Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T05:33:27.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TERMINOLOGY MATTERS ON THEORETICAL GROUNDS TOO!

COHERENT GRAMMARS CANNOT BE INCOMPLETE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2019

Fatih Bayram Open the ORCID record for Fatih Bayram [Opens in a new window] ,
Tanja Kupisch ,
Diego Pascual y Cabo  and
Jason Rothman
Fatih Bayram
Affiliation:
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
Tanja Kupisch
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz and UiT The Arctic University of Norway
Diego Pascual y Cabo
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Jason Rothman
Affiliation:
UiT The Arctic University of Norway and Universidad Nebrija
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herein, we provide counterargumentation to some of Domínguez, Hicks, and Slabakova's claims that the term incomplete acquisition is conceptually necessary on theoretical grounds for describing the outcome grammars of heritage language bilingualism. Specifically, we clarify their claim that previous challenging of the term in our and others’ work is primarily based on a misconceived belief that incompleteness is intended to describe heritage speakers. We contextualize and problematize their appropriation of descriptive constructs in the adjacent fields of child L1, child 2L1, and adult L2 acquisition as a basis for supporting their general thesis. Relatedly, we conclude that a fundamental blurring of development and ultimate attainment issues is at the core of what, in our view, is flawed reasoning. While we empathize with the well-intentioned spirit of Domínguez et al.’s article—to provide a forum for respectful discussion—we invite the field to engage more directly with the inherent quandary of labeling the coherent grammars of heritage bilinguals in their own right as “incomplete” on the basis of differences to standard varieties.

Information

Type
Critical Commentary
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 257 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Fatih Bayram has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 799652.

References

REFERENCES

Balam, O. (2014). Notes on the history and morphosyntactic features of Spanish in Northern Belize. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 79–94.Google Scholar
Bayram, F., Rothman, J., Iverson, M., Kupisch, T., Miller, D., Puig-Mayenco, E., & Westergaard, M. (2017). Differences in use without deficiencies in competence: Passives in the Turkish and German of Turkish heritage speakers in Germany. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1324403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1–17.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00983.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H., & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 123–172). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H., & Wexler, K. (1992). Bi-unique relations and the maturation of grammatical principles. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10, 147–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chien, Y. C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1, 225–295.10.1207/s15327817la0103_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Curtiss, S. (1977) Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modern-day “wild child.” New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dominguez, L., Hicks, G., & Slabakova, R. (2019). Terminology choice in generative acquisition research: The case of “incomplete acquisition” in heritage language grammars. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y., & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 69–101.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1988). A principles-and-parameters approach to the study of child language. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 27, 153–161.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (2011). Missing subjects in early child language. In de Villiers, J. & Roeper, T. (Eds.), The handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition (pp. 13–52). Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-1688-9_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T. (2013). A new term for a better distinction? A view from the higher end of the proficiency scale. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 203–214.10.1515/tl-2013-0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J. (2018). Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22, 564–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916654355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, C. (1998). Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D., & Westergaard, M. (2007). Language acquisition and language change: Inter-relationships. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 396–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2016) Heritage language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D. (2013). Agreement reflexes of emerging optionality in heritage speaker Spanish (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1521060739).Google Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D. (2018). Examining the role of cross-generational attrition in the development of Spanish as a heritage language: Evidence from gustar-like verbs. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.15057.pas.Google Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D., & Rothman, J. (2012). The (Il)logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33, 450–455. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2008). Gender under incomplete acquisition: Heritage speakers’ knowledge of noun categorization. Heritage Language Journal, 6, 40–71.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2018) Heritage languages and their speakers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781107252349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, M. T., & Sánchez, L. (2013). What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 478–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1993/1994). Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition, 3, 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2014). Bilingual language acquisition: Spanish and English in the first six years. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar