Heritage language and linguistic theory

Abstract

This paper discusses a common reality in many cases of multilingualism: heritage speakers, or unbalanced bilinguals, simultaneous or sequential, who shifted early in childhood from one language (their heritage language) to their dominant language (the language of their speech community). To demonstrate the relevance of heritage linguistics to the study of linguistic competence more broadly defined, we present a series of case studies on heritage linguistics, documenting some of the deficits and abilities typical of heritage speakers, together with the broader theoretical questions they inform. We consider the reorganization of morphosyntactic feature systems, the reanalysis of atypical argument structure, the attrition of the syntax of relativization, and the simplification of scope interpretations; these phenomena implicate diverging trajectories and outcomes in the development of heritage speakers. The case studies also have practical and methodological implications for the study of multilingualism. We conclude by discussing more general concepts central to linguistic inquiry, in particular, complexity and native speaker competence.

Language Mixing and Diachronic Change: American Norwegian Noun Phrases Then and Now

“…This has been suggested in studies of other HL, e.g., heritage Russian [18,79], heritage Spanish [80], and heritage German [81], all of which conclude that the heritage language in question seems to have fundamentally different structures than its native counterpart. Polinsky [18] suggests that the changes she finds between heritage and non-heritage speakers of Russian, and between children and adult HS, are the result of a structural reanalysis of the heritage grammar.…”

“…In addition, changes in heritage grammars are often considered to be the result of incomplete acquisition or attrition [14,[16][17][18]80]. Incomplete acquisition suggests that the HS, due to being introduced to the dominant language, experience a delay or break in the acquisition of the heritage language, hindering them from developing it in the same way as monolingual speakers of that variety [16,17].…”

Differences in use without deficiencies in competence: passives in the Turkish and German of Turkish heritage speakers in Germany

“…More recent work has challenged this assumption (e.g., Kupisch 2013; Kupisch and Rothman 2016;Pascual y Cabo 2013; Pascual y Cabo and Rothman 2012; Pires and Rothman 2009;Putnam and Sánchez 2013;Rothman 2007;Scontras, Fuchs and Polinsky 2015). These newer approaches argue that differential ultimate attainment in the HL is not a case of incomplete acquisition, but rather reflects alternative developmental paths that arise because of the variation HSs confront related to key factors that contribute to monolingual conformity.…”

Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: When two systems meet

“…These are simultaneous or sequential unbalanced bilinguals, whose home (minority) language is the weaker of the two (cf. Rothman 2009;Benmamoun et al 2013a;b;Kupisch 2013;Scontras et al 2015;Kupisch & Rothman 2016;Montrul 2016). Heritage languages, whose speakers are numerous and widely available, present a unique testbed for issues of acquisition, maintenance/robustness, and transfer within linguistic theory.…”