Exploring Clitic Pronouns: Spanish Heritage Speakers in Montreal's French-Speaking Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".