Acceso usuarios
[1]
;
Benmamoun, Elabbas
[2]
Estados Unidos
Township of Durham, Estados Unidos
Aims and objectives:
Despite the growth in research on heritage grammars, very few studies focused on heritage speakers’ knowledge of the syntax of wh-questions. This paper examines heritage Egyptian speakers’ knowledge of wh-questions in their L1 with particular focus on their knowledge of (1) the four main strategies of wh-question formation (three movement strategies and one in situ strategy) and (2) the unmarkedness of the in situ strategy compared to the movement strategy.
Design:
This study implements a cross-sectional design comparing an experimental group (30 heritage Egyptian speakers) and a control group (22 native Egyptian speakers) with respect to the issues under investigation.
Data and analysis:
Besides a proficiency measure and a background questionnaire, the participants completed three tasks: an elicited oral production task, an acceptability judgment task, and a preference task. The data from the oral production task were transcribed verbatim and coded in an Excel sheet. The data from the other two tasks were coded in two separate Excel sheets. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe and analyze the data from the three tasks.
Findings:
Heritage speakers had robust knowledge of the core aspects of wh-questions, including word order, strategies of wh-question formation, and resumption. They also realize the difference between marked and unmarked forms and often opt for the unmarked in situ strategy. However, they diverge from the controls in errors and patterns that mostly reflect transfer effects from their dominant L2 (English).
Originality:
This study is the first to explore wh-questions in heritage Arabic. Although very few studies focused on wh-questions in other languages, most of the issues examined here are unique because Egyptian Arabic deploys multiple strategies in constructing wh-questions.
Implications:
The findings corroborate the hypothesis that the core aspects of syntax are less susceptible to language loss. The results also demonstrate that heritage grammar is unique as it diverges from the grammar of L1 speakers in significant respects.
