Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Turkish as a Heritage Language
Edited by Fatih Bayram
[Studies in Bilingualism 60] 2020
► pp. 87–104

Chapter 5
Convergence in the encoding of motion events in heritage Turkish in Germany

An acceptability study

| University of Oldenburg
| University of Potsdam
| University of Cologne
The encoding of motion is a particularly interesting domain of German-Turkish language contact. German is a “satellite-framed language” that easily combines manner-of-motion verbs with path expressions outside of the verb stem. Turkish, on the other hand, is considered a “verb-framed language”, where the combination of semantically heavy manner-of-motion verbs with path expressions does not occur. In a sentence acceptability study with monolingual Turkish and bilingual German-Turkish students, we tested the acceptability of Turkish sentences which violate the canonical Turkish structure to different degrees. Bilingual Turkish-German speakers more readily accepted combinations of semantically heavy manner-of-motion verbs and path expressions than the monolingual Turkish speakers. The difference did not show in combinations of semantically light manner-of-motion verbs and Path devices. We conclude that we cannot speak of ad-hoc transfer or a general “insecurity” in the Turkish of Turkish-German bilinguals. Rather, the results show evidence for the development of new grammatical patterns in heritage Turkish in Germany, influenced by the characteristic encoding patterns of German.
Keywords: motion events, satellite-framed languages, verb-framed languages, language contact, Turkish, German, Turkish-German bilinguals, acceptability study, linear mixed effects analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Motion events in Turkish and German
  • 3.German-Turkish language contact
  • 4.Turkish and Turkish-German speakers’ reactions on satellite-framed patterns in motion sentences
    • 4.1Aims and methods
    • 4.2Subjects
    • 4.3Material
    • 4.4Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.60.05gos
References (54)
References
Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Ü., Demirhan, U. U., & Kurtoğlu, Ö. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. U. Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12) (pp. 3223–3227). İstanbul: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. (1994). Development of linguistic forms: Turkish. In R. Berman & D. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study (pp. 339–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Arslan, S., De Kok, D., & Bastiaanse, R. (2017). Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(3), 457–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aske, J. (1989). Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. In K. Hall, M. Meacham, & R. Shapiro (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 15, pp. 1–14). Berkeley, CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Baayen, H., Davidson, D., & Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayram, F. (2013). Acquisition of Turkish by heritage speakers: A processability approach (Doctoral dissertation). Newcastle University eThesesURL: [URL].Google Scholar
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Wei Tham, S. (2010). The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 331–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeschoten, H. (1990). Acquisition of Turkish by immigrant children: A multiple case study of Turkish children in the Netherlands aged 4 to 6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Clark, H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daller, M., Treffers-Daller, J., & Furman, R. (2011). Transfer of conceptualization patterns in bilinguals: The construal of motion events in Turkish and German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 95–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirim, İ. (2009). „Ondan sonra gine schleifen yapiyorsunuz“: Migrationsspezifisches Türkisch in Schreibproben von Jugendlichen. In U. Neumann & H. Reich (Eds.), Erwerb des Türkischen in einsprachigen und mehrsprachigen Situationen (pp. 129–146). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Doğruöz, A. S., & Backus, A. (2009). Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of ongoing contact-induced change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goschler, J. (2009). Typologische und konstruktionelle Einflüsse bei der Kodierung von Bewegungsereignissen in der Zweitsprache. In S. Sahel, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Norddeutsches Linguistisches Kolloquium (pp. 40–65). Bielefeld eCollections.Google Scholar
(2013). Motion events in Turkish-German contact varieties. In J. Goschler, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (pp. 115–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goschler, J., Woerfel, T., Stefanowitsch, A., Wiese, H., & Schroeder, C. (2013). Beyond conflation patterns: The encoding of motion events in Kiezdeutsch. In A. Stefanowitsch (Ed.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association (Vol. 1, pp. 237–252). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., & Hijazo-Gascón, A. (2012). Variation in motion events: Theory and applications. In L. Filipović, & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures: Linguistic diversity (pp. 349–372). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L. (1991). Zur Sprachentwicklung der Turcia Germanica. In I. Baldauf, K. Kreiser, & S. Teczan (Eds.), Türkische Sprachen und Literaturen: Materialien der ersten deutschen Turkologen-Konferenz Bamberg, 3.-6. Juli 1987 (pp. 199–212). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Küppers, A., Şimşek, Y., & Schroeder, C. (2015). Turkish as a minority language in Germany: Aspects of language development and language instruction. Zeitschrift Für Fremdsprachenforschung, 26(1), 29–51.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. (2007). Contact, connectivity and language evolution. In J. Rehbein, C. Hohenstein, & L. Pietsch (Eds.), Connectivity in grammar and discourse (pp. 51–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. A. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş. (2013). Ways of crossing a spatial boundary in typologically distinct languages. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş., & Slobin, D. (1999). Learning how to search for the frog: Expression of manner of motion in English, Spanish, and Turkish. In A. Greenhill, H. Littlefield, & C. Tano (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 541–552). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Expression of manner of movement of monolingual and bilingual adult narratives: Turkish vs. English. In A. Göksel, & C. Kerslake (Eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages: Proceedings of the ninth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Lincoln College, Oxford, August 12–14, 1998 (pp. 253–262). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Özyürek, A., & Kita, S. (1999). Expressing manner and path in English and Turkish: Differences in speech, gesture, and conceptualization. In M. Hahn, & S. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-first Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 507–512). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Pfaff, C. (1993). Turkish language development in Germany. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Immigrant languages in Europe (pp. 119–146). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2000). Development and use of et- and yap- by Turkish/German bilingual children. In A. Göksel & C. Kerslake (Eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Lincoln College, Oxford, August 12–14, 1998 (pp. 365–373). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2006). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14, 191–262.Google Scholar
Queen, R. (2001). Bilingual intonation patterns: Evidence of language change from Turkish-German bilingual children. Language in Society, 30(1), 55–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Phrase-final intonation in narratives told by Turkish-German bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10(2), 153–178. 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. Language Typology and Universals, 62(3), 171–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reich, H. (2009). Entwicklungswege türkisch-deutscher Zweisprachigkeit. In U. Neumann & H. Reich (Eds.), Erwerb des Türkischen in einsprachigen und mehrsprachigen Situationen (pp. 63–91). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Schroeder, C. (2007). Orthography in German-Turkish language contact. In F. Baider (Ed.), Emprunts linguistiques, empreintes culturelles. Métissage orient-occident (pp. 101–122). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
(2008). Adverbial modification and secondary predicates in Turkish: A typological perspective. In C. Schroeder, G. Hentschel, & W. Boeder (Eds.), Secondary predicates in Eastern European languages and beyond. (pp. 339–358). Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag.Google Scholar
(2009). Gehen, laufen, torkeln: Eine typologisch gegründete Hypothese für den Schriftspracherwerb in der Zweitsprache Deutsch mit Erstsprache Türkisch. In K. Schramm & C. Schroeder (Eds.), Empirische Zugänge zu Sprachförderung und Spracherwerb in Deutsch als Zweitsprache (pp. 185–201). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
(2014). Türkische Texte deutsch-türkisch bilingualer Schülerinnen und Schüler in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 44(174), 24–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Clause combining in Turkish as a minority language in Germany. In M. Güven, D. Akar, B. Öztürk, & M. Kelepir (Eds.), Exploring the Turkish Linguistic Landscape. Essays in honor of Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan (pp. 81–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, C., & Dollnick, M. (2013). Mehrsprachige Gymnasiasten mit türkischem Hintergrund schreiben auf Türkisch. In Interdisziplinäres Symposium Mehrsprachig in Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, 6–7 Februar, 2012, Bielefeld (pp. 101–114). Bielefeld: University of Bielefeld. DOI logo>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
Şimşek, Y. (2012). Sequenzielle und prosodische Aspekte der Sprecher-Hörer-Interaktion im Türkendeutschen. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Şimşek, Y., & Schroeder, C. (2011). Migration und Sprache in Deutschland – Am Beispiel der Migranten aus der Türkei und ihrer Kinder und Kindeskinder. In Ş. Ozil, M. Hofmann, & Y. Dayıoğlu-Yücel (Eds.), 50 Jahre türkische Arbeitsmigration in Deutschland (pp. 205–228). Göttingen: V&R unipress.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996a). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1996b). Two ways to travel: Verbs of Motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions (pp. 195–219). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(1997). Mind, code, and text. In T. Givón, J. L. Bybee, J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T. Givón (pp. 437–467). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Slobin, D., & Hoiting, N. (1994). Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. In S. Gahl, C. Johnson, & A. Dolby (Eds.), Proceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: February 18–21, 1994. General session dedicated to the contributions of Charles J. Fillmore (pp. 487–504). Berkeley, CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2017). Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund – Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2015. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis).Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2013). Variation and change in English path verbs and constructions: Usage patterns and conceptual structure. In J. Goschler & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (pp. 223–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2003). Toward a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2008). Lexical typology. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 66–168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Türker, E. (2005). Resisting the grammatical change: Nominal groups in Turkish-Norwegian codeswitching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(3–4), 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, H., Alexiadou, A., Allen, S., Bunk, O., Gagarina, N., Iefremenko, K., Jahns, E., Klotz, M., Krause, T., Labrenz, A., Lüdeling, A., Martynova, M., Neuhaus, K., Pashkova, T., Rizou, V., Schroeder, C., Szucsich, L., Tracy, R., Tsehaye, W., Zerbian, S., & Zuban, Y. (2020). RUEG Corpus (Version 0.3.0). Zenodo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woerfel, T. (2018a). Encoding motion events: The impact of language-specific patterns and language dominance in bilingual children. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Path encoding in the verbal periphery in Turkish: Variation and constraints. In M.-A. Akıncı & K. Yağmur (Eds.), The Rouen Meeting. Studies on Turkic structures and language contacts (pp. 299–312). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Tusun, Alimujiang, Yi Wang & Adalaiti Abulajiang
2024. Moving in L2 Chinese from childhood to adulthood: Developmental and crosslinguistic factors in bilingual event construal. International Journal of Bilingualism DOI logo
Tsehaye, Wintai, Tatiana Pashkova, Rosemarie Tracy & Shanley E. M. Allen
2021. Deconstructing the Native Speaker: Further Evidence From Heritage Speakers for Why This Horse Should Be Dead!. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Treffers-Daller, Jeanine
2020. Turkish-German code-switching patterns revisited. In Advances in Contact Linguistics [Contact Language Library, 57], ► pp. 238 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.