The aim of this study is to examine whether the complete (re-)activation of interface domains in the heritage language (HL) is possible or whether interfaces are likely to preserve features typical for the HL even after many years of residing in the country of origin.
Design/methodology/approach:
We present the group analysis of direct object marking in Turkish, which is a morphology-syntax-pragmatics interface, of Turkish-German returnees, who returned to Turkey after puberty and have been residing in the country for a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 34 years, and compare them with the control group consisting of Turkish speakers who have been living in Turkey all their lives.
Data and analysis:
The data were collected using a narrative task, a completion task and a grammaticality judgement task, and analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Findings/conclusions:
The analysis of the narrative task revealed that the returnee participants used case-marking on direct objects productively depending on the discourse and syntactic position of the direct object in their heritage Turkish. However, their performance on the completion and grammaticality judgement tasks diverged from those of the control group. These findings can be considered as a piece of evidence that interface domains stay obstinate to complete (re-)activation and may preserve features typical for the HL many years after the return to the country of origin.
Originality:
The study suggests relevance of the Interface Hypothesis to the process of HL (re-)activation.
Significance/implications:
The study contributes to the research on the HL development of returnees after their return to the country of origin.
AalberseS.BackusA.MuyskenP. (2019). Heritage languages: A language contact approach (Vol. 58). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
2.
AkdoğanG. (1993). Yabancıların Türkçe Öğreniminde Ad Durumu ve Çekim Açısından Sık Rastlanan Yanlışlar ve Nedenleri [MA thesis]. Ankara University.
3.
Aksu-KoçA.KetrezF. N. (2003). Acquisition of noun and verb categories in Turkish. In ÖzsoyS.AkarD.NakipogluD.Erguvanlı-TaylanE.Aksu- KoçA. (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 239–246). Boğaziçi University Press.
4.
Aksu-KoçA.SlobinD. I. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In SlobinD. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 839–880). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
AltunkolE.BalcıB. (2013). The usage of Turkish grammatical morphemes by learners of Turkish as a second language. Atiner’s conference papers series, no. Lng2013-0711.
6.
Antonova-UnluE. (2015). Testing the interface hypothesis: The evidence from fossilized errors in the use of Turkish case markers. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 26(1), 1–23.
7.
Antonova-UnluE. (2019). Syntax–pragmatic and morphology–pragmatic interfaces in sequential bilingual language acquisition: The case of Russia-Turkish and English-Turkish bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(5), 1137–1158.
8.
Antonova-UnluE.WeiL. (2016). Aspect acquisition in Russian as the weaker language: Evidence from a Turkish–Russian child. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(2), 210–228.
9.
Antonova-UnluE.WeiL. (2018a). 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.
10.
Antonova-UnluE.WeiL. (2018b). The acquisition of the weaker language. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(5), 637–663.
11.
Antonova-UnluE.WeiL. (2020). Examining possible sources of L2 divergence at the pragmatics interface: Turkish accusative in the end-state grammar of L1 Russian and L1 English users of L2 Turkish. Lingua, 244, 102868.
12.
ArslanS.BastiaanseR.FelserC. (2015). Looking at the evidence in visual world: eye-movements reveal how bilingual and monolingual Turkish speakers process grammatical evidentiality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1387.
13.
BilenH.DeveliG. (1995). Sprachstandsanalyse des Deutschen bei den Germanistikstudenten/innen des ersten Semesters an der Istanbul Universität. Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 0(9), 169–182.
14.
CuzaA.Guijarro-FuentesP.PiresA.RothmanJ. (2013). The syntax-semantics of bare and definite plural subjects in the L2 Spanish of English natives. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(5), 634–652.
15.
DallerH. (1999). The language proficiency of Turkish returnees from Germany: An empirical investigation of academic and everyday language proficiency. Language Culture and Curriculum, 12(2), 156–172.
16.
DallerH.YıldızC. (1995). Die türkischen Sprachfähigkeiten von Rückkehrern aus Deutschland (The language proficiency of Turkish returnees from Germany). In Treffers-DallerJ.DallerH. (Eds.), Zwischen den sprachen. Sprachgebrauch, sprachmischung und sprachfähigkeiten türkischer rückkehrer aus deutschland. [Between the languages. Language use, language mixing and language proficiency of Turkish returnees from Germany.] (Vol. 2, pp. 83–94). The Language Center, Bogaziçi University.
17.
De HouwerA. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition. Multilingual Matters.
18.
Ekmekçi. (1979). Acquisition of Turkish: A longitudinal study on the early language development of a Turkish child [PhD dissertation]. University of Texas at Austin.
19.
EnçM. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1), 1–25.
20.
FloresC. (2010). The effect of age on language attrition: Evidence from bilingual returnees. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 13(4), 533–546.
21.
FloresC. (2012). Differential effects of language attrition in the domains of verb placement and object expression. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 15(3), 550–567.
22.
FloresC.SnapeN. (forthcoming). Language attrition and heritage language reversal in returnees. In MontrulS.PolinskyM. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of heritage languages and linguistics (on-line first). Cambridge University Press.
23.
GökselA.KerslakeC. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
24.
GürelA. (2000). Missing case inflection: Implications for second language acquisition. In HowellC.FishS. A.TeaK. L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University conference on language development (pp. 379–390). Cascadilla Press.
25.
GüvenE. (2007). Yabancıların Türkçe Öğrenirken Ad Durum Eklerinde Yaptıkları Hataların Çözümlenmesi ve Bu Hataların Giderilmesine Yönelik Öneriler [MA thesis]. Dokuz Eylül University.
26.
HaznedarB. (2006). Persistent problems with case morphology in L2 acquisition. In LleóC. (Ed.), Interfaces in multilingualism (pp. 179–206). John Benjamins.
27.
HyltenstamK.AbrahamssonN. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. Language Learning.
28.
IversonM.KempchinskyP.RothmanJ. (2008). Interface vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2 Spanish. EUROSLA Yearbook, 8(1), 135–163.
29.
JohansonL. (2006). Two approaches to specificity. In KulikovL.MalchukovA.de SwartP. (Eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (pp. 225–247). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
30.
Kaya-SoykanD.Antonova-UnluE.Sagin-SimsekC. (2020). The production and perception of Turkish evidentiality markers by Turkish-German returnees. Applied Linguistics Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2020-0042
31.
KornfiltJ. (1997). Turkish. Routledge.
32.
LennebergE. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59–67.
33.
MasseryL. A.FuentesC. (2017). Testing the interface hypothesis: Acquisition of complex syntax and modality in L2 Spanish. Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition, 5(4), 99–126.
34.
MeirN.PolinskyM. (2021). Restructuring in heritage grammars: Adjective-noun and numeral-noun expressions in Israeli Russian. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11, 222–258. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18069.mei
35.
MeiselJ. M. (2007). The weaker language in early child bilingualism: Acquiring a first language as a second language?Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(3), 495–514.
36.
MeiselJ. M. (2011). First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences. Cambridge University Press.
37.
MontrulS. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. John Benjamins Publishing.
38.
MontrulS. (2016). The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge University Press.
39.
MontrulS. (2018). Heritage language development. Connecting the dots. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(5), 530–546.
40.
MontrulS.BowlesM. (2009). Back to basics: Differential object marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism, 12(3), 363–383.
41.
MontrulS.PolinskyM. (2011). Why not heritage speakers?Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1).
42.
PapadopoulouD.VarlokostaS.SpyropoulosV.KailiH.ProkouS.RevithiadouA. (2011). Case morphology and word order in second language Turkish: Evidence from Greek learners. Second Language Research, 27, 173–204.
43.
PolinskyM. (2018). Heritage languages and their speakers. Cambridge University Press.
44.
PolinskyM.ScontrasG. (2020). Understanding heritage languages. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 23(1), 4–20.
45.
RothmanJ. (2009). Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 155–163.
46.
SlobinD. I.BeverT. G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12(3), 229–265.
47.
SoraceA.FiliaciF. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22(3), 339–368.
48.
TomiyamaM. (2009). Age and proficiency in L2 attrition: Data from two siblings. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 253–275.
49.
Treffers-DallerJ.DallerM.FurmanR.RothmanJ. (2016). Ultimate attainment in the use of collocations among heritage speakers of Turkish in Germany and Turkish–German returnees. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 19(3), 504–519.
50.
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.
51.
TuranD.Antonova-UnluE.Sağın-şimşekÇ.AkkuşM. (2020). Looking for contact-induced language change: Converbs in heritage Turkish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24, 1035–1048.
52.
YoshitomiA. (1999). On the loss of English as a second language by Japanese returnee children. In HansenL. (Ed.), Second language attrition in Japanese contexts (pp. 80–113). Oxford University Press.
