Spread of on-going changes in an immigrant language

Doğruöz, A. Seza; Gries, Stefan Τh.

doi:10.1075/bct.59.07sez

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The latter has been demonstrated both in specific learning experiments with both children and adults but also in experiments that were not concerned with learning at all, but in which within-experiment learning had to be statistically controlled (cf. Gries & Wulff, 2009, for an example in L2 learning or Dogruöz & Gries, 2012, for an example in language contact situations). It is therefore imperative that both experimental and observational studies consider the speed and ubiquity of these learning processes alike-the unconscious pattern matcher in all of us hardly ever sleeps.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistical Measures for Usage‐Based Linguistics

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advent of usage‐/exemplar‐based approaches has resulted in a major change in the theoretical landscape of linguistics, but also in the range of methodologies that are brought to bear on the study of language acquisition/learning, structure, and use. In particular, methods from corpus linguistics are now frequently used to study distributional characteristics of linguistics units and what they reveal about cognitive and psycholinguistic processes. This paper surveys a range of psycholinguistic notions that are becoming ever more important in theoretical and cognitive linguistics—for example, frequency, entrenchment, dispersion, contingency, surprisal, Zipfian distributions—and current corpus‐linguistic approaches toward exploring these notions and their roles for linguistic cognition.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistical Measures for Usage‐Based Linguistics

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is not necessarily the case that such bilingual changes arise in G1 speakers only after many years of migration. Doğruöz and Gries () found that both recent and longer‐term Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands showed the same tolerance in their judgments of nonconventional constructions, compared to a monolingual Turkish group. As L1 and L2 change, the preferred patterns of codeswitching or language separation can change as well, particularly for parents who once viewed themselves as monolingual but became increasingly more bilingual over time.…”

Section: Not Only Heritage Language Speakers But Also Their Environmementioning

confidence: 99%

“…While it is arduous to elicit information about the degree of bilingualism in HL participants and in their parents, a feasible if imperfect solution might be to include items in questionnaires that contain familiarity judgments about language‐specific innovations such as those reported by Hatoss () and Doğruöz and Gries (), when available for the particular HL. It is also feasible to elicit frequency of and attitudes toward codeswitching practices, as in the items used by Dewaele and Li Wei (, p. 233) and Dewaele and Li Wei (, p. 242), around the questions “Do you switch between languages within a conversation with certain people?” and “To what extent do you agree with the following statements about language switching?,” respectively.…”

Section: Not Only Heritage Language Speakers But Also Their Environmementioning

confidence: 99%

The Study of Heritage Language Development From a Bilingualism and Social Justice Perspective

Ortega

2019

Language Learning

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the lenses of bilingualism and social justice, I reflect on relevant conceptual and methodological issues encountered in the study of the linguistic development of heritage language speakers. Themes examined include the early but varying timing of heritage language learning; the surrounding linguistic environment, including the link between parental input and linguistic outcomes and heritage language speakers’ bilingualism, multilingualism, and multilectalism; the framing of literacy in the minority language; and the unique and language‐shaping experience of minoritization, often an outcome of immigration. I argue that bilingualism is gradient and that better measurement of relevant variables—particularly those related to timing, input/exposure, and literacy—can invigorate the study of heritage language development and make new and more robust insights possible. I propose that heritage speakers and their languages must be understood as connected to minoritized communities and to the experience of inequitable multilingualism.

show abstract

“…Vedder and Virta 2005;Extra and Yağmur 2010). By means of conversational data (Doğruöz and Backus 2009), judgement tasks and controlled experiments (Doğruöz and Gries 2012;Sevinç 2014), several studies have illustrated that the Turkish spoken in the Netherlands differs from the Turkish spoken in Turkey both lexically (codeswitching, loan translations) and structurally (Dutch interference). These studies agree that a gradual language shift seems to be occurring in this community.…”

Section: The Turkish Immigrant Context In the Netherlandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language maintenance and shift under pressure: Three generations of the Turkish immigrant community in the Netherlands

Sevinç

2016

International Journal of the Sociology of Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on questionnaire and interview data, this study explores the process of language maintenance and shift across three generations of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. It compares three generations of Turkish-Dutch bilinguals by examining age and place of language learning, self-rated language proficiency, and language choices in six domains (home, school, work, friends, media and leisure time activities, and cognitive activities). Furthermore, it investigates bilinguals’ experiences, motivations for learning languages and attitudes towards bilingualism. Findings suggest that following the typical pattern of language shift described by Mario Saltarelli and Susan Gonzo in 1977, language history, self-rated language proficiency and current language practices of third-generation children differ from those of first- and second-generation bilinguals. Consequently, possible language shift among third-generation bilinguals causes socioemotional pressure about maintaining the Turkish language, triggering intergenerational tensions in Turkish immigrant families. At the same time, the perceived need to shift to Dutch for social and economic reasons causes immigrant children to experience tensions and ambiguities in the linguistic connections between the family and other social domains (e. g. school, friendship). The findings evidence that the Turkish immigrant community in the Netherlands may no longer be as linguistically homogeneous as once observed. The dissolution of homogeneity can be a sign of social change in which maintaining the Turkish language has become a challenge, whereas speaking Dutch is a necessity of life in the Netherlands.

show abstract

Spread of on-going changes in an immigrant language

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Statistical Measures for Usage‐Based Linguistics

Statistical Measures for Usage‐Based Linguistics

The Study of Heritage Language Development From a Bilingualism and Social Justice Perspective

Language maintenance and shift under pressure: Three generations of the Turkish immigrant community in the Netherlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About