Maria Polinsky - International Institute

Report
What linguistic advantages do
heritage language speakers
have over second language
learners?
Oksana Laleko (SUNY New Paltz)
Maria Polinsky (Harvard)
Seventh Heritage Language Research Institute
Chicago, 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 exposure
O 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 pragmatics
O 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
fish-TOP
tai-ga
oisii.
J
red snapper-NOM delicious
‘Speaking of fish, red snapper is delicious’
b. Sayngsen-un yene-ka
fish-TOP
salmon-NOM
‘Speaking of fish, salmon is delicious.’
massissta.
delicious
K
What we learned last year
O Topic marker: establishes discourse
relations
(1) a. Sakana-wa
fish-TOP
tai-ga
oisii.
J
red snapper-NOM delicious
‘Speaking of fish, red snapper is delicious’
b. Sayngsen-un yene-ka
fish-TOP
salmon-NOM
‘Speaking of fish, salmon is delicious.’
massissta.
delicious
K
What we learned last year
O Nominative case marker: marks the
syntactic subject
(1) a. Sakana-wa
fish-TOP
tai-ga
oisii.
J
red snapper-NOM delicious
‘Speaking of fish, red snapper is delicious’
b. Sayngsen-un yene-ka
fish-TOP
salmon-NOM
‘Speaking of fish, salmon is delicious.’
massissta.
delicious
K
What we learned last year
O 1) 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
2008, Langacker 2000, Reuland 2011)
(Givón 1979, Koornneef
What we learned last year
O 2) The level of proficiency in the HL
matters
O Higher-proficiency HLSs (Korean) > L2
learners
O Lower-proficiency HLSs (Japanese) = L2
learners
What we learned last year
O 3) Advantages exhibited by the higher-
proficiency HLSs over L2 learners are
selective
O Korean HLSs were overall target-like on all
conditions involving NOM (syntax),
O but non-target-like on TOP omissions
(discourse)
New Questions
O What other areas of linguistic knowledge
might reveal selective differences
between HLSs and L2 learners?
New Questions
O 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 honorification
O Word order variations (scrambling)
O Use of classifiers
Phenomena to be discussed
O Higher-proficiency HLSs (Korean)
O Word order variations
O Use of classifiers
Japanese
Subject Honorification
O Japanese is rich in linguistic encoding of formality;
multiple “polite forms” (Shibatani, 1990; Iwasaki, 2002)
O Subject Honorification (SH): a formal (morphosyntactic) way of marking the speaker’s respect for
individuals who hold a socially high rank
O Cf. agreement in other lgs
Subject Honorification
O 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 Honorification
O Individuals judged to be worthy of
respect (Harada, 1976; Shibatani, 1977).
(3) a.
b.
Gakusei-ga
Mary-o
student-NOM
Mary-ACC
‘The student waits for Mary’
matu.
wait
Sensei-ga
Mary-o
o-mati-ni naru.
teacher-NOM
Mary-ACC HON-wait-HON
‘The teacher waits for Mary’
Subject Honorification
O Individuals judged to be worthy of
respect (Harada, 1976; Shibatani, 1977).
(3) a.
b.
Gakusei-ga
Mary-o
student-NOM
Mary-ACC
‘The student waits for Mary’
matu.
wait
Sensei-ga
Mary-o
o-mati-ni naru.
teacher-NOM
Mary-ACC HON-wait-HON
‘The teacher waits for Mary’
Subject Honorification
O In addition to pragmatic appropriateness,
appropriate use of SH requires the linguistic
knowledge of
O syntax
O morphology
O phonology
SH: Syntactic Knowledge
O SH only applies to subjects!
O Hence often used as a formal linguistic
diagnostic of subjecthood in Japanese
SH: Syntactic Knowledge
(4) a.
b.
* Gakusei-ga kouchousensei-o
Student–NOM school president-ACC
‘A student hit the school president.’
o-naguri-ni naru
HON-hit-HON
* 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
consonants
O verb root ends in a vowel: o-VERB-ni
yame ‘quit’  o-yame-ni naru
O verb root ends in a consonant: o-VERB-i-ni
kak ‘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 phonology
O syntax
O morphology
SH: Questions for Our Study
O In what areas, if any, might HLSs exhibit
advantages over L2ers?
The Study: Participants
Language
Group
JAPANESE
L2
HL
(N=31)
(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: Procedure
O Compared with native monolingual
controls (baseline speakers), N=13
O Ratings elicited on Amazon Mechanical
Turk
The Study: Procedure
O Sentences rated on a 1-5 scale in the
following conditions:
O Acceptable use
O Phonological violations
O Syntactic violations
O Morphological violations
Results
O Both HLSs and L2 learners differed
significantly from the baseline controls in
all conditions
Results
O For L2 learners, all aspects of the SH
construction were equally hard
O For HLSs, not all aspects of the SH
construction were equally hard
Results: L2
Results: L2
no difference
Results: Heritage
Results: HL (Japanese)
no difference
Results: Heritage
ratings more accurate
Subject Honorifics: Summary
O For HLSs, phonological constraints
appear to be the least difficult aspect
of the Subject Honorification
construction
O morphology and syntax more problematic
Subject Honorifics: Summary
O Findings consistent with existing
studies involving low-proficiency HLSs
(Au, Knightly, Jun, & Oh, 2002)
Subject Honorifics: Summary
O Overall, low-proficiency HLS of
Japanese as a group do not
demonstrate apparent advantage
over L2 learners
Subject Honorifics: Summary
O Possibly because the SH construction
is mostly attested in formal registers,
to which HLSs receive the least
amount of exposure
O HL =“home language,” informal colloquial
styles
Phenomena attested in
colloquial registers
O Word order variations (scrambling)
O syntactic constraints
O Use of classifiers
O semantic and syntactic constraints
Scrambling
Taro bought comics at a bookstore.
(6) a.
b.
c.
Taroo-ga honya-de
manga-o
Taro-NOM bookstore-at comic-ACC
Taroo-ga manga-o honya-de
Taro-NOM comic-ACC bookstore-at
Manga-o honya-de
Taroo-ga
Comic-ACC bookstore-at Taro-NOM
katta.
bought
katta.
bought
katta.
bought
Constraints on scrambling
O The 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
With Taro-NOM Hanako math-ACC
‘Taro studied math with Hanako.’
benkyou-shi-ta
study -do-past.
Question for our study
Do HLSs and L2 learners have the
syntactic knowledge that would allow them
to recognize violations on scrambling in
Japanese?
Scrambling: Results
Scrambling: Results
significant difference
Scrambling: Results
no difference
Scrambling: Summary
O 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)
Classifiers
O 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”
Classifiers
O A sentence containing a numeral must
also contain the appropriate classifier:
(6) a.
b.
San-nin-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita.
three-CL-GEN child-NOM house-to came
‘Three children came to my house”
Taroo-ga san-mai-no kami-o katta.
Taro-NOM three-CL-GEN paper-ACC bought
“Taro bought three sheets of paper”
Classifiers
O A sentence containing a numeral must
also contain the appropriate classifier:
(7) a.
b.
# San-mai-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita.
three-CL-GEN child-NOM house-to came
‘Three children came to my house”
# Taroo-ga san-nin-no kami-o katta.
Taro-NOM three-CL-GEN paper-ACC bought
“Taro bought three sheets of paper”
Classifiers
O In addition to semantic constraints on the
use of classifiers, there are syntactic
constrains governing their use
Classifiers
(8) a.
b.
San-nin-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita.
three-GEN child-NOM house-to came
‘Three children came to my house’
Kodomo-ga san-nin uti-e kita.
child-NOM three house-to came
‘Three children came to my house’
Classifiers
(8) a.
b.
San-nin-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita.
three-GEN child-NOM house-to came
‘Three children came to my house’
Kodomo-ga san-nin uti-e kita.
child-NOM three house-to came
‘Three children came to my house’
Quantifier Float
Classifiers
O Quantifier Float is subject to syntactic
constraints (Fukuda and Polinsky, 2013 and further references
therein):
(9) a.
b.
Gakusei-ga san-nin
[VP sake-o nonda].
student-NOM three
sake-ACC drank
‘Three students drank sake’
*Gakusei-ga
[VP sake-o san-nin nonda]
student-NOM
sake-ACC three drank
‘Three students drank sake’
Classifiers: Main Question
O How do HLSs and L2 learners of
Japanese perform with respect to
semantic and syntactic violations on the
use of classifiers?
Classifiers: Results
Classifiers: Results
more accurate
Classifiers: Results
O Both groups diverged from the L1
controls (HLS = L2)
O no apparent advantage of being heritage
O Both groups had more difficulties with
semantics than with syntax
Summary so far
O Difficulties are not equal
O discourse > syntax (HLS and L2)
O semantics > syntax (HLS and L2)
O morphosyntax > phonology (HLS)
Summary so far
O Low-proficiency HLSs do not exhibit
apparent advantage over L2 learners
O Statistically indistinguishable from L2
(classifiers) or outperformed by L2
(scrambling)
O What 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 study
O Do HLSs and L2 learners have the
syntactic knowledge that would allow
them to recognize violations on
scrambling in Korean?
Scrambling: Results
Scrambling: Results
significant difference
Scrambling: Results
no difference
Scrambling: Results
O L1 and HL groups exhibit a significant
difference (p < 0.05) between
grammatical and ungrammatical
conditions
Scrambling: Results
O L2 group are not sensitive to syntactic
violations on scrambling (p > 0.05)
Scrambling: Results
O High-proficiency HLS > L2 on syntax
O What about semantics?
O Let’s consider classifiers
Classifiers
O Same design as in Japanese
O Main questions:
O Is there a difference between HLSs vs.
L2?
O Is there a difference in processing syntax
vs. semantics?
Classifiers: Results
Classifiers: Results
significant difference
Classifiers: Results
no difference
Classifiers: Results
Classifiers: Results
different
Classifiers: Results
different
same
Classifiers: Results
O 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: Results
O L2 speakers:
O Non-target-like knowledge of classifiers
O Syntax is easier than semantics
Summary
O 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 picture
O 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]
Summary
O What advantages do HLSs exhibit over L2
learners?
O Phonology (Japanese)
O Semantics (Korean)
O Syntax?
O Japanese HLS < L2 or HLS = L2
O Korean HLS > L2
Summary
O 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)

similar documents