In:The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking
Edited by Alexandru Mardale and Silvina Montrul
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 26] 2020
► pp. 261–281
Chapter 10Comprehension of Differential Object Marking by Hindi heritage
speakers
Published online: 18 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.26.10bha
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.26.10bha
Abstract
We investigated the comprehension of Differential Object Marking
(DOM) in Hindi heritage speakers who are second generation immigrants in the
United States. In Hindi, DOM is marked with the postposition
-ko, which is also a marker of dative case with
indirect objects. Studies of Hindi heritage speakers have found omission of
-ko with animate, specific direct objects in oral
production and that speakers find omitted –ko acceptable in
the same contexts in judgment tasks. The present study assessed whether the
vulnerability of DOM in heritage grammars is also measurable at the level of
auditory and written comprehension. In addition, we investigate whether
accuracy with the comprehension of DOM relates to quantity and quality of
input by controlling for age of onset of bilingualism. Thirty-eight young
adult heritage speakers, 23 adult immigrants from India, and 43 Hindi
speakers in India (all Hindi-English bilinguals) completed an off-line
written/auditory sentence comprehension task with pictures. The results show
that Hindi speakers from India and the Hindi immigrants performed largely at
ceiling, whereas some heritage speakers had difficulty with DOM in
comprehension.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Differential Object Marking in Hindi
- 3.The study
- Participants
- Task
- Results
- 4.Discussion
- 5.Conclusion
Acknowledgments Notes References
References (42)
Arechabaleta Regulez, B. (2020). The processing of Differential Object Marking by heritage speakers of Spanish. In A. Mardale & S. Montrul (Eds.), The acquisition of Differential Object Marking. pp. 237-260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baten, K. & Verbeke, S. (2015). The acquisition of the Ergative Case in Hindi as Foreign Language. In Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability Theory edited by Kristof Baten, Aafke Buyl, Katja Lochtman, Mieke Van Herreweghe Amsterdam, John Benjamins. pp. 71-104.
Baten, K., Ponnet, A., & Verbeke, S. (2016). The
acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Hindi as a foreign
language. Dutch Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 5(2), 101–125.
Bowles, M. (2011). Measuring
implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: What can heritage
language learners contribute? Studies
in Second Language
Acquisition, 33, 247–272.
Butt, M. (1993). Object
specificity and agreement in
Hindi/Urdu. In K. Beals, D. Testen, & K.-E. McCullough (Eds.), Papers
from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic
Society (pp. 80–103). Chicago, IL: CLS.
Dayal, V. (2011). Hindi
pseudo-incorporation. Natural
Language and Linguistic
Theory, 29(1), 123–167.
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining
the “natural order of L2 morpheme acqusition” in English: A
meta-analysis of multiple
determinants. Language
Learning, 51, 1–50.
Hansen, L. (1986). Universals
in relative clause acquisition: Evidence from child and adult L1 and
L2 learners of Hindi-Urdu. Language
Learning, 36,143–158.
Hawkins, R., & Casillas, G. (2008). Explaining
frequency of verb morphology in early L2
speech. Lingua, 118, 595–612.
Junghare, I. (1983). Markers
of definiteness in
Indo-Aryan. In A. Dahlstrom, C. Brugman, M. Macaulay, I. Civkulis, M. Emanatian, D. Sakima, & R. Teixeira (Eds.), Proceedings
of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society (pp. 116–127). Berkeley, CA: BLS.
Kim, K., O’Grady, W., & Schwartz, B. (2018). Case
in heritage Korean. Linguistic
Approaches to
Bilingualism, 8(2), 252–282.
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some
thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language
acquisition. Second Language
Research, 25, 173–227.
Lakshmanan, U. (1999). Object
shift and the position of NegP in the child L2 grammars of
Hindi. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Representation
and process: Proceedings of the 1998 Pacific Second Language
Research
Forum (Vol. 1, pp. 23–36). Tokyo: Pacific Second Language Research Forum.
Lardiere, D. (2016). Missing
the trees for the forest: Morphology in second language
acquisition. Second
Language, 15, 5–30.
López, L. (2012). Indefinite
objects. Scrambling, choice functions and differential
marking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mahajan, A. (1990). The
A/A’ distinction and movement
theory (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). MIT.
Masica, C. (1982). Identified
object marking in Hindi and other
languages. In O. N. Koul (Ed.), Topics
in Hindi
linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 16–50). New Delhi: Bahri Publications.
1994b. Case
OCP: A constraint on word order in
Hindi. In M. Butt, T. H. King, & G. Ramchand (Eds.), Theoretical
perspectives on word order in South Asian
languages (pp. 185–215). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Montaut, A. (2018). The
rise of Differential Object Marking in Hindi and related
languages. In I. A. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (Eds.), Diachrony
of Differential Argument
Marking (pp. 281–314). Berlin: Language Science Press.
Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete
acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age
factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2014). Searching
for the roots of structural changes in the Spanish of the United
States. Lingua, 151, 177–196.
(2018). The
bottleneck hypothesis and heritage language
acquisition. In J. Cho, T. Judy, & T. Leal Mendez (Eds.), Meaning
and structure in second language
acquisition (pp. 149–177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2009). Back
to basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition
in Spanish heritage
speakers. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 12(3), 363–383.
Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N. (2013). Differential
Object Marking in child and adult Spanish heritage
speakers. Language
Acquisition, 20, 109–132.
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Bhatia, A. (2012). Erosion
of case and agreement in Hindi heritage
Speakers. Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism, 2, 141–176.
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R. (2015). Differential
Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage
languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610.
Montrul, S., Foote, R., & 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(3), 503–553.
Montrul, S. & Bateman, N. (2020). Differential
Object Marking in Romanian as a heritage
language. In A. Mardale & S. Montrul (Eds.), The
acquisition of Differential Object
Marking. pp. 285-314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this
volume)
O’Grady, W., Kwak, H. Y., Lee, O.-S., & Lee, M. (2011). An
emergentist perspective on heritage language
acquisition. Studies in Second
Language
Acquisition, 33, 223–246.
Pascual y Cabo, D. (2013). Agreement
reflexes of emerging optionality in heritage speaker
Spanish (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Florida.
Pires, A., & Rothman, J. (2009). Acquisition
of Brazilian Portuguese in late childhood: Implications for
syntactic theory and language
change. In A. Pires & J. Rothman (Eds.), Minimalist
inquiries into child and adult language acquisition: Case studies
across Portuguese
(129–154). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rothman, J., Tsimpli, I., & Pascual y Cabo, D. (2016). Formal
linguistic approaches to heritage language acquisition: Bridges for
pedagogically oriented
research. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances
in Spanish as a heritage
language (pp. 13–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Singh, M. (1994). Thematic
roles, word order, and
definiteness. In M. Butt, T. H. King, & G. Ramchand (Eds.), Theoretical
perspectives on word order in South Asian
languages (pp. 217–235). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Sorace, A. (2004). Native
language attrition and developmental instability at the
syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretation and
methods. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 7, 143–145.
(2011). Pinning
down the concept of “interface” in
bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches
to
Bilingualism, 1, 1–34.
Ticio, E. (2015). The
acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish-English Early
Bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism, 5(1), 62–90.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
