This study examined the production and receptive grammatical knowledge of Spanish Differential Object Marking (DOM) among adult heritage speakers (HSs) and addressed the role of proficiency, animacy, and verb-specific lexical effects in terms of verb class in explaining variability.
Design/methodology/approach:
A total of 65 participants (41 HSs and 24 Spanish Dominant Controls) completed an Elicited Production Task and a Grammatical Acceptability Task, eliciting animate-specific direct objects.
Data and analysis:
All responses were coded and analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) and cumulative link mixed models (CLMMs), which included effects of proficiency, task, and verb class.
Findings/conclusions:
Proficiency modulated both production and receptive grammatical knowledge of DOM. Also, verb-specific patterns that favor animate, inanimate, or both with or without DOM were found to modulate the grammaticality in Verb Class 3 (verbs mostly preceding inanimate Determiner Phrases (DP)) than in Verb Class 2 conditions (verbs that can precede either animate or inanimate DPs). This indicates that HSs face more challenges remapping the features of the DOM into morphology with verb-specific conditions that have the variability of either preceding or not DOM.
Originality:
This study is the first one to operationalize verb-specific lexical effects into verb classes following Heusinger and Kaiser’s verb class dimension on Spanish DOM as a way to examine a contributing factor of inter-speaker variability in HSs.
Significance/implications:
These findings shed light on additional variables that should be taken into account when investigating between-speaker variability in Spanish as a heritage language.
AissenJ. (2003). Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483.
2.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS.ChristensenR. H. B.SingmannH.BolkerM. B. (2015). Package “lme4.”Convergence, 12(1), 2.
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. (1985). Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Narr.Verlag.
5.
CallenM. C. (2025). Toward explaining variability in heritage varieties: Systematic patterns of differential object marking in adult heritage speakers of Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 28(2), 357–372.
6.
CallenM. C.MillerK. (2022). Linguistic variation in the acquisition of morphosyntax: Variable object marking in the speech of Mexican children and their caregivers. Language Learning and Development, 18(3), 310–323.
GiancasproD. (2020). Not in the mood: Frequency effects in heritage speakers’ subjunctive knowledge. In BrehmerB.Treffers-DallerJ. (Eds.), Studies in bilingualism (Vol. 59, pp. 72–97). John Benjamins.
10.
GiancasproD.Perez-CortesS.HigdonJ. (2022). (Ir)regular mood swings: Lexical variability in heritage speakers’ oral production of subjunctive mood. Language Learning, 72(2), 456–496.
11.
GollanT. H.WeissbergerG.RunnqvistE.MontoyaR.CeraC. (2012). Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A Multilingual Naming Task (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 594–615.
12.
Guijarro-FuentesP. (2012). The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 701–720.
13.
Guijarro-FuentesP.MarinisT. (2007). Acquiring phenomena at the syntax/semantics interface in L2 Spanish: The personal preposition a. EUROSLA Yearbook, 7(1), 67–88.
14.
HurE. (2020). Verbal lexical frequency and DOM in heritage speakers of Spanish. In MardaleA.MontrulS. (Eds.), Trends in language acquisition research (Vol. 26, pp. 207–235). John Benjamins.
15.
HurE.Lopez OteroJ. C.SanchezL. (2020). Gender agreement and assignment in Spanish heritage speakers: Does frequency matter?Languages, 5(48).
LeonettiM. (2004). Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114.
18.
López OteroJ. C. (2023). Imperatives in heritage Spanish: Lexical access and lexical frequency effects. Languages, 8(3), 218.
19.
MartoccioA. M. (2012). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in L2 Spanish learners. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
20.
MontrulS. (2022). Native speakers, interrupted: Differential object marking and language change in heritage languages. Cambridge University Press.
21.
MontrulS. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125–142.
22.
MontrulS.BhattR.GirjuR. (2015). Differential Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610.
23.
MontrulS.BowlesM. (2009). Back to basics: Incomplete knowledge of Differential Object Marking in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 363–383.
24.
MontrulS.GirjuR. (2022). Native speakers, interrupted: Differential Object Marking and language change in heritage languages. Cambridge University Press.
25.
MontrulS.Sánchez-WalkerN. (2013). Differential Object Marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20(2), 109–132.
26.
Perez-CortesS. (2022). Lexical frequency and morphological regularity as sources of heritage speaker variability in the acquisition of mood. Second Language Research, 38(1), 149–171.
27.
PutnamM. T.SánchezL. (2013). What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(4), 478–508.
28.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
29.
RegulezB. A.MontrulS. (2023). Production, acceptability, and online comprehension of Spanish Differential Object Marking by heritage speakers and L2 learners. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1106613.
30.
RequenaP. E. (2023). Variation versus deviation: Early bilingual acquisition of Spanish differential object marking. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 13(6), 801–829.
ShinN. L. (2023). Está abriendo, la abrió: Lexical knowledge, verb type, and grammatical aspect shape child heritage speakers’ direct object omission in Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 27(5), 842–861.
33.
SimonJ. (2022). A corpus investigation on the acquisition of Spanish Differential Object Marking by English advanced late l2 learners of Spanish. Revista de Literatura, Cultura y Lingüística, 1, 7–59.
34.
ThaneP. D. (2024). On the acquisition of Differential Object Marking in child heritage Spanish: Bilingual education, exposure, and age effects (in memory of Phoebe Search). Languages, 9(1), 26.
35.
TippetsI. R. (2010). Differential Object Marking in Spanish: A quantitative variationist study [Doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University.
36.
TippetsI. R. (2011). Differential Object Marking: Quantitative evidence for underlying hierarchical constraints across Spanish dialects. In Selected proceedings of the 13th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 107–117). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
37.
TorregoE. (1998). The dependencies of objects (Vol. 34). MIT Press.
38.
von HeusingerK.KaiserG. A. (2007, July). Differential Object Marking and the lexical semantics of verbs in Spanish. In Proceedings of the workshop definiteness, specificity and animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages (pp. 85–110).
39.
ZagonaK. (2002). The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge University Press.
