Cover not available
Part of
The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking
Edited by Alexandru Mardale and Silvina Montrul
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 26] 2020
► pp. 261–281

Chapter 10
Comprehension of Differential Object Marking by Hindi heritage speakers

| Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
| University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

We investigated the comprehension of Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Hindi heritage speakers who are second generation immigrants in the United States. In Hindi, DOM is marked with the postposition -ko, which is also a marker of dative case with indirect objects. Studies of Hindi heritage speakers have found omission of -ko with animate, specific direct objects in oral production and that speakers find omitted –ko acceptable in the same contexts in judgment tasks. The present study assessed whether the vulnerability of DOM in heritage grammars is also measurable at the level of auditory and written comprehension. In addition, we investigate whether accuracy with the comprehension of DOM relates to quantity and quality of input by controlling for age of onset of bilingualism. Thirty-eight young adult heritage speakers, 23 adult immigrants from India, and 43 Hindi speakers in India (all Hindi-English bilinguals) completed an off-line written/auditory sentence comprehension task with pictures. The results show that Hindi speakers from India and the Hindi immigrants performed largely at ceiling, whereas some heritage speakers had difficulty with DOM in comprehension.

Keywords: Hindi, heritage speakers, L1 attrition, accusative case, dative case, Differential Object Marking
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Differential Object Marking in Hindi
  • 3.The study
    • Participants
    • Task
    • Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.26.10bha
References
Arechabaleta Regulez, B.
(2020) The processing of Differential Object Marking by heritage speakers of Spanish. In A. Mardale & S. Montrul (Eds.), The acquisition of Differential Object Marking. pp. 237-260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baten, K. & Verbeke, S.
(2015) The acquisition of the Ergative Case in Hindi as Foreign Language. In Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability Theory edited by Kristof Baten, Aafke Buyl, Katja Lochtman, Mieke Van Herreweghe Amsterdam, John Benjamins. pp. 71-104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baten, K., Ponnet, A., & Verbeke, S.
(2016) The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Hindi as a foreign language. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 101–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M.
(2011) Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: What can heritage language learners contribute? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, M.
(1993) Object specificity and agreement in Hindi/Urdu. In K. Beals, D. Testen, & K.-E. McCullough (Eds.), Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 80–103). Chicago, IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Dayal, V.
(2011) Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29(1), 123–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R.
(2001) Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acqusition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, L.
(1986) Universals in relative clause acquisition: Evidence from child and adult L1 and L2 learners of Hindi-Urdu. Language Learning, 36,143–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Casillas, G.
(2008) Explaining frequency of verb morphology in early L2 speech. Lingua, 118, 595–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Junghare, I.
(1983) Markers of definiteness in Indo-Aryan. In A. Dahlstrom, C. Brugman, M. Macaulay, I. Civkulis, M. Emanatian, D. Sakima, & R. Teixeira (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 116–127). Berkeley, CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Kim, K., O’Grady, W., & Schwartz, B.
(2018) Case in heritage Korean. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(2), 252–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D.
(2009) Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakshmanan, U.
(1999) Object shift and the position of NegP in the child L2 grammars of Hindi. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Representation and process: Proceedings of the 1998 Pacific Second Language Research Forum (Vol. 1, pp. 23–36). Tokyo: Pacific Second Language Research Forum.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D.
(2016) Missing the trees for the forest: Morphology in second language acquisition. Second Language, 15, 5–30.Google Scholar
López, L.
(2012) Indefinite objects. Scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magier, D.
(1987) The transitivity prototype: Evidence from Hindi. Word, 38, 187–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, A.
(1990) The A/A’ distinction and movement theory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Masica, C.
(1982) Identified object marking in Hindi and other languages. In O. N. Koul (Ed.), Topics in Hindi linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 16–50). New Delhi: Bahri Publications.Google Scholar
Mohanan, T.
(1993) Case alternation on objects in Hindi. South Asian Language Review, 3, 1–30.Google Scholar
(1994a) Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
1994b Case OCP: A constraint on word order in Hindi. In M. Butt, T. H. King, & G. Ramchand (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives on word order in South Asian languages (pp. 185–215). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Montaut, A.
(2018) The rise of Differential Object Marking in Hindi and related languages. In I. A. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (Eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking (pp. 281–314). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S.
(2008) Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Interfaces in bilingualism. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 4, 221–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Searching for the roots of structural changes in the Spanish of the United States. Lingua, 151, 177–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) The bottleneck hypothesis and heritage language acquisition. In J. Cho, T. Judy, & T. Leal Mendez (Eds.), Meaning and structure in second language acquisition (pp. 149–177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M.
(2009) Back to basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 363–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N.
(2013) Differential Object Marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20, 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Bhatia, A.
(2012) Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage Speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 141–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R.
(2015) Differential Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Foote, R., & Perpiñán, S.
(2008) Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: The effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning, 58(3), 503–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. & Bateman, N.
(2020) Differential Object Marking in Romanian as a heritage language. In A. Mardale & S. Montrul (Eds.), The acquisition of Differential Object Marking. pp. 285-314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W., Kwak, H. Y., Lee, O.-S., & Lee, M.
(2011) An emergentist perspective on heritage language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 223–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D.
(2013) Agreement reflexes of emerging optionality in heritage speaker Spanish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida.Google Scholar
Pires, A., & Rothman, J.
(2009) Acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese in late childhood: 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 (129–154). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J., Tsimpli, I., & Pascual y Cabo, D.
(2016) Formal linguistic approaches to heritage language acquisition: Bridges for pedagogically oriented research. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 13–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R.
(2008) Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Singh, M.
(1994) Thematic roles, word order, and definiteness. In M. Butt, T. H. King, & G. Ramchand (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives on word order in South Asian languages (pp. 217–235). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sorace, A.
(2004) Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretation and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 143–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ticio, E.
(2015) The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish-English Early Bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(1), 62–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar