Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

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
I. Alferink , & M. Gullberg (2014). French-Dutch bilinguals do not maintain obligatory semantic distinctions: Evidence from placement verbs. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 2237.

E. Ameel , B. C. Malt , G. Storms , & F. Van Assche (2009). Semantic convergence in the bilingual lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 270290.

A. Backus (2004). Convergence as a mechanism of language change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 179181.

M. Bowerman , & S. Choi (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development, pp. 475511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

M. Bowerman , & E. Pederson (1992a). Topological relations picture series. In S. C. Levinson (ed.), Space stimuli kit 1.2, pp. 51. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. (

M. Bowerman , & E. Pederson (1992b). Cross-linguistic perspectives on topological spatial relations. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco, December.

M. G. Clyne (2003). Dynamics of language contact. English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A.S. Doğruöz (2007). Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change in Dutch Turkish: A Corpus-based Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.

A. Göksel , & C. Kerslake (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London, New York: Routledge.

M. Gullberg , & P. Indefrey (2003). Language background questionnaire. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. (

I. Keim & I. Cindark (2003). Deutsch-türkischer Mischcode in einer Migrantinnengruppe: Form von ‘Jugendsprache’ oder soziolektales Characteristikum? In E. Neuland (ed.), Jugendsprache-Spiegel der Zeit. Tagungsband der internationalen Fachkonferenz in Wuppertal 2001, pp. 377–94. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

S. Levinson & S. Meira (2003). ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain —TRMal meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language, 79, 485516.

J. Rehbein , A. Herkenrath , & B. Karakoç (2009). Turkish in Germany – On contact-induced language change of an immigrant language in the multilingual landscape of Europe. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 62, 171204.

A. J. Toribio (2004). Convergence as an optimization strategy in bilingual speech: Evidence from code-switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 165173.

J. Treffers-Daller (2005). Evidence for insertional codemixing: Mixed compounds and French nominal groups in Brussels Dutch. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 477508.

L. Roberts , M. Gullberg , & P. Indefrey (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.

A. Schaufeli (1992). A domain approach to the Turkish vocabulary of bilingual Turkish children in the Netherlands. In W. Fase , K. Jaspaert & S. Kroon (eds.), Maintenance and loss of minority languages, pp. 117135. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

J. Treffers-Daller (2005). Evidence for insertional codemixing: Mixed compounds and French nominal groups in Brussels Dutch. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 477508.

M. Van Staden , M. Bowerman , & M. Verhelst (2006). Some properties of spatial description in Dutch. In S. C. Levinson , & D. Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of Space, pp. 475511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1366-7289
  • EISSN: 1469-1841
  • URL: /core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 7
Total number of PDF views: 92 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 228 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 16th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.