26.1678, Diss: Turkish; Lang Acq, Phonology, Psycholing, Socioling: Aktürk-Drake: 'Phonological Adoption through Bilingual Borrowing...'

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-26-1678. Sun Mar 29 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.1678, Diss: Turkish; Lang Acq, Phonology, Psycholing, Socioling: Aktürk-Drake: 'Phonological Adoption through Bilingual Borrowing...'

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*************    LINGUIST List 2015 Fund Drive    *************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/

Editor for this issue: Danuta  Allen <danuta at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 20:39:15
From: Memet Aktürk-Drake [memet.akturk.drake at biling.su.se]
Subject: Phonological Adoption through Bilingual Borrowing: Comparing Elite Bilinguals and Heritage Bilinguals

 
Institution: Centre for Research on Bilingualism, Stockholm University 
Program: PhD in Bilingualism 
Dissertation Status: Completed 
Degree Date: 2015 

Author: Memet Aktürk-Drake

Dissertation Title: Phonological Adoption through Bilingual Borrowing:
Comparing Elite Bilinguals and Heritage Bilinguals 

Dissertation URL:  http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?dswid=-3035&pid=diva2%3A781029&c

Linguistic Field(s): Language Acquisition
                     Phonology
                     Psycholinguistics
                     Sociolinguistics

Subject Language(s): Turkish (tur)


Dissertation Director(s):
Tomas Riad
Niclas Abrahamsson
Kari Fraurud

Dissertation Abstract:

In the phonological integration of loanwords, the original structures of the
donor language can either be preserved (i.e. adopted) as innovations or
altered to fit the existing system of the recipient language (i.e. adapted).
This dissertation aims to contribute to a better understanding of adoption as
an underresearched integration strategy by investigating how structural (i.e.
phonetic, phonological, morpho-phonological) and non-structural (i.e.
sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic) factors interact in determining when a
particular donor-language structure will be adopted instead of being adapted.
Factors that affect the accuracy of the structure’s perception and production
in the donor language as a result of its acquisition as a second language are
also given special consideration. 
The three studies that are included in the dissertation examine how the same
phonological structure from different donor languages is integrated into the
same recipient language Turkish by two different types of initial borrowers:
elite bilinguals in Turkey and heritage bilinguals in Sweden. The three
investigated phonological structures are word-final [l] after back vowels,
long segments in word-final closed syllables, and word-initial onset clusters.
The hypothesis is that adoption will be more prevalent in heritage bilinguals
than in elite bilinguals. Four necessary conditions for adoption are
identified in the analysis of the results. Firstly, the donor-language
structure must have high perceptual salience. Secondly, the borrowers must
have acquired the linguistic competence to produce a structure accurately.
Thirdly, the borrowers must have sufficient sociolinguistic incentive to adopt
a structure as an innovation. Higher dominance in the donor language as a
second language and positive attitudes in the borrowers contribute to the
sociolinguistic incentive. Fourthly, prosodic structures require higher
incentive to be adopted than segments (and clusters of segments). The
hypothesis is only partially confirmed. Two types of counterexamples are
found. On the one hand, the reverse of the hypothesis is attested when the
structure has high salience in the language from which the elite bilinguals
have borrowed it but has low salience in the language from which the heritage
bilinguals have borrowed it. On the other hand, no difference is found between
elite and heritage bilinguals when the structure has a low degree of
acquisition difficulty making it equally likely to be acquired and adopted by
elite bilinguals as by heritage bilinguals. In other cases, as predicted,
heritage bilinguals display significantly higher adoption rates than elite
bilinguals.




----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-1678	
----------------------------------------------------------