Harvard University
November 5, 2007
Spanish Object Expression under
Incomplete L1 and L2 Acquisition
Silvina Montrul
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Acknowledgements
• Center for Advanced Studies, UIUC
• Arnold Beckman Award from UIUC Campus
Research Board
• RAs and colleagues
Rebecca Foote
Silvia Perpiñán
Dan Thornhill
Susana Vidal
Melissa Bowles
Brad Dennison
Alyssa Martoccio
Lucía Alzaga
2
Reality of Today’s L2 classrooms
(Spanish and LCTLs)
Two Types of Adult Language Learners
• Typical L2 learners (late bilinguals)
• Speakers of ethnic-minority languages (early
bilinguals)
Increasing numbers of heritage language speakers
are turning to typical L2 classrooms to learn, regain,
or maintain skill in the heritage language.
3
L2 classrooms
• Having learners with different
linguistic/cultural backgrounds in the same
class poses serious challenges for
teachers.
• How do we make sure that the linguistic
and cultural needs and goals of both L2
learners and heritage language learners
are met?
4
Heritage Language Practitioners
• Hold the belief that, in general, heritage
language (HL) learners are a very
heterogeneous group (even within a language)
• L2 learners and HL learners are different
• In many ways, HL learners know “more” than L2
learners who start learning the language from
zero.
• L2 learners and HL learners should be placed in
different classrooms (tracks)
5
Yet
• Any pedagogical practice must be informed by a
deep understanding of what L2 learners and HL
learners have and do not have in common.
• Basic systematic empirical research on the
linguistic and cognitive abilities of heritage
language learners using experimental methods
is only just emerging.
(HSs have been the domain of sociolinguistics)
6
Lynch (2003), Valdés (1997, 2006)
• So far, research on heritage language
teaching and learning has proceeded
atheoretically.
• Heritage Language Acquisition is in need
of a theory.
7
Valdés (Valdés et al. 2006, p. 119)
“Second language acquisition theories, as well as traditions
now guiding traditional foreign language instruction have
little to say about these students and what they should be
taught. Existing research on incipient or developing
bilingualism in foreign or second languages is of little
relevance to teachers of heritage students. Moreover,
views about second language (L2) developmental
sequences and second language (L2) proficiency
hierarchies can contribute little to the understanding of
the instructional needs of this population. Taking on the
challenge of maintaining and developing existing language
resources among immigrants, refugees, and their children
will involve a dramatic shift in focus by the profession.
The dimensions of this shift in orientation can perhaps best
be appreciated by comparing the characteristics of
traditional foreign language students with those of the new
target population of immigrant students.”
8
Second Language Acquisition
• Current theoretical views/theories of (L1 and) L2
Acquisition are VERY relevant to approach and
explain the nature of linguistic knowledge in
both L2 learners and heritage speakers.
• Heritage language learners afford the field of
second language acquisition, and linguistics
more generally, a unique opportunity to
evaluate, from a different perspective current
claims about
9
The basic and essential innate and
environmental ingredients for successful,
complete language acquisition
OR
What is a mature “idealized” native
speaker?
At what age does one become a mature L1
speaker and under what environmental
conditions?
10
Adult Bilingualism
Late bilingualism or adult L2 acquisition
• L2 acquisition after puberty: foundations of the L1 are fully
established
Early bilingualism
• Simultaneous L1 acquisition: 2 languages acquired since
birth or before age 3
• Sequential or child L2 acquisition: L2 acquisition before
puberty: foundations of the L1 are established
11
Typical Approach to adult SLA
Comparison of child L1 with adult L2
Similarities
L1 and L2 learners must construct a linguistic system based on input
Differences
Outcome of L1 and L2 acquisition (i.e., endstate of linguistic
competence) are different
Child L1: always uniform and complete
Adult L2: typically variable and incomplete
12
The Incompleteness Hypothesis
(Bley-Vroman 1989; Clahsen & Muysken 1989; Meisel 1997; Hawkins & Chan 1997;
Schachter 1990)
• L1 and L2 Acquisition are Fundamentally Different
• L1 acquisition is guided by Universal Grammar
• Past a critical period, L2 learners no longer have access to
Universal Grammar
• L2 learners use general-problem solving cognitive
mechanisms rather than an implicit linguistic mechanism to
build a grammatical representation of the L2
Compatible with other cognitive approaches to SLA (e.g.,
DeKeyser 2000, 2003; Ullman 2001; Paradis 2004).
13
Bottomline
Incomplete acquisition and impaired linguistic representations
in the L2 are due to a late age of onset of acquisition.
Late age of acquisition has consequences for the linguistic,
neurological and cognitive mechanisms that subserve fast
and efficient language acquisition that typically occurs in
childhood.
14
Theories of Full Access (White 2003)
Access to Universal Grammar is not subject to a maturational
effect.
• Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz & Sprouse 1996)
• Full Access Hypothesis (Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono 1996)
• Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis (Prévost & White 2000)
Abstract linguistic knowledge is present but not always
accessible due to a production or a processing problem.
15
Incomplete Acquisition
1. Developing grammars (L1, L2, bilingual)
2. Fossilized grammars (L2)
Incomplete grammars (fossilized) are common in
early bilingualism as well
e.g., many bilingual speakers of etnnic-minority or heritage
languages fail to acquire age-appropriate linguistic
competence in the heritage language (their L1).
16
What are the linguistic characteristics
of Heritage Language Acquisition?
How does it compare with L1 and L2
acquisition?
HS look like L1 learners
Early exposure to the language
Naturalistic setting (aural input)
Abundant input
Control of features of language acquired very early in life (phonology, some vocabulary,
some linguistic structures)
Developmental errors
Outcome is successful and complete
Fossilization/stabilization does not occur.
No clear role for motivation and affective factors to develop linguistic competence
More complex structures, vocabulary, and pragmatic aspects of language developed at
school after age 5 when metalinguistic skills emerge.
18
HS also look like L2 learners
Late exposure to the language
Instructed setting (aural and written input)
Varying amount of input
Developmental and transfer errors
Grammar may be incomplete
Outcome is variable proficiency.
Fossilization is typical
Motivation and affective factors play a role in language development
Experience with literacy and formal instruction
19
L1 acquisition
L2 acquisition
HL acquisition
20
In GENERAL, HL learners
(Valdés 2000, Carreira & Kagan 2007)
• Have good oral comprehension of the language
• May be able to speak the language to different
degrees
• Have good pronunciation
• Have lexical gaps
• Make grammatical errors
• Poor to minimal reading and writing skills
• Self-identify with their ethnic community
• Have a strong interest in learning more about
their language
21
Heritage speakers
• Received input during the Critical Period
• Yet, input in middle-late childhood may have been
insufficient to develop full linguistic skills in the
heritage language
(limited literacy)
• Cases of L1 attrition or fossilized L1 acquisition
22
Research questions
(1) Do Spanish heritage speakers have some
advantages over post puberty L2 learners?
(2) If advantages are found, are these global or
selective, i.e., only found in certain grammatical
domains and language skills?
23
Au et al. (2002), Knightly et al. (2003)
Study of Spanish language overhearers (i.e.,
HS) and typical late L2 learners
Advantages for HS were found in phonology
(VOT production) but not in morphosyntax.
24
VOT Results
Native
speakers
Heritage
speakers
L2
learners
Word initial
/p, t, k/
19.3
19.6
*36.2
Word
medial
/p, t, k/
22.4
23.4
*31.2
25
Accent ratings (max 5)
Native
speakers
Heritage
speakers
L2
learners
voiceless
/p,t,k/
4.3a
3.5b
2.2c
voiced
/b,d,g/
4.4a
3.3b
2.7c
26
Knightly et al. (2003)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
98.6
91.8
native speakers
heritage speakers
L2 learners
63.6 62.5
50
52
No differences
GJT
Narrative
27
Other Findings
Au et al (2002), Knightly et al (2003)
Studied very low proficiency Korean and Spanish heritage speakers and L2 learners.
Advantages for HS were found in phonology (VOT production) but not in morphosyntax.
Håkansson (1995)
Swedish expatriates and L2 learners of Swedish.
Swedish expatriates compared to native speakers on V2 order. L2 learners
produced above 80% SV order instead of V2.
gender agreement: L2 learners outperformed the Swedish expatriates
Montrul (2005)
Studied advanced, intermediate and low proficiency Spanish L2 learners and heritage speakers’
knowledge of lexico-semantic and syntactic properties of unaccusativity (intransitive verbs)
Advantages were found for low proficiency HS.
Montrul (2006)
Heritage speakers are better than L2 learners with some aspects of the Null Subject parameter
(word order, agreement)
28
3 Features of Spanish Object Expression
1. Clitic pronouns
2. Variable word order
3. Differential object marking
29
1. Clitic Placement
Object clitics precede finite verbs
(1) Patricia vio la novela.
Patricia saw the soap opera
‘Patricia saw the soap opera.’
(2) Patricia la vio. vs. *Patricia vio la.
Patricia it saw
‘Patricia saw it.’
30
Object clitics follow non-finite verbs
(3) Ana canta la canción sin entenderla bien.
*Ana canta la canción sin la entender bien.
‘Ana sings the song without understanding it well.’
In restructuring contexts, Spanish clitics can
climb up to the finite verb or stay low next to the
infinitive.
(4) Olga lo puede comprar.
Olga puede comprarlo.
*Olga puede lo comprar
‘Olga can buy it.’
31
2. Word Order
Postverbal Subjects
(5) La mujer lo besa. S-Ocl-V
Lo besa la mujer. Ocl-V-S
‘The woman kisses him.’
Topicalizations: Clitic Left Dislocations
(6) a.Juan tiene las carpetas en la oficina.
S-V-O
b. Las carpetas las tiene Juan en la oficina. O-cl-V-S
‘Juan has the folders in the office.’
32
3. Differential Object Marking (DOM)
In general, Spanish objects that are [+ specific] and [+animate]
are marked with the dative preposition A.
(7) Juan vio a María.
Juan saw A Maria
[+animate, + specific]
*Juan vio María
‘Juan saw Maria.’
33
Other objects are unmarked
(8) Juan vio el tren.
‘Juan saw the train.’
[-animate, +specific]
(9) Juan necesita un abogado.
‘Juan needs a lawyer.’
[+ animate, - specific]
(10) El huracán destruyó una ciudad.
‘The hurricane destroyed a city.’
[-animate, - specific]
34
Semantic notions like specificity, agentivity, telicity and
topicality seem to play a role in explaining the
optionality of A with animate and inanimate objects
(Aissen 2003; Torrego 1998; Leonetti 2004).
35
Some Theoretical Assumptions
• In Romance languages, object clitics head their own
functional projections (Uriagereka 1995).
• Clitic Left Dislocations are part of the left-periphery
of the clause (CP and higher functional projections
that interface with pragmatics).
• DOM is marked accusative case (Torrego 1998):
inherent, semantically based accusative case; the
dative preposition is a functional category. Marked
objects move outside the VP.
36
Contact Language: English
• lacks clitic projections;
• has stricter S-V-O order (although it has topicalizations);
• does not have DOM.
37
L1 acquisition
Clitic pronouns and DOM with animate and specific
direct objects are acquired before the age of 3
(López Ornat 1994; Domínguez 2003; Rodríguez-Mondoñedo 2006)
Clitic-climbing emerges in Spanish speaking children
between 2;00-2;8
(Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Snyder and Sugisaki 2005)
Topicalizations emerge soon afterwards, by the age of
3. (Grinstead 2004)
38
L2 Acquisition
Beginner and Intermediate L2 learners
• make clitic-placement errors (especially if L1 is French)
(Liceras 1986, Bruhn-Garavito & Montrul 1996)
• have problems interpreting clitics and objects with
alternative word orders (VanPatten & Cadierno 1993)
• do not recognize DOM in Spanish (Farley & McCollam 2004)
Advanced L2 learners
• eventually acquire clitics and clitic placement in Spanish
(Duffield & White 1999)
• have residual problems with topicalizations (Valenzuela 2006)
39
Spanish Heritage Speakers
(Silva-Corvalán 1994, Montrul 2004)
• Robust control of the object clitic system
(accusative and dative structural case)
• Omission of DOM in oral production
Group
Control
Advanced HSs
Interm. HSs
% a-omission (*NP)
0
6
21.3
40
Hypotheses
Critical Period Position
Heritage speakers should show evidence of parameter setting
in Spanish, whereas L2 learners should show no evidence
of parameter resetting in Spanish.
Predictions
English-speaking L2 learners should have problems with
Spanish clitics, clitic placement, word order, and DOM.
Spanish heritage learners should bring knowledge of clitics,
clitic placement, word order, and DOM from childhood.
41
No Critical Period Position
Parameter resetting is (eventually) possible in L2 learners
regardless of age of acquisition
Prediction
L2 learners and HL learners will have knowledge of Spanish
clitics, clitic placement, word order, and DOM.
L2 learners may show transfer effects from English as
predicted by the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis
42
Method
Participants
22 Spanish native speaker (baseline group)
67 US born 2nd generation Mexican speakers (acquired
English before age 6)
72 English-speaking L2 learners of Spanish
L2 learners and HL learners divided into 3 proficiency groups:
Low, Intermediate, Advanced (based on a short proficiency
test)
43
Instruments
1. Elicited Production (Oral narrative)
clitics, word order, DOM
2. Web-based off-line Grammaticality Judgment Task
clitics, ciltic placement, word order and topicalizations, DOM
3. On-line Visual Picture-Sentence Matching Task
clitics, word order
44
Proficiency Scores
50.00
Mean 48.5
SD 1.00
range 45-50
Mean 35.34
proficiency
40.00
SD 9.24
Mean 36.88
30.00
range 16-50
SD 8.17
range 15-48
20.00
Nati ve Speakers
L2 Learners
Her itag e Speakers
Groups
45
Oral Narrative: Clitic production
Clitics
object NP
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
48.7
56.5
79
51.3
43.5
21
native speakers
heritage
speakers
L2 learners
46
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
92
98.5
78.1
accusative
dative
75.5
20
native speakers
heritage
speakers
L2 learners
47
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
finite
nonfinite
fin+nonfinite
69.8
67.7
64.5
22.4
15.8 14.3
native
speakers
13.3
heritage
speakers
14.7 16.3
L2 learners
48
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
no climbing
clitic climbing
40
34.2
86.1
60
65.8
13.9
native
speakers
heritage
speakers
L2 learners
49
1. Clitics and Clitic Placement
GJT: 90 sentences (45 gram, 45 ungram, 18 sentence
types x 5 tokens)
Randomized sentences presented with a 5-point
Likert scale underneath
1 = totally ungrammatical
5 = completely grammatical
50
Grammaticality Judgment Task
Clitics cannot be subjects
5
accusative
dative
4
ns differences
3
2.04
2
1.63
1.22 1.25
1.43
1.66
1
native speakers
heritage speakers
L2 learners
51
Grammaticality Judgment Task
Clitics precede finite verbs
5
4.69
4.37
4.16
4
ns differences
clitiv-V
*V-clitic
3
2
1.39
1.06
1.31
1
native speakers
heritage speakers
L2 learners
52
Grammaticality Judgment Task
Clitics follow non-finite verbs
4.91
5
4.69
4.37
4
ns differences
*Clitiv-V
V-Clitic
3
2
1.47
1.66
1.06
1
native speakers
heritage speakers
L2 learners
53
Grammaticality Judgment Task
Clitic climbing in reestructuring contexts
5
4.99
4.94
4.8
4.6
4.31
3.84
4
3
climbing
*Mod-Cl-Inf
no climbing
Differences for clitic climbing
2
1.04
1.24
1.32
1
native speakers heritage speakers
L2 learners
54
2. Word Order (SVO vs. OVS)
Grammaticality Judgment Task
5
4.99
4.57
4.85
4.78
S-V-O
O-cl-V-S
4
3.47
3
2.42
2
1
native speakers
heritage
speakers
L2 learners
55
On-Line Visual Picture-Sentence Matching Task
Procedure
• Participants were presented with two pictures, A and B, on a
computer screen with a sentence underneath.
• The pictures depicted the same action, but with the participants
reversed (e.g., a boy calling his parents vs. the parents calling their
son).
• Participants had to decide as fast as possible which picture the
sentence described, by pressing A or B on the keyboard.
• The target pairs of pictures appeared 4 times, with one of the
following sentences with alternative word orders underneath.
• (The task included 20 target sentences (5 of each) and 20
distractor/fillers.)
sentence types: Preverbal Subject: S-V-O and S-cl-V
Preverbal Object: cl-V-S and O-cl-V-S
56
On-Line Visual Picture-Sentence Matching Task
Preverbal Subject:
Juan llama por teléfono a sus padres.
Sus padres lo llaman por teléfono.
(S-V-O)
(S-Cl-V)
Preverbal Object:
Lo llaman por teléfono sus padres. (Cl-V-S)
A sus padres los llama Juan por teléfono. (O-Cl-V-S)
57
Example from the online Visual PMT
A
B
Lo llaman por teléfono sus padres. (Cl-V-S)
58
Analysis
• Two Factorial ANOVAs with Repeated Measures
• One for Accuracy, and one for Speed (RTs)
• Independent variables: Group (3), Proficiency Level (3), Word Order
(2), Sentences (4)
Accuracy: No difference between L2 learners and HS
main effect for Preverbal argument
Speed: HS faster than L2 learners and no different from Control
main effect for preverbal argument
Preverbal subject sentences faster and more accurate than Preverbal
Object sentences
59
Overall Results
Accuracy: no differences
between heritage
speakers and L2 learners
Speed: heritage speakers
faster than L2 learners
1.00
5000.00

Mean RT (ms)
Mean Accuracy (%)
0.90
0.80
0.70
4000.00

0.60

3000.00
Nati ve Speakers
L2 Learners
Groups
Her itag e Speakers
Nati ve Speakers
L2 Learners
Her itag e Speakers
Groups
60
On-line Visual SPMT
Mean Accuracy by Sentence Type
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
96 99 95 97
96 96
95 94
82
71
67
63
No effect by group
Main effect by object position
native speakers heritage speakers
S-V-O
S-cl-V
cl-V-S
O-cl-V-S
L2 learners
61
On-line Visual SPMT
Mean RT by sentence type
5500
S-V-O
S-cl-V
cl-V-S
O-cl-V-S
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
native speakers heritage speakers
L2 learners
62
Summary so far
• L2 learners and Heritage Speakers know Spanish
clitics and their placement (GJT). But heritage
speakers use/produce more clitics than L2 learners.
• HS have an advantage over L2 learners with clitic
left dislocations (GJT)
• HS are overall faster than L2 learners when
interpreting Spanish sentences with clitics and
alternative word order. They do not differ from
native speaker controls in speed.
63
3. Differential Object Marking
Main Study:
Oral Narrative
Grammaticality Judgment Task
Follow-up study (Montrul & Bowles, under review)
64
Oral Narrative
Accuracy on Differential Object Marking
100
99 100
80
97.6
94
animate
inanimate
69.1
52.33
60
40
20
0
native
speakers
heritage
speakers
L2 learners
65
Grammaticality Judgment Task
5
4
DOM omission
double objects
3.54
2.77
3
2.27
2
1.58
1.2
1.1
1
native
speakers
heritage
speakers
L2 speakers
66
Follow-up Study with Heritage Speakers
(Montrul & Bowles, under review)
•
•
•
•
Written Elicited production Task
GJT (similar to that of main study)
Instructed Intervention (Pretest-Posttest design)
70 sentences (different sentence types)
DOM sentences
Animate object (grammatical, ungrammatical)
Inanimate object (grammatical, ungrammatical)
67
DOM with animate direct objects
Animate Objects
5
4.93
4.64
grammatical
4.27
ungrammatical
3.94
4
3.5
3.5
3.08
3
2
1.2
1
advanced
Native Speakers
intermediate
Heritage Speakers
low
68
DOM with inanimate direct objects
Inanimate Objects
5
4.96
4.64
4.28
grammatical
ungrammatical
4.2
4
3.21
3.06
3.09
3
2
1.1
1
advanced
Native Speakers
intermediate
low
Heritage Speakers
69
Main Study
HL learners are worse than L2 learners with DOM
sentences in the GJT (better in production).
Follow-up study
Problems with DOM persist with advanced proficiency
in HL learners.
70
Research Questions
(1) Do heritage speakers have an advantage over L2
learners?
YES
(2) Are advantages selective?
YES
71
Are there advantages for HS over L2 learners?
Clitics
Word
Order
DOM
findings
Yes
Yes
No
support
No CPH
(FT/FA)
No CPH
FT/FA
neither
72
L2 Acquisition
Results are entirely consistent with the
Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (White 1989;
Schwartz & Sprouse 1996) although individual results
need to be examined closely)
Full Access: Success with clitics (parameter resetting)
Full Transfer: Difficulty with word order and DOM
73
Heritage Language Acquisition
Results are consistent with the Critical Period position
HL learners have advantages over L2 learners in use
and distribution of clitics, some complex areas of
syntax (word order with dislocations), in oral tasks,
and in on-line tasks (processing).
74
Input Mode and Frequency
Clitics
Word Order DOM
Taught in L2
classroms?
yes
mentioned
mentioned
Input
frequency?
Frequent in
oral and
written
discourse
More frequent
in oral than in
written
discourse
Frequent in
oral and written
discourse
75
Types of Linguistic Knowledge
Cognitive and Neurolinguistic Approaches to SLA (DeKeyser
2000, 2003; Paradis 2004; Ullman 2001)
Implicit vs. explicit acquired knowledge
The critical period affects implicit competence
• L2 learners have explicit, metalinguistic knowledge at this stage of
development (GJT)
• HS may be using implicit knowledge acquired in childhood (oral task, RT
times)
Support for the CPH position.
76
PROBLEM
But what about DOM?
• Early acquired in L1 acquisition
• very frequent in input.
77
Linguistic Interfaces (White 2007)
Grammar: Lexicon + computational system
Computational system interfaces with
1) the articulatory-perceptual system (PF)
2) The conceptual-intentional system (LF)
PF and LF are external interfaces
78
Internal Interfaces
•
•
•
•
Syntax-semantics
Syntax-morphology
Syntax-morphology-phonology
Syntax-pragmatics
79
Interfaces are Vulnerable
Interface areas between syntax and other cognitive
systems (i.e., discourse-pragmatics, lexical
semantics) exhibit a great deal of developmental
instability.
Adult L2 acquisition: fossilization, indeterminate or incomplete
representations
Child bilingual acquisition: cross linguistic influence
Adult L1 attrition: instability
Child L1 attrition: incomplete acquisition/fossilization
80
Linguistic Complexity
Clitics
Word Order DOM
Grammatical
domain
Syntax
Syntax/
Pragmatics
Grammatical
information
Case/Agr
Case/Agr
referentiality Specificity
topicality
A little word with a
lot of meaning!
Syntax/
Semantics/
morphology
Inherent Acc Case
Definiteness
Specificity
Animacy
Telicity
Affectedness
81
Child L1 Attrition affects DOM
Sorace (2004): developmental instability in incomplete acquisition is
related to the complexity of the interfaces
Language attrition process
Simplification, loss of restrictions, return to the basics (universals)
(consistent with Jakobson’s Regression Hypothesis)
Syntax is resilient, interfaces are vulnerable.
Of all the structural domains tested, DOM is the most linguistically
complex phenomenon.
82
Loss of Inherent Case
• Happened in the History of English (Lightfoot 1991)
• Has also been attested in Russian as a heritage
language (Polinsky 1997, 2006)
• Syntactic convergence with English (probably)
• Convergence does not introduce new elements into
the weaker language: it biases the grammar toward
the selection, retention and strengthening of
structures shared by the minority and majority
languages (Bullock & Toribio 2004).
83
Conclusions
• The nature of Incomplete, fossilized grammars of adult early
bilinguals in a language minority situation is very complex.
• Understanding how the linguistic knowledge of heritage speakers is
different/similar to that of L2 learners will require a variety of
experimental methodologies.
• Current theoretical approaches to SLA/Bilingualism that emphasize
age of acquisition and nature and timing of input are a good starting
point but cannot always predict and explain the patterns of
incomplete acquisition found in adult early bilinguals, or why these
differ or not from those of L2 learners.
• Explanations may be found in a deeper understanding of the
structural complexity of the human language faculty and how it
behaves during the normal processes of development and change
observed in different learning contexts.
84
Current Research
Montrul & Bowles (in under review a)
Do problems with DOM in Spanish heritage speakers generalize to other
instances of inherent case?
YES
Montrul & Bowles (under review b)
Does explicit instruction help instructed Spanish HL learners overcome
incomplete acquisition of inherent dative case?
YES
Montrul, Bhatt & Girju (in progress)
Is DOM affected in other heritage languages in contact with English, such as
Hindi (dative marker postposition -ko), or Romanian (marker is pe)?
Are patterns of incomplete acquisition similar to those observed in Spanish
heritage speakers?
Does the acoustic salience of the object marker in Spanish makes it more
vulnerable to language loss in this language?
85
THANK YOU!
86