MDRN ARMENIAN DRAMA
MDRN ARMENIAN DRAMA ARMENIA 0152
Popular in Course
Popular in Armenian
This 69 page Class Notes was uploaded by Cade Kris on Friday September 4, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to ARMENIA 0152 at University of California - Los Angeles taught by Staff in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 81 views. For similar materials see /class/177885/armenia-0152-university-of-california-los-angeles in Armenian at University of California - Los Angeles.
Reviews for MDRN ARMENIAN DRAMA
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/04/15
What Linguists Know About Heritage Speakers Maria Polinsky University of California San Diego polhskyng ucsd edu Basic ideas The language of heritage speakers X is not the same as the language spoken by monolingual speakers X Heritage languages share a number of common features Understanding what heritage languages have in common and how they are different from full languages is an important step in developing efficient ways of teaching heritage speakers Basic terms and definitions Heritage languageincompletely acquired language cf the pro ciency de nition Vald s 2002 Full languagecompletely acquired language Baseline full language that is used for comparison with a given heritage language Baseline 2 standard Polinsky 1999 Dominant language Linguistic questions about HL Do heritage speakers differ from full speakers in their linguistic competence mental representation or just in performance Does a heritage language constitute a rule based system or is it a collection of randomly acquired and retained chunks If a system what rules apply in a heritage language and do they differ from the rules of the corresponding full language Do any aspects of heritage language represent universal properties of human language Which aspects of heritage language are due to the interference from the dominant language g Outline of the talk Heritage language as a system Recurrent structural features of heritage language and their possible explanation Conclusions Questions for discussion Predictions of the System Model Heritage speaker variation should be lower thansimilar to the variation found in full languages Item frequency plays a subsidiary role similar to the role played by frequency in complete acquisition A system or a collection of chunks Predictions of the Chunks Model Heritage speaker variation should be more random than variation found in full languages Item frequency plays a crucial role the higher the frequency the more likely an item is to occur in the heritage language Variation among heritage i speakers Case study I Phonetics of Heritage Armenian Godson 2001 2002 Background Armenian Indo European two main varieties Eastern Armenia Iran and Western Diaspora Armenian Main a l39aects Withn Western Armenian Turkish WA Lebanese WA Syrian WA Egyptian WA Vowel system 5 basic vowels a e I u 0 epenthetic schwa e very frequent Experimental setu p Subjects 10 heritage speakers of Western Armenian 10 Armenian English bilinguals Armenian dominant 1 baseline monolingual Western Armenian speaker all females Procedure Reading task Measurements Spectral representation of vowels How similar are two speakers Compare vowel spectra Formal measure Standard Deviation of the Differences Distribution or SDDD index Harmegnies 1988 SDDD I Zi1 K Si S39i Md2K 0395 S and S39 are the two spectra compared each having an Si and S39i value for each of the K frequency components MCI is the mean of the sum of the Si S39I differences A standard deviation calculation on the differences between the set of amplitude measurements by frequency for the two spectra being compared When the spectral shapes are widely different the SDDD value increases when the shapes are similar the SDDD decreases Positive control measurements To test the suitability of the SDDD index for the data an initial test was done with subjects known to have different articulatory settings an English monolingual from the Midwest United States an English monolingual born and raised in Southern California an Armenian dominant bilingual SDDD range Midwest English monolingual vs herself 2 speech samples 277 Midwest English monolingual vs S CA English monolingual 612 Midwest English monolingual vs Armenian bilingual 1365 S CA English monolingual vs Armenian bilingual 1313 The more different two dialectslanguages the higher the SDDD 0 3 same speaker 3 6 weak dialectal variation 6 9 strong dialectal variation 9 different languages SDDD measures for Armenian speakers Armenian dominant kers dialect 428 364 414 313 598 Heritage speakers by parents dialect a Results Heritage speakers show a smaller range of variation in phonetic setting than full speakers This variation does not seem random Questions Is the limited range of variation in Heritage W Armenian due to the development of a new communal standard shared by all the heritage speakers surveyed No because the heritage speakers in the study come from different areas and backgrounds and generally do not speak Armenianspeak it on a very limited basis Is the limited range of variation in Heritage W Armenian due to the interference from English Further experiments were necessary to answer this question Vowel systems in Full Armenian Heritage Armenian and English Thereare perceptible differences in the ronunciation of heritage speakers and full speakers t e so called heritage accent The pronunciation of heritage speakers is judged as different from the pronuncuatlon of L2 learners of Armenian Can the heritage accent be reduced to the English accent Godson 2002 study of vowel space in Full Western Armenian Heritage Western Armenian English Choice of vowels most perceptible better measurements Absent from the study L2 learners of Armenian heritage speakers whose dominant language is other than English Vowel Space English Heritage W Armenian and Full W Armenian 3000 2500 2000 l 500 l 000 500 l l l l 200 u o 39 39 x Q 1 400 I quot quotquot quotZZZ 3939 quot 1 x A 600 V 39 0 A 1 5 800 e A a x l quotquot 1000 0 Baseline I English A Heritage 0 Arm dominant and Full W Armenian with SC7wa V Vowel space English Heritage W Armenian 3000 2500 2000 l 500 l 000 500 l 000 0 Baseline I English A Heritage 0 Arm dominant I Study I Conclusions Subjective pronunciation differences between Heritage W Armenian speakers and Armenian dominant speakers are corroborated by phonetic measurements The vowel system of Heritage W Armenian cannot be accounted for by simple transfer from English Overall results are more compatible with the System Model than with the Chunks Model because they reveal systematicity within each group of speakers The role of frequency system or i ch u n ks Case study II Frequency and parts of speech in Heritage Russian Background Russan Indo European large number of speakers in the USA many heritage speakers in particular among the children of the Third and Fourth Wave of immigration Andrews 1999 Relatively well studied grammar of the full language good frequency data Steinfeldt 1965 Brown 1996 539 What factors determine lexical knowledge among heritage speakers Frequency alone Frequency and some other way of categorizing lexical items Factors other than frequency Testa ble hypothesis If frequency only there should be no difference in heritage speakers knowledge of different lexical categories parts of speech controlled for frequency level Nouns adjectives verbs dog junior fit KF75 acquisition aggressive abandon KF17 Experimental design Subjects 8 heritage speakers of Russian adults average age 24 Started acquiring Russian as their rst and only language self reporting as English dominant at 3 4 N4 5 N2 8 N1 No reading ability in Cyrillic Procedure Auditory presentation 99 randomized lexical items 3x3 nouns adjectives verbs high mid low frequency Latinate words and recent borrowings excluded Task translate into English Measurements accuracy of translation reaction time Results Response accu racy Response o Averaged over 7 subjects High Frequency levels Medium Low Frequency High 1oo 1ooo Medium 1500 4000 Low 6000 9000 I Results Reaction times Averaged over 7 subjects 1000 800 600 msec 400 200 Reaction times 0 Low High Medium Frequency Verbs Nouns Adjectives Frequency High 1oo 1ooo Medium 1500 4000 Low 6000 9000 Results Verbs nouns and adjectives controlled for frequency show different levels of maintenance in Heritage Russian Verbs gt nouns gt adjectives The maintenance of lexical items withna lexical category is sensitive to frequency Interpreting the results Verbs gt nouns gt adjectives Heads gt modi ers accounts for the poor performance on adjectives Smaller class gt larger class accounts for V gt N Preliminary statistics verbs 1200 nouns 4800 Closed class gt open class Closed vs open class How do verbs compare with function words prepositions conjunctions which constitute a clear closed class Preliminary results 1 speaker tested no difference in response to high frequency verbs and to function words of similar frequency Why do verbs outrank nounsadjectives Closed class Verbs are less of a closed class than function words the lexical knowledge of verbs and the lexical knowledge of function words appear similar lt Closed class i explanation Verbs and nouns differ in the order of acquisition Conflicting views verbs before nouns Choi amp Gopnik 1995 or nouns before verbs Gentner 1981 Wolff amp Gentner 1997 lt Order of acquisition 7t explanation Conceptual structu re Representational differences between verbs and nouns Gentner 1981 Nagy amp Gentner 1990 Difference between relational predicative concepts and concrete object concepts Relational concepts predicates set up a frame providing links to other concepts objects The absence of a relational concept is confounded by the absence of its frame and links the absence of an object concept is less costly g Relational concepts gt Object Concepts Pending experiments Testing heritage speakers knowledge of relational concepts regardless of lexical category Same lexical category Same frequency level Study II Conclusions The competence of a heritage speaker includes knowledge of lexical categories parts of speech possibly based on conceptual underpinnings of these classes The knowledge of abstract grammatical features is associated with structural heads Frequency alone cannot account for the results of the Heritage Russian study The overall results are compatible with the System Model and argue against the Chunks Model General hypothesis Heritage language grammar may rely more heavily on conceptual representation Conceptual representation may be mapped more directly into heritage grammar How much do heritage languages i resemble each other Structural similarities across heritage languages g Grammars of heritage languages The grammar of an individual heritage language is similar to the grammar of the baseline full language Different heritage language grammars resemble each other more than each individual heritage language resembles the baseline C 5 Three test cases Aspect Agreement Pro drop Aspect in Russian and Spanish Aspect internal composition of a situation Usual Q snotation complete or incomplete ongoing event Aspect is a particularly interesting phenomenon because the natural or Ihherentverb semantics combines with and modifies the interpretations of the grammatical ways of expressing aspect Tense temporal relations between situations such as past present and future Inherent verb semantics Vendler types Basic aspectual verb types Vendler 1967 State eventuality in which there is no perceptible change be boring see love Activity event without a goal homogenous process walk snore Wi77 Achievement event with a goal but no duration i nsta nta neous arrive destroy Accomplishment event with a goal and duration was7 tell Verb types and their expression Different Vendler types receive different grammatical expression across full languages Van Valin amp LaPolla 1997 How do heritage languages express different verb types Variation similar to that found in full languages Each verb type receives a similar expression across different heritage languages Russian Det kormY sobau The children were feeding IMPF the dog Det nakorml sobaku Children have fed PERF the dog Ja vse zabyvaa I kept forgetting IMPF everything Ja vse zabya I have forgotten PERF everything Same tense different aspectual forms formally marked by prefixessuffixes All verb types participate in the alternation Spanish Comas ben en este restorante You ate IMPF gtImperf well in this restaurant generic ComSte ben en este restorante You ate PREI39 gtPerf well in this restaurant speci c 5 auto me costaba 20 000 The car cost IMPFgtImperf me 20K 5 auto me costo39 20 000 The car cost PREFgtPerf me 20K Imperfect tense gt imperfective aspect Preterite tense gt perfective aspect All verb types participate in the alternation Aspect in Full Russian and Full Spanish Full Russian Im pe rfective perfective inflectional and derivational morphology of aspect and the case of the main argument All event types are compatible with the imperfective and perfective aspect with weak lexical preferences Perfective has many sub meanings and is more complex than imperfective Full Spanish Im pe rfective perfective inflectional morphology of the Imperfect and Preterite tenses All event types are compatible with Imperfect and Preterite however lexical preferences are found Imperfective has many sub meanings and is more complex than perfective Aspect in Heritage Russian and Heritage Spanish Heritage Spanish Montrul 2001 Slabakova amp Montrul 2002 Heritage Russian Polinsky 1994 2002 Aspectual pairs are lost typically one aspectual form is maintained States and activities verbs denoting homogenous events imperfective lexicalization Achievements and accomplishments verbs denoting goal oriented events perfective lexicalization Preterite and Imperfect are no longer possible with all verb types States verbs denoting homogenous events avoid Preterite imperfective preference Achievements verbs denoting goal oriented events avoid Imperfect perfective preference Aspect restructuring in heritage language The mapping of event types into aspectual distinctions is lexicalized Multiple mappings are disprefered Heritage Spanish or eliminated Heritage Russian Aspect is reanalyzed to reflect the semantic distinction between goal oriented telic events and events without a goal atelic Telic accomplishments achievements Atelic states activities Results Aspect Heritage Russian and Heritage Spanish show close parallels in the mapping of verb types into aspectual distinctions The aspectual systems of Heritage Russian and Heritage Spanish differ from the aspectual systems of the respective full languages Results Aspect How do heritage languages represent different verb types Heritage languages show variation in the expression of verb types just as full languages do Each verb type receives a similar expression across different heritage languages amp Agreement in heritage languages Impoverished morphology Decline in agreement morphology Use of resumptive pronouns to compensate for the absence of agreement The candle it bur7 777e candles izythey bur7 Polish Agreement and resumptive pronouns Subjects 7 Heritage Polish speakers mean age 27 Procedure spontaneous narrative and picture description Measurements percentage of incorrect agreement forms percentage of resumptive pronouns Agreement and resumptive pronouns Heritage Polish Polinsky 1995 100 80 60 40 r 20 Spea ke rs agreement no resumptive pronoun Spearman rank correlation 0855 Results Agreement Heritage languages do not maintain the morphological agreement found in some full languages The absence of agreement is gradient not categorical The absence of agreement is compensated for by the use of a resumptive pronoun Pro drop null subjects Pro drop omission of non emphatic subject pronouns eg in Spanish a compraron 117 vest0 0 They bought a dress neutral statement Elas compraron 117 vest0 0 THEY bought a dress contrast implied Ful languages with pro drop Spanish Polish Tamil Japanese etc g Pro drop in heritage languages Predictions Absence of agreement gt agreement based pro drop is no longer sustainable Pro drop is not a categorical feature in full languages therefore heritage languages should show decline not loss of pro drop I Pro drop in Full and Heritage Spanish Full Spanish pro drop occurring in 60 o 80 o utterances Bentivoglio 1992 Avila Shah 2000 Toribio 2001 Montrul 2001 Heritage Spanish pro drop between 5009 70 o Silva Corvalan 1994 Lipski 1993 Avila Shah 2000 Toribio 2001 Montrul 2001 The level of proficiency of the heritage speakers in individual studies unclear more data needed on both Full and Heritage Spanish with emphasis on the dialectal baseline differences in full language Pro drop in Full and Heritage Polish Full Polish Pro drop at about 7000 statistics based on a narrative and a play Heritage Polish Pro drop at 32800 averaged over 7 subjects Heritage Polish Pro drop and agreement Polinsky 1995 Q 0o S pea ke rs I pro drop I agreement I Spearman rank correlation 0855 Results Pro d rop No pro drop in heritage language The absence of pro drop is gradient not categorical Rate of pro drop may correlate with an individual speaker s degree of proficiency Absence of pro drop and absence of agreement are correlated Results Heritage languages show a more restricted range of variation than full languages This may be an artifact of the small sample Heritage languages share a number of morphosyntactic features absence of agreement resumptive pronouns absence of pro drop These recurrent morphosyntactic features are correlated Other structural features Polinsky 1995 Decline in case morphology Unmarked plural Unmarked possessive constructions dog Tom No overt contrast between root and embedded clauses Coordination gt subordination Restructuring of gender categories Leisio 2000 and classi er systems Conclusions Structural similarities across heritage languages seem greater than structural similarities between a heritage language and its corresponding full language g Grammars of heritage languages The grammar of an individual heritage language is similar to the grammar of the baseline full language Different heritage language grammars resemble each other more than each individual heritage language resembles the baseline 0 o g In search of explanation How can we account for the recurrence of structural features across heritage languages structural properties in HL l Possible explanations for the recurrent Absence of uninterpretable features Sorace 2000 Montrul 2001 Information that has nothing to do with the lexical item is lostsuppressed Shortest distance in dependencies Processing effects proper Grammaticization of processing effects Choice of the most unmarked way of speaking Bickerton39s bioprogram Overall conclusions A heritage language grammar differs from the grammar of its respective full language in a systematic rather than random way Heritage languages share a number of common structural features At this point there are several hypotheses as to how to account for the systematicity within and across heritage languages Rule governed system Patterns of preference Bioprogram Overall conclusions Much needed More descriptive generalizations on the structure of heritage languages These generalizations can be used to design further studies These generalizations can be used to test what aspects of heritage languages are due to the interference from the dominant language These generalizations can be used to inform pedagogical strategies in HL teaching Questions for discussion What recurrent features have you observed in the language of heritage speakers cf OK s handout Low proficiency heritage speakers Higher proficiency heritage speakers What are these features attributable to Interference from English Interference from a baseline dialect different from what is used in the classroom Anything else What pedagogical tools can be used to modify the recurrent features if they do not fit full language HLI Questionnaire Olga Kagan Please compare linguistic pro ciencies of non heritage and heritage learners in the language you teach Give speci c examples where applicable Linguistic areas Phonology Vocabulary Morphology and syntax Register
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'