@article{Schroeder2020,
  author    = {Schroeder, Christoph},
  title     = {The advanced acquisition of orthography in heritage Turkish in Germany},
  series = {Written language \& literacy},
  volume    = {23},
  journal   = {Written language \& literacy},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {John Benjamins Publishing Co.},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {1387-6732},
  doi       = {10.1075/wll.00043.sch},
  pages     = {251 -- 271},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {The paper investigates Turkish texts from heritage speakers of Turkish in Germany in a pseudo-longitudinal setting, looking at pupils' texts from the 5th, 7th, 10th and 12th grades. Two types of dynamics are identified in the advanced acquisition(1) of Turkish orthography in the heritage context. One is the dynamic of language contact, where in certain areas of the orthography, we find a re-interpretation of Turkish principles according to the German model. However, this changes as the pupils grow up. The second dynamic is the heritage situation. The heritage situation on one side leads to the establishment of new practices, and it also leads to a higher degree of variability of spelling solutions in those areas, where the orthographic system of Turkish poses challenges to every writer, whether monolingual and growing up in Turkey or heritage speaker.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WieseAlexiadouAllenetal.2022,
  author    = {Wiese, Heike and Alexiadou, Artemis and Allen, Shanley and Bunk, Oliver and Gagarina, Natalia and Iefremenko, Kateryna and Martynova, Maria and Pashkova, Tatiana and Rizou, Vicky and Schroeder, Christoph and Shadrova, Anna and Szucsich, Luka and Tracy, Rosemarie and Tsehaye, Wintai and Zerbian, Sabine and Zuban, Yulia},
  title     = {Heritage speakers as part of the native language continuum},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Media},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717973},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {We argue for a perspective on bilingual heritage speakers as native speakers of both their languages and present results from a large-scale, cross-linguistic study that took such a perspective and approached bilinguals and monolinguals on equal grounds. We targeted comparable language use in bilingual and monolingual speakers, crucially covering broader repertoires than just formal language. A main database was the open-access RUEG corpus, which covers comparable informal vs. formal and spoken vs. written productions by adolescent and adult bilinguals with heritage-Greek, -Russian, and -Turkish in Germany and the United States and with heritage-German in the United States, and matching data from monolinguals in Germany, the United States, Greece, Russia, and Turkey. Our main results lie in three areas. (1) We found non-canonical patterns not only in bilingual, but also in monolingual speakers, including patterns that have so far been considered absent from native grammars, in domains of morphology, syntax, intonation, and pragmatics. (2) We found a degree of lexical and morphosyntactic inter-speaker variability in monolinguals that was sometimes higher than that of bilinguals, further challenging the model of the streamlined native speaker. (3) In majority language use, non-canonical patterns were dominant in spoken and/or informal registers, and this was true for monolinguals and bilinguals. In some cases, bilingual speakers were leading quantitatively. In heritage settings where the language was not part of formal schooling, we found tendencies of register leveling, presumably due to the fact that speakers had limited access to formal registers of the heritage language. Our findings thus indicate possible quantitative differences and different register distributions rather than distinct grammatical patterns in bilingual and monolingual speakers. This supports the integration of heritage speakers into the native-speaker continuum. Approaching heritage speakers from this perspective helps us to better understand the empirical data and can shed light on language variation and change in native grammars. Furthermore, our findings for monolinguals lead us to reconsider the state-of-the art on majority languages, given recurring evidence for non-canonical patterns that deviate from what has been assumed in the literature so far, and might have been attributed to bilingualism had we not included informal and spoken registers in monolinguals and bilinguals alike.},
  language  = {en}
}