@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} } @article{SchroederSimsek2011, author = {Schroeder, Christoph and Simsek, Yazq{\"u}l}, title = {Migration und Sprache in Deutschland - am Beispiel der Migranten aus der T{\"u}rkei und ihrer Kinder und Kindeskinder}, isbn = {978-3-89971-933-8}, year = {2011}, language = {de} } @article{SchroederSimsek2010, author = {Schroeder, Christoph and Simsek, Yazg{\"u}l}, title = {Die Entwicklung der Kategorie Wort im T{\"u}rkisch-Deutsch bilingualen Schrifterwerb in Deutschland}, year = {2010}, language = {de} } @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{SchroederMenz2008, author = {Schroeder, Christoph and Menz, Astrid}, title = {T{\"u}rk{\c{c}}enin yazimina yeni bir yaklasim: Sesbilimselligin mitinin sorgulanmasi : [eine neue Herangehensweise an die Rechtschreibung des T{\"u}rkischen: Gegen den Mythos der Lauttreue]}, year = {2008}, language = {de} } @article{SchroederJostes2018, author = {Schroeder, Christoph and Jostes, Brigitte}, title = {Querschnittsaufgaben Sprachbildung}, series = {Kentron : Journal zur Lehrerbildung = Durchstarten}, journal = {Kentron : Journal zur Lehrerbildung = Durchstarten}, number = {32}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam, Zentrum f{\"u}r Lehrerbildung}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1867-4720}, pages = {15 -- 21}, year = {2018}, language = {de} } @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} } @misc{Schroeder2007, author = {Schroeder, Christoph}, title = {Boeschoten, H., Johanson, L. (Hrsg.), Turkic languages in contact; Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2006}, year = {2007}, language = {en} } @article{Schroeder2007, author = {Schroeder, Christoph}, title = {The use of tane in spoken Turkish}, isbn = {978-975-50196-60-7}, year = {2007}, language = {en} } @article{Schroeder2008, author = {Schroeder, Christoph}, title = {Adverbial modification and secondary predicates in Turkish : a typological perspective}, year = {2008}, language = {en} }