Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Bachelor Thesis (1)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2) (remove)
Keywords
- word order (2) (remove)
Institute
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.
It was not until the 1960s and 70s of the 20th century that researchers turned their special interest to colloquial Russian (hereafter CR) and its interaction with codified (normative) Russian. Colloquial Russian uses its grammatical constructions in deviation from the norms of the written language. Since codified language is the basis of colloquial language on the grammatical level, among others, the question arises, how the standard forms are used in oral speech. Lapteva (1976) has looked in particular at the syntax of CR and made a classification of CR constructions that differ from their standard forms. The present study deals with two constructions from this classification: an embedded temporal subordinate clause and a temporal subordinate clause with the meaningless conjunction kogda (as/if), which leaves its normative position in the sentence. In addition to the special forms of temporal adverbial clauses, the frequency of their standard implementation as preceding and the following constructions will be examined. Two hypotheses were formulated:
• The frequency of certain constructions classified by Lapteva (1976) as transitional constructions decreases over decades.
• The ratio between prefixed and suffixed temporal subordinate clauses will be in favor of the latter due to the spontaneity of oral speech. The corpus study was conducted with the oral language sub-corpus of the National'nyj Korpus Russkogo Jazyka (National Corpus of the Russian Language). No evidence of a correlation between the number of CR constructions and the year of recording was found either in the whole oral sub-corpus or in its largest section - the collection of private conversations. The proportion of prefixed temporal constructions was greatest in both public and non-public corpora compared to postfixed ones. The study did not provide evidence for the hypotheses put forward, due to the limitations of the corpus study, such as missing or incomplete context of the conversations, lack of punctuation and/or marking of intonation.