Chap e 4
Me hodological o he ing h ough
monolingual con ols: How no o
A emis Alexiadou
Leibniz-Zen um Allgemeine Sp achwissenscha (ZAS); Humbold Uni e si ä
zu Be lin
In a subs an ial body o wo k on a pa icula g oup o mul ilingual speake s,
namely he i age speake s, hese a e o en desc ibed as de ia ing om na i e-like
mas e y in a a ie y o ways. In compa ison wi h monolingual con ols, he i age
speake s a e iewed as lagging behind. This pape add esses his issue and a -
gues ha monolingual con ols should no be dispensed wi h, bu a he hey
can be used o gain insigh s in o language a ia ion and he p ocesses ha shape
monolingual and he i age g amma s alike.
1 In oduc ion
Typically, in empi ical esea ch pa icipan s a e di ided in o wo g oups: he
expe imen al g oup ( he g oup we a e in e es ed in) and he con ol g oup. In
he i age language essea ch esea ch, he con ol g oup is composed o aged-
ma ched monolingual speake s, and also monolingual child en, and he expe -
imen al g oup a e he he i age speake s. Thus, based on an idealized i s lan-
guage (L1) compe ence, adop ing he inclusion o a con ol g oup o monolingual
speake s o he language is he de aul in empi ical esea ch, see Vulchano a e
al. (2022) o a ecen discussion. Howe e , his pe spec i e leads o o he ing he -
i age speake s, iewing hem as some so o special g oup: as in mos cases, such
speake s do no beha e he exac same way as monolinguals, he explana ions
ha a e o en gi en a e de ici o ien ed. The g amma o he i age speake s is
non- a ge g amma in compa ison o he a ge , i.e., monolingual na i e g am-
ma . This has been a gued o be he esul o incomple e acquisi ion o a i ion
A emis Alexiadou. 2025. Me hodological o he ing h ough monolingual con ols:
How no o. In A emis Alexiadou, Claudio Sca aglie i, Ch is oph Sch oede &
Heike Wiese (eds.), The cons uc ion o mul ilinguals as O he s: Do we p ac ice wha we
p each?, 63–80. Be lin: Language Science P ess. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17132445
A emis Alexiadou
o bo h depending on he phenomenon (Mon ul 2016), he esul o a bo leneck
(Slabako a 2019), o simply he i age g amma is in some ways de ec i e (Polin-
sky & Scon as 2020). The ocus on non- a ge p ope ies o he i age g amma s
ha e ecen ly led Domínguez e al. (2019: 247 .) o de end he e m incomple e
acquisi ion. As hey s a e, in he ield o L1 acquisi ion, i exp esses he p ocedu al
cha ac e o language acquisi ion: g amma s may luc ua e, change, de elop and
show sensi i i y o ma u a ional cons ain s. In he ield o he i age language
g amma s, i is sugges i e o a si ua ion whe eby he i age language speake s
ha e no had he chance o lea n all he a ailable cues. The au ho s explici ly con-
clude ha ’’in es iga ing he g amma ical knowledge o he i age speake s would
bene i om including a leas wo con ol g oups, a g oup o monolingual speak-
e s and a g oup o speake s ep esen ing he pa en al/communi y inpu ha he
he i age speake s ecei e in ha con ex . This could help cla i y whe he p op-
e ies no ins an ia ed in he i age speake s’ g amma s we e p esen in he inpu
o s a wi h.’’ Domínguez e al. (2019: 251). Thus, om his pe spec i e wo and
no jus one con ol g oups a e necessa y o assess he p ope ies o he i age
g amma s.
The so-called de ici aming o he i age speake s has been c i icized om a
a ie y o pe spec i es, see e.g., Kupisch & Ro hman (2018), Bousque e & Pu -
nam (2020), Higby e al. (2023), Wiese e al. (2021), Wiese e al. (2022) o men ion
a ew. In his pape , I will align wi h hese pe spec i es and p opose o abandon
he idea ha he monolingual speake /na i e speake is he model o all di e en
ypes o language acquisi ion and compe ence. My ocus is on he i age speake s
(hence o h HSs) o G eek. I will adop he idea ha HSs a e in ac pa o he
na i e speake ange, see e.g., Ro hman & T e e s-Dalle (2014); while I will no
a gue ha one needs o dispense wi h he no ion o he con ol g oup as such, I
will sugges ha whene e a con ol g oup is used, he poin o depa u e should
be o show how HSs op o pa e ns ha a e also p oduced by monolinguals,
and hus p esen in he inpu in some o m, albei in di e en se ings. I will a -
emp o iden i y he mechanisms he di e en g oups o speake s employ, see
Higby e al. (2023), Luk & Bialys ok (2013), Wiese e al. (2021) o insigh ul dis-
cussion om di e en pe spec i es. I will hen discuss di e ences be ween HS
and monolingual p oduc ions om he pe spec i e o ep esen a ional economy
and analy ici y, Scon as e al. (2018), and Pu nam e al. (2021).
The chap e is s uc u ed as ollows: in sec ion 2, I o e a de ini ion o he i age
speake s and hei ela ion o he no ion o he na i e speake . In sec ion 3, I
epo on se e al s udies ha show simila i ies and di e ences in he p oduc ions
o HSs and na i e speake s o G eek. In sec ion 4, I u n o some discussion o
he indings, and in sec ion 5 I conclude.
64
4 Me hodological o he ing h ough monolingual con ols: How no o
2 He i age speake s and he na i e speake
As s a ed in a pos by G ammon & Babel (2021), ’’ he idea o he “na i e speake ”
o igina ed wi hin he con ex o Eu opean na ionalism and colonialism in he
19 h cen u y. I p o ed use ul bo h as a way o concep ualizing and labeling a
pa icula linguis ic iden i y ied o a na ion and o di e en ia e be ween social
g oups wi hin a colonial hie a chy. A close examina ion e eals ha he concep
o he “na i e” speake is igh ly connec ed o disc imina o y logics.’’, see also
Higby e al. (2023) and e e ences he ein.
Why should ha be he case? As G ammon & Babel discuss, linguis s and
non-linguis s use he e m na i e speake o desc ibe an indi idual ha g ew up
speaking a pa icula language and who is ully p o icien in ha language. The
poin is, howe e , ha o en a ce ain kind o au ho i y as o how a language
should be spoken is bes owed upon na i e speake s, hus o he ing mul ilingual
speake s, see also Wiese e al. (2022) o ex ensi e discussion and e e ences.
Typically, monolinguals a e seen as na i e speake s o hei language, as in
hei case one can a p io i exclude language in e e ence ha may c ea e a mo e
complex linguis ic beha io . Fo his eason, he monolingual speake has been
in he cen e o in es iga ion in he his o y o heo e ical and expe imen al lin-
guis ics. The o igin o his iew can be ound in he ea ly pages o Aspec s o
he Theo y o Syn ax: “Linguis ic heo y is conce ned p ima ily wi h an ideal
speake -lis ene , in a comple ely homogeneous speech-communi y, who knows
i s language pe ec ly and is una ec ed by such g amma ically i ele an con-
di ions as memo y limi a ions, dis ac ions, shi s o a en ion and in e es , and
e o s ( andom o cha ac e is ic) in applying his knowledge o he language in
ac ual pe o mance” (Chomsky 1965: 3).
Thus, o a e y long ime, as s essed in Lohndal (2013), only monolingual
speake s, ea ed as p oducing in a ian speech we e analyzed. This ype o ap-
p oach, howe e , leads o a si ua ion whe e bilingual speake s canno be iewed
as a pu e case o s udy, as he e a e oo many ac o s in e e ing wi h he acqui-
si ion o hei wo g amma s. The language o he i age speake s hus migh be
conside ed a a he complica ed case. In o he wo ds, since he e is a lo o a ia-
ion among speake s in his domain, o mal models o g amma canno eally be
applied o he linguis ic beha io o such speake s. Howe e , we know by now
ha monolingual speake s do exhibi di e gen ou comes, see e.g, Dąb owska
(2012) and subsequen wo k. Thus, i , as igh ly sugges ed by an anonymous e-
iewe , such g adience is no only cha ac e is ic o bilingual popula ions, bu is
also ound among monolinguals as well, he no ion o he ideal speake -hea e
65
A emis Alexiadou
equi es a bi o a ecalib a ion anyways (see F ancis 2022 o discussion). Ro h-
man e al. (2023) poin ou ha ocusing on monolingual con ols has as a esul
ha he bilingual da a emain unde -explo ed. F om hei pe spec i e, i is a he
un o una e o employ his compa a i e aspec , especially since nowadays mul-
ilingualism is he no m ac oss he globe.
Bu who a e he i age speake and a e hey na i e speake s o no ? Acco ding
o Lohndal e al. (2019) and e e ences he ein, HSs a e de ined as mino i y lan-
guage speake s in a majo i y language en i onmen , hey a e bilinguals and by
he ime hey a e adul s, hey end o be dominan in he language o hei la ge
na ional communi y. Lack o o mal educa ion in he he i age language is associ-
a ed wi h he low s a us o he he i age language. The ques ion o whe he HSs
a e na i e speake s has by now been add essed by many esea che s in ou ield.
In ea lie esea ch on HSs, we ind e ms such “ ulne abili y / esilience”, “a i-
ion”, and “incomple e acquisi ion” o desc ibe hese speake s, see e.g., Mon ul
(2016) and Polinsky (2018) o ex ensi e discussion and e e ences. Bu clea ly
such e ms sugges a pe spec i e ha is de ici o ien ed, as igh ly poin ed ou
in Higby e al. (2023), leading us o ocus on aspec s o he i age speake s’ g am-
ma ha a e in e p e ed as lagging behind hose o monolingual speake s, a he
han he de elopmen o no el pa e ns, c . he semi-lingualism con o e sies in
he 1970s and 1980s.
Fo ins ance, o Mon ul (2016), HSs display cha ac e is ics o second lan-
guage lea ne s, i.e., no na i e like in some modules o g amma , while hey main-
ain na i e language mas e y in o he modules o g amma . As Mon ul (op.ci .)
de ails, HSs may exhibi some so o ‘no a ge -like’ de elopmen (incomple e
acquisi ion) o hey show signs o language loss/decline (a i ion). These wo
p ocesses ha e a he di e en de elopmen al pa hs: i changes a e due o a i-
ion, hen we a e dealing wi h p ope ies ha we e acqui ed in childhood bu
we e la e subjec o language loss o g adual decline; i changes a e due o in-
comple e acquisi ion, hen a pa icula a ea has no been mas e ed ye . As u he
s a ed in Mon ul (2016), a speake may show a i ion in some a eas ha a e ac-
qui ed in p e-school age (e.g., gende ), and incomple e acquisi ion in o he s ha
ake se e al yea s o de elop (e.g., passi es).
Polinsky (2018: 28) op s o he e m di e gen a ainmen and concludes: “ he
c ucial poin is ha he di e gence (o inno a ion) in he he i age g amma is
sys ema ic. In ha ega d, di e gen a ainmen is di e en om a i ion and
ans e ; he la e wo may be less sys ema ic, whe eas he o me esul s in a
cohe en g amma .’’ The easons o his di e gen a ainmen maybe di e se.
Ro hman & T e e s-Dalle (2014) ha e al eady poin ed ou ha while mos lin-
guis s would ag ee ha he e ms monolingual and na i e should no in p inciple
66
4 Me hodological o he ing h ough monolingual con ols: How no o
be synonymous, he ac emains ha linguis s o en use hese e ms in e change-
ably. Bu i we unde s and a na i e language o be acqui ed om na u alis ic ex-
posu e, in ea ly childhood and in an au hen ic social con ex /speech communi y,
hen he au ho s s ess hese c i e ia o na i e-hood apply o HS bilingualism as
well.
Mo e ecen ly, Wiese e al. (2021) p o ide se e al a gumen s as o why HSs
a e na i e speake s o bo h hei languages. Higby e al. (2023) p oblema ize he
way such ideologies appea ac oss amewo ks and ad oca e mul icompe ence
and models ha allow nuance and complexi y. I is p ecisely his nuance and
complexi y ha is qui e ha d o deal wi h om a gene a i e g amma pe spec-
i e, see he discussion o Lohndal (2013) abo e. In Alexiadou (2017), I ha e also
sugges ed ha we should mo e away om ocusing on wha HSs canno do,
bu a he examine hei g amma s as independen linguis ic sys ems. In ac ,
my poin is ha wha we pe cei e as ’odd’ pa e ns a e changes in he g am-
ma , which eme ge whene e he e is a iabili y in he ealiza ion o pa icula
s uc u es, in he sense o Adge (2014). While Domínguez e al. (2019), as we
ha e al eady seen, sugges ha lack o cues leads o incomple eness, I will a gue
ha nuance eme ges when he e is mo e han one op ion o he ealiza ion o
a pa icula ea u e o s uc u e in he g amma . In such cases, HSs may op o
one o he op ions d i en by gene al mechanisms, as we will discuss in sec ion
4. The ques ion now is whe e we ind a iabili y. Regis e a ia ion is a good
place o look a and his wha I will do nex by e iewing ecen case s udies on
he i age-G eek. The poin will be ha whene e he e is an op ion be ween wo
o maybe mo e s a egies, one o he op ions will be associa ed wi h a pa icula
egis e and because o his pe haps p e ail in he he i age g amma . By con as ,
in cases he g amma lea es no op ion, no el pa e ns may eme ge as a esul o
e-s uc u ing, see also Pu nam e al. (2021) o a summa y o inding in di e en
he i age languages.
3 Case s udies
I will epo he e on wo ypes o s udies ca ied ou wi hin he ame o he
esea ch uni 2537 Eme ging G amma s. I will discuss h ee case s udies in ol -
ing ag eemen misma ches in a) es ic i e ela i e clauses (RRCs) (Alexiadou &
Rizou 2022), b) gende ag eemen (Alexiadou e al. 2021), and c) adjec i al ag ee-
men (Alexiadou e al. 2023). All hese in ol e ag eemen in he con ex o DPs.
I will con as hese esul s wi h he use o pe iph as ic cons uc ions ins ead
o lexical e bs in he i age-G eek (Alexiadou & Rizou 2023). In all hose s udies,
67
A emis Alexiadou
we compa ed HSs o G eek in he US, in Chicago and New Yo k, o monolingual
speake s o G eek esiding in A hens. The s udies we e chosen as wi h espec
o RRCs and pe iph as ic cons uc ions, we ha e e y good examples o op ions
a ailable o speake s o G eek o he ealiza ion o a pa icula s uc u e ha
ha e been a gued o be subjec o egis e a ia ion in he language. On he o he
hand, in he con ex o p onominal, gende and adjec i al ag eemen , he e is no
op ion wi hin he G eek g amma , adjec i es, ela i e p onouns, and de e min-
e s all mus ag ee wi h he head noun in gende and numbe . Mo eo e , he e
is a subs an ial body o wo k on he i age languages ha shows ha gende and
DP in e nal ag eemen a e domains ha a e a ec ed by es uc u ing, see e.g.,
(Benmamoun e al. 2013, Bolonyai 2007, Mon ul e al. 2012, Albi ini e al. 2013,
Fuchs 2019, Pu nam e al. 2021 and e e ences he ein). As we will see, he e-
sul s suppo he iew ha he i age g amma s do no subsume o one ype o
e-o ganiza ion only, see also Bousque e & Pu nam (2020), and Pu nam e al.
(2021) o a simila claim, c . Mon ul (2016): HSs pu sue di e en di ec ions de-
pending on he domain o in es iga ion o he ype desc ibed in Bousque e &
Pu nam (2020) o He i age Ge man in he US and in Pu nam e al. (2021) o u-
sional languages in gene al, see also Scon as e al. (2018). Thus, since di e en
di ec ions a e chosen, he ques ion is wha his can be a ibu ed o.
3.1 Me hodology
The me hodology we employed was he ollowing: we elici ed na u alis ic da a in
o al and w i en modali y in wo dis inc communica ion se ings om he a o e-
men ioned g oups o speake s. This me hodology is e e ed o as “Language si -
ua ions” me hodology, (see Wiese 2020). This se -up p o ides compa able da a
in bo h he he i age and majo i y language in wo di e en le els o o mali y
and in wo modali ies (da a se s 2x2). The da a we e elici ed by na i e speake s
o G eek and Ame ican English paying a en ion o he espec i e se ing. Fou
communica ion se ings we e c ea ed ( o mal spoken, o mal w i en, in o mal
spoken, in o mal w i en). Hal o ou HSs we e es ed i s in hei he i age lan-
guage and a e wa ds in hei majo i y while he o he hal o ou HSs we e es ed
i s in hei majo i y language and hen in hei he i age. This pa icula design
p e en s ou pa icipan s om biases. Monolingual con ols ook pa only in
one language. A sho ideo (00:42 minu es) o a ic ional e en was shown o
e e y pa icipan . A non-se e e ca acciden was aking place in a pa king lo and
he ask was o e ell wha happened o a iend and a police o ice espec i ely
imagining ha hey wi nessed he inciden . They had o p oduce bo h an o al
68
4 Me hodological o he ing h ough monolingual con ols: How no o
( oice messages) and a w i en na a ion (wha s app and w i en police epo )
in wo dis inc communica ion se ings.
3.2 Res ic i e ela i e clauses in he i age-G eek
I has been epo ed ha HSs o se e al languages encoun e di icul ies wi h el-
a i e clauses, po en ially ela ed o p ocessing di icul ies, see Polinsky (2018) o
an ex ensi e summa y. Alexiadou & Rizou (2022) examined how HSs o G eek
in he US would use RRCs and whe he G eek RRCs would show signs o e-
s uc u ing. The esea ch ques ion was mo i a ed by discussion in he li e a u e,
acco ding o which in bo h languages he e is a ia ion wi h espec o he eal-
iza ion o he o m o he ela i e p onoun, a guably condi ioned by o mali y.
G eek RRCs appea pos -nominally and a e in oduced ei he by a) he ela i e
p onoun o opios li . ‘ he who’ which ag ees in gende and numbe wi h he nom-
inal head i modi ies o b) he complemen ize pu ‘ ha ’, which is an un-in lec ed
elemen . I has been a gued ha in G eek, he choice be ween pu and he ag eeing
o m is egula ed by modali y and o mali y. Speci ically, Hol on e al. (1997) sig-
nal ha G eek RRCs in oduced by pu appea p edominan ly in in o mal, while
o opios RRCs in o mal egis e s.G eek RRCs appea pos -nominally and a e in-
oduced ei he by a) he ela i e p onoun o opios li . ‘ he who’ which ag ees in
gende and numbe wi h he nominal head i modi ies o b) he complemen ize
pu [ ha ], which is an un-in lec ed elemen . I has been a gued ha in G eek, he
choice be ween pu and he ag eeing o m is egula ed by modali y and o mali y.
Speci ically, Hol on e al. (1997) signal ha G eek RRCs in oduced by pu appea
p edominan ly in in o mal, while o opios RRCs in o mal egis e s.
English RRCs in he s anda d language a e in oduced by ei he a) a wh-
elemen , who o pe sons, and which o animals/ hings, bo h non-ag eeing, o
b) he complemen ize ha . The e is also a hi d op ion, he ze o o m, which
G eek lacks, e.g., This is he house which/ ha /Ø I old you abou , om Guy &
Bayley (1995: 148). Guy & Bayley (1995) epo ha he choice o o m shows yp-
ical pa e ns o socio-linguis ic a ia ion and depends on he ype o an eceden
( e e ence o humans), he mode o communica ion (speech s. w i en) and he
adjacency o he an eceden . Speci ically, hey poin ou ha he e seems o
be an inhibi ion owa ds using ha o e e o humans. Wh-elemen s a e used
mainly in o mal w i ing, while ha is a ou ed in in o mal se ings. In heo y
hen, pu and ha seem o ha e simila dis ibu ional pa e ns.
In Alexiadou & Rizou (2022), we ound ou ha G eek monolingual con ols
p oduced nume ically mo e pu RRCs compa ed o HSs, see able 1 om Alexiadou
& Rizou (2022: 137). Howe e , con a y o ou expec a ion and Hol on e al. (1997),
69
A emis Alexiadou
bo h g oups used mo e pu RRCs in he o mal egis e . Modali y did no seem o
a ec he use o pu:
Table 1: P oduc ion o pu RRCs ac oss egis e s and modali ies
HSs Monolingual con ols
Fo mal spoken 135 123
Fo mal w i en 93 129
In o mal spoken 101 111
In o mal w i en 61 85
390 448
Wi h espec o o opios RRCs, in Alexiadou & Rizou (2022), we no ed ha mono-
lingual speake s o G eek p oduce quan i a i ely mo e such clauses in con as
o he i age speake s (see able 2, om Alexiadou & Rizou 2022: 138). Monolin-
gual con ols seemed o a o he p oduc ion o his ype o clauses in he o mal
egis e , while modali y again did no seem as in luen ial.
Table 2: P oduc ion o o opios RRCs ac oss egis e s and modali ies
HSs Monolingual con ols
Fo mal spoken 3 88
Fo mal w i en 3 61
In o mal spoken 0 39
In o mal w i en 2 23
8 211
We concluded ha pu is no uniquely associa ed wi h in o mal se ings, ac oss
g oups. Fo he HSs, o opios RRCs a e a oided, and we a ibu ed his o he
ac ha he p onoun ag ees in phi- ea u es (gende and numbe ) wi h he head
noun i modi ies. As we will see in he nex case s udy, G eek HSs in he US
a oid p oducing ag eemen dependencies wi hin he NP (Alexiadou e al. 2021),
hus, as a esul , RRCs in oduced by he p onoun o opios a e a oided so ha
ou speake s do no ind hemsel es in a posi ion, whe e hey need o ack
ag eemen . This seems o suppo e.g., Slabako a’s (2019) iew ha ag eemen
cons i u es a po en ial ’bo leneck’. This is u he co obo a ed by he ac ha ,
70
4 Me hodological o he ing h ough monolingual con ols: How no o
as we showed in Alexiadou & Rizou (2022), hey ha e no p oblem using who and
which o ms ha do no exhibi any (gende /numbe ) ag eemen in hei English
p oduc ions. In conclusion, in his case s udy a pa icula s uc u e is a oided,
and a less complex o m, which is oid o phi ea u es, is used.
3.3 Gende ag eemen in he i age-G eek
The abo e esul s a e co ela ed wi h he obse a ions made in Alexiadou e al.
(2021) conce ning gende ag eemen in US G eek, which we conduc ed wi h he
same g oup o speake s. We no ed ha some o ou speake s ail o assign gende
o G eek nouns, G eek being a h ee-gende language, ei he by a oiding using
he de e mine o by eso ing o de aul neu e . No su p isingly om he pe -
spec i e o he s udy on RRCs he mos a ec ed ca ego y in e ms o ag eemen
was he ela i e p onoun, whe e basically he o m was a ely p oduced, as de-
ailed in he p e ious sec ion. Impo an ly, howe e , in Alexiadou e al. (2021) we
ound no co ela ion wi h o mali y o modali y and a oidance o gende assign-
men . While i can be a gued ha in e e ence wi h English, a language ha lacks
g amma ical gende , is he culp i , a su p ising inding was he inconsis ency in
pa e ns o DP in e nal ag eemen . Since, as discussed in Polinsky (2018), gende
is a ca ego y subjec o e-s uc u ing in he i age g amma s, he G eek da a u -
he align wi h esul s on o he languages, which show ha he p ocessing o
ag eemen wi hin noun ph ases signals a p ocessing di icul y. Monolinguals do
no show any gende ag eemen misma ches.
3.4 Adjec i al ag eemen in he i age-G eek
The ac ha US speake s o he i age-G eek ha e p oblems wi h DP in e nal
ag eemen was u he co obo a ed by he esul s in Alexiadou e al. (2023),
whe e we ound di e ences in he p oduc ion o misma ches be ween monolin-
guals and US HSs: p enominal adjec i al ag eemen was indeed mo e ulne able
han subjec e b ag eemen . Speci ically, adolescen speake s in he US show
17.5% o e o s. Fo hose speake s ha p oduced e o s, we u he no ed ha
some o hem epea ed he misma ched ag eemen s uc u e in he second na -
a ion and hen a oided using he same s uc u e. O he s, howe e , p oduced
a misma ch in hei i s na a ion and hen p oduced he co ec o m in he
ollowing na a ions. The ac ha we do ind e o s DP in e nally, poin s o he
same conclusion: once mo e, hese esul s align wi h p e ious li e a u e poin ing
o issues wi h ag eemen wi hin he nominal domain. Monolinguals do no show
any ag eemen misma ches.
71
A emis Alexiadou
Gha ibi, Khadij, Fa ih Bay am & Gus a o Guaja do. 2023. Lexical and mo -
phosyn ac ic a ia ion in Pe sian he i age language ou comes. Linguis ic Ap-
p oaches o bilingualism 14(6). 886–914. DOI: 10.1075/lab.21052.gha.
G ammon, De in & Anna Babel. 2021. Wha does na i e speake mean anyway?
Sou ce: Language Log blog. Blog pos . h ps://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/
?p=51108.
Guy, G ego y R. & Robe Bayley. 1995. On he choice o ela i e p onouns in
English. Ame ican Speech 70(2). 148–162.
Higby, E e, E elyn Gámez & Claudia Holguín Mendoza. 2023. Challenging de ici
amewo ks in esea ch on he i age language bilingualism. Applied Psycholin-
guis ics 44. 417–430. DOI: 10.1017/S0142716423000048.
Hol on, Da id, Pe e Mack idge & I ene Philippaki-Wa bu o. 1997. G eek: A com-
p ehensi e g amma o he mode n language. London: Rou ledge.
Kupisch, Tanja & Jason Ro hman. 2018. Te minology ma e s! Why di e ence
is no incomple eness and how ea ly child bilinguals a e he i age speak-
e s. In e na ional Jou nal o Bilingualism 22(5). 564–582. DOI: 10 . 1177 /
1367006916654355.
Lohndal, Te je. 2013. Gene a i e g amma and language mixing. Theo e ical Lin-
guis ics 39(3–4). 215–224. DOI: 10.1515/ l-2013-0013.
Lohndal, Te je & Michael T. Pu nam. 2024. The impo ance o ea u es and ex-
ponen s: Dissol ing ea u e eassembly. Linguis ic App oaches o Bilingualism
14(1). 1–36. DOI: 10.1075/lab.23023.loh.
Lohndal, Te je, Jason Ro hman, Tanja Kupisch & Ma i Wes e gaa d. 2019. He -
i age language acquisi ion: Wha i e eals and why i is impo an o o -
mal linguis ic heo ies. Language and Linguis ics Compass 13(12). e12357. DOI:
10.1111/lnc3.12357.
Luk, Gigi & Ellen Bialys ok. 2013. Bilingualism is no a ca ego ial a iable: In e -
ac ion be ween language p o iciency and usage. Jou nal o Cogni i e Psychol-
ogy 25(5). 605–621. DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2013.795574.
Mon ul, Sil ina. 2016. The acquisi ion o he i age languages. Camb idge: Cam-
b idge Uni e si y P ess. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139030502.
Mon ul, Sil ina, Rakesh Mohan Bha & A chna Bha ia. 2012. E osion o case and
ag eemen in Hindi he i age speake s. Linguis ic App oaches o Bilingualism
2(2). 141–76. DOI: 10.1075/lab.2.2.02mon.
Polinsky, Ma ia. 2018. He i age languages and hei speake s. Camb idge: Cam-
b idge Uni e si y P ess. DOI: 10.1017/9781107252349.
Polinsky, Ma ia & G ego y Scon as. 2020. Unde s anding he i age lan-
guages. Bilingualism: Language and Cogni ion 23(1). 4–20. DOI: 10 . 1017 /
S1366728919000245.
78
4 Me hodological o he ing h ough monolingual con ols: How no o
Pu nam, Michael T., La a Schwa z & And ew D. Ho man. 2021. Mo phology
o he i age languages. In Sil ina Mon ul & Ma ia Polinsky (eds.), The Cam-
b idge Handbook o He i age Languages and Linguis ics, 613–643. Camb idge:
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Ralli, Angela. 2004. S em-based s wo d-based mo phological con igu a ions:
The case o Mode n G eek p e e bs. Lingue e Linguaggio 3(2). 241–275.
Ro hman, Jason, Fa ih Bay am, Vincen DeLuca, G azia Di Pisa, Jon Andoni
Duñabei ia, Khadij Gha ibi, Jiuzhou Hao, Nadine Kolb, Maki Kubo a, Tanja
Kupisch, Tim Lamé is, Alicia Luque, B echje an Osch, Se gio Miguel Pe ei a
Soa es, Yanina P ys auka, Deniz Ta , Aleksand a Tomić, Toms Voi s & S e anie
Wul . 2023. Monolingual compa a i e no ma i i y in bilingualism esea ch is
ou o “con ol”: A gumen s and al e na i es. Applied Psycholinguis ics 44(3).
316–329. DOI: 10.1017/S0142716422000315.
Ro hman, Jason & Jeanine T e e s-Dalle . 2014. A p olegomenon o he cons uc
o he na i e speake : He i age speake bilinguals a e na i es oo! Applied Lin-
guis ics 35(1). 93–98. DOI: 10.1093/applin/am 049.
Scon as, G ego y, Ma ia Polinsky & Zuzanna Fuchs. 2018. In suppo o ep-
esen a ional economy: Ag eemen in he i age Spanish. Glossa: A jou nal o
gene al linguis ics 3(1). 1–29.
Slabako a, Roumyana. 2019. The bo leneck hypo hesis upda ed. In T. Ionin & M.
Rispoli (eds.), Th ee s eams o gene a i e language acquisi ion esea ch: Selec ed
pape s om he 7 h GALANA mee ing, 319–346. Ams e dam: John Benjamins.
DOI: 10.1075/lald.63.16sla.
Vulchano a, Mila, Valen in Vulchano , An onella So ace, C is ina Sua ez-Gomez
& Ped o Guija o-Fuen es. 2022. Edi o ial: The no ion o he na i e speake pu
o he es : Recen esea ch ad ances. F on ie s in Psychology 13. DOI: 10.3389/
psyg.2022.875740.
Wiese, Heike. 2020. Language si ua ions: A me hod o cap u ing a ia ion
wi hin speake s’ epe oi es. In Asahi Yoshiyuki (ed.), Me hods in dialec ology
XVI, 105–117. München: Pe e Lang.
Wiese, Heike, A emis Alexiadou, Shanley Allen, Oli e Bunk, Na alia Gaga-
ina, Ka e yna Ie emenko, Ma ia Ma yno a, Ta iana Pashko a, Vicky Ri-
zou, Ch is oph Sch oede , Anna Shad o a, Luka Szucsich, Rosema ie T acy,
Win ai Tsehaye, Sabine Ze bian & Yulia Zuban. 2021. He i age speake s as
pa o he na i e language con inuum. F on ie s in Psychology 12. Ped o
Guija o-Fuen es, C is ina Sua ez-Gomez, Mila Vulchano a, An onella So ace
& Valen in Vulchano (eds.). 209–227. DOI: 10.3389/ psyg.2021.717973.
79
A emis Alexiadou
Wiese, Heike, A emis Alexiadou, Claudio Sca aglie i & Ch is oph Sch oede .
2022. Mul ilinguals as O he s in socie y and academia: Challenges o belong-
ing unde a monolingual habi us. Wo king Pape s in U ban Language & Li e a-
cies 302. h ps://wpull.o g/wp-con en /uploads/2022/10/WP302-Wiese-e -al-
2022-Mul ilinguals-as-o he s.pd .
80
