Examining the effect of reduced input on language development: The case of gender acquisition in Russian as a non-dominant and dispreferred language by a bilingual Turkish–Russian child

Abstract

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions: The main research question we seek to answer in the present study is: "What effect does reduced input in nondominant and dispreferred language have on the acquisition of Russian gender morphology by a bilingual Turkish-Russian child: Is it still sufficient for its monolingual-like development or can it cause incomplete acquisition of Russian gender morphology, at least, in some domains?" Design/methodology/approach: This study is a longitudinal case study. Data and analysis: The main source of data collection is video and audio recordings. Twenty-five recordings are available. They cover the period of between two years and 11 months (2;11) and 4;0. The data are examined in terms of the availability of masculine, feminine and neuter form-related genders, as well as availability of feminine and masculine semantic-related genders of nouns and pronouns in the first-, second-and third-person contexts. We look into whether the data of the bilingual child is marked with deviations from monolingual Russian data and/or incomplete acquisition of gender in any domain. Findings/conclusions: The findings of the present study, on the one hand, supports the view that, by and large, reduced to a certain degree input is still sufficient for monolingual-like language development; on the other hand, it demonstrates that reduced input may lead to non-monolingual-like and/or incomplete acquisition and, therefore, appears to be a main factor determining the development of a language and accounting for 'its strengths and weaknesses'.

Morpho-Syntactic Abilities of Unbalanced Bilingual Children: A Closer Look at the Weaker Language

“…Yet, previous studies brought conflicting evidence with respect to qualitative differences between bilinguals in the Weaker Language and monolinguals and BB and bilinguals in the Dominant Language. Some studies have shown that the acquisition patterns in the Weaker Language are similar to the ones of BB and bilinguals in the Dominant Language and even monolinguals (e.g., Müller and Kupisch, 2003 ; Bernardini and Schlyter, 2004 ; Antonova Ünlü and Li, 2016 , 2017 , 2018 ). Alternatively, the Deviance Hypothesis was supported by findings indicating that grammars of unbalanced bilinguals in their Weaker Language differ qualitatively from the monolingual baseline grammars (e.g., Yip and Matthews, 2000 ; Argyri and Sorace, 2007 ; Ringblom, 2012 ; Janssen, 2016 ; Meir et al, 2017 ).…”

“…In the same vein, Bernardini and Schlyter (2004) noted that the developmental trajectory of the Weaker Language of simultaneous Swedish–Italian/German bilingual children followed the same milestones as in the Dominant Language, but the lexical realization was delayed. Several recent studies investigating language development in a simultaneous bilingual child with the Weaker HL-Russian and the Dominant SL-Turkish show that despite reduced input in HL-Russian, the acquisition of grammatical categories in the Weaker HL-Russian (e.g., aspect marking, case morphology and grammatical gender assignment) follows the same pattern as in monolingual acquisition ( Antonova Ünlü and Li, 2016 , 2017 , 2018 ).…”

“…Previous studies report contradicting findings on the nature of the Weaker Language development. Some studies suggest that unbalanced bilinguals in the Weaker Language show similar trajectories to the ones observed in monolingual children, balanced bilinguals (BB) and unbalanced bilinguals in the Dominant Language, yet this pattern is delayed (e.g., Müller and Kupisch, 2003 ; Bernardini and Schlyter, 2004 ; Antonova Ünlü and Li, 2016 , 2017 , 2018 ). Conversely, some studies show that the Weaker Language development does not follow the monolingual trajectory, i.e., it resembles adult L2 acquisition or it is influenced by the Dominant Language.…”

Looking for contact-induced language change: Converbs in heritage Turkish

“…In both cases, the contact of the heritage language with the dominant language is likely to reveal itself in deviations from monolingual norms in the speech of heritage speakers (Meir & Polinsky, 2019). So far there have been many studies focusing on the development of heritage languages, which demonstrated that in the case of unbalanced bilingualism, the less dominant language may not develop in a monolingual-like manner (Albirini et al, 2011; Antonova-Ünlü & Wei, 2018; Austin, 2009; Ivanova-Sullivan, 2014; Kim et al, 2010 among many others), and it becomes more vulnerable to contact-induced influences. Nevertheless, more research on unbalanced language development in contact situations is called for, since such studies shed light on which domains are robust and which are vulnerable to contact-induced language change, or as Meir and Polinsky (2019) state ‘predicting what stays and what goes is one of the main challenges faced by researchers who study heritage systems’.…”

Interfaces in the returnees’ heritage language: Is the complete (re-)activation possible?

“…The development of the HL before return to the country of origin has been well investigated in bilingual research and several studies have demonstrated that approximately up to the age of four or five, the acquisition of the HL is likely to follow monolingual-like patterns, by and large, even in cases when the input is limited (Antonova-Unlu & Wei, 2016, 2018a, 2018b; De Houwer, 2009; Meisel, 2007 among others). The further development of the HL, however, is known to be unstable, and since the language is not supported by the society, the restricted input and use of the HL are likely to cause the fossilization of the developmental patterns, attrition and incomplete acquisition (Meisel, 2011; Montrul, 2008).…”