What linguistic advantages do
heritage language speakers
have over second language
learners?
Oksana Laleko (SUNY New Paltz)
Maria Polinsky (Harvard)
Seventh Heritage Language Research Institute
Chicago, IL
June 17-21
HLSs and L2 learners:
Acquisition scenarios
O Two distinct paths to (imbalanced) adult
bilingualism
HLSs and L2 learners:
Acquisition scenarios
O Different circumstances of target
language exposure
O HLSs: early consecutive or sequential
bilinguals who begin acquisition in a family
setting (cf. early L1 leaners)
O Adult L2s: late bilinguals, lg exposure in a
structured setting
HLSs and L2 learners:
Points of convergence
O Both groups display deficits in the
domain of inflectional morphology and
narrow syntax
O E.g., case, gender, agreement, long-
distance dependencies (Benmamoun et al. 2010;
Montrul 2002; Montrul et al. 2008; Polinsky 1997, 2006;
2008a, b; 2011; Rothman 2007)
HLSs and L2 learners:
Points of convergence
O Both groups exhibit difficulties with
discourse pragmatics
O Infelicitous linguistic choices in contexts
that require discourse tracking or
resolving contextual optionality (Laleko 2010;
Montrul 2004, Serratrice et al. 2004; Laleko & Polinsky,
2012; in press).
What we learned last year
O Topic and subject marking in Japanese
and Korean (Laleko & Polinsky, 2012; in press)
(1) a. Sakana-wa
fish-TOP
tai-ga
oisii.
J
red snapper-NOM delicious
‘Speaking of fish, red snapper is delicious’
b. Sayngsen-un yene-ka
fish-TOP
salmon-NOM
‘Speaking of fish, salmon is delicious.’
massissta.
delicious
K
What we learned last year
O Topic marker: establishes discourse
relations
(1) a. Sakana-wa
fish-TOP
tai-ga
oisii.
J
red snapper-NOM delicious
‘Speaking of fish, red snapper is delicious’
b. Sayngsen-un yene-ka
fish-TOP
salmon-NOM
‘Speaking of fish, salmon is delicious.’
massissta.
delicious
K
What we learned last year
O Nominative case marker: marks the
syntactic subject
(1) a. Sakana-wa
fish-TOP
tai-ga
oisii.
J
red snapper-NOM delicious
‘Speaking of fish, red snapper is delicious’
b. Sayngsen-un yene-ka
fish-TOP
salmon-NOM
‘Speaking of fish, salmon is delicious.’
massissta.
delicious
K
What we learned last year
O 1) TOP marking is more difficult than
NOM marking for both HLSs and L2
learners in Japanese and in Korean
(Laleko & Polinsky, 2012; in press)
O discourse > narrow syntax
2008, Langacker 2000, Reuland 2011)
(Givón 1979, Koornneef
What we learned last year
O 2) The level of proficiency in the HL
matters
O Higher-proficiency HLSs (Korean) > L2
learners
O Lower-proficiency HLSs (Japanese) = L2
learners
What we learned last year
O 3) Advantages exhibited by the higher-
proficiency HLSs over L2 learners are
selective
O Korean HLSs were overall target-like on all
conditions involving NOM (syntax),
O but non-target-like on TOP omissions
(discourse)
New Questions
O What other areas of linguistic knowledge
might reveal selective differences
between HLSs and L2 learners?
New Questions
O What would these results tell us about...
O language architecture?
O ways to optimize classroom instruction?
Phenomena to be discussed
O Lower-proficiency HLSs (Japanese)
O Subject honorification
O Word order variations (scrambling)
O Use of classifiers
Phenomena to be discussed
O Higher-proficiency HLSs (Korean)
O Word order variations
O Use of classifiers
Japanese
Subject Honorification
O Japanese is rich in linguistic encoding of formality;
multiple “polite forms” (Shibatani, 1990; Iwasaki, 2002)
O Subject Honorification (SH): a formal (morphosyntactic) way of marking the speaker’s respect for
individuals who hold a socially high rank
O Cf. agreement in other lgs
Subject Honorification
O Expressed by the verbal complex o-VERB-ni naru
(2)
Syachou -ga
daijina
-koto -o
o -hanashi –ni naru
President -NOM important-things-ACC HON–talk-HON
‘The president is discussing important things’
Subject Honorification
O Individuals judged to be worthy of
respect (Harada, 1976; Shibatani, 1977).
(3) a.
b.
Gakusei-ga
Mary-o
student-NOM
Mary-ACC
‘The student waits for Mary’
matu.
wait
Sensei-ga
Mary-o
o-mati-ni naru.
teacher-NOM
Mary-ACC HON-wait-HON
‘The teacher waits for Mary’
Subject Honorification
O Individuals judged to be worthy of
respect (Harada, 1976; Shibatani, 1977).
(3) a.
b.
Gakusei-ga
Mary-o
student-NOM
Mary-ACC
‘The student waits for Mary’
matu.
wait
Sensei-ga
Mary-o
o-mati-ni naru.
teacher-NOM
Mary-ACC HON-wait-HON
‘The teacher waits for Mary’
Subject Honorification
O In addition to pragmatic appropriateness,
appropriate use of SH requires the linguistic
knowledge of
O syntax
O morphology
O phonology
SH: Syntactic Knowledge
O SH only applies to subjects!
O Hence often used as a formal linguistic
diagnostic of subjecthood in Japanese
SH: Syntactic Knowledge
(4) a.
b.
* Gakusei-ga kouchousensei-o
Student–NOM school president-ACC
‘A student hit the school president.’
o-naguri-ni naru
HON-hit-HON
* Dorobou-ga kyouzyu -no
ofisu-o o-yogoshi-ni naru
thief-NOM professor–GEN office-ACC HON-dirty-HON
‘A thief broke into the professor’s office’
SH: Morphological Knowledge
O Obligatory morphological marking with
the circumfix o-…-ni
(5) Syachou -ga
daijina
-koto -o
*(o)-hanashi-*(ni) naru
president -NOM important-things-ACC HON–talk-HON
‘The president is discussing important things’
SH: Phonological Knowledge
O Vowel epenthesis with roots that end in
consonants
O verb root ends in a vowel: o-VERB-ni
yame ‘quit’  o-yame-ni naru
O verb root ends in a consonant: o-VERB-i-ni
kak ‘write’  o-kak-i-ni naru
SH: Questions for Our Study
O Which aspects of the SH construction
are problematic for heritage language
speakers and L2 learners?
O phonology
O syntax
O morphology
SH: Questions for Our Study
O In what areas, if any, might HLSs exhibit
advantages over L2ers?
The Study: Participants
Language
Group
JAPANESE
L2
HL
(N=31)
(N=29)
Age
27.5
24.75
Age of arrival to U.S.
N/A
4.0
Age of switch to English
N/A
4.8
Daily use of Japanese (%)
12.4
22.9
Self-rated proficiency in Japanese (1-5)
3.01
3.62
The Study: Procedure
O Compared with native monolingual
controls (baseline speakers), N=13
O Ratings elicited on Amazon Mechanical
Turk
The Study: Procedure
O Sentences rated on a 1-5 scale in the
following conditions:
O Acceptable use
O Phonological violations
O Syntactic violations
O Morphological violations
Results
O Both HLSs and L2 learners differed
significantly from the baseline controls in
all conditions
Results
O For L2 learners, all aspects of the SH
construction were equally hard
O For HLSs, not all aspects of the SH
construction were equally hard
Results: L2
Results: L2
no difference
Results: Heritage
Results: HL (Japanese)
no difference
Results: Heritage
ratings more accurate
Subject Honorifics: Summary
O For HLSs, phonological constraints
appear to be the least difficult aspect
of the Subject Honorification
construction
O morphology and syntax more problematic
Subject Honorifics: Summary
O Findings consistent with existing
studies involving low-proficiency HLSs
(Au, Knightly, Jun, & Oh, 2002)
Subject Honorifics: Summary
O Overall, low-proficiency HLS of
Japanese as a group do not
demonstrate apparent advantage
over L2 learners
Subject Honorifics: Summary
O Possibly because the SH construction
is mostly attested in formal registers,
to which HLSs receive the least
amount of exposure
O HL =“home language,” informal colloquial
styles
Phenomena attested in
colloquial registers
O Word order variations (scrambling)
O syntactic constraints
O Use of classifiers
O semantic and syntactic constraints
Scrambling
Taro bought comics at a bookstore.
(6) a.
b.
c.
Taroo-ga honya-de
manga-o
Taro-NOM bookstore-at comic-ACC
Taroo-ga manga-o honya-de
Taro-NOM comic-ACC bookstore-at
Manga-o honya-de
Taroo-ga
Comic-ACC bookstore-at Taro-NOM
katta.
bought
katta.
bought
katta.
bought
Constraints on scrambling
O The verb needs to come last
(7) a. *Oishisouna tsukurimas yusyoku-o otouto-no-tameni Taroo-ga
Deliciously make supper-ACC young brother-GEN-for Taro-NOM
‘Taro makes delicious supper for his young brother.’
Constraints on scrambling
Restrictions on moving subjects out
of embedded clauses
(7)
b. *Sono kukki-ga
[Misaki-ga
amai to omo -tteiru]
That cookie-NOM Misaki-NOM sweet that think -ING
‘Misaki thinks that cookie is sweet.’
Constraints on scrambling
O Case particles, conjunctions, and
postpositions cannot be separated from
their nouns
(7)
c.
*To Taroo-ga Hanako sugaku-o
With Taro-NOM Hanako math-ACC
‘Taro studied math with Hanako.’
benkyou-shi-ta
study -do-past.
Question for our study
Do HLSs and L2 learners have the
syntactic knowledge that would allow them
to recognize violations on scrambling in
Japanese?
Scrambling: Results
Scrambling: Results
significant difference
Scrambling: Results
no difference
Scrambling: Summary
O The lack of significance may reflect heritage
speakers’ reluctance to rate ungrammatical
sequences low (so called ‘yes’-bias, cf.
Laleko and Polinsky, in press; Polinsky, in
press; Orfitelli and Polinsky, submitted)
Classifiers
O Mark a conceptual classification of the
noun’s referent (Tsujimura, 2007):
O San-nin “three people”
O San-mai “three thin and flat objects”
O San-bon “three long and cylindrical objects”
O San-gen “three houses”
O San-biki “three animals”
Classifiers
O A sentence containing a numeral must
also contain the appropriate classifier:
(6) a.
b.
San-nin-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita.
three-CL-GEN child-NOM house-to came
‘Three children came to my house”
Taroo-ga san-mai-no kami-o katta.
Taro-NOM three-CL-GEN paper-ACC bought
“Taro bought three sheets of paper”
Classifiers
O A sentence containing a numeral must
also contain the appropriate classifier:
(7) a.
b.
# San-mai-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita.
three-CL-GEN child-NOM house-to came
‘Three children came to my house”
# Taroo-ga san-nin-no kami-o katta.
Taro-NOM three-CL-GEN paper-ACC bought
“Taro bought three sheets of paper”
Classifiers
O In addition to semantic constraints on the
use of classifiers, there are syntactic
constrains governing their use
Classifiers
(8) a.
b.
San-nin-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita.
three-GEN child-NOM house-to came
‘Three children came to my house’
Kodomo-ga san-nin uti-e kita.
child-NOM three house-to came
‘Three children came to my house’
Classifiers
(8) a.
b.
San-nin-no kodomo-ga uti-e kita.
three-GEN child-NOM house-to came
‘Three children came to my house’
Kodomo-ga san-nin uti-e kita.
child-NOM three house-to came
‘Three children came to my house’
Quantifier Float
Classifiers
O Quantifier Float is subject to syntactic
constraints (Fukuda and Polinsky, 2013 and further references
therein):
(9) a.
b.
Gakusei-ga san-nin
[VP sake-o nonda].
student-NOM three
sake-ACC drank
‘Three students drank sake’
*Gakusei-ga
[VP sake-o san-nin nonda]
student-NOM
sake-ACC three drank
‘Three students drank sake’
Classifiers: Main Question
O How do HLSs and L2 learners of
Japanese perform with respect to
semantic and syntactic violations on the
use of classifiers?
Classifiers: Results
Classifiers: Results
more accurate
Classifiers: Results
O Both groups diverged from the L1
controls (HLS = L2)
O no apparent advantage of being heritage
O Both groups had more difficulties with
semantics than with syntax
Summary so far
O Difficulties are not equal
O discourse > syntax (HLS and L2)
O semantics > syntax (HLS and L2)
O morphosyntax > phonology (HLS)
Summary so far
O Low-proficiency HLSs do not exhibit
apparent advantage over L2 learners
O Statistically indistinguishable from L2
(classifiers) or outperformed by L2
(scrambling)
O What about high-proficiency HLS?
Korean
Participants
Language
KOREAN
Group
L2 (N=16)
HL (N=35)
Age
25.8
24.5
Age of arrival to U.S.
N/A
3.2
Age of switch to English
N/A
3.0
Daily use of Korean (%)
23.5
29.6
Self-rated proficiency in Korean (1-5)
3.39
4.35
Phenomena to be examined
O Same conditions as in Japanese:
O Scrambling (~syntax)
O Use of classifiers (~syntax and semantics)
Question for our study
O Do HLSs and L2 learners have the
syntactic knowledge that would allow
them to recognize violations on
scrambling in Korean?
Scrambling: Results
Scrambling: Results
significant difference
Scrambling: Results
no difference
Scrambling: Results
O L1 and HL groups exhibit a significant
difference (p < 0.05) between
grammatical and ungrammatical
conditions
Scrambling: Results
O L2 group are not sensitive to syntactic
violations on scrambling (p > 0.05)
Scrambling: Results
O High-proficiency HLS > L2 on syntax
O What about semantics?
O Let’s consider classifiers
Classifiers
O Same design as in Japanese
O Main questions:
O Is there a difference between HLSs vs.
L2?
O Is there a difference in processing syntax
vs. semantics?
Classifiers: Results
Classifiers: Results
significant difference
Classifiers: Results
no difference
Classifiers: Results
Classifiers: Results
different
Classifiers: Results
different
same
Classifiers: Results
O High-proficiency HLSs:
O pattern with L1 controls in recognizing
semantic and syntactic violations on the use
of classifiers
O no difference in syntax vs. semantics
Classifiers: Results
O L2 speakers:
O Non-target-like knowledge of classifiers
O Syntax is easier than semantics
Summary
O What areas of linguistic knowledge are more
difficult?
O Discourse more difficult than syntax (Laleko,
2010; Laleko & Polinsky, 2012: in press)
O Semantics more difficult than syntax for L2
(Korean)
O Semantics more difficult than syntax for L2 and
HLSs (Japanese)
The big picture
O The hierarchy of structure-building and
interpretation (cf. Givon, 1979; Langacker, 2000;
Reinhart, 2006; Kornneef, 2008; Reuland, 2011)
syntax < semantics < discourse
[less costly]
↔
[more costly]
Summary
O What advantages do HLSs exhibit over L2
learners?
O Phonology (Japanese)
O Semantics (Korean)
O Syntax?
O Japanese HLS < L2 or HLS = L2
O Korean HLS > L2
Summary
O Advantage varies across the proficiency
continuum
Thank you!
O And thanks to Aika Taguchi, Shin Fukuda,
Sandy Kim, Sun-Hee Bae, Miwako Hisagi
O Funding: Funding: Heritage Language
Resource Center (UCLA), CASL (U of
Maryland)