Cover not available
Part of
Lost in Transmission: The role of attrition and input in heritage language development
Edited by Bernhard Brehmer and Jeanine Treffers-Daller
[Studies in Bilingualism 59] 2020
► pp. 151–170

How do parental input and socio-economic status account for differences within and between the cohorts?

| University Hildesheim
| University of Kassel
| University Hildesheim
| University Hildesheim

How does vocabulary in the heritage language develop? Does the social environment of the community have an influence? This chapter presents empirical results regarding the development of expressive and receptive vocabulary in the heritage language and analyzes the effects of amount of exposure, use, socio-economic status, dominance, and community on the acquisition of vocabulary in the heritage language. A Russian-German and a Turkish-German speaking sample are compared: 211 children at the age of 6–10 years were tested with a standardized picture naming task in a cross-sectional design. The results show a good receptive mastery and a limited expressive command of vocabulary with large individual differences, and only a slight development in the timespan of four years. Between the communities we find systematic variation, which we attribute to social and pragmatic differences with moderator and mediator effects. Possible limitations of the results are discussed with respect to cross-linguistic test effects.

Keywords: vocabulary development, heritage Russian, heritage Turkish, amount of exposure, socio-economic status, dominance, community
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.State of research and research questions
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Sample and method
      • 3.1.1Sample
      • 3.1.2Method
    • 3.2Findings
      • 3.2.1Input patterns and vocabulary
        • Input
      • 3.2.2Development of expressive and receptive vocabulary
        • Interrupted tests
        • Expressive vocabulary
        • Receptive vocabulary
        • Shift
      • 3.2.3The impact of input and socio-economic status on vocabulary
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.59.06mon
References
Aichinger, G.
(ed.) 1997 Migration und soziale Netzwerke: Studien in Favelas in Rio de Janeiro und Sao Bernardo do Campo. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus.Google Scholar
Andrews, D. R.
1999 Sociocultural Perspectives on Language Change in Diaspora. Soviet Immigrants in the United States [IMPACT: Studies in Language and Society 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K. F. & Yang, S.
2010 Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13: 525–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brehmer, B. & Usanova, I.
2015 Let’s fix it? Contact-induced changes 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
Brizić, K.
2007 Das geheime Leben der Sprachen: Gesprochene und verschwiegene Sprachen und ihr Einfluss auf den Spracherwerb in der Migration. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A.
2007 Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics 28: 411–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Houwer, A., Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L.
2014 A bilingual-monolingual comparison of young children’s vocabulary size: Evidence from comprehension and production. Applied Psycholinguistics 35: 1189–1211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ertek, B.
2017 Développement du vocabulaire en turc et en français. PhD dissertation, Université du Rouen, Rouen.Google Scholar
Gagarina, N. et al.
2014 Age, input quantity and their effect on linguistic performance in the home and societal language among Russian-German and Russian-Hebrew preschool children. In The Challenges of Diaspora Migration: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Israel and Germany, R. Silbereisen, P. Titzmann & Y. Shavit (eds), 63–82. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Ganzeboom, H. B. G. & Treiman, D. J.
2003 Three internationally standardised measures for comparative research on occupational status. In Advances in Cross-National Comparison. A European Working Book for Demographic and Socio-Economic Variables, J. H. P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & C. Wolf (eds), 159–193. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glück, C. W.
2011 Wortschatz- und Wortfindungstest für 6- bis 10-Jährige, 2nd edn. Munich: Urban & Fischer.Google Scholar
Gogolin, I., Dirim, İ., Klinger, T., Lange, I., Lengyel, D., Michel, U., Neumann, U., Reich, H. H., Roth, H.-J. & Schwippert, K.
2011 Förderung von Kindern und Jugendlichen mit Migrationshintergrund FÖRMIG. Bilanz und Perspektiven eines Modellprogramms Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Gurak, D. T. & Caces, F.
1992 Migration networks and the shaping of migration systems. In International Migration Systems: A Global Approach, M. M. Kritz, L. L. Lim & H. Zlotnik (eds), 150–176. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Haug, S.
2000 Klassische und neuere Theorien der Migration. Mannheim: Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Senor, M. & Parra, M.
2012 Dual language exposure and early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language 39: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoff, E. & Tian, C.
2005 Socioeconomic status and cultural influences on language. Journal of Communication Disorders 38: 271–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isurin, L. & Ivanova-Sullivan, T.
2008 Lost in between: The case of Russian speakers. Heritage Language Journal 6: 72–104.Google Scholar
Klassert, A., Kauschke, C. & Gagarina, N.
2014 Object and action naming in Russian- and German-speaking monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(1): 73–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, W.
2001 Typen und Konzepte des Spracherwerbs. In Deutsch als Fremdsprache, G. Helbig, L. Götze, G. Henrici & H. Krumm (eds), 604–616. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kondo-Brown, K.
2005 Differences in language skills: Heritage language learner subgroups and foreign language learners. The Modern Language Journal 89: 563–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T., Belikova, A., Özçelik, Ö., Stangen, I. & White, L.
2017 Restrictions on definiteness in the grammars of German-Turkish heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches on Bilingualism 7(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, W. E. & Taylor, D. M.
1996 Language in the lives of ethnic minorities: Cuban american families in Miami. Applied Linguistics 17: 477–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J.
2011 Size matters: Early vocabulary as a predictor of language and literacy competence. Applied Psycholinguistics 32: 69–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L.
1980 Language and Social Networks. 1st edn. New York NY: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Montanari, E.
2017 Beschulung von neu in das niedersächsische Bildungssystem zugewanderten Schülerinnen und Schülern in der Sekundarstufe I. Hildesheim: Stiftung Universität Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Montrul, S.
2008 Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism. Re-examining the Age Factor [Studies in Bilingualism 39]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mueller-Gathercole, V. C.
2013 Issues in the Assessment of Bilinguals. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pearson, B., Fernández, S. C. & Oller, K. D.
1993 Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to momolingual norms. Adjunct Faculty Author Gallery 7: 93–120.Google Scholar
Pfaff, C. W.
1994 Early bilingual development of Turkish children in Berlin. In The Cross-Linguistic Study of Bilingual Development, G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (eds), 75–97. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. T. & Sánchez, L.
2013 What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3: 478–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rehbein, J., Herkenrath, A. & Karakoç, B.
2009 Turkish in Germany – on contact-induced language change of an immigrant language in the multilingual landscape of Europe. STUF 62: 171–204.Google Scholar
Scheele, A. F., Lesemann, P. P. M. & Mayo, A. Y.
2010 The home language environment of monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics 31: 117–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, T.
1996 Muster sozialer Ordnung. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Shin Kim, M.
2013 The mental lexicon of low-proficiency Korean heritage learners. Heritage Language Journal 10: 17–35.Google Scholar
Siemund, P., Gogolin, I., Schulz, M. E. & Davydova, J.
(eds) 2013 Multilingualism and Language Diversity in Urban Areas: Acquisition, Identities, Space, Education [Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity 1]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smithson, L., Paradis, J. & Nicoladis, E.
2014 Bilingualism and receptive vocabulary achievement: Could sociocultural context make a difference? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(4): 810–821. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sürig, I., Şimşek, Y., Schroeder, C. & Boneß, A.
2016 Literacy Acquisition in School in the Context of Migration and Multilingualism: A Binational Survey [Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity, 5] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
UNCRC
1989 United Nations Convention of the Rights of a Child. [URL]> (9 December 2018).
Unsworth, S.
2014 Amount of exposure as a proxy for dominance in bilingual language acquisition. In Language Dominance in Bilinguals: Issues of Measurement and Ope-rationalization, C. Silva-Corvalán & J. Treffers-Daller (eds), 156–173. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Vetter, E.
1997 Nicht mehr Bretonisch? Sprachkonflikt in der ländlichen Bretagne. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar