DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING IN SPANISH, HINDI, AND ROMANIAN AS HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Erosion of DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING (DOM)—the overt morphological marking of animate direct objects—has been observed in Spanish heritage speakers who are second-generation immigrants in the United States (Montrul 2004, Montrul & Bowles 2009). We investigated whether DOM is similarly vulnerab...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Language (Baltimore) 2015-09, Vol.91 (3), p.564-610
Hauptverfasser: Montrul, Silvina, Bhatt, Rakesh, Girju, Roxana
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 610
container_issue 3
container_start_page 564
container_title Language (Baltimore)
container_volume 91
creator Montrul, Silvina
Bhatt, Rakesh
Girju, Roxana
description Erosion of DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING (DOM)—the overt morphological marking of animate direct objects—has been observed in Spanish heritage speakers who are second-generation immigrants in the United States (Montrul 2004, Montrul & Bowles 2009). We investigated whether DOM is similarly vulnerable in heritage speakers of Hindi and Romanian, two other languages that also exhibit DOM, as well as in first-generation immigrants, adults who are presumably the main source of input to heritage speakers. We report the results of three experimental studies testing acceptability of DOM through a bimodal judgment task in first- and second-generation Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian speakers in the US and native speakers in Mexico, India, and Romania matched for age and socioeconomic status. Our results show structural changes with DOM in all of the heritage speaker groups to different degrees. Acceptance of nontarget DOM omission was more extensive in Spanish than in Hindi and Romanian. First-generation Hindi and Romanian immigrants did not differ in their grammatical proficiency and acceptance of DOM omission from the Hindi and Romanian speakers tested in India and in Romania. However, the first-generation Mexican immigrants displayed similar performance to the Spanish heritage speakers, suggesting that Spanish DOM is prone to L1 attrition in the first generation as well. We discuss linguistic and experiential factors relevant to the three languages and the three immigrant communities to explain these findings.
doi_str_mv 10.1353/lan.2015.0035
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1758941880</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>24672166</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>24672166</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-e1fddf6059aa106cb78443f3fb9a27eae44f15b69c09038f4c0e42f44a6a239c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1rGzEQhkVpIW7aY44FQS89ZN3R9-qo2mtbrbNOvA70JuSNBDF2NlnZh_77anFJoYeeRohn3hnmQeiKwJgwwb7u_dOYAhFjACbeoBERTBQgpXiLRgBaFaUAdYHep7SDjJRUj9Dd1M5m1bqqN9Ys8erb92qywTdm_cPWc2xr3Nya2jaLa7yw9dReY1NP8Xp1kz9NjU2DF9Xabsy8wktTz-_zo_mA3kW_T-Hjn3qJ7mfVZrIolqu5nZhl0TLNjkUg8eEhShDaewKy3aqScxZZ3GpPVfCB80jEVuoWdN418hYCp5FzLz1lumWX6Ms597nvXk4hHd3hMbVhn68QulNyRIlSc1KWkNHP_6C77tQ_5e0cBV4SKoTQ_6NyllCKKuCZKs5U23cp9SG65_7x4PtfjoAbNLi8gBs0uEFD5vlr6i60x8Mphb_BeWxOdc2gajCVa1ZDfua2T-e2XTp2_esMyqWiREr2G7oIipk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1755772704</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING IN SPANISH, HINDI, AND ROMANIAN AS HERITAGE LANGUAGES</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Montrul, Silvina ; Bhatt, Rakesh ; Girju, Roxana</creator><creatorcontrib>Montrul, Silvina ; Bhatt, Rakesh ; Girju, Roxana</creatorcontrib><description>Erosion of DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING (DOM)—the overt morphological marking of animate direct objects—has been observed in Spanish heritage speakers who are second-generation immigrants in the United States (Montrul 2004, Montrul &amp; Bowles 2009). We investigated whether DOM is similarly vulnerable in heritage speakers of Hindi and Romanian, two other languages that also exhibit DOM, as well as in first-generation immigrants, adults who are presumably the main source of input to heritage speakers. We report the results of three experimental studies testing acceptability of DOM through a bimodal judgment task in first- and second-generation Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian speakers in the US and native speakers in Mexico, India, and Romania matched for age and socioeconomic status. Our results show structural changes with DOM in all of the heritage speaker groups to different degrees. Acceptance of nontarget DOM omission was more extensive in Spanish than in Hindi and Romanian. First-generation Hindi and Romanian immigrants did not differ in their grammatical proficiency and acceptance of DOM omission from the Hindi and Romanian speakers tested in India and in Romania. However, the first-generation Mexican immigrants displayed similar performance to the Spanish heritage speakers, suggesting that Spanish DOM is prone to L1 attrition in the first generation as well. We discuss linguistic and experiential factors relevant to the three languages and the three immigrant communities to explain these findings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0097-8507</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1535-0665</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-0665</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1353/lan.2015.0035</identifier><identifier>CODEN: LANGA2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Linguistic Society of America</publisher><subject>Acceptability ; Acceptance ; Attrition ; Competence ; Cultural heritage ; First generation ; Foreign speakers ; Heritage language ; Hindi language ; Immigrants ; Immigration ; India ; Judgment ; Language ; Language and culture ; Language instruction ; Language maintenance ; Languages ; Morphology ; Native language and education ; Prone ; Romania ; Romanian language ; Second generation ; Second language instruction ; Socioeconomic status ; Spanish language ; Study and teaching</subject><ispartof>Language (Baltimore), 2015-09, Vol.91 (3), p.564-610</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2015 Linguistic Society of America</rights><rights>Copyright © Linguistic Society of America.</rights><rights>Copyright Linguistic Society of America Sep 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-e1fddf6059aa106cb78443f3fb9a27eae44f15b69c09038f4c0e42f44a6a239c3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24672166$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24672166$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Montrul, Silvina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhatt, Rakesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Girju, Roxana</creatorcontrib><title>DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING IN SPANISH, HINDI, AND ROMANIAN AS HERITAGE LANGUAGES</title><title>Language (Baltimore)</title><description>Erosion of DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING (DOM)—the overt morphological marking of animate direct objects—has been observed in Spanish heritage speakers who are second-generation immigrants in the United States (Montrul 2004, Montrul &amp; Bowles 2009). We investigated whether DOM is similarly vulnerable in heritage speakers of Hindi and Romanian, two other languages that also exhibit DOM, as well as in first-generation immigrants, adults who are presumably the main source of input to heritage speakers. We report the results of three experimental studies testing acceptability of DOM through a bimodal judgment task in first- and second-generation Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian speakers in the US and native speakers in Mexico, India, and Romania matched for age and socioeconomic status. Our results show structural changes with DOM in all of the heritage speaker groups to different degrees. Acceptance of nontarget DOM omission was more extensive in Spanish than in Hindi and Romanian. First-generation Hindi and Romanian immigrants did not differ in their grammatical proficiency and acceptance of DOM omission from the Hindi and Romanian speakers tested in India and in Romania. However, the first-generation Mexican immigrants displayed similar performance to the Spanish heritage speakers, suggesting that Spanish DOM is prone to L1 attrition in the first generation as well. We discuss linguistic and experiential factors relevant to the three languages and the three immigrant communities to explain these findings.</description><subject>Acceptability</subject><subject>Acceptance</subject><subject>Attrition</subject><subject>Competence</subject><subject>Cultural heritage</subject><subject>First generation</subject><subject>Foreign speakers</subject><subject>Heritage language</subject><subject>Hindi language</subject><subject>Immigrants</subject><subject>Immigration</subject><subject>India</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Language and culture</subject><subject>Language instruction</subject><subject>Language maintenance</subject><subject>Languages</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Native language and education</subject><subject>Prone</subject><subject>Romania</subject><subject>Romanian language</subject><subject>Second generation</subject><subject>Second language instruction</subject><subject>Socioeconomic status</subject><subject>Spanish language</subject><subject>Study and teaching</subject><issn>0097-8507</issn><issn>1535-0665</issn><issn>1535-0665</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kU1rGzEQhkVpIW7aY44FQS89ZN3R9-qo2mtbrbNOvA70JuSNBDF2NlnZh_77anFJoYeeRohn3hnmQeiKwJgwwb7u_dOYAhFjACbeoBERTBQgpXiLRgBaFaUAdYHep7SDjJRUj9Dd1M5m1bqqN9Ys8erb92qywTdm_cPWc2xr3Nya2jaLa7yw9dReY1NP8Xp1kz9NjU2DF9Xabsy8wktTz-_zo_mA3kW_T-Hjn3qJ7mfVZrIolqu5nZhl0TLNjkUg8eEhShDaewKy3aqScxZZ3GpPVfCB80jEVuoWdN418hYCp5FzLz1lumWX6Ms597nvXk4hHd3hMbVhn68QulNyRIlSc1KWkNHP_6C77tQ_5e0cBV4SKoTQ_6NyllCKKuCZKs5U23cp9SG65_7x4PtfjoAbNLi8gBs0uEFD5vlr6i60x8Mphb_BeWxOdc2gajCVa1ZDfua2T-e2XTp2_esMyqWiREr2G7oIipk</recordid><startdate>20150901</startdate><enddate>20150901</enddate><creator>Montrul, Silvina</creator><creator>Bhatt, Rakesh</creator><creator>Girju, Roxana</creator><general>Linguistic Society of America</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150901</creationdate><title>DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING IN SPANISH, HINDI, AND ROMANIAN AS HERITAGE LANGUAGES</title><author>Montrul, Silvina ; Bhatt, Rakesh ; Girju, Roxana</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-e1fddf6059aa106cb78443f3fb9a27eae44f15b69c09038f4c0e42f44a6a239c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Acceptability</topic><topic>Acceptance</topic><topic>Attrition</topic><topic>Competence</topic><topic>Cultural heritage</topic><topic>First generation</topic><topic>Foreign speakers</topic><topic>Heritage language</topic><topic>Hindi language</topic><topic>Immigrants</topic><topic>Immigration</topic><topic>India</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Language and culture</topic><topic>Language instruction</topic><topic>Language maintenance</topic><topic>Languages</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Native language and education</topic><topic>Prone</topic><topic>Romania</topic><topic>Romanian language</topic><topic>Second generation</topic><topic>Second language instruction</topic><topic>Socioeconomic status</topic><topic>Spanish language</topic><topic>Study and teaching</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Montrul, Silvina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhatt, Rakesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Girju, Roxana</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Language (Baltimore)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Montrul, Silvina</au><au>Bhatt, Rakesh</au><au>Girju, Roxana</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING IN SPANISH, HINDI, AND ROMANIAN AS HERITAGE LANGUAGES</atitle><jtitle>Language (Baltimore)</jtitle><date>2015-09-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>91</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>564</spage><epage>610</epage><pages>564-610</pages><issn>0097-8507</issn><issn>1535-0665</issn><eissn>1535-0665</eissn><coden>LANGA2</coden><abstract>Erosion of DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING (DOM)—the overt morphological marking of animate direct objects—has been observed in Spanish heritage speakers who are second-generation immigrants in the United States (Montrul 2004, Montrul &amp; Bowles 2009). We investigated whether DOM is similarly vulnerable in heritage speakers of Hindi and Romanian, two other languages that also exhibit DOM, as well as in first-generation immigrants, adults who are presumably the main source of input to heritage speakers. We report the results of three experimental studies testing acceptability of DOM through a bimodal judgment task in first- and second-generation Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian speakers in the US and native speakers in Mexico, India, and Romania matched for age and socioeconomic status. Our results show structural changes with DOM in all of the heritage speaker groups to different degrees. Acceptance of nontarget DOM omission was more extensive in Spanish than in Hindi and Romanian. First-generation Hindi and Romanian immigrants did not differ in their grammatical proficiency and acceptance of DOM omission from the Hindi and Romanian speakers tested in India and in Romania. However, the first-generation Mexican immigrants displayed similar performance to the Spanish heritage speakers, suggesting that Spanish DOM is prone to L1 attrition in the first generation as well. We discuss linguistic and experiential factors relevant to the three languages and the three immigrant communities to explain these findings.</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Linguistic Society of America</pub><doi>10.1353/lan.2015.0035</doi><tpages>47</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0097-8507
ispartof Language (Baltimore), 2015-09, Vol.91 (3), p.564-610
issn 0097-8507
1535-0665
1535-0665
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1758941880
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Acceptability
Acceptance
Attrition
Competence
Cultural heritage
First generation
Foreign speakers
Heritage language
Hindi language
Immigrants
Immigration
India
Judgment
Language
Language and culture
Language instruction
Language maintenance
Languages
Morphology
Native language and education
Prone
Romania
Romanian language
Second generation
Second language instruction
Socioeconomic status
Spanish language
Study and teaching
title DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING IN SPANISH, HINDI, AND ROMANIAN AS HERITAGE LANGUAGES
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T11%3A08%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=DIFFERENTIAL%20OBJECT%20MARKING%20IN%20SPANISH,%20HINDI,%20AND%20ROMANIAN%20AS%20HERITAGE%20LANGUAGES&rft.jtitle=Language%20(Baltimore)&rft.au=Montrul,%20Silvina&rft.date=2015-09-01&rft.volume=91&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=564&rft.epage=610&rft.pages=564-610&rft.issn=0097-8507&rft.eissn=1535-0665&rft.coden=LANGA2&rft_id=info:doi/10.1353/lan.2015.0035&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E24672166%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1755772704&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=24672166&rfr_iscdi=true