Complete acquisition in the heritage language: Evidence from indefiniteness in Turkish

Abstract

This study investigates whether adult Turkish heritage speakers are able to refer to entities in discourse as required by semantic contexts. The focus is on the contrasting properties of Turkish (L1) and German (L2) with respect to semantics of indefiniteness, i.e., specificity and partitivity. Turkish morphologically distinguishes between specific/nonspecific and partitive/nonpartitive contexts on the indefinite direct object while German does not. We hypothesized that the Turkish heritage speakers would overgeneralize the unmarked form (bir noun) since this is the default form used in German regardless of the context and also acceptable in all contexts in Turkish. We further hypothesized that, if they ever opt for the case marked form (bir noun+acc), they would also do so incorrectly in nonpartitive and nonspecific contexts. Turkish heritage speakers living in Germany (n= 35) could dissociate semantic contexts and made similar preferences to those of monolingual native speakers of Turkish (n= 30). Our findings suggest that native language (L1) can develop despite early onset of the L2 and be maintained on a par with monolingual norms despite the presence of competing structures in the L2. We will discuss how insights from heritage language development can contribute to discussions about the bilingual’s ability in L1; and limits and possibilities of bilingualism.

Keywords

• heritage grammar
• indefiniteness
• specificity
• partitivity

References

1. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge.
2. Arnold, J. E., & Griffin, Z. (2007). The Effect of Additional Characters on Choice of Referring
3. Expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56/4, 521-536.
4. Arslan, S., de Kok, D., & Bastiaanse, R. (2017). Processing Grammatical Evidentiality and Time
5. Reference in Turkish Heritage and Monolingual Speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20/3, 457–472.
6. Backus, A. (2012). Turkish as an Immigrant Language in Europe. In t. K. Bhatia & W.C Ritchie (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism, 2nd ed. (pp. 770-790). London: Blackwell.
7. Backus, A., Demirçay, D., & Sevinç, Y. (2013). Converging Evidence on Contact Effects on Second and Third Generation Immigrant Turkish. A study on Exploration of New Methodologies. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies. Tilburg University.
8. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Soft-ware, 67/1, 1-48. DOI 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

9. Boeschoten, H. (2010). Convergence and Divergence in Migrant Turkish. In K. Mattheier (Ed.), Dialect and Migration in the Changing Europe (pp. 145-154). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
10. Carroll, S. E., & Meisel, J. M. (2015). Input, Learner Populations, and the Human Language-Making Capacity. In C. Hamann & E. Ruigendijk (Eds.), Language Acquisition and Development: Proceedings of GALA 2013 (pp. 1-34). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
11. Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Points of View. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 25–55). New York: Academic Press.
12. Chilla, S., & Babur, E. (2010). Specific Language Impairment in Turkish-German Bilingual Children. Aspects of Assessment and Outcome. In S. Topbaş & M. Yavaş (Eds.), Communication Disorders in Turkish (pp. 352–368). Bristol: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
13. Dasinger, L. (1995). The Development of Discourse Competence in Native Finnish Speaking Children: A study of the Expression of Definiteness. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
14. Dede, M. (1986). Definiteness and Referentiality in Turkish Verbal Sentences. In D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics (pp 147-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15. de Houwer, A. (2007). Parental Language Input Patterns and Children’s Bilingual Use. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28/3, 411-424.
16. de Hoop, H. (2003). Partitivity. In L. Cheng & R. Sybesma (Eds.), The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article (pp. 179-212). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
17. Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press.
18. Doğruöz, A.S. & Backus, A. (2009). Innovative Constructions in Dutch Turkish: an Assessment of Ongoing Contact-induced change. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 12/1, 41-63.
19. Enç, M. (1991). The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1-25.
20. Erguvanlı, E. E. (1984). The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
21. Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering Statistics Using R. Sage Publications: London.
22. Fodor, J., & Sag, I. (1982). Referential and Quantificational Indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 355–398.
23. Givón, T. (1989). Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
24. Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
25. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
26. Gürel, A. (2000). Missing Case Inflection: Implications for second language acquisition. In S. C. Howell, S. A. Fish & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), 24th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 379-390). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
27. Gürel, A., & Yılmaz, G. (2011). Restructuring in the L1 Turkish Grammar: Effects of L2 English and L2 Dutch. Language, Interaction & Acquisition, 2/2, 221-250.
28. Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und Definitheit. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik/Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp 487-535), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
29. Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H., Roland, F., & Liang, J. (1996). The Marking of New Information in Children’s Narratives: A comparison of English, French, German, and Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language, 3, 591–610.
30. Hopp, H., & Putnam, M. (2015). Syntactic Restructuring in Heritage Grammars: Word order variation in Moundridge Schweitzer German. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5/2, 180-214.
31. Hulk, A. C. J. & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual First Language Acquisition at the Interface Between Syntax and Pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3/3, 227-244.
32. Ionin, T. (2003). Article Semantics in Second Language Acquisition. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
33. Ionin, T. (2006). This is Definitely Specific: Specificity and Definiteness in Article Systems. Natural Language Semantics, 14/2, 175-234.
34. Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2004). Article Semantics in L2-acquisition: The Role of Specificity. Language Acquisition 12/1, 3-69.
35. Jaensch, C. (2008). L3 Acquisition of Articles in German by Native Japanese speakers. In R. Slabakova, J. Rothman, P. Kempchinsky & E. Gavruseva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2007) (pp. 81-89). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. In S. C. Howell, S. A. Fish & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), 24th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 379-390). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
36. Johannessen, J. B., & Larsson, I. (2018). Stability and Change in Grammatical Gender: Pronouns in heritage Scandinavian. Journal of Language Contact, 11, 441-480.
37. Karayayla, T. (2018.) Turkish as an Immigrant and Heritage Language in the UK: Effects of Exposure and Age at Onset of Bilingualism on Grammatical and Lexical Development of the First Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Essex, Colchester.
38. Kornfilt, J. (1994). Turkish (Descriptive Grammars Series). London: Routledge.
39. Krause, J. C., & Braida, L. D. (2002). Investigating Alternative Forms of Clear Speech: The Effects of Speaking Rate and Speaking Mode on Intelligibility. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 2165–2172.
40. Kupisch, T. (2007). Determiners in Bilingual German–Italian Children: What They Tell us About the Relation Between Language Influence and Language Dominance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10/1, 57-78.
41. Kupisch, T., & Pierantozzi, C. (2010). Interpreting Definite Plural Subjects: A Comparison of German and Italian Monolingual and Bilingual Children. In K. Franich, K. M. Iserman & L. L. Keil (Eds.), 34th Boston University Conference on Language and Development (pp. 245-254). Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
42. Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J. (2016). Terminology Matters! International Journal of Bilingualism, doi: 10.1177/1367006916654355. Published online by SAGE journals, June 22, 2016.
43. Kupisch, T., Belikova, A., Özçelik, Ö., Stangen, I., & White, L. (2017). Restrictions on Definiteness in the Grammars of German-Turkish Heritage Speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 1-32.
44. Küntay, A. C. (2002). Development of the Expression of Indefiniteness: Presenting new referents in Turkish picture-series stories. Discourse Processes, 33/1, 77-101.
45. 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.
46. Labov , W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change, Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell
47. Laleko, O., & Polinsky, M. (2016). Between Syntax and Discourse: Topic and Case Marking in Heritage Speakers and L2 Learners of Japanese and Korean. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6/4, 396–439.
48. Lipski, J. (1993). Creoloid Phenomena in the Spanish of Transitional Bilinguals. In A. Roca & J. Lipski (Eds.), Spanish in the United States (pp. 155-173). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
49. Lohndal, T., & Westergaard, M. (2016). Grammatical Gender in American Norwegian Heritage Language: Stability or Attrition? Frontiers in Psychology,7, 1-15.
50. Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51. Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing Language Profiles in Bilinguals and Multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50/4, 940-967.
52. Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
53. Montrul, S. (2012). Bilingual Background Questionnaire for Spanish/English Speakers. National Heritage Language Resource Center, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, retrieved from http://nhlrc.ucla.edu/nhlrc/data/questionnaires
54. Montrul, S. (2016). The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. Montrul, S., & Ionin, T. (2012). Dominant Language Transfer in Spanish Heritage Speakers and Second Language Learners in the Interpretation of Definite Articles. Modern Language Journal. 96/1, 70-94.
56. Muysken, P. (2013). Language Contact Outcomes as the Result of Bilingual Optimization Strategies. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16/4, 709–730.
57. Nakamura, K. (1993). Referential Structure in Japanese Children’s Narratives: The Acquisition of wa and ga. In S. Choi (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics Volume 13 (pp. 84–99). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Center for the Study of Language and Information.
58. O'Grady, W., Lee, M., & Choo, M. (2001). The Acquisition of Relative Clauses by Heritage and Non-Heritage Learners of Korean as a Second Language. A comparative study. Journal of Korean Language Education, 12, 283–294.
59. Onar-Valk, P. (2015). Transformation in Dutch Turkish Subordination? Converging Evidence of Change Regarding Finiteness and Word Order in Complex Clauses. Doctoral dissertation. Tilburg University, Tilburg.
60. Özge, U. in preparation. Case Marking and Forward and Backward Discourse Function.
61. Özge, U. (2011). Turkish Indefinites and Accusative Marking. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, WAFL7 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 63) (pp. 253–267). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62. Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ: Movement and Unselective Binding. In E. J. Reuland & A. G. B.ter Meulen (Eds,), The Representation of (In-) Definiteness (pp. 98-129). Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres.
63. Pfaff, C. W. (1991). Turkish in Contact with German: Language Maintenance and Loss among Immigrant Children in West Berlin. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 90, 97-129.
64. Pfaff, C. W. (1993): Turkish Language Development in Germany. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Immigrant Languages in Europe (pp. 119-146). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
65. Polinsky, M. (2011). Reanalysis in Adult Heritage Language: A case for Attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 305–328.
66. Polinsky, M. (2016). Looking Ahead. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language, (pp. 325–346). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
67. Polinsky, M. (2015). Heritage anguages and their speakers: State of the field, challenges, perspectives for future work, and methodologies. Zeitschrift fuer Fremdsprachwissenschaft, 26, 7-27
68. Polinsky, M. (2018). Heritage Languages and their Speakers (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69. Poplack, S., & Levey, S. (2010). Contact-induced Grammatical Change. In P. Auer & J. E. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Space – An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 1 – Theories and Methods (pp. 391-419). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
70. R Core Team (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Australia. URL: http://www.R-project.org/.
71. Revelle, W. (2018). Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Version = 1.8.4.
72. Ross, J. A. (2006). The Reliability, Validity and Utility of Self-assessment. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluations, 11/10, 1-13.
73. Rothman, J. (2007). Heritage Speaker Competence Differences, Language Change, and Input Type: Inflected Infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 11/4, 359–389.
74. Rothman, J. (2009). Understanding the Nature of Early Bilingualism: Romance Languages as Heritage Languages. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 13/2, 155–163.
75. Rothman, J., Tsimpli, I. M., & Pascual y Cabo, D. (2016). Formal Linguistic Approaches to Heritage Language Acquisition: Bridges for Pedagogically Oriented Research. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language (pp. 13-26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
76. Schaufeli, A. (1996). Word Order Patterns in Contact: Turkish in the Netherlands. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 15/1-2, 153-169.
77. Scott-Phillips, T. C. (2010). Evolutionarily Stable Communication and Pragmatics. In A. Benz et al. (Eds.), Language, Games, and Evolution (pp. 117-133). Amsterdam: AUP.
78. Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., Filiaci, F., & Baldo, M. (2009). Bilingual Children’s Sensitivity to Specificity and Genericity: Evidence from Metalinguistic Awareness. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12/2, 239–257.
79. Silva-Corvalán, C., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2016). Language Dominance in Bilinguals: Issues of Measurement and Operationalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80. Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the Concept of “Interface” in Bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1-33.
81. Sorace, A., & Ludovica S. (2009). Internal and External Interfaces in Bilingual Language Development: Beyond Structural Overlap. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 13/2, 195–210.
82. Treffers-Daller, J., Özsoy, A.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 & Bilingualism, 10/3, 248-276.
83. TS Corpus V2 (2012). https://tscorpus.com/corpora/ts-corpus-v2/
84. Tsimpli, I. (2014). Early, Late or Very Late? Timing Acquisition and Bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4/3, 283 – 313.
85. Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F. (2004). First Language Attrition and Syntactic Subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 8/3, 257-277.
86. Tomlin, R. S., Forrest, L., Pu, M. M., Kim, M. H. (1997). Discourse Semantics. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as a Structure and Process (Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction) (pp. 63-111). London: Sage.
87. Unsworth, S. (2016). Quantity and Quality of Language Input in Bilingual Language Development. In E. Nicoladis. & S. Montanari (Eds.), Lifespan Perspectives on Bilingualism (pp. 136–196). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
88. Valdés, G. (2000). Introduction. In Spanish for Native Speakers. AATSP Professional Development Series Handbook for Teachers K–16, Volume 1 (pp. 1-20). New York: Harcourt College.
89. von Heusinger, K. (2002). Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure. Journal of Semantics, 19/3, 245-274.
90. von Heusinger, K., & Kornfilt, J. (2005). The Case of the Direct Object in Turkish: Semantics, Syntax and Morphology. Turkic Languages, 9, 3-44.
91. Yağmur, K. (1997). First Language Attrition among Turkish Speakers in Sydney. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.