TY  - JOUR
A1  - Schroeder, Christoph
T1  - The advanced acquisition of orthography in heritage Turkish in Germany
JF  - Written language & literacy
N2  - 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.
KW  - Turkish
KW  - heritage language
KW  - orthography
KW  - orthographic word
KW  - advanced acquisition of
KW  - language contact Turkish-German
Y1  - 2020
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00043.sch
SN  - 1387-6732
SN  - 1570-6001
VL  - 23
IS  - 2
SP  - 251
EP  - 271
PB  - John Benjamins Publishing Co.
CY  - Amsterdam
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Wiese, Heike
A1  - Alexiadou, Artemis
A1  - Allen, Shanley
A1  - Bunk, Oliver
A1  - Gagarina, Natalia
A1  - Iefremenko, Kateryna
A1  - Martynova, Maria
A1  - Pashkova, Tatiana
A1  - Rizou, Vicky
A1  - Schroeder, Christoph
A1  - Shadrova, Anna
A1  - Szucsich, Luka
A1  - Tracy, Rosemarie
A1  - Tsehaye, Wintai
A1  - Zerbian, Sabine
A1  - Zuban, Yulia
T1  - Heritage speakers as part of the native language continuum
JF  - Frontiers in psychology
N2  - 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.
KW  - heritage speakers
KW  - registers
KW  - participles
KW  - word order
KW  - bare NPs
KW  - boundary tone
KW  - referent introduction
KW  - relative clause formation
Y1  - 2022
U6  - https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717973
SN  - 1664-1078
VL  - 12
PB  - Frontiers Media
CY  - Lausanne
ER  -