Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:10:09.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The expression of spatial relationships in Turkish–Dutch bilinguals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

PETER INDEFREY ,
HÜLYA ŞAHIN  and
MARIANNE GULLBERG
PETER INDEFREY*
Affiliation:
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Nijmegen
HÜLYA ŞAHIN
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, Centre for Language Studies
MARIANNE GULLBERG
Affiliation:
Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature
*
Address for Correspondence: Peter Indefrey, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Dept. of Linguistics, Universitätsstr. 1, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigated how two groups of Turkish–Dutch bilinguals and two groups of monolingual speakers of the two languages described static topological relations. The bilingual groups differed with respect to their first (L1) and second (L2) language proficiencies and a number of sociolinguistic factors. Using an elicitation tool that covers a wide range of topological relations, we first assessed the extensions of different spatial expressions (topological relation markers, TRMs) in the Turkish and Dutch spoken by monolingual speakers. We then assessed differences in the use of TRMs between the two bilingual groups and monolingual speakers.

In both bilingual groups, differences compared to monolingual speakers were mainly observed for Turkish. Dutch-dominant bilinguals showed enhanced congruence between translation-equivalent Turkish and Dutch TRMs. Turkish-dominant bilinguals extended the use of a topologically neutral locative marker.

Our results can be interpreted as showing different “bilingual optimization strategies” (Muysken, 2013) in bilingual speakers who live in the same environment but differ with respect to L2 onset, L2 proficiency, and perceived importance of the L1.

Keywords

contact-induced language changespatial expressionstopological relation markersbilingualsbilingual optimization strategy
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , May 2017 , pp. 473 - 493
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alferink, I. (2015). Dimensions of convergence in bilingual speech and gesture. Unpublished PhD diss., Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen. Utrecht: LOT. URL: http://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/391_fulltext.pdf Google Scholar
Alferink, I., & Gullberg, M. (2014). French-Dutch bilinguals do not maintain obligatory semantic distinctions: Evidence from placement verbs. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 22–37.Google Scholar
Ameel, E., Malt, B. C., Storms, G., & Van Assche, F. (2009). Semantic convergence in the bilingual lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 270–290.Google Scholar
Backus, A. (2004). Convergence as a mechanism of language change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 179–181.Google Scholar
Boeschoten, H. (2000). Convergence and divergence in migrant Turkish. In Mattheier, K. (ed.), Dialect and Migration in a Changing Europe, pp.145–54. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In: Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L. & Garrett, M. (eds.), Language and space, pp. 385–436. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development, pp. 475–511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M., & Pederson, E. (1992a). Topological relations picture series. In Levinson, S. C. (ed.), Space stimuli kit 1.2, pp. 51. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. (http://fieldmanuals.mpi.nl/volumes/1992/bowped/)Google Scholar
Bowerman, M., & Pederson, E. (1992b). Cross-linguistic perspectives on topological spatial relations. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco, December.Google Scholar
Bullock, B. E., & Toribio, A. J. (2004). Introduction: Convergence as an emergent property in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 91–93.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. G. (2003). Dynamics of language contact. English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doğruöz, A.S. (2007). Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change in Dutch Turkish: A Corpus-based Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Doğruöz, A.S., & Backus, A. (2009). Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of on-going contact-induces change. Bilingualism: language and cognition, 12, 41–64.Google Scholar
Feist, M. I. (2008). Space between languages. Cognitive Science, 32, 1177–1199.Google Scholar
Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2003). Language background questionnaire. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. (http://www.mpi.nl/research/researchprojects/Multilingualism)Google Scholar
Keim, I. & Cindark, I. (2003). Deutsch-türkischer Mischcode in einer Migrantinnengruppe: Form von ‘Jugendsprache’ oder soziolektales Characteristikum? In Neuland, E. (ed.), Jugendsprache-Spiegel der Zeit. Tagungsband der internationalen Fachkonferenz in Wuppertal 2001, pp. 377–94. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. & Meira, S. (2003). ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain —TRMal meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language, 79, 485–516.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2013). Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 709–730.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2009). Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. In Pavlenko, A. (Ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 125–160). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2011). Thinking and speaking in two languages: Overview of the field. In Pavlenko, A. (ed.), Thinking and speaking in two languages, pp.237–257. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
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. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 62, 171–204.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). L2 learners’ real-time resolution of subject pronouns in discourse: An eye-tracking study with advanced Turkish and German L2 learners of Dutch. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 333–357.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, A. (1992). A domain approach to the Turkish vocabulary of bilingual Turkish children in the Netherlands. In Fase, W., Jaspaert, K. & Kroon, S. (eds.), Maintenance and loss of minority languages, pp. 117–135. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Toribio, A. J. (2004). Convergence as an optimization strategy in bilingual speech: Evidence from code-switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 165–173.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J. (2005). Evidence for insertional codemixing: Mixed compounds and French nominal groups in Brussels Dutch. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 477–508.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., & Mougeon, R. (2005). The role of transfer in language variation and change: Evidence from contact varieties of French. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8, 93–98.Google Scholar
Van Staden, M., Bowerman, M., & Verhelst, M. (2006). Some properties of spatial description in Dutch. In Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. (eds.), Grammars of Space, pp. 475–511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassman, A., & Sloetjes, H. (2006). ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Genoa. URL: http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:60436:2/component/escidoc:60437/LREC%202006_Elan_Wittenburg.pdf Google Scholar