Book contents
- Native Speakers, Interrupted
- Native Speakers, Interrupted
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 On Heritage Speakers as Native Speakers
- 2 Structural Changes in Heritage Language Grammars
- 3 Differential Object Marking
- 4 Language Change and the Acquisition of Differential Object Marking
- 5 The Vulnerability of Differential Object Marking in Three Heritage Languages
- 6 Differential Object Marking in Spanish as a Heritage Language
- 7 Differential Object Marking in Hindi as a Heritage Language
- 8 Differential Object Marking and Clitic Doubling in Romanian as a Heritage Language
- 9 Comparing the Three Heritage Languages
- 10 Intergenerational Transmission
- Implications
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 December 2022
Book contents
- Native Speakers, Interrupted
- Native Speakers, Interrupted
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 On Heritage Speakers as Native Speakers
- 2 Structural Changes in Heritage Language Grammars
- 3 Differential Object Marking
- 4 Language Change and the Acquisition of Differential Object Marking
- 5 The Vulnerability of Differential Object Marking in Three Heritage Languages
- 6 Differential Object Marking in Spanish as a Heritage Language
- 7 Differential Object Marking in Hindi as a Heritage Language
- 8 Differential Object Marking and Clitic Doubling in Romanian as a Heritage Language
- 9 Comparing the Three Heritage Languages
- 10 Intergenerational Transmission
- Implications
- References
- Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Native Speakers, InterruptedDifferential Object Marking and Language Change in Heritage Languages, pp. 293 - 321Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Abrahamsson, N. (2012). Age of onset and nativelike L2 ultimate attainment of morphosyntactic and phonetic intuition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(2), 187–214.Google Scholar
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 481–509.Google Scholar
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59(2), 249–306.Google Scholar
Ahn, S., Chang, C. B., DeKeyser, R., & Lee‐Ellis, S. (2017). Age effects in first language attrition: Speech perception by Korean‐English bilinguals. Language Learning, 67(3), 694–733.Google Scholar
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483.Google Scholar
Alarcón, I. V. (2011). Spanish gender agreement under complete and incomplete acquisition: Early and late bilinguals’ linguistic behavior within the noun phrase. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(3), 332–350.Google Scholar
Albirini, A., Benmamoun, E., & Chakrani, B. (2013). Gender and number agreement in the oral production of Arabic heritage speakers. Bilingualism, 16(1), 1.Google Scholar
Albirini, A., Benmamoun, E., & Saadah, E. (2011). Grammatical features of Egyptian and Palestinian Arabic heritage speakers’ oral production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 273–303.Google Scholar
Alfaraz, G. G. (2011). Accusative object marking: A change in progress in Cuban Spanish? Spanish in Context, 8(2), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amaral, L., & Roeper, T. (2014). Multiple grammars and second language representation. Second Language Research, 30(1), 3–36.Google Scholar
Antonova Ünlü, E., & Wei, L. (2018a). Examining the effect of reduced input on language development: The case of gender acquisition in Russian as a non-dominant and dispreferred language by a bilingual Turkish–Russian child. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(2), 215–233.Google Scholar
Antova Ünlü, E., & Wei, L. (2018b). The acquisition of the weaker language: Evidence from the acquisition of Russian cases by a Turkish–Russian child. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(5), 637–663.Google Scholar
Antonova-Ünlü, E., & Wei, L. (2016). Aspect acquisition in Russian as the weaker language: Evidence from a Turkish–Russian child. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(2), 210–228.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. (1989). Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Arechabaleta Regulez, B. (2019). The processing of differential object marking in Spanish by monolinguals and bilinguals, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
Arechabaleta Regulez, B. (2020). The processing of differential object marking by heritage speakers of Spanish. In Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of differential object marking, pp. 237–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Arechabaleta Regulez, B., & Montrul, S. (2021). Psycholinguistic evidence for incipient language change in Mexican Spanish: The extension of differential object marking. Languages, 6(3), 131.Google Scholar
Argus, R. (2015). On the acquisition of differential object marking in Estonian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 4, 403–420.Google Scholar
Armon-Lotem, S., Joffe, S., Abutbul-Oz, H., Altman, C., & Walters, J. (2014). Language exposure, ethnolinguistic identity and attitudes in the acquisition of Hebrew as a second language among bilingual preschool children from Russian- and English-speaking backgrounds. In Grüter, T. & Paradis, J., Input and experience in bilingual development, pp. 77–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Arslan, S., & Bastiaanse, R. (2014). Tense/aspect and evidentiality in narrative speech of Turkish–Dutch bilingual speakers. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, University of Rouen, France.Google Scholar
Arslan, S., Bastiaanse, R., & Felser, C. (2015). Looking at the evidence in visual world: Eye-movements reveal how bilingual and monolingual Turkish speakers process grammatical evidentiality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1387.Google Scholar
Au, T. K.-f., Knightly, L. M., Jun, S.-A., & Oh, J. S. (2002). Overhearing a language during childhood. Psychological Science, 13(3), 238–243.Google Scholar
Austin, J. (2020). Differential object marking in the speech of children learning Basque and Spanish. In Mardale, A. and Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of differential object marking, pp. 51–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Avram, L., Ciovârnache, C., & Sevcenco, A. (2016). Semantic features and L1 transfer in the L2 learning of differential object marking: The view from Romanian and Persian. In Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Juan-Garau, M., & Larrañaga, P. (eds.), Acquisition of romance languages: Old acquisition challenges and new explanations from a generative perspective, pp. 91–120. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.Google Scholar
Avram, L., & Tomescu, V. (2020). Differential Object Marking in simultaneous Hungarian-Romanian bilinguals. In Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of differential object marking, pp. 77–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Balasch, S. (2011). Factors determining Spanish differential object marking within its domain of variation. In J. Michnowicz and R. Dodsworth (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, pp. 113–124. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bautista-Maldonado, S., & Montrul, S. (2019). An experimental investigation of differential object marking in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context, 16(1), 22–50.Google Scholar
Bayram, F., Kupisch, T., y Cabo, D. P., & Rothman, J. (2019). Terminology matters on theoretical grounds too! Coherent grammars cannot be incomplete. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 257–264.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S. A., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4), 129–181.Google Scholar
Bentz, C., & Winter, B. (2014). Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. In Wichmann, S. & Good, J. (eds.). Quantifying language dynamics, pp. 96–124. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (2004). Between emergence and mastery: The long developmental route. Language development across childhood and adolescence, pp. 9–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J., Ordóñez, F., & Roca, F. (2018). DOM and DP layers in Romance. Talk presented at Differential Object Marking in Romance: Towards Microvariation, Inalco, Paris, November 10, 2018.Google Scholar
Bhatia, A., & Montrul, S. (2020). Comprehension of Differential Object Marking by Hindi heritage speakers. In Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of Differential Object Marking, pp. 261–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bhatia, T., & Ritchie, W. C. (2013). Chapter 34: Bilingualism and multilingualism in South Asia. In Bhatia, T., & Ritchie, W. C. (eds.) The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism, pp. 843–870. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. (2002). Experts, dialects and discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 74–109.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 706–755.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (2012). Three perspectives on non-uniform linguistic attainment. Linguistic Approaches Bilingualism, 2(1), 255–259.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1927). Literate and illiterate speech. American Speech, 2(10), 432–439.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U., & Mohammadi, S. (2013). Acquiring Persian object marking: Balochi learners of L2 Persian. Orientalia Suecana, 61, 59–89.Google Scholar
Bonfiglio, T. P. (2010). Mother tongues and nations: The invention of the native speaker. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. (1991). Differential Object Marking in Romance and beyond. In Wanner, D. & Kibbee, D. A. (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 1988, pp. 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. A. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 247–271.Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2011). Bidirectional cross-linguistic influence in event conceptualization? Expressions of path among Japanese learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 79–94.Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2012). Multicompetence and native speaker variation in cluasal packaging in Japanese. Second Language Research, 28(4), 415–442.Google Scholar
Butt, M. (1993). Object specificity and agreement in Hindi/Urdu. 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 1, pp. 80–103.Google Scholar
Bylund, E. (2009). Maturational constraints and first language attrition. Language Learning, 59(3), 687–715.Google Scholar
Bylund, E., Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2010). The role of language aptitude in first language attrition: The case of pre-pubescent attriters. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 443–464.Google Scholar
Cabrelli, J., Iverson, M., Giancaspro, D., & González, B. H. (2020). The roles of L1 Spanish versus L2 Spanish in L3 Portuguese morphosyntactic development. In Molsing, K.V., Perna, C.B.L,., & Ibaños, A.M.T. (eds.). Linguistic approaches to Portuguese as an additional language, pp. 11–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carreira, M. (2012). Meeting the needs of heritage language learners: Approaches, strategies, and research. In Beaudrie, S. & Fairclough, M. (eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field, pp. 223–240. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Carreira, M. (2013). The vitality of Spanish in the United States. Heritage Language Journal, 10(3), 396–413.Google Scholar
Carreira, M. (2021). The vitality of Spanish as a heritage language in the United States. In Montrul, S. & Polinsky, M. (eds.), The handbook of heritage languages and linguistics, pp. 230–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2011). The results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 44(1), 40–64.Google Scholar
Carreira, M. M. (2007). Teaching Spanish in the US: Beyond the one-size-fits-all paradigm. In cameron, R. & Potowsky, K. (eds.), Spanish in contact: Policy, social and linguistic inquiries, pp. 61–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (2017). Exposure and input in bilingual development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celata, C. (2019). Phonological attrition. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 218–227. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (2003). Sociolinguistics of immigration. In Britain, D. & Cheshire, J. (eds.), Social dialectology. In Honour of Peter Trudgill, pp. 96–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chamorro, G., Sturt, P., & Sorace, A. (2016). Selectivity in L1 attrition: Differential Object Marking in Spanish near-native speakers of English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(3), 697–715.Google Scholar
Chang, C. B. (2016). Bilingual perceptual benefits of experience with a heritage language. Bilingualism, 19(4), 791.Google Scholar
Chang, C. B., Yao, Y., Haynes, E. F., & Rhodes, R. (2011). Production of phonetic and phonological contrast by heritage speakers of Mandarin. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(6), 3964–3980.Google Scholar
Chavez, L. R. (2001). Covering immigration: Popular images and the politics of the nation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chen, C.-Y. (2019). The acquisition of Mandarin reflexives by heritage speakers and second language learners. In Ionin, T. & Rispoli, M. (eds.), Three streams of generative language acquisition research: Selected papers from the 7th Meeting of Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition – North America, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, pp. 225–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chen, C.-Y. (2020). The acquisition of Mandarin by heritage speakers and second language learners. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J., Adger, D., & Fox, S. (2013). Relative who and the actuation problem. Lingua, 126, 51–77.Google Scholar
Chiriacescu, S., & von Heusinger, K. (2010). Discourse prominence and pe-marking in Romanian. International Review of Pragmatics, 2(2), 298–332.Google Scholar
Chung, E. S. (2018). Second and heritage language acquisition of Korean case drop. Bilingualism, 21(1), 63–79.Google Scholar
Ciovârnache, C., & Avram, L. (2013). Specificity and animacy in the acquisition of DOM in Persian as L2. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 58(4), 417–436.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Martzoukou, M., & Stavrakaki, S. (2010). The perfective past tense in Greek as a second language. Second Language Research, 26(4), 501–525.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of Universal Grammar to adult and child learners-a study of the acquisition of German word order. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht), 2(2), 93–119.Google Scholar
Cohal, A. L. (2014). Mutamenti nel romeno di immigrati in Italia. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Company, C. (2001). Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization: Spanish as a special kind of primary object language. Studies in Language, 25(1), 1–47.Google Scholar
Company, C. (2002). El avance diacrónico de la marcación prepositiva en objetos directos inanimados. In Presente y futuro de la lingüística en España. Actas del II Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística. Vol. II. pp. 146–154. Madrid: SEL.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63, 544–573.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, A. (2000). Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 91–106.Google Scholar
Coşkun-Kunduz, A., & Montrul, S. (2022). Sources of variability in the acquisition of Differential Object Marking by Turkish heritage language children in the United States. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 25, 603–616.Google Scholar
Crain, S., & Lillo-Martin, D. (1999). An introduction to linguistic theory and language acquisition. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1988). Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. Barlow, M. & Ferguson, A. (eds.), Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, pp. 159–180. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information CSLI.Google Scholar
Cukor-Avila, P., & Bailey, G. (2018). Real time and apparent time. In Chambers, J. K. & Schilling, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, pp. 239–262. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Cummins, J., & Danesi, M. (1990). Heritage languages. Toronto: Our Schools/Our Selves Education Foundation.Google Scholar
Cuza, A., Miller, L., Pérez Tattam, R., & Ortiz Vergara, M. (2019). Structure complexity effects in child heritage Spanish: The case of the Spanish personal a. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(6), 1333–1357.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. (2021). Syntactic Change in Contact: Romance. Annual Review of Linguistics, 7, 309–328.Google Scholar
Dabašinskienė, I. (2015). Growing knowledge in Differential Object Marking: The view from L1 Lithuanian. Revue roumaine de linguistique (Romanian Review of Linguistics), 60(4), 369–382. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (1997). The LAD goes to school: A cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics, 35(4), 735–766.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2001). Learning a morphological system without a default: The Polish genitive. Journal of Child Language, 28(3), 545–574.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, E. (2005). Productivity and beyond: Mastering the Polish genitive inflection. Journal of Child Language, 32(1), 191–205.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2006). Low-level schemas or productive rules: The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish case inflections. Language Sciences, 28(1), 120–135.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2018). Experience, aptitude and individual differences in native language ultimate attainment. Cognition, 178, 222–235.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., & Street, J. (2006). Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Language Sciences, 28(6), 604–615.Google Scholar
Dale, R., & Lupyan, G. (2012). Understanding the origins of morphological diversity: The linguistic niche hypothesis. Advances in Complex Systems, 15(03n04), 1150017.Google Scholar
Darcy, N. T. (1953). A review of the literature on the effects of bilingualism upon the measurement of intelligence. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 82(1), 21–57.Google Scholar
Daskalaki, E., Blom, E., Chondrogianni, V., Paradis, J., & Daskalaki, E. (2020). Effects of parental input quality in child heritage language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 47(4), 709–736.Google Scholar
Daskalaki, E., Chondrogianni, V., Blom, E., Argyri, F., & Paradis, J. (2019). Input effects across domains: The case of Greek subjects in child heritage language. Second Language Research, 35(3), 421–445.Google Scholar
David, O. (2015). Clitic doubling and differential object marking: A study in diachronic construction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 7(1), 103–135.Google Scholar
Davies, A. (2012). Native speaker: The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley Online Library.Google Scholar
Davies, A. (2013). Native speakers and native users: Loss and gain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, V. (2011). Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29(1), 123–167.Google Scholar
De Hoop, H., & Malchukov, A. (2007). On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua, 117(9), 1636–1656.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A. (2017). Bilingual language acquisition. Fletcher, In P. & MacWhinney, B., The handbook of child language, pp. 219–250. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, E. (2009). When your native language sounds foreign: A phonetic investigation into first language attrition. Doctoral dissertation, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, E. (2019). Phonetic attrition. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 204–217. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Swart, P., & De Hoop, H. (2007). Semantic aspects of Differential Object Marking. Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung, 11, 598–611.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499–533.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 313–347. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Backwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62(2), 189–200.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R., Alfi-Shabtay, I., & Ravid, D. (2010). Cross-linguistic evidence for the nature of age effects in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(3), 413–438.Google Scholar
Di Biase, B., & Hinger, B. (2015). Exploring the acquisition of Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Spanish as a second language. In Bertoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory, pp. 213–242. EUROSLA monographs series 3. European Second language Association.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1994). The syntax of Romanian: Comparative studies in Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dorian, N. C. (1981). Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Dumitrescu, D. (1997). El parámetro discursivo en la expresión del objeto directo lexical: Español madrileño vs. español porteño. Signo y seña (7), 303–354.Google Scholar
Durán Urrea, E., & Gradoville, M. (2008). De la futuridad a la epistemicidad: la situación actual del tiempo futuro en el español de Nuevo México. Serie Memorias del IX Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, 2, 131–149.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (1989). The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change, 1(3), 245–267.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2000). Language variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eilers, R. E., Oller, K., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (2002). Bilingualism and cultural assimilation in Miami Hispanic children. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escobar, A. M., & Potowski, K. (2015). El español de los Estados Unidos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Etxeberria Zuluaga, E. (2021). Subject Expression in Spanish in Contact with Basque and in Spanish-Basque Bilingualism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Fábregas, A. (2013). Differential Object Marking in Spanish: State of the art. Borealis–An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2(2), 1–80.Google Scholar
Farkas, D., & von Heusinger, K. (2003). Referential stability and differential case marking in Romanian. XV European Summerschool in Logic, Language and Information (ESSLLI), Workshop Direct Reference and Specificity, Vienna, Austria, August, Ms. Universität StuttgartGoogle Scholar
Farley, A. P., & McCollam, K. (2004). Learner readiness and L2 production in Spanish: Processabitily theory on trial. Estudios de lingüística aplicada, 22, 47–69.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive psychology, 47(2), 164–203.Google Scholar
Fhlannchadha, S. N., & Hickey, T. M. (2021). Where are the goalposts? Generational change in the use of grammatical gender in Irish. Languages, 6(1), 33.Google Scholar
Fisiak, J. (1995). Standardization, printing, and the evidence for local dialects: The case of Early Modern English kirk. In W. Winter (ed.), On Languages and Language: The Presidential Adresses of the 1991 Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, pp. 145–166. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Flores, A., López, G., & Radford, J. (2017). Facts on US Latinos, 2015: Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States. Pew Research Center, 18.Google Scholar
Flores, C. (2010). The effect of age on language attrition: Evidences from bilingual returnees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 533–546.Google Scholar
Flores, C. (2012). Differential effects of language attrition in the domains of verb placement and object expression. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 550–567.Google Scholar
Flores, C. (2015). Losing a language in childhood: A longitudinal case study on language attrition. Journal of Child Language, 42(3), 562–590.Google Scholar
Flores, C. (2020). Attrition and reactivation of a childhood language: The case of returnee heritage speakers. Language Learning, 70, 85–121.Google Scholar
Flores, C., & Rinke, E. (2020a). The relevance of language-internal variation in predicting heritage language grammars. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 25–26.Google Scholar
Flores, C., & Rinke, E. (2020b). Factors constraining subject expression in European Portuguese spoken in Hamburg: A bi-generational corpus Investigation. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique: Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics 26, 3–31.Google Scholar
Flores, C., Santos, A. L., Jesus, A., & Marques, R. (2017). Age and input effects in the acquisition of mood in Heritage Portuguese. Journal of Child Language, 44(4), 795–828.Google Scholar
Foroodi Nejad, F. (2011). Towards the identification of linguistic characteristics of specific language impairment in Persian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2001). Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An assessment of some current proposals. Second Language Research, 17(3), 213–247.Google Scholar
Frasson, A., D’Alessandro, R., & van Osch, B. (2021). Subject clitics in microcontact: A case study from heritage Friulian in Argentina and Brazil. Heritage Language Journal, 18(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Fuchs, M., & Piñango, M. M. (2021). Language variation and change through an experimental lens. In Chappel, W. & Drinka, B. (eds.) Spanish socio-historical linguistics: Isolation and contact, pp. 77–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Z., Polinsky, M., & Scontras, G. (2015). The differential representation of number and gender in Spanish. The Linguistic Review, 32(4), 703–737.Google Scholar
Gabriel, C., & Rinke, E. (2010). Information packaging and the rise of clitic doubling in the history of Spanish. In Ferraresi, G. & Lühr, R. (eds.), Diachronic studies on information structure, pp. 63–86. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gallardo, M. and Montrul, S. (in press). Property-by-property transfer in L3 Italian. In Flynn, S., Brown, M., and Fernández-Berkes, E. (eds.), Third language acquisition after the initial state. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gambhir, S., & Gambhir, V. (2013). The maintenance and vitality of Hindi in the United States. Heritage Language Journal, 10(2), 35–42.Google Scholar
Gambhir, S., & Gambhir, V. (2014). The journey of Hindi in the United States. In Wiley, T., Peyton, J., & Christian, D. (eds.), Handbook of heritage, community, and native languages in the United States, pp. 181–190. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
García, O. (2015). Racializing the language practices of US Latinos: Impact on their education. In Cobas, J., Duany, J., & Faegin, J. (eds.), How the United States racializes Latinos, pp. 111–125. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002). Grammatical gender in bilingual and monolingual children: A Spanish morphosyntactic distinction. In Eilers, R. & Oller, K. (eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children, pp. 207–219. Cleveden: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2010). Interface or face to face? The profiles and contours of bilinguals and specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(2), 282.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M., & Thomas, E. M. (2009). Bilingual first-language development: Dominant language takeover, threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism, 12(2), 213.Google Scholar
Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E., & Paradis, J. (1995). Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 22(3), 611–631.Google Scholar
Giannakou, A. (2018). Spanish and Greek subjects in contact: Greek as a heritage language in Chile. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Girard, E. (1995). Intégration de variantes de contact dans la competénce de bilingues de deuxième génération. Unpublished master thesis, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Slattery, T. J., Goldenberg, D., Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Rayner, K. (2011). Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(2), 186.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Starr, J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2015). More than use it or lose it: The number-of-speakers effect on heritage language proficiency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 147–155.Google Scholar
Gor, K. (2014). Raspberry, not a car: Context predictability and a phonological advantage in early and late learners’ processing of speech in noise. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1449.Google Scholar
Gor, K., & Cook, S. (2010). Nonnative processing of verbal morphology: In search of regularity. Language Learning, 60(1), 88–126.Google Scholar
Gor, K., & Vdovina, T. (2010). Frequency, regularity, and input in second language processing of Russian verb inflection. The Slavic and East European Journal, 54(1), 7–31.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Py, B. (1991). La restructuration d’une première langue: l’intégration de variantes de contact dans la compétence de migrants bilingues. La linguistique, 27(2), 35–60.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., Hurtado, N., Marchman, V. A., & Fernald, A. (2014). Language exposure and online processing efficiency in bilingual development. In. Grüter, T. & Paradis, J. (eds.), Input and experience in bilingual development, pp. 15–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2012). The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: personal a. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 701–720.Google Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., & Marinis, T. (2007). Acquiring phenomena at the syntax/semantics interface in L2 Spanish: The personal preposition a. Eurosla Yearbook, 7(1), 67–88.Google Scholar
Gürel, A. (2000). Missing case inflection: Implications for second language acquisition. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 379–390. Sommerville: Cascadilla PressGoogle Scholar
Gürel, A. (2019). Null and overt pronouns in language attrition. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 251–266. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., & Kreiter, J. (2003). Understanding child bilingual acquisition using parent and teacher reports. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(2), 267.Google Scholar
Hackert, S. (2012). The emergence of the English native speaker: A chapter in nineteenth-century linguistic thought. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. (1995). Syntax and morphology in language attrition: A study of five bilingual expatriate Swedes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 153–169.Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, pp. 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1994). Some key features of distributed morphology. In Carnie, A. & Harley, H. (eds.), Papers on phonology and morphology, pp. 275–288. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C., & Campbell, L. (1995). Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. I. (1953). The Norwegian language in America: The bilingual community. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The “failed functional features hypothesis.” Second Language Research, 13(3), 187–226.Google Scholar
Haznedar, B. (2006). Persistent problems with case morphology in L2 acquisition. In Lleó, C (ed.), Interfaces in multilingualism: Acquisition and representation, pp. 179–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Henry, A. (1995). Belfast English and standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, G., & Domínguez, L. (2020). A model for L1 grammatical attrition. Second Language Research, 36(2), 143–165.Google Scholar
Hill, V. (2013). The direct object marker in Romanian: A historical perspective. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 140–151.Google Scholar
Hill, V., & Mardale, A. (2017). On the interaction of Differential Object Marking and clitic doubling in Romanian. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 62(4), 393–409.Google Scholar
Hill, V., & Mardale, A. (2019). Patterns for Differential Object Marking in the history of Romanian. Journal of Historical Syntax, 3(5), 1–47.Google Scholar
Hill, V., & Mardale, A. (2021). The diachrony of Differential Object Marking in Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoot, B. (2017). Narrow presentational focus in heritage Spanish and the syntax‒discourse interface. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(1), 63–95.Google Scholar
Hopp, H., & Schmid, M. S. (2013). Perceived foreign accent in first language attrition and second language acquisition: The impact of age of acquisition and bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(2), 361–394.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. C. (2007). Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition: Grammar and processing. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Groningen. University Library of Groningen.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hržica, G., Palmović, M., Kovačević, M., Voeikova, M. D., Ivanova, K., & Galkina, E. (2015). Animacy and case in the acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Croatian and Russian. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 4(4), 351–368.Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, C. L., & Newport, E. L. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development, 1(2), 151–195.Google Scholar
Hulsen, M. E. H. (2000). Language loss and language processing: Three generations of Dutch migrants in New Zealand. Doctoral dissertation Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Hur, E. (2020). Verbal lexical frequency and DOM in heritage speakers of Spanish. In. Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of Differential Object Marking, pp. 207–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hurtado, A., & Rodríguez, R. (1989). Language as a social problem: The repression of Spanish in South Texas. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 10(5), 401–419.Google Scholar
Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. A. (2004). Shift happens: Spanish and English transmission between parents and their children. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 137–155.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E., & Levine, S. (2002). Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology, 45(3), 337–374.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. (1992). Non-native features of near-native speakers: On the ultimate attainment of childhood L2 learners. Advances in Psychology, 83, 351–368.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2000). Who can become native‐like in a second language? All, some, or none? On the maturational constraints controversy in second language acquisition. Studia linguistica, 54(2), 150–166.Google Scholar
Cervantes, Instituto (2018). El español en el mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2018. Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado.Google Scholar
Irimia, M.A. (2018). Differential objects and other structural objects. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 3(1), 50–51.Google Scholar
Irizarri van Suchtelen, P. (2016). Spanish as a heritage language in the Netherlands: A cognitive linguistic exploration. Doctoral Dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Ivanova-Sullivan, T. (2014). Theoretical and experimental aspects of syntax-discourse interface in heritage grammars. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Iverson, M. (2012). Advanced language attrition of Spanish in contact with Brazilian Portuguese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Jacob, G., & Kırkıcı, B. (2016). The processing of morphologically complex words in a specific speaker group: A masked-priming study with Turkish heritage speakers. The Mental Lexicon, 11(2), 308–328.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2019). Lexical attrition. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 241–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. (2018). Sentence processing in Spanish as a heritage language: A self‐paced reading study of relative clause attachment. Language Learning, 68(3), 598–634.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J., VanPatten, B., & Keating, G. (2016). Relative clause attachment preferences in early and late Spanish-English bilinguals. In Pascual y Cabo, D. (ed.), Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language, pp. 81–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: Its nature, development and origin. New York: H. Holt.Google Scholar
Jia, R., & Paradis, J. (2015). The use of referring expressions in narratives by Mandarin heritage language children and the role of language environment factors in predicting individual differences. Bilingualism, 18(4), 737.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60–99.Google Scholar
Jones, M. C. (1998). Language obsolescence and revitalization: Linguistic change in two sociolinguistically contrasting Welsh communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jourdan, C., & Keesing, R. (1997). From Fisin to Pijin: Creolization in process in the Solomon Islands. Language in Society, 26(3), 401–420.Google Scholar
Junghare, I. Y. (1983). Markers of definiteness in Indo-Aryan. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 9, 116–127.Google Scholar
Kalin, L. (2018). Licensing and Differential Object Marking: The view from Neo‐Aramaic. Syntax, 21(2), 112–159.Google Scholar
Kaltsa, M., Tsimpli, I. M., & Rothman, J. (2015). Exploring the source of differences and similarities in L1 attrition and heritage speaker competence: Evidence from pronominal resolution. Lingua, 164, 266–288.Google Scholar
Kam, C. L. H., & Newport, E. L. (2009). Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology, 59(1), 30–66.Google Scholar
Karayayla, T. (2020). Effects of first language attrition on heritage language input and ultimate attainment. In Brehmer, B. and Treffers-Daller, J. (eds.), Lost in transmission: The role of attrition and input in heritage language development, pp. 34–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D., Jegerski, J., & VanPatten, B. (2016). Online processing of subject pronouns in monolingual and heritage bilingual speakers of Mexican Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 36–49.Google Scholar
Keine, S. (2007). Reanalysing Hindi split-ergativity as a morphological phenomenon. In Trommer, J. & Opitz, A (eds), Linguistische Arbeits Berichte, 85, 73–127.Google Scholar
Kerswill, P. (1996). Children, adolescents, and language change. Language Variation and Change, 8(2), 177–202.Google Scholar
Kerswill, P., & Williams, A. (2000a). Creating a new town koine: Children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society, 29(1), 65–115.Google Scholar
Kerswill, P., & Williams, A. (2000b). “Salience” as an explanatory factor in language change: Evidence from dialect levelling in urban England. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 63–94. Department of Linguistic Science. The University of Reading.Google Scholar
Ketrez, F. N. (2015). Incomplete acquisition of the Turkish Differential Object Marking. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique-Romanian Review of Linguistics, 60(4), 421–430.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H. (2007). Binding interpretations in adult bilingualism: A study of language transfer in L2 learners and heritage speakers of Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H., Montrul, S., & Yoon, J. (2009). Binding interpretations of anaphors by Korean heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 16(1), 3–35.Google Scholar
Kim, J.H., Montrul, S., & Yoon, J. (2010). Dominant language influence in acquisition and attrition of binding: Interpretation of the Korean reflexive caki. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(1), 73–84.Google Scholar
Kim, J. Y. (2020). Discrepancy between heritage speakers’ use of suprasegmental cues in the perception and production of Spanish lexical stress. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(2), 233–250.Google Scholar
Kim, K., O’Grady, W., & Schwartz, B. D. (2018). Case in heritage Korean. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(2), 252–282.Google Scholar
Kırkıcı, B., & Clahsen, H. (2013). Inflection and derivation in native and non-native language processing: Masked priming experiments on Turkish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 776.Google Scholar
Knightly, L. M., Jun, S.-A., Oh, J. S., & Au, T. K.-f. (2003). Production benefits of childhood overhearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(1), 465–474.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, 1(3), 199–244.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (2001). Syntactic change. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, pp. 699–729. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell (2001),Google Scholar
Kroch, A. & Taylor, A. (1997). The syntax of verb movement in Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In van Kemenade, A. & Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, pp. 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krogstad, J. M., & Neo-Bustamante, L. (2020). Key facts about US Latinos for national Hispanic heritage month. Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
Kroll, J., Bobb, S., & Hoshino, N. (2014). Two languages in mind: Bilingualism as a tool to investigate language, cognition, and the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 159–163.Google Scholar
Kulikov, L., Malchukov, A., & de Swart, P. (2006). Case, valency and transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T. (2012). Specific and generic subjects in the Italian of German-Italian simultaneous bilinguals and L2 learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 736–756.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T., Barton, D., Hailer, K., Stangen, I., Lein, T., & van de Weijer, J. (2014). Foreign accent in adult simultaneous bilinguals. Heritage Language Journal, 11(2), 123–150.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1989). The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change, 1(1), 85–97.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change. Volume 2: Social factors. Language in society. Oxford.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2006). The social stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2016). Afterword: Where are we now? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(4), 581–602.Google Scholar
Laca, B. (1995). Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en español. In Pensado Ruiz, C. (ed.), El complemento directo, pp. 61–92. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Laca, B. (2006). El objeto directo. In. Company, C. (ed.) Sintaxis histórica del español, 1, pp. 423–460. México, Fondo de Cultura Económica-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Laleko, O. (2018). What is difficult about grammatical gender? Evidence from heritage Russian. Journal of Language Contact, 11(2), 233–267.Google Scholar
Laleko, O., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Marking topic or marking case: A comparative investigation of heritage Japanese and heritage Korean. Heritage Language Journal, 10(2), 40–64.Google Scholar
Laleko, O., & 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(4), 396–439.Google Scholar
Laleko, O. (2022). Word order and information structure in heritage and L2 Russian: Focus and unaccusativity effects in subject inversion. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13670069211063674.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition Second Language Research, 25(2), 173–227.Google Scholar
Leal Méndez, T, Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2015). Discourse-sensitive clitic-doubled dislocations in heritage Spanish. Lingua, 155, 85–97.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59–67.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2004). Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. (2008). Specificity in clitic doubling and in Differential Object Marking. Probus, 20(1), 33–66.Google Scholar
Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquistion from a usage-based perspective. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1999). The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. (2020). Born to parse: How children select their languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D., & Westergaard, M. (2007). Language acquisition and language change: Inter‐relationships. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 396–415.Google Scholar
Linck, J., Kroll, J., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1507–1515.Google Scholar
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 251–285.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (2001). Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(2), 275–302.Google Scholar
López, L. (2012). Indefinite objects: scrambling, choice functions, and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Cambridge.Google Scholar
López Otero, J. C. (2020). On the acceptability of the Spanish DOM among Romanian-Spanish bilinguals. In Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of Differential Object Marking, pp. 161–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Luján, M., & Parodi, C. (2001). Clitic-doubling and the acquisition of agreement in Spanish. In. Gutiérrez Rexach, J. & Silva-Villar, L., Current issues in Spanish syntax and semantics, pp. 193–220. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lukyanchenko, A., & Gor, K. (2011). Perceptual correlates of phonological representations in heritage speakers and L2 learners. Proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University conference on language development, pp. 414–426. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lundquist, B., Rodina, Y., Sekerina, I. A., & Westergaard, M. (2016). Gender change in Norwegian dialects: Comprehension is affected before production. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(open-issue).Google Scholar
Lunn, P. (2002). Tout se tient in Dominican Spanish. In Lee, J. F., Geeslin, K. L., & Clemens, J. C (eds.) Structure, meaning, and acquisition in Spanish: Papers from the 4th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, pp. 65–72. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2010). Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PloS one, 5(1), e8559.Google Scholar
Łyskawa, P., Maddeaux, R., Melara, E., & Nagy, N. (2016). Heritage speakers follow all the rules. Language contact and convergence in Polish devoicing. Heritage Language Journal, 13, 219–244.Google Scholar
Łyskawa, P., & Nagy, N. (2020). Case marking variation in heritage Slavic languages in Toronto: Not so different. Language Learning, 70, 122–156.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2019). Language attrition and the competition model. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 7–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Snow, C. (1990). The child language data exchange system: An update. Journal of Child Language, 17(2), 457–472.Google Scholar
Magier, D. (1987). The transitivity prototype: Evidence from Hindi. Word, 38(3), 187–199.Google Scholar
Mahajan, A. K. (1990). The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory, Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Major, R. (1992). Losing English as a first language. The Modern Language Journal, 76(2), 190–208.Google Scholar
Manoliu, M. M. (1993). From staging strategies to syntax: Clitic-copying and prepositional direct objects in Romanian. In Historical Linguistics 1989, p. 297. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mardale, A. (2008). Microvariation within Differential Object Marking. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 53(4), 448–467.Google Scholar
Mardale, A. (2010a). Éléments d’analyse du marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues romanes. Faits de Langues, 35(2), 161–196.Google Scholar
Mardale, A. (2010b). Les prépositions fonctionnelles du roumain: études comparatives sur le marquage casuel. Editions L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Mardale, A., & Karatsareas, P. (2020). Differential Object Marking and language contact: An introduction to this special issue. Journal of Language Contact, 13(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Masica, C. (1982). Identified object marking in Hindi and other languages. Topics in Hindi linguistics, 2, 16–50.Google Scholar
Mason, S. A. (2019). The influence of task factors and language background on morphological processing in Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I. (1993). First-language acquisition after childhood differs from second-language acquisition: The case of American Sign Language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 36(6), 1258–1270.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I., & Kluender, R. (2018). Rethinking the critical period for language: New insights into an old question from American Sign Language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(5), 886–905.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. (2007). Language interrupted: Signs of non-native acquisition in standard language grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2010). Two first languages: Early grammatical development in bilingual children. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2011a). First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2011b). Bilingual language acquisition and theories of diachronic change: Bilingualism as cause and effect of grammatical change. Bilingualism, 14(2), 121–145.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2013). Heritage language learners: Unprecedented opportunities for the study of grammars and their development? Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4), 225–236.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2018). Early child second language acquisition: French gender in German children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(4), 656–673.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2014). Heritage language learners: Incomplete acquisition of grammar in early childhood. Arias, A.E., Gutiérrez, M., Landa, A., & Ocampo, F. (eds.). Perspectives in the study of Spanish language variation, pp. 397–417. Galicia: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Elsig, M., & Rinke, E. (2013). Language acquisition and change. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M., & Müller, N. (1992). Finiteness and verb placement in early child grammars: Evidence from simultaneous acquisition of French and German in bilinguals. In Meisel, J. (ed.), The acquisition of verb placement, pp. 109–138. Springer.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, pp. 168–181. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Mohanan, T. (1993). Case alternation on objects in Hindi. South Asian Language Review, 3, 1–30.Google Scholar
Mohanan, T. (1994a). Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language (CSLI).Google Scholar
Mohanan, T. (1994b). Case OCP: A constraint on word order in Hindi. In Butt, M., Holloway King, T., & Ramchand, G. (eds.), Theoretical perspectives on word order in South Asian languages, pp. 185–216. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language (CSLI).Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2002). Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(1), 39–68.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125–142.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2006a). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism as an instance of language change. In Lefebvre, C., White, L., & Jourdens, C. (eds.) L2 Acquisition and creole genesis. dialogues, pp. 379–400. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2006b). On the bilingual competence of Spanish heritage speakers: Syntax, lexical-semantics and processing. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10(1), 37–69.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(2), 239–269.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2010). How similar are adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers? Spanish clitics and word order. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(1), 167–207.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2013a). How native are heritage speakers? A look at gender agreement in Spanish. The Heritage language Journal, 10(2), 15–39.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2013b). Differential Object Marking in Argentine Spanish An experimental study. In Rodríguez Louro, C. & Colantoni, L. (eds.), Perspectivas teóricas y experimentales sobre el español de Argentina, pp. 207–228, Frankfurt: Verveut Iberomaericana.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2014). Structural changes in Spanish in the United States: Differential Object Marking in Spanish heritage speakers across generations. Lingua, 151, 177–196.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2016a). The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2016b). Dominance and proficiency in early and late bilingualism. In Treffers-Daller, J.& Silva-Corvalán, S.(eds.), Language dominance in bilinguals: Issues of measurement and operationalization, pp. 15–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2016c). Losing your case? Dative experiencers in Mexican Spanish and heritage speakers in the United States. In Pascual y Cabo, D. (ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language, pp. 99–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2018). The bottleneck hypothesis extends to heritage language acquisition. In Choo, J., Iverson, M., Judy, T., Leal Méndez, T., & Shimanskaya, E. (eds.). Meaning and structure in second language acquisition, pp. 149–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2019). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish by Romanian speakers. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 185–219.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2021). Representational and computational changes in heritage language grammars. Heritage Language Journal, 18(2), 1–30.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bateman, N. (2020a). Vulnerability and stability of Differential Object Marking in Romanian heritage speakers. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1): 119.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bateman, N. (2020b). Differential Object Marking in Romanian as a heritage language. In Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of Differential Object Marking, pp. 261–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R. M., & Bhatia, A. (2012). Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(2), 141–176.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2009). Back to basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 363–383.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatia, A., Bhatt, R., & Puri, V. (2019). Case marking in Hindi as the weaker language. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 461.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R. (2015). Differential Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2009). Back to basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism, 12(3), 363–383.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2010). Is grammar instruction beneficial for heritage language learners? Dative case marking in Spanish. Heritage Language Journal, 7(1), 47–73.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Davidson, J., De La Fuente, I., & Foote, R. (2014). Early language experience facilitates the processing of gender agreement in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism, 17(1), 118–138.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., De La Fuente, I., Davidson, J., & Foote, R. (2013). The role of experience in the acquisition and production of diminutives and gender in Spanish: Evidence from L2 learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research, 29(1), 87–118.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Dias, R., & Santos, H. (2011). Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer. Second Language Research, 27(1), 21–58.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Foote, R., & Perpiñán, S. (2008). Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: The effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning, 58(3), 503–553.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Gürel, A. (2015). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish by Turkish speakers. In Perpiñán, S. & Judy, T. (eds.), The acquisition of Spanish in understudied language pairings, pp. 281–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Ionin, T. (2010). Transfer effects in the interpretation of definite articles by Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 449–473.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & 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., & Polinsky, M. (2011). Why not heritage speakers? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 58–62.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2021). The Cambridge handbook of heritage languages and linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(3), 351–398.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N. (2013). Differential Object Marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20(2), 109–132.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Yoon, J. (2019). Morphology in language attrition. Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mueller Gathercole, V. (2007). Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: A constructivist account of morphosyntactic development in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 224–247.Google Scholar
Nagy, N. (2015). A sociolinguistic view of null subjects and VOT in Toronto heritage languages. Lingua, 164, 309–327.Google Scholar
Nagy, N., & Kochetov, A. (2013). Voice onset time across the generations: A cross-linguistic study of contact-induced change. In Siemund, P., Gogolin, I., Schulz, M., & Davydova, J. (eds.), Multilingualism and language contact in urban areas: Acquisition–development–teaching–communication, pp. 19–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nesteruk, O. (2010). Heritage language maintenance and loss among the children of Eastern European immigrants in the USA. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(3), 271–286.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Lee, M. & 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, 283–294.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Kwak, H.-Y., Lee, O.-S., & Lee, M. (2011). An emergentist perspective on heritage language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 223–245.Google Scholar
Oller, D., Jarmulowicz, L., Gibson, T., Hoff, E., Caunt-Milton, H., Kulatilake, S., & Woo, I. (2007). First language vocabulary loss in early bilinguals during language immersion: A possible role for suppression. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 474–484. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Orfitelli, R., & Polinsky, M. (2017). When performance masquerades as comprehension: Grammaticality judgments in non-native speakers. In Kopotev, M., Lyashevskaya, O., & Mustajoki, A. (eds.), Quantitative approaches to the Russian language, pp. 197–214. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ortiz Vergara, M. (2013). The development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish-English bilingual children. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Purdue University.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R., & Zentella, A. C. (2011). Spanish in New York: Language contact, dialectal leveling, and structural continuity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paikeday, T. M., & Chomsky, N. (1985). The native speaker is dead! An informal discussion of a linguistic myth with Noam Chomsky and other linguists, philosophers, psychologists, and lexicographers. Mississauga, Ontario: Paikeday Pub.Google Scholar
Pakulak, E., & Neville, H. J. (2010). Proficiency differences in syntactic processing of monolingual native speakers indexed by event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2728–2744.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., Varlokosta, S., Spyropoulos, V., Kaili, H., Prokou, S., & Revithiadou, A. (2011). Case morphology and word order in second language Turkish: Evidence from Greek learners. Second Language Research, 27(2), 173–204.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(3), 213–237.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or interdependent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., Tremblay, A., & Crago, M. (2014). French-English bilingual children’s sensitivity to child-level and language-level input factors in morphosyntactic acquisition. In Grüter, T. & Paradis, J. (eds.), Input and experience in bilingual development, pp. 161–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Parodi, C. (2008). Stigmatized Spanish inside the classroom and out. In. Brinton, D., Kagan, O., & Bauckus, S. (eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging, pp. 199–214. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D. (2013). Agreement Reflexes of Emerging Optionality in Heritage Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.Google Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D. (2020). Examining the role of cross-generational attrition in the development of Spanish as a heritage language: Evidence from gustar-like verbs. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 10(1), 86–108.Google Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D., & Vela, G. (2020). Futurity and probability in Spanish as a heritage language. In Morales-Front, A., Ferreira, M., Leow, D., & Sanz, C. (eds.), Hispanic linguistics: Current issues and new directions, pp. 285–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pearson, B. Z., & Amaral, L. (2014). Interactions between input factors in bilingual language acquisition. In Grüter, T. & Paradis, J. (eds.), Input and experience in bilingual development, pp. 99–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (2014). Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Cortés, S., Putnam, M. T., & Sánchez, L. (2019). Differential access: Asymmetries in accessing features and building representations in heritage language grammars. Languages, 4(4), 81.Google Scholar
Perpiñán, S. (2011). Optionality in bilingual native grammars. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 2(2), 312–341.Google Scholar
Perpiñán, S. (2018). On convergence, ongoing language change, and crosslinguistic influence in direct object expression in Catalan–Spanish bilingualism. Languages, 3(2), 14.Google Scholar
Pineda, A. (2021). The development of DOM in the diachrony of Catalan: (dis)similarities with respect to Spanish. In Kabatek, J., Obrist, P. & Wall, A. (eds.), Differential Object Marking in Romance: The third wave, pp. 243–278. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pires, A. (2009). Acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese in late childhood: Implications for syntactic theory and language change. Pires, In A. & Rothman, J.. Minimalist inquiries into child and adult language acquisition: Case studies across Portuguese, pp. 129–154 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pires, A., & Rothman, J. (2009). Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for competence divergence across heritage grammars. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 211–238.Google Scholar
Place, S., & Hoff, E. (2011). Properties of dual language exposure that influence 2‐year‐olds’ bilingual proficiency. Child Development, 82(6), 1834–1849.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2006). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic linguistics, 14(2),191–262.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2007). Reaching the end point and stopping midway: Different scenarios in the acquisition of Russian. Russian Linguistics, 31(2), 157–199.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 Corvett, G. & Noonan, M. (eds.), Case and grammatical relations, pp. 263–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language: A case for attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 305–328.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2016). Structure vs. use in heritage language. Linguistics Vanguard, 2(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2018). Heritage languages and their speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., & Scontras, G. (2020). Understanding heritage languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 4–20.Google Scholar
Pomino, N., Schmitz, K., & Neuburger, K. A. (2018). Differential Object Marking in Spanish as a heritage language in Germany. Arbeitspapier Nr. 129, 1.Google Scholar
Ponelis, F., & Ponelis, F. A. (1993). The development of Afrikaans. Bern: Peter Lang Pub Incorporated.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., Lealess, A., & Dion, N. (2013). The evolving grammar of the French subjunctive. International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics, 25(1), 139–195.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., & Levey, S. (2010). Contact-induced grammatical change: A cautionary tale. In Auer, P. & Schmidt, J. (eds.), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation, 1, pp. 391–419. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton,Google Scholar
Poplack, S., Zentz, L., & Dion, N. (2012). What counts as (contact-induced) change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(2), 247–254.Google Scholar
Potowski, K. (2008). I was raised talking like my mom. The influence of mothers in the development of MexiRicans’ phonological and lexical features. In Niño-Murcia, M. & Rothman, J. (eds.), Bilingualism and identity. Spanish at the crossroads with other languages, pp. 201–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Prasada, S., & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(1), 1–56.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16(2), 103–133.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. T., Perez-Cortes, S., & Sánchez, L. (2017). Language attrition and the feature reassembly hypothesis. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 18–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. T., & Sánchez, L. (2013). What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition?: A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(4), 478–508.Google Scholar
Requena, P. E., & Dracos, M. (2020). Spanish copula selection with adjectives in school-aged bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(3), 548–567.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. R. (1999). African American vernacular English: Features, evolution, educational implications. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rinke, E. (2016). 19. The role of the interfaces in syntactic change. In Fischer, S. & Gabriel, C. (eds.), Manuals of grammatical interfaces in romance, pp. 587–606. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rinke, E., & Flores, C. (2014). Morphosyntactic knowledge of clitics by Portuguese heritage bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(4), 681–699.Google Scholar
Rinke, E., Flores, C., & Barbosa, P. (2018). Null objects in the spontaneous speech of monolingual and bilingual speakers of European Portuguese. Probus, 30(1), 93–119.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(3), 501–557.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Ordóñez, I. (2017). Reexamining differential object marking as a linguistic contact-phenomenon in Gernika Basque. Journal of Language Contact, 10(2), 318–352.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M. (2007). The syntax of objects: Agree and Differential Object Marking. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M. (2008). The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish. Probus, 20(1), 111–145.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Ordóñez, I. (2017). Reexamining differential object marking as a linguistic contact-phenomenon in Gernika Basque. Journal of Language Contact, 10(2), 318–352.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (1999). Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 2(3), 169–186.Google Scholar
Rosa, J. (2019). Looking like a language, sounding like a race. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621–647.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2007). Heritage speaker competence differences, language change, and input type: Inflected infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(4), 359–389.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2014). A prolegomenon to the construct of the native speaker: Heritage speaker bilinguals are natives too! Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 93–98.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., Bel, A., & Sánchez, L. (2020). Animacy hierarchy effects on L2 processing of Differential Object Marking. In Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of Differential Object Marking, pp. 183–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sampson, G., Gil, D., & Trudgill, P. (2009). Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sánchez, L. (2003). Quechua-Spanish bilingualism: Interference and convergence in functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Walker, N. (2019). Comprehension of Spanish relative and passive clauses by early bilinguals and second language learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. (1979). The genesis of a language. In Hill, K.C (ed.), The genesis of language, pp. 23–47. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. (2002). Linguistic outcomes of language contact. In Chambers, J., Trudgill, P., & Shilling Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, pp. 638–668. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht), 6(2), 93–124.Google Scholar
Schlyter, S. (1993). The weaker language in bilingual Swedish-French children. In Hyltenstam, K. & Viberg, A. (eds.), Progression and regression in language: Sociocultural, neuropsychological and linguistic perspectives, pp. 289–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. (2019). The impact of frequency of use and length of residence on L1 attrition. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 288–303. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, M., & Hopp, H. (2014). Comparing foreign accent in L1 attrition and L2 acquisition: Range and rater effects. Language Testing, 31(3), 367–388.Google Scholar
Schmid, M., & Köpke, B. (2017a). The relevance of first language attrition to theories of bilingual development. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(6), 637–667.Google Scholar
Schmid, M., & Köpke, B. (2017b). When is a bilingual an attriter? Response to the commentaries. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(6), 763–770.Google Scholar
Schmid, M., Köpke, B., & al., e. (2019). The Oxford handbook of language attrition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. S., & Jarvis, S. (2014). Lexical access and lexical diversity in first language attrition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(4), 729–748.Google Scholar
Schmid, M., & Köpke, B. (2017). The relevance of first language attrition to theories of bilingual development. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(6), 637–667.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. (1985b). Young people’s Dyirbal: An example of language death from Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, E. (2019). Morphological attrition. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 228–240. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1994). Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar: Papers in honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW workshops, pp. 317–368. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., & Fuchs, Z. (2018). In support of representational economy: Agreement in heritage Spanish. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching IRAL, 10(1–4), 209–232.Google Scholar
Senghas, A. (1995). Children’s contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., Filiaci, F., & Baldo, M. (2009). Bilingual children’s sensitivity to specificity and genericity: Evidence from metalinguistic awareness. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(2), 239–257.Google Scholar
Shain, C., & Tonhauser, J. (2010). The synchrony and diachrony of Differential Object Marking in Paraguayan Guaraní. Language Variation and Change, 22(3), 321.Google Scholar
Shakkour, E. (2021). The effect of full-immersion schooling on ultimate attainment, native-likeness, and dominance in Arabic-English bilinguals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Sharma, D. (2005a). Dialect stabilization and speaker awareness in non‐native varieties of English 1. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(2), 194–224.Google Scholar
Sharma, D. (2005b). Language transfer and discourse universals in Indian English article use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(4), 535–566.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M., Truscott, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Explaining change in transition grammars. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M. (eds.), Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 560–580. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sherkina-Lieber, M. (2011). Comprehension of Labrador Inuttitut functional morphology by receptive bilinguals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Shin, N., & Miller, K. (2021). Children’s acquisition of morphosyntactic variation. Language Learning and Development, 18, 1–26.Google Scholar
Shin, N. L., & Otheguy, R. (2013). Social class and gender impacting change in bilingual settings: Spanish subject pronoun use in New York. Language in society, 42(4), 429–452.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2014). Bilingual language acquisition: Spanish and English in the first six years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2018). Simultaneous bilingualism: Early developments, incomplete later outcomes? International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(5), 497–512.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R.M.W. (ed.) Grammatical categories in Australian languages, pp. 112–171. New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Singh, M. (1994). Theoretical perspectives on word order in South Asian languages, pp. 217–235. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information CSLI.Google Scholar
Singleton, J. L., & Newport, E. L. (2004). When learners surpass their models: The acquisition of American sign language from inconsistent input. Cognitive Psychology, 49(4), 370–407.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, K. (2014). A typological perspective on differential object marking. Linguistics, 52(2), 281–313.Google Scholar
Song, M., O’Grady, W., Cho, S. and Lee, M. (2017), The learning and teaching of Korean in community schools. In Kim, Y.-H. (ed.), Korean Language in America 2, pp. 111–127. Honolulu, HI: American Association of Teachers of Korean.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in non native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9(1), 22–47.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Syntactic optionality in non-native grammars. Second Language Research, 16(2), 93–102.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7( 2), 143–145.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2005). Syntactic optionality at interfaces. In Cornips, L. & Corrigan, K. (eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social, pp. 55–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1 (1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2020). L1 attrition in a wider perspective. Second Language Research, 36(2), 203–206.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., Serratrice, L., Filiaci, F., & Baldo, M. (2009). Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: Testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. Lingua, 119, 460–477.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (2014). The languages of the Jews: A sociolinguistic history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. G. (1999). The languages of Israel: Policy, ideology, and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Street, J. A., & Dąbrowska, E. (2010). More individual differences in language attainment: How much do adult native speakers of English know about passives and quantifiers? Lingua, 120(8), 2080–2094.Google Scholar
Su, I. (2001). Transfer of pragmatic competences: A bi‐directional perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 87–102.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A., & D’Arcy, A. (2009). Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language, 85(1), 58–108.Google Scholar
Thomason, S., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thordardottir, E. (2015). The relationship between bilingual exposure and morphosyntactic development. International Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 17(2), 97–114.Google Scholar
Thordardottir, E. (2019). Amount trumps timing in bilingual vocabulary acquisition: Effects of input in simultaneous and sequential school-age bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(1), 236–255.Google Scholar
Thornton, R. (1995). Referentiality and wh-movement in child English: Juvenile D-Linkuency. Language Acquisition, 4(1–2), 139–175.Google Scholar
Thurston, W. R. (1987). Processes of change in the languages of north-western New Britain. Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National UniversityGoogle Scholar
Ticio, E. (2015). Differential Object Marking in Spanish-English early bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(1), 62–90.Google Scholar
Ticio, E., & Avram, L. (2015). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish and Romanian: Semantic scales or semantic features. Revue Romaine de Linguistique, 4, 383–402.Google Scholar
Tigău, A. (2010). Towards an account of Differential Object Marking in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 137–159.Google Scholar
Tippets, I. R. (2010). Differential Object Marking in Spanish: A quantitative variationist study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research: “Clozing” the gap. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(3), 339–372.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1989). Contact and isolation in linguistic change. In Breivik, L. & Jahr, E. (eds.), Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes, pp. 227–237. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (2001). Contact and simplification: Historical baggage and directionality in linguistic change. Linguistic Typology, 5(2/3), 371–374.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating Interfaces: L2 performance in syntax–semantics and syntax–discourse phenomena. In Caunt-Nulton, H., Kulatilake, S., & Woo, I.-H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 653–664. Cascadilla PressGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter-resetting in L2. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(10), 717–726.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Sanz, C. (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition, pp. 141–178. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2013). Current issues in multilingual first language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 21–50.Google Scholar
Uziel-Karl, S. (2015). The development of Differential Object Marking in child Hebrew. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 4, 339–350.Google Scholar
Valdés, G. (2006). Developing minority language resources: The case of Spanish in California. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Valdés, G. M. (1995). Bilingües y bilingüismo en los Estados Unidos: la política lingüística en una época antiinmigrante. Alteridades, 10, 25–42.Google Scholar
van Osch, B., Hulk, A., Sleeman, P., & van Suchtelen, P. I. (2014). Gender agreement in interface contexts in the oral production of heritage speakers of Spanish in the Netherlands. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 31(1), 93–106.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1987). Classroom learners’ acquisition of ser and estar: Accounting for the data. Foreign language learning: A research perspective, pp. 61–76. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Veltman, C. (1983a). Anglicization in the United States: Language environment and language practice of American adolescents. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 44, 99–114.Google Scholar
Veltman, C. (1988). Modelling the language shift process of Hispanic immigrants. International Migration Review, 22(4), 545–562.Google Scholar
Virve-Anneli, V., Theakston, A., & Lieven, E. (2020). Acquisition of symmetrical and asymmetrical Differential Object Marking in Estonian. In Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of Differential Object Marking, pp. 21–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Voinea, D. V. (2014a). Identity and native language usage in groups of Romanian immigrants in the United States of America. In Bunăiașu, C., Negrea, X., & Țenescu, A. (eds.), Creativity, imaginary, language, pp. 116–125. Editura Sitech.Google Scholar
Voinea, D. V. (2014b). A demographic portrait of Romanian immigrants in California. Social Sciences and Education Research Review, 1(1), 63–70.Google Scholar
Von Heusinger, K., & Chiriacescu, S. (2009). Definite “bare” nouns and pe-marking in Romanian. In Espinal, M.T., Leonetti, M., & McNally, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the IV Nereus International Workshop “Definiteness and DP Structure in Romance Languages”. Arbeitspapier 124. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, 63–82.Google Scholar
Von Heusinger, K., & Chiriacescu, S. (2013). The discourse structuring potential of Differential Object Marking: The case of indefinite and definite direct objects in Romanian. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 58(4), 439–456.Google Scholar
Von Heusinger, K., & Gáspár, E. O. (2008). Triggering and blocking effects in the diachronic development of DOM in Romanian. Probus, 20(1), 67–110.Google Scholar
Von Heusinger, K., & Kaiser, G. A. (2005). The evolution of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. In Von Heusinger, K., Kaiser, G., & Stark, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop: Specificity and the Evolution/Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance, Arbeitspapier 119. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, 33–70.Google Scholar
Von Heusinger, K., & Kaiser, G. A. (2007). Differential Object Marking and the lexical semantics of verbs in Spanish. In Kaiser, G.A. & Leonetti, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages,” Arbeitspapier 122. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, pp. 85–110.Google Scholar
Von Heusinger, K., & Kaiser, G. A. (2011). Affectedness and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Morphology, 21(3–4), 593–617.Google Scholar
Warsi, M. (2003). Heritage language teaching: Issues regarding Hindi-Urdu in the United States. South Asian Language Review, 13(1–2), 137–145.Google Scholar
Weerman, F. (1993). The diachronic consequences of first and second language acquisition: The change from OV to VO. Linguistics, 31(5), 901–931.Google Scholar
Weisgerber, L. (1966). Das Ziel und die Aufgaben des muttersprachlichen Unterrichts. Handbuch des Deutschunterrichts im ersten bis zehnten Schuljahr, Bd, 1, 27–44.Google Scholar
Weissenrieder, M. (1985). Exceptional uses of the accusative a. Hispania, 68(2), 393–398.Google Scholar
Weissenrieder, M. (1990). Variable uses of the direct-object marker A. Hispania, 73(1), 223–231.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. (2017). Gradience and gradualness vs abruptness. In. Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax, pp. 446–466. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. (2021a). Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition. Second Language Research, 37(3), 379–407.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. (2021b). Language acquisition, microcues, parameters, and morphosyntactic change. In Janda, R.D., Joseph, Brian D, & Vance, B.S. (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, Vol. 2, Ch. 17, pp. 357–374. Malden: Wiley BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. R. (2005). Norwegian child language and the history of English: The interaction of syntax and information. In Manaffert, K., Bull, T. & Killie, K. (eds.), Contexts – historical, social, linguistic: Studies in celebration of Toril Swan, pp. 293–310. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence1. Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 95–110.Google Scholar
White, L., & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12(3), 233–265.Google Scholar
Woolford, E. (1999). Animacy hierarchy effects on object agreement. New Dimensions in African Linguistics and Languages, 3, 205–215.Google Scholar
Woolford, E., (2003). Nominative objects and case locality. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, Vol. 11, pp. 539–568. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Woolford, E. (2006). Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(1), 111–130.Google Scholar
Woolford, E. (2009). Differential subject marking at argument structure, syntax, and PF. Differential subject marking, pp. 17–40. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wray, A., & Grace, G. W. (2007). The consequences of talking to strangers: Evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua, 117(3), 543–578.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2016). The price of productivity: How children learn and break rules of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C. D. (2000). Internal and external forces in language change. Language Variation and Change, 12(3), 231–250.Google Scholar
Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2006). Assessing language dominance in bilingual acquisition: A case for mean length utterance differentials. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal, 3(2), 97–116.Google Scholar
Zapata, G. C., Sánchez, L., & Toribio, A. J. (2005). Contact and contracting Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(3–4), 377–395.Google Scholar
Zentella, A. C. (2002). Latin@ languages and identities. In Suárez Orozco, M. & Páez, M. (eds.), Latinos: Remaking America, pp. 321–338. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar