This study investigates the extent to which young heritage speakers’ oral narratives in their first language (L1) differ from monolinguals’ narratives with regard to lexical richness (lexical diversity and lexical sophistication). It also explores which demographic factors (age, age at emigration and length of emigration) and/or socio-linguistic factors (frequency of heritage language use and parental attitudes toward heritage language maintenance) account for the differences.
Data and analysis:
The participants were a group of 25 young speakers of Persian as a heritage language, who were either born in or emigrated to New Zealand, and a group of 25 monolingual counterparts in Iran. Demographic information about the heritage speakers as well as information about parental attitude and practices regarding heritage language acquisition and maintenance were collected through semi-structured interviews with their parents. A film-retelling task was used to elicit the oral narratives, and these were analyzed for lexical diversity (by means of the Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity) and for lexical sophistication (by counting the incidence of low-frequency words).
Findings and conclusion:
As expected, the monolinguals’ narratives tended to manifest greater lexical richness than the heritage speakers’, especially according to the measure of lexical sophistication. Against expectation, frequency of heritage language use and parental attitude toward heritage language acquisition and maintenance were not found to be significant predictors of the young heritage speakers’ results. For the heritage speakers who were born in New Zealand, the results were predicted best by their age, while for those who arrived in New Zealand at a later age, the best predictors were both their age and how old they were at the time of emigration. This suggests that the demographic factors overrode the potential influence of the socio-linguistic variables examined.
Originality:
This study sheds light on (factors that contribute to) young heritage speakers’ L1 lexical competence, a topic that has hitherto been under-investigated.
Significance and implications:
A major implication of this study is showing the association of age and heritage speakers’ lexical richness. Although the statistical analyses did not show the effect of socio-linguistic variables, this finding indirectly supports the effect of parental input on heritage language proficiency in young bilinguals.
Limitations:
Limitations of the study include the relatively small number of participants, the use of only one task to elicit speech samples and the reliance on parents’ self-reported family language habits.
AmmerlaanT. (1996). You get a bit wobbly’: Exploring bilingual lexical retrieval processes in the context of first language attrition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Katholieke Universiteit, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
2.
BahrickH. P.HallL. K.GogginJ. P.BahrickL. E.BergerS. A. (1994). Fifty years of language maintenance and language dominance in bilingual Hispanic immigrants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(3), 264–283.
3.
BenmamounE.MontrulS.PolinskyM. (2010). White paper: Prolegomena to heritage linguistics. Harvard University, 12, 26–43.
4.
BenmamounE.MontrulS.PolinskyM. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4), 129–181.
5.
BennettE. J. (1997). Attitude of the second generation Dutch in Australia to language maintenance and ethnic identity. In KlatterJ.KroonS. (Eds.), Dutch overseas: Studies in maintenance and loss of Dutch as an immigrant language (pp. 51–68). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
6.
BijankhanM. (2004) The Persian text corpus. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Persian Language and Computer (pp. 143–144), Tehran, Iran: Tehran University.
7.
BylundE. (2009a). Effects of age of L2 acquisition on L1 event conceptualization patterns. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 305–322.
8.
BylundE. (2009b). Maturational constraints and first language attrition. Language learning, 59(3), 687–715.
9.
CherciovM. (2012). Investigating the impact of attitude on first language attrition and second language acquisition from a Dynamic Systems Theory perspective. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(6), 716–733.
10.
CrossleyS.SalsburyT.McNamaraD. S. (2013). Validating lexical measures using human scores of lexical proficiency. In JarvisS.DallerM. (Eds.), Vocabulary Knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 47–105). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
11.
CrossleyS. A.SalsburyT.McnamaraD. S. (2014). Assessing lexical proficiency using analytic ratings: A case for collocation accuracy. Applied Linguistics, 36, 570–590.
12.
DallerM.OngunZ. (2017). The Threshold Hypothesis revisited: Bilingual lexical knowledge and non-verbal IQ development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1–20. doi: 10.1177/1367006917690835.
13.
De HouwerA. (1995). Bilingual language acquisition. In FletcherP.MacWhinneyB. (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 219–250). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
14.
De HouwerA. (1999). Environmental factors in early bilingual development: The role of parental beliefs and attitudes. In ExtraG.VerhoevenL. (Eds.), Bilingualism and migration (pp. 75–96). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
15.
De HouwerA. (2007). Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(3), 411–424.
FieldA.MilesJ.FieldZ. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. SAGE.
18.
FishmanJ. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages (Vol.76). Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
19.
GeneseeF.ParadisJ.CargoM. (2004). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
20.
GharibiK.BoersF. (2017). Influential factors in incomplete acquisition and attrition of young heritage speakers’ vocabulary knowledge. Language Acquisition, 24(1), 52–69.
21.
HoyerW. JLincourtA. E.(1998). Ageing and the development of learning. In StadlerM. A.FrenschP. A. (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 445–470). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22.
HulsenM. E. H. (2000). Language loss and language processing: Three generations of Dutch migrants in New Zealand. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
23.
HutzM. (2004). Is there a natural process of decay? A longitudinal study of language attrition. In SchmidM. S.KöpkeB.KeijzerM.WeilemarL. (Eds.), First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues (pp. 189–207). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
24.
KingK. A.FogleL. W.Logan-TerryA. (2008). Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 907–922.
25.
KoizumiR. (2012). Relationship between text length and lexical diversity measures: Can we use short texts of less than 100 tokens. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 1(1), 60–69.
26.
KöpkeB.SchmidM. S. (2004). First language attrition: The next phase. In SchmidM. S.KöpkeB.KeijzerM.WeilemarL. (Eds.), First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues (pp. 1–45). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
27.
LauferB.NationI. S. P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322.
28.
LennebergE. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley.
29.
MalvernD.RichardsB.ChipereN.DuránP. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development. Quantification and Assessment. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
30.
McCarthyP. M. (2005). An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD). University of Memphis, Memphis, USA.
McCarthyP. M.JarvisS. (2007). vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24(4), 459–488.
33.
McCarthyP. M.JarvisS. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392.
34.
McLaughlinB. (1978). Second-language acquisition in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Elbaum.
35.
MontrulS. (2002). Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(1), 39–68.
36.
MontrulS. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
37.
MontrulS. (2010). Current issues in heritage language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 3–23.
38.
MontrulS. (2012). Is the heritage language like a second language?EuroSLA Yearbook, 12(1), 1–29.
39.
MontrulS. (2013). Bilingualism and the heritage language speaker. In BhatiaT. K.RitchieW. C. (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 168–189). Hoboken, New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
40.
NationI. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–82.
41.
O’GradyW.SchaferA. J.PerlaJ.LeeO.WietingJ. (2009). A psycholinguistic tool for the assessment of language loss: The HALA project. Language Documentation and Conservation, 3(1), 100–112.
42.
ParadisM. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
43.
ParadisM. (2007). L1 attrition features predicted by a neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Language attrition. In KöpkeB.SchmidM. S.KeijzerM.DostertS. (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 121–133). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
44.
PascualYCaboD.RothmanJ. (2012). The (Il) logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 450–455.
45.
PearsonB. Z. (2007). Social factors in childhood bilingualism in the United States. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(3), 399–410.
46.
PelcL. A. (2001). L1 lexical, morphological and morphosyntactic attrition in Greek-English bilinguals (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York: CUNY.
47.
PolinskyM. (1997). American Russian: Language loss meets language acquisition. In BrowneW.DornischeE.KondrashovaN.ZecD. (Eds.), The formal approaches to Slavic linguisitics. Cornell Meeting (pp. 370–406). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
48.
PolinskyM. (2007). Reaching the end point and stopping midway: Different scenarios in the acquisition of Russian. Russian Linguistics, 31(2), 157–199.
49.
PolinskyM. (2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 305–328.
50.
ReadJ. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
RothmanJ.Treffers-DallerJ. (2014). A prolegomenon to the construct of the native speaker: Heritage speaker bilinguals are natives too!Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 93–98.
52.
RonowiczE. (1999). Methodological issues of testing language attrition in children in a natural bilingual environment. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 35, 105–117.
53.
SchmidM. S. (2002). First language attrition, use and maintenance: The case of German Jews in Anglophone countries.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
54.
SchmidM. S. (2004). First language attrition: The methodology revised. International journal of Bilingualism, 8, 239–255.
55.
SchmidM. S. (2007). The role of LI use for LI attrition. In KöpkeB.SchmidM. S.KeijzerM.DostertS. (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 135–154) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
56.
SchmidM. S. (2011). Language attrition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
57.
SchmidM. S.DusseldorpE. (2010). Quantitative analyses in a multivariate study of language attrition: the impact of extralinguistic factors. Second Language Research, 26(1), 125–160.
58.
SchmidM. S.FägerstenK. B. (2010). Disfluency markers in L1 attrition. Language Learning, 60(4), 753–791.
59.
SchmidM. S.JarvisS. (2014). Lexical access and lexical diversity in first language attrition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(4), 729–748.
60.
SchmidM. S.KeijzerM. (2009). First language attrition and reversion among older migrants. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 200, 83–101.
61.
SchwartzM. (2010). Family language policy: Core issues of an emerging field. Applied Linguistics Review, 1(1), 171–192.
62.
SoesmanA. (1997). An experimental study on native language attrition in Dutch adult immigrants in Israel. In KlatterJ.KroonS. (Eds.), Dutch overseas: Studies in maintenance and loss of Dutch as an immigrant language (pp. 181–194). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
63.
SpolskyB. (2012). Family language policy–the critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 3–11.
64.
Treffers-DallerJ. (2013). Measuring lexical diversity among L2 learners of French. In JarvisS.DallerM. (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 47, 79). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
65.
Treffers-DallerJ.DallerM.FurmanR.RothmanJ. (2016). Unltimate attainment in the use of collocations among heritage speakers of Turkish in Germany and Turkish-German returnees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 504–519.
66.
Treffers-DallerJ.ParslowP.WilliamsS. (2016). Back to basics: How measures of lexical diversity can help discriminate between CEFR levels. Applied Linguistics. Advance articles.
67.
TuckerG. R. (1998). A global perspective on multilingualism and multilingual education. In CenozJ.GeneseeF. (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 3–15). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
68.
UnsworthS. (2013). Current issues in multilingual first language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 21–50.
69.
UnsworthS. (forthcoming). Quantity and quality of input in bilingual language development. In NicoladisE.MontanariS. (Eds.), Lifespan perspectives on bilingualism (pp. 136–196). Mouton de Gruyter/APA.
70.
UnsworthS.BlomE. (2010). Comparing L1 children, L2 children and L2 adults. In BlomE.UnsworthS. (Eds.), Experimental methods in language acquisition research ( Vol.27, pp. 201–222), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
71.
VermeerA. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17(1), 65–83.
72.
VermeerA. (2004). Vocabulary size in Dutch L1 and L2 children. In BogaardsP.LauferB. (Eds), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 173–189). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins:
73.
YilmazG.SchmidM. S. (2012). L1 accessibility among Turkish-Dutch bilinguals. The Mental Lexicon, 7(3), 249–274.
74.
ZhangD.Slaughter-DefoeD. T. (2009). Language attitudes and heritage language maintenance among Chinese immigrant families in the USA. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22(2), 77.
