Cross-linguistic influence in unbalanced bilingual heritage speakers on subsequent language acquisition: Evidence from pronominal object placement in ditransitive clauses

Abstract

Aims and objectives: The main objective of this study is to find evidence for the Linguistic Proximity Model, which allows for facilitative and non-facilitative cross-linguistic influence (CLI) from all previously known languages in third language (L3) acquisition. We target CLI in L3 English based on bilingual heritage speakers (Russian-German and Turkish-German) in comparison with second language acquisition of monolingual German speakers. Methodology: We examine the outcome of an English word order test. The participants produced sentences based on randomly ordered words. The focus of this study is the placement of direct and indirect pronominal objects with varying ditransitive verbs. Data analysis: 195 students in school years 7 and 9, separated into three language groups, participated in the study: German monolinguals ( nG7 = 47; nG9 = 64), Russian-German bilinguals ( nR7 = 19; nR9 = 30) and Turkish-German bilinguals ( nT7 = 19; nT9 = 16). The placement of pronominal objects in the sentence task is compared to results from equivalent word order tests in English, German, Russian and Turkish that were repeated with native speakers. Findings: We find some support for the Linguistic Proximity Model because the outcome shows that facilitative and non-facilitative CLI is possible from both the heritage language and the majority language. Determining factors are the background languages, the age of the participants and frequency. However, the majority language, German, displays the strongest influence of both background languages due to its dominant status. Originality: This study provides further support for the Linguistic Proximity Model, by using a sentence completion task with unbalanced bilingual heritage speakers. Significance/implications: We provide evidence for showing that both facilitative and non-facilitative influence from all previously known languages of bilingual heritage speakers is possible and verifiable. We therefore add to the field of L3 acquisition and the discussion about current models of CLI.

Does bilingualism correlate with or predict higher proficiency in L3 English? A contrastive study of monolingual and bilingual learners

“…Bilingual advantages, apparently, disappear with increasing age. In a similar vein, Lorenz et al (2019), in a study of pronominal object placement in Russian-German and Turkish-German heritage bilinguals, find stronger traces of crosslinguistic influence and more potential for bilingual advantages in the younger cohorts (nicely tying in with earlier observations regarding subject-verb agreement made in Siemund and Lechner, 2015). In our view, such findings are plausible since schooling can be expected to exert levelling forces of some magnitude, with students converging on a common school standard over time and initially positive effects disappearing (see also Hopp, Jakisch et al, 2020).…”

Russian-as-a-heritage-language vocabulary acquisition by bi-/multilingual children in Canada

“…The studies of speech production by heritage language speakers inform the linguistic theory about the fundamental processes in language acquisition and language structure (Scontras et al, 2015), since heritage languages are "a particular phenomenon within bilingualism" (Polinsky, 2018a: 547). Heritage languages are first (native) or home languages acquired by bi-/multilingual children in the environments where another language is dominant in society (Lorenz et al, 2019;Polinsky, 2018b). The majority language is often acquired early from the age of between three and six (Lorenz et al, 2019), i.e., heritage language speakers become bilingual (or multilingual) in their heritage language, the dominant language of the society and possibly in another language.…”

“…Heritage languages are first (native) or home languages acquired by bi-/multilingual children in the environments where another language is dominant in society (Lorenz et al, 2019;Polinsky, 2018b). The majority language is often acquired early from the age of between three and six (Lorenz et al, 2019), i.e., heritage language speakers become bilingual (or multilingual) in their heritage language, the dominant language of the society and possibly in another language.…”

“…Multiple factors are engaged in the heritage vs. majority language development including the speakers' age, the amount and quality of language exposure, proximity of the languages involved, age of the child upon immigration to the host country, family language policies and practice, etc. (Fernandes, 2019;Lorenz et al, 2019;Smyslova, 2012). Many earlier studies describe issues in heritage language speaker's competencies in a comparison to the language baseline presented by their monolingual peers (Benmamoun, 2013;Polinsky, 2018b;Polinsky, Kagan, 2007).…”

Study of Everyday Language Practices of the Population of South Russian Multinational Region

“…The interesting conclusions regarding the multilingual environment and the unifying role of the main language of the territory were made by the authors Lorenz E., Bonnie RJ, Feindt K., Rahbari S., Siemund P. In their opinion, the language of the majority, in this specific study -German, shows a strong influence on both background languages (Russian and Turkish) due to its dominant status [5].…”