scholarly journals Heritage Tagalog Phonology and a Variationist Framework of Language Contact

Languages ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 201
Author(s):  
Pocholo Umbal ◽  
Naomi Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Language Contact ◽  
Heritage Language ◽  
Language Variation ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Language Variation And Change ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Heritage Languages ◽  
Mixed Effects Modeling ◽  
Sources Of Variation ◽  
Using Data

Heritage language variation and change provides an opportunity to examine the interplay of contact-induced and language-internal effects while extending the variationist framework beyond monolingual speakers and majority languages. Using data from the Heritage Language Variation and Change in Toronto Project, we illustrate this with a case study of Tagalog (r), which varies between tap, trill, and approximant variants. Nearly 3000 tokens of (r)-containing words were extracted from a corpus of spontaneous speech of 23 heritage speakers in Toronto and 9 homeland speakers in Manila. Intergenerational and intergroup analyses were conducted using mixed-effects modeling. Results showed greater use of the approximant among second-generation (GEN2) heritage speakers and those that self-report using English more. In addition, the distributional patterns remain robust and the approximant appears in more contexts. We argue that these patterns reflect an interplay between internal and external processes of change. We situate these findings within a framework for distinguishing sources of variation in heritage languages: internal change, identity marking and transfer from the dominant language.

Introduction to Heritage Language Development

2019 ◽  
pp. 417-433
Author(s):  
Silvina Montrul ◽  
Maria Polinsky
Keyword(s):  
Heritage Language ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Language Change ◽  
Age Of Onset ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Heritage Languages ◽  
First Generation Immigrants ◽  
Heritage Language Development

This chapter presents and analyses main factors that contribute to attrition in heritage languages. It shows that heritage speakers are a highly heterogeneous population from both a psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic point of view. In principle, their language can differ from the language of their input (baseline language, usually that of first-generation immigrants to a new country). The differences can be due to how the heritage language developed under reduced input conditions, interference from the dominant language (transfer) and innovations in the grammar, potential changes incipient in the input, and attrition proper. The latter is particularly apparent when the language of adult heritage speakers is compared with the language of bilingual children; such children outperform heritage speakers on a variety of linguistic properties. The critical factors that affect language change in heritage speakers include the age of onset of bilingualism and quantity/quality of input.

Emergent communicative norms in a contact language: Indirect requests in heritage Russian

Linguistics ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Y. Dubinina ◽  
Sophia A. Malamud
Keyword(s):  
Language Contact ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
American English ◽  
Pragmatic Competence ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Heritage Languages ◽  
Communicative Strategies ◽  
Contact Language ◽  
Indirect Requests ◽  
Research Questions

AbstractThe present paper contributes to the study of speech act pragmatics, language contact, bilingualism, and heritage languages by bringing attention to the pragmatics of a contact language, heritage Russian (HR). The current study has a descriptive orientation, its main goal being to create a baseline for the pragmatic competence of speakers with incomplete acquisition of L1, which characterizes language contact in immigrant populations. We focus on communicative strategies and the choice of linguistic forms in requests made by heritage speakers of Russian, native speakers of full Russian, and native speakers of American English. The specific research questions explored in this study are: Is the linguistic variable – the form of polite requests – correlated with the population (speakers of HR vs. speakers of full Russian)? How do the differences play out? Do HR speakers have their own communicative norms? If yes, did these new norms develop under the influence of English or as a result of language-internal restructuring? We report that HR exhibits evidence of developing its own conventions for expressing polite requests which differ from the corresponding conventions in full Russian. Specifically, HR speakers use significantly more impersonal modals than monolingual native speakers of Russian in informal scenarios and rely on increased syntactic complexity to mark polite requests in formal scenarios. In indirect requests produced in both types of scenarios, HR speakers overuse the downgrader

scholarly journals Heritage language speakers in university education in Japan: Perspectives for an inclusive society.

Elia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 86-125
Author(s):  
Veri Farina
Keyword(s):  
Educational System ◽  
Heritage Language ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
University Education ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Heritage Languages ◽  
University Level ◽  
The One ◽  
The University ◽  
Heritage Language Speakers

The educational system in Japan has traditionally been focused on the “one nation, one language” ideology. This has led to the marginalization of indigenous and immigrant languages. As a consequence, heritage speakers are dealing with the loss of their heritage languages. However, there are isolated movements addressing the maintenance of the heritage languages, though they haven’t had a long-lasting effect on the educational system. In an attempt to contribute to reversing this language and identity loss, we based our research on two main points: 1) the belief that creating an informed partnership will help heritage language speakers (HLS) to integrate in the mainstream education space (Cummins, 2014) and 2) confidence in the importance of interconnecting the isolated movements for language maintenance. Would it be possible to achieve it in the Japanese educational context? Can we start scaffolding this new structure of informed partnership from the university level? In order to try to prove this point of view successfully, this article describes the creation at the university level of a class about Heritage languages and speakers in Japan, inspired by the Content and Language Integrated Learning model (CLIL). This class was meant to support and interact with another class called “Spanish for heritage students” that was developed at the same university. The student population is 14, almost half of them with a heritage language or culture. The course duration was one semester. The contents that were selected to reach the class goals are mentioned, as well as some points of view regarding what should be done to shift the Japanese educational system from a homogeneous stance to a multicultural inclusive posture. And in such a short time we could evidence an evolution in students’ critical awareness of the current immigrants’ heritage language and cultural situation in Japan. Working with specific vocabulary, reading from authentic sources, discussing contemporary articles among them, they could give shape to their thoughts in Spanish in order to express their opinions and possible solutions to this important matter.

Expressing displacement in heritage Cantonese: Cross-linguistic influence and structural vulnerability

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 603-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziyin Mai ◽  
Chung-yin Kwan ◽  
Virginia Yip
Keyword(s):  
Language Contact ◽  
Language Change ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Structural Vulnerability ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Heritage Languages ◽  
Oral Production ◽  
Incomplete Acquisition

Aims and objectives: Heritage languages spoken by speakers in overseas communities can diverge significantly from the language spoken in the home country. Recent investigations have suggested that some grammatical structures or features are more vulnerable than others. This paper investigates the role of cross-linguistic influence, incomplete acquisition and attrition in heritage Cantonese in contact with English, focusing on the grammar of the pretransitive zoeng-construction in displacement contexts. Methodology: An elicited oral production task modelled on the fruit cart experiment was used to elicit displacement instructions in Cantonese. Fourteen heritage speakers and thirteen émigré speakers participated. All had acquired Cantonese as their first language but experienced a shift of language dominance to English due to immigration and education. Seventeen native speakers of Cantonese in Hong Kong served as the baseline. Data and analysis: The utterances were manually transcribed and coded. Production and error rates were calculated. Statistical results revealed quantitative differences among the three groups of Cantonese speakers. The baseline speakers preferred the zoeng-construction in displacement contexts, whereas the heritage and émigré speakers made greater use of canonical and topicalization structures. Nevertheless, the zoeng-sentences produced by the heritage and émigré speakers were all grammatical and felicitous. Findings: The basic structure of the zoeng-construction is kept intact in less than half of the heritage and émigré speakers’ Cantonese grammar. The zoeng-construction is thus vulnerable to intergenerational language change induced by language contact and individual differences, which is partially attributable to cross-linguistic influence from English. Originality: This is the first experimental study to investigate the grammar of heritage Cantonese. Significance: The study provides new empirical evidence of structural vulnerability and variability of heritage grammar and sheds light on the role of incomplete acquisition, cross-linguistic influence and attrition in such vulnerability.

scholarly journals Attitudes and Expectations towards Heritage Language Instruction: Evidence from Korean and Spanish in the US

Languages ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Esther Hur ◽  
Julio Cesar Lopez Otero ◽  
Eunji Lee
Keyword(s):  
Heritage Language ◽  
Language Instruction ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Heritage Languages ◽  
American Universities ◽  
Professional Success ◽  
The Us ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Cultural Components

This study investigated how the attitudes and expectations of heritage languages (HL) courses differ between Spanish and Korean. Spanish and Korean are two of the biggest heritage languages (HLs) taught across American universities, but represent different trends of HL in the US. Ninety-two adult heritage speakers (HSs) completed a 41-question online questionnaire on their perceived HL proficiency as well as on what aspects of HL courses should target and what activities would be more beneficial for them. The results showed that the two groups of HSs present different attitudes and expectations towards HL instruction. Spanish HSs value their HL classes as a way to prepare for professional success and expect to receive more explicit instruction in the classroom. On the other hand, Korean HSs favor cultural components and take HL courses as a tool for reconnection with their community and cultures.

Objects of transitive verbs in Italian as a heritage language in contact with German

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Di Venanzio ◽  
Katrin Schmitz ◽  
Anna-Lena Scherger
Keyword(s):  
Heritage Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Heritage Languages ◽  
Native Languages ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
Speech Data ◽  
Transitive Verbs

This paper seeks to close a gap in the ongoing research on heritage languages (HL), their acquisition, and the nature of transfer in HL with a study on a hitherto understudied language combination, namely Italian heritage speakers (HS) raised in Germany with two native languages. The current study compares data from spontaneous speech of these HS with speech data from native speakers of Italian who immigrated to Germany as adults with German as L2, and Italian monolinguals. Analyses of Italian objects show that the HS reflect native knowledge about lexical options of object omissions and their pragmatic identification, and of object clitic use. The results indicate no evidence for covert transfer in regards to Italian object realization types. Finally, the study leads to the conclusion that Italian HS differ in fewer investigated aspects from Italian monolinguals than L1/L2 speakers.

Heritage Language Variation and Change – How Complex Is It?

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Naomi Nagy ◽  
Timothy Gadanidis
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Regression ◽  
Heritage Language ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Linguistic Context ◽  
Language Variation And Change ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Probabilistic Information ◽  
Complex Processes ◽  
Different Levels

Abstract We focus on complexity from the comparative variationist perspective, a sociolinguistic approach that examines variable aspects of language (that is, different ways of saying the same thing). Arguably, variable elements are harder to acquire than categorical ones, as a Variability Matrix must be acquired along with every element. This matrix contains probabilistic information about when each form is (more) appropriate, according to an array of factors. These include inter-speaker (social) and intra-speaker (linguistic context) predictors. We ask how the Variability Matrix for predictors of a variable compares between heritage speakers (people living in a context where their language is a minority language) and homeland speakers (people living in a context where their language is a majority language), and how these can fairly be compared. In the variationist approach, multivariate regression analyses reveal the predictors (and levels within each predictor) of a response or dependent variable and their corresponding Variability Matrices. However, the variationist field lacks an established comparative methodology to determine how/if varieties differ. One shortcoming is that different-sized samples are often compared, implicating different levels of statistical significance even when the populations’ patterns are identical. Comparison of variable patterns in Heritage and Homeland Cantonese illustrates one solution. We revise analyses conducted previously of two morphosyntactic variables: prodrop and classifiers (Nagy, 2015; Nagy & Lo, 2019) in Cantonese, applying a bootstrap procedure to mitigate issues associated with unequal-sized datasets frequent in studies of minority and endangered varieties. From these analyses, we learn that heritage and homeland grammars’ degrees of complexity are similar: the matrices of (significant) frequencies are the same size. This approach allows us to consider not just which surface forms constitute the heritage vs. homeland varieties, but also the complexity of the decision-making process the speakers apply in selecting among the forms. As one might expect, heritage and homeland speakers are capable of equally complex processes.

scholarly journals Vowel shifts in Cantonese?

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-83
Author(s):  
Holman Tse
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Heritage Language ◽  
Language Variation ◽  
Language Variation And Change ◽  
Hong Kong Cantonese

Abstract This paper addresses Labov’s principles of vowel chain shifting in Toronto and Hong Kong Cantonese based on sociolinguistic interviews from the Heritage Language Variation and Change in Toronto Project. The analysis is based on normalized F1 and F2 values of 33,179 vowel tokens from 11 monophthongs produced by 32 speakers (8 from Hong Kong, 24 from Toronto). In Toronto, results show retraction of [y] by generation but fronting of [i] by age. In Hong Kong, age is a significant predictor for the lowering of [ɪ], [ʊ], [ɔ], and for the fronting of [ɔ] and [i]. Overall, there is more vowel shifting in Hong Kong than in Toronto and the shifting is consistent with Labov’s Principles.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document