Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 14:2 (2024) ► pp.218–254

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Relative clauses in child heritage speakers of Turkish in the United States

ORCiD logo with link | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
 | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Published online: 7 March 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.21027.cos
Abstract
How does complex syntax develop in heritage language children? This study investigates child Turkish heritage speakers’ comprehension and production of relative clauses (RCs) in Turkish and in English. RCs vary on their syntactic functions (subject, object) and show asymmetric patterns of acquisition and processing, which have been explained by linear distance, structural distance and input factors. Thirty-two child Turkish HS (ages 6–15) and 48 monolingual Turkish children (ages 3–15) completed a picture-sentence matching (comprehension) task and a sentence repetition (production) task in Turkish. The Turkish HS were tested on the RC comprehension and production tasks in English as well. The results indicated that the child HS showed (i) better performance in English than in Turkish with increasing age, (ii) better comprehension than production of Turkish RCs, (iii) replacement of complex RCs with simple juxtaposition in Turkish, and (iv) a subject advantage in comprehension. We take these findings to suggest that Turkish RCs do not fully develop in child HS of Turkish in the U.S., although the strength of this explanation must be corroborated by a study of child and adult HS. Overall, the findings are most compatible with the structural distance account and other factors that may affect production.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Relative clauses in English and Turkish
  • 3.Acquisition of RCs in Turkish
  • 4.The study
  • 5.Method
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Tasks
      • 5.2.1Picture sentence matching task
      • 5.2.2Sentence repetition task
  • 6.Results
    • 6.1The comprehension task
    • 6.2The production task
    • 6.3Error analysis
  • 7.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (68)
References
Aarssen, J. (1996). Relating events in two languages: Acquisition of cohesive devices by Turkish- Dutch bilingual children at school age (Studies in Multilingualism 2). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Akinci, M. -A., Jisa, H., and Kern, S. (2001). Influence of L1 Turkish on L2 French narratives. In L. Verhoeven and S. Strömqvist. (Eds.), Narrative Development in a Multilingual Context (pp. 189–208). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Backus, A. (2004). Turkish as an immigrant language in Europe. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie. (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 689–724). Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2001). The Atoms of Language. Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bayraktaroğlu, A. (1999). Non-standard uses in the mother tongue by the Turkish diaspora adolescents in England. In A. Bayraktaroğlu. (Ed.), TASG news. Newsletter of the Turkish Area Study Group (pp. 28–39). TASG.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bayram, F. (2013). Acquisition of Turkish by heritage speakers: A processability approach. (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Newcastle, UK.
Bayram, F., & Wright, C. (2018). Turkish heritage language acquisition and maintenance in Germany. In P. P. Trifonas & T. Aravossitas. (Eds.), Research and practice in heritage language education (pp. 481–502). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Defining an “ideal” heritage speaker: Theoretical and methodological challenges. Reply to peer commentaries. Theoretical linguistics, 39 1, 259–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boeschoten, H. (1990). Acquisition of Turkish by Immigrant Children. Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U., & Karakoç, B. (2020). Subordination in children acquiring Turkish as a heritage language in Sweden. In F. Bayram. (Ed.), Studies in Turkish as a Heritage Language (pp. 155–204). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuza, A., & Miller, L. (2015). The protracted acquisition of past tense aspectual values in child heritage Spanish. In R. Klassen, J. M. Liceras & E. Valenzuela. (Eds.), Hispanic Linguistics at the Crossroad: Theoretical Linguistics, Language Acquisition, and Language Contact. Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 4 (pp. 211–230). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81 1, 882–906. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekmekçi, Ö. (1990). Acquisition of relativization in Turkish [Conference presentation]. Fifth International Conference on Turkish linguistics, SOAS, London University, London.
Gennari, S., & MacDonald, M. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58 1, 161–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68 1, 1–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hermon, G., Öztürk, Ö., & Kornfilt, J. (2007). Acquisition of relative clauses in Turkish [Conference presentation]. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Relative Clauses, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, September 13–15.
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. J. Mem. Lang., 59 1, 434–446. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jia, R., & Paradis, J. (2016). The acquisition of relative clauses by Mandarin heritage language children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 10 (2), 153–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahyalar, E. (2020). Monolingual Turkish-Speaking Children’s Comprehension Of Relative Clauses. The Online Journal Of New Horizons In Education, 10 (3), 1–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., & Hawkins, S. (1987). The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. In E. Keenan. (Ed.), Universal grammar: 15 essays (pp. 60–85). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Chen, A., & Chiu, J. (2015). Cross-linguistic influence in simultaneous Cantonese – English bilingual children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18 1, 438–452. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, C. E., & O’Grady, W. (2016). Asymmetries in children’s production of relative clauses: data from English and Korean. Journal of child language, 43 (5), 1038–1071. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Lee, Y., Gordon, P. C., Kluender, R., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean. Language, 86(3), 546–582. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenth, R., Singmann, H., & Love, J. (2018). Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version, 1 1.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, W., & Lee, S. (2001). L1 development in an L2 environment: The use of Cantonese classifiers and quantifiers by young British-born Chinese in Tyneside. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4 1, 359–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lohndal, T., & Putnam, M. T. (2020). Complexity in heritage morphosyntax: An exoskeletal approach. 12th Heritage Language Summer Institute, The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50 (4), 940–967. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marinis, T., & Armon-Lotem, S. (2014). Sentence repetition. In S. Armon-Lotem, N. Meir, & J. Jong. (Eds.), Assessing multilingual children: Disentangling bilingualism from language impairment (pp. 116–143). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meral, H. M. (2010). Resumption, A’-Chains and İmplications on Clausal Architecture. (Ph.D. dissertation). Boğaziçi University.
Montrul, S. (2002). Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 5 ( 1 ), 39–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 ( 2 ), 125–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Heritage language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Representational and computational changes in heritage language grammars. Heritage Language Journal, 18 (2), 1–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(in press). Native Speakers Interrupted. Cambridge University Press.
O’Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic Development. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Relative clauses: Processing and acquisition. In E. Kidd. (Ed.), The acquisition of Relative Clauses: Processing, typology and function (pp. 13–38). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Lee, M., & Choo, M. (2001). The acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. The Korean Language in America, 5 1, 345–356.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25 1, 433–448. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Schaffer, A. J., Perla, J., Lee, O. S., & Wieting, J. (2009). A psycholinguistic tool for the assessment of language loss: The HALA Project. Language Documentation & Conservation, 3 (1), 100–112.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Özcan, F. H. (1997). Comprehension of relative clauses in the acquisition of Turkish. In K. İmer & E. Uzun. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 149–155). Ankara.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek, D. (2009). Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In S. Ay, Ö. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever, & D. Peçenek. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of Turkish Linguistics (ICTL 2008). Harrasowitz Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Production of relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In J. Chandlee, K. Franich, K. Iserman, & L. Keil. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Boston University Conference on Language Development (Suppl.). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Incremental processing in head-final child language: online comprehension of relative clauses in Turkish-speaking children and adults. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30 (9), 1230–1243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Öztürk, B. (2008). Relativization strategies in Turkish. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL) 2007. MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peeters-Podgaevskaja, A. V., Janssen, B. E., & Baker, A. E. (2020). The acquisition of relative clauses in Russian and Polish in monolingual and bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 10 (2), 216–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez-Cortés, S., Putnam, M. T., & Sánchez, L. (2019). Differential access: Asymmetries in accessing features and building representations in heritage language grammars. Languages, 4 (4), 81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfaff, C. W. (1991). Turkish in contact with German: Language maintenance and loss among immigrant children in West Berlin. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 90 1, 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Early bilingual development of Turkish children in Berlin. In G. Extra and L. Verhoeven. (Eds.), The Cross-linguistic Study of Bilingual Development (pp. 75–97). Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phillips, N. (2017). A companion to the e-book ‘YaRrr!: the pirate’s guide to R’. R package version 0.1.2. [URL] (retrieved May 20, 2020).
Pienemann, M. (2005). Discussing PT. In M. Pienemann. (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Studies in Bilingualism 30 (pp. 61–83). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., (1997). American Russian: language loss meets language acquisition. In W. Brown et al.(Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (pp. 370–407). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33 (2), 305–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Heritage Languages and their Speakers. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL [URL]
Rizzi, L., & Schlonsky, U. (2005). Strategies of Subject Extraction. (Ms. Universities of Siena and Geneva).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). Language contact and change, Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1977). Language change in childhood and in history. In J. Macnamara. (Ed.), Language Learning and Thought (pp. 185–214). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). The acquisition and use of relative clauses in Turkic and Indo-European Languages. In D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer. (Eds.), Typological Studies in Language, Studies in Turkish Linguistics (pp. 273–294). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Topbaş, S., Aydın, A., Kazanoğlu, D., & Tadıhan-Özkan, E. (2013). Tekdilli ve Çokdilli Okulçağı Çocukları için Türkçe Cümle Tekrarı Testi (MultiSIT-TR). Eskişehir, Turkey: Anadolu University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., Özsoy, A. S., & van Hout, R. (2007). (In)Complete acquisition of Turkish among Turkish-German bilinguals in Germany and Turkey: An analysis of complex embeddings in narratives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10 (3), 248–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uzundağ, B. A., & Küntay, A. C. (2019). The acquisition and use of relative clauses in Turkish-learning children’s conversational interactions: a cross-linguistic approach. Journal of child language, 46 (6), 1142–1168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valdés, G. (1995). The teaching of minority languages as academic subjects: Pedagogical and theoretical challenges. The Modern Language Journal, 79 1, 299–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickham, H. (2009). Ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Coşkun Kunduz, Aylin & Silvina Montrul
2025. Input factors in the acquisition of evidentiality by Turkish heritage language children and adults in the United States. Language Acquisition 32:2 ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo
Coşkun Kunduz, Aylin & Silvina Montrul
2025. How Flexible Are Grammars Past Puberty? The Case of Relative Clauses in Turkish‐American Returnees. Language Learning DOI logo
Treffers-Daller, Jeanine
2025. BLC and Subordination in Heritage Speakers—Towards a New Research Agenda: Commentary on Hulstijn (2024). Languages 10:5 ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo
Avram, Larisa, Alexandru Mardale & Elena Soare
2024. On the production of subject and object relative clauses by child speakers of heritage Romanian in France. In Language Acquisition in Romance Languages [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 18], ► pp. 168 ff. DOI logo
Katsika, Kalliopi, Maria Lialiou & Shanley E. M. Allen
2024. Bilingual children’s online processing of relative clauses. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:4 ► pp. 446 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue