-
- Date de réalisation : 20 Juin 2017
- Durée du programme : 18 min
- Classification Dewey : Bilinguisme, multilinguisme
-
- Catégorie : Conférences
- Niveau : niveau Master (LMD), niveau Doctorat (LMD), Recherche
- Disciplines : Linguistique, Disciplines connexes (sociolinguistique, psycholinguistique…)
- Collections : Bilinguisme contre monolinguisme : une nouvelle perspective sur les limites de l'acquisition de L2
- ficheLom : Voir la fiche LOM
-
- Auteur(s) : VAN OSCH Brechje
- producteur : Université Toulouse-Jean Jaurès-campus Mirail
- Réalisateur(s) : SARAZIN Claire
- Editeur : SCPAM / Université Toulouse-Jean Jaurès-campus Mirail
-
- Langue : Anglais
- Mots-clés : bilinguisme
- Conditions d’utilisation / Copyright : Tous droits réservés aux auteurs et à l'Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès.

Subject position in heritage Spanish in the Netherlands and the US: a case for cross-linguistic influence / Brechje van Osch
Dans la même collection



















Subject position in heritage Spanish in the Netherlands and the US: a case for cross-linguistic influence / Brechje van Osch
Subject position in heritage Spanish in the Netherlands and the US: a case for cross-linguistic influence / Brechje van Osch, in colloque "Bilingualism vs. monolingualism: a new perspective on limitations to L2 acquisition" organisé par le laboratoire Octogone-Lordat (Université Toulouse 2) sous la responsabilité de Barbara Köpke (UT2J), Holger Hopp (Technische Universität Braunschweig), Tanja Kupisch (Universität Konstanz), Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès, 19-20 juin 2017.
Whereas
heritage Spanish is a popular topic of investigation in the US, much less is
known about heritage Spanish in combination with languages other than English
(but see Irizarri van Suchtelen, 2016, and references there). The present study
offers a relevant addition to the field by comparing two groups of heritage
speakers of Spanish in different countries: one group in the US and another in
the Netherlands.
The
topic of investigation is subject position with intransitive predicates. In
Spanish, both preverbal and postverbal subjects are grammatical, but
felicitousness depends on several syntactic, semantic and discourse constraints
(Domínguez, 2013; Roggia, 2011). Most US based studies report that heritage
speakers tend to overgeneralize preverbal subjects compared to monolingual
baseline groups (e.g. Montrul, 2005; Zapata et al., 2005). This is not
surprising given that in English postverbal subjects are ungrammatical, except
for a few restricted contexts such as locative inversion (example 1). But while
cross-linguistic influence from English is a plausible explanation, one cannot
rule out simplification towards the default order in Spanish as an (additional)
factor. It is therefore interesting to look at another dominant language.
Dutch
is a V2 second language that allows different types of constituents in the
first position as long as the finite verb fills the second position. If the
subject is in first position, it precedes the finite verb (example 2). If a
different constituent, such as an adverb or an object, is in first position,
the subject follows the finite verb (example 3). Because Dutch allows VS
orders, Dutch heritage speakers of Spanish may be expected to overgeneralize
preverbal subjects to a lesser extent than their US counterparts.
A
contextualized scalar acceptability judgment task was administered to 22
heritage speakers of Spanish with Dutch as their dominant language and 18
monolingual Spanish speakers. An example of a task item is shown in example 4.
The results showed that the Dutch heritage speakers of Spanish overgeneralized
postverbal, not preverbal subjects (figure 1). An adapted version of the task
(the same design but different and slightly more items) was carried out with 24
Spanish heritage speakers in Newark, New Jersey, with similar proficiency
(based on a lexical decision task and self-ratings). These speakers did not
overgeneralize either order (figure 2). Preliminary data from elicited
production seem to confirm these findings. The different preference patterns
between the two groups suggest differential effects of the dominant languages,
providing support for the role of cross-linguistic influence.
commentaires
Ajouter un commentaire Lire les commentaires