Chapter published in:
Studies in Turkish as a Heritage Language
Edited by Fatih Bayram
[Studies in Bilingualism 60] 2020
► pp. 155–204

Subordination in children acquiring Turkish as a heritage language in Sweden

| Uppsala University
| Uppsala University
This paper investigates Turkish subordinate constructions in 201 fictional narratives told by 102 bilingual Turkish-Swedish children (age 4 to 7), growing up in Sweden with Turkish as a heritage language. All narratives were elicited with the picture sequences of the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN, Gagarina et al., 2012). We analyze the characteristics of the Turkish relative, complement and adverbial clauses in the children’s narratives and in their responses to story comprehension questions from quantitative and qualitative points of view. The children produce a wide variety of subordinate constructions, going beyond what is typically reported for Turkish heritage language acquisition elsewhere. In the cross-sectional data sampled, there is considerable individual variation concerning subordination, but relatively little development from age 4 to 7, as some of the youngest children already master Turkish nonfinite subordination, and older children do not necessarily use subordination more frequently or in more adultlike ways than younger ones. Certain types of subordination are rare (e.g. relativization) or even absent in the data (complementation with object control). Other types of subordinate constructions are very frequent and nearly always conform to standard adult Turkish (e.g. complementation with subject control; adverbialization with simple converbs). However, the precise morphological form and function of subjunctors in causal and purposive adverbial clauses (an aspect rarely discussed in the Turkish acquisition literature) is not yet mastered by the oldest children in the sample (age 7). In general, the Turkish-Swedish data point to relatively successful and early acquisition of nonfinite subordination morphology, unlike what has been reported by a number of earlier studies of children acquiring Turkish in a bilingual and/or heritage language context in other countries (e.g. Boeschoten, 1990; Pfaff, 1991, 1993; Aarssen 2001; Herkenrath & Karakoç, 2002; Rehbein & Herkenrath, 2015). Our finding that bilingual children acquiring Turkish are able to produce much more complex sentences than originally claimed in the literature is suggested to be due to differences in setting, sampling and data elicitation.
Keywords: Turkish-Swedish bilingualism, child language acquisition, subordination, causal clauses, purposive clauses
Published online: 18 November 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.60.08boh
References

References

Aarssen, J.
(1996) Relating events in two languages: Acquisition of cohesive devices by Turkish-Dutch bilingual children at school age. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Development of temporal relations in narratives by Turkish-Dutch bilingual children. In L. Verhoeven & S. Strömqvist (Eds.), Narrative development in a multilingual context (pp. 209–231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Akıncı, M. A., Jisa, H., & Kern, S.
(2001) Influence of L1 Turkish on L2 French narratives. In L. Verhoeven & S. Strömqvist (Eds.), Narrative development in a multilingual context (pp. 189–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aksu, A.
(1978) The acquisition of causal connectives in Turkish. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 129–139.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A.
(1994) Development of linguistic forms: Turkish. In R. A. Berman & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: A cross-linguistic developmental study (pp. 329–385). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2010) The course of normal language development in Turkish. In S. Topbaş & M. Yavaş (Eds.), Communication disorders in Turkish (pp. 65–104). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A., & Slobin, D. I.
(1985) The acquisition of Turkish. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 1, pp. 839–878). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Aktürk-Drake, M.
(2017) Turkish maintenance and bilingualism among second-generation Turks in multicultural Stockholm. In B. Başer & P. T. Levin (Eds.), Migration from Turkey to Sweden: Integration, belonging and transnational community (pp. 122–152). London: Tauris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Hur bra har den svenska kontexten varit på att främja balanserad tvåspråkighet? Nordand, 13(2), 107–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alpay, Ş.
(1980) Turkar i Stockholm: En studie av invandrare, politik och samhälle. Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
Aras, E.
(2015) Turkisktalande befolkning i Sverige (Unpublished report). Department of Linguistics & Philology, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Aydın, M.
(2000) Anadolu ağızlarında iken ∼ -ken zarf-fiilinin kullanımı ve görevleri. Türk Dili, 588, 639–645.Google Scholar
Backus, A.
(2004) Turkish as an immigrant language in Europe. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 689–724). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Başdaş, C.
(2014) Türkiye Türkçesi ağızlarında -kA/-kAnA zarf-fiil şekilleri. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(33), 28–34.Google Scholar
Bayram, F.
(2013) Acquisition of Turkish by heritage speakers: A processability approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Boeschoten, H. E.
(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
Boeschoten, H., & Verhoeven, L.
(1986) Turkish language development of Turkish children in the Netherlands. In A. Aksu Koç & E. Erguvanlı Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference (pp. 269–280). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U.
(2010) The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 105–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Language impairment or typical language development? Developing methods for linguistic assessment of bilingual children in Sweden. Grant proposal to the Swedish Research Council, March 2013 (Unpublished research programme). Project referred to as ‘BiLI-TAS’ Bilingualism, Language Impairment, Turkish, Arabic, Swedish.Google Scholar
(2020) Bilingual development of Turkish-speaking children in Sweden. In L. Grenoble, P. Lane, & U. Røyneland (Eds.), Linguistic Minorities in Europe Online. Turkish. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bohnacker, U., & Lindgren, J.
(2014) Fundament, formellt subjekt och frekvens: Ordföljdsmönster i svenska, nederländska och hos vuxna inlärare. Språk och stil NF 2014, 33–71.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U., & Öztekin, B.
in progress). Turkish heritage-speaker families in Sweden: Linguistic practices and family language policy. Special issue on Family language policy in a comparative perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development.
Bohnacker, U., Öztekin, B., & Lindgren, J.
in press). Bilingual Turkish-Swedish children’s understanding of MAIN picture sequences: Individual variation, age, language and task effects. In U. Bohnacker, & N. Gagarina Eds. Developing narrative comprehension: Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives Amsterdam John Benjamins
Csató, É. Á.
(2010) Two types of complement clauses in Turkish. In H. Boeschoten & J. Rentzsch (Eds.), Turcology in Mainz/Turkologie in Mainz (pp. 107–122). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Dasinger, L., & Toupin, C.
(1994) The development of relative clause functions in narrative. In R. A. Berman & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: A cross-linguistic developmental study (pp. 457–514). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ekberg, L.
(1997) Diskursiva och syntaktiska mönster i återberättelser hos invandrarbarn i Rosengård. In G. Håkansson, L. Lötmarker, L. Santesson, J. Svensson, & Å. Viberg (Eds.), Svenskans beskrivning 22. Förhandlingar vid Tjugoandra sammankomsten för svenskans beskrivning Lund den 18–19 oktober 1996 (pp. 97–110). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Gagarina, N., Klop, D., Kunnari, S., Tantele, K., Välimaa, T., Balčiūnienė, I., Bohnacker, U., & Walters, J.
(2012) Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN). ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 56. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
(2015) Assessment of narrative abilities in bilingual children. In S. Armon-Lotem, J. de Jong, & N. Meir (Eds.), Assessing multilingual children: Disentangling bilingualism from language impairment (pp. 243–276). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Hansson, K.
(2000) Comprehension and production of relative clauses: a comparison between Swedish impaired and unimpaired children. Journal of Child Language, 27, 313–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herkenrath, A.
(2013) The acquisition of -DIK and its communicative range in monolingual versus bilingual constellations. In N. Demir, B. Karakoç, & A. Menz (Eds.), Turcology and Linguistics. Éva Ágnes Csató Festschrift (pp. 219–236). Ankara: Hacettepe University Publications.Google Scholar
(2016) Deictic conjunctions in the Turkish of bilingual children? The language change of o zaman . In É. Á. Csató, B. Karakoç, & A. Menz (Eds.), The Uppsala Meeting. The Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 122–134). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Herkenrath, A., & Karakoç, B.
(2002) Zum Erwerb von Verfahren der Subordination bei türkisch-deutsch bilingualen Kindern – Transkripte und quantitative Aspekte. Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit (AzM), Folge B (Nr. 37). Hamburg: SFB Mehrsprachigkeit, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
(2007) Zur Morphosyntax äußerungsinterner Konnektivität bei mono- and bilingualen türkischen Kindern. In H. Boeschoten, & H. Stein (Eds.), Einheit und Vielfalt in der türkischen Welt. Materialien der 5. Deutschen Turkologenkonferenz, Universität Mainz, 4. – 7. Oktober 2002 (pp. 131–160). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Herkenrath, A., Karakoç, B., & Rehbein, J.
(2003) Interrogative elements as subordinators in Turkish – Aspects of Turkish-German bilingual children’s language use. In N. Müller (Ed.), (Non)vulnerable domains in bilingualism (pp. 221–269). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L.
(2002) Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts. London: Curzon.Google Scholar
(2013) Selection of subjunctors in Turkic non-finite complement clauses. Bilig, 67, 73–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karahan, L.
(1996) Anadolu Ağızlarında Kullanılan Bazı Zarf-fiil Ekleri. Türk Kültürü Araştırmaları, XXXII(1–2), 205–236.Google Scholar
Karakoç, B.
(2007) Connectivity by means of finite elements in mono- and bilingual Turkish discourse. In J. Rehbein, C. Hohenstein, & L. Pietsch (Eds.), Connectivity in grammar and discourse (pp. 199–227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) On obligatory control in Turkish and Noghay complement clauses. Tehlikedeki Diller Dergisi 2. Journal of Endangered Languages, 2, 303–323. Also published in S. Eker & Ü. Çelik Şavk (Eds.) (2016) Tehlikedeki Türk Dilleri [Endangered Turkic Languages] (Vol. 4, pp. 371–387). Ankara and Astana.Google Scholar
Karakoç, B., & Herkenrath, A.
(2016) Clausal complementation in Turkish and Noghay in a semantic perspective. In P. Kehayov & K. Boye (Eds.), Complementizer semantics in European languages (pp. 619–664). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Küntay, A., & Slobin, D. I.
(1999) The acquisition of Turkish as a native language: A research review. Turkic Languages, 3, 151–188.Google Scholar
Levin, P. T., & Başer, B.
(2017) The 50th anniversary of the beginning of migration from Turkey to Sweden: Lessons concerning integration, cohesion, and inclusion. In B. Başer & P. T. Levin (Eds.), Migration from Turkey to Sweden: Integration, belonging and transnational community (pp. 1–31). London: Tauris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, I.
(1991) Kulubor i Stockholm: En svensk historia. Stockholm: Stiftelsen Sveriges Invandrarinstitut & Museum i Botkyrka.Google Scholar
Lundin, B.
(1987) Bisatser i små barns språk. En analys av fem barns första bisatser. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nakipoğlu, M., & Ketrez, N.
(2006) Children’s overregularizations and irregularizations of the Turkish aorist. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 399–410). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Nygren-Junkin, L.
(2008) Immigrant minority languages in Sweden. In G. Extra & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual Europe: Facts and policies (pp. 271–292). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Onar Valk, P.
(2013) Dutch Turkish diverging from Turkey-Turkish: A judgment task study on how Dutch Turkish employs subordination and word order. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria, 23, 158–176.Google Scholar
Onar Valk, P., & Backus, A.
(2013) Syntactic change in an immigrant language: From non-finite to finite subordinate clauses in Turkish. ESUKA-JEFUL, 4(2), 7–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek, D.
(2010) Production of relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In J. Chandlee, K. Franich, K. Iserman, & L. Keil (Eds.), Proceedings Supplement to the 34th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Öztekin, B.
(2019) Typical and atypical language development in bilingual Turkish-Swedish children aged 4–7. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Pfaff, C.
(1991) Turkish in contact with German: Language maintenance and loss among immigrant children in Berlin (West). In K. de Bot & W. Fase (Eds.), International Journal of the Sociology of Language 90 (pp. 97–129). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1993) Turkish language development in Germany. In G. Extra, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Immigrant languages in Europe (pp. 119–146). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(1994) Early bilingual development in Turkish children of Berlin. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of bilingual development (pp. 75–97). Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
Rehbein, J., & Herkenrath, A.
(2015) Converbs in monolinguals’ and bilinguals’ Turkish. In D. Zeyrek, Ç. Sağın-Şimşek, U. Ataş, & J. Rehbein (Eds.), Ankara Papers in Turkish and Turkic Linguistics (pp. 493–513). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rehbein, J., & Karakoç, B.
(2004) On contact-induced language change of Turkish aspects: Languaging in bilingual discourse. In C. B. Dabelsteen & J. N. Jørgensen (Eds.), Languaging and language practices (pp. 125–149). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Sarılar, A., Matthews, D., & Küntay, A.
(2015) Hearing relative clauses boosts relative clause usage (and referential clarity) in young Turkish language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 175–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schaufeli, A.
(1991) Turkish in an immigrant setting; A comparative study of the first language of monolingual and bilingual Turkish children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Schroeder, C.
(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. 81–101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
(1986) The acquisition and use of relative clauses in Turkic and Indo-European languages. In D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 277–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Converbs in Turkish child language: The grammaticalization of event coherence. In M. Haspelmath & E. König (Eds.), Converbs in crosslinguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds (pp. 349–371). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Svanberg, I.
(1988) Invandrare från Turkiet: Etnisk och sociokulturell variation (2nd ed.). Uppsala: Centre for Multiethnic Research.Google Scholar
Topbaş, S., Cangökçe-Yaşar, Ö., & Ball, M. J.
(2012) LARSP for Turkish (TR-LARSP). In M. J. Ball, D. Crystal, & P. Fletcher (Eds.), Assessing grammar: The languages of LARSP (pp. 282–305). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P., & Liu, L.
(1988) A model for generating questions that asses and promote comprehension. Questioning Exchange, 2(1), 25–38.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J. & Özsoy, S., & Van Hout, R.
(2007) (In)complete acquisition of Turkish among Turkish-German bilinguals in Germany and Turkey: An analysis of complex embeddings in narratives. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 248–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Üstüner, A.
(2000) Türkçedeki +-A pekiştirme ekinin Türkiye Türkçesi ağızlarında kullanılışı. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10, 189–206.Google Scholar
Vedder, P., & Virta, E.
(2005) Language, ethnic identity, and the adaptation of Turkish immigrant youth in the Netherlands and Sweden. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(3), 317–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waldmann, C.
(2008) Input och output: Ordföljd i svenska barns huvudsatser och bisatser. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Westin, C.
(2003) Young people of migrant origin in Sweden. The International Migration Review, 37(4), 987–1010. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2015) Integration of descendants of migrants from Turkey in Stockholm: The TIES study in Sweden. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yağmur, K., & Nap-Kolhoff, E.
(2010) Aspects of acquisition in Turkish-Dutch bilingual children. In S. Topbaş & M. Yavaş (Eds.), Communication disorders in Turkish (pp. 267–287). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar