Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:11:47.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - The Emergence of Heritage Language

A Case Study from Korean*

from Part II - Research Approaches to Heritage Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2021

By
William O’Grady  and
Chae-Eun Kim
Edited by
Silvina Montrul  and
Maria Polinsky
Silvina Montrul
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Maria Polinsky
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

This chapter outlines an emergentist approach to understanding why human languages have the particular properties that they do and how those properties are acquired by children. Drawing on a variety of examples, it illustrates the role of two factors in shaping language and its acquisition: limitations on the resources available for processing utterances in real time, and the role of input in facilitating the acquisition of particular words and patterns. Both these factors fit well with a key claim of linguistic emergentism, which is that the human language faculty is shaped by forces – cognition, perception, memory, computation, and experience – that are not themselves linguistic in character. The emergentist approach thus provides an alternative to theories that attribute the unique human ability to learn and use language to an inborn Universal Grammar. The second line of inquiry pursued investigates the emergence of particular features of Korean, especially reflexive pronouns and relative clauses, in child and adult heritage learners. The developmental profile associated with these phenomena fits well with the emergentist approach to language, and helps confirm that heritage languages are learned in essentially the same way as languages that are acquired in a monolingual setting.

Keywords

Koreanemergentismreflexive pronounsrelative clausesparallels with L1 learning
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Heritage Languages and Linguistics , pp. 399 - 422
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

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

References

Ambridge, B. 2010. Review of Frequency Effects in Language Acquisition: Defining the Limits of Frequency as an Explanatory Concept, ed. by I. Gülzow & N. Gagarina. Journal of Child Language 37, 453–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B. and Kidd, E.. 2015. The Ubiquity of Frequency Effects. Journal of Child Language 42, 239–273.Google Scholar
Baker, C. 2014. A Parents’ and Teachers’ Guide to Bilingualism. Clarendon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. and Schlesewsky, M.. 2009. The Role of Prominence Information in the Real-Time Comprehension of Transitive Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 3, 19–58.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2002. Sequentiality as the Basis of Constituent Structure. In Givón, T. and Malle, B. (eds.), The Evolution of Language Out of Pre-Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 109–134.Google Scholar
Chien, Y.-C. and Wexler, K.. 1990. Children’s Knowledge of Locality Conditions in Binding as Evidence for the Modularity of Syntax and Pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1, 225–295.Google Scholar
Cho, S. 1999. The Acquisition of Relative Clauses: Experimental Studies on Korean. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Clackson, K., Felser, C., and Clahsen, H.. 2011. Children’s Processing of Reflexives and Pronouns in English: Evidence for Eye-Movements during Listening. Journal of Memory and Language 65, 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C. and Frazier, L.. 1989. Comprehending Sentences with Long-distance Dependencies. In Carlson, G. and Tanenhaus, M. (eds.), Linguistic Structure in Language Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 273–317.Google Scholar
Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J., and Phillips, C.. 2009. Equal Treatment for All Antecedents: How Children Succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 446–486.Google Scholar
Crain, S., Goro, T., and Thornton, R.. 2006. Language Acquisition Is Language Change. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 35, 31–49.Google Scholar
Deen, K. 2011. The Acquisition of the Passive. In de Villiers, J. and Roeper, T. (eds.), Handbook of Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition. New York: Springer, 155–187.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. 2002. Reflections on Frequency Effects in Language Processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 297–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. 2016. Frequency in Language Learning and Language Change. In Behrens, H. and Pfänder, S. (eds.), Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language. Berlin: de Gruyter, 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genesee, F. 2007. A Short Guide to Raising Children Bilingually. Multilingual Living Magazine 2, 18–21.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. and Stojanovic, D.. 1996.The Structure and Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Serbo-Croatian. Language Acquisition 5, 285–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y. 2000. The Neurology of Syntax: Language Use without Broca’s Area. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23, 1–71.Google Scholar
Gülzow, I. and Gagarina, N.. 2007. Frequency Effects in Language Acquisition: Defining the Limits of Frequency as an Explanatory Concept. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hart, B. and Risley, T.. 1995. Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. 2014. Cross-linguistic Variation and Efficiency. Oxford: OxfordGoogle Scholar
Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Señor, M., and Parra, M., 2012. Dual Language Exposure and Early Bilingual Development. Journal of Child Language 39, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, C.-C., Hermon, G., and Zukowski, A.. 2009. Young Children’s Production of Head-Final Relative Clauses: Elicited Production Data from Chinese Children. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18, 323–360.Google Scholar
Huh, Sorin. 2015. A Corpus Study of L2 Korean Relative Clause Development. Language Research 51, 845–868.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. 1980. Remarks on to-contraction. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 239–245.Google Scholar
Jeon, K. S. and Kim, H.-Y.. 2007. Development of Relativization in Korean as a Foreign Language: The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy in Head-internal and Head-external Relative Clause. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 253–276.Google Scholar
Kang, S. 2014. The Role of Syntactic and Semantic Information in the Frequency Distribution of Relative Clauses in Korean: A Corpus-based Analysis. Language Information 19, 5–32.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. and Comrie, B.. 1977. Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–100.Google Scholar
Kim, C.-E. and O’Grady, W.. 2016. Asymmetries in Children’s Production of Relative Clauses: Data from English and Korean. Journal of Child Language 42, 1038–1071.Google Scholar
Kim, H.-S. 2005. Processing Strategies and Transfer of Heritage and Non-heritage Learners of Korean. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H., Montrul, S., and Yoon, J.. 2009. Binding Interpretations of Anaphors by Korean Heritage Speakers. Language Acquisition 16, 3–35.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Polinsky, M., and Kluender, R.. 2006. Subject Preference in Korean. In Baumer, D., Montero, D., and Scanlon, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 1–14.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Lee, Y., Gordon, P., and Kluender, R.. 2010. Cognitive and Linguistic Factors Affecting Subject/Object Asymmetry: An Eye-tracking Study of Prenominal Relative Clauses in Korean. Language 86, 546–582.Google Scholar
Lee-Ellis, S. 2009. The Development and Validation of a Korean C-Test Using Rasch Analysis. Language Testing 26, 245–274.Google Scholar
Lee-Ellis, S. 2011. The Elicited Production of Korean Relative Clauses by Heritage Speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 57–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohndal, T., Rothman, J., Kupisch, T., and Westergaard, M.. 2019. Heritage Language Acquisition: What It Reveals and Why It Is Important for Formal Linguistic Theories. Language and Linguistics Compass 13, https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1843. A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive. London: Longmans, Green and Co..Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2016. The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., and Rodrigues, C.. 2009. Pirahã Exceptionality: A Reassessment. Language 85, 355–402.Google Scholar
Nicol, J. and Swinney, D.. 1989. The Role of Structure in Coreference Assignment during Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18, 5–19.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. 2008. Does Emergentism Have a Chance? In Chan, H., Jacob, H., and Kapia, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 16–35.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. 2013. The Illusion of Language Acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3, 253–285.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. 2015a. Anaphora and the Case for Emergentism. In MacWhinney, B. and O’Grady, W. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Emergence. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell, 100–122,Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. 2015b. Processing Determinism. Language Learning 65, 6–32.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Lee, M., and Choo, M.. 2001. The Acquisition of Relative Clauses by Heritage and Non-heritage Learners of Korean as a Second Language: A Comparative Study. Journal of Korean Language Education 12, 283–294.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Lee, M., and Choo, M.. 2003. A Subject-Object Asymmetry in the Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Korean as a Second Language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25, 433–448.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Lee, M., and Kwak, H.. 2009. Emergentism and Second Language Acquisition. In Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T. (eds.), The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Bingley: Emerald Press, 69–88.Google Scholar
Pearson, B., Fernández, S., Lewedeg, V., and Oller, D.. 1997. The Relation of Input Factors to Lexical Learning by Bilingual Infants. Applied Psycholinguistics 18, 41–58.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2011. Reanalysis in Adult Heritage Language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 305–332.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2018. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. and Scontras, G.. 2019. Understanding Heritage Languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 22, in press.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. and Chomsky, N.. 2018. Towards Eliminating Arbitrary Stipulations Related to Parameters: Linguistic Innateness and the Variation Model. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8, 764–769.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. and Slabakova, R.. 2018. The Generative Approach to SLA and Its Place in Modern Second Language Studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40, 417–442.Google Scholar
Roy, D. 2009. New Horizons in the Study of Child Language Acquisition. Proceedings of Interspeech 2009. Brighton. Retrieved from http://dkroy.media.mit.edu/publications/Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Fuchs, Z., and Polinsky, M.. 2015. Heritage Language and Linguistic Theory. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences 6, 1–20.Google Scholar
Song, M., O’Grady, W., Cho, S., and Lee, M.. 1997. The Learning and Teaching of Korean in Community Schools. In Kim, Y.-H. (ed.), Korean language in America 2. American Association of Teachers of Korean, 111–127.Google Scholar
Townsend, D. and Bever, T.. 2001. Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M., Morris, R., and Seely, R.. 2002. Processing Subject and Object Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye Movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 69–90.Google Scholar
Van de Weijer, J. 2002. How Much Does an Infant Hear in a Day? Proceedings of the GALA2001 Conference on Language Acquisition, 2002. Retrieved from http://person2.sol.lu.se/JoostVanDeWeijer/Texts/gala01.pdfGoogle Scholar
van Rij, J., van Rijn, J., and Hendriks, P.. 2010. Language Acquisition: A Case Study in Pronoun Comprehension. Journal of Child Language 37, 731–766.Google Scholar
Warren, P., Speer, S., and Schafer, A.. 2003. Wanna-contraction and Prosodic Disambiguation in US and NZ English. Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 31–49.Google Scholar
Wells, C. 1985. Language Development in the Pre-school Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yun, J., Chen, Z., Hunter, T., Whitman, J., and Hale, J.. 2015. Uncertainty in Processing Relative Clauses across East Asian Languages. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 24, 113–148.Google Scholar
Zukowski, A. 2009. Elicited Production of Relative Clauses in Children with Williams Syndrome. Language and Cognition Processes 24, 1–42.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×