Konstellationen – Netze – Transformationen
Berlin, 27. bis 31. März 2019
Eine Übersicht aller Sessions/Sitzungen dieser Tagung.
Bitte wählen Sie einen Ort oder ein Datum aus, um nur die betreffenden Sitzungen anzuzeigen. Wählen Sie eine Sitzung aus, um zur Detailanzeige zu gelangen.
|Datum: Donnerstag, 28.03.2019|
|9:00 - 10:30||Sesión 01: LING_3: Sitzung|
9:00 - 9:45
Welcome and introduction to the section
Universität Wuppertal, Deutschland
Welcome and introduction to the section
9:45 - 10:30
DOM in Heritage Spanish
Bergische Univeristät Wuppertal, Deutschland
Much work on Spanish Differential Object Marking (DOM) has shown the complexity and the resulting difficulties for its acquisition. Most studies, however, deal with early or late bilinguals with the language combination English-Spanish. The present paper presents data from a pilot study seeking to check whether the reported results also hold for German-Spanish bilinguals. Despite the differences between the systems of German and Spanish, German provides a general morpho-phonological marking which could serve as support. Based on two tasks conducted with L1 Spanish speakers from Spain, German-Spanish bilingual HS and German L2 learners of Spanish, we observe for the obligatory contexts that the HS perform very similar to monolingual L1 speakers, generally outperforming the L2 learners. Furthermore, we will show that L1 and HS show a low variance value, i.e. a high homogeneity within the respective group, whereas the variance value for L2 learners is much higher. Assuming that a low variance value indicates a systematic, rule-based linguistic behavior, we will conclude that HL is an independent linguistic system which can and should be analyzed also without reference to its acquisition.
|11:00 - 12:30||Sesión 02: LING_3: Sitzung|
11:00 - 12:30
Which factors affect the development of a Heritage Language? Empirical findings from Portuguese as Heritage Language in contact with German, French and Spanish.
Universidade do Minho, Portugal
The present talk focusses on bilingual speakers, so called that heritage speakers (HSs), who grow up with a minority language, mainly spoken within the family, and a dominant environmental language. Research on the development of heritage languages has consistently shown that HSs develop a particular language competence, which may differ from monolingual grammars, both in production and comprehension (see Montrul, 2016, for an overview). Differences in the output of heritage bilingual and monolingual speakers have been interpreted in terms of incomplete acquisition (Montrul, 2004) or as differential acquisition (Kupisch & Rothman, 2016) due to several factors, such as cross-linguistic influence, language dominance and reduced input. In this talk I discuss the role of three further aspects: the role of timing of acquisition, of linguistic variation in the target language and the availability of the formal register to HSs. Based on various data from EP as a heritage language in contact with German, French and Spanish, I will provide evidence for the idea that phenomena acquired late in monolingual acquisition may be significantly delayed or differentially pronounced in heritage grammars if input is reduced at a certain age. This has been shown for the acquisition of the subjunctive mood in complement clauses (Flores et al. 2017), the preverbal position of clitic pronouns (Flores & Barbosa 2014) or anaphora resolution (Rinke & Flores, 2018) by HSs of EP. However, differential outcomes in heritage grammars cannot be exclusively explained by timing of acquisition. Other factors come into play such as language internal variation and the availability of the formal register. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that HSs show more variable knowledge in language domains characterized by variation, particularly in colloquial speech. This is the case of clitic placement in oral EP, for instance, where enclisis is often used in contexts which require proclisis. Also the use of clitic allomorphs is characterized by variation in colloquial speech, which is reduced in literate speech. As demonstrated by Rinke & Flores (2014) and Flores, Rinke & Azevedo (2017), these are precisely the structures that impose more challenges to HSs (such as to illiterate monolingual speakers of EP).
|15:00 - 16:30||Sesión 03: LING_3: Sitzung|
15:00 - 15:45
Interface phenomena in heritage Spanish in the Netherlands
University of Amsterdam, Países Bajos
In this talk I will present data from heritage speakers of Spanish. Most of the previous research on heritage Spanish has been carried out in the context of the US (e.g. Montrul, 2015; Silva-Corvalán, 1994). This study is about heritage Spanish in the Netherlands. I will discuss the ways in which differences between countries regarding community type and size and majority language can have differential effects on the heritage language. The main focus will be on interface phenomena, i.e. phenomena that integrate syntactic knowledge with knowledge from other linguistic domains, such as semantics (internal interfaces) or non-linguistic domains such as discourse-pragmatics (external interfaces). Unlike most previous research this study compares different interfaces within a single phenomenon, by looking at phenomena which lie at the crossroads of multiple interfaces, namely the subjunctive and subject verb word order.
15:45 - 16:30
The effect of crosslinguistic differences onto the acquisition of Spanish as heritage language. A case study on tense and aspect.
1Universität Mannheim & Bergische Universität Wuppertal; 2Bergische Universität Wuppertal; 3Universitat de les Illes Balears
Following Valdés’s definition (2000, 2005), heritage speakers are to some degree bilingual in the majority language of the country they live in and the heritage language. Concerning their linguistic competence, two positions can be distinguished: Incomplete acquisition (e.g. Bennamoun et al. 2013, Montrul 2008,2012,2016) and complete acquisition of a contact variety (e.g. Pires & Rothman 2009, Kupisch & Rothman 2016). Previous studies in the first branch have identified that certain grammatical domains are particularly vulnerable in HS grammars which include also tense-aspect phenomena (Montrul 2002,2009). In an elicitation study on tense/aspect and mood interpretation, Montrul & Perpiñán (2011) even find that HS perform below advanced L2 speakers (L1=English, L2=Spanish), maybe due to different metalinguistic competences. Research suggests that generally a great difference between the L1 and L2 feature configuration may hinder quick acquisition (Comajoan 2014, Salaberry 2008). According to the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (Lardiere 2009, Hwang & Lardiere 2013), a full acquisition of the target system is generally possible, but the process is considerably slowed down if L1 and L2 differ in how features are organized.
In this talk, we apply the idea of comparing feature configurations to HS (Putnam & Sánchez 2013), using different language combinations: English/Spanish and German/Spanish.
In Spanish, past tenses are marked for (im)perfectivity (Zagona 2007). Following Domínguez et al. (2017), the Imperfect dormía is used for progressive, habitual and continuous events, i.e. bundling three features together, whereas the Preterit durmió is reserved for the perfective context. The English verb system involves a basic aspectual contrast found in the progressive form (Salaberry & Ayoun 2005), whereas German does not mark grammatical aspect at all (Heinold 2015). While both systems differ significantly from Spanish, the feature configuration of English resembles the Spanish one in the fact that it also presents two feature bundles, as opposed to German where all four aspectual notions (perfectivity, habituality, continuity, progressivity) can be expressed with the same underspecified verb forms.
We present data from three groups: (1) 20 HS in the USA, (2) 20 HS in Germany and (3) native Spanish speakers (N=15). Data were collected using oral interviews and an Aural Grammaticality Judgment Task (18 items). Based on statistical analyses, we find evidence for complete acquisition in both groups. In contrast to the performance of L2 speakers reported elsewhere (Diaubalick & Guijarro-Fuentes 2016,2017), we neither find a target-deviant convergence of lexical and grammatical aspect, nor an unexpected concentration of non-grammatical elements. Groups differ slightly in terms of their accuracy rates; Anglophone Spanish HS are almost native-like, German-speaking Spanish HS produce some occasional target-deviations. Generally, the accuracy rates on grammatical aspect were higher in oral production than the ones in the aural grammatical judgement task. None of these results, however, have reached significance.
We conclude that feature differences are less significant than the age of onset for Spanish HLA. Attested differences between the groups will be discussed in the light of the role of input, language activation and language combination, considering also the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge (Rothman 2008).
|17:00 - 18:30||Sesión 04: LING_3: Sitzung|
Impressum · Kontaktadresse:
Datenschutzerklärung · Veranstaltung: XXII. Deutscher Hispanistentag
|Conference Software - ConfTool Pro 2.6.129+TC
© 2001 - 2019 by Dr. H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany