What linguistic advantages do heritage language speakers have over second language

learners?Oksana Laleko (SUNY New Paltz)

Maria Polinsky (Harvard)

Seventh Heritage Language Research InstituteChicago, IL June 17-21

HLSs and L2 learners: Acquisition scenarios

O Two distinct paths to (imbalanced) adult bilingualism

HLSs and L2 learners: Acquisition scenarios

O Different circumstances of target language exposureO HLSs: early consecutive or sequential

bilinguals who begin acquisition in a family setting (cf. early L1 leaners)

O Adult L2s: late bilinguals, lg exposure in a structured setting

HLSs and L2 learners: Points of convergence

O Both groups display deficits in the domain of inflectional morphology and narrow syntax O E.g., case, gender, agreement,

long-distance dependencies (Benmamoun et al. 2010; Montrul 2002; Montrul et al. 2008; Polinsky 1997, 2006; 2008a, b; 2011; Rothman 2007)

HLSs and L2 learners: Points of convergence

O Both groups exhibit difficulties with discourse pragmaticsO Infelicitous linguistic choices in

contexts that require discourse tracking or resolving contextual optionality (Laleko 2010; Montrul 2004, Serratrice et al. 2004; Laleko & Polinsky, 2012; in press).

What we learned last year

O Topic and subject marking in Japanese and Korean (Laleko & Polinsky, 2012; in press)

(1) a. Sakana-wa tai-ga oisii. J

fish-TOP red snapper-NOM delicious

‘Speaking of fish, red snapper is delicious’

 

b. Sayngsen-un yene-ka massissta. K

fish-TOP salmon-NOM delicious

‘Speaking of fish, salmon is delicious.’

What we learned last year

O Topic marker: establishes discourse relations

(1) a. Sakana-wa tai-ga oisii. J

fish-TOP red snapper-NOM delicious

‘Speaking of fish, red snapper is delicious’

 

b. Sayngsen-un yene-ka massissta. K

fish-TOP salmon-NOM delicious

‘Speaking of fish, salmon is delicious.’

What we learned last year

O Nominative case marker: marks the syntactic subject

(1) a. Sakana-wa tai-ga oisii. J

fish-TOP red snapper-NOM delicious

‘Speaking of fish, red snapper is delicious’

 

b. Sayngsen-un yene-ka massissta. K

fish-TOP salmon-NOM delicious

‘Speaking of fish, salmon is delicious.’

What we learned last year

O1) TOP marking is more difficult than NOM marking for both HLSs and L2 learners in Japanese and in Korean (Laleko & Polinsky, 2012; in press)O discourse > narrow syntax (Givón 1979,

Koornneef 2008, Langacker 2000, Reuland 2011)

What we learned last year

O2) The level of proficiency in the HL mattersO Higher-proficiency HLSs (Korean) > L2

learnersO Lower-proficiency HLSs (Japanese) =

L2 learners

What we learned last year

O 3) Advantages exhibited by the higher-proficiency HLSs over L2 learners are selectiveO Korean HLSs were overall target-like

on all conditions involving NOM (syntax),

O but non-target-like on TOP omissions (discourse)

New QuestionsO What other areas of linguistic

knowledge might reveal selective differences between HLSs and L2 learners?

New QuestionsO What would these results tell us

about...O language architecture?O ways to optimize classroom

instruction?

Phenomena to be discussed

O Lower-proficiency HLSs (Japanese)O Subject honorificationO Word order variations (scrambling)O Use of classifiers

Phenomena to be discussed

O Higher-proficiency HLSs (Korean)O Word order variationsO Use of classifiers

Japanese

Subject HonorificationO Japanese is rich in linguistic encoding of

formality; multiple “polite forms” (Shibatani, 1990; Iwasaki, 2002)

O Subject Honorification (SH): a formal (morpho-syntactic) way of marking the speaker’s respect for individuals who hold a socially high rankO Cf. agreement in other lgs

Subject HonorificationO Expressed by the verbal complex o-VERB-ni

naru

(2) Syachou -ga daijina -koto -o o -hanashi –ni naru

President -NOM important-things-ACC HON–talk-HON

‘The president is discussing important things’

Subject HonorificationO Individuals judged to be worthy of

respect (Harada, 1976; Shibatani, 1977).

(3) a. Gakusei-ga Mary-o matu.student-NOM Mary-ACC wait‘The student waits for Mary’

b. Sensei-ga Mary-o o-mati-ni naru.

teacher-NOM Mary-ACC HON-wait-HON‘The teacher waits for Mary’

Subject HonorificationO Individuals judged to be worthy of

respect (Harada, 1976; Shibatani, 1977).

(3) a. Gakusei-ga Mary-o matu.student-NOM Mary-ACC wait‘The student waits for Mary’

b. Sensei-ga Mary-o o-mati-ni naru.

teacher-NOM Mary-ACC HON-wait-HON‘The teacher waits for Mary’

Subject HonorificationO In addition to pragmatic

appropriateness, appropriate use of SH requires the linguistic knowledge ofO syntaxO morphologyO phonology

SH: Syntactic Knowledge

OSH only applies to subjects!O Hence often used as a formal

linguistic diagnostic of subjecthood in Japanese

SH: Syntactic Knowledge

(4) a. * Gakusei-ga kouchousensei-o o-naguri-ni naru

Student–NOM school president-ACC HON-hit-HON

‘A student hit the school president.’

b. * Dorobou-ga kyouzyu -no ofisu-o o-yogoshi-ni naru

thief-NOM professor–GEN office-ACC HON-dirty-HON

‘A thief broke into the professor’s office’

SH: Morphological Knowledge

O Obligatory morphological marking with the circumfix o-…-ni

(5) Syachou -ga daijina -koto -o *(o)-hanashi-*(ni) naru

president -NOM important-things-ACC HON–talk-HON ‘The president is discussing important things’

SH: Phonological Knowledge

O Vowel epenthesis with roots that end in consonantsO verb root ends in a vowel: o-VERB-ni

yame ‘quit’ o-yame-ni naruO verb root ends in a consonant: o-

VERB-i-nikak ‘write’ o-kak-i-ni naru

SH: Questions for Our Study

O Which aspects of the SH construction are problematic for heritage language speakers and L2 learners?O phonologyO syntaxO morphology

SH: Questions for Our Study

O In what areas, if any, might HLSs exhibit advantages over L2ers?

The Study: Participants 

Language 

JAPANESE

Group L2

(N=31)

HL

(N=29)

Age 27.5 24.75

Age of arrival to U.S. N/A 4.0

Age of switch to English N/A 4.8

Daily use of Japanese (%) 12.4 22.9

Self-rated proficiency in Japanese (1-5) 3.01 3.62

The Study: ProcedureO Compared with native

monolingual controls (baseline speakers), N=13

O Ratings elicited on Amazon Mechanical Turk

The Study: ProcedureO Sentences rated on a 1-5 scale in

the following conditions:O Acceptable use O Phonological violationsO Syntactic violationsO Morphological violations

ResultsO Both HLSs and L2 learners

differed significantly from the baseline controls in all conditions

ResultsO For L2 learners, all aspects of the SH

construction were equally hardO For HLSs, not all aspects of the SH

construction were equally hard

Results: L2

Results: L2no difference

Results: Heritage

Results: HL (Japanese)no difference

Results: Heritageratings more accurate

Subject Honorifics: Summary

OFor HLSs, phonological constraints appear to be the least difficult aspect of the Subject Honorification constructionO morphology and syntax more

problematic

Subject Honorifics: Summary

OFindings consistent with existing studies involving low-proficiency HLSs (Au, Knightly, Jun, & Oh, 2002)

Subject Honorifics: Summary

OOverall, low-proficiency HLS of Japanese as a group do not demonstrate apparent advantage over L2 learners

Subject Honorifics: Summary

OPossibly because the SH construction is mostly attested in formal registers, to which HLSs receive the least amount of exposureO HL =“home language,” informal

colloquial styles

Phenomena attested in colloquial registers

OWord order variations (scrambling)O syntactic constraints

OUse of classifiersO semantic and syntactic constraints

ScramblingTaro bought comics at a bookstore.(6) a. Taroo-ga honya-de manga-o

katta.Taro-NOM bookstore-at comic-ACC bought

b. Taroo-ga manga-o honya-de katta.Taro-NOM comic-ACC bookstore-at

bought c. Manga-o honya-de Taroo-ga

katta.Comic-ACC bookstore-at Taro-NOM

bought

Constraints on scrambling

OThe verb needs to come last(7) a. *Oishisouna tsukurimas yusyoku-o otouto-no-tameni Taroo-ga Deliciously make supper-ACC young brother-GEN-for Taro-NOM ‘Taro makes delicious supper for his young brother.’

Constraints on scrambling

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

Constraints on scrambling

O Case particles, conjunctions, and postpositions cannot be separated from their nouns

(7) c. *To Taroo-ga Hanako sugaku-o benkyou-shi-ta With Taro-NOM Hanako math-ACC study -do-past. ‘Taro studied math with Hanako.’

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

Scrambling: Results

Scrambling: Resultssignificant difference

Scrambling: Resultsno difference

Scrambling: SummaryO The lack of significance may reflect

heritage speakers’ reluctance to rate ungrammatical sequences low (so called ‘yes’-bias, cf. Laleko and Polinsky, in press; Polinsky, in press; Orfitelli and Polinsky, submitted)

ClassifiersO Mark a conceptual classification of

the noun’s referent (Tsujimura, 2007):O San-nin “three people”O San-mai “three thin and flat objects”O San-bon “three long and cylindrical

objects”O San-gen “three houses”O San-biki “three animals”

ClassifiersO A sentence containing a numeral

must also contain the appropriate classifier:

(6) a. San-nin-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita. three-CL-GEN child-NOM house-to came‘Three children came to my house”

b. Taroo-ga san-mai-no kami-o katta. Taro-NOM three-CL-GEN paper-ACC bought

“Taro bought three sheets of paper”

ClassifiersO A sentence containing a numeral

must also contain the appropriate classifier:

(7) a. # San-mai-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita. three-CL-GEN child-NOM house-to came‘Three children came to my house”

b. # Taroo-ga san-nin-no kami-o katta. Taro-NOM three-CL-GEN paper-ACC bought

“Taro bought three sheets of paper”

ClassifiersO In addition to semantic constraints

on the use of classifiers, there are syntactic constrains governing their use

Classifiers

(8) a. San-nin-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita. three-GEN child-NOM house-to came‘Three children came to my house’

b. Kodomo-ga san-nin uti-e kita.child-NOM three house-to came‘Three children came to my house’

Classifiers

(8) a. San-nin-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita. three-GEN child-NOM house-to came‘Three children came to my house’

b. Kodomo-ga san-nin uti-e kita.child-NOM three house-to came‘Three children came to my house’

Quantifier Float

ClassifiersO Quantifier Float is subject to

syntactic constraints (Fukuda and Polinsky, 2013 and further references therein):

(9) a. Gakusei-ga san-nin [VP sake-o nonda].student-NOM three sake-ACC drank‘Three students drank sake’

b. *Gakusei-ga [VP sake-o san-nin nonda]student-NOM sake-ACC three drank‘Three students drank sake’

Classifiers: Main QuestionO How do HLSs and L2 learners of

Japanese perform with respect to semantic and syntactic violations on the use of classifiers?

Classifiers: Results

Classifiers: Resultsmore accurate

Classifiers: ResultsO Both groups diverged from the L1

controls (HLS = L2)O no apparent advantage of being

heritageO Both groups had more difficulties

with semantics than with syntax

Summary so farODifficulties are not equal

O discourse > syntax (HLS and L2)O semantics > syntax (HLS and L2)O morphosyntax > phonology (HLS)

Summary so farOLow-proficiency HLSs do not

exhibit apparent advantage over L2 learnersO Statistically indistinguishable from L2

(classifiers) or outperformed by L2 (scrambling)

OWhat about high-proficiency HLS?

Korean

Participants 

Language

 

KOREAN

Group L2 (N=16) HL (N=35)

Age 25.8 24.5

Age of arrival to U.S. N/A 3.2

Age of switch to English N/A 3.0

Daily use of Korean (%) 23.5 29.6

Self-rated proficiency in Korean (1-5) 3.39 4.35

Phenomena to be examined

O Same conditions as in Japanese:O Scrambling (~syntax)O Use of classifiers (~syntax and

semantics)

Question for our studyO Do HLSs and L2 learners have the

syntactic knowledge that would allow them to recognize violations on scrambling in Korean?

Scrambling: Results

Scrambling: Resultssignificant difference

Scrambling: Resultsno difference

Scrambling: ResultsO L1 and HL groups exhibit a

significant difference (p < 0.05) between grammatical and ungrammatical conditions

Scrambling: ResultsO L2 group are not sensitive to

syntactic violations on scrambling (p > 0.05)

Scrambling: ResultsO High-proficiency HLS > L2 on

syntaxO What about semantics?O Let’s consider classifiers

ClassifiersO Same design as in JapaneseO Main questions:

O Is there a difference between HLSs vs. L2?

O Is there a difference in processing syntax vs. semantics?

Classifiers: Results

Classifiers: Resultssignificant difference

Classifiers: Resultsno difference

Classifiers: Results

Classifiers: Resultsdifferent

Classifiers: Resultsdifferent

same

Classifiers: ResultsO High-proficiency HLSs:

O pattern with L1 controls in recognizing semantic and syntactic violations on the use of classifiers

O no difference in syntax vs. semantics

Classifiers: ResultsO L2 speakers:

O Non-target-like knowledge of classifiers

O Syntax is easier than semantics

SummaryO What areas of linguistic knowledge

are more difficult?O Discourse more difficult than syntax

(Laleko, 2010; Laleko & Polinsky, 2012: in press)O Semantics more difficult than syntax for

L2 (Korean)O Semantics more difficult than syntax for

L2 and HLSs (Japanese)

The big pictureO The hierarchy of structure-

building and interpretation (cf. Givon, 1979; Langacker, 2000; Reinhart, 2006; Kornneef, 2008; Reuland, 2011)

syntax < semantics < discourse [less costly] ↔ [more costly]

SummaryO What advantages do HLSs exhibit

over L2 learners?O Phonology (Japanese)O Semantics (Korean)O Syntax?

O Japanese HLS < L2 or HLS = L2O Korean HLS > L2

SummaryO Advantage varies across the

proficiency continuum

Thank you!O And thanks to Aika Taguchi, Shin

Fukuda, Sandy Kim, Sun-Hee Bae, Miwako Hisagi

O Funding: Funding: Heritage Language Resource Center (UCLA), CASL (U of Maryland)