Receptive multilingualism in an immigrant constellation: Examples from Turkish-German children's language

http://ijb.sagepub.com/International Journal of Bilingualism

http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/12/1367006911426463The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1367006911426463

published online 17 January 2012International Journal of BilingualismAnnette Herkenrath

German children's language−Receptive multilingualism in an immigrant constellation: examples from Turkish

- Aug 21, 2012version of this article was published on more recent A

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:International Journal of BilingualismAdditional services and information for

http://ijb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ijb.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 17, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

- Aug 21, 2012Version of Record

at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on August 20, 2014ijb.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on August 20, 2014ijb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ijb.sagepub.com/

http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/12/1367006911426463

http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/16/3/287

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://ijb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ijb.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/16/3/287.full.pdf

http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/12/1367006911426463.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Corresponding author:Annette Herkenrath, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Institut für Germanistik, Arbeitsbereich Sprache, Otto-Behaghel-Straße 10 B, 35394 Gießen, GermanyEmail: [email protected]

Article

International Journal of Bilingualism0(0) 1 –28

© The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1367006911426463

Ijb.sagepub.com

Receptive multilingualism in an immigrant constellation: examples from Turkish–German children’s language

Annette HerkenrathJustus Liebig University Giessen, Germany

AbstractThis article investigates receptive bilingualism in elicited narrative conversations with Turkish–German children who have grown up in a setting of tension between productive and receptive competences: an immigrant situation with subtractive bilingualism. The acquisitional situation of the children tends to be bilingual in the preschool years, sometimes with a preference for Turkish, shifting towards German at the expense of Turkish as the children enter school. The further development of Turkish depends on communicative practices within the family and the attention given to immigrant languages within the school system. From a starting point of discourse passages in which adults speak entirely in Turkish while children respond in German, the article then focuses more closely on the longitudinal development of one child from the age of 7 to 11. The study documents empirical evidence of productive, non-productive and receptive competence in Turkish at different ages, and in particular the understanding and productive use of one complex subordinating construction. Keeping in mind the lexical and grammatical differences between German and Turkish, which preclude receptive multilingualism on the basis of similarity, the article suggests an expansion of the concept of ‘receptive multilingualism’ to include cases of acquired receptive knowledge.

Keywordsbilingual language development, German, immigration-related multilingualism, receptive competences, subordinating constructions, Turkish

1 Introduction

The present article investigates phenomena of receptive multilingualism in elicited narrative conversations with Turkish–German bilingual children growing up in Hamburg in immigrant settings characterized by family communication which is often bilingual. To the extent that Turkish

at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on August 20, 2014ijb.sagepub.comDownloaded from


2 International Journal of Bilingualism 0(0)

is the preferred home language, the children acquire it as their L1 and remain dominant in it until preschool age. Acquisitional patterns in Turkish at these early stages roughly correspond to monolingual acquisition, as far as linguistic means of connectivity (Rehbein, 1999) are concerned. At the same time, however, the children also acquire German both inside and outside their families. As they enter educational institutions, contact with German intensifies, shifting the balance in favour of the majority language. The further development of Turkish depends on communicative practices within the family and the attention given to immigrant languages within the school system.

This study is empirically based on the ENDFAS/SKOBI data (Rehbein 2009; Rehbein, Herkenrath & Karakoç 2009b). The changing pattern of acquisition outlined above has inspired previous studies of connectivity and complex language; however, the situation also seems to have repercussions in the development of receptive versus productive linguistic competence. The data offer instances of extended discourse passages, involving both younger and older children, in which the adults speak entirely in Turkish while the children speak entirely in German. From a developmental perspective, the same children can be observed to speak in Turkish on other occasions, often when they are younger.

2 Background

The term ‘receptive multilingualism’ has been used to describe a linguistic practice ‘in which interlocutors use their respective mother tongues while speaking to each other’ (Zeevaert & ten Thije, 2007, p. 1). While there are several constellations of multilingualism and language choice that favour receptive multilingualism, a typical situation involves a pair of languages that are mutually intelligible because of their close lexical and typological similarity, for example Scandinavian languages, Romance languages or Dutch and German. Other constellations, however, are characterized by a greater distance in this respect, such that reciprocal understanding would seem to rely on acquired competences, an example being the mutually unintelligible languages French and German spoken in Switzerland (Werlen, 2007). The concept of ‘mutual intelligibility’ thus seems to be a negotiable term, to the degree that understanding does not appear to rely on structural and lexical similarity alone, but can also depend on language ideology, politics and practice, as in the Swiss model of multilingualism (contributions in ten Thije & Zeevaert, 2007), or in the case of acquired competences, as the present study will illustrate.

While it is possible to define receptive abilities negatively, in contrast to fully productive ones (i.e. in terms of ‘incomplete acquisition’ or ‘lack of a productive linguistic practice’), Zeevaert (2007) stresses that they should not simply be qualified as ‘passive’, as they crucially involve specific hearer activities at a variety of processing levels. The present article argues that in the case of typologically more remote language pairs (such as Turkish and German), an acquired grammatical knowledge underlies the receptive abilities.

There are alternatives to practising receptive multilingualism, and some research projects in Switzerland have investigated precisely the question of which type of communicative practice people prefer in a given multilingual situation. Basically, speakers can either accommodate the addresser’s choice or continue speaking their L1, the majority language, or the default language of the constellation at hand; alternatively, they can realize a free mixture of both (Lüdi, 2007; Werlen, 2007).

Attempts at modelling a receptive competence fall for the most part into three lines of investigation. These are concerned with: (1) the development of didactic concepts, (2) experimental testing, and (3) the analysis of empirical discourse data. In the first area, the enhancement of comprehension has centered on the so-called ‘seven sieves’. These are methods of making use of systematic shifts and other similarities that exist between related languages, sometimes hidden to



Herkenrath 3

a listener/reader when first approaching a new constellation of receptive multilingualism (Klein & Stegmann, 2000). The ‘seven sieves’ are envisioned as components of inferential understanding: (1) international vocabulary, (2) cognates or common vocabulary typical of the language family, (3) correspondence rules and sound correspondences or systematic sound shifts, (4) spelling and pronunciation, (5) syntactic structures common to the language family, (6) morphosyntactic elements, and (7) prefixes and suffixes (cf. Lutjeharms, 2007; Zeevaert & ten Thije, 2007).1 Experimental testing to model receptive competence has utilized comprehension tasks: presenting written and spoken material and testing understanding by means of questioning, translation and summarizing tasks. The aims of such testing have been to find measures of understanding in receptive multilingualism and to compare understanding in the respective other language with understanding in the informants’ L1 (Delsing, 2007; Doetjes, 2007). Work with empirical discourse data has relied on communicative criteria such as pauses, measures to ensure understanding, coherence with respect to the local and global context, irony, occurrence of back-channel signals and interactionist and collective conceptions of competence, as well as achievement of the goal of interaction (Lüdi, 2007; Zeevaert, 2007). Grammatical aspects have been to date largely neglected, probably because they do not seem to play a central role given the structural similarity of the languages under investigation.2

There are also a few models of receptive competence that have developed using different criteria of research. These include well-known action-theoretical approaches, which conceptualize ‘understanding’ in terms of a reconstruction of the speaker’s plan of action. The ‘reconstruction’ is carried out at several linguistic levels, including that of the smallest linguistic actional units – linguistic ‘procedures’ (Rehbein, 1977). In addition, discourse-analytical studies of intercultural communication such as Kameyama (2004) offer criteria for the identification of so-called ‘deficiency constellations’ in monolingual communication between L1 speakers and L2 speakers of a given language, thereby allowing an identification of constellations in which ‘ensuring of mutual understanding’ (‘verständnissicherndes Handeln’) occurs. Relevant discourse phenomena in this case include hearer-initiated actional patterns of repair – such as echo questions, ‘exotheses of plan disturbance’, ways of making sure, or other ways of demanding that a problematic passage be clarified. Furthermore, the developmental side of receptive multilingual competence is discussed in Rehbein and Meng (2007), while Rehbein (2007a) develops a model of bilingual discourse competence that specifically takes into account grammatical areas of Turkish and German and into which the typological distance between these two languages is conceptually integrated. An important issue here is the active ‘co-construction’ by the hearer as a basis for parsing or ‘segmenting’ forms, functions and purposes in communicative interaction, as is a general progression from a gestalt-like to a more highly differentiated understanding of utterances in more than one language.

3 Goals and research questions

The primary goal of the present study is to investigate receptive bilingualism in an empirical setting that involves two lexically and structurally distant languages: German and Turkish. The sociolinguistic context is an immigrant situation in Germany involving subtractive bilingualism: that is, a setting in which the ‘L1’ (defined as the language acquired first, Turkish) does not remain the functionally dominant language throughout the bilingual individuals’ development. To the extent that German, as the language of schools and the environment, becomes functionally dominant, the productive use of Turkish becomes more restricted.3 In this constellation, a practice of receptive bilingualism with respect to Turkish (used receptively) and German (used productively as well as




receptively) can frequently be observed. It is clear from the informants’ biographies that they were involved in Turkish communication in their early childhood; furthermore, due to the typological distance between German and Turkish, the possibility of receptive multilingualism functioning on the basis of similarity alone must be precluded. Instead, a degree of acquired grammatical knowledge of Turkish is presumably involved. The data show passages of discourse, and in fact entire recordings, in which the speakers in question do not use Turkish productively at all, but it is also possible to find passages in which receptive knowledge is turned into productive use.

The theoretical goal of the present study is to adapt the term ‘receptive bilingualism’ to include this specific constellation of multilingualism. The term will thus be employed to refer to a communicative practice found among immigrant bilinguals in which some of the interlocutors restrict their use of the L1 to receptive functions.4 While such a practice is easily observable in the data, this raises questions as to the characteristics of the underlying competence that makes it possible. In order to identify and examine this competence, the study of ‘receptive competence’ is restricted to the observable processing of one specific type of construction: namely, non-finite, morphologically complex clause linkage constructions in Turkish, as these are representative of the typological distance between the two languages involved. The underlying reasoning is that these constructions cannot be understood on the basis of knowledge of their rough equivalents in German – i.e. finite clauses subordinated by means of clause-initial, morphologically unbound complementizers, whose productive use is frequent in the data. The present study, rather than being a developmental study of the acquisition of -DIK- in Turkish–German bilingual children,5 instead investigates the grammatical knowledge of young bilinguals with respect to a type of construction that they seem to make little productive use of, thereby examining receptive and productive competences in a developmental perspective.

The specific goals are, first, a characterization of this particular type of competence and, second, a characterization of its development. Relevant questions include the following: (1) What kind of linguistic competence is involved? How can processes of understanding on the children’s part be analysed in terms of grammatical knowledge on the evidence of responses to interviewer contributions? (2) Are complex constructions (for example, morphologically complex and functionally diverse clause linkage constructions) fully understood? How can this be convincingly demonstrated? (3) How does productive bilingualism turn into receptive bilingualism and vice versa? How can individual children’s data be placed on a continuum of receptive versus productive linguistic bilingualism in an age-related context? Do the children start as productive bilinguals and end up as receptive bilinguals? Does their receptive bilingualism turn into a productive one again at a later age? The present article thus hopes to contribute a new kind of data to receptive multilingualism research and to link it to the sociolinguistic discussion of immigrant bilingualism and to functional–pragmatic approaches to understanding.

4 Data: constellation of multilingualism

The general constellation of multilingualism in the data is as follows: the informants are Turkish–German bilingual children growing up in Hamburg in an immigrant setting. While the family communication is often bilingual, the children still acquire Turkish as an L1 and Turkish often remains their dominant language until preschool age. They also acquire German from very early on, both inside and outside the family, and this contact with German intensifies when they enter public institutions, such as kindergarten or school. Over the course of time and due to the generally diglossic situation of Turkish in Germany that restricts the family languages of immigrants to unofficial functions (see Ferguson, 1959/2000; Fishman, 1967/2000; Grießhaber, Özel, & Rehbein, 1996 with



Herkenrath 5

respect to the situation of Turkish children in Germany), the balance of bilingualism shifts in favour of the majority language, German. The further development of Turkish at later stages depends on communicative practices in the family and on school support for Turkish. Individual children differ with respect to their development in Turkish: a partial loss of their native language in some grammatical areas is observable, for example, in procedures of subordination and evidentiality (Rehbein, Herkenrath, & Karakoç, 2009). In this particular constellation of successive bilingualism, the traditional distinction between ‘L1’ and ‘L2’ becomes somewhat blurred such that the L1, according to several conflicting criteria (order of acquisition, mode of activation, communicative preference, functional development), may even appear to shift over time (see Rehbein & Grießhaber, 1996 for an alternate concept and terminology, relating the languages to their institutional functions; Verschik, 2002 for a biographical approach to successive multilingualism).

However, these circumstances differ from known situations of ‘language shift’: Fürstenau, Gogolin, and Yağmur (2003, p. 135) document a ‘high vitality index’ for Turkish as an immigrant language, in contrast to most other immigrant languages in Germany; see also Backus (2004, p. 694) for a larger view of the situation of Turkish in Western Europe. Studies of older children suggest that some bilinguals regain access to complex language and text abilities in their family language during adolescence, depending on the literacy-oriented encouragement of immigrant bilingualism provided by the educational system (see Akıncı, 2008; Akıncı, Keskin, & Küntay, 2006 for a quantitative approach to literacy-related activities of Turkish–French bilingual children and adolescents in France). With respect to the criteria developed for a ‘Graded Intergenerational Dislocation Scale’ in Fishman (1991, 2004), the ‘sociofunctional disarray’ of Turkish in Germany would be situated somewhere between stages five and six: stage six indicates that a language is intergenerationally transmitted as a mother tongue, while stage five indicates that institutions for the development of literacy in a given minoritized language are available outside the compulsory educational system.

The occurrence of phenomena of receptive multilingualism in the data at hand may require some contextualization with respect to other multilingual phenomena. On the whole, the data are characterized by phenomena of: (1) codeswitching, (2) mutual accommodation, (3) contact influence, and also (4) practices of receptive multilingualism. Codeswitching occurs at both the utterance-internal and the utterance-external level, and we found it to be more frequent in discourses in which the interviewers addressed the children in Turkish, while discourses in which the interviewers speak German tend to be monolingual in German, rarely displaying any codeswitching (Herkenrath, Özdil, & Rehbein, 2000; Özdil, 2010). Contact influence usually emerges in the form of innovative constructions in Turkish, often using the surrounding majority language as a model and affecting a variety of grammatical areas (Herkenrath, Karakoç, & Rehbein, 2003; Rehbein, 2001; Rehbein et al., 2009). Some functional areas of connectivity in Turkish are characterized by an active usage mainly on the part of the adult speakers. Examples are subordination, evidentiality and some discourse particles (Herkenrath, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Karakoç, 2007; Rehbein & Karakoç, 2004). The present article focuses on instances of longer discourse passages during which speakers can be observed to each speak a different language, while actively participating in the entire bilingual conversation.

The data on which the present investigation is based were collected within the framework of the two research projects ENDFAS and SKOBI conducted by Jochen Rehbein at the University of Hamburg, investigating the development of complex language in Turkish–German bilingual children. The data are elicited narrative conversations recorded in family settings by means of a series of so-called evocative field experiments. They consist of longitudinal spoken data from 36 bilingual children, 20 monolingual Turkish children, and five monolingual German children, covering an age range of about 4 to 14. The entire corpus is composed of some 200,000 utterances




transcribed with the partiture editor EXMARaLDA developed by Thomas Schmidt, according to the HIAT conventions (Ehlich & Rehbein, 1976; Rehbein, Grießhaber, Löning, Hartung, & Bührig, 1993), and administered in a CoMa database developed by Kai Wörner (Schmidt, 2004, 2005; Schmidt & Wörner, 2005). The present article is a pilot case study of one child from this data set.

With respect to the practice of elicitation underlying the data, it should be noted that the recordings were usually undertaken with one particular language in mind: each field experiment was done twice, with one Turkish-speaking and one German-speaking interviewer visiting the family for the respective recordings. As a rule, the interviewers would address the children in the language required by the evocative design and expect the children to speak the same language. However, this did not always turn out to be the case, as the children often wanted to speak the other language, to codeswitch or to realize other forms of multilingual discourse. The common strategy of the interviewers in such constellations was to pretend that they did not speak or did not fully understand the other language. Example one (E1)6 illustrates this kind of elicitation. Binnaz, a 7-year-old Turkish–German bilingual girl from Hamburg, realizes the beginning of the passage (score areas 51 to 54) in German, while the interviewer İzel consistently continues to speak Turkish throughout the passage and in fact throughout the conversation. In score areas 54f, İzel explicitly thematizes the language choice (Türkçe konuşuyorduk ama, ‘We were going to speak Turkish though’); in score areas 56f, she actually pretends to have problems in fully understanding German (Çünkü ben hepsini anlamıyorum, ‘Because I don’t understand everything of it’ and Ne yapayım anlamıyorum, ‘What can I do, I don’t understand’) – which, however, was not the case, as Binnaz may have realized. In score area 58, İzel indicates the possibility of Binnaz speaking German with another interviewer on another occasion (Nesli gelirse Almanca konuşuyorsunuz, benle Türkçe konuş, ‘If Nesli comes, you guys can speak German: with me, speak Turkish’).

(E 1) EFE07tk_Bin_b_0746_2_SKO, score areas 51-60 240102/SKOBI/EFE07tk/Bin/Familie/Babur/Sony WM-F2041/0746

160702/Aksoy/1.70/Babur/1:40/Babur/1:60/Taşdemir/1:40/050803/Sony TA-FE330R

Bin: Binnaz (7;4), bilingual girl, İze: İzel, female interviewer [51]

Bin Bazıler eve götürdü, em, onlar • werhässlich Bin[TL] some-PL house- take-PST IJ DEI-PL

DAT Bin[eng] Sometookithome, ehm, thoseones • whomadeitugly

[52] Bin[v] gemachthat, der/dermussdasmitnehmen, aber Bin[eng] thatone/thatonehadtotakeithome, butImadeit

[53] Bin[v] ichhabschöngemacht, deswegenmuss((anl.))da Bin[eng] beautiful, soithastostay((incompr.)).

[54] Bin[v] bleiben. Ich hab, ich hab mein Pap…

Bin[eng] I I(())edmypap… Ize[v] Türkçe Ize[TL] Turkish Ize[eng] Weweregoingtospeak

[55] Bin[v] ((anl.))˙

Bin[eng] ((incompr.))˙ Ize[v] konuşuyorduk ama. Tabi. ((1s)) Türkçe Ize[TL] speak-PRS-PCOP.1PL but naturally Turkish Ize[eng] Turkishthough. Ofcourse. ((1s)) Wehavetospeak

[nn] verysoftly

[56] Ize[v] konuşmak zorundayız. ((1s)) Çünkü ben hepsini Ize[TL] VN obligation-P3S- because DEI.1SG all-P3S-ACC

LOC-1PL Ize[eng] Turkish. ((1s)) BecauseIdon'tunderstand [nn]

[57] Bin[v] ((2s)) ((anl.))˙ ••((anl.))˙

Bin[eng] ((2s)) ((incompr.))˙ ••((incompr.))˙ Ize[v] anlamıyorum. Ne yapayım Ize[TL] understand-NEG- what do-OPT.1SG

PRS-1SG Ize[eng] everythingofit. WhatcanIdo,Idon't

[nn] louder

[58] Ize[v] anlamıyorum. • Nesli gelirse Almanca konuşursunuz Ize[TL] understand-NEG- Nesli come-CD German speak-AOR-2PL

PRS-1SG Ize[eng] understand. • IfNeslicomes, youguyscanspeakGerman:



Herkenrath 7

(E 1) EFE07tk_Bin_b_0746_2_SKO, score areas 51-60 240102/SKOBI/EFE07tk/Bin/Familie/Babur/Sony WM-F2041/0746

160702/Aksoy/1.70/Babur/1:40/Babur/1:60/Taşdemir/1:40/050803/Sony TA-FE330R

Bin: Binnaz (7;4), bilingual girl, İze: İzel, female interviewer [51]

Bin Bazıler eve götürdü, em, onlar • werhässlich Bin[TL] some-PL house- take-PST IJ DEI-PL

DAT Bin[eng] Sometookithome, ehm, thoseones • whomadeitugly

[52] Bin[v] gemachthat, der/dermussdasmitnehmen, aber Bin[eng] thatone/thatonehadtotakeithome, butImadeit

[53] Bin[v] ichhabschöngemacht, deswegenmuss((anl.))da Bin[eng] beautiful, soithastostay((incompr.)).

[54] Bin[v] bleiben. Ich hab, ich hab mein Pap…

Bin[eng] I I(())edmypap… Ize[v] Türkçe Ize[TL] Turkish Ize[eng] Weweregoingtospeak

[55] Bin[v] ((anl.))˙

Bin[eng] ((incompr.))˙ Ize[v] konuşuyorduk ama. Tabi. ((1s)) Türkçe Ize[TL] speak-PRS-PCOP.1PL but naturally Turkish Ize[eng] Turkishthough. Ofcourse. ((1s)) Wehavetospeak

[nn] verysoftly

[56] Ize[v] konuşmak zorundayız. ((1s)) Çünkü ben hepsini Ize[TL] VN obligation-P3S- because DEI.1SG all-P3S-ACC

LOC-1PL Ize[eng] Turkish. ((1s)) BecauseIdon'tunderstand [nn]

[57] Bin[v] ((2s)) ((anl.))˙ ••((anl.))˙

Bin[eng] ((2s)) ((incompr.))˙ ••((incompr.))˙ Ize[v] anlamıyorum. Ne yapayım Ize[TL] understand-NEG- what do-OPT.1SG

PRS-1SG Ize[eng] everythingofit. WhatcanIdo,Idon't

[nn] louder

[58] Ize[v] anlamıyorum. • Nesli gelirse Almanca konuşursunuz Ize[TL] understand-NEG- Nesli come-CD German speak-AOR-2PL

PRS-1SG Ize[eng] understand. • IfNeslicomes, youguyscanspeakGerman:

[59] Ize[v] benle Türkçe konuş. ((4s)) Ama sen de bana Ize[TL] DEI.1SG- Turkish speak but DEI. also DEI.1SG-

COM 2SG DAT Ize[eng] withme,speakTurkish. ((4)) Butyoucanalsoaskme

[60] Ize[v] sorabilirsin mesela, ••• mesela ne merak Ize[TL] ask-MOD-AOR- forinstance forinstance what wonder 2SG Ize[eng] like ••• likeforinstance whateveryouwanttoknow.




5 Case study: Pervin

The following case study presents data from one Turkish–German bilingual girl, Pervin, born in the mid-1980s in Hamburg, a second-generation immigrant child. There are five transcribed Turkish conversations with Pervin in which she participates as a speaker and as a hearer, recorded at ages 7:5, 8:0, 9:6, 10:6 and 11:1 respectively.

5.1 Receptive multilingualism in a 10-year-old

(E2) is an example of a conversation between Pervin at age 10 and Yılnur, a female interviewer. In this passage, Pervin speaks entirely in German even though the interviewer consistently addresses her in Turkish. Pervin does not accomodate to Yılnur’s language choice and even when Yılnur suggests the possibility of speaking in Turkish, she sticks to German, justifying her linguistic choice in terms of a competence that she feels she lacks.

(E 2) EFE07tk_Per_b_0372_6_ENF, score areas 49-61 170295/ENDFAS/EFE07tk/Per/Familie/Karton; Türker/Sony WM-F2041/0372b

120595/Karton/1:68/Yamaha AX-440

Per: Pervin (10;6), bilingual girl; Yıl: Yılnur, female interviewer [49]

Per sind ausgebrochen also. Siesindalso/ hierist Per[eng] likebrokeout. Sotheyare/ nowhereis

Yil Evet?

Yil[TL] yes Yil[eng] Yeah?

[50] Per jetztderZaun unddiesindeinfach/•• isnZaun Per[eng] thefence andtheyaresimply/•• afencewaslike Per[k] for:istein

[51] Per zumBeispielkaputtgewesen, dasindsie Per[eng] broken, sotheyranoutside

[52] Per rausgelaufen undärgend wogegangen. Und Per[eng] andwentsomewhere Andwe…

Yil Hm˙ Türkçesini de Yil[TL] IJ Turkish-P3S-ACC also Yil[eng] Doyoualsoknowthatonein

[53] Per wir… Nein. Nein. •• Per[eng] No. No. ••

Yil biliyor musun onun? Bilmiyorsun?

Yil[TL] know-PRS Q-2SG DEI-GEN know-NEG-PRS-2SG Yil[eng] Turkish? Youdon'tknowit?

[54] Per IchredenieTürkisch. Ts. WeilichDeutsch Per[TL] IJ Per[eng] IneverspeakTurkish. BecausIknowGermanbetter.

Yil Niye?

Yil[TL] what-DAT Yil[eng] Why?

[55] Per besserkann. Ääh• Per[TL] IJ

Yil Aah Türkçe de biliyorsundur. Ablan Yil[TL] IJ Turkish also know-PRS-2SG-COP eldersister-

P2S

Yil[eng] Ah, IguesyoualsoknowTurkish. Yourelder



Herkenrath 9




Per sind ausgebrochen also. Siesindalso/ hierist Per[eng] likebrokeout. Sotheyare/ nowhereis

Yil Evet?

Yil[TL] yes Yil[eng] Yeah?

[50] Per jetztderZaun unddiesindeinfach/•• isnZaun Per[eng] thefence andtheyaresimply/•• afencewaslike Per[k] for:istein

[51] Per zumBeispielkaputtgewesen, dasindsie Per[eng] broken, sotheyranoutside

[52] Per rausgelaufen undärgend wogegangen. Und Per[eng] andwentsomewhere Andwe…

Yil Hm˙ Türkçesini de Yil[TL] IJ Turkish-P3S-ACC also Yil[eng] Doyoualsoknowthatonein

[53] Per wir… Nein. Nein. •• Per[eng] No. No. ••

Yil biliyor musun onun? Bilmiyorsun?

Yil[TL] know-PRS Q-2SG DEI-GEN know-NEG-PRS-2SG Yil[eng] Turkish? Youdon'tknowit?

[54] Per IchredenieTürkisch. Ts. WeilichDeutsch Per[TL] IJ Per[eng] IneverspeakTurkish. BecausIknowGermanbetter.

Yil Niye?

Yil[TL] what-DAT Yil[eng] Why?

[55] Per besserkann. Ääh• Per[TL] IJ

Yil Aah Türkçe de biliyorsundur. Ablan Yil[TL] IJ Turkish also know-PRS-2SG-COP eldersister-

P2S

Yil[eng] Ah, IguesyoualsoknowTurkish. Yourelder

[56] Per ganzwenig, ja. Türkisch kannichganzwenigreden. Per[eng] verylittle, yeah. IcanspeakverylittleTurkish. Yil bak• ne güzel konuşuyo. Yil[TL] look what beautiful speak-PRS Yil[eng] sister,look,howbeautifullyshespeaks.

[57] Yil Zannetmiyorum. Bak ne güzel konuşuyorsun Yil[TL] assume-NEG-PRS-1SG look what beautiful speak-PRS-2SG Yil[eng] Idon'tthinkso. Look howbeautifullyyouspeakGerman.

[58] Yil Almancayı. Biraz da Türkçeyi konuşsan çok iyi olur. Yil[TL] German-ACC alittle also Turkish-ACC speak-CDCOP. very good be-MOD 2SG Yil[eng] IfyoualsospokealittleTurkish, it'dbegreat.

Yil[k] for:Türkçe [59]

Per 'Ä'hä˙ Diemeisten•Wörterkannichnichtin Per[TL] IJ Per[eng] Most•wordsIdon'tknowinTurkish.

[60] Per Türkisch. Dashabe ichnicht Per[TL] Ididn'tlearnthat.

Yil • Ama birazini biliyorsundur? Yil[TL] but alittle-P3S- know-PRS-2SG-COP

ACC Yil[eng] • Butyouprobablyknowalittle?

[61] Per gelernt.




On the whole, the conversation seems to run smoothly enough. Using the criteria from Zeevaert (2007) and from Kameyama (2004), there are neither pauses – indeed, there are several overlap-pings – nor any signs of non-understanding: no incoherencies, no echo-questions, no attempts by Pervin to make sure she has correctly understood, and no requests for clarification. The goal of the interaction was a homileic conversation about various aspects of Pervin’s daily life. Overall, this goal seems to have been achieved.

5.2 Productive multilingualism at age 7

Three years earlier, at age 7, Pervin manages a conversation with two Turkish-speaking adult interviewers, negotiating how to proceed with regard to an unsuccessful attempt at retelling a fairy tale.

(E 3) EFE01tk_Per_b_0114_5_ENF, score areas 46-56 120192/ENDFAS/EFE01tk/Per/Familie/Türker/Sony WM-F2041/0114a

150392/Celikkol-Türker/1:60/Celikkol/Tüzel/Yamaha AX-440

Per: Pervin (7;5), bilingual girl; Bur: Burçin, Pervin‘s sister (9;1)

Sin: Sinem, female interviewer; Hüs: Hüseyin, male interviewer [46]

Per babam, • babam tausendmal okudu onu. Per[TL] P1S father-P1S athousandtimes read-PST DEI-ACC Per[eng] • myfatherhasreadthatoneathousandtimes. Sin ok… Haaa, Sin[TL] read IJ

Sin[eng] herea… Right,

[47] Per Ondan… ((güler))

Per[TL] DEI-ABL Per[eng] That'swhy… ((laughs)) Sin demek çok okumalıydık belki de.

Sin[TL] say-VN much read-MOD-PCOP.1PL perhaps also Sin[eng] soweshouldhavereaditmanytimes. Hüs ((güler)) Bak isterseniz bi Hüs[TL] look want-CD-2PL one

Hüs[eng] ((laughs)) Look, ifyouwant, the

[48] Hüs daha geldiğimizde size aynı masalı yine ok/ Hüs[TL] more come-VN-P1P-LOC DEI.2PL- same fairytale- again read-

DAT ACC Hüs[eng] nexttimewecome let'srea/readthesamefairytaletoyouagain.

[49] Per Oma…

Per[eng] = Hüs okuyalım. •• Oldu mu? Ozaman • bize daha Hüs[TL] OPT.1PL be-PST Q DEItime DEI.1PL- more

DAT Hüs[eng] •• Okay? Then • you'llexplainitto

[50] Per Ama [biş] unutarız gene onu.

Per[TL] but DEI.1PL forget-MOD- again DEI-

1PL ACC Per[eng] Butwe'dforgetitagain. Hüs iyi biçimde açık… Yine Hüs[TL] good form-LOC expl… again

Hüs[eng] usinabetterway… We'llreaditagain

Per[k] for:biz for:unuturuz



Herkenrath 11

(E 3) EFE01tk_Per_b_0114_5_ENF, score areas 46-56 120192/ENDFAS/EFE01tk/Per/Familie/Türker/Sony WM-F2041/0114a

150392/Celikkol-Türker/1:60/Celikkol/Tüzel/Yamaha AX-440

Per: Pervin (7;5), bilingual girl; Bur: Burçin, Pervin‘s sister (9;1)

Sin: Sinem, female interviewer; Hüs: Hüseyin, male interviewer [46]

Per babam, • babam tausendmal okudu onu. Per[TL] P1S father-P1S athousandtimes read-PST DEI-ACC Per[eng] • myfatherhasreadthatoneathousandtimes. Sin ok… Haaa, Sin[TL] read IJ

Sin[eng] herea… Right,

[47] Per Ondan… ((güler))

Per[TL] DEI-ABL Per[eng] That'swhy… ((laughs)) Sin demek çok okumalıydık belki de.

Sin[TL] say-VN much read-MOD-PCOP.1PL perhaps also Sin[eng] soweshouldhavereaditmanytimes. Hüs ((güler)) Bak isterseniz bi Hüs[TL] look want-CD-2PL one

Hüs[eng] ((laughs)) Look, ifyouwant, the

[48] Hüs daha geldiğimizde size aynı masalı yine ok/ Hüs[TL] more come-VN-P1P-LOC DEI.2PL- same fairytale- again read-

DAT ACC Hüs[eng] nexttimewecome let'srea/readthesamefairytaletoyouagain.

[49] Per Oma…

Per[eng] = Hüs okuyalım. •• Oldu mu? Ozaman • bize daha Hüs[TL] OPT.1PL be-PST Q DEItime DEI.1PL- more

DAT Hüs[eng] •• Okay? Then • you'llexplainitto

[50] Per Ama [biş] unutarız gene onu.

Per[TL] but DEI.1PL forget-MOD- again DEI-

1PL ACC Per[eng] Butwe'dforgetitagain. Hüs iyi biçimde açık… Yine Hüs[TL] good form-LOC expl… again

Hüs[eng] usinabetterway… We'llreaditagain

Per[k] for:biz for:unuturuz

[51] Per ((cansıkıntısıylanefesverir)) Per[eng] ((breathesout,irritated))

Hüs okuruz, yine okuruz. Hüs[TL] read-MOD- again read-MOD-1PL 1PL Hüs[eng] andagain.

[52] Hüs Biz de bin defa okuruz. Her geldiğimizde okuyalım. Hüs[TL] DEI. also thou- time read-MOD- each come-VN-P1P-LOC read-OPT-1PL 1PL sand 1PL Hüs[eng] Andwecanreaditathousandtimes. Let'sreaditeverytimewecome.

[53] Per Şij Per[TL] DEI.2PL

Per[eng] Areyou

Hüs Sabahtan akşama kadar okuyalım, okuyalım. Hüs[TL] morning-ABL evening-DAT until read-OPT-1PL read-OPT-1PL Hüs[eng] Frommorningtillnight, let'sreadit,readit. Per[k] for:siz

[54] Per akşama kaday bekliyo muşunuş burda? Per[TL] evening-DAT until wait-PRS Q-2PL here Per[eng] goingtowaithereuntilnight? Hüs Beklicez Hüs[TL] wait-FUT-1PL

Hüs[eng] Ofcoursewe

Per[k] for:musunuz [55]

Per Haaa˙

Per[TL] IJ Sin Sen anlatana kadar beklicez Sin[TL] DEI. tell-CV until wait-FUT-1PL

2SG Sin[eng] We’llwaithereuntilyoutellus.

Hüs tabi (sizso)…

Hüs[TL] of DEI-2PL=

course Hüs[eng] will,you=




This negotiation is conducted almost entirely in Turkish (with the one exception of the German expression tausendmal, ‘a thousand times’ in score area 46). The interviewers are suggesting that Pervin and her sister be read the tale many more times and in doing so they are using complex constructions, in particular nominalizing and converbial subordinating morphology with some of the verbs, such as [Bir daha geldiğimizde] size aynı masalı yine okuyalım, ‘one more come-VN-PSS.1PL.LOC DEI.2PL-DAT same fairy tale-PSS.3SG-ACC again read-OPT.1PL’, ‘The next time we come we’ll read you the same fairy tale again’ in score areas 47f, [Her geldiğimizde] okuyalım, ‘every come-VN-PSS.1PL.LOC read-OPT.1PL’, ‘Let’s read it every time we come’ in score area 52: and [Sen anlatana kadar] beklicez burda, ‘DEI.2SG tell-CV until’, ‘We’ll wait here until you tell us’ in score area 55. The question is whether Pervin understands these complex con-structions, and the impression is that she does, because her answers – counter-arguments to the

[56] Per Anlatmıycam.

Per[TL] tell-NEG-FUT-1SG Per[eng] Iwon'ttellit. Sin burda.

Sin[TL] here Hüs •Evet. Gece uyumak yoktur. Hüs[TL] yes night sleep-VN nonexist-COP

Hüs[eng] •Yep. Youcan’tsleeptonight.

[51] Per ((cansıkıntısıylanefesverir)) Per[eng] ((breathesout,irritated))

Hüs okuruz, yine okuruz. Hüs[TL] read-MOD- again read-MOD-1PL 1PL Hüs[eng] andagain.

[52] Hüs Biz de bin defa okuruz. Her geldiğimizde okuyalım. Hüs[TL] DEI. also thou- time read-MOD- each come-VN-P1P-LOC read-OPT-1PL 1PL sand 1PL Hüs[eng] Andwecanreaditathousandtimes. Let'sreaditeverytimewecome.

[53] Per Şij Per[TL] DEI.2PL

Per[eng] Areyou

Hüs Sabahtan akşama kadar okuyalım, okuyalım. Hüs[TL] morning-ABL evening-DAT until read-OPT-1PL read-OPT-1PL Hüs[eng] Frommorningtillnight, let'sreadit,readit. Per[k] for:siz

[54] Per akşama kaday bekliyo muşunuş burda? Per[TL] evening-DAT until wait-PRS Q-2PL here Per[eng] goingtowaithereuntilnight? Hüs Beklicez Hüs[TL] wait-FUT-1PL

Hüs[eng] Ofcoursewe

Per[k] for:musunuz [55]

Per Haaa˙

Per[TL] IJ Sin Sen anlatana kadar beklicez Sin[TL] DEI. tell-CV until wait-FUT-1PL

2SG Sin[eng] We’llwaithereuntilyoutellus.

Hüs tabi (sizso)…

Hüs[TL] of DEI-2PL=

course Hüs[eng] will,you=



Herkenrath 13

suggestions made by the adults as well as other signs of disapproval – meaningfully contribute to the overall success of the conversation.

5.3 Receptive and productive use of the subordinating morpheme -DIK

Although Pervin in (E3) meaningfully participates in a conversation in which the adults employ complex subordinating morphology, these same constructions do not appear to become quite entrenched in her productive repertoire over the longitudinal recording sessions. As the result of an EXAKT search of complex subordinating constructions involving the factive nominalizer -DIK shows (see Figure 1), Pervin employs such forms only twice, once at age 9 and once at age 11, her elder sister Burcin employs three forms (at ages 9;00 and 12;08), and her mother produces two forms, whereas the interviewers realize quite a large number of complex constructions of this type (55 instances in all).

Recording no. Pervin’s age Speaker Role of speaker Occurencesof -DIK

Per group Total

0500a 9:6 Pervin child informant 1 2 620504a/b 11:1 Pervin child informant 10114a 7:5 Burcin family member/sibling 2 50272a 8:0 mother family member/parent 10372aa/b 10:6 mother family member/parent 10504a/b 11:1 Burcin family member/sibling 10114a 7:5 Sinem interviewer 7 550114a 7:5 Hüseyin interviewer 40272a 8:0 Sinem interviewer 10500a 9:6 Sinem interviewer 10372aa/b 10:6 Yılnur interviewer 150504a/b 11:1 Sinem interviewer 10504a/b 11:1 Hüseyin interviewer 26

Figure 1. EXAKT search result: absolute number of complex subordinating constructions involving the factive nominalizer -DIK as employed in conversations with Pervin

5.4 Understanding of complex subordinating constructions at age 10

The previous examples illustrate that Pervin speaks Turkish and at least understands morphologically complex subordination at age 7 and that she explicitly claims to speak no Turkish at age 10, practising receptive multilingualism with a Turkish-speaking adult. The question arising next concerns the complexity of her receptive knowledge at this later age: can Pervin still understand and process morphologically complex and typologically distant (from German) types of subordination in Turkish at age 10? (E4) presents another passage of the conversation between Pervin and Yılnur. In this passage, Pervin is talking about her best friend, Machlaga.







Per mit einJungenodersositzen. Unddann •habenwir Per[eng] boyorwhatever. Andthen •westartedsitting Per[k] for:einem

[27] Per unszusammengesetzt. Dann •••äääh ••ääh jetzt Per[eng] nexttoeachother. Then •••eh ••eh nowshe

[28] Per istsiemeinebesteFreundingeworden.

Per[eng] hasbecomemybestfriend. Yil Şimdi o Yil[TL] now DEI

Yil[eng] Nowtheone

[29] Per Semaist Per[eng] Semaisn'tmy

Yil dediğin Sehra, demi, ya da Zema/ Sema. Yil[TL] say-PAR- Sehra notQ or also Zema Sema

P2S Yil[eng] youcalledSehra, right, orZema/Sema. Yil[k] for:değilmi

[30] Per jetztnichtmehrmeinebesteFreundin.

Per[eng] bestfriendanylonger. Yil Diil.

Yil[TL] not Yil[eng] Sheisn't. Nowwhich

Yil[k] for:değil [31]

Per Vonder Per[eng] Fromthenew

Yil Okuldan şimdi hangisi en iyi arkadaşın di?

Yil[TL] school-ABL now which-P3S SUP good friend-P2S PCOP Yil[eng] onefromschoolwasyourbestfriend? Yil[k] for:dı

[32] Per Neuen? Äähm Per[TL] IJ

Per[eng] one? Yil Şimdi/ evet. Şimdi gittiğin okulda? Yil[TL] now yes now go-PAR- school-LOC

P2S Yil[eng] Now/ yes. Theschoolyou'regoingtonow.



Herkenrath 15




Per mit einJungenodersositzen. Unddann •habenwir Per[eng] boyorwhatever. Andthen •westartedsitting Per[k] for:einem

[27] Per unszusammengesetzt. Dann •••äääh ••ääh jetzt Per[eng] nexttoeachother. Then •••eh ••eh nowshe

[28] Per istsiemeinebesteFreundingeworden.

Per[eng] hasbecomemybestfriend. Yil Şimdi o Yil[TL] now DEI

Yil[eng] Nowtheone

[29] Per Semaist Per[eng] Semaisn'tmy

Yil dediğin Sehra, demi, ya da Zema/ Sema. Yil[TL] say-PAR- Sehra notQ or also Zema Sema

P2S Yil[eng] youcalledSehra, right, orZema/Sema. Yil[k] for:değilmi

[30] Per jetztnichtmehrmeinebesteFreundin.

Per[eng] bestfriendanylonger. Yil Diil.

Yil[TL] not Yil[eng] Sheisn't. Nowwhich

Yil[k] for:değil [31]

Per Vonder Per[eng] Fromthenew

Yil Okuldan şimdi hangisi en iyi arkadaşın di?

Yil[TL] school-ABL now which-P3S SUP good friend-P2S PCOP Yil[eng] onefromschoolwasyourbestfriend? Yil[k] for:dı

[32] Per Neuen? Äähm Per[TL] IJ

Per[eng] one? Yil Şimdi/ evet. Şimdi gittiğin okulda? Yil[TL] now yes now go-PAR- school-LOC

P2S Yil[eng] Now/ yes. Theschoolyou'regoingtonow.

[33] Per Machlaga. Evet.

Per[TL] yes Per[eng] Machlaga. Yeah. Yil Machlaga? İranlı? İranlı evet. Yil[TL] Machlaga Iranian Iranian yes

Yil[eng] Machlaga? IssheIranian? Iranianyes.

[34] Per Nein. Irane diil. Per[TL] = language

Per[eng] No. Iranianlanguage.

Yil Türkçe konuşamıyorsunuz ama?

Yil[TL] Turkish speak-NEG.MOD-PRS-2PL but Yil[eng] Butyoutwocan'tspeakTurkish?

[35] Per Ja. Machlagonenntsie Per[eng] Yeah. ShealwayscallsherselfMachlago.

Yil O İranca biliyor mu? • Farsça. Yil[TL] DEI Iranian know-PRS Q Persian Yil[eng] DoessheknowIranian? • Persian.

[36] Per sichimmer. Ja! NenntihreMutter Per[eng] Yeah! That'swathermotheralwayscalls

Yil Machlago mu?

Yil[TL] Machlago Q Yil[eng] Machlago?

[37] Per immersie. Machlago.

Per[eng] her. Machlago. Yil Böyle• kısaca bi isim var mı onun? Yani Yil[TL] so short-EQU one name exist Q DEI-GEN thatis

Yil[eng] Doesshelike•haveanickname? Like

[38] Per Nein.

Per[eng] No. Yil Machi gibi bi şey? Yoksa sırf Machlaga mı Yil[TL] Machi like one thing or only Machlaga Q Yil[eng] sometinglikeMachi? OrdoyoujustsayMachlaga?

[39] Per IchsageimmerSchamgala. Ihr Per[eng] IalwayssaySchamgala. Herlast

Yil söylüyorsunuz?

Yil[TL] say-PSR-2PL Yil[eng]











Yil Machlago mu?





[38] Per Nein.


















Yil Machlago mu?





[38] Per Nein.





[40] Per Nachname. •• IhrNachname. Per[eng] name. •• Herlastname. Yil Schamgala? ••• Yil[TL] Schamgala Yil[eng] Schamgala? •••

[41] Yil N'olduğunu biliyor musun? Anlamını? Maktago'nun? Yil[TL] what-be-VN-P3S- know-PRS Q-2SG meaning-P3S- Maktago-GEN ACC ACC Yil[eng] Doyouknowwhatitis? It'smeaning? Themeaningof

[42] Per 'E'e˙ Machlaga!

-

Per[TL] IJ Machlaga! Per[eng] Machlaga! Yil Annattı mı hiç sana? Hiç söylemedı. Yil[TL] tell-PST Q atall DEI.2SG-DAT atall say-NEG-PST

Yil[eng] Maktago? Didsheevertellyou? Shenevertoldyou?

Yil[k] für:anlattı [43]

Per AberihreMutternenntsieimmerSchamgala/ Per[eng] ButhermotheralwayscallsherSchamgala/

Yil Evet? Yil[TL] yes Yil[eng] Right?

[44] Per äähm((prustetund lacht)) Guckmal,ihreMutter Per[eng] eehm((snortsand laughs)) Yil ((lacht)) Yil[eng] ((laughs))



Herkenrath 17

In score areas 29f, Yılnur, in an attempt to clarify the identity of the person spoken about, is employing a morphologically complex attributive clause construction: Şimdi o [dediğin] Sehra, de mi, ya da Zema/Sema, ‘now DEI say-PAR-PSS.2SG Sehra, not Q, or also Zema/Sema’, ‘Now that one that you men-tioned is Sehra, isn’t she, or Zema/Sema’. Pervin’s answer, in German, is: Sema ist jetzt nicht mehr meine beste Freundin, ‘Sema isn’t my best friend any longer’. The answer is coherent in the given constellation, but it may be too unspecific to conclusively decide which linguistic elements and which functions Pervin has precisely understood. In other words, her answer does not unequivocally show that she has understood the complete details of the relative clause construction, as she could have sim-ply relied on the information gathered from the symbol field expressions, i.e. the lexical information.

In score area 32, the interviewer is employing another relative clause construction in order to identify the exact school Pervin is speaking about (Pervin having recently changed schools): [Şimdi gittiğin] okulda, ‘now go-PAR-PSS.2SG school-LOC’, ‘At the school you’re going to now’. This identification seems to work out as Pervin is able to continue on the basis of this clarifying infor-mation. Again, though, it would be necessary to show more precisely to what extent and in what way Pervin’s communicative participation in this constellation actually depends on a detailed pro-cessing of the relative clause construction.

In the last part of the passage, the interviewer is subordinating a complement clause to a matrix construction (Rehbein, 2007b) in asking Pervin whether she knows the meaning of her best friend’s name. The wording is redundant, as both a morphologically complex complement clause construc-tion (‘what it is’) and a lexical NP (‘its meaning’) occur as complements of the verbum sentiendi, so that understanding is also possible without a detailed analysis of the subordinated construction alone. [N’olduğunu] biliyor musun? Anlamını? Machlago’nun?, ‘what be-VN-PSS.3SG-ACC know-PRS Q-2SG? Meaning-PSS.3SG-ACC? Machlago-GEN?’, ‘Do you know what it is? Its meaning? Machlago’s?’ (score area 41). Pervin’s answer is brief: E e, ‘Nope’. This answer can be interpreted as showing that Pervin globally understands. It is less obvious whether it is actually the complex procedural combination of the subordinated construction (N’olduğunu, ‘What it is’, in square brackets) or just the finite verb biliyor musun, ‘do you know’, and the postposed alternative syntactic object, anlamını, ‘its meaning’, that she processes and understands.

5.5 Productive use of complex subordinating constructions at age 11

(E5) presents one of the two documented instances in which Pervin makes productive use of a -DIK- construction. In this last passage, recorded with a different interviewer half a year later, Pervin speaks Turkish only, and she actually makes productive use of a morphologically complex relative clause construction.

(E 5) EFE08tk_Per_b_0504_2_ENF, score areas 65-79 170995/ENDFAS/EFE08tk/Per/Familie/Kuzkaya, Türker/Sony WM-F2041/0504

150296/Balkaya/1:32/Yamaha AX-440

Per: Pervin (11;1), bilingual girl; Hüs: Hüseyin, male interviewer [65]

Per hemmü zikdoyu/em ((1s)) ne varsa. He˙ Per[TL] what exist- IJ

CDCOP Per[eng] ((1s)) whateverthereis. Yeah˙ Hüs ((anl.))˙ Hepsini Hüs[TL] all-P3S.ACC

Hüs[eng] Youdon't

[66] Per E… Per[TL] IJ

Hüs izlemiyosun, yani sevdiğin proğram yok mu? Hüs[TL] follow-NEG-PRS-2SG thatis like-PAR-P2S programme non- Q

exist Hüs[eng] watchallofthem, thatis, isn'tthereanyprogrammethatyoulike?

[67] Hüs Türkçe, şey em Türk kanalları çekyo mu, TRT fılan? Hüs[TL] Turkish thing IJ Turkish channel-PL- draw-PRS Q TRT etcetera ACC Hüs[eng] Turkish, Imean, doyougetTurkishchannels, TRTetcetera?

[68] Per TRT yalnız, ama… Bir ay sonra Per[TL] TRT only but one month later

Per[eng] JustTRT, but… Andinamonth'stime,

Hüs Veya… TRT-İNT.

Hüs[TL] or TRT-İNT Hüs[eng] Or… TRT-İNT.

[69] Per da, em şey ATV, Show-TV onları da çekcek, ••• Per[TL] also IJ thing ATV Show-TV DEI-PL- also draw-FUT

ACC Per[eng] ehmlikeATV, Show-TV, we'llgetthose,too, •••

[70] Per Kabelkanal’da.

Per[TL] Kabelkanal-LOC Per[eng] atKabelkanal. Hüs (Şunu) çekyo yani Show-TV hepsini Hüs[TL] DEI-ACC draw-PRS thatis Show-TV all-P3S-ACC

Hüs[eng] Doyougetthis, Imean, youcanwatchShow-TVand




(E 5) EFE08tk_Per_b_0504_2_ENF, score areas 65-79 170995/ENDFAS/EFE08tk/Per/Familie/Kuzkaya, Türker/Sony WM-F2041/0504

150296/Balkaya/1:32/Yamaha AX-440

Per: Pervin (11;1), bilingual girl; Hüs: Hüseyin, male interviewer [65]

Per hemmü zikdoyu/em ((1s)) ne varsa. He˙ Per[TL] what exist- IJ

CDCOP Per[eng] ((1s)) whateverthereis. Yeah˙ Hüs ((anl.))˙ Hepsini Hüs[TL] all-P3S.ACC

Hüs[eng] Youdon't

[66] Per E… Per[TL] IJ

Hüs izlemiyosun, yani sevdiğin proğram yok mu? Hüs[TL] follow-NEG-PRS-2SG thatis like-PAR-P2S programme non- Q

exist Hüs[eng] watchallofthem, thatis, isn'tthereanyprogrammethatyoulike?

[67] Hüs Türkçe, şey em Türk kanalları çekyo mu, TRT fılan? Hüs[TL] Turkish thing IJ Turkish channel-PL- draw-PRS Q TRT etcetera ACC Hüs[eng] Turkish, Imean, doyougetTurkishchannels, TRTetcetera?

[68] Per TRT yalnız, ama… Bir ay sonra Per[TL] TRT only but one month later

Per[eng] JustTRT, but… Andinamonth'stime,

Hüs Veya… TRT-İNT.

Hüs[TL] or TRT-İNT Hüs[eng] Or… TRT-İNT.

[69] Per da, em şey ATV, Show-TV onları da çekcek, ••• Per[TL] also IJ thing ATV Show-TV DEI-PL- also draw-FUT

ACC Per[eng] ehmlikeATV, Show-TV, we'llgetthose,too, •••

[70] Per Kabelkanal’da.

Per[TL] Kabelkanal-LOC Per[eng] atKabelkanal. Hüs (Şunu) çekyo yani Show-TV hepsini Hüs[TL] DEI-ACC draw-PRS thatis Show-TV all-P3S-ACC

Hüs[eng] Doyougetthis, Imean, youcanwatchShow-TVand

[71] Per Hayır daha çekmiyo, bir ay sonra Per[TL] no still draw-NEG-PRS one month later

Per[eng] No,wedon'tgetthemyet, likeinamonth'stime.

Hüs izleyebilirsin?

Hüs[TL] watch-MOD-PRS-2SG Hüs[eng] allthat?

[72] Per böyle. Belki. Per[TL] so perhaps

Per[eng] Maybe.

Hüs ••• Bir ay sonra iz/ çeker/ çekcek. Hüs[TL] one month later wa/ draw-PRS draw-FUT Hüs[eng] ••• Inamonth'stime youwa/get/willgetit.

[73] Per Evet. Gazetede Per[TL] yes newspaper-LOC

Per[eng] Yeah. It'swritteninthe

Hüs Yani seredebileceksiniz. Hmhm˙ Hüs[TL] thatis watch-MOD-FUT-2PL IJ Hüs[eng] Thatis,you'llbeabletowatchthem. Right.

[74] Per yazyodur.

Per[TL] write-PRS-COP Per[eng] papers. Hüs ((2s)) Peki en sevdiğin proğram yok mu Hüs[TL] verywell SUP like-PAR-P2S programme non- Q

exist Hüs[eng] ((2s)) Okaythen,don'tyouhaveaprogrammethatyoulike

[75] Hüs senin? Sen her şey izliyo musun öyle, her/ Hüs[TL] DEI-2SG- DEI.2SG every thing watch- Q-2SG likethat every

GEN PRS Hüs[eng] most? Doyouwatcheverythingjustlikethat, every/

[76] Per Her sev/ yani/ çok filim var, her ş/ Per[TL] every like thatis many movie exist every =

Per[eng] Ilikeev/ thatis/ there'ssomanymovies, everyth/

Hüs televizyona o kadar çok var ki.

Hüs[TL] television-DAT DEI degree much exıst PTC Hüs[eng] there'ssomuchstuffonTVyaknow.



Herkenrath 19

[71] Per Hayır daha çekmiyo, bir ay sonra Per[TL] no still draw-NEG-PRS one month later

Per[eng] No,wedon'tgetthemyet, likeinamonth'stime.

Hüs izleyebilirsin?

Hüs[TL] watch-MOD-PRS-2SG Hüs[eng] allthat?

[72] Per böyle. Belki. Per[TL] so perhaps

Per[eng] Maybe.

Hüs ••• Bir ay sonra iz/ çeker/ çekcek. Hüs[TL] one month later wa/ draw-PRS draw-FUT Hüs[eng] ••• Inamonth'stime youwa/get/willgetit.

[73] Per Evet. Gazetede Per[TL] yes newspaper-LOC

Per[eng] Yeah. It'swritteninthe

Hüs Yani seredebileceksiniz. Hmhm˙ Hüs[TL] thatis watch-MOD-FUT-2PL IJ Hüs[eng] Thatis,you'llbeabletowatchthem. Right.

[74] Per yazyodur.

Per[TL] write-PRS-COP Per[eng] papers. Hüs ((2s)) Peki en sevdiğin proğram yok mu Hüs[TL] verywell SUP like-PAR-P2S programme non- Q

exist Hüs[eng] ((2s)) Okaythen,don'tyouhaveaprogrammethatyoulike

[75] Hüs senin? Sen her şey izliyo musun öyle, her/ Hüs[TL] DEI-2SG- DEI.2SG every thing watch- Q-2SG likethat every

GEN PRS Hüs[eng] most? Doyouwatcheverythingjustlikethat, every/

[76] Per Her sev/ yani/ çok filim var, her ş/ Per[TL] every like thatis many movie exist every =

Per[eng] Ilikeev/ thatis/ there'ssomanymovies, everyth/

Hüs televizyona o kadar çok var ki.

Hüs[TL] television-DAT DEI degree much exıst PTC Hüs[eng] there'ssomuchstuffonTVyaknow.

[77] Per hepsini sevyom işte. En sevdiğim de "Gute Per[TL] all-P3S-ACC like-PRS.1SG PTC SUP like-PAR-P1S also Per[eng] Ilikethemall,see. AndtheoneIlikemostis "GuteZeiten,

Hüs Hm˙

Hüs[TL] IJ [78]

Per Zeiten,schlechteZeiten."

Per[eng] schlechteZeiten." Hüs ((1,5s)) Alman dizisi, Hüs[TL] German series Hüs[eng] ((1,5s)) AGermanseries,

[79] Hüs demi? • Hiç izlemedim ben onu. ••• Ne olyo o Hüs[TL] atall watch-NEG-PST. DEI. DEI-ACC what be-PRS DEI

not-Q 1SG 1SG Hüs[eng] isn'tit? • I'veneverwatchedthatone,Ihaven't. ••• What'sinthatfilm?




The conversation is about TV programmes and channels. The interviewer asks Pervin whether there is any programme that she particularly likes (… yani sevdiğin proğram yok mu?, ‘PTC like-PAR-PSS.2SG programme nonexist Q’, ‘Isn’t there any programme that you like?’, score area 66). Due to his use of many questions at a time,7 the interviewer does not receive the kind of answer that would allow us to judge whether or not Pervin linguistically processes the morphological and functional details of the relative clause.

Later, the interviewer repeats his question with almost the identical wording: Peki en sevdiğin proğram yok mu senin?, ‘okay SUP like-PSS.2SG programme nonexist Q DEI.2SG-GEN’, ‘Okay, then, don’t you have any programme that you like most?’ (score areas 74f). Pervin’s answer is not only coherent with respect to the preceding discourse, but also contains a morphologically com-plex attributive clause (in square brackets): Her sev/ yani/ çok filim var, her ş/ hepsini sevyom işte. [En sevdiğim] de Gute Zeiten, schlechte Zeiten, ‘I like ev/ that is/ there’s so many movies, everyth/ I like them all, see. And [the one I like most] is Gute Zeiten, schlechte Zeiten’.

It might be argued that this instance of a -DIK- construction, being of minimal complexity and occurring immediately after the interviewer has used a similar form, is employed as an unanalysed, lexically stored unit, rather than representing a productive employment of complex subordinating morphology. However, Pervin’s use of the speaker-deictic possessive (en sevdiğim, ‘SUP like-PSS.1SG’, ‘that I like most’) as opposed to the hearer-deictic one employed by the interviewer: (en sevdiğin, ‘SUP like-PSS.2SG’, ‘that you like most’) shows that she has analysed the deictic proce-dure in the possessive suffix and is able to exchange it according to her communicative needs. This example is the closest Pervin ever gets within the data to productively employing a -DIK- form. The characteristics that appear to make it ineligible as an example of productive use (its low degree of complexity, its adjacency to an input form, its embedding in an otherwise transparent constella-tion of discourse knowledge) are at the same time representative of what could constitute the bridg-ing of the gap between receptive and productive competences.

6 Discussion and outlook

The present study has been an attempt to expand the concept of ‘receptive multilingualism’ to include cases of acquired receptive knowledge, examining the receptive side of acquired competence in L1 development in a diglossic immigrant situation in which the L1 functions primarily as a means of informal family communication and in which many other functions are overtaken by the language of the surrounding majority and institutions. The data show how Pervin, a bilingual child, practices receptive bilingualism with her equally bilingual interviewers, using her family language Turkish productively in some recordings, while restricting it to a receptive use in others. They have also shown how Pervin communicatively responds to one specific type of morphologically complex subordinating construction (-DIK- subordination) in Turkish, a structure that is typologically different from German and that she does not make productive use of, with two arguable exceptions in the entire course of her transcribed data.

There are several issues that remain to be discussed. One is the problem of separating receptive from productive competence and of viewing the relationship between the two from a developmental perspective. While Pervin can be observed to restrict her use of Turkish to a receptive one in some of the recordings, this is not true for all the sessions. If this is the case, can her receptive bilingualism still be shown to have a correlate on the competence side? At the level of Pervin’s handling of -DIK- constructions, the data present a clearer picture: while Pervin does not seem to productively control -DIK- constructions with any consistency, it is possible to observe her interacting smoothly and meaningfully with speakers who do. While more transcribed data would be needed in order to



Herkenrath 21

conduct a closely documented developmental study of Pervin, the present state of the data shows the following:

1. At age 7:5 (in E3), Pervin can be observed managing a negotiation with two adult interviewers more or less entirely in Turkish. The interviewers use complex subordinating morphology (-DIK- constructions), and Pervin successfully presents counter-arguments in the discussion.

2. At age 8:0, Pervin realizes a short retelling of a cartoon film, taking turns with her sister and often switching from Turkish into German, while the interviewer and her mother speak Turkish (realizing the occasional -DIK- construction in addressing the girls).

3. At age 9:6, Pervin comments on a picture presented to her by the interviewer, speaking Turkish with frequent insertions of German lexical nouns as well as entire utterances. She demonstrates frequent contact influence, for example in the area of coordinating connectivity (o zaman, see Herkenrath, 2006), and increasingly uses more German towards the end of her contribution, but also attempts once to use a -DIK- construction (in a syntactically replanned utterance acoustically difficult to understand; see Özdil, 2010 for the role of planning in bilingual discourse).

4. At age 10:6 (in E2 and E4), Pervin denies speaking Turkish, but uses it receptively in a conversation about her schoolmate without any signs of non-understanding. The interviewer speaks entirely in Turkish, using complement clause constructions for communication about knowledge, as well as attributive -DIK- constructions to disambiguate the identity of referents, and Pervin responds meaningfully.

5. At age 11:1 (in E5), Pervin speaks Turkish with another interviewer (who himself realizes 26 -DIK- forms during the conversation), using one -DIK- construction modelled on a previous utterance by the interviewer.

Given this global picture, what can cautiously be stated is a developmental tendency in Pervin, increasing with age, to restrict her use of Turkish to a receptive practice with the notable exception of the last recording. Her handling of -DIK- constructions, on the other hand, is almost exclusively receptive. A problem that cannot be conclusively addressed within the limits of this article is the question of how to tease out in a functional-pragmatic analysis of linguistic procedures, the exact way in which Pervin and other children process the inner structure of morphologically complex subordination as well as other procedural combinations in Turkish. Further study is needed in order to analyse in more depth communicative constellations in which bilingual children receptively process -DIK- constructions. The goal of such a study would be to analyse how the functional relationship between the individual morphemes and the communicative constellation is reconstructed by the respective hearers. Additional attention would need to be paid to the processing of different kinds of constructions (matrix-complement constructions versus simple unembedded utterances, subordinating versus other means of attributing characteristics to referents for identification, occurrences of -DIK- in a diversity of suffix combinations, etc.).

A second issue that remains to be discussed is the question of whether it makes sense to speak about Pervin’s languages in terms of a traditional L1/L2 distinction or whether in such situations the concept of ‘L1’ needs to be reconsidered, at least with respect to the relationship between the two languages. Having grown up a successive bilingual with Turkish spoken in her family, Pervin qualifies without any doubt as an L1 speaker of Turkish; however, her stronger, functionally dominant language at the time of the recordings is German, not Turkish. Proposed criteria for the L1 status of a language have been diverse and often incompatible, ranging from social (mother




tongue, family language) to neurological (age of acquisition), usage and preference patterns, and modes of activation. As Özdil (2010) illustrates, the analysis of ‘planning activities’ in a functional-pragmatic sense (Rehbein, 1977) can be very helpful in attempting to understand the functional relationship between the two languages: to the extent that Pervin can be shown to plan her linguistic actions using planning schemata related to German grammar, her German would count as having become more L1-like than her Turkish. Thus, in light of the data at hand, it would seem that a clear, unequivocal ‘L1’-versus-‘non-L1’ distinction is difficult to make and that both biographically dynamic (Verschik, 2002) and functionally differentiated (Rehbein & Grießhaber, 1996) conceptions are more useful.

Related to the L1/L2 debate, a third issue can be raised: namely, the question of whether by becoming restricted to a receptive use, Pervin’s -DIK- constructions are affected by L1-related attrition, or whether Pervin has simply failed to acquire, rather than lost, an active competence in a grammatical area that is part of an ‘academic register’ of Turkish. If the latter is true, the concept of ‘receptive multilingualism’ should consequently be applied to the various registers of a language, rather than to a language in its entirety.8 Such a differentiation would be in keeping with the observation that the development of productive control of the constructions in question depends on school support, whereas the development of an L1 should occur independent of any school support. In addition to categorical refinement of the concept of ‘receptive multilingualism’, a register approach would help reconcile the traditional ‘L1/L2’ distinction with apparently conflicting data: those parts of grammar that do not easily develop through participation in family communication alone would be assigned a register-related (i.e. non-core-grammar) status.

Three points can be made with regard to this third issue. First, the observation that there is no loss in the productive employment of -DIK- constructions is borne out by the data: in the specific area of -DIK- constructions, there is no decrease in productivity, but rather an absence throughout Pervin’s longitudinal data. Only at the overall level of her productive use of Turkish would it make sense to speak about loss. Whether or not there is any loss on the receptive side of the competence is a question that cannot easily be answered within the scope of this article. Second, the register approach would require that syntactic subordination, such as the formation of complement, adverbial and attributive clauses, be conceived of as an area outside L1 syntactic competence, to the extent that it is not acquired by immigrant children when their school does not offer L1 support. However, assigning syntactic subordination a status outside L1 competence proper (i.e. outside core-grammar L1 competence in a generativist sense) creates the new problem of how to treat the typological (for example, head direction-related, CP structure-related) information inherent in such constructions. Third, the data offer some empirical information on the frequency of -DIK- constructions within family communication. Figure 2 below presents an overview of the distribution of productive uses of -DIK- constructions in the ENDFAS/SKOBI corpus among children, parents and interviewers, comparing the data from bilingual families in Germany with that of monolingual families in Turkey.

The transcribed part of the ENDFAS/SKOBI corpus contains 2,831 occurrences of -DIK- constructions: 1,154 realized in conversations recorded in Hamburg, and 1,659 in recordings made in Turkey. In both groups, the majority of -DIK- occurrences are realized by adult speakers: parents, interviewers and other adult family members or neighbours present during the recordings. The adults account for 91 per cent of all occurrences in the Hamburg conversations and 65.5 per cent of all occurrences in the conversations in Turkey. The two geographic groups differ in two respects: first, the children growing up in Turkey produce a distinctly higher share of the overall -DIK- constructions in the conversations in which they participate (34.5 per cent versus 9 per cent in the



Herkenrath 23

bilingual group). Second, the same children obviously profit from L1 support through their school system (monolingual Turkish schools in Turkey), whereas the children growing up in Germany, attending monolingual German schools with a few hours of mother tongue instruction as an option, receive little or no school support for their L1.

Do the two groups also differ with respect to communicative practices within the families? As Figure 2 shows, the parents of the bilingual children growing up in Germany produce a slightly greater share of -DIK- constructions (a fourth of all occurrences within this group can be attributed to parents) than the parents of the monolingual children growing up in Turkey (a fifth of all occurrences, respectively). This finding demonstrates that -DIK- constructions are a part of homileic family communication9; furthermore, the immigrant parents do not systematically differ from the parents in Turkey in this respect. Despite the fact that the parents of both groups produce roughly the same number of -DIK- constructions, their children differ: the immigrant children productively control -DIK- constructions to a lesser degree than the children growing up in Turkey do. As a whole, this suggests that while the use of the Turkish subordinating morpheme -DIK- is not restricted to an academic register spoken only outside the family environment, participation in communicative practices within the family does not seem to be sufficient to reach the level of L1 competence at which children can make productive use of it. Participation in educational, literacy-oriented settings in which complex Turkish in the sense of ‘connectivity’ (Rehbein, 1999) serves more diverse communicative functions seems to be helpful in developing this competence. The data suggest that there is also a societal, institutional side to L1 development, and that the area of syntactic subordination proves to be particularly interesting because its communicative functions are, on the one hand, part of homileic family communication, but, on the other hand, require participation in more diverse institutional communicative practices in order to be fully and productively acquired. While it might seem somewhat ad hoc to relegate syntactic subordination to an ‘academic register’ outside general L1 competence, the fate of an immigrant language may in fact entail a loss of specific domains, such as the kind of complex language whose acquisition occurs in communicative situations and institutions outside the family (for imbalance in function sharing, see Fishman, 2001).

In order to go beyond a mere citing of frequencies of usage, a qualitative study of the language use of the parents would need to be done. The currently transcribed data contain numerous passages of discourse that could be examined more closely to this end. Additionally, the ENDFAS/SKOBI corpus as a whole contains recordings of family communication made by the families themselves in the absence of the interviewers. For a more complete analysis, it would be necessary to go back to the above-mentioned theoretical models of receptive processing that include grammatical understanding and also to consider the data of other children in the corpus and their families. In

Hamburg TurkeyAbsolute % Absolute %

Children 104 9.01 572 34.47Parents 294 25.47 346 20.85Interviewers 676 58.57 629 37.91Other adults 80 6.93 114 6.87Total 1,154 100.00 1,659 100.00

Figure 2. Occurrences of -DIK- constructions, in children, parents and interviewers in families living in Hamburg and in Turkey




addition, consideration of other areas of structural knowledge that cannot be drawn from German alone, such as postpositions, case, verbal morphology, other means of complex subordination, particle use and coordination – in short, those parts of the grammar that bilinguals can be shown to actively employ less frequently or differently (as documented in Rehbein et al., 2009) – would also be of interest.

Finally, I have mentioned some shortcomings with respect to the methodology employed in the above analysis. In a number of examples (E3, E4), it has proven difficult to conclusively show to what degree a global, circumstantial understanding of -DIK- constructions includes a functional reconstruction of the individual procedures inherent in complex combinations of suffixes, on the part of the hearer. While a close developmental analysis of more data, together with a more detailed application of the functional-pragmatic models of understanding, would help clarify this, experimental testing would offer additional opportunities to illuminate the details of the reconstructional processes taking place.

Acknowledgements

Thanks go to Gülden Akgün, Rasim Aksoy, Ayşe Arslan, Ezel Babur, Ünal Bilir, Yasemin Ergin, Nesrin Esen, Nurkan Darıcalı, Tuba Özcan, Tülay Selçuk, Eylem Şentürk, Filiz Taşdemir, Esra Yaman, Hatice Yıldırım and Seçil Yusun for their help with the collection, administration and transcription of the data, as well as to the children and their families for their participation. A first version of this article was presented at the 15th World Conference of Applied Linguistics, 24–29 August 2008 in Essen, Germany. I would like to thank Jochen Rehbein, Jan D. ten Thije and Anna Verschik for encouraging me to participate in their symposium as well as the participants for offering their ideas and suggestions. Additional thanks go to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable insights and suggestions and to Claire Bacher for checking my English.

Funding

This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) within the framework of the SFB 538 Mehrsprachigkeit (Collaborative Research Center 538 Multilingualism) at the University of Hamburg, as part of the research project SKOBI (Sprachliche Konnektivität bei bilingual türkisch-deutsch aufwachsenden Kindern – Linguistic connectivity in bilingual Turkish–German children, 1999–2006) headed by Jochen Rehbein. Search and quantification tools were applied in cooperation with Thomas Schmidt and Kai Wörner (research project Z2 of SFB 538).

Notes

1. The relationship between German and Turkish is characterized by: (1) a negligible amount of common international vocabulary (Turkish having drawn largely on Persian and Arabic in the distant past, French and Italian in the more recent past, and most recently on Turkish word formation principles), (2) no genetically common vocabulary, (3) no traceable sound shifts except in a few reciprocal loanwords (kuruş <Groschen, filinta <Flinte or, in the opposite direction, Döner < döner), (4) a common use of the Latin alphabet, but with different orthographic conventions, (5) a great typological distance at the syntactic level, (6) no recognizably common morphosyntactic elements, and (7) no common prefixes or suffixes.

2. It might appear to be the case that ‘grammatical details’ play a minor role in receptive multilingualism on the whole, with mutual understanding possible on the basis of lexical information alone. However, the argument in the present article is that grammar can be perceived as a negligible factor only in situations in which grammatically similar language pairs (such as those previously studied) are concerned. In a language pair such as Turkish and German, the grammatical differences are so important that they impinge on understanding. For example, one problem, from a germanophone or anglophone perspective, is that Turkish has head-final PPs, VPs, IPs and CPs; additionally, instead of morphologically unbound, clause-initial complementizers, Turkish makes use of a complex arrangement of suffixes added to the



Herkenrath 25

non-finite verb, using suffixal possessivity as well as case and postpositions to express relationships between subordinate and superordinate clauses. Given these differences, a hearer with access to the lexical information alone would still have to solve the problem of mentally processing the relationship between linear and hierarchical order to identify functional roles, to reconstruct the relationships between them, and to extract crucial information from (non-lexical) suffixes and combinations of suffixes. With historically related, structurally similar language pairs, grammar can be taken for granted because the structures are parallel to each other, but this is far from the case in a constellation with German and Turkish.

3. This specific situation of immigrant and minority multilingualism relates to several interconnected strands of discussion. See Vygotskij (1928/1929) for an early comparison of privileged bilingualism with bilingualism at the expense of L1 development. Hamers and Blanc (1983/2000: 85ff., 100ff.) place the distinction in a theoretical framework, taking into account the valorization and function of languages in social networks at different societal and institutional levels. Romaine (1989/1995: 181ff., 241ff., 288ff.) stresses the importance of community support for the development of an L1 to the point of serving diverse communicative and social functions. Fishman (2001), in the context of language revitalization, analyses the vitality of a minority language in terms of dividing power and functions between majority and minority languages in a given society.

4. Other interlocutors, mainly in the role of interviewers, restrict their use of German to receptive functions; however, in the settings observed, they primarily do so for reasons of elicitation – an interesting phenomenon in its own right, but outside the scope of the present article.

5. See Herkenrath (2008a, 2008b, 2008c) for attempts to study the development of this specific area of subordinating connectivity in a longitudinal perspective.

6. The examples are presented in a HIAT partiture format, which allows for a graphic representation of the simultaneous relationships in spoken discourse (Ehlich & Rehbein, 1976; Rehbein et al., 1993, 2004).

7. Ehlich and Rehbein (1977) coined the term ‘batteries of linguistic actions’ for this phenomenon.8. The author would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for this valuable hint.9. The families contacted for participation in the longitudinal study were working-class families, with a

few exceptions. Socio-economic information was gathered in the process of data collection and can be reconstructed for each family. Pervin’s mother worked as a tailor at the time of the recordings; her father was a gastronomy worker and part-time musician.

References

Akıncı, M.-A. (2008). Language use and biliteracy practices of Turkish-speaking children and adolescents in France. In V. Lytra & J. N. Jorgensen (Eds.), Multilingualism and identities across contexts: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on Turkish-speaking youth in Europe (pp. 85–108). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen Press (Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism 45).

Akıncı, M.-A., Keskin, B., & Küntay, A. (2006). Using connectives in written texts in Turkish: A comparison of Turkish–French bilingual and monolingual children and teenagers. Talk presented at the 13th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden, 16–20 August.

Backus, A. (2004). Turkish as an immigrant language in Europe. In T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 689–724). Oxford: Blackwell (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 15).

Delsing, L.-O. (2007). Scandinavian intercomprehension today. In J. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts (pp. 231–248). Amsterdam: Benjamins (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 6).

Doetjes, G. (2007). Understanding differences in inter-Scandinavian language understanding. In J. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts (pp. 217–230). Amsterdam: Benjamins (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 6).

Ehlich, K., & Rehbein, J. (1976). Halbinterpretative Arbeitstranskriptionen (HIAT). Linguistische Berichte, 45, 21–41.

Ehlich, K., & Rehbein, J. (1977). Batterien sprachlicher Handlungen. Journal of Pragmatics, 1(4), 393–406.Ferguson, C. A. (2000). Diglossia. In L. Wei (Ed.), The bilingualism reader (pp. 65–80). London: Routledge.

(Original work published 1959) (First in: Word, 115, 325–340).




Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theory and practice of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, J. A. (2000). Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism In L. Wei (Ed.), The bilingualism reader (pp. 81–88). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1967) (First in: Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 29–38).

Fishman, J. A. (2001). Why is it so hard to save a threatened language? In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing languages shift revisited: A 21st century perspective (pp. 1–22). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, J. A. (2004). Language maintenance, language shift, and reversing language shift. In T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 406–436). Oxford: Blackwell (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 15).

Fürstenau, S., Gogolin, I., & Yağmur, K. (Eds.). (2003). Mehrsprachigkeit in Hamburg. Ergebnisse einer Sprachenerhebung an den Grundschulen in Hamburg. Münster: Waxmann.

Grießhaber, W., Özel, B., & Rehbein, J. (1996). Aspekte von Arbeits- und Denksprache türkischer Kinder. Unterrrichtswissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Lernforschung, 1/96, 3–20.

Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. 2nd, updated, revised and restructured, edition. Originally published 1983 in French as Bilingualité et bilinguisme, Liège: Mardaga. English translation © Cambrigde UP. 2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1983).

Herkenrath, A. (2006). Deictic conjunctions in the Turkish of bilingual children? The language change of o zaman. Article presented at the 13th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden, 16–20 August. To appear in the proceedings.

Herkenrath, A. (2007). Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish–German bilingual children’s talk: Işte. In J. Rehbein, C. Hohenstein, & L. Pietsch (Eds.), Connectivity in grammar and discourse (pp. 291–328). Amsterdam: Benjamins (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 5).

Herkenrath, A. (2008a). Developmental sequences in the acquisition of subordinating morphology: The Turkish morpheme -DIK- in monolingual versus immigrant constellations. Talk presented at the 8. Uluslararası Dil, Yazın, Deyişbilim Sempozyomu/8th International Language, Literature and Stylistics Symposium, İzmir Ekonomi Üniversitesi, Izmir, 14–16 May.

Herkenrath, A. (2008b). The acquisition of a procedural combination: The subordinating morpheme -DIK- and its communicative range in monolingual versus bilingual constellations. Talk presented at the 14. Uluslararası Türk Dilbilimi Kurultayı/14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Ankara Üniversitesi, Department of Linguistics, Ankara, 6–8 August.

Herkenrath, A. (2008c). The employment of the subordinating device -DIK by Turkish–German bilingual children. Talk presented at the 23rd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 1–3 October.

Herkenrath, A., Karakoç, B., & Rehbein, J. (2003). Interrogative elements as subordinators in Turkish: Aspects of Turkish–German bilingual children’s language use. In N. Müller (Ed.), (In)vulnerable domains in multilingualism (pp. 221–270). Amsterdam: Benjamins (Hamburg Studies in Multilingualism 1).

Herkenrath, A., Özdil, E., & Rehbein, J. (2000). Aspects of Turkish–German code switching. Presentation given at the Colloquium on Code-switching, Accomodation and Multilingualism, Hamburg, 15–17 December.

Kameyama, S. (2004). Verständnissicherndes Handeln. Zur reparativen Bearbeitung von Rezeptionsdefiziten in deutschen und japanischen Diskursen. Münster: Waxmann (Reihe Mehrsprachigkeit 14).

Karakoç, B. (2007). Connectivity by means of finite elements in monolingual and bilingual Turkish discourses. In J. Rehbein, C. Hohenstein, & L. Pietsch (Eds.), Connectivity in grammar and discourse (pp. 199–230). Amsterdam: Benjamins (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 5).

Klein, H. G., & Stegmann, T. D. (2000). EuroComRom – Die sieben Siebe: Romanische Sprachen sofort lesen können. 2. Auflage. Aachen: Shaker (Editiones EuroCom 1).

Lüdi, G. (2007). The Swiss model of plurilingual communication. In J. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts (pp. 159–178). Amsterdam: Benjamins (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 6).



Herkenrath 27

Lutjeharms, M. (2007). Processing levels in foreign-language reading. In J. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts (pp. 265–284). Amsterdam: Benjamins (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 6).

Özdil, E. (2010). Codeswitching im zweisprachigen Handeln – Sprachpsychologische Aspekte verbalen Planens in deutsch-türkischer Kommunikation. Münster: Waxmann (Reihe Mehrsprachigkeit).

Rehbein, J. (1977). Komplexes Handeln. Elemente zur Handlungstheorie der Sprache. Stuttgart: Metzler.Rehbein, J. (1999). Konnektivität im Kontrast. Zu Struktur und Funktion türkischer Konverbien und deutscher

Konjunktionen, mit Blick auf ihre Verwendung durch monolinguale und bilinguale Kinder. In L. Johanson & J. Rehbein (Eds.), Türkisch und Deutsch im Vergleich (pp. 189–244). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Rehbein, J. (2001). Turkish in European societies. Lingua e Stile 3 (Also in: Universität Hamburg: Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit/Working Papers in Multilingualism, Series B, No. 25).

Rehbein, J. (2007a). Erzählen in zwei Sprachen – auf Anforderung. In K. Meng & J. Rehbein (Eds.), Kinderkommunikation – einsprachig und mehrsprachig. Mit einer erstmals auf Deutsch publizierten Arbeit von Lev. S Vygotskij, Zur Frage nach der Mehrsprachigkeit im kindlichen Alter (pp. 389–453). Münster: Waxmann.

Rehbein, J. (2007b). Matrix constructions. In J. Rehbein, C. Hohenstein, & L. Pietsch (Eds.), Connectivity in grammar and discourse (pp. 419–447). Amsterdam: Benjamins (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 5).

Rehbein, J. (2009). Rehbein-ENDFAS (Die Entwicklung narrativer Diskursfähigkeiten im Deutschen und Türkischen in Familie und Schule). Universität Hamburg, EXMARaLDA: SFB 538-Korpora: http://www.exmaralda.org/sfb_e5.html.

Rehbein, J., & Grießhaber, W. (1996). L2-Erwerb versus L1-Erwerb: Methodologische Aspekte ihrer Erforschung. In K. Ehlich (Ed.), Kindliche Sprachentwicklung. Konzepte und Empirie (pp. 67–119). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Rehbein, J., Grießhaber, W., Löning, P., Hartung, M., & Bührig, K. (1993). Manual für das computergestützte Transkribieren mit dem Programm SyncWRITER nach dem Verfahren der Halbinterpretativen Arbeitstranskriptionen (HIAT). Universität Hamburg, Institut für Germanistik I: Arbeitspapier 1 des Hamburger computergestützten Transkriptionsthesaurus (HcTT).

Rehbein, J., Herkenrath, A., & Karakoç, B. (2009). Turkish in Germany – On contact-induced language change of an immigrant language in the multilingual landscape of Europe. Multilingualism and universal principles of linguistic change. Special issue of sprachtypologie und universalienforschung – Language typology and universals, 62, 171–204.

Rehbein, J., Herkenrath, A., & Karakoç, B. (2009b). Rehbein-SKOBI (Sprachliche Konnektivität bei bilingual türkisch-deutsch aufwachsenden Kindern und Jugendlichen). Universität Hamburg, EXMARaLDA: SFB 538-Korpora: http://www.exmaralda.org/sfb_e5.html.

Rehbein, J., & Karakoç, B. (2004). On contact-induced language change of Turkish aspects: Languaging in bilingual discourse. In C. B. Dabelsteen & J. N. Jørgensen (Eds.), Languaging and language practices. Copenhagen studies in bilingualism (Vol. 36, pp. 125–149). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Humanities.

Rehbein, J., & Meng, K. (2007). Kindliche Kommunikation als Gegenstand sprachwissenschaftlicher Forschung. In K. Meng & J. Rehbein (Eds.), Kinderkommunikation – einsprachig und mehrsprachig. Mit einer erstmals auf Deutsch publizierten Arbeit von Lev. S Vygotskij, Zur Frage nach der Mehrsprachigkeit im kindlichen Alter (pp. 9–46). Münster: Waxmann.

Rehbein, J., Schmidt, T., Meyer, B., Watzke, F., & Herkenrath, A. (2004). Handbuch für das computergestützte Transkribieren nach HIAT. Universität Hamburg, Sonderforschungsbereich 538 Mehrsprachigkeit: Arbeitspapiere zur Mehrsprachigkeit/Working Papers in Multilingualism, Folge B, Nr. 56.

Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1989).Schmidt, T. (2004). Transcribing and annotating spoken language with EXMARaLDA. In Proceedings of the

LREC-Workshop on XML based richly annotated corpora, Lisbon 2004. Paris: ELRA.Schmidt, T. (2005). Computergestützte Transkription – Modellierung und Visualisierung gesprochener

Sprache mit texttechnologischen Mitteln. Sprache, Sprechen und Computer/Computer Studies in Language and Speech 7. Frankfurt a. M.




Schmidt, T., & Wörner, K. (2005). Erstellen und Analysieren von Gesprächskorpora mit EXMARaLDA. Gesprächsforschung (Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion), 6, 171–195. URL: http://www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2005/heft2005.htm

ten Thije, J. D., & Zeevaert, L. (Eds.). (2007). Receptive multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts. Amsterdam: Benjamins (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 6).

Verschik, A. (2002). Linguistic biographies of Yiddish speakers in Estonia. Folklore, 20, 37–52.Vygotskij, L. S. (1929). Zur Frage der Mehrsprachigkeit im kindlichen Alter. Übersetzt von Eva Goldfuß-

Siedl und Katharina Meng. In K. Meng & J. Rehbein, (Eds.), Kinderkommunikation – einsprachig und mehrsprachig. Mit einer erstmals auf Deutsch publizierten Arbeit von Lev. S Vygotskij, Zur Frage nach der Mehrsprachigkeit im kindlichen Alter (pp. 40–74). Münster: Waxmann. (Original work published 1928).

Werlen, I. S. (2007). Receptive multilingualism in Switzerland and the case of Biel/Bienne. In J. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts (pp. 137–158). Amsterdam: Benjamins (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 6).

Zeevaert, L. (2007). Receptive multilingualism and inter-Scandinavian semicommunication. In J. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts (pp. 103–136). Amsterdam: Benjamins (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 6).

Zeevaert, L., & ten Thije, J. D. (2007). Introduction. In J. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: Benjamins (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 6).

About the author

Annette Herkenrath completed her PhD thesis on wh-constructions in Turkish at the University of Hamburg, where she worked in the Collaborative Research Centre on Multilingualism in a research project on Turkish–German bilingualism. She has since worked on a project on institutional communication and multilingualism at TU Dortmund and on impersonal constructions in Turkish at Uppsala University. Her domains of research include immigrant languages, multilingualism, language development, discourse analysis, connectivity, language contact, corpus linguistics and Turkish grammar. She currently works at Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany.



Documents

Receptive multilingualism in an immigrant constellation: Examples from Turkish-German children's language