This study aims to explore the acquisition of differential object marking (DOM) of Spanish and Romanian in balanced Romanian-speaking L2 speakers of Spanish. The study is motivated by the paucity of studies analyzing bidirectional cross-linguistic influence (BCLI) in DOM.
Methodology:
Romanian-Spanish bilinguals completed a background language questionnaire, a productive vocabulary test, an elicited production task, and an acceptability judgment task in Romanian and Spanish. Two groups of Spanish and Romanian monolinguals completed the same tasks in their languages for comparison purposes.
Findings:
The bilinguals show signs of BCLI at their DOM in Spanish and Romanian. They may also be at an incipient stage of L1 attrition.
Originality:
This is the first study that examines BCLI at DOM and the acquisition of DOM in Spanish by speakers of Romanian in a naturalistic setting.
Significance:
This project highlights the importance of examining both the L1 and the L2 when examining cross-linguistic influence.
Limitations:
This study cannot examine proficiency effects or acquisition stages because all the participants are highly proficient in Spanish.
AissenJ. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483.
2.
AvramL.ZafiuR. (2017). Semantic hierarchies in the diachronic evolution of DOM in Romanian. In DragomirescuA.NicolaeA.StanC.ZafiuR. (Eds.), Sintaxa ca mod de a fi. Omagiu Profesoarei Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, la aniversare (pp. 29–42). Editura Universității din București.
3.
BedoreL. M.PeñaE. D.SummersC. L.BoergerK. M.ResendizM. D.GreeneK.GillamR. B. (2012). The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish-English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 616–629.
4.
BossongG. (1991). Differential object marking in romance and beyond. In WannerD.KibbeeD. A. (Eds.), New analyses in romance linguistics (pp. 143–170). John Benjamins.
5.
BrownA.GullbergM. (2011). Bidirectional cross-linguistic influence in event conceptualization? Expressions of Path among Japanese learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 79–94.
6.
ChamorroG.SturtP.SoraceA. (2016). Selectivity in L1 attrition: Differential object marking in Spanish near-native speakers of English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(3), 697–715.
7.
CiovârnacheC.AvramL. (2013). Specificity and animacy in the acquisition of differential object marking in Persian as L2. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique / Romanian Review of Linguistics, 58(4), 419–438.
8.
CuzaA.Pérez-LerouxA. T.SánchezL. (2013). The role of semantic transfer in clitic-drop among simultaneous and sequential Chinese-Spanish bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 93–125.
9.
DuffieldN.WhiteL. (1999). Assessing L2 knowledge of Spanish clitic placement: Convergent methodologies. Second Language Research, 15, 133–160.
10.
FarkasD.von HeusingerK. (2003, August). Stability of reference and object marking in Romanian [Paper presentation]. Workshop on Direct Reference and Specificity, ESSLLI, Vienna, Austria.
11.
GollanT. H.WeissbergerG. H.RunnqvistE.MontoyaR. I.CeraC. M. (2012). Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A Multilingual Naming Test (MiNT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 594–615.
12.
KaltsaM.TsimpliI.RothmanJ. (2015). Exploring the source of differences and similarities in L1 attrition and heritage speaker competence: Evidence from pronominal resolution. Lingua, 164, 266–288.
13.
LardiereD. (2008). Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In LicerasJ.ZoblH.GoodluckH. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 106–140). Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
LardiereD. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.
15.
LeonettiM. (2004). Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114.
16.
LeonettiM. (2008). Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus, 20, 35–69.
17.
LevyB.McveighN.MarfulA.AndersonM. (2007). Inhibiting your native language: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting during second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 18(1), 29–34.
18.
LinckJ.KrollJ.SundermanG. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1507–1515.
19.
López OteroJ. C. (2020). On the acceptability of the Spanish DOM among Romanian-Spanish bilinguals. In MardaleA.MontrulS. (Eds.), The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking (pp. 161–181). John Benjamins.
20.
MardaleA. (2008). Microvariation within differential object marking: Data from Romance. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique / Romanian Review of Linguistics, LIII(4), 449–467.
21.
MardaleA. (2010). Éléments d’analyse du marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues romanes. Faits de Langues—Les Cahiers, 2, 161–197.
22.
MarianV.BlumenfeldH.KaushanskayaM. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.
23.
MontrulS. (2019). The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish by Romanian speakers. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), 32(1), 185–219.
24.
MontrulS.BatemanN. (2020). Differential object marking in Romanian as a heritage language. In MardaleA.MontrulS. (Eds.), The acquisition of differential object marking (pp. 283–312). John Benjamins.
25.
MontrulS.BhattR.GirjuR. (2015). Differential object marking in Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610.
26.
MontrulS.SlabakovaR. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite-imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(3), 351–398.
27.
NedigerW.PiresA.Guijarro-FuentesP. (2019). Integrating linguistic theory and experimentation in L2 acquisition: Learning of Spanish differential object marking by Portuguese and English speakers. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(2), 219–239.
28.
PascualyCaboD. (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, 10, 86–108.
Perez-CortesS. (2016). Acquiring obligatory and variable mood selection: Spanish heritage speakers’ and L2 learners’ performance in desideratives and reported speech contexts [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ].
31.
PutnamM.Perez-CortesS.SánchezL. (2019). Language attrition and the feature reassembly hypothesis. In SchmidM. S.KopkeB. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition (pp. 18–24). Oxford University Press.
32.
PutnamM.SánchezL. (2013). What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(4), 476–506.
SchmidM. S. (2011). Language attrition. Cambridge University Press.
35.
SetonB.SchmidM. (2016). Multi-competence and first language attrition. In CookV.WeiL. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 338–354). Cambridge University Press.
36.
ShengL.LuY.GollanT. H. (2014). Assessing language dominance in Mandarin-English bilinguals: Convergence and divergence between subjective and objective measures. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 364–383.
37.
SoraceA. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 143–145.
38.
SoraceA.FiliaciF. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.
39.
TicioE.AvramL. (2015). The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish and Romanian: Semantic scales or semantic features?Revue Roumaine de Linguistique / Romanian Review of Linguistics, 60(4), 383–401.
40.
TigăuA. (2010). Towards an account of differential object marking in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 137–159.
41.
TigăuA. (2012). The accusative morpheme -(y)i in Turkish and differential object marking in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 14(2), 57.
42.
TorregoE. (1998). The dependencies of objects. MIT Press.
43.
Treffers-DallerJ.KorybskiT. (2015). Using lexical diversity measures to operationalise language dominance in bilinguals. In Silva-CorvalanC.Treffers-DallerJ. (Eds.), Language dominance in bilinguals: Issues of measurement and operationalization (pp. 106–123). Cambridge University Press.
