Article In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism: Online-First Articles

Individual language experience determinants of morphosyntactic variation in heritage and attriting speakers of Bosnian and Serbian

A causal inference approach

ORCID logo | UiT The Arctic University of Norway
| UiT The Arctic University of Norway
| UiT The Arctic University of Norway
| UiT The Arctic University of Norway | University of Leeds
Using a causal inference approach, we explored the relationships among the language experience determinants of morphosyntactic sensitivity, to identify the factors that indirectly and directly cause its acquisition or maintenance in immigration contexts. We probed the sensitivity to Serbian/Bosnian clitic placement violations with a self-paced listening task, in a diverse group of bilinguals in Norway (n = 71), born to immigrant parents, or having emigrated in childhood or adulthood. The outcomes included a violation detection score and a listening/processing time difference between licit and illicit structures.
Structural Equation Models revealed that literacy (as reading practices) was among the most influential determinants of the ability to detect violations, while Bosnian/Serbian use across contexts and age of bilingualism onset determined violation sensitivity in processing. We identified a significant threshold of societal language (SL) exposure at age 8. Rather than SL exposure before this age precluding bilinguals from developing and maintaining morphosyntactic sensitivity, this threshold seems to reflect a protective effect against attrition which intensifies the later after age 8 SL exposure starts. The length of residence in Norway did not determine attrition, suggesting that heritage and attrited speakers should be considered on a continuum rather than as distinct bilingualism profiles.
Keywords: heritage bilingualism, clitics, language attrition, causal inference, individual differences
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1The individual difference approach to language acquisition and loss
    • 2.2Pronominal system in Bosnian/Serbian and Norwegian
    • 2.3Pronominal clitics as a vulnerable aspect of language acquisition and loss
  • 3.Research questions and hypotheses
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Experiment design
    • 4.2Participants
    • 4.3Analysis methods
      • 4.3.1Outcome variables
        • P3 Sensitivity as listening times difference
        • P3 Sensitivity as detection score
      • 4.3.2Directed acyclic graph for variables of interest and structural equation modeling formal analysis
      • 4.3.3Individual variable choice and operationalization
      • 4.3.4Threshold regression modeling
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1HL outcome measures: Descriptive results
    • 5.2Causes of variability in outcomes: SEM results
    • 5.3Comparing causes of the P3 detection score vs. LT difference
      • 5.3.1Direct effects on P3 detection score
      • 5.3.2Total effects on P3 detection score
      • 5.3.3Direct effects on LT difference
      • 5.3.4Total effects on LT difference
    • 5.4Exploring possible threshold age for SL exposure onset for HL outcomes
  • 6.Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • CRediT statement
  • Data Availability
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (49)
References
Anderssen, M., Bentzen, K., & Rodina, Y. (2012). Topicality and complexity in the acquisition of Norwegian object shift. Language Acquisition, 19 (1), 39–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2022). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.2.06.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2020). On the syntax and prosody of verb second and clitic second. In R. Woods & S. Wolfe (Eds.), Rethinking Verb Second (pp. 503–535). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bylund, E. (2009). Maturational constraints and first language attrition. Language Learning, 59 (3), 687–715. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheung, S., & Lai, M. (2023). semptools: Customizing Structural Equation Modeling Plots. R package version 0.2.10.1 [computer software], [URL]
De Cat, C., & Unsworth, S. (2023). So many variables, but what causes what? Journal of Child Language, 50 (4), 832–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimitrijević-Savić, J. (2008). Convergence and attrition: Serbian in contact with English in Australia. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 16 (1), 57–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dzamarija, M. T. (2016). Bosniere — integreringsvinnerne? [Bosnians — intergration winners?] [URL]
Epskamp, S. (2015). semPlot: Unified visualizations of structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 22 (3), 474–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., Engelhardt, P. E., & Jones, M. W. (2009). Good enough language processing: A satisficing approach. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 11, pp. 413–418). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Flores, C., & Barbosa, P. (2014). When reduced input leads to delayed acquisition: A study on the acquisition of clitic placement by Portuguese heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18 (3), 304–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fong, Y., Huang, Y., & Gilbert, P. B. (2017). chngpt: threshold regression model estimation and inference. BM]C Bioinformatics, 18 1, 454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franks, S., & King, T. H. (2000). A handbook of Slavic clitics. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hadžibulić, S., & Manić, Z. (2016). My life abroad: The nostalgia of Serbian immigrants in the Nordic countries. Crossings: Journal of Migration and Culture, 7 (1), 97–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hernán, M. A., Hsu, J., & Healy, B. (2019). A second chance to get causal inference right: A classification of data science tasks. CHANCE, 32 (1), 42–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinkley, D. V. (1971). Inference in Two-Phase Regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66 (336), 736–743. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y., & Ferreira, F. (2020). The application of signal detection theory to acceptability judgments. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 1, 498268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivanova-Sullivan, T., Sekerina, A. I., Tofighi, D., & Polinsky, M. (2022). Language-internal reanalysis of clitic placement in heritage grammars reduces the cost of computation: evidence from Bulgarian. Languages, 71, 24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karayayla, T., & Schmid, M. S. (2019). First language attrition as a function of age at onset of bilingualism: First language attainment of Turkish-English bilinguals in the United Kingdom. Language Learning, 69 (1), 106–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasparian, K., & Steinhauer, K. (2016). Confusing similar words: ERP correlates of lexical-semantic processing in first language attrition and late second language acquisition. Neuropsychologia, 93 (A), 200–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolaković, Z., Jurkiewicz-Rohrbacher, E., Hansen, B., Filipović Đurđević, D., & Fritz, N. (2022). Clitics in the wild: Empirical studies on the microvariation of the pronominal, reflexive and verbal clitics in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian (OpenSlavicLinguistics7). Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Köpke, B., & Schmid, M. S. (2004). First language attrition: The next phase. In M. S. Schmid, B. Köpke, M. Keijzer, & L. Weilemar (Eds.), First Language Attrition: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Methodological Issues (pp. 1–43). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kremin, L. V., & Byers-Heinlein, K. (2021). Why not both? Rethinking categorical and continuous approaches to bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25 (6), 1560–1575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T., & Polinsky, M. (2022). Language history on fast forward: Innovations in heritage languages and diachronic change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25 (1), 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lei, P. W., & Wu, Q. (2007). Introduction to structural equation modeling: Issues and practical considerations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26 (3), 33–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López Otero, J. C., Cuza, A., & Jiao, J. (2023). Object clitic use and intuition in the Spanish of heritage speakers from Brazil. Second Language Research, 39 (1), 161–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2011). Introduction: The Linguistic Competence of Heritage Speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33 (2), 155–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallier, C. (2007). Critical periods in language acquisition and language attrition. In B. Köpke, M. S. Schmid, M. Keijzer, & S. Dostert (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 155–168). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., Tsimpli, & Amvrazis, N. (2013). Self-paced listening. In J. Jegerski, & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J. (2023). Sources of individual differences in the dual language development of heritage bilinguals’. Journal of Child Language, 50 (4), 793–817. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pastor, R., & Guallar, E. (1998). Use of two-segmented logistic regression to estimate change-points in epidemiologic studies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 148 (7), 631–642. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearl, J. (2012). The causal foundations of structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 68–91). The Guilford Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Cuza, A., & Thomas, D. (2011). Clitic placement in Spanish-English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14 (2), 221–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pešikan, M. (1958). O mestu enklitike u rečenici [About the place of the enclitic in the sentence]. Naš jezik, 9 (710), 305–311.Google Scholar
Progovac, L. (1996). Clitics in Serbian/Croatian: Comp as the second position. In A. Halpern & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena (pp. 411–428). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Radanović-Kocić, V. (1988). The Grammar of Serbo-Croatian Clitics: A Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.
R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, v. 4.2.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL [URL]
Rinke, E., & Flores, C. (2014). Morphosyntactic knowledge of clitics by Portuguese heritage bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17 (4), 681–699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 (2), 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J., Bayram, F., DeLuca, V., Di Pisa, G., Dunabeitia, J. A., Gharibi, K., ... & Wulff, S. (2023). Monolingual comparative normativity in bilingualism research is out of “control”: Arguments and alternatives. Applied Psycholinguistics, 44 (3), 316–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, N., Cuza, A., & Sánchez, L. (2023). Structured variation, language experience, and crosslinguistic influence shape child heritage speakers’ Spanish direct objects. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26 (2), 317–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, G., Spelorzi, R., Sorace, A., & Garraffa, M. (2023). Inter-generational attrition Language transmission between long-term UK residents and heritage speakers of Italian on production of clitic pronouns. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swets, J. A., & Green, D. M. (1978). Applications of signal detection theory. In H. L. Pick, H. W. Leibowitz, J. E. Singer, A. Steinschneider, & H. W. Stevenson (Eds.), Psychology: From Research to Practice (pp. 311–331). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomić, A., Rodina, Y., Bayram, F., & De Cat, C. (2023). Documenting heritage language experience using questionnaires. Frontiers in Psychology, 14 1, 1131374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Individual variation in heritage language morphosyntactic processing: Bosnian Clitics in Norway. Poster presented at the 13th International Symposium on Bilingual and L2 Processing in Adults and Children, Tromsø, Norway. Available at [URL]
Textor, J., van der Zander, B., Gilthorpe, M., Liskiewicz, M., & Ellison, G. (2016). Robust causal inference using directed acyclic graphs: The R package ‘dagitty’. International Journal of Epidemiology, 45 (6), 1887–1894.Google Scholar
Varlokosta, S., Belletti, A., Costa, J., Friedmann, N., Gavarró, A., Grohmann, K. K., Guasti, M. T., Tuller, L., Lobo, M., Anđelković, D., & et al. (2016). A cross-linguistic study of the acquisition of clitic and pronoun production. Language Acquisition, 23 (1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling (pp. 209–231). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Westreich, D., & Greenland, S. (2013). The Table 2 Fallacy: Presenting and Interpreting Confounder and Modifier Coefficients. American Journal of Epidemiology, 177 (4), 292–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar