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-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:47:06.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2018

Maria Polinsky
Maria Polinsky
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Heritage Languages and their Speakers , pp. 354 - 404
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

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

Abkarian, G. G., Jones, A., and West, G.. 1992. Young children’s idiom comprehension: trying to get the picture. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 35, 580–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aboh, E., and DeGraff, M.. 2016. A null theory of creole formation based on universal grammar. In Roberts, I. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, 401–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Abouguendia, M., and Noels, K. A.. 2001. General and acculturation-related daily hassles and psychological adjustment in first- and second-generation South Asian immigrants to Canada. International Journal of Psychology 36, 163–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrahamsson, N., and Hyltenstam, K.. 2008. The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30, 481–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrahamsson, N., and Hyltenstam, K.. 2009. Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning 59, 249–306.Google Scholar
Abutalebi, J., and Green, D. W.. 2007. Bilingual language production: the neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics 20, 242–75.Google Scholar
Aissen, J. 1994. Tzotzil auxiliaries. Linguistics 32, 657–90.Google Scholar
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 435–48.Google Scholar
Aissen, J., England, N. C., and Zavala Maldonado, R.. 2017. Introduction. In Aissen, J., England, N. C., and Zavala Maldonado, R. (eds.), Mayan Languages, 1–18. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. 1994. Development of linguistic forms: Turkish. In Berman, R. A. and Slobin, D. I. (eds.), Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study, 329–88. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A., and Slobin, D. I.. 1986. A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In Chafe, W. and Nichols, J. (eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, 159–67. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Albirini, A., and Benmamoun, E.. 2014a. Concatenative and nonconcatenative plural formation in L1, L2, and heritage speakers of Arabic. Modern Language Journal 98, 854–71.Google Scholar
Albirini, A., and Benmamoun, E.. 2014b. Aspects of second language transfer in the oral production of Egyptian and Palestinian heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 18, 244–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albirini, A., and Benmamoun, E.. 2015. Factors affecting the retention of sentential negation in heritage Egyptian Arabic. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8, 470–89.Google Scholar
Albirini, A., Benmamoun, E., and Chakrani, B.. 2013. Gender and number agreement in the oral production of Arabic heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16, 1–18.Google Scholar
Albirini, A., Benmamoun, E., and Saadah, E.. 2011. Grammatical features of Egyptian and Palestinian heritage speakers’ oral production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 273–303.Google Scholar
Aldridge, E. 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Algeo, J., and Butcher, C.. 2013. The Origins and Development of the English Language. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Allen, S. 2007. The future of Inuktitut in the face of majority languages: bilingualism or language shift? Applied Psycholinguistics 28, 515–36.Google Scholar
Allen, S. 2013. The acquisition of ergativity in Inuktitut. In Bavin, E. and Stoll, S. (eds.), The Acquisition of Ergativity, 71–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, S., Genesee, F., Fish, S., and Crago, M.. 2002. Patterns of code mixing in English–Inuktitut spontaneous speech data. In Du Bois, J. W., Kumpf, L. E., and Ashby, W. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2, 171–88. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Allen, S., Crago, M., and Pesco, D.. 2006. The effect of majority language exposure on minority language skills: the case of Inuktitut. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9, 578–96.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., and Rowland, C.. 2013. Experimental methods in studying child language acquisition. WIREs Cognitive Science 4, 149–68.Google Scholar
Ammerlaan, T. 1996. You Get It a Bit Wobbly … Exploring Bilingual Lexical Retrieval in the Context of First Language Attrition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2006. Clitic doubling. In Everaert, M. and Riemsdijk, H. van (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Ch. 14. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Annear, L., and Speth, K.. 2015. Maintaining a multilingual repertoire: lexical change in American Norwegian. In Johannessen, J. B. and Salmons, J. C. (eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America, 201–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Anstatt, T. 2009. Von Fröschen und Jungen: Die Kategorie der Belebtheit bei Russischsprechern in Deutschland. Paper presented at the XXXVth Konstanzer Slavistisches Arbeitstreffen, Salzburg.Google Scholar
Anstatt, T. 2011. Sprachattrition: Abbau der Erstsprache bei russisch–deutschen Jugendlichen. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 67, 7–31.Google Scholar
Anstatt, T. 2013. Polnisch als Herkunftssprache: Sprachspezifische grammatische Kategorien bei bilingualen Jugendlichen. In Kempgen, S. et al. (eds.), Deutsche Beiträge zum 15. Internationalen Slavistenkongress, Minsk 2013, 15–25. München: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Anstatt, T. 2017. Language attitudes and linguistic skills in young heritage speakers of Russian in Germany. In Isurin, L. and Riehl, C. M. (eds.), Integration, Identity and Language Maintenance in Young Immigrants: Russian Germans or German Russians, 197–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antón-Méndez, I., Nicol, J. L., and Garrett, M. F.. 2002. The relation between gender and number agreement processing. Syntax 5, 1–25.Google Scholar
Antoniou, M., Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., and Kroos, C., C. 2011. Inter-language interference in VOT production by L2-dominant bilinguals: asymmetries in phonetic code-switching. Journal of Phonetics 39, 558–70.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E., and Choueiri, L.. 2010. The Syntax of Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., and Li, Y.-H. A.. 1989. Constituency and scope. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 141–72.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., and Li, Y.-H. A.. 2003. Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar: The Diversity of Wh-Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Applebaum, A., and Gordon, M.. 2013. A comparative phonetic study of the Circassian languages. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Languages of the Caucasus, 3–17.Google Scholar
Arregi, K. 2002. Focus on Basque Movements. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Arregi, K., and Nevins, A.. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle 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, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01387.Google Scholar
Asherov, D., Fishman, A., and Cohen, E.-G.. 2016. Vowel reduction in Israeli heritage Russian. Heritage Language Journal 13, 113–33.Google Scholar
Au, T. K.-F., and Oh, J.. 2009. Korean as a heritage language. In Ping, Li (ed.), Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics, Part III: Korean Psycholinguistics, 268–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Au, T. K.-F., Knightly, L. M., Jun, S.-A., and Oh, J. S.. 2002. Overhearing a language during childhood. Psychological Science 13, 238–43.Google Scholar
Au, T. K.-F., Oh, J. S., Knightly, L. M., Jun, S.-A., and Romo, L.. 2008. Salvaging a childhood language. Journal of Memory and Language 58, 998–1011.Google Scholar
Avanesov, R. I. 1977. Dialektologičeskie issledovanija po russkomu jazyku. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Avrutin, S., and Babyonyshev, M.. 1997. Obviation in subjunctive clauses and AGR: evidence from Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 229–62.Google Scholar
Babaii, E., and Ansary, H.. 2001. The C-test: a valid operationalization of reduced redundancy principle? System 29, 209–19.Google Scholar
Babyonyshev, M., Ganger, J., Pesetsky, D., and Wexler, K.. 2001. The maturation of grammatical principles: evidence from Russian unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E., Brown, C., and Marslen-Wilson, W.. 1986. Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch: a psycholinguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes 1, 249–62.Google Scholar
Backus, A. 1996. Two in One: Bilingual Speech of Turkish Immigrants in the Netherlands. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Bae, S.-H. 2015. The Syntax–Phonology Interface in Native and Near-Native Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Bae, S.-H., Plaster, K., and Polinsky, M.. 2012. Heritage Korean. Harvard Dataverse, hdl:1902.1/18833.Google Scholar
Bailyn, J. 2014. Against a VP ellipsis account of Russian verb-stranding construction. In McClure, W. and Vovin, A. (eds.), Studies in Japanese and Korean Historical and Theoretical Linguistics and Beyond: A Festschrift to Honor Prof. John B. Whitman on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, 93–109. Leiden: Global Oriental/Brill.Google Scholar
Bak, T. H. 2016a. Cooking pasta in La Paz: bilingualism, bias and the replication crisis. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6, 699–717.Google Scholar
Bak, T. H. 2016b. The impact of bilingualism on cognitive aging and dementia: finding a path through a forest of confounding variables. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6, 205–26.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2003. Lexical Categories: Nouns, Verbs, and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, W., and Trofimovich, P.. 2005. Interaction of native- and second-language vowel system(s) in early and late bilinguals. Language and Speech 48, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baladzhaeva, L., and Laufer, B.. 2017. Is first language attrition possible without second language knowledge? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, June; https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0066.Google Scholar
Barlow, J. 2014. Age of acquisition and allophony in Spanish–English bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology 5, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00288.Google Scholar
Barlow, J., Branson, P., and Nip, I.. 2013. Phonetic equivalence in the acquisition of /l/ by Spanish–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16, 68–85.Google Scholar
Barnes, H. 2009. A Sociolinguistic Study of Sustained Veneto–Spanish Bilingualism in Chipilo, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Barnes, H. 2010a. Social motivations for sustained bilingualism in an Italo–Mexican community. In Borgonovo, C. et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 122–35. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Barnes, H. 2010b. Subject pronoun expression in bilinguals of two null subject languages. In Arregi, K. et al. (eds.), Romance Linguistics 2008. Interactions in Romance: Selected Papers from the 38th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Urbana-Champaign, April 2008, 9–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. 2006. Strength and Weakness at the Interface: Positional Neutralization in Phonetics and Phonology. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. 2007. Phonetics and phonology in Russian unstressed vowel reduction: A study in hyperarticulation. Manuscript, Boston University.Google Scholar
Barski, E. 2017. Nominal case restructuring: a case study on a Polish heritage speaker. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 38.Google Scholar
Bates, E., and Goodman, J.. 1997. On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: evidence from acquisition, aphasia and real-time processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 12, 507–84.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Dale, P. S., and Thal, D.. 1995. Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development. In Fletcher, P. and MacWhinney, B. (eds.), Handbook of Child Language, 96–151. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bavin, E. L., and Shopen, T.. 1985. Children’s acquisition of Warlpiri: comprehension of transitive sentences. Journal of Child Language 12, 597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaudrie, S., and Ducar, C.. 2005. Beginning level university heritage language programs: creating a space for all heritage language learners. Heritage Language Journal 3, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C., and Potowski, K.. 2014. Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
Behaghel, O. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25, 110–42.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., and Albirini, A.. 2018. Is learning a standard variety similar to learning a new language? Evidence from heritage speakers of Arabic. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40, 31–61.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Albirini, A., Montrul, S., and Saadah, E.. 2014. Arabic plurals and root and pattern morphology in Palestinian and Egyptian heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4, 89–123.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., and Polinsky, M.. 2013a. Heritage languages and their speakers: opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 39, 129–81.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., and Polinsky, M.. 2013b. Defining an “ideal” heritage speaker: theoretical and methodological challenges. Reply to peer commentaries. Theoretical Linguistics 39, 259–94.Google Scholar
Benneli, B., Belacchi, C., Gini, G., and Lugangeli, D.. 2006. “To define means to say what you know about things”: the development of definitional skills as metalinguistic acquisition. Journal of Child Language 33, 71–97.Google Scholar
Benson, M. 1960. American–Russian speech. American Speech 35, 163–74.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. 1988. Word class distinctions in developing grammars. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I. M., and Braine, M. D. S. (eds.), Categories and Processes in Language Acquisition, 45–72. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A., and Olshtain, E.. 1983. Features of first language transfer in second language attrition. Applied Linguistics 4, 222–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A., and Slobin, D. I. (eds.). 1994. Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bhatia, T., and Ritchie, W. (eds.). 2013. The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism, 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bianchi, G. 2013. Gender in Italian–German bilinguals: a comparison with German L2 learners of Italian. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16, 538–57.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., and Roberts, I.. 2007. Disharmonic word-order systems and the final-over-final-constraint (FOFC). In Bisetto, A. and Barbieri, F. (eds.), Proceedings of XXXIII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1984. The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7, 173–221.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1988. Creole languages and the bioprogram. In Newmeyer, F. J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, 268–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Binnick, R. 1991. Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bittner, M., and Hale, K.. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 1–68.Google Scholar
Blackwell, A., and Bates, E.. 1995. Inducing agrammatic profiles in normal: evidence for selective vulnerability of morphology under cognitive resource limitation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7, 228–57.Google Scholar
Blake, R. J. 1980. The Acquisition of Mood Selection among Spanish-Speaking Children: Ages 4 to 12. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Bleam, T. 1999. Leísta Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic Doubling. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Rispoli, M., Gartner, B., and Hafitz, J.. 2009. Acquisition of complementation. Journal of Child Language 16, 101–20.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1927. Literate and illiterate speech. American Speech 2, 432–39.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. 1987. Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different? Journal of Pragmatics 11, 131–46.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. (eds.). 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. New York, NY: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., and Olshtain, E.. 1984. Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5, 196–213.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 2003. Floating quantifiers: handle with care. In Cheng, L. L. and Sybesma, R. (eds.), The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book: The Latest in Linguistics, 107–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J., and Branigan, P.. 2006. Eccentric agreement and multiple case-checking. In Johns, A., Massam, D., and Ndayiragije, J. (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging Issues, 47–77.  Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Bock, K., and Miller, C. A.. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 2, 45–93.Google Scholar
Bock, K., Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., Meyer, A., and Schriefers, H.. 2001. Some attractions of verb agreement. Cognitive Psychology 43, 83–128.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2003. Islands and Chains: Resumption as Derivational Residue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N., and Nunes, J.. 2008. Copy-reflexive and copy-control constructions: a movement analysis. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8, 61–100.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N., and Nunes, J.. 2010. Control as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, T. M., Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Mendez-Perez, A., and Gillam, R. B.. 2010. What you hear and what you say: language performance in Spanish–English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13, 325–44.Google Scholar
Böhmer, J. 2015. Biliteralität: Eine Studie zu literaten Strukturen in Sprachproben von Jugendlichen im Deutschen und im Russischen. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J. 2009. Temporal anaphora in a tenseless language. In Klein, W. and Li, P. (eds.), The Expression of Time in Language, 83–128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolonyai, A. 2002. Case systems in contact: syntactic and lexical case in bilingual child language. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 21(2), 1–35.Google Scholar
Bolonyai, A. 2007. (In)vulnerable agreement in incomplete bilingual L1 learners. International Journal of Bilingualism 11, 3–21.Google Scholar
Boon, E. 2014. Heritage Welsh: A Study of Heritage Language As the Outcome of Minority Language Acquisition and Bilingualism. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 1984. Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 1989. Anaphoric AGR. In Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. J. (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, 69–109, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in der neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Wanner, D. and Kibbee, D. (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 1988, 143–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boumans, L. 2006. The attributive possessive in Moroccan Arabic spoken by young bilinguals in the Netherlands and their peers in Morocco. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 9, 213–31.Google Scholar
Bourque, F., Van der Ven, E., and Malla, A.. 2011. A meta-analysis of the risk for psychotic disorders among first- and second-generation immigrants. Psychological Medicine 41, 897–910.Google Scholar
Bowern, C. 2008. Linguistic Fieldwork: A Practical Guide. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. 2011. Exploring the role of modality: second language–heritage learner interactions in the Spanish language classroom. Heritage Language Journal 8, 30–65.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. 1987. What is learned in acquiring word classes: a step toward an acquisition theory. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, 65–87. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. 1988. Modeling the acquisition of linguistic structure. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I. M., and Braine, M. D. S. (eds.), Categories and Processes in Language Acquisition, 217–60. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Braun, B., and Tagliapietra, L.. 2010. The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes 25, 7–9.Google Scholar
Brehmer, B. 2007. Sprechen Sie Qwelja? Formen und Folgen russisch–deutscher Zweisprachigkeit in Deutschland. In Anstatt, T. (ed.), Mehrsprachigkeit bei Kindern und Erwachsenen: Erwerb, Formen, Förderung, 163–87. Tübingen: Germany Attempto.Google Scholar
Brehmer, B., and Czachór, A.. 2012. The formation and distribution of the analytic future tense in Polish–German bilinguals. In Braunmüller, K. and Gabriel, C. (eds.), Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies, 297–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brehmer, B., and Rothweiler, M.. 2012. The acquisition of gender agreement marking in Polish: a study of bilingual Polish–German-speaking children. In Braunmüller, K. and Gabriel, C. (eds.), Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies, 81–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brehmer, B., and Usanova, I.. 2015. Let’s fix it? Cross-linguistic influence in word order patterns of Russian heritage speakers in Germany. In Peukert, H. (ed.), Transfer Effects in Multilingual Language Development, 161–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brinton, D. M., Kagan, O., and Bauckus, S. (eds.). 2008. Heritage Language Education: A New Field Emerging. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brody, M. 1990. Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 201–25.Google Scholar
Broschart, J. 1997. Why Tongan does it differently: categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs. Linguistic Typology 1, 123–65.Google Scholar
Brown, N. 1996. Russian Learners’ Dictionary: 10,000 Russian Words in Frequency Order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, P., and Levinson, S.. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R., and Gilman, A.. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in Language, 253–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bruck, M., and Genesse, F.. 1995. Phonological awareness in young second language learners. Journal of Child Language 22, 307–24.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2013. By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16, 1–41.Google Scholar
Bruhn de Garavito, J. 2002. Verb raising in Spanish: a comparison of early and late bilinguals. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S., and Do, A. H.-J. (eds.), BUCLD 26: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 84–94. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bullock, B., and Gerfen, C.. 2004. Phonological convergence in a contracting language variety. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 95–104.Google Scholar
Burke, D. M., and Shafto, M. A.. 2004. Aging and language production. Current Directions in Psychological Science 13, 21–24.Google Scholar
Burt, M., and Kiparsky, C.. 1972. The Gooficon: A Repair Manual for English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Bylund, E. 2009. Maturational constraints and first language attrition. Language Learning 59, 687–715.Google Scholar
Byrd, D. 1992. Preliminary results on speaker-dependent variation in the TIMIT database. JASA 92, 593–96.Google Scholar
Cain, K., Towse, A. S., and Knight, R. S.. 2008. The development of idiom comprehension: an investigation of semantic and contextual processing skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 102, 280–98.Google Scholar
Cairns, H. S., McDaniel, D., Ryan Hsu, J., and Rapp, M.. 1994. A longitudinal study of principles of control and pronominal reference in child English. Language 70, 260–88.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, K. 2007. Accent, (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech 82, 32–64.Google Scholar
Candea, M., Vasilescu, I., and Adda-Decker, M.. 2005. Inter- and intra-language acoustic analysis of autonomous fillers. Paper presented at DISS 05, Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop, September 2005, Aix-en-Provence, France.Google Scholar
Cantone, K. F. 1999. Das Genus im Italienischen und Deutschen: Empirische Untersuchung zum bilingualen Erstspracherwerb. M.A. thesis, Hamburg University.Google Scholar
Carminati, M. N. 2002. The Processing of Italian Subject Pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Carminati, M. N. 2005. Processing reflexes of the feature hierarchy (person > number > gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua 115, 259–85.Google Scholar
Carreira, M., and Beeman, T.. 2014. Voces: Latino Students on Life in the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Carvalho, A., Orozco, R., and Shin, N. (eds.). 2015. Subject Pronoun Expression in Spanish: A Cross-Dialectal Perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Casasanto, L. S., Hofmeister, P., and Sag, I. A.. 2010. Understanding acceptability judgments: additivity and working memory effects. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 27–55. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (ed.). 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chang, C. B. 2016. Bilingual perceptual benefits of experience with a heritage language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19, 791–809.Google Scholar
Chang, C. B., and Yao, Y.. 2016. Toward an understanding of heritage prosody: acoustic and perceptual properties of tone produced by heritage, native, and second language speakers of Mandarin. Heritage Language Journal 13, 134–60.Google Scholar
Chang, C. B., Yao, Y, Haynes, E. F, and Rhodes, R.. 2011. Production of phonetic and phonological contrast by heritage speakers of Mandarin. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129, 3964–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, X., Anderson, R. C., Li, Wei, et al. 2004. Phonological awareness of bilingual and monolingual Chinese children. Journal of Educational Psychology 96, 142–51.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Xu, Y., and Guion-Anderson, S.. 2014. Prosodic realization of focus in bilingual production of Southern Min and Mandarin. Phonetica 71, 249–70.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S. 1997. On the Typology of Wh-Questions. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Cho, S. W. 1989. Parameter, subset principle, and the acquisition of the Korean reflexive pronoun. In Proceedings for the Cognitive Science Conference, Seoul, Korea, 1989, 296–301. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.Google Scholar
Cho, S. W. 1992. The syntax and acquisition of “kyay” (“s/he”) and “caki” (“self”). Studies in Generative Grammar 4, 361–92.Google Scholar
Choi, H.-W. 1999. Optimizing Structure in Context: Scrambling and Information Structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Choi, H.-W. 2003. Paradigm leveling in American Korean. Language Research 39, 183–204.Google Scholar
Choi, K.-I., and Kim, Y.-J.. 2007. Caykwitaymyengsa-uy tauyseng hayso-kwaceng: Ankwu-wuntong pwunsek [Ambiguity resolution processes of reflexives: eye-tracking data]. Korean Journal of Experimental Psychology 19, 263–77.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Boston, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Martin, R. et al. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chondrogianni, V., and Marinis, T.. 2011. Differential effects of internal and external factors on the development of vocabulary, tense morphology and morpho-syntax in successive bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1, 223–48.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., and Fox Tree, J. E.. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84, 73–111.Google Scholar
Cleary, C. 1988. The C-test in English: left-hand deletions. Regional English Language Centre Journal 19(2), 26–38.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. 2003. Dynamics of Language Contact: English and Immigrant Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cojtí Cuxil, D. 2012. El desarrollo socioeconómico contra el desarrollo de los idiomas indígenas. In STILLA-2011 Proceedings, 183–205. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Colantoni, L., Cuza, A., and Mazzaro, N.. 2016. Task related effects in the prosody of Spanish heritage speakers and long-term immigrants. In Armstrong, M. E., Henriksen, N., and del Mar Vanrell, M. (eds.), Intonational Grammar in Ibero-Romance: Approaches across Linguistic Subfields, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Huang, C.-T. J.. 2001. Introduction: Long-distance reflexives: the state of the art. In Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Huang, C.-T. J. (eds.), Long-Distance Reflexives (Syntax and Semantics 33), xxiii–xlvii. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Collentine, J. G. 2003. Development of subjunctive and complex-syntactic abilities among foreign language learners of Spanish. In Lafford, B. and Salaberry, R. (eds.), Studies in Spanish Second Language Acquisition: The State of the Science, 74–97. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B., and Kuteva, T.. 2013. Relativization on subjects. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology; available online at http://wals.info/chapter/122 (accessed August 23, 2017).Google Scholar
Contreras, H. 1987. Small clauses in Spanish and English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 225–43.Google Scholar
Cook, V. 1991. The poverty of the stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research 7, 103–17.Google Scholar
Cook, V. 1992. Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning 42, 557–91.Google Scholar
Cook, V. 1997. Monolingual bias in second language acquisition research. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 34, 35–50.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (ed.). 2003. Effects of the Second Language on the First. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Coon, J. 2016. Mayan morphosyntax. Language and Linguistics Compass 10, 515–50.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. 1979. Variable binding and relative clauses. In Guenthner, F. and Schmidt, S. J. (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, 131–69. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. 1982. Gender in Russian: an account of gender specification and its relationship to declension. Russian Linguistics 6, 197–232.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corder, P. 1967. The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 5, 161–70.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. 1997. Experimental Syntax. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cozens, S. 2003. Heritage learners in the Polish language classroom. Australian Slavonic and East European Studies 17, 27–45.Google Scholar
Craig, C. 1979. The antipassive and Jacaltec. In Martin, L. (ed.), Papers in Mayan Linguistics, 139–65. Colombia, MO: Lucas Bros. Publishers.Google Scholar
Crain, S. 2013. What’s parsing got to do with it? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3, 301–7.Google Scholar
Crain, S., and Thornton, R.. 1998. Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Research on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crain, S., Thornton, R., Boster, C., et al. 1996. Quantification without qualification. Language Acquisition 5, 83–153.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Csernicskó, I. 2005. Hungarian in Ukraine. In Fenyvesi, A. (ed.), Hungarian Language Contact outside Hungary: Studies on Hungarian as a Minority Language, 89–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. 1978. Bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 9, 131–49.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. 1991. Introduction. The Canadian Modern Language Review 47, 601–5.Google Scholar
Cuza, A. 2012. Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax proper: interrogative subject–verb inversion in heritage Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism 17, 71–96.Google Scholar
Cuza, A., and Frank, J.. 2011. Transfer effects at the syntax–semantics interface: the case of double que questions in heritage Spanish. Heritage Language Journal 8, 66–89.Google Scholar
Cuza, A., and Frank, J.. 2015. On the role of experience and age-related effects: evidence from the Spanish CP. Second Language Research 31, 3–28.Google Scholar
Cuza, A., Pérez-Leroux, A. T., and Sánchez, L.. 2013. The role of semantic transfer in clitic drop among simultaneous and sequential Chinese–Spanish bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 93–125.Google Scholar
Cuza, A., and Pérez-Tattam, R.. 2012. Grammatical gender selection and phrasal word order in the grammar of Spanish/English bilingual children. Paper presented at Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL42), Southern Utah University.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 1997. The LAD goes to school: a cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics 35, 735–66.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2012. Different speakers, different grammars: individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2, 219–53.Google Scholar
Dagut, M., and Laufer, B.. 1985. Avoidance of phrasal verbs: a case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7, 73–79.Google Scholar
Dal Pozzo, L. 2015. New Information Subjects in L2 Acquisition: Evidence from Italian and Finnish. Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
Daller, M., Yildiz, C., De Jong, N., Kan, S., and Basbagi, R.. 2011. Language dominance in Turkish German bilinguals: methodological aspects of measurements in structurally different languages. International Journal of Bilingualism 15, 215–36.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. E., and Lekic, M.. 2013. The heritage and non-heritage learner in the overseas immersion context: comparing learning outcomes and target-language utilization in the Russian flagship. Heritage Language Journal 10(2), 88–114.Google Scholar
Davidson, L. 2011. Characteristics of stop releases in American English spontaneous speech. Speech Communication 53, 1042–58.Google Scholar
Davis, H., and Huijsmans, M.. 2017. Changes in the alignment of arguments in transitive clauses in ʔayʔaǰuθəm (Comox-Sliammon). In Anghelescu, A., Fry, M., Huijsmans, M., and Reisinger, D. (eds.), Papers for the International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages 52 (University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 45), 13–46. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Dawsey, C. B., and Dawsey, J. M. (eds.). 1995. The Confederados: Old South Immigrants in Brazil. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. 1990. Language attrition, competence loss or performance loss. In Spillner, B. (ed.), Sprache und Politik: Kongreßbeiträge zur 19. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik, 63–65. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M. 1993. Predicates Across Categories: Towards a Category-Neutral Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachussetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M., and Wiltschko, M.. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 409–42.Google Scholar
de Groot, C. 2005. The grammars of Hungarian outside Hungary from a linguistic-typological perspective. In Fenyvesi, A. (ed.), Hungarian Language Contact outside Hungary: Studies on Hungarian as a Minority Language, 351–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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. 2011. Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition. Applied Linguistics Review 2, 221–40.Google Scholar
de Houwer, A. 2014. The absolute frequency of maternal input to bilingual and monolingual children: a first comparison. In Grüter, T. and Paradis, J. (eds.), Input and Experience in Bilingual Development, 37–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
De Jong, N., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., and Hulstijn, J.. 2013. Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics 34, 893–916.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. 2015. Skill acquisition theory. In Williams, J. and VanPatten, B. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, 94–112. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. 2017. Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In Loewen, S. and Sato, M. (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 15–32. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. 1997. Mirativity: the grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1, 33–52.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 369–82.Google Scholar
Denisova-Schmidt, E. 2014. Heritage Russian: Germany. Harvard Dataverse, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/26350.Google Scholar
de Prada Pérez, A. 2009. Subject Expression in Minorcan Spanish: Consequences of Contact with Catalan. Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
de Prada Pérez, A., and Pascual y Cabo, D.. 2011. Invariable gusta in the Spanish of heritage speakers in the US. In Herschensohn, J. and Tanner, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2011), 110–20. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
de Prada Pérez, A., and Pascual y Cabo, D.. 2012. Interface heritage speech across proficiencies: unaccusativity, focus, and subject position in Spanish. In Geeslin, K. and Díaz-Campos, M. (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 14th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 308–18. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Dieser, E. 2007. Osvojenije kategorii roda v ramkax detskogo dvu-/trexjazyčija. In Ceytlin, S. N. (ed.), Semantičeskije kategorii v detskoj reči, 244–63. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istorija.Google Scholar
Dieser, E. 2009. Genuserwerb im Russischen und Deutschen. Korpusgestützte Studie zu ein- und zweisprachigen Kindern und Erwachsenen. München: Kubon & Sagner.Google Scholar
Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Quiroz, B. G., and Shin, J.. 2012. Home and community factors influencing bilingual children’s ethnic language vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism 16, 541–65.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Doetjes, J. S. 1992. Rightward floating quantifiers float to the left. Linguistic Review 9, 313–39.Google Scholar
Doetjes, J. S. 1995. Quantification at a distance and iteration. In Beckman, J. (ed.), The Proceedings of NELS 25, 111–26. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Dogruöz, S., and Backus, A.. 2009. Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: an assessment of on-going contact-induces change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12, 41–64.Google Scholar
Döpke, S. 1998. Competing language structures: the acquisition of verb placement by bilingual German-English children. Journal of Child Language 25, 555–84.Google Scholar
Dorian, N. 1981. Language Death: The Life Cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., and Katona, L.. 1992. Validation of the C-test amongst Hungarian EFL learners. Language Testing 9, 187–206.Google Scholar
Druks, J. 2002. Verbs and nouns: a review of the literature. Journal of Neurolinguistics 15, 289–315.Google Scholar
Dubinina, I. 2010. How to ask for a favor: a pilot study in heritage Russian pragmatics. In Mustajoki, A., Protassova, E., and Vakhtin, N. (eds.), Instrumentarium of Linguistics: Sociolinguistic Approaches to Non-Standard Russian (Slavica Helsingiensia 40), 418–30. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press.Google Scholar
Dubinina, I., and Polinsky, M.. 2013. Russian in the USA. In Moser, M. and Polinsky, M. (eds.), Slavic Languages in Migration, 131–60. Wien: University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Duchin, S. W., and Mysak, E. D.. 1987. Disfluency and rate characteristics of young adult, middle-aged, and older males. Journal of Communicative Disorders 20, 245–57.Google Scholar
Duffield, N. 2018. Reflections on Psycholinguistic Theories: Raiding the Inarticulate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, A., and Fox Tree, J. E.. 2009. A quick, gradient bilingual dominance scale. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12, 273–89.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., and Dunn, D. M.. 1997. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 3rd edn. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
Dunn, M. J. 1999. A Grammar of Chukchi. Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Duursma, E., Romero-Contreras, S., Szuber, A., et al. 2007. The role of home literacy and language environment on bilinguals’ English and Spanish vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics 28, 171–90.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12, 453–76.Google Scholar
Eckes, E., and Grotjahn, R.. 2006. A closer look at the construct validity of C-tests. Language Testing 23, 290–325.Google Scholar
Ehresmann, T., and Bousquette, J.. 2015. Phonological non-integration of lexical borrowings in Wisconsin West Frisian. In Johannessen, J. B. and Salmons, J. C. (eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America, 234–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M., and Hjelde, A.. 2015. Borrowing modal elements into American Norwegian: the case of suppose(d). In Johannessen, J. B. and Salmons, J. C. (eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America, 256–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
El Aissati, A., and Schaufeli, A.. 1999. Language maintenance and loss: evidence from language perception and production. In Extra, G. and Verhoeven, L. (eds.), Bilingualism and Migration, 363–78. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 1991. Grammaticality judgments and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, 161–86.Google Scholar
England, N. C. 2003. Mayan language revival and revitalization politics: linguists and linguistic ideologies. American Anthropologist 105, 733–43.Google Scholar
Eubank, L., Bischof, J., Huffstutler, A., Leek, P., and West, C.. 1997. “Tom eats slowly cooked eggs”: thematic-verb raising in L2 knowledge. Language Acquisition 6, 171–99.Google Scholar
Evans, N. 1995. A Grammar of Kayardild: With Historical-Comparative Notes on Tangkic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ewen, C., and van der Hulst, H.. 2001. The Phonological Structure of Words: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, M. 2006. Language placement exams for heritage speakers of Spanish: learning from students’ mistakes. Foreign Language Annals 39, 595–604.Google Scholar
Fairclough, M. 2011. Testing the lexical recognition task with Spanish/English bilinguals in the United States. Language Testing 28, 273–97.Google Scholar
Fairclough, M. 2012. A working model for assessing Spanish heritage language learners’ language proficiency through a placement exam. Heritage Language Journal 9(1), 121–38.Google Scholar
Fairclough, M., and Beaudrie, S. (eds.). 2016. Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching: A Practical Guide for the Classroom. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fallon, P. D. 2002. Phonology of Ejectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. 1978. Direct and indirect object reduplication in Rumanian. In Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS 14), 88–97. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. 2002. Specificity distinction. Journal of Semantics 19, 213–43.Google Scholar
Fenyvesi, A. 1996. The case of American Hungarian case: morphological change in McKeesport, PA. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 43, 381–404.Google Scholar
Fenyvesi, A. 2000. The affectedness of the verbal complex in American Hungarian. In Fenyvesi, A. and Sándor, K. (eds.), Language Contact and the Verbal Complex of Dutch and Hungarian: Working Papers from the 1st Bilingual Language Use Theme Meeting of the Study Centre on Language Contact, November 11–13, 1999, Szeged, Hungary, 94–107. Szeged: Teacher Training College.Google Scholar
Fenyvesi, A. 2005a. Hungarian in the United States. In Fenyvesi, A. (ed.), Hungarian Language Contact outside Hungary: Studies on Hungarian as a Minority Language, 265–318. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fenyvesi, A. (ed.). 2005b. Hungarian Language Contact outside Hungary: Studies on Hungarian as a Minority Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., and Marchman, V.. 2012. Individual differences in lexical processing at 18 months predict vocabulary growth in typically-developing and late-talking toddlers. Child Development 83, 203–22.Google Scholar
Fernández Soriano, O. 1989. Strong pronouns in null subject languages and the Avoid Pronoun Principle. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 228–39.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47, 164–203.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., and Swets, B. 2005. The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause “island” contexts. In Cutler, A. (ed.), Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones, 263–78. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Féry, C. 2007. The prosody of topicalization. In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalizations across Languages, 69–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Féry, C. 2011. German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases. Lingua 121, 1906–22.Google Scholar
Filip, H. 1999. Aspect, Eventuality Types and Noun Phrase Semantics. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Filip, H. 2004. Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 12, 55–101.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. 2001. 300-plus years of heritage language education in the United States. In Peyton, J. K. et al. (eds.), Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource, 81–98. Washington, DC: Delta Systems and Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Flege, J. 1987. The instrumental study of L2 speech production: some methodological considerations. Language Learning 37, 285–96.Google Scholar
Flege, J. 2007. Language contact in bilingualism: phonetic system interactions. Laboratory Phonology 9, 354–81.Google Scholar
Flege, J., and Eefting, W.. 1986. Linguistic and developmental effects on the production and perception of stop consonants. Phonetica 43, 155–71.Google Scholar
Flege, J., and Eefting, W.. 1987. Production and perception of English stops by native Spanish speakers. Journal of Phonetics 15, 67–83.Google Scholar
Flege, J., and Eefting, W.. 1988. Imitation of a VOT continuum by native speakers of English and Spanish: evidence for phonetic category formation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 83, 729–40.Google Scholar
Flege, J., Frieda, E., and Nozawa, T.. 1997. Amount of native-language (L1) use affects the pronunciation of an L2. Journal of Phonetics 25, 169–86.Google Scholar
Flege, J., Yeni-Komshian, G., and Liu, S. H.. 1999. Age constraints on second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language 41, 78–104.Google Scholar
Fleischer, J., Rieken, E., and Widmer, P. (eds.). 2015. Agreement from a Diachronic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flores, C. M. M. 2010. The effect of age on language attrition: evidence from bilingual returnees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13, 533–46.Google Scholar
Flores, C. M. M. 2012. Differential effects of language attrition in the domains of verb placement and object expression. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15, 550–67.Google Scholar
Flores, C. M. M. 2015a. Losing a language in childhood: a longitudinal case study on language attrition. Journal of Child Language 42, 562–90.Google Scholar
Flores, C. M. M. 2015b. Understanding heritage language acquisition: some contributions from the research on heritage speakers of European Portuguese. Lingua 164, 251–65.Google Scholar
Flores, C. M. M. 2016. Portugiesisch als Herkunftssprache. Deutsch als Umgebungssprache. Anmerkungen zum Erwerb der Familiensprache in einem Migrationskontext. In Born, J. and Ladoliva, A. (eds.), Sprachkontakte des Portugiesischen, 45–65. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Flores, C. M. M., and Barbosa, P.. 2014. When reduced input leads to delayed acquisition: a study on the acquisition of clitic placement by Portuguese heritage speaker. International Journal of Bilingualism 8, 304–25.Google Scholar
Flores, C. M. M., Kupisch, T., and Rinke, E.. 2016. Linguistic foundations of heritage language development from the perspective of Romance languages in Germany. In Trifonas, P. P. and Aravossitas, T. (eds.), Handbook of Research and Practice in Heritage Language Education, 1–18. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Floyd, M. B. 1990. Development of subjunctive mood in children’s Spanish: a review. Confluencia 5, 93–104.Google Scholar
Forsyth, J. 1970. A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fotopoulou, G. 2004. Code-Switching In the Case of 2nd Generation Greek-German Bilinguals in Germany: An Empirical Study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Fowler, C., Sramko, V., Ostry, D., Rowland, S., and Hallé, P.. 2008. Cross-language phonetic influences on the speech of French–English bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics 36, 649–63.Google Scholar
Franck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U. H., and Rizzi, L.. 2006. Agreement and movement: a syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition 101, 173–216.Google Scholar
Frank, J. 2013. Derivational complexity effects in bilingual adults: instances of interrogative inversion in Spanish. In Aaron, J., Cabrelli Amaro, J., Lord, G., and de Prada Pérez, A. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 143–55. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Franks, S. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fraundorf, S. H., Watson, D. G., and Benjamin, A. S.. 2010. Recognition memory reveals just how CONTRASTIVE contrastive accenting really is. Journal of Memory and Language 63, 367–86.Google Scholar
French, B. 2010. Maya Ethnolinguistic Identity: Violence, Cultural Rights, and Modernity in Highland Guatemala. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Freywald, U., Mayr, K., Özçelik, T., and Wiese, H.. 2011. Kiezdeutsch as a multiethnolect. In Kern, F. and Selting, M. (eds.), Ethnic Styles of Speaking in European Metropolitan Areas, 45–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frommer, J. G., and Ishikawa, W.. 1980. Alors … euh … on parle français. French Review 53, 501–6.Google Scholar
Fruehwald, J. 2016. Filled pause choice as a sociolinguistic variable. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 2(6), 40–49.Google Scholar
Fry, J. 2003. Ellipsis and Wa-Marking in Japanese Conversation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Z., Polinsky, M., and Scontras, G.. 2015. The differential representation of number and gender in Spanish. Linguistic Review 32, 703–37.Google Scholar
Fukuda, S. 2008. Backward control. Language and Linguistics Compass 2, 168–95.Google Scholar
Fukuda, S. 2017. Floating numeral quantifiers as an unaccusative diagnostic in native, heritage and L2 Japanese speakers. Language Acquisition 24, 169–208.Google Scholar
Fung, R. S.-Y. 2000. Final Particles in Standard Cantonese: Semantic Extension and Pragmatic Inference. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Gagarina, N., and Voeikova, M.. 2009. The acquisition of case and number in Russian. In Stephany, U. and Voeikova, M. (eds.), Development of Nominal Inflection in First Language Acquisition: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 179–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gagliardi, A. 2012. Input and Intake in Language Acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Galambos, S. J., and Goldin-Meadow, S.. 1990. The effects of learning two languages on levels of metalinguistic awareness. Cognition 34, 1–56.Google Scholar
García-Mayo, M., and Hawkins, R.. 2009. Second Language Acquisition of Articles: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Garzon, S. S., McKenna Brown, R., Becker Richards, J., and Ajpub’, Wuqu’. 1998. The Life of Our Language: Kaqchikel Maya Maintenance, Shift, and Revitalization. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. 1983. The development of L2 intuitions. Tesol Quarterly 17, 273–91.Google Scholar
Gass, S., and Selinker, L.. 1992. Language Transfer in Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. E., Frankish, C. R., Pickering, S. J., and Peaker, S.. 1999. Phonotactic influences on short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 25, 84–95.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M., and Thomas, E. M.. 2007. Factors contributing to language transmission in bilingual families: The core study—adult interviews. In Gathercole, V. C. M. (ed.), Language Transmission in Bilingual Families in Wales, 59–181. Cardiff: Welsh Language Board.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M., and Thomas, E. M.. 2009. Bilingual first-language development: dominant language takeover, threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12, 213–37.Google Scholar
Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I. 2000. “I want a chimney builden”: the acquisition of infinitival constructions in bilingual children. In Döpke, S. (ed.), Cross-linguistic Structures in Simultaneous Bilingualism, 123–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Genesee, F., and Nicoladis, E. 2006. Bilingual acquisition: bilingual first language acquisition. In Hoff, E. and Shatz, M. (eds.), Handbook of Language Development, 324–42. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. 1981. Some interesting differences between nouns and verbs. Cognition and Brain Theory 4, 161–78.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. 2001. Evaluating contemporary models of figurative language understanding. Metaphor and Symbol 16, 317–33.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. 2002. A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 457–86.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. 1998. Syntactic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1–76.Google Scholar
Gilbert, G. 1972. Linguistic Atlas of Texas German. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Gilkerson, J. S. 2006. Acquiring English Particle Verbs: Age and Transfer Effects in Second Language Acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Gittelson, B., and Polinsky, M.. 2012. Heritage English: France. Harvard Dataverse, hdl:1902.1/18537.Google Scholar
Godson, L. 2003. Phonetics of Language Attrition: Vowel Production and Articulatory Setting in the Speech of Western Armenian Heritage Speakers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California San Diego.Google Scholar
Godson, L. 2004. Vowel production in the speech of Western Armenian heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal 2, 1–22.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. 1993. On сase and the passive morpheme. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 31–44.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. 1999. Passives and arbitrary plural subjects in Spanish. In Authier, J.-M., Bullock, B., and Reed, L. (eds.), Formal Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Papers from the 28th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 135–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Golla, V. 2007. North America. In Moseley, C. (ed.), Encyclopedia of the World’s Endangered Languages, 1–96. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Göncz, L., and Vörös, O.. 2005. Hungarian in the former Yugoslavia (Vojvodina and Prekmurje). In Fenyvesi, A. (ed.), Hungarian Language Contact outside Hungary: Studies on Hungarian as a Minority Language, 187–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
González-Vilbazo, K., Bartlett, L., Downey, S., et al. 2015. Methodological considerations in code-switching research. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 6, 119–38.Google Scholar
Gor, K. 2014. Raspberry, not a car: context predictability and a phonological advantage in early and late learners’ processing speech in noise. Frontiers in Psychology 5, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01449.Google Scholar
Gribanova, V. 2013. A new argument for verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 145–57.Google Scholar
Grodner, D., and Gibson, E.. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 29, 261–90.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. 2010. Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grotjahn, R. 1987. How to construct and evaluate a C-test: a discussion of some problems and some statistical analyses. In Grotjahn, R., Klein-Braley, C., and Stevenson, D. K. (eds.), Taking Their Measure: The Validity and Validation of Language Tests, 219–53. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Grotjahn, R., Klein-Braley, C., and Raatz, U.. 2002. C-tests: an overview. In Coleman, J., Grotjahn, R., and Raatz, U. (eds.), University Language Testing and the C-Test, 93–114. Bochum: AKS-Verlag.Google Scholar
Guasti, M.-T. 2017. Language Acquisition: The Growth of Grammar, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guion, S. G. 2003. The vowel systems of Quichua–Spanish bilinguals. Phonetica 60, 98–128.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E., and Wirth, J. (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 209–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gupol, O. 2009. The Acquisition of Russian Verbal Morphosyntax in Russian–Hebrew Bilingual Children. Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar
Gupol, O., Rothstein, S., and Armon-Lotem, S.. 2012. The development of L1 Russian tense-aspect morphology in Russian–Hebrew sequential bilinguals. In Labeau, E. and Saddour, I. (eds.), Tense, Aspect and Mood in First and Second Language Acquisition, 73–106. New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Gussmann, E. 2007. The Phonology of Polish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gut, U. 2000. Cross-linguistic structures in the acquisition of intonational phonology by German–English bilingual children. In Döpke, S. (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Structures in Simultaneous Bilingualism, 201–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gutièrrez-Bravo, R. 2005. Subject inversion in Spanish relative clauses a case of prosody-induced word order variation without narrow focus. In Geerts, T., van Ginneken, I., and Jacobs, H. (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003: Selected Papers from “Going Romance” 2003, Nijmegen, 20–22 November, 115–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gvozdev, A. N. 1961. Voprosy izučenija detskoj reči. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii pedagogičeskix nauk RSFSR.Google Scholar
Haddad, Y. 2009. Copy control in Telugu. Journal of Linguistics 45, 69–109.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59, 781–819.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. 1995. Syntax and morphology in language attrition: a study of five bilingual expatriate Swedes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5, 153–71.Google Scholar
Halmari, H. 1997. Government and Codeswitching: Explaining American Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Halmari, H. 2005. “I’m forgetting both”: L1 maintenance and codeswitching in Finnish–English language contact. International Journal of Bilingualism 9, 397–433.Google Scholar
Harves, S. 2013. The genitive of negation in Russian. Language and Linguistics Compass 7, 647–62.Google Scholar
Harley, H., and Ritter, E.. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: a feature-geometric analysis. Language 78, 482–526.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., and Lee, C.. 2007. On negative imperatives in Korean. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 373–95.Google Scholar
Hasselmo, N. 1961. American Swedish: A Study in Bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hasselmo, N. 1974. Amerikasvenska: En bok om språkutvecklingen i Svensk-Amerika. Stockholm: Esselte Stadium.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1953. The Norwegian Language in America, vol. 1: The Bilingual Community. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1987. Blessings of Babel: Bilingualism and Language Planning, Problems and Pleasures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
He, A. W. 2011. Heritage language socialization. In Duranti, A., Ochs, E., and Schieffelin, B. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Socialization, 587–609. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
He, A. W. 2012. “Do I really have to?”: The give-and-take of deontic meaning in Chinese. In Kádár, D. and Pan, Yuling (eds.), Chinese Discourse and Interaction, 68–87. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
He, A. W. 2014. Identity construction throughout the life cycle. In Wiley, T., Peyton, J. K., Christian, D., Moore, S., and Liu, N. (eds.), Handbook of Heritage and Community Languages in the United States: Research, Educational Practice, and Policy, 324–32. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
He, A. W. 2015. Literacy, creativity, and continuity: a language socialization perspective on heritage language classroom interaction. In Markee, N. (ed.), Handbook of Classroom Interaction, 304–18. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
He, A. W. 2016. Across generations and geographies: communication in Chinese heritage language speaking households. In Wei, Li (ed.), Multilingualism in the Chinese Diaspora Worldwide, 293–311. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hendery, R. 2012. Relative Clauses in Time and Space: A Case Study in the Methods of Diachronic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A.. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 61–135.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. 2008. Japanese -wa, -ga, and information structure. In Miyagawa, S. and Saito, M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Japanese linguistics, 54–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirsch, C. 2011. The Acquisition of Raising. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hirsch, C., and Wexler, K.. 2006. Children’s passives and their resulting interpretation. In Ud Deen, K. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA), 125–36. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut Press.Google Scholar
Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., et al. 2012. Dual language exposure and early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language 39, 1–27.Google Scholar
Hoji, H. 1985. Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structure in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Hoot, B. 2012. Presentational Focus in Heritage and Monolingual Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
Hoji, H. 2017. Narrow presentational focus in heritage Spanish and the syntax–discourse interface. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7, 63–95.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69–96.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. 1986. FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. 2005. Is “focus movement” driven by stress? In Piñon, C. and Siptár, P. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian, vol. 9, 131–58. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadό.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. 2010. “Discourse-features,” syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua 120, 1346–69.Google Scholar
Hua, Z. 2002. Phonological Development in Specific Contexts: Studies of Chinese-Speaking Children. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hua, Z. and Dodd, B.. 2000. The phonological acquisition of Putonghua (modern standard Chinese). Journal of Child Language 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531–74.Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, C. L. 2015. The impact of conditioning variables on the acquisition of variation in adult and child learners. Language 91, 906–37.Google Scholar
Huffines, M. K. 1987. The dative case in Pennsylvania German: diverging norms in language maintenance and loss. Yearbook of German–American Studies 22, 173.Google Scholar
Hulk, A., and Müller, N.. 2000. Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3, 227–44.Google Scholar
Hulsen, M. 2000. Language Loss and Language Processing: Three Generations of Dutch Migrants in New Zealand. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 231–70.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Ko, H., and Wexler, K.. 2004. Article semantics in L2 acquisition: the role of specificity. Language Acquisition 12, 3–69.Google Scholar
Irizarri van Suchtelen, P. 2014. Maintained and acquired heritage Spanish in the Netherlands: the case of dative constructions. Applied Linguistics Review 5, 375–400.Google Scholar
Irrizari van Suchtelen, P. 2016. Spanish as a Heritage Language in the Netherlands: A Cognitive Linguistic Exploration. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Isurin, L., and Ivanova-Sullivan, T.. 2008. Lost in between: the case of Russian heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal 6, 72–103.Google Scholar
Ito, K., and Speer, S. R.. 2008. Anticipatory effects of intonation: eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language 58, 541–73.Google Scholar
Ivanova-Sullivan, T. 2013. Heritage Russian. Harvard Dataverse, hdl:1902.1/19792.Google Scholar
Ivanova-Sullivan, T. 2014. Theoretical and Experimental Aspects of Syntax–Discourse Interface in Heritage Grammars. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1971. Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 21–35.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002a. English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In Dehé, N., Jackendoff, R., McIntyre, A., and Urban, S. (eds.), Verb-particle Explorations, 67–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002b. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jafarpur, A. 1995. Is C-testing superior to cloze? Language Testing 12, 194–216.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1932/1971. Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. In Selected Writings of Roman Jakobson, vol. 2: Word and Language, 3–15. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1941. Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1968. Child Language, Aphasia, and Phonological Universals. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
James, D. 1982. Past tense and the hypothetical: a cross-linguistic study. Studies in Language 6, 375–403.Google Scholar
Jannedy, S., and Weirich, M.. 2014. Perceptual divergence in an urban setting: category instability of the palatal fricative. Journal of Laboratory Phonology 5, 91–122.Google Scholar
Jannedy, S., Weirich, M., and Wagner, L.. 2015. Acoustic analyses of differences in [ç] and [ʃ] productions in Hood German. In XVIII ICPhS, Glasgow. Glasgow: University of Glasgow Press.Google Scholar
Janse, M. 2004. Animacy, definiteness and case in Cappadocian and other Asia Minor Greek dialects. Journal of Greek Linguistics 5, 3–26.Google Scholar
Jarayapun, J. 2015. Language Teacher Identity Negotiation: A Case Study of a Heritage Thai Language Class in a Thai Buddhist School in the United States. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. 1998. Conceptual Transfer in the Interlingual Lexicon. Bloomington, IN: IULC Publications.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J., and Ponti, E.. 2014. Peer review among students of Spanish as a heritage language: the effectiveness of a metalinguistic literacy task. Linguistics and Education 26, 70–82.Google Scholar
Jessop, L., Suzuki, W., and Tomita, Y.. 2007. Elicited imitation in second language acquisition research. Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues vivantes 64, 215–20.Google Scholar
Jia, L., and Bailey, R.. 2008. The (re)acquisition of perfective aspect marking by Chinese heritage language learners. In He, A.W. and Xiao, Yun (eds.), Chinese as a Heritage Language: Fostering Rooted World Citizenry, 205–24. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Á., and Spyropoulos, V.. 2013. Feature inheritance, vP phrases and the information structure of small clauses. Studia Linguistica 67, 185–224.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. 2015. Attrition in an American Norwegian heritage language speaker. In Johannessen, J. B. and Salmons, J. C. (eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America, 46–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B., and Laake, S.. 2015. On two myths of the Norwegian language in America: Is it old-fashioned? Is it approaching the written Bokmål standard? In Johannessen, J. B. and Salmons, J. C. (eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America, 299–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1998. Code copying in Irano-Turkic. Language Sciences 20, 325–37.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S. 1992. Critical period effects in second language acquisition: the effect of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language Learning 42, 217–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. S., Shenkman, K. D., Newport, E. L., and Medin, D. L.. 1996. Indeterminacy in the grammar of adult language learners. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 335–52.Google Scholar
Joshi, A. 1989. Processing Crossed and Nested Dependencies: An Automaton Perspective on the Psycholinguistic Results, University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Science Technical Report No. MS-CIS-89–58, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., and Harrington, M.. 1996. Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing. Language Learning 46, 283–326.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. 1996. The Phonetics and Phonology of Korean: Intonational Phonology and Prosodic Structure. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kádár, D., and Haugh, M.. 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, O., Carreira, M., and Chik, C. (eds.). 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Heritage Language Education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kagan, O., and Friedman, D.. 2003. Using the OPI to place heritage speakers of Russian. Foreign Language Annals 36, 536–46.Google Scholar
Kang, B.-M. 1998a. Mwunpep-kwa ene sayong: Khophes-ey kipanhan caykwisa “caki,” “casin,” “caki-casin”-uy kinung pwunsek-ul cwungsim-ulo [Grammar and the use of language: Korean reflexives “caki,” “casin,” and “caki-casin”]. Kwuk-e-hak 31, 165–204.Google Scholar
Kang, B.-M. 1998b. Three kinds of Korean reflexives: a corpus linguistic investigation on grammar and usage. In Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC12), 10–19.Google Scholar
Kang, B.-M. 2002. Categories and meanings of Korean floating quantifiers: with some reference to Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11, 375–98.Google Scholar
Kang, S.-G. 2011. English Attrition in Korean–English Bilingual Children. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Kang, H.-S., and Kim, I.-S.. 2012. Perceived and actual competence and ethnic identity in heritage language learning: a case of Korean–American college students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15, 279–94.Google Scholar
Kang, K.-H., and Guion, S.. 2006. Phonological systems in bilinguals: age of learning effects on the stop consonant systems of Korean–English bilinguals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119, 1672–83.Google Scholar
Kang, Y., and Nagy, N.. 2012. VOT merger in Heritage Korean in Toronto. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–15. Toronto: Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Kang, Y., and Nagy, N.. 2016. VOT merger in Heritage Korean in Toronto. Language Variation and Change 28, 249–72.Google Scholar
Karimi, H., and Ferreira, F.. 2016. Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69, 1013–40.Google Scholar
Karimi, S. 2003. Focus movement and uninterpretable features. In Carnie, A., Harley, H., and Willie, M. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar. Festschrift for Eloise Jelinek, 297–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. 1981. A Functional Approach to Child Language: A Study of Determiners and Reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufman, D., and Aronoff, M.. 1991. Morphological disintegration and reconstruction in first language attrition. In Seliger, H. W. and Vago, R. M. (eds.), First Language Attrition, 175–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufman, T. 1990. Algunos rasgos estructurales de los idiomas mayances con referencia especial al K’iche’. In England, N. C. and Elliot, S. R. (eds.), Lecturas sobre la linguïstica maya, 59–114. Antigua: CIRMA.Google Scholar
Kayam, O. 2013. Heritage language maintenance among native English speakers living in Israel. Journal of Sociological Research 4(2), 308–17.Google Scholar
Kayam, O., and Hirsch, T.. 2013. Israel’s English speaking immigrant parents’ family language policy management: language in the education domain. International Journal of Linguistics 5(1), 320–31.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax: The transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 647–86.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, 36–49.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D., VanPatten, B., and Jegerski, J.. 2011. Who was walking on the beach? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 193–221.Google Scholar
Keen, S. 1983. Yukulta. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Blake, B. J. (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages, 190–301. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., and Comrie, B.. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. 2011. Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of “saving.” In Cathcart, C., Chen, I. H., Finley, G., et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 140–54. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Keijzer, M. 2004. First language attrition: A cross-linguistic investigation of Jakobson’s regression hypothesis. International Journal of Bilingualism 8, 389–93.Google Scholar
Kemper, S., Thompson, M., and Marquis, J.. 2001. Longitudinal change in language production: effects of aging and dementia on grammatical complexity and propositional content. Psychology and Aging 16, 600–14.Google Scholar
Kempler, D., Van Lancker, D., Marchman, V., and Bates, E.. 1999. Idiom comprehension in children and adults with unilateral damage. Developmental Neuropsychology 15, 327–49.Google Scholar
Kerswill, P. 2002. Koineization and accommodation. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 669–702. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kertesz, A. 1982. Western Aphasia Battery. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
Kim, B., and Goodall, G.. 2016. Islands and non-islands in native and heritage Korean. Frontiers in Psychology 7, www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00134.Google Scholar
Kim, E., Montrul, S., and Yoon, J.. 2015. The on-line processing of binding principles in second language acquisition: evidence from eye tracking. Applied Psycholinguistics 36, 1317–74.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H. 2007. Binding Interpretations in Adult Bilingualism: A Study of Language Transfer in L2 Learners and Heritage Speakers of Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H., Montrul, S., and Yoon, J.. 2006. On the logophoric long-distance binding interpretation of the Korean local anaphor “сaki-casin” by early bilinguals. Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 30, 305–15.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H., Montrul, S., and Yoon, J.. 2009. Binding interpretations of anaphors by Korean heritage speakers. Language Acquisition 16, 3–35.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H., Montrul, S., and Yoon, J.. 2010. Dominant language influence in acquisition and attrition of binding: interpretation of the Korean reflexive caki. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13, 73–84.Google Scholar
Kim, K., O’Grady, W., and Ud Deen, K.. 2014. Poor performance on scrambled Korean OSV sentences by Korean heritage children: performance, not competence. In Chu, C.-Y. et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2012), 51–59. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Kim, K., O’Grady, W., and Schwartz, B.. 2018. Case in heritage Korean. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8, 252–82.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. 2002. Phonological Features: Privative or Equipollent? B.A. senior thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kiss, K. É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74, 245–73.Google Scholar
Klein-Braley, C. 1997. C-tests in the context of reduced redundancy testing: an appraisal. Language Testing 14, 47–84.Google Scholar
Klein-Braley, C., and Raatz, E.. 1984. A survey on the C-test. Language Testing 1(2), 134–46.Google Scholar
Klockeid, T. 1976. Topics in Lardil Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Knightly, L. M., Jun, S.-A., Oh, J. S., and Au, T. K.-F.. 2003. Production benefits of childhood overhearing. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 114, 465–74.Google Scholar
Ko, H. 2005. Syntactic Edges and Linearization. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ko, H., and Oh, E.. 2010. A hybrid approach to floating quantifiers: experimental evidence. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 19, 1–18.Google Scholar
Ko, H., and Seo, S.. 2012. NP-ellipsis revisited: the role of D feature. Studies in Generative Grammar 22, 677–702.Google Scholar
Kong, A. P.-H. 2013. The use of sentence final particles in Cantonese speakers with aphasia. US–China Foreign Languages 11, 659–67.Google Scholar
Koornneef, A., Avrutin, S., Wijnen, F., and Reuland, E.. 2011. Tracking the preference for bound-variable dependencies in ambiguous ellipses and only-structures. In Runner, J. (ed.), Experiments at the Interfaces (Syntax and Semantics 37), 67–100. Leiden: Emerald Publishers/Brill.Google Scholar
Koornneef, A., and Reuland, E.. 2016. On the shallow processing (dis)advantage: grammar and economy. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00082.Google Scholar
Kozinsky, I., Nedjalkov, V., and Polinskaja, M.. 1988. Antipassive in Chukchee. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Passive and Voice, 651–706. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kozminska, K. 2013. Language contact in the Polish–American community in Chicago. International Journal of Bilingualism 19, 239–58.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. 2015. The Morphosyntax of Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1998. Language shyness and heritage language development. In Krashen, S., Tse, L., and McQuillan, J. (eds.), Heritage Language Development, 41–49. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–37. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 2004. Building resultatives. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 1990. Four thousand ships passed through the lock: object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 487–520.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T. 2008. Dominance, mixing, and cross-linguistic influence: on their relation in bilingual development. In Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Larrañaga, P., and Clibbens, J. (eds.), First Language Acquisition of Morphology and Syntax: Perspectives across Languages and Learners, 209–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T. 2012. Generic subjects in the Italian of early German–Italian bilinguals and German learners of Italian as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15, 736–56.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T. 2013. A new term for a better distinction? A view from the higher end of the proficiency scale. Theoretical Linguistics 39, 203–14.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T., Barton, D., Hailer, K., et al. 2014a. Foreign accent in adult simultaneous bilinguals? Heritage Language Journal 11, 123–50.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T., Lein, T., Barton, D., et al. 2014b. Acquisition outcomes across domains in adult simultaneous bilinguals with French as weaker and stronger language. French Language Studies 24, 347–76.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T., Belikova, A., Özçelik, Ö., Stangen, I., and White, L.. 2017. Restrictions on definiteness in the grammars of German–Turkish heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7, 1–32.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T., and Pierantozzi, C.. 2010. Interpreting definite plural subjects: a comparison of German and Italian monolingual and bilingual children. In Franich, K., Iserman, K. M., and Keil, L. L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Boston University Conference of Language Development, 245–54. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T., and Rothman, J.. 2016. Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, online June 2016.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T., and van de Weijer, J. 2016. The role of the childhood environment for language dominance: a study of adult simultaneous bilingual speakers of German and French. In Silva-Corvalán, C. and Treffers-Daller, J. (eds.), Language Dominance in Bilinguals, 174–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1970. Japanese Syntax and Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 2005. Focusing on the matter of topic: a study of wa and ga in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14, 1–58.Google Scholar
Kuznetsov, P. S. 1953. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Morfologija. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo MGU.Google Scholar
Kwon, N.-Y., Polinsky, M., and Kluender, R.. 2006. Subject preference in Korean. In Baumer, D., Montero, D., and Scanlon, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 1–14. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Kynette, D., and Kemper, S.. 1986. Aging and the loss of grammatical forms: a cross-sectional study of language performance. Language and Communication 6, 65–72.Google Scholar
La Morgia, F. 2011. Bilingual First Language Acquisition: The Nature of the Weak Language and the Role of the Input. Ph.D. dissertation, SALIS, Dublin City University.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Karen, M., and Miller, C.. 1991. Near-mergers and the suspension of phonemic contrast. Language Variation and Change 3, 33–74.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Yaeger, M., and Steiner, R.. 1972. A Quantitative Study of Sound Change in Progress. Philadelphia: US Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Laleko, O. 2008. Compositional telicity and heritage Russian aspect. In Grosvald, M. and Soares, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL), vol. 19, 150–60. Davis, CA: University of California Davis.Google Scholar
Laleko, O. 2010. The Syntax–Pragmatics Interface in Language Loss: Covert Restructuring of Aspect in Heritage Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Laleko, O., and Kawamura, H.. 2011. Grammatical restructuring in intergenerational language shift: a case of heritage Japanese. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Conference of the International Linguistics Association, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, April 15–17.Google Scholar
Laleko, O., and Polinsky, M.. 2013. Marking topic or marking case: a comparative investigation of heritage Japanese and heritage Korean. Heritage Language Journal 10, 40–64.Google Scholar
Laleko, O., and Polinsky, M.. 2016. Between syntax and discourse: topic and case marking in heritage speakers and L2 learners of Japanese and Korean. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6, 396–439.Google Scholar
Laleko, O., and Polinsky, M.. 2017. Silence is difficult: on missing elements in bilingual grammars. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 36, 135–63.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., and Fillenbaum, S.. 1960. Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60, 44–51.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Landau, I. 2006. Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P)-fronting. Syntax 9, 32–66.Google Scholar
Landau, I. 2015. A Two-Tiered Theory of Control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lanstyák, I., and Szabómihály, G.. 2005. Hungarian in Slovakia. In Fenyvesi, A. (ed.), Hungarian Language Contact outside Hungary: Studies on Hungarian as a Minority Language, 47–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lanza, E. 1997. Language Mixing in Infant Bilingualism: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lanza, E. 2001. Temporality and language contact in narratives by children bilingual in Norwegian and English. In Verhoeven, L. and Strömqvist, S. (eds.), Narrative Development in a Multilingual Context, 15–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. 1998. Case and tense in the “fossilized” steady state. Second Language Research 14, 1–26.Google Scholar
Larmouth, D. W. 1974. Differential interface in American Finnish cases. Language 50, 356–66.Google Scholar
Larsson, I., Tingsell, S., and Andréasson, M.. 2015. Variation and change in American Swedish. In Johannessen, J. B. and Salmons, J. C. (eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America, 359–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Laskowski, R. 1990. The category of case in Polish idiolects of Polish children in Sweden. Wiener Slawistisches Almanach 25–26, 257–74.Google Scholar
Laskowski, R. 1993. The endangered language: the acquisition of the case system by Polish children in Sweden. In Hentschel, G. and Laskowski, R. (eds.), Studies in Polish Morphology and Syntax, 121–62. München: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Laskowski, R. 2009. Język w zagrożeniu: Przyswajanie języka polskiego w warunkach polsko-szwedzkiego bilingwizmu. Kraków: Universitas Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. 1987. The Shape of English: Structure and History. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.Google Scholar
Law, A. 2002. Cantonese sentence-final particles and the CP domain. University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 375–98.Google Scholar
Lee, C. 2007. Contrastive (predicate) topic, intonation, and scalar meanings. In Lee, C., Gordon, M., and Büring, D. (eds.), Topic and Focus: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation, 151–75. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lee, F. 2003. Anaphoric R-expressions as bound variables. Syntax 6, 84–114.Google Scholar
Lee, F. 2006. Remnant Raising and VSO Clausal Architecture: A Case Study of San Lucas Quiavini Zapotec. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lee, H. 1990. Logical Relations in the Child’s Grammar: Relative Scope, Bound Variables, and Long-Distance Binding in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Irvine.Google Scholar
Lee, H., and Wexler, K.. 1987. The acquisition of reflexives and pronouns in Korean: from a cross-linguistic perspective. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Lee, H.-J. 2015. Information structure, topic predictability and gradients in Korean case ellipsis: a probabilistic account. Linguistic Research 32, 749–71.Google Scholar
Lee, H.-T. T. 1986. Studies on Quantification in Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Lee, M., Kwak, H.-Y., Lee, S.-Y., and O’Grady, W.. 2011. Processing, pragmatics, and scope in Korean and English. In Sohn, H.-M. et al. (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 19, 297–311. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lee, S. 2009. Interpreting Ambiguity in First and Second Language Processing: Universal Quantifiers and Negation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii Mānoa.Google Scholar
Lee, T. 2011. Grammatical knowledge of Korean heritage speakers: early vs. late bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1, 149–74.Google Scholar
Lee-Ellis, S. 2012. Looking into Bilingualism through the Heritage Speaker’s Mind. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C., and Muysken, P.. 1982. Relative Clauses in Cuzco Quechua: Interactions between Core and Periphery. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lein, T., Kupisch, T., and van de Weijer, J.. 2016. Voice onset time and global foreign accent in German–French simultaneous bilinguals during adulthood. International Journal of Bilingualism 20, 732–49.Google Scholar
Leisiö, L. 2001. Morphosyntactic Convergence and Integration in Finland Russian. Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Leisiö, L. 2006. Genitive subjects and objects in the speech of Finland Russians. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 14, 289–315.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. 2004. Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3, 75–114.Google Scholar
Leslie, S. 2012. The Use of Linguistics to Improve the Teaching of Heritage Language Spanish. B.A. thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Levin, B., and Rapaport Hovav, M.. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levine, G. 2000. Incomplete L1 Acquisition in the Immigrant Situation: Yiddish in the Unites States. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Levorato, M. C., and Cacciari, C.. 1995. The effects of different tasks on the comprehension and production of idioms in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 60, 261–83.Google Scholar
Levorato, M. C., and Cacciari, C.. 2002. The creation of new figurative expressions: psycholinguistic evidence in Italian children, adolescents and adults. Journal of Child Language 29, 127–50.Google Scholar
Levorato, M. C., Nesi, B., and Cacciari, C.. 2004. Reading comprehension and understanding idiomatic expressions: a developmental study. Brain and Language 91, 303–14.Google Scholar
Levy, Y. 1988. The nature of early language: evidence from the development of Hebrew morphology. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I. M., and Braine, M. D. S. (eds.), Categories and Processes in Language Acquisition, 73–98. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., and Fennig, C. D. (eds.). 2016. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 19th edn. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Available online at www.ethnologue.com.Google Scholar
Li, B. 2006. Chinese Sentence Particles and the Syntax of the Periphery. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Liao, Y., and Fukuya, Y.. 2002. Avoidance of phrasal verbs: the case of Chinese learners of English. Second Language Studies 20, 71–106.Google Scholar
Lidz, J., and Gagliardi, A.. 2015. How nature meets nurture: universal grammar and statistical learning. Annual Review of Linguistics 1, 333–53.Google Scholar
Lidz, J., and Musolino, J.. 2002. Children’s command of quantification. Cognition 84, 113–54.Google Scholar
Lipski, J. M. 1984. On the weakening of /s/ in Latin American Spanish. Zeitschrift fürDialektologie und Linguistik 51, 31–43.Google Scholar
Lipski, J. M. 1985. /s/ in Central American Spanish. Hispania 68, 143–49.Google Scholar
Lipski, J. M. 1996. Patterns of pronominal evolution in Cuban–American bilinguals. In Roca, A. and Jensen, J. B. (eds.), Spanish in Contact: Issues in Bilingualism, 159–86. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lisker, L. 1999. Perceiving final voiceless stops without release: effects of preceding monophthongs versus nonmonophthongs. Phonetica 56, 44–55.Google Scholar
Lisker, L., and Abramson, A.. 1964. A cross-language study of voicing in initial stop: acoustic measurements. Word 20, 384–422.Google Scholar
Lo, A. 2009. Lessons about respect and affect in a Korean heritage language school. Linguistics and Education 20, 217–34.Google Scholar
Lodge, D. N., and Leach, E.. 1975. Children’s acquisition of idioms in the English language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 18, 521–29.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T., and Westergaard, M.. 2016. Grammatical gender in American Norwegian heritage language: stability or attrition? Frontiers in Psychology 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00344.Google Scholar
López, L. 2012. Indefinite Objects: Scrambling, Choice Functions, and Differential Marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Louden, M. L., and Page, R.. 2005. Stable bilingualism and phonological (non)convergence in Pennsylvania German. In Cohen, J., McAlister, K. T., Rolstad, K., and MacSwan, J. (eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, 1384–92. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lowry, C. 2017. Bilingual in Brooklyn: Georgian as a heritage language in America. Paper presented at the Works-in-Progress Seminar, Tbilisi, June.Google Scholar
Luján, M., and Parodi, C.. 1996. Clitic-doubling and the acquisition of agreement in Spanish. In AuCoin, M. et al. (eds.), Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 32, vol. I: The General Session, 237–50. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Lukyanchenko, A., and Gor, K.. 2011. Perceptual correlates of phonological representations in heritage speakers and L2 learners. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 414–26. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lust, B., Flynn, S., and Foley, C.. 1996. What children know about what they say: elicited imitation as a research method for assessing children’s syntax. In McDaniel, D., McKee, C., and Cairns, H. S. (eds.), Methods for Assessing Children’s Syntax, 55–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, A. 2008. The linguistic similarities of Spanish heritage and second language learners. Foreign Language Annals 41, 252–381.Google Scholar
Lyskawa, P. 2015. Variation in Case Marking in Heritage Polish. M.A. thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Lyskawa, P., Maddeaux, R., Melara, E, and Nagy, N.. 2016. Heritage speakers follow all the rules: language contact and convergence in Polish devoicing. Heritage Language Journal 13, 219–44.Google Scholar
Madigan, S. 2015. Anaphora and binding. In Brown, L. and Yeon, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Korean Linguistics, 137–54. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Maandi, K. 1989. Estonian immigrants in Sweden. In Dorian, N. (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death, 227–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mahadeva Sastri, K. 1969. Historical Grammar of Telugu: With Special Reference to Old Telugu, c. 200 B.C.–1000 A.D. Anantapur: Sri Venkateswara University.Google Scholar
Mahajan, G. 2009. Ongoing deficits in heritage Hindi. Paper presented at the Third Annual Heritage Language Institute, Urbana Champaign, IL, June.Google Scholar
Mai, K. 2015. Heritage Speakers on the Edge: Sentence Final Particle Usage among Heritage Cantonese Speakers. B.A. thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. 1988. The acquisition of formal word classes. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I. M., and Braine, M. D. S. (eds.), Categories and Processes in Language Acquisition, 31–44. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. 1991. How the acquisition of nouns may be different from that of verbs. In Krasnegor, N. A. and Rumbaugh, D. M. (eds.), Biological and Behavioral Determinants of Language Development, 67–88. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. 1998. Relations of lexical specificity to general categories. Linguistics 36, 831–46.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., et al. 1992. Overregularisation in Language Acquisition (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 57, 4).Google Scholar
Mardale, A. 2007. Les prépositions fonctionnelles du roumain: étude comparative. Ph.D. dissertation, University Paris Diderot and University of Bucharest.Google Scholar
Mardale, A. 2010. Éléments d’analyse du marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues romanes. Faits de Langues. Les Cahiers 2, 161–97.Google Scholar
Mardale, A. 2013. Le statut de pe en roumain et de a en espagnol. In Tseng, J. (ed.), Prépositions et postpositions: Approches typologiques et formelles, 207–53. Paris: Hermès-Lavoisier.Google Scholar
Marti, L. 2006. Indirectness and politeness in Turkish–German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1836–69.Google Scholar
Matasović, R. 2004. Gender in Indo-European. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Matejka, L. 2008. A first approach to grammatical interference in the idiom of Greek Americans. In Lavidas, N., Nouchtouridou, E., and Sionti, M. (eds.), New Perspectives in Greek linguistics, 261–72. London: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Matthews, S., and Yip, V.. 2011. Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. 2006. Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 29, 273–313.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36, 281–331.Google Scholar
May, R. 1977. The Grammar of Quantification. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
May, R. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. 1969. Frog, Where Are You? New York: Dial Books.Google Scholar
Mayr, R., Morris, J., Mennen, I., and Williams, D.. 2015. Disentangling the effects of long-term language contact and individual bilingualism: the case of monophthongs in Welsh and English. International Journal of Bilingualism 21, 245–67.Google Scholar
McCarty, T. L. 2002. A Place to Be Navajo: Rough Rock and the Struggle for Self-Determination in Indigenous Schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. 2000. Grammaticality judgments in a second language: influences of age of acquisition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics 21, 395–423.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. 2006. Beyond the critical period: processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language 55, 381–401.Google Scholar
McKee, C., and McDaniel, D.. 2001. Resumptive pronouns in English relative clauses. Language Acquisition 9, 113–56.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. H. 2005. Defining Creole. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Medeiros, R. 1982. American Brazilian English. American Speech 57, 150–52.Google Scholar
Mehlhorn, G. 2004. The prosodic pattern of contrastive topic in Russian. In Steube, A. (ed.), Information Structure: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects, 241–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. 1989. Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In Hyltenstam, K. and Obler, L. K. (eds.), Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity and Loss, 13–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (ed.). 1990. Two First Languages: Early Grammatical Development in Bilingual Children. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (ed.). 1994. Bilingual First Language Acquisition: French and German Grammatical Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. 2001. The simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: early differentiation and subsequent development of grammars. In Cenoz, J. and Genesee, F. (eds.), Trends in Bilingual Acquisition, 11–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. 2004. The bilingual child. In Bhatia, T. K. and Ritchie, W. C. (eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism, 91–113. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. 2009. Second language acquisition in early childhood. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28, 5–34.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. 2011. First and Second Language Acquisition: Parallels and Differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michel, M. 2017. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 production. In Loewen, S. and Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 50–68. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mikulski, A. M. 2006. Native Intuitions, Foreign Struggles? Knowledge of the Subjunctive in Volitional Constructions among Heritage and Traditional FL Learners of Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Miller, K., and Schmitt, C.. 2004. Wide-scope indefinites in English child language. In van Kampen, J. and Baaw, S. (eds.), Proceedings of GALA, 317–28. Utrecht: LOT Occasional Series.Google Scholar
Mills, S. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, S. 2009. Impoliteness in a cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 1047–60.Google Scholar
Ming, T., and Tao, H.. 2008. Developing a Chinese heritage language corpus: issues and a preliminary report. In He, A. W. and Xiao, Yun (eds.), Chinese as a Heritage Language: Fostering Rooted World Citizenry, 167–88. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Mānoa.Google Scholar
Moag, R. 1995. Semi-native speakers: how to hold and mold them. In Gambhir, V. (ed.), The Teaching and Acquisition of South Asian Languages, 168–81. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Modyanova, N. 2006. The genitive of negation construction in Russian–English bilinguals. An online supplement to the Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development, BUCLD.Google Scholar
Momma, S., and Phillips, C.. 2018. The relationship between parsing and generation. Annual Review of Linguistics 4, 233–54.Google Scholar
Montalbetti, M. M. 1984. After Binding: On the Interpretation of Pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Montgomery, M. B., and Melo, C. A.. 1990. The phonology of the lost cause: the English of the Confederados in Brazil. English World-Wide 10, 195–216.Google Scholar
Montgomery, M. B., and Melo, C. A.. 1995. The language: the preservation of Southern speech among the colonists. In Dawsey, C. B. and Dawsey, J. M. (eds.), The Confederados: Old South Immigrants in Brazil, 176–90. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2002. Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5, 39–68.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2004. Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: a case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 125–42.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2005a. On knowledge and development of unaccusativity in Spanish L2 acquisition. Linguistics 43, 1153–90.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2005b. Second language acquisition and first language loss in adult early bilinguals: exploring some differences and similarities. Second Language Research 21, 199–249.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2008. Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2009. Knowledge of tense-aspect and mood in Spanish heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 13, 239–69.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2011. Morphological errors in Spanish second language learners and heritage speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 155–61.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2016. The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., and Bateman, N.. 2017. Differential Object Marking in Romanian as a heritage language in the United States. Poster presented at the Tenth Heritage Language Institute, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, May.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., and Bhatia, A.. 2012. Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2, 141–76.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., and Girju, R.. 2015. Differential object marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage languages. Language 91, 564–610.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., and Bowles, M.. 2009. Back to basics: differential object marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12, 363–83.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Davidson, J., de la Fuente, I., and Foote, R.. 2014. Early language experience facilitates the processing of gender agreement in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17, 118–38.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., and Foote, R. 2014. Age of acquisition interactions in bilingual lexical access: a study of the weaker language of L2 learners and heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 18, 274–303.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, 503–53.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., and Ionin, T.. 2010. Transfer effects in the interpretation of definite articles by Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 449–73.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., and Ionin, T.. 2012. Dominant language transfer in Spanish heritage speakers and L2 learners in the interpretation of definite articles. Modern Language Journal 96(1), 70–94.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., and Perpiñan, S.. 2011. Assessing differences and similarities between instructed heritage language learners and L2 learners in their knowledge of Spanish tense-aspect and mood (TAM) morphology. Heritage Language Journal 8, 90–133.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., and Sánchez-Walker, N.. 2013. Differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition 20, 109–32.Google Scholar
Müller, N., and Hulk, A.. 2001. Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4, 1–21.Google Scholar
Murphy, V. A. 1997. The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgement task. Second Language Research 13, 34–65.Google Scholar
Musolino, J., and Lidz, J.. 2006. Why children aren’t universally successful with quantification. Linguistics 44, 817–52.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. 2000. Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-Mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nagy, N. 2011a. Lexical change and language contact: Faetar in Italy and Canada. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15, 366–82.Google Scholar
Nagy, N. 2011b. A multilingual corpus to explore geographic variation. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 43(1–2), 65–84.Google Scholar
Nagy, N. 2016. Heritage languages as new dialects. In Côté, M.-H., Knooihuizen, R., and Nerbonne, J. (eds.), The Future of Dialects: Selected Papers from Methods in Dialectology XV, 15–34. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Nagy, N., Aghdasi, N., Denis, D., and Motut, A.. 2011. Pro-drop in heritage languages: a cross-linguistic study of contact-induced change. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 17, 2.Google Scholar
Nakanishi, K. 2001. Prosody and information structure in Japanese: a case study of topic marker wa. In Akatsuka, N., Strauss, S., and Comrie, B. (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 10, 434–47. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Newman, Z. K. 2015. Discourse markers in the narratives of New York Hasidim: more V2 attrition. In Johannessen, J. B. and Salmons, J. C. (eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America, 178–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 283–310. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nippold, M. A. 1998. Later Language Development: The School-Age and Adolescent Years, 2nd edn. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Nippold, M. A., and Duthie, J. K.. 2003. Mental imagery and idiom comprehension: a comparison of school-age children and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 46, 788–99.Google Scholar
Nippold, M. A., and Rudzinski, M.. 1993. Familiarity and transparency in idiom explanation: a developmental study of children and adolescents. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36, 728–37.Google Scholar
Norris, M. 2014. A Theory of Nominal Concord. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Nützel, D., and Salmons, J. C.. 2011. Language contact and new dialect formation: evidence from German in North America. Language and Linguistics Compass 5, 705–17.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. 1989. Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. 2010. Language acquisition without an acquisition device. Revised and abridged version of a plenary paper presented in October at the Second Language Research Forum at the University of Maryland.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Lee, M., and Choo, M.. 2001. The acquisition of relative clauses by heritage and non-heritage learners of Korean as a second language: a comparative study. Journal of Korean Language Education 12, 283–94.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Kwak, H.-Y., Lee, O.-S., and Lee, M.. 2011. An emergentist perspective on heritage language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 223–45.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Schafer, A. J., and HALA Research Group. 2009. A psycholinguistic tool for the assessment of language loss. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Language Documentation and Conservation, Hawaii, March.Google Scholar
Oh, J. S., Au, T. K.-F., and Jun, S.-A.. 2010. Early childhood language memory in the speech perception of international adoptees. Journal of Child Language 37, 1123–32.Google Scholar
Oh, J. S., Jun, S.-A., Knightly, L. M., and Au, T. K.-F.. 2003. Holding on to childhood language memory. Cognition 86, B53–64.Google Scholar
Oller, D. K., Pearson, B. Z., and Cobo-Lewis, A. B.. 2007. Profile effects in early bilingual language and literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics 28, 191–230.Google Scholar
Olshtain, E. 1986. The attrition of English as a second language with speakers of Hebrew. In Weltens, B., de Bot, K., and van Els, T. (eds.), Language Attrition in Progress, 187–204. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Olshtain, E. 1989. Is second language attrition the reversal of second language acquisition? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 151–65.Google Scholar
Omar, M. 1973. The Acquisition of Egyptian Arabic as a Native Language. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, F. 1995. The antipassive in Jacaltec: a last resort strategy. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2), 329–43.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, F. 1997. Word Order and Clause Structure in Spanish and Other Romance Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Orfitelli, R. 2012. Argument Intervention in the Acquisition of A-Movement. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Orfitelli, R., and Grüter, T.. 2014. Do null subjects really transfer? In Cabrelli-Amano, J., Judy, T., and Pascual y Cabo, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference, 145–54. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Orfitelli, R., and Polinsky, M.. 2017. When performance masquerades as comprehension: grammaticality judgments in non-native speakers. In Kopotev, M., Lyashevskaya, O., and Mustajoki, A. (eds.), Quantitative Approaches to the Russian language, 197–214. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J., and Romero, J.. 2013. Object clitics, agreement and dialectal variation. International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 25, 301–44.Google Scholar
O’Shannessy, C. 2016. Distributions of case allomorphy by multilingual children: speaking Warlpiri and Light Warlpiri. Linguistic Variation 16, 68–102.Google Scholar
Oshita, H. 2000. What is happened may not be what appears to be happening: a corpus study of “passive” unaccusatives in L2 English. Second Language Research 16, 293–324.Google Scholar
Oshita, H. 2001. The unaccusative trap in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23, 279–304.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R. 2016. The linguistic competence of second-generation bilinguals: a critique of “incomplete acquisition.” In Tortora, C. et al. (eds.), Romance Linguistics 2013: Selected Papers from the 43rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSLR), New York, 17–19 April 2013, 301–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R., and Zentella, A. C.. 2012. Spanish in New York: Language Contact, Dialect Leveling and Structural Continuity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R., Zentella, A. C., and Livert, D.. 2007. Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: toward the formation of a speech community. Language 83, 770–803.Google Scholar
Ozturk, O., and Papafragou, A.. 2007. Children’s acquisition of evidentiality. In Caunt-Nulton, H., Kulatilake, S., and Woo, I. (eds.), BUCLD 31 Proceedings Supplement. Available at www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/supp31.html.Google Scholar
Ozturk, O., and Papafragou, A.. 2015. The acquisition of evidentiality and source monitoring. Language Learning and Development 12, 199–230.Google Scholar
Pallier, C. 2007. Critical periods in language acquisition and language attrition. In Köpke, B., Schmid, M., Keijzer, M., and Dosterst, S. (eds.), Language Attrition. Theoretical Perspectives, 99–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pan, H. 2007. Focus and Taiwanese unchecked tones. In Lee C, C., Gordon, M., and Büring, D. (eds.), Topic and Focus: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation, 195–213. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Paperno, D. 2012. Quantification in Standard Russian. In Keenan, E. L. and Paperno, D. (eds.), Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language, 729–79. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Pappas, P. A. 2005. Greek in Columbus, Ohio. In Joseph, B., Preston, C., and Preston, D. (eds.), Language Diversity in Michigan and Ohio: Towards Two State Linguistic Profiles, 243–50. Ann Arbor, MI: Caravan.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. and Genesee, F.. 1996. Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: autonomous or interdependent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 1–25.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., Nicoladis, E., and Genesee, F.. 2000. Early emergence of structural constraints on code-mixing: evidence from French–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3, 245–61.Google Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D. 2013. Agreement Reflexes of Emerging Optionality in Heritage Speaker Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D. (ed.). 2016. Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D., and Rothman, J. 2012. The (il)logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition. Applied Linguistics 33, 1–7.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. 2000. L2 influence on L1 in late bilingualism. Issues in Applied Linguistics 11, 175–205.Google Scholar
Patterson, C., Trompelt, H., and Felser, C.. 2014. The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00147.Google Scholar
Pelc, L. A. 2001. L1 Lexical, Morphological and Morphosyntactic Attrition in Greek–English Bilinguals. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Peña, M., Werker, J. F., and Dehaene-Lambertz, G.. 2012. Earlier speech exposure does not accelerate speech acquisition. Journal of Neuroscience 32, 11159–63.Google Scholar
Perani, D., and Abutalebi, J.. 2005. Neural basis of first and second language processing. Current Opinion of Neurobiology 15, 202–6.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, A. 2005. Aspect lost, aspect regained. In Kempchinsky, P. and Slabakova, R. (eds.), Aspectual Inquiries, 369–95. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T. 1998. The acquisition of mood selection in Spanish relative clauses. Journal of Child Language 25, 585–604.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Cuza, A., and Thomas, D.. 2011. Clitic placement in Spanish–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14, 221–32.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., and Glass, W. R.. 1999. Null anaphora in Spanish second language acquisition: probabilistic versus generative approaches. Second Language Research 15, 220–49.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 38, 157–90. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1982. Paths and Categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pfaff, C. W. 1979. Constraints on language mixing: intrasentential code-switching and borrowing in Spanish/English. Language 55, 291–318.Google Scholar
Pfaff, C. W. 1991. Turkish in contact with German: language maintenance and loss among immigrant children in Berlin (West). International Journal of the Sociology of Language 90, 97–129.Google Scholar
Pfaff, C. W. 1993. Turkish language development in Germany. In Extra, G. and Verhoeven, L. (eds.), Immigrant Languages in Europe, 119–46. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pfaff, C. W. 1994. Early bilingual development of Turkish children in Berlin. In Extra, G. and Verhoeven, L. (eds.), The Cross-Linguistic Study of Bilingual Development, 75–97. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Academie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
Picallo, S. 1991. Nominals and nominalization in Catalan. Probus 3, 279–316.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., and Ullman, M.. 2002. The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6, 456–63.Google Scholar
Pinto, D., and Raschio, R.. 2007. A comparative study of requests in heritage speaker Spanish, L1 Spanish, and L1 English. International Journal of Bilingualism 11, 135–55.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, 211–38.Google Scholar
Plaster, K., and Polinsky, M.. 2007. Women are not dangerous things: gender and categorization. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 12. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 2001. The vulnerable C-domain. Brain and Language 77, 364–77.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 1996. Cross-linguistic parallels in language loss. Southwestern Journal of Linguistics 14, 1–44.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 1997. American Russian: language loss meets language acquisition. In Brown, W. et al. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, 370–407. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2000. The composite linguistic profile of speakers of Russian in the US. In Kagan, O. and Rifkin, B. (eds.), The Learning and Teaching of Slavic Languages and Cultures, 437–65. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2005. Word class distinctions in an incomplete grammar. In Ravid, D. and Shyldkrot, Z. B. (eds.), Perspectives on Language and Language Development, 419–34. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2006. Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 14, 161–219.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2008a. Gender under incomplete acquisition: heritage speakers’ knowledge of noun categorization. Heritage Language Journal 6(1), 40–71.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2008b. Without aspect. In Corbett, G. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Case and Grammatical Relations, 263–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2009. What breaks in A- and A-bar chains under incomplete acquisition. Poster presented at 22nd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of California Davis.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2011. Reanalysis in adult heritage language: a case for attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 305–28.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2012. Headedness again. In Theories of Everything: In Honor of Ed Keenan, 348–59. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2015. When L1 becomes an L3: do heritage speakers make better L3 learners? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18, 163–78.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2016a. Looking ahead. In Pascual y Cabo, D. (ed.), Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language, 325–43. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2016b. Bilingual children and adult heritage speakers: the range of comparison. International Journal of Bilingualism 13, 195–210.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2016c. Structure vs. use in heritage language. Linguistics Vanguard.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2017. Antipassive. In Coon, J., Massam, D., and deMena Travis, L. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 308–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Clemens, L. E., Morgan, A. M., Xiang, M., and Heestand, D.. 2013a. Resumption in English. In Sprouse, J. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, 341–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Gallo, C. G., Graff, P., et al. 2013b. Subject islands are different. In Sprouse, J. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, 286–309. 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, 368–95.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 245–82.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2011. Against covert A-movement in Russian unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 42, 345–55.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Viswanath, A.. 2012. Heritage English: Israel. Harvard Dataverse, hdl:1902.1/18486.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Popescu, A. 1997. Objektklitika und Argumentlinking im Rumänischen. M.A. thesis, Düsseldorf University.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. 1980. Sometimes I start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL: towards a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18, 581–618.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. 1997. The sociolinguistic dynamics of apparent convergence. In Guy, G. R., Feagin, C., Schiffrin, D., and Baugh, J. (eds.), Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, vol. 2: Social Interaction and Discourse Structures, 285–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. 2001. Code switching: linguistic. In Smelse, N. J. and Baltes, P. B. (eds.), International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2062–65. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Potowski, K. 2002. Experiences of Spanish heritage speakers in university foreign language courses and implications for teacher training. ADFL Bulletin 33(3), 35–42.Google Scholar
Potowski, K. (ed.) In press. The Handbook of Spanish as Heritage Language. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Potsdam, E. 2006. More concealed pseudoclefts in Malagasy and the clausal typing hypothesis. Lingua 116, 2154–82.Google Scholar
Preminger, O. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Preston, D. 1984. The Polish of Western New York: case. Melbourne Slavonic Studies 18, 135–54.Google Scholar
Preston, D. 1986. The case of American Polish. In Kastovsky, D. and Szwedek, A. (eds.), Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: In Honour of Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of his Fiftieth Birthday, vol. 2, 1015–23. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., and White, L.. 1999. Finiteness and variability in SLA: more evidence for missing surface inflection. In Greenhill, A., Littlefield, H., and Tano, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 575–86. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Prior, A., and Gollan, T.. 2011. Good language-switchers are good task-switchers: evidence from Spanish–English and Mandarin–English bilinguals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 17, 682–91.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. T., and Salmons, J. S.. 2013. Losing their (passive) voice: syntactic neutralization in Heritage German. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3, 233–52.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, 478–508.Google Scholar
Pye, C., and Quixtan Poz, P.. 1988. Precocious passives (and antipassives) in Quiche Mayan. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 27, 71–80.Google Scholar
Quesada, M. 2015. The L2 Acquisition of Spanish Subjects: Multiple Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rakhilina, E., Vyrenkova, A., and Polinsky, M.. 2016. Linguistic creativity in heritage speakers. Glossa 1(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. 1997. Aspect and Predication: The Semantics of Argument Structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. 2004. Time and the event: the semantics of Russian prefixes. Nordlyd 32 (Special Issue), 323–61.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G., and Svenonius, P.. 2002. The lexical syntax and lexical semantics of the verb-particle construction. In Mikkelsen, L. and Potts, C. (eds.), WCCFL 21 Proceedings, 387–400. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1976. The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27, 53–94.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1997. Quantifier scope: how labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335–97.Google Scholar
Richards, N. 2001. Leerdil Yuujmen bana Yanangarr (Old and New Lardil). In Simpson, J. et al. (eds.), Forty Years On: Ken Hale and Australian Languages, 431–45. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Riksem, B. 2017. Language mixing and diachronic change: American Norwegian noun phrases then and now. Languages 2, https://doi.org/10.3390/languages2020003.Google Scholar
Rinke, E., and Flores, C. M. M.. 2014. Morphosyntactic knowledge of clitics by Portuguese heritage bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17, 681–99.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–57.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, 167–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rodina, Y., and Westergaard, M.. 2013. Two gender systems in one mind: the acquisition of grammatical gender in Norwegian–Russian bilinguals. Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity 1, 95–126.Google Scholar
Rodina, Y., and Westergaard, M.. 2017. Grammatical gender in bilingual Norwegian–Russian acquisition: the role of input and transparency. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20, 197–214.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, E. T., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Spellman, M. E., et al. 2009. The formative role of home literacy experiences across the first three years of life in children from low-income families. Journal of Applied Development Psychology 30, 677–94.Google Scholar
Rolle, A. 1965. The Lost Cause: The Confederate Exodus to Mexico. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Ronai, E. 2017. Quantifier scope in heritage bilinguals: comparative experimental study. Poster presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 48), University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland, 27–29 October.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, P. 1994. Varietätenkontakt und Varietätenausgleich bei den Rußlanddeutschen: Orientierungen für eine moderne Sprachinselforschung. In Berend, N. and Mattheier, K. J. (eds.), Sprachinselforschung: Eine Gedenkschrift für Hugo Jedig, 123–64. Bern: Peter Lang.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, 359–89.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. 2009. Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism 13, 155–63.Google Scholar
Round, E. 2017. The Tangkic languages of Australia: phonology and morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rumbaut, R. G. 2009. A language graveyard? The evolution of language competencies, preferences and use among young adult children of immigrants. In Wiley, T. G., Lee, J. S., and Rumberger, R. (eds.), The Education of Language Minority Immigrants in the United States, 35–71. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1883184.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. 1984. Second Language Grammar Learning and Teaching. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Ruys, E. G. 1992. The Scope of Indefinites. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L. 2003. Grammatical Gender and Second Language Processing: An ERP Study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., Stowe, L., and de Haan, G. J.. 2006. Transfer effects in learning an L2 grammatical gender system. Second Language Research 22, 1–29.Google Scholar
Sahin, H. 2015. Cross-Linguistic Influences: Dutch in Contact with Papiamento and Turkish. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Saito, M. 2015. Cartography and selection: case studies in Japanese. In Shlonsky, U. (ed.), Beyond Functional Sequence, 255–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saito, M., Lin, T.-H. J., and Murasugi, K.. 2008. N’-ellipsis and the structure of noun phrases in Chinese and Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, 247–71.Google Scholar
Salmons, J. C. 1990. Bilingual discourse marking: codeswitching, borrowing and convergence in some German-American dialects. Linguistics 28, 453–80.Google Scholar
Salmons, J. C. 1994. Naturalness and morphological change in Texas German. In Berend, N. and Mattheier, K. J. (eds.), Deutsche Sprachinselforschung: Eine Gedenkschrift für Hugo Jedig, 59–72. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Salmons, J. C. 2015. New structural patterns in moribund grammar: case marking in heritage German. Language Sciences 6, 1–9.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Naranjo, J., and Pérez-Leroux, A. T.. 2010. In the wrong mood at the right time: children’s acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive in temporal clauses. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/La revue canadienne de linguistique 55, 227–55.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Walker, N. 2012. Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in Spanish heritage speakers and L2 learners of Spanish. Poster presented at the Sixth Heritage Language Institute, UCLA, June.Google Scholar
Sancier, M. L., and Fowler, C. A.. 1997. Gestural drift in a bilingual speaker of Brazilian Portuguese and English. Journal of Phonetics 25, 421–36.Google Scholar
Sasse, H.-J. 1992. Language decay and contact-induced change: similarities and differences. In Brenzinger, M. (ed.), Language Death: Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa, 59–79. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Savić, J. 1995. Structural convergence and language change: Evidence from Serbian/English code-switching. Language in Society 24, 475–492.Google Scholar
Scarborough, D. L., Gerard, L., and Cortese, C.. 1978. Accessing lexical memory: the transfer of word repetition effects across task and modality. Memory and Cognition 7, 3–12.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. E. 1990. On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 6, 93–124.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. E., and Hart, B. K.. 1979. An analysis of learner production of English structures. Georgetown University Papers on Languages and Linguistics 15, 18–75.Google Scholar
Schafer, A. J., O’Grady, W., Lee, O.-S., et al. 2009. On the psycholinguistic assessment of relative language strength in bilinguals: evidence from Korean heritage speakers. MAPLL, available at http://ling.hawaii.edu/research-current/projects/hala/.Google Scholar
Schaub, W. 1985. Babungo (Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, A. 1996. Word order patterns in contact: Turkish in the Netherlands. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 15, 153–69.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. 2011. Language Attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. 1985. Young People’s Dyribal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. 1996. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., and Sprouse, R.. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access hypothesis. Second Language Research 12, 40–72.Google Scholar
Schwartz, M., and Minkov, M.. 2014. Russian case system acquisition among Russian–Hebrew speaking children. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 22, 51–92.Google Scholar
Schwartz, M., Minkov, M., Dieser, E., et al. 2014. Acquisition of Russian gender agreement by monolingual and bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism 19, 726–52.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Fuchs, Z., and Polinsky, M.. 2015. Heritage language and linguistic theory. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 15–45.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., Tsai, C.-Y. E., and Mai, K.. 2017. Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: when two systems meet. Glossa 2(1), 36.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Fuchs, Z., and Polinsky, M.. 2018. In support of representational economy: agreement in heritage Spanish. Glossa 3(1), 1.Google Scholar
Searl, J. P., Gabel, R. M., and Fulks, J. S.. 2002. Speech disfluency in centenarians. Journal of Communication Disorders 35, 383–92.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. 2010. Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., and Freed, B. F.. 2004. Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 173–99.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I., and Trueswell, J.. 2011. Processing of contrastiveness by heritage Russian bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14, 280–300.Google Scholar
Seliger, H. 1996. Primary language attrition in the context of bilingualism. In Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 605–25. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L. 2007. Cross-linguistic influence in the interpretation of anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns in English–Italian bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10, 225–38.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., and Paoli, S.. 2004. Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax–pragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in English–Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and cognition 7, 183–205.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., Filiaci, F., and Baldo, M.. 2009. Bilingual children’s sensitivity to specificity and genericity: evidence from metalinguistic awareness. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12, 239–57.Google Scholar
Shapiro, K., and Caramazza, A.. 2002. Introduction. The role and neural representation of grammatical class: A special issue. Journal of Neurolinguistics 15, 159–70.Google Scholar
Shariatmadari, D. 2006. Sounds difficult? Why phonological theory needs “ease of articulation.” SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 207–26.Google Scholar
Sheng, L., Lu, Y., and Kan, P. F.. 2011. Lexical development in Mandarin–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14, 579–87.Google Scholar
Sherkina-Lieber, M. 2011. Knowledge of Labrador Inuttitut Functional Morphology by Receptive Bilinguals. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.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, 30–61.Google Scholar
Sherkina-Lieber, M., Pérez-Leroux, A. T., and Johns, A.. 2011. Grammar without speech production: the case of Labrador Inuttitut heritage receptive bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14, 301–17.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1977. Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language 53, 789–809.Google Scholar
Shimojo, M. 2006. Properties of particle “omission” revisited. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 26, 123–40.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. 2013. Passive constructions. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/107 (accessed on August 23, 2017).Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. 1994. Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. 2003. Linguistic consequences of reduced input in bilingual first language acquisition. In Montrul, S. and Ordóñez, F. (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Language Development in Hispanic Languages, 375–97. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. 2014. Bilingual Language Acquisition: Spanish and English in the First Six Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skorik, P. 1977. Grammatika čukotskogo jazyka, part II: Glagol, narečie, služebnye slova. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Smeets, R. 1984. Studies in West Circassian Phonology and Morphology. Leiden: Hakuchi Press.Google Scholar
Snape, N., Hirakawa, M., Hirakawa, Y., Hosoi, H., and Matthews, J.. 2014. L2 English generics: Japanese child returnees’ incomplete acquisition or attrition? In Miller, R. T. et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum, 155–69. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. 2007. Child Language: A Parametric Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sohn, H.-M. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Son, Y. A. 2015. Annotated Bibliography: Overview of Evaluation and Assessment in Heritage Language Learning. Washington, DC: Assessment and Evaluation Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Song, M., O’Grady, W., Cho, S., and Lee, M.. 1997. The learning and teaching of Korean in community schools. In Kim, Y.-H. (ed.), Korean Language in America, vol. 2 111–27. New York: American Association of Teachers of Korean.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76, 859–90.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, 143–45.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. 2011. Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1, 1–33.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., and Filiaci, F.. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22, 339–68.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., and Serratrice, L.. 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13, 195–210.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., Serratrice, L., Filiaci, F., and Baldo, M.. 2009. Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. Lingua 119, 460–77.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. 1969. Reduced redundancy as a language testing tool. In Perren, G. E. and Trim, J. L. M. (eds.), Applications of Linguistics, 383–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 213–76. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. 2015. Three open questions in experimental syntax. Linguistics Vanguard 1, 89–100.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. 2000. The Syntactic Process: Language, Speech and Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 114–74. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stiebels, B. 2006. Agent focus in Mayan languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24, 501–70.Google Scholar
Stoll, S., and Bickel, B.. 2013. The acquisition of ergative case in Chintang. In Stoll, S. and Bavin, E. (eds.), The Acquisition of Ergativity, 183–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stoll, S., Zakharko, T., Moran, S., Schikowski, R., and Bickel, B.. 2015. Syntactic mixing across generations in an environment of community-wide bilingualism. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 82.Google Scholar
Street, J., and Dąbrowska, E.. 2010. More individual differences in language attainment: how much do adult native speakers of English know about passives and quantifiers? Lingua 120, 2080–94.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 391–434.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. 1992. Indirect questions and structure of CP: some consequences. In Campos, H. and Martinez-Gil, F. (eds.), Current Studies in Spanish Linguistics, 283–312. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sussex, R., and Cubberley, P.. 2006. The Slavic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2004. Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. Nordlyd 32 (Special Issue), 205–53.Google Scholar
Tamis, A. M. 1986. The State of Modern Greek as Spoken in Victoria. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Tamis, A. M. 2006. Los Griegos de América Latina. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., and Hansen, K.. 2009. Literacy and Second Language Oracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
te Velde, J. R. 2016. Temporal adverbs in the Kiezdeutsch left periphery: combining late merge with deaccentuation for V3. Studia Linguistica 71, 301–356.Google Scholar
Tees, R. C., and Werker, J. F.. 1984. Perceptual flexibility: maintenance or recovery of the ability to discriminate nonnative speech sounds. Canadian Journal of Psychology 38, 579–90.Google Scholar
Temple, L. 2000. Second language learner speech production. Studia Linguistica 54, 288–97.Google Scholar
Testelets, Y. (ed.). 2009. Aspekty polisintetizma: Očerki po grammatike adygejskogo jazyka. Moscow: Russian University for the Humanities.Google Scholar
Thal, D., Bates, E., Goodman, J., and Jahn-Samilo, J.. 1997. Continuity of language abilities: an exploratory study of late- and early-talking toddlers. Developmental Neuropsychology 13, 293–74.Google Scholar
Thepboriruk, K. 2015. Thai in Diaspora: Language and Identity in Los Angeles, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii Mānoa.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. 2015. Understanding the heritage language student: proficiency and placement. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 14, 82–96.Google Scholar
Titus, J. 2012. Creating an online assessment test for heritage learners of Russian. Heritage Language Journal 9(2), 85–107.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., and MacWhinney, B.. 2005. Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: an event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 173–204.Google Scholar
Tomioka, S. 2007. The Japanese existential possession: a case study of pragmatic disambiguation. Lingua 117, 881–902.Google Scholar
Tomioka, S. 2010a. A scope theory of contrastive topics. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2, 113–30.Google Scholar
Tomioka, S. 2010b. Contrastive topics operate on speech acts. In Zimmermann, M. and Féry, C. (eds.), Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives, 115–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomiyama, M. 1999. The first stage of second language attrition: a case study of a Japanese returnee. In Hansen, L. (ed.), Second Language in Japanese Contexts, 59–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomiyama, M. 2009. Age and proficiency in L2 attrition: data from two siblings. Applied Linguistics 30, 253–75.Google Scholar
Toribio, A. J., and Nye, C.. 2006. Restructuring of reverse psychological predicates. In Nishida, C. and Montreuil, J.-P. Y. (eds.), New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics, 263–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Toth, G. 2007. Linguistic Interference and First-Language Attrition: German and Hungarian in the San Francisco Bay Area. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Trahey, M., and White, L.. 1993. Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 181–204.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J. 2015. The construct of language dominance, its operationalization and measurement. In Silva-Corvalán, C. and Treffers-Daller, J. (eds.), Language Dominance in Bilinguals: Issues of Measurement and Operationalization, 235–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., Daller, M., Furman, R., and Rothman, J.. 2016. Ultimate attainment in the use of collocations among heritage speakers of Turkish in Germany and Turkish–German returnees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19, 504–19.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939/1969. Principles of Phonology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tsai, E. C.-Y., Scontras, G., Mai, K., and Polinsky, M.. 2014. Prohibiting inverse scope. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics (CSSP 2013), vol. 10, 305–22.Google Scholar
Tse, H. 2016a. Phonetic vs. phonological considerations in inter-generational vowel change in Toronto Heritage Cantonese. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the of America 2016 Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January.Google Scholar
Tse, H. 2016b. Contact-induced splits in Toronto Heritage Cantonese mid-vowels. Linguistica Atlantica 35, 133–55.Google Scholar
Tse, H. 2017a. Variation and change in Toronto heritage Cantonese. Asia-Pacific Language Variation 2, 124–56.Google Scholar
Tse, H. 2017b. Heritage language maintenance and phonological maintenance in Toronto Cantonese monophthongs? – But they still have an “accent”! Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America 2017 Annual Meeting, Austin, TX, January.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. 2007. First language attrition from a minimalist perspective. In Köpcke, B. et al. (eds.), Language Attrition: Theoretical Perspectives, 83–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. 2014. Early, late or very late? Timing acquisition and bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4, 283–313.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., and Mastropavlou, M.. 2007. Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners. In Liceras, J., Zobl, H., and Goodluck, H. (eds.), The Role of Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition, 143–83. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I., and Sorace, A.. 2006. Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax–semantics and syntax–discourse phenomena. BUCLD 30. Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 653–64.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., and Filiaci, F.. 2004. First language attrition and syntactic subjects: a study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism 8, 257–77.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., Filiaci, F., and Bouba, M.. 2003. Subjects in L1 attrition: evidence from Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. BUCLD 27. Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 787–97.Google Scholar
Tsukada, K., Birdsong, D., Mack, M., et al. 2004. Release bursts in English word-final voiceless stops produced by native English and Korean adults and children. Phonetica 61, 67–83.Google Scholar
Tsutsui, Michio. 1984. Particle Ellipses in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.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, 86–110.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S. 2014. Comparing the role of input in bilingual acquisition across domains. In Grüter, T. and Paradis, J. (eds.), Input and Experience in Bilingual Development, 181–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S. 2015. Amount of exposure as a proxy for dominance in bilingual language acquisition. In Silva-Corvalán, C. and Treffers-Daller, J. (eds.), Language Dominance in Bilinguals: Issues of Measurement and Operationalization, 156–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S. 2016. Quantity and quality of language input in bilingual language development. In Nicoladis, E. and Montanari, S. (eds.), Lifespan Perspectives on Bilingualism, 136–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S. In press. Quantifying language experience in HL development. In Schmid, M. and Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of First Language Attrition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S., Argyri, F., Cornips, L., et al. 2011. Bilingual acquisition of Greek voice morphology and Dutch gender: what do they have in common? BUCLD 35. Proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., and Young-Scholten, M.. 1996. Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research 12, 7–39.Google Scholar
Valdés, G. 2000. The teaching of heritage languages: an introduction for Slavic-teaching professionals. In Kagan, O. and Rifkin, B. (eds.), The Learning and Teaching of Slavic Languages and Cultures, 375–404. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Valdés, G. 2001. Heritage language students: profiles and possibilities. In Peyton, J. K., Ranard, D. A., and McGinnis, S. (eds.), Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource, 37–77. Washington, DC: Delta Systems and Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Valdés, G., and Pino, C.. 1981. Muy a tus órdenes: compliment responses among Mexican-American bilinguals. Language in Society 10, 53–72.Google Scholar
Valian, V. 2015. Bilingualism and cognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18, 3–24.Google Scholar
Valk, P. O. 2015. Transformations in Dutch Turkish Subordination? Converging Evidence of Change Regarding Finiteness and Word Order in Complex Clauses. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
van Deusen-Scholl, N. 1998. Heritage language instruction: issues and challenges. AILA Newsletter 1, 12–14.Google Scholar
van Deusen-Scholl, N. 2003. Toward a definition of heritage language: sociopolitical and pedagogical considerations. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 2, 211–30.Google Scholar
van Rijswijk, R., Muntendam, A., and Dijkstra, T.. 2017. Focus marking in Dutch by heritage speakers of Turkish and Dutch L1 speakers. Journal of Phonetics 61, 48–70.Google Scholar
Vaux, B. 1998. The Phonology of Armenian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L. 2004. Bilingualism and narrative construction. In Strömqvist, S. and Verhoeven, L. (eds.), Relating Events in Narrative, vol. 2: Typological and Contextual Perspectives, 435–54. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, R. 2009. Topics, contrast and contrastive topics in Japanese. In Vermeulen, R. and Shibagaki, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Formal Altaic Linguistics, vol. 5, 361–72.Google Scholar
Vicente, L. 2004. Inversion, reconstruction, and the structure of relative clauses. In Auger, J. et al. (eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics, 316–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Druks, J., Barber, H., and Cappa, S. F.. 2011. Nouns and verbs in the brain: a review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 35, 407–26.Google Scholar
Vinther, T. 2002. Elicited imitation: a brief overview. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12, 54–73.Google Scholar
Viswanath, A. 2013. Heritage English in Israeli Children. B.A. thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Viswanath, A., and Polinsky, M.. 2012. A look at Heritage English. Poster presented at the Colloquium of Formal Approaches to Heritage Languages, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Vulchanova, M., Vulchanov, V., and Stankova, M.. 2011. Idiom comprehension in the first language: a developmental study. VIAL 8, 206–34.Google Scholar
Wakefield, J. C. 2010. The English Equivalents of Cantonese Sentence-Final Particles: A Contrastive Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.Google Scholar
Walkden, G. In press. Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 20.Google Scholar
Watanabe, A. 2010. Notes on nominal ellipsis and the nature of no and classifiers in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 61–74.Google Scholar
Watson, G. J. 1996. The Finnish–Australian English corpus. ICAME Journal 20, 41–70.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. 2009. Agreement features. Language and Linguistics Compass 3, 384–405.Google Scholar
Wei, Li. 1994. Three Generations, Two Languages, One Family: Language Choice and Language Shift in a Chinese Community in Britain. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Wei, Li, and Lee, S.. 2001. L1 development in an L2 environment: the use of Cantonese classifiers and quantifiers by young British-born Chinese in Tyneside. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4, 359–82.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F. 1989. Becoming a native listener. American Scientist 77, 54–59.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., and Tees, R. C.. 1984. Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 75, 1866–78.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. 2005. Optional word order in wh-questions in two Norwegian dialects: a diachronic analysis of synchronic variation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28, 269–96.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. 2009a. Microvariation as diachrony: a view from acquisition. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12, 49–79.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. 2009b. The development of word order in Old and Middle English: the role of information structure and first language acquisition. Diachronica 26, 65–102.Google Scholar
White, L. 1985. The “pro-drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning 35, 47–61.Google Scholar
White, L. 1986. Implications of parametric variation for adult second language acquisition: an investigation of the pro-drop parameter. In Cook, V. (ed.), Experimental Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, 55–72. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
White, L. 1989. Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
White, L. 1991. Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research 7, 133–61.Google Scholar
Wiese, H. 2012. Kiezdeutsch. Ein neuer Dialekt entsteht. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Wiese, H., and Rehbein, I.. 2016. Coherence in new urban dialects: a case study. Lingua 172–173, 45–61.Google Scholar
Wiley, T. G., Peyton, J. K., Christian, D., Moore, S. C. K., and Liu, N. (eds.). 2014. Handbook of Heritage, Community, and Native American Languages in the United States: Research, Policy, and Educational Practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Willms, J. L., Shapiro, K. A., Peelen, M. V., et al. 2011. Language-invariant verb processing regions in Spanish–English bilinguals. NeuroImage 57, 251–61.Google Scholar
Wong, P., and Strange, W.. 2017. Phonetic complexity affects children’s Mandarin tone production accuracy in disyllabic words: a perceptual study. PLoS ONE 12(8), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182337.Google Scholar
Wood, J. 2012. Against the movement theory of control: another argument from Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 322–30.Google Scholar
Wu, H. 2017. Mandarin is not a scope rigid language. Manuscript, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Wu, H., Liu, L.., Liu, Y., and Larson, E.. 2017. Rethinking quantifier scope in Mandarin. Poster presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 48), University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland, 27–29 October.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Polinsky, M., Chen, L., Kelly, C., and Wang, S.. 2009. The effect of partial semantic feature match in forward prediction and backward retrieval. Poster presented at the 22nd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of California Davis.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Harizanov, B., Polinsky, M., and Kravtchenko, E.. 2011. Processing morphological ambiguity: a processing investigation of Russian numerical phrases. Lingua 121, 548–60.Google Scholar
Xu, T., and Snyder, W.. 2011. Children’s 2Aux negative questions: elicited production versus spontaneous speech. In Pirvulescu, M. et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2010), 277–85. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Yager, L., Hellmold, N., Joo, H.-A., et al. 2015. New structural patterns in moribund grammar: case marking in heritage German. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1716.Google Scholar
Yang, B. 2015. Perception and Production of Mandarin Tones by Native Speakers and L2 Learners. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Yang, C. 2016. The Price of Linguistic Productivity: How Children Learn to Break the Rules of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C., and Xie, Y.. 2013. Learning Chinese Idioms through iPads. Language Learning and Technology 17(2), 12–22.Google Scholar
Yau, S.-C. 1980. Sentential connotations in Cantonese. Fangyan [Dialect] 1, 1–35.Google Scholar
Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Flege, J., and Liu, S.. 2000. Pronunciation proficiency in the first and second languages of Korean–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3, 131–49.Google Scholar
Yip, V., and Matthews, S.. 2007. The Bilingual Child: Early Development and Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yoshitomi, A. 1999. On the loss of English as a second language by Japanese returnee children. In Hansen, L. (ed.), Second Language in Japanese Contexts, 80–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zapata, G. C., Sánchez, L., and Toribio, A. J.. 2005. Contact and contracting Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism 9, 377–95.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. A. 1967. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Zhou, P., and Crain, S.. 2009. Scope assignment in child language: evidence from the acquisition of Chinese. Lingua 110, 973–88.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. 1989. Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In Gass, S. M. and Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, 203–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zombolou, K. 2011. Attrition in Greek diaspora: grammars in contact or incomplete acquisition? In Ihemere, K. (ed.), Language Contact and Language Shift: Grammatical and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, 111–39. München: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M.-L. 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. J.-W. 2005. Verb second as a function of merge. In den Dikken, M. and Tortora, C. M. (eds.), The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories, 11–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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.

  • References
  • Maria Polinsky, University of Maryland, College Park
  • Book: Heritage Languages and their Speakers
  • Online publication: 20 July 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107252349.011
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.

  • References
  • Maria Polinsky, University of Maryland, College Park
  • Book: Heritage Languages and their Speakers
  • Online publication: 20 July 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107252349.011
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.

  • References
  • Maria Polinsky, University of Maryland, College Park
  • Book: Heritage Languages and their Speakers
  • Online publication: 20 July 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107252349.011
Available formats
×