Clause combining in Turkish as a minority language in Germany

Schroeder, Christoph

doi:10.1075/slcs.175.06sch

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 1 E.g., Rothman and Treffers-Daller (2014) ; Guijarro-Fuentes and Schmitz (2015) , Schroeder (2016) ; Kupisch and Rothman (2018) , Aalberse et al (2019) ; Lohndal et al (2019) , Embick et al (2020) , and Flores and Rinke (2020) . …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Heritage Speakers as Part of the Native Language Continuum

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue for a perspective on bilingual heritage speakers as native speakers of both their languages and present results from a large-scale, cross-linguistic study that took such a perspective and approached bilinguals and monolinguals on equal grounds. We targeted comparable language use in bilingual and monolingual speakers, crucially covering broader repertoires than just formal language. A main database was the open-access RUEG corpus, which covers comparable informal vs. formal and spoken vs. written productions by adolescent and adult bilinguals with heritage-Greek, -Russian, and -Turkish in Germany and the United States and with heritage-German in the United States, and matching data from monolinguals in Germany, the United States, Greece, Russia, and Turkey. Our main results lie in three areas. (1) We found non-canonical patterns not only in bilingual, but also in monolingual speakers, including patterns that have so far been considered absent from native grammars, in domains of morphology, syntax, intonation, and pragmatics. (2) We found a degree of lexical and morphosyntactic inter-speaker variability in monolinguals that was sometimes higher than that of bilinguals, further challenging the model of the streamlined native speaker. (3) In majority language use, non-canonical patterns were dominant in spoken and/or informal registers, and this was true for monolinguals and bilinguals. In some cases, bilingual speakers were leading quantitatively. In heritage settings where the language was not part of formal schooling, we found tendencies of register leveling, presumably due to the fact that speakers had limited access to formal registers of the heritage language. Our findings thus indicate possible quantitative differences and different register distributions rather than distinct grammatical patterns in bilingual and monolingual speakers. This supports the integration of heritage speakers into the native-speaker continuum. Approaching heritage speakers from this perspective helps us to better understand the empirical data and can shed light on language variation and change in native grammars. Furthermore, our findings for monolinguals lead us to reconsider the state-of-the art on majority languages, given recurring evidence for non-canonical patterns that deviate from what has been assumed in the literature so far, and might have been attributed to bilingualism had we not included informal and spoken registers in monolinguals and bilinguals alike.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Heritage Speakers as Part of the Native Language Continuum

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The topic of clause-combining, particularly that of nonfinite subordination in heritage Turkish in Western Europe, especially in Germany, has kept researchers' attention for quite some time. Broadly speaking, there are two main complementary findings: first, HS of Turkish use fewer nonfinite subordination than monolingual speakers of Turkish in Turkey, and second, they prefer paratactic clause combining and/or finite subordination over nonfinite subordination (Backus 2004, Onar Valk 2015, Schroeder 2016, Iefremenko & Schroeder 2019 However, among the three main strategies of nonfinite subordination which Turkish employs (see above), findings regarding converbs in heritage Turkish do not quite fit this broad generalization. Studies focusing on converbs in heritage Turkish disagree on the degree to which these forms are open or vulnerable to change in the heritage language setting, quantitatively, as well as qualitatively.…”

Section: Converbs In Heritage Turkishmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Turkish in Germany versus Turkish in the U.S.) allows us to address the question of to what extent cross-linguistic influence is a driving force of language change in heritage languages. Our expectation here is based on usage-based approaches, which argue that bilingual speakers have a 'pool' of resources from two languages at their disposal which are simultaneously active (Matras 2007, Rehbein, Herkenrath & Karakoç 2009, Schroeder 2016, Aalberse et al 2019). In the sociolinguistic context of heritage languages, where there is an unbalanced dominance relation between the two languages, the contact (majority) language functions as a 'catalyst language' (Rehbein et al 2009) which leads the bilingual speakers to prefer those structures in their heritage language which have both a functional and a structural correspondence in the contact language, and to disprefer those structures that do not have a parallel in the contact language.…”

Section: Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Converbs in heritage Turkish: A contrastive approach

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Turkish expresses adverbial subordination predominantly by means of converb clauses. These are headed by nonfinite verbs, i.e. converbs, which have a converb suffix attached to the stem. The different converbs express different aspectual relations between the subordinate and the superordinate clause, and they can be modifying or non-modifying. We analyse data from speakers of Turkish as a heritage language in Germany and the U.S. as well as monolingual speakers of Turkish in Turkey. The data come from two age groups: adults and adolescents. We show that unlike in canonical Turkish, converbs in heritage Turkish can be multifunctional, meaning that they can express both simultaneity and causality, for example. Furthermore, we show that converbs in heritage Turkish can be both modifying and non-modifying. As possible factors which might be responsible for such variation, we discuss language contact, sociolinguistic differences between the speaker communities (Germany vs. the U.S.) and age of the speakers.

show abstract

“…In a similar vein, Montrul (2012) emphasizes that the term heritage language can only be used when it concerns a language that is used for daily interactions in the home environment. Recent research reveals that Turkish as a heritage language differs from Standard Turkish in a number of ways, including the frequent use of (lexical) code-switching (Backus, 2011; Sevinc, 2014), dialect leveling (Schroeder & Stolting, 2005), the avoidance of syntactically complex structures, and deviant use of case morphology and verbal inflections (Backus, 2004; Chilla & Babur, 2010; Schroeder, 2016). An overview of research on the characteristics of this variety can be found in Backus et al (2010).…”

Section: Language Skills Of Young Turkish-dutch Bilinguals In Their Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language abilities in bilingual children: The effect of family background and language exposure on the development of Turkish and Dutch

Altinkamis

Simon

2020

International Journal of Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objectives: The study investigates the effects of family background and language exposure on the language abilities of Turkish-Dutch bilingual children in their heritage language, Turkish, as well as in the majority language, Dutch. Methodology: Thirty-five children (3;01-6;11) participated in the study. All children took two standardized proficiency tests: CELF-Preschool 2 in Dutch and TEDİL in Turkish. Parents were interviewed on the family background and on the children’s use of and exposure to Dutch and Turkish. Data and analysis: Children’s test scores in Dutch and Turkish were analyzed in relation to the amount of exposure to Dutch and Turkish and the socio-economic and linguistic background of the parents. Findings: The results reveal that the children’s home context—both the linguistic background of the parents and the socio-educational level of the mother—affected the children’s scores, especially for Dutch. The amount of exposure to and use of Dutch and Turkish was correlated to the Dutch and Turkish scores. A qualitative discussion of children’s profiles revealed that children’s performance can only be fully understood when details of the home context, obtained through interviews with the parents, are taken into account. Originality: To date, few studies on bilingual children from families with a migration background have examined young children’s general language abilities in both the heritage language and the majority language. Implications: The study raises awareness of the importance of evaluating bilingual children’s language proficiencies in both languages, considering the effects of family background and language exposure on children’s bilingual language development. Limitations: The children’s language abilities were mapped on the basis of widely recognized standardized tests originally developed for the assessment of monolingual children. As more bilingual instruments are being tested and developed, future research will benefit from these tools.

show abstract

Clause combining in Turkish as a minority language in Germany

Cited by 5 publications

References 17 publications

Heritage Speakers as Part of the Native Language Continuum

Heritage Speakers as Part of the Native Language Continuum

Converbs in heritage Turkish: A contrastive approach

Language abilities in bilingual children: The effect of family background and language exposure on the development of Turkish and Dutch

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About