Input effects across domains: The case of Greek subjects in child heritage language

Abstract

A recurring question in the literature of heritage language acquisition, and more generally of bilingual acquisition, is whether all linguistic domains are sensitive to input reduction and to cross-linguistic influence and to what extent. According to the Interface Hypothesis, morphosyntactic phenomena regulated by discourse–pragmatic conditions are more likely to lead to non-native outcomes than strictly syntactic aspects of the language (Sorace, 2011). To test this hypothesis, we examined subject realization and placement in Greek–English bilingual children learning Greek as a heritage language in North America and investigated whether the amount of heritage language use can predict their performance in syntax–discourse and narrow syntactic contexts. Results indicated two deviations from the Interface Hypothesis: First, subject realization (a syntax–discourse phenomenon) was found to be largely unproblematic. Second, subject placement was affected not only in syntax–discourse structures but also in narrow syntactic structures, though to a lesser degree, suggesting that the association between the interface status of subject placement and its sensitivity to heritage language use among children heritage speakers is gradient rather than categorical.

Case marking and word order in Greek heritage children

“…Importantly, when chronological age was added into the model along with the other background variables, it was no longer significant, and HL use explained more variance in the data. This finding is line with other recent studies with HL children that found that HL use can override chronological age effects in heritage contexts (Daskalaki et al, 2018;Gagarina & Klassert, 2018). Given that in a HL context, the degree of HL use does not necessarily increase with age, HL use was a more reliable predictor than age.…”

Effects of parental input quality in child heritage language acquisition

“…For an overview of the role of input in minority contexts, see Unsworth, 2018) Predictions With respect to the first two questions, we predicted that the bilingual heritage groups would produce more preverbal subjects than the monolingual groups. This is in line with existing studies showing that bilingual populations speaking a free and a rigid SVO word order language combination tend to extend the use of preverbal subjects in ungrammatical or pragmatically nonfelicitous contexts (for Greek-English bilinguals, see Sorace, 2007 andDaskalaki et al, 2018; for Spanish-English bilinguals, see Cuza 2012Cuza , 2016. Furthermore, we predicted an effect of generation for both children and parents, in view of the studies suggesting that accuracy decreases with generation (Montrul, Bhatt, and Girju, 2015;Montrul and Sánchez-Walker, 2013;Pascual y Cabo, 2018;Silva-Corvalán, 1991).…”

“…More recently, Daskalaki et al (2018) replicated Argyri and Sorace's (2007) production task with a different population: bilingual children learning Greek as a heritage language in North America (Western Canada and New York City). Whereas Argyri and Sorace (2007) examined the role of input through a between-groups comparison, Daskalaki et al studied the role of language use (measured as the mean proportion of Greek received and produced by the children in the home environment) as a continuous variable.…”

“…Using the same sentence completion task that was designed to trigger subject placement in WF and EI (two contexts where postverbal subjects are preferred (WF) or required (EI) in the monolingual variety), we analyzed data not only from heritage and monolingual children, but also from the parents of these two groups. The child data were drawn from the Canadian subsample tested in Daskalaki et al (2018) and were re-analyzed against an age-matched monolingual control group. 1 The parental data (for the Canadian subsample) were collected during the same period, but were only analyzed later on for the purposes of the present study.…”

“…For question 3, maternal input quality was chosen over the paternal input quality, for practical reasons (fewer fathers participated in our study), but also because the existing literature suggests that mothers are more likely to behave in "childcentered" ways, such as to talk more and to use supportive rather than directive language with their children (for an overview, see Pierce and Genesee, 2014). Finally, the children's general proficiency and the mothers' heritage input quantity were treated as potentially contributing variables, in view of studies showing that they can both be associated with the outcome of heritage language acquisition (on the role of general proficiency in the HL, see Montrul and Rodríguez-Louro, 2006; Pascual y Cabo, 2018; and Rothman 2009b; on the role of parental input quantity in the HL, see Daskalaki et al, 2018;and Gathercole and Thomas, 2009. For an overview of the role of input in minority contexts, see Unsworth, 2018) Predictions With respect to the first two questions, we predicted that the bilingual heritage groups would produce more preverbal subjects than the monolingual groups.…”