Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T03:02:09.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-linguistic similarities and differences in bilingual acquisition and attrition: Possessives and double definiteness in Norwegian heritage language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2018

MERETE ANDERSSEN Open the ORCID record for MERETE ANDERSSEN [Opens in a new window] ,
BJÖRN LUNDQUIST  and
MARIT WESTERGAARD
MERETE ANDERSSEN*
Affiliation:
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
BJÖRN LUNDQUIST
Affiliation:
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
MARIT WESTERGAARD
Affiliation:
UiT The Arctic University of Norway NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology
*
Address for correspondence: Merete Anderssen, Department of Language and Culture, Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education, UiT – The Arctic University of Norway, 9037 Tromsø, Norwaymerete.anderssen@uit.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates possessives and modified definite DPs in a corpus of heritage Norwegian spoken in the US. Both constructions involve variation in Norwegian – two word orders for possessives (pre- and postnominal) and two exponents of definiteness (a prenominal determiner and a suffix) – while English only has one of these options. The findings show that a large majority of the heritage speakers overuse the structures that are maximally different from English structures, i.e., postnominal possessors and single suffixal definiteness marking. We argue that their production pattern is the result of cross-linguistic overcorrection (CLO). In addition, a small group of the heritage speakers show signs of cross-linguistic influence (CLI) and overuse the English-like structures in both constructions. These speakers also have a slightly lower proficiency in the heritage language. Our findings are discussed in terms of previous research on monolingual and Norwegian–English bilingual children.

Keywords

NorwegianEnglishdouble definitenesspossessivesbilingualsheritage languageattritioncross-linguistic similaritycross-linguistic differencecross-linguistic influencecross-linguistic overcorrectioncomplexityfrequency
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 21 , Special Issue 4: Recent developments in child bilingualism: Cross-linguistic influence, incomplete acquisition, critical periods and the advantages of bilingualism , August 2018 , pp. 748 - 764
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*This research was supported by a grant from the Research Council of Norway for the project MiMS (Micro-variation in Multilingual Acquisition & Attrition Situations), project number 250857. We would like to thank Bror-Magnus Sviland Strand and Alexander Pfaff for help with the heritage language data. We also thank three anonymous reviewers and the editors for a number of helpful suggestions.

References

Abu-Akel, A., & Bailey, A. L. (2000). Acquisition and use of ‘a’ and ‘the’ in English by young children. In Howell, S. C., Fish, S. A. & Keith-Lucas, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 45–57. Somerville, Mass: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Anderssen, M. (2006). The acquisition of compositional definiteness in Norwegian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Anderssen, M. (2007). The acquisition of compositional definiteness. In Anderssen, M. & Westergaard, M. (eds.), Papers from the Language Acquisition Workshop, SCL 2006 Nordlyd, 34, 252–275.Google Scholar
Anderssen, M. (2010). Tidlig tilegnelse av bestemt artikkel i norsk [Early acquisition of the definite article in Norwegian]. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift, 28, 153–172.Google Scholar
Anderssen, M. (2012). A spanning approach to the acquisition of definiteness in Norwegian. Iberia: an international journal of theoretical linguistics, 4, 1–34.Google Scholar
Anderssen, M., & Westergaard, M. (2010). Frequency and economy in the acquisition of variable word order. Lingua, 120, 2569–2588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, M., & Bentzen, K. (2013). Cross-linguistic influence outside the syntax-pragmatics interface: A case study of the acquisition of definiteness. Studia Linguistica, 67, 82–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Google Scholar
Bentzen, K. (2000). I like it not like you like it: A case study of language transfer in bilingual first language acquisition. Master's Thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Bernardini, P. (2003). Child and adult acquisition of word order. In Müller, N. (ed.), (In)vulnerable domains in multilingualism, pp. 41–84. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnacker, U. (2004). Nominal Phrases. In Josefsson, G., Platzack, C. & Håkansson, G. (eds.), The acquisition of Swedish grammar, pp. 195–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., & Giusti, G. (2010). The acquisition of adjectival ordering in Italian. In Anderssen, M., Bentzen, K. & Westergaard, M. (eds.), Variation in the input, pp. 65–93. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1990). Constraints on parameter setting: A grammatical analysis of some acquisition stages in German child language. Language Acquisition, 1, 361–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Eisenbeiss, S., & Vainikka, A. (1994). The seeds of structure: A syntactic analysis of the acquisition of case marking. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B., D. (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (vol. 8), pp. 85–118. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Eisenbeiss, S., & Penke, M. (1996). Lexical learning in early syntactic development. In Clahsen, H. (ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition: Empirical findings, theoretical considerations and crosslinguistic comparisons (vol. 14), pp. 129–159. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Duffield, N. (2008). Roots and rogues in German child language. Language Acquisition, 15, 225–269.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science 15, 409–414.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1953). The Norwegian language in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. (2015). The Corpus of American Norwegian Speech (CANS). In Megyesi, B. (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics, NODALIDA 2015, pp. 297–300. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B., Priestley, J., Hagen, K., Åfarli, T. A. & Vangsnes, Ø. A. (2009). The Nordic Dialect Corpus - an advanced research tool. In Jokinen, K. & Bick, E. (eds.), NEALT Proceedings Series 4, pp. 73–80.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B., & Salmons, J. (2015). The study of Germanic heritage languages in the Americas. In Johannessen, J. B. & Salmons, J. (eds.), Germanic heritage languages in North America, pp. 1–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Julien, M. (2005). Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian perspective. [Linguistics Today 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T., Anderssen, M., Bohnacker, U., & Snape, N. (2009). Article acquisition in English, German, Norwegian and Swedish. In Leow, R. P., Campos, H. & Lardiere, D. (eds.), Little words: Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and acquisition (Proceedings of The Georgetown University Round Table, GURT 2007), pp. 223–236. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T. (2014). Adjective placement in simultaneous bilinguals (German-Italian) and the concept of cross-linguistic overcorrection. Bilingualim: Language and Cognition, 17, 222–233.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T., & Westergaard, M. (2016). Grammatical gender in American Norwegian heritage language: Stability or attrition? Frontiers in Psychology, 7:344, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00344. Available at http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00344/full.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lødrup, H. (2012). Forholdet mellom prenominale og postnominale possessive uttrykk [The relationship between prenominal and postnominal possessive expressions]. In Enger, H.-O., Faarlund, J. T. & Vannebo, K. I. (eds.), Grammatikk, bruk og norm [Grammar, use and norm], pp. 189–203. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Lødrup, H. (2011). Norwegian possessive pronouns: Phrases, words or suffixes? In Butt, M. & Holloway King, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, pp. 383–403. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Martin, C. D., Dering, B., Thomas, E. M., & Thierry, G. (2009). Brain potentials reveal semantic priming in both the ‘active’ and the ‘non-attended’ language of early bilinguals. NeuroImage, 47, 326–333. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.04.025Google Scholar
Namboodiripad, S., Kim, D., & Kim, G. (unpublished manuscript). English dominant Korean speakers show reduced flexibility in constituent order. UC San Diego.Google Scholar
Norsk talespråkskorpus [NOTA corpus] – the Oslo part, The text lab, ILN, University of Oslo. http://www.tekstlab.uio.no/nota/oslo/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2008). Gender under incomplete acquisition: Heritage speakers’ knowledge of noun categorization. Heritage Language Journal, 6, 40–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, M., & Sánchez, L. (2013). What's so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? A prolegomenon to modeling heritage grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 478–508.Google Scholar
Rodina, Y., & Westergaard, M. (2017). Grammatical gender in bilingual Norwegian–Russian acquisition: The role of input and transparency. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 197–214.Google Scholar
Rizzi, S., Arnaus Gil, L., Repetto, V., Müller, J., & Müller, N. (2013). Adjective placement in bilingual Romance-German and Romance-Romance children. Studia Linguistica, 67, 123–147.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (2007). What frequency can do and what it can't. In Gülzow, I. & Gagarina, N. (eds.), Frequency effects in language acquisition: Defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept, [Studies on Language Acquisition], pp. 23–48. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Santelmann, L. (1998). The acquisition of definite determiners in child Swedish: Metrical and discourse influences on functional morphology. In Greenhill, A., Hughes, M., Littlefield, H. & Walsh, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 651–662. Somerville, Mass: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. (1990). D-projections and N-projections in Norwegian. In Mascaró, J. & Nespor, M. (eds.), Grammar in progress, pp. 419–431. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based approach to child language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2011). The acquisition of German: Introducing organic grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangsnes, Ø. A. (1999). The identification of functional architecture. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. (2009). The Acquisition of word order: Micro-cues, information structure and economy. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 145]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. (2014). Linguistic variation and micro-cues in first language acquisition. Linguistic Variation, 14, 26–45.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M., & Bentzen, K. (2007). The (non-) effect of input frequency on the acquisition of word order in Norwegian embedded clauses. In Gülzow, I. & Gagarina, N. (eds.), Frequency effects in language acquisition: Defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept, [Studies on Language Acquisition], pp. 271–306. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M., & Anderssen, M. (2015). Word order variation in Norwegian possessive constructions: Bilingual acquisition and attrition. In Johannessen, J. B. & Salmons, J. (eds.), Germanic heritage languages in North America: Acquisition, attrition and change [Studies in Language Variation], pp. 21–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yager, L. Hellmold, N., Joo, H.-A, Putnam, M., Rossi, E., Stafford, C., & Salmons, J. (2015). New structural patterns in moribund grammar: Case marking in heritage German. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 : 1716, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01716. Available at https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01716/full.Google Scholar