1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
  4. Volume 9, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 9, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

We investigate whether non-target -questions in heritage Low German and L2 English speakers are due primarily to cross-linguistic transfer or the reduction of grammatical complexity in developing grammars as modelled by the Derivational Complexity Hypothesis (DCH, Jakubowicz 2005). Previous research shows that complex (i.e. cross-clausal) -dependencies pose more difficulty to child L1 and adult L2 learners than monoclausal dependencies (Jakubowicz & Strik, 2008Schulz, 2011Slavkov, 2015). To avoid complex dependencies, learners often use medial constructions where the -item surfaces once at the left periphery of the embedded CP and a second time at the left periphery of the matrix clause. Medial- is ungrammatical in English, though possible in German and its varieties, e.g. the low German Plautdietsch. In this study, we investigate the linguistic behavior of twelve ( = 12) bilingual Plautdietsch-English speakers in Southwestern Kansas, analyzing their production and judgments of -questions in both languages. In production and judgment tasks, we find that, in the L1, only heritage speakers produced medial-, while in L2 English, only late L2 learners produced medial-. This pattern cannot be due to transfer, since speakers produce medial- in only one of their languages. Instead, medial- surfaces as a mechanism to reduce syntactic complexity in the less dominant language, irrespective of whether it is the L1 or the L2 or whether it was acquired early or late. We argue that the DCH can account for grammatical restructuring in both heritage L1 speakers and late L2 speakers and discuss its potential as a metric of incomplete acquisition and attrition in bilingual syntax.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17014.hop
2018-01-09
2023-09-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lab.17014.hop
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bar-Shalom, E. G., & Zaretsky, E.
    (2008) Selective attrition in Russian-English bilingual children: Preservation of grammatical aspect. International Journal of Bilingualism, 12(4), 281–302. doi:  10.1177/1367006908098572
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006908098572 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bayer, J.
    (1996) Directionality and Logical Form. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:  10.1007/978‑94‑017‑1272‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1272-9 [Google Scholar]
  3. Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M.
    (2013) Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4), 129–181.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Berwick, R. & Weinberg, A.
    (1984) Grammars and models of language use: The grammatical basis of linguistic performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bousquette, J., Frey, B., Nützel, D., Putnam, M., & Salmons, J.
    (2016) Parasitic gapping in bilingual grammar: evidence from Wisconsin Heritage German. Heritage Language Journal, 13(1), 1–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Christiansen, M., & Chater, N.
    (2016) Creating language: Integrating evolution, acquisition, and processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:  10.7551/mitpress/9780262034319.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034319.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clements, G., McCloskey, J., Maling, J., & Zaenen, A.
    (1983) String-vacuous rule application. Linguistic Inquiry, 14(1), 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cox, C.
    (2013) The resilient word: Linguistic preservation and innovation among Old Colony Mennonites in Latin America. Journal of Mennonites Studies, 31(1), 51–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. van Craenenbroeck, J.
    (2010) Complex wh-phrases don’t move: One the interaction between the Split CP Hypothesis and the syntax of wh-movement. InE. Phoevos Panagiotidis (Ed.), The complementizer phrase: Subjects and operators (236–260). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584352.003.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584352.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  13. Culicover, P.
    (2013) Grammar and complexity: Language at the intersection of competence and performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N.
    (2007) The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(01), 101–116. doi:  10.1017/S1366728906002847
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002847 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ecke, P.
    (2008) Language attrition and theories of forgetting: A cross-disciplinary view. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8(3), 321–354. doi:  10.1177/13670069040080030901
     https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069040080030901 [Google Scholar]
  16. Engdahl, E.
    (2001) Parasitic gaps. InP. Culicover & P. Postal (Eds.), Parasitic gaps (69–98). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Reprinted from Linguistic Philosophy, 6, 5–34 1983).
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Erdem, U.
    (2015) Fragen mit langer w-Extraktion in der englischen Sprache – Ein Vergleich zwischen deutschen und türkischen Muttersprachlern. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Mannheim.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Fanselow, G., & Mahajan, A.
    (2000) Towards a minimalist theory of wh-expletives, wh-copying, and successive cyclicity. InU. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (195–230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/la.37.08fan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.37.08fan [Google Scholar]
  19. Felser, C.
    (2004) Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua, 114, 543–574. doi:  10.1016/S0024‑3841(03)00054‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00054-8 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fodor, J. A. & Garrett, M. F.
    (1967) Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 289–296. doi:  10.3758/BF03211044
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211044 [Google Scholar]
  21. Grohe, L., Schulz, P., & Müller, A.
    (2011) How children „Copy” long-distance structures: The production of complex Wh-questions in German. Proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 233–245.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Grosjean, F.
    (2008) Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gürel, A.
    (2007) (Psycho)linguistic determinants of L1 attrition. In: B. Köpke, M. Schmid, M. Keijzer, & S. Dosterst (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (99–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/sibil.33.08gur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.33.08gur [Google Scholar]
  24. (2015) First language attrition of constraints on wh-scrambling: Does the second language have an effect?International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(1), 75–91. doi:  10.1177/1367006913506131
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006913506131 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gutiérrez, M. J.
    (2005) The acquisition of English LD wh-questions by Basque/Spanish bilingual subjects in a school context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hawkins, J.
    (2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hawkins, R.
    (2001) Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hopp, H.
    (2010) Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120(4), 901–931. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hopp, H., & Putnam, M.
    (2015) Syntactic restructuring in heritage grammars: Word order variation in Moundridge Schweitzer German. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(2), 180–214. doi:  10.1075/lab.5.2.02hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.2.02hop [Google Scholar]
  30. Höhle, T.
    (2000) The w…construction: appositive or scope indicating?In: U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (249–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/la.37.10hoh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.37.10hoh [Google Scholar]
  31. Hulk, A. C. J., & Zuckerman, S.
    (2000) The interaction between input and economy: Acquiring optionality in French wh-questions. Boston University Conference on Language Development. Proceedings (Vol.24).
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Jackendoff, R., & Wittenberg, E.
    (in press). Linear grammar as a possible stepping-stone in the evolution of language. Psychon Bull Review.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Jakubowicz, C.
    (2004) Is movement costly?Paper presented atThe JEL conference (Journee d’Etudes Linguistiques), Nantes.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (2005) The language faculty: (Ab)normal development and interface constraints. Paper presented atGenerative Approaches to Language Acquisition, Siena.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. (2011) Measuring derivational complexity: New evidence from typically developing and SLI learners of L1 French. Lingua, 121(3), 339–351. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  36. Jakubowicz, C., & Strik, N.
    (2008) Scope-marking strategies in the acquisition of long distance wh-questions in French and Dutch. Language and Speech, 51(1&2), 101–132. doi:  10.1177/00238309080510010701
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309080510010701 [Google Scholar]
  37. Johnston, M.
    (1985) Syntactic and morphological progression in learner English. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kandybowicz, J.
    (2009) Embracing edges: syntactic and phono-syntactic edge sensitivity in Nupe. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27, 305–344. doi:  10.1007/s11049‑009‑9064‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9064-6 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kaufmann, G.
    (2015) Rare phenomena revealing basic syntactic mechanisms: The case of unexpected verb-object sequences in Mennonite Low German. InA. Adli, M. García García & G. Kaufmann (Eds.), Variation in Language: System-and Usage-based Approaches, 50 (113–146). Berlin/Boston: Walter De Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110346855‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346855-006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kim, J. -H., Montrul, S., & Yoon, J.
    (2009) Binding interpretation of anaphors in Korean heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 16, 3–35. doi:  10.1080/10489220802575293
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10489220802575293 [Google Scholar]
  41. Keel, W. D.
    (2006) Deitsch, Däätsch, Düütsch, and Dietsch: the varieties of Kansas German dialects after 150 years of German group settlement in Kansas. InJ. R. Brown & L. Hopkins (Eds.), Preserving Heritage: A Festschrift for C. Richard Beam (27–48). Society for German-American Studies with the support of the Max Kade Center for German-American Studies and the Joyce and Elizabeth Hall Center for the Humanities.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Köpke, B.
    (2007) Language attrition at the crossroads of brain, mind, and society. InB. Köpke, M. S. Schmid, M. Keijzer, & S. Dostert (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (9–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/sibil.33.03kop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.33.03kop [Google Scholar]
  43. Köpke, B., & Schmid, M. S.
    (2004) Language attrition. First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues, 28(1). doi:  10.1075/sibil.28.02kop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.28.02kop [Google Scholar]
  44. Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J.
    (2016) Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism. doi:  10.1177/1367006916654355
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916654355 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lewis, S. & Phillips, C.
    (2015) Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 27–46, doi:  10.1007/s10936‑014‑9329‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9329-z [Google Scholar]
  46. Liceras, J. M., De La Fuente, A. A., & Walsh, L.
    (2011) Complex wh-questions in non-native Spanish and non-native German: Does input matter. Selected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 139–149.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Marantz, A.
    (2005) Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review, 22, 429–45. doi:  10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2‑4.429
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.429 [Google Scholar]
  48. McCloskey, J.
    (1979) Model-theoretic semantics and transformational grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. doi:  10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9495‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9495-9 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2002) Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. InS. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program (184–226). Oxford: Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9780470755662.ch9
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755662.ch9 [Google Scholar]
  50. McDaniel, D.
    (1986) Conditions on wh-chains. PhD dissertation, City University of New York (CUNY).
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (1989) Partial and multiple wh-extraction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 7, 565–604. doi:  10.1007/BF00205158
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00205158 [Google Scholar]
  52. McDaniel, D., Chiu, B., & Maxfield, T.
    (1995) Parameters for wh-movement types: evidence from child English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 709–753. doi:  10.1007/BF00992856
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992856 [Google Scholar]
  53. McDonald, J. L.
    (2006) Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381–401. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  54. Moelleken, W. W.
    (1987) Die rußlanddeutschen Mennoniten in Kanada und Mexiko: sprachliche Entwicklung und diglossische Situation. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, 145–183.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Montrul, S.
    (2002) Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 5(01), 39–68. doi:  10.1017/S1366728902000135
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728902000135 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2008) Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/sibil.39
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.39 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2009) Incomplete acquisition of tense-aspect and mood in Spanish heritage language speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 239–269. doi:  10.1177/1367006909339816
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909339816 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2016) The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139030502
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139030502 [Google Scholar]
  59. Montrul, S., Foote, R., & Peripñán, S.
    (2008) Knowledge of wh-movement in Spanish L2 learners and heritage speakers. InM. Almazán, J. Bruhn de Garavito, & E. Valenzuela (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (93–106). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Odlin, T.
    (1989) Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139524537
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524537 [Google Scholar]
  61. O’Grady, W., Lee, M., & Choo, M.
    (2001) The acquisition of relative clauses by heritage and and non-heritage learners of Korean as a second language: A comparative study. Journal of Korean Language Education, 12, 283–294.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Pascual, D. y Cabo, D., & Gómez Soler, I.
    (2015) Preposition stranding in Spanish as a heritage language. Heritage Language Journal, 12(2), 186–209.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Pascual, D. y Cabo, D. & Rothman, J.
    (2012) The (il)logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 450–455. doi:  10.1093/applin/ams037
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams037 [Google Scholar]
  64. Pavlenko, A., & Jarvis, S.
    (2002) Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 190–214. doi:  10.1093/applin/23.2.190
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.190 [Google Scholar]
  65. Peirce, J. W.
    (2007) PsychoPy – Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13. doi:  10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017 [Google Scholar]
  66. Phillips, C.
    (1996) Order and structure. Unpublished PhD thesis, MIT, MA, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Pires, A. & Rothman, J.
    (2009) Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for competence divergence across heritage grammars. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 211–238. doi:  10.1177/1367006909339806
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909339806 [Google Scholar]
  68. Polinsky, M.
    (2006) Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14, 191–262.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. (2008) Heritage language narratives. InD. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education. A new field emerging (149–164). New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. (2009) What breaks in A- and A-bar chains under incomplete acquisition. Poster, presentation atCUNY Sentence Process Conference. UC Davis 2009.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. (2011) Reanalysis in adult heritage language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 305–328. doi:  10.1017/S027226311000077X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311000077X [Google Scholar]
  72. Polinsky, M., & Kagan, O.
    (2007) Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 368–395. doi:  10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00022.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00022.x [Google Scholar]
  73. Pozzan, L., & Quirk, E.
    (2014) Second language acquisition of English questions: An elicited production study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(06), 1055–1086. doi:  10.1017/S0142716412000690
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000690 [Google Scholar]
  74. Prévost, P., Strik, N., & Tuller, L.
    (2014) Wh-questions in child L2 French: Derivational complexity and its interactions with L1 properties, length of exposure, age of exposure, and the input. Second Language Research, 30(2), 225–250. doi:  10.1177/0267658313519814
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313519814 [Google Scholar]
  75. Putnam, M., & Salmons, J.
    (2013) Losing their (passive) voice: Syntactic neutralization in heritage German. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(2), 233–252. doi:  10.1075/lab.3.2.05put
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.3.2.05put [Google Scholar]
  76. Putnam, M., & Sánchez, L.
    (2013) What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? – A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(4), 478–508. doi:  10.1075/lab.3.4.04put
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.3.4.04put [Google Scholar]
  77. Putnam, M., & Arnbjörnsdóttir, B.
    (2015) Minimizing (interface) domains: The loss of long-distance binding in North American Icelandic. InB. R. Page & M. Putnam (Eds.), Moribund Germanic heritage languages in North America: Theoretical perspectives and empirical findings (203–223). Leiden: Brill. doi:  10.1163/9789004290211_010
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004290211_010 [Google Scholar]
  78. Putnam, M., & Salmons, J.
    (2015) Multilingualism in the Midwest: How German has shaped (and still shapes) the Midwest. Middle West Review, 1(2), 29–52. doi:  10.1353/mwr.2015.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1353/mwr.2015.0008 [Google Scholar]
  79. Rankin, T.
    (2013) Competing grammars in the comprehension of questions and relative clauses in L1 German-L2 English. InCabrelli Amaro, J. et al. (eds.). Proceedings of the 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2013). (170–179). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. (2014) Variational Learning in L2: The Transfer of L1 Syntax and Parsing Strategies in the Interpretation of wh-questions by L1 German learners of L2 English. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(4), 432–461. doi:  10.1075/lab.4.4.02ran
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.4.02ran [Google Scholar]
  81. Reis, M.
    (2000) On the parenthetical features of German was…w constructions and how to account for them. InU. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (359–407). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/la.37.14rei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.37.14rei [Google Scholar]
  82. Richards, N.
    (2010) Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:  10.7551/mitpress/9780262013765.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262013765.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  83. (2016) Contiguity theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:  10.7551/mitpress/9780262034425.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034425.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  84. Rothman, J.
    (2007) Heritage speaker competence differences, language change, and input type: Inflected infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(4), 359–389. doi:  10.1177/13670069070110040201
     https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069070110040201 [Google Scholar]
  85. (2009) Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 155–163. doi:  10.1177/1367006909339814
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909339814 [Google Scholar]
  86. Sánchez-Walker, N.
    (2012) Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in Spanish heritage speakers and L2 learners of Spanish. PhD Qualifying paper, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Sabel, J.
    (2000) Partial wh-movement and the typology of wh-questions. InU. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (409–446). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/la.37.17sab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.37.17sab [Google Scholar]
  88. Sawatzky, H. L.
    (1986) Sie suchten eine Heimat: deutsch-mennonitische Kolonisierung in Mexiko, 1922–1984 (Vol.35). NG Elwert.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Schmid, M. S.
    (2011) Language Attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511852046
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511852046 [Google Scholar]
  90. Schmid, M. S. & Köpke, B.
    (to appear). First language attrition and bilingual development. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Schulz, B.
    (2006) Wh-scope marking in English interlanguage grammars: Transfer and processing effects on the second language acquisition of complex wh-questions. PhD dissertation, University of Hawai’i.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. (2011) Syntactic creativity in second language English: wh-scope marking in Japanese-English interlanguage. Second Language Research, 27(3), 313–341. doi:  10.1177/0267658310390503
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310390503 [Google Scholar]
  93. Slavkov, N.
    (2009) The acquisition of complex wh-questions in the L2 English of Canadian French and Bulgarian speakers: Medial wh-constructions, inversion phenomena, and avoidance strategies (Doctoral dissertation). University of Ottawa.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. (2015) Long-distance wh-movement and long-distance wh-movement avoidance in L2 English: Evidence from French and Bulgarian speakers. Second Language Research, 31(2) 179–210. doi:  10.1177/0267658314554939
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314554939 [Google Scholar]
  95. Sorace, A.
    (2004) Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Date, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 143–145. doi:  10.1017/S1366728904001543
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001543 [Google Scholar]
  96. (2011) Pinning down the notion of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33. doi:  10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor [Google Scholar]
  97. Strik, N.
    (2013) The acquisition of long distance wh-questions in L2 French. Proceedings of the 2013 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Thornton, R.
    (1990) Adventures in long-distance moving: The acquisition of complex wh-questions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, CT, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Tsang, W. I.
    (2016) Acquisition of English number agreement: L1-Cantonese – L2-English – L3-French speakers versus L1-Cantonese – L2-English speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(5), 611–635. doi:  10.1177/1367006915576398
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006915576398 [Google Scholar]
  100. Yager, L.
    (2016) Morphosyntactic variation and change in Wisconsin Heritage German. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Yager, L., Hellmold, N., Joo, H., Putnam, M., Rossi, E., Stafford, C., & Salmons, J.
    (2015) New structural patterns in moribund grammar: Case marking in Heritage German. Frontiers in Psychology6: 1716. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01716
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01716 [Google Scholar]
  102. Zobl, H.
    (1995) Converging evidence for the “acquisition–learning” distinction. Applied Linguistics, 16, 35–56. doi:  10.1093/applin/16.1.35
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.1.35 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17014.hop
Loading
Derivational complexity vs. transfer effects
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9, 341 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17014.hop
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17014.hop
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17014.hop
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cross-linguistic influence; heritage language acquisition; L2 acquisition; syntax; wh-questions

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error