Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:15:25.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Current Trends and Emerging Methodologies in Charting Heritage Language Grammars

from Part II - Research Approaches to Heritage Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2021

By
Fatih Bayram ,
Grazia Di Pisa ,
Jason Rothman  and
Roumyana Slabakova
Edited by
Silvina Montrul  and
Maria Polinsky
Silvina Montrul
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Maria Polinsky
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

This chapter contextualizes the methodological landscape of formal linguistic heritage language studies, with an emphasis on emerging, innovative trends using online methods (e.g., eye-tracking, EEG/ERP) and statistical methods modeling the dynamic relationship between outcome measures and extra-linguistic factors. Section 22.1 reviews methodological challenges related to testing heritage speaker (HS) knowledge (e.g., modality of testing, issues pertaining to baselines) as well as the history of offline experimentation that typically compares HSs to monolingual baselines, other more balanced bilinguals, and L2 speakers. Section 22.2 considers recent trends in empirical studies adopting online methods contributing both complementary evidence to the considerably larger offline data dominating the field as well as some challenges for claims made on the basis of offline data alone. Section 22.3 unpacks the emerging trend focusing on the continuum of differences within HSs themselves, attempting to quantify, reveal, and understand correlations of individual experiences (using a variety of regression analyses) with access to and engagement with input as well as opportunities for converting input to intake that might shed light on how and why individual HL grammars develop and end up the way they do.

Keywords

heritage language bilingualismcompetenceindividual differencespsycholinguistic methodsonline processing
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Heritage Languages and Linguistics , pp. 545 - 578
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alemán Bañón, J. and Rothman, J.. 2016. The Role of Morphological Markedness in the Processing of Number and Gender Agreement in Spanish: An Event-Related Potential Investigation. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31, 1273–1298.Google Scholar
Alemán Bañón, J. and Rothman, J.. 2019. Being a Participant Matters: Event-Related Potentials Show That Markedness Modulates Person Agreement in Spanish. Frontiers in Psychology 10, 746.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. A., Mak, L., Chahi, A. K., and Bialystok, E.. 2018. The Language and Social Background Questionnaire: Assessing Degree of Bilingualism in a Diverse Population. Behavior Research Methods 50(1), 250–263.Google Scholar
Arslan, S., Bastiaanse, R., and Felser, C.. 2015. Looking at the Evidence in Visual World: Eye-Movements Reveal How Bilingual and Monolingual Turkish Speakers Process Grammatical Evidentiality. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Au, T. K. F., Knightly, L. M., Jun, S. A., and Oh, J. S.. 2002. Overhearing a Language during Childhood. Psychological Science 13(3), 238–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., and Bates, D. M.. 2008. Mixed-Effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and Items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4), 390–412.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., van Rij, J., de Cat, C., and Wood, S.. 2018. Autocorrelated Errors in Experimental Data in the Language Sciences: Some Solutions Offered by Generalized Additive Mixed Models. In Speelman, D., Heylen, K., and Geeraerts, D. (eds.), Mixed Effects Regression Models in Linguistics. Berlin: Springer, 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayram, F., Rothman, J., Iverson, M., Kupisch, T., Miller, D., Puig-Mayenco, E., and Westergaard, M.. 2017. Differences in Use without Deficiencies in Competence: Passives in the Turkish and German of Turkish Heritage Speakers in Germany. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–21.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 2009. Bilingualism: The Good, the Bad, and the Indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolger, P. A. and Zapata, G. C.. 2011. Psycholinguistic Approaches to Language Processing in Heritage Speakers. Heritage Language Journal 8(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Breslow, N. E. and Clayton, D. G.. 1993. Approximate Inference in Generalized Linear Mixed Models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88(421), 9–25.Google Scholar
Brinton, D. M., Kagan, O., and Bauckus, S. (eds.) 2017. Heritage Language Education: A New Field Emerging. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupé, C. 2018. Modelling Linguistic Variables with Regression Models: Addressing Non-Gaussian Distributions, Non-independent Observations and Nonlinear Predictors with Random Effects and Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale and Shape. Frontiers in Psychology 9, 513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunnings, I. 2012. An Overview of Mixed-Effects Statistical Models for Second Language Researchers. Second Language Research 28(3), 369–382.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A. 1990. The Acquisition of Two Languages from Birth: A Case Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A. 1995. Bilingual Language Acquisition. In Fletcher, P. and MacWhinney, B. (eds.), The Handbook of Child Language. Cambridge: Blackwell, 219–250.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A. 2007. Parental Language Input Patterns and Children’s Bilingual Use. Applied Psycholinguistics 28(3), 411–424.Google Scholar
Demberg, V. and Keller, F.. 2008. Data from Eye-Tracking Corpora As Evidence for Theories of Syntactic Processing Complexity. Cognition 109(2), 193–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Du Plessis, J., Solin, D., Travis, L., and White, L.. 1987. UG or not UG, That Is the Question: A Reply to Clahsen and Muysken. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht) 3(1), 56–75.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. 2010. Uses of Eye-Tracking Data in Second Language Sentence Processing Research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30, 149–166.Google Scholar
Flores, C. and Rinke, E.. 2019. The Relevance of Language-Internal Variation in Predicting Heritage Language Grammars. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, R. 2011. Integrated Knowledge of Agreement in Early and Late English–Spanish Bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics 32(1), 187–220.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I. and Davis, C.. 1984. Repetition Priming and Frequency Attenuation in Lexical Access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10, 680–698.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. 2002. An On-line Look at Sentence Processing in the Second Language. In Heredia, R. R. and Altarriba, J. (eds.), Advances in Psychology: Vol. 134. Bilingual Sentence Processing. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier Science Publishers, 217–236.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Z. 2019. Gender in the Nominal Domain: Evidence From Bilingualism and Eye-Tracking. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gharibi, K. and Boers, F.. 2017. Influential Factors in Incomplete Acquisition and Attrition of Young Heritage Speakers’ Vocabulary Knowledge. Language Acquisition 24(1), 52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2013. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2018. Mechanistic Formal Approaches to Language Acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8(6), 733–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T. and Paradis, J. (eds.) 2014. Input and Experience in Bilingual Development. Vol. 13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T. 2017. Language Acquisition: The Growth of Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Haznedar, B. 2013. Child Second Language Acquisition from a Generative Perspective. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3(1), 26–47.Google Scholar
Haznedar, B. and Gavruseva, E. (eds.) 2008. Current Trends in Child Second Language Acquisition: A Generative Perspective. Vol. 46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Holmes, B. C. 2017. “I Understand Everything You Say, I Just Don’t Speak It”: The Role of Morphology in the Comprehension of Spanish by Receptive Heritage Bilinguals. PhD Dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., and Van de Weijer, J.. 2011. Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. 2013. Grammatical Gender in Adult L2 Acquisition: Relations between Lexical and Syntactic Variability. Second Language Research 29(1), 33–56.Google Scholar
Hopp, H., Putnam, M. T., and Vosburg, N.. 2019. Derivational Complexity vs. Transfer Effects: Long-Distance wh-Movement in Heritage and L2 Grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9(3), 341–375.Google Scholar
Isurin, L. and Ivanova-Sullivan, T.. 2008. Lost in between: The Case of Russian Heritage Speakers. Heritage Language Journal 6(1), 72–104.Google Scholar
Jacob, G. and Kırkıcı, B.. 2016. The Processing of Morphologically Complex Words in a Specific Speaker Group. The Mental Lexicon 11(2), 308–328.Google Scholar
Jacob, G., Şafak, D. F., Demir, O., and Kırkıcı, B.. 2019. Preserved Morphological Processing in Heritage Speakers: A Masked Priming Study on Turkish. Second Language Research 35(2), 173–194.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. 2008. Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (Transformation or not) and Towards Logit Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4), 434–446.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. 2014. Self-Paced Reading. In Jegerski, J. and VanPatten, B. (eds.), Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, 20–49.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. 2018a. The Processing of the Object Marker a by Heritage Spanish Speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(6), 585–602.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. 2018b. Sentence Processing in Spanish as a Heritage Language: A Self‐Paced Reading Study of Relative Clause Attachment. Language Learning 68(3), 598–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jegerski, J. and Sekerina, I. A.. 2019. The Processing of Input with Differential Object Marking by Heritage Spanish Speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1–9.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. 2018. Factors of Variation, Maintenance and Change in Scandinavian Heritage Languages. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(4), 447–465.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D., Jegerski, J., and Vanpatten, B.. 2016. Online Processing of Subject Pronouns in Monolingual and Heritage Bilingual Speakers of Mexican Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19(1), 36–49.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D., VanPatten, B., and Jegerski, J.. 2011. Who Was Walking on the Beach? Anaphora Resolution in Spanish Heritage Speakers and Adult Second Language Learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(2), 193–221.Google Scholar
Kırkıcı, B. and Clahsen, H.. 2013. Inflection and Derivation in Native and Non-native Language Processing: Masked Priming Experiments on Turkish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(4), 776–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., and Christiansen, M. H.. 2018. Individual Differences in Language Acquisition and Processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22(2), 154–169.Google Scholar
Kim, K., O’Grady, W., and Schwartz, B. D.. 2018. Case in Heritage Korean. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8(2), 252–282.Google Scholar
Kinoshita, S. and Lupker, S. J.. 2003. Masked Priming: State of the Art. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T. 2006. The Acquisition of Determiners in Bilingual German-Italian and German-French Children. Doctoral dissertation, Hamburg University. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T. and Rothman, J.. 2018. Terminology Matters! Why Difference Is Not Incompleteness and How Early Child Bilinguals Are Heritage Speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(5), 564–582.Google Scholar
Lam, W. M. 2018. Perception of Lexical Tones by Homeland and Heritage Speakers of Cantonese. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Lee-Ellis, S. 2011. The Elicited Production of Korean Relative Clauses by Heritage Speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(1), 57–89.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. 1967. The Biological Foundations of Language. Hospital Practice 2(12), 59–67.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Smith, A., Gyllstad, H., Kupisch, T., and Quaglia, S.. 2021. Heritage Language Proficiency Does not Predict Syntactic CLI into L3 English. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 24(3), 435–451, DOI: HYPERLINK “https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1472208” 10.1080/13670050.2018.1472208.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. and Westergaard, M.. 2016. Grammatical Gender in American Norwegian Heritage Language: Stability or Attrition? Frontiers in Psychology 7, 344.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T., Rothman, J., Kupisch, T., and Westergaard, M.. 2019. Heritage Language Acquisition: What It Reveals and Why It Is Important for Formal Linguistic Theories. Language and Linguistics Compass 13(12), 1–19Google Scholar
Luck, S. J. 2014. An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marian, V. and Blumenfeld, H. K., and Kaushanskaya, M.. 2007. The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing Language Profiles in Bilinguals and Multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50, 940–967.Google Scholar
Martohardjono, G., Phillips, L., Madsen II, C. N., and Schwartz, R. G.. 2017. Cross-Linguistic Influence in Bilingual Processing: An ERP Study. In Proceedings of the 41st Boston University Conference on Language Development. Vol. 2. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 452–465.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. 2004. The Bilingual Child. In Bhatia, T. K. and Ritchie, W. C. (eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell, 91–113.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. 2011. First and Second Language Acquisition: Parallels and Differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Molinaro, N., Barber, H. A., and Carreiras, M.. 2011. Grammatical Agreement Processing in Reading: ERP Findings and Future Directions. Cortex 47(8), 908–930.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2002. Incomplete Acquisition and Attrition of Spanish Tense/Aspect Distinctions in Adult Bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5(1), 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. 2004. Subject and Object Expression in Spanish Heritage Speakers: A Case of Morphosyntactic Convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7(2), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. 2008. Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor. Vol. 39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2011. Morphological Errors in Spanish Second Language Learners and Heritage Speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(2), 163–192.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2012. Is the Heritage Language Like a Second Language? Eurosla Yearbook 12(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2014. Structural Changes in Spanish in the United States: Differential Object Marking in Spanish Heritage Speakers across Generations. Lingua 151, 177–196.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2015. The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. and Bowles, M. A.. 2009. Back to Basics: Differential Object Marking under Incomplete Acquisition in Spanish Heritage Speakers. Bilingualism 12(3), 363–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. and Sánchez-Walker, N.. 2013. Differential Object Marking in Child and Adult Spanish Heritage Speakers. Language Acquisition 20(2), 109–132.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Foote, R., and Perpiñán, S.. 2008. Gender Agreement in Adult Second Language Learners and Spanish Heritage Speakers: The Effects of Age and Context of Acquisition. Language Learning 58(3), 503–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mora, C., Dousset, B., Caldwell, I. R., Powell, F. E., Geronimo, R. C., Bielecki, C. R., and Lucas, M. P.. 2017. Global Risk of Deadly Heat. Nature Climate Change 7(7), 501.Google Scholar
Nicoladis, E. and Montanari, S. (eds.) 2016. Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Factors Moderating Language Proficiency. Berlin: de Gruyter MoutonGoogle Scholar
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (2005). Arctic Sea Ice Continues to Decline, Arctic Temperatures Continue to Rise in 2005. Retrieved from www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/arcticice_decline.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. 2014. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Parmesan, C. and Yohe, G.. 2003. A Globally Coherent Fingerprint of Climate Change Impacts across Natural Systems. Nature 421(6918), 37.Google Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D. 2020. Examining the Role of Cross-Generational Attrition in the Development of Spanish as a Heritage Language: Evidence from Gustar-Like Verbs. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 10(1), 86–108.Google Scholar
Pires, A. and Rothman, J.. 2009. Disentangling Sources of Incomplete Acquisition: An Explanation for Competence Divergence across Heritage Grammars. International Journal of Bilingualism 13(2), 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2008. Gender under Incomplete Acquisition: Heritage Speakers’ Knowledge of Noun Categorization. Heritage Language Journal 6(1), 40–71.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2011. Reanalysis in Adult Heritage Language: New Evidence in Support of Attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(2), 305–328.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2015. When L1 Becomes an L3: Do Heritage Speakers Make Better L3 Learners? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2016. Structure vs. Use in Heritage Language. Linguistics Vanguard 2(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2018. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. and Kagan, O.. 2007. Heritage Languages: In the ‘Wild’ and in the Classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(5), 368–395.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. and Scontras, G.. 2020. Understanding Heritage Languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 4–20.Google Scholar
Pouplier, M., Cederbaum, J., Hoole, P., Marin, S., and Greven, S.. 2017. Mixed Modeling for Irregularly Sampled and Correlated Functional Data: Speech Science Applications. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 142(2), 935–946.Google Scholar
Puig-Mayenco, E., Cunnings, I., Bayram, F., Miller, D., Tubau, S., and Rothman, J.. 2018. Language Dominance Affects Bilingual Performance and Processing Outcomes in Adulthood. Frontiers in Psychology 9, 1–16.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. T. and Sánchez, L.. 2013. What’s So Incomplete about Incomplete Acquisition? A Prolegomenon to Modeling Heritage Language Grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3(4), 478–508.Google Scholar
Quené, H. and Van den Bergh, H.. 2008. Examples of Mixed-Effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects and with Binomial Data. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4), 413–425.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. 1998. Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research. Psychological Bulletin 124(3), 372.Google Scholar
Rinke, E. and Flores, C.. 2014. Morphosyntactic Knowledge of Clitics by Portuguese Heritage Bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(4), 681–699.Google Scholar
Rinke, E., Flores, C., and Barbosa, P.. 2018. Null Objects in the Spontaneous Speech of Monolingual and Bilingual Speakers of European Portuguese. Probus 30(1), 93–119.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., González Alonso, J., Pliatsikas, C., and Rothman, J.. 2018. Evidence from Neurolinguistic Methodologies: Can It Actually Inform Linguistic/Language Acquisition Theories and Translate to Evidence-Based Applications? Second Language Research 34(1), 125–143.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. 2007. Heritage Speaker Competence Differences, Language Change, and Input Type: Inflected Infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of Bilingualism 11(4), 359–389.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. 2009. Understanding the Nature and Outcomes of Early Bilingualism: Romance Languages as Heritage Languages. International Journal of Bilingualism 13(2), 155–163.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. and Treffers-Daller, J.. 2014. A Prolegomenon to the Construct of the Native Speaker: Heritage Speaker Bilinguals Are Natives Too! Applied Linguistics 35(1), 93–98.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. S. and Karayayla, T.. 2020. The Roles of Age, Attitude, and Use in First Language Development and Attrition of Turkish–English Bilinguals. Language Learning 70, 54–84.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. S. and Köpke, B.. 2017. The Relevance of First Language Attrition to Theories of Bilingual Development. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7(6), 637–667.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. 1992. Testing between UG-Based and Problem-Solving Models of L2A: Developmental Sequence Data. Language Acquisition 2(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Fuchs, Z., and Polinsky, M.. 2015. Heritage Language and Linguistic Theory. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1545.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. A. and Sauermann, A.. 2015. Visual Attention and Quantifier-Spreading in Heritage Russian Bilinguals. Second Language Research 31(1), 75–104.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. A. and Trueswell, J. C.. 2011. Processing of Contrastiveness by Heritage Russian Bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14(3), 280–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serratrice, L. 2013. Cross-Linguistic Influence in Bilingual Development: Determinants and Mechanisms. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3(1), 3–25.Google Scholar
Sherkina-Lieber, M. 2015. Tense, Aspect, and Agreement in Heritage Labrador Inuttitut: Do Receptive Bilinguals Understand Functional Morphology? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5(1), 30–61.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. 2014. Bilingual Language Acquisition: Spanish and English in the First Six Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. 2016. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. 2004. Native Language Attrition and Developmental Instability at the Syntax-Discourse Interface: Data, Interpretations and Methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7(2), 143–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suarez, D. 2002. The Paradox of Linguistic Hegemony and the Maintenance of Spanish As a Heritage Language in the United States. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 23(6), 512–530.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. 2007. Child Language: The Parametric Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tanner, D. 2019. Robust Neurocognitive Individual Differences in Grammatical Agreement Processing: A Latent Variable Approach. Cortex 111, 210–237.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. and Pickering, M. J.. 1996. Plausibility and the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies: An Eye-Tracking Study. Journal of Memory and Language 35(3), 454–475.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S. 2013. Assessing the Role of Current and Cumulative Exposure in Simultaneous Bilingual Acquisition: The Case of Dutch Gender. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(1), 86–110.Google Scholar
Valdés, G. 2005. Bilingualism, Heritage Language Learners, and SLA Research: Opportunities Lost or Seized? The Modern Language Journal 89(3), 410–426.Google Scholar
Van Rijswijk, R. 2016. The Strength of a Weaker First Language: Language Production and Comprehension by Turkish Heritage Speakers in the Netherlands. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Van Rijswijk, R., Muntendam, A., and Dijkstra, T.. 2017. Focus in Dutch Reading: An Eye-Tracking Experiment with Heritage Speakers of Turkish. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 32(8), 984–1000.Google Scholar
Villegas, Á. 2014. The Role of L2 English Immersion in the Processing of L1 Spanish Sentence Complement/Relative Clause Ambiguities. Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/21436.Google Scholar
Villegas, Á. 2018. Bilingual Processing of Comparative Structures in Spanish. Languages 3(3), 35.Google Scholar
White, L. 2003. Fossilization in Steady State L2 Grammars: Persistent Problems with Inflectional Morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6(2), 129–141.Google Scholar
White, L. 2018. Formal Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. In Miller, D., Bayram, F., Rothman, J., and Serratrice, L. (eds.), Bilingual Cognition and Language: The State of the Science across Its Subfields. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 57–78.Google Scholar
White, L., Valenzuela, E., Kozlowska–Macgregor, M., and Leung, Y. K. I.. 2004. Gender and Number Agreement in Non-native Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics 25(1), 105–133.Google Scholar
Winter, B. and Wieling, M.. 2016. How to Analyze Linguistic Change Using Mixed Models, Growth Curve Analysis and Generalized Additive Modeling. Journal of Language Evolution 1(1), 7–18.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, G. 2013. Bilingual Language Development among the First Generation Turkish Immigrants in the Netherlands. Doctoral dissertation, Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×