Multiple interfaces and incomplete acquisition

Montrul, Silvina

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.006

Cited by 108 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hopp, 2009;Roberts et al, 2008;Sorace, 2000). This optionality is, for example, related to the overt expression or drop of pronouns (Montrul, 2011;Sorace & Filiaci, 2006), or to word order differences (e.g. Argyri & Sorace, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various studies have revealed that bilinguals have difficulties in interpreting information structure, that is, at the syntax-discourse interface (e.g. Montrul, 2011;Sorace, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Production tasks and grammaticality judgments Numerous studies on language production and comprehension indicate that bilinguals experience difficulties at the syntax-discourse interface (e.g. Montrul, 2011;Sorace, 2011). For example, in production and acceptability judgment tasks, bilingual speakers of a null subject language, like Italian, and a non-null subject language, like English, produce and accept more overt pronouns in the null subject language than control groups of L1 speakers (Belletti, Bennati, & Sorace, 2007;Sorace & Filiaci, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Focus in Dutch reading: an eye-tracking experiment with heritage speakers of Turkish

Rijswijk

Muntendam

Dijkstra

2017

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines whether heritage speakers of Turkish in the Netherlands interpret focus in written Dutch sentences differently from L1 speakers of Dutch (controls). Where most previous studies examined effects from the dominant L2 on the heritage language, we investigated whether there are effects from the weaker heritage language on the dominant L2. Dutch and Turkish differ in focus marking. Dutch primarily uses prosody to encode focus, whereas Turkish uses prosody and syntax, with a preverbal area for focused information and a postverbal area for background information. In written sentences no explicit prosody is available, which possibly enhances the role of syntactic cues in interpreting focus. An eye-tracking experiment suggests that, unlike the controls, the bilinguals associate the preverbal area with focus and the postverbal area with background information. These findings are in line with transfer from the weaker L1 to the dominant L2 at the syntax-discourse interface.ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various studies have revealed that bilinguals have difficulties in interpreting information structure, that is, at the syntax-discourse interface (e.g. Montrul, 2011;Sorace, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Focus in Dutch reading: an eye-tracking experiment with heritage speakers of Turkish

Rijswijk

Muntendam

Dijkstra

2017

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, other empirical studies have either failed to detect any apparent signs of instability in domains predicted by the Interface Hypothesis to be vulnerable or suggested that such interface-related difficulties are not pervasive (Donaldson, 2011(Donaldson, , 2012Ivanov, 2012;Iverson, Kempchinsky, & Rothman, 2008;Leal Méndez, Rothman, & Slabakova, in press;Slabakova & Ivanov, 2011;Slabakova, Kempchinsky, & Rothman, 2012). Researchers have also challenged some aspects of the hypothesis on theoretical grounds, including the imprecise formulation of the proposal, difficulty of distinguishing interface-related phenomena from noninterface-related phenomena (and, by the same token, external interfaces from internal interfaces), difficulty of positioning the hypothesis within specific theoretical models of language architecture, and potentially an overly "restrictive" focus of the proposal, originally formulated only for some bilingual populations and not others (Domínguez, 2013;Montrul, 2011;Rothman, 2009;Rothman & Slabakova, 2011;White, 2011).…”

Section: Interfaces: the Integration Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between syntax and discourse

Laleko

Polinsky

2016

LAB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the knowledge of topic and subject particles in heritage speakers and L2 learners of Japanese and Korean. We assume that topic marking is mediated at the syntaxinformation structure interface, while subject marking pertains to narrow syntax. In comparing phenomena mediated at different levels of linguistic organization, we provide evidence for the hypothesis that information structure-level phenomena present greater challenges for bilingual speakers than those mediated within syntax. While these results may be interpreted as evidence of generalized interface-related deficits, we show that such a global explanation is not supported.Instead, a more nuanced account is developed, based on the recognition of different types of topic (anaphoric, generic, and contrastive) and different types of subject (descriptive and exhaustive). Under the proposed account, the non-native speakers' deficits follow from three unrelated effects: the status of topic as an interface category, structural complexity, and the memory demands necessary for its interpretation in context. Introduction Interfaces: The integration problem1 This project was supported in part by grants from Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL) at the University of Maryland and from NSF (SMA-1429961) to the second author. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors. We would like to thank Sun-Hee Bae, Miwako Hisagi, Kenneth Mai, Hiroki Nomoto, Aika Taguchi, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on this paper. All errors are our responsibility. 2Heritage language and second language (L2) acquisition represent two distinct pathways to adult bilingualism. They differ along a number of dimensions, including the specific circumstances of language exposure and the nature of competence deficits across different language modules. As early bilinguals, heritage speakers begin the acquisition of a socially non-dominant language in a family setting, and in this respect, their experience with the target language compares to that of early L1 learners, at least at the outset of the language acquisition process. The main difference is that heritage speakers' L1 language acquisition is subsequently interrupted by exposure to another language. Adult L2 learners, on the other hand, are late bilinguals whose exposure to the non-dominant language typically takes place in an instructed setting.Despite these differences in acquisition scenarios, both groups of speakers similarly fall short of exhibiting complete mastery of the target language. Even at the highest levels of proficiency, both populations remain in a state of near-native attainment, deviating from target native grammars represented by the monolingual baseline. In particular, early and late bilinguals (heritage speakers and L2 learners alike) have been reported to display deficits in the domain of inflectional morphology and narrow syntax, and both groups also seem to have difficulties with discourse-level phenome...

show abstract

“…One of the most significant changes to take place in this setting was the understanding that the psychological and linguistic processes behind heritage language (HL) acquisition differ in some ways from those operating in second language (L2) acquisition (Montrul, 2002(Montrul, , 2009(Montrul, , 2011Valdés, 2005). This reconceptualization of heritage language learners brought about the transformation of one--size--fits--all models to meet the needs of this highly diverse student body (Beaudrie, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing concept-based instruction in the heritage language classroom: A pedagogical proposal

García

2017

E-JournALL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EN Framed within a Sociocultural Theory of Mind approach to Second Language Learning and Development (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014), this article presents a pedagogical proposal for implementing concept-based instruction (C-BI) in the Spanish heritage language (HL) classroom in order to promote the development and internalization of the grammatical concept of aspect. Although aspect has been found to be particularly troublesome for heritage language learners (Montrul, 2009;Silva-Corvalán, 1994), few studies have focused on teaching conceptual development of verbal aspect in the HL classroom. This paper contributes to filling this gap by proposing an innovative pedagogical design aimed at providing HL students with the opportunity to generate and transform a conceptual understanding of aspect through conscious interaction in significant, coherent, and systematic ways. Key words: CONCEPT-BASED INSTRUCTION, ASPECT, HERITAGE LANGUAGE LEARNERS, SPANISH, SOCIOCULTURAL THEORYES Enmarcado dentro de la teoría sociocultural de la mente aplicada al desarrollo y aprendizaje de segundas lenguas (Lantolf y Poehner, 2014), este artículo expone una propuesta pedagógica dirigida a la implementación de la instrucción basada en conceptos (C-BI, por sus siglas en inglés) en el aula de español como lengua de herencia (español LH ), con el fin de promover el desarrollo e interiorización conceptual del aspecto gramatical. Aunque se ha comprobado que el aspecto entraña una especial dificultad en los aprendices de LH (Montrul 2009;Silva-Corvalán, 1994), no hay, por el momento, propuestas específicas sobre cómo enseñar a desarrollar conceptualmente el aspecto verbal en el aula de LH. El presente trabajo contribuye a llenar este vacío, proponiendo un diseño pedagógico innovador, enfocado en proporcionar a los aprendices de LH la oportunidad de desarrollar y transformar su comprensión del aspecto verbal a través de una interacción consciente y significativa con el concepto y una presentación del concepto coherente y sistemática. Palabras clave: INSTRUCCIÓN CONCEPTUAL, ASPECTO, APRENDICES DE LENGUA DE HERENCIA, ESPAÑOL, TEORÍA SOCIOCULTURALIT Questo articolo si inquadra all'interno della teoria socioculturale della mente in relazione all'acquisizione della seconda lingua (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). Il lavoro presenta una proposta pedagogica per l'impiego dell'Insegnamento basato su concetti (C-BI) nell'ambito della classe di spagnolo come lingua ereditaria (SLE), al fine di promuovere lo sviluppo ed internalizzazione del concetto grammaticale dell'aspetto verbale. Sebbene si è visto che l'aspetto verbale è particolarmente difficile per studenti di SLE (Montrul, 2009;Silva-Corvalán, 1994), scarseggiano studi che si concentrino sull'insegnamento dello sviluppo concettuale dell'aspetto verbale nella classe di SLE. Questo testo contribuisce a colmare questa lacuna proponendo un innovativo disegno pedagogico volto a fornire agli studenti di SLE l'opportunità di generare e trasformare una comprensione concettuale dell'aspetto verbale attrave...

show abstract

Multiple interfaces and incomplete acquisition

Cited by 108 publications

References 38 publications

Focus in Dutch reading: an eye-tracking experiment with heritage speakers of Turkish

Focus in Dutch reading: an eye-tracking experiment with heritage speakers of Turkish

Between syntax and discourse

Implementing concept-based instruction in the heritage language classroom: A pedagogical proposal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About