Search

The aim of this study is to investigate how syntactic and pragmatic features of Turkish word order are acquired by Turkish-English, Turkish-German and Turkish-Russian bilingual children. The data were collected from Turkish monolingual and bilingual children who were born in England, Germany and Russia and acquired Turkish as their heritage language. The findings of the study reveal that the Turkish monolingual children adopt the use of SOV order as canonical, but they also show sensitivity to the pragmatics of Turkish and use other orders from an early age. Turkish-German, Turkish-English and Turkish-Russian simultaneous bilingual children, on the other hand, showed different patterns of word order acquisition than their Turkish monolingual counterparts.

Sorace & Filiaci (2006) proposed the Interface Hypothesis (IH), according to which interface structures requiring interface between syntax and other cognitive domains are more likely to be vulnerable to incomplete acquisition and fossilization than structures that involve syntactic knowledge only. The aim of this study is to provide a piece of evidence validating or rejecting the IH by investigating the use of case markers in Turkish by native speakers of Russian who are highly proficient speakers of Turkish and have been residing in Turkey for a long period. Fictional narratives are used in the study as the tool for data collection. The findings reveal that the participants demonstrate native-like use of Turkish case markers production of which does not involve external interface. The use of case markers of direct objects, which involves the activation of external interface, is marked with fossilized errors and/or incomplete acquisition in the production of the participants. The findings of the study can be used as a piece of evidence in favor of the IH. Keywords: Interface Hypothesis, case markers, Turkish, native speakers of Russian

Abstract Numerous studies, examining the acquisition of non-referential it in [-pro-drop] English by learners of [+pro-drop] languages, have revealed that their participants omit non-referential subjects in English if their L1 allows null-subject position. However, due to the specificity of their focus, these studies have not considered other difficulties native speakers of [+pro-drop] languages might encounter when learning non-referential subjects in English settings and have given an impression that omission is the only error L2 learners make while acquiring non-referential subjects. The present study offers a detailed account of the acquisition of non-referential it by native speakers of [+pro-drop] Russian in a classroom setting, investigates which domains of use of non-referential it may cause difficulties for L1 speakers of [+pro-drop] Russian, and examines how error patterns related to the use of non-referential it change with further exposure to the English language. To this end, the data are collected from two groups of Russian students, fourth- and seventh-year learners of English, who are at the pre-intermediate and upper-intermediate levels of English. The participants were asked to undertake comprehension and production tests. Quantitative and qualitative analyses are used in the study. The findings show that all the participants have difficulties related to the use of non-referential it, and error patterns made by the speakers of [+pro-drop] Russian are not limited to omissions of non-referential it. Moreover, error patterns observed in the students’ data differ significantly among the groups. While the pre-intermediate fourth-year English learners mostly rely on their L1 and make literal translations from Russian, the upper-intermediate seventh-year learners, by and large, have problems in distinguishing between non-referential it and there and, due to this, make numerous errors in some domains. Résumé De nombreuses analyses examinant l’acquisition du it impersonnel en anglais [-pro-omission] par des apprenants de langues [+pro-omission] ont révélé que ceux-ci négligeaient les sujets impersonnels en anglais, si leur L1 autorisait l’omission de ce type de sujets. Cependant, à cause de l’accent mis spécifiquement sur l’omission du pronom impersonnel it, ces analyses n’ont pas considéré d’autres difficultés que l’apprenant d’une L1 permettant l’omission de sujets impersonnels pouvait éprouver pendant l’apprentissage de ces sujets impersonnels en anglais L2. Ces analyses donnaient l’impression que l’omission était la seule faute commise par les apprenants de l’anglais L2 pendant l’acquisition du sujet impersonnel it. La présente étude offre une analyse détaillée de l’acquisition du sujet impersonnel it en anglais L2 par des locuteurs dont la L1 est le russe [+pro-omission]. Cette étude, qui s’est déroulée dans le contexte de la salle de classe, a examiné les domaines d’usage du sujet impersonnel it pouvant causer des difficultés aux apprenants de L1 russe [+pro-omission] et comment les patrons d’erreurs se transforment lors d’une plus grande exposition à l’anglais L2. Les participants consistaient de deux groupes d’étudiants russes apprenant l’anglais depuis 4 et 7 ans respectivement. L’un des groupes possédait un niveau préintermédiaire, tandis que l’autre était de niveau intermédiaire élevé. Des analyses quantitatives et qualitatives ont été utilisées pour examiner les résultats obtenus par les deux groupes de participants à des tests de compréhension et de production. Les résultats ont démontré que tous les participants ont éprouvé des difficultés basées sur l’utilisation du it impersonnel et que les patrons d’erreurs effectuées par les locuteurs de L1 russe [+pro-omission] ne se limitaient pas à des omissions du it impersonnel. De plus, les patrons d’erreurs observés dans les données des élèves différaient significativement entre les deux groupes. Pendant que les étudiants du niveau préintermédaire (4 ans d’étude de l’anglais L2) s’appuyaient essentiellement sur leur L1 et traduisaient littéralement du russe, les intermédiaires avancés (7 ans d’étude) éprouvaient de la difficulté à distinguer entre le it et le there. Ainsi, on observait de nombreuses erreurs dans certains domaines.

IntroductionThis study investigates the heritage language performance of Turkish-German returnees upon their reintegration into Turkey and explores the impact of external factors on their proficiency in the (re-)activated heritage language (HL).MethodsData collection involved the participation of 28 Turkish heritage speakers and a control group of 28 monolingual speakers. The language proficiency of both groups was assessed through a cloze test and an error correction task with a focus on converbial constructions, evidentiality and direct object case marking in Turkish. A sociolinguistic background questionnaire was used to obtain information about their language experiences. The study focused on understanding the individual and group differences in returnee’s heritage language performance. Additionally, random forest analysis was employed to investigate the relative influence of external factors on individual variability within the returnee group.Results and DiscussionThe analysis of results revealed notable group differences between the returnees and the control group, emphasizing the unique linguistic challenges faced by those who returned to Turkey. Within the returnee group, there was considerable individual variability in heritage language performance. The subsequent exploration of individual variation highlighted the significant role of external factors. Notably, the length of residence in Germany, the age at which participants returned to Turkey, and the frequency of Turkish language use in their migration context emerged as significant predictors of the returnee participants’ proficiency in their (re-)activated HL. Surprisingly, formal contact with the dominant German language did not exert a substantial impact on the returnees’ language proficiency, suggesting the nuanced influence of various external factors on heritage language development.

The aim of this study is to examine the vulnerability of subject realization in Turkish as an interface structure at the syntax-pragmatics interface. The study compares subject realization of four Turkish monolingual, three German-Turkish bilingual and two Russian-Turkish bilingual children. The language combinations investigated in the study were determined by the fact that Russian is a partially null-subject language, while German is a non-null-subject one and Turkish is a null-subject language. Thus, focusing on the comparison of two different language combinations, the study aims to provide new insights about bilinguals’ subject realization patterns and their possible relation to cross-linguistic influence. The data for the study were collected by recording the natural language production of the three groups of children. Analysis of the data revealed that both the German-Turkish and the Russian-Turkish bilingual children overused overt subject pronouns in their Turkish more than their monolingual counterparts. Hence, we hypothesized that the inappropriate subject realizations of the bilingual children cannot merely be explained as evidence for cross-linguistic influence but also as a language processing problem.