müller (2000), “Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics,” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3, 227-244. Kupisch, Tanja, Tatjana, Lein, Dagmar Barton, Dawn J. Schröder, Ilse Stangen, and Antje Stoehr (2014), “Acquisition outcomes across domains in adult simultaneous bilinguals with French as weaker and stronger language,” Journal of French Language Studies 24 (3), 347 – 376. Labov, William (1984), “Field Methods of the Project on Linguistic Change and Variation,” in: John Baugh, and Joel Scherzer (Eds.), Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics, 28-53. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Madeira, Ana, and Maria Francisca Xavier (2009), “The acquisition of clitic pronouns in L2 European Portuguese,” in: Acrisio Pires, and Jason Rothman (Eds.), Minimalist Inquiries into Child and Adult Language Acquisition: Case Studies across Portuguese, 273-300, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Montrul, Silvina (2008), Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism. Reexamining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Object Realization across Generations
205
—. (2010), “Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage speakers,” Second Language Research 26 (3), 293–327. —. (2016), The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa, Mihaela Pirvulescu, and Yves Roberge (2009), “Bilingualism as a window into the language faculty. The acquisition of objects in French-speaking children in bilingual and monolingual contexts,” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12 (1). 97-112. Pires, Acrisio, and Jason Rothman (2009), “Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for competence divergence across heritage grammars,” International Journal of Bilingualism 13 (2), 211-238. Putnam, Michael, and Liliana Sánchez (2013), “What's so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars,” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3(4), 476-506. Raposo, Eduardo Paiva (1986), “On the null object construction in European Portuguese,” in: Osvaldo Jaeggli, and Carmen Silva-Corvalán (Eds.), Studies in Romance Linguistics, 373-390, Dordrecht: Foris. Rothman, Jason (2009), “Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages,” International Journal of Bilingualism 13 (2), 155-163. Rinke, Esther, and Cristina Flores (2014), “Heritage Portuguese bilinguals’ morphosyntactic knowledge of clitics,” Bilingualism. Language and Cognition 17 (4), 681 - 699. Sánchez, Liliana, and Tamara Al-Kasey (1999), “L2 acquisition of Spanish direct objects,” Spanish Applied Linguistics 3, 1-32. Scontras, Gregory, Zuzanna Fuchs, and Maria Polinsky (2015), “Heritage Language and Language Theory,” Frontiers in Psychology. Language Sciences [Internet]. Sorace, Antonella (2000), “Differential effects of attrition in the L1 syntax of near-native L2 speakers,” Proceedings of the 24th Boston University conference on language development, 719–725, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Tsimpli, Ianti, and Maria Mastropavlou (2007), “Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners,” in: Juana Liceras, Helmut Zobl, and Helen Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition, 143-183, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Unsworth, Sharon (2014), “Comparing the role of input in bilingual acquisition across domains,” in: Theres Grüter, and Johanne Paradis
206
Chapter Seven
(Eds.), Input and experience in bilingual development, 81-201, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Valenzuela, Elena (2006), “L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of Spanish CLLD constructions,” in: Roumyana Slabakova, Silvina Montrul, and Philippe Prévost, (Eds.), Special Volume in honour of Lydia White, 283-304, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van Patten, Bill (1987), “Classroom and naturalistic language acquisition: a comparison of two case studies in the acquisition of clitic pronouns,” in: Terrell A. Morgan, James F. Lee, and Bill Van Patten (Eds.), Language and language use: studies in Spanish, 241-262, Landham, MD: University Press of America. Wexler, Kenneth (2014), “The Unique Checking Constraint as the Explanation of Clitic Omission in Normal and SLI Development,” in: Kleanthes Grohmann, and Tereza Neokleous (Eds.), Developments in the Acquisition of Clitics, 292-350. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Yip, Virginia, and Stephen Matthews (2000), “Syntactic Transfer in a Cantonese-English Bilingual Child,” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3 (3), 193-208.
