Greek As a Heritage Language in Chile
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Spanish and Greek subjects in contact: Greek as a heritage language in Chile Aretousa Giannakou Magdalene College University of Cambridge May 2018 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. Aretousa Giannakou May 2018 Cambridge, UK i ii Abstract The present study aims to capture linguistic variation in subject distribution of two typologically similar languages, Greek and Chilean Spanish, considering adult monolingual and bilingual speakers of Greek as a heritage/minority language in Chile. The focus is on null and overt third-person subjects in topic-continuity and topic-shift contexts. Such structures involve the interface between syntax and discourse/pragmatics, a vulnerable domain in bilingualism. Previous research has shown overextension of the scope of the overt subject pronoun in contexts where null subjects are discursively expected (e.g. Tsimpli, Sorace, Heycock & Filiaci 2004). The Interface Hypothesis (IH) (Sorace 2011) was formulated to account for such findings, which obtain even in pairs of two null subject languages (Sorace, Serratrice, Filiaci & Baldo 2009). The key question as to the language-contact effects on subject distribution in pairs of two null subject languages requires further exploration while the combination of Greek and Spanish has been so far understudied. The IH is evaluated with new empirical data from a bilingual situation not studied before. Data from oral narratives and aural pronominal anaphora resolution were elicited from monolinguals and three types of bilinguals, namely first-generation immigrants, heritage speakers and L2 speakers of Greek residing in Chile. The monolingual data revealed differences in the use and interpretation of overt subject pronouns between Greek and Chilean Spanish. The crosslinguistic difference lies in the strong deictic properties of the Greek pronoun compared to its Spanish counterpart; hence differences obtain because of the relative strength of the two pronominal forms. No overextension of the scope of overt pronouns was found in bilinguals, against predictions stemming from the Interface Hypothesis. This may relate to the typological similarity between Greek and Spanish as well as to the nature of the Greek pronoun, which makes its use relatively categorical. Such findings lend support to the Representational account (Tsimpli et al. 2004). On the contrary, null subjects gave rise to optionality presumably due to their complexity, which demands higher degrees of computational efficiency. The Vulnerability Hypothesis (Prada Pérez 2018) may also account for the findings. iii iv Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr Ioanna Sitaridou for giving me the opportunity to conduct this PhD research and for all her support. I also wish to gratefully acknowledge the generous award from Magdalene College (John L. Goulandris Scholarship), which supported my studies for more than three years. Words are not enough to express my gratitude to Professor Ianthi Maria Tsimpli, who has been a leading light for me. I am also grateful to her and to Dr Maria Mastropavlou for lending me the material of the anaphora resolution experiment to adapt it for this study. I extend my special thanks to Professor Silvina Montrul for her invaluable feedback. I am also very thankful to Dr Henriette Hendriks for her help at initial stages of the research and for facilitating access to the narratives task. My endless gratitude goes to Dr Rodrigo Retamal for his unlimited patience to help me with the statistics and for everything that he so generously taught me. I would also like to give special thanks to Vangelis Chirbilidis for his swift professional help on technical support in editing and optimising the sound of the anaphora resolution recordings as well as for assisting me with the online version of the questionnaire. Moreover, I greatly appreciate the help that I received from friends in Chile and in Greece in the process of participant recruitment. I am always very grateful to my family and especially to my mother, Rosalia, for their unconditional love and support. Lastly and more importantly, this study would have never been possible without the kind collaboration of my research participants in Chile, who so eagerly dedicated their time and effort in responding to what I requested. I am immensely grateful for their hospitality and contribution. This study is warmly dedicated to them. It is also dedicated to all those who will read it and find it in some way useful or interesting. v vi Contents Part I 1. Introduction 1.1 Overview ……………………………………………………………………………………………............ 1 1.2 Greeks in Chile ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 1.3 Dissertation structure …………………………………………………………………………………. 8 2. Theoretical framework 2.1 Approaching language acquisition ………………………………………………………......... 11 2.2 On the Null Subject Parameter ………………………………………………………................ 14 2.2.1 Analyses of null subjects ……………………………………………………………………. 14 2.2.2 Syntactic properties associated with the NSP in Greek and Spanish .... 16 2.3 Distribution of subjects in Greek and Spanish ………………………………….............. 18 2.3.1 Discourse and reference ………………………………………………………………......... 18 2.3.2 Deixis and anaphora ………………………………………………………………………….. 20 2.3.3 Pronominal paradigm of Greek and Spanish …………………………………….. 21 2.3.4 The grammatical category of person …………………………………………………. 22 2.3.5 Acquisition of pronouns …………………………………………………………………….. 23 2.3.6 Third-person overt subject pronouns in Greek and Spanish ……………… 24 2.3.6.1 Greek ………………………………………………………………………………………. 24 2.3.6.2 Spanish …………………………………………………………………………………… 26 2.3.6.3 Observations …………………………………………………………………………… 28 2.3.7 Ambiguous person morphology in Greek and Spanish verb forms …… 29 2.3.7.1 Greek ………………………………………………………………………………………. 29 2.3.7.2 Spanish …………………………………………………………………………………… 30 2.3.7.3 Subjunctive ……………………………………………………………………………... 32 2.3.7.4 Observations …………………………………………………………………………... 34 2.4 Referential properties of null and overt subjects ……………………………………….. 35 2.4.1 Information structure …………………………………………………………………………. 35 2.4.2 Topic continuity, topic shift and topic ambiguity …………………….............. 37 2.4.3 The Position of Antecedent Hypothesis …………………………………………….. 40 2.4.4 Salience……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42 2.5 Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………………………... 44 vii 3. Research framework 3.1 The Interface Hypothesis ……………………………………………………………………………. 46 3.2 The Representational Account ………………………………………………….……………...... 50 3.3 The Processing Resources Account ……………………………………………..…………...... 52 3.4 Overuse of overt subjects in pairs of null subject languages ……………………... 54 3.4.1 L2 learning …………………………………………………………………………………………. 54 3.4.1.1 Spanish L1 - Italian L2 …………………………………………………………….. 54 3.4.1.2 Greek L1 - Spanish L2 …………………………………………….……………….. 55 3.4.2 Adult Bilingualism ………………………………………………………………………………. 57 3.4.2.1 Moroccan Arabic L1 - Spanish L1 …………………………………………… 57 3.4.3 Child bilingualism ……………………………………………………………………............... 58 3.4.3.1 Spanish L1 - Italian L1……………………………………………………………… 58 3.4.4 Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………………...... 61 3.5 Crosslinguistic differences in null subject languages …………………………………. 62 3.6. The Vulnerability Hypothesis …………………………………………………………………….. 63 3.7 Overuse of null subjects ……………………………………………………………………………... 64 3.7.1 L2 learning …………………………………………………………………………………………. 65 3.7.2 Heritage acquisition …………………………………………………………………………… 68 3.7.3 Adult bilingualism / bidialectalism …………………………………………………….. 68 3.8 Ambiguity in overuse of null subjects ………………………………………………………… 69 3.9 The role of age differences in adulthood …………………………………………………… 74 3.10 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………………………….... 76 4. Greek and Spanish studies 4.1 Research studies in Greek …………………………………………………………………………... 79 4.1.1 Monolingual Greek …………………………………………………………………………….. 79 4.1.1.1 Definiteness in anaphora resolution ……………………………………..... 83 4.1.2 Heritage and attrited Greek ……………………………………………………………..... 84 4.1.3 Greek: Summary ………………………………………………………………………………… 86 4.2 Research studies in Spanish ……………………………………………………………………….. 88 4.2.1 Monolingual Spanish …………………………………………………………………………. 88 4.2.1.1 Peninsular Spanish ………………………………………………………............... 88 4.2.1.2 Chilean Spanish ………………………………………………………………………. 90 4.2.1.3 Latin American Spanish …………………………………………………………... 91 4.2.1.4 Argentinian Spanish ………………………………………………………………... 92 4.2.1.5 Mexican Spanish ……………………………………………………………………... 94 4.2.2 Spanish: Summary ……………………………………………………………………………… 95 4.3 Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………………………... 97 viii Part II 5. The study 5.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………….