On “Local Theory” Neutrality with Respect to “Meta-Theories” and Data from a Diversity of “Native Speakers”, Including Heritage Speaker Bilinguals: Commentary on Hulstijn (2024)
This commentary critically engages with Hulstijn’s revised Basic Language Cognition (BLC) Theory, which aims to enhance explanatory power and falsifiability regarding individual differences (IDs) in language proficiency across native and non-native speakers. While commending BLC Theory’s emphasis on...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-04-01
|
| Series: | Languages |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2226-471X/10/5/98 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849327327073271808 |
|---|---|
| author | Jason Rothman Fatih Bayram Jiuzhou Hao Patrick Rebuschat |
| author_facet | Jason Rothman Fatih Bayram Jiuzhou Hao Patrick Rebuschat |
| author_sort | Jason Rothman |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This commentary critically engages with Hulstijn’s revised Basic Language Cognition (BLC) Theory, which aims to enhance explanatory power and falsifiability regarding individual differences (IDs) in language proficiency across native and non-native speakers. While commending BLC Theory’s emphasis on separating oral and written language cognition, we raise two key concerns. First, we question the theory’s exclusive alignment with usage-based approaches, arguing that its core constructs are, in principle, compatible with multiple meta-theoretical frameworks, including generative ones. As such, BLC Theory should remain neutral to maximize its cross-paradigmatic utility. Second, we address the theory’s treatment of heritage speaker bilinguals (HSs), particularly the implication that they may not typically acquire BLC. We contend that this position overlooks robust empirical evidence demonstrating that HSs develop systematic, rule-governed grammars influenced by their individual input and usage conditions. Moreover, we highlight how IDs among HSs can provide a valuable testing ground for BLC Theory, particularly regarding the role of input and literacy. We conclude that embracing theory neutrality and integrating diverse speaker data—especially from heritage bilinguals—can enhance BLC Theory’s generalizability, empirical relevance, and theoretical utility across language acquisition research. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-5ffd60f2fadb41dc9c58090679a8b6aa |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2226-471X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-04-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Languages |
| spelling | doaj-art-5ffd60f2fadb41dc9c58090679a8b6aa2025-08-20T03:47:54ZengMDPI AGLanguages2226-471X2025-04-011059810.3390/languages10050098On “Local Theory” Neutrality with Respect to “Meta-Theories” and Data from a Diversity of “Native Speakers”, Including Heritage Speaker Bilinguals: Commentary on Hulstijn (2024)Jason Rothman0Fatih Bayram1Jiuzhou Hao2Patrick Rebuschat3Department of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4Y, UKDepartment of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4Y, UKDepartment of Language and Culture, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 9037 Tromsø, NorwayDepartment of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4Y, UKThis commentary critically engages with Hulstijn’s revised Basic Language Cognition (BLC) Theory, which aims to enhance explanatory power and falsifiability regarding individual differences (IDs) in language proficiency across native and non-native speakers. While commending BLC Theory’s emphasis on separating oral and written language cognition, we raise two key concerns. First, we question the theory’s exclusive alignment with usage-based approaches, arguing that its core constructs are, in principle, compatible with multiple meta-theoretical frameworks, including generative ones. As such, BLC Theory should remain neutral to maximize its cross-paradigmatic utility. Second, we address the theory’s treatment of heritage speaker bilinguals (HSs), particularly the implication that they may not typically acquire BLC. We contend that this position overlooks robust empirical evidence demonstrating that HSs develop systematic, rule-governed grammars influenced by their individual input and usage conditions. Moreover, we highlight how IDs among HSs can provide a valuable testing ground for BLC Theory, particularly regarding the role of input and literacy. We conclude that embracing theory neutrality and integrating diverse speaker data—especially from heritage bilinguals—can enhance BLC Theory’s generalizability, empirical relevance, and theoretical utility across language acquisition research.https://www.mdpi.com/2226-471X/10/5/98heritage language bilingualismindividual differencesnative speakersnon-native speakersBLC theory |
| spellingShingle | Jason Rothman Fatih Bayram Jiuzhou Hao Patrick Rebuschat On “Local Theory” Neutrality with Respect to “Meta-Theories” and Data from a Diversity of “Native Speakers”, Including Heritage Speaker Bilinguals: Commentary on Hulstijn (2024) Languages heritage language bilingualism individual differences native speakers non-native speakers BLC theory |
| title | On “Local Theory” Neutrality with Respect to “Meta-Theories” and Data from a Diversity of “Native Speakers”, Including Heritage Speaker Bilinguals: Commentary on Hulstijn (2024) |
| title_full | On “Local Theory” Neutrality with Respect to “Meta-Theories” and Data from a Diversity of “Native Speakers”, Including Heritage Speaker Bilinguals: Commentary on Hulstijn (2024) |
| title_fullStr | On “Local Theory” Neutrality with Respect to “Meta-Theories” and Data from a Diversity of “Native Speakers”, Including Heritage Speaker Bilinguals: Commentary on Hulstijn (2024) |
| title_full_unstemmed | On “Local Theory” Neutrality with Respect to “Meta-Theories” and Data from a Diversity of “Native Speakers”, Including Heritage Speaker Bilinguals: Commentary on Hulstijn (2024) |
| title_short | On “Local Theory” Neutrality with Respect to “Meta-Theories” and Data from a Diversity of “Native Speakers”, Including Heritage Speaker Bilinguals: Commentary on Hulstijn (2024) |
| title_sort | on local theory neutrality with respect to meta theories and data from a diversity of native speakers including heritage speaker bilinguals commentary on hulstijn 2024 |
| topic | heritage language bilingualism individual differences native speakers non-native speakers BLC theory |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2226-471X/10/5/98 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jasonrothman onlocaltheoryneutralitywithrespecttometatheoriesanddatafromadiversityofnativespeakersincludingheritagespeakerbilingualscommentaryonhulstijn2024 AT fatihbayram onlocaltheoryneutralitywithrespecttometatheoriesanddatafromadiversityofnativespeakersincludingheritagespeakerbilingualscommentaryonhulstijn2024 AT jiuzhouhao onlocaltheoryneutralitywithrespecttometatheoriesanddatafromadiversityofnativespeakersincludingheritagespeakerbilingualscommentaryonhulstijn2024 AT patrickrebuschat onlocaltheoryneutralitywithrespecttometatheoriesanddatafromadiversityofnativespeakersincludingheritagespeakerbilingualscommentaryonhulstijn2024 |