Sentence comprehension in heritage language: Isomorphism, word order, and language transfer

Abstract

This study examines the role of cross-linguistic transfer versus general processing strategy in two groups of heritage speakers ( n = 28 per group) with the same heritage language – Russian – and typologically different dominant languages: English and Estonian. A group of homeland Russian speakers ( n = 36) is tested to provide baseline comparison. Within the framework of the Competition model (MacWhinney, 2012), cross-linguistic transfer is defined as reliance on the processing cue prevalent in the heritage speaker’s dominant language (e.g. word order in English) for comprehension of heritage language. In accordance with the Isomorphic Mapping Hypothesis (O’Grady and Lee, 2005), the general processing strategy is defined in terms of isomorphism as a linear alignment between the order of the sentence constituents and the temporal sequence of events. Participants were asked to match pictures on the computer screen with auditorily presented sentences. Sentences included locative or instrumental constructions, in which two cues – word order (basic vs. inverted) and isomorphism mapping (isomorphic vs. nonisomorphic) – were fully crossed. The results revealed that (1) Russian native speakers are sensitive to isomorphism in sentence processing; (2) English-dominant heritage speakers experience dominant language transfer, as evidenced by their reliance primarily on the word order cue; (3) Estonian-dominant heritage speakers do not show significant effects of isomorphism or word order but experience significant processing costs in all conditions.

Eye-movement reveals word order effects on comparative sentences in older adults using a verb-final language

“…It is well known that older adults demonstrate more difficulties in processing syntactically non-canonical sentences compared to canonical sentences ( Sung, 2015 ; Sung et al, 2017 ). Furthermore, research has reported the benefits of isomorphic mapping sentences over non-isomorphic mapping in sentence comprehension among PWA ( O’Grady and Lee, 2005 ), second language speakers ( Chrabaszcz et al, 2022 ; Shin and Park, 2023 ). In our study, we explored a unique case where a mismatch exists between NOM-first (syntactically canonical but non-isomorphic) and COMP-first (non-canonical but isomorphic) sentences.…”

Spanish–English bilingual heritage speakers processing of inanimate sentences

“…This study aimed explore how heritage speakers with two different dominant languages processed Russian cases. Participants listened to Russian sentences with a locative or instrumental case and selected an image that best represented the auditory stimulus (Chrabaszcz et al, 2022). They found that English-dominant, but not Estonian-dominant, speakers used word-order cues and misread Russian thematic cues in the locative and instrumental cases (Chrabaszcz et al, 2022).…”

“…Participants listened to Russian sentences with a locative or instrumental case and selected an image that best represented the auditory stimulus (Chrabaszcz et al, 2022). They found that English-dominant, but not Estonian-dominant, speakers used word-order cues and misread Russian thematic cues in the locative and instrumental cases (Chrabaszcz et al, 2022). Estonian-dominant participants had native-like comprehension of the cases but slower task RTs (Chrabaszcz et al, 2022).…”

“…They found that English-dominant, but not Estonian-dominant, speakers used word-order cues and misread Russian thematic cues in the locative and instrumental cases (Chrabaszcz et al, 2022). Estonian-dominant participants had native-like comprehension of the cases but slower task RTs (Chrabaszcz et al, 2022). They concluded these differences between the heritage-speaker groups were due to the lack of familiarity of English-dominant speakers with case morphology because of a dominant language with a different morpho-syntactic system (Chrabaszcz et al, 2022).…”

“…Estonian-dominant participants had native-like comprehension of the cases but slower task RTs (Chrabaszcz et al, 2022). They concluded these differences between the heritage-speaker groups were due to the lack of familiarity of English-dominant speakers with case morphology because of a dominant language with a different morpho-syntactic system (Chrabaszcz et al, 2022). In heritage bilinguals across languages, bilinguals process stimuli in both languages differently than monolinguals and have sentential processing that is deeply affected by the shared language system.…”