In TURKISH

The Future of Multilingualism in the German
Educational System:
Russian and Turkish in Focus
3./4. March 2016 /// Berlin
Mehmet Ali AKINCI
Outline
I. Introduction
II. State of the art: bilingualism and migration
III. Migrant Turkish community in France
IV. Emergent bilingualism (Hamurcu, 2015)
V. Biliteracy of French-Turkish bilinguals in France
VI. Conclusion
2
To begin with…
W. Goethe : «He, who knows no foreign language,
doesn’t know his own one » (1833, Maximen und
Reflexionen, II, 23).
G. Lüdi (1998) : “Monolingualism is in fact a
deviation from the rule; it can be seen as an
illness. Unfortunately, it’s an illness for which it
exists efficient medicines: multilingual education,
multilingual teaching.”
J. Cummins (2001 : 19) : « To reject a child’s
language in the school is to reject the child ».
Importance of studying bilingualism
Mobility / Globalization of the word… need to speak another
language than his/her MT.
Number of research studies dedicated to bilingualism
increased dramatically over the past three decades, it also
attracts considerable attention among a wider audience,
especially an increasing interest from:
parents : purpose of giving chance to grow up with more
than one language
Politics: giving the chance to learn more than one language
in order to be competitive in the world… i.e., for France:
European sections
Bilingual schools
International sections
Two divergent discourses
A pro-bilingualism discourse (numerous profits, Bhatia &
Ritchie, 2004). Learning of foreign languages valued at the
school (English, German and Spanish…).
An anti-bilingualism discourse: views of some psychological
approaches and researches on acquisition.
Incapacity for the child to find his marks and to master both
languages,
Fear of semilingualism (possess “correctly” no language, in
other words as a native),
Discourse relieved by specialists of the education and in the
political spheres.
Importance of studying bilingualism
Ideological biases, resulting in campaigns pro or contra child
bilingualism .
It is quite possible that in many cases these reactions can be traced
back to a well-intentioned desire to protect the defenseless child
from potentially harmful influences
In combination with the belief that monolingualism represents the
natural or normal case of language development, this attitude may
lead to the assumption that deviating from this norm implies risks
which had better be avoided.
The most frequently articulated concern is that the child exposed to
more than one language during early developmental phases might be
linguistically, cognitively, emotionally, and possibly even morally
confused!
 therefore parents opt for what appears to be the more
prudent choice, namely monolingualism.
Bilingualism and migration
Past 50 years, massive arrival and continued presence of immigrant
families in Western Europe = contexts of language contact.
These languages and cultures in contact raised a number of
important a host of linguistic, sociolinguistic (Gadet, 2006) and
educational issues (in particular school difficulties for the children)
(Extra & Verhoeven, 1999).
Language practices of individuals, families and communities have
evolved and are continuing to evolve as they settle and as their
children grow up (Deprez, 1994; Moore, 2006; Hélot, 2007).
Language policies of the receiving countries have also evolved and
are also continuing to evolve.
In addition, linguistic varieties of L1 and L2 as well as hybrid
varieties have evolved in these language contact settings.
Bilingualism and migration
Language practices of immigrant families evolve Their
bilingualism was considered for a long time “as a passing,
unstable phenomenon, as an intermediate stage between two
monolingualism”.
Indeed, according to the plan generally admitted by language
shift phenomenon:
First generation, monolingual at first, learns more or less well
the language of the country in which migrants settle down,
Second generation speaks fluently this language but still
understands the language of origin,
Third generation sometimes only comprehends (but rarely
speaks); the language of origin disappeared for the benefit of the
dominant language in a process assimilationist policy.
Bilingualism and migration
T
1st
generation
2nd
generation
3rd
generation
4th
generation
Tf
TF
tF
tf
F
Language evolution among migrants over generations (E. Haugen (1953)
2nd generation children acquire a weakened language and attenuated culture
of origin which may be totally lost in succeeding generations. Influenced by a
follow-up effect, Gonzo & Saltarelli (1983) affirm that in 3 or 4 generations, the
languages and cultures of migrant children become extinct (Thomason &
Kaufman, 1988; Lüdi & Py, 2003)
Bilingualism and migration
Certain migrant groups do not (want to) integrate into the
mainstream society but maintain “parallel societies”.
Some children and adolescents from a migration background
are characterized as “semilinguals” by the education system
(especially those whose family background is far from the
mainstream educational culture).
Children with immigration background often do poorly or drop
out in mainstream French schools.
Poor development of skills in the first language hinders
progress in the second language, both in quantity and in
quality (Cummins, 1979, 1981).
Bilingualism and children from migrant background
Studies on the language of children from immigration
backgrounds in European countries have yielded conflicting
results:
Some researchers suggest a “language deficit” to explain why
immigrant children do not attain the same levels at school as
their native-speaking peers (Ammerlaan et al., 2001).
Others suggest that their language difficulties may be due to
quite narrowly defined areas of literacy-related activities rather
than to general language use (Akinci, Jisa & Kern, 2001).
Still others associate difficulties with child-specific factors such
as home and/or host language, individual personalities and
socio-cultural identities rather than with background literacy
or school-based activities (Wong-Fillmore, 1991; Gregory &
Williams, 2000).
Bilingualism and children from migrant background
Many educationally oriented studies (Grosjean, 1982; Billiez,
1990; Deprez, 1994; Lüdi, 2001; Lüdi & Py, 2003; Hélot, 2007)
stressed that, in practice in Europe, minorities are not given the
chance to fully develop their bilingualism.
These studies also point out the paradoxical policies which
restrict bilingualism when it concerns migrants’ children, but
encourage it for the ‘elite’ by supporting early second language
learning. (The Netherlands)
Rather than promoting multilingualism, French LEP explicitly
opted for integration and linguistic assimilation of migrants
(Hélot, 2003, Hélot & Young 2002, Bonacina-Pugh, 2012).
Bilingualism and children from migrant background
They also assert that differences in school performance may
reflect negative teacher attitudes concerning the academic
abilities of children from ethnic minority groups (Billiez, 1990;
Lüdi, 2001; Gadet & Varro, 2006; Hélot, 2007).
They propose the idea that difficulties may be due to inferior
institutional and instructional facilities available to such
populations.
Another suggestion is that children from such backgrounds
represent highly heterogeneous populations that show
considerable inter-group diversity, and so they cannot
automatically be identified as “poor achievers”, whether in
language or in other domains.
Bilingualism and children from migrant background
A. Prohic & G. Varro (2007 : 104) : “it is moreover interesting to observe
people who have at the same time a dominant language and a
dominated language, the almost unconscious choice not to transmit to
their children the dominated language, on the pretext of facilitating
their integration” > subtractive bilingualism…
Not only the parents but also many professionals of the domain
(teachers, speech therapists, psychologists) have interiorized the
discourse of deficit and thus perpetuate the French LE policy (Hélot,
2007).
School institution often ignores the multilingualism of some of pupils
and this, for two essential reasons:
Teachers are not always (rather rarely) attentive to that,
Children do not let it know (they hide it?).
Bilingualism and migration
Instances playing determining role in developing bilingualism
for children from migration (Dabène & Billiez, 1987):
Migrant family: place of complex interactions (nuclear
structure, mutual learning environment, stigmatized speaks)
Group of peers: "I learnt French by going to play below“
Schools: first contact with the standard (written) language
both for L1 (Home Language instruction classes) & L2.
Country of origin: place of reactivation for L1 practices
(Tabouret-Keller, 2006).
Media (television, internet, m. phone) > source of learning for
L2 and of rediscovery of language and culture of origin.
Bilingualism and migration
From the receiving society perspective:
Socio-political problems: issues of integration-social
cohesion, housing, welfare, emancipation, equal rights,
etc.
Educational problems: training bilingual
developing materials, school failure, etc.
staff,
Language planning issues: offering language classes
Bilingualism and migration
From the minority group perspective:
Socio-cultural problems: issues of identity, language
maintenance, shift, and loss – integration or separation
Educational problems: low school achievement, poor
language development in both languages (L1 & L2)
Ghettoization, unemployment, feelings of unfair treatment,
discrimination, racism, and so on.
Many questions concerning the language
Maintenance
Change
Loss
as well as the equal status of the MT (Yağmur & Akinci,
2003)
Turkish immigrants in France
(1965-2015)
Turkish immigrants in France
Reasons for immigration, three periods :
1970: economic
1980: early family reunification
1990: political refugees
Number: more than 611,515 (2014)*
Strong community sociability (Rollan & Sourou, 2006)
Commitment to ethno-cultural origin, structuring a
transnational community phenomenon around the extended
family and neighborhood circle (de Tapia, 1995).
High diasporic solidarity and a weak social exchanges with nonTurks (Armagnague, 2008).
* Turkish Ministry of Labor and Social Security. General Directorate for External Relations and aid to workers
abroad.
Turkish immigrants in France
Several signs in this direction:
Important number of associations (over 320 > Sollan & Sourou,
2006) => Language, cultural and religious maintenance (Akinci &
Yağmur, 2011),
Development of community business,
Strong attachment to Turkish through frequent holiday trips and a
high proportion of marriages to spouses newly immigrated from
Turkey (Akinci, 2008, 2013…)
Media in Turkish (Turkish series) easily accessible.
 High language maintenance (Akinci, 2008)
Frequent use of French with siblings or peers (Akinci, 1996, 2003, 2008 ;
Irtis-Dabbagh, 2003 ; Gautier-Kizilyürek, 2007)
Culturally, parent-child exchanges are different, the Turkish child is less
taken as interlocutor (Tinelli, 2004).
Turkish immigrants in France
As shown by the Home Language Survey in 6 European cities (Extra &
Yağmur 2004), the Linguistic Vitality Index (LVI) of Turkish is relatively high
in comparison to other migrant languages.
Self-assessments of primary school children, age 6-11:
Proficiency
Understands
Turkish
Lyon
95
Choice
With
mother
82
Dominant
in Turkish
38
Prefers
Turkish
47
Linguistic
Vitality
Index
65
(Akinci et al., 2004)
21
Language development of TR-FR bilinguals with schooling and age
French
Turkish
Language development
PhD
Büşra
Age
Hamurcu
PhD
Keziban
Yıldız
PhD
Betül ERTEK
MULTILIT
ANR-DFG PROJECT
2010-2013
PhD
on Frog stories
0 1
2
3 4
5
Nursery
School
Family
6
7
8
9 10 11
Primary
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Secondary
High
19 20
University
Home Language Instruction
Turkish as FL

 2012-2015,
2013-2016,Betül
Keziban
ERTEKYILDIZ
“Lexical-semantic
“French-Turkish
analysis
bilingual
of oral and
children
written
in texts
kindergarten:
in Turkish
 Akinci
1999/2002
; Akinci
& Jisa
&
Kern
2001,
2004,
2006a ;children
2008c ;
and
FrenchBüşra
of French-Turkish
bilingual
and; Akinci
Turkish
andand
French
monolingual
representations
of
Turkish
parents
and2001
French
teachers
”.2003b,
 2010-2015,
HAMURCU
“Development
of
Turkish
French
experiencing
early
aged&6 Decool-Mercier
to 10The
years”.
bilingualism.
case of 2010
Turkish
origin Delamotte
children in nursery
Akinci
; Akinci,
& Oker,school
2011. ”.
Studies on Turkish-French bilingualism: MA Thesis Speech therapy
A. Tinelli (2004) “From exile to speech therapy or possible trajectory of
Turkish origin children: reflections on language difficulties of children of
Turkish migrants” (Strasbourg).
S. Chalumeau & H. Efthymiou (2010), “Subsequent early bilingualism
among Portuguese and Turkish-speaking children: Influence of the mother
tongue on the acquisition of French as a second language” (Lyon).
A. Le Coz & A. Lhoste-Lassus (2011), “Lexical and morphosyntactic
competencies of preschool French-Turkish bilingual children: Comparison
with their French monolingual peers” (Lyon).
M. Jouët (2011), “2nd and 4th graders French-Turkish bilingual and
monolingual children’s word explanations and definitions in speech therapy
and school” (Caen).
C. Gagneux (2013), “Lexical difficulties in French of 5 years-old preschool
French-Turkish bilingual children: research on cognate words” (Besançon).
Studies on Turkish-French bilingualism: Research projects
1998-2001 “Euregion Turkish - Computer Adaptive Test”, Socrates – Comenius
Program, T. Duindam, Cito, Arnhem (The Netherlands).
2000-2001 “Language practices analysis of Turkish-French bilingual
adolescents in France”, DGLF (Direction Générale de la Langue Française) /
Ministère de la Culture.
2000-2004 “Multilingual Cities”, European Foundation of Culture (The
Netherlands), G. Extra & K. Yağmur (Uni. Tilburg, The Netherlands).
2001-2003 “Transmission and development of language and bodily practices:
Symbolic Construction of multiple identities in High-Normandy”, Regional
Research Contract (High Normandy).
2003-2004 “Maghrebian Arabic and Turkish in situation of language contact
with French and Dutch”, Van Gogh Exchange programs of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (France) & NWO (The Netherlands), D. Caubet (Inalco, Paris) & J.-J. de Ruiter
(Uni. Tilburg, The Netherlands).
Studies on Turkish-French bilingualism: Research projects
2002-2005 “Psycho-socio-linguistic study of literacy development in
bilingual and monolingual children and adolescents”, Young Researchers
Award 2002, Ministry of Research, France.
2004-2005 “Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic factors in developing
literacy in Turkish”, Bosphorus Exchange programs; Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (France) & TÜBITAK (Turkey). (A. Küntay, Koç University, Istanbul)
2007-2009 “Evaluation of linguistic competences of bilingual pupils
resulting from Turkish immigration in France and Germany”, Procope
Exchange programs; Ministry of Foreign Affairs (France) & DAAD (Germany).
(C. Pfaff, Free Uni., Berlin)
2010-2013 ANR-DFG Project MULTILIT “Development of oral and written
abilities in L1, L2 and L3 by multilingual children and adolescents with
Turkish background in France and Germany” (M.-A. Akinci, Uni. Rouen & C.
Schroeder, Uni. Potsdam).
Studies on Turkish-French bilingualism: Research projects
2012-2015 “Mixed couples, cultures, languages, education and social
identities”, Regional Research Contract (High Normandy). R. Delamotte (Uni.
Rouen).
2015-2017 “Electronic writings of bilinguals: comparison between France,
Tunisa and Turkey”, Regional Research Contract (High Normandy). F. Laroussi
(Uni. Rouen).
Turkish children’s emergent bilingualism
Preschools in France
In France, almost 100 % of 3-year-old children attend preschool (DESCO,
2004).
Preschools are free of charge and secular; the only language in education
is French.
They do not offer the same success opportunity to every child (Larzul,
2010)
The emergent bilingualism of these children is neglected (Helot, 2007)
Individual differences of these children, caused by differences in language
practices within the families (Akinci, 1996 ; Delamotte, 2006 ; Helot,
2007).
Until 7/8 years old, children learn Turkish at home and French at school.
Then, the only model for Turkish is the HLI classes (similar to
complementary schools in Britain), limited to 1,5/2 hours per week
outside timetable.
Preschools in France
Preschools: major place of socialization and of first contact with
French.
In total immersion/submersion from 3 years old in the French
Education system.
Bilingual children: linguistic discontinuity > uncomfortable situation
(De Houwer)
Linguistic insecurity, ‘partial or total silence period’ (Manigand,
1991)
Teachers are impatient, feel helpless and have lots of prejudices…
(based on teachers’ discourses)
They mainly advice parents to speak French at home
Preschool Turkish children in France
Positive points:
Fluency in French articulation is excellent and similar to those of
monolingual children of the same age.
Similar understanding capabilities of syntactic structures with
those of monolingual children.
Problematic grammatical structures are those that are controlled
later by also monolingual children in their normal language
development.
Weaknesses:
Vocabulary and syntax
Preschool Turkish children in France
Positive points:
Vocabulary:
no critical period
Syntax: capacities significantly
for lexical acquisitions.
lower. and similar to those of
Fluency in French articulation is excellent
monolingual children of the same age.
School attendance
These performances are far from
Socialization with classmates
or any
language with
delay.
Similar understanding capabilitiespathological
of syntactic
structures
> Quick increase of vocabulary.
those of monolingual children.
Performances in
Teachers particular attention,
understanding
tests
Problematic grammatical structuressyntax
are those
that are controlled
and specific work with them > would
(theoretically
prior
to production)
later
by
also
monolingual
children
in
their
normal
language
increase child’s lexical acquisition/
Are encouraging.
development.
development.
Weaknesses:
Vocabulary
and
syntax
Turkish children at preschool in France
Turkish speaking children, although more exposed to Turkish than
French, do not speak French better  In France, Turkish is not
valued and is not recognized as a “prestigious language”.
The cultural differences between families and schools place the
child in a complex situation where it’s sometimes difficult to find
clear identity markers.
“The mother tongue of the children should be rehabilitated,
valued and taught within the schools, not as a nostalgic folk or
gadget [HLI], but as a language tool for development and identity
recognition vector” (Crutzen, 1998, in Crutzen & Manço, 2003 : 24).
Turkish children at preschool in France
Turkish speaking children, although more exposed to Turkish than
French, do not speak French better than  In France, Turkish is not
valued and is not recognized as a “prestigious language”.
The
cultural differences
between
the family
and education,
the school place
Acquiring
both languages
through
bilingual
thechildren
child inmay
a complex
situation
where
sometimes
difficult to
take full
advantage
ofit’s
early
bilingualism.
find clearMastery
identity markers.
of their L1 can only be profitable
to learn their L2 French.
“The mother tongue of the pupils should be rehabilitated, valued
and taught within the schools, not as a nostalgic folk or gadget, but
as a language tool for development and identity recognition vector”
(Crutzen, 1998, in Crutzen & Manço, 2003 : 24).
PhD Büşra HAMURCU (2015)
“Early bilingualism in Turkish and French. The case of
Turkish children at preschool in France”.
Aims of the research:
Analyzing Turkish language development children in the home
context and French acquisition in the school context.
Describing early language development in the early years (emergent
bilingualism).
Understanding the academic experiences of preschool young
Turkish-speaking children without any L1 support at school.
Comparing their language development according to the different
language practices of their parents such as:
i) only Turkish (Type 1 families),
ii) a mix of Turkish and French (Type 2 families).
Bischwiller, Alsace, France
72% of foreigners are Turkish.
3500 Turks, namely 27% of the total population.
French-Turkish bilingual families:
Parents:
2nd generation;
Low SES;
professionalizing schooling.
Subjects
12 Turkish and French, 3-year-old (sept. 2011) bilingual children
Longitudinal study during two school years
G/F
Age
Rank in
family
Lang. of
Father
Lang. of
mother
Lang.
with
siblings
Isa
M
3;8
3/3
Umran
F
3;8
3/3
Yelda Aslı
M
F
F
3;3 2;10 2;10
2/3 2/2 3/3
T
T&F
T&F
T&F
F
T&F
T&F
F
T&F
F
M : Male / F female
Sinan
Eray
Eda
Yusuf Okan Ismail Fadime
F
M
G
M
F
3;1 3;2 3;5 3;8 2;11
2/2 3/3 2/2 3/3 2/2
M
3;7
2/2
Nur
F
3;5
2/2
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T&F
T&F
T&F
T&F
T&F
T
T
T
T
T
T&F
T
T
T
T&F
T
T
T
Age: once beginning preschool
T : Turkish / F : French
Data
5 individual videotaped sessions, 3 during the first year and 2
during the second year of preschool.
Children were asked to observe and talk about 2 pictures in both
languages.
Semi-guided interviews with:
Parents,
Teachers.
Material
Teachers’ discourses
“Their language is very basic, very little vocabulary, lack of
vocabulary, I bring too much vocabulary, we essentially take Turkish
vocabulary to work” (E1-02.02.2012).
“After three years of work, in last class of preschool we see that
they learned lot’s of vocabulary”. (E3-27.01.2012).
“They don’t dare to speak, they are signing, we also try sometimes
mimes”. (E2-27.01.2012.
“ They have to know some words”. (E2-27.01.2012).
Analyses
thematic patterns,
modalities of utterances
diversity of genres,
use of gestures,
and lexical diversity
Gestures in Turkish
Development of gestures for children
Type 2
Development of gestures for children
Type 1
34,3
35
50
45,3
42,7
45
30
40
25
35
21
29,7
29
18,7
20
30
25
18
20
15
22,3
17,3
15
10
5,7
10
5
5
2,3
0
0
Gestuels
Verbo-gestuels
S1
S5
Verbaux
Gestuels
Verbo-gestuels
S1
S5
Verbaux
Gestures in French
Development of gestures for children
Type 2
Development of gestures for children
Type 1
44,3
45
32,3
35
40
30
35
30
23,3
25
25
25
20
20
15
12,3
11,7
15
10
38,7
40
7,3
7
6
4
5
1,3
5
10
0
0
Gestuels
Verbo-gestuels
S1
S5
Verbaux
Gestuels
Verbo-gestuels
S1
S5
Verbaux
Gestures: Insecurity vs security
Aslı (Type 1) & Yelda (Type 2)
Same age: 2;10 at S1 & 4;6 at S5
Different language practices
Aslı: insecure gestures regardless of language spoken during
sessions (Turkish or French); gestures persist even 21 months
after the start of schooling.
Yeliz: shows no sign of insecurity at any given moment in both
languages.
Lexical diversity: coding in Turkish
« Çocuklar bahçede oynuyolar. Bu çocuk
kaydıraktan kayıyo. Bu çocuk da buraya
çıkıyo ».
Results:
9 different word (types)
12 total word (tokens) : Çocuklar (1)/çocuk (2), bu (2)
TTR (Type/Token ratio) : 9/12 = 0,75
Guiraud index: G = V/ 𝑁 = 9/ 12 = 2,6
Lexical diversity: coding in French
« Elles jouent avec la
jouent avec la balle. »
serviette.
Results:
7 different word (types)
10 total word (tokens) : jouent (2), avec (2), la(2).
TTR (Type/Token ratio) : 7/10 = 0,7
Guiraud Index: G = V/ 𝑁 = 7/ 10 = 2,2
Ils
Lexical diversity
Type 1 children
5,3
6
5
5,4
5,6
6
4,6
5
4,2
3,7
4
4
3
3
2
Type 2 children
2,3
2
0,8
1
1
0
S1
0
S1
S5
S5
Français
Français
Turc
Turc
Lexical diversity
Type 1 children
5,3
6
5
5,4
5,6
6
4,6
5
4,2
3,7
4
4
3
3
2
Type 2 children
2,3
2
0,8
1
1
0
S1
0
S1
S5
S5
Français
Français
Turc
Turc
B. Hamurcu, 2015
At 5 years-old, small differences in French
Children Type 1: sometimes dominant in Turkish
Children Type 2: sometimes dominant in French
The practice of L1 doesn’t affect the development
of L2 French (Nocus et al., 2014)
ANR-DFG PROJECT
MULTILIT
2010-2013
Aims of the project:
to analyse the development of text production abilities as a critical
indicator of literacy across and beyond school ages among TurkishFrench and Turkish-German bilinguals and French and German
monolingual children, teenagers and adults.
to show how children learn to use academic registers in their
languages (L1, L2 and L3).
Research Questions
The data allowed us to answer the following questions:
What kind of multiliteracy experiences do bilingual children have outside school?
What is the relationship between language, culture and literacy?
What are the characteristics of these bilinguals, their environments, the contexts
in which they receive instruction, and the nature of this instruction with regard to
reading and writing activities?
What resources do they access, what multiliteracy practices do they engage in on
their own?
What are the relationships between:
their language choice and language mixing with various interlocutors in
different settings,
at home
outside home
and their cultural and literacy practices outside school ?
Methodology
MULTILIT project (2010-2013)
All subjects were given similar motivational instructions
Elicited Texts with a film stimulus (Berman & Verhoeven 2002)
oral and written texts
in 3 languages: Turkish, German/French, English
2 genres: personal narrative [_wn], expository opinion [_we])
four grades: 5th, 7th, 10th, 12th
detailed socio-biographical data concerning these pupils, and
collected with a questionnaire.
MULTILIT Corpora per participant
Questionnaire
Oral
on = oral narrative
oe = oral expository
ON TR
ON
FR/GR
Stimulus video
OE TR
OE
FR/GR
Pupils
Written
wn = written narrative
we = written expository
WN TR
WE TR
WN
FR/GR
WE
FR/GR
Participants
5th
Grade
7th
10th / 12th
Turkish-French bilinguals (3 primary, 2 secondary, 3 high schools)
Number of
participants
Mean age
(range age)
28
22
32
10;01
(09;11 – 11;06)
13;01
(12;07 – 13;04)
16;01 / 18;01
French monolinguals (1 primary school, 2 secondary schools)
Number of
participants
Mean age
(range age)
16
21
10;04
(10;01 – 12;00)
13;07
(13;01 – 14;05)
Table: Number of participants per population, school level, mean age, and range ages .
Turkish-French Bilinguals
Were born in France, as sons and daughters of the first generation immigrants
Attend Home Language Instruction classes
use Turkish as (one of) their home language(s)
French monolinguals: Attend the same schools and live in the same neighborhoods
Coding procedures
Example of Bilingual Primary school pupil’s production:
Example of Monolingual Primary school pupil’s production:
54
MULTILIT Data: transcription
EXMARaLDA ("Extensible Markup Language for Discourse Annotation“):
Partitur‐Editor
EXMARaLDA: Corpus Manager (COMA)
MERVE (BI-10;11-B-NE)
Written narrative
Normalized orthography
Moi j’ai dit que Zumra est ma copine mais on a eu des problèmes, on se bagarre tous les jours elle me dit
des gros mots et à la sortie de l’école on se bagarre, elle me fâche elle se met ensemble avec ses autres
copines et après j’ai trouvé une autre copine elle se met tous les jours avec moi en rang et maintenant elle
est ma copine et je l’aime beaucoup, à l’école elle reste avec moi et elle s’appelle Sumeyye et elle a une
sœur elle sa jumelle sa sœur s’appelle Belkis eux deux sont mes meilleures copines.
MERVE (BI-10;11-B-EE) Written expository text
Normalized orthography
Je dis que je pense que c’est pas du tout bien de dire des gros mots ; Et comme là elle est encore ma
copine mais c’est que les lundis qu’on se voit ; Et si elle recommence je vais plus la causer.
Questionnaire
Regional, educational and occupational background of parents
Where subject learned Turkish
Language choice with interlocutors at home and outside
Cultural and literacy practices in L1, L2, L3…
TV, radio, computer, newspapers, magazines, books,
Writing activities outside of school
Thoughts about their learning English and their multilingualism
MULTILIT: Text analysis
Syntactic / noun phrase complexity (Akinci, 2006 ; Akinci & Delamotte,
2012; Akinci, Schroeder et al., 2013a/b)
Total and type of syntactic connectivity is a good indicator of language
development and the control of differentiation between oral and written
expression.
Spelling and punctuation (Akinci, 2008 ; Gonac’h, 2008 ; Akinci et al., 2013)
Researches on spelling (Fayol, Largy & Lemaire, 1994 ; Totereau, Theverin &
Fayol, 1997…) showed that the control of conventional spelling is a longer
process in some languages ​than in others.
Morpho-lexical production & lexical density (Akinci et al., 2011 ; Oker &
Akinci, 2012, Pfaff, Yılmaz, Dollnick & Akinci, 2012)
Lexical density is a good indicator of both development of oral and written production and
control of the difference between spoken and written language (Strömqvist et al., 2001).
Anaphora (Akinci & Decool-Mercier, 2010)
De Weck (1991) shows that the anaphoric operation differs depending on the
age, but also depending on the type of text.
Home Language Instruction (HLI)
Grade
5th
7th
10th /12th
Number
28
22
32
100 %
88,5 %
72 %
Home
Language
Instruction
Holidays in Turkey
5th
7th
10th /12th
Every year
46.5 %
59 %
65.5 %
Every 2/3 years
35.5 %
36.5 %
28 %
0
4.5 %
6.5 %
18 %
0
0
Grade
Rarely
No answer
Language use & choice
Bilinguals only: corpus reduced to 82 Turkish-French bilinguals
Different interlocutors and situations:
when a bilingual informant speaks to his:
mother
father
brothers and sisters
friends from the same origin
When these interactions take place at home and outside
Language use & choice 2003 vs 2010
2003 (n=106)*
Interlocutors FR only
2010 (n=82)*
TR only
Both
NR
FR only
TR only
Both
NR
Mother
3
62
35
0
17
45
35.5
2.5
Father
0
55.5
43.5
1
6
43
46.5
5
Siblings
40.5
1
55.5
3
44
7.5
41
7.5
Friends
37.5
2
61.5
0
27
8.5
61
4.5
*Percentages are based on results from all ages groups.
Parents
Turkish only
Turkish + French
rarely French
Turkish only
Turkish + French
French only with mothers
Peers
French + Turkish
Often French only
rarely Turkish only
French only
French + Turkish
rarely Turkish only
Self evaluation of Speaking Turkish
Grade
5th
7th
10th /12th
Very good
39.5
45.5
15.5
Good
28.5
41
62.5
I can do it
25
9
22
Bad
3.5
0
0
No answer
3.5
4.5
0
Reading books
Grade
5th
Population
7th
10th /12th
TURKISH-FRENCH BILINGUALS
Yes
89.5
100
94
No
10.5
0
3
Often
71
68
50
Sometimes
29
27
45
Population
FRENCH MONOLINGUALS
Yes
93.5
90.5
No
6.5
9.5
Often
80
84.5
Sometimes
20
10.5
Reading books
5th
Grade
Population
In FRENCH
In TURKISH
7th
10th /12th
TURKISH-FRENCH BILINGUALS
60.5
68
59.5
Sometimes
25
27
34.5
Never
3.5
0
0
NR
10.5
4.5
0
Often
7
23
34.5
Sometimes
32
45.5
50
Never
36
9
5.5
NR
25
22.5
0
Often
SMS in French
Grade
5th
Population
Mobile phone
Often
Sometimes
Never
NR
7th
10th /12th
TURKISH-FRENCH BILINGUALS
21
32
94
14.5
18
83
7
14
17
28.5
0
0
50
68
0
Population
FRENCH MONOLINGUALS
Mobile phone
44
86
Often
50
81
Sometimes
6
5
Never
19
0
NR
25
14
Writing activities
Grade
5th
Population
7th
10th /12th
TURKISH-FRENCH BILINGUALS
Yes
57
73
75
No
32
18
25
NR
11
9
0
Population
FRENCH MONOLINGUALS
Yes
87
71.5
No
6.5
24
NR
6.5
4.5
TV
5th grade
Grade
Population
In FRENCH
In TURKISH
7th grade
10th /12th grade
TURKISH-FRENCH BILINGUALS
Often
50
36,4
37,5
Sometimes
43
41
56,5
Never
3,6
13,6
6
NR
3,6
9
0
Often
68
73
81
Sometimes
25
23
19
Never
0
0
0
NR
7
4
0
Radio
Grade
5th
7th
10th /12th
TURKISH-FRENCH BILINGUALS
Yes
53.5
50
81
No
39.5
46.5
19
NR
7
4.5
0
Population
FRENCH MONOLINGUALS
Yes
62.5
81
No
35.7
19
NR
0
0
Radio
5th
Grade
Population
In FRENCH
In TURKISH
7th
10th /12th
TURKISH-FRENCH BILINGUALS
25
32
57.5
Sometimes
21.5
13.5
34.5
Never
21.5
0
4
NR
32
54.5
4
Often
14
13.5
27
Sometimes
18
18
42
Never
28.5
4.5
31
NR
39.5
63.5
0
Often
Representations of being bilingual
Grade
nothing
‘It’s good’ (c’est bien)
They can easily learn other
languages
They won’t speak well both
languages
other
Non-response
5th
5
10
4
7th
1
10
10th
1
3
17*
2
1
1
2
12th
3
4
2
Other (5th grade)
They will say bad things about
me (3)
They will get good job (1)
Other (7th grade)
They are the same (1)
They will get good job (1)
0
Discussion on questionnaire results
Caveat:
This presentation has been limited to self-report data
(questionnaires)
Nonetheless, the findings on language choice and cultural
and literacy practices are important in confirming some
and countering other popular beliefs about Turkish
migrants in Europe.
Orthographic & Literacy strategies
in written Turkish texts in France & Germany
Mehmet-Ali AKINCI**, Elif DİVİTÇİOĞLU**,
Meral DOLLNICK*, Christoph SCHROEDER*
*Universität Potsdam, Germany
**Université de Rouen, France
Literacy: Monoliteracy, Biliteracy, Multiliteracy…
Views of literacy
Traditional literacy and New Literacies (cultural practices / media use)
(Durgunoğlu & Verhoeven 1998; Street 1993; Leu 2002; Hornberger
2004).
Cross-cultural differences in literacy
Turkish, German and French all share alphabetic orthographic
systems,
but there are cultural differences in literacy practices.
Literacy and (lack of) academic achievement attributed to:
linguistic factors such as influence from L2 or dialects of L1
availability of instruction in L1
social factors, e.g., parents’ (lack of) education and literacy practices;
differing social contexts and literate cultures in the bilingual settings.
“Errors / Deviations”
Errors and repairs were subject matter of many studies in a
developmental perspective (Clark & Andersen 1979; Clark 1985;
Ochs 1985; Levelt 1983; Karmiloff-Smith 1986, 1993).
Ochs (1985: 785) defines the error as “a) a deviation from either a
socially variable or a categorial norm and b) warrant negative
feed-back”.
A qualitative but also quantitative study of errors can shed some
light on the developmental process of the mastery of the language
to the bilingual children (Ochs, 1985).
Indeed, errors are indications of an incomplete knowledge of the
considered domain; their analysis, a means to know the parts of
the system which are not still completely automated, while the
repairs can help to understand the processes and the current
acquisition.
Views on Turkish Orthography
On a continuum, spelling of the Turkish belongs to less
semiographic (more phonographic), one of the more transparent
orthography of the word ( with Japan kanji). What is written is what
is heard. (Jaffré, 1997, 2006).
“Two factors make it likely for word recognition and spelling to
develop rapidly in beginning readers of Turkish. The first factor is
the systematic, transparent orthography. The second factor is the
speedy development of phonological awareness” (Durgunoğlu,
2006: 219).
“Türkçenin gerçekten saydam bir yazım sistemi olduğunu
söylemek yerindedir. Ancak yazım kuralları sadece sesblimsel
değildir; biçimbilimsel ve anlambilimsel kurallar da vardır. Bazı
durumlarda ise bu prensipler birbirleriyle çelişir” (Menz &
Schroeder, 2007: 4).
Views on Turkish Orthography
Turkish orthography in language contact contexts (Aarts & Verhoeven 1998,
1999; Schroeder 2007; Menz & Schroeder 2006, 2007; Akinci 2008; Akinci,
Pfaff & Dollnick 2009…)
Aarts & Verhoeven (1999); Aims: Evaluating the development of literacy in
Turkish and Dutch of Turkish-Dutch and monolingual bilingual children,
Participants:
222 bilingual pupils. Mean age 12;7 (11 and 14 years old).
140 monolingual children in the Netherlands and 276 Turkish pupils of Turkey
Diverse tests:
Word decoding
Word spelling
Vocabulary reading
Syntax
Reading comprehension
Results: Aarts & Verhoeven 1999
Task
Number of
items
Group
Mean
Standard deviation
Netherlands
Turkey
Netherlands
Turkey
Word decoding
35
33,66
33,62
2,05
3,37
Word spelling
35
19,24
26,53*
6,61
6,24
Vocabulary reading
36
23,18
28,55*
5,35
5,00
Syntax
31
21,30
23,38*
5,38
4,90
Reading
comprehension
19
10,37
10,09
3,20
3,98
Table 1: Results of literacy tests in schools in Turkish in the Netherlands and Turkey.
(* Significant differences, spelling: t (537) = 11.33, p <.001 / reading: t (535) = 10.88, p
<.001 / syntax: t (536) = 3.99, p <.001) (Aarts & Verhoeven, 1999: 386).
Turkish Orthography in the Diaspora
“In general, the Turkish children in The Netherlands did not arrive at
native-like literacy proficiency levels in both Turkish and Dutch. They
were two to three years behind in their literacy skills in Turkish when
compared to Turkish children in Turkey. At the same time, they were
substantially behind monolingual Dutch children on measures of
literacy and school achievement in Dutch” (Aarts & Verhoeven 1999:
390).
“We cannot speak of a takeover of the Turkish orthographic system
by the German orthographic system, or a collapse of the Turkish
system in favor of the German system, as some studies suggest”
(Schroeder 2007: 118).
Turkish Orthography in the Diaspora
Previous discussions (Aarts & Verhoeven 1998, 1999; Cabadağ
2001; Schroeder 2007, Menz & Schroeder 2006, 2007) have
related orthographic “errors” of various types:
to social factors, e.g., parents’ (lack of) education and literacy
practices,
or to linguistic factors such as influence from L2 or dialects of
L1,
availability of instruction in L1,
differing social contexts and literate cultures in the bilingual
settings.
Sociolinguistic situation: Turkish in France
Structurally:
dominance of structures which belong to the informal register
bilingual mode
migrant-Turkish structures (?)
Speakers of the 2nd and the 3rd generation are only
minimally exposed to literate structures, from this results a
high heterogeneity concerning knowledge of Turkish literate
structures.
In addition, the attitudinal climate creates a high insecurity
of the speakers concerning their knowledge of literate
structures.
… however
in the school context, we are dealing with speakers,
whose literate competences in their school languages (French) are
developing or are well developed
which know or learn about the principle of literate expansion,
and
of which we may expect that they will try to produce literate
structures when asked to write in Turkish at school,
whereby these texts may show:
literate structures of Turkish written standard,
structures belonging to migrant Turkish, and
structures which can be interpreted as originating in the bilingual
and literate resources of the pupils, and show innovative and
contact-induced features (cf. Dollnick & Schroeder, 2013).
Hypotheses
Effects of inherent aspects of Turkish
(orthographic ambiguity, complexity)
are predicted to be found in all subject groups: monolingual & bilingual
Effects of spoken varieties predicted to be found for all groups, to decline
with age for all (and L1 instruction for bilinguals )
Effects of age will be found for all groups
but there may be lag, stagnation… decline for bilinguals
[cf. Verhoeven & Boeschoten 1986 on L1 in L2 environment]
Effects of contact
Effects of L1 instruction
Research questions
In which contexts and to which degrees of persistency and
systematicity are orthographic rules transferred from the
languages of the dominant formal written register (French) to
the Turkish texts?
To which extend do the Turkish texts display orate structures?
To which extend can orthographic competences in Turkish be
related to other aspects of literacy, both in the Turkish as well
as in the French texts?
Coding of written “daviation”
Orthographical errors
Omission of a syllable
Omission of a letter
Wrong letter
Epenthesis
Upper/lower case
Numbers
atırlattım
oğrenciler
bağzı
ikinci Sınavda
2 haftada
> hatırlattım
> öğrenciler
> bazı
> ikinci sınavda
> iki haftada
Morphological errors
Separation of base/suffix
Combination of two morphemes
Different order of morphemes
Omission of case markers, voice
şiddet le
bende
atardılar
düşülür
> şiddetle
> ben de
> atarlardı
> düşünülür
Influence of FRENCH
Use of French letters
Lexical calque
Lexical borrowing
türc
yanlış görüyorum
controle
Others, (i.e. subject/verb agreement)
çok şaşırdın
> Türk
> yanlış buluyorum
> sınav
> çok şaşırdım
Example
(1) Bu sabah ıngılızce dersım vardı oretmene bu soruyu sordum: hocam
benı hıç notum yok nasıl yacacağız oda bana güler gibi: “nasıl notun yok,
bır sıfırın var ya” bunu duyunca çok şaşırdın ve hocaya bunun nasıl olur
dıye sordum ve o bana sen bu odevı vermedın onun ıçin sana sıfır
koydum demeden ben ona odev yapigimi ama verılmesın gereken gün
gelemediğimi ama ertesı gün ona odevı buyurduğumda bakmadan benı
tersledigıni atırlattım benle fasla tartışmamak içın odevı gününde
verseydın bu duruma gelmesdık dedı ama ben ona bağzı oğrenciler
odevı verılmesı gereken gunden bır hafta sonra verdıklerını atırlatınca
beni sınıftan attı (TB-H01-WN)
Examples

Orthographical deviation
(2) Bir gün benim arkadaşım çardı aşay’a gitim aç’a bindim (TB-P03-WN)
Expected:
Bir gün benim arkadaşım çağardı aşağıya gittim ağaca çıktım
“One day a friend called me I went down I climbed the tree”

Influence from spoken language
(3)
Teyzemgile ziyarete gitmistim (TB-S06-WN)
Expected:
Teyzemlere ziyarete gitmiştim
“I had gone to visit my aunt”
(4)
sigara onnarın hayatina hiş bişe getirmicek (TB-S04-WE)
Expected:
sigara onların hayatına hiç bir şey getirmeyecek
“smoking will do nothing in their lives”
Effects of language contact (FR)
(5)
turquieye kitiyorduque kotu ouchece aldique kayseri’ye kitmeque
istiyorduk ama istabula kitique o zaman outsaque kasti bir
camiyon bizi hotel’er ceuturduler 1 2 gün kadik sona kayseriyer
kitik. (TB-P02-WN)
Expected : Türkiye’ye gidiyorduk, yanlış uçağa bindik. Kayseri’ye
gitmek istiyorduk ama İstanbul’a gittik. O zaman uçak kaçtığından
bizi minibüsle otele götürdüler. Bir iki gün kaldık ve sonra
Kayseri’ye gittik. (wrong vocabulary was also replaced) .
“We went to Turkey and took the wrong plane. We wanted to go
to Kayseri but we went to Istanbul. As we had missed the plane,
they took us with a minibus at a hotel. We stayed a day or two
and after we left in Kayseri”.
Effects of language contact (FR)

French orthography used by bilingual child
Turkish equivalent
qu / que / c
k
ou
u
i
ı
er
e
eu
ö
ch
ç
e (French silent e)
not existing in TR
Effects of L1 instruction
(6) 1 sabah Bir kizi şarmiya outoume okula keldi dedi niye beni
şarmadir ben de dedi ben de dedin ounoutoum sona bana kuştu
(TB-S08-WN)
Expected: Bir sabah bir kızı çağırmayı unuttum. Okula geldiğinde
bana “beni niye çağırmadın?” dedi. Ben de ona “unuttum”
dedim. Bu yüzden bana küstü.
“One morning I forgot to call a girl. When I arrived at school, she
said "why didn’t you called me?". And I told him "I forgot." That's
why she got angry with me”
Effects of L1 instruction
(7) Baştan sabirsizlıkla tatilleri bekliyordum çünkü 23 Nisan’i kutlayacaktik
ama 25 Nisan kutladik. Herkesgüzel elbiselerini giymişlerdi, herkes çök
güzeldi. Canim bir şeye sikildi ama gesti, iyi oyunlar vardi ve theatrolar
çok guzeldi, herkes egleniyordu. 23 Nisan’ın sonunda bir çekiliş vardi
kim bilet alana ve şansi bolsa Televizyon, teyip kazaniyordu. Ama ben
23 Nisan’in sonua kadar durmadim çönkü tezemin çocuklari
durmuyordu ağliyorlardi. Tezem bizi eve biraktiktan sonra annem beni
mazaya yolladi ordan ekmek ve 2 kartonşu aldik, şulari daşiyamadik
iyiki Tayfun vardi bize yardim etti. Bana göre 15 tatil yetti. (TB-S08-
Narrative, one year later)
Participants & texts of this study (subcorpus)
(Akinci & Schroeder 2013)
Grade
5th grade
7th grade
10th grade
12th grade
Turkish-French bilinguals (3 primary schools, 2 secondary schools, 3 high schools)
Number of
participants
Mean age
(range age)
Number of
written texts
6
6
6
5
10;01
(09;11 - 11;06)
13;01
(12;07 - 13;04)
15;07
(15;04-16;03)
18;00
(17;05-19;00)
12
12
12
10
Turkish-German bilinguals (2 primary schools, 2 secondary schools)
Number of
participants
Mean age
(range age)
Number of
written texts
13
5
5
5
11;03
(10;04–12;02)
13;07
(13;01– 14;05)
16;06
(16;00–18;05)
19;03
(17;09–20;09)
26
10
10
10
General observations
In terms of text length, the texts of the grammar school pupils
display very large individual differences irrespective of text type.
Relatively good orthographical competences, i.e. the majority of the
pupils are aware of the analytical strategies of Turkish orthography,
concerning the phonographic, logographic and textual level, and
apply them consistently.
General observations
Maybe some more error tokens than pupils of the same age in
Turkey, but not more types:
(positive) examples of explicit writing (e.g. <bir> (and not *<bi>, -<yor>
(and not *<yo>...), examples of morphological constancy (e.g.
<gideceğim > (and not <gidicem>) , employment of in-sentence capital
letter only with names proper
‘expected’ orthographical errors concern
reductions, compound writing of univerbal function words (e.g.
<birgün> instead of <bir gün>)
compound verbs (<Abil>)
*<herkes> instead of <herkez> “everybody”
problems with the orthographem <ğ> (omission, hypercorrectnes,
replacement with *<h> or, when palatal glide, with *<y>).
General observations
Including a few orthographic phenomena which do not occur in
similar texts from Turkey, i.e.
incorrect morphological spelling,
small caps with adjectival name proper (türk arkadaşım,
fransızca),
missing diacritics (SMS- and computer writings!),
In some texts, intensive employment of passe-partout words:
şey “thing”, olay “event/ phenomenon” (used as a literate
counter-part of şey), which may point at problems of lexical
retrievement.
Very few instances of language mixing (on the material level).
Textual macro-structures do not seem to pose problems.
Conclusions…
The mastery of written texts of the Turkish-French bilingual children
and teenagers is not observed before high school.
effects of inherent aspects of Turkish
orthographic ambiguity, complexity are predicted
found in all subject groups
effects of age
Less FR influence with age
effects of contact
differ for FR
effects of L1 instruction
all TB had L1 instruction
effects of INDIVIDUAL VARIATION
Within all GROUPS (text length / error ranges)
Within individuals – to be reported later
Conclusion…
The pupil’s strategies demonstrate that they approach the
challenges of a written text by:
either avoiding more literate structure in their less-dominant
written language,
Or by using their literate knowledge in Turkish,
Or using their literate resources which they have developed
in French.
It is clear what this means for language support and literacy in
Turkish:
it has to start with literate structures,
it has to driven by a functional foundation of these structures
in teaching methods.
Syntactic complexity in oral and written texts
Research questions
Is there any developmental observation of syntactic complexity
by the bilingual children and teenagers with age?
Which are the values of the conjunctions which express semantic
relations?
Is there any difference between both languages (Turkish vs
French)?
Does syntactic complexity differ according to type (narrative and
expository texts) and modality (oral and written) of text?
10
0
Participants
School type &
grade
Session
Population
Primary
5th
A
Secondary
7th
B
A
B
TURKISH-FRENCH BILINGUAL
High
10th
A
B
20
20
20
Mean age
10;01
13;01
16;01
Range ages
Population
09;11 - 11;06
12;07 - 13;04
FRENCH MONOLINGUAL
15;00-18;09
20
20
20
Mean age
10;03
13;04
16;03
Range ages
10;01 - 12;00
12;03 – 14;06
15;09 – 17;06
Nb of subject
Nb of subject
Population
TURKISH MONOLINGUAL
20
20
20
Mean age
11;00
12;09
15;06
Range ages
10;04 – 11;07
12;06 – 13;04
14;10 – 16;11
Nb of subject
Table 1: Number of participants per population, school level, mean age, and range ages
10
1
Syntactic Architecture in Clause Packaging:
Categories of Analysis
Isotaxis [I] = isolated clauses
clause1
Coordination
Symmetric Parataxis [P]= stringing of clauses
Asymmetric Parataxis [AsP]= dependent stringing
Subordination
Hypotaxis [H] = layering of clauses
clause1 co
clausen
clause1 co clausen
clause1
co
clausen
Endotaxis [E] = nesting of clauses
clause1 co clausenn
(Koch, 1995; Lehmann, 1988; Akinci & Jisa, 2001; Akinci, 2006; Berman, 2009)
Results in Turkish written texts
Text type
School type
Primary
Narration
Secondary
Population
Total connectives
Mean / subject
Coordination
Subordination
Primary
High
Turkish-French Bilingual
112
4.4
77
23
154
7.7
77
23
Population
Total connectives
Mean / subject
Coordination
Subordination
High
Expository
Secondary
311
13.5
63
37
109
4.3
62.5
37.5
118
5.9
63
37
271*
13.5
57.5
42.5
157
7.1
51
49
354*
17.7
52.5
47.5
Turkish monolingual
117
5
55.5
44.5
179
8.1
62.5
37.5
262
13.1
57.5
42.5
114
4.9
52
48
Table 2: Total number of connectives and percentage of coordination and subordination in 10
3
Turkish written texts (* significant difference, F(1,41) = 7.42, p < .009). (Akinci & DecoolMercier, 2010)
Results in French written texts
Text type
School type
Narration
Primary
Population
Secondary
Expository
High
Primary
Secondary
High
Turkish-French Bilingual
Total connectives
98
192*
234
173*
161
175
Mean / subject
3,9
7,7
10,6
6,9
6,4
8
Coordination
80.5
65.5
48
35
43
35.5
Subordination
19.5
34.5
52
65
57
64.5
Population
French monolingual
Total connectives
100
112*
290
87*
108
204
Mean / subject
4,3
5,1
12,6
3,8
4,9
8,9
Coordination
70
66
47
43.5
42.5
41
Subordination
30
34
53
56.5
57.5
59
Table 3: Total number of connectives and mean per subject and percentage of
coordination and subordination in French written texts (* significant difference, F(1,45) =
7.83, p < .007; F(1,46) = 9.15, p < .004). (Akinci & Decool-Mercier, 2010)
10
4
First concluding remarks…
(Akinci & Decool-Mercier, 2010)
Comparison of narratives vs expository texts
coordination more common for narratives
Use of subordination clearly dominant in expository texts
Comparison of written and oral texts
specific connectives used in both modalities (i.e. Turkish: yani
‘that is to say; French: parce que/car ‘because’
Comparison of bilinguals and monolinguals
differences correlated to text lengths only
Questions to be answered…
Doing more qualitative analyzes (especially on combined
forms)
10
5
Narration – Bilingual child
MERVE (BI-10;11-B)
Nar_spoken
Une histoire que j’ai passée avec une copine ? / Bah euh en CM1 euh j’avais une copine / on se
causait mais on s’aimait pas trop bien et à chaque fois on se bagarrait / on avait des problèmes
euh et c’est qu’on arrivait pas à être meilleures copines / oui parce que quand on y va à la
récréation elle se mettait jamais avec moi elle se mettait avec les autres filles et moi je voulais me
mettre avec elle / moi je voulais que c’était ma meilleure copine mais j’ai trouvé une meilleure
copine / elle s’appelle Sumeyye elle est ma meilleure copine
oui parce que (quand on y va à la récréation) elle se mettait jamais avec moi
elle se mettait avec les autres filles
et moi je voulais me mettre avec elle
Syntactic packaging = causal subordination "because" + temporal setting "when" +
juxtaposition-reformulation + coordination "and"
Nar_written
Moi j’ai dit que Zumra est ma copine mais on a eu des problèmes, on se bagarre tous les jours elle
me dit des gros mots et à la sortie de l’école on se bagarre, elle me fâche elle se met ensemble
avec ses autres copines et après j’ai trouvé une autre copine elle se met tous les jours avec moi en
rang et maintenant elle est ma copine et je l’aime beaucoup, à l’école elle reste avec moi et elle
s’appelle Sumeyye et elle a une sœur elle sa jumelle sa sœur s’appelle Belkis eux deux sont mes
meilleures copines.
Expository texts – Bilingual child
MERVE (BI-10;11-B)
Exp_Spoken
Bah (la violence) c’est pas bien / euh comme j’avais dit tout à l’heure / on avait beaucoup de
problèmes sur ça et et après elle commence à dire des gros mots et moi je croyais que c’était pas
bien et je leur disais « pas moi ! » je disais / je me fâchais et je faisais rien / mes parents ils
disaient de faire ça / mais euh après je sais plus qu’est-ce que je voulais dire d’autre…/ eh bah si
elle recommence c’est que je veux plus la causer mais pour l’instant je la cause comme copine / et
comme elle est pas dans ma classe / on se voit pas tous les jours dans les récréations et cetera /
notre maîtresse elles ont décidé de pas faire euh la récréation tous les jours/ on fait que les lundis
on se voit que les lundis en récréation.
eh bah si elle recommence
c’est que je veux plus la causer
mais pour l’instant je la cause comme copine
et (comme elle est pas dans ma classe) on se voit pas tous les jours dans les
récréations
et cetera
= Complexity of Syntactic packaging
Exp_written
Je dis que je pense que c’est pas du tout bien de dire des gros mots ; Et comme là elle est encore
ma copine mais c’est que les lundis qu’on se voit ; Et si elle recommence je vais plus la causer.
Narration – French Monolingual child
OCEANE (FR-11;02-A)
Nar_spoken
En fait au début je: / j'avais une amie qui s'appelle Shaynez T. et dès qu'on se cause plus elle appelle son
cousin / et son cousin vient me taper / donc moi après je dis pas à ma mère parce que / si de plus je le dis
à ma mère ils vont dire que je suis une balance et après bah: ils vont: / comment dire / ils vont: ils vont
plus me taper / et c'est tous les lundis / enfin les lundis ça dépend ce qu'ils font / les lundi parfois il vient
et les jeudi parfois il vient / et ça dépend du caractère / et euh: j'ai fait comprendre que tous les lundis et
jeudis je me stresse parce qu'il vient / j'ai i dit / j'ai eu l'occasion de dire / et il me fait « bah c'est pas
grave / de toute façon t'as pas lieu de te: t'angoisser / pour ça je vais pas te taper » / ça dépend de ma
réaction / parce que en fait son chien il est parti/ et moi je dis « je suis désolée pour ton chien » / et tout
ça gentiment / et après il me: / comment dire / après il est énervé / donc c'est vrai que c'est pas bien de
lui parler de ça quand: / (en)fin c'était le premier jour / c'était difficile / puis: en fait son cousin il veut me
taper parce que j'ai la même couleur que ma copine / enfin mon ancienne copine voulait dans sa
chambre / par exemple elle a voulu faire rose et gris comme peinture / elle a pris un papier / moi je
voulais faire rose et gris en peinture / bah ma mère a fait rose et gris en peinture / et / comme elle ça lui
plait pas / parce que chez moi j'ai des: (en)fin une horloge en forme des: chiffres / en forme de / en miroir
/ et elle a marqué Channel en forme de / en miroir / donc moi je voulais faire pareil puisque c'est moi qui
a trouvé les lettres en premier / mais elle voulait pas que je fasse pareil qu'elle / juste pour ça enfin /
c'est toute une histoire.
Nar_writen
Un jour j'ai été encore une enfant mes parents étaient encore ensemble une dame a fait des histoires et
mes parents se sont séparés et ils se sont tapés j'ai vécu ça toute mon enfance et jusqu'à là à mes 11 ans.
Maintenant mon père veut plus me prendre ça signifie qu'il me prendrait plus donc je le verrai plus
jamais
Expository texts – French Monolingual child
OCEANE (FR-11;02-A)
Exp_spoken
Je trouve que:: il y a beaucoup de conflits à l'école / euh:: aussi que: j'ai trouvé qu'il y a
des disputes:: / on tape au lieu qu'on dise à la maîtresse on règle nos problèmes nousmêmes / et puis c'est / moi je trouve que c'est vraiment pas bien parce que après
quand tu vas grandir t'auras il y aura des problèmes / et puis: les maîtresses ils sont
faits pour nous aider: / en fait il y a des gens qui viennent pour nous raconter tout ça /
puis: il y en a bah: // surtout c'est surtout les garçons / ils tapent des filles / quand ils
jouent à des trap-trap / il faut qu'ils les poussent / plein de choses comme ça / et moi je
trouve que c'est pas bien /// moi il m'arrive euh:: pas beaucoup de problèmes parce
que j'ai beaucoup de copines / je joue avec mes copines / j'ai pas de conflits avec / il y
en a oui parce que il y en a qui m'embêtent / mais: / des fois / au lieu que je me
défende moi-même je le dis à les maîtresses / je le dis aux maîtresses et puis / voilà / au
lieu d'avoir des:: une punition: euh: / donc je le fais moi-même.
Exp_written
La violence ce pas bien dans l'école. En dehors de l'école non plus. Dans la classe non
plus.
Conclusion and discussion
Diversity of connectors much more in narratives than in expository texts
(primary school children analyzed only)
Strong tendency to combine connectors
oui / euh: moi je trouve que c'est pas bien parce que il y a / il y a au sens où en fait et bah
l'autre il te tape et puis après t'es vraiment en colère et t'as très envie de le taper / et de
l'autre côté c'est que c'est pas bien / et que sinon l'autre il peut être vraiment très blessé et
puis que ça serait de notre faute euh: / ça serait de notre faute et puis qu'on soit très très très
puni. Mathieu (FR-10;02-A-EO)
Strong use of Embedding sentences
Differences according to the type of text
Frequency of the incised phrases = comment dire ; on peut dire ; à vrai dire ;
comment expliquer ; enfin pas… mais, par exemple
avec Mathis euh: on s'est euh: / comment expliquer ? // et on jouait un jeu / j'ai fait tomber
ses lunettes // sans faire exprès / et après bah il s'est énervé / il m'a tapé / et après il a joué à
la récré / de l'école / et après ben / euh: on s'est énervé / puis après on se la paye quoi / à vrai
dire la maitresse elle nous a pas trop vus / enfin / comme XX elle nous a pas trop vus / euh:
parce que on était très discrets / euh: / on peut dire / on a pas été punis. Thomas (FR-10;01-BEO)
Conclusion and discussion
Narrative texts: frequency of reported speech
euh: / il y a un jour il m'est arrivé que: / que je suis partie: euh avec ma maman et puis euh:: il y
avait des gens: euh:: ils me disaient // enfin pas des gens mais: des petites filles et tout / « ah t'as
vu comment elle est » / enfin voilà et puis il y a aussi à l'école où il y a beaucoup de conflits avec
moi / il y en a qui me disent: des gros mots / il y en a ils me tapent / euh::: il y en a ils me disent
« t'es pas gentille » / il y en a ils me disent euh:: / « t'es pas sympa » / plein de chose comme ça /
puis: / aussi il y a // il y a ma copine des fois elle me tape / alors quand je dis « mais non mais t'as:
/ je dis / mais c'est rien euh:: ton autre copine elle me elle a rien dit à machin » et puis elle me dit
« mais si elle a dit quelque chose » / et puis elle me croit pas / elle me tape / elle me dit / elle me
dit « t'es chiante » / elle me dit pleine de choses comme ça. Manon (FR-12;00-A-NO)
Connectors used ONLY
combinaisons complexes
in spoken texts: sinon, au lieu que, enfin + les
Challenges of bilingualism
For the children
Feeling the need to use the L1
Wanting “to enter” into the language
For the parents
Maintaining the motivation of the child
Giving a sense to L1
Accepting a commitment in the duration
Arming themselves with patience
For the teachers
Fighting against prejudiced ideas
Motivating the children
Getting enough linguistic materials in the other
languages