Convergence in the encoding of motion
                                                  events in heritage Turkish in Germany

Goschler, Juliana; Schroeder, Christoph; Woerfel, Till

doi:10.1075/sibil.60.05gos

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…146–149). These differences in input could lead to variation in heritage language productions, for example, case marking in heritage German ( Yager et al, 2015 ; Zimmer, 2020 ), inflected infinitives in heritage Brazilian Portuguese ( Rothman, 2007 ), or the encoding of motion events in heritage Turkish ( Goschler et al, 2020 ). However, some areas of the heritage language still display substantial similarity with MSs’ productions, for example, voice onset times in heritage Italian ( Nagy, 2015 ), case morphology in heritage Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian ( Łyskawa and Nagy, 2020 ), or use of classifiers in heritage Cantonese ( Nagy and Lo, 2019 ).…”

Section: Theoretical and Conceptual Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deconstructing the Native Speaker: Further Evidence From Heritage Speakers for Why This Horse Should Be Dead!

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The category “native speaker” is flawed because it fails to consider the diversity between the speaker groups falling under its scope, as highlighted in previous literature. This paper provides further evidence by focusing on the similarities and differences between heritage speakers (HSs) and monolingually-raised speakers (MSs) of their heritage and majority languages. HSs are bilinguals who acquire a family (heritage) language and a societal (majority) language in early childhood. Naturalistic exposure from early childhood qualifies them as native speakers of their heritage language. Some HSs are simultaneous bilinguals, which makes them native speakers of their majority language as well. Others are early second language acquirers who may be indistinguishable from simultaneous bilinguals. Previous research shows that the heritage language productions of German HSs in the United States do not completely overlap with those of German MSs, who are, by default, native speakers. In overall clause type selection (independent main, coordinate main, and subordinate), the HSs differ from German MSs in German but are similar to English MSs in English. The present study examines the distribution of finite subordinate clauses and their types (relative, complement, and adverbial) across registers in 27 adolescent HSs of German in the United States, compared to 32 adolescent MSs of German and 32 MSs of English. All participants described a short video in two settings (formal/informal) and two modes (spoken/written). Results demonstrate that, even with respect to a specific phenomenon (subordinate clauses), HSs show similarities and differences to MSs of both languages. Concerning the distribution of subordinate clause types, HSs behave similarly to both English and German MSs. Concerning subordinate clauses in general, HSs use them less frequently than MSs in German. In English, the difference is more nuanced: HSs differentiate between settings in both modes, while MSs do so only in the written mode. This indicates that the category “native speaker” is not a meaningful descriptor since it covers speakers with varying production patterns. We propose that studies including native speakers should assure transparency and replicability of research by specifying and taking into account speaker characteristics such as bilingualism, proficiency, exposure and dominance.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical and Conceptual Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deconstructing the Native Speaker: Further Evidence From Heritage Speakers for Why This Horse Should Be Dead!

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For our analysis of DMs, this means that a large portion of them will produce as many discourse and FMs as monolingual speakers. We based this prediction on other studies that were able to attribute changes in heritage grammars to certain individuals in the groups (Goschler et al, 2020; Iefremenko et al, 2021; Özsoy et al, 2022). Our careful analysis of individual variation will be able to locate these speakers and adequately allocate between-group differences to those speakers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring individual variation in Turkish heritage speakers’ complex linguistic productions: Evidence from discourse markers

Özsoy

Blum

2023

Applied Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on multilingual speakers is often compared to monolingual baselines which are commonly treated as if they were homogeneous across speakers. Despite recent research showing that this homogeneity does not hold, these practices reproduce native-speakerism and monolingualism. Heritage language research, which established itself in the past two decades, is no exemption. Focusing on three predefined linguistic groups, namely Turkish speakers which are framed as monolingual in Turkey as well as two heritage bilingually framed groups in Germany and the USA, we ask: (1) Do heritage speakers of Turkish produce more discourse and fluency markers (FMs) than monolingual speakers? (2) Are the groups homogeneous, or is there wide variation between speakers across groups? We focus on the variation between and within groups using Bayesian Linear Regression with a multilevel model for speakers and heritage groups. Our findings confirm that the use of discourse and FMs is largely defined through individual variation, and not through the belonging to a certain speaker group. By focusing on variation across groups rather than between groups, our study design supports the growing body of literature that questions common heritage language research practices of today and shows alternative paths to understanding heritage grammars.

show abstract

“…For our analysis of 1 https://osf.io/5mwrn/?view_only=c7f9e8efdfb2413ab2d3483deb3d4402 DMs, this means that a large portion of them will produce as many discourse and fluency markers as monolingual speakers. We based this prediction on other studies that were able to attribute changes in heritage grammars to certain individuals in the groups (Goschler et al, 2020;Iefremenko et al, 2021). Often, while the groups do not show any significant differences and the effect of group is marginally small, certain speakers who overuse a certain structure will make the group differences stand out.…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring individual variation in Turkish heritage speakers’ complex linguistic productions: Evidence from discourse markers

Özsoy¹,

Blum²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in multilingual speakers is often compared to monolingual baselines which are commonly treated as if they were homogeneous across speakers. Despite recent research showing that this homogeneity does not hold, this reproduces nativespeakerism and monolingualism. In our study, we want to analyze the use of discourse markers in three different speaker groups of Turkish, and analyze extensively the variation between and within those groups. We interpret discourse markers as speech planning events, and distinguish between macro-planning utterance-initially, as well as micro-planning within an utterance. Both planning events are hypothesized to be more frequent with heritage speakers. The study also focusses on individual variation within those groups.

show abstract

Convergence in the encoding of motion events in heritage Turkish in Germany

Abstract: The encoding of motion is a particularly interesting domain of German-Turkish language contact. German is a “satellite-framed language” that easily combines manner-of-motion verbs with path expressions outside of the verb stem. Turkish, on the other hand, is consid… Show more

Cited by 5 publications

References 23 publications

Deconstructing the Native Speaker: Further Evidence From Heritage Speakers for Why This Horse Should Be Dead!

Deconstructing the Native Speaker: Further Evidence From Heritage Speakers for Why This Horse Should Be Dead!

Exploring individual variation in Turkish heritage speakers’ complex linguistic productions: Evidence from discourse markers

Exploring individual variation in Turkish heritage speakers’ complex linguistic productions: Evidence from discourse markers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About