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-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:28:25.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - The Psycholinguistics of Heritage Languages

from Part II - Research Approaches to Heritage Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2021

By
Jill Jegerski  and
Irina A. Sekerina
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

There is a natural affinity between psycholinguistics and research on heritage language acquisition. First, language acquisition is a core area of study in psycholinguistics (along with language processing and language disorders). Second, psycholinguistics often employs technologically advanced methods such as eye-tracking for empirical language research; such methods are also receiving increasing attention in research on heritage speakers because underdeveloped literacy means that some more traditional empirical tests can put them at a disadvantage relative to prototypical native speakers and second language learners. This chapter provides a review of psycholinguistic research on adult heritage speakers, including speech perception and production, lexical and morphological processing, sentence processing, and processing at levels beyond the sentence, using both offline and online (i.e., real-time) methods. Some overarching issues that are relevant to much of the research in this chapter include cross-linguistic influence between the two languages of a heritage bilingual and the role of language background variables like age of acquisition, early exposure, and proficiency level. To our knowledge, this is the first review of psycholinguistic work with heritage speakers that includes all languages.

Keywords

heritage speakerspsycholinguisticscross-linguistic influencelexical processingsentence processing
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Heritage Languages and Linguistics , pp. 449 - 470
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

Albirini, A. and Benmamoun, E.. 2015. Factors Affecting the Retention of Sentential Negation in Heritage Egyptian Arabic. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18(3), 470–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arslan, S., Bastiaanse, R., and Felser, C.. 2015. Looking at Evidence in Visual World: Eye-movements Reveal How Bilingual and Monolingual Turkish Speakers Process Grammatical Evidentiality. Frontiers in Psychology 6, Art. 1387. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01387Google Scholar
Basnight-Brown, D. M. and Altarriba, J.. 2007. Differences in Semantic and Translation Priming across Languages: The Role of Language Direction and Language Dominance. Memory and Cognition 35(5), 953–965.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., and Polinsky, M.. 2013. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers: Opportunities and Challenges for Linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 46, 129–181.Google Scholar
Bianchi, J. 2013. Gender in Italian-German Bilinguals: A comparison with German L2 Learners of Italian. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(3), 538–557.Google Scholar
Canseco-González, E., Brehm, L., Brick, C. A., Brown-Schmidt, S., Fischer, K., Wagner, K.. 2010. Carpet or Cárcel: The Effect of Age of Acquisition and Language Mode on Bilingual Lexical Access. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(5), 669–705.Google Scholar
Chang, C. B. 2016. Bilingual Perceptual Benefits of Experience with a Heritage Language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19(4), 791–809.Google Scholar
Chang, C. B., Haynes, E. F., Yao, Y., and Rhodes, R.. 2009. A Tale of Five Fricatives: Consonantal Contrast in Heritage Speakers of Mandarin. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 37–43.Google Scholar
Chang, C. B., Haynes, E. F., Yao, Y., and Rhodes, R.. 2010. The Phonetic Space of Phonological Categories in Heritage Speakers of Mandarin. In Bane, M., Bueno, J., Grano, T., Grotberg, A., and McNabb, Y. (eds.), Proceedings from the 44th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: The Main Session. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 31–45.Google Scholar
Chang, C. B., Haynes, E. F., Yao, Y., and Rhodes, R.. 2011. Production of Phonetic and Phonological Contrast by Heritage Speakers of Mandarin. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129(6), 3964–3980.Google Scholar
Chung, E. S. 2018. Second and Heritage Language Acquisition of Korean Case Drop. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21(1), 63–79.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Felser, C., Neubauer, K., Sato, M., and Silva, R.. 2010. Morphological Structure in Native and Nonnative Language Processing. Language Learning 60, 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I. 2017. Parsing and Working Memory in Bilingual Sentence Processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20(4), 659–678.Google Scholar
Cuza, A. 2012. Cross-Linguistic Influence at the Syntax Proper: Interrogative Subject-Verb Inversion in Heritage Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism 17(1), 71–96.Google Scholar
Davis, C., Sánchez-Casas, R., Garcia-Albea, J. E., Guasch, M., Molero, M., and Ferré, P.. 2010. Masked Translation Priming: Varying Language Experience and Word Type with Spanish–English Bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13(2), 137–155.Google Scholar
Dragoy, O., Virfel, E., Yurchenko, A., and Bastiaanse, R.. 2019. Aspect and Tense Attrition in Russian-German Bilingual Speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 23(1), 275–295.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. 2003. Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution in Second Language Learners: Some Effects of Bilinguality on L1 and L2 Processing Strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25, 529–557.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. and Sagarra, N.. 2007. The Effect of Exposure on Parsing in Spanish-English Bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10, 101–116.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. and Fodor, J. D.. 1978. The Sausage Machine: A New Two-Stage Parsing Model. Cognition 6(4), 291–325.Google Scholar
Fukuda, S. 2017. Floating Numeral Quantifiers as an Unaccusative Diagnostic in Native, Heritage, and L2 Japanese Speakers. Language Acquisition 24(3), 169–208.Google Scholar
Godson, L. 2004. Vowel Production in the Speech of Western Armenian Heritage Speakers. Heritage Language Journal 2, 44–69.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C., and Sandoval, T. C.. 2008. More Use Almost Always Means a Smaller Frequency Effect: Aging, Bilingualism, and the Weaker Links Hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language 58, 787–814.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Schotter, E. R., Gomez, J., Murillo, M., and Rayner, K.. 2014. Multiple Levels of Bilingual Language Control: Evidence from Language Intrusions in Reading Aloud. Psychological Science 25, 585–595.Google Scholar
Gor, K. 2014. Raspberry, Not a Car: Context Predictability and a Phonological Advantage in Early and Late Learners’ Processing of Speech in Noise. Frontiers in Psychology 5, Art. 1449.Google Scholar
Gor, K. 2018. Yes to the King, and No To the ship: Heritage Speakers Differ from Late Second Language Learners in Word Recognition. In Kresin, S. and Baukus, S. (eds.), Connecting across Languages and Cultures: A Heritage Language Festschrift in Honor of Olga Kagan. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 163–172.Google Scholar
Gor, K. and Cook, S.. 2010. Nonnative Processing of Verbal Morphology: In Search of Regularity. Language Learning 60(1), 88–126.Google Scholar
Gor, K., Chrabaszcz, A., and Cook, S.. 2018. Early and Late Learners Decompose Inflected Nouns, but Can They Tell Which Ones Are Inflected Correctly? Journal of Second Language Studies 1, 113–147.Google Scholar
Gor, K., Chrabaszcz, A., and Cook, S.. 2019. A Case for Agreement: Processing of Case Inflection by Early and Late Learners. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9(1), 6–41.Google Scholar
Grinstead, J. 2010. Linguistic Interfaces and Child Spanish. In Domínguez, L. and Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Romance Turn 3. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 189–218.Google Scholar
Hoot, B. 2017. Narrow Presentational Focus in Heritage Spanish and the Syntax–Discourse Interface. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7, 63–95.Google Scholar
Hoot, B. 2019. Focus in Heritage Hungarian. Language Acquisition 26(1), 46–72.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. 2017. Individual Differences in L2 Parsing and Lexical Representations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20(4), 689–690.Google Scholar
Hrycyna, M., Lapinskaya, N., Kochetoz, A., and Nagy, N.. 2011. VOT Drift in 3 Generations of Heritage Language Speakers in Toronto. Canadian Acoustics 39, 166–167.Google Scholar
Hulsen, M. 2000. Language Loss and Language Processing: Three Generations of Dutch Migrants in New Zealand. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Jacob, G. and Kirkici, B.. 2016. The Processing of Morphologically Complex Words in a Specific Speaker Group: A Masked-priming Study with Turkish Heritage Speakers. The Mental Lexicon 11(2), 308.Google Scholar
Jacob, G., Safak, D. F., Demir, O., and Kikici, B.. 2019. Preserved Morphological Processing in Heritage Speakers: A Masked Priming Study on Turkish. Second Language Research 35(2), 173–194.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. 2018a. Psycholinguistic Perspectives on Spanish as a Heritage Language. In Potowski, K. (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Spanish as a Heritage/Minority Language. New York: Routledge, 221–234.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. 2018b. The Processing of the Object Marker a by Heritage Spanish Speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(6), 585–602.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. 2018c. Sentence Processing in Spanish as a Heritage Language: Relative Clause Attachment in Early Bilinguals. Language Learning 68(3), 598–634.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. and Keating, G. D.. 2018, October. Processing Difficulty in Heritage Bilingual Sentence Comprehension: A Comparison of Self-Paced Reading and Eyetracking. Paper presented at the Bilingualism Forum, University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. and VanPatten, B. (eds.) 2014. Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. and Sekerina, I. A.. 2020. The Processing of Input with Differential Object Marking by Heritage Spanish Speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23(2), 274–282.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J., Keating, G. D., and VanPatten, B.. 2016. On-line Relative Clause Attachment Strategy in Heritage Speakers of Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism 20(3), 254–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E. 2014. Predictive Sentence Processing in L2 and L2. What Is Different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4, 257–282.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D. and Jegerski, J.. 2015. Experimental Designs in Sentence Processing Research: A Methodological Review and User’s Guide. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D., Jegerski, J., and VanPatten, B.. 2016. Online Processing of Subject Pronouns in Monolingual and Heritage Bilingual Speakers of Mexican Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19(1), 36–49.Google Scholar
Kim, B. and Goodall, G.. 2016. Islands and Non-islands in Native and Heritage Korean. Frontiers in Psychology 7, Art. 134. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00134Google Scholar
Kim, J.-Y. 2015. Perception and Production of Spanish Lexical Stress by Spanish Heritage Speakers and English L2 Learners of Spanish, In Willis, E., Martín Butragueño, P., and Herrera Zendejas, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Romance Phonology. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 106–128.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H., Montrul, S., and Yoon, J.. 2009. Binding Interpretation of Anaphors by Korean Heritage Speakers. Language Acquisition 16, 3–35.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R. and Jaeger, T. F.. 2016. What Do We Mean by Prediction in Language Comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31(1), 32–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kupisch, T., Belikova, A., Özçelik, Ö., Stangen, I., and White, L.. 2017. Restrictions on Definiteness in the Grammars of German-Turkish Heritage Speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7, 1–32.Google Scholar
Laleko, O. 2011. Restructuring of Verbal Aspect in Heritage Russian: Beyond Lexicalization. International Journal of Language Studies 5(3), 13–26.Google Scholar
Laleko, O. 2018. What Is Difficult about Grammatical Gender? Evidence from Heritage Russian. Journal of Language Contact 11, 233–267.Google Scholar
Lee, T. 2011. Grammatical Knowledge of Korean Heritage Speakers. Early vs. Late Bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1, 149–174.Google Scholar
Lukyanchenko, A. and Gor, K.. 2011. Perceptual Correlates of Phonological Representations in Heritage Speakers and L2 Learners. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 414–426.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. 2007. Morphological Processes in Language Comprehension. In Gaskell, G. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 175–193.Google Scholar
Mikhaylova, A. 2018. Morphological Bottleneck: The Case of Russian Heritage Speakers. Journal of Language Contact 11, 268–303.Google Scholar
Momma, S. and Phillips, C.. 2018. The Relationship between Parsing and Generation. Annual Review of Linguistics 4, 233–254.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2011. Morphological Errors in Spanish Second Language Learners and Heritage Speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(2), 155–161.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2016. The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S, and Bowles, M.. 2009. Back to Basics: Differential Object Marking under Incomplete Acquisition in Spanish Heritage Speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(4), 363–383.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. and Foote, R.. 2014. Age of Acquisition Interactions in Bilingual Lexical Access: A Study of the Weaker Language of L2 Learners and Heritage Speakers. The International Journal of Bilingualism 18(3), 274–303.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. and Ionin, T.. 2012. Dominant Language Transfer in Spanish Heritage Speakers and L2 Learners in the Interpretation of Definite Articles. The Modern Language Journal 96(1), 70–94.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatia, A., Bhatt, R., and Puri, V.. 2019. Case Marking in Hindi as a Weaker Language. Frontiers in Psychology 10, Art. 461. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00461.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Davidson, J., de la Fuente, I., and Foote, R.. 2014. Early Language Experience Facilitates Gender Agreement Processing in Spanish Heritage Speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(1), 118–138.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Schafer, A., Perla, J., Lee, O.-S., and Wieting, J.. 2009. A Psycholinguistic Tool for the Assessment of Language Loss: The HALA Project. Language Documentation and Conservation 3, 100–112.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W., Kwak, H.-Y., Lee, O.-S., and Lee, M.. 2011. An Emergentist Perspective on Heritage Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 223–245.Google Scholar
Orfitelly, R. and Polinsky, M.. 2013. Is It All Processing All the Way Down? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3(3), 335–340.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, A. 2005. Aspect Lost, Aspect Regained. Restructuring of Aspectual Marking in American Russian. In Kempchinsky, P. and Slabakova, R. (eds.), Aspectual Inquiries. Berlin: Springer, 369–395.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. and Gambi, C.. 2018. Predicting While Comprehending Language: A Theory and Review. Psychological Bulletin 144(10), 1002–1044.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2008. Russian Gender under Incomplete Acquisition. Heritage Language Journal 6(1), 40–71.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2011. Reanalysis in Adult Heritage Language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 305–328.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2018. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. and Kagan, O.. 2007. Heritage Languages: In the ‘Wild’ and in the Classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(5), 368–395.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. and Scontras, G.. 2020. Understanding Heritage Languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23, 4–20.Google Scholar
Ronai, E. 2018. Quantifier Scope in Heritage Bilinguals: A Comparative Experimental Study. In Hucklebidge, S. and Nelson, M. (eds.), NELS 48: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Vol. 2. 29–38. GLSA, 29–38.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., Tsai, C.-Y. E., and Mai, K.. 2017. Cross-Linguistic Scope Ambiguity: When Two Systems Meet. Glossa 2(1), 36, 1–28.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. A. and Sauermann, A.. 2015. Visual Attention and Quantifier-Spreading in Heritage Russian Bilinguals. Second Language Research 31(1), 75–104.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. A. and Trueswell, J. C.. 2011. Processing of Contrastiveness by Heritage Russian Bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14(3), 280–300.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. A., Fernández, E. M., and Clahsen, H. (eds.) 2008. Developmental Psycholinguistics: Online Methods in Children’s Language Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sherkina-Lieber, M. 2015. Tense, Aspect, and Agreement in Heritage Labrador Inuttitut. Do Receptive Bilinguals Understand Functional Morphology? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5(1), 30–61.Google Scholar
Silverberg, S. and Samuel, A. G.. 2004. The Effect of Age of Second Language Acquisition on the Representation and Processing of Second Language Words. Journal of Memory and Language 51, 381–398.Google Scholar
White, L. 2011. Second Language Acquisition at the Interfaces. Lingua 121, 577–590.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
×