Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development – JCLAD Vol: 11 Issue: 1 706-727, 2023 ISSN: 2148-1997 706 The cohesive patterning in the written texts of bilingual Russian-German second graders Anna Andreeva1 Ludwig-Maximlians-Universität München Abstract The cohesive patterning is an important aspect of textual competence that plays a crucial role in the educational context and in literacy development. This paper investigates the types of cohesive patterning in the written texts of 12 Russian-German (8 simultaneous and 4 sequential) bilingual second graders and contributes therefore to the research of the biliteracy development peculiarities at primary school age. Furthermore, the paper focuses on the possible impact factors which could influence the microstructural coherent performance in both languages. For this, a mixed-method study design was chosen which combines the quantitative and qualitative data analysis. In addition to the text corpus which contains 12 German and 12 Russian narratives composed on the basis of given picture stimuli, sociolinguistic data were elicited from parental interviews. The data analysis shows tendentially more elaborate cohesive patterning in German than in Russian texts. This corresponds to the previous assumptions that textual competence should be considered as a cultural achievement which can be successfully attained in the institutionalized educational context despite of bilingualism type. The influencing role of the heritage language instruction on the textual competence development in Russian could not be proved. Instead, the three presented case- studies imply that the bilingual children’s motivation and literal practices are important impact factors. Keywords multiliteracy, biliteracy, Russian-German bilingualism, textual competence, cohesive patterning, written data analysis, narratives, mixed-method study 1. Introduction Primary school is obviously an important stage of children’s language development. A change of cognitive language representation takes place due to the successive shift from the concrete to abstract thinking (Tomasello, 2002; Hüttis-Graff, & Wieler, 2011). This goes together with the acquisition of important competences such as writing and spelling skills and the emergence of language awareness which includes for example the knowledge about various text patterns and language registers that can be used in the different communicative contexts. This process does not happen immediately, but, beginning with school enrollment, it is carried out in the institutionalized context. In fact, school must enable children to acquire the adequate literacy-related skills - common academic language proficiency (Cummins, 2000). These skills should be understood as an opposite of the 1 Anna Andreeva's research interests cover Russian language acquisition, German language acquisition, bilingual language acquisition and bilingual writing development. Contact: anna.vl.andreeva@googlemail.com Received : 31.05.2019 Accepted : 26.12.2022 Published : 30.03.2023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7792491 mailto:anna.vl.andreeva@googlemail.com https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7792491 Cohesive patterning in written texts Andreeva 707 basic interpersonal communication skills the acquisition of which is a natural result of socialization in a language community. Accordingly, literacy is to be regarded as a cultural achievement that is crucial for the social participation (Street, 2003) and educational ability (Gogolin, 2014). In the context of the growing globalization and omnipresent migration processes, multiliteracy is becoming an important topic of the scientific research. According to the actual debate on the use of the life-world multilingualism as a social and individual resource (Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2012; Benmamoun, Montrul, & Polinsky, 2013; Polinsky, 2018), multiliteracy can be regarded as a social enrichment. Therefore, this paper should contribute to the research of first multiliteracy development stage in the primary school by discussing its functional peculiarities in the Russian- German bilingual setting and investigating the factors which are likely to improve the biliteracy abilities of bilingual children. The decision to examine this topic in the Russian-German bilingual context is conditioned by the fact that, due to the different migration processes in the last 30 years, Russian is one of the biggest heritage languages2 in Germany with a wide speaker community (Brehmer, 2007). However, the linguistic research on Russian-German bilingualism were dominated by the studies based on the analysis of (oral) data collected in spontaneous speech situations (e.g. Meng, 2001; Meng, & Protassova, 2005; Anstatt, & Dieser, 200; Anstatt, 2011; Brehmer, 2013; Tribushinina, Valcheva, & Gagarina, 2017). The researchers began investigating multiliteracy in the Russian-German context increasingly only in recent years (Böhmer, 2015; 2016; Usanova, 2016; Brehmer, & Usanova, 2017; Brehmer et al., 2017; Usanova, 2019) and there are still only few studies on the bilinguals at primary school age (Gagarina, 2016; Gogolin, Akgün, & Klinger, 2017). Accordingly, this paper should fill this research gap by examining the cohesive patterning in bilingual’s written texts. 1.1. Text cohesive patterning as a special aspect of multiliteracy At first, we should define the main term which is to be used in this article - multiliteracy. Multiliteracy is to be understood as writing proficiency and discourse competence in several languages (Riehl 2014). The acquisition of literacy skills such as writing and spelling is an essential part of multiliteral competence. Orthographically correct writing is undoubtedly to be regarded as a basic component of academic language proficiency (Bialystok, Luk, & Kwan, 2005; Ehlers, 2009). A particular difficulty can be observed when involved languages use different scripts. In this case, the bilingual individuals have to get biscriptual (Noack, & Weth, 2014; Usanova, 2016; Brehmer, & Usanova, 2016; Brehmer et al., 2017; Usanova, 2019). However, the literacy acquisition is not reduced to the adequate grapheme- 2 According to the definition of Polinsky, the heritage language speaker is a “simultaneous or sequential <…> bilingual whose weaker language corresponds to the minority language of their society and whose stronger language is the dominant language of the society” (Polinsky, 2018: 9). If we transfer this definition to the Russian heritage speakers in Germany, this term should subsume all people who live in a German-speaking society and had acquired Russian as a first language and either simultaneously or subsequently acquired German. Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development – JCLAD Vol: 11 Issue: 1 706-727, 2023 ISSN: 2148-1997 708 phoneme-assignment and orthographical correct transcription but it also presupposes the ability to approach the text as a whole and to understand discourses of different purposes and structures and to produce them in a subject-related and recipient-oriented way. In the German linguistic discourse, this ability is referred as textual competence (Portmann-Tselikas, 2002; Schmölzer-Eibinger, 2008). Textual competence is crucial for both the formulation of every-day communicative contributions and for elaborate discourses. The latter seems to be the most difficult task, because it presupposes knowledge of conceptual literacy structures (Koch, & Oesterreicher, 1994; Maas, 2010). According to the immediacy-distance-model of Koch, & Oesterreicher we have to distinguish between two different dimensions of language use: the mode of realization - spoken vs. written - on the one hand and the conceptualization of the speech production on the other hand - conceptual orality vs. conceptual literacy. The distinction of spoken and written language is therefore not equal to the categories of conceptual orality and literacy. The coincidence of these two categories could be received only in the prototypical situation. But otherwise, it is a continuum with the different constellations of immediacy and distance. The conceptual literacy is obviously much more difficult as it presupposes a decontextualized communication register which is also important for educational language (Gogolin, Roth, 2007; Gellert, 2011). Thus, textual competence as a part of literal ability requires conceptual literacy knowledge (Maas, 2010; Woerfel et al., 2014; Yilmaz Woerfel, & Riehl, 2016; Böhmer, 2016) that combines such partial competences as the appropriate discourse planning and usage of adequate lexical-semantic und syntactic patterns (Gogolin, & Lange, 2011; Gogolin, & Duarte, 2016). Within the scope of this article, only one aspect of text production will be examined – the cohesive patterning of the written texts. The following section should clarify the special significance of cohesion for the textual competence and thus the particular research interest. As mentioned above, literacy is an intricate phenomenon at the cognition/language-interface. The production of conceptually and linguistically coherent texts in the adequate discourse contexts seems to play a crucial role here. Such text production requires the implementation of bottom-up and top-down cognitive processes on the level of linguistic expression (Berman, & Nir, 2009: 421). In this regard, the linguists use the notions coherence and cohesion. There is no agreement about the definition of these two phenomena. However, they can be theoretically distinguished (Halliday, & Hasan, 1976; van Dijk, 1980; de Beaugrande, & Dressler, 1981; Karmiloff-Smith, 1985; Linke, Nussbaumer, & Portmann, 2004; Brinker, 20053). Coherence is considered to be a global macrostructural conceptual connectivity of discourse based on the underlying homogeneous and logical semantic representation schemata. Cohesion belongs to the microstructural linguistic level of discourse structuring and ensures that sentences and large 3 Due to a very close interdependence between cohesion and coherence, some theoretical models combine these two phenomena. For example, Brinker proposes to talk of coherence as a superior concept (Brinker, 2005). However, Brinker distinguishes between two kinds of coherence - grammatic and semantic. Cohesive patterning in written texts Andreeva 709 parts of discourse are syntactically related or considered to be connected. Although coherence seems to be the most important textual criterium, different psycholinguistic studies emphasize the very tight connection between the coherence and cohesion as well as the relevance of their interplay for text production and comprehension (Witte, Faigley, 1981; Liles, 1987; Liles et. al., 1995; Shapiro, & Hudson, 1997; Hickmann, 2004). Thus, cohesion guarantees text constitutive semantic relation and makes the content of the text perceived as coherent in the decontextualized communicative situation. Particularly, previous research has claimed the significant impact of various forms of cohesion on the reading comprehension, on the one hand, and on the recipient judgment about the text quality, on the other hand (McNamara, & Kintsch, 1996; Crossley, & McNamara, 2011; Meyer, 2003; McNamara, Ozuru, & Floyd, 2011; Schmitz, Gräsel, & Rothstein, 2017). Such findings highlight the important role of cohesion for the textual competence. In the multilingual setting, this role seems to be particularly significant, as the macrostructural coherence can be considered as language-independent whereas the cohesion level is language-specific (Pearson, 2002). 1.2. Previous research state and research questions Although the development of cohesive structuring of discourses seems to be an important research question, the previous studies on the multiliteracy often focus primarily on the macrostructural level of global text coherence in order to show special features in the multilingual setting, to elicit differences and similarities in language development between the multilinguals and monolinguals or in order to reveal some language development disorders (Gutiérrez-Clellen, 2002; Montanari, 2004; Rapti, 2005; Uluçam, 2007; Gantefort, 2013; Kupersmitt, Yifat & Blum-Kulka, 2014; Woerfel et al., 2014, Yilmaz-Woerfel & Riehl, 2016). Although recent research examines cohesion as an important part of textual competence which can reveal the developmental peculiarities of bilinguals (Serratrice, 2007; Iluz-Cohen & Walters, 2012; Tribushinina et. al., 2017; Fichman & Altman, 2019), in the Russian-German biliteracy context, there are only very few studies which take this aspect of bilinguals' performance into consideration. For example, Böhmer (2015, 2016) investigates the biliteracy ability of Russian-German adolescents and focuses mainly on the macrostructure of text production examining, additionally, different literal phenomena on the lexical and syntactical level. Regarding the multiliteracy development in the primary school, there are two relevant studies to be mentioned in this context: KiBis-study from the University of Hamburg (Gogolin, Akgün & Klinger 2017) and the study on the narration development of Russian-German bilinguals at the transition from kindergarten to primary school (Gagarina, 2016). Nevertheless, the interest of KiBis-study is the literacy competence in the German language without respect to the heritage language. Although this study analyzes the relationship between receptive (reading) and productive (writing) competence of primary school children, its main focus is on the extralinguistic impact factors of literacy development such as social environment, parenting style etc. In contrast to this educational science approach, the second study (Gagarina, 2016) Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development – JCLAD Vol: 11 Issue: 1 706-727, 2023 ISSN: 2148-1997 710 investigates the discourse production of bilingual Russian-German children explicitly from the linguistic perspective analyzing the macrostructural level of narratives in both languages. However, the analysis is first based on the oral data, second, the microstructural level of textual coherence and particularly cohesion patterning does not play an important role in the study. So far, the previous research has not considered enough the interaction between Russian and German languages in the development of cohesion as an important aspect of textual competence in the primary school. However, the approach to examine the interdependencies between involved languages is likely to be the most important one according to the recent theoretical multilingualism models such as Dynamic Model of Multilingualism (Herdina & Jessner, 2002; de Bot, Lowie & Verspoor, 2007). Adopting the presumptions of Dynamic Systems Theory, this multilingualism model considers the cognition of the multilingual speaker as an intricate psycholinguistic system and the language acquisition as a non-linear process based on the interdependence between the involved languages and different variable impact factors. Therefore, this study is committed to this research paradigm and aims to investigate the biliteracy in the primary school analyzing the microstructural cohesion performance in both languages of Russian-German bilinguals and trying to elicit possible influencing factors which could be regarded as important for the biliteracy development. Accordingly, this study presupposes that cohesive patterning, i.e. the diversity of different cohesive devises (Linke, Nussbaumer & Portmann, 2004; Halliday & Hasan, 1976) used for transphrastical linking of discourse elements makes the text more elaborate and testifies in particular the better level of writing competence (Becker-Mrotzek & Böttcher, 2011). Thus, the most important research questions to be answered in this article are as follows: 1. In what language can a more elaborate cohesive patterning be observed and what explanation can be found for this fact? 2. Is there a correlation and interdependence between the level of cohesive patterning in both languages? Can the strategy of cohesive patterning be transferred from one language to another? 3. What factors should be regarded as influencing for development of text cohesive patterning as a part of textual competence? 2. Study-Design and Methodology In order to answer the research questions formulated in the previous paragraph, it was decided to design a mixed-method study that combines the analysis of written data of bilingual children and biographical and sociolinguistic data elicited from parental interviews. All data originate from the running pilot study which is now being conducted as a preparation for a long-term investigative project on the Russian-German biliteracy development in the primary school. Cohesive patterning in written texts Andreeva 711 2.1. Participants The participants are 12 Russian-German bilingual second graders who attend a public German primary school. They were recruited in the primary schools and in the Russian heritage language schools in the region of Munich. The average age of the participants at the moment of data elicitation is 7 years and 8 months (median - 7;8, standard deviation – 0;4). Two participants are males and ten of them are females. Eight participants can be regarded as simultaneous bilinguals (mostly born in Germany) due to already simultaneous onset of second language exposure. Another four participants are to be considered as sequential bilinguals as they came to Germany at the age of 3 years (2 participants) and 5 years (2 participants) and began acquiring German as a second language after the fundamental structure acquisition in Russian was completed4. As Russian and German use different scripts (Latin and Cyrillic), in the context of Russian-German biliteracy, the bilingual script acquisition is needed (Usanova, 2016; Brehmer & Usanova, 2016; Brehmer et al., 2017; Usanova, 2019). Speaking about biliteracy as an ability to produce (written) texts in both languages, the acquisition of biscriptual skills seems to be rather important in order to master two different writing systems. Although the acquisition of Latin script and German orthography is self-evident for the participants by attending the German primary school, the Cyrillic script acquisition is not obvious and can be guaranteed only if the child has been specially instructed. Among the participants, there are nine children who have acquired writing skills in Russian (attending the Russian language school or by parental instruction). All participants were given the opportunity to write Russian texts in Cyrillic script or to transcribe Russian texts using the Latin alphabet5. Eight participants decided to write the Russian text in Cyrillic script, two in Latin and two refused to transcribe and dictated their stories. 2.2. Written data elicitation and processing For the purpose of this study, there were elicited cross-sectional written data collected in the region of Munich in November and December 2018. In total, 24 written texts of participants (12 in Russian and 12 in German) were analyzed. These are narrative picture stories composed on the basis of standardized picture stimuli. It was decided to borrow the picture stimuli 4 There is no agreement about the L2 onset age that marks the difference between simultaneous and sequential bilinguals in the previous research. So, Meisel (2009) and Montrul (2008) postulate the age of 4 years as crucial for the differentiation. Ruberg (2013) and Gagarina (2016) assume L2 onset at the age of no later than 24 months for the classification as a simultaneous bilingual, whereas Geneese, Paradis & Crago (2004) and Paradis (2008) consider the age of 3 years as a differentiating mark between the bilinguals’ groups. In this paper, the latter setting is adopted. The age of 3 years seems to be crucial as the acquisition of the fundamental structure of first language is completed at this age. From another point of view, the age of 3 years plays an important role in the socialization of the bilingual children in German language due to the extension of the language environment as the children can be admitted to kindergarten. 5 This is a common practice used in the latest works (see Böhmer, 2015; Usanova, 2016; Brehmer & Usanova, 2016; Brehmer et al., 2017; Usanova, 2019). The analysis of these independent transcriptions allows conclusions to be drawn on the perception of the phonematic features of Russian and on the existing metalinguistic knowledge. Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development – JCLAD Vol: 11 Issue: 1 706-727, 2023 ISSN: 2148-1997 712 from the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN) developed by Gagarina et al. (2012) and used in the study of Gagarina (2016): the picture story “The Cat” was used for the Russian task, the picture story “The Dog” for the German task. The decision to analyze narratives is motivated by the peculiarities of the writing competence of children at the age between 7 and 10 years. According to Becker-Mrotzek andBöttcher (2011), there can be observed the phase of orientation on own experiences what makes all kind of narratives most important and central at this stage of child language development. Narrative discourse seems therefore to play a crucial role in the world interpretation (Herman, 2001) whereas narrative skills can be regarded as a bridge between orality and literacy due to coherent discourse production and increasing cohesion elaboration (Westby, 1991; Hickmann, 2004; Berman 2009). All written data were transcribed, saved and analyzed with the qualitative and mixed-method data analysis software MAXQDA. 2.3. Written data analysis The written data were at first analyzed qualitatively with respect to the cohesive devices used in both languages. There are partly different approaches to the differentiation of these phenomena in the German and English tradition, particularly due to the systematic differences between the languages (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Linke,Nussbaumer &Portmann, 2004). As the performance in German (and hence the categories of German language) is one of the aspects investigated in this paper, the classification of cohesive devices in this article is mainly adopted from Linke, Nussbaumer & Portmann, (2004: 254 ff.). Accordingly, the important cohesive devices are as follows: a. recurrence – repetition of one mentioned element in the forthcoming text; b. substitution with full-content words/phrases – replacement of mentioned text elements through other words or phrases with the same reference (e.g. synonyms, hypo- and hypernyms, metaphors etc.); c. substitution with pro-forms (e.g. pronouns and adverbs), in this case, the used items do not carry their own meaning and derive it from the text elements they substitute; d. text and knowledge deixis – these cohesive devices regard the definite and indefinite articles which make the recipient search for a reference element in the previous text or activate general world knowledge; e. situational deixis – deictic expressions which refer to a situation the text is embedded in (e.g. local and temporal adverbs, which can be understood relatively); f. ellipsis – omission of a text element in the following discourse which can be regarded as structural necessity; g. metacommunicative text linking – explicit expressions of author which refer to her/his own text; h. tempus which can express the coherence of described action; i. connectives (conjunctives and pronominal adverbs) – linguistic devices to join part of one sentence and different sentences together and to build a logical concept of the text world. Thus, after the analysis of cohesive devices used in the corpus, the texts were scored regarding the elaboration of cohesive patterning. For this, a type-token principle was used. So, each different cohesive device was counted only once for the respective text, regardless of the number of its Cohesive patterning in written texts Andreeva 713 usage in the text. This allowed the quantification of cohesive patterning elaboration and hence the comparison of microstructural performance in different languages between the participants. 2.4. Data from parental interviews In addition to the written data, the parental interviews6 were conducted to elicit the biographical and sociolinguistic data which could provide insight into the possible influencing factors of biliteracy development. Following factors should be discussed in this article: the type of bilingualism, the heritage language instruction, the socioeconomic and educational status of the parents, the parental language usage and the literacy practice at home. As the type of bilingualism and the heritage language instruction can be regarded as most objective factors, they will be considered as variables for quantitative data analysis. For discussing the other factors, I decided to present three cases in order to highlight the interdependence between different possible impact factors. Thus, the next paragraph is divided into two subchapters. The first part presents the findings regarding different types of cohesion devices in text corpus and the quantitative analysis of these data in respect to the interrelation between the performance in German and Russian, and to the correlation of the findings with the type of bilingualism and the heritage language instruction. The second part is dedicated to the presentation of three cases (participant 12, participant 11 and participant 6) which can give implications regarding the further influencing factors. 3. Findings In general, there could be found different types of cohesive devices used in both languages. Not all cohesion types from the classification of Linke, Nussbaumer, and Portmann (2004) were found in texts. As it can be seen in Table 1 below,, there were no occurrences of substitution with full-content words or phrases. This fact is likely to be due by the fact that the second graders do not use metaphors or abstract hypernyms for reference and nominalization. The common reference devices used in corpus are recurrence in form of complete repetition of the used item or substitution with pro-forms (personal, demonstrative and possessive pronouns). As for the text and knowledge deixis, the usage of definite and indefinite article in German could be elicited. There is no article in Russian, but the usage of indefinite pronoun “один“ /odin/ (in English like “one”) could be observed in two Russian texts in order to introduce the main character of the story. This obviously could be regarded as a contact speech phenomenon as this pronoun is used in Russian normally only at the very beginning of fairy-tale narratives often in the combination with the verb “жить” /ʒyt´/ (in English “live”). Regarding the situational deixis, we can identify different items (local and temporal adverbs and adverbial phrases) in both languages used in order to explicitly refer to a depicted situation. Furthermore, some participants use different tempus in their texts to emphasize the temporal coherence of their story action. Nevertheless, connectives should be 6 Data from parental interviews were transcribed, saved and analyzed also with MAXQDA. Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development – JCLAD Vol: 11 Issue: 1 706-727, 2023 ISSN: 2148-1997 714 considered as one of the most differentiated cohesive devices types in the analyzed corpus. Thirteen different connectives in German and 8 in Russian corpus could be elicited. Table1 Elicited cohesive devices in the analyzed narratives Cohesive device types Cohesive devices in German texts Cohesive devices in Russian texts connectives und, aber, weil, oder, dass, doch, als, wie, so..dass, relative pronoun (die, wo), um … zu, derweil чтобы, и, но, поэтому, что, a, пока, что recurrence explicit repetition of the nouns explicit repetition of the nouns reference with pro-forms personal pronoun (er, sie, es, ihn, ihr, sie), possessive pronoun (sein) demonstrative pronoun (dieser,der, alle) personal pronoun (он, она, его, её) possessive pronoun (её, его), demonstrative pronoun (все) text and know- legde deixis definite/indefinite article indefinite pronoun (одна) situational deixis da, dann, in dem Moment, dabei потом, тем временем, уже, в то время, там tense Präteritum vs. Präsens, Plusquamperfekt vs. Präteritum Surprisingly, the participants do not use elliptic sentences in their texts. This might be due to the existing underlying understanding of conceptual literacy, as ellipsis is more significant for oral communication, where different non-verbal means can be used to clarify the meaning, than for the decontextualized communication. On the other hand, there are no metacommunicative text linking expressions in corpus. Nevertheless, the conclusion about the knowledge and usage of this cohesive device cannot be drawn, as it seems to be not very appropriate for the narrative storytelling context. The variety of cohesive devices listed above allows the assumption that the German texts seem to be more elaborate in respect of cohesive ties. In general, this can be proved by evaluation of the score of cohesive patterning in each text. Figure 1 highlights the tendency that the cohesive patterning is more elaborate in German texts than in Russian. This is obviously related to the visit of German primary school and to the acquisition of new writing competences according to the curriculum. As it can be seen in Figure 1, only two participants (p.1 and p.5) show a better performance in their Russian stories. Both children belong to the group of sequential bilinguals who came to Germany at the age of 5 years. So, this deviation can probably be explained by the later German language onset and not enough advanced level in German as a second language at the moment of data elicitation. Cohesive patterning in written texts Andreeva 715 Figure 1. Cohesive patterning in German and Russian texts However, this finding suggests to take the type of bilingualism into consideration as a possible impact factor for the development of microstructural level of the textual competence at this age. Figure 2 visualizes the differences in the performance in German and in Russian between simultaneous and sequential bilinguals. As it could be expected, the performance in the heritage language is better in the group of sequential bilinguals (m=6 vs. m=4,5). This can be explained by the longer exposure to the Russian language and the language acquisition environment. Interestingly, the sequential bilinguals have also a better score in German (m=7 vs. m=6) than their simultaneous bilingual peers. This slightly better performance of the children with German as L2 testifies the presumption the textual competence is to be considered not as a product of the natural socialization in the respective language community but as a cultural achievement (Cummins, 2000) where the institutionalized education seems to be crucial. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 P.1 P.2 P.3 P.4 P.5 P.6 P.7 P.8 P.9 P.10 P.11 P.12 Cohesive patterning in the texts German Russian Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development – JCLAD Vol: 11 Issue: 1 706-727, 2023 ISSN: 2148-1997 716 Figure 2. Cohesive patterning according to the type of bilingualism This assumption should therefore be reviewed regarding the cohesive patterning in Russian. For this, it is important to investigate whether the concomitant regular heritage language instruction in the Russian Saturday school can be considered as a positive impact factor for the development of coherent structuring of texts in L1-Russian. As can be seen in Figure 3, there is no relevant difference between the participants who attend a Russian school regularly (once a week) and their peers without regular heritage language instruction. The role of the Russian school cannot be evaluated properly due to a minor number of participants, because the individual deviations can falsify the result. This finding must therefore be proved in a wider cross-sectional study. However, the fact that there is no significant difference allows to suggest that the visit of Russian school may not be considered as an important impact factor, at least at this age. For the development tendency implication, a long-term monitoring of writing skills of bilinguals is needed. Figure 3. Cohesive patterning in L1-Russian and heritage language instruction At the age of 7-8 years, the lack of heritage language instruction in respect to the coherent structuring of texts by means of cohesion can 7 66 4,5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sequential bilingual Simultaneous bilingual M e d ia n Cohesive patterning and type of bilingualism German Russian 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 no heritage language instruction heritage language instruction Mean: Cohesive devices in Russian texts Russian Cohesive patterning in written texts Andreeva 717 probably be compensated by the literal practices at home. Also, there must be considered other possible extralinguistic influencing factors such as child motivation (Woerfel et al., 2014; Yilmaz-Woerfel, & Riehl, 2016) and socioeconomic and educational status of parents (Hoff, 2013). For this, the following section should present three cases from the conducted study to illustrate the complexity of interrelationship of different factors. 3.1. Case Lisa 7 (p.12, female) Lisa was born in Italy in the family of Russian-speaking parents from Moldova. Lisa did not attend a kindergarten in Italy and had only a Russian- speaking environment at home and in the circle of acquaintances. So, we can assume in case of Lisa a monolingual first language acquisition (Russian) up to the age of 3 years. When Lisa turned 3, the family moved to Germany, where Lisa immediately started to attend a German kindergarten (for 6 hours) and thus began to acquire German as L2. Therefore, she can be considered as a sequential bilingual. At the moment of the data elicitation, Lisa was 7;8 years old. Lisa’s mother told the interviewer that both parents speak only Russian with each other at home and that the 90% of communication with Lisa is also carried out in Russian. The parents try to be consistent in their language use because the language maintenance is very important for them. The grandparents usually visit them two times per year, and Lisa have to communicate with them in Russian. As for the literal practices at home, in the interview, the mother stated that she used to read books in Russian to Lisa till she was 3, however, it was not a mandatory every day ritual. The family does not have a lot of Russian books at home. After the family came to Germany, almost only German books were read by the parents. Lisa has never attended a Russian school. The mother tried to teach Lisa the Cyrillic script when Lisa was 5 years old, but it was problematic and she gave it up. Lisa began to acquire the German writing system due to school enrollment at the age of 6;6 and developed a keen interest in reading and writing in German. She is registered in a children library, lends the German books regularly and reads in German every day. Lisa also keeps a journal where she writes down her experiences. As it can be seen in Figure 1, Lisa (p.12) has the best result regarding the cohesive patterning in German (score - 18). In addition, the text composed in Russian language was one of the best with the score of 7. The better result can be observed only in case of p.1 (score - 9) who is a sequential bilingual with the L2-onset at the age of 5 years. As Lisa cannot write in Cyrillic script, she used a Latin transcription to fulfill the Russian task. Both texts are typed with the author's spelling and can be found in Table 2 below. 7 The names of the participants are changed due to the privacy policy. Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development – JCLAD Vol: 11 Issue: 1 706-727, 2023 ISSN: 2148-1997 718 Table 2 Cohesive patterning in German and Russian texts of P.12 German text Cohesive devices Type of cohesive devices Ein Hund hat eine Maus endekt und will auf die Maus schpringen. Der Hund leuft auf die Maus zu aber die Maus ferschwindet schnel in einer Baum höhle. im hientergrund erschin ein Junge mit einem gelben Balong und würstchen in der Hand. Doch die Maus ferschwindet so schnel das der Hund gegen den Baum kracht Boom! Und als der Junge es sah lies er vor überaschung den gelben Balon los. Weil das sooo wetad als der Hund gegen den Baum gekracht ist rent er schnel wie der Blitz zu den Würstchen die der Junge auf das Gras geleckt hate. und der Junge rante zu dem Baum wo der Balong hing. Und dan sprang der Junge hoh um den Balon zu hohlen. Der Junge schafe es das der Balong runter fiel und der Hund hate alle Würstchen auf gegesen oder war da noch eine Würstchenkete? Definite/indefinite article:(e.g. ein Hund – der Hund, eine Maus – die Maus in der Hand (vom Jungen), das Gras) Text/knowledge deixis 8 Repetition of nouns (Hund, Maus, Junge, der gelbe Ballon, Baum, Würstchen) Recurrence Personal pronoun (er, es) Reference with pro-forms Local adverb and adverbial phrase (da, im Hintergrund) Temporal adverb (dann) Situation deixis Conjunctions: und, aber, doch, so..dass, als, weil, wie, um zu inf., dass, oder relative pronouns: die, wo Connectives Plusquamperfekt, Perfekt, Präteritum, Perfekt, Präsens Tense Russian text Cohesive devices Types of cohesive devices Koschka hotschit paeimat Babatschku. Koschka prignua no Babatschka ulitela i tagda Maltschik prieschol s matschikam i matschik upal i Koschka upala f kust. I matschik upal wosera I Koschka uwidala ribu w wiedre. I maltschik wsal udatschku i wsal matschik s udatschkei is Osera. I nackanetsta maltschik palutschil apat iwo matschik i Koschka wsala riebu i iu kuscheiit. Repetition of nouns (кошка, бабочка, мальчик, мячик, удочка, озеро, рыба) Recurrence Personal pronoun (её) Possessive pronoun (его) Reference with pro-forms Temporal adverb (тогда, наконец) Situation deixis Conjunctions: и, но Connectives Lisa’s German text shows a very elaborate cohesive patterning. The big variety of used connectives is impressive. Hence, the causal and conceptual ties within the text reality can be reflected due to semantically different conjunctions (additive, adversative, consecutive, final, temporal) and this 8 As the article is used as a text and knowledge deictic resource, this type of cohesive device was calculated with one point by the evaluating of cohesive patterning. The same reasoning was implemented to the scoring of recurrence, reference with personal pronoun and tense. In case of situation deixis, other pro-forms and connectives, it was decided to calculate each different realization type individually. Cohesive patterning in written texts Andreeva 719 contributes to the coherence of the story. The Russian text is much less elaborate. The repetition of the same cohesive devices makes the style monotonous. Nevertheless, Lisa reaches a good cohesive patterning score in comparison with her peers. By looking at the data elicited in the parental interview, this case seems to be interesting in several respects. First, Lisa has the best performance in German, despite being a sequential bilingual. She acquired German in the German kindergarten and the literal practice at home does not seem to be very regular. Also, the socioeconomic status of the family is not very high (see UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education ISCED), as both parents’ education is only a middle school diploma and an apprenticeship. The fact that Lisa is interested in reading and writing testifies the girl’s high motivation of the girl. Obviously, the motivational factor seems to be most influencing for the development of textual competence. The second implication that could be drawn from this case regards the interrelationship between the competences in L1 and L2. As almost the whole literal practice of Lisa has been carried out in German beginning at the age of 3 years, it allows the assumption that Lisa transfers her knowledge of textual competence from German composing her written text in Russian. Although the Russian text does not show such variety of conjunctions, Lisa tries to connect the sentences (see the repetition of the additive conjunction “и”) with the available cohesive devices. This fact would also prove the assumptions of Dynamic Systems Theory (Herdina & Jessner, 2002; de Bot, Lowie, &Verspoor, 2007) that there is no linear language development in the bilingual individual, as various factors can contribute to the competence leap. 3.2. Case Anna (p.11, female) Anna was born in Germany in the family of Russian-German repatriates. Both parents speak German fluently, but they speak Russian with each other, the communication with Anna and her elder sister is 75% in Russian and 25% in German. For the parents it is important to contribute to the heritage language maintenance. During the interview with the mother in Russian, the mother often switched between the languages. Hence, the code- switching and code-mixing seem to be rather common in the family. This allows to assume that the quality of input in Russian is not always constant. Anna should be regarded as a simultaneous bilingual, as she came to the nursery when she was 1 year old, then she attended the German kindergarten. At the moment of data elicitation, Anna was 7;7 years old. Anna’s family can be considered to belong to a high socioeconomic stratum (both parents have a high school diploma). Regarding the literal practices at home, the mother indicated to read to Anna Russian and German books till she was in the preschool age. Anna was taught to read in German before school enrollment. From the beginning of first grade till today, Anna has been used to read German books 4-5 days per week, often encouraged by the parents. At the age of 5 years, she also started to attend Russian language classes once a week where she acquired the Cyrillic script. Nevertheless, the Russian classes do not have a strong curriculum as the Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development – JCLAD Vol: 11 Issue: 1 706-727, 2023 ISSN: 2148-1997 720 group is not homogeneous in respect to the age of the pupils. In general, there is only very little homework. Anna does not read books in Russian regularly, unless she has homework. As it can be seen in Table 3, the cohesive devices in the German text are slightly more elaborate than in the Russian story: cohesive patterning score in German is 6, whereas in Russian it is only 4. However, these results belong to the last half in the rating. Table 3 Cohesive patterning in German and Russian texts of p.11 German text Cohesive devices Type of cohesive devices Eine Maus war draußen ein Hund ist hinterhergelaufen. Die Maus ist unter den baum gelaufen der Hund hat sich angestosen und ein Junge ist spaziren gegangen Sein Luftballon ist weggeflogen er ist im Baum stecken gebliben und der Junge ist schnell gelaufen und dabei ist sein Essen runtter gefallen Der Hund ist schnell zum Essen gelaufen und die Würstchen gegesen. Definite/indefinite article: (e.g. ein Hund – der Hund, eine Maus – die Maus, ein Junge – der Junge, das Essen) Text/knowledge deixis Repetition of nouns (Hund, Maus, Junge, Baum, Essen) Recurrence Personal pronoun (er) Possessive pronoun (sein) Reference with pro-forms Modal adverb (dabei) Situation deixis Conjunction: und Connectives Russian text Cohesive devices Types of cohesive devices КОТ ГУЛAЯEТ ПAТОМ ПAШОЛ МAЛЧИК НA РИБАНКУ И ПАЯМАЛ ПАРУ РИПКИ И ПАТОМ МАЧИК В ВОДУ УПАЛ И МАЛЧИК С УДОЧКЯ ПАЯМАЛ МАЧИК И ПАТОМ ОН СИБА СИЛНИ ПАЧУЧТАВЛ И КОТ ПАШОЛ К ВИБРОМ И РИПКУ ПАКУШАЛ Repetition of nouns (кот, мальчик, мячик) Recurrence Personal pronoun (он) Reference with pro-forms Temporal adverb (потом) Situation deixis Conjunction: и Connectives Despite the slight difference, we can state some interdependencies between two texts. The used types of cohesive devices are the same except for the text and knowledge deixis that is used not very often in Russian anyway due to a lack of article as a part of speech. Regarding the connectives, only one coordinating additive conjunction “und”/“и” (/i/) can be found in both texts. It is difficult to decide whether, in this context, we deal with a transference of cohesive patterning from one language to another as the used cohesive devices are very common. Nevertheless, we can see some regularities, particularly in respect to the conjunction usage in both texts. The introduction of new information is accompanied often by the additive conjunction (e.g. “und ein Junge ist spaziren gegangen”; “и кот пашол к вибром и рипку пакушал”). This occurrence highlights a strategy for composing a conceptual coherent text, which could be acquired through the literal practices in the school and at home. Cohesive patterning in written texts Andreeva 721 In the case of Anna, the impact factors of the textual competence development cannot be elicited clearly. The parents’ educational level and the family’s socioeconomic status do not seem to play a significant role. We can assume some relatively regular literal practices at home. However, it is not very transparent whether Anna uses to read on her own initiative or rather at the parental direction. So, the motivational factor can probably be considered crucial. 3.3. Case Olga (p.6, female) The last case discussed in this paper is the case of Olga. Olga was born in a bilingual family in Russia. Her mother is German and her father is Russian. The family moved to Germany when the girl was 1 year old. Olga is a simultaneous bilingual as parents spoke to her in different languages from birth. At the moment of data elicitation, Olga was 7;8 years old. Olga’s father has an academic doctoral degree and her mother has a university diploma. Thus, the socioeconomic status of the family is obviously high. The German language seems to be dominant in the every-day life, as the circle of acquaintances consists mostly of German-speaking persons. As the maintenance of Russian as a heritage language is very important for Olga’s father, he is following the parental strategy “One person, one language” and communicates with Olga only in Russian. Furthermore, Olga began to get regular heritage language instruction when she was 4 years old. The curriculum of the Russian school which Olga attends is rather tight, she has a lot of homework which includes writing and reading tasks. As for literal practices at home, in the interview, the father stated that both parents read to Olga in both languages every day. There are a lot of books at home. Olga was instructed regarding reading in German by her mother before school enrollment. After that, she started to read a lot in German. Furthermore, Olga keeps a journal where she writes down her experiences almost every day. The motivation to read in Russian is not very obvious, the reading in Russian is just restricted to the tasks from the Russian school. As can be seen in Figure 1, Olga has a rather good cohesive patterning score in both languages (9 in German and 7 in Russian). Both texts (see Table 4) show a big variety of cohesive devices. In the German story, only two conjunctions are used. However, there can be found different pro-forms to refer to the subjects introduced before. Also, the Russian text shows different cohesive ties. Olga is the only one among the study participants who use the partial recurrence in her text. This seems particular interesting as Russian nouns could be easily modified by suffixing in order to give some emotional connotation. In general, both of Olga’s stories can be regarded as coherent and well comprehensible in the decontextualized situation. Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development – JCLAD Vol: 11 Issue: 1 706-727, 2023 ISSN: 2148-1997 722 Table 4 Cohesive patterning in German and Russian texts of P.6 German text Cohesive devices Type of cohesive devices Es war Sommer. Und ein Hund jagte eine Maus. Da kam der besitzer des Hundes. Er hatte Würstchen und einen Luftballon. Die Maus lief in ein Loch im Baumstamm, und der Hund folgte ihr. Die Maus glitt durchs Loch, aber der Hund sties an den Stamm des Baumes. Es gab noch ein zweites Loch im Baum Stamm, und durch das zweite Loch glitt die Maus hindurch. Plötzlich lies der besitzer des Hundes den Luftballon los, und der flog gerade auf den Baum zu. Der Besitzer erschrack. Der Luftballon verhackte sich in den Ästen. Der besitzer lies die Tasche mit den Würstchen los. Der Hund starte die Tasche mit den Würstchen an. Der besitzer kletterte auf den Baum, und hatte den Luftballon zurück. Der Hund gibg zu der Tasche mit den Würstchen, und aß ein par davon. Am Ende waren alle glücklich. Definite/indefinite article: (e.g. ein Hund – der Hund, der Besitzer des Hundes, ein Luftballon – der Luftballon, der Stamm des Baums) Text/knowledge deixis Repetition of nouns (Hund, Maus, Besitzer, die Tasche mit den Würstchen) Recurrence Personal pronoun (er, ihr, es) Demonstrative pronoun (der, alle) Pronominal adverb (davon) Reference with pro-forms Temporal adverb and adverbial phrase (da, am Ende) Situation deixis Conjunctives: und, aber Connectives Russian text Cohesive devices Types of cohesive devices Билла Висна. Кошка гуляла у Речки и увидела Бабочку. Бабочка седела на кусте. Кошка прыгнула в Куст, чдобы поймать Бабочку, но Бабочка улетьела. Тут пришол мальчик с мячикам, удочкой и ведром с рибой. Мальчик увидьел в кустах кошку и уранил мяч. Мяч упал в речку и кошка выбралась ис куста и увидела ведро с рыбой. Пока Мальчик доставал мячик, кошка падащла к ведрой с рыбой. Мальчик достал мяч и кошка съела рыбку и все быльи давольным. Repetition of nouns (речка, кошка, бабочка, мальчик) Partial repetition of the nouns (мяч - мячик, рыба - рыбка) Recurrence Demonstrative pronoun (все) Reference with pro-forms Temporal adverb (тут) Situation deixis Conjunctives: и, но, пока Connectives Olga’s textual competence seems to be well-balanced in both languages. We can observe some semantic interdependencies between the texts, for example, Olga at the beginning describes the season in which the action of the story takes place and sums up the emotional state of all protagonists in Cohesive patterning in written texts Andreeva 723 the end (“Am Ende waren alle glücklich” vs. “и все быльи давольным“). This is a typical narrative fairy-tale structure that must have been acquired due to the extended literal practices. Olga’s case seems to be a very interesting sample regarding the mixture of different factors which contribute to the development of textual competence. The combination of regular literal practices at home, heritage language instruction and Olga’s own high motivation can therefore be considered as a best prerequisite for the successful development of biliteracy. 4. Conclusions and Discussion The cohesive patterning in written texts is an import aspect of academic language proficiency. The analysis of the text corpus and elicited sociolinguistic data has shown that the German texts composed by the Russian-German bilinguals are in general more elaborate in respect to the cohesive devices. At the same time, the type of bilingualism does not seem to play a crucial role as sequential bilinguals do not have a worse performance. This supports the assumption that the ability to communicate in the decontextualized contexts, which is mostly important for the educational environment and academic success, must be considered as a cultural achievement (Cummins, 2000; Gogolin, 2014). However, the weekly heritage language instruction cannot be ranked as a very decisive influencing factor of the literacy development in Russian. There are different reasons why the heritage language instruction is difficult to be clearly categorized as a significant impact factor at this age. First, the input in the classes seems to vary between different Russian schools. Hence, the participants began to visit heritage language classes at different ages, so it depends on the level of the course curriculum. Second, the lack of heritage language instruction can probably be compensated by the literal practices at home, at least at this age. For the better understanding of this setting, the long-term monitoring of writing skills in bilingual children with and without heritage language instruction is needed. As it could be seen from the presented case studies, the additional extralinguistic factors must be considered as possible influencing factors for literacy development. The parents’ socioeconomic and educational status does not seem to be really significant. However, the motivational factors and the child’s, as well as parental, literal practices must be considered as crucial for the textual competence development. This corresponds with the findings of previous research (e.g. Woerfel et al., 2014; Yilmaz-Woerfel, & Riehl, 2016; Gogolin, Akgün, & Klinger, 2017). Finally, the qualitative analysis of the written data allows to assume an interdependence between the textual competence in both languages. As it could be seen in the presented case of p.12, the children without an obvious literal input in Russian seem to transfer the discourse strategy from German. This could support the assumptions of the Dynamic Model of Multilingualism (Herdina, & Jessner, 2002; de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007) about the dynamic interrelationship between the cognitive language representation and therefore the competence development. This decisive theoretical finding should also be proved in the future long-term qualitative studies on biliteracy development. Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development – JCLAD Vol: 11 Issue: 1 706-727, 2023 ISSN: 2148-1997 724 References Anstatt, T. & Dieser, E. (2007). Sprachmischung und Sprachtrennung bei zweisprachigen Kindern (am Beispiel des russisch-deutschen Spracherwerbs). In T. Anstatt (Ed.) Mehrsprachigkeit bei Kindern und Erwachsenen: Erwerb, Formen, Förderung, pp. 139-162. Tübingen: Attempto. Anstatt, T. (2011). Sprachattrition. Abbau der Erstsprache bei russisch- deutschen Jugendlichen. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 67, 7–31. Becker-Mrotzek, M. & Böttcher, I. (2011). Schreibkompetenz entwickeln und beurteilen. Praxisbuch für die Sekundarstufe I und II. Berlin: Cornelsen Benmamoun, E., Montrul S. & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129-181. Berman, R. A. & Nir B. (2009). Cognitive and linguistic factors in evaluation text quality. Global versus local? In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.) New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics Human Cognitive Processing, pp. 421- 440. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Berman, R. A. (2009). Language development in narrative contexts. In E. Bavin (ed.) Cambridge handbook of child language, pp. 354-375. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok E., Craik F.I.M. & Luk G. (2012). Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16, 240–250. Bialystok, E., Luk, G. & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading 9(1), 43–61. Böhmer, J. (2015). Biliteralität. Eine Studie zu literaten Strukturen in Sprachproben von Jugendlichen im Deutschen und im Russischen. Münster/New York: Waxmann. Böhmer, J. (2016). Ausprägungen von Biliteralität bei deutsch-russisch bilingualen Schülern und die daraus resultierenden Konsequenzen für den schulischen Russischunterricht. In P. Rosenberg & C. Schroeder (Eds.) Mehrsprachigkeit als Ressource in der Schriftlichkeit, pp. 133-158. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Brehmer, B. (2007). Sprechen Sie Qwelja? Formen und Folgen russisch- deutscher Zweisprachigkeit in Deutschland. In T. Anstatt (Ed.) Mehrsprachigkeit bei Kindern und Erwachsenen, pp. 163-185. Tübingen: Attempto. Brehmer, B., Krause, M., Savenkova, N. & Usanova, I. (2017). Schreiben und Lesen in der Herkunftssprache Russisch: Ergebnisse der Panelstudie zum Erwerb literaler Fähigkeiten bei russisch-deutschen bilingualen Kindern. In J. Duarte et al. (Eds.) Sprachentwicklung im Kontext von Mehrsprachigkeit – Hypothesen, Methoden, Forschungsperspektiven. Wiesbaden: Waxmann. Brehmer, B. & Usanova, I. (2017). Biscriptality and heritage language maintenance: Russian in Germany. In H. Peukert & I. Gogolin (Eds.) https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1108543181 https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1108543181 https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_source_title=jour.1254935 Cohesive patterning in written texts Andreeva 725 Dynamics of Linguistic Diversity, pp. 99-121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Brehmer, B: (2013). Sprachwahl und Sprachwechsel in slavisch-deutscher bilingualer Internet-Kommunikation. In: N. Franz et al. (Eds.) Deutsche Beiträge zum 15. Internationalen Slavistenkongress Minsk 2013, pp. 79- 88. München/Berlin. Brinker, K. (2005). Linguistische Textanalyse. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Channel View. de Bot, K., Verspoor, M. & Lowie, W. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism, Language und Cognition 10, 7-21. Ehlers, S. (2009). Heterogenität und Literalität. In C.-P. Buschkühle, L. Duncker & V. Oswalt (Eds.) Bildung zwischen Standardisierung und Heterogenität. Ein interdisziplinärer Diskurs, pp. 97–118. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Fichman, S. & Altman, C. (2019) Referential Cohesion in the Narratives of Bilingual and Monolingual Children With Typically Developing Language and With Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62(1), 123-142. Gagarina, N. (2016). Narratives of Russian-German preschool and primary school bilinguals: rasskaz and Erzählung. Applied Psycholinguistics 37(1), 91-122. Gagarina, N., Klop D., Kunnari, S., Tantele K., Välimaa, T., Balčiūnienė, I., Bohnacker, U. & Walters, J. (2012). MAIN: Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives. ZASPiL 56. Gantefort, Ch. (2013) Schriftliches Erzählen mehrsprachiger Kinder. Entwicklung und sprachenübergreifende Fähigkeiten. Interkulturelle Bildungsforschung, 21. Münster: Waxmann. Gellert, U. (2011). "Fünf mal fünf ist siebzehn." Zur Bedeutung von konzeptioneller Schriftlichkeit und dekontextualisierter Sprache beim Lernen von Mathematik im Grundschulalter. In P. Hüttis-Graff & P. Wieler (Eds.) Übergänge zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Vor- und Grundschulalter, pp. 79-94. Freiburg: Fillibach. Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. B. (2004). Communication and language intervention series. Dual language development & disorders: A handbook on bilingualism & second language learning.. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing. Gogolin, I. & Roth, H.-J. (2007). Bilinguale Grundschule. Ein Beitrag zur Förderung der Mehrsprachigkeit. In T. Anstatt (Ed.) Mehrsprachigkeit bei Kindern und Erwachsenen, pp. 31-46. Tübingen. Gogolin, I. (2014). Entwicklung sprachlicher Fähigkeiten von Kindern und Jugendlichen im Bildungskontext. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(3), 407-431. Gogolin, I., Akgün, G. & Klinger, T. (2017) KiBis - mehrsprachige Kinder auf dem Weg zur Bildungssprache. Eine Langzeitbeobachtung. Abschlussbericht. Hamburg: Universität. Halliday, M.A.K & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longmann. Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development – JCLAD Vol: 11 Issue: 1 706-727, 2023 ISSN: 2148-1997 726 Herdina, Ph., & Jessner, U. (2002). A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism. Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Channel View. Herman, D. (2001). Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences. Narrative Inquiry, 11(1), 1-34. Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the Early Language Trajectories of Children from Low SES and Language Minority Homes: Implications for Closing Achievement Gaps. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 4-14. Hüttis-Graff, P. & Wieler, P. (Eds.) (2011). Übergänge zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Vor- und Grundschulalter. Freiburg: Fillibach. Iluz-Cohen, P., & Walters, J. (2012). Telling stories in two languages: Narratives of bilingual preschool children with typical and impaired language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 58–74. Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W. (1994). Schriftlichkeit und Sprache. In H. Günther & O. Ludwig (Eds.) Schrift und Schriftlichkeit. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung, pp. 587-604. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Linke, A., Nussbaumer, M., & Portmann, P. (2004). Studienbuch Linguistik. Tübingen. Niemeyer. Maas, U. (2010). Literat und orat. Grundbegriffe der Analyse geschriebener und gesprochener Sprache. In U. Maas (Ed.) Orat und literat (=Grazer linguistische Studien 73), pp. 21-150. McNamara, D. & Kintsch, W. (1996): Learning From Texts: Effects of Prior Knowledge and Text Coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247-288 Meisel, J. (2009). Second language acquisition in early childhood. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 28, 5–34. Meng K. & Protassova E. (2005). Aussiedlerisch. Deutsch-russische Sprachmischungen im Verständnis ihrer Sprecher. In V. Hinnenkamp & K. Meng (Eds.) Sprachgrenzen überspringen: sprachliche Hybridität und polykulturelles Selbstverständnis, pp. 229-266. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. Meng, K. (2001). Russlanddeutsche Sprachbiographien. Untersuchungen zur sprachlichen Integration von Aussiedlerfamilien. Tübingen: Narr. Montrul, S. A. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Noack, Ch. & Weth, C. (2014). Orthographie- und Schriftspracherwerb in mehreren Sprachen – Ein Forschungsüberblick. In W. Grießhaber & Z. Kalkavan (Eds.) Orthographie- und Schriftspracherwerb bei mehrsprachigen Kindern, pp.15-34. Stuttgart: Fillibach. Paradis, J. (2008). Are simultaneous and early sequential bilingual acquisition fundamentally different? from Paper presented at Models of Interaction in Bilinguals Conference, University of Wales. Pearson, B. Z. (2002). Language and mind in the stories of bilingual children. In L. Verhoeven & S. Strömqvist (Eds.), Narrative development in a multilingual context, pp. 135–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Polinsky, M. (2018). Heritage Languages and their Speakers. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press. Portmann-Tselikas, P. R. (2002). Textkompetenz und unterrichtlicher Spracherwerb. In P. R. Portmann-Tselikas & S. Schmölzer-Eibinger https://www.researchgate.net/journal/0163-853X_Discourse_Processes Cohesive patterning in written texts Andreeva 727 (Eds.) Textkompetenz: Neue Perspektiven für das Lernen und Lehren, pp. 13–43. Innsbruck: Studien Verlag. Rapti, A. (2005) Entwicklung der Textkompetenz griechischer, in Deutschland aufwachsender Kinder.Untersucht anhand von schriftlichen, argumentativen Texten in der Muttersprache Griechisch und der Zweitsprache Deutsch. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Riehl, C. M. (2014). Mehrsprachigkeit. Eine Einführung. Darmstadt: WBG. Ruberg, T. (2013). Problembereiche im kindlichen Zweitspracherwerb. Sprache. Stimme. Gehör, 37, 181–185. Schmitz, A., Gräsel, C. & Rothstein, B. (2017). Students’ genre expectations and the effects of text cohesion on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30(5), 1115-1135. Schmölzer-Eibinger, S. (Ed.) (2008). Textkompetenz. München. Street, B. (2003). What's “new” in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5 (2), 77–91. Tomasello, M. (2002). Die kulturelle Entwicklung des menschlichen Denkens: Zur Evolution der Kognition. Frankfurt am Main. Tribushinina, E., Mak, W., Andreiushina, E., Dubinkina, E. & Sanders T. (2017). Connective use in the narratives of bilingual children and monolingual children with SLI. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1), 98-113. Tribushinina, E., Valcheva, E. & Gagarina, N. (2017). Acquisition of additive connectives by Russian-German bilinguals: A usage-based approach. In J. Evers-Vermeul & E. Tribushinina (Eds.) Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Language Teaching, pp. 207-234. Berlin. Uluçam, A. I. (2007). Konnexität – Kohäsion – Kohärenz. Eine textlinguistische Analyse schriftlicher Texte türkisch-deutsch Bilingualer. Essen: Die Blaue Eule. Usanova, I. (2016). Transfer in bilingual and (bi)scriptual writing: can German-Russỉan bilinguals profit from their heritage language? The interaction of different languages and different scripts in German- Russian bilinguals. In P. Rosenberg & C. Schroeder (Eds.) Mehrsprachigkeit als Ressource in der Schriftlichkeit, pp. 159-176. Berlin. Usanova, I. (2019). Biscriptuality: Writing skills among German-Russian adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Westby, C. E. (1991). Learning to talk – talking to learn: Oral – literate language differences. In C. S. Simon (Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success, pp. 334–357. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications. Woerfel, T., Koch, N., Yilmaz Woerfel, S., & Riehl, C. M. (2014). Mehrschriftlichkeit bei mehrsprachig aufwachsenden Kindern: Wechselwirkungen und außersprachliche Einflussfaktoren. Lili: Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 174, 44-65. Yilmaz Woerfel, S. & Riehl, C. M. (2016). Mehrschriftlichkeit: Wechselseitige Einflüsse von Textkompetenz, Sprachbewusstheit und außersprachlichen Faktoren. In P. Rosenberg & C. Schroeder (Eds.) Mehrsprachigkeit als Ressource in der Schriftlichkeit, S. 305-336. Berlin.