Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T06:39:37.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When L1 becomes an L3: Do heritage speakers make better L3 learners?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2013

MARIA POLINSKY
MARIA POLINSKY*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
*
Address for correspondence: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USApolinsky@fas.harvard.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Heritage speakers who re-learn their childhood language in adulthood are an important group for the study of L3 acquisition. Such re-learners have selective advantages over other L2/L3 learners in phonetics/phonology, but lack a global advantage at re-learning the prestige variety of their L1. These learners show asymmetrical transfer effects in morphosyntax: transfer occurs only from the dominant language. Two tentative explanations for this asymmetry are suggested. First, re-learners may deploy the skills acquired in a classroom setting, where they have used only their dominant language. Second, re-learners may implicitly strive to increase the typological distance between their childhood language and the language of classroom instruction. These findings have implications for models of L3/Ln learning: the Cumulative Enhancement Model, the Typological Proximity Model, and the L2 Status Factor Model. The data discussed in this paper are most consistent with the latter model, but they also highlight the significance of the typological distance between languages under acquisition.

Keywords

heritage languagere-learningL3phonological advantageCumulative Enhancement ModelTypological Proximity ModelL2 Status Factor Model
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 18 , Special Issue 2: L3 Acquisition: A Focus on Cognitive Approaches , April 2015 , pp. 163 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

*

I would like to thank Caitlin Keenan, Ken Mai, Robyn Orfitelli, Keith Plaster, Carson Schütze, two anonymous reviewers, and especially María del Pilar García Mayo and Jason Rothman for helpful comments on earlier drafts. I am solely responsible for any remaining errors in the paper. This work was supported in part by funding from the United States Government through the Center for Advanced Study of Language at the University of Maryland and from the National Heritage Language Resource Center at UCLA. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any agency or entity of the United States Government.

References

Aist, G., Campana, E., Allen, J., Swift, M., & Tanenhaus, M. (2012). Fruit carts: A domain and corpus for research in dialogue systems and psycholinguistics. Computational Linguistics, 38, 470–478.Google Scholar
Anderson, A., Bader, M., Bard, E., Boyle, E., Doherty, G. M., Garrod, G. M., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., McAllister, J., Miller, J., Sotillo, C., Thompson, H. S., & Weinert, R. (1991). The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech, 34, 351–366.Google Scholar
Antoniou, M., Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., & Kroos, C. (2010). Language context elicits native-like stop voicing in early bilinguals’ productions in both L1 and L2. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 640–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Au, T., Knightly, L., Jun, S.-A., & Oh, J. (2002). Overhearing a language during childhood. Psychological Science, 13, 238–243.Google Scholar
Au, T., Knightly, L., Jun, S.-A., & Romo, L. (2008). Salvaging a childhood language. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 998–1011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bae, S.-H., & Hisagi, M. (2013). Information structure and particle choice: Native and near-native speakers of Japanese and Korean. Presented at the workshop Information Structure and Word Order: Focusing on Asian Languages, Harvard–Yenching Institute, Harvard University, April, 2013. http://pollab.fas.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Heritage%20Korean%20and%20Japanese.Bae_.pdf (accessed July 23, 2013).Google Scholar
Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23, 459–484.Google Scholar
Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2012). The L2 status factor and the declarative/procedural distinction. In Amaro, Cabrelli et al. (eds.), pp. 61–78.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Prolegomena to heritage linguistics (White paper). Ms., University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign & Harvard University. http://scholar.harvard.edu/mpolinsky/publications/white-paper-prolegomena-heritage-linguistics (accessed November 1, 2013).Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermel, N., & Kagan, O. (2000). The maintenance of written Russian in heritage speakers. In Kagan & Rifkin (eds.), pp. 405–436.Google Scholar
Blake, R., & Zyzik, E. (2003). Who's helping whom? Learner/heritage-speakers’ networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24, 519–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. (2003). Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. In Cheng, L. & Sybesma, R. P. (eds.), The Second Glot International state-of-the-article book: The latest in linguistics, pp. 107–148. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. (1995). The ups and downs of Hebrew verb movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 13, 527–606.Google Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S., & Rothman, J. (2012a). Third language acquisition in adulthood. In Cabrelli Amaro et al. (eds.), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J., Flynn, S. & Rothman, J. (eds.) (2012b). Third language acquisition in adulthood (Studies in Bilingualism 46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chang, C. B. (2012). Rapid and multifaceted effects of second-language learning on first-language speech production. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, C. B., Yao, Y., Haynes, E., & Rhodes, R. (2009). Production of phonetic and phonological contrast by heritage speakers of Mandarin. Ms., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Dič, N. L. (2006). Šumnye soglasnye v mental’noj fonologičeskoj sistme doškol’nikov. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana (vol. II, part 3), pp. 5–27. St Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
Dubinina, I. (2011). How to ask for a favor: A pilot study in Heritage Russian pragmatics. In Mustajoki, A., Protassova, E. & Vakhtin, N. (eds.), Instrumentarium of linguistics: Sociolinguistic approaches to non-standard Russian, pp. 418–431. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Dubinina, I., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Russian in the USA. In Moser, M. & Polinsky, M. (eds.), Slavic languages in migration, pp. 123–154. Vienna: University of Vienna Press.Google Scholar
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2010). The study of the role of the background languages in third language acquisition: The state of the art. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48, 185–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research, 27, 59–82.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1987). Production and perception of English stops by native Spanish speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 67–83.Google Scholar
Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children's patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 3–17.Google Scholar
Fowler, C., Sramko, V., Ostry, D. J., Rowland, S. A., & Hallé, P. (2008). Cross language phonetic influences on the speech of French–English bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 649–663.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. del P. (2012). Cognitive approaches to L3 acquisition. International Journal of English Studies, 12, 129–146.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. del P., & Rothman, J. (2012). L3 morphosyntax in the generative tradition: The initial stages and beyond. In Amaro, Cabrelli et al. (eds.), pp. 9–32.Google Scholar
Gittelson, B., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage English – France. http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/18537 (accessed November 1, 2013).Google Scholar
Godson, L. (2004). Vowel production in the speech of Western Armenian heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal, 2, http://www.international.ucla.edu/languages/heritagelanguages/journal/article.asp?parentid=14648.Google Scholar
Gombert, J. E. (1996). What do children do when they fail to count phonemes? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 757–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakes, D. T. (1980). The development of metalinguistic abilities in children. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
He, A., & Xiao, Y. (eds.) (2008). Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering rooted world citizenry. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Iverson, M. (2009). N-drop at the initial state of L3 Portuguese: Comparing simultaneous and additive bilinguals of English/Spanish. In Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (eds.), Minimalist inquiries into child and adult language acquisition: Case studies across Portuguese, pp. 221–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Iverson, M. (2010). Informing the age of acquisition debate: L3 as a litmus test. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching, 48, 221–243.Google Scholar
Jia, L., & Bayley, R. (2008). The (re)acquisition of perfective aspect marking by Chinese heritage language learners. In He & Xiao (eds.), pp. 205–224.Google Scholar
Kagan, O., & Dillon, K. (2012). Heritage languages and L2 learning. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 491–505. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kagan, O., & Rifkin, B. (eds.) (2000). The learning and teaching of Slavic languages and cultures. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Kang, B.-M. (2002). Categories and meanings of Korean floating quantifiers: With some reference to Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 11, 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, Y., & Nagy, N. (2012). VOT merger in heritage Korean in Toronto. Actes du congrès annuel de l’Association canadienne de linguistique 2012, http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2012/Kang_Nagy_2012.pdf.Google Scholar
Khattab, G. (2002). /r/ production in English and Arabic bilingual and monolingual speakers. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics, 9, 91–129.Google Scholar
Khattab, G. (2003). Age, input, and language mode factors in the acquisition of VOT by English–Arabic bilingual children. In M.-J. Solé, D. Recasens & J. Romero (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), pp. 3213–3216.Google Scholar
Khattab, G. (2006). Phonological acquisition in Arabic–English bilingual children. In Hua, Z. & Dodd, B. (eds.), Phonological development and disorders: A cross-linguistic perspective, pp. 383–412. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khattab, G. (2007). Variation in vowel production by English–Arabic bilinguals. In Cole, J. & Hualde, J. I. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology IX, 383–420. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Khattab, G. (2013). Phonetic convergence and divergence strategies in English–Arabic bilingual children. Linguistics, 51, 439–472.Google Scholar
Knigthly, L., Jun, S.-A., Oh, J., & Au, T. (2003). Production benefits of childhood overhearing. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 114, 465–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ko, H., & Oh, E. (2010). A hybrid approach to floating quantifiers: Experimental evidence. Linguistic Research, 29, 69–106.Google Scholar
Kulundary, V., & Gabriele, A. (2012). Examining the role of L2 syntactic development in L3 acquisition: A look at relative clauses. In Amaro, Cabrelli et al. (eds.), pp. 195–222.Google Scholar
Kwon, N.-Y., Polinsky, M., & Kluender, R. (2006). Subject preference in Korean. In Baumer, D., Montero, D. & Scanlon, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 1–14. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Laleko, O. V. (2010). The syntax–pragmatics interface in language loss: Covert restructuring of aspect in Heritage Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Laleko, O. [V.], & Polinsky, M. (2013a). What linguistic advantages do heritage language speakers have over second language learners? Presented at the Seventh Heritage Language Research Institute, University of Illinois, Chicago, June 2013.Google Scholar
Laleko, O. [V.], & Polinsky, M. (2013b). Marking topic or marking case: A comparative investigation of Heritage Japanese and Heritage Korean. Heritage Language Journal, 10, http://www.heritagelanguages.org/.Google Scholar
Lam, M. B. (2006). The cultural politics of Vietnamese language pedagogy. Journal of Southeast Asian Language Teaching, 12, 1–19.Google Scholar
Lambert, W., Hodgson, R., Gardner, R., & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 44–51.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2010). Introduction: The sociopolitics of heritage language education. In Rivera-Mills, S. & Villa, D. (eds.), Spanish of the U.S. Southwest: A language in transition, pp. 309–317. Norwalk, CT: Iberoamericana Vervuert Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
Leslie, S. (2012). The use of linguistics to improve the teaching of Heritage Language Spanish. BA Honors thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Liberman, I. Y. (1973). Segmentation of the spoken word and reading acquisition. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 23, 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Fisher, W. F., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201–212.Google Scholar
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word, 20, 384–422.Google Scholar
Ming, T., & Tao, H. (2008). Developing a Chinese heritage language corpus: Issues and a preliminary report. In He & Xiao (eds.), pp. 167–187.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2010). Is grammar instruction beneficial for heritage language learners? Dative case marking in Spanish. Heritage Language Journal, 7, 47–73.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Dias, R., & Santos, H. (2011). Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer. Second Language Research, 27, 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, D.-H. (1997). Vietnamese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Oh, J., Jun, S.-A., Knightly, L., & Au, T. (2003). Holding on to childhood language memory. Cognition, 86, B53–B64.Google Scholar
Özçelik, Ö. (2013). Selectivity in L3 transfer: Effects of typological and linguistic similarity in the L3 Turkish of Uzbek–Russian bilinguals. Presented at the 36th Conference of Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW 36), Lund, April 2013.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Parodi, C. (2008). Stigmatized Spanish inside the classroom and out: A model of language teaching to heritage speakers. In Brinton, D., Kagan, O. & Bauckus, S. (eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging, pp. 199–214. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (1995). Cross-linguistic parallels in language loss. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 14, 87–123.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2006). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14, 191–262.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., & Kagan, O. (2007). Heritage languages: In the “wild” and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 368–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Potowski, K. (2007). Characteristics of the Spanish proficiency of dual immersion graduates. Spanish in Context, 4, 187–216.Google Scholar
Potowski, K., Jegerski, J., & Morgan-Short, K. (2009). The effects of instruction of linguistic development on Spanish heritage language speakers. Language Learning, 59, 537–579.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H., & Jarvis, S. (2011). The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (eds.), The handbook of language teaching, pp. 106–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2010). On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word order and relative clause high/low attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching, 48, 245–273.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The Typological Primacy Model. Second Language Research, 27, 107–127.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S136672891300059X. Published online by Cambridge University Press, November 13, 2013.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2010). What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state. Second Language Research, 26, 189–218.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Treffers Daller, J. (in press). A prolegomenon to the construct of the native speaker: Heritage speaker bilinguals are natives too! Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (1997). Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tran, T. N. (2007). Behind the smoke and mirrors: The Vietnamese in California, 1975–1994. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Valdés, G. (2000). The teaching of heritage languages: An introduction for Slavic-teaching professionals. In Kagan & Rifkin (eds.), pp. 375–404.Google Scholar
Valdés, G. (2005). Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost or seized? The Modern Language Journal, 89, 410–426.Google Scholar
Viswanath, A. (2013). Heritage English in Israeli children. BA thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Viswanath, A., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage English – Israel. http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/18486 (accessed November 1, 2013).Google Scholar
Werker, J., & Lalonde, C. (1988). Cross-language speech perception: Initial capabilities and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 24, 672–683.Google Scholar
Werker, J., & Tees, R. C. (1983). Developmental change across childhood in the perception of non-native speech sounds. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 278–286.Google Scholar
Werker, J., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75, 1866–1878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed