@misc{TracyHeideWahletal.2009, author = {Tracy, Rosemarie and Heide, Judith and Wahl, Michael and Triarchi-Herrmann, Vassilia and Grimm, Angela and Wotschack, Christiane and Kulik, Sylvia and Frank, Ulrike and Klassert, Annegret and Gagarina, Natalʹja Vladimirovna and Kauschke, Christina and Eicher, Iris and Tsakmaki, Barbara and Akkaya, Zeynep and Castillo, Esmeralda and Groba, Agnes and H{\"o}hle, Barbara and Miertsch, Barbara and Hubert, Anja and Sauerland, Uli and Schr{\"o}der, Caroline and Stadie, Nicole and Wittler, Marion and Berendes, Karin and Gottal, Stephanie and Grabherr, Britta and Zaps, Jennifer and Ptok, Martin and Hanne, Sandra and Sekerina, Irina A. and Vasishth, Shravan and Burchert, Frank and De Bleser, Ria and Kleissendorf, Barbara and Jaecks, Petra and Stenneken, Prisca and Fischer, Ivette and Moedebeck, Petra}, title = {Spektrum Patholinguistik = Schwerpunktthema: Ein Kopf - Zwei Sprachen : Mehrsprachigkeit in Forschung und Therapie}, number = {2}, editor = {Heide, Judith and Hanne, Sandra and Brandt-Kobele, Oda-Christina and Fritzsche, Tom}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, organization = {Verband f{\"u}r Patholinguistik e. V. (vpl)}, isbn = {978-3-940793-89-8}, issn = {1869-3822}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-3086}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-30451}, year = {2009}, abstract = {"Spektrum Patholinguistik" (Band 2) ist der Tagungsband zum 2. Herbsttreffen Patholinguistik, das der Verband f{\"u}r Patholinguistik (vpl) e.V. am 22.11.2008 an der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam veranstaltet hat. Zum Schwerpunktthema "Ein Kopf - Zwei Sprachen: Mehrsprachigkeit in Forschung und Therapie" sind die drei Hauptvortr{\"a}ge und vier Abstracts von Posterpr{\"a}sentationen ver{\"o}ffentlicht. Desweiteren enth{\"a}lt der Tagungsband freie Beitr{\"a}ge, u.a. zu Satzverarbeitung und Agrammatismus, Lesestrategien und LRS, Prosodie-Entwicklung, kindlichen Aphasien, Dysphagie-Therapie sowie zu kognitiven Defiziten bei {\"a}lteren Menschen.}, language = {de} } @article{PattersonTrompeltFelser2014, author = {Patterson, Clare and Trompelt, Helena and Felser, Claudia}, title = {The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution}, series = {Frontiers in psychology}, volume = {5}, journal = {Frontiers in psychology}, publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00147}, pages = {16}, year = {2014}, language = {en} } @book{SchroederSchellhardtAkincietal.2015, author = {Schroeder, Christoph and Schellhardt, Christin and Akinci, Mehmet-Ali and Dollnick, Meral and Dux, Ginesa and G{\"u}lbeyaz, Esin I{\c{s}}{\i}l and J{\"a}hnert, Anne and Ko{\c{c}}-G{\"u}lt{\"u}rk, Ceren and K{\"u}hmstedt, Patrick and Kuhn, Florian and Mezger, Verena and Pfaff, Carol and {\"U}rkmez, Bet{\"u}l Sena}, title = {MULTILIT}, editor = {Schroeder, Christoph and Schellhardt, Christin}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-80390}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, year = {2015}, abstract = {This paper presents an overview of the linguistic analyses developed in the MULTILIT project and the processing of the oral and written texts collected. The project investigates the language abilities of multilingual children and adolescents, in particular, those who have Turkish and/or Kurdish as a mother tongue. A further aim of the project is to examine from a psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspective the extent to which competence in academic registers is achieved on the basis of the languages spoken by the children, including the language(s) spoken at the home, the language of the country of residence and the first foreign language. To be able to examine these questions using corpus linguistic parameters, we created categories of analysis in MULTILIT. The data collection comprises texts from bilingual and monolingual children and adolescents in Germany in their first language Turkish, their second language German und their foreign language English. Pupils aged between nine and twenty years of age produced monologue oral and written texts in the two genres of narrative and discursive. On the basis of these samples, we examine linguistic features such as lexical expression (lexical density, lexical diversity), syntactic complexity (syntactic and discursive packaging) as well as phonology in the oral texts and orthography in the written texts, with the aim of investigating the pupils' growing mastery of these features in academic and informal registers. To this end the raw data have been transcribed by the use of transcription conventions developed especially for the needs of the MULTILIT data. They are based on the commonly used HIAT and GAT transcription conventions and supplemented with conventions that provide additional information such as features at the graphic level. The categories of analysis comprise a large number of linguistic categories such as word classes, syntax, noun phrase complexity, complex verbal morphology, direct speech and text structures. We also annotate errors and norm deviations at a wide range of levels (orthographic, morphological, lexical, syntactic and textual). In view of the different language systems, these criteria are considered separately for all languages investigated in the project.}, language = {en} } @article{ClahsenGerthHeyeretal.2015, author = {Clahsen, Harald and Gerth, Sabrina and Heyer, Vera and Schott, Esther}, title = {Morphology constrains native and non-native word formation in different ways Evidence from plurals inside compounds}, series = {The mental lexicon}, volume = {10}, journal = {The mental lexicon}, number = {1}, publisher = {Benjamins}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {1871-1340}, doi = {10.1075/ml.10.1.03cla}, pages = {53 -- 87}, year = {2015}, abstract = {The role of morphological and syntactic information in non-native second language (L2) comprehension is controversial. Some have argued that late bilinguals rapidly integrate grammatical cues with other information sources during reading or listening in the same way as native speakers. Others claim that structural cues are underused in L2 processing. We examined different kinds of modifiers inside compounds (e.g. singulars vs. plurals, *rat eater vs. rats eater) with respect to this controversy which are subject to both structural and nonstructural constraints. Two offline and two online (eye-movement) experiments were performed examining the role of these constraints in spoken language comprehension of English and German, testing 77 advanced L2 learners. We also compared the L2 groups to corresponding groups of native speakers. Our results suggest that despite native-like sensitivity to the compounding constraints, late bilinguals rely more on non-structural constraints and are less able to revise their initial interpretations than L1 comprehenders.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Kuehn2016, author = {K{\"u}hn, Jane}, title = {Functionally-driven language change}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42207}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-422079}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {369}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Since the 1960ies, Germany has been host to a large Turkish immigrant community. While migrant communities often shift to the majority language over the course of time, Turkish is a very vital minority language in Germany and bilingualism in this community is an obvious fact which has been subject to several studies. The main focus usually is on German, the second language (L2) of these speakers (e.g. Hinnenkamp 2000, Keim 2001, Auer 2003, Cindark \& Aslan (2004), Kern \& Selting 2006, Selting 2009, Kern 2013). Research on the Turkish spoken by Turkish bilinguals has also attracted attention although to a lesser extend mainly in the framework of so called heritage language research (cf. Polinski 2011). Bilingual Turkish has been investigated under the perspective of code-switching and codemixing (e.g. Kallmeyer \& Keim 2003, Keim 2003, 2004, Keim \& Cindark 2003, Hinnenkamp 2003, 2005, 2008, Dirim \& Auer 2004), and with respect to changes in the morphologic, the syntactic and the orthographic system (e.g. Rehbein \& Karako{\c{c}} 2004, Schroeder 2007). Attention to the changes in the prosodic system of bilingual Turkish on the other side has been exceptional so far (Queen 2001, 2006). With the present dissertation, I provide a study on contact induced linguistic changes on the prosodic level in the Turkish heritage language of adult early German-Turkish bilinguals. It describes structural changes in the L1 Turkish intonation of yes/no questions of a representative sample of bilingual Turkish speakers. All speakers share a similar sociolinguistic background. All acquired Turkish as their first language from their families and the majority language German as an early L2 at latest in the kinder garden by the age of 3. A study of changes in bilingual varieties requires a previous cross-linguistic comparison of both of the involved languages in language contact in order to draw conclusions on the contact-induced language change in delimitation to language-internal development. While German is one of the best investigated languages with respect to its prosodic system, research on Turkish intonational phonology is not as progressed. To this effect, the analysis of bilingual Turkish, as elicited for the present dissertation, is preceded by an experimental study on monolingual Turkish. In this regard an additional experiment with 11 monolingual university students of non-linguistic subjects was conducted at the Ege University in Izmir in 2013. On these grounds the present dissertation additionally contributes new insights with respect to Turkish intonational phonology and typology. The results of the contrastive analysis of German and Turkish bring to light that the prosodic systems of both languages differ with respect to the use of prosodic cues in the marking of information structure (IS) and sentence type. Whereas German distinguishes in the prosodic marking between explicit categories for focus and givenness, Turkish uses only one prosodic cue to mark IS. Furthermore it is shown that Turkish in contrast to German does not use a prosodic correlate to mark yes/no questions, but a morphological question marker. To elicit Turkish yes/no questions in a bilingual context which differ with respect to their information structure in a further step the methodology of Xu (1999) to elicit in-situ focus on different constituents was adapted in the experimental study. A data set of 400 Turkish yes/no questions of 20 bilingual Turkish speakers was compiled at the Zentrum f{\"u}r Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS) in Berlin and at the University of Potsdam in 2013. The prosodic structure of the yes/no questions was phonologically and phonetically analyzed with respect to changes in the f0 contour according to IS modifications and the use of prosodic cues to indicate sentence type. The results of the analyses contribute surprising observations to the research of bilingual prosody. Studies on bilingual language change and language acquisition have repeatedly shown that the use of prosodic features that are considered as marked by means of lower and implicational use across and within a language cause difficulties in language contact and second language acquisition. Especially, they are not expected to pass from one language to another through language contact. However, this structurally determined expectation on language development is refuted by the results of the present study. Functionally related prosody, such as the cues to indicate IS, are transferred from German L2 to the Turkish L1 of German-Turkish bilingual speakers. This astonishing observation provides the base for an approach to language change centered on functional motivation. Based on Matras' (2007, 2010) assumption of functionality in language change, Paradis' (1993, 2004, 2008) approach of Language Activation and the Subsystem Theory and the Theory of Language as a Dynamic System (Heredina \& Jessner 2002), it will be shown that prosodic features which are absent in one of the languages of bilingual speech communities are transferred from the respective language to the other when they contribute to the contextualization of a pragmatic concept which is not expressed by other linguistic means in the target language. To this effect language interaction is based on language activation and inhibition mechanisms dealing with differences in the implicit pragmatic knowledge between bilinguals and monolinguals. The motivator for this process of language change is the contextualization of the message itself and not the structure of the respective feature on the surface. It is shown that structural consideration may influence language change but that bilingual language change does not depend on structural restrictions nor does the structure cause a change. The conclusions drawn on the basis of empirical facts can especially contribute to a better understanding of the processes of bilingual language development as it combines methodologies and theoretical aspects of different linguistic subfields.}, language = {en} } @misc{Verissimo2017, author = {Verissimo, Jo{\~a}o Marques}, title = {Sensitive periods in both L1 and L2}, series = {Bilingualism : language and cognition}, volume = {21}, journal = {Bilingualism : language and cognition}, number = {5}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {New York}, issn = {1366-7289}, doi = {10.1017/S1366728918000275}, pages = {932 -- 933}, year = {2017}, abstract = {The keynote article (Mayberry \& Kluender, 2017) makes an important contribution to questions concerning the existence and characteristics of sensitive periods in language acquisition. Specifically, by comparing groups of non-native L1 and L2 signers, the authors have been able to ingeniously disentangle the effects of maturation from those of early language exposure. Based on L1 versus L2 contrasts, the paper convincingly argues that L2 learning is a less clear test of sensitive periods. Nevertheless, we believe Mayberry and Kluender underestimate the evidence for maturational factors in L2 learning, especially that coming from recent research.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Mosca2017, author = {Mosca, Michela}, title = {Multilinguals' language control}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-398912}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {V, 189}, year = {2017}, abstract = {For several decades, researchers have tried to explain how speakers of more than one language (multilinguals) manage to keep their languages separate and to switch from one language to the other depending on the context. This ability of multilingual speakers to use the intended language, while avoiding interference from the other language(s) has recently been termed "language control". A multitude of studies showed that when bilinguals process one language, the other language is also activated and might compete for selection. According to the most influential model of language control developed over the last two decades, competition from the non-intended language is solved via inhibition. In particular, the Inhibitory Control (IC) model proposed by Green (1998) puts forward that the amount of inhibition applied to the non-relevant language depends on its dominance, in that the stronger the language the greater the strength of inhibition applied to it. Within this account, the cost required to reactivate a previously inhibited language depends on the amount of inhibition previously exerted on it, that is, reactivation costs are greater for a stronger compared to a weaker language. In a nutshell, according to the IC model, language control is determined by language dominance. The goal of the present dissertation is to investigate the extent to which language control in multilinguals is affected by language dominance and whether and how other factors might influence this process. Three main factors are considered in this work: (i) the time speakers have to prepare for a certain language or PREPARATION TIME, (ii) the type of languages involved in the interactional context or LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY, and (iii) the PROCESSING MODALITY, that is, whether the way languages are controlled differs between reception and production. The results obtained in the four manuscripts, either published or in revision, indicate that language dominance alone does not suffice to explain language switching patterns. In particular, the present thesis shows that language control is profoundly affected by each of the three variables described above. More generally, the findings obtained in the present dissertation indicate that language control in multilingual speakers is a much more dynamic system than previously believed and is not exclusively determined by language dominance, as predicted by the IC model (Green, 1998).}, language = {en} } @article{LagoHuvelleGracaninYuksekSafaketal.2018, author = {Lago Huvelle, Maria Sol and Gracanin-Yuksek, Martina and Safak, Duygu Fatma and Demir, Orhan and Kirkici, Bilal and Felser, Claudia}, title = {Straight from the horse's mouth Agreement attraction effects with Turkish possessors}, series = {Linguistic approaches to bilingualism}, volume = {9}, journal = {Linguistic approaches to bilingualism}, number = {3}, publisher = {John Benjamins Publishing Co.}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {1879-9264}, doi = {10.1075/lab.17019.lag}, pages = {398 -- 426}, year = {2018}, abstract = {We investigated the comprehension of subject-verb agreement in Turkish-German bilinguals using two tasks. The first task elicited speeded judgments to verb number violations in sentences that contained plural genitive modifiers. We addressed whether these modifiers elicited attraction errors, which have supported the use of a memory retrieval mechanism in monolingual comprehension studies. The second task examined the comprehension of a language-specific constraint of Turkish against plural-marked verbs with overt plural subjects. Bilinguals showed a reduced application of this constraint, as compared to Turkish monolinguals. Critically, both groups showed similar rates of attraction, but the bilingual group accepted ungrammatical sentences more often. We propose that the similarity in attraction rates supports the use of the same retrieval mechanism, but that bilinguals have more problems than monolinguals in the mapping of morphological to abstract agreement features during speeded comprehension, which results in increased acceptability of ungrammatical sentences.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Knospe2018, author = {Knospe, Gloria-Mona}, title = {Processing of pronouns and reflexives in Turkish-German bilinguals}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43644}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-436442}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {xxii, 410}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Previous studies on native language (L1) anaphor resolution have found that monolingual native speakers are sensitive to syntactic, pragmatic, and semantic constraints on pronouns and reflexive resolution. However, most studies have focused on English and other Germanic languages, and little is currently known about the online (i.e., real-time) processing of anaphors in languages with syntactically less restricted anaphors, such as Turkish. We also know relatively little about how 'non-standard' populations such as non-native (L2) speakers and heritage speakers (HSs) resolve anaphors. This thesis investigates the interpretation and real-time processing of anaphors in German and in a typologically different and as yet understudied language, Turkish. It compares hypotheses about differences between native speakers' (L1ers) and L2 speakers' (L2ers) sentence processing, looking into differences in processing mechanisms as well as the possibility of cross-linguistic influence. To help fill the current research gap regarding HS sentence comprehension, it compares findings for this group with those for L2ers. To investigate the representation and processing of anaphors in these three populations, I carried out a series of offline questionnaires and Visual-World eye-tracking experiments on the resolution of reflexives and pronouns in both German and Turkish. In the German experiments, native German speakers as well as L2ers of German were tested, while in the Turkish experiments, non-bilingual native Turkish speakers as well as HSs of Turkish with L2 German were tested. This allowed me to observe both cross-linguistic differences as well as population differences between monolinguals' and different types of bilinguals' resolution of anaphors. Regarding the comprehension of Turkish anaphors by L1ers, contrary to what has been previously assumed, I found that Turkish has no reflexive that follows Condition A of Binding theory (Chomsky, 1981). Furthermore, I propose more general cross-linguistic differences between Turkish and German, in the form of a stronger reliance on pragmatic information in anaphor resolution overall in Turkish compared to German. As for the processing differences between L1ers and L2ers of a language, I found evidence in support of hypotheses which propose that L2ers of German rely more strongly on non-syntactic information compared to L1ers (Clahsen \& Felser, 2006, 2017; Cunnings, 2016, 2017) independent of a potential influence of their L1. HSs, on the other hand, showed a tendency to overemphasize interpretational contrasts between different Turkish anaphors compared to monolingual native speakers. However, lower-proficiency HSs were likely to merge different forms for simplified representation and processing. Overall, L2ers and HSs showed differences from monolingual native speakers both in their final interpretation of anaphors and during online processing. However, these differences were not parallel between the two types of bilingual and thus do not support a unified model of L2 and HS processing (cf. Montrul, 2012). The findings of this thesis contribute to the field of anaphor resolution by providing data from a previously unexplored language, Turkish, as well as contributing to research on native and non-native processing differences. My results also illustrate the importance of considering individual differences in the acquisition process when studying bilingual language comprehension. Factors such as age of acquisition, language proficiency and the type of input a language learner receives may influence the processing mechanisms they develop and employ, both between and within different bilingual populations.}, language = {en} } @article{ClahsenJessen2019, author = {Clahsen, Harald and Jessen, Anna}, title = {Do bilingual children lag behind? A study of morphological encoding using ERPs}, series = {Journal of child language}, volume = {46}, journal = {Journal of child language}, number = {5}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {New York}, issn = {0305-0009}, doi = {10.1017/S0305000919000321}, pages = {955 -- 979}, year = {2019}, abstract = {The current study investigates how bilingual children encode and produce morphologically complex words. We employed a silent-production-plus-delayed-vocalization paradigm in which event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded during silent encoding of inflected words which were subsequently cued to be overtly produced. The bilingual children's spoken responses and their ERPs were compared to previous datasets from monolingual children on the same task. We found an enhanced negativity for regular relative to irregular forms during silent production in both bilingual children's languages, replicating the ERP effect previously obtained from monolingual children. Nevertheless, the bilingual children produced more morphological errors (viz. over-regularizations) than monolingual children. We conclude that mechanisms of morphological encoding (as measured by ERPs) are parallel for bilingual and monolingual children, and that the increased over-regularization rates are due to their reduced exposure to each of the two languages (relative to monolingual children).}, language = {en} }