Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
1.4
0.9
Journals
Languages
Special Issues
Heritage Russian Bilingualism across the Lifespan
share announcement

Heritage Russian Bilingualism across the Lifespan

A special issue of Languages (ISSN 2226-471X).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (1 December 2023) | Viewed by 9482

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Tanya Ivanova-Sullivan

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Slavic, East European and Eurasian Languages and Cultures, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1502, USA
Interests: heritage language bilingualism; psycholinguistics of Slavic languages; language acquisition; Slavic (Bulgarian and Russian) morphosyntax
Dr. Oksana Laleko

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Linguistics Program, State University of New York at New Paltz, New York, NY 12561, USA
Interests: heritage language bilingualism; L2 acquisition; syntax; morphology; information structure; language contact and change

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

This Special Issue focuses on heritage Russian bilingualism, which has played a pivotal role in heritage language linguistics since its early days. Our goals are two-fold: while aiming to enrich the empirical basis of heritage Russian linguistics and to advance its theoretical and methodological foundations, we also seek to align the study of heritage Russian more closely with the current cross-linguistic investigations of heritage language bilingualism (Laleko & Scontras, 2021; Lohndal et al., 2019; Montrul & Polinsky, 2022; Polinsky & Putnam, 2023). Informed by the latest theoretical advancements in heritage linguistics and in the language sciences more generally, research on heritage Russian offers a timely opportunity for a fresher, more methodologically refined analysis of areas of stability and change in heritage language systems and of factors that mediate heritage language development and maintenance under various conditions.  In striving to address the multiple dimensions of the bilingual experiences of heritage speakers and their widely ranging competence outcomes, this Special Issue will underscore the need to view heritage languages as continua rather than monolithic phenomena (De Luca et al., 2019; Ivanova-Sullivan, 2014; Polinsky, 2018).

We invite contributions representing a broad range of approaches to the linguistic study of heritage Russian bilingualism. We seek submissions showcasing the most up-to-date linguistic research grounded in various traditions and methods, including but not limited to formal, psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, sociolinguistic, computational, and corpus-based studies targeting any and all domains of language and their interfaces: phonetics and phonology, prosody, morphology, syntax, semantics, information structure, pragmatics. We welcome submissions providing original, previously unpublished data from heritage Russian speakers of different age groups (children, adolescents, adults), proficiency levels (from overhearers to advanced speakers), literacy skills (naturalistic or instructed learners), and various linguistic backgrounds and in diverse global contexts. We are especially interested in studies that expand the typological diversity of language dyads (Scontras & Putnam, 2020), allowing for broader conclusions about the principles governing heritage Russian bilingualism in different socio-demographic niches and across a wide range of linguistic locales.

We request, prior to submitting a manuscript, that the interested authors first submit a proposed title and an abstract of 250–300 words summarizing their intended contribution. Please send it to the Guest Editors, Dr. Tanya Ivanova-Sullivan ([email protected]) and Dr. Oksana Laleko ([email protected]) before 15 June 2023. Abstracts will be reviewed by the Guest Editors for the purpose of ensuring their proper fit within the purview of the Special Issue. Notification of abstract acceptance will be given by 30 June 2023. Full manuscripts will undergo double-blind peer review.

Languages is an international, multidisciplinary, peer-reviewed open-access journal indexed within Scopus, ERIH Plus, and other databases; it receives an impact factor in ESCI (Web of Science) starting in June 2023.

References:

De Luca, V., J. Rothman, E. Bialystok, and C. Pliatsikas (2019). Redefining bilingualism as a spectrum of experiences that differentially affects brain structure and function. PNAS, 116(15), 7565–7574. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1811513116

Ivanova-Sullivan, T. (2014). Theoretical and Experimental Aspects of Syntax-Discourse Interface in Heritage Grammars. Leiden: Brill. DOI:10.1163/9789004246171

Laleko, O. and G. Scontras (2021). On the many dimensions of complexity in heritage languages. Heritage Language Journal, 18(2), 1–37. DOI:10.1163/15507076-12340009

Lohndal, T., J. Rothman, T. Kupisch, and M. Westergaard (2019). Heritage language acquisition: What it reveals and why it is important for formal linguistic theories. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(12), 1–19. DOI:10.1111/lnc3.12357

Montrul, S. and M. Polinsky, eds. (2022). The Cambridge Handbook of Heritage Languages and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI:10.1017/9781108766340

Polinsky, M. (2018). Heritage Languages and Their Speakers. Cambridge University Press. DOI:10.1515/9783110899283-005.

Polinsky, M. and M. Putnam, eds. (2023). Formal Approaches to Complexity in Heritage Language Grammars. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Scontras, G. and M. Putnam (2020). Lesser-studied heritage languages: An appeal to the dyad. Heritage Language Journal, 17(2), 152–155. https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.17.2.2

Dr. Tanya Ivanova-Sullivan
Dr. Oksana Laleko
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Languages is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • heritage Russian bilingualism
  • acquisition and maintenance of Russian by early bilinguals
  • typological diversity of language dyads
  • diverse bilingual experiences of heritage Russian speakers
  • wider empirical basis of heritage Russian linguistics
  • theoretical and methodological advancements in heritage linguistics

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (7 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

18 pages, 3241 KiB  
Article
One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Once I Caught a Fish Alive: Numerical Phrases in Child and Adult Heritage Russian
by Natalia Meir and Maria Polinsky
Languages 2024, 9(8), 261; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9080261 - 28 Jul 2024
Viewed by 715
Abstract
This paper investigates the production of numerically-quantified phrases (NQPs) by monolingual and bilingual speakers of Russian, with Hebrew as the dominant language for the latter group. Russian NQPs exhibit a complex system of noun forms, distinguishing between singular (odin gorod ‘one city’), [...] Read more.
This paper investigates the production of numerically-quantified phrases (NQPs) by monolingual and bilingual speakers of Russian, with Hebrew as the dominant language for the latter group. Russian NQPs exhibit a complex system of noun forms, distinguishing between singular (odin gorod ‘one city’), paucal (dva goroda ‘two cities’), and plural (pjat’ gorodov ‘five cities’); the endings of paucal and plural nouns vary depending on nominal declension class, which in turn correlates with gender. Adult and child bilinguals dominant in Hebrew (n = 37 and n = 27, respectively) were compared to monolingual Russian-speaking controls (n = 21 and n = 20, respectively). Production data were collected using a numeral-noun elicitation task, which involved eliciting 24 numerical phrases manipulated for gender (masculine, feminine) and number (paucal, plural). Compared to the monolingual controls, the bilinguals showed lower accuracy, with oversuppliance of nominative plural endings and overtly marked genitive plural endings. These non-target responses indicate the reliance on default forms and phonetically salient inflections, confirming that these factors influence non-target attainment in bilingual (heritage) grammars. The amount of exposure to Russian (as measured by age of bilingualism onset and proficiency) influenced performance significantly, underscoring the role of input in shaping bilingual grammars. The production of NQPs by Hebrew-dominant Russian speakers was similar to that by English-dominant Russian speakers as reported in previous studies, which may appear surprising given that Hebrew is characterized by richer morphology than English, and that may play a role in the maintenance of morphology in the weaker language. We offer some considerations for this lack of effect. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heritage Russian Bilingualism across the Lifespan)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 2032 KiB  
Article
“How Often Do You Encounter the Verb Obnaruzhit’?” Subjective Frequency of Russian Verbs in Heritage Speakers and Other Types of Russian–German Bilinguals
by Christina Clasmeier and Tanja Anstatt
Languages 2024, 9(8), 256; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9080256 - 23 Jul 2024
Viewed by 757
Abstract
The literature shows that word frequency data obtained from corpora (corpus frequency, CF) and L1 speaker estimation (subjective frequency, SF) are substantially correlated. However, little is known about languages other than English and the frequency estimation of different types of bilingual speakers. We [...] Read more.
The literature shows that word frequency data obtained from corpora (corpus frequency, CF) and L1 speaker estimation (subjective frequency, SF) are substantially correlated. However, little is known about languages other than English and the frequency estimation of different types of bilingual speakers. We address both issues and compare the correlation coefficients of the CF and SF for 49 Russian verbs as well as SF data between four groups of Russian speakers: monolinguals (MOs), late bilinguals (LBs), heritage speakers (HSs), and foreign language learners (FLs). We gained SF data from a frequency estimation study with 447 participants and found that despite the reduced exposure to Russian in the three bilingual groups, their SF data were correlated with the CF at the same level (moderately) as the monolinguals’ SF. Interestingly, the correlations between the SF of the MOs, LBs, and HSs were very high, indicating that the SF is extremely stable over different speaker groups and that HSs do not differ from other L1 speakers in this respect. Furthermore, in absolute terms, HSs judged the verbs consistently lower than LBs and MOs, demonstrating that speakers have a finely adjusted ability to estimate the frequency with which they encounter words. The learners, on the other hand, were a clearly distinguished group, with only moderate correlations with all groups of L1 speakers. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heritage Russian Bilingualism across the Lifespan)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

27 pages, 897 KiB  
Article
Causal Relations and Cohesive Strategies in the Narratives of Heritage Speakers of Russian in Their Two Languages
by Judy R. Kupersmitt, Sveta Fichman and Sharon Armon-Lotem
Languages 2024, 9(7), 248; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9070248 - 15 Jul 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 748
Abstract
Causal relations allow a very detailed insight into the narrative skills of children from various backgrounds; however, their contribution has not been sufficiently studied in bilingual populations. The present study examines the expression of causal relations and the linguistic forms used to encode [...] Read more.
Causal relations allow a very detailed insight into the narrative skills of children from various backgrounds; however, their contribution has not been sufficiently studied in bilingual populations. The present study examines the expression of causal relations and the linguistic forms used to encode them in narratives of bilingual children speaking Russian as the Heritage Language (HL) and Hebrew as the Societal Language (SL). Narratives were collected from 21 typically developing Russian–Hebrew bilingual children using the Frog story picture book and were coded for frequency and type of episodic components, and for causal relations focusing on enabling and motivational relations. Results showed that the number of episodic components was higher in Hebrew than in Russian. An in-depth analysis showed that more components were mentioned in the first five episodes, particularly at the onset of the story. Causal relations were similar in both languages but were differently distributed across the languages—more enabling relations in Russian stories and more motivational relations in Hebrew stories. Production of episodic components and causal relations was affected by language proficiency but not by age of onset of bilingualism (AoB). In terms of language forms, lexical chains (e.g., search~find) were the most frequent means for inferring relations. Syntactic and referential cohesion were used in dedicated episodes to convey relations in both languages. Finally, a higher number of significant correlations between narrative productivity measures, episodic components, and causal relations were found in SL/Hebrew than in HL/Russian. The study results underscore the need to understand how language-specific abilities interact with knowledge of narrative discourse construction. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heritage Russian Bilingualism across the Lifespan)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

21 pages, 756 KiB  
Article
Predictive Language Processing in Russian Heritage Speakers: Task Effects on Morphosyntactic Prediction in Reading
by Olga Parshina, Nina Ladinskaya, Lidia Gault and Irina A. Sekerina
Languages 2024, 9(5), 158; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9050158 - 26 Apr 2024
Viewed by 1689
Abstract
This study investigates the effect of task demands on the predictive processing of morphosyntactic cues (word class, noun/adjective gender, case, and number) in reading among Heritage Speakers of Russian (N = 29), comparing them with Russian language learners (N = 29) and monolingual [...] Read more.
This study investigates the effect of task demands on the predictive processing of morphosyntactic cues (word class, noun/adjective gender, case, and number) in reading among Heritage Speakers of Russian (N = 29), comparing them with Russian language learners (N = 29) and monolingual Russian speakers (N = 63). Following the utility account of bilingual prediction, we hypothesized that the predictive use of morphosyntactic cues would be more evident in a less-demanding reading cloze task (Experiment 1) than in a more-challenging eye-tracking reading task (Experiment 2), and for cues that RHSs regard as more reliable (word class and number vs. gender and case cues). The results confirmed our predictions: In Experiment 1, Heritage Speakers (and L2 learners) used all cues predictively to generate the upcoming lexical item, with higher accuracy for word class and number cues compared to gender and case cues. In Experiment 2, in contrast to monolingual readers, neither Heritage Speakers nor L2 learners used gender cues on adjectives to anticipate the gender of the upcoming noun. The results are discussed in respect to the interplay between task demands, cue weight, oral fluency, and Russian literacy experience. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heritage Russian Bilingualism across the Lifespan)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

20 pages, 801 KiB  
Article
Use of Embedded Clauses in Heritage and Monolingual Russian
by Maria Martynova, Yulia Zuban, Natalia Gagarina and Luka Szucsich
Languages 2024, 9(5), 157; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9050157 - 25 Apr 2024
Viewed by 1162
Abstract
This study investigates the production of clausal embeddings by 195 Russian speakers (67 monolingually raised speakers, 68 heritage speakers in the US, and 60 heritage speakers in Germany) in different communicative situations varying by formality (formal vs. informal) and mode (spoken vs. written). [...] Read more.
This study investigates the production of clausal embeddings by 195 Russian speakers (67 monolingually raised speakers, 68 heritage speakers in the US, and 60 heritage speakers in Germany) in different communicative situations varying by formality (formal vs. informal) and mode (spoken vs. written). Semi-spontaneous data were manually annotated for clause type and analyzed using a binomial generalized mixed-effects model. Our results show that heritage speakers of both groups and monolingually raised speakers behave alike regarding their use of embedded clauses. Specifically, all speaker groups produce embedded clauses more frequently in formal situations compared to informal situations. Mode was not found to influence the production of embedded clauses. This behavior suggests an underlying register awareness in heritage speakers of Russian. Such register awareness might be a result of the high involvement of heritage speakers with Russian. This study contributes to our understanding of linguistic outcomes of heritage speakers and highlights the influence of communicative situations on language production. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heritage Russian Bilingualism across the Lifespan)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 1197 KiB  
Article
A Corpus-Based Study on Orthographic Errors of Russian Heritage Learners and Their Implications for Linguistic Research and Language Teaching
by Olesya Kisselev, Irina Dubinina and Galina Paquette
Languages 2024, 9(4), 126; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9040126 - 1 Apr 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1428
Abstract
The challenges faced by heritage language (HL) learners in mastering spelling and orthography are well-documented. Despite these documented difficulties, this aspect of HL linguistic knowledge has received limited attention from HL researchers. Beyond instructional implications, the study of spelling and orthography in HL [...] Read more.
The challenges faced by heritage language (HL) learners in mastering spelling and orthography are well-documented. Despite these documented difficulties, this aspect of HL linguistic knowledge has received limited attention from HL researchers. Beyond instructional implications, the study of spelling and orthography in HL speakers holds significance to building a finer understanding of the nature of heritage languages, since the development of orthographic skills is intricately linked to the knowledge of phonology and morphology as well as to metalinguistic awareness in these two areas. The study presented in this paper attempts to contribute to this area of research by turning its attention to orthographic skills of Russian heritage learners with English as their dominant language. The corpus-based research presented here categorizes orthographic errors in adjectival endings in hand-written essays produced by college-age HL learners of Russian of various writing proficiency levels and attempts to provide preliminary explanations for the source of these errors. While this paper is exploratory in nature and limited in scope by focusing only on adjectival endings, our results emphasize the need for further exploration in this underrepresented area to enhance our understanding of heritage language development and improve instructional strategies. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heritage Russian Bilingualism across the Lifespan)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

21 pages, 1193 KiB  
Article
(Heritage) Russian Case Marking: Variation and Paths of Change
by Naomi Nagy and Julia Petrosov
Languages 2024, 9(3), 100; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9030100 - 18 Mar 2024
Viewed by 1485
Abstract
Russian’s six cases and multiple noun classes make case marking potentially challenging ground for heritage speakers. Indeed, morphological levelling, “probably the best-described feature of language loss”, has been substantiated. One study from 2006 showed that Heritage Russian speakers in the USA produced canonical [...] Read more.
Russian’s six cases and multiple noun classes make case marking potentially challenging ground for heritage speakers. Indeed, morphological levelling, “probably the best-described feature of language loss”, has been substantiated. One study from 2006 showed that Heritage Russian speakers in the USA produced canonical or prescribed markers for only 13% of preposition+nominal sequences. Conversely, another study from 2020 found that Heritage Russian speakers in Toronto produce a 94% canonical case marker rate in conversational speech. To explore the effects of methodological differences across several studies, the current paper circumscribes the context to preposition+nominal sequences in Heritage Russian speech from the same Toronto corpus as used by the 2020 study but mirroring the domain investigated by Polinsky and including a Homeland comparison to consider changes in both the rates of use of canonical case marking and distributional patterns of non-canonical use. Regression models show more canonical case marking in more frequent words, an independent effect of slightly more mismatch by later generations, but less morphological levelling than reported by Polinsky. Lexicon size does not predict case marking rates as strongly as language usage patterns do, but generation, since immigration, is the best-fitting social predictor. We confirm (small) rate changes in Heritage (vs. Homeland) Russian canonical case marking but not in patterns of levelling. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heritage Russian Bilingualism across the Lifespan)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-7
Back to TopTop