The effects of heritage language experience on lexical and morphosyntactic outcomes

Abstract

In heritage language (HL) bilingualism, recent work has focused on understanding the dynamic effects that different input types can have on heritage language development and outcomes (e.g., Bayram et al., 2017; Kupisch & Rothman, 2018; Polinsky, 2018; Putnam & Sanchez, 2013; Karayayla & Schmid, 2019). The underlying question is to what extent one’s individual experiences with the HL modulate HL development and its outcomes. Following this line of research, we provide evidence from two datasets of Turkish as a HL in Germany that attempts to identify the relative ability of various aspects of language experience (parental background, language use at home, time spent in the HL country, age of exposure to the societal majority language, and quality of HL use) to predict lexical and morphosyntactic performance in Turkish. The results for the first HS group (adolescents) indicate that ‘parental language background’ was the strongest predictor of both lexical diversity and morphosyntactic complexity; for the second HS group (adults), “Turkish use in the home” and “Current Turkish use” were the strongest predictors. We interpret these results as evidence for the variable role played by different types of input in shaping HL outcomes, highlighting the need for more systematic approaches to measuring (and predicting) the effects of input across different areas of language.

Monolingual comparative normativity in bilingualism research is out of “control”: Arguments and alternatives

“…Thus, HSs themselves present on a spectrum of distinct linguistic outcomes from one another. Research that probes into what variables explain HS-to-HS differences shows systematicity in accounting for them, often related to engagement opportunities with the HL such as formal literacy exposure or the compositionality of the home environment (Bayram et al, 2019; Lloyd-Smith et al, 2020). And yet, the typical description of HSs is that, insofar as they differ from the default baseline, they are “unbalanced” bilinguals whose grammars and processing differences in the HL reflect “reduced,” “arrested,” “incomplete,” and/or “simplified” systems.…”

“…Let us consider a few relevant studies from our lab in light of the above. Bayram et al (2019) and Lloyd-Smith et al (2020) examined Turkish HSs who grew up in Germany and were thus dominant speakers of German. Bayram et al (2019) examined the morphosyntax of passive voice under an experimental paradigm of constrained elicited production.…”

Effects of markedness in gender processing in Italian as a heritage language: A speed accuracy tradeoff

“…However, even advanced HSs often are different compared to monolinguals with respect to grammatical gender when tested on non-canonical nouns (i.e., Bianchi, 2013 ; Montrul et al, 2013 ). Previous studies measuring HSs’ relative amount (and quality) of exposure and use of their HL have shown that variation in HL exposure has consequences for HL development in children (i.e., Gagarina and Klassert, 2018 ; Torregrossa et al, 2021 ) and maintenance in adults (i.e., Lloyd-Smith et al, 2019 , 2020 ). Some studies on gender have shown that HL exposure and/or use has an effect on HSs’ performance (i.e., Bianchi, 2013 ); however, others (i.e., Fuchs, 2021 ) found no evidence.…”

Russian heritage language development in narrative contexts: Evidence from pre- and primary-school children in Norway, Germany, and the UK

“…While no such shifts have been attested in our previous studies investigating the acquisition of grammatical gender in RHL in the same participant groups, it is clear that all three linguistic domains are affected by input factors, with language exposure in the home in terms of family type (HR family vs. mixed family) and age of starting preschool as the major predictors. Overall, the results from lexical, grammatical, and phonological acquisition in pre- and primary-school bilinguals seem to support the view that having longer exclusive or uninterrupted exposure to a HL in early childhood is beneficial for HL development and outcomes (cf., Bar-Shalom and Zaretsky, 2008 ; Lloyd-Smith et al, 2020 ). At the same time, it is not straightforward from our dataset whether lexical development is more susceptible to input factors than grammatical development.…”

“…To investigate vocabulary growth, we employ two widely used measures: total number of words (TNW) and the number of different words (NDW). We also explore the relationship between lexical productivity measures and the individual background factors which were found to be important predictors of development across different linguistic domains ( Lloyd-Smith et al, 2020 ).…”