Abrahamsson, N. (2012). Age of onset and nativelike L2 ultimate attainment of morphosyntactic and phonetic intuition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(2), 187–214.Google Scholar

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 481–509.Google Scholar

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59(2), 249–306.Google Scholar

Ahn, S., Chang, C. B., DeKeyser, R., & Lee‐Ellis, S. (2017). Age effects in first language attrition: Speech perception by Korean‐English bilinguals. Language Learning, 67(3), 694–733.Google Scholar

Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483.Google Scholar

Alarcón, I. V. (2011). Spanish gender agreement under complete and incomplete acquisition: Early and late bilinguals’ linguistic behavior within the noun phrase. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(3), 332–350.Google Scholar

Albirini, A., Benmamoun, E., & Chakrani, B. (2013). Gender and number agreement in the oral production of Arabic heritage speakers. Bilingualism, 16(1), 1.Google Scholar

Albirini, A., Benmamoun, E., & Saadah, E. (2011). Grammatical features of Egyptian and Palestinian Arabic heritage speakers’ oral production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 273–303.Google Scholar

Alfaraz, G. G. (2011). Accusative object marking: A change in progress in Cuban Spanish? Spanish in Context, 8(2), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Amaral, L., & Roeper, T. (2014). Multiple grammars and second language representation. Second Language Research, 30(1), 3–36.Google Scholar

Antonova Ünlü, E., & Wei, L. (2018a). Examining the effect of reduced input on language development: The case of gender acquisition in Russian as a non-dominant and dispreferred language by a bilingual Turkish–Russian child. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(2), 215–233.Google Scholar

Antova Ünlü, E., & Wei, L. (2018b). The acquisition of the weaker language: Evidence from the acquisition of Russian cases by a Turkish–Russian child. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(5), 637–663.Google Scholar

Antonova-Ünlü, E., & Wei, L. (2016). Aspect acquisition in Russian as the weaker language: Evidence from a Turkish–Russian child. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(2), 210–228.Google Scholar

Anttila, R. (1989). Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Aranovich, R. (2009). Differential subject marking. Language, 85(4), 917–919.Google Scholar

Arechabaleta Regulez, B. (2019). The processing of differential object marking in Spanish by monolinguals and bilinguals, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar

Arechabaleta Regulez, B. (2020). The processing of differential object marking by heritage speakers of Spanish. In Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of differential object marking, pp. 237–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Arechabaleta Regulez, B., & Montrul, S. (2021). Psycholinguistic evidence for incipient language change in Mexican Spanish: The extension of differential object marking. Languages, 6(3), 131.Google Scholar

Argus, R. (2015). On the acquisition of differential object marking in Estonian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 4, 403–420.Google Scholar

Armon-Lotem, S., Joffe, S., Abutbul-Oz, H., Altman, C., & Walters, J. (2014). Language exposure, ethnolinguistic identity and attitudes in the acquisition of Hebrew as a second language among bilingual preschool children from Russian- and English-speaking backgrounds. In Grüter, T. & Paradis, J., Input and experience in bilingual development, pp. 77–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Arslan, S., & Bastiaanse, R. (2014). Tense/aspect and evidentiality in narrative speech of Turkish–Dutch bilingual speakers. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, University of Rouen, France.Google Scholar

Arslan, S., Bastiaanse, R., & Felser, C. (2015). Looking at the evidence in visual world: Eye-movements reveal how bilingual and monolingual Turkish speakers process grammatical evidentiality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1387.Google Scholar

Au, T. K.-f., Knightly, L. M., Jun, S.-A., & Oh, J. S. (2002). Overhearing a language during childhood. Psychological Science, 13(3), 238–243.Google Scholar

Austin, J. (2020). Differential object marking in the speech of children learning Basque and Spanish. In Mardale, A. and Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of differential object marking, pp. 51–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Avram, L., Ciovârnache, C., & Sevcenco, A. (2016). Semantic features and L1 transfer in the L2 learning of differential object marking: The view from Romanian and Persian. In Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Juan-Garau, M., & Larrañaga, P. (eds.), Acquisition of romance languages: Old acquisition challenges and new explanations from a generative perspective, pp. 91–120. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.Google Scholar

Avram, L., & Tomescu, V. (2020). Differential Object Marking in simultaneous Hungarian-Romanian bilinguals. In Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of differential object marking, pp. 77–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bailey, G. (2002). Real and apparent time. Wiley Online Library.Google Scholar

Balasch, S. (2011). Factors determining Spanish differential object marking within its domain of variation. In J. Michnowicz and R. Dodsworth (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, pp. 113–124. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Bautista-Maldonado, S., & Montrul, S. (2019). An experimental investigation of differential object marking in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context, 16(1), 22–50.Google Scholar

Bayram, F., Kupisch, T., y Cabo, D. P., & Rothman, J. (2019). Terminology matters on theoretical grounds too! Coherent grammars cannot be incomplete. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 257–264.Google Scholar

Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S. A., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4), 129–181.Google Scholar

Bentz, C., & Winter, B. (2014). Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. In Wichmann, S. & Good, J. (eds.). Quantifying language dynamics, pp. 96–124. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Berman, R. A. (2004). Between emergence and mastery: The long developmental route. Language development across childhood and adolescence, pp. 9–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bernstein, J., Ordóñez, F., & Roca, F. (2018). DOM and DP layers in Romance. Talk presented at Differential Object Marking in Romance: Towards Microvariation, Inalco, Paris, November 10, 2018.Google Scholar

Bhatia, A., & Montrul, S. (2020). Comprehension of Differential Object Marking by Hindi heritage speakers. In Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of Differential Object Marking, pp. 261–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bhatia, T., & Ritchie, W. C. (2013). Chapter 34: Bilingualism and multilingualism in South Asia. In Bhatia, T., & Ritchie, W. C. (eds.) The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism, pp. 843–870. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. (2002). Experts, dialects and discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 74–109.Google Scholar

Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 706–755.Google Scholar

Birdsong, D. (2012). Three perspectives on non-uniform linguistic attainment. Linguistic Approaches Bilingualism, 2(1), 255–259.Google Scholar

Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. (1927). Literate and illiterate speech. American Speech, 2(10), 432–439.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language and linguistics. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar

Bohnacker, U., & Mohammadi, S. (2013). Acquiring Persian object marking: Balochi learners of L2 Persian. Orientalia Suecana, 61, 59–89.Google Scholar

Bonfiglio, T. P. (2010). Mother tongues and nations: The invention of the native speaker. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bossong, G. (1991). Differential Object Marking in Romance and beyond. In Wanner, D. & Kibbee, D. A. (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 1988, pp. 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bowles, M. A. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 247–271.Google Scholar

Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2011). Bidirectional cross-linguistic influence in event conceptualization? Expressions of path among Japanese learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 79–94.Google Scholar

Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2012). Multicompetence and native speaker variation in cluasal packaging in Japanese. Second Language Research, 28(4), 415–442.Google Scholar

Brugè, L., & Brugger, G. (1996). On the accusative a in Spanish. Probus, 8(1), 1–52.Google Scholar

Butt, M. (1993). Object specificity and agreement in Hindi/Urdu. 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 1, pp. 80–103.Google Scholar

Butt, M. (2006). Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bylund, E. (2009). Maturational constraints and first language attrition. Language Learning, 59(3), 687–715.Google Scholar

Bylund, E., Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2010). The role of language aptitude in first language attrition: The case of pre-pubescent attriters. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 443–464.Google Scholar

Cabrelli, J., Iverson, M., Giancaspro, D., & González, B. H. (2020). The roles of L1 Spanish versus L2 Spanish in L3 Portuguese morphosyntactic development. In Molsing, K.V., Perna, C.B.L,., & Ibaños, A.M.T. (eds.). Linguistic approaches to Portuguese as an additional language, pp. 11–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Carreira, M. (2012). Meeting the needs of heritage language learners: Approaches, strategies, and research. In Beaudrie, S. & Fairclough, M. (eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field, pp. 223–240. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Carreira, M. (2013). The vitality of Spanish in the United States. Heritage Language Journal, 10(3), 396–413.Google Scholar

Carreira, M. (2021). The vitality of Spanish as a heritage language in the United States. In Montrul, S. & Polinsky, M. (eds.), The handbook of heritage languages and linguistics, pp. 230–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2011). The results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 44(1), 40–64.Google Scholar

Carreira, M. M. (2007). Teaching Spanish in the US: Beyond the one-size-fits-all paradigm. In cameron, R. & Potowsky, K. (eds.), Spanish in contact: Policy, social and linguistic inquiries, pp. 61–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carroll, S. E. (2017). Exposure and input in bilingual development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Celata, C. (2019). Phonological attrition. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 218–227. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chambers, J. K. (2003). Sociolinguistics of immigration. In Britain, D. & Cheshire, J. (eds.), Social dialectology. In Honour of Peter Trudgill, pp. 96–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Chamorro, G., Sturt, P., & Sorace, A. (2016). Selectivity in L1 attrition: Differential Object Marking in Spanish near-native speakers of English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(3), 697–715.Google Scholar

Chang, C. B. (2016). Bilingual perceptual benefits of experience with a heritage language. Bilingualism, 19(4), 791.Google Scholar

Chang, C. B., Yao, Y., Haynes, E. F., & Rhodes, R. (2011). Production of phonetic and phonological contrast by heritage speakers of Mandarin. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(6), 3964–3980.Google Scholar

Chavez, L. R. (2001). Covering immigration: Popular images and the politics of the nation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Chen, C.-Y. (2019). The acquisition of Mandarin reflexives by heritage speakers and second language learners. In Ionin, T. & Rispoli, M. (eds.), Three streams of generative language acquisition research: Selected papers from the 7th Meeting of Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition – North America, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, pp. 225–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Chen, C.-Y. (2020). The acquisition of Mandarin by heritage speakers and second language learners. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar

Cheshire, J., Adger, D., & Fox, S. (2013). Relative who and the actuation problem. Lingua, 126, 51–77.Google Scholar

Chiriacescu, S., & von Heusinger, K. (2010). Discourse prominence and pe-marking in Romanian. International Review of Pragmatics, 2(2), 298–332.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chung, E. S. (2018). Second and heritage language acquisition of Korean case drop. Bilingualism, 21(1), 63–79.Google Scholar

Ciovârnache, C., & Avram, L. (2013). Specificity and animacy in the acquisition of DOM in Persian as L2. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 58(4), 417–436.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H., Martzoukou, M., & Stavrakaki, S. (2010). The perfective past tense in Greek as a second language. Second Language Research, 26(4), 501–525.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of Universal Grammar to adult and child learners-a study of the acquisition of German word order. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht), 2(2), 93–119.Google Scholar

Cohal, A. L. (2014). Mutamenti nel romeno di immigrati in Italia. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar

Company, C. (2001). Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization: Spanish as a special kind of primary object language. Studies in Language, 25(1), 1–47.Google Scholar

Company, C. (2002). El avance diacrónico de la marcación prepositiva en objetos directos inanimados. In Presente y futuro de la lingüística en España. Actas del II Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística. Vol. II. pp. 146–154. Madrid: SEL.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cook, V. (2002). Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63, 544–573.Google Scholar

Cornilescu, A. (2000). Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 91–106.Google Scholar

Coşkun-Kunduz, A., & Montrul, S. (2022). Sources of variability in the acquisition of Differential Object Marking by Turkish heritage language children in the United States. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 25, 603–616.Google Scholar

Crain, S., & Lillo-Martin, D. (1999). An introduction to linguistic theory and language acquisition. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (1988). Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. Barlow, M. & Ferguson, A. (eds.), Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, pp. 159–180. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information CSLI.Google Scholar

Cukor-Avila, P., & Bailey, G. (2018). Real time and apparent time. In Chambers, J. K. & Schilling, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, pp. 239–262. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Cummins, J., & Danesi, M. (1990). Heritage languages. Toronto: Our Schools/Our Selves Education Foundation.Google Scholar

Cuza, A., Miller, L., Pérez Tattam, R., & Ortiz Vergara, M. (2019). Structure complexity effects in child heritage Spanish: The case of the Spanish personal a. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(6), 1333–1357.Google Scholar

D’Alessandro, R. (2021). Syntactic Change in Contact: Romance. Annual Review of Linguistics, 7, 309–328.Google Scholar

Dabašinskienė, I. (2015). Growing knowledge in Differential Object Marking: The view from L1 Lithuanian. Revue roumaine de linguistique (Romanian Review of Linguistics), 60(4), 369–382. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, E. (1997). The LAD goes to school: A cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics, 35(4), 735–766.Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, E. (2001). Learning a morphological system without a default: The Polish genitive. Journal of Child Language, 28(3), 545–574.Google Scholar

Dabrowska, E. (2005). Productivity and beyond: Mastering the Polish genitive inflection. Journal of Child Language, 32(1), 191–205.Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, E. (2006). Low-level schemas or productive rules: The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish case inflections. Language Sciences, 28(1), 120–135.Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dąbrowska, E. (2018). Experience, aptitude and individual differences in native language ultimate attainment. Cognition, 178, 222–235.Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, E., & Street, J. (2006). Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Language Sciences, 28(6), 604–615.Google Scholar

Dale, R., & Lupyan, G. (2012). Understanding the origins of morphological diversity: The linguistic niche hypothesis. Advances in Complex Systems, 15(03n04), 1150017.Google Scholar

Darcy, N. T. (1953). A review of the literature on the effects of bilingualism upon the measurement of intelligence. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 82(1), 21–57.Google Scholar

Daskalaki, E., Blom, E., Chondrogianni, V., Paradis, J., & Daskalaki, E. (2020). Effects of parental input quality in child heritage language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 47(4), 709–736.Google Scholar

Daskalaki, E., Chondrogianni, V., Blom, E., Argyri, F., & Paradis, J. (2019). Input effects across domains: The case of Greek subjects in child heritage language. Second Language Research, 35(3), 421–445.Google Scholar

David, O. (2015). Clitic doubling and differential object marking: A study in diachronic construction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 7(1), 103–135.Google Scholar

Davies, A. (2012). Native speaker: The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley Online Library.Google Scholar

Davies, A. (2013). Native speakers and native users: Loss and gain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dayal, V. (2011). Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29(1), 123–167.Google Scholar

De Hoop, H., & Malchukov, A. (2007). On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua, 117(9), 1636–1656.Google Scholar

De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

De Houwer, A. (2017). Bilingual language acquisition. Fletcher, In P. & MacWhinney, B., The handbook of child language, pp. 219–250. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

de Leeuw, E. (2009). When your native language sounds foreign: A phonetic investigation into first language attrition. Doctoral dissertation, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh.Google Scholar

de Leeuw, E. (2019). Phonetic attrition. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 204–217. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

De Swart, P., & De Hoop, H. (2007). Semantic aspects of Differential Object Marking. Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung, 11, 598–611.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499–533.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 313–347. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Backwell.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62(2), 189–200.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R., Alfi-Shabtay, I., & Ravid, D. (2010). Cross-linguistic evidence for the nature of age effects in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(3), 413–438.Google Scholar

Di Biase, B., & Hinger, B. (2015). Exploring the acquisition of Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Spanish as a second language. In Bertoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory, pp. 213–242. EUROSLA monographs series 3. European Second language Association.Google Scholar

Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1994). The syntax of Romanian: Comparative studies in Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dorian, N. C. (1981). Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Dumitrescu, D. (1997). El parámetro discursivo en la expresión del objeto directo lexical: Español madrileño vs. español porteño. Signo y seña (7), 303–354.Google Scholar

Dunn, M. J. (1999). A grammar of Chukchi. openresearch-repository.anu.edu.auGoogle Scholar

Durán Urrea, E., & Gradoville, M. (2008). De la futuridad a la epistemicidad: la situación actual del tiempo futuro en el español de Nuevo México. Serie Memorias del IX Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, 2, 131–149.Google Scholar

Eckert, P. (1989). The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change, 1(3), 245–267.Google Scholar

Eckert, P. (2000). Language variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Eilers, R. E., Oller, K., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (2002). Bilingualism and cultural assimilation in Miami Hispanic children. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1), 1–25.Google Scholar

Escobar, A. M., & Potowski, K. (2015). El español de los Estados Unidos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Etxeberria Zuluaga, E. (2021). Subject Expression in Spanish in Contact with Basque and in Spanish-Basque Bilingualism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar

Fábregas, A. (2013). Differential Object Marking in Spanish: State of the art. Borealis–An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2(2), 1–80.Google Scholar

Farkas, D., & von Heusinger, K. (2003). Referential stability and differential case marking in Romanian. XV European Summerschool in Logic, Language and Information (ESSLLI), Workshop Direct Reference and Specificity, Vienna, Austria, August, Ms. Universität StuttgartGoogle Scholar

Farley, A. P., & McCollam, K. (2004). Learner readiness and L2 production in Spanish: Processabitily theory on trial. Estudios de lingüística aplicada, 22, 47–69.Google Scholar

Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive psychology, 47(2), 164–203.Google Scholar

Fhlannchadha, S. N., & Hickey, T. M. (2021). Where are the goalposts? Generational change in the use of grammatical gender in Irish. Languages, 6(1), 33.Google Scholar

Fisiak, J. (1995). Standardization, printing, and the evidence for local dialects: The case of Early Modern English kirk. In W. Winter (ed.), On Languages and Language: The Presidential Adresses of the 1991 Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, pp. 145–166. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Flores, A., López, G., & Radford, J. (2017). Facts on US Latinos, 2015: Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States. Pew Research Center, 18.Google Scholar

Flores, C. (2010). The effect of age on language attrition: Evidences from bilingual returnees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 533–546.Google Scholar

Flores, C. (2012). Differential effects of language attrition in the domains of verb placement and object expression. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 550–567.Google Scholar

Flores, C. (2015). Losing a language in childhood: A longitudinal case study on language attrition. Journal of Child Language, 42(3), 562–590.Google Scholar

Flores, C. (2020). Attrition and reactivation of a childhood language: The case of returnee heritage speakers. Language Learning, 70, 85–121.Google Scholar

Flores, C., & Rinke, E. (2020a). The relevance of language-internal variation in predicting heritage language grammars. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 25–26.Google Scholar

Flores, C., & Rinke, E. (2020b). Factors constraining subject expression in European Portuguese spoken in Hamburg: A bi-generational corpus Investigation. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique: Journal of Linguistics, Psycholinguistics and Computational Linguistics 26, 3–31.Google Scholar

Flores, C., Santos, A. L., Jesus, A., & Marques, R. (2017). Age and input effects in the acquisition of mood in Heritage Portuguese. Journal of Child Language, 44(4), 795–828.Google Scholar

Foroodi Nejad, F. (2011). Towards the identification of linguistic characteristics of specific language impairment in Persian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar

Franceschina, F. (2001). Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An assessment of some current proposals. Second Language Research, 17(3), 213–247.Google Scholar

Frasson, A., D’Alessandro, R., & van Osch, B. (2021). Subject clitics in microcontact: A case study from heritage Friulian in Argentina and Brazil. Heritage Language Journal, 18(1), 1–36.Google Scholar

Fuchs, M., & Piñango, M. M. (2021). Language variation and change through an experimental lens. In Chappel, W. & Drinka, B. (eds.) Spanish socio-historical linguistics: Isolation and contact, pp. 77–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fuchs, Z., Polinsky, M., & Scontras, G. (2015). The differential representation of number and gender in Spanish. The Linguistic Review, 32(4), 703–737.Google Scholar

Gabriel, C., & Rinke, E. (2010). Information packaging and the rise of clitic doubling in the history of Spanish. In Ferraresi, G. & Lühr, R. (eds.), Diachronic studies on information structure, pp. 63–86. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Gallardo, M. and Montrul, S. (in press). Property-by-property transfer in L3 Italian. In Flynn, S., Brown, M., and Fernández-Berkes, E. (eds.), Third language acquisition after the initial state. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gambhir, S., & Gambhir, V. (2013). The maintenance and vitality of Hindi in the United States. Heritage Language Journal, 10(2), 35–42.Google Scholar

Gambhir, S., & Gambhir, V. (2014). The journey of Hindi in the United States. In Wiley, T., Peyton, J., & Christian, D. (eds.), Handbook of heritage, community, and native languages in the United States, pp. 181–190. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

García, O. (2015). Racializing the language practices of US Latinos: Impact on their education. In Cobas, J., Duany, J., & Faegin, J. (eds.), How the United States racializes Latinos, pp. 111–125. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002). Grammatical gender in bilingual and monolingual children: A Spanish morphosyntactic distinction. In Eilers, R. & Oller, K. (eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children, pp. 207–219. Cleveden: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Gathercole, V. C. M. (2010). Interface or face to face? The profiles and contours of bilinguals and specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(2), 282.Google Scholar

Gathercole, V. C. M., & Thomas, E. M. (2009). Bilingual first-language development: Dominant language takeover, threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism, 12(2), 213.Google Scholar

Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E., & Paradis, J. (1995). Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 22(3), 611–631.Google Scholar

Giannakou, A. (2018). Spanish and Greek subjects in contact: Greek as a heritage language in Chile. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Girard, E. (1995). Intégration de variantes de contact dans la competénce de bilingues de deuxième génération. Unpublished master thesis, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Gollan, T. H., Slattery, T. J., Goldenberg, D., Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Rayner, K. (2011). Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(2), 186.Google Scholar

Gollan, T. H., Starr, J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2015). More than use it or lose it: The number-of-speakers effect on heritage language proficiency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 147–155.Google Scholar

Gor, K. (2014). Raspberry, not a car: Context predictability and a phonological advantage in early and late learners’ processing of speech in noise. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1449.Google Scholar

Gor, K., & Cook, S. (2010). Nonnative processing of verbal morphology: In search of regularity. Language Learning, 60(1), 88–126.Google Scholar

Gor, K., & Vdovina, T. (2010). Frequency, regularity, and input in second language processing of Russian verb inflection. The Slavic and East European Journal, 54(1), 7–31.Google Scholar

Române, Gramatica Limbii (2005). Vol. I (Cuvântul), Vol. II (Enunţul).Google Scholar

Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81.Google Scholar

Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Grosjean, F., & Py, B. (1991). La restructuration d’une première langue: l’intégration de variantes de contact dans la compétence de migrants bilingues. La linguistique, 27(2), 35–60.Google Scholar

Grüter, T., Hurtado, N., Marchman, V. A., & Fernald, A. (2014). Language exposure and online processing efficiency in bilingual development. In. Grüter, T. & Paradis, J. (eds.), Input and experience in bilingual development, pp. 15–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2012). The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: personal a. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 701–720.Google Scholar

Guijarro-Fuentes, P., & Marinis, T. (2007). Acquiring phenomena at the syntax/semantics interface in L2 Spanish: The personal preposition a. Eurosla Yearbook, 7(1), 67–88.Google Scholar

Gürel, A. (2000). Missing case inflection: Implications for second language acquisition. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 379–390. Sommerville: Cascadilla PressGoogle Scholar

Gürel, A. (2019). Null and overt pronouns in language attrition. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 251–266. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., & Kreiter, J. (2003). Understanding child bilingual acquisition using parent and teacher reports. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(2), 267.Google Scholar

Hackert, S. (2012). The emergence of the English native speaker: A chapter in nineteenth-century linguistic thought. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Håkansson, G. (1995). Syntax and morphology in language attrition: A study of five bilingual expatriate Swedes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 153–169.Google Scholar

Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, pp. 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1994). Some key features of distributed morphology. In Carnie, A. & Harley, H. (eds.), Papers on phonology and morphology, pp. 275–288. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Harris, A. C., & Campbell, L. (1995). Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. I. (1953). The Norwegian language in America: The bilingual community. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The “failed functional features hypothesis.” Second Language Research, 13(3), 187–226.Google Scholar

Haznedar, B. (2006). Persistent problems with case morphology in L2 acquisition. In Lleó, C (ed.), Interfaces in multilingualism: Acquisition and representation, pp. 179–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Henry, A. (1995). Belfast English and standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hicks, G., & Domínguez, L. (2020). A model for L1 grammatical attrition. Second Language Research, 36(2), 143–165.Google Scholar

Hill, V. (2013). The direct object marker in Romanian: A historical perspective. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 140–151.Google Scholar

Hill, V., & Mardale, A. (2017). On the interaction of Differential Object Marking and clitic doubling in Romanian. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 62(4), 393–409.Google Scholar

Hill, V., & Mardale, A. (2019). Patterns for Differential Object Marking in the history of Romanian. Journal of Historical Syntax, 3(5), 1–47.Google Scholar

Hill, V., & Mardale, A. (2021). The diachrony of Differential Object Marking in Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hoot, B. (2017). Narrow presentational focus in heritage Spanish and the syntax‒discourse interface. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(1), 63–95.Google Scholar

Hoot, B. (2019). Focus in heritage Hungarian. Language Acquisition, 26(1), 46–72.Google Scholar

Hopp, H., & Schmid, M. S. (2013). Perceived foreign accent in first language attrition and second language acquisition: The impact of age of acquisition and bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(2), 361–394.Google Scholar

Hopp, H. C. (2007). Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition: Grammar and processing. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Groningen. University Library of Groningen.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hržica, G., Palmović, M., Kovačević, M., Voeikova, M. D., Ivanova, K., & Galkina, E. (2015). Animacy and case in the acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Croatian and Russian. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 4(4), 351–368.Google Scholar

Hudson Kam, C. L., & Newport, E. L. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development, 1(2), 151–195.Google Scholar

Hulsen, M. E. H. (2000). Language loss and language processing: Three generations of Dutch migrants in New Zealand. Doctoral dissertation Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar

Hur, E. (2020). Verbal lexical frequency and DOM in heritage speakers of Spanish. In. Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of Differential Object Marking, pp. 207–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hurtado, A., & Rodríguez, R. (1989). Language as a social problem: The repression of Spanish in South Texas. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 10(5), 401–419.Google Scholar

Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. A. (2004). Shift happens: Spanish and English transmission between parents and their children. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 137–155.Google Scholar

Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E., & Levine, S. (2002). Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology, 45(3), 337–374.Google Scholar

Hyltenstam, K. (1992). Non-native features of near-native speakers: On the ultimate attainment of childhood L2 learners. Advances in Psychology, 83, 351–368.Google Scholar

Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2000). Who can become native‐like in a second language? All, some, or none? On the maturational constraints controversy in second language acquisition. Studia linguistica, 54(2), 150–166.Google Scholar

Cervantes, Instituto (2018). El español en el mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2018. Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado.Google Scholar

Irimia, M.A. (2018). Differential objects and other structural objects. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 3(1), 50–51.Google Scholar

Irizarri van Suchtelen, P. (2016). Spanish as a heritage language in the Netherlands: A cognitive linguistic exploration. Doctoral Dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Ivanova-Sullivan, T. (2014). Theoretical and experimental aspects of syntax-discourse interface in heritage grammars. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Iverson, M. (2012). Advanced language attrition of Spanish in contact with Brazilian Portuguese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar

Jacob, G., & Kırkıcı, B. (2016). The processing of morphologically complex words in a specific speaker group: A masked-priming study with Turkish heritage speakers. The Mental Lexicon, 11(2), 308–328.Google Scholar

Jaeggli, O. (1982). Topics in romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Jarvis, S. (2019). Lexical attrition. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 241–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jegerski, J. (2018). Sentence processing in Spanish as a heritage language: A self‐paced reading study of relative clause attachment. Language Learning, 68(3), 598–634.Google Scholar

Jegerski, J., VanPatten, B., & Keating, G. (2016). Relative clause attachment preferences in early and late Spanish-English bilinguals. In Pascual y Cabo, D. (ed.), Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language, pp. 81–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: Its nature, development and origin. New York: H. Holt.Google Scholar

Jia, R., & Paradis, J. (2015). The use of referring expressions in narratives by Mandarin heritage language children and the role of language environment factors in predicting individual differences. Bilingualism, 18(4), 737.Google Scholar

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60–99.Google Scholar

Jones, M. C. (1998). Language obsolescence and revitalization: Linguistic change in two sociolinguistically contrasting Welsh communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jourdan, C., & Keesing, R. (1997). From Fisin to Pijin: Creolization in process in the Solomon Islands. Language in Society, 26(3), 401–420.Google Scholar

Junghare, I. Y. (1983). Markers of definiteness in Indo-Aryan. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 9, 116–127.Google Scholar

Kalin, L. (2018). Licensing and Differential Object Marking: The view from Neo‐Aramaic. Syntax, 21(2), 112–159.Google Scholar

Kaltsa, M., Tsimpli, I. M., & Rothman, J. (2015). Exploring the source of differences and similarities in L1 attrition and heritage speaker competence: Evidence from pronominal resolution. Lingua, 164, 266–288.Google Scholar

Kam, C. L. H., & Newport, E. L. (2009). Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology, 59(1), 30–66.Google Scholar

Karayayla, T. (2020). Effects of first language attrition on heritage language input and ultimate attainment. In Brehmer, B. and Treffers-Daller, J. (eds.), Lost in transmission: The role of attrition and input in heritage language development, pp. 34–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Keating, G. D., Jegerski, J., & VanPatten, B. (2016). Online processing of subject pronouns in monolingual and heritage bilingual speakers of Mexican Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 36–49.Google Scholar

Keine, S. (2007). Reanalysing Hindi split-ergativity as a morphological phenomenon. In Trommer, J. & Opitz, A (eds), Linguistische Arbeits Berichte, 85, 73–127.Google Scholar

Kerswill, P. (1996). Children, adolescents, and language change. Language Variation and Change, 8(2), 177–202.Google Scholar

Kerswill, P., & Williams, A. (2000a). Creating a new town koine: Children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society, 29(1), 65–115.Google Scholar

Kerswill, P., & Williams, A. (2000b). “Salience” as an explanatory factor in language change: Evidence from dialect levelling in urban England. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 63–94. Department of Linguistic Science. The University of Reading.Google Scholar

Ketrez, F. N. (2015). Incomplete acquisition of the Turkish Differential Object Marking. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique-Romanian Review of Linguistics, 60(4), 421–430.Google Scholar

Kim, J.-H. (2007). Binding interpretations in adult bilingualism: A study of language transfer in L2 learners and heritage speakers of Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar

Kim, J.-H., Montrul, S., & Yoon, J. (2009). Binding interpretations of anaphors by Korean heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 16(1), 3–35.Google Scholar

Kim, J.H., Montrul, S., & Yoon, J. (2010). Dominant language influence in acquisition and attrition of binding: Interpretation of the Korean reflexive caki. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(1), 73–84.Google Scholar

Kim, J. Y. (2020). Discrepancy between heritage speakers’ use of suprasegmental cues in the perception and production of Spanish lexical stress. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(2), 233–250.Google Scholar

Kim, K., O’Grady, W., & Schwartz, B. D. (2018). Case in heritage Korean. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(2), 252–282.Google Scholar

Kırkıcı, B., & Clahsen, H. (2013). Inflection and derivation in native and non-native language processing: Masked priming experiments on Turkish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 776.Google Scholar

Knightly, L. M., Jun, S.-A., Oh, J. S., & Au, T. K.-f. (2003). Production benefits of childhood overhearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(1), 465–474.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, 1(3), 199–244.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. (2001). Syntactic change. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, pp. 699–729. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell (2001),Google Scholar

Kroch, A. & Taylor, A. (1997). The syntax of verb movement in Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In van Kemenade, A. & Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, pp. 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Krogstad, J. M., & Neo-Bustamante, L. (2020). Key facts about US Latinos for national Hispanic heritage month. Pew Research Center.Google Scholar

Kroll, J., Bobb, S., & Hoshino, N. (2014). Two languages in mind: Bilingualism as a tool to investigate language, cognition, and the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 159–163.Google Scholar

Kulikov, L., Malchukov, A., & de Swart, P. (2006). Case, valency and transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kupisch, T. (2012). Specific and generic subjects in the Italian of German-Italian simultaneous bilinguals and L2 learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 736–756.Google Scholar

Kupisch, T., Barton, D., Hailer, K., Stangen, I., Lein, T., & van de Weijer, J. (2014). Foreign accent in adult simultaneous bilinguals. Heritage Language Journal, 11(2), 123–150.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (1989). The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change, 1(1), 85–97.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change. Volume 2: Social factors. Language in society. Oxford.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (2006). The social stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (2007). Transmission and diffusion. Language, 83(2), 344–387.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (2016). Afterword: Where are we now? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(4), 581–602.Google Scholar

Laca, B. (1995). Sobre el uso del acusativo preposicional en español. In Pensado Ruiz, C. (ed.), El complemento directo, pp. 61–92. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar

Laca, B. (2006). El objeto directo. In. Company, C. (ed.) Sintaxis histórica del español, 1, pp. 423–460. México, Fondo de Cultura Económica-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar

Lahiri, J. (2015). Teach yourself Italian. The New Yorker, December 7, 2015.Google Scholar

Laleko, O. (2018). What is difficult about grammatical gender? Evidence from heritage Russian. Journal of Language Contact, 11(2), 233–267.Google Scholar

Laleko, O., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Marking topic or marking case: A comparative investigation of heritage Japanese and heritage Korean. Heritage Language Journal, 10(2), 40–64.Google Scholar

Laleko, O., & Polinsky, M. (2016). Between syntax and discourse: Topic and case marking in heritage speakers and L2 learners of Japanese and Korean. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6(4), 396–439.Google Scholar

Laleko, O. (2022). Word order and information structure in heritage and L2 Russian: Focus and unaccusativity effects in subject inversion. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13670069211063674.Google Scholar

Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition Second Language Research, 25(2), 173–227.Google Scholar

Leal Méndez, T, Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2015). Discourse-sensitive clitic-doubled dislocations in heritage Spanish. Lingua, 155, 85–97.Google Scholar

Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59–67.Google Scholar

Leonetti, M. (2004). Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114.Google Scholar

Leonetti, M. (2008). Specificity in clitic doubling and in Differential Object Marking. Probus, 20(1), 33–66.Google Scholar

Lidz, J. (2006). The grammar of accusative case in Kannada. Language, 82(1), 10–32.Google Scholar

Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquistion from a usage-based perspective. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. (1999). The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. (2013). Types of explanation in history. Language, 89(4), 18–38.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. (2020). Born to parse: How children select their languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D., & Westergaard, M. (2007). Language acquisition and language change: Inter‐relationships. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 396–415.Google Scholar

Linck, J., Kroll, J., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1507–1515.Google Scholar

Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 251–285.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2017). Problems in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G. (2001). Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(2), 275–302.Google Scholar

López, L. (2012). Indefinite objects: scrambling, choice functions, and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Cambridge.Google Scholar

López Otero, J. C. (2020). On the acceptability of the Spanish DOM among Romanian-Spanish bilinguals. In Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of Differential Object Marking, pp. 161–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Luján, M., & Parodi, C. (2001). Clitic-doubling and the acquisition of agreement in Spanish. In. Gutiérrez Rexach, J. & Silva-Villar, L., Current issues in Spanish syntax and semantics, pp. 193–220. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Lukyanchenko, A., & Gor, K. (2011). Perceptual correlates of phonological representations in heritage speakers and L2 learners. Proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University conference on language development, pp. 414–426. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Lundquist, B., Rodina, Y., Sekerina, I. A., & Westergaard, M. (2016). Gender change in Norwegian dialects: Comprehension is affected before production. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(open-issue).Google Scholar

Lunn, P. (2002). Tout se tient in Dominican Spanish. In Lee, J. F., Geeslin, K. L., & Clemens, J. C (eds.) Structure, meaning, and acquisition in Spanish: Papers from the 4th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, pp. 65–72. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2010). Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PloS one, 5(1), e8559.Google Scholar

Łyskawa, P., Maddeaux, R., Melara, E., & Nagy, N. (2016). Heritage speakers follow all the rules. Language contact and convergence in Polish devoicing. Heritage Language Journal, 13, 219–244.Google Scholar

Łyskawa, P., & Nagy, N. (2020). Case marking variation in heritage Slavic languages in Toronto: Not so different. Language Learning, 70, 122–156.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. (2019). Language attrition and the competition model. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 7–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B., & Snow, C. (1990). The child language data exchange system: An update. Journal of Child Language, 17(2), 457–472.Google Scholar

Magier, D. (1987). The transitivity prototype: Evidence from Hindi. Word, 38(3), 187–199.Google Scholar

Mahajan, A. K. (1990). The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory, Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Major, R. (1992). Losing English as a first language. The Modern Language Journal, 76(2), 190–208.Google Scholar

Manoliu, M. M. (1993). From staging strategies to syntax: Clitic-copying and prepositional direct objects in Romanian. In Historical Linguistics 1989, p. 297. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mardale, A. (2008). Microvariation within Differential Object Marking. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 53(4), 448–467.Google Scholar

Mardale, A. (2010a). Éléments d’analyse du marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues romanes. Faits de Langues, 35(2), 161–196.Google Scholar

Mardale, A. (2010b). Les prépositions fonctionnelles du roumain: études comparatives sur le marquage casuel. Editions L’Harmattan.Google Scholar

Mardale, A., & Karatsareas, P. (2020). Differential Object Marking and language contact: An introduction to this special issue. Journal of Language Contact, 13(1), 1–16.Google Scholar

Masica, C. (1982). Identified object marking in Hindi and other languages. Topics in Hindi linguistics, 2, 16–50.Google Scholar

Mason, S. A. (2019). The influence of task factors and language background on morphological processing in Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar

Mayberry, R. I. (1993). First-language acquisition after childhood differs from second-language acquisition: The case of American Sign Language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 36(6), 1258–1270.Google Scholar

Mayberry, R. I., & Kluender, R. (2018). Rethinking the critical period for language: New insights into an old question from American Sign Language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(5), 886–905.Google Scholar

McWhorter, J. (2007). Language interrupted: Signs of non-native acquisition in standard language grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Meisel, J. M. (2010). Two first languages: Early grammatical development in bilingual children. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Meisel, J. M. (2011a). First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Meisel, J. M. (2011b). Bilingual language acquisition and theories of diachronic change: Bilingualism as cause and effect of grammatical change. Bilingualism, 14(2), 121–145.Google Scholar

Meisel, J. M. (2013). Heritage language learners: Unprecedented opportunities for the study of grammars and their development? Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4), 225–236.Google Scholar

Meisel, J. M. (2018). Early child second language acquisition: French gender in German children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(4), 656–673.Google Scholar

Meisel, J. M. (2014). Heritage language learners: Incomplete acquisition of grammar in early childhood. Arias, A.E., Gutiérrez, M., Landa, A., & Ocampo, F. (eds.). Perspectives in the study of Spanish language variation, pp. 397–417. Galicia: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar

Meisel, J. M., Elsig, M., & Rinke, E. (2013). Language acquisition and change. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Meisel, J. M., & Müller, N. (1992). Finiteness and verb placement in early child grammars: Evidence from simultaneous acquisition of French and German in bilinguals. In Meisel, J. (ed.), The acquisition of verb placement, pp. 109–138. Springer.Google Scholar

Moag, R. (1995). Semi-native speakers: How to hold and mold them. In Gambhir, V. (ed.), The teaching and acquisition of South Asian languages, pp. 168–181. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Mohanan, T. (1993). Case alternation on objects in Hindi. South Asian Language Review, 3, 1–30.Google Scholar

Mohanan, T. (1994a). Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language (CSLI).Google Scholar

Mohanan, T. (1994b). Case OCP: A constraint on word order in Hindi. In Butt, M., Holloway King, T., & Ramchand, G. (eds.), Theoretical perspectives on word order in South Asian languages, pp. 185–216. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language (CSLI).Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2002). Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(1), 39–68.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125–142.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2006a). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism as an instance of language change. In Lefebvre, C., White, L., & Jourdens, C. (eds.) L2 Acquisition and creole genesis. dialogues, pp. 379–400. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2006b). On the bilingual competence of Spanish heritage speakers: Syntax, lexical-semantics and processing. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10(1), 37–69.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2009). Knowledge of tense-aspect and mood in Spanish heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 239–269.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2010). How similar are adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers? Spanish clitics and word order. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(1), 167–207.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2013a). How native are heritage speakers? A look at gender agreement in Spanish. The Heritage language Journal, 10(2), 15–39.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2013b). Differential Object Marking in Argentine Spanish An experimental study. In Rodríguez Louro, C. & Colantoni, L. (eds.), Perspectivas teóricas y experimentales sobre el español de Argentina, pp. 207–228, Frankfurt: Verveut Iberomaericana.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2014). Structural changes in Spanish in the United States: Differential Object Marking in Spanish heritage speakers across generations. Lingua, 151, 177–196.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2016a). The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2016b). Dominance and proficiency in early and late bilingualism. In Treffers-Daller, J.& Silva-Corvalán, S.(eds.), Language dominance in bilinguals: Issues of measurement and operationalization, pp. 15–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2016c). Losing your case? Dative experiencers in Mexican Spanish and heritage speakers in the United States. In Pascual y Cabo, D. (ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language, pp. 99–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2018). The bottleneck hypothesis extends to heritage language acquisition. In Choo, J., Iverson, M., Judy, T., Leal Méndez, T., & Shimanskaya, E. (eds.). Meaning and structure in second language acquisition, pp. 149–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2019). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish by Romanian speakers. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 185–219.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. (2021). Representational and computational changes in heritage language grammars. Heritage Language Journal, 18(2), 1–30.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., & Bateman, N. (2020a). Vulnerability and stability of Differential Object Marking in Romanian heritage speakers. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1): 119.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., & Bateman, N. (2020b). Differential Object Marking in Romanian as a heritage language. In Mardale, A. & Montrul, S. (eds.), The acquisition of Differential Object Marking, pp. 261–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., Bhatt, R. M., & Bhatia, A. (2012). Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(2), 141–176.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2009). Back to basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 363–383.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., Bhatia, A., Bhatt, R., & Puri, V. (2019). Case marking in Hindi as the weaker language. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 461.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R. (2015). Differential Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2009). Back to basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism, 12(3), 363–383.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2010). Is grammar instruction beneficial for heritage language learners? Dative case marking in Spanish. Heritage Language Journal, 7(1), 47–73.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., Davidson, J., De La Fuente, I., & Foote, R. (2014). Early language experience facilitates the processing of gender agreement in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism, 17(1), 118–138.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., De La Fuente, I., Davidson, J., & Foote, R. (2013). The role of experience in the acquisition and production of diminutives and gender in Spanish: Evidence from L2 learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research, 29(1), 87–118.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., Dias, R., & Santos, H. (2011). Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer. Second Language Research, 27(1), 21–58.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., Foote, R., & Perpiñán, S. (2008). Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: The effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning, 58(3), 503–553.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., & Gürel, A. (2015). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish by Turkish speakers. In Perpiñán, S. & Judy, T. (eds.), The acquisition of Spanish in understudied language pairings, pp. 281–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., & Ionin, T. (2010). Transfer effects in the interpretation of definite articles by Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 449–473.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., & Ionin, T. (2012). Dominant language transfer in Spanish heritage speakers and L2 learners in the interpretation of definite articles. Modern Language Journal, 96(1), 70–94.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2011). Why not heritage speakers? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 58–62.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2021). The Cambridge handbook of heritage languages and linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(3), 351–398.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N. (2013). Differential Object Marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20(2), 109–132.Google Scholar

Montrul, S., & Yoon, J. (2019). Morphology in language attrition. Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mueller Gathercole, V. (2007). Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: A constructivist account of morphosyntactic development in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 224–247.Google Scholar

Nagy, N. (2015). A sociolinguistic view of null subjects and VOT in Toronto heritage languages. Lingua, 164, 309–327.Google Scholar

Nagy, N., & Kochetov, A. (2013). Voice onset time across the generations: A cross-linguistic study of contact-induced change. In Siemund, P., Gogolin, I., Schulz, M., & Davydova, J. (eds.), Multilingualism and language contact in urban areas: Acquisition–development–teaching–communication, pp. 19–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nesteruk, O. (2010). Heritage language maintenance and loss among the children of Eastern European immigrants in the USA. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(3), 271–286.Google Scholar

O’Grady, W. (2015). Processing determinism. Language Learning, 65(1), 6–32.Google Scholar

O’Grady, W., Lee, M. & Choo, M. (2001). The acquisition of relative clauses by heritage and non-heritage learners of Korean as a second language: A comparative study. Journal of Korean Language Education, 12, 283–294.Google Scholar

O’Grady, W., Kwak, H.-Y., Lee, O.-S., & Lee, M. (2011). An emergentist perspective on heritage language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 223–245.Google Scholar

Oller, D., Jarmulowicz, L., Gibson, T., Hoff, E., Caunt-Milton, H., Kulatilake, S., & Woo, I. (2007). First language vocabulary loss in early bilinguals during language immersion: A possible role for suppression. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 474–484. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 2007.Google Scholar

Orfitelli, R., & Polinsky, M. (2017). When performance masquerades as comprehension: Grammaticality judgments in non-native speakers. In Kopotev, M., Lyashevskaya, O., & Mustajoki, A. (eds.), Quantitative approaches to the Russian language, pp. 197–214. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ortiz Vergara, M. (2013). The development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish-English bilingual children. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Purdue University.Google Scholar

Otheguy, R., & Zentella, A. C. (2011). Spanish in New York: Language contact, dialectal leveling, and structural continuity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Paikeday, T. M., & Chomsky, N. (1985). The native speaker is dead! An informal discussion of a linguistic myth with Noam Chomsky and other linguists, philosophers, psychologists, and lexicographers. Mississauga, Ontario: Paikeday Pub.Google Scholar

Pakulak, E., & Neville, H. J. (2010). Proficiency differences in syntactic processing of monolingual native speakers indexed by event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2728–2744.Google Scholar

Papadopoulou, D., Varlokosta, S., Spyropoulos, V., Kaili, H., Prokou, S., & Revithiadou, A. (2011). Case morphology and word order in second language Turkish: Evidence from Greek learners. Second Language Research, 27(2), 173–204.Google Scholar

Paradis, J. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(3), 213–237.Google Scholar

Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or interdependent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 1–25.Google Scholar

Paradis, J., Tremblay, A., & Crago, M. (2014). French-English bilingual children’s sensitivity to child-level and language-level input factors in morphosyntactic acquisition. In Grüter, T. & Paradis, J. (eds.), Input and experience in bilingual development, pp. 161–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Parodi, C. (2008). Stigmatized Spanish inside the classroom and out. In. Brinton, D., Kagan, O., & Bauckus, S. (eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging, pp. 199–214. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pascual y Cabo, D. (2013). Agreement Reflexes of Emerging Optionality in Heritage Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.Google Scholar

Pascual y Cabo, D. (2020). Examining the role of cross-generational attrition in the development of Spanish as a heritage language: Evidence from gustar-like verbs. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 10(1), 86–108.Google Scholar

Pascual y Cabo, D., & Vela, G. (2020). Futurity and probability in Spanish as a heritage language. In Morales-Front, A., Ferreira, M., Leow, D., & Sanz, C. (eds.), Hispanic linguistics: Current issues and new directions, pp. 285–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pearson, B. Z., & Amaral, L. (2014). Interactions between input factors in bilingual language acquisition. In Grüter, T. & Paradis, J. (eds.), Input and experience in bilingual development, pp. 99–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (2014). Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Pensado, C. (2005). El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar

Pérez-Cortés, S., Putnam, M. T., & Sánchez, L. (2019). Differential access: Asymmetries in accessing features and building representations in heritage language grammars. Languages, 4(4), 81.Google Scholar

Perpiñán, S. (2011). Optionality in bilingual native grammars. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 2(2), 312–341.Google Scholar

Perpiñán, S. (2018). On convergence, ongoing language change, and crosslinguistic influence in direct object expression in Catalan–Spanish bilingualism. Languages, 3(2), 14.Google Scholar

Pineda, A. (2021). The development of DOM in the diachrony of Catalan: (dis)similarities with respect to Spanish. In Kabatek, J., Obrist, P. & Wall, A. (eds.), Differential Object Marking in Romance: The third wave, pp. 243–278. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Pires, A. (2009). Acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese in late childhood: Implications for syntactic theory and language change. Pires, In A. & Rothman, J.. Minimalist inquiries into child and adult language acquisition: Case studies across Portuguese, pp. 129–154 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Pires, A., & Rothman, J. (2009). Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for competence divergence across heritage grammars. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 211–238.Google Scholar

Place, S., & Hoff, E. (2011). Properties of dual language exposure that influence 2‐year‐olds’ bilingual proficiency. Child Development, 82(6), 1834–1849.Google Scholar

Polinsky, M. (2006). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic linguistics, 14(2),191–262.Google Scholar

Polinsky, M. (2007). Reaching the end point and stopping midway: Different scenarios in the acquisition of Russian. Russian Linguistics, 31(2), 157–199.Google Scholar

Polinsky, M. (2008a). Gender under incomplete acquisition: Heritage speakers’ knowledge of noun categorization. Heritage Language Journal, 6(1), 40–71.Google Scholar

Polinsky, M. (2008b). Without aspect. In Corvett, G. & Noonan, M. (eds.), Case and grammatical relations, pp. 263–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Polinsky, M. (2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language: A case for attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 305–328.Google Scholar

Polinsky, M. (2016). Structure vs. use in heritage language. Linguistics Vanguard, 2(1), 1–14.Google Scholar

Polinsky, M. (2018). Heritage languages and their speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Polinsky, M., & Scontras, G. (2020). Understanding heritage languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 4–20.Google Scholar

Pomino, N., Schmitz, K., & Neuburger, K. A. (2018). Differential Object Marking in Spanish as a heritage language in Germany. Arbeitspapier Nr. 129, 1.Google Scholar

Ponelis, F., & Ponelis, F. A. (1993). The development of Afrikaans. Bern: Peter Lang Pub Incorporated.Google Scholar

Poplack, S., Lealess, A., & Dion, N. (2013). The evolving grammar of the French subjunctive. International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics, 25(1), 139–195.Google Scholar

Poplack, S., & Levey, S. (2010). Contact-induced grammatical change: A cautionary tale. In Auer, P. & Schmidt, J. (eds.), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation, 1, pp. 391–419. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton,Google Scholar

Poplack, S., Zentz, L., & Dion, N. (2012). What counts as (contact-induced) change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(2), 247–254.Google Scholar

Potowski, K. (2008). I was raised talking like my mom. The influence of mothers in the development of MexiRicans’ phonological and lexical features. In Niño-Murcia, M. & Rothman, J. (eds.), Bilingualism and identity. Spanish at the crossroads with other languages, pp. 201–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Prasada, S., & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(1), 1–56.Google Scholar

Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16(2), 103–133.Google Scholar

Putnam, M. T., Perez-Cortes, S., & Sánchez, L. (2017). Language attrition and the feature reassembly hypothesis. In Schmid, M. & Köpke, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language attrition, pp. 18–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Putnam, M. T., & Sánchez, L. (2013). What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition?: A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(4), 478–508.Google Scholar

Requena, P. E., & Dracos, M. (2020). Spanish copula selection with adjectives in school-aged bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(3), 548–567.Google Scholar

Rickford, J. R. (1999). African American vernacular English: Features, evolution, educational implications. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

Rinke, E. (2016). 19. The role of the interfaces in syntactic change. In Fischer, S. & Gabriel, C. (eds.), Manuals of grammatical interfaces in romance, pp. 587–606. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar