Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-r7xzm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T21:26:13.466Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

AN EMERGENTIST PERSPECTIVE ON HERITAGE LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2011

William O’Grady*
Affiliation:
University of Hawai‘i at Manoa
Hye-Young Kwak
Affiliation:
Korea University
On-Soon Lee
Affiliation:
University of Hawai‘i at Manoa
Miseon Lee
Affiliation:
Hanyang University
*
*Address correspondence to: William O’Grady, Department of Linguistics, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, 1890 East-West Road, Moore Hall 569, Honolulu, HI 96822; e-mail: ogrady@hawaii.edu.

Abstract

It is widely recognized that the processor has a key role to play in creating and strengthening the mapping between form and meaning that is integral to language use. Adopting an emergentist approach to heritage language acquisition, the current study considers the extent to which the operation of the processor can contribute to an account of what is acquired, what is subsequently retained or lost, and what is never acquired in the first place. These questions are explored from two perspectives. First, morphosyntactic phenomena for which there is apparently substantial input are considered, with a focus on the relevance of salience, frequency, and transparency to the establishment of form-meaning mappings. Second, a phenomenon for which there appears to be relatively little input (i.e., scope) is examined with a view to understanding its fate in heritage language acquisition. In both cases, the emergentist perspective appears to offer promising insights into why heritage language learners succeed—and fail—in the way that they do.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Ambridge, B., Theakston, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2006). The distributed learning effect for children’s acquisition of an abstract syntactic construction. Cognitive Development, 21, 174–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, J. (2004). English dialects in the north of England: Morphology and syntax. In Schneider, E. & Kortmann, B. (Eds.), A handbook of varieties of English: A multimedia reference tool (Vol. 1, pp. 114–142). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, D., & Waters, G. (2001). Working memory and syntactic processing in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Studies, 8, 10–24.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113, 234–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chater, N., & Manning, C. (2006). Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 335–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, S. W. (1981). The acquisition of word order in Korean. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Calgary, Canada.Google Scholar
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigating Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dick, F., Bates, E., Wulfeck, B., Aydelott Utman, J., Dronkers, N., & Gernsbacher, M. (2001). Language deficits, localization, and grammar: Evidence for a distributive model of language breakdown in aphasic patients and neurologically intact individuals. Psychological Review, 108, 759–788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, A., & Morrison, C. (1998). Real age-of-acquisition effects in lexical retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 515–523.Google ScholarPubMed
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning, 59, 90–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. D. (2009). Syntax acquisition: An evaluation measure after all? In Piatelli-Palmarini, M., Uriagareka, J., & Salaburu, P. (Eds.), Of minds and language: The Basque country encounter with Noam Chomsky (pp. 256–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennari, S., & MacDonald, M. (2009). Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 111, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerken, L. (1991). The metrical basis for children’s subjectless sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1999). The emergence of the semantics of argument structures. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 197–212). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Casenhiser, D. (2008). Construction learning and second language acquisition. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 197–215). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodenough, U., & Deacon, T. (2006). The sacred emergence of nature. In Clayton, P. & Simpson, G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of religion and science (pp. 853–871). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science, 29, 261–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guasti, M. (2002). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2007). V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herron, D., & Bates, E. (1997). Sentential and acoustic factors in the recognition of open- and closed-class words. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 217–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J. (1998). Emergence: From chaos to order. New York: Perseus Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., Zubizarreta, M. L., & Maldonado, S. (2008). Sources of linguistic knowledge in the second language acquisition of English articles. Lingua, 118, 554–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jescheniak, J., & Levelt, W. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 824–843.Google Scholar
Kim, H.-S. (2005). Processing strategies and transfer of heritage and non-heritage learners of Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.Google Scholar
Kondo-Brown, K. (2006). East Asian heritage language proficiency development. In Kondo-Brown, K. (Ed.), Heritage language development: Focus on East Asian immigrants (pp. 243–258). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H. (2006a). Effects of focus and markedness hierarchies on object case ellipsis in Korean. Discourse and Cognition, 13, 205–231.Google Scholar
Lee, H. (2006b). Parallel optimization in case systems: Evidence from case ellipsis in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 15, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M., Kwak, H.-Y., Lee, S., & O’Grady, W. (in press). Processing, pragmatics and scope in Korean and English. In Sohn, H., Cook, H., O’Grady, W., & Serafim, L. (Eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lee, S. (2009). Interpreting ambiguity in first and second language processing: Universal quantifiers and negation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2009). Back to basics: Differential object marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 363–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morowitz, H. (2004). The emergence of everything: How the world became complex. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Musolino, J., & Lidz, J. (2006). Why children aren’t universally successful with quantification. Linguistics, 44, 817–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2008a). The emergentist program. Lingua, 118, 447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2008b). Language without grammar. In Ellis, N. C. & Robinson, P. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 139–167). London: Routledge.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
Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1965). Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, E. (2006). Grandparents, grandchildren, and heritage language use in Korean. In Kondo-Brown, K. (Ed.), Heritage language development: Focus on East Asian immigrants (pp. 57–86). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (2007). The prism of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M., & MacDonald, M. (1999). A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 569–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, M., O’Grady, W., Cho, S., & Lee, M. (1997). The learning and teaching of Korean in community schools. In Kim, Y.-H. (Ed.), Korean language in America 2 (pp. 111–127). Los Angeles: American Association of Teachers of Korean.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1998). The dependency of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (2004). Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valian, V. (2009). Innateness and learnability. In Bavin, E. (Ed.), Handbook of child language (pp. 15–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valian, V., Solt, S., & Stewart, J. (2009). Abstract categories or limited-scope formulae? The case of children’s determiners. Journal of Child Language, 36, 743–778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2007). The bilingual child: Early development and language contact. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar