T. Ionin, M. Goldshtein, T. Luchkina, Sofya Styrina
{"title":"谁对谁做了什么,我们已经知道了什么?","authors":"T. Ionin, M. Goldshtein, T. Luchkina, Sofya Styrina","doi":"10.1075/lab.20045.ion","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper reports on an experimental investigation of what second language (L2) learners and heritage speakers of\n Russian know about the relationship between word order and information structure in Russian. The participants completed a bimodal\n acceptability judgment task, rating the acceptability of SVO and OVS word orders in narrow-focus contexts, under neutral prosody.\n Heritage speakers behaved like the control group of baseline speakers, preferring SVO order in answer to object questions, and OVS\n order in answer to subject questions. In contrast, L2 learners preferred SVO order regardless of the context. While the heritage\n speaker group was more proficient than the L2 group, proficiency alone cannot account for differences in performance:\n specifically, with regard to acceptance of OVS order for subject narrow focus, heritage speakers improved with proficiency, but L2\n learners did not. It is proposed that heritage speakers have an advantage in this domain due to early age of acquisition (cf.\n Montrul, 2008). This finding is consistent with prior literature on narrow focus\n with heritage speakers of other languages, and suggests that this phenomenon is not particularly vulnerable in heritage\n languages.","PeriodicalId":48664,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Approaches To Bilingualism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who did what to whom, and what did we already know?\",\"authors\":\"T. Ionin, M. Goldshtein, T. Luchkina, Sofya Styrina\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/lab.20045.ion\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper reports on an experimental investigation of what second language (L2) learners and heritage speakers of\\n Russian know about the relationship between word order and information structure in Russian. The participants completed a bimodal\\n acceptability judgment task, rating the acceptability of SVO and OVS word orders in narrow-focus contexts, under neutral prosody.\\n Heritage speakers behaved like the control group of baseline speakers, preferring SVO order in answer to object questions, and OVS\\n order in answer to subject questions. In contrast, L2 learners preferred SVO order regardless of the context. While the heritage\\n speaker group was more proficient than the L2 group, proficiency alone cannot account for differences in performance:\\n specifically, with regard to acceptance of OVS order for subject narrow focus, heritage speakers improved with proficiency, but L2\\n learners did not. It is proposed that heritage speakers have an advantage in this domain due to early age of acquisition (cf.\\n Montrul, 2008). This finding is consistent with prior literature on narrow focus\\n with heritage speakers of other languages, and suggests that this phenomenon is not particularly vulnerable in heritage\\n languages.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistic Approaches To Bilingualism\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistic Approaches To Bilingualism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.20045.ion\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Approaches To Bilingualism","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.20045.ion","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Who did what to whom, and what did we already know?
This paper reports on an experimental investigation of what second language (L2) learners and heritage speakers of
Russian know about the relationship between word order and information structure in Russian. The participants completed a bimodal
acceptability judgment task, rating the acceptability of SVO and OVS word orders in narrow-focus contexts, under neutral prosody.
Heritage speakers behaved like the control group of baseline speakers, preferring SVO order in answer to object questions, and OVS
order in answer to subject questions. In contrast, L2 learners preferred SVO order regardless of the context. While the heritage
speaker group was more proficient than the L2 group, proficiency alone cannot account for differences in performance:
specifically, with regard to acceptance of OVS order for subject narrow focus, heritage speakers improved with proficiency, but L2
learners did not. It is proposed that heritage speakers have an advantage in this domain due to early age of acquisition (cf.
Montrul, 2008). This finding is consistent with prior literature on narrow focus
with heritage speakers of other languages, and suggests that this phenomenon is not particularly vulnerable in heritage
languages.
期刊介绍:
LAB provides an outlet for cutting-edge, contemporary studies on bilingualism. LAB assumes a broad definition of bilingualism, including: adult L2 acquisition, simultaneous child bilingualism, child L2 acquisition, adult heritage speaker competence, L1 attrition in L2/Ln environments, and adult L3/Ln acquisition. LAB solicits high quality articles of original research assuming any cognitive science approach to understanding the mental representation of bilingual language competence and performance, including cognitive linguistics, emergentism/connectionism, generative theories, psycholinguistic and processing accounts, and covering typical and atypical populations.