Content uploaded by Jason Rothman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jason Rothman on Jul 11, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
211
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
‘International Journal of Bilingualism’ • Volume 13 • Number 2 • 2009, 211– 238
||
Disentangling sources of incomplete
acquisition: An explanation for
competence divergence across
heritage grammars
Acrisio Pires
University of Michigan, USA
Jason Rothman
University of Iowa, USA
Abstract
This article brings to light an important variable involved in explaining
a type of competence divergence in an instance of bilingual acquisition:
heritage speaker (HS) bilingualism. We present results of experiments
with European Portuguese (EP) heritage speakers (HSs), showing that they
have full morpho-syntactic and semantic competence of inflected infini-
tives, similar to EP monolinguals. We show this constitutes clear evidence
of competence mismatches between heritage speakers of European and
Brazilian Portuguese, comparing our results to Rothman’s (2007) experi-
mental evidence that Brazilian Portuguese (BP) heritage speakers lack knowledge of inflected
infinitives. These comparative results are especially relevant because inflected infinitives were
argued (Pires, 2002, 2006) to have been lost in colloquial BP dialects, although educated mono-
linguals demonstrate target competence. Neither incomplete acquisition nor attrition hinders
the acquisition of inflected infinitives by European Portuguese HSs, raising questions regarding
Key words
heritage speakers
incomplete
acquisition
Portuguese
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Copyright © 2009 the Author/s 2009, ISSN; Vol 13 (2): 211–238; ID no 339806;
DOI; 10.1177/1367006909339806 http://Ijb.sagepub.com
Address for correspondence
Acrisio Pires, Linguistics Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 458 Lorch Hall, 611 Tappan St., Ann
Arbor, MI 48109–1220, USA. [email: pires@umich.edu]
Jason Rothman, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of Iowa, 111 Phillips Hall, Iowa City, Iowa
52242, USA. [email: jason-rothman@uiowa.edu]
]
Acknowledgments
The authors contributed equally to this article. A debt of gratitude is owed to Glaúcia Silva for her help
in the collection of heritage speaker European Portuguese data in the Dartmouth, Massachusetts, area;
to Ana Lúcia Santos for her help in the collection of the European Portuguese monolingual baseline
data in Lisbon, Portugal; and to Pilar Barbosa and Cristina Flores for their help in evaluating the stimuli
in European Portuguese. We are grateful to Natasha Abner, Marcela Cazzoli-Goeta, Laura Domínguez,
Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes, Michael Iverson, Silvina Montrul, Jairo Nunes, Maria Polinsky, Carlos Quicoli,
Liliana Sánchez, Ana Lúcia Santos, and Martha Young-Scholten for comments on and discussions of
this and related projects. We also thank two IJB anonymous reviewers for their very supportive and
insightful reviews. We acknowledge our research assistants Tiffany Judy, Sarah Dow, Amanda Gallaher,
Madeline Metzger, and Allison Richards for all of their efforts in the data collection, data processing and
proofreading of drafts of this article. Any oversights are entirely our own.
212
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
how to explain the competence divergence between HSs of the two dialects. We argue for a more
fine-grained approach to incomplete acquisition, proposing a type of missing-input competence
divergence by which insufficiency of input from a standard dialect can affect acquisition, and
heritage speakers of different dialects can show systematic mismatches in their adult knowledge
if syntactic changes differentially affect the properties of the colloquial dialects to which these
speakers are exposed.
1
Introduction
There are numerous variables that differentiate heritage speaker (HS) bilinguals from
other subgroups of childhood bilinguals, making it all the more important to study
heritage language bilingualism as a separate entity. For example, the sociolinguistic
circumstances of heritage language acquisition, access to and level of formal education
in the heritage language, and input quantity and quality available to HSs are some of
the external variables that can conspire to make HS language acquisition and its ensuing
competence outcomes different from both monolingual and balanced bilingual child-
hood acquisition (see e.g. the introduction to this issue). Compared to other instances
of language acquisition, there are relatively few formal linguistic studies investigating
heritage language grammatical competence. In recent years, formal linguistic-oriented
research has emerged in this domain, starting a new subfield of language acquisition
studies that is relevant to both formal linguistics and applied linguistics and the questions
they pursue (see Montrul, 2008; Polinsky & Kagan, 2007, for discussion). The present
article seeks to add to this general program, examining the competence outcomes of
two dialectally different groups of bilingual acquirers—European Portuguese (EP) HSs
and Brazilian Portuguese (BP) HSs—who acquired both their languages (Portuguese
and English) as the result of childhood bilingualism in the USA.
This article has two main goals: (a) to contribute to disentangling and properly
differentiating—to the extent that this is possible—between certain factors that can
contribute to the outcome of incomplete acquisition in HS acquisition,
1
and (b) to demon-
strate how, in the pursuit of (a), HS acquisition studies can contribute significantly to
other areas of formal linguistic research such as syntactic change and child and adult
language acquisition theories, enhancing proposals in such domains via experimental
corroboration (or lack thereof) of their explicit/implicit predictions. In this article we
take up these two foci regarding implications of HS acquisition for diachronic linguistic
theory, by examining HS competence in the domain of inflected infinitives by European
Portuguese (EP) HSs and comparing their knowledge to that of the Brazilian Portuguese
(BP) HSs reported in Rothman (2007).
1
One could argue that Portuguese as a heritage language is an ideal language in this respect, as opposed to
Spanish for example, as a heritage language; this is true for several reasons. For example, there is a much
clearer divide between the two main dialectal sources of heritage Portuguese spoken in the USA than there
is for the many dialects of Spanish that find themselves in contact with English and, crucially, with each
other in the USA. Additionally, Portuguese is a much less stigmatized language in the USA. Most criti-
cally, some properties of European Portuguese (EP) and Brazilian Portuguese (BP) are well documented
to be saliently different from one another (e.g. the clitic system) and there are also important differences
between the standard BP dialect (which often concords with EP dialects more than it does with colloquial
BP dialects) and colloquial dialects of BP. These morphosyntactic differences are much more polarized
between monolingual Portuguese dialects than morphosyntactic differences in monolingual Spanish dialects.
213
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Regarding the macro-label incomplete acquisition, we initially consider a broad
definition that has been proposed for the term, whereby it is meant as the deficient
outcome of HS competence as compared to monolingual competence norms for any
given property in any given heritage language (in the sense of Montrul, 2008; Polinsky,
2006). Montrul characterizes both incomplete acquisition and L1 attrition as follows.
In my view, incomplete acquisition and L1 attrition are specic cases of
language loss across generations. What I broadly refer to as incomplete
acquisition (for lack of a better term), is a mature linguistic state, the outcome
of language acquisition that is not complete or [of] attrition in childhood.
Incomplete acquisition occurs in childhood, when some specic properties
of the language do not have a chance to reach age-appropriate levels of
prociency after intense exposure to the L2 begins ... Although L1 attrition
can also occur in childhood, I consider attrition as the loss of a given property
y of the language after property y was mastered with native-speaker level
accuracy and remained stable for a while, as in adults. (Montrul, 2008)
This multifactor treatment knowingly conflates different reasons—sometimes, but
crucially not always, mutually exclusive ones—for the surfacing of competence differences
in HS grammatical knowledge. In other words, this treatment allows one to avoid making
choices between the factors that constitute the actual source of grammatical knowledge
deficiencies (more neutrally, divergences or mismatches, in the context of this article)
among heritage speakers. However, for methodological reasons, we will first assume that
incomplete acquisition needs to be formally distinguished from individual language loss
or attrition, which has its own independent role in the development of heritage speaker
grammars. In the latter process, the learner can be taken to lose (or fail to make full
use of) grammatical knowledge previously acquired, whereas in the former, the learner
fails to acquire grammatical properties that are arguably present in their childhood
linguistic input (see also Montrul, 2005, 2008; Polinsky, 2006, and references therein).
One could argue that without longitudinal data, which no formal linguistic study
of HS to date has provided, it is currently not possible to distinguish with exactitude
between attrition and incomplete acquisition proper (see also Montrul, 2008). However,
we will argue that the comparative results we present here showing acquisition of inflected
infinitives by EP HSs but not by BP HSs is best analyzable as not involving attrition in
the latter group.
Although the competence mismatch we will show between EP HS and BP HS groups
can at first glance be characterized at least as the outcome of incomplete acquisition by
the latter group, we will propose a more fine-grained treatment by which what appears
to be competence divergence resulting from incomplete acquisition by the group of BP
HSs occurs specifically for reasons of diachronic change to the monolingual dialects to
which BP HSs are exposed, different from EP HSs. We will argue that BP HSs typically
have no recourse to learn such properties via formal education in the standard variety,
differently from the way that monolinguals do (at least educated ones, see previous
studies in section 3). Notice that we are using the term ‘competence’ to refer to the gram-
matical knowledge attained by individual speakers, independently of the mechanisms
214
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
by which these individuals would have attained such knowledge, which we discuss later
(see sections 6 and 7).
Given this state of affairs, we will ultimately argue that the term incomplete acqui-
sition (already distinguished from individual language loss or attrition earlier) needs to
be refined or sub-divided into at least two sources of competence divergence: (i) true
incomplete acquisition of properties clearly available in HS input, as argued in some
of the previous HS studies; and (ii) a new source of competence divergence, which we
define as missing-input competence divergence, by which, in the present study, HSs do not
acquire properties that are part of the competence of educated monolingual speakers
primarily because monolingual speakers, differently from HSs, had sufficient exposure
to a standard dialect (i.e. through formal education) that is distinct in certain respects
from their colloquial dialect (see e.g. Pires and Rothman, 2008, forthcoming; Rothman,
2007, and references therein). Despite the fact that all the causes already mentioned can
result in divergent outcomes (as compared to monolingual norms) among HSs and the
fact that some sources of divergence in HS grammars are already taken to be prevalent
by researchers who assume a broad definition of incomplete acquisition, we propose that
there ought to be a precise differentiation between (i) and (ii) that distinguishes and
explains the factors that come into play to yield competence divergence, factors which
may have been conflated under the broad term incomplete acquisition (e.g. Montrul,
2008, especially chapters 1 and 4).
The distinction we propose also has the advantage of minimizing the social implica-
tions, especially the inadvertent negative ones, of the unifying label incomplete acquisition.
For some, the term incomplete acquisition could never apply to case (ii) given earlier
simply because the word ‘incomplete’ entails that the acquisition input provided suffi-
cient data to trigger acquisition of a property that ends up not being acquired for other
reasons. However, if incomplete acquisition is directly equated with all divergence of
HS grammars in comparison to adult monolingual norms, incomplete acquisition then
subsumes the case of (ii). We caution researchers to consider that treating the case of
(ii) as incomplete acquisition unwittingly places social value on some dialects of a given
language as compared to others, whereby ‘complete’ dialects (or, more precisely, native
adult dialects) would be only those that have property y while dialects, even monolingual
ones under this logic, that do not are somehow incomplete.
Given the second goal of this article, we explore the possibility, also taken up in
Rothman (2007), that HS acquisition empirical research can come to bear directly on
important questions pertaining to proposals of diachronic linguistic change. Although
several researchers have argued for a close and necessary relationship between diachronic
research and acquisition research (e.g. Clark & Roberts, 1993; Dresher, 1999; Lightfoot,
1999; Pires, 2001, 2006; Roberts, 2007), there have been only isolated efforts to explore
in detail empirical L1 acquisition data to evaluate proposals of language change (see e.g.
Pires & Rothman, 2008, forthcoming).
2
Linguistic properties that have been lost from
colloquial grammars (instantiated primarily in spoken registers) are sometimes partially
maintained in standard dialects (evident primarily in written language), masking on
the surface a more dynamic situation of linguistic change, as shown at least by recent
2
See also Liceras (1985) and Montrul (1997) for proposals regarding L2 acquisition arguing for parallels
with language change.
215
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
The International Journal of Bilingualism
research on Portuguese. Such properties can be learned by educated monolinguals via
exposure to the standard dialect (e.g. it has been argued that different properties of
BP are only learned via schooling and/or through the media; see Galves, 2001; Kato,
2005; Kato, Cyrino, & Correa, 1995; Pires, 2006; Pires & Rothman, forthcoming). As
a result, testing adult monolingual speakers’ knowledge of linguistic properties that
are no longer productive in colloquial dialects may provide unexpected evidence for
grammatical knowledge of properties that are no longer part of these dialects. In this
respect, Pires and Rothman (2008, forthcoming) have provided experimental evidence
that Brazilian Portuguese children fail to acquire knowledge of properties of inflected
infinitives found in standard dialects, and these properties are learned only later by
educated BP teenagers and adults (see section 3). Similarly, they maintain that testing
adult heritage speaker knowledge can provide crucial evidence that complements the
investigation of language development by pre-school-aged monolingual children, given
that many HSs typically do not get formal classroom education in their heritage language
(see also Rothman, 2007).
In both cases, diachronic proposals predict that properties of standard dialects
lost in colloquial dialects are absent or deficient in the primary linguistic data (PLD).
However, unlike monolingual children, most heritage speakers would not have the
opportunity to acquire/obtain such knowledge later, under the premise that, if they are
not exposed to formal education in the standard dialect of the heritage language, they
have only limited—if any—exposure to such properties in their colloquial linguistic
input.
3
In this respect, the investigation of heritage dialects of Portuguese is especially
relevant because European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese differ in ways that have
been better understood than dialects of other languages that have been investigated as
heritage languages, such as Russian and Spanish.
Motivated by proposals that BP colloquial dialects no longer instantiate inflected
infinitives (see Pires, 2006, and works cited within), despite the fact that BP monolinguals
show full competence of them in comprehension/grammaticality judgment tasks (see, e.g.
Quicoli, 1996; Rothman & Iverson, 2007), Rothman 2007 argued that the latent predic-
tions of such diachronic proposals for BP heritage speaker acquisition for this domain
were borne out (see section 3).
4
Consistent with such proposals, Rothman concluded
that evidence for BP HSs’ entirely lacking knowledge of inflected infinitives most likely
resulted from the fact that their primary linguistic input, arguably consisting mainly of
colloquial BP input, is not sufficient for the acquisition of inflected infinitives.
However, Rothman’s proposal might seem a bit problematic at first glance. In the
case that lack of knowledge of inflected infinitives in BP HS grammars is confirmed
experimentally, such a result alone does not necessarily exclude other tenable possibilities
for this lack of knowledge, such as non-pathological attrition or the incomplete acquisition
3
Notice that some HSs may be exposed to formal education in the heritage language, depending primarily on
efforts made by their family. This is especially the case regarding Spanish and a few East Asian languages
in the USA.
4
We emphasize that inflected infinitives are not impossible in specific registers of Brazilian Portuguese.
Crucially, educated speakers using a formal register (representative of the standard dialect), especially in
writing, can produce inflected infinitives. However, what is crucial is that this formal production does not
constitute sufficient or relevant input for the acquisition of inflected infinitives by children exposed early
in life only or primarily to a colloquial dialect (see Pires & Rothman, 2008, forthcoming, for details).
216
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
of a property that one could claim is sufficiently available in the surrounding input to
BP HSs, contrary to what we argue here.
In an effort to obtain more conclusive, independent evidence that can help determine
the best alternative to explain the properties of inflected infinitives in different heritage
Portuguese grammars, we examine in this article a group of European Portuguese
(EP) HS speakers that is comparable in proficiency and context of acquisition to the
BP HSs tested by Rothman (2007) (see section 4), using comparable methodology and
experimental tasks.
All dialects of EP are taken to have inflected infinitives, and so the L1 input avail-
able to EP HSs is assured to robustly exemplify inflected infinitives. We aim to provide
in this article evidence that will allow us to identify which of two incomplete acquisition
scenarios is actually at play. First, if both EP and BP HSs show similar competence
deficiency as compared to the corresponding baseline monolinguals, then being an HS
can be taken as the only deterministic variable that explains why inflected infinitives
are never acquired by HSs (or acquired and lost via non-pathological attrition).
In the second scenario, however, if the EP HSs demonstrate full competence of
inflected infinitives, equivalent to their baseline monolingual speakers, and the two HS
groups show divergence from one another regarding their competence (in comparison to
their baseline monolingual counterparts) this result would be consistent with the proposal
that differences in the type of input received by these groups of heritage speakers are
the crucial factor in determining knowledge differences among them. First, notice this
is not a trivial result, because both EP and educated BP monolinguals show evidence of
knowledge of inflected infinitives. Crucially, competence divergence between EP HSs
and BP HSs must result from a kind of deficiency in the input that is overcome in the
ultimate attainment by monolingual adults of both BP and EP (see sections 6 and 7),
but not necessarily by HSs. Second, this result will support the view that HSs can lack
knowledge of grammatical properties present in the grammar of monolingual speakers
not because they failed in the acquisition of the dialect to which they were exposed, but
only because they attained an adult grammar of their L1 that is different from the one
acquired by at least a subset of monolingual speakers (see section 3).
We will argue that this second scenario, in turn, provides independent evidence
supporting the argument from diachronic syntax that inflected infinitives have indeed
been lost in colloquial dialects of BP (and, as a consequence, in vernacular dialects to
which the BP HSs were exposed). This result makes HSs an important new source to
test diachronic proposals that are complicated by the maintenance in formal dialects of
properties argued to have been lost, but which are still present in the standard dialect
used to educate monolinguals.
This article is structured in the following manner. Section 2 presents aspects of
the syntax and semantics of inflected infinitives that are relevant for this article, and
how these properties are assumed to be acquired. Section 3 discusses in greater detail
previous research relevant to the present study. Section 4 describes the methodology
of the empirical study, while the remaining sections present the data and discuss their
immediate and broader implications.
217
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
The International Journal of Bilingualism
2
Inflected infinitives
Portuguese has two types of infinitives. Both types lack overt specification for tense, yet
are distinguished by either carrying overt person/number agreement (inflected infinitives)
or not (uninflected infinitives). In this section, we briefly present the properties of inflected
infinitives found in European Portuguese dialects (as well as Standard Brazilian Portuguese)
that were tested in this study. 1st and 3rd person plural forms of inflected infinitives are
common to both Standard BP (in which they are the only inflected infinitive forms) and
EP as in (1). Unless otherwise specified, the following data correspond to EP—and, in most
cases, to standard BP, aside from secondary lexical and grammatical distinctions—(see
Pires, 2006; Quicoli, 1996; Raposo, 1987, for extensive analyses of these properties).
(1) sai+r+mos vocês/eles/elas saí+r+
we to leave-INF-1PL you.PL/they to leave-INF-3PL
Among their properties, inflected infinitives can occur as complements of matrix declarative
and factive predicates (2). However, they are ungrammatical as embedded interrogatives
(3), different from uninflected infinitives, which are grammatical in both contexts.
(2) A Silvia adorou a Joana e eu trazermos um bolo para a festa.
the Silvia loved the Joana and I bring-INF-1PL a cake to the party
‘Silvia loved that Joana and I brought a cake to the party.’
(3) *Nós não sabemos o que comprarmos para a festa.
we
i
not know what pro
i
buy-INF-1PL for the party
‘We do not know what (we) should buy for the party.’
Nevertheless, inflected infinitives (4) are like uninflected infinitives in that neither
of them can occur as matrix predicates, different from indicative clauses. Inflected
infinitives (5) are also partially similar to uninflected infinitival clauses in that they are
never introduced by the complementizer que ‘that’, different from indicative and from
subjunctive forms. Finally, inflected infinitives can occur as complements to PPs (6),
unlike indicative clauses, but partially similar to uninflected infinitives (which, however,
are grammatical only with a null subject PRO).
(4) *A Ana e o Paulo saberem o melhor caminho para o centro da cidade.
5
the Ana and the Paulo know-INF-3PL the best way to the center of city
‘Ana and Paulo know the best way to go downtown.’
5
However, inflected infinitives can occur in a restricted set of adult root infinitive (RI) contexts also referred
to as Mad Magazine sentences (Akmajian, 1984).
See file Pires and Rothman examples.doc for the styling of this example. See also the pdf.
(i) Eles irem ao cinema!? Impossível.
they go-INF-3PL to-the movies!? Impossible.
‘Them go to the movies!? Impossible.’
However, there are substantial constraints on the syntax and semantics of adult RIs. Grohmann and
Etxepare (2003), for instance, argue that these RIs are actually embedded in an Exclamative Phrase (ExclP)
that also includes the coda (‘impossible’ in (i)), yielding a modal interpretation that is absent from regular
infinitival clauses. Interestingly, the constraints on adult RI also rule out indicative clauses in such contexts.
218
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
(5) *É possível que eles chegarem agora.
pro is possible that they arrive-INF-3PL now.
‘It is possible that they arrive now.’
(6) Os técnicos saíram de férias antes de concluírem todo o trabalho.
the technicians left of vacation before of nish-INF-3PL all the work
‘The technicians left on vacation before nishing all the work.’
We also tested syntactic and semantic differences between inflected and uninflected
infinitives regarding how they are distinguished with respect to syntactic and semantic
properties of control (see Pires, 2001, 2006 for details and analysis). First, inflected
infinitives can have either a lexical or null subject and their subject may be disjoint in
reference from any other DP in sentence (7); however, the subject PRO of uninflected
infinitives must have a local c-commanding antecedent in the matrix clause (8).
(7) [O meu pai]
i
cou satisfeito por pro
k/*i
vermos televisão.
[the my father]
i
stayed satised for pro
k/*i
see-INF-1PL television.
‘My father was happy that we watched TV.’
(8) [Os meus tios]
i
caram satisfeito por PRO
i/*k
ver televisão.
[the my uncles]
i
stayed satised for PRO
i/*k
see-INF television.
‘My uncles were happy to watch TV.’
Second, uninflected infinitives must take a sloppy reading under ellipsis (9a), whereas
inflected infinitives only allow a strict interpretation of the ellipsis site (9b). That is,
with uninflected infinitives as in (9a), the elided material can only correspond to ‘Rui
regrets his own crying’, as opposed to inflected infinitives in (9b) for which the elided
material must correspond to ‘Rui laments our crying’.
6
(9) a. As meninas lamentam ter chorado...
the girls
i
regret PRO
i/*j
have-INF cried
…e o Rui também. (= Rui lamenta ter chorado)
and the Rui too (= Rui regrets having cried)
‘The girls regret having cried and Rui does too.’
b. A Maria lamenta termos chorado...
the Maria
i
regrets pro
k
have-INF-1PL cried
…e o Rui também. (= Rui lamenta nós termos chorado)
and the Rui too (= Rui regrets our crying)
‘Maria regrets our having cried and Rui does too.’
Third, there are differences between inflected and uninflected infinitives in terms of
allowing (or not) split antecedents for embedded clause null subjects. That is, in (10a),
the embedded null subject (PRO) does not allow an interpretation where eu ‘I’ and Leo
6
Notice that in cases such as (9a) the uninflected infinitival could be analyzed as a 3rd person singular
inflected infinitive, which lacks overt agreement morphology. However, if the sentence were grammatical
with this interpretation, it would have a strict ellipsis interpretation as in (9b), showing that overt verbal
inflection is neither a necessary nor a sufficient factor in determining the interpretation of the two types
of infinitives.
219
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
The International Journal of Bilingualism
can form a set that serves as its antecedent. Conversely, in (10b), the embedded null
subject pro of the inflected infinitival must be co-referential with a set of elements that
includes, at the very least, eu ‘I’ and Leo.
(10) a. Eu
i
convenci o Leo
j
PRO
j/*i+j
a dividir o sorvete com o João.
I
i
convinced the Leo
j
PRO
j/*i+j
to share-INF the ice cream with the João
‘I convinced Leo to share the ice cream with João.’
b. Eu
i
convenci o Leo
j
pro
i+j/j+k
a dividirmos o sorvete com o João.
I
i
convinced the Leo
j
pro
i+j/j+k
to share-INF-1PL the ice cream with the João
‘I convinced Leo for us to share our ice cream with João.’
In the experiments we conducted for this article, we investigated the extent to which
EP HSs show competence of the properties of inflected infinitives just specified here.
Our results clearly support arguments by Pires (2006; see also Quicoli, 1996; Raposo,
1987, in a Government and Binding framework) that the different properties of inflected
infinitives cluster together in a manner that is compatible with a parametric view of
language variation and change, by which a restricted feature/parameter specification
in the grammar can trigger the acquisition of a cluster of distinct properties. This
clustering of properties and its predicted dependence upon the feature specification
defined below has substantial syntactic consequences: speakers who are competent
regarding the grammar of inflected infinitives show evidence of knowledge of all the
properties of inflected infinitives we tested, whereas speakers who lack this knowledge
show deficiency regarding both the syntactic and semantic properties that are exclusive
of inflected infinitives.
We adopt here the approach proposed in Pires (2006) for the grammar of inflected
infinitives (especially in Portuguese).
7
According to that approach, infinitives lack a
feature specification for mood, different from subjunctives and indicatives (following
Zanuttini, 1997: 127), as in (11).
(11) Feature specication for mood (innitives):
[
C
[-mood]],
where [-mood] corresponds to lack of a mood specication.
Given this, learners need to identify that the infinitive forms given earlier lack a mood
specification in order for them to be possible in their grammars. This is supported in
Portuguese by the fact that infinitives do not allow an overt complementizer (e.g. que).
If an overt complementizer carries a [+mood] feature, it is arguably incompatible with
infinitives, since they do not allow a specification for mood, explaining the impossibility
of cases such as (5).
However, the lack of a feature specification for mood is not enough to trigger a
grammar that also allows inflected infinitives. Crucially, in order for learners to acquire
a grammar that distinguishes inflected from uninflected infinitives, they need to identify
whether the grammar carries agreement features (verbal inflection or phi-features,
which are possible with inflected infinitives but not with uninflected infinitives). These
7
Other approaches to the syntax of inflected infinitives within Principles and Parameters make somewhat
distinct predictions regarding their properties (see e.g. Raposo, 1987; Quicoli, 1996).
220
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
agreement features are syntactically specified and can be morphologically null or overt,
for different person/number inflected infinitive forms. Thus, in scanning the primary
linguistic data (PLD), children need to be able to identify feature specifications for
infinitival forms carrying either the feature specification in (12) or in (13), corresponding
to the two types of infinitives that are possible in Portuguese.
(12) Feature specication for agreement (inected innitives): [
T
[+Agr]], where [+Agr]
corresponds to non-defective phi-features for person and/or number.
(13) Feature specication for lack of agreement (uninected innitives): [
T
[-Agr]],
where [-Agr] represents T without phi-features for person and/or number.
The feature specification of inflected infinitives in (12), combined with the [-mood]
specification of infinitives in general (11), is at the source of the properties of inflected
infinitives presented in this section. For instance, the occurrence of overt subjects and
non-obligatory control pro in inflected infinitives is directly dependent upon their
non-defective agreement feature specification.
Given this approach, EP speakers need to acquire a feature specification combining
(11) and (12) in the same clausal domain, in order to converge on an adult grammar that
carries inflected infinitives. Our prediction, confirmed by the experiments we conducted
(section 4 on), is that the same feature specification in (11)–(12) is acquired as part of the
grammar of EP HSs, given that these speakers are exposed to extensive evidence with
inflected infinitives in their input.
On the other hand, in line with the argument that colloquial BP dialects have lost
inflected infinitives (Pires, 2006), if colloquial BP lacks the feature specification for
inflected infinitives, this means that there is only one type of (overt) verbal agreement
morphology specified for [+Agr] in colloquial BP, which is always finite and also speci-
fied for mood (e.g. indicative clauses, as in English and Spanish). As a consequence, the
fact that BP HSs lack grammatical knowledge of inflected infinitives (Rothman, 2007)
results from their sufficient exposure only to linguistic input (colloquial BP) that can
no longer trigger the acquisition of this feature specification for inflected infinitives.
This completes the analysis necessary to account for the competence divergence in the
knowledge of inflected infinitives between EP HSs and BP HSs that we demonstrate in
the next sections.
3
Previous studies
There are not many studies on the acquisition of inflected infinitives in any of the
few languages that have them, and this holds true under any acquisition context
(e.g. child L1, bilingualism, and adult L2). Herein, we review in more detail the two
studies we mentioned before that most straightforwardly come to bear on the present
discussion.
Given the potential challenge for diachronic proposals raised by the fact that adult
speakers of BP show grammatical competence regarding the properties of inflected
infinitives (e.g. Quicoli, 1996; Rothman & Iverson, 2007), Pires and Rothman (2008,
forthcoming) set out to test monolingual BP acquisition. Insofar as the grammatical
221
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
The International Journal of Bilingualism
properties of these forms are no longer part of BP colloquial dialects, if these properties
are still learned by adult BP speakers it is reasonable to maintain that knowledge of
them is due only to exposure to a standard dialect (e.g. through formal education; see
also Pires, 2007). In light of this, Pires and Rothman (2008, forthcoming) conducted a
study examining 87 upper-middle-class BP children/adolescents from the ages of 6–15,
8
and showed that these BP children do not acquire inflected infinitives before school
age.
9
Pires and Rothman used a Morphological Recognition Task (MRT) as well as an
Interpretation Matching Task (IMT). Their results demonstrated that, with very few
exceptions (and for no child under 9), children under the ages of 11 or 12 did not control
the syntax or semantic properties of inflected infinitives. Their analysis revealed that
until the age of 12, after which all middle-class participants performed in a target-like
manner, BP monolingual children treat inflected infinitives as if they were finite forms
(in both the MRT and IMT tasks). These results support diachronic linguistic proposals
according to which inflected infinitives are largely lost in vernacular BP input young
children are exposed to.
10
Furthermore, despite the fact that no other theoretical L1 studies on inflected infini-
tives exist, Pires and Rothman suggest that a further study comparing BP to EP would
strengthen their conclusions, since they predict that EP children should acquire inflected
infinitives at a much earlier age than BP children, because of EP children’s acquisition of
these properties in their colloquial dialects. If it is confirmed by independent investigation
that EP children acquire inflected infinitives at an early age (e.g. before the age of 6), it
will effectively rule out the remote possibility that inflected infinitives are not acquired
in any contexts until late childhood/early adolescence, under the assumption that they
are somehow too formally complex for early acquisition (however, there is no syntactic
8
We have recently conducted follow-up studies (data from which have yet to be published) to confirm predic-
tions and results originally demonstrated in Pires and Rothman (2008, forthcoming). In one follow-up study,
we confirm that testing older subjects (age 10 and above) with spoken stimuli (the way younger subjects
were originally tested) did not affect their performance. Another follow-up study (Pires & Rothman, 2009)
indicates that working-class/low-income young adults as old as 18 years old continue to show deficiencies
in their syntactic and semantic knowledge of inflected infinitives, providing further evidence consistent
with the proposal that inflected infinitives are uniquely instantiated in the standard BP dialect, to which
these speakers have limited access despite being monolinguals.
9
We do not assume that formal instruction or ‘conscious’ knowledge of so-called recovered properties is
necessary for their later acquisition. However, it is the case that BP young adults are explicitly taught these
forms during the normal course of Portuguese language education.
10
Under the argument by Pires and Rothman (2008, forthcoming) that knowledge of inflected infinitives
by current BP speakers results from exposure to a standard dialect, there are two ways competence in a
standard dialect can be characterized: (i) it becomes part of the L1 native competence as the result of late
L1 acquisition; or (ii) the knowledge of Standard BP can be better characterized as the result of L2 acqui-
sition, yielding a restricted type of bilingual competence (of a colloquial and a standard dialect) among
native speakers that proficiently acquired the grammatical properties of a standard dialect. The latter is
supported in the case of BP by the fact that the standard/written dialect diverges in many respects from
colloquial/spoken dialects. Pires and Rothman devised an experimental approach to investigate aspects of
the emergence of knowledge of a standard dialect, given that merely testing the adult competence of native
speakers has so far not provided clear evidence that the two types of (adult) knowledge (of a colloquial
and of a standard dialect) are fundamentally distinct.
222
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
basis to argue for the formal complexity of inflected infinitives as a source of a delay in
their acquisition, despite the rarity of inflected infinitives cross-linguistically).
11
Rothman (2007) proceeded to test similar predictions regarding adult BP heritage
speakers that were not formally educated in Portuguese. Testing 11 highly proficient BP
HSs, Rothman demonstrated that these adult BP HSs did not have target competence for
inflected infinitives contrasting sharply with educated adult BP speakers (both native
and non-native). If diachronic proposals are on the right track, such a reality would
effectively mean BP HSs are not exposed to a dialect that provides relevant input to
trigger the acquisition of inflected infinitives. Like the child monolingual BP learners,
the BP HSs treated inflected infinitives as normal finite verb forms allowing them as
matrix predicates, as subordinate complements with a [+ mood] complementizer (after
que), as well as in embedded questions and relative clauses.
Nevertheless, even in light of Pires and Rothman’s findings, one cannot simply
discount the possibilities of either HS attrition or incomplete acquisition. The fact that
such properties are learned late even in a monolingual context suggests that the possibility
of attrition is highly unlikely. Given that Pires and Rothman (2008, forthcoming) found
that even monolingual BP children do not acquire (or learn) inflected infinitives until
quite late, incomplete acquisition emerges as a distinct possibility.
Since Rothman’s BP HS learners all classified themselves as English dominant,
and English was introduced at a young age (at the latest by age 5), one could argue that
the introduction of English stunted their normal developing BP grammar such that
they never acquired inflected infinitives despite access to relevant input. However, our
results from EP HSs will show that a very similar English-exposure background did not
prevent EP HSs from acquiring inflected infinitives.
4
Methodology
We conducted two experiments with the goal of determining whether EP heritage
speakers show full competence regarding the morpho-syntactic and semantic proper-
ties of inflected infinitives.
4.1 Participants
We report data from 16 heritage speakers of European Portuguese, all of whom were
undergraduate students at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth. All the speakers
were born in the USA to first generation European Portuguese parents and were
exposed to Portuguese from birth and to English before the age of 6 at the latest. The
majority (n = 13) reported Portuguese as their exclusive L1, not having been sufficiently
exposed to English until going to nursery school or kindergarten (between 3 and 6 years
of age). Nevertheless, all participants were formally educated exclusively in English
(and not in Portuguese). All participants reported using Portuguese as the main—in
many cases exclusive—mode of communication within familial (nuclear and extended)
11
We are currently conducting this experiment to test EP children in collaboration with Ana Lúcia Santos
at the University of Lisbon.
223
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
The International Journal of Bilingualism
contexts.
12
The majority (n = 14) self-rated as highly proficient in EP (self-rating of least a
4 on a scale of 1–5; mean = 4.375). All the HSs were currently enrolled in beginning-level
mainstream Portuguese classes (i.e. not specific heritage speaker classes) at the University
of Massachusetts, Dartmouth. In addition, 10 monolingual EP speakers who live in
Lisbon, Portugal, were tested as controls. They were of comparable age and education
level to the HS group; that is, undergraduate students at the Universidade de Lisboa.
4.2 Experiments
The two experiments we conducted were a Grammaticality Judgment/Correction Task
(GJCT) and an Interpretation Matching Task (IMT). These tests were designed using
the same methodology used by Rothman (2007) and by Pires and Rothman (2008,
forthcoming) to ensure comparability.
The GJCT tested for knowledge of the morphosyntax and syntactic distribution
of inflected infinitives shown in section 2. The subjects were tested on equal numbers
of sentences of two types: sentences that are grammatical or ungrammatical according
to colloquial EP (as initially determined by two native speaker informants). For each
one of the structures in the following list, the subjects were presented with 4 sentences
(see section 2 for examples of each one of the sentence types listed here). The inflected
infinitive sentences were of six types (n = 24 sentences).
(14) Grammatical uses of inected innitives as:
a. complements of matrix factive predicates (with overt subject).
b. complements of matrix declarative verbs (without overt subject).
c. complements to PPs (without overt subject).
(15) Ungrammatical uses of inected innitives as:
a. embedded interrogatives/relatives clauses.
b. main clauses.
c. embedded clauses with complementizer que ‘that.’
For each type of sentence with inflected infinitives, the subjects were tested on two
sentences with first person plural and two sentences with third person plural (we chose
these forms because these are the only inflected infinitives forms still productive in
standard BP, and which were tested in the previous studies discussed in section 3). The
subjects were presented with each sentence at a time and asked to identify the sentence
as correct or incorrect. If they chose incorrect, they were asked to provide a correction
(a separate screen opened to record such answers if ‘incorrect’ was chosen).
12
We collected additional information about the EP HSs background, including the background questions used
by Rothman (2007). However, we know of no experimental evidence showing that any of these additional
factors would play a direct role in the level of competence of different HSs in their heritage grammar. For
instance, most participants claimed to be English-dominant in the sense that they feel most comfortable
speaking about an unlimited range of topics in English (although four participants claimed to be truly
balanced bilinguals). However, all of the participants reported using Portuguese in their communities, often
in events involving Portuguese-American community clubs in the surrounding area. For all participants,
Portuguese was a useful language that, in general, was not stigmatized in their community. Most speakers
have visited Portugal on more than one occasion while others visit Portugal every year.
224
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
In addition, the subjects were tested in an identical way on eight types of control/
filler sentences (n = 4 each type) with uninflected infinitives (n = 12 sentences), with
present tense indicative (n = 12 sentences) and with present subjunctive (n = 8 sentences).
13
In the IMT (Interpretation Matching Task) the subjects were presented with stories
such as (16a), followed by a test sentence (16b). They were then asked to select the descrip-
tion/interpretation (16c, d) that corresponded to that story’s end (or to say what happened
in case they did not accept either description [16e]). There were 12 test sentences with
inflected infinitives and a comparable number of sentences with non-inflected infinitives
(for control), in addition to fillers.
(16) a. IMT Story: O Miguel estava em casa com o Ronaldo e a Margarida. O carro
estava muito sujo e precisava de uma limpeza.
‘Miguel was at home with Ronaldo and Margarida. The car
was very dirty and needed cleaning.’
b. Test sentence with inected innitive:
O Miguel cou satisfeito por lavarem o carro.
the Miguel was happy for wash-INF-3PL the car
‘Miguel was happy that (they) washed the car.’
c. Wrong description: O Miguel lavou o carro sozinho.
‘Miguel washed the car alone.’
d. Correct description: O Ronaldo lavou o carro juntamente com a Margarida.
‘Ronaldo washed the car with Margarida.’
e. Neither of the options above. What happened then?
Test sentences in the IMT targeted three major syntactic/semantic properties of
inflected infinitives in contrast to non-inflected infinitives. These properties correspond
to the properties shown by Pires (2001, 2006) to distinguish obligatory control (restricted
to uninflected infinitives) from non-obligatory control (restricted to inflected infinitives),
as discussed in section 2: (i) non-obligatory control/lack of a c-commanding antecedent
as in (16a, c) and (7)–(8); (ii) strict versus sloppy reading under ellipsis, as in (9); and (iii)
the possibility or not of split antecedents, as in (10). For instance, given one of these
properties (non-obligatory control/lack of c-commanding antecedent), in an inflected
infinitive sentence as the test sentence the understood agent—who washed the car in
(16b)—has to be a plural set of individuals not mentioned in the test sentence—inter-
pretation in (16d).
14
The subjects performed both tasks in this order in a computer classroom with a
computer-mediated online self-paced reading presentation in which the subjects saw
13
Uninflected infinitives fillers appeared as embedded clauses, as interrogatives/relatives (grammatical),
complements to PPs with an overt subject (ungrammatical) and in clauses with complementizer que
(ungrammatical). Present indicative fillers were main clauses (grammatical), embedded clauses with
complementizer que (grammatical) or complements to PPs (ungrammatical). Present subjunctive fillers were
used in embedded clauses with complementizer que (grammatical) and with present indicative morphology
(ungrammatical).
14
Crucially, this experiment was designed in such a way that speakers were not simply judging the acceptance
of an inflected or uninflected infinitive, but rather choosing for each test sentence an interpretation that
matched only one of the two forms. For instance, if subjects failed in the task, they would assign the inter-
pretation of an uninflected infinitive to a structure containing an inflected infinitive form, and vice-versa.
225
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
The International Journal of Bilingualism
one question at a time, advancing to the next question only after they had given a
possible answer to the previous question; they could not return to change previously
recorded answers. The results of the two experiments are presented in detail in the
next section.
5
Results
The statistical analyses were done with two research questions in mind: (i) do the groups
differ from each other in their mean scores for a given category? and (ii) do all groups
make grammatical distinctions between categories to the same extent? To answer these
questions, a mixed model ANOVA was used with the between-group factor being the
acquisition circumstance type (i.e. NS monolingual versus HSs) and the within-group
factor being sentence type/grammaticality.
15
Since there were no significant differences
between the groups for any categories (see remainder of this section for details), no post
hoc (e.g. Bonferroni) tests were needed.
5.1. The Grammaticality Judgment/Correction Task (GJCT)
The GJCT experiment tested for knowledge of the morphosyntax and syntactic
distribution of inflected infinitives. Crucially, the tested syntactic categories were coun-
terbalanced such that we are able to determine the extent to which EP HSs, like the
native monolingual EP controls, distinguished among the morphosyntactic properties
of inflected infinitives, uninflected infinitives and finite forms (both indicative and
subjunctive moods). Such a methodology is important because it can reasonably show
the extent to which HSs reliably differentiate inflected from uninflected infinitive forms
and inflected infinitives from other inflected forms (indicative and subjunctive). That is,
to demonstrate full knowledge, EP HSs must be shown not to analyze the person/number
morphology of inflected infinitives as if it were finite morphology, which was claimed
to be the case for BP HSs (Rothman, 2007). There were 12 types of target experimental/
control sentences (n = 4 each type) involving inflected infinitives (6 types), uninflected
infinitives (3 types) and present indicative (3 types), in addition to fillers that tested for
knowledge of subjunctive morphosyntax (2 types), yielding a total of 56 test sentences
divided equally between grammatical and ungrammatical sentences (see section 4 for
detailed distribution).
For presentation and discussion purposes the data are broken up into two parts.
Figure 1 presents the data of eight sentence types (inflected infinitives target types, plus
the counterbalance/filler uninflected infinitive and finite types; a * in the captions to the
figures indicates the ungrammatical conditions in the target monolingual grammar). The
first pair of sentence types we report on, inflected infinitive complements of declarative
and factive matrix predicates, correspond to grammatical uses of inflected infinitives in
EP, serving to test the extent to which inflected infinitives are at all possible in the HS
participants’ grammar. These conditions are not counterbalanced with ungrammatical
minimal pair type sentences. The remainder of the conditions in the first set of sentence
types serves to demonstrate the extent to which the groups differentiate inflected infinitive
15
If the sentence type was counterbalanced, as was the case with the vast majority of the conditions, the
ANOVA within-group factor was grammaticality. Alternatively, the within-group factor was sentence type.
226
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
forms from uninflected infinitives and from finite forms with tense/mood specification.
To that end, the second set of inflected infinitive conditions, inflected infinitives as
embedded relative clauses/wh-questions and inflected infinitives as matrix predicates,
which are ungrammatical, were counterbalanced with two corresponding grammatical
conditions, one using uninflected infinitives as embedded relative clauses/wh-questions
and the other using indicative present as matrix predicates. Additionally, we indicate the
filler conditions with present subjunctive, which also served to independently demonstrate
group sensitivity to other types of tense/mood morphology.
As can be visualized in Figure 1, the mixed ANOVA demonstrated no significant
differences between the native EP monolingual and HSs in their performance for any of
these categories. That is, the ANOVA reported no effect for group (F(1,23) = .078, p = .78)
or sentence type (F(2,46) = 1.255, p = .295), but there was a main effect for grammaticality
(F(1,23) = 2811.15, p < .001). Since both groups reliably accept inflected infinitives as
complements of factive and declarative predicates, as well as reject and correct inflected
infinitives when used as matrix predicates or in the context of embedded wh-questions
and relative clauses, it is reasonable to argue that both groups have target knowledge of
the syntax of inflected infinitives. Since each group allows for uninflected infinitives
as embedded wh-questions and relative clauses as well as present indicative clauses as
matrix predicates, it seems clear that they also properly differentiate inflected infinitival
morphology from uninflected infinitival and finite morphology (both indicative and
subjunctive when one considers the fillers that tested the proper use of subjunctive
Figure 1
Results from Grammaticality Judgment/Correction Task (GJCT)
0
1
2
3
4
NS
Heritag
InfIn
w/factive
InfIn
w/declarat
*InfIn as
wh/rel
Non-infl
as wh/re
*InfIn as
matrix verb
Pres. Ind.
matrix verb
*subj
subj
3.9 3.9 0.3 3.8 0.1 4 3.9 0.2
3.73 3.8 0.2 3.73 0.13 4 3.93 0.4
Number of acceptance
(4=100%)
InfIn w/factive = inflected infinitive complements of factive predicates; InfIn w/declarative = inflected infinitive comple-
ments of declarative predicates; *InfIn as em wh/rel = inflected infinitives as embedded wh-questions or relative clauses;
Non-infl- as emb wh/rel = non-inflected infinitives as wh-questions or relative clauses; InfIn as matrx pred = inflected
infinitives as matrix verbs; Pres. Ind. as matrix pred. = present indicative as matrix verb; subj = subjunctive complements;
*subj. = subjunctive complements with present indicative morphosyntax
227
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
The International Journal of Bilingualism
versus indicative). The data from the final six sentence types strengthen such claims,
as seen in Figure 2.
For clarity reasons, we present the results summarized in Figure 2 as two sets
of three sentence type pairings: those that involve embedded clauses introduced by
complementizer que and complements of a prepositional phrase (PP). Starting with the
three conditions involving embedded clauses introduced by que, it is clear that both
groups recognize the incompatibility of inflected and uninflected infinitives after the
complementizer que, but readily allow finite forms in such a position. The mixed ANOVA
demonstrated that each group judged each que embedded sentence type in accord with
its (un)grammaticality and in the same manner across the two groups, that is, there was
no effect for group (F(1,23) = 1.559, p = .224) or sentence type (F(2,46) = .379, p = .687).
In doing so, both groups demonstrate knowledge that only finite morphology with its
mood specification is compatible with the complementizer que, which itself encodes a
mood feature (see Pires, 2002, 2006). Turning to the PP complement conditions, both
groups only allow inflected infinitive complements of prepositional phrases, rejecting and
correcting both uninflected infinitives with an overt subject and finite forms in general
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Number of acceptance
(n=100%)
NS
Heritage
*InfIn w/que
Pres. Ind.
w/que
InfIn w/PPs
NS Heritage
*Non-Infl w/PP
*Pres ind.
w/PP
*Non-Infl
w/que
0.1 0 4
4
3.7
3.73
0
0
0
0.270.267 0.27
Figure 2
Results from Grammaticality Judgment/Correction Task (GJCT)
*InfIn w/que = inflected infinitives after the complementizer que; *Non-Infl w/que = non-inflected infinitives after
the complementizer que; Pres. Ind. w/que = present indicative after the complementizer que; InfIn w/PPs = inflected
infinitive complement of a PP, w/overt subject; *Pres. Ind. w/PP = present indicative complement of a PP; *Non-Infl
w/PP = non- inflected infinitive complement of a PP w/ overt subject
228
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
in such a position. The mixed ANOVA confirmed this, revealing no effect for group
(F(1,23) = .562, p = .461) or sentence type (F(2,46) = .462, p = .633). This contrast further
demonstrates that both groups properly differentiate between inflected and uninflected
infinitives and crucially do not analyze inflected infinitival morphology as some type
of finite form, different from the BP HSs tested by Rothman (2007).
Bringing together the data from all the conditions from Experiment 1, it is clear
that both groups perform in line with a grammar that instantiates both inflected and
uninflected infinitives and properly differentiate them from both indicative and subjunc-
tive forms. Summarizing, the latter claim was verified by comparing each group’s
performance against the other’s for each condition. Since there were no significant
differences, we do not report Bonferroni post hoc measures of variance. Given that
the two test groups (HSs and control monolinguals) performed in the same manner for
every condition, this indicates that their performance across the relevant counterbalance
conditions could not possibly be statistically different. Taken together, all indications
are that the EP HSs perform exactly like native EP monolinguals regarding the syntactic
properties of inflected infinitives tested in this task.
5.2 The Interpretation Matching Task
Experiment 2 aimed to assess EP HSs command of syntax–semantic interface properties
that differentiate inflected infinitives from uninflected infinitives, namely properties
determined by obligatory versus non-obligatory control. While Experiment 1 tested and
confirmed that EP HSs commanded the syntax of inflected infinitives, one would not
be able to determine only on the basis of experiment 1 that EP HSs have full competence
of related syntax-semantic interface properties of inflected infinitives, motivating the
need for Experiment 2. This is especially important given recent proposals suggesting
that interfaces are loci for non-pathological attrition (e.g. Tsimpli, Sorace, Heycock, and
Filiaci, 2004) and/or incomplete acquisition for HSs (Montrul, 2004, 2007), whereby an
asymmetrical competence pattern for narrow syntax and interface-conditioned properties
can emerge in such populations.
There were three sets of counterbalanced test sentence types, which correspond to
the three control properties discussed in section 2 and specified in the methodology in
section 4, distinguishing the syntax–semantics of inflected infinitives from uninflected
infinitives. Each subject was exposed to 12 stories/test sentences with inflected infinitives,
and to an equivalent number of sentences with uninflected infinitives for control. Figure
3 shows the two groups’ performances with respect to their ability to map sentences
with inflected infinitives, uninflected infinitives, and other control sentences to their
correct semantic interpretation.
In support of the results illustrated in Figure 3, the mixed ANOVA revealed that
there are no significant differences across the EP native baseline and the EP HSs for any
of the target categories. That is, the ANOVA’s between-group analysis demonstrated that
there was no effect for group (F(1,23) = 1.051, p = .316) and the within-group analysis
revealed no effect for sentence type (F(1,23) = .124, p = .728).
These statistical measures indicate that both groups equally demonstrate knowl-
edge that the null subject PRO (obligatory control) of uninflected infinitives must
229
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
The International Journal of Bilingualism
have a local c-commanding antecedent in the matrix clause while this is not true of
the null subject pro (non-obligatory control) of inflected infinitives.
16
Furthermore,
both groups demonstrate equal knowledge that inflected infinitives take a strict
16
In the context of the present methodology, it is important to highlight that the interpretation matching
sentence options were not strictly binary, even though a binary choice was sufficient for speakers to be able
to make a decision between an obligatory control interpretation and a non-obligatory control interpreta-
tion. In addition, the inflected infinitives could allow for more than one felicitous non-obligatory control
interpretation than the target one provided. That is, additional interpretations allowed the plural referent of
the non-obligatory control null subject to include more individuals than the ones we specified as performing
the event corresponding to the inflected infinitive. For instance, in (16d), Miguel could have washed the
car together with Margarida (and/or with Ronaldo). In the different cases we gave subjects the option of
a non-obligatory control interpretation that appeared to be the most plausible in the context of the story,
but the participants were given a third option to indicate that their interpretation of the target sentences
did not match the choices we specified, by offering their own alternative interpretation. To ensure that the
third option was a viable choice if deemed necessary to the participants, specific stories were provided with
filler test sentences that did not correspond to either of the interpretation sentences, and thus required the
third option to be used by the subjects. For space and clarity reasons, we do not report on the specifics of
these cases numerically (in the figures and statistical analysis), but all of these filler-incorrect interpreta-
tion pairs were successfully handled by each subject, heritage and control participants alike. Crucially, the
overall results indicate that neither the EP heritage speakers nor the control monolinguals decreased in
their performance because of the possibility of these multiple interpretations.
Figure 3
Results from the Interpretation Matching Task (IMT)
0
1
2
3
Number Correct Matches
(3=100%)
NS
Heritage
NINFI NO-SP
INFIN NOC NINFI OC INFIN STR R NINFI SLOP INFIN SPLIT
2.8 2.9 2.92.72.82.8
2.67 2.9 2.872.872.82.8
NS Heritage
INFIN NOC = inflected infinitive with non-obligatory c-commanding antecedent; NINFI OC = non-inflected infinitive
with obligatory c-commanding antecedent; INFIN STR R = inflected infinitive with strict reading under ellipsis; NINFI
SLOP = non-inflected infinitive with sloppy reading under ellipsis; INFIN SPLIT = inflected infinitive with split antecedent;
NINFI NO-SP = non-inflected infinitives, split antecedent not available
230
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
reading under ellipsis and require split-antecedents, while uninflected infinitives
must take a sloppy reading under ellipsis and do not allow for split-antecedent
interpretations.
17
As was the case for Experiment 1, we do not report any post hoc
measures since such analyses of variance are not necessary, precisely because there
are no performance differences between any of the individual conditions tested.
As a result, it can be concluded that each group makes the expected distinctions
across counterbalanced categories, showing that they properly differentiate between
inflected and uninflected infinitives for control versus non-obligatory control proper-
ties. Crucially, the results of Experiment 2 indicate that EP HSs have fully acquired
the syntax–semantic interface properties of inflected infinitives to the same extent
that the native speaker subjects did.
6
Discussion
Recall that the purpose of the present article is twofold. First, we are seeking to provide
motivation for the need to differentiate between contributory factors resulting in the
outcome of HS incomplete acquisition, when possible. We argue that certain cases that
could initially appear to be the outcome of incomplete acquisition in fact involve previous
diachronic changes to the dialects that serve as the primary linguistic data of HSs.
These changes can be either to colloquial monolingual dialects, as we argue is the case
regarding the phenomenon of inflected infinitives (see also Pires, 2002, 2006; Pires &
Rothman, 2008, forthcoming), or to independent language-contact varieties of the
heritage language after one or more generations of language contact. We also aimed
to show how linguistic HS acquisition studies can contribute significantly to the field
of diachronic linguistics, providing additional means to empirically test their explicit/
implicit predictions. This section details how the present study provides significant
insight into addressing both of these goals.
Bringing together the results of both experiments with EP HSs, it is clear that
they have full syntactic and semantic competence of inflected infinitives. Across both
tasks, they performed without any significant divergence from native monolingual
EP controls. First, this indicates that no effect of language attrition or incomplete
acquisition can be detected in their knowledge of inflected infinitives on the basis
of our experimental tasks. Second, this EP HS performance pattern is relevant when
17
One reviewer asked whether Experiment 2 was assessing subject–verb agreement instead of the interpreta-
tion of inflected infinitives because conditions with uninflected infinitives were compared with conditions
including overtly inflected (plural) forms of the inflected infinitive. Crucially, all the test sentences in
Experiment 2 were grammatical, and test sentences involved the same number of potential agents in
both types of infinitive clauses. Even if subjects were able to identify the plural interpretation of the
inflected infinitive alone, this was not a guarantee that they would be able to assign the correct semantic
interpretation of these forms, as targeted in the experiment. This is evidenced independently by two facts:
(i) inflected infinitives also have singular forms with exactly the same semantic properties in the absence
of overt inflection; and (ii) the related studies by Pires and Rothman (2008, forthcoming) and Rothman
(2007) demonstrated clearly that speakers who had not acquired the properties of inflected infinitives
failed in the task in Experiment 2, although they were able to distinguish overt subject–verb agreement in
different grammatical forms.
231
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
The International Journal of Bilingualism
one compares it to the performance of the BP HSs (tested by Rothman, 2007), who in
general failed to demonstrate proficient knowledge of inflected infinitives on compa-
rable experiments (see further details regarding the background of the BP HSs later in
this article). The question that immediately arises from the difference in performance
between the two groups of Portuguese HSs is why one HS group lacks this knowledge
but the other does not, especially when one considers the fact that both adult EP and
BP native baselines demonstrate full knowledge of the syntactic and semantic properties
of inflected infinitives.
As we have discussed throughout, this incongruent pattern across Portuguese
HSs is not unexpected. It is compatible with previous results and argumentation from
Pires (2006), Pires and Rothman (2008, forthcoming), and Rothman (2007). Not only is
the present pattern consistent with the conclusions that these earlier studies offered to
explain why BP HSs and monolingual BP children under the age of 12 do not demonstrate
knowledge of inflected infinitives, but it ultimately provides more robust evidence in
support of their conclusions. Recall that Pires and Rothman (2008, forthcoming) and
Rothman (2007) set out to test the latent acquisition predictions of diachronic proposals
arguing that BP colloquial dialects no longer contain inflected infinitives, but that
educated monolinguals come to learn their properties via sufficient exposure (primarily
by means of input exposure via formal education) to the standard dialect that conserves
inflected infinitives. Although Pires and Rothman’s findings for young BP monolinguals
and Rothman’s results for BP HSs are consistent, the similar patterns alone across adult
BP HSs and young monolinguals for inflected infinitive competence does not preclude
the possibility of distinct sources for the observed patterns. However, given that EP HSs
show a pattern of full native-level knowledge of all grammatical properties of inflected
infinitives, we propose that the alternative of attrition can be excluded as an account for
Rothman’s observed pattern for BP HSs, as also argued there. An additional source of
evidence supporting this argument comes from Pires and Rothman’s (2008, forthcoming)
results, which show that inflected infinitive forms are not acquired by BP speakers as
the result of child primary language acquisition. Given this, it is extremely unlikely
that these properties would have been acquired by BP HSs and then lost after they were
exposed to English in childhood.
It is relevant to point out that the 16 EP HSs tested here and the 11 adult BP HSs
tested by Rothman (2007) are comparable in terms of their background regarding the
factors that would determine their sufficient exposure to a colloquial dialect of either
EP or BP and lack of extensive exposure to a standard dialect, a state of affairs which we
argue is at the source of the competence mismatch between both groups. The relevant
variables ensuring comparability in this respect included the fact that both groups were
formally educated exclusively in English, and neither group of HSs was formally educated
in Portuguese before adulthood (with the exception of one BP HS, as discussed later) nor
beyond the basic level of Portuguese as a foreign language in college. Similarly to the
EP HSs, both parents of the BP HSs were native speakers of Portuguese (BP). Eight of
the BP HS were born in Brazil, moving to the USA before the age of 8, increasing their
232
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
early exposure to BP. Finally, all BP and EP HS subjects reported using Portuguese on
a daily basis.
18
Given our current results showing EP HSs knowledge of inflected infinitives equiva-
lent to monolingual norms and the comparability to BP HSs regarding L1 acquisition
conditions, we argue that Portuguese HSs’ mere exposure to English in childhood does
not trigger attrition or promote true incomplete acquisition of inflected infinitives. If
the properties of inflected infinitives were subject to pervasive attrition or failed to be
acquired despite availability in the input due to an effect from English, one would have
no explanation for why either scenario would occur only in the case of BP HSs, and not
EP HSs. Therefore, we argue that the mismatch in knowledge of inflected infinitives
between EP HSs and BP HSs comes from sources other than attrition.
We maintain instead that the divergence between EP and BP HS knowledge of
properties of inflected infinitives is best explained by the fact that only EP HSs are
sufficiently exposed to grammars that robustly instantiate the properties of inflected
infinitives. Given these results, BP HSs who are not formally educated in Portuguese
are expected not to acquire inflected infinitives, given that their child acquisition input
is also not expected to robustly instantiate these forms.
We turn now to how this explanation relates to the issue of incomplete acquisition.
Recall the two ways we considered how one can approach different sources that could
be understood as yielding incomplete acquisition: (i) true incomplete acquisition of
properties clearly available in HS input; and (ii) lack of acquisition by HSs of properties
that are part of the competence of educated monolingual speakers only because the
latter group was robustly exposed to a standard dialect containing properties missing in
colloquial dialects, for instance through formal education. We have proposed the term
missing-input competence divergence to describe source (ii) of competence divergence,
which we presented between EP HSs/monolingual Portuguese speakers and BP HSs.
We leave the term true incomplete acquisition to mean only non-target-like competence
outcomes when the input clearly provides triggers for such convergence but for whatever
reasons it does not obtain.
We argue that the current data from EP HSs allow one to effectively rule out source
(i), that is, true incomplete acquisition of properties available in the input as the source for
the competence mismatches between EP HSs and BP HSs. Under this discarded source,
factors such as the grammatical properties of inflected infinitives or exposure to English
as the second language (in addition to attrition, discussed earlier) would hinder the
acquisition of inflected infinitives available in the input and constitute an explanation
18
In addition, as reported by Rothman (2007), the BP HSs reported using only Portuguese with their parents
and other family members. They also reported spending a significant amount of time in Brazil with family
and a few reported moving back and forth throughout their childhood/adolescence. Only two of the 11
BP HSs tested by Rothman (2007) showed proficient knowledge of inflected infinitives similar to the EP
HSs tested here. Crucially, both subjects had more opportunities for exposure to standard BP than other
BP HSs. One of them lived in Brazil between the ages of 7 and 13, and during this time she was formally
educated in standard BP unlike other subjects. The other HS was also formally educated in Portuguese in
Brazil until 1st grade and moved to the USA only at the age of 8. In addition, as pointed out in Rothman
(2007), this subjects’ parents were from different areas in Brazil where the vernacular varieties are quite
distinct (Curitiba and Rio de Janeiro), which would favor leveling of the home language towards the
standard dialect shared by both parents.
233
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
The International Journal of Bilingualism
for the BP HS results reported by Rothman (2007). However, given the similarity between
EP HSs and BP HSs in their level of exposure to colloquial and standard dialects of BP
and EP (see above and section 4), and the fact that EP HSs in general provide robust
evidence of full knowledge of inflected infinitives, we can discard this source for the
competence mismatch between the two HS groups. That is, an approach involving
incomplete acquisition of properties available in the input would leave unexplained why
in the current context EP HSs consistently demonstrate robust knowledge of inflected
infinitives, while similar BP HSs consistently lack such knowledge.
Still, one could presumably argue that the mismatch in the knowledge of inflected
infinitives between BP HSs and EP HSs remains a case of incomplete acquisition of
properties that were acquired (or learned) by monolingual speakers, given that BP HSs
show incomplete knowledge of such properties. However, we argue the BP HS show a
mismatch in their competence of inflected infinitives as compared to educated monolin-
gual speakers only because the latter speakers were robustly exposed to a standard dialect
(e.g. through formal education), unlike BP HSs. That is, consistently with arguments
for loss of inflected infinitives in colloquial dialects of BP (e.g. Pires, 2002, 2006, and
works cited therein), BP HSs lack knowledge of inflected infinitives because these forms
are no longer fully productive in the colloquial dialects of BP that also serve as primary
linguistic data for their acquisition. What BP HSs fail to acquire are properties that are
known by educated monolingual BP speakers only as the result of exposure to a standard
dialect via schooling, which is not sufficiently represented in the primary linguistic data
to which BP HSs are exposed in their context of heritage language acquisition. Such is
not the case for EP HSs who, unlike BP HSs/monolinguals, but like EP monolinguals,
are exposed in childhood to input from colloquial dialects (EP colloquial dialects and
heritage language in the USA) that leads to their full knowledge of inflected infinitives.
In sum, we argue that, at least in the case of the acquisition of certain grammatical
properties by different Portuguese HS groups, it is possible to pin down the source of
such divergence by identifying the role syntactic change has played in distinguishing
different dialects to which both HSs and monolinguals are currently exposed.
Undoubtedly there are robust cases of incomplete acquisition in which the term is
understood as a lack of full competence outcomes for properties that were indeed avail-
able in the input, for instance in cases of HS variability that often correlate to proficiency
level (see e.g. Montrul, 2008, and references therein). However, to lump together different
situations that happen to yield competence divergence could be viewed as problematic
on several planes. In the first place, this scenario serves to more strikingly highlight
the implicit limitations of comparing competence outcomes of heritage speakers to
monolingual baselines. The L1 language input to which both groups are exposed during
their lifespan needs to be formally understood and distinguished where necessary for
such comparisons to be truly meaningful. One cannot ignore the fact that HSs, in the
course of acquisition, can be exposed to heritage language input that can be substantially
different from the input to which L1 monolingual speakers are exposed. Formally, not
arriving at a steady state that instantiates property z because the trigger for property
z is lacking from HS input (e.g. inflected infinitives in BP HS input) is very different
from incomplete acquisition of property y that is evidenced in the input but is never
fully converged upon (as it has been argued explicitly and implicitly for different cases
234
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
of incomplete acquisition). In the former case, which comes into play in the comparative
case study we presented in this article, the label (true) incomplete acquisition describes
the divergent competence outcome, but fails to account for its source in the sense that
the HSs that show competence divergence in fact did not fail to acquire the properties
present in their input. Rather, the BP HSs did not have the opportunity to be exposed
to properties that are sufficiently represented only in the (late) input to which mono-
lingual BP speakers are exposed. Under this scenario, the label incomplete acquisition
is inadvertently misleading and, at worst, not explanatorily adequate. Consider now
an empirical problem that the comparative results regarding EP HSs and BP HSs yield
for attrition and true incomplete acquisition approaches. In either case, one would
logically expect the BP HSs in general to have maintained some vestigial knowledge of
inflected infinitives. After all, if inflected infinitives are indeed available in the input BP
HSs receive but an interruption in the acquisition process of BP by English resulted in
incomplete acquisition or, alternatively, inflected infinitives were acquired and then lost,
it is logical to expect that BP HSs would conserve some knowledge, especially of their
morphosyntax. In fact, interface vulnerability accounts for non-pathological attrition (see
Sorace, 2005; Tsimpli et al., 2004) would predict that the narrow syntactic properties of
inflected infinitives would be conserved, while HSs would be more likely to have attrited
the syntax-semantics interface properties of non-obligatory control (this is also consistent
with standard assumptions of L1 attrition from other cognitive perspectives, e.g. Schmid,
2004; Schmid, Köpke, Keijzer, & Weilemar, 2004). Nevertheless, the majority of the BP
HSs tested by Rothman (2007) demonstrated quite consistently that their grammars
have no such pattern, that is, there is no remnant knowledge of inflected infinitives
whatsoever. In fact, these BP HSs did not show optionality in their performance for
these properties at all, but showed complete lack of the relevant knowledge (the narrow
syntax and the semantic aspects alike). Equally, although studies that appeal to true
incomplete acquisition in high proficiency HSs demonstrate differences in performance
(and presumably competence), such differences do not correspond to a complete lack
of knowledge, but only to lower, possibly gradient performance rates as compared to
native baselines (e.g. Montrul, 2002, 2004, 2007), contrary to what is shown by BP HSs
lack of knowledge regarding inflected infinitives.
An additional reason to want to formally and terminologically separate the
different contributory factors that result in so-called incomplete acquisition outcomes
is the socially relevant factors/consequences that such a label entails. Under the more
fine-grained approach we propose in this article, we can adopt a more neutral formal
characterization of heritage speaker grammars. This neutral approach does not entail an
assessment that HSs’ lack of competence (as compared to monolingual norms) results from
loss (attrition) or failed acquisition of certain properties by HSs, who in fact do not fail
to make the best out of the linguistic experience to which they were actually exposed.
19
19
This is effectively what we conclude from the fact that EP HSs do not show distinct competence from EP
monolinguals regarding the properties tested in this study, as also pointed out by one reviewer. Under
our proposal, although the two populations are differentiated regarding the conditions under which they
achieved ultimate knowledge of EP (e.g. monolingual versus bilingual/heritage acquisition), it is not
intrinsically required (even if possible) that the two populations differ regarding multiple aspects of their
L1 competence.
235
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Under our approach, it is possible that HSs acquire perfectly well many properties
represented in the heritage dialect PLD, but this complete acquisition still results in
quantifiable, if not very salient, HS versus monolingual baseline differences. In such
a case, conclusions of attrition or true incomplete acquisition based only on a direct
comparison to the monolingual norms (e.g. including formal, standard dialects) that the
HS does not have access to, result from a partially insufficient comparative methodology,
akin to comparing the competence of monolingual acquirers of different dialects, for
example English monolinguals in the USA to British English monolinguals acquirers,
or BP monolinguals to EP monolinguals, claiming that one or the other, insofar as they
differ, results from individual attrition or incomplete acquisition. Similarly, if one were
to assume that any competence difference from standard monolingual outcomes for
any given property qualifies as incomplete acquisition, then one would have to argue
that this also applies to non-standard monolingual competence that diverges from
standard outcomes. For instance, if we are on the right track with respect to the status
of inflected infinitives in BP colloquial dialects, then another consequence should be
that illiterate/non-educated monolingual adult BP speakers, who only have competence
in colloquial varieties of BP, also lack inflected infinitives in their grammar, if they do
not have sufficient exposure to a standard dialect that still instantiates these forms. If
this is confirmed empirically, then these speakers, too, under the logic that incomplete
acquisition is a fair label to use to mean competence outcome difference against a
standard norm, would have incompletely acquired BP despite the fact that they are
monolingual adults. However, this is of little explanatory value since what one really
means in this case is that they are fully competent speakers of a native variety of BP
that is simply different from standard BP. Since standard varieties of different dialects
are arbitrarily selected, there are many sociolinguistic consequences of positioning the
competence outcomes of different dialects against one another and assigning the label
‘incomplete’ to one on the basis of the other.
The perspective of HSs differences such as those between Heritage Spanish in
the USA and monolingual norms could reflect contact-induced changes as opposed to
internal diachronic change, as in the present case for BP. In both cases, if heritage speakers
are actually exposed to unique emerging contact dialects of the heritage language or to
a set of norms/dialects that already differ before the HS acquisition process takes place,
then the distinct performance of HSs in comparison to monolingual speakers cannot
be attributed to attrition or true incomplete acquisition without further inspection. In
addition, we can also rule out the possibility that Portuguese heritage grammars at a
macro-level have undergone diachronic change as the result of contact-induced change
regarding the properties we tested. It would be unlikely that contact-induced change
would have affected only BP HS dialects but not EP HS dialects in the USA. In sum,
differences in HS dialects have to be carefully considered. In the present case, we argue
that these differences result from internal diachronic changes that affected monolingual
colloquial dialects of BP, as opposed to EP.
Further investigation of related or alternative sources for competence mismatches
could be done for different heritage languages in the USA. For instance, Cazzoli-Goeta,
Rothman, and Young-Scholten (2008) propose that the methodologies of formal acquisi-
tion, diachronic linguistics and sociolinguistics could be combined to successfully map
236
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
(e.g. by means of corpus research) the properties of HS contact-varieties that constitute
the primary linguistic data to which HS acquirers are exposed. For instance, they
propose coupling spoken corpora data collection with experimental methodologies
to test for properties related to the Null Subject Parameter across different epicenters
of Spanish–English contact in the USA. This investigation would contribute to the
understanding of the formal properties of the input to which HSs are likely to be exposed
and would help explain other cases of competence divergences involving HS grammars.
Through such an investigation, one could more accurately determine whether the source
of the documented different pragmatic use of subjects in HS Spanish (Flores-Ferrán,
2002, 2004; Otheguy, Zentella, & Livert, 2007; Silva-Corvalán, 1994) is determined for
instance by individual attrition/incomplete acquisition (Montrul, 2004), or by variation
in the input itself.
The emerging field of HS acquisition embodies an ideal locus for the integration
of methodologies from different areas of linguistic inquiry. Pertaining more directly
to one of the goals of this article, showing how linguistic HS acquisition studies can
also contribute to the field of diachronic linguistics, we have demonstrated that testing
and then comparing the competence of different dialectal groups of HSs for properties
argued to have changed in one set of dialects and not another can provide a useful way
to empirically test the predicted outcomes of diachronic proposals.
7
Conclusions
In line with the two goals of this article set out in section 1, we demonstrated a meaningful
connection between heritage language empirical/experimental research and diachronic
linguistic theory, in addition to identifying and differentiating a new contributory variable
that yields competence distinctions in heritage speaker grammars. Ultimately, we argue
that an all inclusive conception of the term ‘incomplete acquisition’ needs to be refined
or subdivided by taking into account different sources of competence divergence among
HSs. We proposed the term missing-input competence divergence for cases in which the
input does not provide robust triggers to HSs for convergence on a given property that
can be otherwise identified in the grammar of monolingual speakers. Future research
that seeks to further test, refine and formalize what we have proposed here will benefit
the emerging field of linguistic research on heritage languages.
Finally, regarding the explanation of mismatches between heritage and monolingual
grammatical knowledge, our results minimize the burden tacitly attributed to a presumed
inability or lack of success of heritage speakers in acquiring a native grammar of their
heritage language. This burden is unwelcome because it raises the risk (maybe unfounded)
of treating the native acquisition of a heritage grammar as being substantially deficient
as compared to other cases of L1 native acquisition. What our results preliminarily
indicate is that mismatches between heritage and monolingual native grammars are
not in all cases the result of qualitative distinctions between the process/mechanisms of
native acquisition in both cases, but rather the result of exposure to significantly distinct
primary linguistic data, which are manipulated under the same universal principles
that determine native language acquisition by heritage and monolingual speakers alike.
237
Pires & Rothman: Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition
The International Journal of Bilingualism
References
AKMAJIAN, A. (1984). Sentence types and the form-function fit. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory, 2, 1–23.
CAZZOLI-GOETA, M., ROTHMAN, J., & YOUNG-SCHOLTEN, M. (2008). Cross-disciplinary
investigation of heritage language variation. GLOW Newsletter 60.
CLARK, R., & ROBERTS, I. (1993). A computational model of language learnability and language
change. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(2), 299–345.
DRESHER, E. (1999). Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting. Linguistic Inquiry,
30, 27–67.
FLORES-FERRÁN, N. (2002). A sociolinguistic perspective on the use of subject personal pronouns
in Spanish narratives of Puerto Ricans in New York City. Munich: Lincom-Europa.
FLORES-FERRÁN, N. (2004). Spanish subject personal pronoun use in New York City Puerto
Ricans: Can we rest the case of English contact? Language Variation and Change, 16, 49–73.
GALVES, C. (2001). Ensaios sobre as gramáticas do português. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.
GROHMANN, K. K., & ETXEPARE, R. (2003). Root infinitives: A comparative view. Probus,
15(2), 201–236.
KATO, M. A. (2005). Gramática do letrado: Questiões para a teoria grammatical. In M. A.
Marques, E. Koller, J. Teixeira & A. S. Lemos (Eds.), Ciências da linguagem: Trinta anos
de investigacão e ensino (pp. 131–145). Braga: Cehum.
KATO, M. A., CYRINO, S. L., & CORREA, V. R. (1995). The recovery of diachronic losses
through schooling. Paper presented at NWAVE New Ways of Analyzing Variation, University
of Pennsylvania, 12–15 October 1995.
LICERAS, J. (1985). The value of clitics in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 1,
151–165.
LIGHTFOOT, D. (1999). The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford:
Blackwell.
MONTRUL, S. (1997). On the parallels between diachronic change and interlanguage grammars:
the L2 acquisition of the Spanish dative case system. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 87–113.
MONTRUL, S. (2002). Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions
in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(1), 39–68.
MONTRUL, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of
morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125–142.
MONTRUL, S. (2005). Second language acquisition and first language loss in adult early bilin-
guals: Exploring some differences and similarities. Second Language Research, 21(3),
199–249.
MONTRUL, S. (2007). Interpreting mood distinction in Spanish as a heritage language. In
K. Potowski & R. Cameron (Eds.), Spanish in contact policy, social and linguistic inquiries
(pp. 23–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
MONTRUL. S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
OTHEGUY, R., ZENTELLA, A. C., & LIVERT, D. (2007). Language and dialect contact in
Spanish in New York: Towards the formation of a speech community. Language, 83(4),
770–802.
PIRES, A. (2001). The syntax of gerunds and infinitives: Subjects, case and control. PhD disserta-
tion, University of Maryland, College Park.
PIRES, A. (2002). Cue-based change: Inflection and subjects in the history of Portuguese infini-
tives. In D. Lightfoot (Ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change (pp. 143–159). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
PIRES, A. (2006). The minimalist syntax of defective domains: Gerunds and infinitives. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
238
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 13 (2)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
PIRES, A. (2007). Acquisition of syntax in Brazilian Portuguese: Implications for theories of
language change and dialectal variation. Research Proposal submitted to the Office of the
Vice-President for Research, University of Michigan, April 2007.
PIRES, A., & ROTHMAN, J. (2008). Late acquisition of syntax-semantics: Ongoing language or
recovery of grammatical loss? Paper presented at the 38th Annual Linguistic Symposium on
Romance Languages. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 4–6 April 2008.
PIRES, A., & ROTHMAN, J. (2009). Competence divergence among monolingual speakers:
The role of late triggers. Ms. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and University of Iowa,
Iowa City.
PIRES, A., & ROTHMAN, J. (forthcoming). Acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese in late child-
hood: Implications for syntactic theory and language change. In A. Pires & J. Rothman
(Eds.), Minimalist inquiries into child and adult language acquisition: Case studies across
Portuguese. Berlin and New York: Mouton DeGruyter.
POLINSKY, M. (2006). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics,
14, 191–262.
POLINSKY, M., & KAGAN, O. (2007). Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 368–395.
QUICOLI, A. C. (1996). Inflection and parametric variation: Portuguese vs. Spanish. In R. Freidin
(Ed.), Current issues in comparative grammar (pp. 46–80). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
RAPOSO, E. (1987). Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European
Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 85–109.
ROBERTS, I. (2007). Diachronic syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.
ROTHMAN, J. (2007). Heritage speaker competence differences, language change and input type:
Inflected infinitives in heritage Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of Bilingualism,
11(4), 359–389.
ROTHMAN, J., & IVERSON, M. (2007). To inflect or not to inflect is the question indeed:
Infinitives in non-native Portuguese. The Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 6(2), 5–30.
SCHMID, M. S. (2004). First language attrition: the methodology revised. International Journal
of Bilingualism, 8, 239–255.
SCHMID, M. S., KÖPKE, B., KEIJZER, M., & WEILEMAR, L. (Eds.). (2004). First language
attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
SILVA-CORVALÁN, C. (1994). Language contact and change. New York: Oxford University Press.
SORACE, A. (2005). Syntactic optionality at interfaces. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (Eds.),
Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 46–111). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
TSIMPLI, T., SORACE, A., HEYCOCK, C., & FILIACI, F. (2004). First language attrition and
syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International
Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 257–277.
ZANUTTINI, R. (1997). Negation and clausal structure. A comparative study of Romance languages.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Copyright of International Journal of Bilingualism is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
