1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Multiple grammars within linguistic populations
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores the concept of multiple grammars (MGs) and their implications for linguistic theory, language acquisition, and bilingual language knowledge. Drawing on evidence from phenomena such as scope interactions, verb raising, and agreement patterns, I argue that seemingly identical surface structures can be undergirded by different grammatical analyses that may compete within speaker populations. I then propose a typology of MG distributions, including and , each with distinct consequences for acquisition and use. Contrary to expectations of simplification, bilingualism can sometimes lead to an expansion of grammatical analyses and does not always lead to the elimination of MGs. The paper discusses methods for predicting environments conducive to MGs, considering factors such as structural ambiguity and silent elements. The examination of MGs compels us to explore how learners navigate underdetermined input, especially in bilingual contexts, and to examine the interplay between gradient acceptability judgments and categorical grammatical distinctions. The study of MGs offers valuable insights into language variation, change, and the nature of linguistic competence.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company

Comment

A commentary article has been published for this article:
Micro-variation and multiple grammars

Comment

A commentary article has been published for this article:
Defining and testing multiple grammars

Comment

A commentary article has been published for this article:
Understanding multiple types of multiple grammars
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.24052.pol
2025-07-04
2025-07-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lab.24052.pol
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amaral, L., & Roeper, T.
    (2014) Multiple grammars and second language representation. Second Language Research, (), –. 10.1177/0267658313519017
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313519017 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, C.
    (2004) The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity [Doctoral thesis, Northwestern University].
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aoun, J., & Li, Y.-H. A.
    (1993) Syntax of scope. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barking, M., & Mos, M.
    (2024) Individual variation in contact effects: Stability, convergence, and divergence. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, (), –. 10.1075/lab.22067.bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.22067.bar [Google Scholar]
  5. Barrett, R.
    (2016) Mayan language revitalization, hip hop, and ethnic identity in Guatemala. Language & Communication, , –. 10.1016/j.langcom.2015.08.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  6. Borer, H., & Wexler, K.
    (1987) The maturation of syntax. InT. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp.–). Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑3727‑7_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3727-7_6 [Google Scholar]
  7. (1992) Bi-unique relations and the maturation of grammatical principles. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, , –. 10.1007/BF00133811
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133811 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, Y., & Huan, T.
    (2023) Scope assignment in Quantifier-Negation sentences in Tibetan as a heritage language in China. Second Language Research. Advance online publication. 10.1177/02676583231161164
     https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583231161164 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C.
    (1988) Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, (), –. 10.1016/0010‑0277(88)90004‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cuza, A.
    (2016) The status of interrogative subject–verb inversion in Spanish-English bilingual children. Lingua, , –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2016.04.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  11. Den Dikken, M.
    (2001) “Pluringulars,” pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review, , –. 10.1515/tlir.18.1.19
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.18.1.19 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferin, M., Marinis, T., & Kupisch, T.
    (2024) The acquisition of rhetorical questions in bilingual children with Italian as a heritage language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Advance online publication. 10.1017/S1366728923000974
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728923000974 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fernández, E. M.
    (2002) Relative clause attachment in bilinguals and monolinguals. InR. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp.–). North-Holland/Elsevier Science Publishers. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(02)80011‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(02)80011-5 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2003) Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.29
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.29 [Google Scholar]
  15. Franks, S., & Bańsky, P.
    (1999) Approaches to “schizophrenic” Polish person agreement. InK. Dziwirek, H. Coats, & C. M. Vakareliyska (Eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Seattle meeting 1998 (pp.–). Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fried, M., Lyskawa, P., & Ranero, R.
    (2020) Agreement in K’iche’ (Mayan): Reflections on microvariation and acquisition. Proceedings of the 44th Penn Linguistics Conference.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Grillo, N., Costa, J., Fernándes, B., & Santi, A.
    (2015) Highs and lows in English attachment. Cognition, , –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.018
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.018 [Google Scholar]
  18. Guasti, M. T.
    (2002) Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Han, C.-H., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J.
    (2007) V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry, , –. 10.1162/ling.2007.38.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  20. Han, C.-H., Musolino, J., & Lidz, J.
    (2016) Endogenous sources of variation in language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (), –. 10.1073/pnas.1517094113
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517094113 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hornstein, N.
    (2013, February). Acceptability and grammaticality. Faculty of Language Blog. https://facultyoflanguage.blogspot.com/2013/02/acceptability-and-grammaticality.html
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (2024) The Merge hypothesis. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009415750
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009415750 [Google Scholar]
  23. Howitt, K., Scontras, G., & Polinsky, M.
    (in press). English restrictive relative clauses are subject to crossover violations.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Kroch, A.
    (1989) Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, , –. 10.1017/S0954394500000168
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000168 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2001) Syntactic change. InM. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp.–). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756416.ch22
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756416.ch22 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lasnik, H., & Stowell, T.
    (1991) Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lau, J. H., Clark, A., & Lappin, S.
    (2017) Grammaticality, acceptability, and probability: A probabilistic view of linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Science, , –. 10.1111/cogs.12414
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12414 [Google Scholar]
  28. Levin, T., Lyskawa, P., & Ranero, R.
    (2020) Optional agreement in Santiago Tz’utujil (Mayan) is syntactic. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, (), –. 10.1515/zfs‑2020‑2018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2020-2018 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lyskawa, P., & Ranero, R.
    (2022) Optional agreement as successful/failed Agree. Linguistic Variation, , –. 10.1075/lv.20013.lys
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.20013.lys [Google Scholar]
  30. May, R.
    (1977) The grammar of quantification [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
  31. (1985) Logical form: Its structure and derivation. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Moscati, V.
    (2010) Negation raising: Logical form and linguistic variation. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Polinsky, M.
    (2008) Gender under incomplete acquisition: Heritage speakers’ knowledge of noun categorization. Heritage Language Journal, (), –. 10.46538/hlj.6.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.6.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2025) Heritage language gaps. InM. Putnam, R. D’Alessandro, & S. Terenghi (Eds.), Heritage languages and syntactic theory (pp.–). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/9780191987731.003.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1093/9780191987731.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  35. Portner, P., & Yabushita, K.
    (2001) Specific indefinites and the information structure theory of topics. Journal of Semantics, , –. 10.1093/jos/18.3.271
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/18.3.271 [Google Scholar]
  36. Postal, P.
    (1971) Cross-over phenomena. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. (1993) Remarks on weak crossover effects. Linguistic Inquiry, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Reinhart, T.
    (1982) Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (1997) Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, (), –. 10.1023/A:1005349801431
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005349801431 [Google Scholar]
  40. Roeper, T.
    (2003) Multiple grammars, feature-attraction, Pied-Piping, and the question: Is AGR inside TP?Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J.
    (2011) The acquisition path for Wh-questions. InJ. de Villiers & T. Roeper (Eds.), Handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition (pp.–). Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics (Vol.). Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑1688‑9_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1688-9_6 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ronai, E.
    (2018) Quantifier scope in heritage bilinguals: A comparative experimental study. InS. Hucklebridge & M. Nelson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (Vol., pp.–). University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Safir, K.
    (2017) Weak Crossover. InM. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax (2nd ed.). Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom090
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom090 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sauerland, U., & Elbourne, P.
    (2002) Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry, , –. 10.1162/002438902317406722
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902317406722 [Google Scholar]
  45. Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., Tsai, C.-Y. E., & Mai, K.
    (2017) Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: When two systems meet. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, (), . 10.5334/gjgl.198
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.198 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tsai, C.-Y. E., Scontras, G., Mai, K., & Polinsky, M.
    (2014) Prohibiting inverse scope: An experimental study of Chinese vs. English. InC. Piñon (Ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics (Vol., pp.–).
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Tsimpli, I.
    (2014) Early, late or very late? Timing acquisition and bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, (), –. 10.1075/lab.4.3.01tsi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.3.01tsi [Google Scholar]
  48. Vallduví, E.
    (1992) The informational component. Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Wu, H.
    (2019) Quantifier scope in Mandarin [Doctoral dissertation, Stony Brook University].
  50. Wu, H., Larson, R., Liu, Y., Liu, L., & Mar, G.
    (2018) Rethinking quantifier scope in Mandarin. InS. Hucklebridge & M. Nelson (Eds.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 48 (Vol., pp.–). University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Wu, M.-J., & Ionin, T.
    (2022) Does explicit instruction affect L2 linguistic competence? An examination with L2 acquisition of English inverse scope. Second Language Research, (), –. 10.1177/0267658321992830
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658321992830 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.24052.pol
Loading
Multiple grammars within linguistic populations
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.24052.pol
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.24052.pol
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.24052.pol
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: bilingualism ; structural ambiguity ; underdetermined input ; Multiple grammars ; scope interactions

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