Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Turkish as a Heritage Language
Edited by Fatih Bayram
[Studies in Bilingualism 60] 2020
► pp. 17–38

Chapter 2
Turkish heritage speakers in Germany

Vocabulary knowledge in German and Turkish

 | University of Reading
In the present chapter, first, the migration background of Turkish heritage speakers in Germany will be described. Secondly, the available literature on Turkish heritage speakers with a focus on vocabulary will be discussed. Finally, the results of a recent study on heritage speakers will be presented. The present study supports the findings of previous studies which aim to answer the question whether there is a vocabulary gap in bilinguals, such that bilinguals have smaller vocabularies than monolinguals. A deficit or gap is attested for bilinguals in a number of studies when they are compared with monolingual control groups (for a detailed overview see Thordardottir, 2011). However, this gap seems to be an artefact of the methodology since bilinguals use their two languages in different domains (Grosjean, 1982, 2001, 2015) and almost never develop a vocabulary in both of their languages that is comparable to monolinguals. We therefore need to include both languages in an investigation of a potential bilingual vocabulary gap. However, even when both languages are investigated, a deficit in vocabulary knowledge, especially productive vocabulary is attested in many studies (for a detailed discussion see Daller & Ongun, 2017). Because the literature presents somewhat inconclusive results, in this study, we wanted to test whether or not the productive vocabulary of a bilingual individual group also shows a gap when compared to monolingual controls. The present study is based on picture descriptions of 23 heritage speakers and two control groups for German (n = 18) and Turkish (n = 30). We take both languages into account to obtain a fine-grained picture of the bilingual proficiency of the heritage speakers in our sample. A vocabulary gap can be identified for Turkish but not for German. When the children’s total conceptual vocabulary (Pearson, Fernández, & Oller, 1993) is considered, however, there is no vocabulary gap for this group of bilinguals.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous studies the language proficiency of Turkish heritage speakers
  • 3.Hypotheses
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Measures
    • 4.3Procedure
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.60.02dal
References (32)
References
Antwort der Bundesregierung (2000). Drucksache 14/ 2676. Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Ulla Jelpke (answer of the German government to the request of Ulla Jelpke (MP).Google Scholar
Bayram, F., Kupisch, T., Pascual y Cabo, D., & Rothman, J. (2019a). Terminology matters on theoretical grounds too!: Coherent grammars cannot be incomplete. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 257–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayram, F., Rothman, J., Iverson, M., Kupisch, T., Miller, D., Puig-Mayenco, E., & Westergaard, M. (2019b). Differences in use without deficiencies in competence: passives in the Turkish and German of Turkish heritage speakers in Germany. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(8), 919–939. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayram, F., & Wright, C. (2018). Turkish heritage language acquisition and maintenance in Germany. In P. C. Trifonas & A. Themistokis (Eds.), International handbook on research and practice in heritage language education (pp. 481–502). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological science in the public interest, 10(3), 89–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., & Feng, X. (2009). Language proficiency and executive control in proactive interference: Evidence from monolingual and bilingual children and adults. Brain and Language, 109, 93–100. 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 (4), 525–531.Google Scholar
Daller, M. H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds.). (2007). Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daller, M. H., & Yıldız, C. (1995). Die türkischen Sprachfähigkeiten von Rückkehrern aus Deutschland [The language proficiency of Turkish returnees from Germany]. In J. Treffers-Daller & M. H. Daller (Eds.), Zwischen den Sprache (pp. 83–94). Istanbul: Bosphorus University, The Language Centre.Google Scholar
Daller, M. H. (1999). Migration und Mehrsprachigkeit: Der Sprachstand türkischer Rückkehrer aus Deutschland [Migration and Multilingualism: The Language Proficiency of Turkish Returnees from Germany]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Daller, M. H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daller, M., Yɪldɪz, C., De Jong, N., Kan, S., & Başbağı, R. (2011). Language dominance in Turkish German bilinguals: Methodological aspects of measurements in structurally different languages. In M. H. Daller (Ed.), The measurement of bilingual proficiency. Special issue of The International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(2), 215–236.Google Scholar
Daller, M. H., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2014). Moving between languages: Turkish returnees from Germany. In B. Menzel (Ed.), Rückkehr in die Fremde (pp. 185–211). Berlin: Frank &Timme.Google Scholar
Daller, M. H., & Ongun, Z. (2017). The Threshold Hypothesis revisited: Bilingual lexical knowledge and non-verbal IQ development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(6), 675–694. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Domínguez, L., Hicks, G., & Slabakova, R. (2019). Terminology choice in generative acquisition research: The case of “incomplete acquisition” in heritage language grammars. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 241–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckes, T., & Grotjahn, R. (2006). A closer look at the construct validity of C- Tests. Language Testing, 23(3), 290–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1982, 2001). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2015). The Complementarity Principle and its impact on processing, acquisition, and dominance. In C. Silva-Corvalan & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Language dominance in bilinguals: Issues of measurement and operationalization (pp. 66–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J. (2018). Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(5), 564–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Purán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York, NY: Dial Press.Google Scholar
Meara, P., & Milton, J. (2003). X-Lex. The Swansea levels test. Newbury: Express Publishing.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43, 93–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pires, A., & Rothman, J. (2009). Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for competence divergence across heritage grammars. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 211–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. (2007). Heritage speaker competence differences, language change, and input type: Inflected infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(4), 359–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt (Federal Statistical Office of Germany) (2017). Statistisches Jahrbuch (Statistical yearbook). Wiesbaden: Germany.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1972). Bilingualism as a first language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California.Google Scholar
Thordardottir, E. (2011). The relationship between bilingual exposure and vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 426–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., Daller, M. H., Furman, R., & Rothman, J. (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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willard, J. A., Agache, A., Jäkel, J., Glück, C. W., & Leyendecker, B. (2015). Family factors predicting vocabulary in Turkish as a heritage language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(4), 875–898. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gharibi, Khadij, Fatih Bayram & Gustavo Guajardo
2024. Lexical and morphosyntactic variation in Persian heritage language outcomes. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:6 ► pp. 886 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 october 2024. 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.