Exploring Clitic Pronouns: Spanish Heritage Speakers in Montreal's French-Speaking Community
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The intricate nature of clitic pronouns presents a linguistic challenge, unveiling a complex interplay across languages. This paper focuses on the acquisition dynamics of Spanish clitic pronouns among heritage speakers whose primary language is Canadian French, a language pair that has received limited scholarly attention. Expanding upon existing research, our study employs an exploratory study to elucidate the nuances of cross-linguistic influence within this heritage language context. This paper will present the results of a comprehensive analysis of spontaneous production data derived from both oral and written tasks. Specifically, its goal is to explore the various aspects involved in the production of clitics.\nOur research involved first-generation immigrants and heritage speakers residing in Montreal, Canada, representing diverse Spanish varieties. Both oral and written tasks were administered, in an attempt to mitigate the potential modality-induced variations reported in prior studies (Montrul, 2012; Montrul et al., 2008; Jegerski, 2018; Author et al., 2018; Iranzo, 2022; among others). Our data analysis considered clitic productions and omissions, examining parameters such as clitic doubling, clitic function —i.e. accusative, dative, reflexive, reciprocal, and, in the case of non-paradigmatic se, passive and impersonal—, and (un)grammaticality.\nHeritage speakers demonstrated a level of proficiency comparable to that of native speakers in producing a wide diversity of clitic pronouns. In general, heritage speakers exhibited versatility in handling clitics, including the intricate pronoun se, which they deployed across various syntactic configurations. For example, we found instances of aspectual se, inherently pronominal verbs, among others. Notably, minimal instances of ungrammaticality and clitic doubling were observed. Examination of oral and written productions among heritage speakers revealed no substantial grammatical differences. Similarly, comparisons between simultaneous and sequential heritage speakers yielded no significant variations in grammaticality.\nClitic omissions, predominantly grammatical, aligned with the specific Spanish variety spoken by each participant, while some unexpected omissions hinted at the influence of French. Overall, the results suggest that heritage speakers have adeptly acquired a diverse range of clitic structures, presenting a nuanced understanding of the Spanish clitic pronoun system. Few idiosyncratic productions indicate mastery comparable to non-heritage L1 Spanish speakers. This nuanced exploration of clitic acquisition, considering both oral and written narratives, contributes to our understanding of bilingual acquisition dynamics in heritage language contexts.\nReferences\nIranzo, V. (2022). The Effect of Task Modality in Heritage Bilingualism Research. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 17, 59-70.\nJegerski, J. (2018). Psycholinguistic perspectives on Spanish as a heritage language. In K. Potowski (Ed.), Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage/minority language (pp. 221–234). New York, NY: Routledge.\nMontrul, S. (2012). Is the Heritage Language Like a Second Language? EUROSLA Yearbook, 12, 1-29.\nMontrul, S., Foote, R. y 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, 503–553.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».