SPRING BREAK READING
Time: March 24th, 2023 (00:00:00 EST) – April 2nd, 2023 (23:59:59 EST)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Reading №1: Bowles and Montrul – Back to basics: Incomplete knowledge of Differential Object Marking in
Spanish heritage speakers ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Section №0 – Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Section №1 – Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Section №2+3 – Differential Object Marking + Acquisition of Spanish DOM ..................................................... 4
Section №4 – The Study (Experiments and Results) ............................................................................................ 4
Section №5 – Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Reading №2: Montrul – Current Issues in Heritage Language Learning ................................................................. 5
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Heritage Language Learning Systems ................................................................................................................... 5
Phonetics and Phonology ................................................................................................................................... 5
Vocabulary ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Morphosyntax ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Syntax ................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Contrasting First, Second, and Heritage Language Learning .......................................................................... 6
Three Theoretical Perspectives: Formal Linguistic, Cognitive, and Emergentist ............................................... 7
Recent Empirical Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 7
The Nature of Incomplete Acquisition ................................................................................................................ 8
Comparison of L2 Language Learners and Heritage Language Learners ...................................................... 8
Mode of Acquisition, Types of Knowledge, and Tasks ..................................................................................... 8
Reactivity to Classroom Instruction, Type of Feedback, and Ultimate Attainment ........................................ 8
Reading №3: Nguyen – Vietglish: Trans-languaging in Vietnamese and English [selected portions] .................. 9
Section №1 – Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1. Background .................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2. Research Aims ............................................................................................................................................... 9
Section №2 – Review of Background Literature ................................................................................................... 9
2.1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2. Code-switching and mixing ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.3. Multicompetence........................................................................................................................................ 10
2.4. Dynamic Systems ....................................................................................................................................... 10
2.5. Trans-languaging ....................................................................................................................................... 10
2.6. Vietnamese Diaspora Sociolinguistic and Socio-economic Landscape .................................................. 11
2.7. Typology and Linguistic Features of Vietnamese ..................................................................................... 11
Page 1 of 19
2.8. Two Relevant Studies ................................................................................................................................. 11
2.9. Summary of Literature and the Present Dissertation Research............................................................... 11
Section №5 – Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 12
5.2. (Theme №1) Respect.................................................................................................................................. 12
5.3. (Theme №2) Pronunciation as Power ....................................................................................................... 12
5.4. (Theme №3) Combined grammars ........................................................................................................... 12
5.5. (Theme №4) Willingly and Unwillingly Using Vietglish for Identity, Culture, and Emotion .................... 12
Section №6 – Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 12
6.1. Limitations .................................................................................................................................................... 12
6.2. Conclusions................................................................................................................................................. 12
6.3. Answering the Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 12
6.3.1. RQ №1 ...........................................................................................................................................................12
6.3.2. RQ №2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Reading №4: Sun et al. – Language Experience and Bilingual Children’s Heritage Language Learning [selected
portions] ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 13
Language Output Quantity and Bilingual Children’s HL Learning .................................................................. 13
Language Output Settings and Bilingual Children’s HL Learning ................................................................... 13
The Current Study: Bilingual Children’s Mandarin Learning in Singapore ..................................................... 13
Discussions ............................................................................................................................................................ 14
Limitations, Implications, and Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 14
Reading №5: Pires and Rothman - Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for
competence divergence across heritage grammars .............................................................................................. 15
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................. 15
[1] Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
[6] Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
Reading №6: Putnam and Sánchez - What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? - A prolegomenon to
modelling heritage language grammars .................................................................................................................. 16
Part 0 – Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... 16
Part 1 – Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 16
Part 2 – What’s incomplete about incomplete acquisition?................................................................................ 16
Section 2.1 – Measuring “insufficient input” .................................................................................................... 16
Section 2.2 – A process or a result? ................................................................................................................. 16
Part 3 – Our model.................................................................................................................................................. 17
Part 4 – Evidence for the model ............................................................................................................................ 17
Reading №7: Masquesmay Ph.D. - Negotiating Multiple Identities in a Queer Vietnamese Support Group ...... 18
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 18
Reading №8: Kington – Parlez-vous franglais? [selected portions] ...................................................................... 18
Page 2 of 19
DATE: March 25th, 2023
READINGS
[1] Back to basics: Incomplete knowledge of Differential Object Marking in Spanish heritage speaker – Melissa
Bowles and Silvina Montrul
[2] Current Issues in Heritage Language Learning – Silvina Montrul
Reading №1: Bowles and Montrul – Back to basics: Incomplete knowledge of Differential Object Marking in
Spanish heritage speakers
Section №0 – Abstract
 Reference: Differential Object Marking (DOM)
 For Spanish, it is the usage of the preposition “a” (meaning: to, at, in, etc.) with animate, specific
direct object (being sentence’s object that are affected by indirect actions, like to talk, to know
(about), etc.
 There have been studies that references the “loss and/or incomplete acquisition of grammatical features ”
in Spanish heritage speakers.
 « This study assesses the extent of incomplete knowledge of DOM in Spanish heritage speakers raised
in the United States by comparing it with knowledge of DOM in fully competent native speakers. »
 « Results of the two experiments confirmed that heritage speakers’ recognition and production of DOM
is probabilistic, even for speakers with advanced proficiency in Spanish. This suggests that many
heritage speakers’ grammars may not actually instantiate (represent) inherent (natural) case. »
 « We argue that language loss under reduced input conditions in childhood is, in this case, like “going
back to basics”: it leads to simplification of the grammar by letting go of the non-core options, while
retaining the core functional structure. »
Section №1 – Introduction
 Other words used for incomplete acquisition :
 non-target-like (no targets on how to acquire a language)
 interrupted (could have been continued)
 What is deemed incomplete grammar : « …fails to reach age-appropriate linguistic levels of proficiency
as compared with the grammar of monolingual or fluent bilingual speakers of the same age, cognitive
development, and social group. »
 The common group: « …adult L2 (second language) acquisition…frequently do not reach the level of
attainment (gain, progression) of a native speaker… »
 New discovery with the case for L1s (first language): « …possible…in a dual language environment,
especially when exposure…is reduced in childhood…common with child and adult bilingual speakers… »
 Different problem: L1 attrition
 Attrition = loss
 L1 attrition is more attrition through time + attrition of the developed .
 The difference of L1 attrition and incomplete acquisition and/or attrition since childhood
Page 3 of 19





 L1 attrition: « …affect lexical retrieval…phonetics…superficial discourse-related aspects of
language… »
 Incomplete acquisition: « …affecting both core and non-core aspects of grammatical competence
depending on the age of onset (beginning / start) of bilingualism. »
Understanding heritage language acquisition
 Shares both features of child L1 acquisition (early bilingualism, exposed to language from an early
age) + adult L2 acquisition (exposure varies)
Problem of language shift (moving towards the dominant): « With language shift, patterns of language
use within and outside the family gradually change. As a result, input and use of the family language
may become severely reduced, eventually affecting the children’s command of the family language. »
The difficulty of seeing the full picture: « In general, many (but by no means all) adult heritage speakers
possess good oral comprehension abilities, may speak the language quite fluently and with native-like
levels of pronunciation, and are familiar with the cultural norms of the language and culture. What is less
clear is which aspects of their syntax and morphology are fully acquired and which remain undeveloped
into adulthood. »
Notable aspects of certain languages (example given of Russian and Spanish)
 inflectional morphology and syntax (meaning: the change of form that words undergo to mark such
distinctions as those of case, gender, number, tense, person, mood, or voice + the way in which
linguistic elements are put together)
 gender agreements in nouns (le, la, les – French; el, la, los, las – Spanish; он, она, оно, они –
Russian)
 tense (past-present-future), aspect (perfect-imperfect), and mood
 null subject pronoun (usage of “il” – French, usage of the Dative case – Russian).
Incompletion is not always complete, but can be selective and localised – not everything is completely
affected.
 Thus, 2 questions derived:
 Q1: « Which specific aspects of the grammar are possibly affected under incomplete acquisition
due to reduced input in childhood in some systematic way? What form does incomplete
acquisition take? »
 Q2: « What language internal and external factors contribute to the vulnerability of particular
grammatical areas? »
Section №2+3 – Differential Object Marking + Acquisition of Spanish DOM
 Some understanding of how DOM works in Spanish (irrelevant of the making)
Section №4 – The Study (Experiments and Results)
 Experiment 1: « The results of Experiment 1 show that omission of a-marking in DOM sentences is not
just a production problem, but it appears to affect tacit linguistic knowledge (deep understanding) as
well. »
 Experiment 2: « Results of Experiment 2 showed that the heritage speakers tested, even those of
advanced proficiency, do not have clear judgments on DOM with either animate or inanimate direct
objects. »
Page 4 of 19
Section №5 – Discussion
 Reference of external problem: exposure to language
 Reference of internal problem: understanding of the language , exposure of other languages
Reading №2: Montrul – Current Issues in Heritage Language Learning
Abstract
 Definition of heritage language learners (acquirers): « …speakers of ethnolinguistically minority
languages who were exposed to the language in the family since childhood and as adults wish to learn,
relearn, or improve their current level of linguistic proficiency in their family language. »
Introduction
 Limitation of this paper: « …I only discuss the case of immigrants. »
 « Although there is a growing body of descriptive studies (large-scale and single case-studies) of
heritage speakers’ profiles, there is very little systematic theoretically driven research on heritage
language learners, heritage acquisition, and the psycholinguistic processes involved in this type of
learning. »
Heritage Language Learning Systems
 Reference to the weakness in the language of the homeland : « Although one can certainly find some
heritage speakers with very advanced or even nativelike proficiency in the two languages…for most
heritage speakers, the home language is the weaker language. »
 Linguistic areas (of interest)
 Vocabulary
 Morphosyntax (cases, verbal and/or nominal agreement, tense, aspect, and mood)
 Pronominal reference
 Article semantics
 Word order
 Relative clauses
 Conjunctions
 And many more
 Incomplete acquisition reference—not to be viewed as chaotic learning or rogue grammar intake, rather
a process of simplification.
Phonetics and Phonology
 The least affected characteristics: « …pronunciation is the linguistic domain most spared from this
impression. »
 Studies showed that “listener”-heritage language learners were able to pronounce to native level .
 However, this does not suggest the impossibility of non-native pronunciation.
Page 5 of 19
Vocabulary
 Context-specific and experience-based .
 Most often, the vocabulary reflects that of objects since in their houses and during their childhood .
 There also the existence of difficulties to retrieve words .
 Vocabulary proficiency also correlates with grammatical formation, with regards to structural accuracy .
 Verbs are the less damaged, then adjective, then nouns. (V  A  N)
 « …verbs are semantically (the historical and psychological study and the classification of
changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development) more
dense and heavier than nouns (containing both lexical and structural information), and hence
more costly to lose. »
Morphosyntax
 The most noticeably affected.
 Nominal domain: number, gender, and case .
 Up to 25% of gender-marking error rate, usually affecting feminine (and neuter cases)
 Plurals are also affected (because it can be gender-determined)
 Cases bring another level.
Syntax
 The involvement of clause order (SVO and SOV).
 Null and overt pronouns acknowledgement and over-usage.
 The understanding of relative clause .
Contrasting First, Second, and Heritage Language Learning
 Understanding L1 - « (How?) = Early first language (L1) acquisition happens through the aural medium
and takes place in a naturalistic setting by means of interaction with caregivers. Language acquisition is
said to be uniform because children exposed to the same language or dialect reach the same level of
linguistic development (and competence) despite variations in input. (Result?) = Eventually, children
converge on the grammar of other adult members of their speech community. The outcome of normal
L1 acquisition is successful, although this does not mean it is entirely error free. »
 The development of how to talk about a language within that language: « Around age 4, children’s
metalinguistic ability develops through emergent literacy and continues at school, where children
learn to read and write. »
 Difference between L1 and L2 + heritage: « In principle, children growing up in bilingual and multilingual
environments— like heritage speakers—also have the potential to develop full linguistic competence in
one, two or all the languages they are exposed to. However, the actual realization of such potential
ultimately depends on many factors, including parental discourse strategies, status of the languages in
the community, availability of a speech community beyond the family, attitudes toward the language,
access to education in the language, and so on. »
 Difference between L2 and heritage: « The precise situation of many heritage languages is that they are
minority languages, spoken primarily at home in an informal context. »
Page 6 of 19
 Similarities of monolingual L1 and heritage: « Like monolingual children, heritage language children
acquire the language naturalistically, from interaction with the family. »
 The curious case of simultaneous bilingual : « They were exposed to the heritage language and the
majority language since birth, either because one or the two parents also speak the majority language,
or because the child received child care in the majority language. »
 The standard case of sequential bilingual : « Other heritage language children are sequential bilinguals
or heritage language-dominant, at least up to age 5 (preschool). In these cases, perhaps the two parents
speak the minority language and the language is used almost exclusively in the home. »
 Hierarchy reinforcement with siblings: « If there are siblings in the family, the typical pattern is that
the older siblings in the family have stronger command of the home language than the younger
children in the family. »
 « Table 1 summarizes the main features of these three types of acquisition: L1, L2, and heritage language
acquisition. Characteristics in italic bold font represent the intersecting subset between L1 and L2
acquisition that mark heritage language acquisition. »
Three Theoretical Perspectives: Formal Linguistic, Cognitive, and Emergentist
 The following theoretical perspectives have been applied to explain monolingual acquisition (solely L1)
of children and adult L2 acquisition.
 Point for formal linguistic – Universal Grammar
 Point for generative (cognitive) linguistic – fundamental difference hypothesis (FDH)
 Child L1 utilised implicit/innate mechanism (principles and constraints), part of the Universal Grammar
 Post-puberty L2 learners move away from this mechanism.
 Point for emergentism – development based on environment.
Recent Empirical Findings
Page 7 of 19
The Nature of Incomplete Acquisition
 « In turn, if other aspects of language need more input and sustained exposure and use, as the
emergentist approach maintains, then inflectional morphology and other aspects of language that are
context-dependent, acquired after age 4 or 5, and reinforced through reading and formal instruction at
school will not be fully developed. »
Comparison of L2 Language Learners and Heritage Language Learners
 « If timing of input is crucial for developing the essence of native speaker competence, heritage
language learners should benefit from having received exposure to the heritage language, even if
minimal, in early childhood. »
 Limitation: Only has been proven for pronunciation and phonology.
Mode of Acquisition, Types of Knowledge, and Tasks
 Hypothesis given: Orality vs Literacy = Heritage vs L2.
 Limitation: Supported to some degree.
« There is also the possibility that because heritage language learners are less literate in the heritage
language than L2 learners are in their L2, many strict comparisons between the two groups are hard to
interpret (or at least existing comparisons may say much less about actual grammatical competence
than on language processing as a function of experience.) Because heritage language learners are
primarily naturalistic learners, they are better at processing the language aurally. Furthermore, they
have little metalinguistic competence and awareness. L2 learners acquire the language primarily
through literacy, and oral skills tend to be less emphasized in the classroom. »
Reactivity to Classroom Instruction, Type of Feedback, and Ultimate Attainment
 What HLL needs/wants to acquire: « There is no doubt that heritage language learners have high levels
of communicative competence in the heritage language, but need to expand vocabulary, develop
literacy skills in different genres, and improve grammatical accuracy. »
 The question to be posed: « Once in the classroom, will they continue to learn the heritage language
implicitly as L1-acquiring children, or will they now rely on explicit learning, like adult L2 learners? »
 What seems to be the optimal solution?: « In summary, if heritage language learners received some
crucial input during the critical period, given optimal amounts of input and time to develop the
underdeveloped skills through instruction, they should be able to catch up with educated native
speakers if that is what their linguistic goal is. »
Page 8 of 19
DATE: March 26th, 2023
READINGS
[3] Vietglish: Trans-languaging in Vietnamese and English – Bao-Linh Luong Nguyen
[4] Language Experience and Bilingual Children’s Heritage Language Learning – He Sun, Roodra Veera, and
Nicolette Waschl
Reading №3: Nguyen – Vietglish: Trans-languaging in Vietnamese and English [selected portions]
SELECTED PORTIONS
Section 1 – Introduction
Section 2 – Review of Background Literature
Section №1 – Introduction
1.1. Background
 The many ways to view Vietglish and its counterparts: code-mixing, code-switching , code-meshing,
and trans-languaging.
 Further acknowledgement of the fact that Vietglish and other East Asian and South East Asian
counterparts received little attentions.
1.2. Research Aims
 « This research project therefore aims to help to fill the gap in documentation and understanding of the
Vietnamese-English vernacular spoken by Californian Vietnamese-Americans, or “Vietglish”. »
Section №2 – Review of Background Literature
2.1. Introduction
 « However, often, multilinguals use their languages nonlinearly and cannot completely separate their
language knowledge, regularly making cross-linguistic connections (Cummins, 2007; Vogel & García,
2017). »
 Reference: Common Underlying Proficiency Hypothesis (CUP hypothesis) – Cummins
 « … sequential bilinguals’ first language contributes to their competence in their second language,
both being interrelated and mutually influential. »
2.2. Code-switching and mixing
 Definition of code-switching: « Code-switching refers to the “switch” between two languages within
the same utterance or conversation (Barkhuizen, 2006; Garcia & Li, 2014; Tuc, 2003). »
 The general difference between code-switching and code-mixing : « Switching can also be further
distinguished between those made inter-sententially or intra-sententially — those made at sentential
boundaries (between sentences), or those made in the middle of a sentence (Tuc, 2003; Nguyen, D.,
Page 9 of 19




2018). Barkhuizen (2006) further distinguishes between intra- and inter-sentential language changes
as code-mixing and code-switching respectively, while other researchers use the term code-mixing
as a more general phenomenon that includes code-switching. »
Stigmatization: « …though often erroneously stigmatized as bad or broken language proficiency. »
The unique characteristics of code-switching
 « …have its own syntactic structures, constraints (Constraint-Based Model), and observable
patterns… »
 « …governed by sociolinguistic competence, rather than grammatical… »
 « …may indicate signs of language shift from the heritage language to the language of the new
environment… »
Reference: Myers-Scotton Matrix Framework Model
 « …address…code-switching within a Universal Grammar (UG) and Minimalist Program (MP)
context… »
 Both UG and MP are founded by Noam Chomsky.
 « …code-switching relies upon a matrix (something within or from which something else originates,
develops, or takes form) language (ML), which takes dominance and sets the morpho-syntactic
standard for multilingual speech…Thus, individual morphemes of one language are embedded into
the grammar of the matrix language… »
Criticism of these research: « …code-switching assumes that named language categories define and
control multilingual language behaviour, which may not be the case… »
2.3. Multicompetence
 Different alternative to understanding code-switching , as to switch away from the mono-competence
view.
 The difference: « … take into account an individual’s overall system of linguistic competence in any
degree, rather than treating multilingual utterances as deficient or weaker in one language… »
2.4. Dynamic Systems
 What this theory brings to the table? - « … language systems are interdependent, and that language
acquisition occurs as a result of interaction in social contexts and cultural transmission… »
2.5. Trans-languaging
 Definition: « …how bilinguals fluidly use all of their linguistic and knowledge resources to accomplish
their communicative goals, transcending narrowly defined language cues and boundaries… »
 Effect: « … conveys not only semantic information, but also values of identity, interpersonal interaction
and relationships, history, and emotional and symbolic values attached to speech practices… »
 Other synonyms: polylingualism , translingual practice , and metrolingualism .
 Not a simple switch: « …encompasses the continuous breaking of boundaries and constructions into
original utterances and practices that do not conform to traditional understandings of any of the
speaker’s original named languages… »
 The greater effect outside of space boundaries: « Because trans-languaging exists independently from
geographic space or nation-states, it can also be said to be particularly relevant in cases of
Page 10 of 19
transnationalism, such as immigration, where speakers use trans-languaging to enhance or continue
their connection with their cultural roots… »
 Stigmatization: « However, manifestations of translanguaging have historically been disparaged and
mocked, often stigmatized and heavily discouraged in the classroom and at home… »
2.6. Vietnamese Diaspora Sociolinguistic and Socio-economic Landscape
 Some successes, still high rate of poverty.
 Fear of being “Americanised ”.
 Cultural values: family ties and social networks positioned higher than pure economic capital.
 Heavily-dense Vietnamese areas include: Houston, Texas – San Jose, California – Orange County,
California.
2.7. Typology and Linguistic Features of Vietnamese
 Difference №1 – Tonality of Vietnamese
 Code-switching under the effects of tonality: « … found that tones in Vietnamese facilitate codeswitching when the tones map onto patterns of English stress and unstressed syllables. »
 Difference №2 – Kinship Pronouns
 Deep rooted cultural values: « Thus, using Vietnamese kinship terms is primarily socially motivated in
both English and Vietnamese when addressing family members as well as non-family members… »
 Difference №3 – Importance of classifiers/determinants
 Difference №4 – A lack of inflection
 Difference №5 – Dominant Word/Sentence Order
 Code-switching as a result of order: « Single word switches of nouns around similar word order
phrases are the most common manifestations of switches… »
2.8. Two Relevant Studies
 Li Nguyen (2020) « These results led Nguyen to suggest that generations may be collectively rejecting
the entrenched social hierarchy and norms within the Vietnamese language to create more equal
relations between generations and between individuals in terms of cultural integration into Australia. »
[with some limitations, socio-linguistically ]
 Dung Nguyen (2018) « Nguyen found that most spoken translanguaging occurred intrasententially, with
extrasentential occurrences revolving around Vietnamese honorifics, pronouns, and kinship terms.
Nguyen also found that participants often preferred to use English regarding university affairs, classes,
and education. » [with bias limitation ]
2.9. Summary of Literature and the Present Dissertation Research
 Primary questions
[1] Do Vietnamese-Americans in California trans-language between English and Vietnamese, as has
been found in Texas and Australia? If so, how does this phenomenon manifest?
[2] For what reasons do Vietnamese-Americans trans-language?
Page 11 of 19
Section №5 – Discussion
5.2. (Theme №1) Respect
 Language choice for the discussion is determined by the elders .
 Matching with the value of innovative traditionalism and negotiation of authority .
5.3. (Theme №2) Pronunciation as Power
 Flexible pronunciation for key terms, though with some influence of respects and power reclaim (the
pronunciation of HCM’s in HCM city).
5.4. (Theme №3) Combined grammars
 Inter-and-intra-sentential translanguaging
 Sequential and segmented (word clusters or single words)
 Prioritization of communication.
5.5. (Theme №4) Willingly and Unwillingly Using Vietglish for Identity, Culture, and Emotion
 Embarrassment and shame, self-feel (imposter syndrome, deficiency, self-stigmatized) + Pride in
Vietnamese.
 The male participants’ response.
Section №6 – Conclusion
6.1. Limitations
 Limitation in participation (COVID)
 Male-female disproportion
 State-limited
 Participation bias, due to the methodology.
6.2. Conclusions
 Culture expression and communicative efficiency, yet also, disappointment: « The findings suggest that
“Vietglish” speakers use both Vietnamese and English for communicative purposes, as well as to
express identity and belonging to the Vietnamese culture. »
 Understanding the context for the usage: respect for elders , or easier to communicate .
6.3. Answering the Research Questions
6.3.1. RQ №1
 Important note, “how?”: « Translanguaging occurred in the form of vocabulary, grammatical structures,
and pronunciation. Participants displayed intersentential and intrasentential, as well as sequential and
segmental, translanguaging, and selectively pronounced words with or without tones. »
Page 12 of 19
6.3.2. RQ №2
 Mentioned above.
Reading №4: Sun et al. – Language Experience and Bilingual Children’s Heritage Language Learning [selected
portions]
Introduction
Language Output Quantity and Bilingual Children’s HL Learning
 Reference: Interaction Approach to Understanding Learner’s Language Experience
 3 steps: Input  Interaction  Output
 A lack of study on the 3rd step (output).
 Development made to theorize the functions and results of output
 [Function №1] testing hypotheses about structures and meanings of the language
 [Results №1] receiving vital feedback for the verification of the hypotheses
 [Results №2] forcing a move from meaning-based processing to a syntactic one
 [Results №3] to “promote automaticity” and the “routinization of language use”
 Output has been proven to be more effective than input in maintenance and development of language
proficiency, especially with development in semantics and morphosyntax.
Language Output Settings and Bilingual Children’s HL Learning
 The “how” and “where” are the less explored, comparing to the “to what extent”.
 This is given the fact that: « ….”bilinguals usually acquire and use their languages for different
purposes, in different domains of life, with different people”…and their HL proficiency might be
substantially affected by where and with whom they can use the HL. »
 Common noted destination of output settings: « …places such as home, school, restaurant, shopping
mall, and playground, where bilingual children could speak the HL with others in either monolingual
mode or bilingual mode. »
 Reason for low output
 [Reason №1] Cultural and pragmatic prestige
 [Reason №2] Proficiency of the dominant
 [Reason №3] Reflection of input
The Current Study: Bilingual Children’s Mandarin Learning in Singapore
 Research questions
 [RQ №1] Where and how do children use Mandarin in Singapore?  [Hypothesis] Few settings +
Preference of speaking English or a mix-use
 [RQ №2] Would bilingual children’s Mandarin language experience, output in particular, contribute to
their Mandarin semantic and morphosyntactic knowledge?  [Hypothesis] Related to their Mandarin
skills (vocabulary, semantic fluency, and grammar)
Page 13 of 19
Discussions
 Hypothesis for RQ №1 was proven to be correct.
 Home: 18% - pure Mandarin, 20% - pure English, 62% - code-switched.
 School: 4% - pure Mandarin, 22% - pure English, 74% - code-switched.
 Hypothesis for RQ №2 was proven to be correct, with further addition: « Besides the input and output
variables, children’s cognitive factors, literacy environment, and English proficiency also demonstrated
significant influences on children’s HL learning. »
Limitations, Implications, and Conclusion
 Limitations
 [1] Findings are correlational, not causation proofs.
 [2] Unable to differentiate the impact of input and output
 [3] Lack of documentation of code-switching
Page 14 of 19
DATE: March 27th, 2023
READINGS
[5] Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for competence divergence across
heritage grammars – Acrisio Pires and Jason Rothman
[6] What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? - A prolegomenon to modelling heritage language
grammars – Michael T. Putnam and Liliana Sánchez
Reading №5: Pires and Rothman - Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for
competence divergence across heritage grammars
Abstract
 Context to be provided: European Portuguese, Brazilian Portuguese , and heritage speakers difference
between the 2 language dialects .
[1] Introduction
 What is established of heritage speakers’ bilingualism and its difficulties (external determinants)
 Sociolinguistic circumstances
 Access to and level of formal education
 Input quantity and quality
 Goals established in this piece
 [Goal №1] to contribute to the disentanglement and differentiation between certain factors that go
towards incomplete acquisition in HS acquisition .
 [Goal №2] how pursuing [Goal №1], it can also contribute to other areas of formal linguistic research
(syntactic changes, child vs. adult, etc.)
 The weakness of the study field of incomplete acquisition , and heritage language acquisition altogether:
« One could argue that without longitudinal data, which no formal linguistic study of HS to date has
provided, it is currently not possible to distinguish with exactitude between attrition and incomplete
acquisition proper (see also Montrul, 2008). »
 Piers and Rothman’s new sub-categorical division of incomplete acquisition
 true incomplete acquisition .
 missing-input competence divergence
 « …HSs do not acquire properties that are part of the competence of educated monolingual
speakers primarily because monolingual speakers, differently from HSs, had sufficient exposure
to a standard dialect (i.e. through formal education) that is distinct in certain respects from their
colloquial dialect… »
 The stigma of incomplete acquisition with regards to dialects: « We caution researchers to consider
that treating the case of (ii) as incomplete acquisition unwittingly places social value on some dialects
of a given language as compared to others, whereby ‘complete’ dialects (or, more precisely, native
Page 15 of 19
adult dialects) would be only those that have property y while dialects, even monolingual ones under
this logic, that do not are somehow incomplete. »
[6] Discussion
 Changes in language overtime: « We argue that certain cases that could initially appear to be the
outcome of incomplete acquisition in fact involve previous diachronic changes to the dialects that serve
as the primary linguistic data of HSs. »
Reading №6: Putnam and Sánchez - What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? - A prolegomenon to
modelling heritage language grammars
Part 0 – Abstract
 Supposed idea:
 The current model of incomplete acquisition (as of 2013) has some flaws, but overall a great success.
 The development of a new model, with backbones of good ideas from previous model.
Part 1 – Introduction
 Unflattering label: semi-speakers
 Notable claim to disregard the idea that insufficient input seems to be a problem: « Therefore, claims of
low frequency in the input as the sole or dominant source of “incomplete acquisition” are insufficient. »
Part 2 – What’s incomplete about incomplete acquisition?
Section 2.1 – Measuring “insufficient input”
 The problem with the usage of insufficient: « “How much input is enough for a particular feature or
constraint of a heritage language to be acquired?” »
 The problem of incomplete—there exists a completion, which is described in 2 ideological ideas
 [Idea №1] the existence of a final stage of acquisition in monolingual grammar
 [Idea №2] this stage varies minimally across speakers
 Counter: There has been proof to show that there are significant variations in monolingual grammars of
adult speakers.
Section 2.2 – A process or a result?
 What is so hard with the establishment of a model—3 criteria
 [Criterion №1] « …an adequate hypothesis of lexical activation and its relationship with feature
specification, sentence building and parsing »
 Activation for production is semantic-constraint .
 [Criterion №2] « …an adequate hypothesis about what areas of the input become intake during
processing »
 [Criterion №3] « …an exploration of bilingual grammars that does not take monolingual grammars as
the goal of ultimate attainment »
Page 16 of 19
Part 3 – Our model
 This is the model of the grammar of heritage language speakers .
 Starting point: linguistic knowledge is consisted of sets of features , similar to that in Chomsky’s human
grammar.
 Functional Features (FFs)
 Phonological Features (PFs)
 Semantic Features (SFs)
 Continuation: there is a great exposure of L1 input, but then there comes a point where L2 take
dominance, and L1 is pre-“ultimate attainment”.
 Characterized by a reduction of exposure to L1 and an increase of exposure to L2  lower activation
of FFs of L1, increased activation of FFs of L2 + association with PFs and SFs of L1, which then leads
slowly to complete transferring to L2’s PFs and SFs.
Part 4 – Evidence for the model
 Two things
 Dissociation between functional and lexical features in second language acquisition
 Dissociation between functional and lexical features in heritage grammars.
Page 17 of 19
DATE: March 28th, 2023
READINGS
[7] Negotiating Multiple Identities in a Queer Vietnamese Support Group – Gina Masquesmay Ph.D.
[8] Parlez-vous franglais? – Miles Kington
Reading №7: Masquesmay Ph.D. - Negotiating Multiple Identities in a Queer Vietnamese Support Group
Introduction
 The hierarchy in the American society: « Living in the U.S., where race, class, gender and sexuality
organize society into a matrix of hierarchies (Collins, 1990), immigrants and refugees of racial minority
status, from lower economic classes, who are women or transgender, and who have queer sexual
identities have multiple hurdles to overcome. »
 Research question: « Under what conditions are different identity issues negotiated among members?
How does Ô-Môi support its members? »
Reading №8: Kington – Parlez-vous franglais? [selected portions]
 Noting of usage of Franglais
 Casual usage in terms of how it is English and French combined, plus similarities that rises from the
inability to distinguish certain shared words to determine the pronunciation.
 Intentional missing the grammar of gender in French (la Théâtre, even though Théâtre is masculine)
 Formation of French-ized English words (mendacious  mendacieux)
 les dos-stabbing = back-stabbing
Page 18 of 19
DATE: March 29th, 2023
READINGS
[9] The World’s Religions (Our Great Wisdom Traditions) [Chapter 9: The Primal Religions – Section: Orality,
Place, and Time] – Huston Smith
Reading №9: Smith – The World’s Religion (Our Great Wisdom Traditions) [Chapter 9: The Primal Religions –
Section: Orality, Place, and Time] (Orality)
 To view Orality as the superior over Literacy: « We can begin with the versatility of the spoken over the
written word. Speech is a part of a speaker’s life, and as such shares that life’s vitality. This gives it a
flexibility that can be tailored to speaker and hearer alike. Familiar themes can be enlivened by fresh
diction. Rhythm can be introduced, together with intonations, pauses, and accentuations, until speaking
borders on chanting, and storytelling emerges as a high art. Dialect and delivery can be added to flesh
out characters that are being described, and when animal postures and gaits are mimed and their noises
simulated, we are into theatre. Silence can be invoked to heighten tension or suspense, and can even
be used to indicate that the narrator has interrupted the story to engage in private prayer. »
 Orality vs Literacy: « For once introduced, writing does not leave the virtues of orality intact. In important
ways it undercuts them. »
 Orality viewed as the primary way to the Higher-ups: « The first of these is the capacity to sense the
sacred through nonverbal channels. Because writing can grapple with meanings explicitly, sacred texts
tend to gravitate to positions of such eminence as to be considered the preeminent if not exclusive
channel of revelation. This eclipses other means of divine disclosure. »
 Literacy viewed as the anomy: « Finally, because writing has no limits, it can proliferate to the point
where people get lost in its endless corridors. Secondary material comes to blur what is important. Minds
become waterlogged with information and narrowed through specialization. Memory is protected
against such cripplings. Being embedded in life, life calls it to count at every turn, and what is useless
and irrelevant is quickly weeded out. »
Page 19 of 19