@article{JacobKirkici2016,
  author    = {Jacob, Gunnar and Kirkici, Bilal},
  title     = {The processing of morphologically complex words in a specific speaker group A masked-priming study with Turkish heritage speakers},
  series = {The mental lexicon},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {The mental lexicon},
  publisher = {John Benjamins Publishing Co.},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {1871-1340},
  doi       = {10.1075/ml.11.2.06jac},
  pages     = {308 -- 328},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {The present study investigates to what extent morphological priming varies across different groups of native speakers of a language. In two masked-priming experiments, we investigate the processing of morphologically complex Turkish words in Turkish heritage speakers raised and living in Germany. Materials and experimental design were based on K\&\#305;rk\&\#305;c\&\#305; and Clahsen's (2013) study on morphological processing in Turkish native speakers and L2 learners, allowing for direct comparisons between the three groups. Experiment 1 investigated priming effects for morphologically related prime-target pairs. Heritage speakers showed a similar pattern of results as the L1 comparison group, with significant priming effects for prime-target pairs with inflected primes (e.g. 'sorar-sor' asks-ask) as well as for prime-target pairs with derived primes (e.g. 'sa\&\#287;l\&\#305;k-sa\&\#287;' health-healthy). In Experiment 2, we measured priming effects for prime-target pairs which were semantically and morphologically unrelated, but only related with regard to orthographic overlap (e.g. 'devre-dev' period-giant). Unlike both L1 speakers raised in Turkey and highly proficient L2 learners, heritage speakers also showed significant priming effects in this condition. Our results suggest that heritage speakers differ from both native speakers and L2 learners in that they rely more on (orthographic) surface form properties of the stimulus during early stages of word recognition, at the expense of morphological decomposition.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JacobHeyerVerissimo2018,
  author    = {Jacob, Gunnar and Heyer, Vera and Verissimo, Joao Marques},
  title     = {Aiming at the same target},
  series = {International journal of bilingualism : cross-disciplinary, cross-linguistic studies of language behavior},
  volume    = {22},
  journal   = {International journal of bilingualism : cross-disciplinary, cross-linguistic studies of language behavior},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1367-0069},
  doi       = {10.1177/1367006916688333},
  pages     = {619 -- 637},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions: We compared the processing of morphologically complex derived vs. inflected forms in native speakers of German and highly proficient native Russian second language (L2) learners of German. Design/methodology/approach: We measured morphological priming effects for derived and inflected German words. To ensure that priming effects were genuinely morphological, the design also contained semantic and orthographic control conditions. Data and analysis: 40 native speakers of German and 36 native Russian learners of L2 German participated in a masked-priming lexical-decision experiment. For both participant groups, priming effects for derived vs. inflected words were compared using linear mixed effects models. Findings/conclusions: While first language (L1) speakers showed similar facilitation effects for both derived and inflected primes, L2 speakers showed a difference between the two prime types, with robust priming effects only for derived, but not for inflected forms. Originality: Unlike in previous studies investigating derivation and inflection in L2 processing, priming effects for derived and inflected prime-target pairs were determined on the basis of the same target word, allowing for a direct comparison between the two morphological phenomena. In this respect, this is the first study to directly compare the processing of derived vs. inflected forms in L2 speakers. Significance/implications: The results are inconsistent with accounts predicting general L1/L2 differences for all types of morphologically complex forms as well as accounts assuming that L1 and L2 processing are based on the same mechanisms. We discuss theoretical implications for L2 processing mechanisms, and propose an explanation which can account for the data pattern.},
  language  = {en}
}