Theoretical and Experimental Aspects of Syntax-Discourse Interface in Heritage Grammars [1 ed.] 9789004246171, 9789004246164

Citation preview

Theoretical and Experimental Aspects of Syntax-Discourse Interface in Heritage Grammars

Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory Series Editor Brian Joseph (The Ohio State University) Editorial Board Artemis Alexiadou (University of Stuttgart) Harald Baayen (University of Alberta) Pier Marco Bertinetto (Scuola Normale Superiore) Kirk Hazen (West Virginia University) Maria Polinsky (Harvard University)

VOLUME 6

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ealt

Theoretical and Experimental Aspects of Syntax-Discourse Interface in Heritage Grammars By

Tanya Ivanova-Sullivan

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ivanova-Sullivan, Tanya, author.  Theoretical and experimental aspects of syntax-discourse interface in heritage grammars / by Tanya Ivanova-Sullivan.   p. cm. — (Empirical approaches to linguistic theory ; Volume 6)  Includes bibliographical references and index.  isbn 978-90-04-24616-4 (hardback : alk. paper) — isbn 978-90-04-24617-1 (e-book) 1. Russian language—Grammar, Historical. 2. Russian language—Syntax. 3. Russian language—Pronouns. 4. Anaphora (Linguistics) 5. Russian language—Study and teaching—Foreign speakers. 6. Education, Bilingual. I. Title.  PG2101.I93 2014  491.75—dc23

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 2210-6243 isbn 978-90-04-24616-4 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-24617-1 (e-book) Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

To my son Daniel Patrick Sullivan who will grow up to be a citizen of the world

∵

Contents Acknowledgments  ix Preface  xiii Introduction  1 1 Methodology and Sociolinguistic Findings  17 2 Input and Order of Acquisition as Variables in the Study  36 3 Syntactic and Discourse-Pragmatic Conditions on the Distribution of Null and Overt Subjects in Russian  45 4 Optionality in Bilingual Grammars: Establishing Anaphoric Dependencies in Pro-Drop Languages  63 5 Anaphoric Pronouns in Oral Production  84 6 Deictic Pronouns in Oral Production  111 7 Anaphora Resolution in Globally Ambiguous Contexts  125 8 Pronominal Resolution and Coherence Relations  142 9 Pedagogical Implications of the Study  152 Conclusions  162 Appendix 1  167 Appendix 2  181 References  182 Index  201

Acknowledgments Writing a book might be a solitary experience for the most part but it does not come to fruition without the support of many people along the way. From the very conception of the ideas to the last stage of turning in the final proofs, the support and encouragement of my family, friends, colleagues and students has made the publication of my first monograph possible! First, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues in theoretical and experimental linguistics who have been a sounding board for various ideas and insights related to my research and my monograph. Ludmila Isurin, Anna Mikhaylova, Irina Dubinina, and Anastasia Smirnova not only helped me clarify the direction of this book but were available for discussion at various stages of my research. I am especially indebted to Maria Polinsky, who showed me what it means to be an exceptional scholar and mentor by gracefully sharing her ideas and suggestions for improvement of the initial draft of the manuscript. She is the person who has provided constructive feedback and constant support of my research since its very beginning in 2010. Another wonderful colleague and a linguist with great expertise in the area of SLA, Tania Ionin, read and commented on my pilot study with heritage speakers of Russian, thus giving me enough confidence to pursue further this line of research. The collection of data for this monograph would not have been possible without the timely and extremely efficient logistic and academic support of many great colleagues and friends! My heartfelt thanks go to Maria Polinsky, Steven SanPietro, Anastasia Smirnova, Ludmila Isurin, Olga Kagan, Susan Bauckus, Michele and Paul Aoki, Valja Zajtseva, Veronika Egorova, Svetlana Abramova, Maria McCready, Maria Kharitonova, Irina Mochalova, Kseniya Tverjanovich, Svetlana Shimberg, Jackie Hartzell, Radoslava Simeonova, Bojan Belić, and Nina Egorova. I am grateful to the participants and audiences at the First International Heritage Conference (2010), the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Slavic Linguistic Society (2010), the Annual Conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics (2012), the Second Language Research Forum (2012), and the two Heritage Language Research Institutes (2009, 2011) who shared their opinion and informed criticism of my work. The faculty of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures at the University of New Mexico has been instrumental in making me feel at home and deeply appreciated as a researcher and a teacher. I am delighted to work with Monica Cyrino, a wonderful colleague, mentor and friend who always

x

acknowledgments

had time for my numerous questions about the long but rewarding process of book writing. Many thanks to the current FLL Chair, Walter Putnam, and my former colleague, Natasha Kolchevska, who provided resources and guidance throughout the writing process. My senior colleagues and friends Amy Neel, Christine Sauer and Bill Croft have offered many important tips regarding my academic growth and research trajectory. Christine Szostak was of invaluable help with the statistical data and ways of organizing it in a more efficient way. Carrie Shipers was extremely professional, timely, and accurate in copy-editing the entire manuscript at short notice. The work on this project was funded by the University of New Mexico through a large Research Allocation grant, which is competitively based and provides seed money to support the career development of junior and senior faculty members. Several people played an important role in managing the grant and allocating various resources for my research trips in 2012: Elvine Bologa, Evelyn Harris, Melody Ann Brooks, and Joseph Wrobel all contributed to a smooth and efficient distribution of funds without which my research would have been very limited in its scope. The development of my project led naturally to consideration of a publication venue. After researching a few possible options, I submitted my work to a series called Experimental Approaches to Linguistic Theory. The series is part of Brill Publishers and aims to promote work based on empirical data that has significant implications on theoretical concepts and ideas. After submitting my manuscript to this series, it was the tireless work and support of the Series Editor Brian Joseph and the Acquisition Editor Stephanie Paalvast that made the whole process much more manageable and pleasant. Rarely does one see such a combination of professionalism, high academic standards and efficiency as I witnessed in my correspondence with all the editors at Brill Publishers. I would also like to acknowledge the wonderful work of the anonymous reviewers at the various stages of this project! Their constructive criticism and positive feedback have been extremely helpful for clarifying important issues and improving the quality of the manuscript. The emotional support of my family has been the greatest source of inspiration and a driving force behind this research project. I am very grateful to my parents, Mariana and Dontcho, and my sister Dessy for their unwavering love and belief in the success of this challenging task. My husband Neal was extremely understanding and encouraging throughout the entire process of preparation, data collection, and writing the manuscript. He made me feel more confident in my own abilities and fueled my determination to complete the project. I can’t wait for both of us to soon be parents of a beautiful baby boy!

acknowledgments

xi

Last but not least, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all the participants in this study—college students from various universities in the US and Russia! Without their help and motivation to learn more about their heritage language, it would have been impossible to conduct this study and collect such interesting data! I hope that this book will be the first step towards a more comprehensive investigation of the language of Russian heritage speakers not only in the US but in other countries as well!

Preface The idea for this book came gradually and emerged from my empirical observations on heritage learners in L2 classrooms in US colleges and my theoretical and personal interest in bilingualism. I did not envision writing such book until much later in my academic career, in the years after I finished my dissertation. After I graduated, my professional career took a different direction, which resulted in substantial changes in my research interests and trajectory. Coming from a traditional philological background formed during my undergraduate years at Sofia University in the 1990s, I was trained in the textological approach to Church Slavonic manuscripts of various provenance and periods, which in some cases led to a more in-depth examination of the translation principles from Greek to Church Slavonic. Eager to continue this type of work on a graduate level, I enrolled in the Medieval Studies Department at the Central European University in Budapest. The year spent at that university provided a window into a different world of academia—more intense, competitive but ultimately rewarding. It was then when I realized that I wanted to fully immerse myself in this world, a decision that profoundly changed my life when I was introduced to theoretical and experimental research in L2 language acquisition and bilingualism, the topics that would become the center of my work in the following years. During my Ph.D. studies in the Slavic Linguistics Program at the Department of Slavic and East European Languages and Cultures at The Ohio State University (1999–2005) I was exposed to various linguistic theories and approaches but kept my focus on investigating the language and translation principles of Church Slavonic manuscripts. My dissertation project, Lexical Variation in the Slavonic Thekara Texts: Semantic and Pragmatic Factors in Medieval Translation Praxis, benefited immensely from working with manuscripts in the collection of the Hilandar Research Library.1 My work on various types of translations during my formative academic years in Bulgaria, Hungary and the US and my diverse teaching experiences in the foreign languages classroom naturally led me to turn to the phenomenon of bilingualism and its manifestations in various areas of language competence and performance. 1 I would like to take this opportunity to thank the whole staff of the Hilandar Research Library—Director Dr. Predrag Matejic, assistant curator M.A. (Pasha) Johnson, and administrative assistant Helene Senecal—for their dedication to promoting and providing access to medieval Slavic manuscripts that otherwise would have remained largely unknown to the scholarly community.

xiv

preface

While working on my dissertation, I also was teaching Russian in a classroom that typically consisted of a large number of L2 learners and a few heritage speakers. Not familiar with the linguistic characteristics of the latter group but interested in finding out more about them because of their unique linguistic performance, I solicited the help of one of my colleagues, Dr. Ludmila Isurin, in conducting a joint project on the language of Russian heritage speakers. This project was presented at the Annual Convention of the Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages (AATSEEL) in 2004 and later became a part of the Heritage Language Journal issue on Russian (2008). This first encounter with experimental work sparked my interest in psycholinguistics and the fascinating world of bilinguals. The idea of the different path of L1 acquisition of heritage speakers (compared to speakers exposed to only one language before certain age) became of greater relevance to my research especially in cases when I observed some similarities among different heritage languages and differences between these languages and their baselines. After I started working at the University of New Mexico in 2007, I continued to expand on this topic through my research and participation in research institutes and conferences. In the spring of 2010, I conducted a pilot study that focused on the comprehension of null objects in heritage Russian. Although the pilot did not yield any significant results, it gave me the opportunity to single-handedly conduct an experiment using the Stimulus Presentation software Super Lab and discover its numerous capabilities for testing various linguistic phenomena. In 2011 I conducted a second study with Russian heritage speakers but this time I turned my attention to null subject anaphoric pronouns. The project became the foundation of this book and offered interesting insights into the divergent behavior of the target group. This behavior was manifested in stronger subject preferences and shorter reaction times compared to the control group. I interpreted these findings as a result of a particular heuristics employed by the heritage speakers, particularly a structurally-based assignment that did not undergo further re-evaluation taking discourse-pragmatic cues into account (cf. Ivanova-Sullivan, 2014). In order to present a more detailed picture of the comprehension and production of null and overt anaphoric pronouns, I expanded on the experimental tasks and decided to broaden the pool of participants in the study in the following year. The next step was the data collection itself! Everyone who works in the field of psycholinguistics is very familiar with the long and challenging process of designing experimental tasks, anticipating certain technical or logistical glitches as well as observing the ethical principles of working with human subjects. Rarely, however, do scholars spend time

preface

xv

discussing the logistics of an experimental study, which I believe are of crucial importance for understanding the nature and findings of that study. Young scholars who are just starting to “get their feet wet” in the field of experimental linguistics could benefit from a more detailed description of the various stages of their projects; however, most of the time they are left with anecdotal notes of how a study was conducted and “reinvent the wheel” with every new experiment. In my preparation for the present study I encountered certain logistical problems related to the manner of recruiting participants (in both the target and the control groups) but thanks to the effort and creative suggestions given by my academic contacts, I was able to successfully complete the study and accomplish its main objectives. Despite the presence of rather large Russian communities in big cities, such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Boston (to name just a few), finding and getting in contact with potential participants turned out to be the most challenging task in the project. Since Russians rarely are concentrated in particular neighborhoods (the exception is Brighton Beach in New York), I needed to approach this task in a different way. My experience from the pilot study proved that the best way to reach out to heritage speakers was to advertise the study in Russian language courses at institutions of higher education and to solicit the help of their instructors. If the institution had a separate language track for Russian heritage speakers then the task became much easier. Unfortunately, only a few universities in the US offer such tracks and the number of heritage speakers in each program can vary substantially. Typically, both heritage speakers and L2 learners enroll in traditional or mixed-ability language classrooms, something that is not ideal for either group of speakers.2 Once I overcame this initial problem of recruitment as well as some other administrative obstacles, I was able to conduct the study with the full cooperation of the majority of the participants. They were all eager to talk about their heritage language and culture and were very inquisitive about the nature of the study. It was interesting that many of them felt that the study helped them reflect more on the way they spoke and understood their heritage language. Some of them became quite emotional when talking about their lives as children of immigrants who haven’t gotten the chance to go back to their homeland; others took pride in their frequent trips to Russia or the former Soviet republics,

2 Chapter 9 provides a more detailed discussion of challenges and solutions in a mixed-ability classroom.

xvi

preface

which helped them rediscover their roots but also validated their strong American identity.3 Looking back at all my research trips and my fascinating conversations with heritage speakers, I can’t help but wonder about the fate of my own unborn child. There is no doubt that he will grow up bilingual (or even trilingual) but it is almost certain that he will be a heritage speaker of Bulgarian and a native speaker of English. It is thus the opportunity to follow and document his language development that will provide the strongest personal and professional satisfaction one can dream of!

3 A comprehensive overview and analysis of this and other sociolinguistic data is provided in Chapter 1.

Introduction

Heritage Languages: Overview of Current Research

Recent research in SLA studies shows that bilingual populations exhibit a greater degree of variability and divergent patterns with establishing coreferential relations in discourse (Gürel, 2004; Haznedar, 2010; Montrul & Rodríguez-Louro, 2006; Sorace, 2006, 2011; Sorace & Filiaci, 2006; Tsimpli et al., 2004; inter alia). Studies of bilingual comprehension and production of null and overt anaphoric pronouns by near-native speakers have proliferated in the past decade, specifically with a focus on Romance languages (cf. Montrul, 2011; Sorace, 2011; and White, 2011 for a review). The acquisition challenges in this particular area have been interpreted most often as stemming from problems with integrating representations from syntax and discourse resulting in a strain on processing resources (Sorace, 2011; Sorace & Filiaci, 2006). Divergent behavior with anaphoric dependencies has been discovered in the first language of heritage speakers as well and its roots were sought in problems with economy of encoding and processing anaphoric relations in discourse compared to narrow syntax (Laleko & Polinsky, 2013) or more general problems with linking two elements at a distance (O’Grady, 2011; Montrul & Polinsky, 2011). However, this particular population, the children of first-generation immigrants, has received relatively less attention in bilingual research on anaphora resolution than L2 learners, for example (cf. the discussion in Benmamoun, Montrul, & Polinsky, 2013a; Dubinina & Polinsky, 2013; Montrul, 2004). The field of heritage languages is relatively new and there exist only a few studies, which offer a more general picture of the experimental findings that help establish the foundation of heritage linguistics. Rothman (2009b) takes a closer look at the Romance heritage languages and outlines the current state of affairs in that field in his introduction to the special issue of the International Journal of Bilingualism. He provides a thorough analysis of the particular areas of grammatical knowledge, such as tense, aspect, mood, gender, and null subject pronouns, areas that have been shown to result in divergent behavior of heritage speakers of Spanish. Investigating such areas further and focusing on finding out more about heritage language acquisition is, according to him, very important for the larger theoretical and experimental linguistic field, namely, diachronic linguistics, sociolinguistics, L1 attrition, adult language acquisition, and formal syntactic theory. Divergent phenomena in some of the areas discussed by Rothman also have been identified in heritage Russian (and other heritage languages, for that

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004246171_��2

2

introduction

matter). Incomplete acquisition of aspectual distinctions by heritage speakers has been analyzed as a result of lexicalization based on telicity (Polinsky, 2007) or grammatical features (Pereltsvaig, 2008);1 selective loss of the aspectual system manifested in divergent production and comprehension patterns with general-factual imperfective (Laleko, 2010); or complexity of semantic contrasts, such as boundedness expressed via complex prefixation and suffixation patterns (Mikhaylova, 2011, 2012). Similarly, scholars working with heritage speakers of other languages, such as Spanish, for example, have discovered a divergent performance with aspect in certain areas (Montrul, 2004). The subjunctive mood in Russian has undergone changes in the form of gradual simplification and even a complete loss in some speakers (Polinsky, 2007), a phenomenon which was shown to have further implications for the area of pragmatics, particularly in making requests (Dubinina & Polinsky, 2013). Likewise, Potowski et al. (2009) investigated the subjunctive mood in heritage Spanish instruction and found a non-target like behavior with certain forms. In addition to these areas that show similarities in the linguistic behavior of heritage speakers of different languages, some heritage speakers of Russian have been found to exhibit reduction of the case system expressed in a syncretism of Nominative and Accusative cases. It has been shown that in lowproficiency heritage Russian oblique cases commonly are expressed by a preposition + Nominative case, thus demonstrating a grammatical extension and transformation of this case into a multifunctional one (Polinsky, 2007). In comprehension, heritage speakers of Russian were found to experience problems with unaccented noun endings, especially in the context of ambiguity (cf. Sekerina & Pugach, 2005). A cognitive perspective on the restructuring and loss of the case system in heritage Russian is offered in Schmitt (2000, 2004). She examines the codeswitching patterns in the spontaneous speech of child heritage speakers ages 9–11 who are bilingual in Russian and English. In her work Schmitt discusses cases of English bare forms (i.e., without case endings) exemplified in the following sentence: 1 But cf. the different approach to lexicalization of aspect presented in Bar-Shalom and Zaretskaya’s (2008) study of aspect in Russian-English bilingual children. The authors explain their findings with the presence of various stages of attrition in the bilingual speakers. They argue that the lack of lexicalization of aspect could be just the initial stage of a “stepwise attrition of L1 in bilinguals” (p. 296). Uninterrupted and frequent input in Russian throughout childhood could be another reason for the preservation of grammatical aspect, as Bar-Shalom and Zaretskaya point out.

3

introduction Nu, est’ baseball Well there is baseball “Well, is there baseball in Heaven?”

v in

Heaven Heaven

Using Myers-Scotton’s Matrix Language Frame model, Schmitt analyzes bare forms, such as “Heaven,” as links between code-switching and convergence to English. Furthermore, she argues that “bare form production is a transitional stage in language loss . . . and language attrition is not yet complete”2 (Shmitt, 2000, p. 26). Another phenomenon that has been an object of much research in heritage population is agreement. The complex nature of agreement in all its forms (compared to the minimal presence of this feature in English) is perhaps the underlying cause of certain variabilities in the group of heritage speakers of Russian. In particular, they were observed to produce non-target subject-verb agreement, gender agreement or agreement in number. Polinsky (2006, 2007) links the issues with the first type of agreement to the restructuring of conjugation paradigms. On the other hand, the failure of these speakers to recognize gender agreement in adjectives and their tendency to ignore word-final gender cues in nouns is magnified in cases with unstressed endings (Polinsky, 2008b). Taking into account the findings in the area of heritage Russian morphology and syntax, Polinsky (2008b) proposes that a particular part of the heritage population, “overhearers,” is better at understanding than producing the language (cf. the use of this term in Au, Knightly, Jun, & Oh, 2002). These lowproficiency speakers exhibit general difficulties with inflectional morphology that are manifested in ignoring the “small stuff” (typically, the endings) because of lack of salience and absence of automatic access. According to Polinsky, overhearers would often use default interpretative and processing strategies in order to compensate for such difficulties; it is important to note that these strategies differ from the strategies employed by first-generation bilingual immigrants or native speakers residing in Russia. Specifically, strategies such as “first pass” or “default” parsing (in the terminology of Polinsky, 2009) offer less proficient heritage speakers some relief from the higher cognitive load associated with the complexity of the case system in Russian compared to the lack of nominal inflection in English, for example.

2 Although Schmitt uses the term “language attrition,” it is not clear whether she equates it with “incomplete acquisition” or not. Such terminological distinction appears to be crucial for the area of heritage linguistics and hence will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 1.

4

introduction

Similarly, in production some heritage speakers would employ “short cuts” which could help alleviate the pressure of having to map form-to-meaning in oblique cases. Particularly, they were found to produce “lexicalized chunks,” such as u nas (“we have”), v vode (“in the water”), and na beregu (“on the shore”) without necessarily having internalized the grammatical functions of the Genitive or Prepositional case, respectively (Isurin & Ivanova-Sullivan, 2008; Polinsky, 2000; Polinsky & Kagan, 2007). Such fossilized forms could at first create the impression of target-like control of the morphology. However, upon further investigation it becomes clear that these heritage speakers have a set of rules different from the baseline but similar to other heritage languages (Polinsky, 2007). In addition to inflectional morphology, various scholars have registered non-target behavior of heritage speakers in other areas, such as relativization, syntactic dependencies, and word order, inter alia (Dubinina & Polinsky, 2013; Polinsky, 2011; Polinsky & Kagan, 2007). The findings in the grammars of heritage speakers of Russian and other languages have become the basis of a few programmatic articles that discuss the recent developments in the area of heritage linguistics and outline a further course of action for advancing the research in this relatively new and fascinating area (Benmamoun et al., 2013a; Polinsky & Kagan 2007). In their programmatic article in Theoretical Linguistics Benmamoun et al. (2013a) emphasize the fact that research on heritage languages brings together several related fields: theoretical linguistics, experimental linguistics, L1 acquisition, and L2 acquisition. The authors argue that “collaboration” among all these fields could lead to a deeper understanding of the universal principles of language structure and the nature and mechanisms of language comprehension, as well as the paths of “normal and arrested development of L1” (p. 65). Recently, the field of heritage languages is attracting greater attention in the United States with particular emphasis on the importance of heritage speakers as invaluable resources in service of national security. Several federal agencies have recognized the need for higher proficiency in critical-need languages such as Russian, Chinese, and Arabic, and have pointed out that the particular path of L1 acquisition taken by heritage speakers will allow them to be brought up to speed out in the field faster than traditional L2 learners. Such interest in and support of bilingual education could lead to a fruitful and mutually beneficial dialogue between the academic and non-academic community and to more professional opportunities for heritage speakers. On the teaching front, in American colleges more and more heritage language programs have emerged that aim to address the specific needs of these

introduction

5

speakers by developing separate curriculum and textbooks tailored to their particular strengths and weaknesses. Study abroad programs offer students who grew up speaking their heritage language at home unique opportunities to reinforce their language skills as well as fully immerse themselves in the culture.3 The growing theoretical and experimental interest in heritage languages in recent years has resulted in a great number of studies on various aspects of heritage languages, including dissertations, articles and book chapters in various venues. Some of the existing publications have a programmatic character, whereas others discuss experimental findings, more general theoretical issues or pedagogical implications (cf. in particular, the discussion of various sociolinguistic and methodological aspects in heritage language instruction in Carreira & Kagan, 2011). However, edited volumes containing works by various authors on the topic of heritage languages are still rare; the ones that are published focus mostly on sociolinguistic and/or pedagogical issues in that field, often concentrating on only one heritage language (Beaudrie & Fairclough, 2012; Brinton, Kagan, & Bauckus, 2010; Potowski & Cameron, 2007; Valdés, 2006). An exception to that trend is a reference guide on various heritage languages in the United States that offers extensive linguistic and sociolinguistic data (Potowski, 2010). Despite the growing body of research on heritage languages, presently not a single monograph solely dedicated to issues pertaining to heritage linguistics exists on the market. My study aims to fill this gap by presenting a larger theoretical discussion and rich experimental data about the mechanisms involved in heritage anaphora resolution at the syntax-discourse interface. Most of the publications in this area are journal articles and chapters in edited volumes. This imposes certain limitations on the scope of the studies and their dissemination. The advantage of collecting and analyzing data for a monograph is that it allows for an inclusion of a greater number of experimental tasks that focus on various aspects in production and comprehension of anaphora in heritage Russian. In addition, the length of a monograph (vs. journal articles) gives the researcher an opportunity to perform all experimental tasks with the same subjects, something that is not always possible even in a series of journal articles dedicated to the same topic.

3 Some of these programs are administered by the American Councils; others are hosted by various US colleges.

6

introduction

Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Anaphora Resolution

While a lot has been done in the area of morphology and syntax proper, there is not much experimental work with heritage speakers that focuses on establishing anaphoric dependencies with null and overt pronouns and the role of discourse in that process (notable exceptions are the studies of Dubinina & Polinsky, 2013; Keating, VanPatten, & Jegerski, 2011; Montrul, 2004, 2008; Montrul & Polinsky, 2011). Despite these few studies, heritage Russian hasn’t yet been a subject of experimental work in this area. Previous studies that focus on anaphoric pronoun interpretation and production in Russian mostly have addressed issues in monolingual Russian child and adult grammars or issues in information packaging and thematic reference, again in L1 Russian (cf. Gordishevsky & Avrutin, 2004; Grenoble, 1998, 2001; McShane, 2005, 2009; Miller & Weinert, 1998; Nichols, 1985; Nørgård-Sørensen, 1992; Zdorenko, 2010). My study is the first one to provide a theoretical and experimental approach to anaphora and anaphora resolution in heritage Russian. The goal of this project is not only to look at a less commonly studied heritage language but also to examine the null subject properties in Russian that are typologically different from the properties in other pro-drop languages. Finally, the distribution of null and overt subject anaphora in heritage Russian could complement the findings from other heritage languages in the same area and perhaps offer some new insights into their interpretation. The term “anaphora” is loaded with various meanings depending on the discipline (computational linguistics, psycholinguistic, or theoretical linguistics) or the particular focus on representational or processing issues in L1 and L2 studies. Therefore, a clarification of this term is in order here. The focus of my work is discourse anaphora whose interpretation is based on preferences and gradient properties and whose typical expression is through personal pronouns. Some scholars have referred to such pronouns as “pragmatic” compared to the bound variable pronouns restricted to syntactic constructions and interpreted at the level of logical syntax through variable assignment functions (Partee, 1978). According to Partee, the pragmatic pronouns need not have linguistic antecedents and require pragmatics as well as semantics for their interpretation. Furthermore, coreference, the relation between the discourse anaphora and its antecedent, holds both on the intra-sentential and intersentential levels. Conversely, binding relations between sentences are not possible to establish. In order to assure terminological consistency and clarity in my analysis, I will be using expressions such as anaphora/pronominal resolution and anaphoric/ referential dependencies to designate the phenomena of discourse anaphora

introduction

7

and the coreferential relations established between that type of anaphora and its antecedents. Studies of anaphoric null pronouns in Russian have shown that unlike canonical pro-drop languages, Russian exhibits greater restrictions in the distribution of null pronouns stemming from the discourse-based identification of these pronouns (Franks, 1995; Lindseth, 1998). It is very likely that the complexity related to the identification of null pronouns in discourse (compared to their licensing in narrow syntax) would put a strain on the processing resources of heritage speakers, which, in turn, will lead to variability in their performance. Certainly, cross-linguistic influence from English plays a role in the interpretation of null and overt pronouns by heritage speakers of Russian but it is not the sole source of divergence, as this has been shown in earlier studies of anaphora resolution in other languages. Furthermore, studies of the language of first-generation Russian immigrants in the US have found that these speakers also exhibit divergent behavior in the production of null and overt anaphoric pronouns, something that could not be explained by simply assuming language transfer, particularly in cases of poor command of English (cf. Dubinina & Polinsky, 2013). Russian and English are parametrically different in regard to null subjects; the latter is a non-pro-drop language, whereas the former allows null subjects, albeit in more restricted contexts. In Russian, the content of the pronouns can be overtly realized not only in the traditionally licit emphatic and contrastive environments but also in non-emphatic contexts, as an option alongside null pronouns. Such distribution differs from the distribution of overt pronouns in canonical pro-drop languages where it is required that null pro is used in nonemphatic contexts or with continuous topics in discourse. Theoretically, this makes Russian very interesting for the observation of bilingual grammars since the pro-drop parameter is set differently in Russian and English. However, the fact that overt pronouns can be used non-emphatically/non-contrastively in Russian makes it similar to English at least on the surface and gives overt pronouns greater perceptual salience as elements present in similar contexts in both languages. Furthermore, the person syncretism in the Russian past tense, which is a result of historical changes in the paradigm, adds another level of complexity to the level of representation and likely could play a role in the production and comprehension of overt versus null pronouns. This short description of the null parameter in Russian points to a situation of non-complementary distribution of null and overt pronouns in that language. The latter appear in neutral as well as emphatic contexts, something that resembles the situation in English. However, the fact that null pronouns also can occur in Russian likely would make pronominal use and distribution

8

introduction

in heritage Russian vulnerable to changes. If an overproduction of overt pronouns occurs in heritage Russian, this would mean that for that particular group of speakers, overt pronouns are a “default” option, a “safe bet” that allows them to establish referential dependencies in various types of contexts. However, unlike native speakers, heritage speakers would extend them to some pragmatically unwarranted contexts (such as topic continuity in connected discourse or embedded subjects) precisely because of their “default” status in their heritage grammar. Moreover, the ambiguity of null pronouns, especially in contexts where person syncretism obscures the reference, could be an additional impetus for heritage speakers to resort to a more extensive use of overt pronouns even at the price of redundancy. These and other issues of anaphora resolution in heritage languages will be explored at length in this book. Relevant comparisons with other bilingual populations will also be investigated as a means of achieving a more thorough understanding of the representation and processing of anaphoric pronouns. Previous studies of L2 learners have shown that both language production and comprehension systems are sensitive to the ambiguity of the referring expressions. For example, in production, it has been observed that speakers and writers tend to rely on more explicit reference in contexts where use of a pronoun does not uniquely identify the referent (cf. Cho, 2010). In comprehension, the salience of overt pronouns could be used as a much stronger cue in the interpretation of coreferential relations. Such suggestions, particularly those based on processing advantages of establishing coreference between an overt pronoun and its antecedent, have been brought up in recent studies that focus either on heritage languages in general (Benmamoun et al., 2013a) or on the language of Russian heritage speakers in particular (Dubinina & Polinsky, 2013). The syntactic operations involved in linking two elements at a distance have been argued to be the specific locus of difficulty for heritage speakers. Particularly, Montrul and Polinsky (2011) suggest that the licensing and coindexation of anaphoric pronouns with a DP at a distance could be the cause of significant problems in heritage grammars. Polinsky’s experimental work on null pronouns in the language of first-generation Russian immigrants in Israel and the US shows that these speakers already have started to lose or restructure their null grammar. The assumption is that if such changes have been detected in first-generation immigrants, it is likely that their children, the heritage speakers, not only will manifest similar changes but will do it on a larger scale (Benmamoun et al., 2013a). Locality-based accounts on pronoun interpretation have been suggested not only for bilingual speakers (O’Grady, 2011) but also for monolingual speakers

introduction

9

of partial pro-drop languages, such as Finnish (Keiser, 2002). In her study of Finnish personal and possessive pronouns, Keiser argues that the distribution of null vs. overt pronouns in this language is regulated by a locality constraint in two linguistic modules: discourse-pragmatics and logical syntax. Her findings show that while null pronouns are subject to locality-constraint (referring to the local topic), the overt pronouns prefer to take an antecedent outside of the local domain of reference. This situation, as Keiser suggests, makes the distinction between variable binding (local binding) and covaluation (non-local binding) morphologically encoded in Finnish, through different forms of the pronouns. While Russian does not grammatically encode such distinction with overt pronouns (in Russian they can refer to both local and non-local topics), it has been suggested that null subject pronouns can be licensed under embedding and do not need to refer to a more distant element, the subject of the matrix clause (Gribanova, 2013). Certainly, the notion of locality is worth exploring further, especially in heritage Russian, which exhibits restructuring and changes in various areas of morphosyntax and discourse-pragmatics. Differences in the complexity of operations between variable binding and coreference have figured most prominently in the modular approach of the economy of encoding developed by Reinhart and Reuland and further elaborated to include processing complexities. These scholars and their collaborators perceive variable binding (in logical syntax) as more economical than coreference, which is an operation performed in discourse. Furthermore, since syntactic operations involve fewer steps, they are seen as more economical in regard to processing resources (Koorneef, 2008; Koorneef, Wijnen, & Reuland, 2006). Likewise, the distinction between the syntactic and pragmatic system in regard to the efficiency of processing is the cornerstone of the Emergentism framework as outlined in O’Grady (2008, 2010). Since the pragmatic system offers a wider range of options and has a much larger domain, O’Grady argues that it places a greater burden on working memory than does the sentencelevel computational system, whose operation is far more locally focused. Thus, linguistic elements such as pronouns are viewed to be computationally less efficient than reflexive pronouns whose interpretation falls directly from the Efficiency Requirement, i.e., the choice of antecedent is determined in most cases by the need to resolve the referential dependencies at the first opportunity. Other processing-based theories of anaphoric interpretation, such as the LF-only Hypothesis, also have suggested the processing advantage of a boundvariable interpretation over coreference (Frazier & Clifton, 2000). In regard to

10

introduction

Russian, certain contexts of use of null pronouns, such as subordinate noun clauses, have been argued to trigger variable binding interpretation of null pronouns as a less complex operation in linking two elements at a distance compared to the linking based on coreference. Given the insights that anaphora production and interpretation can offer to theoretical and experimental linguistics, investigating anaphoric dependencies in a non-canonical pro-drop language such as Russian could provide additional typological evidence to the findings from pro-drop languages, such as Italian and Spanish, topic drop languages (Japanese, Chinese and Korean) as well as non-pro-drop languages, such as English, German, and French. The inclusion of more typologically diverse languages in the investigation of anaphora resolution could reveal more details about the nature of the complexity of the syntax-discourse interface (compared to other interfaces, for example) and its role in L1 acquisition in a bilingual environment. Since anaphora resolution has been mostly investigated in the language of L2 learners, the findings of these studies will provide the necessary context for the analysis of my own data. Particularly, I will focus on those elements in the various settings of the null subject parameter in different languages that have been shown to play a role in anaphora resolution in bilinguals. Some studies have shown that in the cases when L1 and L2 are both non-pro-drop languages (French and English, for example), the learners behave somewhat unexpectedly in accepting contexts with both overt and null subject pronouns when overt would be the norm (White, 1986). Divergent behavior has also been reported for speakers of two pro-drop languages, Spanish and Italian, despite the fact that they are similar in their parametric setting (Filiaci, 2010). These and other findings constitute relevant context for the exploration of the parametric distinction between heritage Russian and English as well as the discourse-pragmatic factors in the distribution of anaphoric personal pronouns. Despite the main focus on these pronouns in my study I explore the whole pronominal paradigm and analyze the role of the pronominal features (as proposed in the model of Harley & Ritter, 2002; Hofherr, 2006; and Holmberg, 2010; inter alia) in the production and comprehension of anaphora. Theoretical proposals and experimental studies have demonstrated a split between deictic and anaphoric pronouns, the consequences of which are manifested in the production (Lozano, 2009; Serratrice, Sorace, & Paoli, 2004) and comprehension (Carminati, 2005) of null and overt pronouns. Investigation of the production of deictic pronouns broadens the scope of the present study and helps determine whether the optionality at the syntax-discourse interface (as predicted by the Interface Hypothesis) holds across the board or is limited to the strongly referential components of the paradigm (3rd person pronouns).

introduction

11

Furthermore, a comparison of the use of deictic and referential pronouns in elicited narratives is analyzed from a processing point of view, given the more demanding requirements for identification of the 3rd person pronouns especially if two or more referents are “competing” for the same antecedent status. Apart from discussing the syntactic and discourse factors in pronominal resolution, I explore the role of coherence relations with semantically biased verbs, such as verbs of implicit causality. When these verbs are combined with a particular conjunction (“because,” for example) and a pronoun in the subordinate clause, they yield different antecedent bias depending on the subcategorization properties of the verbs. The rationale for including a task with such verbs in the present study is to reduce the computational complexity that arises in cases of globally ambiguous anaphora resolution and to examine the role of this complexity in contexts of consistent versus inconsistent antecedent bias. Researchers have argued that studies with lexically biased verbs can control for computational complexity at one interface and thus reveal targetlike processing of grammatical information in L2 learners at other interfaces (Hopp, 2010). In sum, my approach to anaphora resolution in heritage Russian differs in parts from the approaches in previous studies. In order to determine whether heritage interpretation of pronouns is affected by structural or processing deficit, I investigate anaphora resolution in globally ambiguous, non-ambiguous and pragmatically biased contexts, also adding the factor of time pressure. If heritage speakers have problems with the processing of anaphoric relations, giving them more time and providing them with a context of less ambiguity will help alleviate the cognitive load. If the problem is representational, there won’t be any difference in their performance in any context under any circumstances. Similar considerations based on the correlation between the complexities of the task and processing load are raised in Rothman and Slabakova (2011) and Schwartz (2011). The former argue that if bilinguals of all sorts have attentional resource allocation issues related to the cost of inhibitory control, this might force them to not pay attention to all relevant contextual information all the time. Thus, one could predict that as a task gets more complex, bilinguals’ processing would break down more quickly than monolinguals’. These methodological considerations allow for an exploration of the specific mechanisms of establishing coreferential relations with null and overt pronouns in heritage Russian. Therefore, the general research question posited in the present study is how heritage speakers of Russian produce and interpret null and overt pronouns given the way they have acquired their heritage language. More specifically, do they appear to employ similar processing strategies as monolingual speakers? Is their representation of referential

12

introduction

dependencies influenced to some degree by cross-linguistic transfer from English, their dominant language? In view of the theoretical considerations about anaphora resolution in bilingual populations (and heritage, in particular) and the particular research questions in this study, I would like to propose the following hypotheses about the performance of the heritage speakers of Russian: H1: Heritage speakers will exhibit divergent behavior in the use and distribution of null and overt pronouns manifested in underproduction of null pronouns and overproduction of overt pronouns due to the more complex nature of linking two elements at a distance, particularly in larger discourse. If the pro-drop properties are shown to be undergoing change in the language of the first-generation Russian immigrants, then we can expect such change to be more pronounced in the language of second-generation immigrants. H2: There will not be any variability in the heritage production of deictic pronouns because of their different semantic properties compared to anaphoric pronouns, i.e., they are referentially independent and much less restricted than the latter. H3: The interpretation of null and overt pronouns under time pressure will affect the heritage performance and show some variability as a result of the more complex nature of operations performed in discourse and regulated by the principles of Information Structure (Topic continuity vs. Topic shift). H4: Heritage speakers will differ in their pronoun interpretation in the condition of inconsistent antecedent bias due to the greater strain on their cognitive resources. The target group of heritage speakers of Russian in this study was juxtaposed with the control group of monolingual Russian speakers residing in Russia. Both groups performed four different tasks in Russian that elicited both production and comprehension of pronominal and lexical subjects in isolation or in connected discourse. All experimental tasks were performed orally since it has been shown that heritage speakers’ aural proficiency is stronger than their competence in other modalities (Polinsky & Kagan 2007; Valdés, 2000).4 Sociolinguistic variables such as input and order of language acquisition were also included in my investigation as factors which could play a role in the performance of heritage speakers. Input that contains discourse anaphora, 4 Literacy was found to have an effect on the acquisition of certain linguistic phenomena, for example, on the acquisition of inflected infinitives of heritage Brazilian Portuguese (Rothman, 2007b).

introduction

13

which is resolved through coreferential dependency, does not feature categorical distinctions; it instead presents preference-based pronoun interpretation. Certainly, such dependency is not as straightforward to process and acquire as are categorical relations, especially if this is done in an environment where there is constant competition from another language with a different parametric setting (English). In addition, the fact that Russian allows both null and overt subjects in the same context, in many cases without specific pragmatic constraints, would make the task of acquiring these properties rather daunting for heritage speakers or L2 learners of Russian, for that matter. Unfortunately, it is not possible in this study to examine the particular type of input that heritage speakers had received growing up and continue to receive since the parents or the siblings of the participants were not tested. Ideally, in order to determine the factor of quality of input in L1 acquisition of bilingual children, we need to conduct a longitudinal study to explore the interaction between children and parents in natural environments or conduct cross-sectional studies with various types of bilingual population (cf. Benmamoun et al., 2013a for some suggestions). For the purposes of the present study, the factor of input will be considered only in regard to its frequency, namely, how much input in the target language (Russian) do participants receive on a daily basis. Along with quality and quantity of input, the sequence and timing of language acquisition is another variable present in bilingual research. This variable has been investigated in various linguistic and sociolinguistic studies and found to be significant for L1 acquisition in bilinguals. Based on previous findings of the role of input and order of acquisition (cf. Montrul, 2008 for more information on this issue) I anticipate some effect of these external factors on the outcomes of the tasks, namely a correlation between less amount of input and simultaneous acquisition of two languages, on the one hand, with some degree of divergent performance, on the other hand.

Short Description of the Content

The first four chapters of the book provide the experimental and theoretical context of the study. They serve as a gateway to the main issues raised in the monograph and offer a detailed discussion of various analytical frameworks and hypotheses applicable to the topic of this book. A description of the methodology, the experimental design and the participants in the study is provided in Chapter 1. The goal of this chapter is to

14

introduction

provide more details about the life histories of the heritage speakers that were influenced by various factors and resulted in language maintenance or language shift. In order to construct the heritage profiles, I analyze sociolinguistic data drawn from a short survey of the participants and information from their personal narratives, such as language(s) spoken inside and outside the home, linguistic and cultural self-perception, motivation to maintain their heritage language, etc. Along with a discussion of more typical paths of linguistic and cultural changes, I focus on two cases of siblings who exhibit different degrees of proficiency as a result of different circumstances in acquiring their heritage language. Chapter 2 discusses the two sociolinguistic variables included in the study— amount of daily input and order of language acquisition. An analysis of these factors reveals their role in the variability of output with anaphora resolution in heritage Russian. Chapter 3 focuses on the particular properties of the pro-drop parameter, drawing on the morpho-syntactic requirements for licensing and identification of null elements as outlined originally by Rizzi in his Identification Hypothesis (1986). Since Russian often is assumed to be a non-canonical prodrop language, my goal in Chapter 3 is to provide more specific evidence about the nature and distribution of null subjects in that language, which then would allow placing it within a larger typological context. Chapter 4 introduces the reader to the theoretical polemics in the field of bilingual production and interpretation of structures at the syntax-discourse interface by offering a comprehensive review of various theoretical proposals and empirical data on null and overt pronominal anaphora in typologically different languages and in diverse bilingual populations. The findings of my study discussed in Chapters 5 through 8 constitute the core part of the book. In Chapter 5 I present an analysis of the use and distribution of referential pronouns in oral narratives. The participants were asked to retell the plot of the popular Soviet cartoon Nu, pogodi! This task aimed to elicit various referring expressions (null and overt pronouns as well as full noun phrases) in connected discourse and to demonstrate particular strategies in establishing anaphoric dependencies. Narration based on picture books or short videos are standard production tasks in heritage language acquisition (Isurin & Ivanova-Sullivan, 2008; Montrul, 2004; Montrul & Rodríguez-Louro, 2006; Polinsky, 2008a), L1 attrition (Tsimpli, Sorace, Heycock, & Filiaci, 2004) and L2 acquisition research (Belletti, Bennati, & Sorace, 2007). They all aim to provide data on coreferential linking between the anaphoric pronominal subject and its antecedent in a greater context that allows for examination

introduction

15

of reference maintenance and reference shift as sanctioned by the rules of Information Structure. The analysis of the results of this video narration task is compared to an examination of the use and distribution of deictic null and overt pronouns (1st person singular and plural) in Chapter 6. Since the goal of this task was to obtain data from spontaneous production, I asked the participants to talk about themselves, a topic that yielded a sufficient amount of data not only about the characteristics of deictic pronouns and their coreferential patterns but also about other syntactic phenomena, such as relativization, passivization, and others. Apart from the two production tasks, I conducted two comprehension tasks, the results of which were compared to the former as a way to provide a more complete picture of anaphora resolution in heritage Russian. Chapter 7 reports on the results from a forced choice aural preference task that elicits antecedent preferences under time pressure. In the discussion of this task, I draw on theoretical assumptions about the properties of structures at the syntax-discourse interface, which commonly are tested by the means of intra-sentential null and overt anaphora. The anaphora in this task appeared in globally ambiguous contexts, which presumably puts a strain on the interpretation of anaphoric pronouns and thus provides the conditions for investigating the characteristics of processing of anaphora resolution. Chapter 8 continues the examination of this type of anaphora but shifts the focus of the pronoun interpretation to elicitation of probable continuations of matrix sentences that contain semantically biased implicit causality verbs. The task was done orally and without time restrictions. My goal was to analyze a procedure different from the one described in the previous chapter, such that would minimize the cognitive load of the participants. The findings of the two tasks (discussed in Chapters 7 and 8, respectively) were compared in order to determine whether the level of difficulty of the task in regard to ambiguity and time restrictions would produce different results, which in turn would show evidence for the particular mechanisms of pronoun interpretation in heritage speakers. In the final chapter, Chapter 9, I turn to an analysis of the pedagogical implications of the results of my study. I propose particular methods for proficiency assessment and instruction tailored to the needs of heritage learners in a mixed-ability classroom consisting of L2 and heritage learners. I also provide suggestions for using experimental methods of testing heritage comprehension in a classroom setting through interactive student response devices. This way, my study will attempt to bridge several disciplines, such as theoretical

16

introduction

linguistics, psycholinguistics and pedagogy.5 This makes the book of particular interest to linguists, academic specialists, practitioners and professionals in the field of bilingualism and anaphora resolution, in particular. Undergraduate and graduate students could also benefit from the theoretical discussions of pro-drop properties in various languages and the experimental studies with bilinguals who are speakers of such languages. The core chapters of the book that present the tasks and the findings of the study provide an in-depth view of setting up controlled experiments with heritage speakers, something that could draw the attention of students with more advanced linguistic and/or psycholinguistic backgrounds and interests in this area. Scholars doing experimental research in other areas of social studies, such as experimental psychology, sociology, and contemporary history of immigration will be also interested in particular aspects of the book.

5 This is also the goal of one of the issues of the Heritage Language Journal, emphasized in Montrul’s editorial (2011b).

chapter 1

Methodology and Sociolinguistic Findings This chapter aims to provide essential information about the methodology of the study, as well as about the participants and their sociolinguistic profiles based on the data from questionnaires and personal narratives. It is essential to start the discussion of the sociolinguistic findings with an account of the specific characteristics of the experimental study in order to delineate the benefits and limitations of the current research.

Methodology of the Study

As I already briefly mentioned in the Introduction, my study was conducted in an experimental setting and consisted of several comprehension and production tasks, which are standard in psycholinguistic research with different types of bilinguals. All the tasks except for the proficiency exam were conducted on my personal laptop, which is equipped with the Stimulus Presentation Software SuperLab 4.5 and a response pad.1 This software was used for collecting data on accuracy and latency of response in the globally ambiguous anaphora resolution task. The oral narratives of the participants were recorded using the recording software Audacity. When they had to listen to recorded sentences or watch video segments, the participants were provided with a pair of headphones. This basic experimental equipment was easy to transport and set up under various experimental conditions in the United States and Russia. The experiment was conducted in faculty offices or other specifically designated spaces. All the participants completed the experiment and were compensated for their time. The combination of official advertising and word of mouth resulted in recruiting 38 participants in the target group of heritage speakers of Russian. However, further analysis of sociolinguistic and linguistic data prompted me to

1 This software is developed by Cedrus Corporation and has been used widely in various experimental studies in psychology, sociology, psycholinguistics, etc. Links to some of those studies can be found on the company’s website, www.cedrus.com.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004246171_��3

18

chapter 1

exclude four of them from the study.2 In addition, there were ten more potential participants who were contacted but did not respond beyond the initial inquiry. The age of the participants varied from 18 to 30 years old, with a median age of 20.7. They were all students in various US colleges. The participants in the control group (N = 38) were also college students and were matched for age with the target group. They were enrolled in various departments at a big university in Russia and were recruited through faculty members at that university. Most of them had some knowledge of English, which is inevitable in big urban centers in Russia, but by no means were they bilinguals or used English in their daily lives. Both groups performed the same tasks with the exception of the sociolinguistic survey, which was not given to the native speakers in Russia. Before I turn to the specific sociolinguistic findings of my study, I would like to define more precisely the object of my investigation, heritage languages. Since previous research on heritage speakers has shown that they are a very heterogeneous population with various degrees of proficiency in the language (cf. Benmamoun et al., 2013b), it is imperative to determine their basic linguistic and cultural characteristics, which distinguish them from other bilinguals.

What is a “Heritage” Language? Who are the Heritage Speakers?

The recognition of heritage language speakers as a category separate from native speakers or even L2 learners is relatively recent. The term “heritage speaker/learner” has its origins in the education literature and broadly speaking, refers to those who have been exposed to a language of personal connection (Fishman, 2001; Gass & Glew, 2011). Although this term is now widely accepted to designate the minority language of second-generation immigrants, ten years ago it was still seen as problematic and even negative because it pointed out to the past (not the future) and to the superiority of English in domestic and global contexts (Van DeusenScholl, 2003). Sociolinguists saw “heritage” as a relative term that is socially 2 In particular, two of the participants were excluded because of their biological age (over 40) and age of arrival in the United States (15). Another one demonstrated extremely low proficiency in the target language, providing an insufficient amount of data for the analysis. Finally, a participant whose primary language was Russian but lived in a former Soviet republic and spoke its language had to be excluded because of possible language interference.

methodology and sociolinguistic findings

19

determined and constructed. However, despite attempts to avoid such deterministic categorizations, the term “heritage” appeared to be the most viable one (compared to “native,” “primary,” “ethnic,” or “ancestral”) at least in regard to the language diversity in the United States (Potowski, 2010). The broadest definition of “heritage speakers” that exists in the literature unites several different groups of speakers by taking into account the place and role of heritage languages in the history of the United States. Particularly, Fishman (2001) divides heritage languages into three categories: indigenous (Native American), colonial and immigrant languages. Of those three, only immigrant languages spoken after the colonial period are of interest for the current study, more specifically the language of the children of immigrants from Russia and the former Soviet Union. Each of the three groups of heritage languages described by Fishman has its own characteristics and it would not be methodologically sound to generalize the findings of the present study to the other two groups of heritage languages in the United States. The European approach to heritage speakers resembles Fishman’s categorization to a certain degree with the exception of the presence of colonial languages. In particular, De Bot and Gorter (2005) analyze the characteristics of the two groups of heritage speakers in the European context: regional minority and immigration minority languages. They draw attention to the educational resources accessible to those two groups and the various governmental initiatives in their support. The studies on heritage languages done in the United States and Europe present clear evidence that the circumstances of acquiring one’s heritage language and the support that these languages receive in the community as well as in academic and governmental institutions position the various minority groups differently within the more general category of heritage speakers. In order to delineate the characteristics of a “heritage speaker” for the purposes of the present study, I turn to two definitions that look at this particular bilingual population primarily through the prism of their linguistic abilities, although certain sociolinguistic factors also are taken into account (Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Polinsky & Kagan, 2007). The broad concept of heritage language, according to Polinsky and Kagan (2007), emphasizes possible links between cultural heritage and linguistic heritage. In some cases, when the heritage language may not have been spoken in the home or the person might not have functional proficiency in that language, he/she will study it the way L2 learners do, most often in a classroom setting. Typically, third- and fourth-generation immigrants are born in the United States and despite their cultural interest in the language they do not

20

chapter 1

speak or comprehend it. Therefore, the motivation to speak that language does not define one as a “heritage speaker” and proper linguistic tests are needed to establish the proficiency in that language. This brings us to the second, more narrow definition of heritage language provided by Polinsky and Kagan and discussed at length in Benmamoun et al. (2013a). It emphasizes the order of language acquisition, namely, that the heritage language was the speaker’s first language but was not completely acquired because of the shift to another language, a language which very often has become the dominant language of heritage speakers. The issue of incomplete acquisition is highly debated in various publications on heritage languages and L1 attrition. Montrul (2008) provides a definition that distinguishes between incomplete acquisition and L1 attrition although she considers them both to be cases of language loss across generations. According to her, “incomplete acquisition occurs in childhood, when some specific properties of the language do not have a chance to reach ageappropriate levels of proficiency after intense exposure to the L2 begins. Although L1 attrition can also occur in childhood, I consider attrition as the loss of a given property y of the language after property y was mastered with native-speaker level accuracy and remained stable for a while, as in adults” (p. 21). In other studies the problem of L1 attrition is addressed primarily from the perspective of L2 influence (Pavlenko, 2004). It is argued that the areas of phonology, morphosyntax, pragmatics, and the mental lexicon all could be affected in this process. For example, Pavlenko provides anecdotal evidence that some bilinguals have lost their ability to interpret particular illocutionary intentions (invitations, for example) in their L1 due to a cross-linguistic transfer from L2. No matter how we approach the issue, it is clear that the distinction between incomplete acquisition and L1 attrition is not so easily determined (Montrul, 2004b, 2005). Meisel (2013) puts a strong emphasis on this distinction in regard to our understanding of the reasons for the often failed acquisition of native competence in the case of heritage speakers and advocates for more rigorous methodology in experimental studies. Such methodology is one of the most important steps in the fine-tuning of heritage research, mainly in lieu of the heterogeneous experimental designs and results of various studies. Particularly, some studies of phonology have found that heritage speakers could “pass” easily for native speakers (Montrul, 2013) while others have shown that even high-proficiency heritage speakers exhibit some divergence in pronunciation compared to native speakers (cf. Kupisch, 2013 for specific references).

methodology and sociolinguistic findings

21

On the other side of the spectrum are L1 attriters who just like heritage speakers learn the target language from birth but unlike heritage speakers are assumed to be unaffected by maturational constraints (Schmid, 2013). In many cases, they appear to be more balanced bilinguals than heritage speakers especially if they predominantly use English in their professional life. If we take additional factors into consideration in this debate, we need to distinguish between failure to acquire certain properties with exposure to enough linguistic input and without such exposure. An emphasis on the type of input that heritage speakers receive (compared to their monolingual peers) has been discussed recently by Pires and Rothman (2009). These scholars propose a more refined definition of “incomplete acquisition,” one that points to two distinctive sources of competence divergence. The first is a “true incomplete acquisition of properties clearly available in HS input.” The second is a “new source of competence divergence, which we define as missing-input competence divergence. In particular, heritage speakers do not acquire properties that are part of the competence of educated monolingual speakers primarily because monolingual speakers have sufficient exposure to a standard dialect” (p. 214). Pires and Rothman advocate for observing this distinction when we analyze incomplete acquisition in heritage speakers. In general, the quality and quantity of input, particularly with interface phenomena that do not require categorical judgments, could be very important for determining the path of language acquisition of heritage speakers. A discussion of this issue pertaining exclusively to the object of the current study is presented in the following chapter. The circumstances under which heritage speakers acquire their first language differ from speaker to speaker in regard to the timing of acquisition (simultaneously with another language or sequentially), the amount, type and quality of input they receive on a daily basis, and some personal factors, such as motivation and attitude towards the heritage language. In this respect, it is not surprising that unlike native speakers who always reach target and are not influenced by any of these factors, heritage speakers present a “continuum, from rather fluent speakers, who can sound almost like competent native speakers, to those who can barely speak the home language” (Polinsky & Kagan, 2007, p. 371).3 Recent studies show that even highly advanced heritage 3 One of the anonymous reviewers was concerned with the variability of the linguistic knowledge of the heritage speakers of Russian. The reviewer suggested that in order to legitimately group them together, their similarities need to be demonstrated. However, SLA researchers face similar problems with L2 learners who vary from speaker to speaker and whose “route”

22

chapter 1

speakers of Russian do not show native-like capacity in Russian, “likely as a consequence of multiple factors, including incomplete acquisition, attrition, transfer from the dominant language, insufficient schooling in the heritage language, reduced linguistic input, and qualitative shifts in Émigré Russian” (Laleko, 2013, p. 91). The fact that heritage speakers are so different from each other has not prevented researchers from studying them as a distinctive bilingual population that is often compared to L2 learners (Montrul, 2004b, 2005, 2010), L1 attriters or monolingual speakers. Most of the factors that play a role in their L1 development and acquisition have also been found to be relevant for L1 attriters and to a certain extent to L2 learners (Montrul, 2008; Wilson, 2009). Still, since there is indeed a variety in the linguistic “stories” of the participants in my study, I offer a more detailed description and analysis of the L1 and L2 development of these speakers, as well as their own account of some of the most common sociolinguistic factors relevant to achieving language proficiency.

Russian and Russian Speakers in the US

In order to understand the scope and significance of heritage Russian, it is necessary first to highlight the elements, key actors, and linguistic and cultural outcomes of Russian immigration to the US that has taken place in the 20th and 21st centuries. Russian ranks eighth among the most commonly spoken languages in the US, which translates to 905,843 home speakers of Russian in this country (American Community Report, 2011). This is a rather big surge from 1980 when this number was 173,226. The lifting of the emigration restrictions after 1991 was perhaps one of the main reasons for the increasing numbers of Russian immigrants to the US. In addition, we need to take into consideration that the number reported in the American Community Report perhaps also reflects the number of children of first-generation immigrants who speak the language at home. It is interesting to note that according to the ACR, half of the Russian speakers in the US speak English very well, 17% don’t speak it well and 5% don’t to proficiency is affected by multiple factors (Cook, 2011). In my study, I group heritage speakers on the basis of their proficiency, which is manifested as a continuum rather than as a sharp distinction. Similar observations on heritage speakers’ proficiency ranging from minimal to superior are discussed in previous studies (Benmamoun et al., 2013; Montrul, 2008, 2013).

methodology and sociolinguistic findings

23

speak it at all. This is quite similar to the situation with Spanish, the language with the largest number of non-English speakers in the US. However, unlike Spanish, there are more limited opportunities for Russian heritage speakers to “study” or refresh their language in college, community schools or churches. Moreover, the distribution of Russian speakers in the US is very uneven, with large numbers of them concentrated in big cities and states with more employment opportunities.4 If we look at the specific case of Russian heritage speakers, we could identify them as speakers who were either born in Russia/the former Soviet republics and came to the US at a very young age or were born in the US to Russianspeaking parents and continue to use Russian in their lives to some degree. Russian immigration to the US in the 20th and 21st centuries has been well documented and is generally divided into several major waves (Andrews, 1999, 2012; Dubinina & Polinsky, 2013; Kagan & Dillon, 2010; inter alia). The first wave occurred right after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the typical immigration destination was Paris. Emigration to the United States via big European capitals was initially much smaller but picked up in the 1920s and 1930s (Andrews, 2012). The second wave was after WWII when Russian-speaking soldiers and civilians captured by the Nazis were brought back to Germany for slave labor. For various reasons, some of which had to do with fear of being accused of treason by the Soviet authorities, this particular group chose to immigrate to the US instead of returning home and having to prove their innocence. The third and fourth waves were in the 1970s and 1980s when Jewish immigrants were granted unlimited entrance by the US authorities.5 And despite the fact that Jews were officially considered a separate nationality in the USSR, many Americans to this date label them “Russians” as a shorthand designation of all Soviet and post-Soviet immigrants. The attitude toward this phenomenon among first-generation immigrants in the US was found to be positive, neutral, or negative. In her survey of first-generation immigrants to the US, Isurin (2011) provides examples of all those different positions, which range from accepting the unifying power of the Russian language, culture and shared background to fierce rejection of a Russian ethnic identity by some Jewish immigrants.6 The 4 For example, there were only 887 Russian speakers in the state of New Mexico in 2010 compared to 216,468 in the state of New York and 141,718 in California (MLA Language Map, 2010). 5 Cf. Andrews (2012) for a more detailed discussion and analysis of these two waves. 6 One Jewish immigrant admits and accepts that “we, Jews, have become Russians, we have assimilated. This is an interesting twist and I agree with this.” Another one, however, stands behind her Jewish identity and states that she doesn’t want to be called Russian: “I tell Americans that I came from Russia and I speak Russian but I am Jewish” (Isurin, 2011).

24

chapter 1

situation is even more polarized among Russian Jewish immigrants in Israel, as Isurin observes, perhaps due to the “negative societal attitude towards Russian immigration in general” (p. 190). Looking at social components, such as attitude toward ethnic groups and newcomers as well as individual variables, such as age, education, place of origin and “official identity,” Isurin arrives at the conclusion that “the official identity does not necessarily shape the perception that the individual develops about his ‘self’” (p. 134). Additional factors, such as social stigma experienced both in their native and their host country may contribute to the intricate process of identity preservation or identity transformation. Similarly, Laleko (2013) suggests that constructing a new identity “requires a complex mechanism of reanalyzing, reinventing, and adjusting past experiences and attitudes” (p. 97). It is not only the first-generation immigrants who are faced with the multifaceted question of who they are. Their children, the heritage speakers, experience similar problematization of self-identification, perhaps partially provoked by the fact that for some Americans, the designation “Russian” continues to be an overarching label for all Russian speakers. A manifestation of this phenomenon is documented in the personal narrative of one of the heritage speakers who participated in the present study.7 When the topic of self-identification came up, this speaker stated the following: Mne legče skazat’, čto ja russkaja evrejka, čem skazat’, čto ja russkaja. Zdes’ ne ponimajut čto takoe russkaja evrejka. Vo-pervyx, èto religija, no ja ne religioznyj čelovek. Vy sami ponimaete naverno, no v Rossii evrei èto evrei, èto ne russkie, očen’ bol’šaja raznica, xotja ja sebja čuvstvuju bol’še vsego amerikankoj.8 The explicitness of this personal narrative is just one way of recognizing the difficulties of self-identification in the context of immigration despite successful integration into American society. Other participants simply acknowledged the fact that their emigration to the United States was aided by various Jewish organizations, thus avoiding a more in-depth discussion of this apparently emotionally-charged topic. 7 This participant was born in Russia and came to the US at the age of four. She is highproficiency speaker who speaks a mixture of Russian and English with her mother but Russian only with her grandparents. 8 “It’s easy for me to say that I am a Russian Jew than say that I am Russian. Here people don’t understand what it means to be a Russian Jew. First, this is a religion but I am not a religious person. You perhaps understand that Jews are Jews in Russia, they are not Russian, there is a big difference although I feel that most of all I am American.”

methodology and sociolinguistic findings

25

The Jewish exodus continued until the mid-1980s, the time of Gorbachev’s perestrojka and glasnost when there was an emigration hiatus of several years. The collapse of the Soviet Union brought another wave of immigration, which continues to this day and whose representatives are successfully integrating into American society. Each wave came with its own socio-cultural and linguistic “baggage,” and more importantly, with its own attitude toward the English language and American culture. Immigrants from the first two waves tried to preserve their linguistic and cultural roots and transmit them to the next generation. Most of these immigrants came from the upper classes and many had hopes that the new Soviet regime would collapse and they would get to go home (Andrews, 2012). The more recent waves are exhibiting a different type of behavior marked by the determination to make a new life for themselves and their children in their host country. The immigrants of the third and fourth wave were well educated, had studied English, possessed professional skills, and acclimated rapidly to the US lifestyle, finding good jobs in the legal economy (Dubinina & Polinsky, 2013; Kagan & Dillon, 2010). According to Andrews (2012), mastery of English was viewed as a precursor to economic survival and success. Thus, it is not surprising that these immigrants were much more tolerant of English borrowings into their language than the previous waves; in turn, this less purist attitude led to greater individual variation in émigré Russian and perhaps to further divergence in the language of the following generations. The linguistic and cultural adaptation of the third and fourth waves as well as the lack of isolated ethnic enclaves (with a few small exceptions) helped them “blend in” and become “invisible” in American society, something that most of them desired.

The Language of Russian Immigrants

The language of the first-generation Russian émigré has been studied mostly in relation to standard Russian spoken in Russia (Andrews, 1999, 2006). Certain phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical phenomena have been found to diverge from the language spoken in Russia. In particular, Andrews (2006) recorded changes in the intonation in the group of adult Russian émigré, which were more pronounced in the language of their children, the heritage speakers of Russian. These changes are characterized by loss of Intonation Construction 1 (IK-1) and IK-3, as the latter was replaced with the intonation patterns of American English. The area of the lexicon has been also vulnerable to English influence, more pervasive in the language of Russian immigrants

26

chapter 1

in the US than in the language spoken in Russia. Both Andrews (1999, 2006) and Polinsky (1997, 2000, 2006, 2007) have documented the changes in the vocabulary of first- and second-generation Russian émigré, providing lists of borrowings and explaining the need to borrow or calque words from American English. Polinsky (2000) makes further distinctions within the group of Russian immigrants based on the level of L1 attrition. The group that appears to be the largest in the US is the one whose language she terms “Émigré Russian” (note that this is different from American Russian, the language of heritage speakers of Russian). This is also the language that is an object of study by Andrews and most other researchers of Russian immigrants. There are two additional groups of immigrants whom Polinsky defines as speakers of contemporary standard Russian and complete forgetters, respectively. Since those groups were found to be rather small in the US, neither Polinsky nor Andrews provide extensive description of them. Since my own study primarily is concerned with the language of heritage speakers, i.e., the children of the first-generation Russian immigrants, I did not conduct a thorough investigation of the language of those immigrants. However, based on my conversations with the participants in my study and on some of the answers to the sociolinguistic questionnaire, I was able to deduce that their parents or caregivers belong to the largest group of Russian immigrants whose language was described by Polinsky as “Émigré Russian.” Immigrant languages in contact situations typically exhibit unequal power relationships with the language of the host country. This is more pronounced in countries where the official language has a global significance and social prestige, i.e., English, French, Chinese, etc. In such cases, bilingualism becomes necessary for the minority population (Vega, 2011) as typically, the majority language becomes the dominant one (Benmamoun et al., 2013a). The second- and third-generation immigrants, the heritage speakers, are an excellent example of this sociolinguistic dynamic. They are linguistically and culturally different from their parents and even more so from their grandparents. While most of them aim to preserve their heritage language and culture, their full immersion in English since an early age, the lack of homogenous Russian communities (with a few exceptions, most notably Brighton Beach in New York City), and the political and social reality in the US all have played a role in their incomplete acquisition of Russian. A number of these speakers have been brought into the spotlight after their rise to fame in the film industry. The stories of the actresses Mila Jovovich and Mila Kunis exemplify not only the linguistic and cultural realities of heritage speakers but also the different paths that language shift and language maintenance can take. Details of their L1 and L2 acquisition along with their connections with their home

methodology and sociolinguistic findings

27

countries and motivation to speak the heritage language manifest certain similarities with the sociolinguistic profiles of participants in my study. Mila Jovovich was born in Ukraine in 1975 to a Russian-speaking mother and a Serbian-speaking father. Her family left the Soviet Union when she was five, first going to London before settling in Los Angeles. When Mila enrolled in an American grade school at the age of five, she stated that she had learned English in only three months. Without more specific details about the extent to which she “learned” the language, it is difficult to say how fluent she was in the language but it would be very likely (given her age and full immersion) that she was able to communicate more or less freely with her peers. The story of Mila Kunis follows a similar pattern despite the slightly different outcome when she was first introduced to the American school system. Mila was born in 1983 in Ukraine but seven years later her family decided to leave the USSR and immigrate to the United States. Unlike Jovovich, Kunis had spent more years speaking only Russian and most likely receiving some formal education in Ukraine prior to her immigration. This was probably one of the causes of her initial inability to adapt to her new country; in her own words, she “blocked out second grade completely.” She remembers crying every day because she didn’t understand the culture, the people and the language. However, she managed to overcome this initial linguistic and cultural barrier, which helped her adjust “fairly well and fairly quickly.”9 Unless we find out more about other variables in their upbringing, such as their knowledge of Russian when they first arrived in the United States, the amount of daily input of Russian and the sources of this input, the environment in which they spoke their heritage language as well as their efforts (or lack of) to maintain it, it will be difficult to present a complete picture of these two celebrities as heritage speakers. Since both actresses rarely switch to Russian in their public appearances, the very few occasions when they speak Russian reveal some interesting linguistic patterns that are more or less typical for heritage speakers of any language. Given their age of arrival in the United States, it would be reasonable to assume a certain ability to produce and understand the language, with the latter being much better than the former. This is exactly what we see in the relatively spontaneous language production by both actresses during various TV interviews. Certainly, taking into account the relative simplicity of the discussed topics, such as family, career, free time, etc., it is not surprising that their level of understanding was targetlike.

9 Interview with the actress in Los Angeles Times in October, 2008: http://articles.latimes .com/2008/oct/16/entertainment/et-mila16.

28

chapter 1

In production, however, the grammatical phenomena discovered in the language of heritage speakers and discussed in the Introduction of this book were present in the language of Jovovich and Kunis as well. Interestingly, in the interviews one witnesses a positive correlation between lexical knowledge and control over grammatical structures (cf. Polinsky, 2000, 2006 for similar findings), i.e., problems with lexical proficiency were present alongside with leveling of the morphological paradigms in declension, simplification of agreement patterns, lack of semantic distinction with prefixed imperfective verbs of motion, and avoidance of various types of null elements, such as pronouns and verbs. The speech of both actresses reveals particular intonational, syntactic, lexical and pragmatic features that make them sound “non-native” but nonetheless doesn’t hinder the message and even makes it more exotic and appealing to their audiences. It is worth noting that celebrities who are heritage speakers of Russian enjoy the admiration and approval of Russian speakers not only in the US but also in the old homeland despite the obvious divergence patterns in their language. However, this might not always be the case with noncelebrities whose heritage language may be judged severely by native speakers residing in Russia “due to a strong prescriptive tradition and emphasis on the value and prestige of the standard literary language” (Laleko, 2013, p. 91). As a result of such attitudes, some heritage speakers develop certain inhibitions when they have to speak the language and show low confidence in their own language abilities. In the next section I draw further attention to these and other affective factors for maintaining or shifting away from heritage Russian.

Sociolinguistic Profiles of Russian Heritage Speakers

The experimental group of heritage speakers in my study consists of 34 young adults, age 18–30 whose L1 is Russian but who also have acquired English at a native level due to their continuous residency in the US. This group was recruited in several American colleges, mostly among students taking Russian language courses but also among young professionals. In order to avoid conflating factors in the study, the participants had to meet a few basic requirements—to be born in the United States or to have arrived here before the age of 10 and to have at least one parent who is an L1 Russian speaker.10 10

Some of the parents of the heritage speakers spoke other languages besides Russian (Armenian, Ukrainian, or Belorussian) but the main language of communication with their children was Russian, which also was spoken mostly in the home. The participants in my study did know some of the other languages but at much inferior levels than Russian. Additionally, it was difficult to control for the amount of English spoken at home

methodology and sociolinguistic findings

29

This particular group of heritage speakers falls under Group 3 of Friedman and Kagan’s (2008) classification that is based on the language of education. In particular, this group is characterized as “incomplete acquirers” (Polinsky, 2000) and includes students who attended elementary school in a Russianspeaking country or those who emigrated as preschoolers or were born in the US to Russian-speaking parents (Friedman & Kagan, 2008). Their proficiency was measured through a cloze test and taken as a basis for a further division within their group. Such division is capable of providing more fine-grained distinctions in that group, on the one hand, and when compared to the control group, on the other hand. Furthermore, the proficiency-based division provided a good amount of data about high-proficiency heritage speakers, a particular type of bilingual population that has received relatively small attention in the heritage research (cf. Benmamoun et al., 2013b and Kupisch, 2013 for discussion of this issue). The use of C-tests for establishing language proficiency is a common measure in bilingual studies. In order to provide more evidence to support the results of the C-tests, I also took into consideration my own impressions as a near-native speaker of Russian of the performance of the heritage speakers during the experiment. Specifically, I focused on pronunciation, fluency, accuracy and scope/appropriateness of lexical choices, all key components of oral performance. Although this method is not used very often, if used properly, it can provide additional support to the results of the C-test (cf. one such approach in Kraš, 2011, with Croatian L2 learners of Italian). There was some small amount of lost experimental data due to the failure of the Stimulus or the recording software. These cases are reflected in the difference in the numbers of participants in different tasks but do not have an effect on the overall results. The language used throughout the whole experimental study was Russian, with some heritage speakers occasionally switching to English. Below is a short description of the tasks conducted before the main experimental tasks. A short written cloze test that tests the proficiency level was given to the experimental group of heritage speakers and the control group in Russia. The test has 50 items based on various grammatical phenomena in Russian, such as verbs of motion, aspect, case, participles, indefinite pronouns and since many of the parents had English-speaking spouses or they themselves reportedly used a mixture of English and Russian with their children. Ideally, a study that takes into account the sources of input would distinguish between heritage speakers with two Russian-speaking parents from heritage speakers with one Russian- and one Englishspeaking parent. However, due to certain limitations in the recruitment process in this study, I will not make such a distinction here.

30

chapter 1

others. The items varied in grammatical complexity and design (multiple answer choice in isolated sentences or connected discourse, a choice between two aspectual forms in context and case assignment in context). The participants were not given time restrictions. On average, native speakers completed the test in 20 minutes and heritage speakers in around 30 minutes. The scores of the proficiency task were used to assign the participants to three proficiency groups: low (scoring under 70%), intermediate (under 90%) and high proficiency (90% and above). This sub-division was taken as a co-varying factor in the data analysis. A short sociolinguistic survey (approximately 10 minutes) was administered only to the participants in the experimental group. This survey provided data about the sociolinguistic profiles of the participants; in it they answered questions about their age of arrival in the US, years of formal instruction in Russia/ former Soviet Union, age and circumstances of acquiring literacy in Russian (if any) and English, language(s) spoken at home, and the amount of daily exposure to Russian. The survey also inquired about their motivation to study Russian in college although no specific correlation between proficiency level and motivation was determined. The participants also were asked to self-rate their proficiency but when compared to the results of the cloze test, these selfratings show a rather high fluctuation and were not taken into account in the study. However, there were interesting indicators of how in most cases heritage speakers downgraded their linguistic abilities, a tendency that could be linked to the linguistic purism imposed by older generations of immigrants or native speakers in the homeland. The significance of the use, learning or re-acquisition of the heritage language, the self-perception of a competent vs. incompetent speaker, the questions of motivation for heritage language maintenance or shift to the majority language and the related issues of identity and belonging to a particular community are all part of the field of language ecology, a field that only recently began to be identified as important for determining the particular characteristics of heritage speakers and learners in the United States (Campbell & Christian, 2003). These types of questionnaires have become more or less a standard repertoire in sociolinguistic studies aimed at processing a large amount of data in order to draw some generalizations about a group of speakers.11 11

I have provided a blank copy of the questionnaire used in this study in Appendix 2. The amount and type of questions in it have proven to provide enough information in a psycholinguistic study. However, the questionnaire can be extended to include more specific questions about the quality and quantity of input, motivation, self-assessment, etc. One of the most extensive questionnaires is the National Heritage Language Survey discussed later in this chapter.

methodology and sociolinguistic findings

31

Likewise, I examine some of these issues in the data provided by the sociolinguistic survey and personal narratives of heritage speakers of Russian who participated in the present study. My goal is not only to present a more general account on the bilingualism of those speakers but also to offer a glimpse of some individual characteristics that have helped some of the speakers to achieve high proficiency in their heritage language. In order to create some context for my findings, I compare them to the findings of the National Heritage Language Survey conducted by the National Heritage Language Resource Center at UCLA from 2007–2009. The results of that survey are summarized and analyzed in Carreira and Kagan (2011), whose study will serve as a point of reference for my own analysis. First, I would like to present two cases of siblings with different “histories” and language proficiency. The first pair is only two years apart. They both were born in the United States to Russian-speaking parents but only the younger one was exposed to the language in the home, mostly by grandparents who did not speak English. She also acquired some rudimentary literacy skills in the course of this interaction and is able to read and write in Russian despite some difficulties. As often happens with the children of immigrants, both girls went to kindergarten and became exposed to English at the expense of Russian. They both scored low on the proficiency test. The younger reported only 10% daily input in the heritage language while the older estimated it to be 30%. This difference is due to the difference in their living conditions. While the older still lives with her parents, the younger has lived with an English-speaking roommate for the past two years. Since all of the participants in my study were currently enrolled in various colleges, most of them have moved out of their parents’ house and live with one or more roommates, typically English speakers. Only 32% still live with their parents, a number that does not reflect the trend manifested in the National Survey (57%). Arguably, the type of colleges students are enrolled in, their financial situations, the emotional ties with their families, etc., all contribute to the decision to stay home or move out when they enroll in college. Regardless of the specific numbers, it is important to keep this variable in mind when we estimate the amount of their daily input in Russian. I have not come across a differentiation of such type that takes the quality or quantity of input into account. It is quite possible that this particular population (college students) presents some interesting but challenging data about input that needs to be further broken down into several categories or sources. This, however, is a topic for another study. For my purposes, the amount of daily input reported by the participants reflects their most recent living arrangements, immediately after they enroll in college courses.

32

chapter 1

Both sisters speak a mixture of Russian and English with their parents and mostly English with each other (mostly on the phone since they live in different states). Their motivation to continue studying their heritage language stems from a desire to communicate with their families and to preserve their cultural heritage. The other pair of siblings is six years apart, with a very different linguistic history. While the older brother came to the US at the age of 9, the younger sister arrived at 4. Her proficiency was measured as low while his was high. They both reported only 10% of daily input of Russian (mostly with friends); the main language of communication in the home is English (between them and with their Russian-speaking mother and the English-speaking step-father). It is therefore surprising that the brother’s proficiency in Russian was pretty high12 but there might be two explanations for that: a) he attended grade school in one of the former Soviet republics while his sister acquired some literacy in Russian at home, from her parents, and b) he arrived in the US when he was 9. The comparison between these two pairs of siblings is striking—while the sisters both were born in the United States, they try to maintain their language by speaking Russian with their parents and a mixture of Russian and English between themselves. On the other hand, the pair that arrived in the United States during their childhood has shifted to English as the main language of communication in the home and outside of it. It is perhaps futile to look for the reasons for these two different paths of language maintenance and shift because of the array of variables that could have played a role. The important thing is to note the individual differences among the heritage speakers population, especially when we talk about an inter-generational shift in the language, which often comes with changes in the structure of the language. Studies have shown that the most typical path of such a shift doesn’t exhibit an abrupt loss of the heritage language except in very few cases (cf. Polinsky, 1997). Rather, the children of immigrants display a particular model of communication in both languages (heritage and L2) that most often takes into consideration the type of interlocutors. In particular, they would speak the heritage language predominantly with their grandparents, a mixture of heritage and L2 with their parents and L2 with their siblings. Carreira and Kagan (2011) also found that Russian heritage speakers receive significant exposure at home, most likely from their grandparents but also from their parents. The 12

It’s worth mentioning that his English proficiency was also very high although it was not measured formally but was assessed impressionistically on other occassions. Such high proficiency is perhaps partially a result of his college education and the use of English as a dominant language in his household.

methodology and sociolinguistic findings

33

former rarely speak English, something that strengthens the motivation of their grandchildren to maintain their heritage language. Some of the participants in my study mentioned that their grandparents would not correct their mistakes because they liked the way they sounded in Russian. Others would adopt a different strategy by trying to point out the problem areas in their grandchildren’s speech, something that was felt to be somehow intimidating by those speakers but in either case resulted in stronger desire to improve their language abilities. In some cases, the limitation of the home environment is reflected in the limited range of vocabulary and reduced distribution of grammatical forms (Laleko, 2010, 2013; Polinsky, 2000). From an educational perspective, vocabulary diversity is viewed as the most consistent marker of proficiency (Corson, 2001). Thus, it appears that the heritage speakers who are enrolled in Russian language courses in colleges have to meet expectations that are much higher than those reflected in their daily interactions with family and friends. Such dissonance could lead to unrealistic perception of one’s own language abilities and even insecurity when it comes to speaking the language. The following excerpts from the narratives of two of the low-proficiency heritage speakers who participated in the present study illustrate this point: Ja tol’ko po-russki doma govorila, like, sto raz lučše čem sejčas. “I only spoke Russian at home, like, hundred times better than now.” Bol’no tak ploxo govorit’ “It’s painful [for me] to speak that badly.” Similar linguistic behavior was observed in previous studies of early and late Russian-English bilinguals. For instance, Pavlenko (2004) provides some illuminating data about the inadequate way some late Russian-English bilinguals feel when speaking Russian: Čto ja xoču skazat’? Čto ja čuvstvuju sebja vse bolee i bolee clumsy, nelovko, kogda ja govorju po-russki, mne trudno podbirat’ slova, i očen’ často mne kažetsja, čto mne legče vyrazit’ èto po-anglijski . . . Ja govorju sebe sama po-anglijski “I can make it” . . . počemu—potomu čto po-russki èto ne zvučit.13 13

“What do I want to say? That I feel more and more clumsy, uncomfortable, when I speak Russian, it is difficult for me to choose words, and very often it seems to me that it is easier for me to express something in English . . . And I say to myself in English ‘I can

34

chapter 1

The overall picture that emerges from the various surveys, questionnaires, and studies discussed above points to a not so bright perspective on the maintenance of heritage and to some degree, Émigré Russian, in the US. We see that the second- and third-generation immigrants are most likely to be native speakers of the majority language (English, in this case) and to have rudimentary or zero knowledge of their heritage language. This inter-generational shift is likely to become more pronounced in the following decades based on the trends outlined above and on an overall assessment of the language vitality. However, some scholars foresee positive changes in the status of the heritage language brought on by the stronger ties with the home country exhibited by the fifth emigration wave and better job opportunities in the host country for Russian speakers (Laleko, 2013). Opitz (2013) voices similar sentiments but in a study of L1 attrition in German-English bilinguals. She argues that “any of the languages in a multilingual system may change, and it does so in interaction with internal and environmental variables that create, though not in an absolute way, the conditions for likely trajectories for language development” (p. 712). Opitz attributes the differential success in maintaining German to better maintenance opportunities for German, which continues to be used, and the fact that German was a well-established system at the time of emigration and consequently is better able to absorb the effect of reduced maintenance effort on the other. At present, the desire to maintain the heritage language takes a few different directions. Below I discuss these directions as manifested in the similarities between the results of my study and the findings of Carreira & Kagan (2011).14 In particular, family was an important reason for 44% of the participants in my study (family in the US for 64% and family in Russia for 44%);15 equally important was their cultural heritage, 44% (59%), while job opportunities came last, with 24% (36%). Interestingly, Carreira and Kagan reported that for Spanish, Japanese, Mandarin, and Cantonese heritage speakers, finding a job was the most frequently cited motivation to study their heritage language in college. However, recently, with the heightened tension between Russia and the United States in political matters, more and more heritage speakers (as well as L2 learners) decide to pursue language studies because of various opportunities in the governmental sector.

14 15

make it’ . . . why—because in Russian it doesn’t sound right” (translation is provided by Pavlenko, 2004, p. 56). Their findings are presented in brackets after my results. In my survey I did not differentiate between family in the US and family in Russia.

methodology and sociolinguistic findings

35

It is worth mentioning that a few of the participants in my study noted the “beauty” of Russian as the main motivation for enrolling in language courses. Certainly, such affective criterion doesn’t change the fact that no one language has more value than any other. However, what we see here is the workings of the social context, in which a language can gain differential value (Vega, 2011). One can speculate that the popularity and even cult status of Russian literature in the United States (although mostly 19th century writers) has contributed to such perception of the language at least to a certain degree.16 In the next chapter I offer a more detailed discussion of the sociolingustic data related to input and order of language acquisition. As I draw more attention to these variables, I define more precisely the various sources of input and the dynamics in the timing of L1 and L2 acquisition by heritage speakers.

16

As far as I am aware, such motivation was not observed for speakers of the rest of the heritage languages presented in the National Survey.

chapter 2

Input and Order of Acquisition as Variables in the Study

Quantity and Quality of Input

Of the eight sociolinguistic variables present in my sociolinguistic survey, only two were included as factors in the analysis of variance, the amount of daily input and the order of acquisition of Russian and English, simultaneous or successive. Despite the fact that different scholars have proposed different assumptions about what constitutes “input,” it is clear that some of the important issues in the field of bilingualism (the difference between L1 and L2, for example) could be solved by “scrutinizing input at a new, much heightened level of attention” (Slabakova, 2013, p. 65). Amount and quality of input have been emphasized as factors that could contribute to both the incompleteness/indetermination of L1 grammars and fossilization in L2 acquisition (Montrul, 2005). Heritage speakers are exposed to their language early (just like monolinguals are but in contrast with L2 learners) but according to researchers such early exposure is not sufficient for full linguistic development; early bilingual children need sustained input until they reach target levels in their linguistic development (Montrul, 2008). Interestingly, other studies did not find that reduced input leads to incomplete acquisition or divergence (cf. the literature reviewed in Kupisch, 2013). However, the latter focus specifically on highproficiency heritage speakers, a group that is clearly different from the groups of low- and intermediate-proficiency speakers, the object of investigation of the majority of studies with heritage speakers in the US. The factor of input has been frequently debated as playing a significant role in the less-dominant language of bilinguals, and especially, in early child bilinguals. Montrul (2008) argues that bilingual balance in young children is a function of quantity and quality of input despite the fact that they have the biological and cognitive potential to become fully competent in the two languages. No less important is the timing of input especially when we compare heritage speakers to other bilinguals, such as L2 learners, for example. Studies that examined various phonological, morphosyntactic and semantic phenomena have confirmed the benefits of receiving input in a language during the early development stages (cf. Montrul, 2005, 2010 for a review of these

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004246171_��4

input and order of acquisition as variables in the study

37

findings). These benefits become even more evident if these bilinguals want to re-learn their heritage language later in adulthood despite the interrupted acquisition they experienced in their childhood (Au et al., 2002). Contrary to the opinion of some proponents of usage-based theories, this view of input as one of the determining factors for complete or incomplete language acquisition in bilinguals is fully compatible with the UG-based approach to L1 acquisition. It is a truism that children learn the language they are exposed to, regardless of how much input they receive. Thus, any serious UG hypothesis assumes that experience plays an important role in determining the mental grammar of what particular language the learner chooses to construct (Philips, 2012). Usage-based theories place a greater emphasis on the input properties as determinants of the language acquisition process (Paradis, 2011). In my study, I adopt a theory-neutral approach to the quantity of input as one of the sociolinguistic variables in the analysis of the results. The role of input at the various linguistic interfaces has been a topic of discussion in recent SLA studies. Sorace (2012) has acknowledged that both the quality and the quantity of input could play a role in the acquisition of properties at the external rather than the internal interfaces. However, as some recent studies suggest, the exact nature of the relationship between input quantity and language acquisition in a dual language setting, for example, the extent to which it is linear and whether it holds across children, languages, and linguistic domains, remains unclear (Unsworth et al., 2012). In their study of the acquisition of grammatical gender in Dutch and Greek by bilingual children, Unsworth et al. provide findings of recent studies of parental input and language acquisition that show that the complex nature of the home setting could hinder the investigation of the input factor. Particularly, in the home setting the input quantity often interacts with and is affected by numerous other factors including input quality, parental education, SES, and age of onset. In order to be able to tease apart the specific role of those additional factors and their interaction with input quality, researchers have looked at one or more of those factors as separate variables. The general concept of quality of input has been broken down to more specific instances that reflect the various spheres of use of the language, the type of speakers that provide input to the bilinguals, etc. For example, De Houwer (2007) discovers that in order to successfully acquire the minority language, it is essential that one or both parents of the bilingual child provide input in that language in the home. In some studies, the sufficient amount of that input was found to be around 60%. However, other studies didn’t find an effect of home language use on children’s rate of acquisition of vocabulary and verbal

38

chapter 2

morphology (Goldberg, Paradis, & Crago, 2008; Paradis, 2011). One explanation for such results is seen in the low proficiency in the L2 of the parents. In cases like that, researchers have found that the input in the home doesn’t have any impact on the linguistic development of the child (Chondrogianni & Marinis, 2011; Paradis, 2011). This explanation is not ungrounded but it does not provide answers to the question of why the minority language (L1 in most cases) is acquired at different degrees by different speakers. In a study of Russian-English bilingual children, Schmitt (2004) sheds light on the type of input that some Russian-speaking parents provide to their children. Once they noticed that their children preferred English, the parents started insisting on speaking only Russian at home. Gradually, the children adapted to this “policy” but continued to incorporate English into their speech, which resulted in code-switching or convergence. The children also exhibited signs of case restructuring, particularly when they used English bare forms (cf. also Schmitt, 2000). Despite the divergence from standard literary Russian, parents encouraged their children to use as much Russian as they could; thus, the frequency of input was sufficient but the output was not always validated or targetlike. The L1 of the parents of the heritage speakers of Russian that I studied was in most cases native or with some minor signs of attrition in certain areas. Therefore, it is plausible to assume, based on the results of the above-mentioned studies, that parental input will have an effect on the child only if the parents have a low or intermediate proficiency in that language. In regard to L2 (English), although I did not measure precisely the parents’ proficiency in it, in the cases of both simultaneous and successive bilinguals, English was their dominant language and they had native or near-native proficiency in it. It will be interesting to further explore such anecdotal evidence and determine whether we can establish a correlation between parents’ L2 proficiency and the language knowledge of their children. In general, the populations of early bilingual children and adult heritage speakers have been considered valuable for investigating various factors in regard to the quality and quantity of input. In her study, Dominquez (2009) looks at the input from the language of the parents and the community, the preference and use of each language by the speakers themselves and the manner and time-frame of exposure to the minority and majority language. It is perhaps not surprising that variability and insufficient input would lead to non-target performance of L2 speakers in certain grammatical areas, such as acquisition of gender; however, similar findings are reported in regard to heritage speakers who in their early childhood are exposed to a variety of speakers at home (Montrul, Foote, & Perpiñán, 2008).

input and order of acquisition as variables in the study

39

In my research I focus only on the quantity of daily input because the input sources have proven to be very diverse and to fluctuate over time, something that Dominquez (2009) also acknowledges as problematic for input considerations. Such difficulty prevents more scholars from investigating the quality of input as a factor in the linguistic performance of child or adult early bilinguals. In fact, there are only two studies that I am aware of that focus explicitly on the language of the parents and suggest that it has a possible effect on the language of the children (Laleko, 2010; Paradis & Navarro, 2003). The latter study explores the use and distribution of null subject pronouns in the language of a Spanish-English child while the former investigates aspectual properties in the language of adult Russian heritage speakers. Dominquez has conducted her own study of first-generation Spanish immigrants to the US that shows that there are already structural changes in their L1 under the influence of English. Heritage speakers acquire their L1 from their parents most of whom do exhibit some signs of language attrition or variability in comparison to the language spoken in Russia. If this particular language variety is what the heritage speakers receive as an input, it is more relevant to compare them to the group of native speakers who have lived in the US for some time, if this is at all possible (Benmamoun et al., 2013a; Dubinina & Polinsky, 2013; Ivanova-Sullivan, 2014; Kupisch, 2013; Montrul, 2008). Specifically targeting the population of heritage speakers, O’Grady, Lee, and Lee (2011) propose the Input Strength Hypothesis, a hypothesis that is based on activation and strengthening of form-meaning mappings. Perceptual salience of the form and a meaning clear of confounds and contextual determinacy are emphasized as the two most important factors for achieving clear-cut form-function mappings in input. Activating these mappings in response to non-ambivalent instantiations in the input is the basic principle of language acquisition, according to the authors of this hypothesis. Their subsequent maintenance depends on their strengthening through repeated opportunities for activation, in both production and comprehension. Unlike L1 acquisition of monolinguals where the outcome is always successful, the heritage language acquisition is of a different nature because of the circumstances under which these languages are learned and used. O’Grady and his collaborators (2011) suggest that heritage speakers might have trouble with mappings “in which either the form has low perceptual salience or the corresponding meaning is clouded by contextual indeterminacy, confounds with other potential contrasts, or so forth” (p. 34). Similar proposals about the opacity or transparency of the input have been put forward by Gathercole and Thomas (2005) and tested further in studies of

40

chapter 2

the acquisition of various grammatical phenomena. Gathercole and Thomas hypothesize that multiple form-function pairings (as in the marking of grammatical gender in some languages) appear to lend opacity and to make acquisition more difficult. One of the earliest accounts about the factor of perceptual salience in the process of ultimate attainment by L2 learners is by DeKeyser (2000). According to him, structures that are more salient to learners, whether because meaning depends on their accuracy, or because of their prominent position in utterances, are those that tend to be acquired regardless of age of L2 acquisition. Foote (2011) assumes that both early and late L2 learners will be successful in their native-like acquisition of perceptually salient structures, such as word order, yes-no questions, particles, and pronoun gender, to mention just a few. In contrast, late L2 learners exhibit difficulties with 3rd person subject-verb agreement, articles, wh-questions, plurals, adverb placement, etc. A different direction in regard to the saliency of input has been taken by scholars who investigate the role of conversational interaction in the development and internalization of L2 knowledge. Some studies show that this type of interaction was significant only for those features that are linguistically salient. Others argue that certain aspects of conversational interaction may be particularly beneficial to certain learners; for example, negotiated interaction can draw learners’ attention to mismatches between output and input (cf. the detailed discussion in Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998). The Concept of “Noisy” Input The input that heritage speakers of Russian receive with null and overt pronouns does not provide clear form-function mappings since it is based on preferences rather than categorical distinctions. I hypothesize that the low perceptual salience of null pronouns in Russian and the lack of such pronouns in the competing L2 (English) would create problems for heritage speakers with anaphoric pronouns. Likewise, the fact that null pronouns are restricted in most contexts in Russian (unlike canonical pro-drop languages) presents even bigger demands on heritage speakers who have to sort out the principles that guide the null vs. overt pronoun distribution in their heritage language. The unmarked status of overt pronouns in Russian also could obscure the form-function mapping because these pronouns can be used emphatically, contrastively, or with a neutral function. Finally, if we take into account the quantity and quality of the input of the majority language, English, we will see that despite the similar preferencebased principles of anaphora resolution in that language, the form-function

input and order of acquisition as variables in the study

41

mappings are more straightforward than in Russian given that the only pronoun option, overt pronouns, appear in all types of environments without competition from the null form (except in the context of “diary drop”). If the input that heritage speakers receive in L1 and L2 is analyzed in such a light, it becomes clear that the Russian input is more restricted and more ambiguous than the English one in regard to the use of discourse anaphora. This type of “noisy” input, in my opinion, has a greater significance for the acquisition of anaphoric pronouns in heritage Russian than simply the notion of “reduced” input, which doesn’t tell us much about the actual type of input. Furthermore, the concept of “reduced input” implies a certain ideal image of input that is sufficient enough to secure native language acquisition. However, as Meisel (2013) correctly observes, we need to determine the specific quantitative threshold for that sufficient input. This particular issue has not yet been addressed in studies on heritage speakers. However, in their discussion of previous studies of input frequencies, Benmamoun et al. (2013b) advocate for the further development of computational models of those frequencies in order to estimate the minimum input threshold needed for a target-like mastery of different properties of a language. There is only one study that utilizes the concept of “noisy input” (in the sense of “ambiguous”) with particular reference to the representation and processing of personal pronouns and demonstratives by bilingual speakers (L1 English learners of German and L1 German attriters), the work of Wilson (2009). The author brings up the difficulty of linking structures at the syntax-discourse interface since such relations typically are considered in terms of preference or felicity rather than acceptability. If such structures are present in the input, he argues, this input is “likely to be noisy” (p. 25). Additional information from the extra-linguistic context also can obscure the mapping between syntactic and discourse features. In light of such considerations, Wilson suggests that the outcomes of the L2 acquisition process could be different. The input could be misanalysed, which could lead to the forming of inappropriate representations due to an over-reliance on general cognitive principles, for example, firstmentioned entity is most salient. Another possible outcome is a greater degree of optionality in L2 grammars (compared to native grammars), in which inappropriate representation could co-exist with the appropriate representation due to the noisy nature of the input. Finally, L2 processing limitations could not allow for a successful integration of different sources of information, and thus, L2 learners would fail to form any links. Wilson investigates only two types of bilingual populations, L1 attriters and L2 learners, but he includes early bilinguals in the same category of bilingual

42

chapter 2

speakers for whom the quality of the received input (unambiguous or noisy) could be an important factor in their performance. I would like to note here that the interpretation of the quality of input found in the studies of O’Grady and colleagues (2011) and Wilson (2009) pertains primarily to referential/anaphoric 3rd person pronouns that are coreferential with linguistic or extra-linguistic antecedents. The issue of “noisy input” should not occur in cases of 1st and 2nd person pronouns because these pronouns are referentially independent (in Kiparsky’s terminology) and situationallygrounded, something that greatly reduces the number of possible antecedents and in turn decreases the potential for optionality and variability. Given the considerations outlined above about the role of input in heritage language acquisition, I have included the amount of daily input as a variable in my study. Within this relatively broad category I did not differentiate between exposure in the university, in the community, or at home simply because the emphasis in my study is not on the particular properties of the input but on its role in heritage language acquisition. Furthermore, since the exposure in a formal classroom differs radically from that at home, for example, more stringent criteria are needed in order to be able to measure the different type of input, something that is not within the scope of this book. For the purposes of the present study, I have divided the participants into two groups: the group that received a low amount of input, 10% or below (N = 22) and the group with a high amount of input (more than 10%). Only three heritage speakers reported 50% of daily input, the highest amount reported in the survey. Interestingly, they were all found to have intermediate proficiency. A lot of the high proficiency speakers reported only 10% of daily input but that could be due to them living with English-speaking roommates during their college years. Since the question about daily input asked specifically about the present situation, it is possible that the responses would have been different if the pre-college years were considered. Overall, I did not find any correlation between the amount of daily input and the level of proficiency. Since I only took the quantity of input as a factor, it is likely that the quality of input would yield different results and perhaps some correlation with the performance of heritage speakers. In general, the proposals of O’Grady et al. (2011) and Wilson (2009) offer strong support for taking the input into consideration, particularly in those cases in which the form-function mappings present some ambiguity and in turn, could lead to optionality in the bilingual grammars. More general suggestions about the effects of quality of input especially on the second-generation of immigrants have been offered by various scholars (Benmamoun et al., 2013a; Dubinina & Polinsky, 2013; Montrul, 2008; Montrul & Polinsky, 2011; Sorace, 2005; inter alia) and are worth exploring in more detail

input and order of acquisition as variables in the study

43

in future studies. The best way to capture the specific properties of such input will be to test heritage speakers whose living situation has been a constant up to the time of their testing and thus isolate possible confounding factors, such as English-speaking roommates or partners.1

Order and Timing of Language Acquisition

The type of bilingualism based on order and timing of acquisition is something that scholars, who work on various bilingual populations, including heritage speakers, have also taken into account (cf. Benmamoun et al., 2013b; Kupisch, 2013; Meisel, 2013). Early on, in a survey article of early bilingual and multilingual acquisition, Paradis (2007) discusses the language development of sequential and simultaneous bilinguals and concludes that there are both differences and commonalities between these two groups. He reports on the results of several studies that found that the proficiency gap between L1 and L2 in sequential bilinguals is larger than the gap between the dominant and nondominant language of simultaneous bilinguals. However, such a gap has been observed to diminish or completely disappear by the end of elementary school if both languages are supported in public or community schools (Canada is a case in point). It is clear that sequential and simultaneous bilingualism offers some insights about the dominant language of heritage speakers (especially in cases of “unbalanced” bilingualism) and the circumstances under which this language has become their primary language of communication. Therefore, in order to provide a more complete picture of the various factors that could influence the linguistic performance of heritage speakers I have taken the order and timing of acquisition as the basis of another sub-division of the participants in my study. The sequential group consists of heritage speakers who came to the United States between the ages of 4 and 9-and-a-half. For this group, English was introduced later in the acquisition process when the participants started attending English-language daycare or pre-school. Typically, in the case of successive bilinguals, there is a cross-language transfer from L1 to L2 but the reverse direction, L2 to L1, also has been observed frequently, in L1 lexical use and grammatical attrition as well as in a shift in the speaker’s dominant language (Grosjean & Li, 2013). The group of simultaneous bilinguals includes participants who either were born in the US or came before the age of 4. Studies of first language acquisition 1 Clearly, in the present study this was not possible for logistic reasons.

44

chapter 2

have made clear that children typically have a good command of the grammatical principles and rules governing their native language by the age of four (cf. Meisel, 2013; Verhoeven & Strömqvist, 2001). Montrul (2008) provides more specific age-based distinctions for the order and manner of acquisition of early bilinguals that also takes into account their immigration to another country. According to her, simultaneous bilinguals are exposed to both languages before the age of three. Sequential bilinguals, on the other hand, are exposed to L1 until pre-school/school when L2 is introduced (around the age of 4 or 5; cf. also Keating et al., 2011). In the case of heritage speakers, L2 likely is introduced after they moved to the US between the ages 4 and 5. Montrul argues convincingly that age and input are factors that play a role in the degree of L1 attrition or loss. The correlation she establishes is that language loss will be more severe in simultaneous bilinguals than in sequential bilinguals since the latter receive more input in their L1. She acknowledges that sometimes it is difficult to quantify the amount of “sufficient” exposure but typically, scholars consider the family situation to be of highest relevance for measuring the quantity of input.

chapter 3

Syntactic and Discourse-Pragmatic Conditions on the Distribution of Null and Overt Subjects in Russian This chapter addresses some theoretical issues related to the properties of null subject languages with a focus on the syntactic and discursive features that regulate the distribution of null and overt pronouns in these languages. After the formulation of the null subject parameter by Perlmutter and Chomsky in the early 1980s, the subsequent programmatic works of Rizzi, Hyams, Jaeggli, and Safir generated a large number of theoretical and experimental studies (for an extensive review of the history of UG parameters see Ayoun, 2003, and Camacho, 2013). Rizzi’s influential work on null arguments (1986) provides an account of licensing and identification of null subjects and objects, an account that has become the basis of all subsequent analyses of the pro-drop phenomena, including proposals for modifications in the past decade.1 The essence of Rizzi’s proposal is that referential pro is possible if INFL is specified for the agreement feature of Person. The two mechanisms of this specification address the questions of under what conditions the null element can occur and what is the way in which the content of pro is determined or “recovered.” Identification takes place through phi-features or rich agreement specification, thus connecting the possibility of the null subject parameter with the richness of AGR. The two syntactic requirements that Rizzi posits for pro are formalized by him in the following way:

1 Speas (2006), for example, dispenses with any licensing conditions on pro and instead argues that the possibility of any null specifier follows from general principles of economy of projection. Alexiadou (2006) takes the way languages check EPP as the reason for their split into pro-drop and non-pro-drop languages. In particular, he suggests that this language division reflects some structural differences between those groups, namely a functional (in non-prodrop languages) and a lexical projection (in pro-drop languages) that move or merge in the Spec of the EPP-related projection.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004246171_��5

46

CHAPTER 3

1)

Formal licensing: pro is governed by X (where X is a governing head of type y) Content identification: Let X be the licensing head of an occurrence of pro: then pro has the grammatical specification of the features on X coindexed with it

2)

Rizzi assumes that the feature specification on an empty category is licit only when it matches the specification of the designated binder (in the extended sense of this term). The licensing head in null subject languages, INFL contains features of agreement and features of tense and mood, of which only the former are co-indexed with the pro subject. Through the Identification Principle, pro is allowed to have specifications for person, gender, and number in order to recover the referential value of pro (Zushi, 2003).2 Rizzi’s account was found to be pertinent to canonical pro-drop languages, such as Italian, Spanish, and Greek, but his requirement of rich morphology did not seem to be applicable to languages such as Icelandic that have rich agreement but lack null subjects or Japanese, Chinese or Korean, which lack rich morphology but allow null arguments. In order to capture this typological distinction, Jaeggli and Safir (1989) propose the Morphological Uniformity Hypothesis that postulates that morphologically uniformed languages (with or without rich inflection) can license and identify pro. However, the application of the morphological uniformity recently has been questioned in regard to partial pro-drop languages, which are not morphologically uniformed yet permit subject drop. An alternative account that focuses on the relationship between agreement morphemes and feature checking in pro-drop and topic-drop languages has been proposed by Zushi (2003), who captures the differences between the typologically different groups of languages (Italian vs. Japanese, for example) in terms of the presence or absence of feature checking. Taking Rizzi’s syntactic proposal about pro and the language-specific verbal properties as a point of departure, Hyams (1994) proposes the Null Argument Parameter, an account of licensing of pro that captures the differences between subject-drop and topic-drop languages. Hyams agrees with Rizzi 2 Some authors suggest that morphological identification is not a sufficient condition for the valuation of pro. Particularly, Camacho (2013) argues that this type of identification has to be supplemented by topic identification in order for pro to have a referential (not expletive) interpretation. An elaborate account of topic identification in Italian is proposed in Frascarelli (2007) and discussed later in this chapter.

SYNTACTIC AND DISCOURSE-PRAGMATIC CONDITIONS

47

that pro is licensed under Spec-Head agreement but assumes that languages vary with respect to the status of the Spec position in which pro is licensed. In subject-drop or canonical pro-drop languages, pro is licensed in A-position, namely, SpecIP, under Spec-Head agreement with AGR. In German and Dutch, it is licensed in A-bar position, SpecCP under Spec-Head agreement with the features on the fronted verb in COMP. Null subjects in SpecCP are licensed by agreement with the INFL features that the verb has picked up from AGR and null objects are licensed by agreement with the verb’s selectional features, which are inherited by COMP. Thus, in contrast with canonical pro-drop languages, in topic-drop languages both subjects and objects are licensed in SpecCP. Hyams’s proposal has been found to account for certain patterns of divergent behavior in non-native grammars (Liceras, Díaz, & Maxwell, 1999, for example). Adopting Hyams’ Null Argument Parameter, Liceras et al. (1999) analyze the production of null subjects by children of different pro-drop and topic-drop languages. As predicted by Hyams, children in this study were able to properly license the null pronouns in different structural positions according to the parameter setting in their language (SpecIP or SpecCP). The learnability problem that bilingual speakers face was analyzed as having to do with selecting the appropriate identifier. Liceras and her collaborators advocate for a separation of licensing and identification as syntactic requirements for pro, suggesting that identification is a UG principle, which unlike licensing is not parameterized. They analyze the non-target production of null subjects in their bilingual data in light of the assumption that it is the identification procedure rather than syntactic licensing that determines the structure of non-native grammars. The theoretical considerations discussed in this section have played a significant role in the proposals about the properties of the null subject parameter in Russian, the topic of discussion in the next section.

Null Subjects in Child Language

There exist a number of different theoretical accounts and experimental studies that investigate the nature and distribution of null subjects in Russian unified in their interpretation of Russian as a non-canonical pro-drop language. I would like to start the discussion with some findings from spontaneous production and comprehension in child Russian. Gordishevsky and Avrutin (2004) conducted a longitudinal study with Russian-speaking children, age 1;8–2;6 and found that children possess, rather

48

CHAPTER 3

early, a subtle knowledge of both syntactic and discourse constraints on the use of subject pronouns. The distribution of null subjects in child Russian depends on contextual circumstances with no apparent restrictions from the morphosyntax. The positive evidence that a Russian child receives, according to the authors of the study, is that both null and overt subjects are allowed, similarly to overt and null objects. This presents challenges for a developing system. The findings of the study show that children’s performance is driven by the same (non-syntactic) factors as adult Russian. But while the syntactic constraints are observed from early on, the set of discourse constraints initially is extended to include the ones that are incorrect from the adult point of view due to the lack of a certain pragmatic principle differentiating speaker and hearer knowledge, the Concept of Non-Shared Knowledge (Schaeffer, 1999). This concept requires that the speaker considers the hearer’s knowledge as distinct from his/her own knowledge. Thus, the non-adult like omissions of subjects in child Russian point to a developing pragmatic system although parts of it may be innate, as the authors argue. Gordishevsky and Avrutin (2004) conclude that children need time to fully acquire the discourse-pragmatic conditions that warrant the use of null subjects and objects;3 it is the incomplete acquisition of these conditions that results in children’s overuse of empty elements in contexts where adults would use overt pronouns. Gagarina (2007) investigates anaphora resolution in children ranging from 2;6 to 5;6 with a comprehension and production task (elicited imitation). Her results show that null pronouns dominate in all conditions at the age of 3;0 but show significant regression by the age of 5;0. According to Gagarina, this points to an anaphoric system of the youngest children that consists of null and overt pronouns without a clear division of function. On the other hand, the older group has started to show the establishment of the different anaphoric functions with overt vs. null pronouns. Overall, Gagarina’s findings show that there is a steady decrease of null and a permanent increase of overt pronouns in children’s grammar over time, something that strikingly resembles the development of child English. In Bulgarian, another Slavic pro-drop language but with canonical prodrop properties (unlike Russian), Bittner and Kuehnast (2012) examine the factors of syntactic role and animacy in the comprehension and production of

3 Despite the fact the Gordishevsky and Avrutin do not specifically refer to an incomplete acquisition of the syntax-discourse interface, such explanation is very plausible given their description of the discourse-pragmatic conditions that children initially lack.

SYNTACTIC AND DISCOURSE-PRAGMATIC CONDITIONS

49

personal and demonstrative pronouns in two groups of German and Bulgarian children: 3-year-olds and 5-year-olds. They found that younger children used the pronouns in a more discourse- or context-oriented manner while the older group showed a more adult-like integration of syntax and discourse in the representation of pronominal referents. These results are similar to some of the studies discussed previously (cf. Gagarina, 2007, for example) and in general, present a picture of rapid development of the integration of syntactic and discourse structures. The point of disagreement is when exactly we see the transition to a more adult-like representation of these structures. Schmitz, Patuto, and Müller (2012) look at children of different bilingual pairs: German-Italian, German-French and Italian-French. They found that all children (ranging from the age of 1;6 to 4;0) have acquired that Italian is a prodrop language while German and French are not. Furthermore, the pairing of the languages did matter in the production of null and overt pronouns, which in addition showed further differentiation along the deictic-referential line. The findings in the studies described above suggest a type of child grammar that could be described in terms of “syntax-before-discourse” (Rothman, 2009a). Particularly, proposals about a delay of the development of syntaxdiscourse interface (Grinstead, 2004; Platzack, 2001) have explained some of the non-target performance of children who are speakers of canonical pro-drop languages. Grinstead (2004), for example, views the absence of overt pronouns in child Spanish, Catalan and Italian as a result of immature grammar-discourse interface, something that doesn’t necessarily imply a lack of discourse-pragmatic knowledge but rather an inefficient way of integrating pragmatics and syntax. A recent study of null subjects supports the notion that children are sensitive to the principles of Information Structure and discourse prominence but that “this sensitivity interacts with how each language divides labor between overt and null subjects” (Camacho, 2013, p. 226). Despite all this positive evidence that children easily acquire properties in the narrow syntax and have a good knowledge of discourse-pragmatics, we are still left with the following question: why L1 acquisition by bilingual children “does not always result in adult-like use, processing, or judgments” (Rothman & Fuentes, 2012, p. 4). What interface constraints are responsible for the divergent behavior of some early bilinguals, particularly of the RussianEnglish bilinguals who are the object of the present study? In order to explore the syntactic and pragmatic factors for the use of null and overt pronouns in the experimental study, I first need to establish the theoretical perspective on the null subject properties of Russian grammar.

50

CHAPTER 3

Null Subjects in Russian

Unlike the scarcity of experimental studies of null subjects in Russian, theoretical works on that topic are more abundant. Franks (1995) is the earliest and most frequently cited account of the pro-drop parameter in Russian done in the tradition of Chomsky/Rizzi/Jaggli and Safir. On the basis of a bundle of pro-drop features (licensing and identification of thematic and expletive null subjects, possibility of post-verbal subjects, and that-trace) all these scholars assume a general division of canonical pro-drop languages (Italian, Spanish, Greek, Turkish, etc.), non-pro-drop languages (English, German, French, etc.) and topic-drop languages (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean). As Franks observes, Russian differs fundamentally from canonical null subject languages in that overt pronominal subjects are the norm in Russian (and East Slavic in general) but not in South and West Slavic. Following Rizzi’s 1986 hypothesis about licensing and identification of null subjects, Franks assumes that null categories can only appear in specifically sanctioned positions and their content must be recoverable. Such a view on pro drop is very much in line with the interpretation of null pronouns in Cardinaletti and Starke (1994) who analyze pro as a deficient pronoun in regard to its semantics and distribution and argue that nothing forces it to be referential because it lacks index. It, however, can be interpreted as referential only if it is associated with a (nondeficient) antecedent, through coreference, and only in contexts where it is “old information” or “specific.” Following Jaeggli and Safir’s Morphological Uniformity Hypothesis and taking into account the person syncretism in the past verbal paradigm, Franks suggests that Russian has a “defective verbal morphology, in which person is not consistently marked.”4 Still, he remains agnostic to whether person syncretism in the past paradigm could render Russian morphologically non-uniform, and thus would fall into the category of non-pro-drop languages. Franks argues that Russian licenses but does not identify null pronouns, which means that only null expletives are possible. His argument is based on the assumption that thematic subject pronouns require both licensing and

4 The importance of person marking and the organization of inflectional paradigms in general is emphasized in several studies of canonical pro-drop languages (Koeneman, 2006; Speas, 2006). In Italian, for example, in the present subjunctive where the verb is not marked for person, it is necessary to have a 2nd person singular pronoun expressing the subject.

SYNTACTIC AND DISCOURSE-PRAGMATIC CONDITIONS

51

identification while expletives require only licensing.5 The question is whether identification is possible without licensing in contexts where subject pronouns can be omitted if their referent can be determined contextually. Franks gives an affirmative answer to this question, suggesting that “discourse recoverability” could play the role of such an identification mechanism.6 He proposes the following parameter (indirectly related to the null subject parameter) that can capture the deletion of contextually recoverable elements: Discourse-recoverably elements can be freely elided However, Franks doesn’t attempt to specify which particular discourse factors allow the subject to be omitted and one wonders whether licit subject drop depends on things such as discourse prominence, accessibility, topicality, or something else. His observation that null subjects in Russian agree with discourse topics implies a notion of coreferential relation between pro and its antecedent but this is not explicitly stated and thus, the particular mechanism of this operation remains unclear. Gordishevsky and Avrutin (2004) attempt to be more specific in defining the contextual conditions for the occurrence of null subjects in Russian. They also refer to the notion of “recoverability” of empty arguments, but in reference to both linguistic and situational context. The researchers argue that according to the recoverability requirement of the null subjects, they can only represent old information (i.e., they are topics) or be in the center of the discourse’s attention. So, what type of pro-drop language is Russian, if any? Several scholars define Russian as a “mixed” (Fehrmann & Junghanns, 2008; Franks, 1995; Lindseth, 1998; Slioussar, 2007; Tsimpli & Sorace, 2006) or weak (Gagarina, 2007) pro-drop 5 Other scholars have gone a step further to suggest that AGR in Russian is not able to even license null subjects in that language, unlike Hebrew, for example, in which this is possible (Gordishevsky & Avrutin, 2004; Matushansky, 1999). 6 A novel proposal about recoverability of null subjects is offered in Camacho (2013). Building on previous proposals (Cole, 2009), Camacho suggests that morphological richness is not uniformed in all languages but is situated on a scale, with different cut-off points for different languages, in particular, person, number, and gender for Tarifit, person and number for Italian and Spanish or just person for Bengali. Camacho analyzes these points as values overtly encoded in the morphology that is required to identify a null subject. The minimal set of those values is termed “minimal morphological threshold” for null subjects. Camacho’s proposal is based on recoverability scale, which takes into consideration the typological diversity in the null subject parameter and the limitations of the theory of morphological uniformity.

52

CHAPTER 3

language because it does not omit pronominal subjects outside of discoursesanctioned contexts. Fehrmann and Junghanns (2008) suggest that subject gaps are not obligatory in Russian but are one option alongside overt subjects, which are required in non-emphatic contexts. Discourse marking of overt subjects is viewed as optional in Russian, in contrast to canonical pro-drop languages, such as Italian (Kazanina, 2005). Such parametric specifications would not suggest aligning Russian with canonical pro-drop languages, such as Spanish, Italian, Greek, and Turkish that are characterized by omission of non-emphatic subject pronouns under rich subject-verb agreement. What are the specific contexts of occurrence of null and overt subject pronouns in Russian? 1. a. Čto ty sdelal so stulom? What you did with chair “What did you do with the chair?” b. ØSlomalØ Broke “I broke it.” c. Ja slomal ego I broke it “I broke it.” Gordishevsky and Avrutin (2004) 2. a. Gde Petja? Where Petja “Where is Petja?” b. Ø Ušël Ø Left “He left.” c. On ušël He left “He left.” Slioussar (2007)

SYNTACTIC AND DISCOURSE-PRAGMATIC CONDITIONS

53

3. Ivanj skazal, čto onj/i / Øj pridët.7 Ivan said that he will come “Ivan said that he [Ivan or someone else] will come.” Fehrmann and Junghanns (2008) 4. Peredajuk , čto onj / Øj/k skazal. Report what He said. “I report what he/I said.” Fehrmann and Junghanns (2008) 5. Ivank el jabloko, poka onk/j / Øk čital knigu. Ivan ate apple while he read book “Ivan was eating an apple while he [Ivan or someone else] was reading a book.” Kazanina (2005) 6. V kvartiru prišli roditelik , kogda onik / Ø uznali, čto ja / Ø uezžaju In apartment came parents when they found out that I leave “My parents came to my apartment when they found out that I was leaving.”

All these examples show that overt pronouns are possible in all contexts; they are neither emphatic nor contrastive nor do they indicate Topic Shift. Native speakers’ judgments can vary in regard to which pronoun (null or overt) is more felicitous in a given context; however, it is important to emphasize that all the sentences are well-formed with both types of pronouns. Since these variations are not based on categorical distinctions (unlike syntactic anaphora), they perhaps will need to be placed in a larger context, in which the properties of Information Structure and discourse coherence would provide more precise triggers for the speakers’ referential preferences.

7 Similarly, in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) coreference with the main clause can be established both by overt and null subjects in the embedded clause. This is in contrast with European Portuguese (EU) where coreference requires a null subject (Camacho, 2013). BP has been characterized as a partial pro-drop language (Barbosa, 2011; Holmberg, 2005, 2010) and it shares quite a few similarities with Russian in regard to its null subject properties. A more detailed discussion of partial pro-drop languages can be found further in this chapter.

54

CHAPTER 3

Null subjects are possible in examples 1) and 2) because they are Topics or old information. Recall that ellipsis of theta-marked subjects in contexts like these is suggested to occur free in Russian provided that it is recoverable from context (Franks, 1995). In fact, Franks argues that there is nothing privileged about subject position; this type of ellipsis is part of a more general phenomenon that includes all arguments. While this observation is correct, Frank doesn’t provide more details about the specific discourse elements that can function as referents of null pronouns. Apart from being linked to old information, null subjects can form referential dependency with antecedents that mark new information or focus, cf. example 6). In this sentence, the NP “my parents” is the subject of the unaccusative verb “came”; this particular postverbal position is most frequently associated with Focus in Russian, similarly to the situation in canonical null subject languages. The null subject pronoun in the subordinate clause refers back to the Focus NP showing that null subjects are not exclusively identified through Topic. It is perhaps more plausible to assume that it is the subject (rather than Topic) here that is responsible for the recoverability of the null argument. The embedded null subjects in examples 3) and 4) can have either a coreferential (in 3 and 4) or obviative (outside the discourse) reading (as in 4). In the case of the coreferential interpretation, null subjects have been argued to be licensed as bound variables (Lindseth, 1998), sometimes exclusively in such contexts (Kučerová, 2008), a proposal that either contradicts the occurrence of null subjects in contexts such as 1 and 2 or questions the description of the null arguments there as null subjects. While such accounts are still a matter of debate, scholars have convincingly shown that null subjects establish a variable binding relation with quantificational predicates in the matrix clause not just in Russian but in other null subject languages as well (Matushansky, 1999). Such contexts also provide additional evidence that overt pronouns in Russian exhibit fewer restrictions in their distribution than overt pronouns in canonical pro-drop languages. Particularly, a syntactic constraint on bound variable interpretation, the Overt Pronoun Constraint (Montalbetti, 1984) is shown to be non-operational in Russian indicative clauses:8 the overt pronoun in the following example obtains a variable reading although this is a context, in which a null pronoun is also licit.

8 This is yet another indication that Russian doesn’t belong to the group of canonical pro-drop languages since the OPC is argued to be fully operational there (Montalbetti, 1984). It has to be mentioned, however, that OPC applies in subjunctive clauses in Russian, a topic that is beyond the subject of the present work.

SYNTACTIC AND DISCOURSE-PRAGMATIC CONDITIONS

55

dumaet, čto oni/j / Øi/*j pobedit v sorevnovanii Každyj učastniki Every participant thinks that he will win in competition “Every participant thinks that he [the participant or someone else] will win in the competition.”

There are recent proposals to include OPC in the cluster of properties associated with the null subject parameter (Rothman & Iverson, 2007). In their study of L2 Spanish, Rothman and Iverson determined that the L2 learners do not observe OPC, unlike the native speakers. The importance then of the presence of or lack of OPC in Russian is the type of evidence that this presents for heritage speakers whose L1 acquisition has been interrupted by English. The function of overt pronouns in null subject languages is not the only issue that remains unresolved. The structural position that overt subjects occupy in those languages is also a matter of debate, as more and more scholars have provided experimental evidence that questions the common view about their position in SpecIP (as suggested in Belletti, 1990 and Rizzi, 1990). Grinstead’s 2004 Pronominal Argument Subject Parameter divides languages into those that realize overt subjects in SpecIP (English and French) and those that do it pronominally on the verb and occur in a Topic position (Spanish). Hacohen and Schaeffer (2007) find evidence to support this view for overt subjects in Hebrew as well, thus paralleling the behavior in Italian and Spanish. Cardinaletti (2004) offers an account that is based on the presence of two types of lexical heads with different morphological features: those that can license null subjects and those that cannot. In her cartographic model that posits two different subject positions (grammatical and semantic) Cardinaletti places pro in the lower subject position, SpecAgrSP to check its phi-features while strong subjects, as DPs and Italian overt pronouns continue their derivation to SpecSubjP in order to check the subject-of-predicate feature. She specifically states that SubjP is not a Topic but rather pertains to the logical structure of the sentence, thus allowing her to encode the semantic properties of subjects in the syntax. It is clear that in pro-drop languages pragmatic and semantic features play a key role not only in the interpretation of null subjects but also in their overt realization. In non-pro drop languages like English, pragmatics play no role since the subject realization is a syntactic requirement according to which subjects originate in SpecVP and are raised to SpecIP for checking purposes. In my work I adopt the relatively undisputed account of the subject position found in most studies of Russian syntax and summarized in Bailyn (2011):9 the 9 But cf. other proposals, such as Dyakonova (2009) that do not equate the Subject and the Topic positions.

56

CHAPTER 3

subject in Russian originates in SpecvP and then moves to its structural position in SpecT in order to satisfy the requirement of the strong EPP. Bailyn proposes the following generalization about the structural position of the subject in Russian.10 Russian SpecT Must Be Filled by a Prominent Argument According to him, any element in this position has a “prominent” status and as such is often the Topic of the sentence. The structural position and identification of null subjects in Russian has been an object of investigation mostly in Minimalist accounts. Gribanova (2013) has recently proposed that the formal licensing of subject pro is done through its local relationship with a licensing head, probably T. Her account posits an AGREE relation between pro and T through which T is able to value the phi-features of pro.11 Applying this analysis to licit subject gaps in embedded clauses, Gribanova argues that the null subject enters in a local relation with T (i.e., within the embedded clause), with no need to establish a longdistance connection with the matrix subject: Volodjai skazal, čto oni / Øi kupit zelënuju lampu Volodja said that he will buy green lamp “Volodja said that he [Volodja] will buy a green lamp.”

The structure she assumes for the subject drop in the above sentence is [ . . . [pro VO]], thus predicting subject-drop licensing under embedding. On the basis of various syntactic texts with null subjects and objects in Russian, Gribanova shows that while subject drop is allowed in islands, subject extraction is not; thus, she concludes that subject drop licensing can be done locally without the need to establish A-bar dependency (licensing of object drop follows a different path). After this short discussion of the existing accounts of the parametric characteristics of Russian as a non-canonical null subject language, I now turn to recent proposals that either classify Russian together with languages such as Finnish, Hebrew and Brazilian Portuguese, or with languages such as English and German. 10

11

Baylin states that what he calls T is actually INFL, a projection that fuses Tense and Agreement in its head. In accounts that assume a Split-INFL (Junghanns & Zybatow, 1997), the subject moves to SpecAGR or can stay in situ. Cf. Zushi (2003) for a similar proposal in regard to canonical pro-drop languages. He argues that the DP structure of pro has an empty head, which in turn allows pro to inherit its features from the agreement morpheme at LF.

SYNTACTIC AND DISCOURSE-PRAGMATIC CONDITIONS



57

Russian as a Non-Pro-Drop or Partial Pro-Drop Language

There was a noticeable shift in the approaches to the null subject parameter in the 2000s. Several studies have proposed some modifications to the classical notion of pro-drop and particularly, to Rizzi’s Identification Hypothesis (cf. the discussions in Barbosa, 2011; Hofherr, 2006; Holmberg, 2005, 2010; Holmberg, Nayudu, & Sheehan, 2009; Koeneman, 2006; Roberts & Holmberg, 2010; Vainikka & Levy, 1999; inter alia). These modifications were prompted by observations on null arguments in partial pro-drop languages, such as Finnish, Marathi, Hebrew, Brazilian Portuguese, and Icelandic. What unifies all these accounts is that they assume either different structural positions or different syntactic mechanisms for licensing and identification of null subjects. This way, most of them manage to capture the restrictions on 3rd person null subjects in partial pro-drop languages. A more general revision of the Null Subject Parameter has been offered by Camacho (2013). On the basis of data from a number of typologically different languages, he suggests that instead of talking about null subjects in general terms, we should describe certain languages as having productive null subjects, others—restricted null subjects, and yet others—only overt subjects.12 Vainikka and Levy (1999) propose an analysis of the mixed null subject pattern in Hebrew and Finnish that is based on the idea of varying location of the subject-verb agreement features, namely that the N-features of the deictic pronouns are in the subject position while those of the 3rd person pronoun are in AGR.13 On the basis of this novel feature-checking description, Vainikka and Levy suggest a three-way division of languages (traditional pro-drop, non-prodrop and mixed type), which in some ways is a departure from the traditional null subject division. In the first group (Spanish, Italian, Chinese) the overt subject is not obligatory; the subject position is filled by the N-features of the verb, which are base-generated in SpecVP, from where they raise to SpecAGR in order to satisfy the POOL requirement.14 However, in emphatic or contrastive contexts, the N-features in the subject position can be overtly realized as a subject NP. In non-pro-drop languages (English, Swedish, German, French, 12 13 14

According to this classification and the facts discussed in the previous sections, Russian should fall under the second group, with restricted null subjects. In such an account, Rizzi’s notions of licensing and identification are subsumed under one single syntactic mechanism. POOL is a syntactic requirement proposed by Vainikka and Levy, which stands for Principle of Obligatory Occupant Licensing. According to these researchers, in order to be licensed, both the head and the specifier of a syntactic position must be filled by syntactic material at some level of representation.

58

CHAPTER 3

Russian, and Colloquial Finnish) all N-features occupy the AGR position and an overt subject is therefore required to license the thematic subject position. The parametric characteristics of pro in Russian, in which a typical non-prodrop pattern coexists with omission of expletives, reveal a more complex situation and make its classification more challenging. On the one hand, according to Vainikka and Levy, Russian aligns with the “mixed type” languages, such as colloquial Finnish and Hebrew (in present tense) in regard to having obligatory referential subjects and null expletives; on the other hand, it sides with English and other non-pro-drop languages in having obligatory overt subject pronouns, so that the subject position is overtly filled to satisfy the licensing condition POOL. Subsequent accounts on the partial pro-drop nature of Russian were proposed in Koeneman (2006) and Hofherr (2006). Both studies emphasize the fact that Russian does not allow argumental subjects to be dropped but has obligatory null expletives. Hofherr notes that in partial pro-drop languages null subject pronouns with 3rd person inflection are much more restricted than 1st and 2nd person pronouns; however, they are possible if they are coreferential with a c-commanding DP in the main clause, thus, showing that further licensing mechanisms for null 3rd-person pronouns are available with a local antecedent (a situation with embedded null subjects in Russian). In her classification of null pronouns, Hofherr argues for a split between arbitrary and anaphoric null pronouns instead of the null subjects split based on thematic roles advocated by Rizzi. Instead of Rizzi’s implicational hierarchy of null pronouns based on feature content, Hofherr suggests that anaphoric and non-anaphoric pro-drop are content-identified by two different types of agreement. In view of her own classification and following Franks’s (1995) hypothesis, she assumes that Russian does not have referential null subjects. Still, she assumes (with Matushansky, 1998) that null subjects are possible in spoken Russian where they behave more like null topics than null pronouns. In a series of works, Holmberg and colleagues set up the task to refine the accounts of the parametric similarities and differences between canonical pro-drop languages and partial pro-drop languages. They view null pronouns in canonical null subject languages and the 3rd person pronoun in Finnish as inherently deficient. The 1st and 2nd person null subject pronouns in partial pro-drop languages are interpreted as fully specified DP that are deleted in PF, a view that is based on an earlier account of Perlmutter (1971). In a recent work, Holmberg (2010) proposes a modified account of Holmberg (2005), adopting Frascarelli’s (2007) cartographic approach to syntactic and discourse properties of null subjects. Frascarelli’s analysis of null subjects in

SYNTACTIC AND DISCOURSE-PRAGMATIC CONDITIONS

59

Italian is the first one to show how these elements can obtain a full interpretation at the interface by merging operations in the C-domain. The core principle of Frascarelli’s proposal is her rejection of Rizzi’s traditional concept of Identification because according to her, this operation is redundant (cf. Vainikka and Levy 1999 and Liceras et al., 1999 for alternative accounts that also modify Rizzi’s original Identification Hypothesis). Instead, she assumes that the interpretation of thematic pro in subject position is dependent on the syntax and discourse properties of Topic constituents. Particularly, she posits the functional projections of Aboutness-Shift Topic, Contrastive Topic and Familiar Topic, all of which are base-generated in the C-domain. The Shift Topic head, according to her, has an extended EPP feature, [+aboutness], which acts as a probe and agrees with the goal pro, so that its uninterpretable features can be valued. Thus, Frascarelli’s analysis posits a matching relationship with an Aboutness-Shift Topic through AGREE as the only relation responsible for the identification of a referential pro in argument position. Holmberg (2010) also assumes that an Aboutness-Shift topic is always syntactically represented in a designated A-topic position in the C-domain in canonical pro-drop languages, either overtly or covertly. Similarly to Frascarelli’s account, he suggests that this is not the only A-topic position in the sentence. There are A-topics in every clause, including the clause containing the null subject. The null A-topic there serves as the antecedent of the null subject that is base-generated in the C-domain. This null A-topic is a copy of an A-topic in the locally preceding discourse and these two topics are linked by an indexsharing relation. The precise nature of this syntactic operation in canonical null subject languages is argued to be incorporation of null subject pronouns in T. If it is a 3rd person pronoun it is interpreted as definite by virtue of a D-feature valued by a null A-topic; if it is a deictic pronoun, it is valued by a speaker/addressee feature. The speaker/addressee features are properties of the C-domain and are present in every finite clause. They are the local or more distant antecedents of deictic pronouns in consistent null subject languages. The significance of this type of operation is that it is not a subject to narrow syntactic conditions (such as c-command, for example) but it is performed at the syntax-discourse interface, something that previous studies do not seem to recognize. Conversely, Holmberg suggests that in partial pro-drop languages the subject can still be null essentially by the same derivation as in the consistent null subject languages, namely, T probes for phi-feature values. T will copy all the feature values of the subject, then T and the subject will form a chain,

60

CHAPTER 3

and the subject will remain null, by means of chain reduction. However, in partial pro-drop languages, the interpretation of the subject chain cannot be that of a definite pronoun and this is typically what we find in partial pro-drop languages. Yet, there are a few cases when the null subjects are interpreted as definite in these languages, in particular, when null subjects have a locally c-commanding antecedent. Barbosa (2011) continues this line of thought and classifies Russian together with Finnish, Hebrew, Brazilian Portuguese, and Marathi on the basis of the restricted use of 3rd person subject-drop in these languages. She argues that in contexts where the embedded subject is coreferential with the matrix subject, both options (null and overt) are possible due to the lack of the Avoid Pronoun Principle in these languages.15 Franks (1995), however, views this principle as operational in Russian. The Avoid (Lexical) Pronoun Principle formulated by Chomsky has been assumed to apply to languages, such as Italian, with two weak pronouns (null and overt) (Cardinaletti & Starke, 1994). In these languages, the null pronoun is preferred although there might be stylistic differences involved when an overt pronoun is used. Similarly to the analysis of embedded null subjects in partial pro-drop languages (cf. above), null pronouns in canonical pro-drop languages are observed to be most frequently non-focused embedded subjects in the subordinate clause. In her cross-linguistic study of null subject languages, Matushansky (1999) argues that in partial pro-drop languages (Russian and Hebrew) null subjects depend on the near context, namely, a pronominal subject could be null only when its referent is a strong salient topic. A sub-division within the person’s paradigm (3rd vs. non-3rd person) is seen as another factor that could influence the distribution of null subjects. I discuss the findings of a production task based on the discourse-pragmatic conditions of the occurrence of the null and overt 1st/2nd person pronouns in Chapter 6. 15

Another possible interpretation of the co-variation of null and overt subjects in partial pro-drop languages could assume (after Cardinaletti & Starke, 1994) that the choice of null over overt pronouns is a special case of Minimize Structure (Economy of Representations) due to the content and semantics of weak and strong pronouns. The Minimize Structure Principle is systematically favored over the Avoid Pronoun Principle in languages that have two weak pronouns, one overt and one null. While Avoid Pronoun Principle requires that the null be chosen over the realized, where possible, Minimize Structure leaves the choice free. However, it is not clear whether partial pro-drop languages fall into this category since Cardinaletti and Starke do not discuss those languages in their study of pronoun typology.

SYNTACTIC AND DISCOURSE-PRAGMATIC CONDITIONS

61

In summary, several issues have emerged in the treatment and interpretation of null subjects in Russian. First, are there referential null subjects in Russian? Some give an affirmative answer (Slioussar, 2007), whereas others (most notably scholars who define Russian as a partial pro-drop language) think that Russian only has non-referential arbitrary null subjects and the cases of allegedly null subject pronouns are null topics or subject gaps. Regardless of the nature of null subjects, the fact that they exist at least in spoken Russian is what matters in the analysis proposed in the present study. Second, most of the studies on Russian null pronouns agree that the “canonical” or licit contexts for these pronouns are embedded clauses. This fact is captured theoretically by positing the absence of licensing of pro due to the “defective” nature of AGR in Russian. Although the language does have rich inflection, certain verbal paradigms (past tense) exhibit person syncretism, thus not allowing for N-features to be licensed through Spec-Head relation in AGR/T. Despite the diversity in terminology and minor variances in the interpretation of the pro-drop parameter in Russian, all these accounts point to the interpretation of overt pronouns in Russian as unmarked compared to null subjects (Tsimpli & Sorace, 2006). One can extend this idea further and suggest that overt pronouns are the “default” option in Russian, contrary to canonical pro-drop languages where the default is pro. Tsimpli (2011) provides an interesting angle in the discussion of “default” in a language with more than one pronominal form. She describes the weaker element (in terms of Cardinaletti & Starke, 1994) in this language as “linguistic default” and the stronger element (overt pronouns) as the “learner’s default” since the latter is typically overused and more liberally interpreted. Such description leads Tsimpli to assume that a representational approach to the definition of learner-default could be a result of processing costs at the interface provided the features of the “marked” form are not identical to those of the monolingual speakers. If we apply this view of default to canonical null-subject languages, we could perhaps delineate the differences between developmental grammars and native grammars when the latter are of non-pro-drop nature. Overt pronouns in English, for example, must appear in all contexts and thus, are not ambiguous. In null subject languages, on the other hand, they are associated with a variety of contexts of use and are more ambiguous, which makes them ideal candidates for a “learnerdefault.” If the developmental path of these structures is taken into account, then structures that are acquired late would present a discrepancy between the linguistic and the learner default, a position that has been adopted in a recent study by Unsworth et al. (2011).

62

CHAPTER 3

I suggest that Russian presents a different case, with the linguistic default being the overt pronoun and null pronouns “being just one option along nonemphatic subjects” (Fehrmann & Junghanns, 2008, p. 211). Thus, Russian resembles English to a certain degree but adds a “twist” to the parametric variation. The unmarked status of overt pronouns in Russian, along with the option of having null pronouns in the same contexts, presents a rather complex situation for early Russian-English bilinguals who have to possess knowledge of the distribution of null pronouns. This knowledge is largely dependent on the acquisition of mapping of different discourse-pragmatic features onto overt pronouns, the default options in both languages. In sum, the analyses of the nature of pro-drop in Russian show that most scholars who have worked on the null subject parameter in that language consider it capable of licensing null subjects; however, identification is assumed to be done by contextual recovery, unlike the structurally-based identification in the canonical pro-drop languages. Thus, it appears that variability in the occurrence of overt subject pronouns is already part of the parametric configuration in that language. This stands in contrast with canonical pro-drop languages, in which overt pronouns have very specific discourse-pragmatic functions, marking emphasis, contrast, or Topic Shift. Generally speaking, the theoretical accounts and empirical observations discussed in this chapter are in consensus about the non-canonical pro-drop nature of Russian. However, the particular details of this parametric option are less clear and still under debate since some of the facts in Russian contradict both the accounts of Russian being a partial pro-drop language (i.e., the lack of split between 1st/2nd person and 3rd person pronouns in regard to null arguments) or being a non-pro-drop language (the obligatory presence of null expletives and the optional subject drop in some contexts). Since the objective of my study is not to offer a theoretical interpretation of the null subject parameter in Russian, I do not adhere to a specific theory of this matter. The important conclusion I would like to draw in this chapter is that Russian is a non-canonical pro-drop language, in which overt pronouns are the unmarked option. However, unlike English (the dominant language of the heritage speakers of Russian), Russian allows null arguments that are more constrained in their distribution than overt pronouns. Particularly, they are restricted to specific contexts, in which they are either instances of ellipsis governed by discourse conditions or are licensed by an operator-variable binding.

chapter 4

Optionality in Bilingual Grammars: Establishing Anaphoric Dependencies in Pro-Drop Languages Anaphora resolution is a phenomenon that pertains to the syntax-discourse interface and as such has been found to be problematic for different types of language learners and bilinguals (Montrul, 2011). Since the objective of the present study is to understand how different types of bilingual speakers produce and comprehend anaphora, here I discuss the main findings of recent studies of anaphora resolution, concentrating on the loci of convergence and divergence in the language of different bilingual (L2 learners, L1 attriters, heritage speakers) and monolingual populations. I also outline the explanations put forward by various groups of researchers in order to account for the experimental results with referential dependencies. The present chapter provides the necessary theoretical background and findings regarding the main topic of this study, pronominal resolution by heritage speakers of Russian.

Anaphora Resolution in Experimental Research: An Overview

Anaphora resolution is a complex and highly demanding task for bilingual and monolingual speakers alike. It is even more taxing when it is done in globally ambiguous contexts without any semantic or pragmatic cues that could guide the language processor. In null subject languages, it requires knowledge of narrow syntax (the licensing and identification of null pronouns) and interface conditions that allow the pronoun to be interpreted. In addition, in non-canonical null subject languages, like Russian, the mapping of discourse onto syntactic features of the pronouns requires knowledge about the plausibility of both overt and null pronouns in various contexts as well as knowledge about the more restricted nature of identification of null pronouns in Russian. Null subject languages have shown to be a good testing ground for various phenomena that go beyond categorical distinctions and instead focus on cases in which there is more than one option available within the grammar. This was found to be the situation in both fully acquired L1 grammars (native speakers) and developing L2 grammars of null subject languages at various proficiency levels. Studies of those grammars have found the presence of optionality in

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004246171_��6

64

CHAPTER 4

L2 of language learners and L1 of bilingual speakers (L1 attriters and heritage speakers) resulting from different factors, such as cross-linguistic influence, quantity and quality of input, representational or processing deficit, and even bilingualism itself (Montrul, 2011; Sorace, 2011). One of the first to test the pro-drop parameter in adult SLA was White (1985, 1986). She found that the L1 parameters influence the adult learner’s view of the L2 data, leading to transfer errors. Her results show that Spanish speakers exhibit L1 language transfer to English while French speakers did not. In view of such findings, White suggests that null subjects are the property most vulnerable to language transfer in null subject languages. Conversely, Liceras (1988) tested English and French L1 speakers acquiring Spanish and showed that they didn’t have any problems with null subjects but found other properties of pro-drop languages, such as VS inversion and thattrace, problematic. In regard to acquiring the particular syntactic requirements of pro, Liceras and Díaz (1999) suggest that all languages license null arguments but children have to “learn” how their specific language “identifies” those arguments. Identification is based on language-specific factors, which have to be learned— phi-features in the case of canonical pro-drop languages and null topics in the case of Chinese and Japanese. Ever since White’s and Liceras’s studies, researchers have argued that the factor of cross-linguistic influence plays a role in L2 acquisition, L1 attrition and heritage languages. The most frequent finding in studies of anaphora resolution in bilinguals whose L1 or L2 is a null-subject language (i.e., canonical pro-drop, topic-drop, and partial pro-drop languages) is that bilinguals have target-like behavior with null subjects but differ from monolinguals in their use and distribution of overt subject pronouns. Such findings are often explained with the more complex nature of referential pronouns in null subject languages in comparison to their English counterparts. Particularly, such complexity has been argued to stem from the level of mastery of both morphosyntactic and pragmatic properties of the pronouns (cf. Rothman, 2009a; Sorace, 2011; White, 2011). Cross-linguistic difference is at the heart of one of the first explicitly formulated hypotheses about interface vulnerability with reference to the L1 of bilingual children. This is Hulk and Müller’s hypothesis of a cross-linguistic transfer at the syntax-discourse interface in a null subject language (Hulk & Müller, 2000; Müller & Hulk, 2001). According to this hypothesis, in order for cross-linguistic influence to occur, two conditions need to be met: 1) the phenomenon under investigation has to involve the interface of two modules,

Optionality in Bilingual Grammars

65

syntax and pragmatics (C-domain), and 2) it has to be a structure which has two different underlying analyses in each of the target languages but that overlaps (at least partially) at the surface level (overt pronouns in our case). Several studies of bilingual children of different null subject languages confirmed Hulk and Müller’s findings about the overuse of overt pronouns. Paradis and Navarro (2003) explain the higher rate of overt pronouns in the speech of a Spanish-English child with cross-linguistic influence from English and with her parents’ input. The researchers contend that it is difficult to tease apart those two factors in their study but that future research should consider seriously the role of input in bilingual acquisition (cf. the discussion of input in Chapter 2). The predictions of Hulk and Müller in regard to the convergence on the use of null subjects in bilingual child grammars also were confirmed, with no significance found between the bilingual child and his monolingual peers. However, Paradis and Navarro suggest that such lack of significance on a representational level doesn’t necessarily mean that both groups have the same processing strategies. Despite their relevance, considerations like these are rarely taken into account in developmental studies of structures at the interfaces. Since working memory and cognitive maturity in bilingual children have been shown to affect the efficiency in allocating processing resources (Rothman & Slabakova, 2011), more detailed examination of the seemingly identical bilingual and monolingual results in terms of processing is necessary. Despite the overwhelming support that Hulk and Müller’s hypothesis has received in experimental studies, one issue that hasn’t been discussed much in the literature on the properties of the syntax-discourse interface is the issue of directionality. In a recent study, Liceras, Fuentes, and de la Fuente (2012) focus on this particular issue by investigating the production of overt subjects in child L1English-L1Spanish bilinguals. Their findings show that the number of overt Spanish subjects produced by the bilingual children is not higher than those produced by monolingual Spanish children. They take these findings as evidence that there is no interlinguistic influence from English to Spanish in the case of balanced bilinguals. In their explanation, the researchers juxtapose the role of elements from the narrow syntax and at the syntax-discourse interface that could be the cause of cross-linguistic influence. Particularly, they argue that despite the fact that the use of overt subjects in Spanish is regulated by discourse-pragmatics, since obligatory subjects in English are licensed by core syntactic operations, they cannot cause interlinguistic influence on Spanish. In her study of pronominal subjects in a simultaneous bilingual TurkishEnglish child, Haznedar (2010) shows that in Turkish the overt pronominal

66

CHAPTER 4

subjects are optional and their occurrence is determined largely by the discourse-pragmatic context of emphasis, contrast, and old versus new information.1 The naturalistic language production data from two children showed that the bilingual child overused overt subject pronouns in Turkish, which, as Haznedar argues, is compatible with Hulk and Müller’s hypothesis and also with the results from the studies of Paradis and Navarro (2003), Serratrice et al. (2004) and Hacohen and Schaeffer (2007). However, if we take a closer look at Hacohen and Schaeffer’s study, we will see that the proportion of null and overt subjects in the Hebrew-English child was found to be the same as in the monolingual children (clearly not compatible with Haznedar’s results). When the researchers further probed the proportion results, they discovered that the pragmatic distribution of overt subjects in the two groups was different. These findings prompted them to assume that cross-linguistic difference is responsible for the infelicitous discourse-based distribution of overt subjects but not for the rate of their production. It is worth mentioning that Hacohen and Schaeffer view Hebrew’s prodrop properties as identical to the pro-drop properties of a language such as Spanish. They adopt an analysis that proposes TopicP as the landing site of realized subjects in Hebrew, similar to what had been proposed for Spanish in the Pronominal Argument Subject Parameter (Grinstead, 2004). However, some recent accounts take Hebrew to be a partial pro-drop language, with several restrictions on null subjects and apparent differences in the syntactic conditions on realized subjects (Barbosa, 2011; Holmberg, 2005, 2010). If we take these accounts into consideration, Hacohen and Schaeffer’s proportion results could be interpreted instead in terms of (surface) similarities in contexts that require overt subject pronouns in Hebrew and English. In all the studies discussed so far, the typical direction of cross-linguistic influence is observed to be from the non-pro-drop language to the pro-drop language, manifested in the overuse of overt pronouns in the null subject language. However, in a very recent study of Korean-English children, Kang (2013) offers a novel interpretation of the issue of directionality that contradicts Hulk and Müller’s hypothesis. In a study of production data in English, Kang reports seemingly unexpected results, i.e., Korean null pronouns are the ones that influence English pronouns, not vice versa. In order to explain such results, Kang adopts the model outlined in Serratrice et al. (2004) that predicts the direction of transfer, namely, from the language with fewer pragmatic constraints (English) to the language with more pragmatically complex constraints, such 1 In this respect, Turkish is like the rest of the canonical pro-drop languages but in contrast with Russian, where null pronouns are optional.

Optionality in Bilingual Grammars

67

as Topic Shift and Focus (Italian).2 However, instead of phrasing the differences in pro-drop vs. non-pro drop languages in terms of constraints, Kang proposes to view those differences in terms of preferred options. Particularly, she argues that both Korean and English allow overt and null subjects, differing only in regard to which one of the two is the preferred option: in English, it is the overt pronouns and in Korean—the null pronouns. Having established the main criteria for evaluating those languages, she then interprets the direction of the cross-linguistic influence as from the preferred option in language A (Korean) to the non-preferred option in language B (English). As original and intriguing as this proposal is, it remains to be seen whether other studies will replicate these findings or detect similar trends in languages other than Korean and English.

Pragmatic Principles of Anaphora Resolution

The discussion in the previous section provides enough evidence that Hulk and Müller’s hypothesis can predict one specific locus of divergence (the syntax-discourse interface) in a pro-drop L1 of bilingual children and provide some details about the structures at that interface that likely will be subject to variable behavior. However, questions about the particular mechanisms that are involved in the realization of these structures need to be further addressed. These considerations have given birth to several accounts about the division of labor between narrow syntax and discourse in regard to the use and distribution of null and overt subject pronouns not only in developmental grammars but also in grammars of adult learners or L1 attriters of pro-drop languages. Serratrice et al. (2004) found differences between English-Italian children and their monolingual peers in regard to subject realization. The researchers explained this divergence with Greenfield and Smith’s Principle of Informa­ tiveness (1976) that accounts for early argument omissions in non-pro drop languages. According to this principle, the amount of informational content of the subject is what causes its omission or realization. By applying this principle to their data, Serratrice et al. not only confirm Hulk and Müller’s

2 Note that a similar model has been proposed for L1 attrition in Turkish-English bilinguals by Gürel (2008), albeit in terms of language superset-subset relationship. Gürel argues that in a contact situation, the language with fewer restrictions will replace the language with more restrictions, similarly to the predications made by Serratrice et al. (2004) about the direction of cross-linguistic influence in bilingual children.

68

CHAPTER 4

hypothesis but also make more specific assumptions about the underspecification of pragmatic principles of pronoun use at the syntax-discourse interface.3 Another pragmatic principle proposed in the early 2000s, Carminati’s Position of Antecedent Hypothesis (2002), has become very influential in studies of pronominal resolution in the last decade. In a study of the distribution of overt and null intra-sententialanaphoric subject pronouns in Italian, Carminati proposed that the variation in this distribution is regulated by the position of the antecedent: Position of Antecedent Hypothesis: null pronouns prefer to retrieve an antecedent in the (highest) Spec IP, whereas overt pronouns prefer an antecedent in a lower syntactic position. Despite the overwhelming evidence about subject bias with null pronouns, Carminati’s findings also showed that the antecedent bias of overt pronouns is less stable and more context-dependent than that of null pronouns. If we compare these empirical observations to the predictions of Hulk and Müller’s hypothesis, we will notice that overt pronouns appear to be the loci of greater complexity and often divergence not only in L1 of bilingual grammars but also in monolinguals. Further and more detailed discussion of this issue is provided in Chapter 5. Since Carminati considers PAH a pragmatic principle about processing biases rather than categorical judgments, some of those biases could be subjects of violations. In both her off-line and on-line experiments Carminati found support for PAH, unlike other hypotheses based on the economy principle (favoring the null pronoun generally) or on avoidance of ambiguity (favoring the overt pronoun). Interestingly, some researchers who have adopted PAH to explain the near-native processing of anaphora resolution have discarded Carminati’s arguments against economy considerations in order to account for the differences between near-native and native speakers. For example, Sorace and Filiaci (2006) posit native-like PAS (Position of Antecedent Strategy) for null subject pronouns in near-native speakers but a less-strict PAS for overt pronouns, which allows coreference with both the subject and the object of 3 A more recent proposal in similar fashion is Almor’s Information Load Hypothesis (1999). Although the original version of this hypothesis was not tested with pronouns, recent studies of its application (Lezama & Almor, 2011) predicted that following Gricean principles, Spanish speakers will use the least complex linguistic form that is sufficiently informative for their communicative purpose. Particularly, Lezama and Almor found that in anaphora contexts, null pronouns were read the fastest with subject antecedents whereas overt pronouns were severely penalized when they referred to an antecedent in subject position.

Optionality in Bilingual Grammars

69

the matrix clause. The coreference of the anaphoric pronoun and the subject of the matrix clause is argued to be the “default” option when speakers are faced with processing difficulties. The difference between native speakers and near-native speakers is phrased in terms of different economy considerations that underlie the choice of grammatical options. Particularly, Sorace and Filiaci suggest that native speakers choose only one option although others exist; near-native speakers, on the other hand, choose more options because they have access to more than one grammatical system despite the fact that this could be less economical. The specific structural position of the antecedents (in the IP domain) is the cornerstone of PAH. Carminati rejects the possibility that null pronouns prefer antecedents in Spec positions higher than SpecP, for example, TopP. According to her, although both topicalized referents and structural subjects are equally accessible to null anaphoric pronouns, the latter take priority over the former. However, if PAH is indeed a pragmatic principle based on preferences, as Carminati suggests, then the antecedent bias should be viewed in terms of coreference options (binding doesn’t apply to the pronouns and contexts subject to Carminati’s analysis). In this regard Sorace (2007) observes that null subject pronouns are typically used when a condition of coreferentiality with the current topic holds. The conditions of coreferentiality in various types of pro-drop languages are important for the present study since it is this type of relation between a pronoun and its antecedent that allows speakers to interpret various types of intra- and inter-sententialanaphora. I will return to this point in Chapter 5 where I discuss the results of my first experimental task. Despite some theoretically vague points mentioned above, PAH has been found to apply to anaphora resolution across various pro-drop languages and bilingual populations.4 Researchers have found that in L1 Spanish (AlonsoOvalle, Clifton, Frazier, & Fernández-Solera, 2002) and heritage Spanish (Keating et al., 2011) null and overt subjects do not exist in free variation, thus confirming Carminati’s hypothesis about the complementary distribution of the antecedent biases with these pronouns. In a study of English-Italian bilingual children, Serratrice (2007b) draws on insights from PAH to propose a processing account of anaphora resolution in intra-sentential contexts.5 The novelty of her approach is the assumption about interaction between language-universal and language-specific processing strategies as manifestation of cross-linguistic influence. When there is 4 Cf. Wilson (2009) for an opposite view that the exact constraints determining the antecedent preferences of null and overt pronouns are not fully clear. 5 The results of the cataphora contexts will not be discussed here.

70

CHAPTER 4

competition between these two processing strategies, bilingual speakers try to resolve it, which leads them to process overt pronouns in a non-target manner. Serratrice found that null anaphora was processed similarly by bilingual and monolingual children, something that she explained with the cooperation between language-universal (subject antecedent bias for maximally reduced referring expressions) and language-specific processing cues (PAH for subject bias with Italian null subject pronouns). As predicted, Serratrice detected differences in the bilingual processing of overt anaphora in Italian due to the different processing strategies triggered by language-universal (Subject rule) compared to language-specific processing cues predicted by PAH for Italian (object bias with overt pronouns). Thus, Serratrice interprets cross-linguistic influence as responsible for the divergent behavior of bilingual children with overt subject pronouns. Similar patterns of optionality and persistent L1 influence were also found in adult L2 grammars in canonical pro-drop languages and some topic-drop languages. In a programmatic article that discusses the findings of various ongoing studies of pronominal forms in near-native grammars of null subject languages, Sorace (2005) concludes that the locus of divergence in those grammars is overt subject pronouns. Near-native speakers of pro-drop languages, such as Italian, overgeneralize these pronouns to contexts which would otherwise require null subjects in native Italian. She proposes representational (underspecification of features) and processing (integration of different types of knowledge) deficits as an explanation for the observed optionality, leaving open the question whether these are two alternative or compatible accounts. The only study that investigates the cross-linguistic validity of the null subject bias predicted by PAH in typologically similar languages (Italian and Spanish) was conducted by Filiaci (2010). She found that PAH holds for null subjects in both languages, manifesting itself in significant penalties both in Italian and Spanish when a null subject is resolved against its bias and by the lack of significant interaction between the Language and Antecedent variables when the two languages were analyzed together. However, overt subjects were found to be resolved differently in each language, i.e., while PAH holds for Italian overt subjects, it does not hold for Spanish. Despite the fact that these findings did not show strong PAS for overt subjects in the two pro-drop languages, they did confirm Carminati’s reservations about the overt pronoun bias being weaker and more context-dependent. Overall, Filiaci’s results raise an additional question about whether parametric or discourse-pragmatic factors (or both) are involved in resolving anaphoric dependencies with subject pronouns.

Optionality in Bilingual Grammars

71

Apart from investigating the syntax-discourse interface in bilingual children and adult L2 learners, a number of studies of L1 attrition have provided insights into the behavior of this particular bilingual population. In these studies the common source of variability or optionality with null or overt subject pronouns is considered to be the cross-linguistic influence, either as a single factor or in tandem with specific structural and/or processing deficits. In their study of L1 Italian of Italian-English bilinguals, Tsimpli et al. (2004) view cross-linguistic influence as a trigger of representational deficit (feature erosion) manifested in divergent behavior with overt pronouns in the language of Italian speakers subject to attrition.6 Particularly, the researchers take discourse-pragmatic features, such as [+topic shift] that are mapped onto overt pronouns in L1 (Italian) to be eroded in the grammar of Italian-English bilinguals due to the constant use of English where there is no choice of pronominal forms regulated by interface conditions. However, the syntactic features responsible for null licensing remain unaffected. Thus, the representational deficit has been phrased in terms of underspecification at the level of interpretable features in L2 grammars due to the availability and residual influence of English.7 Production and comprehension of null and overt pronouns also has been a subject of interest in the language of another bilingual population, that of heritage speakers. Although there are only a handful of studies of pronominal resolution in the language of these speakers, these studies have reported variability and optionality either in reference to the use and distribution of overt subject pronouns (Keating et al., 2011; Montrul, 2004) or in the interaction between topichood and subjecthood in topic-drop languages, such as Japanese and Korean (Laleko & Polinsky, 2013). Montrul and Polinsky (2011) put forward an account that differs from previous proposals about the plausible cause for the divergent behavior with null subject pronouns. They suggest that the loss of pro-drop in some heritage languages may be due not to problems at the interface but with a more general difficulty in establishing syntactic and referential dependencies, especially when such a dependency links two elements 6 Schmid (2013) discusses an opposite view on representational deficit in L1 attriters albeit in other grammatical domains, such as case, gender, number, and others. She attributes the use of non-targerlike structures to the “on-line integration of knowledge from various linguistic levels, as well as the differential activation and inhibition of the speaker’s linguistic subsystems” (p. 107). 7 For an alternative account to Tsimpli et al. (2004), cf. Wilson (2009) who interprets the representation deficit in terms of resource allocation deficit as a result of competition between Italian and English constraints. Tsimpli et al.’s interpretation of the [+topic shift] feature as eroded is in turn assumed to have a reduced resting activation level, as it is used less frequently than the English feature.

72

CHAPTER 4

at a distance. Such difficulties may vary across heritage languages or across proficiency levels, or both. The findings of Polinsky’s study of null pronominals in the language of first-generation Russian immigrants in Israel and the US reported in Dubinina and Polinsky (2013) exemplify this particular problem.

The Interface Hypothesis

The accumulation of studies with similar findings in regard to the non-target behavior of various types of bilingual populations (bilingual children, nearnative L2 learners, L1 attriters and heritage speakers) led Sorace and Filiaci (2006) to formulate the Interface Vulnerability Hypothesis. According to the strong version of this hypothesis, interfaces in general are vulnerable to residual optionality in L2 near-native grammars, emerging optionality in L1 attrition, and protracted indeterminacy in bilingual L1 acquisition. Causes of such optionality have been argued to be different representations of knowledge with or without cross-linguistic influence as a factor or processing limitations stemming from the taxing task of integration of structures from different modules. Based on attrition studies like Tsimpli et al. (2004), the proponents of the early version of the Interface Hypothesis suggest that uninterpretable features, such as those of the null subjects, will not be affected by attrition whereas the distribution of overt subjects, which is determined by [+interpretable] features, such as Topic Shift, will be subject to attrition. In regard to processing as a potential cause for optionality, following Carminati’s processing-based PAH, Sorace and Filiaci stipulate minimal cost in the choice of subject antecedent and consequently, preference for this subject unless there are other cues that point towards other potential competitors. Having established the notion of economy as a driving force in the processing account of interface vulnerability, Sorace and colleagues seek to explain further the specific mechanisms of this type of processing, building on Clahsen and Felser’s (2006) Shallow Parsing Hypothesis. Clahsen and Felser hypothesize that L2 learners use shallow processing that relies on semantic and pragmatic cues, unlike native processing that favors syntactic (“deep”) cues. Sorace (2007) assumes that shallow processing of the interface features (topic shift, for example) governs the use of overt subjects. It is unclear whether, according to this interpretation, the near-native speakers would rely on interface features at the complete expense of structural cues (something predicted by the Shallow Structure Hypothesis) or if there would be some partial integration of these cues in parsing. Furthermore, if interface features are argued to be loci of optionality and variability in near-native grammars, then Sorace’s

Optionality in Bilingual Grammars

73

assumption about shallow processing would imply some modifications in the original version of Clahsen and Felser’s hypothesis, or perhaps a greater liberty of its interpretation. Particularly, if the near-native speakers engage in shallow processing (as formulated by Clahsen and Felser), they should not exhibit problems with overt pronouns since those are governed by discoursepragmatic principles. Instead, they would have shown divergence with null pronouns (subjects of syntactic operations, such as licensing and identification), something which contradicts the findings with near-native speakers of null subject languages. Finally, a view of bilingualism as a possible source of processing load has been proposed by Argyri and Sorace (2007), who argue that bilingualism forces speakers to employ “shallow” processing strategies. In a more recent study, Sorace, Serratrice, Filiaci, and Baldo (2009) reiterate this idea, suggesting that bilinguals are less efficient than monolinguals in integrating information and that they limit themselves to a shallow computation of reference resolution processes. An additional consideration for the interpretation of interface optionality in processing terms draws on a concept of default strategy in adult L2 acquisition. Sorace and Filiaci analyze the overuse of overt pronouns as a default in cases of processing overload. This strategy is argued to hold at all proficiency levels and regardless of the typological similarities between L1 and L2. The possibility of the overt subjects as a “default” option is also discussed by Tsimpli (2011), albeit from a different angle. According to Tsimpli, overt pronouns in null subject languages are associated with more contexts of use and are more ambiguous, which makes them ideal candidates for a “default.” Consequently, Tsimpli’s view of “default” is in terms of representation, an analysis based on her argument that overt pronouns are associated with more than one interpretation, which leads to their overuse by bilinguals. Recently, Sorace has modified her interpretation in order to propose a more refined processing account with limitations or misallocation of cognitive resources in bilinguals. Proposals based on processing are not new or exclusive to the study of pronominal resolution. In a study of another syntax-discourse phenomenon, scrambling, Hopp’s (2009) findings from both on-line and offline tasks confirm the results of previous studies (Sorace & Filiaci, 2006) about processing limitations at the interface. Hopp views the divergent behavior of near-native speakers even in off-line judgments as related to computational difficulties in using existing grammatical knowledge. However, he doesn’t view such difficulties as an obstacle for native-like L2 acquisition of phenomena at the interfaces since this particular area of L2 acquisition is not constrained by representational deficit. Similarly, processing limitations were argued to be

74

CHAPTER 4

not only responsible for the divergent behavior of some L2 learners of pro-drop and topic-drop languages but a general learner’s characteristic that follows from less automatic and less efficient processing routines in L2 (Cho, 2010). An alternative locality-based processing account of anaphora resolution is proposed in O’Grady (2011). He takes into consideration the syntactic environment of the null and overt pronouns, which could aid or hamper the resolution of the anaphoric dependency. Specifically, he proposes that when there is an overt pronoun in an embedded clause, the agreement dependency can be resolved immediately with the help of the adjacent overt pronoun (locally resolved dependency). However, when there is a null pronoun in that clause, such dependency would require non-local resolution in the matrix clause. He suggests that it is in fact this particular non-local dependency resolution that might encourage overuse of overt pronouns by speakers whose processing resources are compromised. One of the concrete predictions based on this hypothesis is that we should not see overuse of overt pronouns in coordinated structures in pro-drop languages. I further discuss O’Grady’s locality-based proposal and his predictions in Chapter 5 where I analyze production data in various types of syntactic contexts. In light of the discussion of processing complexity, Montrul (2011) suggests the need to establish a priori a measure of processing complexity: studies need to tease apart processing at the different interfaces. One such study that refines the proposal of processing overload is Wilson (2009), who determines that there are two distinctive levels of processing complexity—resource limitation and resource allocation deficit. Wilson adopts the framework of Kaiser and Trueswell’s (2008) Form-Specific Multiple Constraint Approach. We already saw that when processing discourse structures, speakers need to integrate information from many sources: real world knowledge, knowledge of the speakers and the current discourse model, as well as syntactic knowledge. It is possible then, as Wilson argues that L2 learners have a deficit in resource allocation as the ability to allocate processing resources, for example, memory during processing. Integrating knowledge from different semantic and discourse-pragmatic sources is predicted to be more problematic for the interpretation of overt pronouns (Sorace & Filiaci, 2006). Since interpretation of null pronouns is mostly confined to the narrow syntactic domain, processing at that more closed level would require fewer resources than processing in the discourse domain. Similar views on the cognitive capacity of the processor in regard to referential dependencies predict that operations in narrow syntax will be the most economical ones available and dependencies processed at that level

Optionality in Bilingual Grammars

75

will be processed more quickly than discourse dependencies. This typically is represented as a hierarchy of processing effort in different domains, i.e., Syntactic>Semantic>Discourse (Burkhardt, 2005; Koorneef, 2008; Koornneef et al., 2006). Most of these accounts originated as proposals about language architecture regarding the representations of Binding relations with syntactic anaphora and pronouns (Reinhart, 2006; Reuland, 2001, 2011). These representations were argued to be based on the following economy of encoding: Narrow syntax > logical syntax (C-I interface) > discourse (Reuland, 2011) Later on the model of economy of encoding anaphoric relations was found to be applicable to processing anaphora resolution in terms of processing economy, specifically focusing on the amount of effort that each dependency (syntactic, semantic or discourse) requires (Koornneef, 2008). In parallel with the economy of encoding, the processing load of discourse representation is argued to be considerably higher than the one required for structural representations. Moreover, structural representations (like syntactic computations) are viewed as being highly automatic and cheap (Reuland, 2001) due to the locallybound operations of the syntactic module. The economy considerations about encoding dependencies in various domains find some application in the analysis of cross-linguistic influence at the syntax-discourse interface. It is hypothesized (Wilson, 2009) that since null pronouns are processed using a syntactic dependency they should be less sensitive to cross-linguistic influence. On the other hand, since overt pronouns are processed in the context of a discourse-based dependency, they will be more vulnerable to cross-linguistic influence. The processing accounts described above are based on a modular approach to language processing in general (and Binding, in particular) which posits some mechanisms for interfacing between grammatical representations and general knowledge of discourse and the world (Clifton & Ferreira, 1991). In the grammatical-processing system the phrase-structure module uses phrasestructure rules and case information to build the representation of sentences. In modular processing, the actual mechanism of parsing a sentence involves an initial analysis of an input that the phrase-structure modules computes and subsequently makes available to other modules. Rothman and Slabakova (2011) suggest that other accounts on language acquisition, such as Reinhart’s (2006) concept of overburdened learners can describe, albeit for different reasons, almost any type of language learner at

76

CHAPTER 4

various points of acquisition. They argue that this concept can be effectively extended to explain the almost universal nature of so-called interface vulnerability for acquisition in childhood and adulthood. In addition to discussing alternative explanations of interface complexity, Rothman and Fuentes (2012) argue that an analysis of this complexity should be done by taking into account the specifics of each language.8 In view of such more general (and not strictly interface-based) considerations about processing demands in L2 acquisition, the role of interfaces in the acquisition process and, more specifically, the way the Interface Hypothesis captures this role, is addressed in Hopp (2010). He raises the question whether the Interface Hypothesis identifies interfaces as special loci or as typical loci of difficulty given the processing demands for integrating information from different sources. Some coreferential patterns with null pronouns in native speakers of canonical pro-drop languages indicate lack of antecedent bias, something that could prove problematic for proposals about exclusively bilingual problems at the interface. Particularly, various studies have reported a high percentage (around 50%) of non-subject antecedent preferences with null pronouns in the language of monolinguals (Alonso-Ovalle et al., 2002; Belletti et al., 2007; Sorace & Filiaci, 2006). According to Schwartz (2011), such findings question Sorace’s assertion about the stability and consistency of coreferential preferences with null subjects in monolingual populations in contrast to the more variable and unstable preferences with overt pronouns. Despite the fact that such findings are fewer than the ones that show preference for subject antecedent with null pronouns, they still could point out some inherent difficulties with operations at the syntax-discourse interface present even in monolinguals, something that could lend support to proposals of interpreting interfaces as typical loci of difficulty (Hopp, 2010), equally challenging for both monolingual and bilingual speakers. All these issues pertaining to the mental grammars and performance of monolingual speakers raise another no less important question that typically has not been seen as problematic, namely, what constitutes “linguistic knowledge”? In order to be able to evaluate the state of the mental grammar of bilingual speakers, we first need to determine how linguistic knowledge is represented in the grammars of native speakers. In his response to Dąbrowska’s keynote article (2012) and her hypothesis about the different mental grammars of native speakers of the same language, Philips (2012) insists on distinguishing between the speaker’s ability to construct a well-formed representation and 8 Cf. Rothman and Fuentes (2012) for an extensive review of the concept of interface and interface vulnerability in studies of child language acquisition.

Optionality in Bilingual Grammars

77

the efficiency at constructing such representations. He views the latter as a property of the language processing system. He then argues that Dąbrowska’s research is concerned mostly with that particular property, whose interpretation inevitably will lead to perceiving differences in the native end-state grammars of various speakers. This is problematic, according to Philips, only if evidence of such differences is used to criticize arguments about linguistic knowledge of the first type, and in particular, the role of UG in first language acquisition. Philips suggests that the evidence of variability among native speakers does not by any means undermine the US-based Convergence argument9 since this argument applies to the very fact of constructing and accepting any well-formed representation regardless of its difficulty, while Dąbrowska’s hypothesis pertains to the speaker’s skill at constructing and interpreting such representations. The distinction between representation and processing is not a novel one in bilingual studies or in monolingual research, for that matter; however, the point that Philips highlights is that the terminological ambiguity in the perception and definition of linguistic knowledge could lead to misinterpreting theoretical principles of language acquisition, in particular, how variable end-state grammars are and what causes such variability. In this regard, the discussed-above findings of some scholars that weaken Sorace’s arguments about the stability and consistency of coreferential preferences with null subjects by monolingual speakers could be analyzed along the representation-processing distinction in linguistic knowledge proposed by Philips (2012). Depending on the tasks employed to examine this knowledge, we need to decide whether processing issues plague monolingual speakers’ performance, albeit to a lesser extent than the performance of bilingual speakers. Such assumptions, supported by solid evidence, would corroborate Hopp’s proposal (2010) about interfaces as typical loci of difficulty for both monolingual and bilingual speakers but from a more general perspective. Overall, the research on the syntax-discourse interface so far has demonstrated that problems with ultimate attainment are limited to the discoursedriven distribution of pronominal forms and do not involve the syntactic conditions on the licensing of null pronouns. These studies involved adult L2 learners, child bilinguals (Paradis & Navarro, 2003; Serratrice, 2007b; 9 The Convergence argument is the term that Dąbrowaska uses in her keynote article to refer to the state of convergence on more or less the same grammar despite differences in input that native speakers receive in the course of their language acquisition. Dąbrowska states that such an assumption is one of the strongest arguments for an innate language faculty, which she disputes in her study.

78

CHAPTER 4

Serrattrice et al., 2004), heritage speakers (Montrul, 2004) and attrited L1 speakers (Tsimpli et al., 2004). Rarely have the structures in narrow syntax been examined separately or their complete acquisition by L2 learners disputed. One of the few studies that aims at doing just that is a recent study of the L2 acquisition of narrow syntactic properties in L2 Italian. In her study, Kraš (2011) sets out to test the predictions of the Interface Hypothesis in regard to the syntactic constraints on auxiliary choice in particular types of restructuring constructions, those with embedded unaccusatives in Italian. The participants were near-native Croatian L2 learners of Italian who had to make acceptability judgments about the relations between the position of the clitic (in situ or higher) and the change of the auxiliary (optional or obligatory) in such constructions. The results showed that the target and the control group had different preferences for the obligatory and optional presence of the auxiliary. Particularly, L2 learners did not have a clear preference for either auxiliary in any of the constructions (with or without clitic climbing) while native speakers prefer essere in the construction with clitic climbing. The behavior of the L2 learners suggests, according to Kraš, that these speakers are not sensitive to the syntactic constraints in question. This points, she argues, to an incomplete knowledge of auxiliary change under restructuring, something that goes against the predictions of the Interface Hypothesis. How can we explain such results? Kraš attributes the non-target performance of the L2 learners to the input, specifically to the absence of negative evidence, the low frequency of restructuring constructions in natural language, different realizations of these structures in literary and colloquial Italian, and last but not least, to difference in dialects. The significant role of input in Kraš’s interpretation puts a heavy emphasis on extra-grammatical factors in L2 acquisition of narrow syntactic properties. As we saw in Chapter 2, she is not alone in considering various aspects of input in UG-based acquisition studies. It is even more indicative in this case when the object of study is narrow syntax, a module that is argued to be fully acquirable and less dependent on input. Interpreting the results of her study, Kraš suggests replacing the strong claims of the Interface Hypothesis about the full acquisition of syntactic properties with a more gradient approach to this phenomenon. Recently, Sorace (2011) has also shifted her position on this issue to reflect a more compromising view on the acquisition of various properties at the interface. She proposes removing the distinction between core syntax and interfaces and suggests perceiving this distinction as a range of interface conditions that have different computational complexity and are dependent on extra-linguistic factors. Furthermore, she argues that such hierarchies of computational difficulty in

Optionality in Bilingual Grammars

79

highly proficient bilinguals need to be determined by conducting more experimental studies and providing more data-driven hypotheses. Thus, approaching the problem of full acquisition of narrow syntactic properties from a different angle related to processing, Sorace acknowledges that these properties as well as the internal interfaces (initially thought to be unaffected by processing demands) can be computationally complex and resource consuming. The above discussion of studies with various types of bilinguals reveals that while those groups all show some variability at the syntax-discourse interface, the particular points of divergence fluctuate: some studies of pro-drop and topic-drop languages show that the pragmatic distribution of null (not overt) pronouns is what is affected in L2 acquisition, while others provide evidence for more subtle differentiation of syntactic and pragmatic factors that could play a role in the representation and/or processing at the interface. The level of language proficiency was found to be a strong variable that yields diverse outcomes in the production and interpretation of null and overt pronouns. Lower proficiency levels are argued to be the sources of non-target performance of some L2 learners; however, problems at these levels are often shown to be only temporary and likely to be overcome once learners achieve higher proficiency. Particularly, Rothman (2009a) found that intermediate English L2 learners of Spanish overused and overaccepted pragmatically odd null subjects. They did that even in environments with ambiguous verbal morphology (3rd person singular and plural), from which the subject could not be identified (cf. Rizzi’s Identification Hypothesis). Rothman also observed that intermediate learners did the same thing with pragmatically odd overt subjects, a behavior which, he argues, could not be explained by a grammar that respects the Avoid Pronoun Principle. He finds the target-like performance of the advanced group suggestive of an analysis that the interface features could be attainable at higher levels of proficiency. One could add here that Rothman’s results of the intermediate group reveal an acquisition stage where a “default” mechanism of overextension to all contexts (regardless of syntactic and pragmatic restrictions) seems to be the one that “governs” the production and interpretation of null and overt pronouns.

Anaphora Resolution in Topic-Drop Languages

Studies of topic-drop languages have found various loci of divergence in anaphora resolution even in advanced L2 learners. In a recent study, Okuma (2011) found evidence that advanced English L2 learners of Japanese had problems with determining the antecedents of null pronouns rather than those

80

CHAPTER 4

of the overt pronouns. In addition, contrary to findings in canonical pro-drop languages (Belletti et al., 2007), Okuma’s results showed that subjecthood is more crucial than topichood for determining the antecedents of pronouns in L2 Japanese. Laleko and Polinsky’s (2013) study of Japanese and Korean heritage speakers and L2 learners of these languages provides interesting parallels to Okuma’s findings. Teasing apart structural (subject particles) and pragmatic (topic particles) elements in those two languages, they seek to determine the domains of divergence in the representation of these different structures. They found that the heritage speakers sided with the control group in being more accurate than L2 learners with subject markers than with topic markers despite the somehow different distribution in Japanese and Korean. In Japanese both target groups (L2 learners and heritage speakers) showed divergent patterns with determining the linguistic functions of the topic and subject markers and also with the principles that guide their omission. On the other hand, the heritage Korean group exhibited lack of knowledge in the use of both null and overt topic markers. Laleko and Polinsky’s results show certain similarities with Okuma’s findings, i.e., the stronger weight of subjecthood vs. topichood in discourseoriented languages and the optionality of null elements at the interface. It is not an easy task to tease apart grammatical and pragmatic factors in pronominal resolution, especially in canonical pro-drop languages. Discourseoriented languages, on the other hand, provide a fertile ground for such differentiation due to the existence of grammaticalized semantic and pragmatic phenomena in these languages. One such phenomenon is honorification in Korean, an object of investigation in antecedent preferences with null and overt pronouns. In their study of this phenomenon, Kim and Keiser (2009) conducted an off-line reference acceptability-rating task and a self-paced reading experiment that tested the interpretation of null subjects and the effect of intra-sentential constraint of honorific agreement. They were interested in the interaction between honorifically-marked elements and subject preference and wanted to determine whether the latter conflicts with honorification. They found that honorific agreement does guide null subject resolution in Korean and interacts with the subject preference. Particularly, participants showed preference for subjects over objects as the referent of null pronouns (just like in canonical pro-drop languages); more often they chose honored individuals than non-honored ones as referents of null pronouns. Their conclusion is that in addition to grammatical subjects being discourse-prominent, honored individuals are regarded as being more salient than non-honored ones. Based on the results from their self-paced reading task, they suggest that the language processing system uses verbal honorification as a strong cue to

Optionality in Bilingual Grammars

81

restrict the set of potential antecedents to honored entities and as a result the processor considers only those elements that match in honorification, regardless of grammatical role. One can suggest that the findings of this study point to a greater role of structures at the syntactic-semantic interface compared to purely syntactic ones, such as subjects. Such rating of factors appears to follow the predictions of the Primitives of Binding Model with its hierarchy of domains that encode different relations in language, namely narrow syntax > logical syntax > discourse (Reuland, 2001, 2011). In this model, certain semantic features (for example, implicit causality) are predicted to alter the accessibility of anaphoric referents in discourse (Koornneef, 2008). If we are to interpret honorification in similar terms, we might be able to explain why it overrides grammatically-based preferences in null pronoun resolution in Korean, thus interfering with the prominence and accessibility of subjects as anaphoric referents. At first sight, the results of Kim and Keiser’s study contradict the results of the above-mentioned study of Laleko and Polinsky, particularly in regard to their control group of Korean speakers. However, the experimental design and the goals of those two studies were different and thus not a likely subject of a direct comparison. While Kim and Keiser were interested in which factors (syntactic or syntactic-semantic) played a role in determining the pronoun reference (or how the coreference was established), Laleko and Polinsky examined the use of null and overt subject and topic markers, i.e., the computation that takes place and the effort of establishing anaphoric dependency. Despite taking different directions, both studies showed that the Primitives of Binding model could capture the mechanisms in establishing (the most economic) referential dependencies and the ranking of pronominal antecedents in terms of their salience. In addition, the interpretation of grammatical and semantic salience helps clarify the concept of salience used so often in studies of anaphoric relations. In another study of antecedent biases with null and overt pronouns, this time in Japanese, Ueno and Kehler (2010) showed that both types of pronouns displayed a subject bias, which in turn was taken to indicate that their referents were not in complimentary distribution (but cf. Alonso-Ovalle et al., 2002; Carminati, 2002; Keating et al., 2011 for the opposite view for null subject languages, such as Italian and Spanish). The results of their study showed that the interpretation of null pronouns in Japanese is driven by the grammatical position of the referent while overt pronouns overlay a subject bias on top of the pragmatically-driven one. Not only did these two types of pronouns exhibit biases based on different factors (structural and discursive) but in the case of the null pronouns, this bias was found to be resistant to pragmatic expectations.

82

CHAPTER 4

Ueno and Kehler’s analysis of differentiation of antecedent biases presents an interesting contrast to the distinctive types of cues in the processing of null and overt subjects in Korean. In a study of pro processing in Korean, Kwon and Sturt (2013) manipulate both discourse and syntactic cues for the referent of pro in the context of cataphora. They found that in Korean (and possibly in other discourse-oriented languages), discourse plays a greater role and takes priority over morpho-syntactic cues in the interpretation of pro. Based on their findings, they propose a more differentiated approach to the processing of overt vs. null pronouns in Korean: the former are more sensitive to morphosyntactic constraints than the latter. The contrast between the interpretation of processing cues in this study and the interpretation of antecedent biases in Ueno and Kehler’s study could result from a couple of factors. First, the two studies focus on different phenomena observed in the context of different tasks—antecedent bias in an off-line sentence continuation task and processing cues that aid the interpretation of pronouns in a self-paced reading task. The combination of different objectives and differing design of the two studies could have been a potential source of the observed differences in pronominal resolution. Second, the different nature and function of the overt pronouns in Japanese and Korean might also have generated different responses to the targets, thus adding a subtle typological “twist” to the findings in these two discourse-oriented topic-drop languages. The division of labor between syntactic and pragmatic factors in anaphora resolution found in languages such as Japanese and Korean is also investigated in canonical pro-drop languages. In order to determine whether the referring preferences of null and overt subjects are regulated by syntactic or pragmatic factors, Mayol (2010) looks at anaphoric dependencies in Catalan in four different conditions: word order (SVO vs. OVS) and pronoun type (null vs. overt). Her data points to distinctive antecedent preferences, i.e., null pronouns have a preference for previous subjects while overt pronouns have a more complex preference involving both syntactic (greater weight) and pragmatic factors. According to Mayol, such results show that the relationship between syntactic position and type of pronoun is not as straightforward as proposed in Carminati’s PAH. A further differentiation in the syntactic and discourse factors in antecedent assignment is presented in Keiser and Trueswell (2008). In a study of different referring expressions in Finnish, the researchers found that personal pronouns seem to prefer subjects regardless of word order while demonstratives are affected by both word order and grammatical role. Therefore, Keiser and Trueswell assign the two types of referring expressions to different linguistic interfaces: pronouns to the syntactic-semantic level, demonstratives—

Optionality in Bilingual Grammars

83

to the syntax-discourse level. This distribution is captured in their FormSpecific Multiple Constraints Hypothesis. The scope of this hypothesis subsequently was extended to cover L2 processing of pronouns and demonstratives (Wilson, 2009). The review of the experimental studies of anaphora resolution showed the division of labor between syntactic and pragmatic factors in the representation and processing of anaphora resolution. Structures in narrow syntax have been found to be more easily acquirable in the context of early bilingualism than structures in discourse. Furthermore, operations at the syntax-discourse interface were analyzed as loci of divergence not only in bilingual populations but also in monolingual grammars due to the extra cognitive load in structure integration. Evidently, there is no unanimously accepted explanation for the divergent behavior of certain bilingual populations in regard to establishing and processing referential dependencies. Therefore, in the following four chapters of presentation and analysis of the experimental data, I evaluate several proposals in terms of their explanatory power and interpret my findings in the broader context of monolingual and bilingual anaphora resolution with implications for the particular target group in my study, heritage speakers of Russian.

chapter 5

Anaphoric Pronouns in Oral Production The discussion of optionality and variability in L1 and L2 of bilingual speakers in the previous chapter provided the context for the examination of the findings of the present study. In this chapter I present the data from one of the production tasks and offer proportion analyses of the distribution of anaphoric 3rd person pronouns and post-verbal subjects in elicited oral narratives.

The pros and cons of Production Tasks

Studies of the cluster of properties pertaining to the null subject parameter have often used production tasks in order to uncover the particular loci of divergence in bilingual null subject grammars compared to their monolingual counterparts. Studies of both elicited and naturalistic production of null and overt pronouns have abounded since the early 1990s and for the most part have shown that formal constraints on null subjects are acquired early but that discursive constraints take much longer and tend to result in residual optionality and variability (cf. Alhawari, 2005; Lozano, 2009; Montrul, 2008; Montrul & Rodríguez-Louro, 2006; Sorace, 2011 for a review). Studies that focus on production of pronouns are very relevant for examining the specifics of both syntactic and discourse factors that regulate anaphoric dependencies, particularly in the language of early child bilinguals (cf. Serratrice et al., 2004). Naturalistic data from observations on these children’s interaction with their caregivers has proven particularly valuable for studying the specific characteristics of the representation and processing at the syntax-discourse interface. This is the domain that has been suggested to present residual problems for early bilinguals, L1 attriters and near-native L2 learners since all these speakers have to manage two languages and use the appropriate constraints for each language (cf. the discussion of the Interface Hypothesis in the previous chapter). Despite the outlined advantages of production studies, some researchers have raised methodological concerns that the nature of such tasks possibly could have magnified the overproduction of redundant overt subject pronouns in maintain-reference contexts, which are perceptually more salient than null subject pronouns in a shift-reference context (Sorace et al., 2009). In order to address such concerns, a lot of studies have conducted and compared the

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004246171_��7

anaphoric pronouns in oral production

85

results of production and comprehension tasks so that the analysis of coreferential patterns with null and overt pronouns is more balanced (Belletti et al., 2007; Rothman, 2007, 2009a; Sorace & Filiaci, 2006; Tsimpli et al., 2004). Their findings have demonstrated that different types of bilinguals exhibit similar patterns of behavior in the comprehension and production of null and overt pronouns in canonical null subject languages, namely overacceptance and overuse of overt pronouns. In my study I adopt a similar approach and juxtapose the performance and interpretation of subject pronouns in heritage Russian. In addition to investigating coreferential patterns as characteristic of the syntax-discourse interface, I also look at the more general distribution of referring expressions in larger discourse in terms of introduction, maintenance, and retrieval of referential entities. Similarly to discourse constraints on pronominal resolution that have been shown to be more complex and require more effort, the related development of referring expressions is seen as a gradual process that continues into adulthood. Bilingual and monolingual children have been observed to produce ambiguous pronouns to maintain reference to main characters quite frequently, something that has prompted scholars to suggest that both L1 and L2 of children are guided by universal strategies in their development of referring expressions to fulfill different discourse functions (cf. Chen & Pan, 2009).

Anaphoric Pronouns and Other Referring Expressions in Discourse: Distribution Principles

Most researchers agree that pragmatic or discourse-pragmatic principles are the core of antecedent preferences with overt pronouns in pro-drop languages; nevertheless, there is still disagreement about the particular characteristics of such principles and their manner of operation. Some scholars have analyzed overproduction of overt pronouns in contexts of accessible topic antecedent as a violation of Grice’s Maxim of Quantity because a less complex form, such as a null pronoun, should have been used instead (Sorace & Filiaci, 2006). The correlation between discourse-based accessibility and prominence, on the one hand, and the choice of referring expressions, on the other, has been the foundation of such hypotheses as the Givenness Hypothesis (Gundel, 2010) and the Information Load Hypothesis (Almor, 1999; Lezama & Almor, 2011), to mention just a couple. Rothman (2009a) proposes that the operation of another pragmatic principle or universal, the Avoid Pronoun Principle, is the one that limits the use of

86

chapter 5

overt subject pronouns to cases where null subjects are impossible, namely, to environments in which the subject pronoun has a switch-reference function. This principle is related directly to the null subject parameter, unlike Grice’s Maxim of Quantity that could apply to any linguistic phenomenon in any language. If, as Rothman suggests, we accept that the Avoid Pronoun principle (or any other principle of general economy, for that matter) regulates the distribution of null and overt subjects in canonical pro-drop languages, what should we make of the L2 target-deviant discursive use of overt/null subjects? Based on the data from his study that shows that advanced learners exhibit target-like behavior, he doesn’t interpret such behavior as evidence that adult learners are unable to acquire the necessary features needed to reset the null subject parameter; it might take longer for some learners but at the end, they will be able to reset it. Does the Avoid Pronoun Principle operate in Russian as well? According to Barbosa (2011) this principle doesn’t exist in partial pro-drop languages, such as Finnish, Brazilian Portuguese, Hebrew, Marathi and Russian. However, the fact that Russian has obligatory null expletives contradicts such assumptions. Furthermore, even if we accept that null pronouns in Russian are not referential (as suggested in studies of partial pro-drop languages) they still are identified through a discourse-based recovery procedure different in nature from the identification of pro based on the agreement features of the licensing head. Therefore, I assume that since null pronouns are licensed and identified in Russian, there should be some principle that guides speakers in the production and interpretation of these pronouns. This principle could be the Avoid Pronoun Principle or some other principle of general economy (cf. the Minimize Structure Principle proposed in Cardinaletti & Starke, 1994). In view of such considerations, I also would like to suggest that divergent behavior of bilinguals could be attributed to temporary violations of the Avoid Pronoun Principle due to the pragmatic nature of this principle. A target-like use of pronoun subjects eventually will be achieved if the speakers master the discourse conditions that regulate the use of null and overt pronouns and make null subjects “impossible” in certain contexts, a requirement that comes with higher pragmatic proficiency in the language. There exist several studies of reference-tracking or theme marking in Russian that investigate the particular syntactic and discourse restrictions of null and overt pronominal subjects. Taking information packaging as a point of departure, several scholars have proposed functional discourse analyses of the distribution of null and overt pronominal subjects in Russian (Grenoble, 1998; Miller & Weinert, 1998; Nichols, 1985). These studies complement the

anaphoric pronouns in oral production

87

phrase-structural accounts of anaphora resolution since syntactic approaches cannot account for coreference on an inter-sentential level. An interesting approach within the framework of Ontological Semantics is adopted by McShane (2009). She focuses on the specific patterns of subject realization in Polish and Russian with the goal of offering specific heuristics of ellipsis usage in these two languages.1 Similarly to previous accounts on null subjects in Russian, McShane posits the overt realization of the subject as the default principle in Russian. She determines three types of constraints, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic, on the occurrence of null and overt pronouns in Russian. Particularly interesting is the pragmatic principle of avoiding redundancy that according to her influences the subject realization of pronouns in Russian. This principle based on Grice’s Maxim of Quantity has been argued to operate in other pro-drop languages as well, particularly in cases of intrasentential pronominal resolution where speakers use the form with the least content that is sufficiently informative for their communicative purposes (Lezama & Almor, 2010; Sorace & Filiaci, 2006). Most scholars who have investigated coreferential relations in connected discourse in Russian have applied cognitive approaches in their analysis building on several models of referential relations, such as Givon’s Topic-continuity model, Ariel’s Accessibility Hierarchy, Gundel’s Givenness Hierarchy, van Hoek’s Conceptual Reference Point, and Kibrik’s Multifactorial Model of Reference. The most detailed of all cognitive studies, Grenoble (2001) examines referring expressions in spoken Russian, arguing that cognitive approaches can better capture the otherwise unexplainable occurrences of overt subject pronouns with continuous topics, lack of episode breaks or lack of change of syntactic structures. In an earlier study Grenoble (1998) proposes the Thematic Participant Hypothesis, which predicts that the preferred marking of a continuing, uninterrupted topic will be anaphoric zero. However, she discovers that the strong version of this hypothesis sometimes doesn’t apply to all registers outside of the narrative, for example, in conversations. There, the distribution of overt versus null pronouns depends not only on the thematic structure but upon the turn-taking structure as well. In their study of the function of pronominal and other types of ellipsis in Russian spontaneous production, Miller and Weinert (1998) formulate several constraints on the occurrence of null subject pronouns in Russian larger 1 Kibrik (1996) is another researcher who focuses on deriving specific heuristics of anaphora resolution in Russian, albeit more in line with computational linguistics.

88

chapter 5

discourse: change of grammatical function, thematic role (Agent or Patient, for example), principal participant, or action. Their data shows that deictic null pronouns occur more frequently than anaphoric 3rd person pronouns, an observation that also was made by Grenoble (2001) and Zdorenko (2010). In general, they observe that null subjects and objects tend to occur more frequently in spoken than written narratives. In fact, this is the conclusion reached by most scholars who study null subject pronouns using either parametric-based or discourse-based accounts (cf. the discussion in Chapter 3). Nichols (1985) was the first to offer a detailed analysis of marking of discourse themes in Russian narratives, with specific focus on anaphoric zero pronouns. She analyzed only literary texts (where these pronouns are much less frequent and depend on the conventions of the genre) but her data allowed her to propose a particular heuristics of theme-marking. According to her, null pronouns are used only for uninterrupted theme, which makes them more restricted than overt pronouns. The latter occur after intervening theme, change of syntactic relations, topic shift, change of episode, direct speech, change of time reference (foreground-background), and change of perspective. Similarly to scholars working within the Minimalist tradition (Fehrmann & Junghanns, 2008; Franks, 1995; Lindseth & Franks, 1996), Nichols argues that overt pronouns are the unmarked form in Russian, which is evident in their much wider distribution. Noun phrases are more restricted than pronouns since they are limited only to three contexts: cases of possible ambiguity, contexts after a major episode break, and cases of poor control by antecedent. Nichols does not investigate the syntactic behavior of null pronouns in intrasentential contexts, such as subordinate clauses, in which licensing and identification of null pronouns is governed by different rules (cf. the discussion of those rules in Chapter 7).

Task and Procedure

In my study I also examine the distribution of referring expressions but this time in heritage Russian. The task that elicits this data is a production task in the form of spontaneous oral narratives. The participants were shown a short 9-minute episode from a very popular Soviet cartoon, Nu, pogodi! ( Just wait!). The cartoon did not have any dialogue, which helped prevent any distractions for the participants. All of them were quite familiar with the cartoon because they watched it before or after they came to the United States. The use of short films to elicit narratives is a common technique in experimental studies with bilinguals. In her study of L2 influence on L1, Pavlenko

anaphoric pronouns in oral production

89

(2003) uses video retelling in order to provide a larger context for the language use. The non-verbal cues that were given to the participants are found to offer a more naturalistic way of retelling a story. Using elicited video narratives has other advantages. First, providing a particular cue (the plot of the cartoon, in this case) allows for a more valid comparison across subjects, namely, the number of characters in the cartoon is a constant that triggers particular types of referring expressions. Second, the episode shown to the participants was relatively short and did not place a burden on their working memory.2 Third, since I am looking at certain relations between grammatical elements and their discourse function, this production task was able to provide data to complement the findings from isolated preference-based judgments as a way of triangulating the results from the different tasks. Another important advantage of elicited production pertains to the use of vocabulary. Since the participants were all familiar with the cartoon, it was easier to control the vocabulary, especially in case of speakers with lower proficiency. Finally, one can examine both morphosyntactic and discoursepragmatic properties of pronominal subjects in tasks that elicit larger discourse (cf. Montrul & Rodríguez-Louro, 2006 for similar considerations with narrative production tasks). In order to put the participants in the target group in the appropriate “language mode” (Grosjean, 2008; Grosjean & Li, 2013), I spoke only Russian to them. Occasionally, low proficiency speakers would experience difficulties maintaining the conversation solely in Russian; only then would I switch to English and allow the participants to do the same. After the completion of the proficiency exam, the participants were asked to watch the cartoon on a laptop with headphones. I was present in the room but not facing the screen although it was perhaps clear to the participants that I had seen this particular cartoon before. Nevertheless, in the course of narrating the events from the cartoon the participants were asked to retell the plot in great detail, thus implicitly assuming a lack of mutual knowledge (cf. Chen & Pan, 2009 for a discussion of narrations in context of mutual vs. non-mutual knowledge). The narratives were recorded with the audio software Audacity, transcribed by a native speaker of Russian, and verified by me. I also coded the data for the occurrences of pronominal and nominal subjects. Below I provide more details about the coding procedure I adopted in this task.

2 The length of the narratives in both groups was almost identical, a median of 267 words in the experimental group and 265 in the control group.

90

chapter 5

The smallest unit in the narratives was taken to be the clause. I counted the occurrence of null and overt pronouns with every predicate that forms a clause with the exclusion of the following types of clauses or sentences: 1. Imperative and interrogative clauses 2. Predicative clauses in present tense that lack the copula “to be,” cf. Zajac namnogo bystree ego Bunny much more faster him “The bunny is much faster than him.” 3. Sentences with VS word order since they are constrained against the use of null subjects. One particular instance of such sentences favored by heritage speakers are copular sentences in past and future tense with a locative PP in initial position, cf. V nej byl zajac In it was bunny “There was a bunny in it.” 4. Existential sentences On pokazyvaet auditorii, čto est’ zajac vnutri šljapy He shows audience that there is bunny inside hat “He shows the audience that there is a bunny inside the hat.” 5. Presentational clauses Èto zajac This is bunny “This is a bunny.” 6. Clauses with non-Nominative subjects, such as comitative constructions Oni s volkom They with wolf “The wolf and he” Zajac s volkom Bunny with wolf “The bunny with the wolf” 7. False starts and repetitions (only one of the overt pronoun’s occurrence in repetitions was coded)

91

anaphoric pronouns in oral production

This coding protocol followed the conventions of previous studies by counting all the instances of such subjects with verbs in indicative mood.3 However, I did not count the subject drops in VP coordination as null subjects. The second conjunct in these sentences does not require a pronoun since the subject is shared between both conjuncts.4 Such an approach is adopted in some theoretical studies of null subjects in Russian. In their analysis of this phenomenon, Fehrmann and Junghanns (2008) argue that the seemingly missing subjects in the sentence below should be analyzed as cases of VP coordinates, in which the initial subject my (“we”) is the subject shared by all conjuncts: My ezdili v Komi, Ørubili proseku dlja LEP i Østroili doma We went to Komi cut clearing for LEP and built homes “We went to Komi, cut a clearing for the power supply line and built homes.”

Based on these theoretical considerations, I did not include cases like this in the coded data. However, I have to mention that previous scholars who have investigated the distribution patterns of null and overt pronouns in larger discourse have decided to count subjects shared by VP conjuncts as null subjects, sometimes regardless of their acknowledgment that these are indeed cases of VP coordination. Nichols (1985) provides the following example and explanation of her coding decisions: Ženšina vošla v kabinet redaktora, Ø vyšla i Woman entered in office of editor left and “The woman entered the office of the editor, left, and said. . . .”

Ø skazala said

Nichols acknowledges the possibility of analyzing those examples as VP coordinates, in which case she states that there would be no zeros with the second and third verbs because they all share the same subject, “woman.” However, she adds that even if we do accept such analysis, one still can claim that examples like that represent non-overt marking of themes. Since those examples are sentence-internal (i.e., they do not represent reference maintenance across sentences), I do analyze them as cases of shared subjects. Additional

3 For example, Montrul (2004) calculated the percentage use of overt and null subjects out of all utterances where a context for a subject was possible. 4 VP coordination is possible in many languages regardless of the [+null] setting of the prodrop parameter (cf. Ayoun, 2003 for a review of the literature on this topic).

92

chapter 5

examples of VP coordination with gaps that were included in the analysis of null subjects come from a couple of other studies, cf.: Ja vdrug svoračivaju so svoego puti, Ø petljaju I suddenly turn from my path veer

meždu domami between houses

i Ø vyxožu k stekljannomu kubu parikmaxerskoj and come out towards glassy cube of hair salon “I suddenly turn, veer between houses and come out at the glassy cube of the hair salon.” Miller and Weinert (1998) On idët, Ø berët dvadcat’ knižek, Ø kidaet ix sebe v sumku He comes gets twenty books throws them to himself in bag i Ø stanovitsja opjat’ v konec očeredi and gets again in end of line “He comes, gets twenty books, throws them in his bag, and gets at the end of the line again.” Grenoble (1998)

Grenoble (2001) also acknowledges the fact that it is often very difficult to determine how to code zero pronouns since the placement of some of them could be questioned. She includes in her analysis of null subjects examples of 2nd person zero pronouns in expressions, such as znaeš’ (“you know”) and ponimaeš’ (“you see”), which could be methodologically problematic since these are more or less fixed expressions functioning like discourse markers.

Results: Forms of Referring Expressions

After I coded the data according to the criteria described above, I calculated counts and percentages of subject pronouns and NPs for each participant. The percentage use of overt and null subjects (given in the table below) was calculated out of all utterances where a context for a subject was possible. This data later was submitted to ANOVA, provided after the table. An ANOVA with two of the forms of referring expressions as the dependent measures proved reliable: overt pronouns, F (3, 62) = 9.9, p < .001; and noun phrases, F (3, 62) = 6.6, p < .001. The analysis of null pronouns did not produce any main effects, F < .2.5.

93

anaphoric pronouns in oral production table 5.1

Means of referring expressions in video narration task: proficiency division

Groups

Null pronouns

Overt pronouns

Noun phrases

Low = 11 Intermediate = 10 High = 12 Controls = 33

4% (4)5 6% (8) 5% (5) 9% (6)

62% (14) 47% (14) 44% (15) 37% (13)

34% (14) 47% (14) 51% (15) 54% (12)

Planned comparison analyses of overt pronouns indicated that the low proficiency group produced reliably more overt pronouns than all other groups (intermediate proficiency t (19) = 2.5, p < .05; high proficiency t (21) = 3.1, p < .005; and controls t (42) = 5.6, p < .001). Monolinguals also proved reliably different from the intermediate group, t (41) = 2.1, p < .05 but were unreliably different from the high proficiency group, t (43) = 1.4, p < .09. The intermediate and high proficiency groups were marginally different from one another (ts < 0.6). 5 Planned comparison analyses of noun phrases revealed that the low proficiency group was reliably different from all other groups (intermediate proficiency t (19) = 2.1, p < .05; high proficiency t (21) = 2.8, p < .01; controls t (42) = 4.6, p < .001). The intermediate and controls proved marginally different from one another, t (41) = 1.6, p < .06. No other comparisons proved reliable, both other ts < 0.7. The lack of main effect in the production of null pronouns is in accordance with previous studies that focus on the syntax-discourse interface vulnerability. The findings of Montrul’s (2004) study of heritage speakers of Spanish show a similar type of convergence with the monolingual group in regard to the number of null pronouns produced by this bilingual population. This supports her and others’ view that null subject expression is not completely lost in bilinguals exposed to a non-null subject language like English, despite the increase in the production of overt subjects in their speech. Interestingly, divergent behavior of L2 learners with an intermediate level of proficiency was found by Rothman (2009a), who examined L2 performance in a production task (translation). These speakers behaved differently from both the control and the advanced L2 groups, producing many null subjects 5 The numbers in brackets refer to the Standard Deviation.

94

chapter 5

in pragmatically warranted and unwarranted contexts. Rothman suggests that while this behavior further indicates that they are able to syntactically license null subject pronouns, it demonstrates a failure to differentiate among the contexts in which overt subjects are pragmatically licensed. This data leads him to conclude that the intermediate learners have not yet acquired the switchreference properties of overt subjects in Spanish. The statistical analyses of the distribution of overt pronouns in my study provide evidence not only of a non-target behavior of the low proficiency group but also of differences between this group and the other two heritage groups. The overproduction of pronouns in the low proficiency group could be due, as suggested earlier, to a violation of the Avoid Pronoun Principle, a violation that seems to disappear in the production of the high proficiency group. The gradual mastery of this economy principle could be analyzed as an exponential function of the increase in proficiency level but only when it reaches near-native levels (cf. the significant difference between the intermediate proficiency group and the controls). Similarly to Montrul’s findings that the intermediate group produced more overt subjects than the advanced group and the monolinguals, I observe significant differences between the intermediate proficiency group and the controls.6 The analysis of the lexical subjects yields similar results with the exception of the only marginal difference between the intermediate group and the controls, likely a result of the smaller number of participants in the former. The control group seems to strive for maximal clarity in communication by providing the largest number of referring expressions that have the highest amount of lexical content, full noun phrases.7 Similar patterns in the language of monolingual speakers of other null subject languages are found in previous studies. In a corpus study of pronominal resolution L2 Spanish, Lozano (2009) found that in native Spanish Topic Shift is realized via lexical subjects more 6 Montrul divides the group of heritage speakers of Spanish into intermediate and advanced speakers while in my study I have a three-way division into low, intermediate and high proficiency speakers based on the results of a cloze test. It is perhaps this difference in the cutoff point that shows greater divergence in the population of low proficiency speakers in my study while in Montrul’s case this happens with the intermediate proficiency speakers. However, what is important is that speakers of lower proficiency show non-target behavior in the production of overt pronouns in both studies. Interestingly, Montrul, similarly to Montrul and Rodríguez-Louro’s (2006) study of L2 learners of Spanish did not find any difference between the experimental and the control groups in the number of lexical subjects. My findings showed the opposite results in that area. 7 It has been observed that in production speakers tend to rely on more explicit reference in contexts where the use of a pronoun does not uniquely identify the referent (Cho, 2010).

anaphoric pronouns in oral production

95

frequently than via overt pronouns, especially, when there are two “competing” characters of the same gender. Lozano argues that this is how native speakers manage to avoid ambiguity which otherwise could arise with the use of overt pronouns. It is therefore striking that heritage speakers of Russian, whose use of resumptive pronouns was found to be widespread (Polinsky, 2007) do not resort to a more frequent use of full NP even in the face of ambiguity; on the contrary, they use more pronominal than lexical subjects. The resumptive pronoun in the following example provided by Polinsky suggests, as she herself argues, a connection between the resumptive pronouns and the use of overt pronouns for reference-tracking purposes in a clausal level. Tanya včera ona prixodi i togda Tanya videl Tanya yesterday she came and then Tanya saw “Tanya came yesterday and then Tanya saw”

The overall increase of redundancy rules in heritage Russian, which Polinsky has registered and reported in various studies, could be interpreted, according to her, as responsible for the frequent drop of pronouns in the contexts under discussion. Since the heritage speakers in my study rarely used resumptive pronouns (something that might be related to target-like noun-verb agreement in their narratives) and tended to overuse overt pronouns rather than noun phrases, I would interpret this as a strategy different from the one found by Polinsky. In particular, I suggest that the strategy adopted by the participants in my study could likely have a different cause than the desire to avoid miscommunication, namely, the desire to produce a “good enough” linking of the anaphora with its referent in order to get their message across (cf. the concept of “good enough representation” proposed in Ferreira, Bailey, & Ferraro, 2002). By using the overt pronoun as the “default” (a strategy manifested in the overuse of these pronouns in their narratives), the heritage speakers of Russian in my study could have gained more time to coordinate the syntactic and discourse knowledge when trying to establish anaphoric dependencies in connected discourse, particularly because in Russian they have to deal with a larger number of competing referring expressions than in English. The interpretation of overt pronouns as a default that aids bilingual processing is not new. Sorace and Filiaci (2006) view the difficulties at the syntaxdiscourse interface in near-native speakers as deriving from the difficulty involved in the integration of the multiple types of information in the use of pronominal subjects. Overuse of overt pronouns is analyzed to be a default

96

chapter 5

strategy to handle such difficulties. However, in some studies (Rothman, 2009a), overuse was reported with both types of pronouns, null and overt. Rothman’s intermediate L2 learners of Spanish showed a lack of sensitivity to both pronouns, resulting in their overuse in a production task. While these results are unexpected in the light of the arguments put forward in Sorace (2004) and Belletti et al. (2007), they are consistent with other recent findings (Montrul & Rodríguez-Louro, 2006; Rothman, 2007). One can argue that Rothman’s data could be explained with some structural deficit in L2 grammars, which can disappear gradually with an increase in proficiency. In the case of heritage speakers of Russian, overuse of pronouns was found only with the overt form of the pronoun. In addition to the linguistic considerations discussed earlier, the causes of such overuse also could pertain to cognitive limitations due to the presence of a number of cartoon characters that are not distinguished by their phi-features. Below I provide two examples from the narratives of low proficiency heritage speakers that demonstrate the referential ambiguity with the use of overt pronouns: I zajac govorit da ja slyšu no on konečno davno ubežal And bunny says yes I hear but he of course long ran “And the bunny says: ‘Yes, I hear you,’ but of course, he has ran away a long time ago.” I potom on govorit nu pogodi And then he says just wait “And then he [the wolf] says: ‘Just wait!’”

The occurrence of the 3rd person pronoun “he” in the second example refers to the wolf and the only indication for that is the actual statement that he makes at the end (“Just wait!”). Perhaps assuming the researcher’s familiarity with the plot, this particular speaker uses an overt pronoun instead of the more felicitous lexical subject. This way, he is trying to communicate his message by providing extra linguistic cues rather than trying to encode the reference with an expression with a more explicit content. In addition, the occurrence of the same pronoun in the first line is also infelicitous since this pronoun would signal reference shift in this context, contrary to what we see here, namely, reference maintenance. Oni tancevali. Potom on xvost v pianine zastrjal They danced. Then he tail in piano caught “They danced. Then he caught his tail in the piano.”

anaphoric pronouns in oral production

97

Similarly, in the example above the pronoun “he” does not provide clear reference as to who got his tail stuck in the piano unless the speaker’s choice here is based on assumed shared knowledge of the cartoon’s plot (cf. the various hypotheses about shared knowledge as a pragmatic principle in child grammars, Gordishevsky & Avrutin, 2004; Serratrice, 2007a). Traditionally, it has been suggested that when the referent is less accessible, speakers produce more explicit referring expressions to help their addressee identify the referent. One of the factors viewed as having influence on the level of accessibility of the referent is the presence of competitors for pronominal referents that subsequently can affect the choice of referring expressions even in native grammars (cf. similar considerations in Ariel’s Accessibility Hierarchy). Evidence in favor of such a proposal comes from Arnold and Griffin’s (2007) study, in which speakers produced pronouns more often when there was no other character present in the discourse context than when there was another character of a different gender. In the latter case the overall activation that each character has in the speaker’s mind is lowered. In order to capture such patterns of use, Arnold and Griffin propose a constraint, which they call TwoCharacter Effect and whose operation conditions reference production. Fukumura, Van Gompel, Harley and Pickering’s (2011) interpretation of processing constraints on pronoun interpretation is in the most part similar to Arnold and Griffin’s proposal. They argue that if the context contains an additional entity, speakers may be able to allocate less attentional resources to the referent, thus lowering the activation for the referent. When the competitor is semantically similar to the referent (for example, having the same gender), it causes strong interference, which in turn reduces the accessibility of the referent.8 Fukumura et al. hypothesize that speakers should produce more explicit referring expressions more frequently when the competitor is in a similar situation as the referent and their findings confirmed this hypothesis. In view of the empirical observations on the production of heritage speakers of Russian and the theoretical proposals about speaker-internal cognitive constraints, I would like to reiterate my previous suggestions that the nontarget behavior of the lower proficiency heritage speakers of Russian stems from violations of the Avoid Pronoun Principle. The effect of such pragmatic violations is likely magnified in the context of competition between several pronominal referents, an environment where the allocation of cognitive 8 Cf. Arnold and Griffin’s stronger version of this proposal based on their interpretation of competitors of different gender.

98

chapter 5

resources is less efficient (even in native speakers’ narratives) and affects the bilinguals’ ability to integrate various types of information at the interface much stronger than it does in monolinguals. The explanatory power of this proposal can be confirmed or rejected in the conditions of lesser processing complexity, namely, with deictic pronouns that are referentially independent (in the sense of Kiparsky, 2002).

Previous Studies of Pronominal Production in Russian

It is worth examining further the overall patterns of distribution of pronominal and lexical subjects in the production of Russian monolinguals in the present study, which shows parallels to the data in earlier works on Russian. Grenoble’s (2001) findings from a study of pronominal subjects occurring in elicited conversations show that in non-past tense anaphoric null subject singular pronouns were used 15%, overt—47%, and lexical subjects—38% of the time. The respective numbers for past tense are 21%, 57%, and 22%. Zdorenko (2010) takes her data from the Russian National Corpus by comparing the use of null and overt pronouns in various genres in written and spoken language (blogs, conversations, lectures, and fiction works). She found that the null pronouns occurred 29% vs. 71% for the overt pronouns (she did not analyze lexical subjects). If we compare these results to my study (null pronouns—9%; overt—37%; NP—54%), we will notice that they come close to Grenoble’s findings in present tense9 but are rather different compared to those in past tense and also to the findings of Zdorenko. Despite the dif­ ferences among all these studies (mostly stemming from differences in the design, data collection, and general objective of the study), it is evident that null subject pronouns are used less by native speakers than overt pronouns or lexical subjects.10 Such findings are not surprising given the parametric differences between Russian and canonical subject drop languages discussed in Chapter 3. Additionally, the distribution of null pronouns across persons examined in both studies (Grenoble’s and Zdorenko’s) shows an effect of person, something that I will discuss in more detail in the next chapter.

9 10

I did not differentiate between past and non-past tense in my study. The only exception is the distribution of subjects in past tense in Grenoble’s study. I don’t have a clear explanation for this distribution at this point but the nature of her data and her coding protocol could provide some insights into this situation.

99

anaphoric pronouns in oral production



Results: Daily Input

The analysis of the distribution of null and overt pronouns in heritage Russian narratives would not be complete without taking into consideration the factors of daily input and order of language acquisition. In this section I provide the findings with these two variables and determine their place in a larger context of bilingual language acquisition. An ANOVA with daily input as a factor and null pronouns as the dependent measure proved reliable, F (63) = 3.6, p < .05. Planned comparison analyses indicated that only the low input group and the control group differed reliably from one another, t (53) = 2.8, p < .005. The high input group did not reliably differ from either of the other two groups (low input t < 1.0, controls t < 1.1.). Furthermore, an ANOVA with overt pronouns as the dependent measure was reliable, F (2, 63) = 7.3, p < .001. Planned comparison analyses indicated that the monolinguals differed reliably from both the low input, t (53) = 3.2, p < .005 and the high input groups, t (42) = 3.4, p < .001. The two heritage groups, however, did not differ reliably from one another, t < 0.4. Finally, an ANOVA with noun phrases as the dependent measure was reliable, F (2, 63) = 4.5, p < .05. Planned comparison analyses indicated that the control group differed reliably from both experimental groups: low input t (53) = 2.3, p < .05 and high input t (42) = 2.9, p < .005. The two groups did not differ reliably from one another, t < 0.8. The underproduction of null pronouns in the low input group compared to controls could be explained with the lack of perceptual salience of these pronouns, particularly for speakers with a smaller amount of input (under 10% for that group). In addition, due to the nature of pronominal resolution that is not based on categorical judgments but on preferences, the input that heritage speakers received might have been rather “noisy,” which could have made the abstraction of coreferential patterns of null pronouns harder for these speakers (cf. Wilson’s 2009 arguments about such input). Such a situation could be interpreted as a manifestation of the “silent problem” with null categories TABLE 5.2 Means of referring expressions in video narration task: daily input Groups

Null pronouns

Overt pronouns

Noun phrases

Low input = 22 High input =11 Controls = 33

4% (5) 6% (7) 9% (6)

50% (18) 52% (14) 37% (13)

46% (16) 41% (16) 54% (12)

100

chapter 5

posited for some heritage speakers (cf. Laleko & Polinsky, 2013), a problem that might disappear with the increase of proficiency and amount of input.

Results: Order of Acquisition

A one-factor ANOVA with order of acquisition as the factor and combined forms of overt subjects (overt pronouns and noun phrases) as the dependent measure proved reliable, F (2, 63) = 5.8, p < .005. Planned comparison t-tests with a Bonferroni correction indicated that the simultaneous group was reliably different from both the sequential group, t (30) = 2.4, p < .05, and the controls, t (47) = 3.5, p < .001. There was no reliable difference between the sequential group and the monolinguals, t < 0.9. An ANOVA with order of acquisition as the factor and overt subject pronouns as the dependent measure proved reliable, F (2, 63) = 7.4, p < .001. Planned comparison t-tests indicated that the two heritage groups were reliably different from the monolingual group: simultaneous t (47) = 3.5, p < .001; sequential t (48) = 3.0, p < .005. However, they did not differ reliably from one another, t < 0.5. An ANOVA with order of acquisition as the factor and noun phrases as the dependent measure proved reliable, F (2, 63) = 4.2, p < .05. Planned comparison analyses indicated that the control group was reliably different from both the simultaneous, t (47) = 2.1, p < .05, and the sequential group, t (48) = 2.8, p < .005. The two experimental groups were not reliably different from one another, t < 0.4. Finally, an ANOVA with order of acquisition as the factor and null subject pronouns as the dependent measure was reliable, F (2, 63) = 5.8, p < .005. Planned comparison analyses indicated that the simultaneous group provided reliably fewer null responses than the other two groups: sequential t (31) = 2.3, p < .05; controls t (47) = 3.5, p < .001. The latter were not reliably different from one another, t < 0.9. TABLE 5.3 Means of referring expressions in video narration task: order of acquisition Groups

Null pronouns

Overt pronouns

Noun phrases

Simultaneous = 16 Sequential = 17 Controls = 33

3% (4) 7% (6) 9% (6)

52% (18) 50% (16) 37% (13)

45% (18) 43% (15) 54% (12)

anaphoric pronouns in oral production

101

These results lend support to Montrul’s (2008) hypothesis that the loss of L1 will be more severe in simultaneous than in sequential bilinguals.11 The interesting fact is that we observe significant differences between the two experimental groups only in the null pronouns condition, the condition that is related to the acquisition of properties in the narrow syntax, such as licensing of pro. Since null arguments are present only in one of the languages of the heritage speakers, Russian, it is very likely that in a situation of simultaneous acquisition of Russian and English, null pronouns could have been more vulnerable to incomplete acquisition than the overt pronouns that exist in both languages. Furthermore, scholars working with various heritage languages have shown that this bilingual population exhibits persistent problems with null elements despite the various “personal biographies” of this population (Benmamoun et al., 2013a; Montrul & Polinsky, 2011).

Results: Illicit and Infelicitous Pronouns

Before I discuss the results in this section, I would like to clarify the classification of pronouns into illicit and infelicitous. Null subjects were considered illicit when there was a change of referent in the story but the participant used a null subject, which resulted in referent ambiguity. The following example demonstrates such use: I èto Ø zaščemil emu xvost, Ø vzjal mikrofon i Ø skazal And so pinched to him tail took microphone and said “And this, he pinched his tail, took the microphone and said”

Here the second null pronoun is illicit because there is a Topic Shift in the second clause, namely, it is the bunny that pinched the wolf’s tail but the wolf is the one who took the microphone. Thus, there are no shared subjects between the first two VP conjuncts. The pragmatically appropriate referring expression here is a full noun phrase, which would have introduced a new referent, the wolf. An overt pronoun would not have been licit here either because it would have failed to disambiguate the reference due to the same gender cue.

11

However, other studies have found that simultaneous bilinguals are not at greater risk (compared to sequential bilinguals) for incomplete acquisition (cf. Kupisch, 2013 for particular references on the topic).

102

chapter 5

Overt subjects were coded both for being ambiguous (when a lexical subject would have been more appropriate) and being redundant (when there was no change of referent). Despite the overall similarities in the coding protocols with previous studies (Montrul, 2004; Montrul & Rodríguez-Louro, 2006; Paradis & Navarro, 2003; Serratrice et al., 2004; inter alia), unlike these studies, I do not consider overt pronouns redundant in neutral (non-emphatic) contexts due to the nature of these pronouns in a non-canonical subject drop language like Russian (cf. the discussion in Chapter 3). Heritage speakers produced more than 10 times as many illicit overt pronouns as the monolinguals. A t-test indicated that this difference was reliable, t (64) = 7.1, p < .001. They also showed significantly higher production of null illicit pronouns than the native speakers, t (64) = 1.7, p < .05. However, a further proficiency division within the heritage group did not yield significant results with null illicit pronouns, F < 1.7. The lack of reliable effect with these pronouns perhaps was due to the relatively high degree of variance in this condition, especially for the low proficiency (SD = 40) and intermediate proficiency groups (SD = 27.0). An ANOVA analysis with proficiency as a factor and infelicitous overt pronouns as the dependent measure proved reliable, F (3, 62) = 22.1, p < .001. Planned comparisons indicated that the low proficiency group was reliably different from all other groups (intermediate t (19) = 1.9, p < .05; high proficiency t (21) = 2.3, p < .05; controls t (42) = 11.9, p < .001). The intermediate and high proficiency groups also proved reliably different from the controls (intermediate t (41) = 5.6, p < .001; high condition t (43) = 4.7, p < .001). However, these two groups were not reliably different from one another, t < 0.4. TABLE 5.4 Means of the pragmatic distribution of pronouns in video narratives12 Groups

Illicit null pronouns

Infelicitous overt pronouns

Low proficiency = 11 Intermediate proficiency = 10 High proficiency = 12 Controls = 33

18% (40) 13% (27) 6% (15) 3% (9)

30% (11) 19% (16) 17% (16) 2% (13)

12 No ANOVA was performed since only two conditions from one condition were tested. Because there was only one comparison for each response type (overt or null) no applied correction had to be performed. Thus, these are just basic independent conditions t-tests.

anaphoric pronouns in oral production

103

Discussion The results of the t-tests show that the experimental group was different from the control group by overproducing illicit null pronouns. Such findings stand in contrast with the proportion analyses discussed earlier, which showed that heritage speakers were on par with the monolinguals, producing a similar number of null pronouns (cf. the similar pattern about the use and distribution of null pronouns in the findings of Hacohen & Schaeffer, 2007). Still, we can assume based on the pattern of distribution here that even though the bilinguals showed mastery of the syntactic requirements of null pronouns, their discourse-pragmatic properties are still non-target like.13 On the other hand, the findings with pragmatically inappropriate overt pronouns were more conclusive. The low proficiency group differed significantly from the other two experimental groups and from the controls. The difference between the intermediate and high proficiency groups, on the one hand, and the monolingual group, on the other hand, demonstrated that regardless of the level of proficiency, the use of overt pronouns is still prone to variability. Such variability with pragmatic constraints on overt subject distribution has been analyzed before as stemming from different factors: interface problems (integration of knowledge or feature underspecification), cross-linguistic influence, or the higher complexity of discourse operations than those performed in narrow syntax (cf. the discussion in Chapter 4). In order to narrow down the number of possible factors, I look at the particular nature of illicit pronouns (redundant or ambiguous) and the contexts of their use. Although heritage speakers allow both ambiguity and redundancy in their pronominal use, a more detailed look at the data shows that they are more determined to avoid ambiguity by being redundant in their use of overt pronouns and also by extra-linguistic means (cf. the examples in the discussion of referring expressions). This pattern perhaps could shed more light on the causes of optionality in their overt pronoun interpretation. Redundant pronouns were not only used across sentence boundaries but also intra-sententially and particularly in the second conjunct of coordinated sentences, as in the example of sentences produced by a low and a high proficiency speaker, respectively:14 13

14

It is difficult to compare these results to previous works since very few studies of pronominal resolution in adult bilinguals perform an analysis based not only on number of occurrences of the pronouns but also on their pragmatic appropriateness. It has to be noted that more low proficiency than intermediate or high proficiency speakers used redundant pronouns in VP coordinates.

104

chapter 5

Volk razozlilsja ešče bol’še i on svjazal mikrofon v uzel Wolf got angry even more and he tied microphone in knot “The wolf got even angrier and he tied the microphone in a knot.” Togda on obidelsja, on pošël i sel na koleso Then he got upset he went and sat on wheel “Then he got upset, he went and sat on the Ferris wheel.”

Using overt pronouns in such contexts points to problems based on tracking difficulties not only across sentences but also in bi-clausal contexts where the articulatory advantage of null pronouns is outweighed. Such difficulties are captured by the locality-based processing account of O’Grady (2011) who proposes that speakers whose processing resources are compromised would overuse overt pronouns in null subject languages, particularly in contexts like above. O’Grady points out that in such cases the processor prefers computations that draw on elements and information that are immediately and locally available. Similar locality-based considerations are raised by Montrul and Polinsky (2011). As discussed earlier, these researchers analyze the divergent behavior of heritage speakers with null subject pronouns as stemming from a more general difficulty in establishing syntactic and referential dependencies, especially when such a dependency links two elements at a distance.15 The value of these two accounts (O’Grady and Montrul and Polinsky) is that they both emphasize the role of locality rather than interface conditions as the trigger of optionality and variability in the language of bilingual speakers (L2 learners or heritage speakers). In view of these empirical observations and theoretical considerations, my earlier proposal about temporary violations of the Avoid Pronoun Principle by the low proficiency group acquires new meaning and receives further clarification. Since this principle is based on providing the “least effort” in pronoun production, proposals about the locality-based processing difficulties discussed above can provide more insights into the particular causes of its violation, namely, inefficient or limited processing resources for establishing anaphoric dependencies. The native speakers, on the other hand, produced more ambiguous than redundant overt pronouns. This could be explained by their stronger reliance 15

Locality-based approaches to pronominal resolution with null and overt pronouns exist for partial pro-drop languages, such as Finnish (cf. Keiser, 2002).

anaphoric pronouns in oral production

105

on discourse coherence cues and shared knowledge despite some minor issues in allocation of attentional resources (cf. the discussion of the Two-Character constraint above). The distribution patterns of ambiguous overt pronouns in that group confirm such an assumption: more ambiguous overt pronouns were produced in contexts where there was a “competition” between characters than in pragmatically inappropriate contexts of Topic Shift. Furthermore, I would like to propose that the overproduction of overt pronouns and their redundant use could be not only a sign of processing difficulties but also a manifestation of a particular strategy that heritage speakers use in reference-tracking in discourse. This strategy is based on using pronouns exclusively (at the expense of full noun phrases) to maintain reference to the main characters throughout the story. Following Chen and Pan’s study of child and adult Chinese-English bilinguals (2009), which builds on previous suggestions by Karmiloff-Smith, I dub this strategy “thematic subject strategy.” Similarly to the findings in these studies, the heritage speakers in my study build the discourse around the main characters and largely restrict their use of pronouns to the thematic subject or discourse topic, avoiding pronouns for other characters. This strategy could possibly help relieve the pressure on the processor, particularly in inter-sentential contexts where reference-tracking needs to be done at a greater distance. In addition, the thematic subject strategy provides some type of coherence apart from the otherwise basic episode transitions that rely primarily on a few temporal connectives. A very clear example of a thematic subject strategy is the use of overt pronouns in the narrative of a low proficiency heritage speaker of Russian who was born in the US and who has only 10% of input on a daily basis. She provides mostly overt pronouns (N = 15) to refer to the most prominent character (the wolf) and a few null pronouns (N = 4) but no lexical subjects. On the other hand, she uses three full NP to refer to the second main character (the bunny) but no overt or null pronouns at all. Clearly, this particular speaker has built her narrative around the main character, assuming a sufficient amount of shared knowledge about this character that would allow her to use predominantly overt pronouns for his reference.

Results: Postverbal Subjects

Last, I turn to the analysis of postverbal subjects as a syntactic option tied to the null-subject parameter in canonical and partial pro-drop languages. Despite the ubiquitous presence of postverbal subjects in these languages, there are

106

chapter 5

certain differences between some languages in regard to the more restricted distribution of VS word orders. In his discussion of word order and interpretation of subjects, Alexiadou (2006) examines certain differences between Greek and Italian in allowing VSO word order: the former has it whereas the latter does not allow it. Still, he argues that Italian permits VS but with restrictions with certain unaccusatives while no such restrictions exist in Greek. In addition, SVO sentences can function as thetic statements in Italian, but such that lack topic-like properties. According to this description, Russian seems to pattern with Italian rather than Greek in regard to the possibility of postverbal subjects and the pragmatic function of certain word orders. Still, Russian allows postverbal subjects with both unaccusative and unergative verbs (cf. the discussion below). Postverbal subjects have been frequently investigated in null subject languages in various types of bilingual populations (Argyri & Sorace 2007; Montrul, 2004; Montrul & Rodríguez-Louro, 2006; inter alia).16 Most studies predict that the number of preverbal subjects in null subject languages of bilinguals will increase under the influence of a non-null subject language, such as English (cf. Serratrice, 2007; Tsimpli et al., 2004). Generally speaking, despite the ongoing debate about the possibility of transfer or acquisition of all the clustered properties, examination of postverbal subjects in bilingual production has provided some good evidence about divergent patterns in Information Structure. The results of my study are in general agreement with previous findings. The projected difference between the experimental and the control groups was confirmed by the statistical analysis. ANOVA tests with proficiency as the factor and postverbal subject responses as the dependent measure showed main effect of postverbal subjects, F (3, 62) = 5.5, p < .005. Planned comparisons indicated that native speakers differed reliably from each of the three heritage groups (low proficiency t (42) = 3.4, p < .001; intermediate proficiency t (41) = 2.2, p < .05; high proficiency t (43) = 2.5, p < .01). No other comparisons proved reliable, all ts < 1.1.

16

It has been argued (Roussou & Tsimpli, 2006) that a correlation between pro-drop and VSO order has to be expressed as a one-way implication, namely if a language has VSO then it also has null subjects (but not the other way round). I do not get into further details about the characteristics of VS order in parametric terms and just accept (as do the majority of scholars) that postverbal subjects are common in null subject languages.

107

anaphoric pronouns in oral production TABLE 5.5 Means of the distribution of postverbal subjects in video narratives Groups

Postverbal subjects

Low proficiency = 11 Intermediate proficiency = 10 High proficiency = 12 Controls = 33

5% (7) 8% (8) 7% (11) 16% (10)

Changes in the word order in the language of heritage speakers of Russian have been discussed previously in the literature, mostly in reference to changes in their spoken language. In particular, drawing on data from various studies, Dubinina and Polinsky (2013) observe that there is weakening in the verbsubject (VS) order when introducing a new participant. In my study, VS word order is significantly disfavored by heritage speakers, not only in reference to introductory contexts but also in thetic sentences that are very common in Russian; cf. the examples below from the narratives of the control group in my study: Zakančivaetsja tanec Coming to an end dance “The dance is coming to an end.” I tam tak sil’no smejalsja zajac And there so loudly laughing bunny “And the bunny was laughing so loudly there.”

Such sentences with an unaccusative and unergative verb are common for the monolingual oral production but are rather rare in the narratives of heritage speakers of Russian who produced exclusively SV sentences without considerations of the Information Structure properties. Such sentences are not ungrammatical by any means but are stylistically awkward since Russian is a discourse-configurational language whose word order variations are driven by Information Structure principles (Baylin, 2011; Dyakonova, 2009; Junghanns & Zybatow, 1997; Pereltsvaig, 2004; Slioussar, 2007; inter alia). Typically, in the neutral SVO word order the subject is interpreted as the Topic and the object or the rest of the sentence receives Focus interpretation: Topic > Discourse Neutral Material > Focus

Dyakonova (2009)

108

chapter 5

Postverbal subjects are employed when a new referent has to be introduced, as in the sentence with unergative verb given below: Na beregu reki pojavilis’ stariki At shore of river appeared old men “Old men appeared at the shore of the river.” Baylin (2011)

Here, the subject “old men” is the new information and thus, part of Focus. In thetic sentences with unaccusative verbs, on the other hand, the whole sentence corresponds to Focus, cf. the following example: Pošël melkij dožd’ Went light rain “It started raining lightly.”

Dyakonova (2009)

There is a third type of VS order, called narrative inversion, whose distribution is limited to the genre of fairy tales and jokes. Such inversion was not attested in the narratives of the heritage speakers of Russian. I remain agnostic about the specific syntactic configuration of word order variations. Previous accounts of this phenomenon have posited dedicated structural positions for Topic and Focus (Dyakonova, 2009), suggesting that the discourse relations are captured at the interface (cf. the proposal about Functional Form as such an interface in Baylin, 2011) or viewing the word order variations as driven by syntactic [F] features assigned to any constituent in the phrase structure (cf. Junghanns & Zybatow, 1997). For the purposes of my study, it is sufficient to recognize that Russian word order is not “free” but obeys principles of Information Structure for marking old and new information. The scarcity of postverbal subjects in the narratives of heritage speakers of Russian demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to such principles, either due to cross-linguistic influence (as has been suggested for other bilinguals with a knowledge of a null subject and non-null subject language), to overall difficulties of computing discourse-based operations, or to both. The results of previous studies of postverbal subjects in the null subject language of bilingual speakers show that L2 learners consistently produce fewer VS sentences than monolinguals or lack such sentences altogether. Montrul and Rodríguez-Louro (2006), for example, found that the intermediate group of L2 learners of Spanish in their study produced no postverbal subjects compared to the control, near-native and advanced speakers who produced 25% postverbal overt subjects. Montrul and Rodríguez-Louro observe that these speakers clearly have underused the stylistic possibility of expressing

anaphoric pronouns in oral production

109

sentences with postverbal subjects (especially with unaccusative verbs). The lack of postverbal subjects is viewed by the researchers as resulting in less natural narratives than those of more advanced learners. Similar findings about the underproduction of postverbal subjects (and respectively, over-production of preverbal subjects) are reported in studies of L1 attriters and child bilinguals (Argiry & Sorace, 2007; Serratrice, 2007; Tsimpli et al., 2004). Conversely, in the only study of postverbal subjects in heritage languages, Montrul (2004) found no significant differences in her experimental group in regard to the position of the overt subjects. The frequent and appropriate use of null referential subject pronouns and the limited but well-attested use of postverbal subjects in the spontaneous production of Italian near-native speakers have been analyzed as inter-related phenomena and as evidence that these speakers have reset the null subject parameter to the Italian value (Belletti et al., 2007). However, based on their findings of non-target VS and target null subject production, the researchers argue that the availability of null subjects is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to license postverbal subjects. In regard to particular examples of VS sentences, Belleti et al. report that the near-native speakers used more VS with eventive unaccusatives in their storytelling task, something they view as a different mechanism than new-information postverbal subjects. Similarly, in the narratives of heritage speakers of Russian in my study, eventive unaccusatives are more frequent than those with stative verbs. VS with the former are sometimes used as an opening of a new episode or even as a start of the whole narrative, cf. the following examples from the beginning of a heritage narrative (the first example) and the monolingual narratives (the second and third examples): 1. Na scene stojal volšebnik, on byl kot On stage standing magician he was cat “A magician was standing on stage, he was a cat.” 2. Na scene stojal fokusnik, vokrug bylo množestvo zritelej On stage standing magician around were many spectators “A magician was standing on stage; there were many spectators around [him].” 3. Vystupaet kot s cilindrom. V zale sidjat rebjata-zverjata Performing cat with tall hat In hall sitting animals “A cat with a tall hat is performing. Animals are sitting in the hall.”

110

chapter 5

The lowest number of VS sentences was found in the low proficiency group, whereas the intermediate and high proficiency speakers produced almost equal amounts of those sentences (cf. the percentage data in the table above). In general, while heritage speakers used the most unaccusative verbs with animate agents, the control group produced both types of sentences equally frequently. To sum up, the data with postverbal subjects shows significant differences between heritage speakers and native speakers in the quantity of such subjects and also in regard to particular properties of these subjects with unaccusative and unergative verbs. I would like to suggest that regardless of the smaller amount of VS sentences in heritage production, we can analyze such sentences as evidence that the heritage speakers have acquired the syntactic properties related to the null subject parameter. However, in order to confirm or reject their target-like representation of Information Structure properties, a separate task that will distinguish between syntactic and discourse-pragmatic properties should be conducted in the future.

chapter 6

Deictic Pronouns in Oral Production In this chapter I probe further the complexity of pronominal interpretation in heritage Russian by focusing on the semantic properties of deictic pronouns as a factor in the use and distribution of subject pronouns in oral production. My goal is to determine whether establishing pronominal dependency with deictic pronouns is less taxing than linking two anaphoric elements in the discourse. The coreferential relations established with deictic pronouns are based on different discourse mechanisms compared to the interpretation of anaphoric pronouns. One of the few models that provides theoretical expression of observations on the behavior of the different types of pronouns (deictic vs. anaphoric) at the interface is Burkhardt’s Syntax-Discourse Model (2005). According to Burkhardt, often deictically used pronouns do not have a pronounced antecedent in the phrase structure, yet need to enter into a pronominal-antecedent dependency to obtain referential content. This dependency must be established at the discourse level, where a discourse referent is provided by the situation of a particular speech act, whereas referentially dependent pronouns must enter into a dependency relation with an antecedent in the discourse. Therefore, deictic pronouns have a fixed reference, which they obtain from the context of utterance, something which already points to lesser cognitive load in their interpretation. Still, null deictic pronouns, similarly to anaphoric ones, need to be syntactically licensed and identified but unlike anaphoric pronouns, their recoverability happens almost instantly, after the speaker utters the pronoun. On the contrary, after the syntactic requirements for anaphoric null pronouns are fulfilled, the speaker has to determine the underlying nominal expression and be able to provide coreferential links between the two based on several phi-features. In addition, the speaker also has to take into account other competing referring expressions, such as overt pronouns and full noun phrases, which makes this task even more daunting. In their influential theoretical model based on a hierarchical organization of phi-features of the pronouns, Harley and Ritter (2002) link the shape of feature hierarchy to the conceptual distinction between discourse dependence and independence of pronominal features. Their model captures these distinctions by placing only 1st and 2nd person under the Participant node. When that node is absent, the underspecified Referring Expression node receives

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004246171_��8

112

chapter 6

a 3rd person interpretation. The Feature Geometry Model is able to explain some findings in the acquisition literature, in particular, the order of acquisition of different phi-features, with 1st person singular being acquired earlier than the others. Furthermore, Harley and Ritter’s Model has been used in various studies on production and processing of pronouns, demonstrating its predictive power to capture the interaction of different pronominal features and the establishment of binding and coreferential relations in narrow syntax and discourse, respectively. Acknowledging the special status of deictic pronouns in the pronominal paradigm of null subject languages, recent theoretical accounts propose to replace Rizzi’s pronominal distinction based on theta roles with a distinction between deictic, anaphoric, and non-anaphoric null pronouns. Below is a more detailed description of the categorization proposed by Hofherr (2006): a) Deictic pro: null pronouns marked [+speaker]/[+hearer] b) Anaphoric pro: null 3rd person pronouns that have a discourse referent previously introduced in the discourse c) Non-anaphoric pro: null 3rd person pronouns that do not take up a discourse referent previously introduced in the discourse, e.g., pronouns with arbitrary reference Hofherr’s proposal is based on the differences between deictic and anaphoric pronouns in regard to parametric variations in null subject languages. Particularly, in partial pro-drop languages such as Finnish and Hebrew, 1st and 2nd person pronouns can be freely dropped, unlike the null form of the 3rd person pronoun, which has much more restricted distribution. Capitalizing on the distinction within the pronominal paradigm, Vainikka and Levy (1999) take it to be a crucial diagnostics of a language with respect to the pattern of subject omission. In order to capture this pattern in Finnish and Hebrew, they propose a different syntactic position for deictic pronouns (base-generated in subject position) and referential 3rd person pronouns (in the SpecAGR). Other accounts of the particular representation of the speaker’s and hearer’s features in syntax assume that such representation triggers locally-based coreferential relations. Studies such as Sigurdsson (2004), Frascarelli (2007), and Holmberg et al. (2009) propose that every clause has features representing the speaker and the addressee in the C-domain, thus making the speakers and addressee always available as local antecedents. The differences between theoretical frameworks do not minimize the importance of the general consensus about the special nature of deictic pronouns in null subject languages. In view of the semantic properties of these

deictic pronouns in oral production

113

pronouns, it is hardly surprising that children acquiring null subject languages tend to omit 1st and 2nd person subject pronouns more frequently than 3rd (cf. a detailed discussion of these findings in Hyams, 2011). Compared to such data of L1 acquisition, the data on bilingual children is noteworthy because of its manifestation of different patterns. In a study of an English-Italian child, Serratrice et al. (2004) analyzed a corpus of spontaneous adult-child interaction. Their findings show that the control groups and the bilingual child relied on a discourse pragmatic strategy in argument omission, making their use of null subjects perfectly on target. However, there was one particular finding that was not predicted, namely, null subjects tended to be 3rd person rather than 1st or 2nd person. Serratrice et al. explain this with the relative weight of informative value of different grammatical (person and number) and cognitive (activation) features. In their study of null pronouns in child Russian, Gordishevsky and Avrutin (2003) also distinguish between the two main discourse conditions for subject omission: the presence of a linguistic antecedent in one of the previous utterances or the presence of a salient situational antecedent. Some of the occurrences of null deictic pronouns in the speech of Russian children observed in Gordishevsky and Avrutin’s study are infelicitous: *Ø Guljala [took a walk], uttered out of the blue as the child was referring to herself. Adult: Laet sobaka Barking dog “A dog is barking.” Child: Da, *Ø bojus’ Yes afraid-1sg “Yes, I am afraid.”

In both cases, the child violates the constraint of using null pronouns in main clauses without a previously established referent in the discourse. As already discussed in Chapter 3, the null pronoun has a very restricted distribution, unlike the overt pronoun. It requires either licensing in special contexts (such as embedding) or the presence of immediate discourse referents in order for its content to be contextually “recovered.” Thus, in “out of the blue” contexts or preceding contexts with different reference, null pronouns (even deictic ones) are illicit.

114

chapter 6

The explanation of Gordishevsky and Avrutin for the children’s violations of constraints on argument omission is pragmatically-based, i.e., children attribute their knowledge to adults and thus do not provide the necessary linguistic and extra-linguistic cues to make the interpretation of the pronoun possible. Gülzow and Gagarina (2007), on the other hand, discovered that Russianand German-speaking monolingual children as early as the age 3;6, are able to use pronouns deictically and anaphorically, as well as to produce coherent and cohesive discourse. It might be the case that the differences in production tasks in these two studies trigger different patterns of pronominal use: Gordishevsky and Avrutin draw their data from spontaneous speech of children in conversations with their caregivers while Gülzow and Gagarina look at oral production of narratives. The referential and indexing features of personal pronouns are found to play a role in adult Russian production as well. All the studies that investigate the spoken language (Grenoble, 1998, 2001; McShane, 2009; Miller & Weinert, 1998; Zdorenko, 2010) have found an effect of person, with deictic pronouns being dropped more often than anaphoric. Grenoble (2001) explains such findings, particularly in non-past tense with the morphological marking of person on the verb. Likewise, Zdorenko found a person-effect in the distribution of the null pronouns in oral production part of the data in the Russian National Corpus. In particular, she found that 1st singular pronouns were used 27%, 2nd person—33%, and 3rd person—only 12% of the time. Zdorenko explains the person effect by adopting Givón’s cognitive Topicalization Hierarchy, which is based on salience/prominence. According to this hierarchy, 1st and 2nd person are more salient because they are grounded in the immediate situation, not in the linguistic discourse. In my opinion, the notion of salience/ prominence of the immediate situation suggests certain resource limitations in the production of anaphoric pronouns compared to deictic pronouns. I further develop this idea in the Discussion section. Data from studies of language contact and variations points to an effect of cross-linguistic priming on the rate of production of deictic pronouns. Torres Cacoullos and Travis (2010) use a variationist approach to test the hypothesis of English influence on Spanish through code-switching. They examined the subject realization in Spanish in bilingual conversations of Spanish-English bilinguals and found that when an English 1st person pronoun immediately preceded the Spanish 1st person pronoun, the rate of the latter is much higher than in the lack of code-switching.1 1 Cf. the following example from their data that demonstrates the proposed cross-linguistic priming: Hijo, sure I’m glad que yo no estoy putting any kids to school now.

deictic pronouns in oral production

115

Apart from studies of language contact, there are a handful of studies based on written corpora that focus exclusively on the expression of deictic pronouns in the null subject language of L2 learners. In a series of studies, Lozano has argued that L2 learners of Spanish have a target representation of 1st and 2nd person null and overt subject pronouns and their “deficit” is only in the area of anaphoric pronouns. Particularly, he found that 1st singular and plural deictic pronouns were used pragmatically correctly with topic continuity and topic shift by all proficiency groups of English L2 learners of Spanish (2009a). In addition, learners showed native-like behavior with 3rd person singular and plural inanimate pronouns but overused 3rd singular animate pronouns, extending them to pragmatically inappropriate contexts. The context-bound features of deictic versus anaphoric pronouns make them easier in L2 acquisition, particularly if one considers UG constraints on the acquisition of phifeatures. Such constraints are implicated in the pronominal Feature Geometry hypothesis of Harley and Ritter (2002) and adopted by Lozano in the interpretation of his findings. Particularly, Lozano argues that not all pronominal features are equally complex to acquire and thus predicts that L2 learners of Spanish will exhibit selective deficit at the syntax-discourse interface only with referential pronouns whose features are more challenging for L2 learners: 3rd person is the unmarked option while 1st and 2nd person are speech-act participants in the Feature Geometry model.

Task and Procedure

The task that aimed to elicit deictic pronouns in my study was the oral production of spontaneous autobiographical narratives which were recorded on Audacity. Unlike the narratives based on retelling the plot of a cartoon discussed in the previous chapter, when the heritage speakers were talking about themselves, I had to prompt them more often to continue with their narration or sometimes, to provide more details. Some of the participants had very little to say about themselves as they mostly focused on their arrival in the United States and their current life (college, friends, free time, etc.). It is likely that some of them were too emotionally attached to certain periods of their lives and felt uncomfortable talking about them or felt insecure about their Russian to the extent of using avoidance strategies more often than in their cartoon narratives.2 2 Elicitation of personal narratives and “life” stories has been shown to result in highly emotional speech and behavior, particularly in the narratives of first-generation immigrants from the Soviet Union (cf. for more details Isurin, 2011).

116

chapter 6

I am not aware of any other heritage study (or L2 study, for that matter) that elicited deictic pronouns in this particular way. In general, as I mentioned earlier, there are fewer studies of deictic pronouns in bilingual populations (mostly in the framework of language contact and variation) compared to studies of anaphoric pronouns. Psychologically speaking, production of personal narratives carries certain inhibitions that could be amplified in the case of weaker command of the language. Still, data from personal narratives could provide insights about thematic coherence, keeping in mind the disclaimer above. The overall length of the personal narratives was on average much longer than the cartoon narratives; nevertheless, they were a few participants that produced extremely short personal narratives (about 70–80 words in length), which could not elicit sufficient data with deictic pronouns. In order to make things more consistent, I chose excerpts from the narratives that contained the least production of prompts and responses, thus yielding narratives between 112 and 160 words, with a mean of 151 words in the heritage group, 147 in the control group.3

Results: Deictic Null and Overt Pronouns4

TABLE 6.1

Means of the use of 1SG and 1PL pronouns in personal narratives

Groups5

Null pronouns

Overt pronouns

Low proficiency = 11 Intermediate proficiency = 8 High proficiency = 10 Controls = 29

7% (7) 26% (14) 13% (13) 41% (26)

93% (7) 74% (14) 87% (13) 59% (26)

3 Similar segmentation of spontaneous production and corpus-based data is employed in other studies (Posio, 2011; Zdorenko, 2010). 4 The table presents the results of the combined (1st person singular and plural pronoun) analyses of rate of production. When these analyses were broken down to 1st person singular and 1st person plural, they did not show different patterns compared to the results of the combined analyses. 5 The differences in the numbers of participants in the target group stems from discarding some of them for lack of sufficient data.

deictic pronouns in oral production

117

An ANOVA with proficiency level as a factor and null responses as the dependent measure proved reliable, F (3, 54) = 9.4, p < .001. Planned comparisons indicated that the low proficiency group was reliably different from both the intermediate proficiency, t (17) = 4.0, p < .001 and the control group, t (38) = 4.2, p < .001. Further, the intermediate group proved to be reliably different from the high proficiency group (t (16) = 2.0, p < .05), which, in turn, was reliably different from the control group, t < .37) = 3.2, p < .005. The intermediate group did not differ from the monolinguals t (35) = 1.5, p < .07, probably because of the smaller number of participants in that group. The ANOVA tests with overt pronouns provided the same results since the null and overt pronouns are essentially mirror images of one another, i.e., if the participants did not provide a null pronoun but the overt form. Because of this, the ANOVA tests are based on differences of the exact same size, just in reversed order. Apart from the evident pattern of proficiency-based differences among the three experimental groups, the findings show that the heritage group differed from the control group. I would like to focus on this specific distinction and suggest a possible genre-based explanation for it. As I noted earlier in the chapter, heritage speakers had to be prompted more often by additional questions or comments in order to elicit more data, thus engaging in a more conversation-like production. Native speakers, on the other hand, had a relatively uninterrupted narration, with occasional questions on the part of the researcher towards the end of their narratives.6 These genre-based differences between the two groups possibly could be the cause for the larger number of null pronouns and smaller number of overt pronouns in the monolingual narratives compared to those of the bilingual group. Typically, personal narratives exhibit a greater degree of topic continuity than conversations do and the marking of such continuity is typically a null pronoun. On the contrary, the nature of a conversation is such that topic shifts happen more often and were prompted by turn-taking of two (or more) participants, thus requiring more overt subjects. Experimental work with Spanish has shown that the rate of production of 1st person overt pronouns is much higher in conversation than in personal narratives precisely because of the greater shifting of topics in the former (Travis, 2007).

6 The excerpts chosen for the data analysis were taken from the beginning of their narratives, so that there was as little researcher’s involvement as possible.

118

chapter 6

Results: Pragmatic Distribution of Deictic Pronouns7

TABLE 6.2 Means of the pragmatic distribution of 1SG overt pronouns in personal narratives Groups

Topic maintenance Topic Shift

Change in grammatical functions and frame

Low proficiency = 11 Intermediate proficiency = 8 High proficiency = 10 Controls = 29

40% (8) 32% (20) 27% (18) 27% (27)

11% (7) 22% (14) 15% (15) 27% (21)

40% (10) 35% (31) 43% (29) 35% (21)

An analysis of the pragmatic distribution of pronouns was performed only for the overt form of the pronoun due to the fact that null deictic pronouns were produced by heritage speakers in much smaller numbers (only 14% compared to 41% in controls), something that made it difficult to determine their pragmatic appropriateness especially given the topic of the narrative. Scarcity of other referents in those narratives made the analysis of topic maintenance and topic shift methodologically unsound. Turning to the results of the pragmatic distribution of 1st person singular overt pronouns, we see that the Topic maintenance condition yielded almost identical results in the high proficiency group and the controls. Despite the fact that the intermediate proficiency group produced more overt pronouns in this condition than the low proficiency group, an ANOVA test with Topic maintenance as the dependent measure proved unreliable, F < 1.1. Similarly, the condition of Topic Shift did not produce any reliable main effects, F < 0.5. Finally, I looked at contexts with change of grammatical functions and change of frame as discourse-pragmatic factors for the distribution of deictic pronouns. Examples from heritage narratives are provided below:

7 The table provides the results from the three major conditions. There was an additional context of pronoun use, the beginning of narratives, which produced only a small percentage of overt pronouns and thus will not be discussed further.

deictic pronouns in oral production



119

Change of Grammatical Functions

Kogda mne bylo vosem’ let, ja priexala v Ameriku When I-dat.sg was eight years I-nom.sg came to America “When I was eight years old, I came to America.”

Here, the personal pronoun in the fronted subordinate clause is in Dative case, whereas the pronoun in the matrix clause is in Nominative. Typically, in such cases native speakers (and heritage speakers, as it was observed) would produce an overt pronoun although the referent is still the same. As discussed in the previous chapter, change of grammatical functions, most notably in case assignment has been observed to trigger the realized form of the pronoun in both written and oral Russian production (Miller & Weinert, 1998; Nichols, 1985). Ja I

Change of Frame sejčas letom now in the summer

budu v Moskve, potom . . .  will be in Moscow then

No ja očen’ ljublju putešestvovat’ But I very much love to travel “I will be in Moscow in the summer, then . . . but I love traveling very much.”

The first clause of this VP coordinate relates information about a concrete event in the near future while the second clause shifts the perspective of the narration to something the speaker likes to do in general. Although such changes of frame or perspective are more difficult to detect and analyze than changes in grammatical functions, scholars working within cognitive frameworks (Ariel, Chafe, and Givon, to name just a few) have argued that they exist and trigger various changes in the discourse. The idea that they are the trigger of the occurrence of overt pronouns in Russian is proposed in the works of Grenoble, Nichols and Miller and Weinert, discussed in detail in the previous chapter. The ANOVA tests with these two types of changes combined as the dependent measure proved only marginally reliable F (3, 54) = 2.7, p < .06, probably because such changes were attested in far fewer contexts than those in Topic Shift environments.

120

chapter 6

The nature of my findings with deictic pronouns (overproduction of overt pronouns and underproduction of null pronouns but pragmatically appropriate distribution of overt pronouns) points to a situation with a lesser degree of cognitive complexity in the production of deictic pronouns compared to 3rd person pronouns. Specifically, since there is no competition in the antecedents of deictic pronouns in discourse, unlike such antecedents for 3rd person pronouns, the production of the former requires fewer cognitive resources than the production of the latter. Furthermore, the heavier processing load with 3rd person pronouns in reference-tracking is also due to the fact that they are competing for resources with proper names and full NPs while the deictic pronouns are not. The divergent outcomes in the number of null and overt deictic pronouns in heritage production could be interpreted again as a “default” heuristics (similar to the one posited in the previous chapter) that is based on a more general strategy of avoiding “silent” elements in heritage languages (Laleko & Polinsky, 2013). In the case of deictic pronouns, such avoidance does not lead to infelicitous outcomes (as in the case of anaphoric pronouns); it only manifests itself in a quantitative difference with the control group.

Results: Daily Input

The results of the analyses with daily input as a factor replicated the results from the proficiency-based tests in regard to reliable differences between the heritage and the monolingual group. An ANOVA with daily input as a factor and null pronouns as the dependent measure proved reliable, F (2, 55) = 11.7, p < .001. Planned comparison analyses indicated that the control group was reliably different from both experimental groups (low input group t (44) = 4.2, p < .001; high input group t (39) = 2.9, p < .005). The two groups did not reliably differ from one another, t < 0.9. The same results were obtained for the overt pronouns. TABLE 6.3 Means of deictic pronouns personal narratives: daily input Groups

Null pronouns

Overt pronouns

Low input group = 17 High input group = 12 Controls = 29

12% (11) 17% (16) 41% (26)

88% (11) 83% (16) 59% (26)

121

deictic pronouns in oral production

These findings show that the daily input was not a factor (unlike proficiency level) in the lower production of null deictic pronouns or the higher production of overt deictic pronouns. I argue that this is the case because unlike anaphoric pronouns, whose production showed the effect of input with pro, heritage speakers are exposed to deictic pronouns much more frequently than to referential pronouns in their daily interactions with family and friends. In addition, given the semantic characteristics of deictic pronouns, the input with these pronouns provides more transparency in determining the contexts of subject drop; cf. the highly frequent use of znaju (“I know”), pomnju (“I remember”), etc. There is much less “noise” in that input (to use Wilson’s 2009 terminology) than in the input with 3rd person pronouns. Still, there are some contexts in which heritage speakers have to determine why, for example, an overt pronoun is licit in the subordinate clauses in the following examples in McShane (2009): Ø Pomnju, Remember-1p.Sg

čto that

ja I

u at

nego him

vozmuščalsja got outraged

tem, in that

čto on poslal menja tuda that he sent me there “I remember that I was outraged at him because he sent me there.” Nikogda ne Øzabudu, čto ja priexal polučat’ pis’mo Never not forget-1p.sg that I came to receive letter “I will never forget that I came to receive the letter.”

Despite the fact that there is no change of topic (and in addition, no change of grammatical functions of the subject between the matrix and the subordinate clause), 1st person overt deictic pronoun is not only pragmatically appropriate but perhaps even slightly preferred to a null copy in these particular contexts. On the basis of such evidence speakers would have to come to the realization that the overt pronoun is the unmarked option in Russian despite the negative evidence for this in the use of null pronouns in the matrix clause. Such preference-based dependencies become even more complicated with anaphoric pronouns that lack explicit situational referents and thus require more resources for production of coreferential elements.

Results: Order of Acquisition

A one way ANOVA with order of acquisition as the factor and overt pronouns as the dependent measure was reliable, F (2, 55) = 13.2, p < .001. Planned comparison

122

chapter 6

TABLE 6.4 Means of deictic pronouns personal narratives: order of acquisition Groups

Null pronouns

Overt pronouns

Simultaneous = 16 Sequential = 13 Controls = 29

9% (10) 21% (14) 41% (27)

91% (10) 79% (14) 59% (27)

t-tests with a Bonferroni correction indicated that all three groups were reliably different from one another (simultaneous vs. sequential t (27) = 2.6, p < .01; simultaneous vs. controls t (43) = 4.6, p < .001; sequential vs. controls t (40) = 2.6, p < .01). Furthermore, an ANOVA with order of acquisition as the factor and null pronouns as the dependent measure proved reliable, F (2, 55) = 13.2, p < .001. Planned comparison t-tests indicated that all three groups were reliably different from one another (simultaneous vs. sequential t (27) = 2.6, p < .01; simultaneous vs. controls t (43) = 4.6, p < .001; sequential vs. controls t (40) = 2.6, p < .01). The results with the production of deictic null and overt pronouns were similar to the results with anaphoric pronouns discussed in the previous chapter with one exception: this time both experimental groups were different from each other and from the control group. This difference points to a positive correlation between the order of acquisition and the rate of pronoun production. For example, the number of null pronouns increases in the sequential group, which is closer to the monolingual group in the manner of L1 acquisition, “one language at a time.” These findings could provide additional insights to the findings where proficiency level and input were taken as factors, namely that the optionality in the performance of heritage speakers with null pronouns exponentially decreases when the second language is introduced later in the linguistic development of the children. A topic for future research will be to try to locate precisely when this optionality arises by looking at different cut-off times in the introduction of English as L2: from approximately 4 to 8–9 years old. In the present study, I did not make such distinctions mostly due to the smaller number of participants in the sequential group.

deictic pronouns in oral production

123

Discussion Although the results show differences between the experimental and the control groups in the number of deictic overt pronouns with both factors (proficiency level and daily input), the discourse-pragmatic distribution of these pronouns did not produce any effects. In addition, the analyses of postverbal subjects (overt pronouns, in this case) did not yield any significance. This is not surprising given that deictic pronouns are inherently different in their referential qualities compared to 3rd person anaphoric pronouns. In particular, null deictic pronouns would be pragmatically appropriate even with Topic Shift given that they are properly licensed and identified. However, unlike null deictic pronouns in canonical pro-drop languages that are required with continuous reference, in Russian such reference can alternate between null and overt deictic pronouns in neutral contexts and still be pragmatically warranted. This is what we find, in fact, in the narratives of both heritage and monolingual speakers of Russian in the present study. Lozano’s (2009a, 2009b) findings of the distribution of deictic and anaphoric pronouns in a written corpus show that in Topic-continuity contexts language learners overused 3rd person overt pronouns instead of the expected null pronouns. Conversely, Topic-shift contexts resulted in underproduction errors, with null pronouns produced when overt material is required. These findings are in contrast with Spanish natives who never underproduced null pronouns in such contexts. In comparison, the distribution of deictic pronouns in the L2 narratives was found to be on target. Lozano’s conclusion is that the deficit at the syntax-discourse interface posited by several scholars is, in fact, selective and restricted only to 3rd person pronouns.8 Feature-based studies of the processing of pronominal subjects provide additional support to theoretical and empirical studies regarding the differences in the semantic and pragmatic nature of deictic pronouns in comparison to anaphoric pronouns. Carminati (2005) found that such difference exists also in the processing of phi-features, which she argues is not the same for all features. Based on the Feature Geometry Model of Harley and Ritter and her own considerations about the strength of different phi-features, Carminati suggests that 1st and 2nd person have a special treatment in narrow syntax. The assumption she makes is that there is a correlation between the cognitive

8 However, findings of other studies (Hacohen & Schaeffer, 2007) show that the inappropriate overt subjects were not restricted to a specific type in terms of phi-features.

124

chapter 6

significance of a feature (relative to another) and its disambiguating power, i.e., the more cognitively important the feature is the better it should be at disambiguating the pronoun that carries it. If this hypothesis is correct, feature strength should interact with the strategies of pronoun resolution employed by the processor. Carminati’s findings confirm her prediction by demonstrating a significant interaction between person and antecedent status. This interaction shows that the processing penalty for violating the antecedent preference of pro is significantly reduced when 1st/2nd person disambiguates pro than when 3rd person does. The 1st vs. 2nd person manipulation did not yield significant differences, suggesting these two persons behave uniformly in these experimental contexts. In conclusion, my findings with the production of deictic pronouns show a different picture than the one we found with 3rd person pronouns. Unsurprisingly, this picture exhibits many similarities to most of the studies discussed in this section mainly in regard to the different semantic/referential nature of the deictic pronouns that allows them to be used in a less restricted manner than anaphoric pronouns. These results receive additional support from the lack of group effect in the production of postverbal subjects, which in the context of personal narratives are likely to be rarer even in the group of monolingual speakers.

chapter 7

Anaphora Resolution in Globally Ambiguous Contexts This chapter focuses on the results of anaphora resolution with null and overt subject pronouns in heritage and native Russian. The use of more controlled experimental methods with a variety of test instruments only recently has enjoyed more popularity in early bilingual research. Scholars have advocated for adoption of successful SLA methods in the field of incomplete acquisition and L1 attrition that would allow them not only to draw comparisons between those populations but more importantly, to identify and explore particular trends in their bilingualism (Montrul, 2004).

Earlier Proposals and Findings

Principally, the necessity of comprehension studies with anaphoric pronouns in early and late bilinguals has been indicated in the last few years as a method that would provide more tacit knowledge of the structural and processing factors that play a role in their interpretation of pronouns. Additionally, studies show that production only reveals certain aspects of linguistic knowledge and can often mask a lack of competence with more complex structures (Montrul, 2010). As I mentioned in previous chapters, using predominantly production tasks raises some methodological issues that could misrepresent the underlying causes for the overproduction of overt subject pronouns by heritage speakers and other types of bilinguals.1 The anaphora resolution task analyzed in this chapter aims to provide the basis for triangulating the findings from the production task in order to determine the strength of the analysis of overproduction of overt pronouns in Chapter 5. By manipulating sentential ambiguity under time pressure in a comprehension task I seek to determine the strength of antecedent preferences with null vs. overt pronouns in both experimental groups in order to 1 For example, the well known avoidance strategy together with circumlocution could not offer any evidence about the representation of anaphoric pronouns at the heritage syntaxdiscourse interface.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004246171_��9

126

chapter 7

determine whether pronominal resolution under such conditions leads to variability in the population of heritage speakers the way it did in the production task. The factor of ambiguity in anaphora resolution has been considered in relation to the strength of some processing-based pragmatic hypotheses, such as PAH (discussed in detail in Chapter 4). In their discussion of the mechanism of antecedent preferences, Sorace and Filiaci (2006) emphasize that the biases predicted by PAH have been shown to have a generalized application covering both referential and non-referential antecedents in SpecIP, one- and tworeferent contexts and both ambiguous and unambiguous contexts. However, they also note that the non-subject antecedent bias for overt pronouns predicted by PAH should be viewed as not as strong as the subject antecedent bias of null pronouns, mostly because overt pronouns appear to be more sensitive to contextual factors. Therefore, they reason, native grammars will be more tolerant to PAH violations in unambiguous sentences in which the potential for miscommunication is low. Conversely, PAH biases will be stronger in ambiguous sentences in order to avoid misinterpretation. While native speakers seem to be guided by a tendency to avoid misinterpretation, Sorace and Filiaci propose that near-natives are less sensitive to this fact and therefore more likely to overgeneralize overt pronouns inappropriately. A study that explicitly tested the role of ambiguity in anaphora resolution in one-referent inter-sentential contexts is Alonso-Ovalle et al. (2002) for monolingual Spanish. They predicted that if the embedded subject pro was rated as more natural in those unambiguous contexts, then this could not be attributed to any principle that is concerned exclusively with ambiguity resolution. Their results showed that pro was indeed rated significantly higher than overt pronouns, which they take to mean that pro finds its preferred referent in the subject position (as predicted by PAH) regardless of the presence/absence of ambiguity. If we are to test such analysis with bilingual speakers, we could assume that if any divergent patterns are registered in that population, we should interpret them as stemming from processing difficulties since they appear under the most taxing conditions, ambiguity and time pressure. If, however, such divergence is persistent even with less ambiguity and more time, this would mean that the deficit is in the area of representation rather than processing. In light of these considerations, I focus on intra-sentential anaphora resolution in globally ambiguous contexts as I try to determine the coreferential patterns in the language of heritage speakers and monolinguals. I provide evidence about such patterns in Russian where establishing pronominal dependencies outside of Binding proper rarely has been an object of experimental work. Therefore, as suggested in the beginning of this book, such

anaphora resolution in globally ambiguous contexts

127

a study could reveal parallels (or lack of) with other heritage languages, L2 learners or L1 attriters. I analyze antecedent assignment in comprehension tasks in view of the specific bias (syntactic and pragmatic) that null and overt pronouns exhibit in order to establish the anaphoric relation. This bias is based on the nature of operations involved in anaphora resolution with null (syntactic) vs. overt pronouns (discourse-pragmatic), namely, operations in narrow syntax are found to be less complex and more economic than operations in discourse (Burkhardt, 2005; Koornneef et al., 2006; Reinhart, 2006; Reuland, 2001, 2011), perhaps because the computation of discourse-related material requires more structure-building (Laleko & Polinsky, 2013). A reanalysis of initial structurallybased antecedent assignment stemming from pragmatically-triggered contradiction to PAH has also been predicted to incur substantial processing cost (Sorace & Filiaci, 2006). Furthermore, analysis of pronominal resolution in Russian has to take into consideration the null subject properties of that language. As the discussion of the null subject properties in Russian in Chapter 3 demonstrated, null elements in that language can appear only in specifically sanctioned positions and their content must be recoverable in some way (Franks, 1995). These restrictions appear to apply mostly to null arguments in main clauses where it is more difficult for the referent to be contextually determined and the inflectional syncretism in the past tense paradigm doesn’t allow for the null subjects to be licensed. However, there is also evidence that when null subjects are inside a subordinate clause, they can be syntactically licensed and identified through “discourse recoverability” (Franks, 1995). In the case of embedded noun clauses, the structural properties based on the locality of the licensing head makes it possible for a subject drop to be licensed inside that clause (Gribanova, 2013).2 Since discourse recoverability requires that null subjects represent old information (Gordishevsky & Avrutin, 2004), in contexts with two possible antecedents in the matrix clause (as in the present task) null pronouns will likely refer to the topical antecedent in order to encode topic continuity. Overt pronouns, on the other hand, are the unmarked option in contexts of temporal subordinated clauses of the type used in the present study. Still, in contexts with two possible antecedents in the matrix clause, unlike the null subjects that are found exclusively to encode old information, overt subjects can indicate either topic continuity or signal topic shift, with a stronger 2 Interestingly, Liceras and Díaz (1999) found that English and French learners as well as native speakers of Spanish (adolescent and adult) produced more null subjects in the subordinate than in matrix clauses.

128

chapter 7

preference for the latter function. In canonical pro-drop languages, this function of the overt subject pronoun is the only one available and has been argued to operate as a discourse constraint in anaphora resolution in native grammars (Belletti et al., 2007). In the language of near-native speakers, however, this constraint has been assumed to be weaker (possibly because no similar constraint exists in their L1, English) resulting in infelicitous interpretation of overt subjects pronouns (ibid.). The proposals and various empirical findings outlined above have informed my analysis of antecedent assignment and ease of interpretation of pronominal resolution in heritage Russian. In the next sections, I describe the experimental design of the comprehension task and the results of the analyses and offer a discussion of the findings.

Task and Procedure

Most of the studies discussed in Chapter 4 have used tasks designs similar to the one described here in order to determine the mechanisms and factors that play a role in referential dependencies, i.e., antecedent bias or preferences, type of syntactic and pragmatic elements of the dependency and presence or absence of ambiguity. In most studies the anaphoric dependency is presented intra-sententially (although there are some with inter-sentential design as well), with backward anaphora (the subordinate clause with the pronouns precedes the matrix clause that hosts the anaphoric referent) or forward anaphora (the subordinate clause follows the matrix clause). It is the former type of anaphora that I analyze in the present task; cf. the following example of forward anaphora from Carminati (2002): Marta scrivera frequentemente a Piera Marta wrote frequently to Piera quando Ø/ lei era negli Stati Uniti when she was in United States “Marta wrote frequently to Piera when she was in the United States.”

This particular task was given as part of a written questionnaire, an experimental design that together with Picture Verification Task is the typical method of testing anaphora resolution (Belleti et al., 2007; Okuma, 2012; Tsimpli et al., 2004). In the sentence-picture matching task, the intra-sentential anaphora was presented in a written form and the participants were asked to make an

anaphora resolution in globally ambiguous contexts

129

antecedent choice based on a picture representing the situation described in the sentence. Typically, the choices would have to be made between three referents: two in the immediate linguistic context and one in the extra-linguistic context. What we find is that speakers choose the latter considerably less frequently than the former. Some researchers (Schwartz, 2011) have found that having to judge three pictures is more difficult than a forced-choice aural preference task. Such concern also hints at another potential issue with PVT, namely, that it involves two different modalities—linguistic and pictorial. Having to switch attention from one modality to another could increase the complexity of the task and perhaps affect its outcomes. I have chosen to use a forced-choice aural preference task in order to avoid confounding factors of greater cognitive load due to the design of the PVT. The responses of the participants were timed from the onset of the answer on the computer screen. While tasks that analyze post-sentence timed responses do not tap into real time processing, they could still provide some insights into the interpretative difficulties that the participants experience with anaphora resolution (Ivanova-Sullivan, 2014; Lezama & Almor, 2011; Song & Fisher, 2005) or other linguistic operations (Hopp, 2010; May, Alcock, Robinson, & Mwita, 2001). If participants are slower in their responses, this would indicate some problems with the interpretation despite the lack of a more precise temporal resolution. The task discussed in this chapter consists of fourteen stimulus sentences and seventeen fillers.3 The target sentences were divided equally between two conditions: null and overt subject pronouns. The pronouns were placed in the subordinate clause, the potential antecedents in the matrix clause were matched for gender, and the sentences were globally ambiguous, with nonlexically biased predicates. An example of a test sentence is given below: Nina uslyšala Galju, poka Ø / ona igrala s det’mi Nina heard Galja while she played with children “Nina hears Galja while she [Nina or Galja] was playing with the children.”

The experiment was done orally because of the different degree of literacy of heritage speakers. The participants were asked to listen to various sentences, after which they heard a comprehension question that asked them to choose between the two NPs in the matrix clause, the subject or the object of the 3 Some of the filler sentences contained anaphoric pronouns; others did not. The comprehension questions were also varied between shallow (yes/no questions) and deep (asking the participants to choose an antecedent for the pronoun) questions.

130

chapter 7

transitive verb. After they heard the question, they saw a screen with the possible answers, namely, the proper names of both antecedents in the matrix clause. The appearance of this screen functioned as a cue for the participants to press one of the buttons on the response pad and make their choice as quickly as possible. In order to avoid consistency biases and other order effects, in half of the sentences the order of the NPs was switched (both in the prompt and in the answer on the screen) and the order of trials was fully randomized for each subject.

Results: Antecedent Choice

I would like to start my report of the findings by briefly describing the way the statistical analysis was performed on the proportion of antecedent choices and the reaction times. For the subject and object antecedents, in order to keep things consistent with the latency data, the percentage was calculated based on the following formulas: for subjects it was calculated based on the amount of reported subjects out of all subjects and objects for the given participant; the same was done for objects. Because subject and object cases always were equal to 1.0 (according to the formula used to calculate them), these two cases were run as separate analyses. This type of analysis was not done for the reaction times since the nature of that data was different. Since the reaction times were recorded with both subject and object antecedents, in the latter condition there were fewer data simply because these antecedents were not chosen that frequently. In order to perform the statistical analysis, many of the values were substituted with the means, which is not uncommon in psycholinguistic studies.4 A two-factor ANOVA with group (low, intermediate, high, and control) and pronoun type as the two factors and subject responses as the dependent variable indicated that both the main effect of group, F (3, 48) = 3.03, p < .05, and the main effect of pronoun type, F (1, 48) = 89.27, p < .001, proved reliable. The group by pronoun type interaction also proved reliable, F (3, 48) = 4.19, p < .01. When the pronoun type interaction was investigated further by testing the simple main effects of proficiency, the effect of null pronouns turned out to be significant. In particular, planned comparison t-tests with a Bonferroni correction indicated the following. The low, intermediate, high, and control 4 Only answers that pertain to subject and object antecedents were included in the statistical analysis. Very rarely (under 10%) did participants indicate that they cannot make a choice by pressing a third button “I can’t tell”; thus, these results were excluded from the analyses.

131

anaphora resolution in globally ambiguous contexts TABLE 7.1

Means of antecedent choice with null and overt subject pronouns

Groups

Null pronounSubject antecedent

Null pronounObject antecedent

Overt pronounSubject antecedent

Overt pronounObject antecedent

Low = 11 Intermediate = 11 High = 12 Controls = 18

79% (20) 89% (16) 95% (7) 100%

21% (20) 11% (16) 5% (7)

59% (15) 71% (27) 75% (17) 60% (19)

41% (15) 29% (27) 25% (17) 40% (19)

groups all provided reliably more subject responses with null than with overt pronouns (low group t (1, 10) = 3.63, p < .005; intermediate group t (1, 10) = 2.48, p < .05; high group t (1, 11) = 3.60, p < .005; control group t (1, 17) = 8.71, p < .001). The low-proficiency group provided reliably fewer subject responses with null pronouns than either the high or the control group, high group t (1, 21) = 2.66, p < .01; control group t (1, 27) = 4.60, p < .001. The control group also provided reliably more subject responses with null pronouns than either the intermediate or high group (intermediate group t (1, 27) = 2.95, p < .005; high group t (1, 28) = 2.89, p < .005). The high-proficiency group provided more subject responses with overt pronouns than the low or the control groups (low group t (1, 21) = 2.34, p < .05; control group t (1, 28) = 2.17, p < .05). No other effects proved reliable, all ts < 1.3. A two-factor ANOVA with group (low, intermediate, high, and control), pronoun type as the two factors and object responses as the dependent variable indicated that both the main effect of group, F (3, 48) = 3.03, p < .05, and the main effect of pronoun type, F (1, 48) = 89.27, p < .001, proved reliable. The effect by pronoun type also proved reliable, F (3, 48) = 4.19, p < .01. Planned comparison t-tests with a Bonferroni correction indicated the following. The low, intermediate, high, and control groups all provided reliably fewer object responses with null than with overt pronouns (low group t (1, 10) = 3.63, p < .005; intermediate group t (1, 10) = 2.48, p < .05; high group t (1, 11) = 3.60, p < .005; control group t (1, 17) = 8.71, p < .001). The low group provided reliably more object responses with null pronouns than either the high or control group, high group t (1, 21) = 2.66, p < .01; control group t (1, 27) = 4.60, p < .001. The control group provided reliably fewer object responses with null pronouns than either the intermediate or high group (intermediate group t (1, 27) = 2.95, p < .005; high group t (1, 28) = 2.89, p < .005). The high group

132

chapter 7

provided fewer object responses with overt pronouns than the low or control groups (low group t (1, 21) = 2.34, p < .05; control group t (1, 28) = 2.17, p < .05). No other effects proved reliable, all ts < 1.3. Discussion All groups provided more subjects and fewer objects antecedents with null pronouns, something to be expected given the less complex nature of referential dependencies in narrow syntax (cf. the theoretical justification of these in the proposals about economy of encoding discussed earlier). However, the differences in proportions among those groups indicated some interesting dynamics within the heritage group in contrast to the native speakers. Particularly, the low proficiency group reported fewer subjects antecedent with null pronouns than the high proficiency and the control groups. If we take the results of the low proficiency and high proficiency groups as two points on a developmental axis, we can analyze the coreferential patterns in the former as an indication of a gradual quantitative change towards a more target-like representation of pronouns. Thus, what we see in the results of the target group is a trend to link null pronouns with subject antecedents, which finds its optimal realization in the high proficiency group. Furthermore, the significantly fewer subject antecedents with null subjects in that group (compared to the group of native speakers) shows that despite their higher proficiency, there is still some optionality (albeit much less than the low proficiency group exhibits) with null elements in their grammar. Their judgments demonstrate that they have fully acquired the licensing but have some residual problems with the identification requirement of null pronouns, evident from their linking of null subjects and object antecedents. Such interpretation supports previous arguments in the literature about the “silent category problem” in establishing referential dependencies (Laleko & Polinsky, 2013; Montrul & Polinsky, 2011). These studies suggest that it is the licensing and co-indexation with a DP at a distance that causes a significant problem in heritage grammars, particularly in cases with null pronouns. The situation with overt pronouns presents a somewhat different picture. The fact that both the control and low proficiency groups provided more object responses with overt pronouns than the high proficiency group could be just a convergence on the surface but with different underlying causes. The overall antecedent bias with overt pronouns in those two groups appears to be in a state of free variation in contrast to the subject bias with null pronouns in these groups. Based on previous theoretical discussions and

anaphora resolution in globally ambiguous contexts

133

bilingual findings (Keating et al., 2011; Rothman, 2009a),5 I suggest that the low proficiency group has not worked out yet the principles that guide anaphora resolution with overt pronouns. Since these principles are based on discoursepragmatics factors and not grounded in narrow syntax, they are more problematic for the low proficiency group. The control group, on the other hand, exhibits the characteristics of Russian as a non-canonical pro-drop language with the possibility of overt subjects to encode both [-Topic Shift] and [+Topic Shift]. These parametric characteristics differentiate Russian from canonical pro-drop languages such as Italian, Spanish, and Greek (to name just a few) and could possibly explain certain differences in the findings with these two types of null subject languages. For example, researchers have argued that in Italian PAH is more robust with overt pronouns in ambiguous contexts where the potential for misunderstanding is high (Carminati, 2002; Sorace, 2007; Sorace & Filiaci, 2006). However, the results of the Russian control group do not show such robustness, probably because of the existence of parametric differences between Italian and Russian. The high proficiency group provided fewer object responses with overt pronouns than the control group, something that could be explained with a particular subject-oriented heuristics or underlying representation of these speakers. In particular, I argue that the preference for a subject antecedent with overt pronouns in this group is a “default” option that allows them to cope with the more complex patterns of anaphora resolution with overt pronouns. Since referential dependencies involving these pronouns are established in discourse, these dependencies are regulated by more complex rules and restrictions, which are still not optimally present in the processing of high proficiency speakers. It is worth mentioning that such “defaults” have been suggested for language phenomena in other areas, such as morphosyntax. In particular, heritage processing has been analyzed as “default” or “first pass parsing” by Polinsky (2009), who argues that morphological deficit in heritage grammars is responsible for these specific types of “lighter” parsing. Additional support for this hypothesis comes from the only other study of anaphora resolution in a heritage language. Keating et al. (2011) found a stronger preference for subject antecedents with overt pronouns in the group of Spanish heritage speakers in contrast with the results in the control group that didn’t show such preference (similar to my findings). Given that Spanish is a 5 Cf. Montrul and Rodríguez-Louro (2006) who also suggest that seemingly convergent behavior with null pronouns between the L2 intermediate proficiency learners and the controls in their study is a result of these learners still being unaware of the subtleties of Spanish discourse constraints.

134

chapter 7

canonical pro-drop language in which overt pronouns encode the discourse function of switch-reference, the situation we find with the control group in that study is expected. Both my study and Keating et al. provide evidence that heritage speakers have strong subject antecedent bias with overt pronouns, something that we didn’t find in our control groups. I analyze this bias as a sign of a specific structurally-based covert rule or processing strategy,6 which, despite being non target-like, is by no means deficient. The fact that we don’t find complete lack of bias with overt pronouns in the heritage data (as we do in the group of low proficiency speakers) supports this hypothesis. Conversely, Keating et al. found differences in the results of the heritage speakers and L2 learners, as the latter demonstrated lack of antecedent bias with both null (63%) and overt (58%) pronouns. These results are supported by evidence in other L2 studies (Montrul & Rodríguez Louro, 2006; Rothman, 2009) and are interpreted by Keating et al. in terms of the two pronouns being in some state of free variation when it comes to establishing reference continuity, something that I argue to be the case with the resolution of overt pronouns in my low proficiency group. Furthermore, my proposal about the performance of the high proficiency speakers is in agreement with previous theoretical accounts about structural factors that play a role in the interpretation of pronouns and with the models of economy of encoding in both representational and processing terms, i.e., syntactic operations being the least complex and effortless (cf. the discussion of those models in Chapter 4). Regarding the role of structural factors in anaphora resolution in globally ambiguous contexts, researchers have proposed to consider such factors as subject assignment, syntactic parallelism, grammatical matching, and structural prominence (the pronoun is interpreted as coreferential with an antecedent that is maximally prominent due to a combination of syntactic embeddedness and linear position) as possibly influencing the interpretation of pronouns in native grammars (cf. Arnold & Griffin, 2007; Badecker & Straub, 2002; Gordon & Hendrick, 1998). Recently, work on languages other than English has provided more fine-grained analysis of the interaction between structural (subject role), discourse (topic role; word order) and cognitive (order of mention) factors. Grammatical subject (Keiser & Trueswell, 2008) and order of mention (Järvikivi, Van Gompel, Hyönäm, & Bertram, 2005) were found to be crucial for pronoun interpretation in Finnish while subjecthood proved to be more relevant than topichood in Japanese 6 It is difficult to say which of the two since Keating et al. only tested off-line interpretation of pronouns. But the studies discussed in Chapter 4 indicate that processing of pronouns is also problematic for bilinguals.

anaphora resolution in globally ambiguous contexts

135

(Ueno & Kehler, 2010) and Korean (Laleko & Polinsky, 2013) pronominal interpretation. Despite the differences among these models in the interpretation of structural sources, they all converge in accurately predicting the outcomes of the pronominal resolution, namely, the presence of a stronger subject preference in the coreference patterns. If we turn to the situation in the grammars of L2 learners, L1 attriters and heritage speakers, we will see that the factors argued to play a role in pronominal interpretation resemble some of those in native grammars assuming structural and (sometimes discourse) prominence of the subject. In regard to anaphora resolution with null and overt pronouns, it has been observed that all these different types of bilinguals prefer to link overt subject pronouns to subject antecedents more often than monolinguals do. This type of overextension of overt pronouns to same-reference contexts has been reported in both production and comprehension tasks (Belletti et al., 2007; Keating et al., 2011; Montrul, 2004; Montrul & Rodríguez Louro, 2006; Rothman, 2008, 2009; Tsimpli et al., 2004). Empirical observations from previous studies also offer support to my interpretation of pronoun resolution in heritage speakers of Russian. If we look at the comparison table below,7 we will notice that none of the results from previous studies of bilinguals or monolinguals indicates strong subject bias with overt pronouns.8 L2 learners, on the other hand, exhibit no particular bias between subject and object antecedents (Keating et al., 2011; Sorace & Filiaci, 2006), just like L1 attriters (Tsimpli et al., 2004). Given the nature of bilingualism in heritage speakers, it would not be unreasonable to view a subject default interpretation as being influenced by their more dominant language, English. Since overt pronouns in English are preferred by native speakers in contexts of topic maintenance (in contrast to noun phrases that signal topic shift), I hypothesize that there exists cross-linguistic influence in the interpretation of overt pronouns in high proficiency heritage speakers of Russian, possibly conspiring with internal structural factors of the type discussed above. Despite the parametric differences between English and Russian (with the latter allowing null arguments in certain referential positions), the fact that the overt pronouns are the non-marked option in both languages could lead to certain variability in bilinguals who have to sort out the differences in the distribution of both null (albeit for different reasons) and overt pronouns.

7 All the studies presented in the table provide findings from intra-sentential anaphora resolution using a Picture Verification task or a forced-choice written preference task. 8 The only exception is the group of heritage speakers of Spanish in Keating et al. (2011).

136

chapter 7

TABLE 7.2 Antecedent choice: native speakers, L1 attriters, L2 learners and HS Studies of monolingual and bilingual speakers

Null-Subject antecedent

Null-Object antecedent

Overt-Subject antecedent

Overt-Object antecedent

Native Italian Carminati 2002 Italian-English L1 attriters Tsimpli et al. 2004 Heritage and L2 Spanish Keating et al. 2011 L2 Italian Sorace and Filliaci (2006) L2 Italian Belletti et al. 2007

81%

19%

17%

83%



51% (control) 44% (control ) 7% (control) 80% (control) 70% (L1 biling.) 25% (L1 biling.) 21% (L1 biling.) 70% (L1 biling.)

74% (control) 65% (HS) 60% (L2)

26% (control) 35% (HS) 40% (L2)

54% (control) 67% (HS) 54% (L2)

46% (control) 33% (HS) 46% (L2)

51% (control) 46% (L2)

44% (control) 43% (L2)

7% (control) 26% (L2)

82% (control) 60% (L2)

40% (control) 54% (L2)

54% (control) 45% (L2)

5% (control) 30% (L2)

85% (control) 65% (L2)

Results: Reaction Times

In order to facilitate a better understanding of the findings in this section, I provide a table that combines the results of the antecedent choice (discussed in the previous section) and the reaction times (in msec). The numbers in brackets stand for SD. A two-factor ANOVA with group and pronoun type as the two factors and response times as the dependent variable indicated that only the main effect of pronoun type proved reliable, F (1, 31) = 11.84, p < .005. Both the main effect of group and the group by pronoun type interaction proved unreliable, both Fs < 1.5. Planned comparison t-tests with an applied Bonferroni correction indicated the following. The low proficiency and high proficiency groups were reliably faster at choosing subject than object antecedents with null pronouns (low

137

anaphora resolution in globally ambiguous contexts TABLE 7.3 Means of antecedent choice and reaction times with null and overt pronouns Group

Null Null Overt Overt pronoun-Subject pronoun-Object pronoun-Subject pronoun-Object antecedent antecedent antecedent antecedent

Low = 11

79% (20) 1206 (738) Intermediate = 11 89% (16) 996 (597) High = 12 95% (7) 1013 (575) Controls = 18 100% 1094

21% (20) 1788 (747) 11% (16) 1454 (967) 5% (7) 2333 (1768)

59% (15) 2013 (1298) 71% (27) 1733 (1266) 75% (17) 1321 (1157) 60% (19) 2091 (2164)

41% (15) 2098 (2649) 29% (27) 980 (516) 25% (17) 1646 (1057) 40% (19) 1609 (1298)

proficiency t (1, 10) = 2.21, p < .05; high proficiency t (1, 11) = 2.52, p < .05). The intermediate group was reliably faster when providing object than subject responses with overt pronouns, t (1, 10) = 2.42, p < .05. The intermediate group and the controls were reliably faster at providing subject responses with null than with overt pronouns (t (1, 10) = 2.15, p < .05; and t (1, 17), 2.30, p < .05, respectively). Discussion All groups (except the high proficiency group) were faster choosing subject antecedents with null pronouns than with overt pronouns.9 The results of the high proficiency group showed that for them the linking of both the null and overt pronouns with a subject antecedent converged in regard to the ease of interpretation. However, if we take into account the significant difference in their response times between choosing subject and object antecedents with null pronouns, we might analyze this as a more general difference based on form-specific representation of pronoun resolution in their grammar. Particularly, both the proportion and the reaction times analyses show that they are faster and have stronger preference for subject antecedents with null 9 The low proficiency group showed only marginal difference here, p < .06, probably because of the smaller number of participants in that group.

138

chapter 7

than with overt pronouns, thus in a way their syntactic representation comes “free.” Their strong subject preference with overt pronouns (albeit significantly less strong than with null pronouns), previously analyzed as a subject default heuristics, is something that reflects the more complex nature of operations in discourse. The lack of significant difference in response time in choosing the subject with null in comparison to overt pronouns could be a sign that for these speakers, the structurally-based antecedent default option with overt pronouns is highly efficient, as efficient perhaps as the syntactically effortless interpretation of subject antecedents as referents of null pronouns. The response times with null pronouns in the low proficiency group are similar to those of the high proficiency group, namely, faster interpretation of these pronouns when linked to subject than to object antecedents. This supports the previously made assumption that their grammar is only quantitatively different from the grammar of high proficiency speakers and would not affect the ease of interpretation of null pronouns. Finally, the results of the intermediate proficiency group present a different picture with null and overt pronouns. They linked subject referents to null pronouns more often than to overt pronouns and they did this faster, indicating a better grasp of the syntactic conditions on anaphora resolution. However, their results with overt pronouns are somewhat puzzling. They picked subjects as the antecedents of overt pronouns more often than objects (similar to the high proficiency group) but they were faster in their interpretation of the latter than the former. This could suggest some cross-linguistic influence in their coreferential patterns, namely in encoding reference maintenance with overt pronouns in both languages (Russian and English). This is precisely the situation that Hulk and Müller’s hypothesis would predict about susceptibility to cross-linguistic influence of structures that are similar in the two languages. In this particular case, such vulnerability puts a strain on the interpretation of pronouns and slows the reaction times of the intermediate speakers with overt pronouns under discourse-pragmatic restrictions present in English.

Results: Daily Input

A two-factor ANOVA with group (low input, high input, and native speakers) and pronoun type as the two factors and subject responses as the dependent variable indicated that the input-based subdivision was statistically reliable. The main effect of pronoun type, F (1, 49) = 92.14, p < .001, as well as the interaction between group and pronoun type, F (2, 49) = 6.76, p < .005, were found to be reliable. The main effect of group proved unreliable, F < 1.0.

anaphora resolution in globally ambiguous contexts

139

TABLE 7.4 Means of antecedent choice and reaction times: daily input Groups

Null Null pronoun-Subject pronoun-Object antecedent antecedent

Overt pronoun-Subject antecedent

Overt pronoun-Object antecedent

Low input group = 22 High input group = 12 Controls = 18

87% (17) 1124 (671) 89% (15) 973 (548) 100% 1094

70% (15) 1430 (1170) 67% (21) 2234 (1245) 60% (19) 2091 (2164)

30% (22) 1806 (2011) 33% (21) 1144 (595) 40% (19) 1609 (1298)

13% (17) 1781 (1399) 11% (15) 2276 (805)

Planned comparison t-tests with an applied Bonferroni correction further indicated that all three groups provided reliably more subject responses with null than with overt pronouns (low input group, t 1, 21) = 4.96, p < .001; high input group, t (1, 11) = 3.08, p < .01; control group, t (1, 17) = 8.71, p < .001). Moreover, the control group provided reliably more subject responses with null subjects than either the low input group, t (1, 38) = 3.23, p < .005, or the high input group, t (1, 28) = 3.04, p < .005. A two-factor ANOVA with group (low input, high input, and native speakers) and pronoun type as the two factors and object responses as the dependent variable indicated that the main effect of sentence, F (1, 49) = 92.14, p < .001, and the interaction between group and sentence, F (2, 49) = 6.76, p < .005, were reliable. The main effect of group proved unreliable, F < 1.0. The results from the reaction times analyses performed as a two-factor ANOVA with group and pronoun type as the two factors and RT as the dependent variable indicated that the main effect of pronoun type was reliable, F (1, 32) = 15.47, p < .001. Both the main effect of group and the interaction between group and pronoun type proved unreliable, both Fs < 1.9. These results show that the amount of daily input was not a factor in the antecedent choice or the speed of response with null or overt pronouns.

Results: Order of Acquisition

Here I provide only the statistics for the subject antecedent analyses since the object antecedent preferences were the mirror image of the former. My findings

140

chapter 7

TABLE 7.5 Means of antecedent choice and reaction times: order of acquisition Groups

Null Null pronoun-Subject pronoun-Object antecedent antecedent

Overt pronoun-Subject antecedent

Overt pronoun-Object antecedent

Simultaneous group = 16 Sequential group = 18 Control group = 18

86% (20) 1039 (757) 90% (12) 1098 (504) 100% 1094

61% (24) 1843 (1236) 75% (15) 1571 (1252) 60% (19) 2091 (2164)

39% (24) 2022 (2286) 25% (15) 1181 (675) 40% (19) 1609 (1298)

14% (20) 1674 (651) 10% (12) 1933 (1617)

show that order of acquisition was not a factor in the manner or ease of pronoun interpretation. A two-factor ANOVA with order of acquisition and pronoun type as the two factors and subject responses as the dependent variable indicated that the main effect of pronoun type, F (1, 49) = 95.73, p < .001, and the interaction between group and pronoun type, F (2, 49) = 7.98, p < .001, were reliable. The group main effect proved unreliable, F < 2.0. The analyses of group (simultaneous vs. sequential) and pronoun type (null) as the two factors and RT as the dependent variable indicated that the main effect of pronoun type was reliable, F (1, 32) = 10.12, p < .01. However, the main effect of group and the interaction between group and pronoun type proved unreliable, both Fs < 1.0. In the overt pronoun condition, a two-factor ANOVA with group and pronoun type as the two factors and RT as the dependent variable indicated that neither of the main effects nor the interaction proved reliable, all Fs < 1.3. Likely this is due to the low statistical power resulting from the smaller data set in this condition. Discussion Pronominal resolution in ambiguous contexts takes into account two levels of linguistic representation—syntactic (the structural position of the subject and the object) and discourse-pragmatic (Topic continuation and Topic Shift). The results of the present task show that overall, heritage speakers tend to rely

anaphora resolution in globally ambiguous contexts

141

more on structural cues with both null and overt anaphoric pronouns. In the case of null pronouns, the findings show gradual development of target-like representation (from low to high proficiency speakers) with some residual optionality at the higher end of the spectrum. With overt pronouns, whenever there are antecedent biases present, speakers perform in what seems like a “default” or “first-pass” manner, choosing the subject as the preferred antecedent. Later, we will see how the added factor of coherence relations will add yet another level of complexity to the process of referential resolution, namely, the influence of plausibility on that process. As I already mentioned above, the only other studies of anaphora resolution in heritage speakers are Keating et al. (2011) and Ivanova-Sullivan (2014). The proportion results in both those studies were very similar to the results of the present study, namely, indicating strong bias for null pronouns and subject antecedents and a reliable bias to resolve the overt pronoun to subject antecedent. Following Keating et al., Ivanova-Sullivan analyzes these results as compliant with the universally-present Subject rule. Thus, the heritage speakers’ results appear to be consistent (albeit, in my opinion, for different reasons) with results of studies on anaphora resolution in child bilinguals and adult L2 learners who also overextended the scope of the overt pronouns (Sorace & Serratrice, 2009).

chapter 8

Pronominal Resolution and Coherence Relations This chapter reports on the results of pronominal resolution in contexts with antecedent bias triggered by the lexical semantics of implicit causality verbs in combination with the conjunction “because,” which establishes causal relation with the verb in the matrix clause. By manipulating coherence relations, I was able to reduce the computational complexity that arises in cases of globally ambiguous anaphora resolution and inconsistent antecedent bias. Researchers have argued that studies with lexically biased verbs can control for computational complexity at one interface and thus reveal target-like processing of grammatical information in L2 learners at other interfaces. This in turn could lead to proposing a more plausible account of the problems at grammatical interfaces in terms of processing difficulty (Hopp, 2010). Such an account is based on the understanding of the integration of different information types at and across the interfaces as more taxing for L2 learners, in particular at less advanced proficiency levels, yet also likely at the near-native L2 end-state (ibid.). Reduction of cognitive load by either simplifying tasks or by lessening strains on memory leads to enhanced processing efficiency. Application of such design in investigations of pronominal resolution can be a good test for the predictions of the Interface Hypothesis about processing difficulties at the syntax-discourse interface (Schwartz, 2011).

The Nature and Role of Coherence Relations in Discourse

The sentence continuation task discussed in this chapter was designed to reduce the cognitive load by analyzing pronoun interpretation in conditions without time restrictions and with the possibility to hear the test sentences several times. In terms of reducing ambiguity, the findings in one of the conditions, the object antecedent bias, show that the coherence relations worked in tandem with the discourse-regulated properties of overt pronouns, thus providing an unambiguous context for the interpretation of these pronouns, one that leads to heritage speakers converging with monolinguals on the outcomes of the task. Along with the goal of easing the processing pressure at the syntaxdiscourse interface, the design of the present task helps us gain insight into

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004246171_�1�

143

pronominal resolution and coherence relations

the discourse phase of pronoun interpretation, which, as mentioned earlier, was argued to be more complex and strenuous (Koornneef, 2008). Coherence relations formed between particular verbs and conjunctions could provide the environment for examining more complex operations in discourse. As the discussion in Chapter 7 showed, a large number of researchers have argued that native speakers interpret pronouns based mostly on structural cues, such as grammatical or thematic role, order of mention, or syntactic parallelism. In contrast, others have recently proposed that such interpretations are by-products of deeper discourse-level processes and representations, such as causal inference, for example (Kertz, Kehler, & Elman, 2006; Kehler, Kertz, Rohde, & Elman, 2007; Rohde, 2008, Rohde & Kehler, 2008; Ueno & Kehler, 2010; inter alia). Kertz et al. (2006) suggest that any preference-based pronoun interpretation would have to take into account inferencing processes with different types of coherence relations; one particular model to capture this is what they term Coherence Hypothesis, a hypothesis that predicts coreference patterns that otherwise would remain unexplained. Even in cases with evidently strong Subject preference, semantic bias in coherence relations as well as other explicit cues (gender, for example) have been argued to override the structurallybased preference. In view of such empirical observations, Kertz et al. predict that the pronoun interpretation preferences can be reversed through the manipulation of coherence relations. The Coherence model is conceptually distinct from preference-based accounts of pronoun interpretation such as Carminati’s PAH, for example. The difference is that preference models only take into account morpho-syntactic cues or the structural position of antecedents while the Coherence model views such cues as being mediated through the interpretation of discourse coherence. The interaction between coreference patterns and coherence relations comes from a study adopting the framework of Centering Theory. Miltsakaki (2001) suggests that anaphoric interpretation within the boundary of the matrix and all its dependent clauses is determined semantically by the focusing properties of the verbs and the clausal conjunctives. On the basis of her results from a sentence completion task in English and corpus-based study in Greek, Miltsakaki makes a more general claim that inter-sentential anaphora is subject to structural constraints, whereas intra-sentential anaphora is subject to both grammatical and semantic/pragmatic constraints. Off-line experiments that include the factor of coherence relations in pronoun interpretation provide good evidence not only of the operational nature of the Coherence Hypothesis but also of how processing the pronoun is affected by manipulating coherence (Kehler et al., 2007). The researchers’ prediction is .

144

chapter 8

that there will be processing consequences from violating coherence-driven biases, namely, sentences with bias-inconsistent pronoun interpretations will take longer to read than sentences with bias-consistent ones. Evidence of such violations comes from two on-line studies with implicit causality verbs in EXPLANATION relation with the subordinate clause (Koornneef & van Berkum, 2006). In a self-paced reading task with gender unambiguous pronouns, these scholars found that readers began to slow down at the bias-inconsistent pronoun, with a significant main effect of Consistency emerging at the first two words after the pronoun. The advantages of word-by-word self-paced reading tasks are their higher temporal resolution (compared to clause-by-clause reading tasks); the disadvantages are that such a way of reading could be somehow unnatural. Unnaturalness coupled with the non-cumulative moving-window technique could force readers to resort to a more incremental processing strategy by using the information in each word rather than having a more global integration strategy (something that we might find in unconstrained reading). In order to address these two issues, Koornneef and van Berkum did an eye-tracking study, the findings of which supported the findings of the self-paced reading task, namely, that pronouns were processed very soon after they were encountered. Therefore, the scholars argue that the interaction between pronoun interpretation and coherence relations is better captured by an immediate focusing account than a clausal integration account. Additionally, the results of both tasks show that verb-based implicit causality aids pronoun comprehension very rapidly and even allows readers to predict the referential content of the subordinate phrase containing the causal connection to the event in the main clause. Another study that discusses the effects of implicit causality in processing is Nicol and Swinney (1989). They also propose an immediate reaction of speakers when they encounter a pronoun, but one driven by syntactic search for agreement features between pronouns and their antecedents. After the initial syntactic operation is performed, there is a reactivation of semantic/ conceptual representation. In the case of competing antecedents, this representation comes with measurable cost, so that information such as real-world knowledge and discourse prominence may be invoked in order to eliminate all but one antecedent. Thus, in their model, implicit causality works as a “last resort” to help establish the coreferential links between the pronouns and their antecedents. A similar viewpoint is adopted in Gordon and Hendrick (1998) in the description of their Discourse Prominence Model, in which they include a rule that is capable of reinterpreting a pronoun based on the semantic plausibility of the event being described. According to Gordon and Hendrick, the initial

pronominal resolution and coherence relations

145

driving force of referential interpretation is structurally-based; it is only after the description of the event is fully integrated that plausibility of events takes effect and possibly influences the interpretation of referential expressions. On the basis of previous studies with cross-modal priming, they argue that substantial semantic information is required in order to force a nonpreferred interpretation of a pronoun. Because so much semantic information is required to override the structurally favored interpretation, they view this effect as subsequent to the immediate interpretations driven by the structural analysis of the input. The studies of Nicol and Swinney (1989) and Gordon and Hendrick (1998) do not discuss at length the role of the different connectives in combination with implicit causality verbs, thus placing an emphasis on the semantic rather than discourse operations in the parsing strategies. However, it has been shown that clausal conjunctions do play a role in establishing referential dependencies. In particular, Rohde (2008) analyzes conjunctions as constraining the operative coherence relation in such way that the resulting patterns of coherence correspond to the coreference biases of the relevant coherence relations. On the basis of her experimental work with various types of coherence relations, Rohde proposes that pronoun interpretation can be better understood if we take into consideration deeper discourse (not simply semantic) effects related to establishing coherence. Another study advocates a similar approach to connectives as responsible for the emergence of bias with implicit causality verbs (Koornneef, 2008). In view of empirical observations in these and other studies mentioned earlier, we can conclude that it is not the lexical semantics of implicit causality verbs that has an effect on the pronominal resolution but rather the interaction between the meaning of the verb and the connective, something that captures the nature of coherence relations as operations pertaining to the discourse module. In the task that I discuss in the present chapter, I keep the connectives constant across the conditions of different implicit causality verbs in order to elicit subject and object biased interpretation. Antecedent biases triggered by the lexical semantics of the verbs have been successfully incorporated in studies of other languages, such as Japanese, Catalan and German. The findings in all these studies suggest that in nonambiguous contexts, pronoun interpretation exhibits different patterns compared to those found with other referring expressions (demonstratives in German, for example) or between the two forms of the pronouns themselves in null subject languages (Japanese and Catalan). Ueno and Keller (2010) varied implicit causality verbs types in order to confirm or reject the strong subject bias with both null and overt pronouns. Their findings show that there are distinctive patterns between grammatical and

146

chapter 8

discourse-pragmatic factors in pronoun interpretations with the two forms of the pronouns. Particularly, both the null and the overt pronouns exhibited strong subject bias with no division of labor between choosing a subject or object antecedents (recall that such division of labor was proposed in PAH). The nature of that bias, however, was found to be different: null pronouns had a strong grammatical bias towards the subject referent which wasn’t influenced by pragmatic factors, whereas both types of factors (grammatical and pragmatic) contributed to the antecedent bias with overt pronouns. Finally, Ueno and Kehler confirmed that the grammatical bias of pronouns affects the distribution of coherence relations. Mayol and Clark (2010) conducted a self-paced reading task with Catalan speakers in order to test PAH in two-sentence discourses with semantic bias triggered by the verbs in the main clause. The rationale for such a task was to see whether speakers, upon encountering explicit information that goes against some of the linguistic cues they had encountered before, need more time to read the sentence (cf. Koornneef & van Berkum, 2006 who found that bias-consistent sentences were read faster than bias-inconsistent sentences). The effect of the pronoun type (null vs. overt) was significant and there was also a significant interaction between bias and pronoun type. This interaction confirms PAH predictions that sentences with null pronouns are read faster in the subject bias condition, whereas they are read slower in the object bias condition; the opposite holds true for sentences with overt pronouns. Keiser’s (2011) study of reference resolution with personal and demonstrative pronouns in German also showed a difference in the coreferential patterns between these two forms. Keiser observed that pronoun interpretation is influenced by coherence relations (as defined in the Coherence Model) even in a language where more specific forms for object reference (demonstrative pronouns) are available. My own study of the interaction between coreferential patterns of personal pronouns and coherence relations with implicit causality verbs contributes to this particular topic by offering more empirical observations from other languages, and specifically, from a language that exhibits null subject properties different than the ones examined in subject pro-drop (Catalan) and topic-drop languages (Japanese). My goal is first to determine whether the control group uses coherencedriven cues in their interpretation of overt pronouns as predicted for other languages. Second, I compare the findings in the group of native speakers to the results of the heritage group in order to determine the operation of Coherence Hypothesis in bilingual populations. And finally, I examine how exactly discourse coherence interacts with discourse-based constraints on resolution of

pronominal resolution and coherence relations

147

overt pronouns, thus providing some insights about factors (other than those discussed in the previous chapters) that could influence operations at the syntax-discourse interface.

Task and Procedure

All participants were presented with twelve target sentences and ten fillers. The target sentences were divided into two conditions that varied implicit causality verbs with subject bias (IC-1 verbs) and implicit causality verbs with object bias (IC-2 verbs). The choice of verbs was based on lists of verbs used in previous studies of implicit causality in English by Kehler and colleagues and Koornneef and van Berkum (2006).1 The implicit causality verbs were placed in the matrix clause, the overt pronouns in the subordinate clause. Both clauses were linked by the conjunction “because” that established the cause of the event in the matrix sentence. Examples of test sentences are provided below. IC-1 Verbs with subject bias, inconsistent with overt pronouns interpretation Katja ispugala Ninu, potomu čto ona . . .  Katja scared Nina because she “Katja scared Nina because she . . .” IC-2 verbs with object bias, consistent with overt pronouns interpretation Maja pozdravila Natašu, potomu čto ona . . .  Maja congratulated Natasha because she “Maja congratulated Natasha because she . . .”

The participants listened to sentences that I read and were asked to provide the most logical continuation to the material in the subordinate clause. There were no time restrictions and the sentences were read more than once upon request from the participants. As a result, some participants took more time and more repetitions than others to complete the sentences and this was not in correlation with proficiency level since some native speakers did the same thing. 1 A list of all the verbs used in the present study is provided here. IC-1 verbs—udivit’ (surprise), razočarovat’ (disappoint), obmanut’ (cheat), izumit’ (astound), ispugat’ (frighten), obidet’ (insult); IC-2 verbs: utešit’ (comfort), pozdravit’ (congratulate), zametit’ (notice), obvinit’ (accuse), poxvalit’ (praise), nenavidet’ (hate).

148

chapter 8

Results The analysis performed on the proficiency-based sub-division of the target group proved unreliable, so the ANOVA results with this factor presented below will not be discussed any further. An ANOVA with subject as the dependent measure showed only a reliable main effect of verb bias, F (1, 52) = 1506.9, p < .001. The interaction between group and verb bias (F (3, 52) = 2.3, p < .10) and the main effect of group proved unreliable, F < 2.0. Similarly, an ANOVA with object as the dependent measure showed only a reliable main effect of verb bias, F (1, 52) = 1506.9, p < .001. The interaction between group and bias, F (3, 52) = 2.3, p < .10, as well as the main effect of group proved unreliable, F < 2.0. Therefore, no planned comparisons were performed given that verb bias had only two levels (subject bias and object bias). I now turn to the analyses with both groups as a whole. The means are provided in the table below together with the standard deviation. Both the heritage and native speakers chose more subject antecedents in the context of subject bias (HS = 97.0%, NS = 86.9%) than with object bias (HS = 7.7%, NS = 6.5%); across both conditions of bias, the heritage group provided more subject responses than the control group (subject bias difference = 10.1%, object bias difference = 1.2%). A two-factor ANOVA with group (heritage vs. native) and verb bias (subject vs. object) as the two factors and subject responses as the dependent measure indicated that both the main effect of group, F (1, 54) = 5.4, p < .05 and the main effect of sentence bias, F (1, 54) = 1490.9, p < .001, as well as the interaction between these two variables, F (1, 54) = 4.1, p < .05 proved reliable. TABLE 8.1

Means of antecedent choice and reaction times: order of acquisition

Group

Subject Subject bias—Subject bias—Object antecedent antecedent

Object bias—Subject antecedent

Object bias—Object antecedent

Heritage group = 28 Control group = 28

97% (8) 87% (15)

8% (12) 7% (13)

92% (11) 93% (13)

3% (8) 13% (15)

pronominal resolution and coherence relations

149

Planned comparisons with an applied Bonferroni correction indicated that the heritage group differed from the control group only in the subject bias condition, t (54) = 3.1, p < .005. There was no difference between these two conditions in the object bias sentences, t < 0.4. Further, both groups provided reliably more subject responses in the subject bias condition than in the object bias condition (HS t (27) = 31.1, p < .001; NS t (27) = 24.2, p < .001). Next, a two-factor ANOVA with object responses as the dependent measure indicated that both the main effect of group, F (1, 54) = 5.4, p < .05, and the main effect of verb bias, F (1, 54) = 1490.9, p < .001, as well as the interaction between these two variables, F (1, 54) = 4.1, p < .05, proved reliable. These results were the reverse of the results with subject responses. Planned comparisons with an applied Bonferroni correction indicated that the heritage group differed from the control group only in the subject bias condition, t (54) = 3.1, p < .005. There was no difference between these two conditions in the object bias sentences, t < 0.4. Further, both groups showed reliably fewer object responses in the subject bias condition than in the object bias condition (HS t (27) = 31.1, p < .001; NS t (27) = 24.2, p < .001). Discussion These findings provide some evidence about the discourse-regulated antecedent preferences with overt pronouns. If these preferences work in tandem with the pronoun interpretation guided by coherence relations, then the antecedent bias (at least in the control group) is predicted to be quite robust. If, on the other hand, there is a conflict between these two factors (coherence relations and coreference relations with overt pronouns), then the antecedent bias will be weaker and perhaps differ between the two experimental groups. The results of both groups with overt pronouns and IC-2 verbs showed very robust object antecedent bias with no significant difference between the groups. This is not surprising since the semantic and discourse cues in this context conspire together to guide the interpretation of coreferential relations. The main effect of group and sentence bias indicates that in the control group, the coherence and coreferential bias are in conflict and as a result, the subject antecedent bias for these speakers is not as robust as it is in object biased conditions. These findings have parallels with the results from anaphora resolution with overt pronouns in ambiguous contexts reported in Chapter 7. We saw that in those contexts, the native speakers’ judgments were

150

chapter 8

in free variation, with slight preferences for the subject as the antecedent of overt pronouns. In the present task, this preference is enhanced because of the coherence relations but it is still far from categorical; this, in a way, undermines the role of the coherence factors and shows that the discourse properties of the overt pronouns interact with coherence in a not so straightforward way. We can view that interaction in terms of inconsistent bias, one that comes into conflict with the discourse interpretation of overt pronouns as markers of Topic Shift. We have to keep in mind, however, that this is not the default interpretation of overt pronouns (compared to the overt pronouns in canonical pro-drop languages), as we have observed the almost equal preferences of overt pronouns in ambiguous sentences with both subject and object antecedents. What the results of the present task demonstrate is that the overt pronouns are not exclusively linked to subject antecedents since even the strong bias resulting from the coherence relations between IC-1 verbs and the connective “because” doesn’t override the strength of the discoursepragmatic cues. In summary, the findings of the present task in the control group demonstrate that the pronoun interpretation by native speakers of Russian is hardly based on a division of labor principle. Overt pronouns are not reserved exclusively for marking contrast, emphasis or topic shift; they also can encode topic maintenance and in this respect it is likely that they function as a true “default” pronoun in monolingual Russian. The bilingual group showed significant effect in the subject bias condition, choosing the subject antecedent more often than the control group. This could be interpreted in two ways. Either their pronoun interpretation is guided by universal biases triggered by coherence relations with implicit causality verbs (cf. the strong plausibility effects with this bias in other languages) or by a subject default principle that helps these bilinguals resolve the conflict between coherence and coreference in the condition of inconsistent antecedent bias. It is difficult to say, however, how strong the coherence bias is for heritage speakers since in the condition of object bias sentence and pronominal biases conspire together. Nevertheless, if we take into account the findings from pronoun resolution in ambiguous contexts (in particular, the findings of the intermediate and high proficiency group), we will see that the subject default principle or heuristics might be operational in contexts of inconsistent antecedent bias as well since both environments (ambiguity and inconsistent antecedent bias) introduce greater complexity into pronominal resolution in contrast to the context of object bias. Given the structural, discourse (topic), and cognitive prominence (firstmention) of the subject that has been recognized in many studies (cf. Cowles,

pronominal resolution and coherence relations

151

Walenski, & Kluende, 2007 for a review), it is not unreasonable to propose a subject default heuristics in the present case as well. The above-presented findings provide evidence in favor of analyzing problems with pronominal resolution in terms of processing. In the context of elevated processing load, such as inconsistent antecedent bias with IC-1 verbs, it was shown that the bilingual group differed significantly from the monolingual group. However, in the context of consistent antecedent bias combined with lack of time restrictions and repetition of the experimental stimuli, we observe convergence between both groups. If we add to that the results of the pronominal resolution in ambiguous contexts under time pressure, we will see that when given more time and less ambiguity, heritage speakers perform on par with native speakers, something that points to processing rather than representational problems.

chapter 9

Pedagogical Implications of the Study In this last chapter I examine the pedagogical implications of the present study by addressing several areas: proficiency assessment of heritage speakers,1 classroom research and suggestions for specific teaching methods and tasks based on the findings of this study. A discussion of all these topics should begin with a clarification of the basic concept of “linguistic knowledge” and how this concept applies to heritage learners and their proficiency levels. In Chapter 4 I outlined the fundamental characteristics of linguistic knowledge as presented by Philips (2012) as part of the debate on native language attainment initiated by Dąbrowska (2012). I summarize his main statement again below so that we see how the theoretical model can be connected to its implementation in teaching practice. According to Philips, linguistic knowledge consists of: a) The representations that a speaker can construct or accept as well-formed, regardless of how hard it might be to construct those representations b) The speaker’s skill or efficiency at constructing specific representations or interpretations. Improvements in that knowledge could be achieved, according to Philips, through training. Particularly, he argues that training can change an adult’s ability to comprehend certain sentence types; thus, training can affect only the second ability, namely, the efficiency of processing linguistic knowledge. However, the results of the present study showed that the representations that some low-proficiency heritage speakers have built could be well-formed but still lack certain pragmatic components, such as knowledge of the Information Structure principles, for example. With the development of language proficiency, such representations become more sensitive to pragmatic rules and hence, much closer to the target-like representations of native speakers. Given that heritage speakers represent a rather heterogeneous group along the proficiency continuum, teachers and educators need to keep in mind that 1 Cf. the guidelines developed by the American Council of Teachers of Russian about the various levels of proficiency in speaking: http://www.actfl.org/professional-development/ certified-proficiency-testing-program/testing-proficiency.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004246171_�11

pedagogical implications of the study

153

classroom instruction alone will be more beneficial primarily for enhancing the skills and efficiency of representation of heritage learners, that is, the second component in Philips’s model. Still, combined with other sources of input and executed over a long period of time, instruction also can have an effect on the post-syntactic level of representation, the discourse-pragmatics.

Heritage Learners in the Classroom

Earlier in the book (Chapter 1) I referred to a couple of definitions of a heritage speaker that were based on the linguistic abilities of these speakers. In the present chapter I shift my attention to the heritage learners who do or in some cases do not qualify as heritage speakers, especially if they don’t speak the heritage language at all. A group portrait of heritage learners is not possible since they were found to exhibit various cultural identities and linguistic needs (Carreira, 2004). Still, scholars commonly specify three main criteria that apply to heritage language students (cf. Valdés, 1995). These students: a) b) c)

are raised in homes where a non-English language is spoken speak or merely understand the heritage language are to some degree bilingual in English and the heritage language.

However, there are heritage learners who do not exhibit all three characteristics, in particular, students who were adopted by American couples who do not hear their heritage language at home but still qualify as heritage learners according to the second and sometimes the third criterion.2 The minimum requirement for a student to be considered a heritage learner (and not an L2 learner) is the presence of active or passive bilingualism to some degree together with the less problematic ethnic heritage (Kondo-Brown, 2005; Van Deusen, 2003). Self-identification could prove difficult to evaluate since it tends to be less inclusive than an identification based on linguistic criteria. However, it also has been argued that at least in certain cases self-perception 2 The main distinction between heritage and L2 learners often quoted in the literature is that heritage language acquisition begins at home while L2 acquisition begins in a classroom setting (cf. Kondo-Brown, 2005). The considerations raised above do not change the rationale behind such a distinction since adopted children are still exposed to their heritage language first in their native country unless they are adopted as infants; in that situation the language of their adopted family becomes their first and native language.

154

chapter 9

is critical to the way heritage learners approach their study of the language (Andrews, 2001). The nature of the personal connection of the heritage learner to his/her language and culture through family background is something that appears to be of no less significance for determining the type of heritage learner who is most likely to enroll in formal heritage language courses. Carreira (2004) emphasizes the often insufficient exposure to the heritage language (compared to L1 speakers) to satisfy the basic identity and linguistic needs of heritage learners. As a result, most of them feel motivated to pursue a more formal instruction in the heritage language. This is precisely the factor that has driven most of the participants in the present study to enroll in college-level language courses. Overall, the integral elements of the motivation to study the heritage language were found to be: a) b) c) d)

the desire to identify more closely with the ethnic homeland the desire for professional growth based on language skills the desire to communicate with other members of this particular ethnic community the need to fulfill foreign language requirements.

We find some of these elements to be relevant for L2 learners as well but for different reasons. Still, determining the motivation for studying a heritage or a foreign language is not the driving force behind structuring classroom instruction in American colleges. Most often, school administrators are guided by practical reasons of enrollment when deciding on whether to have separate tracks for L2 and heritage learners or to put them together in the same (foreign language) classroom. Despite the desire of teachers to address the specific linguistic and cultural needs of heritage learners, the findings of many studies show a couple of main difficulties (apart from the financial ones) for establishing a separate program or track for heritage speakers. Below is a summary of such issues discussed in Benmamoun and Kagan (2013): a) b)

The existence of different dialects spoken by the heritage learners The different proficiency levels of the heritage learners: some are literate in their heritage language; others are not.

At the same time, various researchers admit that at the Advanced level, the differences between heritage and L2 learners become less significant and they can be successfully placed in the same classroom (Benmamoun & Kagan, 2013; Carreira, 2007; Lynch, 2013).

pedagogical implications of the study



155

Experimental Tasks in the Classroom Setting

In order to address the specific needs of each learner (heritage or L2) even in an advanced classroom setting several researchers have proposed various methods and tasks that can be incorporated into the curriculum: grouping students (more and less advanced), using portfolios to assess learning, creating multiple-entry journals and personal agendas offering independent studies to more advanced learners and many others (Carreira, 2007; Carreira & Kagan, 2011). A very popular and well-established method in L2 classrooms is task-based conversation between students that focuses particularly on negotiation of meaning, problem-solving, or simply elicitation of information. This method has its origins in the Interaction Hypothesis developed by Long in the early 1980s. Since then scholars conducting classroom research have successfully applied this model, targeting elicitation of various interactional moves with negative feedback and positive evidence as the most prominent ones (cf. the study of L2 learners by Iwashita, 2003 and the studies of heritage learners by Blake & Zyzik, 2003 and Bowles, 2011). I have already implemented some of the interactionist tasks in my own classroom instruction. Following the suggestions of some interactionist studies (cf. the discussion above), I have created complex oral tasks, for example, summarizing the main points of a discussion, arguing different positions, criticizing particular arguments and offering hypotheses, etc. Such type of oral discourse is informed by a rather stringent academic style that consists of the use of formulae or other conventional rhetorical means. Most often, heritage speakers are not familiar with these generic requirements and take this opportunity to improve in this area as well. While the goal of L2 learners in this type of communication is to convey a message successfully, heritage speakers aim at polishing the form of that message according to the public speaking conventions of the target language. Participation in debates or discussions offers a great opportunity for indirect speech with a number of embedded sentences of the type, “He thinks that he . . .” Focusing on such sentences as central for expressing opinions or quoting thoughts or ideas could provide not only the necessary improvement of rhetorical style but more importantly, make the use of null and overt subject pronouns more salient and less ambiguous.3

3 The discussion of the distribution of null and overt subject pronouns in Russian earlier in the book emphasized the fact that the canonical contexts for the use of null pronouns are embedded sentences.

156

chapter 9

The salience and lack of ambiguity of the input have been demonstrated to have certain benefits for heritage learners in the context of classroom instruction. Input enhancement as formulated by Sharwood Smith in the 1990s has been the driving force behind the creation of various tasks that direct the learner’s attention to frequently neglected morphological markers (cf. the collected essays in Doughty & Williams, 1998 for a more detailed discussion on various aspects of form-focused instruction in L2 classrooms). Given the previous discussion of the role of input in heritage languages, I would like to suggest that the Input Strength Hypothesis of O’Grady et al. (2011) and the concept of “noisy” input proposed by Wilson (2009) can provide the theoretical foundation for implementing form-focused instruction in the heritage classroom, particularly in regard to the interpretation and production of anaphoric pronouns. In that setting I have observed that the lack of perceptual salience of null pronouns as well as the unmarked status of overt pronouns in Russian sometimes leads to a non-targetlike use of pronouns and conceals the transparency of the form-function mapping that exists in native grammars. There has already been a good start in conducting heritage classroom research on form-focused instruction (cf. the studies of Bowles, 2011; Lynch, 2008; Potowski, Jegerski, & Morgan-Short, 2009). These studies present some evidence of positive reinforcement of the “form-function” connection through emphasis on focused grammar instruction and explicit feedback. Their findings showed that this type of instruction offers some advantages to heritage learners of Spanish and L2 learners. In particular, Lynch (2008) advocates the form-focused instruction with morphosyntactic phenomena in Spanish, such as copula usage, subject-verb agreement, adjectival inflection and use of articles, as well as the interface phenomena of subject and object pronouns. However, Potowski et al. (2009) found that this type of instruction has some limitations especially when the heritage (but not L2) learners were tested on grammatical judgment tasks. The researchers argue that some other type of instruction, such as contrastive analysis, for example, could be more beneficial for these learners at least with the grammatical structure they focused on in their study, namely, subjunctive mood. In general, form-focused instruction, explicit learning and corrective feedback in L2 classrooms have been recognized as beneficial for L2 acquisition of various grammatical categories (Ellis, 2002, 2008, 2012). Negative evidence and metalinguistic feedback also were found to have a positive role in reacquisition of morphosyntactic categories in heritage languages (cf. Montrul & Bowles, 2010 for Dative case marking in heritage Spanish). The main reason for the success of this type of instruction is that it can not only increase the salience of positive evidence but also provide negative

pedagogical implications of the study

157

evidence, particularly in cases when the language in question stands in subset relationship with the native or heritage language of the learner. This is certainly the case in the present study, with English being in a subset relationship with Russian in regard to the null-subject parameter. Specifically, the language with fewer pragmatic constraints or restrictions (English) becomes the preferred language compared to the language with a greater number and complexity of constraints/restrictions (Russian). To heritage speakers of Russian, English appears to be the less marked language; therefore, an instruction that focuses on negative evidence (what is NOT present in English compared to Russian) could help them sort out the distribution of anaphoric pronouns as regulated by discourse-pragmatics of the target language. It is the discourse-pragmatics module where distinctions are not categorical in nature and therefore more difficult to “notice” without additional emphasis. One of the most common tasks targeting the use and distribution of anaphoric pronominal and lexical subjects is elicited oral narratives, in the form of retelling the plot of a movie or a description of a story in a picture book. Heritage learners enrolled in my Russian language courses have practiced producing such narratives, which were later compared to monolingual narratives on the same topic. As a moderator and facilitator of the learning process, I have highlighted the use of various reference-tracking devices in both types of narratives and asked students to substitute pronouns with other referring expressions. Such explicit instruction with focus on the form has yielded excellent results in raising the pragmatic awareness of the learners in building a more cohesive discourse. Along with traditional tasks in the classroom such as narrative production, other types of tasks that are typically done in experimental conditions can further probe the anaphora processing of heritage speakers and subsequently focus their attention on the form of the anaphoric expression (pronominal or nominal), the grammatical and semantic features of its antecedent and the possible mechanisms of establishing the dependency between these two elements. Tasks that could be particularly appropriate for classroom setting are speeded aural preference tasks of the type discussed in Chapter 7 or tasks similar to the speeded acceptability and grammaticality judgment tasks used by Hopp (2006, 2010). The instructor could use Clickers or any other interactive student response device to record the answers and response times of the students in the classroom.4 The output of such tasks can be analyzed by students 4 Interactive student response devices are nowadays readily accessible in most American colleges. They are cost-effective and have proven to be excellent tools for student-based instruction and enhancement of motivation in language learning or re-learning.

158

chapter 9

independently and then compared to the instructor’s interpretation with an emphasis on the areas with slower responses. Interactive student response systems provide a lot of opportunities for instant response and feedback, something that can be used with various types of comprehension tasks that aim to elicit preference-based judgments in pronoun interpretation. By employing the use of technology, the heritage (and L2, for that matter) classroom can be turned into an experimental laboratory that engages students in a more dynamic way and even emulates the use of language in natural settings. In sum, we need to recognize the fact that classroom research with heritage speakers is still in its infancy. More studies are needed on how heritage learners react to different types of instruction and in which areas they will benefit more from focus on form compared to less explicit methods (cf. Montrul’s 2012 recommendations in this area).

Proficiency Assessment through Oral Narratives

Since heritage speakers have shown to exhibit diverse literacy skills (ranging from none to excellent), it is logical to assess their proficiency (at least initially) by using an oral mode of communication. Recently, a group of researchers reported the results of a joint NHLRC and ACTFL project that explored the linguistic profiles of heritage speakers of Spanish and Russian using ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (Martin, Swender, & Rivera-Martinez, 2013). The participants in this computer-delivered OPI performed a series of tasks such as narration of past events and description of places or people. In most cases, heritage speakers demonstrated native or near-native pronunciation and fluency; however, certain issues with structural control, abstract topics, and organization of extended discourse (to mention just a few) revealed particular lacunae that helped researchers determine the proficiency level of these speakers. The conclusion of the study was that the proficiency of these speakers increases with more contact with the heritage culture, a greater use of the heritage language or a mixture of the heritage language and English. Such contact can be achieved both in a classroom setting and/or in a study-abroad program (cf. Davidson & Lekic, 2013 for a study of the latter). Assessing bilingual proficiency through oral narratives is proposed in other studies as well but with a stronger emphasis on reference maintenance. In her study of highly proficient Dutch-German bilinguals Flecken (2011) discovers specific language dominance patterns in the narratives produced by these bilinguals. Similarly to the previously discussed studies of anaphora, Flecken

pedagogical implications of the study

159

found syntax to be intact. The discourse-pragmatics, on the other hand, manifested in preferences for referential framing, information selection or thematic continuity revealed dominance in one of the languages. Flecken concludes that patterns of reference management are bilingual-specific and as such are unique for this type of population. They are grammatical in both languages but pragmatics is what distinguishes them from patterns found in the narratives of native speakers of those two languages. In a series of articles on heritage proficiency in Russian, Kagan and her colleagues determine that pragmatics and stylistics emerge as the most problematic areas for heritage speakers (similarly to my and Flecken’s findings). It is clear that those are the areas that need to be addressed in a more consistent fashion and not just as isolated phenomena. Apart from the significance of referential framing and thematic continuity in revealing some patterns of discourse building, additional structural and discourse characteristics of heritage narratives could be used as diagnostics in the assessment of heritage proficiency. Below I provide a short description of these characteristics drawn from the data of the present study. The most common way for heritage speakers to link clauses and sentences in the discourse turned out to be temporal connectives, such as posle ètogo (after that), potom (after that), and togda (then).5 This tendency could be attributed partially to the fact that these are oral narratives told in a more spontaneous manner. In comparison, written essays of Russian heritage speakers showed more variety in the use of temporal cohesive devices, i.e., adverbial clauses and various types of logical connectors (Friedman & Kagan, 2008). The coordination conjunction i (and) was typically used in accordance with its function but in the narratives of low and intermediate proficiency speakers, it assumes different functions, as the following example demonstrates: I volk lomal zerkala, i And wolf broke mirrors and

ego vygnali him kicked out

i on vsled za zajcem ubežal, and he after behind bunny ran 5 Analysis of these and other connectives in spoken heritage Russian in the context of the Oral Proficiency Interview can be found in Kagan and Friedman (2004). Interestingly, in their study of written heritage narratives, Friedman and Kagan (2008) observed the group of L2 learners using the conjunction “i” in a manner similar to the one exhibited by the heritage speakers in the present study.

160

chapter 9

i on ne mog ego dognat’ and he not could him catch “And the wolf was breaking mirrors and he was kicked out and he ran after the rabbit and he could not catch up with him.”

The third instance of “and” in this example provides temporal linking between the clauses, whereas the fourth one is used to denote contrastive meaning. A similar pattern of using the compound conjunction instead of “a” was observed in the written language of low-proficiency heritage speakers of Russian (Smyslova, 2012). The abundance of “i” could be interpreted as a case of grammatical extension of primary syntactic functions,6 a situation that finds parallels in cases of semantic extension, for example, the use of the verb vzjat’ (to take):7 Potom on xočet zajca vzjat’, no zajac vyključil svet Then he wants bunny to take but bunny turned off light “Then he wants to grab the bunny but the bunny turned off the lights.”

The use of this verb in the main clause has undergone semantic extension to cover the meaning of other verbs, such as pojmat’ (to catch). Such semantic change is typical for the language of lower proficiency heritage speakers who have been influenced by the semantics of the English verb “get” as generalized over a wider range of contexts (cf. observations on such semantic extension in written production in Bermel & Kagan, 2000). Simplification of syntactic complexity also is characteristic of narratives produced by lower proficiency heritage speakers, with VP coordination being the most favored type of clausal linking. Temporal subordinate clauses were also a common syntactic device, contrary to noun subordinate clauses, which were rather rare. Additionally, cross-linguistic transfer is possibly a factor in the large number of predicative and existential sentences in the narratives of heritage speakers compared to monolinguals who hardly used such sentences. From the point of view of generic conventions, sentences like these are more appropriate in description than in narration.

6 Cf. Smyslova (2012) who similarly argues that this might be a case of overgeneralization of the meaning of “i.” In addition, she sees here a possible interference from the English binary system (and / but) compared to the Russian tripartite i /a / no. 7 Cf. Bermel and Kagan (2000) and Andrews (2001) for similar observations.

pedagogical implications of the study

161

By employing sentence comprehension and production tasks in their instruction, teachers can tap into particular problem areas for heritage speakers that, if left unattended, would manifest themselves in optionality or variability compared to the language of native speakers. I would like to conclude this chapter by outlining the benefits of one particular type of instruction that has been gaining popularity in language courses with a good enrollment of heritage learners. Despite the fact that more and more colleges provide separate language tracks for heritage speakers, the majority of the language instruction is done in a traditional L2 setting with heritage speakers often feeling left out or plain bored. One type of instruction that has been proposed for mixed-ability classrooms is the so-called differentiated instruction. Researchers have argued that this type of instruction provides a paradigm change from a one-size-fits-all approach to a learnercentered approach (Carreira, 2012). Particularly, it has the advantages of engaging heritage speakers in various ways that are tailored to their proficiency levels and the range of contexts of using the language as well as the specific learning styles used in the process of re-learning their heritage language (Carreira, 2007). The method of differentiated instruction can be further supplemented by scaffolding, a principle of instruction that enables teachers to accommodate individual student needs. The more difficulties a student experiences initially with a task, the more assistance in the form of guided input is provided by the instructor. When the student starts showing a mastery of certain elements or categories, the instructor’s support could decrease, thus shifting the mode of language instruction from prescriptive to interactional. Collective scaffolding within a group has also been proposed as an alternative to the traditional type of instruction (Williams, 1999). When students work in a group, each contribution builds on the previous one; thus, the role of the teacher becomes mostly that of an observer or facilitator. I hope that the present discussion of classroom research, proficiency testing, and implementation of teaching methods has demonstrated the important connections between heritage languages and the pedagogical benefits of their study. David Andrews’s statement (2001) about the significance of heritage languages for the fields of linguistics and language teaching is not only relevant today but has broadened its scope to include experimental research in classroom settings.

Conclusions My study of heritage speakers of Russian confirmed for the most part the results of studies with other types of bilinguals (L1 attriters and L2 learners) but it also demonstrated some idiosyncratic patterns in the production and interpretation of pronouns in regard to the loci of divergence. Below I discuss the results of the four tasks, linking them to the four hypotheses presented in the beginning of the book, which are restated here for convenience sake. H1: Heritage speakers will exhibit divergent behavior in the use and distribution of null and overt pronouns manifested in underproduction of null pronouns and overproduction of overt pronouns due to the more complex nature of linking two elements at a distance, particularly in larger discourse. If the pro-drop properties are shown to be undergoing change in the language of first-generation Russian immigrants, then we can expect such change to be more pronounced in the language of second-generation immigrants. Heritage speakers converged with native speakers only in the rate of production of null pronouns, something that partially contradicts H1 but supports earlier arguments about the lack of complete loss of null subject expression in null subject languages under the influence of a non-null subject language. The findings with the distribution patterns of null pronouns, however, showed that heritage speakers produced more illicit null pronouns compared to the control group, a finding that supports previous suggestions about more prominent changes in the language of second-generation Russian immigrants and a likely result of the complexity of discourse-based identification of null pronouns and cross-linguistic influence. Furthermore, in full support of H1, the target group overproduced overt subject pronouns and underproduced full noun phrases in narratives where there was competition between referents with identical phi-features. This nontarget behavior was further evidenced in the infelicitous use of overt subject pronouns (strongly manifested in the low proficiency group) and was analyzed as stemming from violations of a principle of economy of representation, such as Avoid Pronoun Principle, and problems in the representation of non-local coreferential relations. The overproduction of overt pronouns and underproduction of noun phrases do not violate any grammatical norms in Russian. Therefore, I assumed that by overusing only one type of referring expression, heritage speakers were trying to reduce the double cognitive load of coordinating syntactic and dis-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004246171_�12

conclusions

163

course knowledge and establishing anaphoric dependencies in a highly ambiguous context and one that requires coreference at a distance. H2: There will be not any variability in the heritage production of deictic pronouns because of their different semantic properties compared to anaphoric pronouns, i.e., they are referentially independent and much less restricted than the latter. The findings with deictic pronouns confirmed H2 in regard to the proper licensing and identification of these pronouns in the heritage group. The referential nature of 3rd person pronouns as highly dependent on previously established reference in the discourse was likely to put more pressure on the processing resources of the target group. Such interpretation was supported by the results from the production of deictic pronouns, which showed target-like behavior of the heritage group in pragmatically warranted contexts of use of these pronouns. Although the results displayed differences between the experimental and the control group in the rate of production of deictic overt pronouns, the discourse-pragmatic distribution of these pronouns did not produce any effects, nor did the analyses of postverbal subject pronouns. H3: The interpretation of null and overt pronouns under time pressure will affect the heritage performance and shows some variability as a result of the more complex nature of the operations performed in discourse and regulated by the principles of Information Structure (Topic continuity vs. Topic Shift). The predictions of the third hypothesis were supported by results showing divergent behavior of heritage speakers with both types of pronouns under time pressure. They exhibited a gradual quantitative change (in a direction from the low proficiency to the high proficiency groups) in their interpretation of anaphora resolution with null pronouns that eventually would lead to convergence. They did show a trend to link null pronouns more frequently with subject than object antecedents but this trend did not reach the levels observed in the monolingual group. The context of overt subject pronouns also presented variability, as predicted. The performance of the low proficiency group was almost at chance, showing a free variation in their preferences for subject vs. object antecedent. In line with previous accounts of such variation, I suggested that this group has not worked out yet the principles that guide anaphora resolution with overt pronouns, principles that are of a more complex nature compared to the ones that guide anaphora resolution with null pronouns.

164

conclusions

Overall, the interpretation of pronouns under time pressure produced some variability with both types of pronouns, something that was juxtaposed with the results from the last task when the participants did not have any time restrictions. H4: Heritage speakers will differ in their pronoun interpretation in the condition of inconsistent antecedent bias due to the greater strain on their cognitive resources. The results from the task with implicit causality verbs showed that coherence relations play some role in establishing referential dependencies as an unfolding process. Heritage speakers did differ in their pronoun interpretation in the condition of inconsistent antecedent bias with implicit causality verbs and overt subject pronouns, as predicted, and this likely was due to the greater use of cognitive resources in the context of competing syntactic, discoursepragmatic and discourse coherence cues. They converged with the monolingual group in the condition of consistent bias (object-biased implicit causality verbs with overt subject pronouns). Heritage speakers were argued to have a default subject interpretation in the inconsistent subject-biased condition, one that resembles their behavior in ambiguous contexts. It was suggested that both types of environments (ambiguity and inconsistent antecedent bias) introduce greater complexity into pronominal resolution in contrast to the context of consistent object bias. On the other hand, the results in the control group showed that the subjectbiased condition triggers weaker antecedent preference than the object-biased condition. Compared to the antecedent subject preferences in ambiguous contexts, the monolinguals demonstrated stronger subject preferences in a subject-biased condition with overt pronouns. This supports previous accounts on coherence relations influencing the pronoun interpretation. A juxtaposition of the results from the production and comprehension task provided interesting similarities. The overuse and overextension of overt pronouns to inappropriate contexts in the production task were found to be consistent with the way heritage speakers interpret overt pronouns in the comprehension task, namely, linking overt pronouns with topic antecedents and thus inappropriately marking reference continuity. These observations can be also viewed as evidence in support of a particular type of heuristics that shows subject default in comprehension and overt pronoun default in production, both based on structural or perceptual salience, respectively. In sum, the findings of the present study showed that heritage speakers exhibit divergent behavior in conditions of ambiguous and inconsistent bias, conditions that are more taxing on the processing resources of these speakers.

conclusions

165

In addition, time pressure also resulted in significant differences between the two experimental groups. The target group converged with the control group only when there were no time restrictions and the antecedent bias triggered by coherence relations was consistent. When it was not, the task of integrating three different types of cues proved too complex for the heritage speakers and had an effect on their interpretation of overt pronouns. The further division of the heritage speakers based on proficiency level revealed different patterns in the data, which were analyzed as manifesting pragmatic deficit in the lower proficiency group (violations of economy principles) and as processing problems in the higher proficiency group. The low proficiency group seemed to establish referential dependencies in a different manner and extend the use of overt pronouns to more contexts than did the higher proficiency groups. The performance of the high proficiency speakers was for the most part on par with that of their monolingual peers; occasionally when their results didn’t match, the values were still close enough to assume only difference in degree and not in nature. The control group also exhibited some variability in their antecedent assignment due to greater cognitive load in preference-based distinctions and those results supported the data from previous studies. The participants from the high proficiency group had similar problems: we could say that they were a degree less efficient in their cognitive allocation of resources compared to the control group. The different distribution of the data within the heritage group is likely to stem from the level of command of the grammatical system of the language in the different groups, with a strong cross-linguistic influence on the lower proficiency group resulting in its inability to apply the pragmatic principles that govern the coreferential relations. The better command of the language demonstrated by the high proficiency speakers is perhaps the reason why their results were closer to the results of the monolinguals in most of the tasks. Therefore, based on the research findings in this study, I conclude that the non-target behavior of heritage speakers should be attributed to both representational and processing problems but distributed along proficiency lines. A processing account finds parallels in existing accounts of the optionality and variability in the performance of L1 attriters and highly proficient L2 learners albeit based on different assumptions about the sources of such divergent behavior. Regardless of these differences, it is without doubt that studies of anaphora resolution can provide insights not only about the specific mechanisms of establishing referential dependencies but also about the intricate nature of syntactic and discourse operations in heritage languages.

166

conclusions

The pedagogical implications of my study discussed in the previous chapter were shown to be of significance not only for improving the efficiency of the heritage learners at constructing specific representations but also for raising their proficiency in certain areas beyond narrow syntax. The emphasis on input enhancement in classroom instruction has theoretical grounds in the investigation of input salience and proposals, such as the Input Strength Hypothesis of O’Grady et al. (2011) or the idea of “noisy” input put forward by Wilson (2009). I have shown that the use of various teaching methods that focus on the form (null and overt subject pronouns in this case) and its distribution could activate the form-function mappings in lower-proficiency learners or strengthen them in learners with greater proficiency. In conclusion, I hope to have demonstrated that heritage languages provide valuable research opportunities at the interface of several disciplines: theoretical and experimental linguistics, education, psychology and sociology of immigration, to name just a few. Despite the fact that my monograph focuses mostly on the first two areas, I am certain that scholars from other disciplines will find my study useful and my methodology applicable to their own research so that in the future we achieve a better understanding of the language of heritage speakers not only in the United States but in other countries as well!

Appendix 1

Examples of Heritage and Monolingual Narratives1

I

Examples of Cartoon Narratives2

Low Proficiency Speaker Mul’tik načinaetsja s . . . kot, kotoryj delaet, kotoryj . . . kotoryj, nu kak, delaet takie . . .  Trjuki Trjuki. I on . . . on imeet karty, i on ix brosaet v vozdux i oni stanovjatsja vozdušnye šariki, raznocvetnye vozdušnye šariki. I potom volk, nu, potom, on delaet kakoj-to tricks s zajcem, vytaskivaet zajca iz . . . iz šapki. I volk uvidel zajca i srazu zaxotel ego, tak čto on vzjal šapku i ubežal. I potom, nu, on ubežal v les, tam v lesu on vzjal šapku i popro . . . i posmotrel, no tam ne bylo zajca, tam tol’ko bylo . . . byla kakaja-to verëvka. I . . . i èta verëvka byla takaja golubaja i ona s . . . s šhapkoj pošla nu v vozdux. I on za nej stal . . . i on za nej pošël, i on poproboval eë vzjat’, no on ne smog. I on šapku . . . Èta šapka kak-to srezala derev’ja, i ona vezde šla, i on ne mog do neë dobrat’sja. I . . . i potom on . . . potom on načinaet šapku bit’ i probovat’ čto-to s nej sdelat’, ona . . . ona snačala čërnaja, potom belaja, potom čërnaja, potom belaja. I potom on govorit: “Nu, pogodi!” I ono zakančivaetsja. I potom on, ja ne znaju, kak nazyvaetsja èta vešč’’, kak . . . Ja ne znaju. Po-anglijski skažite Ja zabyla, kak po-anglijski Karusel’? On na karusel’, i on vidit zajca s binoklem. I on . . . i zajac idët na kakoj-to tam . . . idët na karusel’ i on za nim pošël. I potom on . . . potom zajac pošël v dom smexa. I on . . . i tam takie strannye očen’ mirrors. Zerkala Zerkala. I . . . i on tam smeëtsja s zajcem. I oni imejut xorošee vremja. Oni imejut . . . oni smejutsja i vsë takoe. No potom on xočet zajca vzjat’, no zajac vyključil svet. I on . . . on 1 The indented data reflects the researcher’s interaction with the participants. 2 The complete set of heritage and monolingual cartoon narratives can be found on the website of the Polinsky Language Lab, at http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/19792 under “Heritage Russian” by Tanya Ivanova-Sullivan.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004246171_�13

168

appendix 1

dumal, čto on vzjal zajca, no on vzjal rog nosoroga. I potom nosorog ego . . . I potom on ubežal, potomu čto on ne xotel, čtoby nosorog ego tam udaril. I potom on . . . I potom zajac dumal, čto on ubežal ot èto, ot volka. No potom volk uvidel zajca opjat’ i oni stali . . . i on stal za zajcem bežat’. I potom oni idut na scenu opjat’, gde načalsja . . . gde načalos’ vsë. I zajac opjat’ ubežal, on proboval, nu, on proboval vzjat’. I potom on govorit na mikrofone, esli zajac ego slyšit. I zajac govorit: “Da, ja slyšu.” No on konečno, davno ubežal. I potom on govorit: “Nu . . . nu, pogodi!” I vsë zakančivaetsja. Translation The cartoon starts with the cat who is doing, who . . . who . . . well . . . doing there . . .  Tricks Tricks. And he has cards and he tosses them in the air and they become air balloons, colored air balloons. And then the wolf, well, then he is doing some tricks with the bunny, pulling out the bunny from the hat. And the wolf saw the bunny and instantly wanted him, so he took the hat and ran away. And then, well, he ran to the woods, there in the woods he took the hat and looked . . . and looked but there was no bunny, there was only some rope. And this rope was blue and together with the hat, it went up in the air. And he started after it . . . he went after it; he tried to take it but could not. And he [ ]3 the hat . . . . this hat cut the trees off, went everywhere but he could’t get to it. And and then he then . . . he start beating the hat and tries to do something with it. It is at first black, then white then black then white. And then he says “Just wait!” And it ends. And then he, I don’t know how is this thing called, how, I don’t know. . . . Say it in English I forgot how it is in English. Ferris Wheel? He is on the Ferris wheel and with his binoculars he sees the bunny. And he, and the bunny is going to some . . . . there, he is going to the Ferris wheel and he went after him. And then he, then the bunny went to the House of Laughs. And he . . . and there [ ] such very strange mirrors. And . . . and he is laughing there with the bunny. And they are having a good time. They have . . . . they are laughing and all that. But then he wants to get the bunny but the bunny turns off the lights. And he . . . he thought that he got the bunny but he got the horn of the rhinoceros. And then the rhinoceros him . . . And then he ran away because he didn’t want the rhinoceros to hit him. And then he . . . And then the bunny thought that he escaped from this, from the wolf. But then the wolf saw 3 The use of brackets in the translation of all the narratives indicates that words or phrases are omitted by the speaker in the Russian original.

appendix 1

169

the bunny again and they started . . . and he started running after the bunny. And then they are going to the stage again where it started, where it all started. And the bunny ran again, he tried, well, he tried to get . . . And then he is speaking on the microphone, if the bunny hears him. And the bunny says: “Yes, I hear you.” But he, of course, has long gone and then he says: “Just wait!” And everything ends. Intermediate-Proficiency Speaker Snačala volk s det’mi smotreli vol . . . volšebnik. I on delal raznye trjuki, i detjam nravilos’, i oni smejalis’, ulybalis’. I u volšebnika byla šljapa, i v nej byl zajac. I volk ukral šljapu i s nim pobežal. I on pytalsja vytaščit’ zajca iz šljapy, no u nego ne udalos’. I on šljapa za nim letala, i on ubegal ot neë. I potom on . . . on xodil i uvidel zajca. I za nim . . . kak by ego dognat’. I zajac zabežal v komnatu smexa. I on smotrel v zerkala i mnogo smejalsja. I on ne znal, čto tam byl volk, nu, on dumal, čto èto tak kažetsja v zerkale. Kogda on volka uvidel, on ispugalsja i vyključil svet. I volk lomal zerkala, i ego vygnali. I on vsled za zajcem ubežal. I on ne mog ego dognat’. Zajac opjat’ . . . zajac zabežal na scenu i on uvidel, čto za nimi nabljudajut deti. I značit, oni načali tancevat’. I kogda oni zakončili, volk opjat’ xotel dognat’ zajca, no on ne smog. I zajac ubežal, i volk za nim kričal na mikrofone. I v itoge ego ne dognal. Translation In the beginning the wolf and the children were watching the magician. He was doing some tricks and the children liked them. And they laughed, smiled. And the magician had a hat and inside the hat there was a bunny. And the wolf stole the hat and ran away with it. He tried to pull out the bunny out of the hat but could not do it. And he . . . the hat flew after him and he was running away from it. And then he . . . he walked and saw the bunny. And after him . . . like, to catch up with him. And the bunny ran into the Room of Laughs. And he was looking in the mirrors and laughing a lot. And he didn’t know that the wolf was there, well, he thought that this is how it seems in the mirror. When he saw the wolf, he got scared and turned off the lights. And the wolf was breaking the mirrors and got kicked out of there. And he ran after the bunny and he could not catch up with him. The bunny again . . . the bunny ran to the stage and he saw that the children were watching him. And so, they started dancing. And when he finished, the wolf again wanted to get the bunny but could not. And the bunny ran and the wolf shouted on the microphone after him. And at the end, he didn’t catch him. High-Proficiency Speaker Tak nu, v načale zajac i volk po-moemu, byli zriteljami. Smotreli predstavlenie, kak fokusnika . . . ja ne znaju točno slovo. Nu, on fokusy pokazyvaet, kot, eto . . . I volk uvidel kak iz svoej kak . . . volšebnoj šapki fokusnik vytaščil zajca. I on . . . očen’ èto emu ponravilos’ i on xotel ukrast’ ètu šapku i vytaščit’ zajca. On ukral šapku, ubežal iz

170

appendix 1

ètogo kak by koncertnogo za . . . nu, èto ne zal, eto ulica, po-moemu. I u nego ne . . . ne polučilos’ kak by dostat’ zajca. Vmesto togo kakaja-to bumaga ili čto-to tam, zajca v obščem ne bylo. On razozlilsja, podbrosil šapku v vozdux, ona tak vernulas’, udarila ego po golove, kak-to sela prjamo emu na golovu, to est’ on ne mog ee daže snjat’. V obščem, on opjat’ razozlilsja, ešče raz eë kinul. V rezul’tate, v konečnom itoge, on nastupil, nu, kak-to uničtožil šapku, ona kak-to vzorvalas’. Kakom-to . . . On byl potom pokryt kakim-to čërnym peplom, to est’ èto pervaja čast’. Potom vtoraja čast’, volk na čertovom kolese. On s . . . U nego takaja byla, kak èto, monokl’ ili . . . daže ne pomnju, no truba takaja obzornaja. On uvidel zajca, to est’ oni v parke attrakcionov. On uvidel zajca sadjaščim . . . Zajac sadilsja na drugoj attrakcion. On podošël k tomu že attrakcionu, podsel vmeste s zajcem. Attrakcion načalsja i on xotel uxvatit’ zajca, no u nego ne polučilos’, potomu čto attrakcion takoj vverx nogami i tuda-sjuda. To est’, on tak . . . golova zakružilas’, aaa, tak. A tret’ja čast’, v obščem, zajac pošël v komnatu smexa, tam mnogo . . . zer . . . zer . . . Krivye Da, krivye zerkala kak by. I volk tože za . . . za nim tuda pošël. I zajac, nu i oni tak vmeste smejalis’, duračilis’. I zajac ne mog ponjat’ srazu, čto èto volk, potomu čto tam, nu mordy kak by. Nu, raznye v ètikh zerkalax kak by izobraženija byli. No kogda oni podošli k obyčnomu zerkalu, on uvidel, čto èto volk, ispugalsja i vyključil svet. Volk načal iskat’ zajca, perelomal vse zerkala. I potom dumal, čto on pojmal zajca, no vmesto ètogo on sxvatil rog, kak èto . . .  Nosoroga Nosoroga, da, èto. I tot ego spugnul, on ubežal i naš . . . I zajac sebe tak veselo . . . veselo šël, èto, potom volk ego dostal, to est’ do nego došël. Zajac ispugalsja, on ubežal v storonu sceny. Vot toj, gde pervaja serija kak by. I v itoge kak by volk s zajcem okazali . . . okazalis’ na scene. I kak by tam predstavlenie bylo, to est’ zriteli dumali, čto eto čast’ predstavlenija. To est’ oni nomer stancevali kak by, i kogda zakryli . . . kak èto . . . kogda scena . . . nu, ne scena zakrylas’, opustili kak èto Zanaves Zanaves, da. Èto . . . to zajac. Volk xotel na nego napast’, no zajac ego xvost . . . vot, pianino kryšku kak by zaxlopnul i sam ubežal, to est’ i volk kak by nu ostalsja tam. Kriknul v mikrofon: “Nu pogodi!” A zajac uže daleko gde-to ux . . . uxodil iz parka i skazal šutlivo: “Slyšu, slyšu.” Nu, i èto vsë kak by. Translation So, well, in the beginning, the bunny and the wolf, I think were spectators. They were watching a performance, how the magician . . . I don’t know exactly the word. Well,

appendix 1

171

he was showing tricks, the cat . . . And the wolf saw how the magician pulled out the bunny from his magic hat. And he very . . ., he liked it a lot and he wanted to steal this hat and pull out the bunny. He stole the hat, ran out of this, like, concert hall, well, it is not a hall, it’s a street, I think. But he didn’t manage, like, to get the bunny. Instead, some paper or something there but the bunny wasn’t there. He got angry, threw the hat up in the air, it came back, hit him on the head, and somehow was right on his head, i.e., he couldn’t even take it off. In general, he got angry again, tossed the hat one more time. As a result, at the end, he stepped on . . . well, somehow destroyed the hat, it somehow explodes. Something . . . He was then all covered with some black ashes, i.e., this is the first part. Then the second part, the wolf is on the Ferris Wheel. He with . . . He has this, how is it, monocle or, I don’t even remember, but some sort of spyglass. He saw the bunny, i.e., they are in the amusement park. He saw the bunny taking a seat . . . The bunny sat on another ride. He approached the ride and sat next to the bunny. The ride started and he wanted to grab the bunny but he couldn’t because the ride was such that your feet were up and swinging, i.e., he so . . . his head started spinning. And the third part, in general, the bunny went to the Room of Laughs, there were many mir, mir. . . . Distorted Yes, distorted mirrors. And the wolf also went after him. And the bunny, well, they were laughing and fooling around. And the bunny couldn’t understand right away that this is the wolf because there were, well, faces. Well, there were different images in their mirrors. But when they approached a regular mirror, he saw that this was the wolf, got scared and turned off the lights. The wolf started looking for the bunny, broke all the mirrors. And he thought that he got the bunny but instead he got the horn of this . . .  The Rhinoceros The rhinoceros, yes. And he scared him, he ran and found . . . And the bunny was walking so cheerfully, then the wolf got to him, i.e., reached him. The bunny got scared, he ran to the direction of the stage, that same stage that was in the first part. And at the end, the wolf with the bunny ended up on the stage. And there was a performance going on, i.e., the audience thought that this was a part of the performance, i.e., they danced the number somehow and when they closed, how is that, when the stage, well, the stage didn’t close, they lowered, what is it? The Curtains The curtains, yes. This was the bunny.The wolf wanted to attack him but the bunny slammed his tail with the top of the piano and ran way, i.e., the wolf, like, stayed there. He shouted in the microphone: “Just wait!” And the bunny was already walking far away from the park and said with playfully: “I hear, I hear.” And well, that’s all.

172

appendix 1

Monolingual Narrative Eeee, mul’tfil’m načinaetsja s togo, čto volk i vsjakie raznye zverjuški sidjat i smotrjat predstavlenie. Na scene mmmm fokusnik. Snačala on stoit, pokazyvaet fokusy, potom on dostaët šljapu, ottuda dostaët zaica. Volk srazu očen’ oživilsja, kogda uvidel zajca. Iiii, mmm, volk xvataet šljapu i bežit s ètoj šljapoj v nadežde, čto on nakonec pojmal zajca. Stavit ètu šljapu, vidit uši, čto torčat ottuda. Načinaet tjanut’, a tam ne zajac, a okazyvaetsja verëvka. Volk ves’ obmotalsja ètoj verëvkoj. V itoge vykinul ètu šljapu. Eeee I èta šljapa priletela emu na golovu. I on idët i rešaet pokatat’sja na attrakcione, na kolese obozrenija. Vot on kataetsja na kolese obozrenija i vidit, čto na drugoj attrakcion prišël zajac na samolёtike. I vot on saditsja v ètot samolёtik za zajcem, pytaetsja opjat’ ego sxvatit’, no u nego kak vsegda ničego ne vyxodit. Zajac ot nego ubegaet i bežit v takoj attrakcion, tam krivye zerkala. I zajac vešaet nosorogu na nos biletik i idët smotret’sja v zerkala, smeëtsja.A vot oni xodjat vdvoëm, smotrjatsja v èti zerkala, smejutsja. Potom zajac vidit, čto rjadom s nim volk, uže v obyčnom zerkale. Iii vyključaet svet, čtoby ubežat’ ot nego. Oni okazyvajutsja oba v itoge na scene. Eeeee, potom zanaves. Volk opjat’ pytaetsja pojmat’ zajca, zajac emu priščemljaet xvost pianino. I volk s pianino na xvoste podxodit k mikrofonu, kričit: ‘Nu, zajac, nu, pogodi!’ I vsë. Translation The cartoon starts with the wolf and all other animals sitting and watching a performance. There is a magician onstage. In the beginning he stands and shows tricks; then he gets a hat and pulls out a bunny from it. The wolf livened up when he saw the bunny. Aaaand, the wolf grabs the hat and runs with this hat hoping that at last he will catch the bunny. He puts down this hat, sees ears that were sticking out of there. He starts pulling but there is no bunny there, it turns out it is a rope. The wolf got all wrapped up in this rope. At the end he threw out this hat. And the hat flew back to his head. And he is walking and decides to get a ride on the Ferris wheel. He is riding on the Ferris wheel and sees that the bunny came to another ride, an airplane. And he sits in this airplane behind the bunny trying to grab him again but as always he is not successful. The bunny runs away from him and runs towards another place in the amusement park, there are distorted mirrors there. And the bunny hangs his ticket on the horn of the rhinoceros and goes to look in the mirrors, he laughs. And they both walk, looking at themselves in the mirrors and laughing. Then the bunny sees that the wolf is next to him, now in a regular mirror. He turns off the lights to run away from him. They both end up on stage at the end. Then curtains [fall] again. The wolf tries to catch the bunny again; the bunny pinches his tail with the piano. And the wolf with the piano on his tail approaches the microphone and yells: “You, bunny, just wait!” And that’s all.

appendix 1 II

173

Examples of Personal Narratives4

Low-Proficiency Speaker Rasskažite, požalujsta, o sebe Ja iz STATE NAME i tam moi roditeli oboe iz Rossii, no moj papa iz COUNTRY NAME i moja babuška i deduška priexali, kogda ja rodilas’ i ja s nimi, I mean, moja mama rabotala, oni mne vse učili, ja tol’ko po-russki doma govorila, like, sto raz lučše čem sejčas. A potom ja pošla v školu, ja ne znala, kak po-anglijski govorit’. A ja v škole bylo legko naučit’sja, of course, vse vokrug menja govorili. I potom ja stala medlenno terjat’ i u menja est’ sestra, staršaja, i eë russkij daže xuže, čem moj, potomu čto my ne znali, kak čitat’ i pisat’ i moj deduška stal učit’. Èto kak ja znaju čut’-čut’ kak čitat’, ja poni­ maju like bukvy, nu, aaa, i kogda ja učilas’ s nim, ja stala lučše govorit’ po-russki, prosto potomu čto ja znala bukvy, ja ne znaju. Nu, potom ja, my èto perestali uže davno i ja uže očen’ dolgo ne pisala, ne čitala, i kogda ja doma govorju s mamoj, s papoj, like, oni, oni menja po-russki govorjat, a ja otvečaju tak polovinu po-russki, polovinu po-anglijski. A s babuškoj ja tol’ko po-russki govorju, no ona menja ne popravljaet, kogda ja esli čto-to nepravil’no govorju, tam, koncovki. Ona ne popravljaet, potomu čto ona govorit, čto očen’ krasivo, čto ja nepravil’no govorju. A kak na nix vsex rasserdilas’, čto oni menja . . . .potomu čto ja skazala Vam, ja v prošlom godu pomogla moj drug, ja i govorila slova i on napisal, čto ja like očen’ mnogo nepravil’no govorju i čto ja ne nastojaščij, ne znaju kak po-russki, bilingual. Značit, ja očen’ rasserdilas’ na moju mamu, čto ona menja ne popravljaet, potomu čto ja ne xoču terjat’ . . . ja xoču zdes’ est’ klass COURSE NAME tut kuča, tut vse russkie, kotorye ja znaju berut like vzjali ètot klass. No u menja netu vremja, no ja očen’ xoču, potomu čto èto dlja ljudej, kak ja. Ja znaju, čto u menja est’ akcent, no ja xoču . . . .i ja nikogda v žizni ne byla v Rossii. Ja, ja dumaju, čto esli ja by, esli by ja poexala na mesjac ili dva, vsë by stalo lučše, da. Translation Tell Me аbout Yourself I am from STATE NAME and both my parents are from Russia but my dad is from COUNTRY NAME and my grandparents came when I was born, I was with them, I mean, my mom was working, they all taught me, I only spoke Russian at home, like 100 times better than now. And then I went to school, I didn’t know English but it was easy to learn it in school, of course, everyone around me spoke it. Then I started gradually losing it and I have an older sister, her Russian is even worse than mine because we didn’t know how to write or read and my grandfather started teaching us. This is how 4 Identifiers, such as names of states, countries, schools or people are deleted from the narratives in order to preserve the confidentiality of the data.

174

appendix 1

I know how to read a little bit, I understand, like, the letters and when I was studying with him I started speaking Russian better simply because I knew the letters, I don’t know. Well, then, I, we stopped a long time ago and I haven’t written or read anything for a long time and I am home, I talk to my mom and my dad, like, they speak to me in Russian and I answer half in Russian half in English. But with my grandmother I only speak Russian, but she doesn’t correct me if I say something incorrectly, endings, for example. She doesn’t correct me because she says that it sounds beautiful when I speak with mistakes. And how I got angry with them that they [ ] me . . . .because I told you that last year I helped my friend, I spoke some words and he wrote down that I spoke, like with a lot of mistakes and that I am not a real, I don’t know the word in Russian, bilingual. So, I got very angry with my mom because she doesn’t correct me because I don’t know to lose . . . I want to take a class here, COURSE NAME, here there is a lot of Russians whom I know and they have taken this class. But I don’t have time but I want very much because it is for people like me. I know that I have an accent but I want . . . and I haven’t been in Russia yet, I, I think that if I, if I would go there for a month or two, everything would be better, yes. Intermediate-Proficiency Speaker Ja rodilas’ v CITY NAME. Mne bylo dva godika, kogda my priexali v Ameriku. No voobšče-to snačala deduška moj priexal v Ameriku, potomu čto moja, ego sestra, t.e., uže žila v Amerike i muža novogo našla i ona priglasila dedušku posmotret’ kak žizn’ v Amerike. Deduška posmotrel, emu ponravilos’ zdes’ i on pozval nas vsex, nu, vsju sem’ju, moju babušku, menja, roditelej, i u menja eščëe est’ tëtja, i svoja sem’ja u neë. I my vse priexali, nu, my evrei, my kak-by priexali, potomu čto u nas . . . . nas priglasili kakaja-to programma i my priexali v Ameriku. I aaa . . ., nu mne bylo dva goda, ja raz­ govarivala poka, nu, razgovarivala, nekotorye slova govorila po-russki, vsë ponimala po-russki. No potom ja pošla v detskij sad, babuška za mnoj uxaživala, inogda kto-to ostavalsja so mnoj doma, kak mama, ona učilas’ v èto vremja, papa pošël srazu rabotat’ i ja, ja pomalen’ko naučilas’ kak po-anglijski razgovarivat’, potom ja byla v russkom xore, ja byla . . . ja na tancy xodila, ja vystupala na spektakle na russkom. A potom posle ètogo èto vsë kak-by otpalo počemu-to, ne znaju počemu, a ja zanimalas’ daže pianino. Mne pianino ne nravilos’ i ja brosila pianino. I vot. I vot sejčas ja učus’ v COLLEGE NAME na odin quarter, ran’še ja uchilas’ v COLLEGE NAME, prosto potomu čto legče v COLLEGE NAME. Ja ne mogu najti sebe special’nost’, ja znaju, čto mne nravitsja, no special’nost’ očen’ tjaželo najti i mama serditsja na menja, no čto delat’, vot, iii. Ja ran’še zanimalas’ gimnastikoj, čto eščë možno skazat’? Tancy xip-xop, bal’nye tancy u menja byli, nu, vot i vsë kažetsja. A . . . risovanie bylo. A sejčas kak-by ničego net, poka ja učus’, ja xoču, kak, ja xoču v kakoj-to klub zapisat’sja, čtoby ja čto-to s nimi delala, no. . . .

appendix 1

175

Translation I was born in CITY NAME. I was two years old when we moved to America. In general, at the beginning my grandfather came to America because my, his sister, i.e., already lived in America and she had found a new husband and she invited my grandfather to see how life is in America. My grandfather took a look, he liked it here and he summoned us all, well, the whole family, my grandmother, me, my parents and I also have an aunt and she has her own family. And we all came, well, we are Jews, we somehow came because we have . . . some program invited us and we came to America. And . . . . well, I was two years old, I was talking still, well, talking, some words I was saying in Russian, I understood everything in Russian. But then I went to kindergarten, my grandmother was taking care of me, sometimes someone would stay home with me, my mom, for example. She was taking classes at that time, my dad went to work and I, I gradually learned how to speak English, then I was in a Russian choir, I was, I went to dances, I performed in a show in Russian. And then after that, all this somehow stopped for some reason, I don’t know why, I even played the piano. I didn’t like the piano and I dropped it. There. And now I am studying at COLLEGE NAME for one quarter, I studied earlier at COLLEGE NAME, simply because it is easier at COLLEGE NAME. I can’t find myself a major, I know what I like but it’s very difficult to find a major and my mom is mad at me but what can I do? I did some gymnastics in the past, what else can I say? I did hip-hop dances, ballroom dances, well, that’s all, I think. Aaah, I also did some drawings. And now somehow there is nothing, I am studying, I want, how, I want to sign up for some club in order to do something with them but. . . . High-Proficiency Speaker Ja priexala v SŠA, kogda mne bylo dva s polovinoj goda i ja rodilas’ v COUNTRY NAME, my prileteli iz COUNTRY NAME sjuda v CITY NAME i ja tam prožila naverno 16 let poka ne postupila v universitet, i ja srazu postupila na fakul’tet russkogo jazyka i zdes’ učus’ svoj pervyj god. U menja est’ i mama i papa, u menja netu nikakix brat’ev i sëstr, no u menja est’ dvojurodnyj brat v CITY NAME i tëtja, kotoraja razvelas’ s djadej, t.e., zaputano slegka sčitaetsja li on djadja ili net, i u menja babuška i deduška s materinskoj storony živut v CITY NAME, a deduška i babuška s otcovskoj storony uže umerli, no žili v COUNTRY NAME. Moja mama rodilas’ v COUNTRY NAME, moj otec rodilsja v COUNTRY NAME, oni vstretilis’ v universitete v pervom godu i poženilis’ v četvërtom ili posle universiteta i oni, my priexali sjuda, potomu čto moj otec polučil priglašenie iz kompanii rabotat’ na nix. Mne očen’ nravitsja zdes’ universitet, potomu čto on, nu, na gore, mne ne nravitsja žara, no zato, potomu čto zdes’ živëš’ na gore, kak ja živu voobšče na samom verxu

176

appendix 1

i tam polovina gory v teni, t.e., možno najti gde otdoxnut’ i tam bol’še vetra sverxu, potomu čto davlenie i vsë takoe. I poètomu zdes’ tak xorošo, ne xvataet doždja, mne kažetsja, potomu čto ja na severe, šest’ časov na severe, no xorošee mesto, potomu čto moj drugoj, al’ternativnyj, nu, ja mogla by postupit’ v COLLEGE NAME, no ja rešila postupit’ sjuda, potomu čto ja vsegda, kogda byla malen’kom, kogda mne bylo sem’ let, ja priexala v CITY NAME vstrečat’ svoix rodstvennikov i tam moj deduška poražalsja tem, čto ja govorila, čto ja byla russkoj. I prosto, potomu čto mne, potomu čto ja tak rano priexala v SŠA, čto ja ne sčitala, čto mne kak stavat’ amerikankoj, potomu čto ja zdes’ byla v samoj molodosti, t.e., ja begala za det’mi i naučilas’, t.e. učilas’ govorit’ po-anglijski i t.e. ja prosto vsegda bojalas’ togo, čto ja zabudu russkij jazyk. I potom bylo èto v tože samoe vremja, kogda postupila v middle school zdes’, učila ispanskij jazyk, izučala, i potom oni, t.e. kogda my vmeste poexali v devjatom, net, v desjatom klasse, my poexali na desjat’ dnej v COUNTRY NAME s klassom. Kogda vyexali v COUNTRY NAME, ja byla, navernoe, samaja molodaja v gruppe, no bol’šinstvo ljudej ne xoteli govorit’ po-ispanski, potomu čto oni znali, vidjat nas, znajut, čto my turisty, my budem s nimi govorit’ po-anglijski, no vot, ja xotela s nimi razgovarivat’ . . . i my zašli v odin kafe, èto bylo fevral’, bylo xolodno i my xoteli prosto popit’ čego-to tëplogo i ženščina sprosila, znaeš’, čto èto naši zakazy i oni ne xoteli, nikto iz nix ne xotel govorit’ po-ispanski, poètomu oni vse mne svoi zakazy dali i ja podošla k ženščine i ja čitaju vse ix zakazy i ona smotrit na menja, ja vižu, čto znaet prosto, čto ja s menju sčityvaju, a potom ona zadaët mne vopros xotela li ja čocolate ili kakao, potomu čto èto dve raznye vešči, potomu čto čocolate èto takie evropejskie šokolad, a kakao èto s molokom, nu, vot. Kogda ja sprašivala, čto značit, kak obnaružit’ kakoj iz nix kakoj, ona ponjala, ja s nej govorila po-ispanski, ona ponjala, čto mne bylo interesno s nej razgovarivat’ po-ispanski, čto ja xotela, t.e. ja uvažala eë kul’turu i vidno bylo, kak u neë, tak vyraženie lica sovsem pomenjalos’ i ona stala namnogo prijatnee iz-za ètogo i vot, ja dumala, esli ja mogu tak, esli otnošenie mogut tak pomenjatsja, kogda u menja tol’ko bylo četyre let ispanskogo, vot, kak ja mogu pomoč’ s otnošenijami, vot kak s russkim jazykom, esli u menja uže, kak, takoj uroven’, znaeš’, t.e. u menja polučaetsja očen’ takaja special’naja nitča, v kotoroj mogu najti rabotu, potomu čto u menja russkij, nu, ne sovsem na vysšem urovne, no ja mogu, esli pojti v školu, mogu dostignut’ dovol’no vysokogo urovnja i togda polučaetsja perevod ili razgovory ili čto-to tipa takogo, ja mogu tože vot takie, sdelat’ čto-to, vot poleznoe s tem, čto u menja kak, vroždënnoe. Ja vot rešila v oddinattsatom ili dvenattsatom klasse, chto ja xotela tochno zanimat’sja russkim jazykom, poètomu ja sjuda postupila i ja rešila, čto mne tol’ko pervyj god, ja provožu èti četyre goda zdes’ i rešu, vot čego v oblasti russkogo jazyka menja interesuet bol’še vsego, t.e. sejčas ja dumaju, čto ja zakonču, t.e. major budet russkij jazyk i poprobuju ili minor ili double major v lingvistike, potomu čto ja vzjala klass v prošloj četverti po lingvistike, menja očen’ interesovalo, potomu čto èto, kak smes’ polučaetsja, znaeš’, gumanitarnyx professij i t.e. nauki, potomu čto èto kak smes’ i togo i drugogo, t.e. mne očen’ nravitsja i čitat’ i

appendix 1

177

pisat’ i vsë èto gumanitarnye vešči, no mne tože nravjatsja nauki, mne nravilas’ ximija, ja nikogda ne xotela ej zanimat’sja, no mne nravilas’. No polučaetsja, jazyki, izučat’ jazyki, vot perevody, vsë vot takoe, xorošaja smes’. Translation I came to the US when I was two and half and I was born in COUNTRY NAME, we flew from COUNTRY NAME here in CITY NAME and I lived there about 16 years until I enrolled in the university, and I started taking courses right away at the Russian Department and this is my freshman year here. I have a mother and a father, don’t have any brothers or sisters but have a cousin in CITY NAME and an aunt who divorced my uncle, i.e., it is unclear whether he is my uncle or not. And my grandmother and a grandfather on my mom’s side live in CITY NAME and grandfather and grandmother on my dad’s side already passed away but they lived in COUNTRY NAME. My mom was born in COUNTRY NAME, my dad was born in COUNTRY NAME, they met in their first year in college and got married when they were seniors or after they graduated and they, we arrived here because my dad got an invitation from a company to come and work for them. I really like the university here because it is, well, on the mountain, I don’t like the heat but because you live here in the mountain, the way I live on the very top of the mountain and there half of the mountain is in the shade, i.e., you can find a place to rest there and there is more wind from the top there because of the pressure and all this. That’s why it is so nice here, we don’t have enough rain, I think because I live in the north, 6 hours north but it is a nice place because my other alternative, well, I could have enrolled in COLLEGE NAME but I decided to come here because always when I was little, when I was seven years old, I came to CITY NAME to meet my relatives and there my grandfather was amazed that I spoke, that I was Russian. And because to me, because I came to the US so early, I didn’t think that I had to become American because I was here very young, i.e., I ran after kids and learned, i.e., learned to speak English and i.e., I was just always afraid that I will forget Russian. And then it was during that time when I went to middle school here, I studied Spanish and then they, i.e., when we all went in 9th grade, no, in 10th grade, we went to COUNTRY NAME for 10 days with my class. When we arrived in COUNTRY NAME I was, perhaps, the youngest in the group but the majority of the people didn’t want to speak Spanish because they knew, they would see us and would know that we were tourists, we will speak English with them but I wanted to talk to them and we went to a coffee shop, it was in February, it was cold and we wanted to get something warm, and the woman asked us, you know, that those were our orders but they didn’t want, no one wanted to speak Spanish, that’s why they all gave me their orders and went up to the woman and I am reading all their orders and she is looking at me, I can see, that she knows that I am simply reading the items off the menu and then she asks me a question, do I want chocolate or cacao because these are two different things, because chocolate is the European chocolate and cacao is with milk.

178

appendix 1

When I asked what does this mean, how to find out which one is which, she understood, I spoke Spanish with her, she understood that I was interested in talking to her in Spanish because I wanted, i.e., I respected her culture and it was obvious that her, her facial expression completely changed and she got much nicer because of that and I thought that if I can do that, if the attitude can change like that, when I only had four years of Spanish, how I can help with relations with my Russian, if I already have such level of the language, you know, i.e., it turns out that I have this special niche, in which I can find a job because I have Russian, well, not completely fluent but I can if I go to school, I can reach a rather high level and then I can do translation or communication or something like that, I can also do such things, do something useful with them, which is something I have in me by nature. When I was in 11th or 12th grade I decided that I wanted to do something with Russian that’s why I enrolled in this university and I decided that this is only my first year, I will spend those four years here and decide what specifically in the area of Russian language interests me most of all, i.e., now I am thinking that I will graduate, i.e., my major will be Russian language and I will try to minor or double major in Linguistics because I took a class in the past quarter in Linguistics, I was really interested in it because this is like a mixture, you know, of Humanities and i.e., Sciences because this is like a mixture of one and the other, i.e., I really like reading and writing these Humanities things but I also like Sciences. I like chemisty, I’ve never wanted to be a chemist but I liked it. But as it happens, languages, studying languages, translations, all those things, it’s a nice mixture. Monolingual Narrative Ja učus’ v COLLEGE NAME po special’nosti dizajn. Ja poka ne rešila točno v kakoj imenno sfere dizajna, no skoree vsego èto dizajn inter’era libo èto grafičeskij dizajn, potomu čto èto sejčas naibolee vostrebovannye profesii, nu, v sfere dizajna, poètomu ja ix vybrala. Ja rodilas’ v CITY NAME, no s pjati let pereexala s roditeljami v TOWN NAME, aaa, eto nedaleko ot CITY NAME. Za svoju žizn’ ja smenila očen’ mnogo škol, tak kak iskala sebja, nu, vse školy byli s raznymi special’nostjami i nu, s sed’mogo klassa ja popala v školu s xudožestvennym uklonom. I imenno v èti gody ja rešila, čto iskusstvo—èto moë, aaaa, no k odinnadcatomu klassu ja nemnogo stala somnevat’sja v sebe i nu, ne poverila v svoi sily i rešila postupat’ s podrugoj na fakul’tet turizma i ves’ pervyj kurs ja učilas’ na fakul’tete turizma, no k koncu vtorogo semestra ja ponjala, čto vsë-taki mne nužno zanimat’sja tem, čem ja xotela vsju žizn’ i perevelas’ na drugoj fakul’tet. Ničego mne èto ne stoilo. Èkzameny so složnostjami menja ne pugali. Sejčas ja učus’ na special’nosti dizajn i očen’ dovol’na. Aaaa, v svobodnoe vremja ja očen’ ljublju obščat’sja so svoimi druz’jami, u menja ix dostatočno mnogo. Ja sčitaju sebja xarizmatičnym čelovekom i ne predstavljaju svoju žizn’ bez svoix druzej, tak kak esli ja odin den’ ne vstrečus’ so svoimi druz’jami, potomu čto èto očen’ važno dlja menja.

appendix 1

179

Iz moix uvlečenij ja mogu rasskazat’ pro to, čto ja uvlekajus’ fotografiej. Ja zanimajus’ uže okolo dvux let. Vsë načalos’ s prostoj cifrovoj kameroj, ja eë sebe kupila na pervuju zarplatu. Dal’še mne zaxotelos’ razvivat’sja v ètom plane. Sejčas ja sebe kupila professional’nuju fotokameru i nu, pytajus’ tože razvivat’sja i v ètom napravlenii. Aaa, mne interesno provodit’ s’’ëmki, aaaa, ja vižu sebja v kačestve stilista, vizažista i mečtaju, čto polnost’ju smogu provesti s’’ëmku samostojatel’no. Mne nravitsja sam process—odevat’ model’, sozdavat’ obraz, snimat’, obrabatyvat’ fotografii . . . . obščenie s novymi ljud’mi, mne èto očen’ interesno i v ètoj sfere ja takže xoču porabotat’. Takže ja očen’ interesujus’ modoj i vsjačeski pytajus’, nu, kak-to uznavat’ industriju mody v CITY NAME i pytajus’, nu, kak-to vlit’sja v ètu tusovku, tak skazat’. Vot, nu, poka u menja èto polučaetsja. My s moimi druz’jami vedëm, nu, blog. My berëm interv’ju u različnyx interesnyx ljudej. Èto možet byt’ kto ugodno. Talantlivye ljudi, kotorye prosto vydeljajutsja, aaa, di-džei, različnye dizajnery, naibolee uspešnye modeli, stilisty, vizažisty, nu i. . . . Nam interesno obščenie s takimi ljud’mi, talantlivymi. My pytaemsja ravnjat’sja na nix i kak-to s pomošč’ju ètogo samoutverždat’sja, potomu čto èto dejstvitel’no interesno. Translation I study in COLLEGE NAME, my major is design. I haven’t decided yet in what particular sphere of design but most likely, it will be interior design or graphic design because these are the most sought after professions right now, well, in the sphere of design, that’s why I chose them. I was born in CITY NAME but when I turned five, my parents and I moved to TOWN NAME, aaah, this is not far from CITY NAME. I changed a lot of schools during my childhood because I was searching for myself, well, all the schools had different specialties and well, when I was in 7th grade, I got into an art school. And it was during those years when I decided that art, it is my thing, aaaah, but by the time I got to 11th grade, I started having doubts in myself and didn’t believe in my strength and decided to enroll together with my friend in the Department of Tourism and the whole first year I studied at the Department of Tourism but towards the end of the second semester I realized that still I have to do what I wanted my whole life and enrolled in a different department. This didn’t cost me anything; the difficulty of the exams didn’t scare me. Now my major is design and I am very happy. Aaaah, in my free time I love being with my friends, I have a lot of friends. I consider myself a charismatic person and I cannot picture my life without my friends, just like if I don’t meet my friends even for a day . . . because this is very important for me. About my hobbies I can tell you that I love photography. I have been doing photography for two years. Everything started with a simple digital camera; I bought it with my first paycheck. I even wanted to improve more in this sphere. Now I bought a professional camera and I am trying to further develop my skills in this direction.

180

appendix 1

Aaaah, it is very interesting for me to do a photo shoot, I see myself as a hair-stylist, makeup artist, and I dream that I will be able to do that entirely on my own. I love the process itself—dressing the model, creating an image, taking pictures, processing the pictures, talking to new people, all this is very interesting and I would like to do some work in this sphere as well. I am also very interested in fashion and I try in every way to find out more about the fashion industry in CITY NAME and well, I am trying to become part of the social life, so to speak. So, for now it is working out for me. My friends and I are writing a blog, well, we take interviews from various interesting people, it could be anyone—talented people who stand out, different DJs, designers, the most successful models, hair-stylists, makeup artists, well, and . . . It is interesting for us to communicate with such people, talented people. We are trying to measure up to them and somehow, by such means to become self-affirming because this is really interesting.

Appendix 2

Russian Speakers in the US Questionnaire

1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Your current age: How old were you when you moved to the US? Did you go to school in Russia? If yes, how many grades did you complete there? Do you live with a native Russian speaker? If yes, what is their relation to you and how often do you speak Russian with this person? How long have you been living with this person? Do you live with a native English speaker? If yes, what is their relation to you and how often do you speak English with this person? How long have you been living with this person? Where did you learn to write and read in Russian? At what age did you become fluent in English? What language(s) do you speak to your parents/siblings? What would be a rough estimate of your daily exposure (speaking and listening) to Russian? a) 10% b) 20% c) 30% d) 40% e) 50% f) more than 50% Do you go back to Russia? If yes, how often? What is your motivation (if any) to maintain your Russian? Please, rate your abilities in Russian (put the answer in bold): Listening None Low Intermediate Advanced Native-like Speaking None Low Intermediate Advanced Native-like Reading None Low Intermediate Advanced Native-like Writing None Low Intermediate Advanced Native-like

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004246171_�14

References Ackema, P., Brandt, P., Schoorlemmer, M., & Weerman, F. (2006). In P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Schoorlemmer, & F. Weerman (Eds.), Arguments and agreement (pp. 1–34). Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, A. (2006). Uniform and non-uniform aspects of pro-drop languages. In P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Schoorlemmer, & F. Weerman (Eds.), Arguments and agreement (pp. 127–158). Oxford University Press. Alhawari, M. (2005). Null subjects use by English and Spanish learners of Arabic as an L2. In E. Benmamoun (Ed.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XIX (pp. 217–247). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and Focus: The Information Load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106, 748–765. Alonso-Ovalle, L., Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Fernández-Solera, S. (2002). Null vs. overt pronouns and the Focus-Topic articulation in Spanish. Journal of Italian Linguistics, 14, 151–169. Alonso-Ovalle, L., & D’Introno, F. (2001). Full pronouns in Spanish: The Zero Pronoun hypothesis. In H. Campos et al. (Eds.), Hispanic linguistics at the turn of the Millennium. (pp. 189–210). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. American Community Survey Report (2011). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/ prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf Last access February 18, 2014. Andrews, D. (1999). Sociocultural perspectives on language change in Diaspora: Soviet immigrants in the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ——— (2001). Teaching the Russian heritage learner: Socio- and psycholinguistic perspectives. Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 45, 519–530. ——— (2006). The role of émigré Russian in redefining the ‘standard.’ Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14, 169–189. ——— (2012). Who am I?: Cultural identities among Russian-speaking immigrants of the third (and fourth?) wave and their effects on language attitudes. In V. Makarova (Ed.), Russian-language studies in North America: New perspectives from theoretical and applied linguistics (pp. 215–234). London/New York/Delhi: Anthem Press. Argyri, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Cross-linguistic influence and language dominance in older bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 79–99. Arnold, J., & Griffin, Z. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expressions: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 521–536. Au, T., Knightly, L.M., Jun, S.A., & Oh, J.S. (2002). Overhearing a language during childhood. Psychological Science, 13, 238–243. Ayoun, D. (2005). Parameter setting in language acquisition. London: Continuum.

references

183

Badecker, W & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 748–769. Bailyn, J. (2011). The syntax of Russian. Cambridge University Press. Bar-Shalom, E., & Zaretsky, E. (2008). Selective attrition in Russian-English bilingual children: Preservation of grammatical aspect. International Journal of Bilingualism, 12, 281–302. Barbosa, P. (2011). Pronoun deletion analysis of null subjects and partial, discourse and semi pro-drop. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5, 571–587. Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657–689. Benmamoun, E., & Kagan, O. (2013). The administration of heritage language programs: Challenges and opportunities. Heritage Language Journal, 10, 143–155. Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013a). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129–181. ——— (2013b). Defining an ‘ideal’ heritage speaker. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 259–294. Bermel, N., & Kagan, O. (2000). The maintenance of written Russian in heritage speakers. In O. Kagan & B. Rifkin (Eds.), The learning and teaching of Slavic languages and cultures (pp. 405–436). Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers. Bittner, D., & Kuehnast, M. (2012). Comprehension of inter-sententialpronouns in child German and child Bulgarian. First Language, 32, 176–204. Blake, R., & Zyzik, E. (2003). Who is helping whom? Learner/heritage speakers’ networked discussion in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24, 519–544. Bolger, P., & Zapata, G. (2011). Psycholinguistic approaches to language processing in heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal, 8, 1–29. Bowles, M. (2011). Exploring the role of modality: L2–heritage learner interactions in the Spanish language classroom. Heritage Language Journal, 8, 30–65. Brinton, D., Kagan, O., & Bauckus, S. (Eds.). (2010). Heritage language education: A new field emerging. New York: Routledge. Burkhardt, P. (2005). The syntax-discourse interface: Representing and interpreting dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ——— (2007). Reference assignment in the absence of sufficient semantic content. In M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten & M. Knees (Eds.), Anaphors in text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference. (pp. 241–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Byalistok, E. (2007). Language acquisition and bilingualism: Consequences for a multilingual society. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 393–397.

184

references

Cabo, D., & Rothman, J. (2012). The (Il)logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33, 450–455. Camacho, J. (2013). Null subjects. Cambridge University Press. Campbell, R., & Christian, D. (2003). Directions in research: Intergenerational transmission of heritage languages. Heritage Language Journal, 1, 1–44. Cardinaletti, A. (2004). Towards a cartography of subject positions. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2. (pp. 115–165). Oxford University Press. Cardinaletti, A., & Starke, M. (1994). The typology of structural deficiency on the three grammatical classes. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 41–109. Carminati, M.N. (2002). The processing of Italian subject pronouns. (Doctoral dissertation). ——— (2005). Processing reflexes of the Feature Hierarchy (Person>Number>Gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua, 115, 259–285. Carreira, M. (2004). Seeking explanatory adequacy: A dual approach to understanding the term ‘heritage language learner.’ Heritage Language Journal, 2, 1–25. ——— (2007). Teaching Spanish in the U.S.: Beyond the one-size-fits-all paradigm. In K. Potowski & R. Cameron (Eds.), Spanish in contact: Policy, social and linguistic inquiries (pp. 61–79). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ——— (2012). Meeting the needs of heritage language learners: Approaches, strategies, and research. In S. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 223–240). Georgetown University Press. Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2011). The results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 40–64. Carroll, M., Murcia-Serra, J., Watorek, M., & Bendiscioli, A. (2000). The relevance of information organization to second language acquisition studies: The descriptive discourse of advanced adult learners of German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 441–466. Carroll, S. (2006). Shallow processing: A consequence of bilingualism or second language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 53–56. Chen, L., & Pan, N. (2009). Development of English referring expressions in the narratives of Chinese-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 429–445. Cho, H.Y. (2010). Coreference processing in L1 and L2. (Doctoral dissertation). Chondrogianni, V., & Marinis, T. (2011). Differential effects of internal and external factors on the development of vocabulary, tense morphology, and morphosyntax in successive bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 318–342.

references

185

Cinque, G., & Rizzi, L. (2008). The cartography of syntactic structures. CISCL Working Papers, 2, 42–58. Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42. Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (1991). Modularity in sentence comprehension. In J.L. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding. (pp. 277–290). The MIT Press. Cole, M. (2010). Thematic null subjects and accessibility. Studia Linguistica, 64, 271–320. Cook, V. (2011). Linguistic contribution to bilingualism. In In J. Altarriba & R. Heredia (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes. (pp. 245–264). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Corson, D. (2001). Language diversity and education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cowles, H. W., Walenski, M. & Kluender, R. (2007). Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: Topic, contrastive focus and pronouns. Topoi, 26, 3–18. Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 219–253. Davidson, D., & Lekic, M. (2013). The heritage and non-heritage learner in the overseas immersion context: Comparing learning outcomes and target-language utilization in the Russian Flagship. Heritage Language Journal, 10, 88–114. De Bot, K., & Gorter, D. (2005). A European perspective on heritage languages. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 612–616. De Houwer, A. (2007). Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 411–424. DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–534. Dimroth, C., Andorno, C., Benazzo, S., & Verhagen, J. (2010). Given claims about new topics. How Romance and Germanic speakers linked changed and maintained information in narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3328–3344. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Dubinina, I., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Russian in the USA. In M. Moser (Ed.), Slavic languages in migration. Wien: University of Vienna. Dyakonova, M. (2009). A phase-based approach to Russian free word order. (Doctoral dissertation). Ellis, N. (2008). Implicit and explicit knowledge about language. In N. Van DeusenScholl & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd ed., vol. 6 (pp. 1–13). New York: Springer Science and Business Media.

186

references

Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223–236. ——— (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Wiley-Blackwell. Fehrmann, D., & Junghanns, U. (2008). Subjects and scales. In M. Richards & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Scales. (pp. 189–220). Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86, Universität Leipzig. Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007), “Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study,” Second Language Research, 23, 9–36. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368. Ferreira, F., Henderson, J., Anes, M., Weeks, P., & McFarlane, D. (1996). Effects of lexical frequency and syntactic complexity in spoken-language comprehension: Evidence from the auditory moving-window technique. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 324–335. Filiaci, F. (2010). Null and overt subject biases in Spanish and Italian: A cross-linguistic comparison. In C. Borgonovo et al. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 12th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 171–182). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.  Fishman, J. (2001). 300-plus years of heritage language education in the United States. In J. Payton, D. Ranard, & S. MacGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource. (pp. 87–97). Washington D.C.: Delta Systems Co. Flecken, M. (2011). Assessing bilingual attainment: Macrostructural planning in narratives. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 164–186. Flege, J. (2009). “Give input a chance!” in T. Piske & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 175–190). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Foote, R. (2011). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English-Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 187–220. Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. Oxford University Press. Frascarelli, M. (2007). Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro: An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 691–734. Friedman, D., & Kagan, O. (2008). Academic writing proficiency of Russian heritage speakers. In D. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging. (pp. 181–198). Routledge. Fukumura, K., van Gompel, R., Harley, T., & Pickering, M. (2011). How does similaritybased interference affect the choice of referring expressions? Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 331–344. Gagarina, N. (2007). The hare hugs the rabbit. He is white . . . Who is white: Pronominal anaphora in Russian. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 48, 203–223.

references

187

Gass, S., & Glew, M. (2011). Second language acquisition and bilingualism. In J. Altarriba & R. Heredia (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes. (pp. 265–294). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gass, S., Mackey. A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 299–305. Gathercole, V.C.M., & Thomas, E.M. (2005). Minority language survival: Input factors influencing the acquisition of Welsh. In J. Cohen, K. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on bilingualism. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Goldberg, H., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2008). Lexical acquisition over time in minority L1 children learning English as L2. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 41–65. Gordishevsky, G., & Avrutin, S. (2004). Optional omissions in an optionally null subject language. In J. van Kampen & S. Baauw (Eds.), Proceedings of GALA 2003. Vol. 1 (pp.187–198). LOT Publ. Gordon, P., & Hendrick, R. (1998). The representation and processing of co-reference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22, 389–424. Grenoble, L. (1998). Deixis and information packaging in Russian discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ——— (2001). Conceptual reference points, pronouns and conversational structure in Russian. Glossos, https://slaviccenters.duke.edu/uploads/media_items/grenoble .original.pdf. Gribanova, V. (2013). Verb stranding, verb phrase ellipsis and the structure of the Russian verbal complex. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31, 91–136. Grinstead, J. (2004). Subjects and interface delay in child Spanish and Catalan. Language, 80, 40–72. Grodzinsky, Y., & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and co-reference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 69–101. Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15. ——— (1998). Studying bilingualism: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149. ——— (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford University Press. Grosjean, F., & Li, P. (2013). The psycholinguistics of bilingualism. Wiley-Blackwell. Gundel, J. (2010). Reference and accessibility from a Givenness hierarchy perspective. International Review of Pragmatics, 2, 148–168. Gürel, A. (2004). Attrition in first language competence: The case of Turkish. In B. Köpke, M. Schmid, M. Keijzer, & L. Weilemar (Eds.), First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues (pp. 225–242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

188

references

Gülzow, I., & Gagarina, N. (2007). Noun phrases, pronouns and anaphoric reference in young children narratives. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 48, 203–223. Hacohen, A., & Schaeffer, J. (2007). Subject realization in early Hebrew-English bilingual acquisition: The role of cross-linguistic influence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 333–344. Harley, H., & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language, 7, 482–526. Haznedar, B. (2010). Transfer at the syntax-pragmatics interface: Pronominal subjects in bilingual Turkish. Second Language Research, 26, 355–378. Hickmann, M., & Hendriks, H. (1999). Cohesions and anaphora in children’s narratives: A comparison of English, French, German, and Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language, 26, 419–452. Hofherr, P. (2006). ‘Arbitrary’ Pro and the theory of Pro-drop. In P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Schoorlemmer, & F. Weerman (Eds.), Arguments and agreement (pp. 230–261). Oxford University Press. Holmberg, A. (2005). Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 533–564. ——— (2010). Null subject parameters. In Biberauer, T.A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory (pp. 88–124). Cambridge University Press. Holmberg, A., Nayudu, A., & Sheehan, M. (2009). Three partial null-subject languages: A comparison of Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Marathi. Studia Linguistica, 63, 59–97. Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369–397. ——— (2009). The syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 463–483. ——— (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931. Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 227–244. Hyams, N. (1994). VP, null arguments, and COMP projections. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 21–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ——— (2011). Missing subjects in early child language. In J. de Villiers & T. Roeper (Eds.), Handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition (pp. 13–52). Springer. Isurin, L. (2011). Russian Diaspora: Culture, identity, and language change. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

references

189

Isurin, L., & Ivanova-Sullivan, T. (2008). Lost in between: The case of Russian heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal, 6, 72–104. Ivanova-Sullivan, T. (2014). Interpretation of anaphoric subject pronouns in heritage Russian. In R.T. Miller, K.I. Martin, C.M. Eddington, A. Henery, N. Marcos Miguel, A. Tseng, A. Tuninetti, & D. Walter (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum: Building bridges between disciplines (pp. 145–154). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36. Jasinskaja, E., Mayer, J. & Schlangen, D. (2004). Discourse structure and information structure: Interfaces and prosodic realization. In S. Ishihara, M. Schmitz & A. Schwarz (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies of information structure (pp. 151–206). Universitätsverlag Potsdam. Järvikivi, J., van Gompel, R., Hyönäm, J., & Bertram, R. (2005). Ambiguous pronoun resolution: Contrasting the first-mention and subject-preference accounts. Psychological Science, 16, 260–264. Jaeggli, O., & Safir. K. (1989). The null subject parameter and parametric theory. In O. Jaeggli & K. Safir (Eds.), The null subject parameter (pp. 1–44). Dodrecht: Kluwer. Junghanns, U., & Zybatow, G. (1997). Syntax and information structure of Russian clauses. In W. Browne, E. Dornisch, N. Kondrashova & D. Zec (Eds.), Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Cornell meeting (pp. 289–319). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Kagan, O. (2005). In support of proficiency-based definition of heritage language learners: The case of Russian. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8, 213–221. Kagan, O., & Dillon, K. (2003). A new perspective on teaching Russian: Focus on the heritage learner. Heritage Language Journal, 1, 1–15. ——— (2006). So what happens now? Slavic and East European Journal, 50, 83–96. ——— (2008). Issues in heritage language learning in the United States. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd ed., vol. 4 (pp. 143–156). New York: Springer Science and Business Media. ——— (2010). Russian in the USA. In K. Potowski (Ed.), Language diversity in the USA (pp. 179–194). Cambridge University Press. Kagan, O., & Friedman, D. (2004). Using the OPI to place heritage speakers of Russian. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 536–545. Kang, S.-G. (2013). The role of language dominance in cross-linguistic syntactic influence: A Korean child’s use of null subjects in attriting English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 219–230.

190

references

Kazanina, N. (2005). The acquisition and processing of backwards anaphora. (Doctoral dissertation). Keating, G., VanPatten, B., & Jegerski, J. (2011). Who was walking on the beach: Anaphora resolution in Spanish heritage speakers and adult second language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 193–221. Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99. Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2007). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25, 1–44. Keiser, E. (2002). Encoding non-locality in anaphoric relations. In D. Nelson & S. Manninen (Eds.), Generative approaches to Finnic and Saami linguistics (pp. 269– 293). Stanford: CSLI Publications. ——— (2011). On the relation between coherence relations and anaphoric demonstratives in German. In I. Reich et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung 15 (pp. 337–351). Saarland University Press. Keiser, E., & Trueswell, J. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94, 113–147. ——— (2008). Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 709–748. Kertz, L., Kehler, A., & Elman, J. (2006). Grammatical and coherence-based factors in pronoun interpretation. Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1605–1610). Curran Associates, Inc. Kim, L.K., & Kaiser, E. (2009). Effects of Honorific Agreement on Null Subject Inter­ pretation in Korean. In Proceedings of 2009 Seoul International conference on linguistic interfaces (pp. 303–318). Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. Kibrik, A. (1996). Anaphora in Russian narrative prose: A cognitive account. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 255–304). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kiparsky, P. (2002). Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns. In I. Kaufmann & B. Stiebels (Eds.), More than words (pp. 179–226). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Koeneman, O. (2006). Deriving the difference between full and partial pro-drop. In P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Schoorlemmer, & F. Weerman (Eds.), Arguments and agreement (pp. 76–100). Oxford University Press. Kondo-Brown, K. (2005). Differences in language skills: Heritage language learner subgroups and foreign language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 563–581. Koornneef, A., & van Berkum, J.J. (2006). On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye-tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 445–465. Koornneef, A., Wijnen, F., & Reuland, E. (2006). Towards a modular approach to anaphor resolution. In R. Artstein & M. Poesio (Eds.), Ambiguity in anaphora workshop proceedings (pp. 65–72). n.p.

references

191

Kupisch, T. (2013). A new term for a better distinction? A view from the higher end of the proficiency scale. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 203–214. Kraš, T. (2011). Acquiring the syntactic constraints on auxiliary change under restructuring in L2 Italian: Implications for the Interface Hypothesis. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 413–438. Kučerová, I. (2008). Null subjects and the extension requirement. In H. Cao, T. Galery, & K. Scott (Eds.), UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 20, 45–62. Kweon, S.O. (2011). Processing null and overt pronoun subject in ambiguous sentences in Korean. International Journal of Linguistics, 3, 1–13. Kwon, N., & Sturt, P. (2013). Null pronominal (pro) resolution in Korean, a discourseoriented language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 377–387. Laleko, O. (2010). The syntax-pragmatics interface in language loss: Covert restructuring of aspect in heritage Russian. (Doctoral dissertation). ——— (2013). Assessing heritage language vitality: Russian in the United States. Heritage Language Journal, 10, 89–102. Laleko, O., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Marking topic or marking case: A comparative investigation of heritage Japanese and heritage Korean. Heritage Language Journal, 10, 40–64. Lezama, C., & Almor, A. (2011). Repeated names, overt pronouns, and null pronouns in Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 437–454. Lindseth, M. (1998). Null-subject properties of Slavic languages: With special reference to Russian, Czech, and Sorbian. Slavistische Beitrage. Liceras, J., & Díaz, L. (1999). Topic-drop versus pro-drop: Null subjects and pronominal subjects in the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German, and Japanese speakers. Second Language Research, 15, 1–40. Liceras, J., Díaz, L., & Maxwell, D. (1999). Null subjects in non-native grammars: The Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese and Korean speakers. In E. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), The development of second language grammars: A generative approach (pp. 109–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Liceras, J., Fuertes, R.F., & de la Fuente, A.A. (2012). Overt subjects and copula omission in the Spanish and the English grammar of English-Spanish bilinguals: On the locus and directionality of interlinguistic influence. First Language, 32, 88–115. Lozano, C. (2006). Focus and split-transitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 22, 145–187. ——— (2009a). Selective deficits at the syntax-discourse interface: Evidence from the CEDEL2 corpus. In Y. Leung, N. Snape & M. Sharwood-Smith (Eds.), Repre­ sentational deficits in second language acquisition (pp. 127–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ——— (2009b). Pronominal deficits at the interface: new data from the CEDEL2 corpus. In C.B. Callejas et al. (Eds.), Applied linguistics now: Understanding language and mind (pp. 213–228). Almería: Universidad de Almería.

192

references

Lozano, C., & Mendikoetxea, A. (2009). L2 syntax meets information structure: Word order at the interface. In J. Chandlee, M. Franchini, S. Lord, & G.-M. Rheiner (Eds.), BUCLD 33: Proceedings of the 33rd annual Boston university conference on language development (pp. 313–324). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Lynch, A. (2003). The relationship between second and heritage language acquisition: Notes on research and theory building. Heritage Language Journal, 1, 1–18. ——— (2008). The linguistic similarities of Spanish heritage and second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 252–281. Martin, C., Swender, E., & Rivera-Martinez, M. (2013). Assessing the oral proficiency of heritage speakers according to the ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012—Speaking. Heritage Language Journal, 10, 73–87. Matushansky, O. (1999). Le sujet nul à travers les langues: pour une catégorie vide unique. (Doctoral dissertation, abstract). May, J., Alcock, K.J., Robinson, L., & Mwita, C. (2001). A computerized test of speed of language comprehension unconfounded by literacy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 433–443. Mayol, L. (2010). Refining salience and the position of antecedent hypothesis: a study of Catalan pronouns. U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 127–136. Mayol, L., & Clark, R. (2010). Pronouns in Catalan: Games of partial information and the use of linguistic resources. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 781–799. McShane, M. (2009). Subject ellipsis in Russian and Polish. Studia Linguistica, 63, 98–132. Meisel, J. (2013). Heritage language learners: Unprecedented opportunities for the study of grammars and their development. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 225–236. Miller, J., & Weinert, R. (1998). Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Miltsakaki, E. (2001). Centering in Greek. Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Thessaloniki: n.p. ——— (2002). Toward an aposynthesis of topic continuity and intra-sententialanaphora. Computational Linguistics, 28, 319–355. Mikhaylova, A. (2011). Interaction of aspectual morphology in L2 and heritage Russian. In G. Granena et al. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2010 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 63–77). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. ——— (2012). Aspectual knowledge of high-proficiency L2 and heritage speakers of Russian. Heritage Language Journal, 9, 50–69. Modern Language Association Language Maps (2010). http://www.mla.org/map_data. Last access February 18, 2014. Montalbetti, M. (1984). After binding: On the interpretation of pronouns. (Doctoral dissertation).

references

193

Montrul, S. (2004a). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 125–142. ——— (2004b). Convergent outcomes in second language acquisition and first language loss. In M. Schmid, B. Köpke, M. Keijzer & L. Weilemar (Eds.), First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ——— (2005). Second language acquisition and first language loss in adult early bilinguals: Exploring some differences and similarities. Second Language Research, 21, 199–249. ——— (2008). Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Reexamining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ——— (2010). How similar are adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers? Spanish clitics and word order. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 167–207. ——— (2011a). Multiple interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua, 121, 591–604. ——— (2011b). Spanish heritage speakers: bridging formal linguistics, psycholinguistics, and pedagogy. Heritage Language Journal, 8, 1–6. ——— (2012). The grammatical competence of Spanish heritage speakers. In S. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 101–120). Georgetown University Press. ——— (2013). How “native” are heritage speakers? Heritage Language Journal, 10, 15–39. Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2010). Is grammar instruction beneficial for heritage language learners? Heritage Language Journal, 7, 47–73. Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2011). Why not heritage speakers? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 58–62. Montrul, S., & Rodríguez-Louro, C. (2006). Beyond the syntax of the null subject parameter: A look at the discourse-pragmatic distribution of null and overt subjects by L2 learners of Spanish. In: V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages (pp. 401–418). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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, 503–553. Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–19. ——— (2002). The psycholinguistics of anaphora. In A. Barrs (Ed.), Anaphora: A reference guide (pp. 72–104). Blackwell. Nichols, J. (1985). The grammatical marking of theme in literary Russian. In R. Brecht & M. Flier (Eds.), Issues in Russian morphosyntax (pp. 170–186). Columbus, OH: Slavica.

194

references

O’Grady, W. (2008). The emergentist program. Lingua, 118, 447–464. ——— (2010). An emergentist approach to syntax. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 257–283). Oxford University Press. ——— (2011). Interfaces and processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 63–66. O’Grady, W., Lee, O.-S., & Lee, J.-H. (2011). Practical and theoretical issues in the study of heritage language acquisition. Heritage Language Journal, 8, 23–40. Okuma, T. (2011). Acquisition of Topic Shift by L1 English speakers of L2 Japanese. In J. Herschensohn & D. Tanner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition conference (pp. 90–100). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. ——— (2012). L2 acquisition of discourse constraints on the use of Japanese pronouns. In A. Biller, E. Chung & A. Kimball (Eds.), The 36th Annual Boston University conference on Language Development online proceedings supplement.  Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Opitz, C. (2013). A dynamic perspective on late bilinguals’ linguistic development in an L2 environment. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17, 701–715. Paradis, J. (2007). Early Bilingual and Multilingual Acquisition. In P. Auerr & L. We (Eds.), Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 15–43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ——— (2011). Individual differences in child English second-language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 213–237. Park, H. (2004). A minimalist approach to null subjects and objects in SLA. Second Language Research, 20, 1–32. Parodi, T., & Tsimpli, I.M. (2005). ‘Real’ and apparent optionality in second language grammars: Finiteness and pronouns in null operator structures. Second Language Research, 21, 250–285. Partee, B. (1978). Bound variables and other anaphors. In D. Waltz (Ed.), Theoretical issues in natural language processing (pp. 79–85). University of Illinois Press. Pavlenko, A. (2003). “I feel clumsy speaking Russian”: L2 influence on L1 in narratives of Russian L2 users of English. In V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first. (pp. 32–61). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. ——— (2004). Second language influence and first language attrition in adult bilingualism. In M. Schmid, B. Köpke, M. Keijzer, & L. Weilemar (Eds.). First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues. (pp. 47–59). Amsterdam: John Benjanims. Pereltsvaig, A. (2004). Topic and Focus as linear notions: Evidence from Italian and Russian. Lingua, 114, 325–344.

references

195

——— (2008). Aspect in Russian as grammatical rather than lexical notion: Evidence from heritage Russian. Russian Linguistics, 32, 27–42. Philips, C. (2012). Individual variation and constraints on language learning. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 281–286. 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. Platzack, C. (2001). The vulnerable C-domain. Brain and Language, 77, 364–377. Polinsky, M. (1997). American Russian: Language loss meets language acquisition. In W. Browne (Ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell meeting (pp. 370–406). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. ——— (2000). A composite linguistic profile of a speaker of Russian in the US. In Olga Kagan and Ben Rifkin (Eds.) The Learning and Teaching of Slavic Languages and Culture. (pp. 437–465.) Bloomington, IN: Slavica. ——— (2006). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian, Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14, 191–262. ——— (2007). Reaching the endpoint and stopping midway: Different scenarios in the acquisition of Russian. Russian Linguistics, 31, 157–199. ——— (2008a). Heritage language narratives. In D. Brinton, O. Kagan & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 149–163). Routledge. ——— (2008b). Gender under incomplete acquisition: Heritage speakers’ knowledge of noun categorization. Heritage Language Journal, 6, 40–71. ——— (2009). Research challenges posed by heritage languages. Presentation at the Third Annual Heritage Language Institute. University of Illinois at UrbanaChampagne. ——— (2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language: New evidence in support of attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 305–328. Polinsky, M., & Kagan, O. (2007). Heritage languages in the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 368–395. Posio, P. (2011). Spanish subject pronoun usage and verb semantics revisited: First and second person singular pronouns and focusing of attention in spoken Peninsular Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 777–798. Potowski, K. (Ed.). (2010). Language diversity in the United States. Cambridge University Press. Potowski, K., Jegerski, J., & Morgan-Short, K. (2009). The effects of processing instruction on subjunctive development among Spanish heritage speakers. Language Learning, 59, 537–579. Prévost, P. (2011). The Interface hypothesis: What about the optionality in native speakers? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 79–83.

196

references

Pyykkönen, P., Matthews, D., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Three-year-olds are sensitive to semantic prominence during online language comprehension: A visual world study of pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 115–129. Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italiu6an and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 501–557. Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. MIT Press. Reuland, E., & Avrutin, S. (2002). Binding and beyond: Issues in backward anaphora. In A. Branco, T. McEnery, & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational modeling (pp. 139–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 439–492. ——— (2011). Anaphora and language design. MIT Press. Roberts, I., & Holmberg, A. (2010). Introduction: Parameters in Minimalist theory. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in Minimalist theory (pp. 1–57). Cambridge University Press. Rohde, H. (2008). Coherence-driven effects in sentence and discourse processing. (Doctoral dissertation). Rothman, J. (2007a). Pragmatic solutions for syntactic problems: Understanding some L2 syntactic errors in terms of discourse-pragmatic deficits. In S. Baauw, F. Dirjkoningen & M. Pinto (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory (pp. 299– 320). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ——— (2007b). Heritage speakers competence differences, language change, and input type: Inflected infinitives in heritage Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Bilingualism, 11, 359–389. ——— (2009a). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences?: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 951–973. ——— (2009b). Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 155–163. Rothman, J., & Fuentes, P.G. (2012). Linguistic interfaces and language acquisition in childhood: Introduction to the special issue. First Language, 32, 3–16. Rothman, J., & Iverson, M. (2007). The syntax of null subjects in L2 Spanish: Comparing two L2 populations under different exposure. RESLA, 20, 185–214. Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2011). The mind-context divide: On the acquisition at the linguistic interfaces. Lingua, 121, 568–576. Roussou, A. & Tsimpli, I.M. (2006). On Greek VSO again! Journal of Linguistics, 42, 317–354. Schmid, M. (2010). Languages at play: The relevance of L1 attrition to the study of bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 1–7.

references

197

——— (2013). First language attrition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 94–115. ——— (2000). Overt and covert codeswitching in immigrant children from Russia. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4, 9–28. ——— (2004). No more reductions—to the problem of evaluation of language attrition data. In M. Schmid, B. Köpke, M. Keijzer, & L. Weilemar (Eds.), First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues (pp. 299–316). Amsterdam: John Benjanims. Schmitz, K., Patuto, M., & Müller, N. (2012). The null-subject parameter at the interface between syntax and pragmatics: Evidence from bilingual German-Italian, GermanFrench, and Italian-French children. First Language, 32, 205–238. Schwartz, B. (2011). Parsing up the Interface Hypothesis. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 84–88. Sekerina, I., & Pugach, Y. (2005). Cross-linguistic variation in gender use in sentence processing: Dutch versus Russian. In S. Franks, F. Gladney & M. Tasseva-Kurktchieva (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The South Carolina meeting (pp. 312– 323). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Serratrice, L. (2005). The role of discourse pragmatics in the acquisition of subjects in Italian. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 437–462. ——— (2007a). Referential cohesion in the narratives of bilingual English-Italian children and monolingual peers. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1058–1087. ——— (2007b). Cross-linguistic influence in the interpretation of anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns in English-Italian bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 225–238. Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., & Paoli, S. (2004). Cross-linguistic influence at the syntaxpragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in Italian-English bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 183–205. Slabakova, R. (2013). Adult second language acquisition: A selective overview with a focus on the learner linguistic system. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 48–72. Slabakova, R., & Ivanov, I. (2011). A more careful look at the syntax-discourse interface. Lingua, 121, 637–651. Slioussar, N. (2007). Grammar and information structure: A study with reference to Russian. LOT publications. ——— (2011). Processing of a free word order languages: The role of syntax and context. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40, 291–306. Smyslova, A. (2012). Low-proficiency heritage speakers of Russian: Their interlanguage system as a basis for fast language (re)building. In V. Makarova (Ed.), Russian

198

references

language studies in North America: New perspectives from theoretical and applied linguistics (pp. 161–191). London/New York/Delhi: Anthem Press. Song, H., & Fisher, C. (2005). Who’s “she”? Discourse prominence influences pre­ schoolers’ comprehension of pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 29–57. Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations, and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 143–145. ——— (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 55–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ——— (2006). Possible manifestations of shallow processing in advanced second language speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 88–91. ——— (2007). Optionality at the syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 speakers. Second Language, 6, 3–15. ——— (2011). Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33. ——— (2012). Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingual development: A reply to peer commentaries. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 209–216. Sorace, Antonella and Francesca Filiaci. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368. Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 195–210. 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. Speas, M. (2006). Economy, agreement, and the representation of null arguments. In P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Schoorlemmer, & F. Weerman (Eds.), Arguments and agreement (pp. 35–75). Oxford University Press. Stewart, A., Holler, J., & Kidd, E. (2007). Shallow processing of ambiguous pronouns: Evidence for delay. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1680–1696. Torres Cacoullos, R., & Travis, C.E. (2010). Variable  yo  expression in New Mexico: English influence? In S. Rivera-Mills & D. Villa (Eds.), Spanish of the Southwest: A language in transition (pp. 185–206). Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert. Travis, C. (2007). Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change, 19, 101–135. Tsimpli, M.I. (2011). External interfaces and the notion of ‘default’. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 101–103.

references

199

Tsimpli, M.I., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter resetting in L2? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149–169. Tsimpli, M.I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F. (2004). First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 257–277. Ueno, M., & Kehler, A. (2010). The interpretation of null and overt pronouns in Japanese: Grammatical and pragmatic factors. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2057– 2062). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Unsworth, S., Argyri, F., Cornips, L., Hulk, A., Sorace, A., & Tsimpli, M.I. (2012). The role of age of onset and input in early child bilingualism in Greek and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1–41 (FirstView publication). Vainikka, A., & Levy, Y. (1999). Empty subjects in Finish and Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 613–671. Valdés, G. (1995). The teaching of minority languages as ‘foreign’ languages: Pedagogical and theoretical challenges. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 299–328. ——— (2000). The teaching of heritage languages: An introduction for Slavic-teaching professionals. In O. Kagan & B. Rifkin (Eds.), The learning and teaching of Slavic languages and cultures (pp. 375–403). Bloomington, IN: Slavica. ——— (2006). The foreign language teaching profession and the challenges of developing language resources. In G. Valdés, J. Fishman, R. Chávez & W. Pérez (Eds.), Developing minority language resources: The case of Spanish in California (pp. 108– 135). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Van Deusen-Scholl, N. (2003). Towards a definition of heritage language: Sociopolitical and pedagogical consideration. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 2, 211–230. Vega, L. (2011). Social psychological approaches to bilingualism. In J. Altarriba & R. Heredia (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes (pp. 185– 199). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Verhoeven, K., & Strömqvist, S. (2001). Development of narrative production in a multilingual context. In K. Verhoeven & S. Strömqvist (Eds.), Narrative development in a multilingual context (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. White, L. (1985). The “pro-drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62. ——— (2011). Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua, 121, 577–590. Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625. Wilson, F. (2009). Processing at the syntax-discourse interface in second-language acquisition. (Doctoral dissertation).

200

references

Yamada, K. (2009). Acquisition of zero pronouns in discourse by Korean and English learners of L2 Japanese. In M. Bowles et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th GASLA 2009 (pp. 60–68). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Zdorenko, T. (2010). Subject omission in Russian: A study of the Russian national corpus. In S. Gries, S. Wulff, & M. Davies (Eds.), Corpus-linguistic applications: Current studies, new directions (pp. 119–133). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Zhao, L.X. (2012). Interpretation of Chinese overt and null embedded arguments by English-speaking learners. Second Language Research, 28, 169–190. Zushi, M. (2003). Null arguments: The case of Japanese and Romance. Lingua, 113, 559–604.

Index Accessibility Hierarchy 87, 97 Agreement 3, 28, 45–47, 58, 74, 80, 86, 95, 106, 134, 144 Alonso-Ovalle 69, 76, 81, 126 Ambiguity 2, 8, 11, 15, 42, 68, 77, 88, 95–96, 101, 103, 125–126, 128, 142, 150–151, 156, 164 Anaphora Discourse anaphora 6, 12, 41 Inter-sentential anaphora 69, 143 Intra-sentential anaphora 126, 128, 143 Resolution 1, 5–8, 10–12, 14–17, 40, 48, 63–64, 68–69, 74–75, 79, 82–83, 87, 125–129, 133–135, 138, 141–142, 149, 163, 165 Anaphoric dependencies 1, 6, 14, 70, 82, 95, 104, 163 Anaphoric relations 1, 11, 75 Andrews 23, 25–26, 154, 161 Arabic 4 Aspect 1–2, 5, 16, 29–30, 40, 78, 125, 156 Attentional resources 97, 105 Attrition L1 attrition 1, 14, 20, 26, 34, 44, 64, 71, 125 Avoid Pronoun Principle 60 n. 15, 79, 85–96, 94, 97, 104, 162 Binding Overt Pronoun Constraint 54 Variables 12, 14, 24, 27, 32, 34–37, 54, 99, 148–149 Bulgarian 48–49 Brazilian Portuguese 53 n. 7, 56–57, 60, 86 C-domain 59, 65, 112 Canonical pro-drop/null subject languages 7, 40, 46–48, 50, 52, 54, 58–62, 64, 70, 76, 80, 82, 85–86, 98, 105, 123, 128, 133–134, 150 Cardinaletti 50, 55, 60–61, 86 Carreira 5, 19, 31–32, 34, 153–155, 161 Catalan 49, 82, 145–146 Categorical Distinctions 40, 53, 63 Judgments 21, 68, 99 Chinese 4, 10, 26, 46, 50, 57, 64

Cognition Cognitive load 3, 11, 15, 83, 129, 142, 162, 165 Code-switching 3, 38, 114 Coding protocol 91, 98 n. 10 Coherence Coherence Hypothesis 143 Coherence in discourse 53, 105, 164 Coherence relations 11, 141–146, 149–150, 164–165 Convergence Argument 77 Complimentary distribution 81 Concept of Non-Shared Knowledge 48 Conceptual Reference Point 87 Coreference Coreferential relations 7–8, 11, 87, 111–112, 149, 162, 165 Croatian 29, 78 Cross-linguistic Cross-linguistic influence 7, 64–65, 67, 69, 71–72, 75, 108, 138, 162, 165 Cross-linguistic transfer 12, 160 Factors 64 Default Default heuristics 151 Default mechanism 79 Default option 62, 138 Default principle 87, 150 Default strategy 73 Learner’s default 61 Linguistic default 61–62 Deictic pronouns 10, 15, 59, 98, 111–116, 118, 120–121, 123–124, 163 Demonstrative pronouns 49, 146 Differentiated instruction 161 Discourse Prominence Model 144 Economy Considerations 68–69, 75 Encoding 1, 9, 75, 132, 134 Principles 45 n. 1 Ellipsis 54, 62, 87 Embedding 9, 56, 113 Emergentism 9

202 Feature Geometry Model 112, 115, 123 Filiaci 1, 10, 14, 68–70, 72–74, 76, 85, 87, 95, 126–127, 133, 135 Finnish 9, 56–58, 60, 82, 86, 112, 134 Form-focused instruction 156 Form-specific Multiple Constraint Approach 74 Franks 7, 50–51, 54, 58, 60, 88, 127 Free variation 69, 132, 134, 150, 162 French 10, 26, 49–50, 55, 57, 64, 127 n. 2 Gender (grammatical) 1, 3, 37–38, 40, 46, 51 n. 6, 95, 97, 101, 129, 143–144 German 10, 34, 41, 47, 49–50, 56–57, 114, 145–146, 158 Givenness Hypothesis 85 Greek 37, 46, 50, 52, 106, 133, 143 Grenoble 6, 86–88, 92, 98, 114, 119 Grosjean 43, 89 Hebrew 51 n. 5, 55–58, 60, 66, 86, 112 Heritage linguistics 1, 3 n. 2, 4–5 Holmberg 10, 57–59, 66, 112 Honorification 80–81 Hopp 11, 73, 76–77, 129, 142, 157 Hyams 45–47, 113 Identity Factors 23–24, 30 Identification Mechanisms 51 Principle of 46 Identification Hypothesis 57, 59, 79 Immigration Émigré Russian 22, 26, 34 Soviet/Russian 22–24 Waves 23, 25 Implicit causality verbs 15, 142, 145–147, 150, 164 Incomplete acquisition Attrition and incomplete acquisition 20, 22 Consequences 22 Factors 22 Information Load Hypothesis 68 n. 3, 85 Information structure Focus 106 Packaging 110

index Principles of 12, 49, 107–108, 163 Topic 15, 53, 107, 110 Input Ambiguous input 11, 15, 17, 41, 61, 63, 73, 79, 85, 102–105, 126, 129, 133–134, 140, 142, 145, 149–151, 155, 164 Frequency 13, 38, 78 Noisy input 41–42 Quality of 13, 21, 36–37, 39–40, 42, 64 Quantity of 13, 21, 30 n. 11, 37–39, 42, 44, 110 Salience (perceptual) 3, 7–8, 39–40, 81, 99, 114, 156, 164, 166 Input enhancement 156, 166 Input Strength Hypothesis 39, 156, 166 Interaction Method 13, 31, 40, 113, 124, 130, 136, 148–150 Tasks 33–34, 69–71, 80, 84, 112, 121, 124, 134, 139–140, 143–146 Student response system 15, 156, 158 Interface Interface hypothesis 10, 72, 76, 78, 84, 142 Syntax-discourse interface 5, 10, 48 n. 3, 64–65, 68, 71, 75–77, 79, 93, 115, 123, 142, 147 Italian 10, 29, 46, 49, 50, 51 n. 6, 52, 55, 57, 59–60, 67–71, 78, 81, 106, 109, 133 Japanese 10, 34, 46, 50, 64, 71, 79–82, 134, 145–146 Kagan 4–5, 12, 19–21, 23, 25, 29, 31–32, 34, 154–155, 159–160 Keiser 9, 80–82, 134, 146 Korean 10, 46, 50, 66–67, 71, 80–82, 135 Language mode 89 Language proficiency As a variable 29, 31 Language maintenance 14, 26, 30, 32 Language shift 26 Levels 79 Proficiency continuum 22 Testing 15, 43, 63, 128, 130 Licensing Conditions 45–47, 51, 58, 61–62, 77 Of pronouns 8, 50, 63, 88, 113, 163

index Of features/elements 46, 50 Mechanisms 50, 56–57, 138 Syntactic licensing 7, 14, 47, 71, 73, 101 Liceras 47, 59, 64–65 Linguistic environment Bilingual 1–3, 7–8, 10–14, 16–22, 26, 29, 33–34, 36–39, 41–44, 47, 49, 62–73, 75–77, 79, 83–86, 88, 93, 95, 98–99, 101, 103–106, 108–109, 113, 116–117, 125–126, 133, 135, 141, 146, 150–151, 153, 158–159, 162, 173–174 Contrastive 7, 53, 57, 156, 160 Emphatic 7, 53, 57, 62 Syntactic 11, 15, 28, 41, 45–49, 53–59, 63–66, 68, 71–75, 77–79, 81–84, 86–89, 94–95, 103–105, 108, 110–112, 127–128, 134, 138, 140, 143–144, 160, 162, 164–165 Linking Of two elements 1, 8, 10, 12, 111 Locality Conditions 74, 104 Constraints 9 Principles 8–9, 74, 104, 127 Lozano 10, 84, 94–95, 115, 123 Marathi 57, 60, 86 Maxim of Quantity 85–87 Minimize Structure Principle 60 n. 15, 86 Mixed-ability classroom 15, 161 Montrul 1–2, 6, 8, 13–14, 20, 22, 36, 38, 42, 44, 63–64, 71, 74, 78, 84, 89, 93–94, 96, 101–102, 104, 106, 108–109, 125, 132, 134–135, 156, 158 Morphological Uniformity Hypothesis 46, 50 Narration Narrative tasks 14–15, 89, 115, 117, 119, 160 Narrow syntax 7, 49, 63, 65, 67, 74–75, 78, 81, 83, 101, 103, 112, 123, 127, 132–133, 166 Nichols 6, 86, 88, 91, 119 Non-canonical pro-drop/null subject languages 10, 14, 47, 56, 62–63, 102, 133 Null Argument Parameter 46–47 Null subject Expletive 50–51, 58, 62, 86

203 Null subject languages 46, 54–55, 58–60, 63–65, 73, 85, 94, 104, 106, 112–113, 133, 145, 162 Null subject parameter 10, 45, 47, 51, 55, 57, 62, 84, 86, 110 Referential 54, 58, 61, 64, 109 Thematic 50, 58–59, 87, 105 Number (grammatical) 3, 5, 22–23, 26, 29, 31, 42, 45–47, 51 n. 6, 57, 65, 71, 89, 93–96, 98, 103, 106, 110, 113, 117–118, 120, 122–123, 136, 143, 155, 157, 160 Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) 159 n. 5 O’Grady 1, 8–9, 39, 42, 74, 104, 156, 166 Order of language acquisition Sequential bilinguals 43–44, 101 Simultaneous bilinguals 43, 44 Parsing First-pass parsing 141 Partial pro-drop languages 9, 46, 53 n. 7, 57–60, 64, 86, 105, 112 Person (grammatical) 1st person 15, 112, 114, 116 n. 4, 117–118, 121 2nd person 42, 50 n. 4, 58, 60, 62, 92, 111–115, 123–124 3rd person 10–11, 40, 42, 57–58, 60, 62, 79, 84, 88, 96, 112–115, 120–121, 123–124, 163 Syncretism 7–8, 50, 61, 127 Personal pronouns 10, 41, 114 Polinsky 1–4, 6–8, 12, 14, 19–21, 23, 25–26, 28, 29, 32–33, 39, 42, 71–72, 80–81, 95, 100–101, 104, 107, 110, 127, 132–133, 135 Position of antecedent hypothesis Carminati 10, 68–70, 72, 81–82, 123–124, 128, 133, 143 Position of antecedent strategy 68 Postverbal subjects 105–106, 108–10, 124 Pragmatics Discourse-pragmatics 9, 49, 65, 153, 157, 159 Preferences Preference-based dependencies 121 Preference-based judgments 89, 158 Preference-based interpretation 13, 143

204 Principle of Informativeness 67 Pro-drop Pro-drop languages 6–7, 9–10, 40, 46–47, 49–50, 52, 54–55, 57–64, 67, 69–70, 74, 76, 80, 82, 85–87, 105, 112, 123, 128, 133, 150 Pro-drop parameter 7, 14, 50, 61, 64 Pronominal argument subject parameter 55, 66 Recoverability 51, 54, 111, 127 Redundancy Redundant pronouns 103 n. 14 Reference Maintenance 15, 84–85, 91, 96, 105, 138, 158 Referential dependencies 6, 8–9, 54, 63, 71, 74, 81, 83, 104, 128, 132–133, 145, 164–165 preferences 53 pronouns 11, 14, 64, 115, 121 pro 45, 59 subjects 58, 109 value 46 Shift 15, 84, 96 Tracking 86, 95, 105, 120, 157 Referring expressions 14, 70, 82, 85, 88–89, 92, 94–95, 97, 103, 111, 145 Restructuring 2–3, 9, 38, 78 Reuland 9, 75, 81, 127 Rizzi 14, 45–46, 50, 55, 57–59, 79, 112 Rothman 1, 11, 21, 49, 55, 64–65, 75–76, 79, 85–86, 93–94, 96, 133–135

index Scaffolding 161 Shallow Parsing Hypothesis 72 Serratrice 10, 66–67, 69–70, 73, 77, 84, 97, 102, 106, 109, 113, 141 Sorace 1, 10, 14, 37, 42, 51, 61, 64, 68–70, 72–74, 76–79, 84–85, 87, 95–96, 106, 109, 126–127, 133, 135, 141 Spanish 1–2, 10, 23, 34, 39, 46, 49–50, 52, 55, 57, 64–66, 69–70, 79, 81, 93–94, 96, 108, 114–115, 117, 123, 126, 133, 156, 158 Thematic Participant Hypothesis 87 Thematic Subject Strategy 105 Thetic sentences 107–108 Topic-continuity Model 87 Topic-drop languages 46–47, 50, 71, 74, 79, 82 Tsimpli 1, 14, 51, 61, 71–73, 78, 85, 106 109, 128, 135 Turkish 50, 52, 65–66 Two-Character Effect 105 Unaccusative verbs 108–110 Unergative verbs 106, 110 Underspecification 70–71, 103 Valdés 5, 12, 153 Wilson 22, 41–42, 69, 74–75, 83, 99, 121, 156, 166