Maria Polinsky

Prof. Maria Polinsky

University of Maryland
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

35Years (1992-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
20 July 2018
Verified
Book
Closed access
Maria PolinskyMaria Polinsky
Maria Polinsky
This book provides a pioneering introduction to heritage languages and their speakers, written by one of the founders of this new field. Using examples from a wide range of languages, it covers all the main components of grammar, including phonetics and phonology, morphology and morphosyntax, semantics and pragmatics, and shows easy familiarity with approaches ranging from formal grammar to typology, from sociolinguistics to child language acquisition and other relevant aspects of psycholinguistics. The book offers analysis of resilient and vulnerable domains in heritage languages, with a special emphasis on recurrent structural properties that occur across multiple heritage languages. It is explicit about instances where, based on our current knowledge, we are unable to reach a clear decision on a particular claim or analytical point, and therefore provides a much-needed resource for future research.

20 January 2013 in Theoretical Linguistics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EBElabbas Benmamoun
Elabbas Benmamoun
SMSilvina Montrul
Silvina Montrul
Maria PolinskyMaria Polinsky
Maria Polinsky
In this paper, we bring to the attention of the linguistic community recent research on heritage languages. Shifting linguistic attention from the model of a monolingual speaker to the model of a multilingual speaker is important for the advancement of our understanding of the language faculty. Native speaker competence is typically the result of normal first language acquisition in an environment where the native language is dominant in various contexts, and learners have extensive and continuous exposure to it and opportunities to use it. Heritage speakers present a different case: they are bilingual speakers of an ethnic or immigrant minority language, whose first language often does not reach native-like attainment in adulthood. We propose a set of connections between heritage language studies and theory construction, underscoring the potential that this population offers for linguistic research. We examine several important grammatical phenomena from the standpoint of their representation in heritage languages, including case, aspect, and other interface phenomena. We discuss how the questions raised by data from heritage speakers could fruitfully shed light on current debates about how language works and how it is acquired under different conditions. We end with a consideration of the potential competing factors that shape a heritage language system in adulthood.

14 June 2019 in Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Maria PolinskyMaria Polinsky
Maria Polinsky
GSGregory Scontras
Gregory Scontras
With a growing interest in heritage languages from researchers of bilingualism and linguistic theory, the field of heritage-language studies has begun to build on its empirical foundations, moving toward a deeper understanding of the nature of language competence under unbalanced bilingualism. In furtherance of this trend, the current work synthesizes pertinent empirical observations and theoretical claims about vulnerable and robust areas of heritage language competence into early steps toward a model of heritage-language grammar. We highlight two key triggers for deviation from the relevant baseline: the quantity and quality of the input from which the heritage grammar is acquired, and the economy of online resources when operating in a less dominant language. In response to these triggers, we identify three outcomes of deviation in the heritage grammar: an avoidance of ambiguity, a resistance to irregularity, and a shrinking of structure. While we are still a ways away from a level of understanding that allows us to predict those aspects of heritage grammar that will be robust and those that will deviate from the relevant baselines, our hope is that the current work will spur the continued development of a predictive model of heritage language competence.

6 May 2011 in Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Maria PolinskyMaria Polinsky
Maria Polinsky
This study presents and analyzes the comprehension of relative clauses in child and adult speakers of Russian, comparing monolingual controls with Russian heritage speakers (HSs) who are English-dominant. Monolingual and bilingual children demonstrate full adultlike mastery of relative clauses. Adult HSs, however, are significantly different from the monolingual adult controls and from the child HS group. This divergent performance indicates that the adult heritage grammar is not a product of the fossilization of child language. Instead, it suggests that forms existing in the baseline undergo gradual attrition over the life span of a HS. This result is consistent with observations on narrative structure in child and adult HSs (Polinsky, 2008b). Evidence from word order facts suggests that relative clause reanalysis in adult HSs cannot be attributed to transfer from English.

10 August 2017
Verified
Book Chapter
Closed access
Maria PolinskyMaria Polinsky
Maria Polinsky
This chapter presents typical properties of the antipassive, addresses its cross-linguistic distribution, and discusses main existing analyses. “Antipassives” are constructions in which the logical object of a transitive (two-place) predicate is not realized as a direct object, but instead appears as a non-core argument or left unexpressed (but presupposed). The morphological realization of the antipassive is more varied than is usually assumed; in particular, pseudo noun incorporation, true noun incorporation, and bi-absolutive constructions can instantiate the antipassive. The antipassive and the passive are not mutually exclusive; a number of examples in this chapter provide empirical evidence in support of antipassive/passive compatibility. The antipassive is not limited to ergative languages, although it may be more noticeable under ergative configuration.

1 August 2001 in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Maria PolinskyMaria Polinsky
Maria Polinsky
EPEric Potsdam
Eric Potsdam