Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:38:48.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The processing of input with differential object marking by heritage Spanish speakers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2019

Jill Jegerski  and
Irina A. Sekerina
Jill Jegerski*
Affiliation:
Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
Irina A. Sekerina
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, College of Staten Island, and Ph.D. Program in Linguistics, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, USA National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russian Federation
*
Author for correspondence: Jill Jegerski, jegerski@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Heritage Spanish speakers and adult immigrant bilinguals listened to wh-questions with the differential object marker a (quién/a quién ‘who/whoACC’) while their eye movements across four referent pictures were tracked. The heritage speakers were less accurate than the adult immigrants in their verbal responses to the questions, leaving objects unmarked for case at a rate of 18%, but eye movement data suggested that the two groups were similar in their comprehension, with both starting to look at the target picture at the same point in the question and identifying the target sooner with a quién ‘whoACC’ than with quién ‘who’ questions.

Keywords

Spanishheritage languagedifferential object markingVisual World Paradigmeyetracking
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , March 2020 , pp. 274 - 282
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Aissen, J (2003) Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 435–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arechabaleta-Regulez, B (2016) Online sensitivity to DOM violations by Spanish heritage speakers. Paper presented at the International Workshop of the Unity and Diversity in Differential Object Marking, Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Barr, DJ (2008) Analyzing ‘visual world’ eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4), 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, DJ, Levy, R, Scheepers, C and Tily, H (2013) Random-effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, E, Montrul, S and Polinsky, M (2010) White paper: Prolegomena to heritage linguistics. National Heritage Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, HK and Marian, V (2013) Parallel language activation and cognitive control during spoken word recognition in bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25(5), 547–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolger, PA and Zapata, GC (2011) Psycholinguistic approaches to language processing in heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal 8, 1–29.Google Scholar
Bossong, G (1991) Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Wanner, D and Kibbee, D (eds), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, F, Dell, GS and Bock, K (2006) Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113(2), 234–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLong, KA, Urbach, TP and Kutas, M (2005) Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 8, 1117–1121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Experiment Builder (Version 2.1) [Computer Software]. (2015) Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: SR Research.Google Scholar
Ellis, N and Collins, L (2009) Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function. The Modern Language Journal 93(3), 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ETL-500. [Apparatus]. (2003) Woburn, MA: ISCAN.Google Scholar
Eyelink 1000 [Apparatus]. (2005) Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: SR Research.Google Scholar
Federmeier, KD (2007) Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology 44(4), 491–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, KI and Forster, JC (2003) A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gass, SM (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hanna, J, Tanenhaus, MK and Trueswell, JC (2003) The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language 49, 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanne, S, Sekerina, I, Vasishth, S, Burchert, F and De Bleser, R (2011) Chance in agrammatic sentence comprehension: What does it really mean? Evidence from eye movements of German agrammatic aphasic patients. Aphasiology 25(2), 221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H (2015) Semantics and morphosyntax in predictive L2 sentence processing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 53(3), 277–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurtado, N, Grüter, T, Marchman, VA and Fernald, A (2014) Relative language exposure, processing efficiency and vocabulary in Spanish–English bilingual toddlers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(1), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, TF and Snider, NE (2013) Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime's prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition 127(1), 57–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jegerski, J (2018a) Psycholinguistic perspectives on Spanish as a heritage language. In Potowski, K (Ed.), Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage/minority language (pp. 221–234). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jegerski, J (2018b) The processing of the object marker a by heritage Spanish speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(6), 585–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E (2014) Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4(4), 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Y (2008) Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(4), 647–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Y, Scheepers, C and Altmann, GTM (2003) Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(1), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuznetsova, A, Brockoff, PB and Christensen, RHB (2014) lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). Available at CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest.Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, J (2010) A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Montrul, S (2004) Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition 7, 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S (2014) Structural changes in Spanish in the United States: Differential object marking in Spanish heritage speakers across generations. Lingua 151B, 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S (2016) The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S and Bowles, M (2009) Back to basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12, 363–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S and Sánchez-Walker, N (2013) Incomplete acquisition of differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition 20, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D (2013) Agreement reflexes of emerging optionality in heritage speaker Spanish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Pew Hispanic Center. (2016) Hispanic Population and Origin in Select U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/hispanic-population-in-select-u-s-metropolitan-areas/Google Scholar
Phillips, C and Ehrenhofer, L (2015) The role of language processing in language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5(4), 409–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Van Berkum, JJA, Brown, CM, Zwitserlood, P, Kooijman, V and Hagoort, P (2005) Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31, 443–467.Google ScholarPubMed
VanPatten, B (1996) Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B (2015) Input processing in adult SLA. In VanPatten, B and Williams, J (eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition. (2nd ed.), New York: Routledge, pp. 113–134.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B and Cadierno, T (1993) SLA as input processing: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal 77, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar