The aim of the study is to contribute to the debate about a possible contact-induced change in the heritage language and to examine whether there is contact-induced language change at the morpho-syntactic level in Turkish spoken in Germany. We focus on the perception and use of the converbs –Ip and –IncA in heritage Turkish.
Design/methodology/approach:
The perception and production of the converbs –Ip and –IncA by 30 German–Turkish bilinguals, who were born and have resided in Germany, are compared with those of the control group.
Data and analysis:
Two tasks are used in the study: a grammaticality judgement task and a picture-story description task. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses are utilized.
Findings/conclusions:
The analysis of the perception of the converbs by the participants revealed that the bilinguals’ perception of the grammatical constructions with –IncA and of the ungrammatical constructions with –Ip and –IncA differed significantly from that of the monolinguals; however, the perception of the grammatical constructions with –Ip was found to be similar between the bilingual and monolingual groups. The analysis of the production of the converbs by the bilingual participants showed that they tended to use the converbs significantly less than the monolingual control group did. The qualitative analysis of the production task also revealed that there were several cases in the use of the converbs that could be considered as ungrammatical and/or unconventional.
AkkuşM.Sağın ŞimşekÇ.BackusA. M. (2017). Türkçe-Hollandaca İki dilli Bireylerde Kullanım-Odaklı Dilbilim Bağlamında Zarf-Fiil Yapılarının Kullanımı. Paper presented at 31. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey, May 12–13, 2017, p. 10.
2.
AlbiriniA. E.BenmamounE.SaadahE. (2011). Grammatical features of Egyptian and Palestinian heritage speakers’ oral production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 273–303.
3.
Antonova-ÜnlüE.WeiL. (2018). Examining the effect of reduced input on language development: The case of gender acquisition in Russian as a non-dominant and dispreferred language by a bilingual Turkish–Russian child. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(2), 215–233.
4.
ArslanS.De KokD.BastiaanseR. (2017). Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(3), 457–472.
5.
AustinJ. (2009). Delay, interference and bilingual development: The acquisition of verbal morphology in children learning Basque and Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(4), 447–479.
6.
BackusA. (1996). Two in one: Bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. Tilburg University Press.
7.
BackusA. (2005). Codeswitching and language change: One thing leads to another?International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(3–4), 770–790.
8.
BackusA. (2013). Turkish as an immigrant language in Europe. In BhatiaT. K.RitchieW. C. (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd ed., pp. 770–790). Blackwell.
9.
Berez-KroekerA.HintzD.JanyC. (2016). Language contact and change in the Americas: Studies in honor of Marianne Mithun. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
10.
BermanR.SlobinD. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A cross-linguistic developmental study. Erlbaum.
11.
BoeschotenH. E.VerhoevenL. T. (1987). Language-Mixing in Children’s Speech: Dutch Language Use in Turkish DiscourseLanguage Learning, 37(2), 191–215.
12.
ClyneM. (2003). Dynamics of language contact: English and immigrant languages. Cambridge University Press.
13.
ComrieB.HaspelmathM.BickeB. (2008). The Leipzig glossing rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Leipzig, Germany: Max Plank Institute. Retrieved fromhttps://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/pdf/Glossing-Rules.pdf.
14.
CoupeA. R. (2006). Converbs. In BrownK. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 145–152). Elsevier Science.
15.
DoğruözA. S.BackusA. (2007). Postverbal elements in immigrant Turkish: Evidence of change?International Journal of Bilingualism, 11, 185–220.
16.
DoğruözA. S.BackusA. (2009). Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of ongoing contact-induced change. Bilingualism: language and cognition, 12(1), 41–63.
17.
GökselA.KerslakeC. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
18.
GramleyS. (2012). The history of English: An introduction. Routledge.
19.
HaspelmathM. (1995). The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In HaspelmathM.KönigE. (Eds.), Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms –Adverbial Participals, Gerunds (pp. 3–55). Mouton de Gruyter.
20.
HeineB. (2008). Contact-induced word order change without worder change. In SiemundP.KintanaN. (Eds.), Language contact and contact languages. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
21.
HeineB.KutevaT. (2003a). On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Languages, 27(3), 529–572.
22.
HeineB.KutevaT. (2003b). Language Contact and Grammatical Change.: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HeineB.KutevaT. (2006). The Changing Languages of Europe. Oxford University Press.
24.
HerkenrathA.KarakoçB.RehbeinJ. (2003). Interrogative elements as subordinators in Turkish: Aspects of Turkish-German bilingual children’s language use. In MüllerN. (ed.), (In)vulnerable domains in multilingualism (pp. 221–270). Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism.
25.
JohansonL. (1991). Zur Typologie türkischer Gerundialsatze. Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları, 98–110.
26.
JohansonL. (1995). On Turkic converb clauses. In HaspelmathMKönigE (Eds.) Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms--adverbial participles, gerunds, Vol. 13. (pp. 313–48). Mouton de Gruyter.
27.
JohansonL. (2002). Structural factors in Turkic Llanguage contacts. Curzon.
28.
JørgensenJ. N. (2003). Linguistic construction and negotiation of social relations among Turkish-speaking adolescents in north-western Europe. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(1–2), 1–11.
29.
Ivanova-SullivanT. (2014). Theoretical and experimental aspects of syntax discourse interface in heritage grammars. Brill.
30.
KallmeyerW.KeimI. (2003). Linguistic variation and the construction of social identity in a German-Turkish setting. InAndroutsopoulosJ.GeorgakopoulouA (Eds.), Discourse Constructions of young identities (pp. 29–46). John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
31.
KimJ.-H.MontrulS.YoonJ. (2010). Dominant language influence in acquisition and attrition of binding: Interpretation of the Korean reflexive caki. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 73–84.
32.
KornfiltJ. (1997). Turkish. Routledge.
33.
LytraV.JorgensenJ. N. (2008). Multilingualism and identities across contexts. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on Turkish-speaking youth in European. Copenhagen Studies of Bilingualism, University of Copenhagen.
34.
MayerM. (1969). Frog, where are you?Dial Press.
35.
MeirN.PolinskyM. (2019). Restructuring in heritage grammars: Adjective-noun and numeral-noun expressions in Israeli Russian. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18069.mei
36.
MengesK. H. (1995). The Turkic languages and peoples: An introduction to Turkic studies (2nd rev. ed.). Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.
37.
MontrulS. (2018). Heritage language development: Connecting the dots. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(5), 530–546.
38.
MoravcsikE. A. (1978). Language contact. In GreenbergJ. H. (Ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 1: Method and theory (pp. 94–122). Stanford University Press.
39.
MuyskenP. (1981). Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: The case for relexification. In HighfieldA.ValdmanA. (Eds.), Historicity and variation in creole studies (pp. 52–78). Karoma.
40.
Myers-ScottonC. (1993). Common and uncommon ground: Social and structural factors in codeswitching. Language in Society, 22(4), 475–503.
41.
NedjalkovI. V. (1998). Converbs in the languages of Europe. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 421–456.
42.
NedjalkovI. V. (1995).JohansonL. (1994). Türkeitürkische Aspektotempora. In HaspelmathM.KönigE. (Eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms –Adverbial participals, Gerunds (pp. 107–136). Mouton de Gruyter.
43.
Onar ValkP. (2015). Transformation in Dutch Turkish subordination? Converging evidence of change regarding finiteness and word order in complex clauses. Doctoral Dissertation, LOT.
44.
PfaffC. W. (1981a). Incipient creolization in ‘Gastarbeiterdeutsch’ an experimental sociolinguistic study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 165–178.
45.
PfaffC. W. (1981b). Sociolinguistic problems of immigrants: Foreign workers & their children in Germany. Review Article. Language in Society, 10, 155–188.
46.
PfaffC. W. (1991). Turkish in contact with German: Language maintenance and loss among immigrant children in West Berlin. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 90, 97–129.
47.
PfaffC. W. (1993). Turkish language development Germany. In ExtraG.VerhoevenL. (Eds.), Immigrant languages in Europe (pp. 119–146). Multilingual Matters.
48.
RehbeinJ.HerkenrathA.KarakoçB. (2009). Turkish in Germany – On contact-induced language change of an immigrant language in the multilingual landscape of Europe. In FerraresiG.RinkeE. (Eds.), Multilingualism and universal principles of linguistic change. Special Issue of Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung - Language Typology and Universals, Vol. 1. (pp. 6–43). Academie Verlag.
49.
RehbeinJ.HerkenrathA. (2015). Converbs in monolinguals’ and bilinguals’ Turkish. Turkish in Germany – On contact-induced language change of an immigrant language in the multilingual landscape of Europe. In ZeyrekD.Sağın ŞimşekÇ.AtaşU.RehbeinJ. (Eds.), Ankara papers in Turkish and Turkic linguistics, Turcologica (Vol. 103, pp. 493–513). Harrassowitz Verlag.
50.
RijswijkR. V. (2016). The strength of a weaker first language: Language production and comprehension by Turkish heritage speakers in the Netherlands. Utrecht: LOT.
51.
RothmanJ. (2009). Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 155–163.
Sağın-ŞimşekÇ. (2009). Adıl düşürme değiştirgeninin Türkçe tekdilli ve Türkçe-Almanca ikidilliler tarafından işletimi. In OsamN.ArkınE. (Eds.), 23. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri 14-15 Mayıs 2009 (pp. 64–78). Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi.
54.
Sağın-ŞimşekÇ. (2011). Diller arası etkileşim: Türkçe-Almanca iki dilli öğrencilerin yazılı metinlerde özne kullanımı. In GünayV. D.FidanÖ.ÇetinB.YıldızF. (Eds.), Türkçe Öğretimi Üzerine Çalışmalar (pp. 353–363). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Yayınları.
55.
SankoffD.PoplackS. (1981). A formal grammar for code-switching. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 14(1), 3–45.
56.
SchmidM. S. (2002). First language attrition, use and maintenance: The case of German Jews in Anglophone Countries (Vol. 24). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
57.
SevinçY.DewaeleJ. M. (2018). Heritage language anxiety and majority language anxiety among Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(2), 159–179.
58.
SlobinD. I. (1995). Why are grammaticizable notions special? – A reanalysis and challenge to Learning Theory. Paper presented at the conference Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, November 14–17.
59.
ThomasonS. G. (2001). Language contact. Edinburgh University Press.
60.
ThomasonS. G.KaufmanT. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. University of California Press.
61.
Treffers-DallerJ.ÖzsoyA. S.Van HoutR. (2007). (In)complete acquisition of Turkish among Turkish-German bilinguals in Germany and Turkey: An analysis of complex embeddings in narratives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 248–276.
62.
TürkerE. (2000). Turkish-Norwegian codeswitching. evidence from intermediate and second generation Turkish immigrants in Norway. Avhandling for Doktor Artium graden ved Universitet I Oslo. Acta Umaniora, No: 83.
63.
Van HoutR.MuyskenP. (1994). Modeling lexical borrowability. Language Variation and Change, 6(1), 39–62.
64.
VedderP.VirtaE. (2005). Language, ethnic identity, and the adaptation of Turkish immigrant youth in the Netherlands and Sweden. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(3), 317–337.
