Undergraduate Awards 2014 30.05.2014

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS

A Slovene to Serbians, a Serb to Slovenes

First Language Attrition: Differences Between the First and the

Second Generation of Serbian-Slovene Bilinguals

2

ABSTRACT

The present study investigates the differences in the effects of native language

attrition between the first and the second generation of Serbian-Slovene bilinguals. Its main

objective is to determine the areas of grammar that are more susceptible to attrition for a

specific type of a bilingual speaker, as research has shown that, in consecutive bilingual

children, attrition can lead to complete loss of the mother tongue, whereas for late bilinguals,

it is most commonly manifested in the lexicon, while grammar remains relatively stable.

Only linguistic phenomena at the syntax-semantics interface were shown to be vulnerable to

attrition, since bilingualism can lead to underspecification of constraints and optionality in

the grammar. By analysing both bilingual generations use of anaphoric pronouns and

comparing their inflectional marking of grammatical number with respect to the possible

crosslinguistic transfer of Slovene dual paradigms to Serbian morphology, this study

demonstrates that the interface between syntax and semantics is attrited in both groups of

bilinguals, while morphology and syntax are affected only in the language of second-

generation speakers. These results confirm the general findings of the negative effects of

bilingualism on anaphora resolution, underline the pivotal role of attrited input, and highlight

the importance of acknowledging the differences between simultaneous and late bilingual

speakers in studies of language attrition.

Keywords: attrition, bilingualism, Serbian, Slovene, dual, anaphora resolution

3

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 3

2. Native Language Attrition 5

2.1 Serbian and Slovene: South Slavic Relatives 8

3. Methodology 11

4. Participants 14

5. Results 16

5.1 Overt pronouns 17

5.2 Demonstrative pronouns 17

5.3 Dual paradigms 18

6. Discussion 19

7. Conclusion 21

Bibliography 23

Appendix 28

4

1. INTRODUCTION

It is often thought that the term bilingual can only be applied to speakers who fully

acquired two languages from birth. However, multilingual speakers can acquire a language in

any stage of life, with the different onsets of bilingualism creating a distinction between early

bilinguals; those who acquired an additional language either simultaneously or consecutively

in their childhood, and late bilinguals; speakers who started learning a second language as

adults. The divergence between these types of bilinguals is discernible in the overall bilingual

experience of the speaker, which is further shaped by the quantity and quality of received

linguistic input, the frequency of language use, and the bilingual community the speaker is

situated in. The variety of factors that determines the speakers bilingual experience

undermines the common assumption that the bilingual possesses the same level of knowledge

of their two languages, since, as Francois Grosjean famously argued, the bilingual is not two

monolinguals in one person (1989: 3). Moreover, the balance in fluency between the

bilinguals languages can be further upset by the speakers growing inability to inhibit the

L2 when using the L1 (Chericov 2011: 15). This gradual decline in successful inhibition can

often result in unbalanced bilingualism, where one language assumes a dominant role, while

the other is cast as the minority language. As such, it is often vulnerable to language attrition,

whereby the bilingual is frequently unable to access, comprehend or produce [the minority

language] structures (Jarvis 2003: 83) due to the overwhelming influence of the dominant

language.

Language attrition, as the interaction between a decline of the availability of one

language, and the development of another, competing one (de Bot 2007: 58), is elicited by

the amount of contact with the dominant language, age of bilingual onset, and negative

language attitudes. The range of changes manifested in the bilinguals minority language can

therefore span from mere alternations in grammar to complete language loss. Yet, studies

5

have shown that attrition most commonly elicits delayed access to minority language (see

Mgiste 1979); grammar is affected only after prolonged periods of exposure to the dominant

language and infrequent minority language use, since content morphemes are more prone to

attrition than grammatical ones (Myers-Scotton 2007: 71). Moreover, research has shown that

aspects of grammar at the syntaxdiscourse interface are more vulnerable to attrition than

purely syntactic aspects (Sorace 2004: 1), because their linguistic complexity, stemming

from the regulation of morphosyntactic features by discourse-semantic factors, demands

greater processing costs. Since the vast majority of research focuses only on late bilinguals,

the premises specifying particular aspects of grammar that are more vulnerable to attrition

can only be applied to this group of speakers. Few studies have focused on the differences in

language attrition between the first and second generation of bilinguals; namely, speakers

who acquired a second language consecutively as adults and those who had done so

simultaneously from birth. A closer examination of possible differences in linguistic

behaviour between the two generations may reveal dissimilar patterns in the range of areas of

grammar that are more vulnerable to attrition.

The main objective of this dissertation is to explore the differences in first language

attrition between the first generation of Serbian-Slovene late bilinguals, who have emigrated

from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Slovenia, and their bilingual children, who are heritage

speakers of Serbian. By analysing the divergence in the linguistic behaviour between Serbian

monolinguals and Serbian-Slovene bilinguals in the appropriate use of anaphoric pronouns in

subject position, and by examining the difference in the morphosyntactic marking of the

inflectional category of dual, which is used in Slovene, but not in Serbian, as a living

paradigm, this study will highlight the areas of grammar that are more prone to attrition for a

specific type of bilingual speaker. It will argue that the interface between syntax and

semantics is particularly vulnerable to attrition for both late and early bilinguals; however,

6

the morphosyntactic inflections of dual will only be ungrammatically marked in the attrited

language of second-generation Serbian-Slovene bilingual speakers.

2. NATIVE LANGUAGE ATTRITION

First language attrition, often synonymous with non-pathological language loss, is a

linguistic phenomenon that can be observed when native speakers lose contact or have

restricted contact with their native language due to immersion in a second language

environment (Isurin 2000: 151). The effects of the second language on the first are more

visibly adverse in bilingual children than in adults (see Flores 2010), since in their case

attrition affects a linguistic system which has not yet stabilized (Kpke 2004: 6), clearly

illustrating the pivotal role of the age of immersion in a second language environment for

language attrition. What also determines the effects of attrition for late bilinguals is the

quantity and quality of contact with their mother tongue. This is an influential determinant,

which, along with extralinguistic factors such as the length of residence in the L2 country

and motivation to maintain L1 proficiency, is one of the most important causes of

deterioration of L1 skills in individuals who no longer live in their native country (Isurin

2007: 357). For Kees de Bot, language attrition should be viewed within the Dynamic

Systems Theory, where attrition is perceived as a set of variables that mutually affect each

others changes over time (2007: 58). Such a view of first language attrition assumes a

causality between the factors that effect it, meaning that a change in one system leads to

change in other systems or subsystems as well (Chericov 2011: 54). This means that

intralinguistic factors, such as the amount of contact with the first language, and

extralinguistic factors like the level of education, interact in order to generate different

degrees of attrition for different kinds of bilingual speakers. Based on the presence or absence

of these factors within the dynamic system, the various degrees of attrition that can be

7

attested include everything from simplification of grammar to non-pathological language

loss.

So far, complete loss has only been attested in consecutive bilingual children, who

emigrated from their native country, while late bilinguals generally display attrition that is

most pronounced at the lexical level, while at the morpho-syntactic level, changes [] take

longer to establish (Chericov 2011: 26). For late bilingual speakers, the infrequently used

lexicon is more prone to erosion than grammar, because it coexists with the increasingly

frequent second language in a state of competition for a finite amount of memory and

processing space in the mind of the speaker (Seliger 1991: 4). The effects of the frequently

used second language on the infrequently used first are clarified by Paradis Activation

Threshold Hypothesis, which states that those lexemes, or morpho-syntactic paradigms that

are more frequently activated need less stimulation to be reactivated than items that are less

frequently activated (Kpke 2004: 15). The Activation Threshold Hypothesis thus explains

why the mother tongues morphology and syntax, as areas of grammar that are repeatedly

activated and thus more easily accessible, remain effectively unsusceptible to the effects of

attrition in comparison with lexicon and its low-frequency words.

However, if late bilinguals rarely struggle with grammar and if consecutive bilingual

children can experience non-pathological language loss, then one can assume that the degree

of attrition found in simultaneous bilinguals will be quite distinct. The difference in the

effects of attrition might be particularly striking in comparison between first-generation late

bilingual speakers and their children, who are second-generation heritage speakers of their

parents mother tongue. Since these speakers were exposed to an attrited linguistic input from

their parents, while simultaneously being under conditions of intense exposure and use of

the majority language (Montrul 2004: 125), the effects of attrition visible in their minority

language might also be found in the domains of morpho-syntax. Unlike their late bilingual

8

parents, whose first language preserves its grammar against attrition, second-generation

bilinguals are more vulnerable to attrited morphology and syntax due to the different factors

that shape their bilingual experience.

Nonetheless, some aspects are shared between both generations of speakers; namely,

that as bilinguals, they continually negotiate between two languages, while the dominant

language consistently influences the other. This means that some crosslinguistic transfer can

occur in both generations; typically when L2 rules which are formally less complex and

have a wider linguistic distribution [] replace more complex and more narrowly distributed

L1 rules (Kpke 2004: 12). This suggests that the complexity of linguistic rules determines

the presence of attrition for any bilingual speaker, regardless of language dominance. For

instance, research has shown that bilingual speakers of a null-subject language have an

extended scope of overt subjects at the expense of null subjects (Sorace 2004: 2), due to the

syntactically less complex input of a non-null-subject language. The anaphora that governs

null-subjects belongs to features at the interface between syntax and semantics, [often]

affected by attrition (Kpke 2004: 13) for both generations of bilinguals, not only because of

language interference, but also because this area of grammar is regulated by discourse-

pragmatic factors, which demand considerable processing costs due to the interaction of

knowledge between syntax and pragmatics. This is why even bilingual speakers of two null-

subject languages tend to overuse overt pronouns, which strongly suggests that language

interference cannot be the only cause of this phenomenon (Sorace 2011: 341). In order to

determine what crosslinguistic influence can be found in both generations of bilingual

speakers, this study will contrast the use of anaphoric pronouns in late Serbian-Slovene

bilinguals and their simultaneously bilingual children. But in order to establish the

differences in the effects of attrition, it will examine the grammaticality in their use of

number inflections in Serbian with respect to possible crosslinguistic transfer of dual

9

paradigms from Slovene, where dual is a living category, to Serbian, where the only remnant

of dual is the paucal form. The following paragraphs give a brief description of the two

languages, and the felicitous use of anaphora and grammatical number in Serbian.

2.1 SERBIAN AND SLOVENE: SOUTH SLAVIC RELATIVES

Serbian and Slovene are members of the Western South Slavic family, along with

Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin. These languages are all mutually understandable, since

they evolved from the southern Proto-Slavic language diglossia. Contemporary Standard

Slovene, however stands substantially apart from the other South Slav languages in terms of

history (Sussex 2006: 63), since it was founded on the Inner Carniolan dialect, which was

often influenced by German and Italian. Although the historical development sets Slovene

and Serbian quite far apart in terms of phonology and lexicon, they are still so closely related

that they share most of their morpho-syntactic paradigms. Both Slovene and Serbian have a

very Indo-European system of synthetic inflexional paradigms (Sussex 2006: 217); Slovene

has six cases, while Serbian has seven, and both languages mark number, person, and gender,

giving rise to a rich verbal and nominal morphology. The two languages thus belong to the

null-subject language group, where the distribution of null and overt subjects is regulated by

discourse-pragmatic factors (Sorace 2005: 61).

However, unlike Italian or Spanish, which only distinguish between null and overt

subjects, Serbian and Slovene have a three-way anaphoric distinction between null, overt, and

demonstrative subjects. The discourse-pragmatic factors that govern the choice of a particular

subject demand a null subject when they refer to a topic: an entity already introduced in the

linguistic or situational context; overt subjects are used instead to introduce a new referent

(Sorace 2005: 61). When a demonstrative pronoun appears in subject position, it often refers

to that noun phrase which is located furthest from it in the sentence. Thus, the closer the

10

anaphoric relation, the less likely is the use of a demonstrative pronoun and vice versa. The

farther apart the two expressions, the more it might seem necessary to support the hearers

search for the antecedent by using a demonstrative pronoun (Mendoza 2005: 17). The

Serbian sentences in table one below exemplify the different anaphoric relationships between

the subject and its antecedents. The

Sentence:

The grandmother waves to the girl, while she crosses the street.

Subject type Antecedent

Baba mae devojci, dok prelazi ulicu.

Grandmother NOM.FEM.SG. wave 3rd PER.SG.PRES. girl DAT.FEM.SING. while SUB. cross 3rdPER.SG.FEM.PRES. street ACC.FEM.SING.

Null Grandmother

Baba mae devojci, dok ona prelazi ulicu.

Grandmother NOM.FEM.SG. wave 3rd PER.SG.PRES. girl DAT.FEM.SING. while SUB. she PRO.OVERT.FEM. cross 3rdPER.SG.FEM.PRES. street

ACC.FEM.SING.

Overt New female

referent

Dok ova prelazi ulicu, baba mae devojci.

WhileSUB. that.DEM.PRO.FEM.SING. cross 3rdPER.SG.FEM.PRES. street

ACC.FEM.SING. grandmother NOM.FEM.SG. wave 3rd PER.SG.PRES. girl

DAT.FEM.SING.

Demonstrative

pronoun

Girl

Table 1 Anaphora resolution in Serbian

null subject is chosen because the verb prelazi is marked as third person feminine singular,

which establishes an anaphoric relation with the noun baba, although some monolinguals

may infer the noun girl as the antecedent. The feminine pronoun ona can only refer to

someone that was previously mentioned in the context, otherwise its use is overt, while the

demonstrative pronoun ova refers to girl: the feminine antecedent that is positioned furthest

from it in the sentence.

Anaphora resolution is just one part of grammar that Slovene and Serbian share,

whereas the category of grammatical number is where the languages diverge the most in

terms of morphology and syntax. Slovene marks singular, dual, and plural number as in ena,

11

eni, ene wife, two wives, wives, while Serbian only distinguishes between singular and

plural. Out of all Slavic languages only Sorbian and Slovenian now preserve the dual

number as a living category (Sussex 2006: 221), while Serbian lost it during its development

from Southern Proto-Slavic. Nonetheless, remnants of dual are still present in Serbian in

specific case paradigms like in the dative, instrumental, locative plural in enama women

(Sussex 2006: 225), which is identical to the Slovene dative dual enama. Moreover, the

numerals two, three, and four require a special form of the noun and of other agreeing words

in the phrase, the so-called paucal form, [which] has the same ending as the genitive singular:

tri stola / ene / noi (Kordi 1997: 32), some of which are identical to the nominative dual

in Slovene, e.g. stola, two chairs. Table two highlights the similarities between the cognate

noun kamion lorry in its Slovene dual and Serbian plural declination. The paucal form of

the cognate tri kamiona three lorries is identical in form to the Slovene nominative and

accusative dual, whereas the dative, locative, and instrumental syncretized plural in Serbian is

very similar to the Slovene instrumental and dative dual inflection, differing only in the back

vowel //.

Case Slovene dual paradigm Serbian plural paradigm

Nominative Kamiona Kamioni

Genitive Kamionov Kamiona

Dative Kamionoma Kamionima

Accusative Kamiona Kamione

Locative Kamionih Kamionima

Instrumental Kamionoma Kamionima Table 2 Slovene and Serbian declinations of kamion lorry'

The similarities between the two paradigms contribute to the possibility of

crosslinguistic transfer from Slovene to Serbian. Since the ambiguity of plural inflections and

paucal forms provides the bilingual with false evidence for the presence of dual in Serbian,

some crosslinguistic transfer from Slovene to Serbian is expected, particularly for those

12

speakers whose dominant language is Slovene. Based on the Activation Threshold

Hypothesis, dual will be activated more easily for the second generation because it is

frequently used, while their parents, as late bilinguals whose dominant language is Serbian,

will show no attrition by transferring dual paradigms into Serbian grammar. However, these

speakers will still exhibit the effects of attrition, particularly at the interface between syntax

and semantics, where the factors that govern the felicitous use of anaphoric pronouns in

subject position will be significantly affected. Attrition, in this case, arises because the

overall bilingual experience involves processing difficulties related to the integration of

different types of knowledge (Sorace 2005: 78), leading to the conclusion that the interface

between syntax and semantics is more vulnerable to attrition for both generations of

bilinguals, whereas only the latter generation will exhibit attrited grammar by transferring

dual paradigms from Slovene to Serbian. The next chapter describes the experimental

methods used to test these hypotheses.

3. METHODOLOGY

A single experiment, partly based on the Filiaci et al 2013 study, was designed to test

the directional hypotheses outlined above. It was created with E-Prime software, where

separate procedures were programmed, so that the crosslinguistic transfer of dual and the

anaphoric subjects could be examined simultaneously. The procedure testing anaphora

resolution involved slides with a sentence at the bottom and three images above it, differing

in their depictions of the antecedent as the actor of an action which either an overt pronoun, a

null subject, or a demonstrative pronoun anaphorically referred to. Based on the type of

subject used, the participant was asked to select that image which corresponded to the

meaning of the sentence, thus picking out the inferred antecedent of the subject anaphora.

The figure below illustrates a sentence with a feminine overt pronoun as the subject of its

13

subordinate clause. In this case, the participant should select the second image, since the

antecedent of the overt feminine pronoun is a new, contrastive female referent and not the

grandmother or the girl, who would have been referred to with a null subject.

image 1

image 2

image 3

Baba mae devojci, dok ona prelazi ulicu.

Grandmother NOM.FEM.SG. wave 3rd PER.SG.PRES. girl DAT.FEM.SING. while SUB. she PRO.OVERT.FEM. cross

3rdPER.SG.FEM.PRES. street ACC.FEM.SING. The grandmother waves to the girl, while she crosses the street.

Figure 1 Sentence testing overt subject use

The procedure testing for crosslinguistic transfer of dual from Slovene to Serbian

utilised a similar design, whereby the slides consisted of one image and three sentences,

which differed only in the number inflections of a specific noun. Thus, one sentence had that

noun marked as singular, one as dual, and another with the plural inflection, so that the

participant had to select that sentence which matched the inferred meaning of the image. The

nouns used in experimental slides were cognates, since it was shown that cross-linguistic

similarity may result in [the bilinguals] confusion (Isurin 2000:152). Moreover, a cognate

word provides the bilingual with a similar environment where the dual inflection can be

applied, whilst remaining seemingly grammatical. Figure two below contains the cognate

pismo letter marked as singular, ungrammatical dual, and plural. Since the image depicts a

woman crying over two letters, the grammatical choice in Serbian is the third sentence, with

the noun in plural.

14

ena plae zbog pisma.

Woman NOM.FEM.SG. cry 3rdPER.

SG. PRES. because PREP. letter

GEN.NEUT.SG.

*ena plae zbog pisem.

Woman NOM.FEM.SG. cry 3rdPER.

SG. PRES. because PREP. *letters

GEN.NEUT.DUAL,

ena plae zbog pisama.

Woman NOM.FEM.SG. cry 3rdPER.

SG.PRES. because PREP. letters

GEN.NEUT.PLURAL.

The woman is crying because of the two letters.

Figure 2 Testing for transfer of dual in the cognate pismo

The experimental slides of the two procedures were mixed with fillers, involving

different visual perceptions, or appropriate use of prepositions. All slides were randomised in

order of appearance with the order of images in slides testing anaphora and the order of

sentences in slides testing for transfer also randomised, lest a bias should arise due to fatigue,

learning, or memory. A sample of images used can be found in the appendix. The experiment

was conducted with a 13-inch MacBook Air, with the participants using the computers

touchpad to select their answers. At the start of the experiment, the instructions appeared on

the screen, clearly describing the structure of the tests and the appropriate selection of

responses. A short test run followed, allowing the participants to practice and ask any final

questions before the experiment began. The experiment typically lasted from 15 to 30

minutes, depending on the age of the participant; factors described in more detail under the

next heading.

15

4. PARTICIPANTS

The sample consisted of 43 Serbian-Slovene bilinguals living in Slovenia and 31

Serbian monolinguals settled in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The subjects were recruited

through the snowball sampling method, whereby the initial pool of participants expanded into

the community as each participant provided new subjects from their circle of acquaintances.

Although the method of participant recruitment was identical in Bosnia, the number of

monolinguals is not equal to the number of bilinguals due to temporal restrictions. Yet, even

though the group size is uneven, the main constraint imposed on participant selection was

applied to both groups. Namely, every adult participant in either the monolingual or the

bilingual group had to be a parent of at least one young adult participant from the same

group. The same applied to young adult speakers; that is, every second-generation speaker

had to be a child of at least one adult participant from the same group of speakers. The

importance of this constraint lies in its ability to show the effects of attrited input that the

bilingual children received from their parents, thus displaying the differences in language

attrition between late and simultaneous bilinguals. The control group was exposed to the

same constraint in order to prevent age bias.

The data from both generations of Serbian-Slovene bilinguals were collected in Ljubljana and

its surrounding towns. These areas are heavily populated by different immigrant

communities, including the Serbian speaking former citizens of the Socialist Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia (Statistini urad RS, 2010). The adult speakers were all born in

Bosnia, but they immigrated to Slovenia at the average age of 19. The mean age of

immigration suggests that the linguistic system of their mother tongue was stable at the onset

of bilingualism (Kpke 2004: 6). Their children, on the other hand, were all born in Slovenia

and raised in a bilingual setting from birth. The table below presents some descriptive

information about both generations of bilingual speakers regarding their gender, mean age,

16

level of education, completion of any language courses, and the amount of code-switching.

These data were gathered by means of a questionnaire, which was concerned with personal

information, daily language use, self-assessment of the command of each language, and

concurrence with various statements regarding language attitudes in Slovenia. A translation

of the questionnaire, originally presented in Serbian, can be found in the appendix.

Factor 1st generation of

bilinguals

2nd generation of

bilinguals

Gender 14F/8M 9F/10M

Age [mean] 48 22

Years of education [mean] 11 14

Education in/of Serbian [speakers] 100% 0%

Education in/of Slovene [speakers] 64% 100%

Amount of code-switching Daily (100%) Daily (100%) Table 3 Descriptive statistics of bilinguals

In order to compare the findings from bilingual speakers to those from an unbiased

environment where Slovene has no presence whatsoever, a control group of Serbian

monolingual speakers was required. These data were obtained in the span of five days in

Doboj, a city situated in Republika Srpska, approximately 400km away from Ljubljana.

Among the sample, there were 15 adult monolinguals and their 16 monolingual children, who

were relatively matched for gender, age, level of education, and socio-economic status. The

table below features some descriptive factors about the two groups of monolinguals, while

the next chapter already presents the results of this study.

17

Factor 1st generation of

monolinguals

2nd generation of

monolinguals

Gender 10F/5M 7F/9M

Age [mean] 43 23

Years of education [mean] 13 14

Education in/of Serbian [speakers] 100% 100%

Amount of code-switching Never (100%) Never (94%) Table 4 Descriptive statistics of monolingual speakers

5. RESULTS

In order to get a better understanding of the collected data, this chapter is divided into

three sections, each pertaining to a separate analysis of results. All three analyses involved

two independent variables: language with monolingual and bilingual levels, and age with

youth and adult levels. The dependent variables were the infelicitous use of overt subjects

and demonstrative pronouns, and the presence of dual inflections. E-Prime software was

programmed to collect infelicitous responses, which were tallied for every participant. Two

participants were excluded from the analyses; the data from one second-generation bilingual

were eliminated, because the computer restarted during the experiment, so his second trial

was memory biased, while the data obtained from one first-generation bilingual were

removed because they created an outlier. The data were analysed using a two-way analysis of

variance (ANOVA), which suited the design of the experiment, as the data were measured on

an interval scale, and the subject design was unrelated. Likewise, there were no significant

outliers that could influence ANOVAs result, as the normal distribution was kept in check,

and the homogeneity of variances was examined with Levenes test. Moreover, a two-way

ANOVA was used for data analysis because of its ability to determine the presence or

absence of an interaction between the effects of the independent variables on the dependent

one. With respect to this study, a two-way ANOVA is able to shed some light on the

18

interaction between age and language in attrition, thus providing firm grounds on which the

predicted difference in attrition effects between the first and second generation of Serbian-

Slovene bilinguals can either be confirmed or rejected. A more detailed description of each

analysis can be found in the appendix.

5.1 OVERT PRONOUNS

The analysis of variance does not show a significant interaction between the effects of

Age and Language on the use of overt pronouns (F = 0.6, p < 0.441). Likewise, no significant

difference between the two levels was found in main effects for each independent variable;

the values for Language were F = 1.245, p < 0.268, while the values for Age were F = 2.625,

p < 0.110. These results reject the hypothesis which assumes that both bilingual generations

violate the felicity conditions of the null-subject parameter by overusing overt subjects more

frequently than monolinguals, as neither bilingual generation behaves differently from

monolinguals.

5.2 DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS The two-way ANOVA does not show a significant interaction between the effects of

Age and Language on the infelicitous use of demonstrative pronouns (F = 0.182, p < 0.671).

It does, however, show a significant main effect for Language (F = 10.069, p < 0.002), but

not for Age (F = 0.013, p < 0.908). These results confirm the hypothesis which states that

both generations of bilinguals violate the felicity conditions of anaphora more frequently than

monolinguals by inferring an overt antecedent for demonstrative pronouns in subject

position. An interaction between factors is not expected in this case, as it is bilingualism and

not the speakers age that affects the interface between pragmatics and syntax.

19

5.3 DUAL PARADIGMS

The analysis yielded a significant interaction between the effects of Age and

Language on crosslinguistic transfer (F = 17.072, p < 0.000), along with significant main

effects for Language (F = 34.039, p < 0.000) and Age (F = 17.072, p < 0.000) with the level

of statistical significance at p < 0.001. The independent variables were also analysed for

simple main effects using SPSS syntax procedures. These show that there is no significant

difference between monolinguals and bilinguals at the older adult level (F = 1.469, p <

0.230), but that there is a highly significant difference at the young adult level (F = 49.012, p

< 0.000).

Because monolingual speakers never used dual, their means were constant at 0, which

is why a one-way ANOVA with data from bilinguals was performed in order to explain the

difference between the bilingual generations. The mean use of dual for bilingual adults was

0.82, while the mean value for heritage speakers was 4.798. One-way ANOVA found a

significant difference within this factor (F = 22.685, p < 0.000). Welchs robust test was also

significant (F = 20.379, p < 0.000), acknowledging the statistical power of the analysis of

variance, despite the fact that the data violated homogeneity of variances. Based on these

analyses, the second hypothesis can be confirmed, since second-generation bilinguals exhibit

attrited morphology by transferring Slovene dual paradigms to Serbian.

20

6. DISCUSSION

This study accomplished its objective in answering the question whether the effects of

attrition differ between the first and second generation of Serbian-Slovene bilingual speakers.

The two hypotheses predicted that only heritage bilinguals would exhibit attrited grammar in

number agreement, because they received attrited input from their parents, whereas first

generation speakers would show no attrition in these areas, since Serbian is their dominant

language, which was resolutely established and consolidated before the onset of bilingualism

(see Flores 2010). Moreover, the hypotheses also proposed there would be similarities in the

effects of attrition on both generations knowledge of Serbian; whereby attrition would be

present in the interface between syntax and pragmatics, where bilinguals violate the felicity

conditions that govern anaphora resolution. Nonetheless, the data do not entirely comply with

these hypotheses, since bilingual speakers use of overt pronouns is not significantly different

from that of monolinguals. Moreover, a few first-generation speakers unexpectedly chose

dual forms, even though the hypotheses suggested that only second-generation bilinguals

would have attrited Serbian grammar. Based their language dominance, the crosslinguistic

transfer of dual by late bilinguals is clearly an unexpected result. Nonetheless, this can still be

interpreted as random error rather than attrition, due to the highly significant difference

between the bilingual generations in their use of dual paradigms (youth mean = 4.798, adult

mean = 0.82, F = 22.685, p < 0.000). Because only six late bilinguals opted for the dual noun,

it cannot be assumed that such behaviour can be applied to the whole population.

Furthermore, the experiment demanded a higher level of metalinguistic awareness [since]

participants analysed written sentences rather than spoken sentences (Isurin 2007: 361), thus

it cannot be assumed that these speakers would actually produce ungrammatical phrases.

Heritage bilinguals, on the other hand, admitted to not knowing when Serbian uses dual

paradigms, mistakenly thinking that it is present in grammar, which explains the

21

inconsistency in their preferences for dual or plural forms. This indicates a lack of complete

knowledge, an uncertainty, which should be thought of as natural for people who are in the

midst of learning or forgetting something (Altenberg 2004: 118).

The uncertainty in knowledge that arises due to attrition also explains the bilinguals

difficulty with anaphora resolution. Although the majority of studies reported an increase in

the production of overt subjects (Montrul 2004: 130), the results of this study do not reflect

these general findings. There was no significant difference in the use of overt pronouns

between monolinguals and bilinguals, despite the fact that bilingualism often affects the

knowledge of the appropriate felicity conditions for the use of overt subjects (Sorace 2005:

66). The disparity between the results of this study and the general findings can be attributed

to the fact that Serbian pronominal anaphora is characterized by a three-way distinction

between null-subjects, overt subjects, and demonstrative pronouns, where only the latter were

infelicitously used. As bilinguals show a tendency to resort to the least semantically and

pragmatically costly option offered by the two languages (Montrul 2004: 138), it can be

assumed that the violation of anaphora resolution in demonstrative pronouns, by inferring a

new referent rather than any of the possible antecedents, relieves the bilingual from the

intricate and costly anaphora to a greater degree than the infelicitous use of overt pronouns

would do. Research shows that all bilingual speakers tend to violate Grices Maxim of

Quantity in anaphora resolution not merely because of language interference, but also

because the presence of more than one grammar gives rise either to abrasion and

underspecification at the level of knowledge representations, with soft interface constraints

being the target of indeterminacy; [or to] processing difficulties related to the integration of

different types of knowledge (Sorace 2005: 78). Therefore, it is bilingualism per se that

enhances the effects of attrition on anaphora resolution, since it gives rise to uncertainty and

22

burdens language processing whenever syntax and semantics interact to yield implicature and

meaning in discourse.

7. CONCLUSIONS

The main objective of this study was to determine the differences in first language

attrition between the first generation of Serbian-Slovene late bilinguals and their

simultaneously bilingual children by analysing their use of anaphoric pronouns and the

grammaticality of their number inflections in Serbian. The results show that the interface

between syntax and pragmatics is affected in both generations, since all bilinguals violate

felicity conditions in the use of anaphoric demonstrative pronouns, whereas Serbian grammar

is attrited only in second-generation speakers, who transfer Slovene dual paradigms to

Serbian cognates. The few instances of dual unexpectedly found in first-generation bilinguals

can be attributed to random error, as only six participants chose dual once or twice out of

possible 19 times, possibly not seeing the difference in the cognates dual and plural

paradigms, since these differ in one letter: *automa MASC.GEN.DUAL two cars and autima

MASC.GEN.PL cars. The fact that there was no significant difference between monolinguals and

bilinguals in the use of overt pronouns can be explained by the three-way distinction in

Serbian and Slovene anaphora resolution. However, studies done on attrited speech of

Serbian-English bilinguals found that these speakers used overt pronouns more than

monolinguals (see Hlavac 2003), because English is a not a null-subject language. By

comparing the linguistic behaviour of bilinguals of a two-way and a three-way null-subject

language with the results obtained in this and Hlavacs study, future research will determine

which anaphoric pronominal forms are more susceptible to attrition in different anaphoric

spaces, and thus account for the vulnerability of the syntax-pragmatics interface.

23

This study relevantly specifies the different areas of language that are more

susceptible to attrition for late and simultaneous bilingual speakers. More specifically, the

results demonstrate that there is a difference in the effects of attrition between the first and

second generation of bilinguals in that the latter group exhibits attrited grammar by means of

transferring Slovene dual paradigms to Serbian nouns. This divergence can be ascribed to the

attrited input the children have received from their parents, minimal contact with native

speakers, and infrequent heritage language use. As predicted, the results show that the

Serbian-Slovene speakers are as bilinguals inevitably more exposed to attrition in the

interface between syntax and pragmatics, resulting in the infelicitous use of anaphoric

demonstrative pronouns. Because bilingualism involves daily mediation between two

competing linguistic systems, the speakers knowledge of constraints on anaphora resolution

can become underspecified, creating optionality in grammar, but also effecting greater

processing costs as anaphoric meaning is inferred from an interaction between syntax and

semantics. The indeterminacy in the bilinguals knowledge of the attrited language should not

be regarded as singularly unique, as speakers who are in the midst of learning and forgetting

can often be uncertain; a cost manifested for most Serbian-Slovene bilinguals in the fact that

they are viewed as Slovene foreigners by Serbians, while remaining forever the alien

Serbians to Slovenes.

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albirini, Abdulkafi; Benmamoun, Elabbas; & Chakrani, Brahim (2013). Gender and

Number Agreement in the Oral Production of Arabic Heritage Speakers. Bilingualism:

Language and Cognition 16: 1-18.

Altenberg, P. Evelyn & Vago, M. Robert (2004). Grammaticality Judgements in First

Language Attrition., in: M. Schmid, B. Kpke, M. Keijzer, & L. Weilemar (eds.) First

Language Attrition: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Methodological Issues. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins Publishing.

Ammerlaan, Ton (1997). Corrosion' or Loss of Emigrant Dutch in Australia: An

Experiment on First Language Attrition., in: S. Kroon & J. Klatter-Folmer (eds.) Dutch

Overseas: Studies in Maintenance, Shift and Loss of Dutch as an Immigrant Language.

Amsterdam: Tilburg University Press.

Belletti, Adriana; Bennati, Elisa; & Sorace, Antonella (2007). Theoretical and

Developmental Issues in the Syntax of Subjects: Evidence from Near-native Italian.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25.4: 657-689.

Bialystok, Ellen; Craik, I.M. Fergus & Luk, Gigi (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for

Mind and Brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16.4: 240-250.

de Bot, Kees (2007). Dynamic Systems Theory, Lifespan Development, and Language

Attrition., in: Barbara Kpke (ed.) Language Attrition: Theoretical Perspectives.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Bylund, Emmanuel (2009). Effects of Age on L2 acquisition on L1 Event Conceptualisation

Patterns. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12: 302-322.

Chericov, Mirela (2011). Between Attrition and Acquisition: the Dynamics Between Two

Languages in Adult Migrants. [online] Available at:

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/29683/1/Cherciov_Mirela_M_201106_PhD_

25

thesis.pdf [Accessed: 17 Mar 2014].

Costa, A. & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical Access in Bilingual Speech Production:

Evidence from Language Switching in Highly Proficient Bilinguals and L2 learners.

Journal of Memory and Language 50: 491-511.

Costa, Albert; Hernandez, Mireira; Costa-Faidella, Jordi & Sebastian-Galles, Nuria (2009).

On the Bilingual Advantage in Conflicting Processing: Now you see it, now you dont.

Cognition 113: 135-149.

Derganc, Aleksandra (1998). Nekaterere paralele v razvoju dvojine v slovenini in luiki

srbini. Slavistina revija 46.1: 45-54.

Deelan, Toma (2013). In the Name of the Nation and/or Europe? Determinants of the

Slovenian Citizenship Regime., in: Jo Shaw & Igor tiks (eds) Citizenship After

Yugoslavia. Oxon: Routledge.

Field, Andy (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications.

Filiaci, Francesca; Sorace, Antonella & Carreiras, Manuel (2013). Anaphoric Biases of Null

and Overt Subjects in Italian and Spanish: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Language and

Cognitive Processes [online] Available at:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01690965.2013.801502#.UygbkFylnFI

[Accessed: 17 Mar 2014].

Flores, Cristina (2010). The Effect of Age on Language Attrition: Evidence from Bilingual

Returnees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13.4: 533-546.

Flores, Cristina (2012). Differential Effects of Language Attrition in the Domains of Verb

Placement and Object Expression. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15.3: 550-567.

Grosjean, Franois (1989). Neurolinguists, Beware! The Bilingual is not two Monolinguals

in One Person. Brain and Language 36.1: 3-15.

Hlavac, Jim (2003). Second Generation Speech: Lexicon, Code-Switching and Morpho-

26

Syntax of Croatian-English Bilinguals. Bern: Peter Lang Publishers.

Isurin, Ludmila (2000). Deserted Island or a Childs First Language Forgetting.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3.2: 151-166.

Isurin, Ludmila (2007). Teachers' Language: L1 Attrition in Russian-English Bilinguals.

The Modern Language Journal 91.3: 357-371.

Jakop, Tjaa (2008). The Dual in Slovene Dialects. Bochum: Universittsverlag Dr. N.

Brockmeyer.

Jarvis, Scott (2003). Probing the Effects of the L2 on L1: A Case Study., in: V. J. Cook

(ed.) The Effects of the Second Language on the First. Clevedon: Multilingualism Matters

Ltd.

Jaspaert, K. & Kroon, S. (1989). Social Determinants in Language Loss. Review of Applied

Linguistics 83: 75-98.

Kerr, W. Alistair; Hall, K. Howard & Kozub, A. Stephen (2002). Doing Statistics with SPSS.

London: Sage publications.

Kpke, B. & Schmid, M. (2004). First Language Attrition: the Next Phase., in: M. Schmid,

B. Kpke, M. Keijzer, & L. Weilemar (eds.) First Language Attrition: Interdisciplinary

Perspectives on Methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Kpke, Barbara & Schmid, Monika (2007). Bilingualism and Attrition., in: Barbara Kpke

(ed.) Language Attrition: Theoretical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing.

Kpke, Barbara (2007). Language Attrition at the Crossroads of Brain, Mind, and Society.,

in: Barbara Kpke (ed.) Language Attrition: Theoretical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins Publishing.

Kordi, Snjeana (1997). Serbo-Croatian. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Kordi, Snjeana (1997). Predmetne pokazne zamjenice u hrvatskom, poljskom, ekom i

27

ruskom jeziku. Prvi srbski slavistiki kongres: zbornik radova 1: 275-288.

Langston, Keith (2004). Review: Second Generation Speech: Lexicon, Code-Switching and

Morpho-Syntax of Croatian-English Bilinguals by Jim Hlavac. The Slavic and East

European Journal 48.2: 345-346.

Laufer, Batia (2003). The Influence of L2 on L1 Collocational Knowledge and on L1

Lexical Diversity in Free Written Expression., in: V. J. Cook (ed.) The Effects of the

Second Language on the First. Clevedon: Multilingualism Matters Ltd, 2003.

de Leeuw, Esther (2013). Dynamic systems, Maturational Constraints and L1 Phonetic

Attrition. The International Journal of Bilingualism 17.6: 683-700.

Linck, A. Jared; Kroll, F. Judith & Suderman, Gretchen (2009). Losing Access to the Native

Language while immersed in a Second Language. Psychological Science 20.10: 1507-

1515.

Mgiste, Edith (1979). Recall of Concrete and Abstract Sentences in Bilinguals.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 20.1: 179-185.

Mendoza, Imke (2005). Polish Demonstrative Pronouns as Markers of Value. The Slavic

and East European Resource Centre 6: 1-20.

Montrul, Silvina (2004). Subject and Object Expression in Spanish Heritage Speakers: A

case of Morphosyntactic Convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7.2: 125-

142.

Myers-Scotton, Carol (2007). Grammatical Stairs in Language Shift., in: Barbara Kpke

(ed.) Language Attrition: Theoretical Perspectives.Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing.

Paap, R. Kenneth & Greenberg, I. Zachary (2013). There is no Coherent Evidence for a

Bilingual Advantage in Executive Processing. Cognitive Psychology 66.2: 232-258.

Pavlenko, Aneta (2004). L2 Influence and L1 Attrition in Adult Bilingualism., in: M.

28

Schmid, B. Kpke, M. Keijzer, & L. Weilemar (eds.) First Language Attrition:

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Methodological Issues.Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing.

Rothman, Jason; & Iverson, Michael (2007). On Parameter Clustering and Resetting the

Null Subject Parameter in L2 Spanish: Implications and Observations. Hispania 90.2:

328-341.

Savi, M. Jelena (1995). Structural Convergence and Language Change: Evidence from

Serbian/English Code-swtiching. Language in Society 24.4: 475-492.

Seliger, H. & Vago, R (1991). The Study of First Language Attrition: an Overview, in:

Seliger, Herbert & Vago, M. Robert (eds.) First Language Attrition. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Sorace, Antonella (2004). Native Language Attrition and Developmental Instability at the

Syntax-Discourse Interface: Data, Interpretations, and Methods. Bilingualism: Language

and Cognition 7.2: 1-4.

Sorace, Antonella (2005). Selective Optionality in Language Development., in: L. Cornipis

& K. Corrigan (eds.) Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Sorace, Antonella (2011). Cognitive advantages in bilingualism: Is there a bilingual

paradox?, in: P. Valore (ed.) Multilingualism. Language, Power, and Knowledge. Pisa:

Edistudio.

Statistini urad RS (2010). Statistine informacije: prebivalstvo. [online] Available at:

http://www.stat.si/doc/statinf/05-si-007-1001.pdf [Accessed: 18 Mar 2014].

Sussex, Roland & Cubberley, Paul (2006). The Slavic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

29

APPENDIX

A sample of images used in the experiment:

The squirrel stole an acorn from two bears. The policeman is in the house.

There are no (two) dogs in the room. The woman is putting on a coat.

The policeman sees the thief, while he runs. While she is putting on a coat, the mother kisses her daughter.

30

Background Information Questionnaire Personal information: 1. Name (optional) __________________ 2. Age _____________ 3. Gender: Male Female 4. Years of education__________ 5. Highest level of education achieved or currently studying e.g. high school, undergraduate degree, PhD ________________________ 6. Country of birth_________________________ 7. Country of residence _________________ 8. If you have emigrated from your country of birth, how old were you on arrival to the country of residence? ____________ History of your acquisition of Serbian: 1. First contact with the language: At birth or Age____ (please specify) 2. Did you receive any formal education in this language (school/university/language course)? Yes No Current Use: 1. Do you still use the language? Yes No If no, when did you stop using the language? Age_____ If yes, how often do you use it in the following contexts? Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Never N/A Parents Partner Other family Uni/Work Friends/Reading Do you use different languages when you speak with the same person? Yes No If yes, how often? Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Never Fluency of the language: 1. Evaluate your fluency of Serbian in the following categories by circling the appropriate option, where 1 is basic and 5 is fluent. Speaking 1 2 3 4 5 Understanding 1 2 3 4 5 Reading 1 2 3 4 5 Writing 1 2 3 4 5 History of your acquisition of Slovene: 1. First contact with the language: At birth or Age____ (please specify) 2. Did you receive any formal education in this language (school/university/language course)? Yes No Current Use: 1. Do you still use the language? Yes No If no, when did you stop using the language? Age_____ If yes, how often do you use it in the following contexts?

31

Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Never N/A Parents Partner Other family Uni/Work Friends/Reading Do you use different languages when you speak with the same person? Yes No If yes, how often? Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Never Fluency of the language: 1. Evaluate your fluency of Slovene in the following categories by circling the appropriate option, where 1 is basic and 5 is fluent. Speaking 1 2 3 4 5 Understanding 1 2 3 4 5 Reading 1 2 3 4 5 Writing 1 2 3 4 5 Feelings towards Serbian (answer only if you live in Slovenia): 1. Evaluate your agreement with the following statements by circling the appropriate number, where 1 indicates strong disagreement, while 5 indicates strong agreement. I like speaking Serbian. 1 2 3 4 5 I want to speak Serbian with my children. 1 2 3 4 5 I often feel uncomfortable, when I speak Serbian in company.

1 2 3 4 5

In Slovenia, Serbian speakers are looked down upon.

1 2 3 4 5

32

RESULTS:

1) Overt pronouns

Table 5 Descriptives: Overt Pronouns

Language Statistic S. Error

OvertP monolingual Mean 4.55 0.245

95%

Confidence

Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound 4.05

Upper Bound 5.05

Skewness -1.292 0.421

Kurtosis 1.438 0.821

bilingual Mean 4.85 0.129

95%

Confidence

Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound 4.59

Upper Bound 5.11

Skewness -0.281 0.369

Kurtosis -0.395 0.724

Age Statistic S. Error

OvertP young adult Mean 4.51 0.211

95%

Confidence

Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound 4.09

Upper Bound 4.94

Skewness -1.197 0.498

Kurtosis 1.913 0.778

older adult Mean 4.92 0.147

95%

Confidence

Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound 5.22

Upper Bound 5.11

Skewness -1.069 0.398

Kurtosis 2.053 0.759

33

Figure 3 Language effects on overt pronoun use

2) Demonstrative pronouns

3) Language Statistic S. Error

Demonstrative monolingual Mean 3.87 0.314

95% Confidence

Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound 3.23

Upper Bound 4.51

Skewness 0.050 0.421

Kurtosis -0.843 0.821

bilingual Mean 5.10 0.234

95% Confidence

Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound 4.63

Upper Bound 5.57

Skewness -0.127 0.369

Kurtosis -1.391 0.724

34

Age Statistic S. Error

Demonstrative young adult Mean 4.57 0.316

95% Confidence

Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound 3.93

Upper Bound 5.21

Skewness -0.133 0.398

Kurtosis -1.087 0.778

older adult Mean 4.57 0.259

95% Confidence

Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound 4.04

Upper Bound 5.09

Skewness -0.267 0.388

Kurtosis -0.601 0.759 Table 6 Descriptives: Demonstrative pronouns

Figure 4 Language effects on use of demonstrative pronouns

35

4) Dual paradigms

5) Language Statistic S. Error

Dual bilingual Mean 2.66 .516

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Lower Bound 1.61

Upper Bound 3.70

Skewness 1.539 .369

Kurtosis 1.978 .724

Dual is constant when Language = monolingual.

Dual Age Statistic S. Error

young

adult

Mean 2.60 .601

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Lower Bound 1.38

Upper Bound 3.82

Skewness 1.476 .398

Kurtosis 1.512 .778

older

adult

Mean .49 .196

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Lower Bound .09

Upper Bound .88

Skewness 3.302 .388

Kurtosis 12.633 .759 Table 7 Descriptives: Dual

36

Figure 5 Effects of Age on use of dual