Search

This paper bridges a gap in the ongoing research on heritage languages (HL), their acquisition, and the nature of transfer in HL with a comparative study on two understudied language combinations, namely Italian and Spanish heritage speakers (HS) raised in Germany with two native languages ( n = 18). Their data will be compared with those of first generation Italian and Spanish immigrants ( n = 18) in Germany (L1/L2 speakers) and those of control groups of monolingual Italian and Spanish speakers ( n = 17). Neither the quantitative analysis of their subject production (in total and related to grammatical person) nor the qualitative analysis regarding pragmatic appropriateness of null and overt subjects show significant differences between the HS and the respective monolingual groups, which would constitute evidence for incomplete acquisition (HS) or language attrition (L1/L2 speakers). The statistical analyses reveal grammatical person to be the main language internal factor determining subject realization, in contrast to group membership. The detected differences between the bilingual groups and the monolingual control group are better interpreted as individual variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper aims to contribute to our understanding of heritage language acquisition by focusing on the results of three studies on heritage speakers of European Portuguese living in Germany ( Flores and Barbosa, 2014; Santos and Flores, 2013; Rinke and Flores, 2014 ), thus highlighting the European perspective on this topic. The participants of these studies are second-generation immigrants who use their heritage language productively in their daily interactions. In particular it is argued that heritage speakers are highly proficient bilingual speakers who develop a particular linguistic knowledge because they are exposed to particular input conditions. In this sense, the proficiency of heritage speakers cannot be described as the outcome of a deficient, incomplete acquisition process, but rather as an instance of native language development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates intonational variation and change in Scottish Gaelic (henceforth ‘Gaelic’), a minority endangered language undergoing revitalisation. In particular I focus on bilingual speakers aged 13–14 who are attending immersion education in the Isle of Lewis, a Gaelic-heartland area, and in the city of Glasgow where Gaelic has no community history. The young people are compared to older Gaelic-dominant speakers in Lewis. Results suggest a substantial difference in Gaelic prosodic structure between the older and younger speakers, with older speakers speaking Gaelic as a language with contrastive word accents (prosodically similar to Swedish), and young people speaking Gaelic as an intonation language (prosodically similar to English). Further analysis of the young people's intonation suggests cross-language influence from Glaswegian English on the realisation of pitch accents and boundary tones in Glasgow Gaelic. These results are discussed in terms of the impact of language contact and bilingualism on intonational structure, and language change in this context of minority language revitalisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The census process displays official and public attitudes regarding sign language use. • Different wording of the question can produce hugely different results. • Wording of questions about principal language may crucially affect responses of minority language users. The 2011 census in the UK was the first to ask questions about the use of languages other than the indigenous Celtic languages, Welsh, Irish and Scottish Gaelic. The resulting broadened inquiry included asking about the use of British Sign Language (BSL), the acknowledged language of the Deaf signing community in Britain. Official and public attitudes surrounding signing – its relationship with spoken/written language; its linguistic 'validity'; its territoriality or universality; its association with ideologies of disability – are rarely placed on display as they are via the census process. The formulation of questions, their linguistic expression, and the responses elicited may all be seen as indexical of societal positioning. In the UK, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland each conduct their own census, so the question about sign language was differently phrased in each jurisdiction, and placed alongside a different set of questions about other languages. Thus in each questionnaire the sign language question was contextualized differently, and was open to comparison by respondents with the questions about other, more prominent languages including English. Unsurprisingly, this led to different responses to questions which were ostensibly asking about the same thing. In this paper we describe how the census questionnaire in each jurisdiction asked about respondents' principal language, and how British Sign Language was positioned in each. A significant difference in the wording of the question – about 'home language' in Scotland and 'main language' elsewhere – led to a far larger proportion of respondents mentioning BSL in Scotland. We conclude that while the 'home language' question produces a more realistic picture of the extent of BSL use, neither question is sufficient to reveal the complexity of the repertoire of many bi- and multilinguals. More generally, the wording of questions about principal language may crucially affect the responses of users of minority languages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]