Skip to main content Accessibility help

The expression of spatial relationships in Turkish–Dutch bilinguals



We investigated how two groups of Turkish–Dutch bilinguals and two groups of monolingual speakers of the two languages described static topological relations. The bilingual groups differed with respect to their first (L1) and second (L2) language proficiencies and a number of sociolinguistic factors. Using an elicitation tool that covers a wide range of topological relations, we first assessed the extensions of different spatial expressions (topological relation markers, TRMs) in the Turkish and Dutch spoken by monolingual speakers. We then assessed differences in the use of TRMs between the two bilingual groups and monolingual speakers.

In both bilingual groups, differences compared to monolingual speakers were mainly observed for Turkish. Dutch-dominant bilinguals showed enhanced congruence between translation-equivalent Turkish and Dutch TRMs. Turkish-dominant bilinguals extended the use of a topologically neutral locative marker.

Our results can be interpreted as showing different “bilingual optimization strategies” (Muysken, 2013) in bilingual speakers who live in the same environment but differ with respect to L2 onset, L2 proficiency, and perceived importance of the L1.


Corresponding author

Address for Correspondence: Peter Indefrey, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Dept. of Linguistics, Universitätsstr. 1, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany


Hide All
Alferink, I. (2015). Dimensions of convergence in bilingual speech and gesture. Unpublished PhD diss., Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen. Utrecht: LOT. URL:
Alferink, I., & Gullberg, M. (2014). French-Dutch bilinguals do not maintain obligatory semantic distinctions: Evidence from placement verbs. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 2237.
Ameel, E., Malt, B. C., Storms, G., & Van Assche, F. (2009). Semantic convergence in the bilingual lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 270290.
Backus, A. (2004). Convergence as a mechanism of language change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 179181.
Boeschoten, H. (2000). Convergence and divergence in migrant Turkish. In Mattheier, K. (ed.), Dialect and Migration in a Changing Europe, pp.145–54. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In: Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L. & Garrett, M. (eds.), Language and space, pp. 385436. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development, pp. 475511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowerman, M., & Pederson, E. (1992a). Topological relations picture series. In Levinson, S. C. (ed.), Space stimuli kit 1.2, pp. 51. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. (
Bowerman, M., & Pederson, E. (1992b). Cross-linguistic perspectives on topological spatial relations. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco, December.
Bullock, B. E., & Toribio, A. J. (2004). Introduction: Convergence as an emergent property in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 9193.
Clyne, M. G. (2003). Dynamics of language contact. English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doğruöz, A.S. (2007). Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change in Dutch Turkish: A Corpus-based Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
Doğruöz, A.S., & Backus, A. (2009). Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of on-going contact-induces change. Bilingualism: language and cognition, 12, 4164.
Feist, M. I. (2008). Space between languages. Cognitive Science, 32, 11771199.
Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London, New York: Routledge.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2003). Language background questionnaire. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. (
Keim, I. & Cindark, I. (2003). Deutsch-türkischer Mischcode in einer Migrantinnengruppe: Form von ‘Jugendsprache’ oder soziolektales Characteristikum? In Neuland, E. (ed.), Jugendsprache-Spiegel der Zeit. Tagungsband der internationalen Fachkonferenz in Wuppertal 2001, pp. 377–94. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Levinson, S. & Meira, S. (2003). ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain —TRMal meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language, 79, 485516.
Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Muysken, P. (2013). Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 709730.
Pavlenko, A. (2009). Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. In Pavlenko, A. (Ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 125160). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pavlenko, A. (2011). Thinking and speaking in two languages: Overview of the field. In Pavlenko, A. (ed.), Thinking and speaking in two languages, pp.237257. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Rehbein, J., Herkenrath, A., & Karakoç, B. (2009). Turkish in Germany – On contact-induced language change of an immigrant language in the multilingual landscape of Europe. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 62, 171204.
Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). L2 learners’ real-time resolution of subject pronouns in discourse: An eye-tracking study with advanced Turkish and German L2 learners of Dutch. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 333357.
Schaufeli, A. (1992). A domain approach to the Turkish vocabulary of bilingual Turkish children in the Netherlands. In Fase, W., Jaspaert, K. & Kroon, S. (eds.), Maintenance and loss of minority languages, pp. 117135. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Toribio, A. J. (2004). Convergence as an optimization strategy in bilingual speech: Evidence from code-switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 165173.
Treffers-Daller, J. (2005). Evidence for insertional codemixing: Mixed compounds and French nominal groups in Brussels Dutch. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 477508.
Treffers-Daller, J., & Mougeon, R. (2005). The role of transfer in language variation and change: Evidence from contact varieties of French. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8, 9398.
Van Staden, M., Bowerman, M., & Verhelst, M. (2006). Some properties of spatial description in Dutch. In Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. (eds.), Grammars of Space, pp. 475511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassman, A., & Sloetjes, H. (2006). ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Genoa. URL:


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

The expression of spatial relationships in Turkish–Dutch bilinguals



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.