Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:42:10.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TERMINOLOGY CHOICE IN GENERATIVE ACQUISITION RESEARCH

THE CASE OF “INCOMPLETE ACQUISITION” IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE GRAMMARS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2019

Laura Domínguez ,
Glyn Hicks  and
Roumyana Slabakova
Laura Domínguez*
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Glyn Hicks
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Roumyana Slabakova
Affiliation:
University of Southampton and NTNU, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laura Domínguez, University of Southampton, Modern Languages and Linguistics, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pascual y Cabo and Rothman (2012) and Kupisch and Rothman (2018) argue against the use of term incomplete to characterize the grammars of heritage speakers, claiming that it reflects a negative evaluation of the linguistic knowledge of these bilingual speakers. We examine the reasons for and against the use of “incomplete” across acquisition contexts and argue that its use is legitimate on both theoretical and empirical grounds. Our goal is to present arguments for using the term, not to evaluate the scientific validity of incomplete acquisition over other possible accounts. Although our conclusion is that the term should not be abandoned, we advocate a position whereby researchers consider the possible negative impact of the terminology they use and how they use it. This position aims to resolve the tension between the need to prioritize scientific effectiveness and the need to avoid terminology that can be negatively misconstrued by the general public.

Type
Critical Commentary
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 241 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

Baker, M. C. (2008). The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Biberauer, T. (Ed.), The limits of syntactic variation (pp. 351–373). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, M.-L. (1998). L2 acquisition and obligatory head movement: English speaking learners of German and the Local Impairment Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 311–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, M. (2005). Learning verbs without arguments: The case of raising verbs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 165–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, M. (2006). There began to be a learnability puzzle. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, M. (2009). The role of NP animacy and expletives in verb learning. Language Acquisition, 16, 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013a). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013b). Defining an “ideal” heritage speaker: Theoretical and methodological challenges. Reply to peer commentaries. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68, 706–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. (1984). Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and romance languages (Vol. 13). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar
Borer, H., & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 123–172). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H., & Wexler, K. (1992). Bi-unique relations and the maturation of grammatical principles. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10, 147–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carreira, M. (2016). A general framework and supporting strategies for teaching mixed classes. In Pascualy Cabo, D. (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 159–176). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle 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, 40–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chien, Y. C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1, 225–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cuza, A. (2016). The status of interrogative subject–verb inversion in Spanish–English bilingual children. Lingua, 180, 124–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Houwer, A. (1995). Bilingual language acquisition. In Fletcher, P. and MacWhinney, B. (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 219–250). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Domínguez, L. (2009). Charting the route of bilingual development: Contributions from heritage speakers’ early acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domínguez, L. (2013). Understanding interfaces: Second language acquisition and first language attrition of Spanish subject realization and word order variation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores, C., & Barbosa, P. (2014). When reduced input leads to delayed acquisition: A study on the acquisition of clitic placement by Portuguese heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18, 304–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores, C., Santos, A., Jesus, A., & Marques, R. (2017). Age and input effects in the acquisition of mood in Heritage Portuguese. Journal of Child Language, 44, 795–828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genesee, F. (1989). Early bilingual development: One language or two? Journal of Child Language, 16, 161–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodzinsky, Y., & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 69–101.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y.-H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The “failed functional features hypothesis.” Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Franceschina, F. (2004). Explaining the acquisition and non-acquisition of determiner-noun gender concord in French and Spanish. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 32, 175–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22, 269–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, C., & Wexler, K. (2007). The late development of raising: What children seem to think about seem. In Davies, W. D. & Dubinsky, S. (Eds.), New horizons in the analysis of control and raising (pp. 35–70). Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, C., Orfitelli, R., & Wexler, K. (2008). The acquisition of raising reconsidered. In Belikova, A., Meroni, L., & Umeda, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd conference on generative approaches to language acquisition North America (pp. 135–146). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hsu, A. S., & Chater, N. (2010). The logical problem of language acquisition: A probabilistic perspective. Cognitive Science, 34, 972–1016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyams, N. (2011). Missing subjects in early child language. In de Villiers, J. & Roeper, T. (Eds.), The handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition (pp. 13–52). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S. (2009). Semantic scaffolding in first language acquisition: The acquisition of raising-to-object and object control (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J. (2018). Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22, 564–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T., Belikova, A., Özçelik, Ö., Stangen, I., & White, L. (2016). Restrictions on definiteness in the grammars of German–Turkish heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H., & Lidz, J. (2017). The argument from the poverty of the stimulus. In Roberts, I. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of universal grammar (pp. 221–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A., & Yang, C. D. (2002). Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 18, 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2001). From bilingual language acquisition to theories of diachronic change. Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit—Working Papers in Multilingualism, B 30. University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2004). The bilingual child. In Bhatia, T. K. & Ritchie, W. C. (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 91–113). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2007). On autonomous syntactic development in multiple first language acquisition. In Caunt-Nulton, H., Kulatilake, S., & Woo, I.-H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Boston University conference on language development (pp. 26–45). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2011). First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2014). Heritage language learners: Incomplete acquisition of grammar in early childhood. In Gutiérrez, A. E.-A., Landa, M. J., Enrique-Arias, A., & Ocampo, F. (Eds.), Perspectives in the study of Spanish language variation: Papers in honor of Carmen Silva-Corvalán (pp. 435–462). Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Anejos de Verba. Retrieved from http://www.usc.es/libros/index.php/spic/catalog/book/747.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2002). Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 5, 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2011). Multiple interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua, 121, 591–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2016). The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R. (2015). Differential object marking in Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91, 564–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, R. (2016). The linguistic competence of second-generation bilinguals: A critique of “incomplete acquisition.” In Tortora, C., den Dikken, M., Montoya, I. L., & O’Neill, T. (Eds.), Romance linguistics 2013 (pp. 301–320). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or independent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D. (2013). Agreement reflexes of emerging optionality in heritage speaker Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida.Google Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D., & Rothman, J. (2012). The (il)logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33, 450–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pires, A., & Rothman, J. (2009). Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for competence divergence across heritage grammars. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2006). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14, 191–262.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2008). Gender under incomplete acquisition: Heritage speakers’ knowledge of noun categorization. Heritage Language Journal, 6, 40–71.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2018a). Bilingual children and adult heritage speakers: The range of comparison. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22, 547–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2018b). Heritage languages and their speakers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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, 478–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1993/1994). Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition, 3, 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (2017). The Oxford handbook of universal grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. (2007). Heritage speaker competence differences, language change, and input type: Inflected infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11, 359–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J., Tsimpli, I. M., & Pascual y Cabo, D. (2016). Formal linguistic approaches to heritage language acquisition. In Pascual y Cabo, D. (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 13–26). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, A. L., Gonçalves, A., & Hyams, N. (2016). Aspects of the acquisition of object control and ECM-type verbs in European Portuguese. Language Acquisition, 23, 199–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht), 6, 93–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scontras, G., Fuchs, Z., & Polinsky, M. (2015). Heritage language and linguistic theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2018a). Simultaneous bilingualism: Early developments, incomplete later outcomes? International Journal of Bilingualism, 22, 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2018b). Bilingual acquisition: Difference or incompleteness? In Lapidus Shin, N. & Erker, D. (Eds.), Questioning theoretical primitives in linguistic inquiry: Papers in honor of Ricardo Otheguy (pp. 245–268). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in non native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9, 22–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. D. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Bristol, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. (2009). The acquisition of word order: Micro-cues, information structure, and economy . Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. D. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar