Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 16:2 (2026) ► pp.101–128

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Multiple grammars within linguistic populations

Distributions and theoretical implications

ORCiD logo with link | University of Maryland
Published online: 4 July 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.24052.pol
Abstract
This paper explores the concept of multiple grammars (MGs) and their implications for linguistic theory, language acquisition, and bilingual language knowledge. Drawing on evidence from phenomena such as scope interactions, verb raising, and agreement patterns, I argue that seemingly identical surface structures can be undergirded by different grammatical analyses that may compete within speaker populations. I then propose a typology of MG distributions, including shared MGs, competing MGs, and partial MGs, each with distinct consequences for acquisition and use. Contrary to expectations of simplification, bilingualism can sometimes lead to an expansion of grammatical analyses and does not always lead to the elimination of MGs. The paper discusses methods for predicting environments conducive to MGs, considering factors such as structural ambiguity and silent elements. The examination of MGs compels us to explore how learners navigate underdetermined input, especially in bilingual contexts, and to examine the interplay between gradient acceptability judgments and categorical grammatical distinctions. The study of MGs offers valuable insights into language variation, change, and the nature of linguistic competence.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Multiple grammars
    • 2.1Multiple grammars within a homogenous population of speakers
      • 2.1.1Shared multiple grammars
      • 2.1.2Competing multiple grammars
      • 2.1.3Partial multiple grammars
    • 2.2Multiple grammars in L1 learners’ input
      • 2.2.1Monolingual learners face underdetermined input
      • 2.2.2Bilingual learners face underdetermined input
  • 3.Multiple grammars in bilinguals
    • 3.1Patterns of change
      • 3.1.1Reduction: From multiple grammars to a single grammar
      • 3.1.2Redistribution and matching
    • 3.2Multiple grammars under bilingualism
  • 4.Theoretical implications and broader considerations
    • 4.1Predicting environments for multiple grammars
    • 4.2Multiple grammars and gradience
    • 4.3Acquisition and learning mechanisms
    • 4.4Implications for language change
  • 5.Conclusions and future directions
  • Data availability
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (51)
References
Amaral, L., & Roeper, T. (2014). Multiple grammars and second language representation. Second Language Research, 30(1), 3–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, C. (2004). The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity [Doctoral thesis, Northwestern University].
Aoun, J., & Li, Y.-H. A. (1993). Syntax of scope. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barking, M., & Mos, M. (2024). Individual variation in contact effects: Stability, convergence, and divergence. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 15(1), 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barrett, R. (2016). Mayan language revitalization, hip hop, and ethnic identity in Guatemala. Language & Communication, 471, 144–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borer, H., & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 123–172). Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Bi-unique relations and the maturation of grammatical principles. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 101, 147–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Y., & Huan, T. (2023). Scope assignment in Quantifier-Negation sentences in Tibetan as a heritage language in China. Second Language Research. Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuza, A. (2016). The status of interrogative subject–verb inversion in Spanish-English bilingual children. Lingua, 1801, 124–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Den Dikken, M. (2001). “Pluringulars,” pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review, 181, 19–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferin, M., Marinis, T., & Kupisch, T. (2024). The acquisition of rhetorical questions in bilingual children with Italian as a heritage language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernández, E. M. (2002). Relative clause attachment in bilinguals and monolinguals. In R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 187–215). North-Holland/Elsevier Science Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franks, S., & Bańsky, P. (1999). Approaches to “schizophrenic” Polish person agreement. In K. Dziwirek, H. Coats, & C. M. Vakareliyska (Eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Seattle meeting 1998 (pp. 123–143). Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, M., Lyskawa, P., & Ranero, R. (2020). Agreement in K’iche’ (Mayan): Reflections on microvariation and acquisition. Proceedings of the 44th Penn Linguistics Conference.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grillo, N., Costa, J., Fernándes, B., & Santi, A. (2015). Highs and lows in English attachment. Cognition, 1441, 116–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2007). V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 381, 1–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Musolino, J., & Lidz, J. (2016). Endogenous sources of variation in language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(4), 942–947. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2013, February). Acceptability and grammaticality. Faculty of Language Blog. [URL]
(2024). The Merge hypothesis. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howitt, K., Scontras, G., & Polinsky, M. (in press). English restrictive relative clauses are subject to crossover violations.
Kroch, A. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, 11, 199–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Syntactic change. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 699–729). Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasnik, H., & Stowell, T. (1991). Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry, 221, 687–720.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lau, J. H., Clark, A., & Lappin, S. (2017). Grammaticality, acceptability, and probability: A probabilistic view of linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Science, 411, 1202–1241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, T., Lyskawa, P., & Ranero, R. (2020). Optional agreement in Santiago Tz’utujil (Mayan) is syntactic. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 39(3), 329–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyskawa, P., & Ranero, R. (2022). Optional agreement as successful/failed Agree. Linguistic Variation, 221, 209–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
(1985). Logical form: Its structure and derivation. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moscati, V. (2010). Negation raising: Logical form and linguistic variation. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2008). Gender under incomplete acquisition: Heritage speakers’ knowledge of noun categorization. Heritage Language Journal, 6(1), 40–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025). Heritage language gaps. In M. Putnam, R. D’Alessandro, & S. Terenghi (Eds.), Heritage languages and syntactic theory (pp. 73–107). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Portner, P., & Yabushita, K. (2001). Specific indefinites and the information structure theory of topics. Journal of Semantics, 181, 221–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1971). Cross-over phenomena. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Remarks on weak crossover effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 241, 539–556.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 271, 53–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20(4), 335–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (2003). Multiple grammars, feature-attraction, Pied-Piping, and the question: Is AGR inside TP? Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. (2011). The acquisition path for Wh-questions. In J. de Villiers & T. Roeper (Eds.), Handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition (pp. 189–246). Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics (Vol. 411). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ronai, E. (2018). Quantifier scope in heritage bilinguals: A comparative experimental study. In S. Hucklebridge & M. Nelson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (Vol. 31, pp. 29–38). University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Safir, K. (2017). Weak Crossover. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax (2nd ed.). Wiley Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sauerland, U., & Elbourne, P. (2002). Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry, 331, 283–319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., Tsai, C.-Y. E., & Mai, K. (2017). Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: When two systems meet. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsai, C.-Y. E., Scontras, G., Mai, K., & Polinsky, M. (2014). Prohibiting inverse scope: An experimental study of Chinese vs. English. In C. Piñon (Ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics (Vol. 101, pp. 305–322).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. (2014). Early, late or very late? Timing acquisition and bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(3), 283–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vallduví, E. (1992). The informational component. Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, H. (2019). Quantifier scope in Mandarin [Doctoral dissertation, Stony Brook University].
Wu, H., Larson, R., Liu, Y., Liu, L., & Mar, G. (2018). Rethinking quantifier scope in Mandarin. In S. Hucklebridge & M. Nelson (Eds.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 48 (Vol. 31, pp. 257–263). University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, M.-J., & Ionin, T. (2022). Does explicit instruction affect L2 linguistic competence? An examination with L2 acquisition of English inverse scope. Second Language Research, 38(3), 607–637. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue