Heritage Language Learners and Automaticity: The Use of "por" and "para"

Valerie J Trujillo

doi:10.5206/entrehojas.v3i1.6135

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of the Spanish prepositions por and para (P&P) by heritage-language (HL) learners to analyze whether they demonstrate automaticity in their application, as is common with L1 Spanish speakers (i.e. “it just sounds right”), or if they rely on the conscious, declarative knowledge of the prescriptive uses of these prepositions, as is common with speakers for whom Spanish is an L2. Upper and lower HL learners and upper and lower FL learners (non-HL learners) were asked to complete a cloze test and a grammaticality judgment task and were asked to explain their judgments. The explanations given by students provide a glimpse into the type of knowledge, whether declarative or procedural, that students tap into when using P&P. This study found that while FL learners relied on declarative knowledge in the application of P&P, HL learners demonstrated a level of automaticity and procedural knowledge in their use of these prepositions. This suggests that HL learners have internalized the uses of P&P though communicative exposure throughout their childhood, which may be more effective than the explicit instruction FL learners have received on these structures. This study aims to add to the growing body of literature on heritage language processes and development.

Highlights

The objective of this study is to investigate the use of the Spanish prepositions por and para (P&P) by heritage language (HL) learners to analyze whether they demonstrate automaticity and rely on procedural knowledge in their usage of P&P, as is common with L1 Spanish speakers (i.e. “it just sounds right”), or if they rely on the conscious, declarative knowledge of the prescriptive, explicit rules governing use of these prepositions, as is common with L2 speakers (i.e. “para is always used for deadlines”)
The purpose of the cloze test was to determine what differences exist between the HL learners’ production of the prepositions and that of the L2 learners, and what differences exist between the two levels of HL learners in comparison with the native-like responses
To determine what differences exist between the HL learners’ production of the P&P and that of the FL learners and what differences exist between the two levels of HL learners in comparison with the native-like responses, participants’ overall scores on the cloze test and the grammaticality judgment (GJ) task were quantified and compared (Tables 34)

Summary

Introduction

The objective of this study is to investigate the use of the Spanish prepositions por and para (P&P) by heritage language (HL) learners to analyze whether they demonstrate automaticity and rely on procedural knowledge in their usage of P&P, as is common with L1 Spanish speakers (i.e. “it just sounds right”), or if they rely on the conscious, declarative knowledge of the prescriptive, explicit rules governing use of these prepositions, as is common with L2 speakers (i.e. “para is always used for deadlines”). For the purpose of this study, an HL learner is defined as a student of Hispanic background who was born and grew up in the United States or born in another country but moved to the U.S at an early age and heard Spanish at home spoken by parents and / or other relatives, but did not necessarily speak it These students identify Spanish as their perceived weaker language and are currently enrolled in a Spanish class at the University of Florida. Studies have demonstrated that learners show modest progress in the acquisition of P&P over a four-year university sequence of courses (Pinto and Rex, 2006) The difficulty in their acquisition is due in part to the split that is formed when contrasted with their English counterpart for and results in the binary nature in which they are presented to Spanish L2 learners. Participants, whether HL or non-HL learners, that were able to correctly use the appropriate prepositions in the correct places but unable to explain why they did so or how they knew their response was correct are seen as satisfying Segalowitz’ aforementioned definition of procedural knowledge and demonstrating automaticity

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion