↓ Skip to main content

New Structural Patterns in Moribund Grammar: Case Marking in Heritage German

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
New Structural Patterns in Moribund Grammar: Case Marking in Heritage German
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01716
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Yager, Nora Hellmold, Hyoun-A Joo, Michael T. Putnam, Eleonora Rossi, Catherine Stafford, Joseph Salmons

Abstract

Research treats divergences between monolingual and heritage grammars in terms of performance-'L1 attrition,' e.g., lexical retrieval-or competence-'incomplete acquisition', e.g., lack of overt tense markers (e.g., Polinsky, 1995; Sorace, 2004; Montrul, 2008; Schmid, 2010). One classic difference between monolingual and Heritage German is reduction in morphological case in the latter, especially loss of dative marking. Our evidence from several Heritage German varieties suggests that speakers have not merely lost case, but rather developed innovative structures to mark it. More specifically, Heritage German speakers produce dative forms in line with established patterns of Differential Object Marking (Bossong, 1985, 1991; Aissen, 2003), suggesting a reallocated mapping of case. We take this as evidence for innovative reanalysis in heritage grammars (Putnam and Sánchez, 2013). Following Kamp and Reyle (1993) and Wechsler (2011, 2014), the dative adopts a more indexical discourse function, forging a tighter connection between morphosyntax and semantic properties. Moribund grammars deploy linguistic resources in novel ways, a finding which can help move us beyond simple narratives of 'attrition' and 'incomplete acquisition.'

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 30%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 14 52%
Psychology 5 19%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,430,915
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,183
of 29,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,564
of 386,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#351
of 440 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 440 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.