Cover not available
Part of
Lost in Transmission: The role of attrition and input in heritage language development
Edited by Bernhard Brehmer and Jeanine Treffers-Daller
[Studies in Bilingualism 59] 2020
► pp. 197–228

High sensitivity to conceptual cues in Turkish heritage speakers with dominant German L2

Comparing semantics–morphosyntax and pragmatics–morphosyntax interfaces

| University of Cologne
This study investigates semantics-morphosyntax and pragmatics-morphosyntax interfaces in separate experiments, yet examining the same structure, namely the optional verb number marking in Turkish. We tested a group of bilingual heritage speakers of Turkish, whose dominant language is German. Optional use of the overt verb number marking in Turkish interacts with semantic and pragmatic properties of the plural subject of the sentence. The interaction of optional verb number marking with these properties is tested separately in two different experiments, using the Magnitude Estimation technique. The results showed that the bilingual speakers treat both interface types differently from the monolingual speakers. More precisely, the bilingual speakers make finer distinctions regarding the semantic and pragmatic notions that were put into test. This sensitivity results in a semantically and pragmatically constrained pattern, which is in line with both language-specific descriptions and cross-linguistic tendencies. This outcome is taken to suggest that the nonconvergence in the bilingual data stems from a high sensitivity to the semantic and pragmatic properties that constrain the use of the morphosyntactic structure under investigation. The research results are further evaluated from a processing based linguistic framework, namely Modular Online Growth and Use of Language (MOGUL).
Keywords: heritage bilingualism, verb number marking, animacy, givenness, semantics-morphosyntax interface, pragmatics-morphosyntax interface, optionality, gradience
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Study 1: Semantics-morphosyntax interface
    • 2.1Linguistic background: The interaction of animacy with number marking
    • 2.2Experimental stimuli
    • 2.3Method
      • 2.3.1Methods of data analysis
    • 2.4Experiment I
      • 2.4.1Participants
      • 2.4.2Results
    • 2.5Experiment II
      • 2.5.1Participants
      • 2.5.2Results
    • 2.6Comparing the two groups
      • 2.6.1Results
    • 2.7Conclusions
  • 3.Study II: Pragmatics-morphosyntax interface
    • 3.1Linguistic background: The interaction of givenness with overt morphological marking
    • 3.2Experimental stimuli
      • Condition 1: Discourse topic
      • Condition 2: Modified topic
      • Condition 3: Sentence topic
      • Condition 4: Focus
      • Condition 5: Focus interrogative
      • Filler Type 1: Obligatory overt verb number marking
      • Filler Type 2: Obligatory zero verb number marking
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Experiment III
      • 3.4.1Participants
      • 3.4.2Results
    • 3.5Experiment IV
      • 3.5.1Participants
      • 3.5.2Results
    • 3.6Comparing the two groups
      • 3.6.1Results
      • 3.6.2Conclusions
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Evaluation of the outcomes from a processing-based linguistic framework and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.59.08kra
References (72)
References
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, S. 2000. A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut. Linguistics 38(3): 483–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Avrutin, S. 2004. Optionality in child and aphasic speech. Lingue e Linguaggio 1: 67–89.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bader, M. & Häussler, J. 2010. Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics 46: 273–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bamyacı, E. 2016. Competing Structures in the Bilingual Mind: A Psycholinguistic Investigation of Optional Verb Number Agreement. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bamyacı, E., Häussler, J. & Kabak, B. 2014. The interaction of animacy and number agreement: An experimental investigation. Lingua 148: 254–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D. & Sorace, A. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72: 32–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M. & Bolker, B. 2012. lme4 Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using S4 Classes (R Package Version 0.999999–0). <[URL]>
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S. & Polinsky, M. 2013. Heritage languages and their speakers: opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 39(3–4): 129–181.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Subject and Topic, C. N. Li (ed), 27–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1990. Uses of the defocusing pronominal prefixes in Caddo. Anthropological Linguistics 32: 57–68.Google Scholar
1994. Discourse, Consciousness and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
de Groot, C. 2005. The grammars of Hungarian outside Hungary from a linguistic-typological perspective. In Hungarian Language Contact Outside Hungary: Studies on Hungarian as a Minority Language [IMPACT: Studies in Language and Society 20], A. Fenyvesi (ed.), 351–370. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar: Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Döpke, S. 1998. Competing language structures: The acquisition of verb placement by bilingual German-English children. Child Language 25: 555–584. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erguvanlı, E. E. 1984. The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: The functional domain of switch-reference. In Switch-Reference and Universal Grammar [Typological Studies in Language 2], J. Haiman & P. Munro (eds), 51–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, P. & Smith, J. H. 1976. The Structure of Communication in Early Language Development. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gürel, A. 2004. Selectivity in L2-induced L1 attrition: a psycholinguistic account. Journal of Neurolinguistics 17: 53–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hacohen, A. & Schaeffer, J. 2007. Subject realization in early Hebrew-English bilingual acquisition: The role of cross-linguistic influence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(3): 333–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, G. 1997. On some strategies for case recovery in Turkish relativization. In The Mainz Meeting: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, August 3 – 6, 1994, L. Johanson (ed.), 299–320. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2011. Occurrence of nominal plurality. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, M. Haspelmath (ed), 142–145. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hoop, H. & Krämer, I. 2006. Children’s optimal interpretations of indefinite subjects and objects. Language Acquisition 13(2): 103–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. 2004. Syntax and its interfaces in L2 grammars: situating L1 effects. In Proceedings of GALA (Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition) 2003 [LOT Occasional Series 3], J. van Kampen & S. Baauw (eds), 211–222. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistic Approach. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hulk, A. & Müller, N. 2000. Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3(3): 227–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. & Comrie, B. 1981. Logophoric reference in Gokana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 3: 19–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. L. & Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T. 2014. Adjective placement in simultaneous bilinguals (German-Italian) and the concept of cross-linguistic overcorrection. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17: 222–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T. & Rothman, J. 2018. Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(5): 564–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, M. 2003. Dissociations among functional categories in Korean agrammatism. Brain and Language 84: 170–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. 2005. Second language acquisition and first language loss in adult early bilinguals: exploring some differences and similarities. Second Language Research 21(3): 199–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, N. & Hulk, A. 2001. Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4(1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J. & Navarro, S. 2003. Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of the input? Journal of Child Language 30(2): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parodi, T. & Tsimpli, I. 2005. ‘Real’ and apparent optionality in second language grammars: Finitness and pronouns in null operator structures. Second Language Research 21(3): 250–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Platzack, C. 1999. The vulnerable C-domain. Brain and Language 77: 364–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Multiple interfaces. In Cognitive Interfaces: Constraints on Linking Cognitive Information, E. van der Zee & U. Nikanne (eds), 21–53. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 1997. Cross-linguistic parallels in language loss. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 14(1–2): 87–123.Google Scholar
2011. Reanalysis in adult heritage language: A case for attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33: 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. F. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), 223–233. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rising, D. P. 1992. Switch Reference in Koasati Discourse. Dallas TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. R. 1987. Amele. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1997. Switch-reference in Papua New Guinea: A preliminary survey. In Papers in Papuan Linguistics 3, A. Pawley (ed.), 101–241. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. & Treffers-Daller, J. 2014. A prolegomenon to the construct of the native speaker: heritage speaker bilinguals are natives too! Applied Linguistics 35(1): 93–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, C. 1999. The Turkish Nominal Phrase in Spoken Discourse. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L., Sorace, A. & Paoli, S. 2004. Subjects and objects in English-Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7(3): 183–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sezer, E. 1978. Eylemlerin çoğul öznelere uyumu. Genel Dilbilim Dergisi 1: 25–32.Google Scholar
Sharwood-Smith, M. & Truscott, J. 2014. The Multilingual Mind: A Modular Processing Perspective. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. 1999. Initial states, end states and residual optionality in L2 acquisition. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, A. Greenhill, H. Littlefield & C. Tano (eds), 666–674. Sommerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
2000. Syntactic optionality in non-native grammars. Second Language Research 16(2): 93–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. & Keller, F. 2005. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115(11): 1497–1524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. & Serratrice, L. 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13: 195–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. & Sorace, A. 2006. Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Vol. 2, D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia & C. Zaller (eds), 653–664. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
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. International Journal of Bilingualism 8(3): 257–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. 2009. The Acquisition of Word Order: Micro-cues, Information Structure and Economy [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 145]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Subject positions and information structure: The effect of frequency on acquisition and change. Studia Linguistica 3: 299–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westfall, P., Tobias, R. & Wolfinger, R. 2011. Multiple Comparisons and Multiple Tests Using SAS, 2nd edn. Cary NC: SAS Publishing.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, M. 1999. Animacy and Reference: A Cognitive Approach to Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Language Companion Series 46]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, B. 2010. Domain-wide or variable-dependent vulnerability of the semantics-syntax interface in L2 acquisition? Evidence from wh-words used as existential polarity words in L2 Chinese grammars. Second Language Research 26(2): 219–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Uygun, Serkan & Claudia Felser
2023. Constraints on subject-verb agreement marking in Turkish-German bilingual speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 13:2 ► pp. 190 ff. DOI logo
Laleko, Oksana
2022. Word order and information structure in heritage and L2 Russian: Focus and unaccusativity effects in subject inversion. International Journal of Bilingualism 26:6 ► pp. 749 ff. DOI logo
Krause, Elif & Leah Roberts
2020. Chapter 12. Over-sensitivity to the animacy constraint on DOM in low proficient Turkish heritage speakers. In The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 26], ► pp. 313 ff. DOI logo
Krause, Elif & Leah Roberts
2020. Chapter 12. Over-sensitivity to the animacy constraint on DOM in low proficient Turkish heritage speakers. In The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 26], ► pp. 313 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.