Despite the growth in research on heritage grammars, very few studies focused on heritage speakers’ knowledge of the syntax of wh-questions. This paper examines heritage Egyptian speakers’ knowledge of wh-questions in their L1 with particular focus on their knowledge of (1) the four main strategies of wh-question formation (three movement strategies and one in situ strategy) and (2) the unmarkedness of the in situ strategy compared to the movement strategy.
Design:
This study implements a cross-sectional design comparing an experimental group (30 heritage Egyptian speakers) and a control group (22 native Egyptian speakers) with respect to the issues under investigation.
Data and analysis:
Besides a proficiency measure and a background questionnaire, the participants completed three tasks: an elicited oral production task, an acceptability judgment task, and a preference task. The data from the oral production task were transcribed verbatim and coded in an Excel sheet. The data from the other two tasks were coded in two separate Excel sheets. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe and analyze the data from the three tasks.
Findings:
Heritage speakers had robust knowledge of the core aspects of wh-questions, including word order, strategies of wh-question formation, and resumption. They also realize the difference between marked and unmarked forms and often opt for the unmarked in situ strategy. However, they diverge from the controls in errors and patterns that mostly reflect transfer effects from their dominant L2 (English).
Originality:
This study is the first to explore wh-questions in heritage Arabic. Although very few studies focused on wh-questions in other languages, most of the issues examined here are unique because Egyptian Arabic deploys multiple strategies in constructing wh-questions.
Implications:
The findings corroborate the hypothesis that the core aspects of syntax are less susceptible to language loss. The results also demonstrate that heritage grammar is unique as it diverges from the grammar of L1 speakers in significant respects.
AkkuşF. (2020). Anatolian Arabic. In LucasC.ManfrediS. (Eds.), Arabic and contact-induced change (pp. 135–158). Language Science Press.
2.
AlbiriniA. (2014). Toward understanding the variability in the language proficiencies of Arabic heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(6), 730–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006912472404
3.
AlbiriniA. (2015). The role of varied input in the divergent outcomes of heritage language acquisition. In GrilloE.JepsonK. (Eds.), The 39th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 27–39). Cascadilla Press.
4.
AlbiriniA. (2018). The role of exposure to English in the development of Arabic as a heritage language. Language Acquisition, 25(2), 178–196.
5.
AlbiriniA.BenmamounA.SaadahE. (2011). Grammatical features of Egyptian and Palestinian Arabic heritage speakers’ oral production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 273–303.
6.
AlbiriniA.BenmamounE. (2014). Aspects of second language transfer in the oral production of Egyptian and Palestinian heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18, 244–273.
7.
Al-BuainainH. (2003). Developmental stages of the acquisition of negation and interrogation by children native speakers of Qatari dialect. Journal of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 25, 9–45.
AndersonR. (2001). Lexical morphology and verb use in child first language loss: A preliminary case study investigation. International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(4), 377–401.
10.
AounJ.BenmamounE.ChoueiriL. (2010). Arabic syntax. Cambridge University Press.
ArgyriE.SoraceA. (2007). Crosslinguistic influence and language dominance in older bi-lingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 79–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002835
13.
Bar-ShalomE.ZaretskyE. (2008). Selective attrition in Russian–English bilingual children: Preservation of grammatical aspect. International Journal of Bilingualism, 12, 281–302.
14.
BellugiU. (1965). The development of interrogative structures in children’s speech. In RiegelK. (Ed.), The development of language functions. (pp. 103-138). Report No. 8. University of Michigan Center for Human Growth and Development.
15.
BenmamounE.AlbiriniA.MontrulS.SaadahE. (2014). Arabic plurals and root and pattern morphology in Palestinian and Egyptian heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 89–123.
16.
BenmamounE.MontrulS.PolinskyM. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129–181. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0009
17.
BenteaA.MarinisT. (2021). Not all wh-dependencies are created equal: Processing of multiple wh-questions in Romanian children and adults. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42, 825–864. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716421000059
18.
BobbS. (2008). Morphology in bilingual language processing: The role of second language proficiency in acquiring grammatical gender (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, College Station, PA.
19.
BolonyaiA. (2007). (In)vulnerable agreement in incomplete bilingual L1 learners. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11, 3–23.
20.
BrownR. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Harvard University Press.
21.
BrownR.CazdenC.BellugiU. (1969). The child’s grammar from I to III. In HillJ. P. (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology. University of Minnesota Press.
22.
BuckwalterT.ParkinsonD. (2011). Frequency Dictionary of Arabic: Core Vocabulary for Learners (Routledge Frequency Dictionaries). Routledge.
23.
ChomskyN. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
24.
CollinsC. (1997). Local economy. MIT Press.
25.
CuzaA. (2013). Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax proper: Interrogative subject-verb inversion in heritage Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17, 71–96.
FestmanJ. (2012). “Multilingual brains”: Individual differences in multilinguals—A neuro-psycholin- guistic perspective. In BraunmüllerK.GabrielC. (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multi- lingual societies (pp. 203–223). John Benjamins.
28.
GadR. (2011). A syntactic study of wh-movement in Egyptian Arabic within the minimalist program [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Leeds.
29.
HornsteinN. (2001). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Blackwell.
30.
HulkA.MüllerN. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728900000353
31.
KharkhurinA. (2012). A preliminary version of an Internet-based picture naming test. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2, 34–41.
32.
KlimaE.BellugiU. (1966). Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In Lyons JJ.WalesR. J. (Eds.), Psycholinguistics papers: The Proceedings of the 1966 Edinburgh conference. Edinburgh University Press.
33.
LucasC.ManfrediS. (Eds.). (2020). Arabic and contact-induced change. Language Science Press.
34.
McCarthyC. (2008). Morphological variability in the comprehension of agreement: An argument for representation over computation. Second Language Research, 24, 459–486.
35.
MommaS. (2021). Filling the gap in gap-filling: Long-distance dependency formation in sentence production. Cognitive Psychology, 129, 101411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101411
36.
MontrulS. (2002). Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition5(1), 39–68.
37.
MontrulS. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition7(2), 125–142.
38.
MontrulS. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. John Benjamins.
39.
MontrulS. (2016). The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
MontrulS.de la FuenteI.DavidsonJ.FooteR. (2013). The role of experience in the acquisi- tion and production of diminutives and gender in Spanish: Evidence from L2 learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research, 29, 87–118.
41.
MontrulS.FooteR.PerpiñánS. (2008). Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: The effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning, 58(3), 503–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00449.x
42.
MontrulS.PolinskyM. (Eds). (2021). The Cambridge handbook of heritage languages and linguistics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766340
43.
MontrulS.PotowskiK. (2007). Command of gender agreement in school-age Spanish-English bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(3), 203–329.
44.
OmarM. (1973). The acquisition of Egyptian Arabic as a native language. Mouton.
45.
PolinskyM. (2008). Gender under incomplete acquisition: Heritage speakers’ knowledge of noun categorization. Heritage Language Journal, 6(1), 40–71.
46.
PolinskyM. (2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language: New evidence in support of attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 305–328.
47.
PolinskyM. (2018). Heritage languages and their speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
RothmanJ. (2007). Heritage speaker competence differences, language change, and input type: Inflected infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11, 359–389.
49.
RothmanJ.AlonsoJ.Puig-MayencoE. (2019). Third language acquisition and linguistic transfer. Cambridge University Press.
50.
SekerinaI. A.LaurinavichyuteA. K. (2020). Heritage speakers can actively shape not only their grammar but also their processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23, 43–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000440
51.
Silva-CorvalánC. (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford University Press.
52.
Silva-CorvalánC. (2003). Linguistic consequences of reduced input in bilingual first language acquisition. In MontrulS.OrdóñezF. (Eds.), Linguistic theory and language development in Hispanic languages (pp. 375–397). Cascadilla Press.
53.
SmadiM. (1979). The acquisition of the Jordanian Arabic interrogation and negation by a three-year-old native speaker of Jordanian Arabic [PhD dissertation]. The University of Texas at Austin.
54.
SoltanU. (2011). On strategies of question-formation and the grammatical status of the Q-particle huwwa in Egyptian Arabic wh-questions. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 17(1), 114–124.
55.
SoraceA. (2000). Differential effects of attrition in the L1 syntax of near-native L2 speakers. In HowellC.FishS.Keith-LucasT. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 719–725). Cascadilla Press.
56.
StrikN.Pérez-LerouxA. T. (2011). Jij doe wat girafe? Wh-movement and inversion in Dutch-French bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches Bilingualism, 1, 175–205. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.2.03str
57.
TsimpliI. M.SoraceA. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax–semantics and syntax–discourse phenomena. In BammanD.MagnitskaiaT.ZallerC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 653–664). Cascadilla Press.
58.
VersteeghK. (2001) Linguistic contacts between Arabic and other languages. Arabica, 48(4), 470–508.
59.
WahbaW. (1984). Wh-constructions in Egyptian Arabic [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
