308017888 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code SiBil 60 Eb 15 9789027260505 06 10.1075/sibil.60 13 2020040600 DG 002 02 01 SiBil 02 0928-1533 Studies in Bilingualism 60 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Studies in Turkish as a Heritage Language</TitleText> 01 sibil.60 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/sibil.60 1 B01 Fatih Bayram Bayram, Fatih Fatih Bayram UiT The Artic University of Norway 01 eng 301 xiv 287 LAN009000 v.2006 CFDM 2 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.LA Language acquisition 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.BIL Multilingualism 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.TURK Turkic languages 06 01 Heritage language bilingualism refers to contexts where a minority language spoken at home is (one of) the first native language(s) of an individual who grows up and typically becomes dominant in the societal majority language. Heritage language bilinguals often wind up with grammatical systems that differ in interesting ways from dominant-native speakers growing up where their heritage language is the majority one. Understanding the trajectories and outcomes of heritage language bilingual grammatical competence, performance, language usage patterns, identities and more related topics sits at the core of many research programs across a wide array of theoretical paradigms. The study of heritage language bilingualism has grown exponentially over the past two decades. This expansion in interest has seen, in parallel, extensions in methodologies applied, bridges built between closely related fields such as the study of language contact and linguistic attrition. As is typical in linguistics, not all languages are studied to the same degree. The present volume showcases what Turkish as a heritage language brings to bear for key questions in the study of heritage language bilingualism and beyond. In many ways, Turkish is an ideal language to be studied because of its large diaspora across the world, in particular Europe. The papers in this volume are diverse: from psycholinguistic, to ethnographic, to classroom-based studies featuring Turkish as a heritage language. Together they equal more than their subparts, leading to the conclusion that understudied heritage languages like Turkish provide missing pieces to the puzzle of understanding the variables that give rise to the continuum of outcomes characteristic of heritage language speakers. 05 This exciting new collection brings together linguistic, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives on the status and development of Turkish as a heritage language in Europe . It is an indispensable new addition to advance our current theoretical and empirical understanding of heritage languages that stands to stimulate new research questions in bilingualism in the years to come. Silvina Montrul, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 05 This book takes a long view of bilingualism and extensive social networks in the Turkish-speaking world of Northwestern Europe, where Turkish has been a vital presence over three generations. The chapters paint a complex picture, integrating social, experimental, theoretical, and historic aspects of Turkish as a diasporic language in Europe. An inspiring read for researchers working on heritage languages, on Turkish, and on multilingualism in modern-day Europe. Maria Polinsky, University of Maryland 05 The study of heritage language bilingual, which has witnessed a sharp expansion over the past two decades, constitutes an important testing grounds for formal linguistic, language contact, acquisition and language processing theories while being socially relevant to immigrant minority and minoritized languages and their speakers. Turkish is an important heritage language to study, not least because of the variety of its diasporas and, thus, language contact contexts across the globe. Yet, relative to other heritage languages such as Spanish, it is understudied. This volume makes significant inroads into placing Turkish at its deserved forefront on heritage language studies and is, thus, a must read for anyone interested in heritage language bilingualism. Jason Rothman, UiT the Artic University of Norway & Universidad Nebrija 05 Sixty years after Turkish migration to Western Europe started a language contact situation that has been the source of many breakthroughs in the study of bilingualism and cultural dynamics, the contributions to this volume together provide a state-of-the-art update on Heritage Turkish. Assisted by the communicative and logistic affordances of globalization, Turkish continues to be a vital minority language, providing rich ground for cutting-edge empirical work, and the studies collected here are prime examples. Bayram expertly brings together studies that together give a comprehensive picture of the issues, methods and theories that are currently at the center of debate in this field. The volume represents an important step in the integration of social, linguistic and psychological perspectives on language contact, perspectives that have been present in the relevant literature for a very long time but mostly in separate research traditions. Ad Backus, Tilburg University 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/sibil.60.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027207937.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027207937.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/sibil.60.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/sibil.60.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/sibil.60.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/sibil.60.hb.png 10 01 JB code sibil.60.pre 1 8 8 Miscellaneous 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Preface. Issues in heritage language research</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Perspectives from Turkish in Northwestern Europe</Subtitle> 1 A01 Carol W. Pfaff Pfaff, Carol W. Carol W. Pfaff Humboldt Universität zu Berlin 10 01 JB code sibil.60.01bay 1 14 14 Chapter 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 1. Turkish as a heritage language</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Its context and importance for the general understanding of bilingualism</Subtitle> 1 A01 Fatih Bayram Bayram, Fatih Fatih Bayram UiT The Arctic University of Norway 10 01 JB code sibil.60.p1 Section header 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part I. Lexicon</TitleText> 10 01 JB code sibil.60.02dal 17 38 22 Chapter 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 2. Turkish heritage speakers in Germany</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Vocabulary knowledge in German and Turkish</Subtitle> 1 A01 Michael Daller Daller, Michael Michael Daller University of Reading 01 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 &#38; 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 (<i>n</i> = 18) and Turkish (<i>n</i> = 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, &#38; Oller, 1993) is considered, however, there is no vocabulary gap for this group of bilinguals. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.03wil 39 62 24 Chapter 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 3. Correlates of Turkish vocabulary in adolescent Turkish heritage language learners in Germany</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">An explorative study</Subtitle> 1 A01 Jessica A. Willard Willard, Jessica A. Jessica A. Willard Ruhr University Bochum 2 A01 Yasemin Çiğtay-Akar Çiğtay-Akar, Yasemin Yasemin Çiğtay-Akar Ruhr University Bochum 3 A01 Katharina Kohl Kohl, Katharina Katharina Kohl Ruhr University Bochum 4 A01 Birgit Leyendecker Leyendecker, Birgit Birgit Leyendecker Ruhr University Bochum 01 Little is known about resources for adolescent heritage language learners’ vocabulary. In a sample of adolescents (<i>n</i> = 78), we exploratively examined correlates of seventh-graders’ Turkish vocabulary as potential resources. Drawing on what is known about young heritage language learners and monolingual adolescent vocabulary learners, we considered a number of adolescent characteristics such as nonverbal reasoning (analogies subtest of the SON-R, Snijders, Tellegen, &#38; Laros, 2005) and their self-reported identification with Turkish culture (Berry et al., 1993; Phinney &#38; Ong, 2007). We also considered adolescents’ self-reports on reading activities, language use in the family and among friends, the percentage of Turkish speakers among their friends, as well as whether they attended Turkish classes. Turkish receptive vocabulary was assessed with an adapted research version modelled on the PPVT-4 (Dunn &#38; Dunn, 2007; Glück, 2009). A set of regression analyses indicated that adolescent characteristics such as nonverbal reasoning skills and identification with the Turkish culture explained the most variance in Turkish vocabulary. This suggests that being motivated to maintain the heritage language may be major resources for adolescents’ vocabulary. However, it raises the question from what sources adolescents are receiving input in their heritage language. We discuss various reasons for why the other factors such as language use in the family and reading activities may not have shown significant connections to Turkish vocabulary and provide impulses for further research. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.04llo 63 84 22 Chapter 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 4. The effects of heritage language experience on lexical and morphosyntactic outcomes</TitleText> 1 A01 Anika Lloyd-Smith Lloyd-Smith, Anika Anika Lloyd-Smith University of Konstanz 2 A01 Fatih Bayram Bayram, Fatih Fatih Bayram UiT The Arctic University of Norway 3 A01 Michael Iverson Iverson, Michael Michael Iverson Indiana University Bloomington 01 In heritage language (HL) bilingualism, recent work has focused on understanding the dynamic effects that different input types can have on heritage language development and outcomes (e.g., Bayram et al., 2017; Kupisch &#38; Rothman, 2018; Polinsky, 2018; Putnam &#38; Sanchez, 2013; Karayayla &#38; Schmid, 2019). The underlying question is to what extent one’s individual experiences with the HL modulate HL development and its outcomes. Following this line of research, we provide evidence from two datasets of Turkish as a HL in Germany that attempts to identify the relative ability of various aspects of language experience (parental background, language use at home, time spent in the HL country, age of exposure to the societal majority language, and quality of HL use) to predict lexical and morphosyntactic performance in Turkish. The results for the first HS group (adolescents) indicate that ‘parental language background’ was the strongest predictor of both lexical diversity and morphosyntactic complexity; for the second HS group (adults), “Turkish use in the home” and “Current Turkish use” were the strongest predictors. We interpret these results as evidence for the variable role played by different types of input in shaping HL outcomes, highlighting the need for more systematic approaches to measuring (and predicting) the effects of input across different areas of language. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.p2 Section header 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part II. Morphosyntax</TitleText> 10 01 JB code sibil.60.05gos 87 104 18 Chapter 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 5. Convergence in the encoding of motion events in heritage Turkish in Germany</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">An acceptability study</Subtitle> 1 A01 Juliana Goschler Goschler, Juliana Juliana Goschler University of Oldenburg 2 A01 Christoph Schroeder Schroeder, Christoph Christoph Schroeder University of Potsdam 3 A01 Till Woerfel Woerfel, Till Till Woerfel University of Cologne 20 acceptability study 20 German 20 language contact 20 linear mixed effects analysis 20 motion events 20 satellite-framed languages 20 Turkish 20 Turkish-German bilinguals 20 verb-framed languages 01 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. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.06ars 105 126 22 Chapter 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 6. First language exposure predicts attrition patterns in Turkish heritage speakers’ use of grammatical evidentiality</TitleText> 1 A01 Seçkin Arslan Arslan, Seçkin Seçkin Arslan University of Cote d'Azur, Nice 2 A01 Roelien Bastiaanse Bastiaanse, Roelien Roelien Bastiaanse University of Groningen, Groningen/National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow 20 evidentiality 20 heritage language speakers 20 narrative speech 20 Turkish-Dutch bilingualism 01 This chapter reports on a preliminary study examining the production of grammatical evidentiality forms in narrative speech samples elicited from heritage language speakers (HLS) of Turkish. Turkish grammatically marks direct and indirect sources of evidence one has for their statement. We explored (1) how Turkish HLS use evidentiality marking as compared to monolingual Turkish speakers, and (2) which factors predict their performances in producing evidentiality. Our findings showed that the HLS made a large number of contextually inappropriate substitutions by using direct evidentials in places where an indirect evidential would be used, and that this pattern is largely predicted by the amount of self-reported exposure to the first (heritage) language in daily life. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.07kra 127 154 28 Chapter 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 7. Investigating the effects of L1 proficiency and CLI</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">RT data from speakers of heritage L1 Turkish with dominant German L2</Subtitle> 1 A01 Elif Krause Krause, Elif Elif Krause University of Cologne 2 A01 Tanja Rinker Rinker, Tanja Tanja Rinker University of Freiburg 3 A01 Carsten Eulitz Eulitz, Carsten Carsten Eulitz Konstanz University 20 cross linguistic influence 20 heritage bilingualism 20 L1 proficiency 20 reaction time study 01 This paper investigates the effects of cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in L1 Turkish of Turkish-German bilingual speakers. The study examines whether overlapping structures in the two languages result in influences of the dominant L2 German on the weaker L1 Turkish in morphosyntactic processing. Plural-marking on noun phrases was chosen for investigation since it provides an ideal test case and it constitutes partial overlap in German and Turkish. Since various definitions of CLI describe effects of this phenomenon that relate to language processing, behavioral measures are utilized in this research. The analyses of accuracy rates reveal that the two languages are clearly differentiated from each other. However, the bilingual speakers perform better with respect to the construction, which is only available in Turkish, compared to the overlapping structure between the languages. This indicates that the speakers separate the two languages from each other. However, interlanguage cue competition is at play in morphosyntactic processing in the L1 heritage language. The effects of heritage language proficiency are also examined by means of comparing high- and low-to-intermediate heritage speakers. The proficiency effects on L1 processing can be found in processing speed but not in accuracy rates. High-to-intermediate speakers do not differ from monolinguals in their processing speed, whereas the low-to-intermediate speakers perform slower than both the monolinguals and the high-to-intermediate heritage speakers. We discuss these findings within Modular Online Growth and Use of Language (MOGUL), which is a processing-based linguistic framework that accounts for the interaction of the two languages in the bilingual mind. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.08boh 155 204 50 Chapter 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 8. Subordination in children acquiring Turkish as a heritage language in Sweden</TitleText> 1 A01 Ute Bohnacker Bohnacker, Ute Ute Bohnacker Uppsala University 2 A01 Birsel Karakoç Karakoç, Birsel Birsel Karakoç Uppsala University 01 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 &#38; Karakoç, 2002; Rehbein &#38; 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. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.p3 Section header 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part III. Corpus studies</TitleText> 10 01 JB code sibil.60.09kup 207 228 22 Chapter 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 9. Perceived global accent in Turkish heritage speakers in Germany</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">The impact of exposure and use for early bilinguals</Subtitle> 1 A01 Tanja Kupisch Kupisch, Tanja Tanja Kupisch University of Konstanz/UiT The Arctic University of Norway 2 A01 Anika Lloyd-Smith Lloyd-Smith, Anika Anika Lloyd-Smith University of Konstanz 3 A01 Ilse Stangen Stangen, Ilse Ilse Stangen University of Hamburg 01 This chapter is concerned with Turkish heritage speakers (HSs) in Germany, here exemplified by 21 early bilinguals during adulthood who live in Hamburg, North Germany. We introduce the population, report their self-perceived proficiency and propose the Turkish Use Score (TUS) that is based on quantitative aspects of language use (e.g., the number of people Turkish is spoken with) and qualitative ones (e.g., schooling in Turkish). In the remainder of the paper, we focus on the perceived accent of these speakers in German and Turkish, discussing the role of Age of Onset (AoO) in German vs. amount of Turkish use. The results show a strong correlation between Turkish use and perceived nativeness in Turkish, while no role of AoO is evident for accent in either language. Our data further suggested a weak (but non-significant) relation between high Turkish use and sounding more foreign in German. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.10her 229 264 36 Chapter 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 10. Turkish in Germany</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">An adult-state twice-told-tale approach to not-entirely-balanced childhood bilingualism</Subtitle> 1 A01 Annette Herkenrath Herkenrath, Annette Annette Herkenrath Adam Mickiewicz University 01 This is a qualitative case study of Turkish as a heritage language in Germany, viewed in the context of one adult speaker’s bilingualism: Sadık, a young worker and Turkish-German bilingual born and raised in a western German industrial town. The study is empirically based on a language-biographical reminiscence, which surfaces in both languages: first in German, then in Turkish, in a more or less informally elicited narrative. The language-biographical perspective is taken as a starting point for explorations into structural comparison at the discourse and sentence level. The aim is to identify phenomena that have a function in verbalising language-biographical memory and that can at the same time be cross-linguistically compared. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.11erd 265 284 20 Chapter 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 11. Contemporary urban Turkey-Turkish in the German-Turkish classroom</TitleText> 1 A01 Işil Erduyan Erduyan, Işil Işil Erduyan Bogazici University 20 scales 20 semantic widening 20 Turkish discourse 20 urban linguistic repertoires 01 Drawing on a larger linguistic ethnographic project (Erduyan, 2019), this chapter focuses on the incorporation of urban, Turkey-Turkish speech style into the Turkish heritage language classroom discourse in the context of Germany. Adopting a microethnographic framework through scalar lenses, the analyses center on naturally occurring word search sessions in two different Turkish classes. The foci of analyses are on two adjectives that have gone through semantic widening in Turkey-Turkish in recent years (<i>komik, arızalı</i>) and are incorporated into teacher-led classroom discussions. Findings demonstrate that the newly attributed meanings of these adjectives in context are not equally transparent to the teachers and students alike; and the Turkish-German transnational scale that gets constructed in a diversity of ways across the students and the teachers seems to play a role in this difference. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.index 285 287 3 Miscellaneous 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02"> Index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20201118 2020 John Benjamins B.V. 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027207937 01 JB 3 John Benjamins e-Platform 03 jbe-platform.com 09 WORLD 21 01 00 99.00 EUR R 01 00 83.00 GBP Z 01 gen 00 149.00 USD S 314017887 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code SiBil 60 Hb 15 9789027207937 13 2020040599 BB 01 SiBil 02 0928-1533 Studies in Bilingualism 60 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Studies in Turkish as a Heritage Language</TitleText> 01 sibil.60 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/sibil.60 1 B01 Fatih Bayram Bayram, Fatih Fatih Bayram UiT The Artic University of Norway 01 eng 301 xiv 287 LAN009000 v.2006 CFDM 2 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.LA Language acquisition 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.BIL Multilingualism 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.TURK Turkic languages 06 01 Heritage language bilingualism refers to contexts where a minority language spoken at home is (one of) the first native language(s) of an individual who grows up and typically becomes dominant in the societal majority language. Heritage language bilinguals often wind up with grammatical systems that differ in interesting ways from dominant-native speakers growing up where their heritage language is the majority one. Understanding the trajectories and outcomes of heritage language bilingual grammatical competence, performance, language usage patterns, identities and more related topics sits at the core of many research programs across a wide array of theoretical paradigms. The study of heritage language bilingualism has grown exponentially over the past two decades. This expansion in interest has seen, in parallel, extensions in methodologies applied, bridges built between closely related fields such as the study of language contact and linguistic attrition. As is typical in linguistics, not all languages are studied to the same degree. The present volume showcases what Turkish as a heritage language brings to bear for key questions in the study of heritage language bilingualism and beyond. In many ways, Turkish is an ideal language to be studied because of its large diaspora across the world, in particular Europe. The papers in this volume are diverse: from psycholinguistic, to ethnographic, to classroom-based studies featuring Turkish as a heritage language. Together they equal more than their subparts, leading to the conclusion that understudied heritage languages like Turkish provide missing pieces to the puzzle of understanding the variables that give rise to the continuum of outcomes characteristic of heritage language speakers. 05 This exciting new collection brings together linguistic, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives on the status and development of Turkish as a heritage language in Europe . It is an indispensable new addition to advance our current theoretical and empirical understanding of heritage languages that stands to stimulate new research questions in bilingualism in the years to come. Silvina Montrul, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 05 This book takes a long view of bilingualism and extensive social networks in the Turkish-speaking world of Northwestern Europe, where Turkish has been a vital presence over three generations. The chapters paint a complex picture, integrating social, experimental, theoretical, and historic aspects of Turkish as a diasporic language in Europe. An inspiring read for researchers working on heritage languages, on Turkish, and on multilingualism in modern-day Europe. Maria Polinsky, University of Maryland 05 The study of heritage language bilingual, which has witnessed a sharp expansion over the past two decades, constitutes an important testing grounds for formal linguistic, language contact, acquisition and language processing theories while being socially relevant to immigrant minority and minoritized languages and their speakers. Turkish is an important heritage language to study, not least because of the variety of its diasporas and, thus, language contact contexts across the globe. Yet, relative to other heritage languages such as Spanish, it is understudied. This volume makes significant inroads into placing Turkish at its deserved forefront on heritage language studies and is, thus, a must read for anyone interested in heritage language bilingualism. Jason Rothman, UiT the Artic University of Norway & Universidad Nebrija 05 Sixty years after Turkish migration to Western Europe started a language contact situation that has been the source of many breakthroughs in the study of bilingualism and cultural dynamics, the contributions to this volume together provide a state-of-the-art update on Heritage Turkish. Assisted by the communicative and logistic affordances of globalization, Turkish continues to be a vital minority language, providing rich ground for cutting-edge empirical work, and the studies collected here are prime examples. Bayram expertly brings together studies that together give a comprehensive picture of the issues, methods and theories that are currently at the center of debate in this field. The volume represents an important step in the integration of social, linguistic and psychological perspectives on language contact, perspectives that have been present in the relevant literature for a very long time but mostly in separate research traditions. Ad Backus, Tilburg University 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/sibil.60.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027207937.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027207937.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/sibil.60.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/sibil.60.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/sibil.60.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/sibil.60.hb.png 10 01 JB code sibil.60.pre 1 8 8 Miscellaneous 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Preface. Issues in heritage language research</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Perspectives from Turkish in Northwestern Europe</Subtitle> 1 A01 Carol W. Pfaff Pfaff, Carol W. Carol W. Pfaff Humboldt Universität zu Berlin 10 01 JB code sibil.60.01bay 1 14 14 Chapter 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 1. Turkish as a heritage language</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Its context and importance for the general understanding of bilingualism</Subtitle> 1 A01 Fatih Bayram Bayram, Fatih Fatih Bayram UiT The Arctic University of Norway 10 01 JB code sibil.60.p1 Section header 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part I. Lexicon</TitleText> 10 01 JB code sibil.60.02dal 17 38 22 Chapter 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 2. Turkish heritage speakers in Germany</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Vocabulary knowledge in German and Turkish</Subtitle> 1 A01 Michael Daller Daller, Michael Michael Daller University of Reading 01 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 &#38; 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 (<i>n</i> = 18) and Turkish (<i>n</i> = 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, &#38; Oller, 1993) is considered, however, there is no vocabulary gap for this group of bilinguals. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.03wil 39 62 24 Chapter 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 3. Correlates of Turkish vocabulary in adolescent Turkish heritage language learners in Germany</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">An explorative study</Subtitle> 1 A01 Jessica A. Willard Willard, Jessica A. Jessica A. Willard Ruhr University Bochum 2 A01 Yasemin Çiğtay-Akar Çiğtay-Akar, Yasemin Yasemin Çiğtay-Akar Ruhr University Bochum 3 A01 Katharina Kohl Kohl, Katharina Katharina Kohl Ruhr University Bochum 4 A01 Birgit Leyendecker Leyendecker, Birgit Birgit Leyendecker Ruhr University Bochum 01 Little is known about resources for adolescent heritage language learners’ vocabulary. In a sample of adolescents (<i>n</i> = 78), we exploratively examined correlates of seventh-graders’ Turkish vocabulary as potential resources. Drawing on what is known about young heritage language learners and monolingual adolescent vocabulary learners, we considered a number of adolescent characteristics such as nonverbal reasoning (analogies subtest of the SON-R, Snijders, Tellegen, &#38; Laros, 2005) and their self-reported identification with Turkish culture (Berry et al., 1993; Phinney &#38; Ong, 2007). We also considered adolescents’ self-reports on reading activities, language use in the family and among friends, the percentage of Turkish speakers among their friends, as well as whether they attended Turkish classes. Turkish receptive vocabulary was assessed with an adapted research version modelled on the PPVT-4 (Dunn &#38; Dunn, 2007; Glück, 2009). A set of regression analyses indicated that adolescent characteristics such as nonverbal reasoning skills and identification with the Turkish culture explained the most variance in Turkish vocabulary. This suggests that being motivated to maintain the heritage language may be major resources for adolescents’ vocabulary. However, it raises the question from what sources adolescents are receiving input in their heritage language. We discuss various reasons for why the other factors such as language use in the family and reading activities may not have shown significant connections to Turkish vocabulary and provide impulses for further research. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.04llo 63 84 22 Chapter 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 4. The effects of heritage language experience on lexical and morphosyntactic outcomes</TitleText> 1 A01 Anika Lloyd-Smith Lloyd-Smith, Anika Anika Lloyd-Smith University of Konstanz 2 A01 Fatih Bayram Bayram, Fatih Fatih Bayram UiT The Arctic University of Norway 3 A01 Michael Iverson Iverson, Michael Michael Iverson Indiana University Bloomington 01 In heritage language (HL) bilingualism, recent work has focused on understanding the dynamic effects that different input types can have on heritage language development and outcomes (e.g., Bayram et al., 2017; Kupisch &#38; Rothman, 2018; Polinsky, 2018; Putnam &#38; Sanchez, 2013; Karayayla &#38; Schmid, 2019). The underlying question is to what extent one’s individual experiences with the HL modulate HL development and its outcomes. Following this line of research, we provide evidence from two datasets of Turkish as a HL in Germany that attempts to identify the relative ability of various aspects of language experience (parental background, language use at home, time spent in the HL country, age of exposure to the societal majority language, and quality of HL use) to predict lexical and morphosyntactic performance in Turkish. The results for the first HS group (adolescents) indicate that ‘parental language background’ was the strongest predictor of both lexical diversity and morphosyntactic complexity; for the second HS group (adults), “Turkish use in the home” and “Current Turkish use” were the strongest predictors. We interpret these results as evidence for the variable role played by different types of input in shaping HL outcomes, highlighting the need for more systematic approaches to measuring (and predicting) the effects of input across different areas of language. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.p2 Section header 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part II. Morphosyntax</TitleText> 10 01 JB code sibil.60.05gos 87 104 18 Chapter 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 5. Convergence in the encoding of motion events in heritage Turkish in Germany</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">An acceptability study</Subtitle> 1 A01 Juliana Goschler Goschler, Juliana Juliana Goschler University of Oldenburg 2 A01 Christoph Schroeder Schroeder, Christoph Christoph Schroeder University of Potsdam 3 A01 Till Woerfel Woerfel, Till Till Woerfel University of Cologne 20 acceptability study 20 German 20 language contact 20 linear mixed effects analysis 20 motion events 20 satellite-framed languages 20 Turkish 20 Turkish-German bilinguals 20 verb-framed languages 01 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. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.06ars 105 126 22 Chapter 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 6. First language exposure predicts attrition patterns in Turkish heritage speakers’ use of grammatical evidentiality</TitleText> 1 A01 Seçkin Arslan Arslan, Seçkin Seçkin Arslan University of Cote d'Azur, Nice 2 A01 Roelien Bastiaanse Bastiaanse, Roelien Roelien Bastiaanse University of Groningen, Groningen/National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow 20 evidentiality 20 heritage language speakers 20 narrative speech 20 Turkish-Dutch bilingualism 01 This chapter reports on a preliminary study examining the production of grammatical evidentiality forms in narrative speech samples elicited from heritage language speakers (HLS) of Turkish. Turkish grammatically marks direct and indirect sources of evidence one has for their statement. We explored (1) how Turkish HLS use evidentiality marking as compared to monolingual Turkish speakers, and (2) which factors predict their performances in producing evidentiality. Our findings showed that the HLS made a large number of contextually inappropriate substitutions by using direct evidentials in places where an indirect evidential would be used, and that this pattern is largely predicted by the amount of self-reported exposure to the first (heritage) language in daily life. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.07kra 127 154 28 Chapter 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 7. Investigating the effects of L1 proficiency and CLI</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">RT data from speakers of heritage L1 Turkish with dominant German L2</Subtitle> 1 A01 Elif Krause Krause, Elif Elif Krause University of Cologne 2 A01 Tanja Rinker Rinker, Tanja Tanja Rinker University of Freiburg 3 A01 Carsten Eulitz Eulitz, Carsten Carsten Eulitz Konstanz University 20 cross linguistic influence 20 heritage bilingualism 20 L1 proficiency 20 reaction time study 01 This paper investigates the effects of cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in L1 Turkish of Turkish-German bilingual speakers. The study examines whether overlapping structures in the two languages result in influences of the dominant L2 German on the weaker L1 Turkish in morphosyntactic processing. Plural-marking on noun phrases was chosen for investigation since it provides an ideal test case and it constitutes partial overlap in German and Turkish. Since various definitions of CLI describe effects of this phenomenon that relate to language processing, behavioral measures are utilized in this research. The analyses of accuracy rates reveal that the two languages are clearly differentiated from each other. However, the bilingual speakers perform better with respect to the construction, which is only available in Turkish, compared to the overlapping structure between the languages. This indicates that the speakers separate the two languages from each other. However, interlanguage cue competition is at play in morphosyntactic processing in the L1 heritage language. The effects of heritage language proficiency are also examined by means of comparing high- and low-to-intermediate heritage speakers. The proficiency effects on L1 processing can be found in processing speed but not in accuracy rates. High-to-intermediate speakers do not differ from monolinguals in their processing speed, whereas the low-to-intermediate speakers perform slower than both the monolinguals and the high-to-intermediate heritage speakers. We discuss these findings within Modular Online Growth and Use of Language (MOGUL), which is a processing-based linguistic framework that accounts for the interaction of the two languages in the bilingual mind. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.08boh 155 204 50 Chapter 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 8. Subordination in children acquiring Turkish as a heritage language in Sweden</TitleText> 1 A01 Ute Bohnacker Bohnacker, Ute Ute Bohnacker Uppsala University 2 A01 Birsel Karakoç Karakoç, Birsel Birsel Karakoç Uppsala University 01 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 &#38; Karakoç, 2002; Rehbein &#38; 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. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.p3 Section header 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part III. Corpus studies</TitleText> 10 01 JB code sibil.60.09kup 207 228 22 Chapter 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 9. Perceived global accent in Turkish heritage speakers in Germany</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">The impact of exposure and use for early bilinguals</Subtitle> 1 A01 Tanja Kupisch Kupisch, Tanja Tanja Kupisch University of Konstanz/UiT The Arctic University of Norway 2 A01 Anika Lloyd-Smith Lloyd-Smith, Anika Anika Lloyd-Smith University of Konstanz 3 A01 Ilse Stangen Stangen, Ilse Ilse Stangen University of Hamburg 01 This chapter is concerned with Turkish heritage speakers (HSs) in Germany, here exemplified by 21 early bilinguals during adulthood who live in Hamburg, North Germany. We introduce the population, report their self-perceived proficiency and propose the Turkish Use Score (TUS) that is based on quantitative aspects of language use (e.g., the number of people Turkish is spoken with) and qualitative ones (e.g., schooling in Turkish). In the remainder of the paper, we focus on the perceived accent of these speakers in German and Turkish, discussing the role of Age of Onset (AoO) in German vs. amount of Turkish use. The results show a strong correlation between Turkish use and perceived nativeness in Turkish, while no role of AoO is evident for accent in either language. Our data further suggested a weak (but non-significant) relation between high Turkish use and sounding more foreign in German. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.10her 229 264 36 Chapter 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 10. Turkish in Germany</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">An adult-state twice-told-tale approach to not-entirely-balanced childhood bilingualism</Subtitle> 1 A01 Annette Herkenrath Herkenrath, Annette Annette Herkenrath Adam Mickiewicz University 01 This is a qualitative case study of Turkish as a heritage language in Germany, viewed in the context of one adult speaker’s bilingualism: Sadık, a young worker and Turkish-German bilingual born and raised in a western German industrial town. The study is empirically based on a language-biographical reminiscence, which surfaces in both languages: first in German, then in Turkish, in a more or less informally elicited narrative. The language-biographical perspective is taken as a starting point for explorations into structural comparison at the discourse and sentence level. The aim is to identify phenomena that have a function in verbalising language-biographical memory and that can at the same time be cross-linguistically compared. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.11erd 265 284 20 Chapter 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 11. Contemporary urban Turkey-Turkish in the German-Turkish classroom</TitleText> 1 A01 Işil Erduyan Erduyan, Işil Işil Erduyan Bogazici University 20 scales 20 semantic widening 20 Turkish discourse 20 urban linguistic repertoires 01 Drawing on a larger linguistic ethnographic project (Erduyan, 2019), this chapter focuses on the incorporation of urban, Turkey-Turkish speech style into the Turkish heritage language classroom discourse in the context of Germany. Adopting a microethnographic framework through scalar lenses, the analyses center on naturally occurring word search sessions in two different Turkish classes. The foci of analyses are on two adjectives that have gone through semantic widening in Turkey-Turkish in recent years (<i>komik, arızalı</i>) and are incorporated into teacher-led classroom discussions. Findings demonstrate that the newly attributed meanings of these adjectives in context are not equally transparent to the teachers and students alike; and the Turkish-German transnational scale that gets constructed in a diversity of ways across the students and the teachers seems to play a role in this difference. 10 01 JB code sibil.60.index 285 287 3 Miscellaneous 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02"> Index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20201118 2020 John Benjamins B.V. 02 WORLD 08 685 gr 01 JB 1 John Benjamins Publishing Company +31 20 6304747 +31 20 6739773 bookorder@benjamins.nl 01 https://benjamins.com 01 WORLD US CA MX 21 82 20 01 02 JB 1 00 99.00 EUR R 02 02 JB 1 00 104.94 EUR R 01 JB 10 bebc +44 1202 712 934 +44 1202 712 913 sales@bebc.co.uk 03 GB 21 20 02 02 JB 1 00 83.00 GBP Z 01 JB 2 John Benjamins North America +1 800 562-5666 +1 703 661-1501 benjamins@presswarehouse.com 01 https://benjamins.com 01 US CA MX 21 2 20 01 gen 02 JB 1 00 149.00 USD