Third factors in language design: the view from heritage languages��CNRS & University of Paris 8 6 June 2025

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Interaction of UG and 3F principles in resumptive pronouns: evidence from heritage

Chinese in the Netherlands and France

​

Zetao Xu^1,2 & Victor Junnan Pan¹

Collaborated with Roberta D’Alessandro²

¹The Chinese University of Hong Kong, ²Utrecht University

1. Introduction

Three factors in the language design

​

​

In the Minimalist framework, it is generally thought that there are three factors in the language design which determine the I-language attained (Chomsky 2005):

​

• The first factor: genetic endowment
• The second factor: experience
• The third factor: general cognitive or computational constraints not specific to language.

The exact nature of these factors, especially the third one, remains unclear.

• Synchronously: Syntactic theories in the generative tradition have mainly focused on I-language and UG to explain language acquisition and universal properties of syntax

​

• Adding diachorinc perspective: Examining heritage languages may shed light on the interplay between 3F principles and UG principles (Polinsky & Scontras, 2019; Andriani et al., 2022; Terenghi, 2022, a.o.).

1. Introduction

​

​

​

• Heritage language (HL)

​

• Heritage language: if it is a language spoken at home or readily available to young children, and this language is not a dominant language of the larger (national) society.
• Heritage speaker: if and only if he or she has some command of the heritage language acquired naturalistically... although such competence will differ from that of native monolinguals of comparable age. (Rothman, 2009: 156)

​

• HL and syntactic theory:

​

• Many of the studies are theoretically informed in this field.
• However, relatively little attention has been devoted to uncovering the fundamental principles that drive changes in heritage language systems. The potential of heritage language data to inform and refine linguistic theory remains largely untapped, as pointed out in D’Alessandro et al. (2024).

1. Introduction

​

• Aim of the study

​

• Identify shared foundational principles that govern structural change, by drawing comparison on contact between different language dyads regarding optional structures (e.g., the optional use of resumptive pronouns) (see D’Alessandro 2021; Andriani et al. 2022a,b)

​

​

• A key challenge：the cause of the change

​

• Internally-motivated changes (e.g., linguistic feature) or externally-driven (e.g., societal factors) ?
• While acknowledging the relevance of all the factors affecting Contact induced change such as age of onset, the specific situational context in which bilingualism arises, and the completeness of acquisition (Paradis & Genesee 1996, Montrul 2008, Meisel 2011, 2013, Paradis 2011, Unsworth 2013, Unsworth et al 2014, Tsimpli 2014, Müller 2017, a.o.), the main focus is on understanding which role grammar plays in determining the direction of change (e.g., explicit pronoun or null form).

1. Introduction

Framework: Microcontact (D’Alessandro 2015, Andriani et al. 2022a,b)

​

​

​

• How to tease up the cause of change? => Microcontact

​

• A comprehensive comparative approach involving multiple language pairs: “one phenomenon needs to be observed in language A in contact with many other languages”.

​

​

​

• Advantage of Microcontact

​

• It enables us to assess the outcomes of change that impact linguistic features in contact as well as to trace their development over time.
• A more fine-grained analysis of CIC, beyond obvious explanations in terms of transfer.

1. Introduction

Microcontact methodology

​

Spontaneous change

Contact-induced change

2. Resumptive pronouns

Phenomenon in investigation: Resumptive pronouns

​

• Optionality

​

• Two perfectly interchangeable syntactic structures within one language.
• Problematic: an operation is only allowed if it has an effect on the outcome according to the Strong Minimalist Thesis.
• A stage of change: optional structures may represent a stage of variation within a language, which often indicating a change in progress, which can help refine and potentially revise our theoretical frameworks.

​

• Resumptive pronouns (RP)

​

• Invovling optional structures as an RP can be interchangeable with a gap in many environments in certain languages (such as Chinese)
• Productive in Chinese. Limited studies in contact literatures (Mostly L2, Yuan and Zhao 2005; Hu and Liu 2007; Santo et al. 2024)

​

​

2. Resumptive pronouns

Resumption in Chinese

​

• Resumptive pronouns (RPs) are A’-bound pronouns that typically appear in constructions like relative clauses (RC) and left-dislocation (LD) in Chinese (Pan, 2016).

​

• For RCs, an RP is optional in the object position, excluded in the subject position.

​

​

(1) a. [Wǒ ài-le {tā_j /___} sān nián] de nà-ge rén_j. (RC object)

1sg love-perf 3sg three year c that-cl person

‘The person whom I’ve loved for three years.’ (Chen 2012)

​

b. {*Tā_j /___} bìng-le sān nián de nà-ge rén_j. (RC subject)

3sg sick-perf three year c that-cl person

Intended: ‘the person who was ill for three years.’

​

​

2. Resumptive pronouns

Resumption in Chinese

​

• For LDs, an RP is optional in both the object and the subject positions.

​

​

(2) a. [Zhè-gè fúwùshēng]_j, suǒyǒu gùkè dōu hěn xǐhuān tā_j/___. (LD object)

this-cl waiter all customer dou very like 3sg

‘(As for) this waiter, all customers like him.’

​

b. [Nà-wèi jiàoshòu]_j, tā_j/___ céngjīng zài fǎguó de dàxué (LD subject)

that-cl professor 3sg once at France de university

gōngzuò-guò.

work-exp

‘(As for) that professor, she used to work for a university at France.

​

​

​

2. Resumptive pronouns

Resumption in Dutch

​

• In contrast to Chinese, Dutch typically prohibits resumptive pronouns (RPs) in relative clauses.

​

• Excluded in both the subject and object positions.

​

​

(3) a. De persoon van wie ik (*haar) drie jaar gehouden heb. (RC object)

the person of whom 1sg 3sg three year loved have.

‘The person whom I’ve loved for three years.’

​

b. De persoon die (*hij) drie jaar ziek was. (RC subject)

The person who 3sg three year sick was

‘The person who was sick for three years.’

​

2. Resumptive pronouns

Resumption in Dutch

​

• For object LD, an RP is acceptable in certain cases.

​

​

• It is obligatory in (4a) but exclueded in (4b).

​

​

(4) a. Wat [die journalist]_j betreft, hebben wij *(haar_j) gisteren al ontmoet. (LD object)

what that journalist about, have 1pl 3sg yesterday already meet

‘(As far as) that journalist (is concerned), we have already met her yesterday.’

​

b. *Van [dit boek]_j, denk ik dat Piet het_j leuk vindt.

of this book think I that Peter it cool finds

‘This book, I think Peter likes.’ (modified from Salzmann 2006:153)

​

2. Resumptive pronouns

Resumption in Dutch

​

​

• For subject LD, an RP is obligatory in (5a) if topicalization is forced. A sentence without comma is more preferred, as in (5b).

​

(5) a. Deze jongen, *(hij) studeert erg hard. (LD subject)

this boy he study very hard

‘This boy, he studies very hard.’

​

b. Deze jongen studeert erg hard.

this boy study very hard

‘This boy, he studies very hard.’

​

​

​

​

2. Resumptive pronouns

Resumption in French

​

• As a Romance language, resumption is not allowed in standard/written French. However, it is permitted in Spoken French (Godard 1989; Su & Donati 2023)

​

• Most individual speakers maintain grammars encoding both the Standard French and Colloquial French (De Cat 2007; Culbertson 2010, a.o.)

​

• An RP and a gap can be interchangable in both the subject and object positions in RC.

​

(6) a. Elle a quelques collégiens qu’elle les fait travailler. (RC object)

she has some students that she cl.acc make work

‘She has some students who she supervises.’(Su & Donati 2023:117)

​

b. Il y a le voisin qu(’il) habite au-dessus là. (RC subject)

there is the neighbor that he lives upstairs there

‘There is a neighbor who lives upstairs over there.’ (Su & Donati 2023:117)

​

​

2. Resumptive pronouns

Resumption in French

​

• As for LD, an RP is obligatory in both the object and the subject positions.

​

​

(7) a. Votre terre_i, qui *(la)_i défendra? (LD object)

your land who it will defend

‘Who will defend your land?’ (Troberg 2004:134)

​

b. Ce garçon_i, *(il)_i étudie très dur. (LD subject)

this boy he study very hard

‘(As for) this boy, he studies very hard.’

​

2. Resumptive pronouns

• Summary of RP distribution in relative clauses (RC) and left-dislocations (LD) in Mandarin, Dutch and French

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

3. Methodology

• Assumption: transfer is purely grammarbased, albeit enhanced by possible extra-linguistic factors.

​

• If transfer is at work, we should expect the following pattern:

​

3. Methodology

• Assumption: transfer is purely grammarbased, albeit enhanced by possible extra-linguistic factors.

​

• If transfer is at work, we should expect the following pattern:

​

3. Methodology

• Generalization: According to the generalizations in heritage literature (Sorace et al. 2009, Montrul 2016, Polinsky & Scontras 2019, a.o.), bilingual speakers of all kinds exhibit an overuse of overt pronouns in contexts where a null form would typically be used (Avoid silence).

​

• If third factors are at work, we should expect the following:

3. Methodology

Data collection

​

• A pairwise comparison

​

• Following the Microcontact methodology (D’Alessandro, 2015), a pairwise comparison between two language dyads: Mandarin-Dutch (MD) and Mandarin-French (MF) was carried out targeting feature-level (micro)contact-induced change on RPs.

​

• Participants :

​

• MD: 14 first-generation (G1, age: 34-64) and 20 second-generation (G2, age: 18-20), with 6 high and 14 low proficiency. Collected in Chinese schools in the Netherlands (Utrecht).

​

• MF: 8 G1 (age: 29-61) and 26 G2 (age: 18-25), with 16 high and 10 low proficiency. Collected in Chinese schools in France (Paris) and in Belgium (Brussels).

3. Methodology

Procedure

​

• A language background survery

​

• Participant’s basic information, native languages
• Immigrant history
• Self-assessment on language usage, environments on language choice

​

• Hawai‘i Assessment of Language Access (HALA) test (O’Grady et al. 2009)
• A simplified version but it does not work on well. Proficiency based on HSK test.

​

• Two-alternative forced choice task:
• They are forced to choose between two minimally different sentences (gap/pronoun)
• RC (12 items) and LD (12 items) on subject and object position, filled with other sentence conditions.
• Less demanding to compare two items than to rate a single item on a predefined and consistent scale (Stadthagen-González et al. 2018, Andriani et al. 2021)

​

4. Findings

• Subject relative clauses:
• Numbers representing collected items for each condition

4. Findings

• Subject relative clauses:

​

​

​

​

​

Puzzle I: Surprisingly, MD-G2-H (41.7%) has a high preference for RP compared to MF-G2-H (19.8%) (p<0.01) and they do not differ from the MD-G2-L (39.7%) group even if RP is excluded in the subject position in both Dutch and Mandarin.

​

Two possiblities:

• 3F: ‘Avoid Silence’, overt pronouns are preferred
• Transfer: d-pronoun die ‘that’ perceived as a resumptive pronoun

​

Die ’that’ can be used similarly to the function of the pronoun he.

​

(9) a. Do you see the man across the street? He/*that wears a nice coat.

b. Zie je de man aan de overkant? Die heeft een mooie jas aan.

(van Kampen 2007:118)

​

​

4. Findings

• Subject relative clauses:

​

​

​

​

Conceptually, heritage MD speakers might perceive die to play the same function as a pronoun, resulting in a higher preference for RP in subject RC.

​

(10) De advocaat_j heeft met uw broer_k gesproken. Die/*h(e)m_k achtte

the lawyer has with your brother spoken that/*him judged

hij_j betrouwbaar.

he reliable’

‘The lawyer has spoken with your brother. He (your brother) judged him(the lawyer) reliable.’ (van Kampen 2007:113)

​

(11) De persoon die (*hij) drie jaar ziek was. (RC subject)

The person who 3sg three year sick was

‘The person who was sick for three years.’

​

4. Findings

• Subject relative clauses:

​

​

​

​

Puzzle II: low prefernce for RP in MF-G2-H (19.8%) even if RP is accepted in French

​

Two possiblities:

• ‘3F’: Native-like perception as a driven factor
• Transfer: Frequency effects in French

​

Frequency effects in French RC：

• In a corpus study, Su and Donati (2023) find that only 49 occurences of RP is observed out of 4693 gapped RCs (1.04%) in the subject position even in Spoken French.

​

Recall: RP is disallowed in standard/written French

​

Consequently: limited input of RP in French subject RC => higher preference for gap in heritage MF

​

4. Findings

• Subject relative clauses:

​

​

​

​

​

Proposal: 3F in low proficiency and transfer in high proficiency level.

​

​

Revised distribution

​

​

High-level group:

• MD-G2 has a higher preference for RP compared to MF-G2 (p<0.01)
• MD-G2 have a higher preference for RP compared to the G1 baseline while and no difference is observed between MF-G2 and their baseline.

​

Low-level group:

• A similar behaviour between MD-G2 (39.7%) and MF-G2 (57.1%) (p=0.051)
• A higher preference for RP in MF-G2-L compared to MF-G2-H (p<0.001)

​

4. Findings

• Object relative clauses:

4. Findings

• Object relative clauses:

​

​

​

​

​

Puzzles:

​

• The MD-G1 baseline has a surprisingly low preference for RP (1.85%).
• Attrition? Loss of RPs and the unacceptable use of stranded prepositions in attrited L1 Hebrew, when L2 English becomes dominant (Seliger 1989)
• Already the case in homeland speakers? –Further research

​

• MF-G2-H has a low preference for RP (13.5%)
• External factor: Native-like perception as a driven factor
• Transfer: Frequency effects in French in the object position

​

• MD-G2-H (26.8%) has a higher preference for RP compared to the corresponding MF group (13.5%) but the difference is not significant (p=0.07)

​

​

​

​

​

4. Findings

• Object relative clauses:

​

​

​

​

​

For French: Frequency effects again, only 21 occurences of RP is observed out of 1648 gapped RCs (1.24%) in the object position even in Spoken French (Su and Donati 2023).

​

For Dutch: Die is not that natural in object position.

​

(12) De advocaat_j heeft met uw broer_k gesproken. Hij_j achtte

the lawyer has with your brother spoken he judged

hem/#die_k betrouwbaar.

he reliable

‘The lawyer has spoken with your brother. He (the lawyer) judged him (your brother) reliable.’ (van Kampen 2007:113)

​

​

Revised distribution

​

​

4. Findings

• Object relative clauses:

​

​

​

​

​

3F in low proficiency and transfer in high proficiency level.

​

High-level group:

• MD-G2 (26.8%) has a higher preference for RP compared to the corresponding MF group (13.5%) but the difference is not significant (p=0.07). Given that die is not that natural in the object position.
• MD-G2 has a higher preference for RP compared to the G1 baseline (1.85%) while no difference is observed between MF-G2 (13.5%) and the MF-G1 baseline (22.9). Native-like perception or transfer

​

Low-level group:

• A similar behaviour between MD-G2 (30.8%) and MF-G2 (30.9%) (p=1). 3F ‘Avoid silence’ at work

​

4. Findings

• Subject LD:

4. Findings

• Subject left-dislocations:

​

​

​

​

​

3F in low proficiency and transfer in high proficiency level.

​

High-level group:

• MF-G2 (54.2%) has a higher preference for RP compared to MD-G2 (35%) (p<0.05) as an RP is obligatory in French but less natural in Dutch.
• Native-like perception?
• Both the MF-G2 and MD-G2 do not differ significantly with their baseline (p>0.05).
• The higher preference for RP is observed in G1 as well. MF-G1 (62.2%) has a higher preference for RP compared to MD-G1 (43.4%) (p=0.048)

​

Low-level group:

• No significant difference between D-G2-L (38.5%) and F-G2-L (38%) (p=1). 3F ‘Avoid silence’ at work

​

4. Findings

• Object LD:

4. Findings

• Object left-dislocations:

​

Puzzles:

​

• No significant difference between D-G2-H (61.2%) and F-G2-H (57.3%) (p>0.05)

​

• Processing plays a more significant role? Accessibility hierarchy: Subject > Object (Keenan and Comrie 1977).
• Native-like perception?
• No significant difference between F-G1 (63.3%) and D-G1 (50.5%) and (p>0.05)

​

• MF-G2-L (66.7%) has a higher preference for RP compared to D-G2-L (39.6%) (p<0.01),

​

• Transfer in low-level proficiency group?

5. Influence from other factors

​

Influence from English?

• For MD: the RP distribution in English is similar to Dutch
• For MF: the RP distribution in English is different from French

​

A correlation test:

• 3 participants from MF-G2-H group have relatively high English proficiency level compared to the others.
• A Spearman correlation test shows that there is only a weak negative correlation between English ability and the preference for RP in both the subject (ρ=-0.141, p=0.602) and the object (ρ=-0.021, p=0.) condition but it is not significant.

​

Conclusion: English may not play a role

​

5. Influence from other factors

​

Influence from Southern Wu Chinese Dialects?

​

The distribution of RP in Wenzhounese is basically similar to Mandarin. However, it allows gap to be used in BA-construction (Xie 2023).

​

(11) a. [ge²¹²-le⁰ kai⁰ zę³¹ko⁵³]_i nei⁰, de⁰ ∅_i kho⁵³ ta⁰ Ci⁰. (Gap)

dem-pl clf issue prt de put aside first

‘These issues, (let’s) put them aside for the time being.’ (Xie 2023:305)

b. [ge²¹²-le⁰ kai⁰ zę³¹ko⁵³]_i nei⁰, de⁰ gi_i kho⁵³ ta⁰ Ci⁰. (RP)

dem-pl clf issue prt de 3sg put aside first

​

A correlation test:

• 6 participants from MF-G2-H group can speak Wenzhou or Qingtian dialect.
• A Spearman correlation test shows that there is a moderate positive correlation between the knowledge of Southern Wu dialects and the preference for RP in the subject condition (ρ=0.328, p=0.215) and a weak positive correlation in the object condition (ρ=0.071, p=0.793) but it is not significant.

​

Conclusion: Wu dialects may not play a role

​

​

6. Conclusion

• Resumptive pronouns in heritage Chinese are proned to change

​

• Interaction of transfer and 3F: proficiency matters

​

• Cross-linguistic transfer tend to have more influence in high-level heritage speakers.

​

• 3F principles (i.e., ‘Avoid silence’) is at work in low-level speakers.

​

• External factors affecting change

​

• Native-like perception outweigh ‘Avoid silence’

​

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Thank you!

Third factors in language design: the view from heritage languages��CNRS & University of Paris 8 6 June 2025

Aalberse, S., Zou, Y., & Andringa, S. J. (2017). Extended use of demonstrative pronouns in two generations of Mandarin Chinese speakers in the Netherlands: Evidence of convergence? In E. Blom, L. Cornips, & J. Schaeffer (Eds.), Studies in Bilingualism (Vol. 52, pp. 25–48). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.52.03aal

Aalberse, S., Backus, A., & Muysken, P. (2019). Heritage Languages: A language contact approach (Vol. 58). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.58

Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford University Press.

Andriani, Luigi, Jan Casalicchio, Francesco Maria Ciconte, Roberta D’Alessandro, Alberto Frasson, Brechje van Osch, Luana Sorgini & Silvia Terenghi. 2022a. Documenting ItaloRomance heritage languages in the Americas. In Matt Coler & Andrew Nevins (eds.), Contemporary research in minority and diaspora languages of Europe, Berlin: Language Science Press. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/view/332/3536/2466-1 Andriani, Luigi, Roberta D’Alessandro, Alberto Frasson, Brechje van Osch, Luana Sorgini & Silvia Terenghi. 2022b. Adding the microdimension to the study of language change in contact. Three case studies. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 7(1), pp. 1–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5748

Battye, Adrian, & Ian Roberts (eds.). 1995. Clause structure and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Belletti, A. (2006). Extending doubling to non-local domains: Complete vs. partial copying+ deletion and related reconstruction issues. Form, Structure and Grammar. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 129-136.

Chen, Zongli (陈宗利). (2012). Hànyǔ guānxì jiégòu zhōng de “suǒ” (汉语关系结构中的“所”) [The particle suo in Chinese relative constructions]. Waiguoyu (外国语) [Journal of Foreign Languages], 35(3), 34–41.

Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36:1, 1–22.

Chou, C.-T. T., Chen, T.-Y., & Pires, A. (2020). Acquisition of null objects in Mandarin Chinese by heritage speakers: Syntax-pragmatics interface knowledge without inflectional morphology. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 7(2), 223–269. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.19016.cho

D’Alessandro, Roberta. 2015. Microcontact. Language variation and change from the Italian heritage perspective. ERC project, https://microcontact.sites.uu.nl/project/

D’Alessandro, Roberta. 2021a. Syntactic change in contact: Romance. Annual Review of Linguistics 7(7). 309–328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030311

D’Alessandro, R., Andriani, L., Frasson, A., Pinto, M., Sorgini, L., & Terenghi, S. (2023). Microcontact and syntactic theory.

Godard, D. (1989). La syntaxe des relatives en français. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2008). Constraints on contact-induced linguistic change. Journal of Language Contact, 2(1), 57–90.

Latham, K., & Wu, B. (2013). Chinese immigration into the EU: New trends, dynamics and implications (p. 65). London: Europe China Research and Advice Network.

Lau, E. (2016). The role of resumptive pronouns in Cantonese relative clause acquisition. First Language, 36(4), 355-382.

Kim, J., Nishikawa, T., Jocson, C., & Grüter, T. (2024). HALA Online Manual.

Van Kemenade, Ans & Nigel Vincent (eds). 1997. Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mai, Z., Kwan, C. Y., & Yip, V. (2018). Expressing displacement in heritage Cantonese: Cross-linguistic influence and structural vulnerability. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(6), 603-618.

​

Reference

Mai, Z., and Deng, X. (2019). Selective vulnerability and dominant language transfer in the acquisition of the Chinese cleft construction by heritage speakers. Linguist. Approach. Bilingual. 9, 202–227. doi: 10.1075/lab.16040.mai

Mai, Z., Zhao, L., & Yip, V. (2022). The Mandarin ba-construction in school-age heritage speakers and their parental input. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 12(3), 377-405.

Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (2011). Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. New York, NY and Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Müller, N. (2017). Different sources of delay and acceleration in early child bilingualism. Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft 36, 7–30. doi: 10.1515/zfs-2017-0002

Montrul, Silvina. 2008. Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism. Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ninio, Anat, 'Core syntactic relations', Syntactic development, its input and output (Oxford, 2011; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 May 2011), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565962.003.0002

Liang, Z., & Song, Q. (2016). Migration in China. International handbook of migration and population distribution, 285-309.

O’Grady, W., Schafer, A. J., Perla, J., Lee, O-S., & Wieting, J. (2009) A psycholinguistic tool for the assessment of language loss: The HALA project.Language Documentation and Conservation 3(1), 100–112.

Paradis, Johanne. 2011. Internal and external factors in child second language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1, 213–237. doi: 10.1075/lab.1.3.01par

Paradis, Johanne & Fred Genesee. 1996. Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 1–25. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100014662

Pan, Victor Junnan. (2016a). Resumptivity in Mandarin Chinese: A Minimalist Account. [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs (TiLSM)], vol. 298. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Pan, Victor Junnan. (2016b). Resumptivity and two types of A'-dependencies in the Minimalist Program. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 3(1), 45–78.

Pan, V. J. (2022). Resumption in Mandarin Chinese. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Victor-Pan-5/publication/364476387_Resumption_in_Mandarin_Chinese/links/6351dc7f12cbac6a3ede887b/Resumption-in-Mandarin-Chinese.pdf

Pieke, F. N., & Benton, G. (1998). The Chinese in the Netherlands. In The Chinese in Europe (pp. 125-167). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Pintzuk, Susan, George Tsoulas, & Anthony Warner (eds). 2000. Diachronic syntax: models and mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Polinsky, M. (2018). Heritage Languages and Their Speakers (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107252349

Polinsky, M., & Scontras, G. (2019). Understanding heritage languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 4–20.

Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rothman, J. (2009). Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism 13 , 155 – 163.

Rothman, Jason. 2011. L3 Syntactic Transfer Selectivity and Typological Determinacy: The Typological Primacy Model. Second Language Research 27(1): 107–127. DOI: 10.1177/0267658310386439.

Rothman, J. (2015). Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered. Bilingualism: language and cognition, 18(2), 179-190.

Sánchez, Liliana. 2004. Functional convergence in the tense, evidentiality and aspectual systems of Quechua Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7.2: 147-62.

​

Reference

Salzmann, M. (2006). Resumptive prolepsis: A study in indirect A’-dependencies. LOT.

Silva-Corvalán C (1994) Language contact and change. Spanish in Los Angeles . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Silva-Corvalán, C. (2008). The limits of convergence in language contact. Journal of Language Contact, 2(1), 213-224.

Sorace, Antonella, & Serratrice, Ludovica. 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13(2): 195–210.

Shlonsky, U. (1992). Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic inquiry, 23(3), 443-468.

Su, P., & Donati, C. (2023). An Accessibility hierarchy pattern for Resumptive pronouns in spoken French. Annali Di Ca’ Foscari. Serie Occidentale, 57, JournalArticle_12895. https://doi.org/10.30687/AnnOc/2499-1562/2023/11/005

Stadthagen-González, Hans, Luis López, M. Carmen Parafita Couto & C. Alejandro Párraga. 2018. Using two-alternative forced choice tasks and Thurstone’s law of comparative judgments for code-switching research. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8. 67–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.16030.sta.

Montrul S (2016) The acquisition of heritage languages . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Unsworth, Sharon. 2013. Assessing age of onset effects in (early) child L2 acquisition. Language Acquisition 20, 74–92. doi: 10.1080/10489223.2013.766739

Unsworth, Sharon, Argyri, Froso, Cornips, Leonie, Hulk, Aafke, Sorace, Antonella & Ianthi Tsimpli. 2014. The role of age of onset and input in early child bilingualism in Greek and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics 35, 765–805. doi: 10.1017/S0142716412000574

Espírito Santo, A., Alexandre, N., & Perpiñán, S. (2024). The role of resumption in the acquisition of European Portuguese prepositional relative clauses by Chinese learners. Second Language Research, 40(1), 103–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583221137715

Terenghi, Silvia. 2021. (Non-)monotonicity effects in the person domain. Talk presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Association of Great Britain (LAGB), online, 6–9 September 2021.

Terenghi, Silvia. 2023a. Missing Person: Structure and change in Romance demonstratives. Utrecht University Doctoral Dissertation. https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/635_ fulltext.pdf Terenghi,

Terenghi, Silvia. 2023b. Last in, first out: Patterns of reduction in Romance demonstrative systems. Journal of Historical Syntax 7(11): 1–40. https://doi.org/10.18148/hs/2023.v7i619.157

Tsimpli, Ianthi. 2014. Early, late or very late? Linguist. Approaches Biling. 4, 283–313. doi: 10.1075/lab.4.3.01tsi

Troberg, M. (2004). Topic-comment resumptive pronouns in Modern French and Old and Middle French. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 23. https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6205

Viswanath A (2013) Heritage English in Israeli children . B.A. thesis, Harvard University.

Liú Dānqīng ,Táng Zhèngdà ,Chén Yùjié ,Shèng Yìmín & Wáng Fāng .(2017). Hànyǔ fāngyán yǔfǎ diàochá wènjuàn. Fāngyán (01),1-10.

Xie, C. (2023). The de-construction in Wenzhounese: How it differs from the bǎ-construction in Mandarin. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 32(3), 303–339.

Zhou, J., Mai, Z., Cai, Q., Liang, Y., & Yip, V. (2022). Reference production in Mandarin–English bilingual preschoolers: Linguistic, input, and cognitive factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 897031.

van Kampen, N. J. (2007). Relative agreement in Dutch. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2007 (pp. 112-125). John Benjamins.

​

Reference