White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
White Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage LinguisticsElabbas Benmamoun2. Silvina Monirul1, Maria Polinsky?‘University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-Harva White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticsard UniversityAbstractLinguistic theory and experimental studies of language development rest heavily on the notion of the adult, perhaps linguistically stable, native speaker. Native speaker competence and performance are typically the result of normal first language acquisition in a predominantly White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticsmonolingual environment, with optimal and continuous exposure to the language. The question we pose in this article is what happens when access to inpWhite Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
ut and opportunities to use that native language are less than optimal during language development. We present and discuss the case of heritage speakeWhite Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage LinguisticsElabbas Benmamoun2. Silvina Monirul1, Maria Polinsky?‘University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-Harva White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticshood. By examining the linguistic knowledge of these individuals, we question long-held ideas about the stability of language before the so-called critical period for language development, and the nature of the linguistic system as it develops under reduced input conditions. We present an overview o White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticsf heritage speakers’ linguistic system and discuss several competing factors that shape this system in adulthood. We also call attention to the tremenWhite Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
dous potential this population offers for linguistic research, the language teaching profession, and for society in general.HERITAGE LINGUISTICS2AcknoWhite Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage LinguisticsElabbas Benmamoun2. Silvina Monirul1, Maria Polinsky?‘University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-Harva White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics three authors have held together at various conferences and, most importantly, at the Heritage Language Summer Institutes which inspired this work. The Institutes, the first of which was held at ƯC Davis in 20)7, were funded by the National Heritage Language Resource Center at UCLA, and we are very White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics grateful to the Center for the generous support we have received. This paper is just a small token of our gratitude.Elabbas Benmamoun’s work has alsoWhite Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
been supported by NSF grant BCS 0826672. Silvina Montrul's work has been supported by the University of Illinois Campus Research Board and by NSF graWhite Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage LinguisticsElabbas Benmamoun2. Silvina Monirul1, Maria Polinsky?‘University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-Harva White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticsuage at UCSD, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, and by the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. We are also grateful to our postdoctoral fellows and all the graduate, undergraduate research assistants who have worked on many of the research projects discussed in White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticsthis paper.We have benefited enormously from discussing this work with many colleagues all over the world and presenting it at different venues; it woWhite Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
uld be impossible for US to name everyone here, but we are thankful for their help and insight.Last but not least, we are thankful to the heritage speWhite Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage LinguisticsElabbas Benmamoun2. Silvina Monirul1, Maria Polinsky?‘University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-Harva White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticsis work would not have been possible without you, and we hope that it is a small step towards giving you a louder voice.HERITAGE LINGUISTICS31 IntroductionWhat do we know when we know d language? This question is at the heart of the debate about natural language. 1 he usual answer is that we know a White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticssystem of sounds (or geslures/signs) that are pul together in a systematic fashion to make up meaningful linguistic units which in turn can tie, to aWhite Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
large extent, manipulated and combined to form more complex linguistic units, such as phrases, sentences, and extended discourse. Ihe main bone of conWhite Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage LinguisticsElabbas Benmamoun2. Silvina Monirul1, Maria Polinsky?‘University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-Harva White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticsce and comprehend linguistic stimuli) is specific to language or is a fundamental pan of our general cognitive abilities. There is no question that within a speech community, the so-called normal native speakers (those with no linguistic deficits who have been exposed to their native language from c White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticshildhood) share a linguistic system that enables them to communicate with each other, to process each other's linguistic input, and to transmit the syWhite Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
stem to the next generation. Moreover, when compared cross-linguistical ly, linguistic systems display shared properties in the structure of their phoWhite Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage LinguisticsElabbas Benmamoun2. Silvina Monirul1, Maria Polinsky?‘University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-Harva White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage LinguisticsLinguistic research since the 1960’s has centered on how that knowledge, or “linguistic competence”, develops in native speakers, as well as on the properties of the presumably stable adult system (Chomsky 1959.1965).While native speaker competence is the main object of study in theoretic al linguis White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticstics and developmental psycholinguistics, the precise characterizations of a native speaker and his/her linguistic knowledge remain elusive to this daWhite Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
y (Davies 2003. Paikedayl985). Nonetheless, virtually everyone intuitively recognizes a native speakerHERITAGE LINGUISTICS4upon seeing or hearing one.White Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage LinguisticsElabbas Benmamoun2. Silvina Monirul1, Maria Polinsky?‘University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-Harva White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticsgrammatical sentences (except for the occasional slip of the tongue), does not omit or misplace morphemes, recognizes ambiguity and/or multiple interpretations and pragmatic implications of words and sentences, and is attuned to his or her sociolinguistic environment (social class, social context, g White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticsender, register, etc.). Such a native speaker is readily accepted by members of his/her speech community (which can be as wide as a language when youWhite Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
are the only other speaker of German stranded in Sri Lanka, or as narrow as the jargon of a particular high school). However wide or narrow the boundaWhite Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage LinguisticsElabbas Benmamoun2. Silvina Monirul1, Maria Polinsky?‘University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-Harva White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticsg of natural language design.How does grammatical knowledge come about? The general idea is that humans are uniquely endowed with the ability for language. Researchers disagree on whether this ability represents a special language faculty or whether it is part of a more general cognitive pre-wiring White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticsthat allows us to learn how to talk about things past, present, and future. Researchers also disagree as to how this ability came about—was it the resWhite Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
ult of a slow evolutionary process, or was it the result of an abrupt change, some kind of a linguistic “big bang”? (See Fitch 2010 for an illuminatinWhite Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage LinguisticsElabbas Benmamoun2. Silvina Monirul1, Maria Polinsky?‘University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-Harva White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics is unique to humans and that it is spectacularly displayed from birth in such a way that toddlers who cannot feed themselves are quite capable of commenting on the food they want or do not want.HERITAGE LINGUISTICS5Some components of linguistic systems are fairly robust and have structural underpin White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticsnings that are likely to be universal. Again, linguists differ in accounting for such universality. One school of thought, often associated with innatWhite Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
eness, attributes this commonality to Universal Grammar, a limited set of pre-wired rules for ot^anizing language that is cognitively available to eveWhite Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage LinguisticsElabbas Benmamoun2. Silvina Monirul1, Maria Polinsky?‘University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-Harva White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticstes structural commonalities observed across languages to general principles of human communication or frequency of patterns in the input (Elman et al. 1996, Tomasello 2003, a.o.). Regardless of the explanatory mechanisms behind the similarities of natural language design, the similarities themselve White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticss are widely accepted by practicing linguists.With regard to areas of variation, the idea within the innateness camp is that some types of variation aWhite Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
re due to general principles (parameters) whose values are fixed through exposure to the relevant language. Thus, while environment and linguistic inpWhite Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage LinguisticsElabbas Benmamoun2. Silvina Monirul1, Maria Polinsky?‘University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-Harva White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticslow), there are many complex and subtle aspects of language that are underdetermined by the input and cannot possibly be learned on the basis of input frequency exclusively (see Crain & Thornton 1998, Guasti 2002, O’Grady 1997 for relevant examples).Regardless of the acquisition model assumed, one m White Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguisticsust ask how much and what quality of exposure to a language is necessary in order to acquire that language “natively”. There seems to be a consensus tWhite Paper Prolegomena to Heritage Linguistics
hat native speakers are different from nonnative speakers with regard to their mastery of the linguistic system, with degrees ofHERITAGE LINGUISTICS6fGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook