Cover not available
Part of
Dynamics of Linguistic Diversity
Edited by Hagen Peukert and Ingrid Gogolin
[Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity 6] 2017
► pp. 143–162

Dominant language transfer in heritage languages

Redefining the ‘structural’, and the ‘transfer’ in ‘structural transfer’

| Radboud University
Heritage languages (HL), like other contact varieties, are subject to considerable transfer. However, the question remains of whether structures are really transferred from one language to another. Two case studies, one about datives in heritage Spanish, and the other about resultatives in heritage Ambon Malay, serve as a basis for discussion around the nature of structural transfer in HLs. The main conclusion is that structural transfer can be characterized as a redistribution of already available structures, driven by lexical and conceptual properties. In order to account for this, we explain structural transfer in terms of cross-linguistic activation in a psycholinguistic model inspired by Hartsuiker et al. (2004).
Keywords: bilingualism, heritage languages, Spanish, Malay, datives, resultatives, structural transfer
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Two case studies
    • Datives in Spanish
    • Resultatives in Ambon Malay
  • Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 May 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hsld.6.08mor
References (31)
References
Aalberse, S. & Muysken, P. 2013. Language contact in heritage languages in the Netherlands. In Linguistic Superdiversity in Urban Areas: Research Approaches [Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity 2], J. Duarte & I. Gogolin (eds), 253–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Backus, A. 2004. Convergence as a mechanism of language change. Bilingualism Language and Cognition 7(2): 179–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S. & Polinsky, M. 2010. White paper: Prolegomena to heritage linguistics. Los Angeles CA: National Heritage Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Boas, H. 2002. On the role of semantic constraints in resultative constructions. In Linguistics on the Way into the New Millennium, Proceedings of the 34th Colloquium of Linguistics, 34–44.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J., Bowerman, M., & Brown, P. 2001. Cut and break clips. In Manual for the field season 2001, S. C. Levinson & N. J. Enfield (eds.), 90–96. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Bylund, E. & Jarvis, S. 2011. L2 effects on L1 event conceptualization. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14(1): 47–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C. 2010. Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. In Contrastive studies in construction grammar , H. C. Boas (ed.), 201–235. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doğruöz, A., & Backus, A. 2009. Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of ongoing contact-induced change. Bilingualism: Language and cognition 12(1), 41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. & Wilson, R. 1971. Convergence and creolization. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, D.H. Hymes (ed.), 151–167. London: CUP.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R., Pickering, M. & Veltkamp, E. 2004. Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science 15(6): 409–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. & Pickering, M. 2008. Language integration in bilingual sentence production. Acta Psychologica 128(3): 479–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irizarri van Suchtelen, P. 2016. Spanish as a heritage language in the Netherlands. A cognitive linguistic exploration (Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht: LOT).Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. 2000. Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in them interlanguage lexicon. Language learning 50(2): 245–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Theoretical and methodological issues in the investigation of conceptual transfer. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4: 43–71.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. 2008. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaufman, T. & Thomason, S. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, I. & Wunderlich D. 1998. Cross-linguistic patterns of resultatives. Ms, Heinrich-Heine Universität, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, A. & Los, B. 2003. Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English. In Yearbook of Morphology 2003, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 79–117. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kootstra, G. J., & Doedens, W. J. 2016. How multiple sources of experience influence bilingual syntactic choice: Immediate and cumulative cross-language effects of structural priming, verb bias, and language dominance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(04): 710–732.Google Scholar
Loebell, H. & Bock, K. 2003. Structural priming across languages. Linguistics 41(5): 791–824. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y. 2007. The borrowability of structural categories. In Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-linguistic Perspective, Y. Matras & J. Sakel (eds), 31–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Minde, D. 1997. Malayu Ambong. Leiden: Research School CNWS.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. & Sánchez-Walker, N. 2013. Differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition 20(2): 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moro, F. R. 2016. Dynamics of Ambon Malay: Comparing Ambon and the Netherlands. (LOT Dissertation Series 422). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R., Zentella, A.C. & Livert, D. 2007. Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Toward the formation of a speech community. Language 83: 770–802. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D. & Rothman, J. 2012. The (Il)logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition. Applied Linguistics 33(4): 450–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. & Kagan, O. 2007. Heritage languages: In the “wild” and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(5): 368–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. 1994. Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2008. The limits of convergence in language contact. Journal of Language Contact 2(1): 213–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Staden, M., & Reesink, G. 2008. Serial verb constructions in a linguistic area. In Serial Verb Constructions in Austronesian and Papuan Languages, G. Senft (ed.), 17–54. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Tjia, J. 1997. Verb Serialization in Ambonese Malay. MA thesis, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Chrabaszcz, Anna, Elena Onischik & Olga Dragoy
2022. Sentence comprehension in heritage language: Isomorphism, word order, and language transfer. Second Language Research 38:4 ► pp. 839 ff. DOI logo
Robinson Anthony, Jonathan J.D., Henrike K. Blumenfeld, Irina Potapova & Sonja L. Pruitt-Lord
2022. Language dominance predicts cognate effects and metalinguistic awareness in preschool bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25:3 ► pp. 922 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Yilu
2022. In-between Chinese and English: Chinese Language Learning Process. In Chinese Language Use by School-Aged Chinese Australians, ► pp. 105 ff. DOI logo
Moro, Francesca R
2018. Divergence in heritage Ambon Malay in the Netherlands: The role of social-psychological factors. International Journal of Bilingualism 22:4 ► pp. 395 ff. DOI logo
Moro, Francesca R.
2014. Resultative constructions in heritage Ambon Malay in the Netherlands. Linguistics in the Netherlands 31 ► pp. 78 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.