Acceso usuarios
Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions:
This paper investigates the effects of Dutch on the tense-aspect system of heritage Ambon Malay, a variety spoken by Dutch-Ambon Malay bilinguals in the Netherlands. The study asks whether the cross-linguistic contrasts between the two languages – Dutch obligatorily marks past/non-past and finiteness, whereas Ambon Malay lacks a grammaticalized expression of these distinctions – has an effect on the aspectual system of heritage Ambon Malay.
Design/Methodology/Approach:
The database for the study consists of video descriptions provided by 32 bilingual speakers (the experimental groups) and by three control groups: 27 homeland speakers of Ambon Malay, 5 first generation speakers of Ambon Malay in the Netherlands (late bilinguals), and 10 monolingual speakers of Dutch.
Data and Analysis:
The frequency and distribution of aspect markers is analysed statistically in the four groups.
Findings/Conclusions:
The analysis of the data reveals that, under the influence of Dutch, the Ambon Malay progressive marker ada has undergone a shift in temporal status and frequency and it is now interpreted as a marker of present tense, as well as of progressive aspect. The other two aspect markers, the iamitive/perfective su and verbal reduplication (iterative) are used significantly less by heritage speakers.
Originality:
This study shows that when a grammatical category is present and productive in the dominant language of a bilingual heritage speaker, but not in the heritage language, there is a great likelihood that it will undergo contact-induced grammaticalization, even in a relatively short time contact situation. The study also shows that input-related factors, such as transparency and phonological salience, contribute to the (in)stability of aspectual forms in the heritage language.
Significance/Implications:
This finding has implication for the incomplete acquisition perspective on heritage languages, which sees these languages as grammatically simplified systems (see, e.g., Montrul, 2009; Polinsky, 2008), because it shows that heritage languages can also gain grammatical distinctions previously absent in the (homeland) language.
