Volume 31, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Previous research on heritage speaker (HS) bilingualism suggests, not without controversy, that certain properties of HSs’ grammars, mainly discursive properties, can result in divergent grammatical outcomes in adulthood be it as a result of incomplete acquisition or attrition. This study contributes to this line of research by examining whether HSs’ word order configurations with Spanish double object constructions reflect compliance with the pragmatic (End-Focus Principle) and syntactic related factors (End-Weight Principle) that regulate word order in Spanish. To this end, two groups of HSs with different proficiency levels in Spanish as well as a bilingual and a monolingual control group, all of Mexican origin, completed an acceptability judgment task. HSs’ performance on this task shows that their knowledge of the discursive nuances associated with constituent order remains as robust as their knowledge of the syntactic factors associated with this phenomenon. Our findings therefore suggest that this linguistic domain may not be subject to so-called incomplete acquisition or L1 attrition.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Amaral, L., & Roeper, T.
    (2014) Multiple grammars and second language representation. Second Language Research, 30(1), 3–36. 10.1177/0267658313519017
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313519017 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnold, J., Wasow, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R.
    (2000) Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76(1), 28–55. 10.1353/lan.2000.0045
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2000.0045 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beavers, J., & C. Nishida
    (2010) The Spanish dative alternation revisited. InS. Colina, A. Olarrea, & A. M. Carvalho (Eds.), Romance Linguistics 2009: Selected Papers from the 39th Linguistic Symposium of Romance Languages (pp.217–230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.315.13bea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.315.13bea [Google Scholar]
  4. Behaghel, O.
    (1909/10) Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen, 25, 110–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bellosta Colbe, V. von
    (2005) Variación sintáctica en el “role and reference grammar”: La posición de los complementos en las oraciones ditransitivas. InG. Knauer & V. von Bellosta Colbe (Eds.), Variación sintáctica en español: Un reto para las teorías de la sintaxis; [sección 8 del XIII Congreso de la Asociación Alemana de Hispanistas (Universität Leipzig, 08.-11.03.2001)] (pp.97–116). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110923353.97
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110923353.97 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bever, T. G.
    (1970) The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. InJ. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp.279–362). New York: Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bleam, T.
    (2003) Properties of the double object construction in Spanish. InR. Núñez- Cedeño, L. López, and R. Cameron (Eds.), A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use (pp.233–252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.238.19ble
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.238.19ble [Google Scholar]
  8. Bock, J. K.
    (1986) Meaning, sound, and syntax: Lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 124, 575–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1987) An effect of the accessibility of word forms on sentence structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 119–37. 10.1016/0749‑596X(87)90120‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90120-3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bock, J. K., & Irwin, D. E.
    (1980) Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 467–484. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(80)90321‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90321-7 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bolinger, D.
    (1954) Meaningful word order in Spanish. Boletín de Filología, 7, 45–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Carreira, M.
    (2004) Seeking explanatory adequacy: A dual approach to understanding the term “heritage language learner”. Heritage Language Journal, 2(1), 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chafe, W. L.
    (1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. InLi, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp.27–55). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Choi, H. -W.
    (2009) Ordering a left-branching language: Heaviness vs. givenness. Korean Society for Language and Information, 13, 39–56. 10.29403/LI.13.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.29403/LI.13.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chomsky, N.
    (1975) The logical structure of linguistic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cuervo, M. C.
    (2003) Structural asymmetries but same word order: the dative alternation in Spanish. InA. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics (pp.117–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.57.07cue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.57.07cue [Google Scholar]
  17. Delbecque, N.
    (1991) El orden de los sintagmas: la posición del regente; estudio de la variación sintáctica en una perspectiva cognitiva y probabilista. Salamanca: Ed. Univ.de Salamanca.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Demonte, V.
    (1995) Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus, 7, 5–30. 10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  19. Domínguez, L.
    (2004) Mapping focus: the syntax and prosody of focus in Spanish. PhD Dissertation. Boston University.
  20. Ducar, C.
    (2012) SHL learners attitudes and motivations: Reconciling opposing forces. InS. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough, (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the U.S.: State of the science (pp.253–282). Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Erteschik-Shir, N.
    (2007) Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fodor, J. A.
    (1983) The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Firbas, J.
    (1992) Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597817
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597817 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferreira, V., & Yoshita, H.
    (2003) Given-new ordering effects on the production of scrambled sentences in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(6), 669–692. 10.1023/A:1026146332132
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026146332132 [Google Scholar]
  25. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D.
    (1978) The sausage machine: A two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325. 10.1016/0010‑0277(78)90002‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Geluykens, R.
    (1991) Information flow in English conversation: a new approach to the given-new distinction. InE. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses (pp.141–167). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110883527.141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883527.141 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gibson, E.
    (1997) Syntactic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gómez Soler, I.
    (2014) Beyond interfaces: Pragmatic development vs. syntactic deficiencies in the L2 acquisition of reverse psychological predicates. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(4), 494–525. 10.1075/lab.4.4.04gom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.4.04gom [Google Scholar]
  29. Gundel, J. K.
    (1988) Universals of topic-comment structureInM. Hammond, E. Moravczik, & J. Wirth (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (pp.209–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.17.16gun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.17.16gun [Google Scholar]
  30. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R.
    (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307. 10.2307/416535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hawkins, J. A.
    (1990) A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 223–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1994) A performance theory of word order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Heidinger, S.
    (2013) Information focus, syntactic weight and postverbal constituent order in Spanish. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2(2), 159–190. 10.7557/
    https://doi.org/10.7557/ [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoot, B.
    (2012) Presentational focus in heritage and monolingual Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois at Chicago.
  35. Jackendoff, R., & Wittenberg, E.
    (2014) What you can say without syntax: A hierarchy of grammatical complexity. InF. Newmeyer & L. Preston (Eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C.
    (2004) The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94(2), 113–147. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kayne, R.
    (1984) Correctedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783111682228
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111682228 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kimball, J.
    (1973) Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15–47. 10.1016/0010‑0277(72)90028‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(72)90028-5 [Google Scholar]
  39. Klein, W., & Perdue, C.
    (1997) The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13(4), 301–347. 10.1191/026765897666879396
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897666879396 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kraš, T.
    (2011) Acquiring the syntactic constraints on auxiliary change under restructuring in L2 Italian: Implications for the Interface Hypothesis. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 413–438. 10.1075/lab.1.4.03kra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.4.03kra [Google Scholar]
  41. Leal Méndez, T., Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R.
    (2015) Discourse-sensitive clitic-doubled dislocations in heritage Spanish. Lingua, 155, 85–97. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  42. Leal, T., Destruel, E., & Hoot, B.
    (2017) The realization of information focus in monolingual and bilingual native Spanish. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(2), 217-251. 10.1075/lab.16009.lea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.16009.lea [Google Scholar]
  43. López, L.
    (2009) A derivational syntax for information structure. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557400.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557400.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lozano, C., & Mendikoetxea, A.
    (2010) Interface conditions on postverbal subjects: A corpus study of L2 English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 475–497. 10.1017/S1366728909990538
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990538 [Google Scholar]
  45. Masullo, P. J.
    (1992) Incorporation and case theory in Spanish: a cross-linguistic perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Washington.
  46. Montrul, S.
    (2004) Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125–142. 10.1017/S1366728904001464
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001464 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2008) Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism. Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.39
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.39 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2010) Current issues in heritage language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 3-23.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2016) The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139030502
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139030502 [Google Scholar]
  50. Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M.
    (2011) Why not heritage speakers?Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 58–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Ortega-Santos, I.
    (2016) Focus-related operations at the right edge in Spanish: Subjects and ellipsis (Vol.7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ihll.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.7 [Google Scholar]
  52. Pascual y Cabo, D.
    (2015) Issues in Spanish heritage morpho-syntax. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 8 (2), 389–401. 10.1515/shll‑2015‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2015-0015 [Google Scholar]
  53. Pascual y Cabo, D., & Rothman, J.
    (2012) The (il)logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33 (4), 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Parafita Couto, M. C., Mueller Gathercole, V. C., & Stadthagen-González, H.
    (2015) Interface strategies in monolingual and end-state L2 Spanish grammars are not that different. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–17. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01525
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01525 [Google Scholar]
  55. Park, K. -S.
    (2011) Information structure and dative word order in adult L2 learners. InJ. Herschensohn & D. Tanner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2011) (pp.101–109). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Park, K. -S., & Schwartz, B.
    (2012) L1 Korean L2ers’ sensitivity to givenness in the English dative alternation. InA. K. Biller, E. Y. Chung & A. E. Kimball (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.414–426). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Parra, M. L.
    (2016) Understanding identity among Spanish heritage learners. InD. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp.177–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.49.10par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.49.10par [Google Scholar]
  58. Pineda, A.
    (2013) Double object constructions and dative/accusative alternations in Spanish and Catalan: A unified account. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2(1), 57–115. 10.7557/
    https://doi.org/10.7557/ [Google Scholar]
  59. Pires, A., & Rothman, J.
    (2009) Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for competence divergence across heritage grammars. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 211–38. 10.1177/1367006909339806
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909339806 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2011) An integrated perspective on comparative bilingual differences. Beyond the interface problem?Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 74–78. 10.1075/lab.1.1.11pir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.11pir [Google Scholar]
  61. Polinsky, M., & Kagan, O.
    (2007) Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 368–395. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00022.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00022.x [Google Scholar]
  62. Potowski, K.
    (2012) Identity and heritage learners: Moving beyond essentializations. InS. Beaudrie & Fairclough, M. (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the US: State of the science (pp.283–304). Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Prada Pérez, A de., & Pascual y Cabo, D.
    (2012) Interface heritage speech across proficiencies: Unaccusativity, focus, and subject position in Spanish. InK. Geeslin & M. Díaz-Campos (Eds.), Proceedings of the Hispanic Linguistic Symposium (pp.308–318). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Prince, E.
    (1981) Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. InP. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp.223–256). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 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), 476–506. 10.1075/lab.3.4.04put
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.3.4.04put [Google Scholar]
  66. Pylkkänen, L.
    (2002) Introducing arguments. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
  67. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Reinhart, T.
    (1981) Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics in pragmatics and philosophy I. Philosophica anc Studia Philosophica Gandensia Gent, 27(1), 53–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Rosenbach, A.
    (2005) Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language, 81, 613–644. 10.1353/lan.2005.0149
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0149 [Google Scholar]
  70. Romero, J.
    (1997) Construcciones de doble objeto y gramática universal. PhD dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
  71. Rothman, J., & Iverson, M.
    (2008) Poverty of the stimulus and L2 epistemology: Considering L2 knowledge of aspectual phrasal semantics. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics, 15(4), 270–314. 10.1080/10489220802352206
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489220802352206 [Google Scholar]
  72. Siewierska, A.
    (1993) Syntactic weight vs information structure and word order variation in Polish. Journal of Linguistics, 29, 233–265. 10.1017/S0022226700000323
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700000323 [Google Scholar]
  73. (1995) On the interplay of factors in the determination of word order. InJ. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld & T. Vennemann, (Eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research / Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (pp.826–846). Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Slobin, D.
    (1985) Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. InD. Slonin (Ed.), The Crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol.II (pp.1157–1256). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F.
    (2006) Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22(3), 339–368. 10.1191/0267658306sr271oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr271oa [Google Scholar]
  76. Sorace, A.
    (2011) Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33. 10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor [Google Scholar]
  77. (2012) Pinning down the concept of interface in bilingual development: A reply to peer commentaries. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(2), 209–217. 10.1075/lab.2.2.04sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.2.04sor [Google Scholar]
  78. Taboada, M.
    (1995) Theme markedness in English and Spanish: A systemic-functional approach. Ms., Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Thuilier, J.
    (2012) Contraintes préférentielles et ordre des mots en français. PhD dissertation. Paris, Université Paris Diderot.
  80. Tomlin, R. S.
    (1998) Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: The role of attention in grammar. InJ. Nuyts, and E. Pederson (Eds.), With language in mind (pp.162–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Toribio, J., & Nye, C.
    (2006) Restructuring of reverse psychological predicate in bilingual Spanish. InJ. Montreuil & C. Nishida (Eds.), New perspectives in Romance linguistics (pp.263–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.275.20tor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.275.20tor [Google Scholar]
  82. Uriagereka, J.
    (1988) On government. PhD dissertation. University of Connecticut.
  83. Valverde Ibáñez, M. d. P.
    (2009) Descripción cuantitativa del orden de las funciones clausales argumentales en español. PhD dissertation. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.
  84. VanPatten, B.
    (1996) Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. (2000) Thirty years of input. InB. Swierzbin, F. Morris, Anderson, M., Klee, C. & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected Proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum (pp.287–311). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Wasow, T.
    (1997a) Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9, 81–105. 10.1017/S0954394500001800
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001800 [Google Scholar]
  87. (1997b) End-weight from the speaker’s perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(3), 347–361. 10.1023/A:1025080709112
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025080709112 [Google Scholar]
  88. (2002) Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Zapata, G. C., Sánchez, L., & Toribio, A. J.
    (2005) Contact and contracting Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(3–4), 377–395. 10.1177/13670069050090030501
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069050090030501 [Google Scholar]
  90. Zubizarreta, M. L.
    (1998) Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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