comparative heritage languages

Comparative Heritage Languages

Silvina Montrul, Rakesh Bhatt, Roxana Girju, Archna Bhatia

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

4th Heritage Language Summer InstituteUniversity of Hawaii, June 21-25, 2010

Acknowledgements

• National Science Foundation grant # 0917593 to Silvina Montrul, Rakesh Bhatt and Roxana Girju.

• Research AssistantsArchna Bhatia Vandana PuriKirsten Hope Vanesa HernándezLaura Romani Francisca MedranoNatalie Toomey Luminita Marcus

2

What we know so far

• Heritage speakers exhibit a wide range of variation in their heritage language linguistic and communicative competence: from receptive knowledge to fully fluent and literate, and all shades in between.

3

What we know so far

Heritage speakers have linguistic gaps in several aspects of their grammar: phonology, lexicon, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics

Morphology seems to be a particularly vulnerable area in heritage speakers of different languages.

4

Some Research Questions

• What is the linguistic nature of heritage language grammars?

• How does reduced input in childhood impact heritage language grammars?

• Which linguistic processes account for the observed patterns in heritage language grammars: attrition?, incomplete acquisition?, both? language contact and change? Other?

5

Some Research Questions

• Does age of onset of bilingualism also play a role in shaping the structural properties of adult heritage language grammars?

• Does the dominant language play a role in heritage language grammars (transfer)? When?

• What are the universal (common) features of heritage language grammars?

• What are the gaps in heritage language grammars that can be potentially addressed by instruction?

6

Although similarities among heritage language systems in different languages can be inferred from existing studies of Russian, Spanish, Korean, Arabic, etc., no study to date has compared different heritage languages on a shared grammatical domain using comparable methodology.

7

The study

Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian heritage speakers in the United States.

8

What is DOM?

• Differential Object Marking (DOM) is a widespread phenomenon among languages of the world (Bossong 1991).

• Many languages mark some direct objects overtly but not others.

• DOM is an iconic procedure: It overtly marks morphologically arguments that are semantically or pragmatically more salient/prominent than their non-overtly marked counterparts.

9

Spanish DOM = preposition aanimate object inanimate object

specific 1. Juan vio a María. 2. Juan vio la película.

3. *Juan vio María. 4. *Juan vio a la película.“Juan saw Maria.” “Juan saw a movie.”

non-specific 5. Juan vio a una mujer. 6. Juan vio una carrera.

7. Juan vio una mujer. 8. *Juan vio a una carrera.“Juan saw a woman” “Juan saw a race”

10

Hindi DOM: postposition koanimate object inanimate object

specific 1.Mira-neramesh-ko dekhaa 2. Mira-nevah ghar dekhaa

Mira-Erg Ramesh-DOM saw Mira-Erg that house saw

3.*Mira-ne Ramesh dekhaa 4. Mira-ne us ghar-ko dekhaa

Mira-Erg Ramesh saw Mira-Erg that house-DOM saw

“Mira saw Ramesh” “Mira saw that house”

non-specific 5.?Mira ne aadmi -ko dekhaa 6. Mira-ne ek ghar dekhaa

Mira-Erg man-DOM saw Mira-Erg a house saw

7. Mira ne aadmi dekhaa 8. *Mira ne ek ghar-ko dekhaaMira-Erg man saw Mira-Erg a house-DOM saw

“Mira saw a man” “Mira saw a house”

11

Romanian DOM: preposition peanimate object inanimate object

specific 1. Ileana a văzut-o pe Madonna. 2. Ileana a văzut casa.

Ileana has seen DOM Madonna Ileana has seen the house

3. *Ileana a văzut Madonna. 4.*Ileana a văzut pe casa. DOM house

“Ileana saw Madonna.” “Ileana saw the house.”

non-specific 5. *Claudia a văzut pe o femeie. 6. Ileana a văzut o casă.

Claudia has seen DOM a woman Ileana has seen a house

7. Claudia a văzut o femeie 8.*Ileana a văzut pe o casă. DOM a house

“Claudia saw a woman.” “Ileana saw the house.”

12

Similarities between Spanish and Hindi

DOM is the same marker as the obligatory dative case marker of indirect objects and dative subjects.

Spanish Hindi

Indirect objects

Juan dio un libro a MaríaJuan gave a book to Maria“Juan gave a book to Maria.”

Rakesh-ne Sita ko kitaab dii.Rakesh-erg Sita-dat book gave“Rakesh gave a book to Sita.”

Dative subjects

A Juan le gusta esa niña.dat Juan cl likes that girl“Juan likes that girl.”

Rakesh-ko vah laRkii pasand haiRakesh-dat that girl likes“Rakesh likes that girl.”

13

Similarities between Spanish and Romanian

• The DOM marker pe is homophonous with the locative preposition pe in Romanian

• (In Hindi and Spanish (Latin) DOM also evolved from a locative marker)

• DOM in Romanian is more frequent with accusative clitic doubling

• In some dialects of Spanish (Argentina), accusative clitic doubling with animate objects is common with DOM.

• Romanian pe also appears in dative subject constructions in Romanian

14

Spanish Romaniananimate object

Angélica la vio a Madonna. Angelica a văzut-o pe Madonna.

*Angélica la vio Madonna. *Angelica a văzut-o Madonna.

“Angélica saw Madonna.” “Angelica saw Madonna.”

inanimate object

*Julia la vio a la casa. *Iulia a văzut-o pe casa.

*Julia la vio la casa. *Iulia a văzut-o casa.

“Julia saw the house.” “Julia saw the house.”

15

Spanish Romanianexperiencersubject

A Camelia le interesa la medicina.

Pe Camelia o interesează medicina.

To Camelia cl interest the medicine

To Camelia cl interest medicine

“Camelia is interested in medicine.”

“Camelia is interested in medicine.”

16

Summary distribution of DOM marker

Spanish Hindi Romanianpreposition a postposition ko preposition pe

animate direct objects



also dative also dative also locative + dative

experiencer subjects

experiencer subjects experiencer subjects

17

Some syntactic analyses

• Torrego (1998)• Lidz (2006)• Rodríguez Modoñedo (2007)DOM involves movement of the direct object to

an extra functional projection (above the projection for regular unmarked objects) where the animate object receives marked accusative case.

18

Previous Studies

Luján and Parodi (2001), Montrul (2004) and Montrul & Bowles (2009) found that Spanish heritage speakers

• frequently omit “a” with animate, specific direct objects in oral and written production

• overgeneralize “a” marking to inanimate objects (but this occurs less often)

19

Montrul (2004)

20

Montrul & Bowles (2009)

21

Montrul (2004) and Montrul & Bowles (2009) also found that Spanish heritage speakers

Accept ungrammatical sentences with missing DOM in written untimed grammaticality judgment tasks.

22

Errors with obligatory marking in dative experiencers

24

Research questions

• Why is DOM omitted by Spanish heritage speakers?• Is omission related to the low acoustic salience of the

DOM marker in Spanish?• If so, is “a” equally omitted regardless of syntactic

distribution and semantic factors?• Or is “a” omitted only when it is an instance of

“inherent” case and a complex interface phenomenon?

• Does age of onset of bilingualism play a role in degree of DOM omission?

25

Hypotheses

• If DOM is an “interface” phenomenon, it should be affected in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian. It should also be more affected in direct objects than in indirect objects.

• If acoustic salience is relevant, then it should be omitted more in Spanish than in Hindi and Romanian.

• If age of onset of bilingualism plays a role in degree of omission, then the earlier the onset of acquisition of English the more omission there will be at the individual level.

26

Screening Instruments

• 6-page linguistic profile questionnaire for each language

• Written proficiency measuresparts of DELE and MLA tasks for Spanishdeveloped cloze tests for Hindi and

Romanian

27

Tasks in the three languages

1. Oral narrative task2. Oral picture description Task3. Aural comprehension task4. Written comprehension task5. Written production task6. Bimodal untimed acceptability judgment task

28

Oral Narrative Task

• In this task you will see 14 slides narrating a famous children’s story.

• Your task is to retell the story, with as much detail as possible, in Spanish.

• Please tell the story in the PAST• Pay attention! The end might surprise you.• Your story will be audio-recorded.

29

Oral Production Task

In this task, you will see pictures, a verb and the names of the participants. You will need to produce a sentence using these elements. You may conjugate the verb in the present or past.

42

Example 1

Michael

When you see:

You could say:

1. Michael naav dekh rahaa hai.

dekh/

doK

43

Example 2phone karnaa/ faona krnaa

When you see:

You could say:

1. Ana Peter ko phone kar rahii hai.

Ana

Peter

44

uThaanaa/ ]zanaa

Isha

John

45

chuunaa/ CUnaa

Ana

baby

46

chuunaa/ CUnaa

Jerry

wall/ dIvaar

47

uThaanaa/ ]zanaa

aadmii/

AadmaIchaataa/

Cata

48

Aural Comprehension Task

Accusative condition

49

Aural Comprehension Task

Dative condition

50

DesignAccusative Condition Dative Condition

V-DOM Llamó a Juan. V-IO Preguntó a Susana.

VS Llamó Juan. VS Preguntó Susana.

foil Llamaron a Juan. foil Preguntaron a Susana.

10 sentences of each type = Total 20 pictures and 60 sentences

51

Written Comprehension Task

InstructionsIn this test you will see a list of written

sentences in Romanian. Each sentence is followed by three pictures: A, B and C. For each sentence, choose the picture that illustrates the event or action described by the sentence, by selecting the option button A, B or C.

52


A sunat pe Juan. A B C

53


A sunat Juan. A B C

54

Written Production Task InstructionsBelow you will find groups of isolated words. Please make a grammatically correct,

complete sentence in Spanish with the verbs and phrases given in each number. Conjugate the verb in the present or the past tense and add other words when necessary. NOTE: There may be more than one way to form a grammatically correct sentence in each case, as shown in the example below.

ExampleWhen you see the words Marisa / cocinar / arroz / frijoles / cumpleños You can write Marisa cocina arroz con frijoles para mi

cumpleaños.

Para mi cumpleaños Marisa cocina arroz y frijoles.

55

Written Production Task

Design: 5 sentences with animate objects5 sentences with inanimate objects5 sentences with indirect objects5 sentences with dative

experiencers

56

Bimodal Acceptability Judgment Task

• Lists of 128 grammatical and ungrammatical sentences to be judged on a scale ranging from 1 (totally unacceptable) to 4 (perfectly unacceptable.

• Sentences were presented in aural and written form (bimodal).

http://app.sgizmo.com/preview_survey.php?id=167565http://app.sgizmo.com/preview_survey.php?id=163317 57

http://app.sgizmo.com/preview_survey.php?id=167565




Sentence types

• Animate/inanimate specific/non-specific direct objects with DOM and without DOM

• Spanish and Romanian included these same sentences with accusative clitic doubling as well.

• Indirect objects• dative experiencers• fillers in each language

58

Data to DateGroups Spanish Hindi RomanianHeritage speakers(2nd generation)

56 Mexicans15 Latin-Americans

28 2

Adult immigrants(1st generation)

21 Mexicans13 Latin-Americans

21 15

Native speakers from country of origin

59

Preliminary Results Hindi StudyCurrent Age Length of

residence in the US

Level of education( 1 = elementary, 4 = postgraduate)

Hindi native speakers (n =21)

43.38 (21-64) 1-30 years 4

Hindi HSs (n =28)

21.92 (18-41) All US born except for 2

2.92 (1-4)

60

Overall Self-ratings

Hindi native speakers Hindi heritage speakers1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.004.71

5.004.90

3.35

English Hindi

61

Hindi Written Proficiency Cloze Test

Hindi native speakers Hindi heritage speakers0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 38.05

25.23

62

Hindi Native speakers: self-ratings by skill

English Reading

English Speaking

English Listening

English Writing

Hindi Reading

Hindi Speaking

Hindi Listening

Hindi Writing

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

4.68

4.59

4.45

4.41

4.45

4.55

4.73

4.09

63

Hindi Heritage Speakers: self-ratings by skill

English Reading

English Speaking

English Listening

English Writing

Hindi Reading

Hindi Speaking

Hindi Listening

Hindi Writing

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

4.92

2.00

2.96

3.69

1.85

64

Oral Narrative TaskHindi native speakers

Hindi heritage speakers

% supplied % omitted % supplied % omitted

obligatory contexts

100 0 83.6 16.4

optional contexts 100 0 92.4 7.6

not required 3.8 96.2 10.9 89.1

Errors come from 5 subjects who made between 33% and 75% errors) 65

Oral Picture Description Task(% errors with ko)

animate objects inanimate objects dative subjects0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1.3

23.6

2.1

10.3

37.6

22.1

Hindi native speakers


ko is grammatical if inanimate object is specific

66

Aural Comprehension TaskAccuracy on Direct Objects

SV OkoV foil5

6

7

8

9

10 9.7

8.25

9.25

8.68.4 8.28

Hindi native speakersHindi heritage speakers

67

Aural Comprehension TaskAccuracy on Indirect Objects

SV IOkoV foil5

6

7

8

9

10

9.25

9.75 9.6

8.3

9.2

8.7


68

Written Comprehension TaskAccuracy on Direct Objects

SV OkoV foil5

6

7

8

9

109.5 9.5 9.5

7.9 7.9

8.6


69

Written Comprehension TaskAccuracy on Indirect Objects

SV OkoV foil5

6

7

8

9

109.6 9.6 9.5

8.27.9

8.3


70

Bimodal Acceptability Judgment TaskIndirect objects and dative subjects

Dative with ko Dative without ko Experiencer with ko Experiencer without ko1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

3.36

1.12

3.87

1.55

3.12

1.56

3.37

2.45


71

Bimodal Acceptability Judgment TaskAnimate Objects

specific with ko specific without ko nonspecific with ko nonspecific without ko1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00 3.84

1.26

2.63

3.07

3.52

2.422.51

3.07

Hindi native speakers


72

Bimodal Acceptability Judgment TaskInanimate Objects

specific with ko specific without ko nonspecific with ko nonspecific without ko1.00

2.00

3.00

4.003.75

3.85

3.02

3.69

3.313.42

3.063.23


73

Summary• In comparison to Hindi native speakers who

immigrated to the US as adults, US-born Hindi heritage speakers do make some errors with DOM in production, comprehension and judgment tasks, especially with animate, specific direct objects. (But errors come from a few subjects)

• There is also -ko omission with dative subjects.• -ko omission is much less problematic with

indirect objects74

Preliminary Conclusion

• Asymmetry between DOM/Dative subject and Indirect objects (see also Montrul & Bowles 2009, 2010).

• DOM is affected in “more complex” syntactic and semantic contexts. It is an interface phenomenon.

• It is not just a matter of erosion of morphology across the board.

75

Question

Are the error rates observed in Hindi lower than the error rates observed in Spanish due to the acoustic salience of the DOM marker in the two languages?

Hindi ko vs. Spanish a

76

Preliminary Results Spanish StudyGroup 1 Group 2 Group 3

N 32 24 21

age 20.65 (18-28) 23.16 (19-45) 42.57 (21-58)

birth United States Mexico Mexico

parents Mexico Mexico Mexico

age of immigration -- Child (4-10 years old) Adult (after age 18)

level of education 1-4, median 3 2-4, median 3 1-4, median 2

77

Spanish StudyGroup 4 Group 5

N 15 13

age 25.9 (16-47) 36.07 (20-55)

birth US/Latin America Latin America

parents Latin America Latin America

age of immigration US born/child immigrant Adult (after age 18)

level of education 1-4, median 3 1-4, median 3

78

Self-ratings in Spanish and English

US born Mex-ican HS

child Mexican immigrants

adult Mexican immigrants

US born/child LA immigrants

adult LA im-migrants

1

2

3

4

54.63

4.78

3.42

4.8

44.18

4.31

4.95

4.334.61

EnglishSpanish

79

Written Proficiency in Spanish

US born Mex-ican HS





0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

38.18 38.5442.4

36.33

40.9

80

US-born Mexican heritage speakers’ self ratings in Spanish and English skills

English Reading

English Speaking

English Listening

English Writing

Spanish Reading

Spanish Speaking

Spanish Listening

Spanish Writing

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

4.72

4.75

4.88

4.72

4.00

3.97

4.56

3.34

81

Child Mexican immigrants’ self ratings in Spanish and English skills

English Reading

English Speaking

English Listening

English Writing

Spanish Reading

Spanish Speaking

Spanish Listening

Spanish Writing

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

4.51

4.54

4.58

4.34

4.10

4.07

4.40

3.56

82

Adult Mexican Immigrants’ self ratings in Spanish and English skills

English Reading

English Speaking

English Listening

English Writing

Spanish Reading

Spanish Speaking

Spanish Listening

Spanish Writing

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

3.24

3.29

3.48

2.81

4.95

5.00

5.00

4.95

83

Adult Latin American Immigrants’ self ratings in Spanish and English skills

English Reading

English Speaking

English Listening

English Writing

Spanish Reading

Spanish Speaking

Spanish Listening

Spanish Writing

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

3.69

3.69

3.92

3.31

4.77

4.92

4.92

4.54

84

US-born/Child Latin American Immigrants’ self ratings in Spanish and English skills

English Reading

English Speaking

English Listening

English Writing

Spanish Reading

Spanish Speaking

Spanish Listening

Spanish Writing

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

4.80

4.73

4.80

4.60

4.33

4.33

4.60

3.93

85

Written Production TaskPercentage of Errors with Direct Objects

US-born M

x HS

child

Im M

x

adult I

m Mx

child

/Us-b

orn LA

HS

adult I

m LA0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

8.4

12.4

4.3

18.8

6.9

10.19.1

5.6

12.8

8animate objectinanimate object

86

Written Production TaskPercentage errors with Indirect objects and Experiencers

US-born M

x HS

child

Im M

x

adult I

m Mx

child

/Us-b

orn LA

HS

adult I

m LA0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1.25

4.1

1.7

7.1

4.6

13.812.2

9.2

18.5

7.6indirect objectexperiencer

87

Aural Comprehension TaskAccuracy on Direct Objects

US born Mex-ican HS




adult LA immigrants

5

6

7

8

9

10

8.98.58

8.27

99.36000000000001

8.93

8.33

7.81

9.5

8.839.19

8.628.81

9.59.33

VDOMVSplural

88

Aural Comprehension TaskAccuracy on Indirect Objects

US born Mex-ican HS





5

6

7

8

9

10

9.198.83 8.9 8.83

9.339.41

8.91 8.81

9.75

8.91

9.419.08 8.95

8.58

9.5

VIOVSplural

89

Written Comprehension TaskAccuracy on Direct Objects

US-born MxHS

Child MxHS Adult MxHS LA HS Adult LA HS 5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

8.78 8.50

8.30

9.29 9.23

8.59 8.63

7.87 8.07

9.08 9.34

8.79 8.74

9.29 9.46

V-DOM-OV-Splural

90

Written Comprehension TaskAccuracy on Indirect Objects

US-born MxHS

Child MxHS Adult MxHS LA HS Adult LA HS 5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

8.63 8.88

9.04 8.79 8.92 8.94 8.88

8.48

8.86

9.31 9.19 9.04 9.09 9.36

9.77

V-IOV-Splural

91


US born Mex-ican HS


adult Mex-ican immi-

grants

US born/child LA immi-

grants

adult LA immigrants

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4 3.843.73

3.843.67

3.93

2.852.69 2.65

3.32

2.54

Animate, specific DOs

with DOMno DOM

92


US born Mex-ican HS




grants

adult LA immigrants

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

3.313.49

3.38 3.45

3.11

3.45 3.373.5 3.56 3.47

Animate, nonspecific DOs

with DOMno DOM

93


US born Mex-ican HS




grants

adult LA immigrants

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2.81 2.87 2.85

3.21

2.52

3.78 3.683.83 3.75 3.84

Inanimate, specific DOs

with DOMno DOM

94


US born Mex-ican HS




adult LA immigrants

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2.72.84

2.65

3.11

2.56

3.71 3.67 3.73.58

3.8

Inanimate, nonspecific DOs

with DOMno DOM

95


US born Mex-ican HS




grants

adult LA immigrants

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2.11 2.02 2.09

2.57

1.84

1.571.47 1.55

2.18

1.31

Ungrammatical Indirect Objects

cl V PP NP (no a)double object (no a)

96


US born Mexican HS

child Mex-ican immi-

grants


grants

US born/child LA

immigrants

adult LA immigrants

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4 3.853.63

3.86 3.8 3.87

2.792.61 2.61

3.13

2.4

Dative Experiencers

A-cl

no A-cl

97

Summary• Similarities between Spanish and Hindi• DOM and dative case with experiencers are

more affected than dative case with indirect objects.

• Indirect Objects are ALWAYS marked with dative, direct objects and dative experiencers sometimes (unreliable input?)

• Problems with DOM in heritage speakers was most evident in production and in the judgment task. (We have not yet analyzed oral production)

98

Summary

• Errors with DOM are more pronounced in Spanish than in Hindi (as judged by error rates in production and bimodal AJ task)

• Preliminary indication that the acoustic salience of the marker--in addition to its syntactic and semantic distribution--may play a role in degree of erosion observed across languages and populations.

99

Spanish: Attrition, incomplete acquisition, dialectal differences?

• All Mexican heritage speaker groups were very similar, regardless of age of onset of bilingualism.

• No differences between US-born, child, and adult immigrants.

• Are they all speaking the same dialect when it comes to DOM?

• But Hindi adult immigrants appear to have more solid command of ko than the Hindi Heritage speakers. 100

• There were more marked differences between the Latin American Heritage speakers and the adult immigrants from Latin America, who were more target-like overall than the adult Mexican immigrants

• The most inaccurate group seems to be the Latin American heritage speakers.

101

Attrition?

Dialectal study of DOM with native speakers in their own country (with Francisco Ordóñez)

Argentina Puerto Rico

Mexico Spain

102

Argentina (26 native speakers)

103

animado, definido animado indefinido1

2

3

4

54.99

4.54

1.46

4.12

marcado

no marcado


104

inanimado, definido inanimado, indefinido1

2

3

4

5

2.21

1.76

4.94 5

marcado

no marcado


human object with definite article and accusative clitic doubling

human object with indefinite article and accusative clitic doubling

1

2

3

4

5

3.77

1.57

1.1 1.09

with ano a

105


inanimate object with definite article and accusative clitic doubling

inanimate object with indefinite article and accusative clitic doubling

1

2

3

4

5

1.531.24

1.09 1.09

with ano a

106

Spanish heritage speakers

US born Mex-ican HS



grants


grants

adult LA immigrants

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2.021.84 1.81

2.38

1.79

1.481.37 1.31

1.75

1.2

Animate, specific DOs with clitic doublingwith DOMno DOM

107

Heritage Speakers

US born Mex-ican HS




grants

adult LA immigrants

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1.79

1.41.6

1.82

1.361.47

1.35 1.4

1.82

1.29

Animate, nonspecific DOs with clitic doubling

with DOMno DOM

108

Heritage Speakers

US born Mex-ican HS




adult LA immigrants

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1.59

1.271.4

1.8

1.311.56

1.33 1.31

1.64

1.07

Inanimate, specific DOs with clitic doubling

with DOMno DOM

109

Heritage Speakers

US born Mex-ican HS




adult LA immigrants

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1.441.26 1.35

1.69

1.091.3 1.24 1.32

1.46

1.08

Inanimate, nonspecific DOs with clitic doubling

with DOMno DOM

110

Observation

• DOM seems to be more affected in Spanish-speakers in the US, including late arrivals who have been living in the US for several years.

• DOM may be subject to attrition in Spanish• Will DOM be equally omitted and overapplied

by Mexicans in Mexico?

111

This summer• Testing native speakers in Mexico, age and SES

matched to the US-born Mexican heritage speakers and the Adult immigrants.

• Extending part of this study to children being tested in Chicago and Mexico (with Kim Potowski)

• By adding these populations we will be in a better position to tease apart whether Spanish DOM is subject to attrition and/or incomplete acquisition or dialectal variation in Spanish.

112

Mahalo!

113

comparative heritage languages

Documents

heritage language linguistic

heritage language systems

different heritage languages

juan vio mara

romanian heritage speakers

dominant language

language contact

juan vio una carrera