Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T14:49:29.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Contact Linguistics and Heritage Languages

from Part II - Research Approaches to Heritage Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2021

By
Itxaso Rodríguez-Ordóñez  and
Lorena Sainzmaza-Lecanda
Edited by
Silvina Montrul  and
Maria Polinsky
Silvina Montrul
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Maria Polinsky
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

This chapter presents an overview of heritage speakers’ linguistic outcomes with the goal of bringing some answers to longstanding debates in contact linguistics. Of special interest are mechanisms of contact-induced change such as convergence and grammaticalization, the role of transfer and priming in those processes, and whether or not these processes lead to simplification or complexification in heritage grammars. Overall, the evidence in the literature favors the argument that syntactic material rarely gets transferred, and that patterns of convergence toward the dominant language are a byproduct of other mechanisms. Contrary to proponents of the theory that social factors take a secondary role in contact-induced grammaticalization, it has also revealed that contact-induced grammaticalization processes in heritage grammars are dependent on the social dynamics of the community. While priming may lead to converge, such effects are also heavily dependent on the social dynamics of the heritage speakers. Results also indicate that patterns of simplification and complexification are intrinsically linked to usage. The discussion makes a call for more work considering intersubjective factors in the study of heritage grammars, in an attempt to better understand the relationship between linguistic systems and social structures.

Keywords

contact-induced changeconvergenceprimingsimplificationcomplexificationsalienceintersubjectivity
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Heritage Languages and Linguistics , pp. 471 - 498
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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.)

References

Aalberse, S. and Moro, F. R.. 2014. Stability in Chinese and Malay Heritage Languages as a Source of Divergence. In Braunmüller, Kurt, Höder, Steffen, and Kühl, Karoline (eds.), Stability and Divergence in Language Contact. Factors and Mechanisms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 141–161.Google Scholar
Aalberse, S., Backus, A., and Myusken, P.. 2019. Heritage Languages: A Language Contact Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abel, J. and Babel, M.. 2017. Cognitive Load Reduces Perceived Linguistic Convergence between Dyads. Language and Speech 60(3), 479–502.Google Scholar
Adamou, E. 2013. Replicating Spanish estar in Mexican Romani. Linguistics 51(6), 1075–1105.Google Scholar
Avineri, N. 2017. Contested Stance Practices in Secular Yiddish Metalinguistic Communities: Negotiating Closeness and Distance. Journal of Jewish Languages 5(2), 174–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babel, A. (ed.) 2016. Awareness and Control in Sociolinguistic Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Babel, A. 2018. Between the Andes and the Amazon: Language and Social Meaning in Bolivia. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Backus, A. 2014. Towards a Usage-Based Account of Language Change: Implications of Contact Linguistics for Linguistic Theory. In Nicolaï, Robert (ed.), Questioning Language Contact. Leiden: Brill, 91–118.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., and Polinsky, M.. 2013. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers: Opportunities and Challenges for Linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 39(3–4), 129–181.Google Scholar
Bruyn, A. 2009. Grammaticalization in Creoles: Ordinary and Not-so-ordinary Cases. Studies in Language 33(2), 312–337.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W.. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. 2015. Null Subjects. In Fábregas, Antonio, Mateu, Jaume, and Putnam, Michael (eds.), Contemporary Linguistic Parameters. London: Bloomsbury Press, 201–226.Google Scholar
Dahl, O. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doğruöz, A. S. and Backus, A.. 2009. Innovative Constructions in Dutch Turkish: An Assessment of Ongoing Contact-induced Change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(1), 41–63.Google Scholar
Erker, D. 2017. The Limits of Named Language Varieties and the Role of Social Salience in Dialectal Contact: The Case of Spanish in the United States. Language and Linguistics Compass 11(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T.. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T.. 2010. Contact and Grammaticalization in Hickey, Raymond (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 86–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, M. F., and Walker, J. 2010. Ethnolects and the city: Ethnic orientation and linguistic variation in Toronto English. Language variation and change 22 (1), 37–67.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C.. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Irizarri von Schulten, P. 2016. Spanish as a Heritage Language in the Netherlands: A Cognitive Linguistic Exploration. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Irvine, J. and Gal, S.. 2000. Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation. In Kroskrity, P. V. (ed.), Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 35–83.Google Scholar
Jacob, G., Safak, D. F., Demir, O., and Kirkici, B.. 2019. Preserved Morphological Processing in Heritage Speakers: A Masked Priming Study on Turkish. Second Language Research 35(2), 173–194.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. and Larsson, I.. 2015. Complexity Matters: On Gender Agreement in Heritage Scandinavian. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1842.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. and Larsson, I.. 2018. Stability and Change in Grammatical Gender: Pronouns in Heritage Scandinavian. Journal of Language Contact 11(3), 441–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, P. and Williams, A.. 2002. “Salience” as an Explanatory Factor in Language Change: Evidence from Dialect Levelling in Urban England. In Jones, M. and Esch, E. (eds.), Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-linguistic Factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 81–110.Google Scholar
Kim, J. Y. 2019. Discrepancy between Heritage Speakers’ Use of Suprasegmental Cues in the Perception and Production of Spanish Lexical Stress. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1–18.Google Scholar
Kootstra, G. J. and Doedens, W. J.. 2016. How Multiple Sources of Experience Influence Bilingual Syntactic Choice: Immediate and Cumulative Cross-language Effects of Structural Priming, Verb Bias, and Language Dominance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19(4), 710–732.Google Scholar
Kootstra, G. J. and Muysken, P.. 2017. Cross-Linguistic Priming in Bilinguals: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Language Processing, Acquisition, and Change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20(2), 215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroskrity, P. V. 2004. Language Ideologies. In Duranti, A. (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 496–517.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T. and Rothman, J.. 2018. Terminology Matters! Why Difference Is Not Incompleteness and How Early Child Bilinguals Are Heritage Speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(5): 564–582.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T., Akpinar, D., and Stöhr, A.. 2013. Gender Assignment and Gender Agreement in Adult Bilinguals and Second Language Learners of French. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3(2), 150–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusters, W. 2003. Linguistic Complexity, the Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
Laleko, O. 2018. What Is Difficult about Grammatical Gender? Evidence from Heritage Russian. Journal of Language Contact 11(2), 233–267.Google Scholar
Levon, E. and Buchstaller, I.. 2015. Perception, Cognition, and Linguistic Structure: The Effect of Linguistic Modularity and Cognitive Style on Sociolinguistic Processing. Language Variation and Change 27(3), 319–348.Google Scholar
Lively, S., Pisoni, D., Summers, V., and Bernacki, R.. 1993. Effects of Cognitive Workload on Speech Production: Acoustic Analyses and Perceptual Consequences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93(5), 2962–2973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loebell, H. and Bock, K.. 2003. Structural Priming across Languages. Linguistics 41(5), 791–824.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. and Westergaard, M.. 2016. Grammatical Gender in American Norwegian Heritage Language: Stability or Attrition? Frontiers in Psychology 7, 344.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. and Yip, V.. 2009. Contact-induced Grammaticalization: Evidence from Bilingual Acquisition. Studies in Language 33(2), 366–395.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. and Sakel, J.. 2007. Investigating the Mechanisms of Pattern Replication in Language Convergence. Studies in Language 31(4), 829–865.Google Scholar
Mayr, R., Morris, J., Mennen, I., and Williams, R.. 2017. Disentangling the Effects of Long-term Language Contact and Individual Bilingualism: The Case of Monophthongs in Welsh and English. International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3), 245–267.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. 2001. The World’s Simplest Grammars Are Creole Grammars. Linguistic Typology 5(2–3), 125–166.Google Scholar
Miestamo, M. 2008. Grammatical Complexity in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. In Miestamo, M., Sinnemäki, K., and Karlsson, F. (eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 23–41.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2004. Subject and Object Expression in Spanish Heritage Speakers: A Case of Morphosyntactic Convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7(2), 125–142.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2008. Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2009. Knowledge of Tense-Aspect and Mood in Spanish Heritage Speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 13(2), 239–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. 2016. The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2018. Heritage Language Development: Connecting the Dots. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(5), 530–546.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. and Perpiñán, S.. 2011. Assessing Differences and Similarities between Instructed Heritage Language Learners and L2 Learners in Their Knowledge of Spanish Tense-Aspect and Mood (TAM) Morphology. Heritage Language Journal 8(1), 90–133.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. and Sánchez-Walker, N.. 2013. Differential Object Marking in Child and Adult Spanish Heritage Speakers. Language Acquisition 20(2), 109–132.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Foote, R., and Perpiñán, S.. 2008. Gender Agreement in Adult Second Language Learners and Spanish Heritage Speakers: The Effects of Age and Context of Acquisition. Language Learning 58(3), 503–553.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., de la Fuenta, I., Davidson, J., and Foote, R.. 2013. The Role of Experience in the Acquisition and Production of Diminutives and Gender in Spanish: Evidence from L2 Learners and Heritage Speakers. Second Language Research 29(1), 87–118.Google Scholar
Moro, F. R. 2017. Aspectual Distinctions in Dutch-Ambon Malay Bilingual Heritage Speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 21(2), 178–193.Google Scholar
Moro, F. R. 2018. Divergence in Heritage Ambon Malay in the Netherlands: The Role of Social-Psychological Factors. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(4), 395–411.Google Scholar
Nagy, N. 2018. Linguistic Attitudes and Contact Effects in Toronto’s Heritage Languages: A Variationist Sociolinguistic Investigation. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(4), 429–446.Google Scholar
Nance, C. 2020. Bilingual Language Exposure and the Peer Group: Acquiring Phonetics and Phonology in Gaelic Medium Education. International Journal of Bilingualism 24(2), 360–375.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Kwak, H-Y., Lee, O.-S., and Lee, M.. 2011. An Emergentist Perspective on Heritage Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(2), 223–245.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R. 2016. The Linguistic Competence of Second-Generation Bilinguals: A Critique of “Incomplete Acquisition.” In Tortora, C., den Dikken, M., Montoya, I., and O'Neill, T. (eds.), Romance Linguistics 2013: Selected Papers from the 43rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 301–329.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R. and Zentella, A. C.. 2012. Spanish in New York: Language Contact, Dialectal Leveling, and Structural Continuity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2008. Russian Gender under Incomplete Acquisition. The Heritage Language Journal 6(1), 40–71.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2018. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. and Levey, S.. 2010. Contact-Induced Grammatical Change: A Cautionary Tale. In Auer, Peter and Enrich Schmidt, Jürgen (eds.), Language and Space – An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation: Volume 1 – Theories and Methods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 391–419.Google Scholar
Preston, D. 2004. Three Kinds of Sociolinguistics: A Psycholinguistic Perspective. In Fought, C. (ed.), Sociolinguistic Variation: Critical Reflections. New York: Oxford University Press, 140–158.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. T. and Sánchez, L.. 2013. What’s So Incomplete about Incomplete Acquisition?: A Prolegomenon to Modeling Heritage Language Grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3(4), 478–508.Google Scholar
Rácz, P. 2013. Salience in Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, E., Vryenkova, A., and Polinsky, M.. 2016. Linguistic Creativity in Heritage Speakers. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Rehbein, J. and Karakoç, B.. 2004. On Contact-induced Change of Turkish Aspects: Languaging in Bilingual Discourse. In Dabelsteen, Christine and Jogersen, Normann (eds.), Languaging and Language Practices (Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism 36). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, 125–149.Google Scholar
Rodina, Y. and Westergaard, M.. 2017. Grammatical Gender in Bilingual Norwegian-Russian Acquisition: The Role of Input and Transparency. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20(1), 197–214.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Ordóñez, I. 2017. Reexamining Differential Object Marking as a Linguistic Contact-phenomenon in Gernika Basque. Journal of Language Contact 10(2), 318–352.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Ordóñez, I. 2019. The Role of Linguistic Ideologies in Language Contact Situations. Language and Linguistic Compass: e12351.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Ordóñez, I. (2021). The Role of Social Meaning in Contact-Induced Variation among New Speakers of Basque. Journal of Sociolinguistics [Online first].Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Ordóñez, I. and Sainzmaza-Lacanda, L.. 2018. Bilingualism Effects in Basque Subject Pronoun Expression: Evidence from L2 Basque. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8(5), 523–560.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. 2002. Linguistic Outcomes of Language Contact. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter, and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, 338–368.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. and Köpke, B.. 2017. The Relevance of First Language Attrition To Theories of Bilingual Development. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7(6), 637–667.Google Scholar
Schwenter, S. 2014. Two Kinds of Differential Object Marking in Portuguese and Spanish. In Amaral, P. and Carvalho, A. M. (eds.), Portuguese–Spanish Interfaces: Diachrony, Synchrony and Contact. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 237–260.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Fuchs, M., and Polinsky, M.. 2015. Heritage Language and Linguistic Theory. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1545.Google Scholar
Sharma, D. and Sankaran, L.. 2011. Cognitive and Social Forces in Dialect Shift: Gradual Change in London Asian Speech. Language Variation and Change 23(3), 399–428.Google Scholar
Shin, N. 2014. Grammatical Complexification in Spanish in New York: 3sg Pronoun Expression and Verbal Morphology. Language Variation and Change 26(3), 303–330.Google Scholar
Showstack, R. 2017. Stancetaking and Language Ideologies in Heritage Language Learner Classroom Discourse. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 16(5), 271–294.Google Scholar
Siegel, J. 2008. The Emergence of Pidgins and Creole Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. 1986. Bilingualism and Language Change: The Extension of estar in Los Angeles Spanish. Language 62, 587–608.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. 1994. Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. 2008. The Limits of Convergence in Language Contact. Journal of Language Contact 2(1), 213–224.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. 2014. Bilingual Language Acquisition Spanish and English in the First Six Years (Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sodaci, H., Backus, A., and Kootstra, G. J.. 2019. Role of Structural Priming in Contact-Induced Change: Subject Pronoun Expression in L1 Turkish by Turkish-Dutch Bilinguals. PsyArchiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/2uxejGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. 2011. Pinning Down the Concept of “Interface” in Bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
Szeto, P. Y., Matthews, S., and Yip, V.. 2017. Multiple Correspondence and Typological Convergence in Contact-Induced Grammaticalization: Evidence from Cantonese-English Bilingual Development. Journal of Language Contact 10(3), 485–518.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. and Kaufman, T.. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Torres-Cacoullos, R. 2000. Grammaticization, Synchronic Variation, and Language Contact. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Torres-Cacoullos, R. and Travis, C.. 2018. Bilingualism in the Community: Code-switching and Grammars in Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Valdés, G. 2000. Introduction. Spanish for Native Speakers, Volume I. AATSP Professional Development Series Handbook for teachers K-16. New York: Harcourt College, 1–20.Google Scholar
Vergara-Wilson, D. and Dumont, J.. 2015. The Emergent Grammar of Bilinguals: The Spanish Verb hacer ‘do’ with a Bare English Infinitive. International Journal of Bilingualism 19(4), 444–458.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Yager, L., Hellmold, N., Joo, H-A., Putnam, M., Rossi, E., Stafford, C., and Salmons, J.. 2015. New Structural Patterns in Moribund Grammar: Case Marking in Heritage German. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1716.Google Scholar
Zenner, E., Backus, A., and Winter-Froemel, E. (eds.) 2019. Cognitive Contact Linguistics: Placing Usage, Meaning and Mind at the Core of Contact-Induced Variation and Change. Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Zyzik, E. 2019. Creativity and Conventionality in Heritage Speaker Bilingualism. Language Learning 70(1), 157–187.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×