Chapter published in:
Dynamics of Linguistic Diversity
Edited by Hagen Peukert and Ingrid Gogolin
[Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity 6] 2017
► pp. 99–121

Biscriptality and heritage language maintenance

Russian in Germany

| University of Greifswald
| University of Hamburg
The paper deals with the script choices made by bilingual Russian-German children when they are asked to compose texts in their Russian heritage language. Furthermore, the relationship between script choice and overall proficiency in the heritage language is investigated. We compare two different age groups of bilingual children. The analysis reveals that knowledge of the Cyrillic script is not dependent on their age upon arrival in Germany. Even those who use the Cyrillic script for writing in Russian sometimes use Latin graphemes. The appearance of Latin graphemes can be treated as an unconscious negative transfer from German, but also sometimes as a purposeful transfer to substitute for complex Cyrillic graphemes. Most of the factors used for assessing language proficiency (e.g. morphological correctness, mean length of sentences, etc.) are related to script choice, but significant effects were found only for task accomplishment.
Keywords: heritage linguistics, language maintenance, biscriptality, biliteracy, Russian-German bilingualism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Biscriptality and its relation to the acquisition of (bi)literacy
    • 2.1Overview of previous research
    • 2.2 Research questions for the current study
  • 3.Study design
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Data sampling method
  • 4.Results I: Script choice and orthography
    • 4.1Quantitative distribution of scripts in the corpus
    • 4.2Age upon arrival and script choice
    • 4.3Latin characters used to render Russian sounds in the corpus
    • 4.4Cyrillic-internal character variation in the corpus
  • 5.Discussion of results regarding script choice and orthography
  • 6.Results II: Correlation of script choice and overall proficiency in the heritage language
    • 6.1Script choice and task accomplishment
    • 6.2Script choice and syntactic performance in the texts
    • 6.3Script choice and morphological correctness scores
    • 6.4Script choice and lexical diversity
  • 7.Discussion of results regarding script choice and proficiency in the heritage language
  • 8.Conclusions
  • 9.Outlook
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 May 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/hsld.6.06bre
References
Abu-Rabia, S.
2001 Testing the Interdependence Hypothesis among native adult bilingual Russian-English students. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30(4): 437–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Achterberg, J.
2005 Zur Vitalität slavischer Idiome in Deutschland. Eine empirische Studie zum Sprachverhalten slavophoner Immigranten. München: Sagner.Google Scholar
Anstatt, T.
2011 Sprachattrition. Abbau der Erstsprache bei russisch-deutschen Jugendlichen. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 67: 7–31.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, A., Montrul, S. & Polinsky, M.
2013 Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 39(3–4): 129–181.Google Scholar
Berkemeier, A.
2003 Schrifterwerb im mehrsprachigen Kontext. In Didaktik der deutschen Sprache – ein Handbuch, U. Bredel, H. Günther, P. Klotz, J. Ossner & G. Siebert-Ott (eds), 297–306. Paderborn: UTB.Google Scholar
1998 Kontrastive Analyse von Schriftsysteminventaren. In Schrift und Schriften, J. Hasert & J. Ossner (ed), 48–74. Osnabrück: OBST.Google Scholar
Besters-Dilger, J.
2013 Russian in Germany: Intermediate results on L1 attrition. In Slavic Languages in Migration, M. Moser & M. Polinsky (eds), 189–204. Wien: LIT.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Luk, G. & Kwan, E.
2005 Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading 9(1): 43–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Böhmer, J.
2011 Dejti, дəти, kinder: Graphische Vielfalt im russischen und deutschen Schriftbild von bilingualen Fünftklässlern. In Russisch und Mehrsprachigkeit. Lehren und Lernen von Russisch an deutschen Schulen in einem vereinten Europa, G. Mehlhorn & C. Heyer (eds), 161–177. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Brehmer, B.
2007 Sprechen Sie Qwelja? Formen und Folgen russisch-deutscher Zweisprachigkeit in Deutschland. In Mehrsprachigkeit bei Kindern und Erwachsenen. Erwerb, Formen, Förderung, T. Anstatt (ed.), 163–185. Tübingen: Attempto.Google Scholar
2015a Script-Switching und Digraphie im Netz: Schriftpräferenzen und Schriftkontakt in der bilingualen deutsch-slavischen Internetkommunikation. In Slavic Alphabets in Contact, V.S. Tomelleri & S. Kempgen (eds), 59–93. Bamberg: University Press.Google Scholar
2015b The Cyrillic script as a boundary marker between “insiders” and “outsiders”: Metalinguistic discourse about script choices in Slavic-German bilingual computer-mediated communication. In Linguistic Construction of Ethnic Borders, P. Rosenberg, K. Jungbluth & D. Zinkhahn Rhobodes (eds), 55–80. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brehmer, B. & Usanova, I.
2015 Let’s fix it? Cross-linguistic influence in word order patterns of Russian heritage speakers in Germany. In Transfer Effects in Multilingual Language Development [Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity 4], H. Peukert (ed.), 159–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brehmer, B. & Kurbangulova, T.
2017. Lost in transmission? Family language input and its role for the development of Russian as a heritage language in Germany. In Integration, Identity and Language Maintenance in Young Immigrants: Russian Germans or German Russians [Impact: Studies in Language and Society 44], L. Isurin & C.M. Riehl eds 225 268 Amsterdam John Benjamins
Coulmas, F.
1996 The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ehlers, S.
2009 Heterogenität und Literalität. In Bildung zwischen Standardisierung und Heterogenität. Ein interdisziplinärer Diskurs, C.-P. Buschkühle, L. Duncker & V. Oswalt (eds), 97–118. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grießhaber, W. & Kalkavan, Z.
(eds) 2012 Orthographie- und Schriftspracherwerb bei mehrsprachigen Kindern. Stuttgart: Fillibach bei Klett.Google Scholar
Hornberger, N.H. & Skilton-Sylvester, E.
2000 Revisiting the continua of biliteracy: International and critical perspectives. Language and Education 14 (2): 96–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kenner, C.
2004 Becoming Biliterate: Young Children Learning Different Writing Systems. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
Kenner, C., Kress, G., Al-Khatib, H., Kam, R. & Tsai, K.-C.
2004 Finding the keys to biliteracy: How young children interpret different writing systems. Language and Education 18(2): 124–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T.
2013 A new term for a better distinction? A view from the higher end of the proficiency scale. Theoretical Linguistics 39(3–4): 203–214.Google Scholar
Maas, U.
2008 Sprache und Sprachen in der Migrationsgesellschaft. Göttingen: V & R Unipress.Google Scholar
Meng, K. & Protassova, E.
In press. Young Russian-German adults 20 years after their repatriation to Germany. In Integration, Identity and Language Maintenance in Young Immigrants: Russian Germans or German Russians [Impact: Studies in Language and Society 44], L. Isurin & C.M. Riehl eds Amsterdam John Benjamins Crossref
Rethage, W.
2012 Strukturelle Besonderheiten des Russischen in Deutschland: Kontaktlinguistische und soziolinguistische Aspekte. München: Sagner.Google Scholar
Schroeder, C.
2007 Orthography in German-Turkish language contact. In Emprunts linguistiques, empreintes culturelles. Métissage orient-occident, F. Baider (ed.), 101–122. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Schroeder, C. & Şimşek, Y.
2010 Die Entwicklung der Kategorie Wort im Türkisch-Deutsch bilingualen Schrifterwerb in Deutschland. IMIS-Beiträge 37 : 55–79.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

No author info given
2019.  In Biscriptuality [Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity, 8], Crossref logo
Usanova, Irina & Birger Schnoor
2021. Exploring multiliteracies in multilingual students: Profiles of multilingual writing skills. Bilingual Research Journal 44:1 ► pp. 56 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 march 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.