Elke G Montanari

Mehmet-Ali Akıncı

Roman Abel

Balance and Dominance dominance in the vocabulary of German-Turkish primary schoolchildren

Keywords: . Özellikle, diller arasındaki denge ve baskınlığın, çocuğun okul dönemine Bilingualität oft inspiriert; doch wie häufig sind ausgewogene Zweisprachige, und hat Ausgewogenheit einen positiven Einfluss auf Sprachbeherrschung? Diese Fragen Ergebnisse von den individuellen deutschen Resultaten wurde ein Dominanz-/Balanceindex für jedes nicht aber negativ auf den deutschen Wortschatz. Wir fanden keinen positiven Effekt von Ausgewogenheit. Als mögliche Einschränkung wird angemerkt, dass die Verwendung desselben vocabulary, dominance, balance, primary school, Turkish, German

Balanced bilingualism has inspired debates on bilingualism for a long time, but several questions related to this discourse remain unanswered. How common are balanced bilinguals? Does balance have a positive impact on language proficiency? More specifically, when children begin to frequent schools and thus have a lot of oral and literal input in the school language, how do balance and dominance develop? The present paper discusses the following research questions with respect to vocabulary: Do balanced test results in two languages correlate with a better proficiency than unbalanced results? Moreover, is a balanced use of two languages accompanied by a balanced vocabulary? We used a picture naming task to test the expressive and receptive vocabulary of 98 German-Turkish speaking schoolchildren in a cross-sectional design. To determine balance or dominance, we used a combined score of the values in the German and the Turkish testing. The balance/dominance scores show a continuous shift to dominance in the majority language. Consistent use of Turkish has an effect on Turkish vocabulary, but not a negative impact on vocabulary in German. There was no overall positive influence of balanced bilingualism.

Türkçe özet

Dengeli ikidillilik, son zamanlarda ikidillilik üzerine gerçekleştirilen birçok çalışmanın araştırma konusu olmuştur, ancak dengeli ikidilliliğin ne denli yaygın olduğu ve dengenin dil becerisi üzerinde olumlu etkisinin olup olmadığı merak konusudur

Introduction

The number of children being raised in immigrant background families is large, and this number is increasing globally, especially in Western Europe; however, the course of language development of these children is poorly described or is rarely the focus of research (see [START_REF] Rehbein | Turkish in European Societies[END_REF][START_REF] Jørgensen | Bilingualism and Social Relations[END_REF][START_REF] Backus | Turkish as an immigrant language in Europe[END_REF], for overviews of Turkish background children in Europe). Besides other questions, studies have asked whether these mainly early sequential bilingual children from Turkish diaspora exposed to two languages during primary school acquire their first and second languages at the same rate and in the same way as monolingual children. Many studies on early or late bilingualism have examined vocabulary development. Those studies highlighted the idea that the vocabulary of a bilingual child can constitute an important predictor for L1 maintenance or attrition as well as for overall school success [START_REF] Cummins | L'éducation bilingue. Qu'avons-nous appris de cinquante ans de recherche?[END_REF], Genessee & Nicoladis, 2007) and later literacy development [START_REF] Rohde | Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability[END_REF][START_REF] Mayo | Off to a good start? Vocabulary development and differences in early family and classroom experiences of children from native-Dutch and immigrant families in the Netherlands[END_REF][START_REF] Lee | Size matters: Early vocabulary as a predictor of language and literacy competence[END_REF]. As mentioned in many studies, throughout elementary school, standardised measures of oral language proficiency (expressive and receptive vocabulary size) reveal a gap between monolingual and bilingual children [START_REF] Bialystok | Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children[END_REF][START_REF] Eilers | Social factors in bilingual development: The Miami experience[END_REF]. However, early simultaneously bilingual children have been described as following a developmental course similar to that of monolingual children when both their vocabularies are considered [START_REF] Pearson | Patterns of interaction in the lexical development in two languages of bilingual infants[END_REF][START_REF] Patterson | Bilingual lexical development: Influences, contexts, and processes[END_REF]. As for the lexicon development of bilingual children from poor and low socioeconomic backgrounds and from ethnic minorities, especially from Turkish immigrant families in Western Europe, research has found low vocabulary in L1 and L2 when compared to the vocabulary in monolingual children [START_REF] Allen | The effect of majority language exposure on minority language skills: The case of Inuktitut[END_REF][START_REF] Meisel | Exploring the limits of the LAD. A collection of four papers[END_REF][START_REF] Schlyter | Word order in Swedish as the first language, second language and weaker language[END_REF][START_REF] Treffers-Daller | In)Complete acquisition of Turkish among Turkish German bilinguals in Germany and Turkey: An analysis of complex embeddings in narratives[END_REF]. For instance, [START_REF] Leseman | Bilingual vocabulary development of Turkish preschoolers in the Netherlands[END_REF] found that Turkish preschoolers' development of Turkish vocabulary in the Netherlands appeared to be rather similar to Dutch lower-class children's Dutch vocabulary development; at the same time, it was further behind the latter. For Leseman, this was evidence that early gaps tend to widen over time.

Thus, this paper considers lexical development in Turkish and German of 98 German-Turkish speaking schoolchildren in Germany using a picture naming task to test their expressive and receptive vocabulary in both languages. The main purpose of the paper is to discuss, with respect to vocabulary, whether balanced test results in two languages correlate with a better proficiency than unbalanced results. Thus, more specifically, we explore whether a balanced use of two languages is accompanied by a balanced vocabulary. Balanced bilingualism has inspired debates on bilingualism for a long time, but how common are balanced bilinguals, and does balance have a positive impact on language proficiency? More specifically, when children begin to frequent schools and thus have a lot of oral and literal input in the school language, how do balance and dominance develop? Regarding the notion of input, this is a very short word for what parents, siblings, teachers, and friends offer children in terms of language: interaction, emotion, social contacts, a turn at talk, an open ear, dialogue, conversation, discussion, (pre)literacy, culture, play, and so on.

This paper is composed of four sections. In the first section, we present the theoretical framework for the study and focus particularly on the relationship between balance and dominance regarding proficiency, use, input, or preference of two or more languages. In the second section, we briefly focus on Turkish immigrants in Germany and especially on research conducted on bilingual children's vocabulary development. The third section presents our methodology, describing participants, measures, and procedures. In the last section, we present the descriptive results of the picture naming test for balance and dominance vocabulary and the impact of exposure and use on vocabulary scores.

Balance and Dominance

Because bilinguals and multilinguals are not two monolinguals inside one person [START_REF] Grosjean | Neurolinguists, Beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person[END_REF], only some speakers have an equivalent proficiency in their languages, while many others have a more profound proficiency or a better fluency in one language [START_REF] Lambert | Linguistics manifestations of bilingualism[END_REF][START_REF] Leopold | Speech Development of a Bilingual Child: A Linguist's Record[END_REF][START_REF] Silva-Corvalán | Language Dominance in Bilinguals: Issues of Measurement and Operationalization[END_REF], resulting in the dominance in one language. Additionally, balance has long been a much-discussed idea in the field of bilingualism (for an overview, see De [START_REF] De Houwer | Balance patterns in early bilingual acquisition: A longitudinal study of word comprehension and production[END_REF]. Balance and dominance are always relate data, i.e., regarding proficiency, use, input, or preference of two or more languages [START_REF] Argyri | Crosslinguistic influence and language dominance in older bilingual children[END_REF][START_REF] Montrul | On the Acquisition of Heritage Languages[END_REF]. The distinctions are gradual, not categorical [START_REF] Birdsong | Dominance in bilingualism: Foundations of measurement, with insights from the study of handedness[END_REF]. Balance is characterised mostly by equal use, proficiency, or pace of development [START_REF] Müller | Null arguments in bilingual children. French topics[END_REF]. Dominance is more common than balance: in a study of 258 Luxembourg primary school students, [START_REF] Krampen | Komparative Befunde zur Wortschatzentwicklung und Sprachförderdiagnostik bei multilingualen Primarschulkindern[END_REF] found that, for 26% of bilinguals and 63% of trilinguals, performance in naming tasks differed by more than one standard deviation between languages, which indicated unbalanced results. In a survey of German-Turkish adolescents in Hamburg, 30-37% of adolescents indicated that they spoke Turkish better than German, and 54-59% of respondents indicated that they spoke German better than Turkish [START_REF] Fürstenau | Verteilung und Klassifizierung der Herkunftssprachen[END_REF]. Over his or her lifespan, an individual's language balance may modify or shift, for instance, if conditions change [START_REF] Bahrick | Fifty years of language maintenance and language dominance in bilingual Hispanic immigrants[END_REF][START_REF] De Houwer | Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition[END_REF][START_REF] Fantini | Language acquisition of a bilingual child: A sociolinguistic perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Grosjean | Bilingual Life and Reality[END_REF][START_REF] Leopold | Speech Development of a Bilingual Child: A Linguist's Record[END_REF], and a late learned language may become the dominant one if used consistently [START_REF] Tracy | It wasn't easy but irgendwie äh da hat sich's rentiert, net?: A linguistic profile[END_REF]. Dominance, meanwhile, has been described with many different indicators: a better score in proficiency tests, a better fluency, a preferred use of a language, etc.

In this sense, balance and dominance are highly related to the use of languages in different domains for different purposes. The language competence of schoolchildren is highly influenced by educational language practices, and these language practices enable children to develop some languagesthe languages spoken at schoolbetter than others.

The methods to examine dominance and balance are manifold: To determine the dominant language with respect to proficiency, in a standardised methodological design, tests are typically conducted in both languages, and the results are compared by using, for example, indices calculated by subtraction or division [START_REF] Birdsong | Dominance in bilingualism: Foundations of measurement, with insights from the study of handedness[END_REF]. Balance and dominance in proficiency have been studied, for example, with respect to mean length of utterance [START_REF] Genesee | Language differentiation in early bilingual development[END_REF][START_REF] Yip | Assessing language dominance in bilingual acquisition: A case for mean length utterance differentials[END_REF], lexical diversity [START_REF] Treffers-Daller | Operationalizing and measuring language dominance[END_REF], and vocabulary extent [START_REF] Gathercole | Bilingual first-language development: Dominant language takeover, threatened minority language take-up[END_REF]. From the perspective of cognitive processes, reaction times, naming speed, and imaging methods have been carried out [START_REF] Montrul | On the Acquisition of Heritage Languages[END_REF][START_REF] Segalowitz | Cognitive bases of second language fluency[END_REF]. For fluency, detailed parent surveys [START_REF] Unsworth | The role of age of onset and input in early child bilingualism in Greek and Dutch[END_REF]), 24-hour recordings (e.g., Odean, Nazareth, & Pruden, 2015), or observations of quantity of utterances [START_REF] Gawlitzek-Maiwald | Bilingual boot strapping[END_REF] have been used. 4 For older subjects and adults, self-ratings on use and language behaviour can be applied [START_REF] Daller | Language dominance in Turkish-German bilinguals: Methodological aspects of measurements in structurally different languages[END_REF][START_REF] Dunn | A quick, gradient bilingual dominance scale[END_REF][START_REF] Goggin | Applied psycholinguistics: psychological and linguistic studies across languages and learners[END_REF][START_REF] Gollan | Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish-English bilinguals[END_REF][START_REF] Marian | The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals[END_REF].

To find out whether language use is balanced or dominant, Lloyd-Smith, Gyllstad, and [START_REF] Lloyd-Smith | Transfer into L3 English[END_REF] suggested a questionnaire for Turkish language use, with questions regarding language use by the family, language quality, and language use and experience in Turkey, which are then weighted and brought together as a single score (Lloyd-Smith, Gyllstad & Kupisch, 2017): for example, schooling experience in Turkey is weighted twice as a factor as the mother's language, and literary education is weighted by a factor of 3. The question arises, however, regarding which empirical basis the weighting is based on. For global data collection regarding command as well as use, the following is suggested [START_REF] Paradis | The influence of dominance and sociolinguistic context on bilingual preschooler's language choice[END_REF]: a questionnaire asking for demographics, such as age of acquisition, place of birth, place of residence, and language environment. Dominance and balance affect other linguistic and cognitive processes. Balance has been found to have a positive effect on executive control [START_REF] Yow | Balanced bilingualism and early age of second language acquisition as the underlying mechanisms of a bilingual executive control advantage: why variations in bilingual experiences matter[END_REF], but there have also been cases of balance of two weak proficiencies [START_REF] Müller | Balanced bilingual children with two weak languages: A case study[END_REF]. Dominance can offer advantages in the speed of word recognition, word completion, and reading in the dominant language [START_REF] Lambert | Linguistics manifestations of bilingualism[END_REF]. Dominance in the fluency of one language has been found to account for reading speed differences in different languages or writing systems [START_REF] Favreau | Automatic and controlled processes in the first -and second language reading of fluent bilinguals[END_REF] or the ability to translate in different directions [START_REF] Flege | Assessing bilingual dominance[END_REF]. Balance and dominance may have different impacts on cognitive and linguistic processing, for instance, on phonological command of a third language [START_REF] Lloyd-Smith | Transfer into L3 English[END_REF] with respect to high or low proficiency [START_REF] Bialystok | Bilingual Minds[END_REF]. Transfer is found to be more often (but not only) in the direction of the dominant to the weaker language [START_REF] Kupisch | Determiners in bilingual German-Italian children: What they tell us about the relation between language influence and language dominance[END_REF]Silva-Corvalán & Montanari, 2008). A dominant proficiency in one language can result in a preferred use of the other, better mastered language(s) by a child with frequent code-switching [START_REF] Bernardini | Growing syntactic structure and code-mixing in the weaker language: The Ivy-Hypothesis[END_REF][START_REF] Deuchar | Bilingual acquisition: Theoretical implications of a case study[END_REF][START_REF] Genesee | Language differentiation in early bilingual development[END_REF]. Intensive use of the heritage language at home may be accompanied by better proficiency and cognitive advantages in terms of nonverbal intelligence scores ( Daller & Ongün, 2017).

One reason for unbalanced proficiency of languages is more exposure to one language with respect to quantity and/or quality. The exposure may originate from, especially in the case of heritage languages, only a few speakers and therefore may show little variability [START_REF] Allen | The effect of majority language exposure on minority language skills: The case of Inuktitut[END_REF][START_REF] Meisel | Exploring the limits of the LAD. A collection of four papers[END_REF][START_REF] Schlyter | Word order in Swedish as the first language, second language and weaker language[END_REF][START_REF] Treffers-Daller | In)Complete acquisition of Turkish among Turkish German bilinguals in Germany and Turkey: An analysis of complex embeddings in narratives[END_REF]. When children start school, their linguistic environment changes to a dominant input of the majority language if the majority language is also the school language, in contrast to a more home-language oriented input in the time before schooling (Montanari, Abel, Graßer & Tschudinovski, 2018). School language offers the possibility to build up an academic register because literacy education is concentrated on and is often exclusively available in the school language. Compared to the focus on literacy and academic terminology at school, when heritage language input is limited to the home environment, children are generally exposed to only the everyday language in the heritage language. Moreover, in cases if heritage language lessons are offered at an institutional level, the quality and content tend to be quite heterogeneous because the qualification of the teachers is extremely diverse, and there are no binding curricula. The duration of the lessons is usually limited to around 90 minutes a week.

Our focus is on the following research questions: How do balance and dominance in vocabulary develop in the first years of school? Specifically, we examine the following questions: How frequent are balance and dominance in the vocabulary? Which changes do we see between the first and fourth grades? Does balance or dominance have an impact on vocabulary mastery? Does balanced or dominant exposure affect vocabulary?

Turkish Immigrants in Germany: Demography, Education, and Language Practices

Immigration from Turkey to Germany began with recruitment of labour from the mid-1960s to 1973. Over 2 million people of Turkish heritage constitute one of the largest ethnic and linguistic minorities in Germany, counting naturalised citizens as well as Turkish citizens.

Turks have still strong attachment to Turkey, as indicated by frequent holiday trips and a high proportion of marriages to spouses newly immigrated from Turkey [START_REF] Yağmur | Language use, choice, maintenance and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish speakers in France: Intergenerational differences[END_REF][START_REF] Akıncı | Emergent bilingualism of French-Turkish bilingual children in France[END_REF][START_REF] González-Ferrer | Who do immigrants marry? Partner choice among single immigrants in Germany[END_REF].

In Germany, until recently, little attention was given to instruction in German in preschool.

As for mother tongue instruction, it is a voluntary option. There are a few primary schools that offer German-Turkish bilingual, biliteracy education. At the secondary level, the existing policy is to conduct early tracking of children into different types of secondary schools. Thus, children who have difficulty in German may be excluded from higher forms of education at an early age. [START_REF] Backus | Turkish as an immigrant language in Europe[END_REF] provided a comprehensive overview of the situation of Turkish speakers, including linguistic studies of language maintenance and shift, acquisition, codeswitching, and development of contact varieties as well as aspects of educational policies in individual countries in Western Europe. Large-scale home language surveys, such as the Multilingual Cities Project in six European cities [START_REF] Extra | Urban multilingualism in Europe: Immigrant minority languages at home and school[END_REF]) as well as the SPREEG (Spracherhebung in Essener Grundschulen) project in Essen [START_REF] Chlosta | Die 'Durchschnittsschule' und ihre Sprachen: Ergebnisse des Projekts Sprachenerhebung Essener Grundschulen (SPREEG)[END_REF] have shown that the Linguistic Vitality Index of Turkish is relatively high in comparison to other immigrant languages.

Parents speak Turkish and German, and because there are sizeable Turkish speaking subcommunities, there is also considerable social support for Turkish even, to a limited extent, in the framework of the majority school system. However, the family environment includes nonstandard varieties and language mixing from parents as well as older siblings and other relatives in their close social networks. [START_REF] Pfaff | Turkish language development in Germany[END_REF] showed the effects of input and social networks both on developing varieties of Turkish L1 and varieties of German L2 of preschool and primary schoolchildren in different neighbourhoods in Berlin. [START_REF] Ehlich | Referenzrahmen zur altersspezifischen Sprachaneignung[END_REF], whose work focused on identifying children in need of language remediation, stressed the necessity of taking nonstandard as well as standard varieties and registers of both L1 and L2 into account.

So far, few studies systematically relate language proficiencies of bilingual Turkish-German bilinguals, including the investigation of possible effects of mother tongue education on the development of both languages. While for some children, the two languages develop independently and simultaneously, leading to almost balanced bilingualism, for others, language dominance changes over the course of their linguistic development. While immigrant children with a Turkish background show Turkish as a dominant language in early childhood (until age 6), their mother tongue may stagnate or fossilise, compared to monolingual children [START_REF] Akıncı | Emergent bilingualism of French-Turkish bilingual children in France[END_REF]. However, it seems that further development of the first language is highly heterogeneous, depending strongly on bilinguals' social class, age, peer group affiliations, and media consumption (for Turkish-German bilinguals: Cindark & Aslan 2004; for written Turkish proficiencies in Germany: Schroeder 2007). [START_REF] Knapp | Schriftliches Erzählen in der Zweitsprache[END_REF] investigation of Turkish-German bilinguals' textual competence in German shows that pupils who acquired first-language literacy in their country of origin scored better.

One of the few studies to examine the effects of mother tongue education on development of both L1 and L2 written competence is [START_REF] Turgut | Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung der sprachlichen Kompetenz in der Erst-und Zweitsprache bei Türkischen Gymnasiasten[END_REF] investigation of lexical diversity, syntactic errors, and complex sentences in written texts of pupils who attend L1 courses. He showed a positive correlation between competence in Turkish and German.

As for earlier studies in which languages among Turkish-German bilinguals were investigated, with a particular focus on vocabulary [START_REF] Daller | Lexical richness in spontaneous speech of bilinguals[END_REF][START_REF] Pfaff | Development of lexical richness in Turkish written texts of bilingual adolescents in Germany[END_REF], it is clear that not all children and adolescents who live in the same area and attend the same school have similar sociolinguistic patterns.

Individual differences in vocabulary are related to participants' and families' sociobiographies and language use patterns. Our previous papers have shown differences in syntactic development, orthography, and written usage [START_REF] Akıncı | Orthographic and morphological aspects of written Turkish in France, Germany and Turkey[END_REF]. [START_REF] Daller | Lexical richness in spontaneous speech of bilinguals[END_REF] accounted in their research indices for the lexical items used in an oral text production task by two groups of Turkish-German bilinguals: one group had a Germandominant bilingual competence, and the other one consisted of Turkish-dominant bilinguals.

They showed that the proficiency profiles of Turkish-German bilinguals differed significantly from each other depending on whether they lived in Germany or in Turkey. The Turkish-German bilinguals in Germany were clearly dominant in German in that they obtained higher scores on various measures of lexical richness in German but lower scores in Turkish, and the opposite was true for Turkish-dominant bilinguals who had returned to Turkey eight years prior to the recording.

Willard Agache, Jäkel, [START_REF] Willard | Family factors predicting vocabulary in Turkish as a heritage language[END_REF] examined language vocabulary for 119 preschoolers and 121 fourth-grader Turkish bilinguals from immigrant background families in Germany and analysed link children's Turkish vocabulary to the family background (parents' education and generational status), the home literacy environment (HLE), and mothers' language use. The main findings of this research are summarised as follows: (i) the HLE predicts children's Turkish vocabulary, (ii) mothers' use of Turkish with their children predicts children's Turkish vocabulary, and (iii) family background is mainly connected to Turkish vocabulary by way of mothers' use of Turkish. The HLE and exposure to Turkish are both important for children's heritage vocabulary.

The Study

Participants

We tested N=98 Turkish-German-speaking children aged 6;3 to 10;10 years (M=8;9, SD=1;16) in both languages. All the participants were born in Germany and lived with at least one Turkish speaking parent or caregiver. The surveys were conducted in primary schools in several Northern German cities; 13.3% of children attended the first grade, 28.6% attended the second grade, 34.7% attended the third grade, and 23.5% attended the fourth grade. We had 53.1% girls in the sample. The environment language and teaching medium were German, with the exception of school lessons in English or Turkish (45-90 min. per week). A total of 65.3% of children received additional support in their mother tongue at school or at a club.

Regarding socioeconomic status, the median of the net income of the families per month was € 2,001-2,500. The education level of the parents was of middle-high level (table 1): motherspracticed: 0; fatherspracticed: 32.5; the mean of ISEI for German men was 44, and consequently, the professional level in the sample was lower than in the mean of the German population.

Measures

With respect to language exposure at home, we regarded exposure patterns as Turkishdominant exposure by parents when one parent mainly spoke Turkish and the other parent predominantly spoke either Turkish or both languages. 6 We considered patterns as Germandominant exposure when one parent addressed the child predominantly in German and the other parent addressed the child in either or both languages or predominantly in German. In balanced exposure, both parents talked to the child in Turkish and in German (Type A) or used a single languagethe one-person strategy OPOL (one person, one language; Type B).

To calculate the dominance or balance of vocabulary, we subtracted, for every individual, the raw values in the Turkish test from the values in German (for discussion of subtraction versus ratio, see [START_REF] Birdsong | Dominance in bilingualism: Foundations of measurement, with insights from the study of handedness[END_REF]. Positive values showed better results in German and, in this sense, a German-dominant score, whereas negative values showed a Turkish-dominant score and better results in Turkish. 7 Values around 0 represented a balanced bilingual with similar test results in both languages. In determining the range around zero that was regarded as balanced vocabulary, we oriented on the mean standard deviation of the expressive performance, 17.27 (see [START_REF] Treffers-Daller | In)Complete acquisition of Turkish among Turkish German bilinguals in Germany and Turkey: An analysis of complex embeddings in narratives[END_REF]). School-grade-specific standard deviations ranged from 12.25 to 14.59. We decided to apply an idealised standard deviation of 15 and defined values between -15 to 15 as the 'balanced range'. 8

The vocabulary in both languages was calculated as total vocabulary (TV) and total conceptual vocabulary (TCV; [START_REF] Pearson | Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms[END_REF]. For TV, the raw values in both languages of an individual were added (one item named in both languages resulted in two points); for TCV, the named concepts in both languages were added (one item named in both languages resulted in one point). In our analysis, we always controlled for the age of the children.

Procedure

The participants were tested with a standardised naming task for children aged 5;6 to 10;11 years WWT 6-10 (Wortschatz-und Wortfindungstest für 6-bis 10-Jährige, [START_REF] Glück | WWT 6-10. Wortschatz-und Wortfindungstest für 6-bis 10-Jährige[END_REF]. The The issue of which language should be subtracted needed to be discussed. In this sample, we had no Turkishdominant children; a subtraction of German values from the Turkish scores would have produced negative numbers for all the bilingual children in the sample. We would not have found it appropriate to give only negative numbers to bilingual knowledge. 8 Regarding individuals, for a qualitatively oriented discussion of balance/dominance patterns and focus on individual diversity, please refer to Montanari, Graßer, Tschudinovski, and Abel (2018) and word class, differentiating nouns, headings, verbs, and adjectives (Glück 2011: 29 ff.;

please note the item list in the appendix). The German standardisation of the WWT 6-10 was carried out in 2004 with a standard sample of 880 monolingual German-speaking children (Glück 2011, 28ff.), and a comparative study was conducted with 54 Turkish children (Glück 2011, 19). We tested receptive and expressive vocabulary, that is, children were asked to name items for which they were shown a photo ('What is that?'/'What does s/he do?', 'What is the opposite of....?'). In the receptive test, the children chose one of four pictures ('Point to "crown"!'). The tests were conducted by specially trained bilingual German-Turkish speakers. The children were tested at intervals of one to four weeks in random language order; the average testing time was about 50 minutes. All test protocols were checked after the testing using audio recordings. The test was stopped if the child could not name 5 successive items.

Interviews were conducted with all the children before testing in German or Turkish and documented with paper and pencil in an interview guide sheet. The parents were interviewed with a questionnaire in German and Turkish. We received completed questionnaires from 60.2% of the families. The questionnaires included information on the linguistic biography of the child (e.g., start of language contact, input), the languages of the child and his or her parents (e.g., language proficiency, language use in the family and in concrete situations), linguistic activities in the family (e.g., reading and storytelling habits, number and languages of the child's books), and the family social environment (e.g., educational attainment, etc.).9

Regarding exposure, the children were asked in which language their mother and father spoke to them, in Turkish, German, or both, and in which languages they answered (Fig. 1, 2).

Which languages do you use while talking to your child?

Please colour the proportion in the bar for each language.

Example: Mother speaks Turkish more often than German.

German Turkish

Otherwise: Mother speaks only German with the child Fig. 1: Item in the parents' questionnaire: Which languages do you use when you talk to your child?

Further, the children were asked about their use of languages with siblings and friends. The parents were also asked to indicate the exposure of the child during the day in slots of two hours.

When is your child exposed to German; when is your child exposed to Turkish? Example:

Fig. 2: Example of time of exposure to languages

Results

Descriptive results: Balance and dominance of exposure and use

In the morning, exposure is strongly dominated by German, a fact that is easy to explain: schooling in Germany usually takes place between 8 am and 2 pm (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Parents' answers about exposure during a school day

In the afternoon, more children receive input in Turkish or in both languages. For instance, at 4 pm, 32% of the parents answered that their child is exposed to German, 46% answered that the child hears both languages, and 22% of the parents answered that their child hears Turkish. At home, 56.1% of the children receive Turkish-dominant exposure, 9.2% receive German-dominant exposure, and 34.7% receive balanced exposure (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4: Parental language exposure patterns (one parent + other parent). Dark grey -Turkish-dominant exposure at home; pale greybalanced exposure at home; white -German-dominant exposure at home 10

We found a significant symmetry in the language to which a child is exposed at home and the language use of the child. The Pearson Chi square test provides highly significant evidence of the correspondence between the language of addressing and the language use of the child when interacting with the mother (4,97)=46.46, p<.001; the father (4,95)=60.62, p<.001; the older (4,59)=76.00, p<.001; and the younger siblings (4,40)=51.24, p<.001. Consequently, we assumed that the parental address and language use in the family showed the same pattern.

Language use with peers

Talking with peers is another important source of input and language use. Regarding siblings, the children in the sample spoke mostly German or both languages to older siblings (40.2% of the children had no older siblings; of the remaining 59.8%, 26.5% of the children used German with older siblings, 30.4% used both languages, and only 2.9% used Turkish). A total of 57.8% of the children did not have younger siblings, or they were infants. Of the remaining 42.2%, 21.6% of the children spoke German with younger siblings, 14.7% spoke both languages, and only 5.9% spoke Turkish. Regarding language use with friends, 21.4% of the children claimed to have friends with whom they exclusively spoke German. Another 78.6% spoke German and Turkish with their friends: 53.1% reported seeing Turkish speaking friends (almost) every day, 14.3% reported seeing them 1-2 times a week, 8.2% reported seeing them less often than once a week, and 3.1% reported seeing them only during vacations. To sum up, regular use of Turkish with peers was reported by 53.1% of the children.

Balance and dominance in the vocabulary test results

For German, many children obtained only low scores in the expressive testing, with high variation (M=41.23, SD=17.06, for 95 items; Fig. 5). The scatter diagram shows the expressive scores for German and Turkish as coordinates. The children who interrupted the expressive testing in Turkish (values 0 of the x-axis) demonstrated great variance in German (M=44.97, SD=17.22). They also performed marginally better in German than the children who successfully completed the test in Turkish (M=38.76, SD=16.64): t(96)=1.78, p=.078.

Taking age as a covariate into account, the outcomes in Turkish and German did not correlate: r(56)=.053, p=.693.

Fig. 5: Expressive vocabulary in Turkish (coordinate of x-axis) and German (y-axis) in individual raw values

For receptive vocabulary in German, the average performance was M=83.84 (SD=10.22). In Turkish, the mean test scores were lower (expressive: M=11. 99,median=11.50,SD=11.85;receptive: M=58.98,SD=23.83). Expressive vocabulary in German develops at a faster pace than in Turkish ( =.399 vs. 212).

As we mentioned before, we calculated balance and dominance via subtraction of the individual expressive scores in both languages. The individual results lay between -15 and 83 (M=29.26, SD=20.65); one child's score was exactly at the boundary of -15 and consequently still had a balanced score in our terminology, and 27.6% scores were balanced. Within the balanced group, the test results in Turkish were slightly higher than in German for only five participants. We found no dominant Turkish vocabulary score. We also did not find an abrupt break between balanced and dominant speakers, but rather a normal distribution: Shapiro-Wilk Test was not significant p=.290. Figure 6 shows the balance/dominance results for four years of schooling. The median in the first grade was still at the end of the balanced range (m=15), with slightly better results in German and shifts towards m=31 in the third grade and consequently a higher dominance of German in grades 3 and 4. The variance increased from SD=15.69 in the first grade to SD=20.41 in the third grade and SD=20.24 in the fourth grade. ANOVA showed a marginally significant shift towards a stronger vocabulary in German over four years: F(3,94)=4.03, p=.010, =.114. A significant difference was found between the first and third/fourth grades ps<.05, but not in the second grade Vocabulary dominance of German and the age of the children were significantly correlated r=.273, p=.007: the older the children, the stronger the dominance. The shift to German dominance was confirmed by the ratio of balanced versus German-dominant children as categorical variables in the Chi square test chi 2 (3,98)=8.69, p=.034.

We checked the results for groups: the variance for balanced results was smaller than for German-dominant results (balanced: N=27.6 %, German: M=23, SD=10, Turkish: M=19, SD=10; dominant: N=72.4 %, German: M=48, SD=14, Turkish M=9, SD=12). Controlling for age, the mean scores in Turkish of the balanced group were higher than in the Germandominant group (balanced: M=19, SD=10 vs. dominant: M=9, SD=12): F(1,95)=33.94, p<.001, =.263). The mean results in German in the balanced group were lower than in the German-dominant group (balanced: M=23, SD=10 vs. dominant: M=48, SD=14). ANOVA showed a very clear difference F(1,95)=58.22, p<.000, with a higher effect size of =.380.

In a comparison of the added results in both languages as the TV for balanced and Germandominant children, the following picture emerged (Fig. 7): Fig. 7: Cross-sectional comparison of four grades of primary school of two groups: German dominant (on the left) and balanced (on the right) for Turkish, German, and TCV proficiency.

The two scores for TV and TCV were higher for the German-dominant group than for the balanced group (TV: balanced M=42, SD=18 vs. dominant M=57, SD=20; F(1,95)=3.53, p=.063, =.036; TCV: balanced M=34, SD=12 vs. dominant M=51, SD=15; F(1,95)=19.171, p<.001, =.168). The variance of the results of children with German-dominant scores was consistently higher in German, TV, and TCV scores than in children with balanced scores.

Consequently, an advantage in Turkish in the balanced group did not compensate for the lower results in the German test; the test results indicated a smaller TV for the balanced group.

We also calculated the number of translation equivalents in both languages. For children with German-dominant scores, we found only three concepts on average that could be named exclusively in Turkish. They showed nearly identical values in TCV and German (average TCV is M=51 points, German M=48, Turkish M=9). Thus, it follows that the children knew mostly Turkish translation equivalents of German words. For the balanced group, the difference between TCV and German was much larger. Children with balanced results produced much fewer translation equivalents in the test (TCV M=34, German M=23, Turkish M=19); there were 11 items that were named in Turkish but not in German. The difference between the balanced and German-dominant groups for the number of items that could exclusively be named in Turkish was, taking into account age as a covariate, highly significant: F(1,95)=40.63, p<.001, =.300. The expressive vocabulary in German and Turkish, TCV, and TV increased in the cross-sectional design for all the children at the same pace: the ANOVA showed no significance for the interaction term between the dominance type and grade Fs<1.

Impact of exposure and use on vocabulary scores

Across all the parental language use patterns, the test results in German were higher than in Turkish (Fig. 8). Parental language use had an impact on the extension of the difference of the test results in Turkish and German: in the two groups with Turkish-dominant language use (HL and HL+mixed), the mean values in German exceeded the mean values in Turkish only for M=23 and M=22 points, respectively. The difference between the means in Turkish and German of children from balanced home environments with the OPOL pattern or a consistent use of both languages was, with M=32 (OPOL) and M=36 (both languages), already much higher. The ANOVA showed with respect to age as a covariate, significant differences between parental exposure patterns and naming task results in German, F(5,91) =3.25,p=.010,and in Turkish,F(5,91)=3.13,p=.012,and .46,SD=21.51). We checked the results for socioeconomic status and did not find any correlations, with one exception: the higher the ISEI value of the profession of the fathers, the more likely the German vocabulary scores would be dominant r=.292, p=.035.

Discussion

The first main result on a descriptive level was that although balanced vocabulary scores were not the norm, they were not particularly rare either, especially for young participants. The second finding showed a steady shift towards dominance of the majority language, when it was also the medium of schooling, in the expressive vocabulary of children in the third grade.

Third, consistent use of Turkish in the family had a positive effect on Turkish, but no effect on German. Turkish language use with peers contributed to measurable effects in Turkish vocabulary. Fourth, we did not find any Turkish-dominant test results in our sample.

Answering our first research question, Does balance correlate with a higher level of vocabulary?, the results show that balance in itself has no positive effects on either the development of vocabulary in individual languages or the development of overall vocabulary.

In the present sample, balance was associated with low vocabulary test results in both languages and in the TV scores (TV and TCV). With respect to our second research question, which asked if a balance of use of two languages correlates with balanced proficiency, the results showed that the quantity of exposure and language use in Turkish had an impact on the degree of dominance in German because more Turkish exposure corresponded with a lesser extent of dominance in German. Exposure does not have a categorical but a modifying effect on proficiency balance; that is, it amplifies or weakens dominance: the more German dominates language use in the family, the bigger the difference between the scores in German and Turkish of the children and the stronger the German dominance.

These results confirmed the distributions of balance and dominance found in preschoolers [START_REF] Schmeißer | Related but different: the two concepts of language dominance and language proficiency[END_REF] and the benefit of Turkish use at home for Turkish proficiency [START_REF] Yağmur | Language use, choice, maintenance and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish speakers in France: Intergenerational differences[END_REF]. The correlational results, which showed that vocabulary size in German is largely independent from language choice and language balance in the family, whereas Turkish vocabulary can profit from more use of Turkish, are an argument in support of Turkish language use at home. This has been found in other studies, but has also been contradicted, for example, in PISA studies [START_REF] Prenzel | PISA 2006 in Deutschland. Die Kompetenzen der Jugendlichen im dritten Ländervergleich[END_REF]. With respect to qualitative interests beyond quantitative facts, we interpret this finding to mean that, in the long term, it is not only families that can guarantee bilingualism; rather, qualitatively meaningful and structured educative measures are also necessary to maintain multilingualism. Even if Turkish-dominant language use at home is the most frequent pattern, followed by balanced use, the impact of the environment and of the school is very strong and leads to a dominant vocabulary in German. Furthermore, we want to propose how test results should be interpreted in light of multicompetent language use [START_REF] Cook | Evidence for multicompetence[END_REF][START_REF] Jessner | Multicompetence approaches to language proficiency development in multilingual education[END_REF]. It has been proposed that multilingual children use their languages particularly efficiently, including high language reflection potential, transfer, and borrowing. This has been confirmed, for example, through observation studies [START_REF] Cook | Evidence for multicompetence[END_REF]. However, educational institutional practices are, apart from explicit multilingual institutions, mostly focused on the exclusive or predominant use of the majority language as the medium of instruction.

Consequently, the current language practice in institutions produces and reinforces dominance in the majority language.

On the other hand, children adapt their vocabulary to their language needs and their pragmatic options in an ecological way: if children or speakers in socially determined educational contexts have different options to act in one language than in other languages, and if the goals that can be achieved in a society are unequally distributed among languages, then these unequal options for action are also reflected quantitatively, for example, in the vocabulary. This dilemma can be resolved with a multilingual orientation in education policy; if children tend to develop the vocabulary they need most urgently, a multilingual education system would promote a balanced vocabulary.

In light of these results, balance should be discussed, too. Our results contradict the positive connotation associated with balance with respect to proficiency: at a low level, as found here, balance in proficiency can be considered a warning sign. It is clear that balance in language use is a fragile equilibriumin the first years of life, if the children live with the family, balance can mean that the parents divide the languages as equally as possible. If siblings are added, this equilibrium already shifts because older siblings and friends are more likely to bring exposure to the environment language. When children enter educational institutions, a new balance in language use has to be found: a reasonably well-balanced range of languages does not exist until the German-intensive mornings at school are compensated by predominantly Turkish language use in the afternoon.

To comment on our findings, we think it has to be critically questioned whether the comparison of naming tasks in different languages raises its own difficulties. It should be noted that word frequencies are not the same between languages, and societies categorise and name objects in different ways [START_REF] Pavlenko | Re-)naming the world: Word-to referent mapping in second language speakers[END_REF]. Even language use may differ between languages. On the basis of the German and Turkish corpus of the Leipzig Vocabulary Portal (University of Leipzig), however, we examined the frequency classes of Turkish and German items. For the German version, the items were between the frequency classes 7 and 18; for the Turkish items, they were between 5 and 19 of the corpora. The frequency of the items was therefore not fundamentally different in both languages. The procedure was also used with French, Turkish monolingual, and French-Turkish bilingual children [START_REF] Ertek | Développement du vocabulaire en turc et en français d'élèves bilingues franco-turcs et monolingues turcs et français âgés de 6 ans à 10 ans[END_REF]. The finding that Turkish mono-and bilingual children have particularly great difficulties in carrying out these naming tasks was repeated. It is therefore necessary to discuss which crosslinguistic test effects could limit the results. However, if a comparison between languages was intended, using the same items might be a useful, but not perfect, approach to compare between languages.

To sum up, what does balance say about vocabulary? If European societies aim to have balanced multilingual and multicompetent citizens, education systems could and should move more quickly towards using multicompetence and multilingualism in institutions of education.

  test was developed in German and Turkish versions and had 95 items (26 nouns, 23 verbs, 23 adjectives, and 23 category nouns). The items were chosen with respect to word length in syllables as indicators for phonological complexity, frequency as indicated in the Corpus 'Deutscher Wortschatz' of the Institut für Deutsche Sprache of the University of Leipzig, semantic domain according to the classification ofDornseiff, Quasthoff, and Wiegand (2004), 7

Fig. 6 :

 6 Fig. 6: Vocabulary dominance in subtracted individual values (German -Turkish) over four grades of primary school. Balanced speakers are considered those between the borders of values -15 and 15; see dotted lines. Results above andtheoreticallybelow are considered indicators for dominant speakers. The median moves towards German dominance.

Table 1 :

 1 Highest education degree in % of the sample, differentiated for mothers and fathers

		University degree Higher education	Secondary school	Without a
			entrance	degree	degree
			qualification
	Mothers	17.9	26.8	48.2	7.1
	Fathers	25	23.1	38.4	13.5
	In the whole German population, 16% have a university degree, 29.5% have a higher
	education entrance qualification, 55.6% have secondary school education, and 3.9% do not
	have a school leaving certificate.

5

Thus, the parents of the sample did not differ from the German population with respect to education level. A total of 35.7% of the mothers and 50% of the fathers passed the highest exam in Turkey and were consequently regarded firstgeneration immigrants. The learned and practiced professions of the parents expressed in values on the median of ISEI (International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status Schimpl-Neimanns, 2004) were as follows: motherslearned: 32; fatherslearned: 34;

  therefore in dominance of proficiency in German,

	Fig. 8: Proficiency in Turkish (red, HL) and German (blue, ML) depending on exposure
	patterns
	Language use with peers showed an impact, too, F(4,92)=2.66, p=.038, =.104. Children
	who met Turkish speaking peers more than once a week (M=25.00, SD=23.79) or every day
	F(5,91)=5.00, p<.001. However, this does not necessarily mean that children with dominant (M=26.06, SD=19.57) were more balanced in their vocabulary scores than children with
	German input are stronger in German; rather, they show weaker results in the Turkish mostly German speaking friends (M=35.14, SD=20.26). Regarding the impact of the language
	vocabulary test. Computing a correlation between the exposure index (ML-exposure / HL-use of the participants with peers on vocabulary, ANOVA revealed, while controlling for age
	exposure in the family) and vocabulary, while controlling for age, confirmed that children as a covariate, no impact of language use with older siblings on dominance in German,
	who have more Turkish exposure have higher scores in Turkish, r=.364, p=.007. There was F(3,93)=1.27, p=.289, =.039, but it did reveal an impact on language use with younger
	no such correlation for German, r=.138, p=.138. siblings, F(3,93)=3.54, p=.017, =.103. If participants spoke to their younger brothers and
	sisters in German, they tended to show a stronger German dominance (M=40.55, SD=16.99)
	than participants using only Turkish with younger children (M=17.16, SD=18.37), those using
	both languages with younger children (M=25.78, SD=17.69), or participants without younger
	siblings (M=27

We regard 'parents' to be those persons within the household that the child has daily contact with.

Data 2015 DeStatis https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/BildungForschungKultur/Bildungsstand/Bildungssta nd.html

We had two one-parent families in our sample; we excluded them from this calculation because the item could not be answered completely.

Language use with adults other than parents is another important approach, but we did not receive reliable answers from the childrensome children mentioned all their relatives, even if they met them only occasionally during holidays, whereas other children were very selective in their answers; consequently, we excluded these data from the analysis.

Acknowledgments

Our warm thanks go to Barbara Graßer for the direction of the project and to Burcu Gökçay, Bilge Mermertaş, and Lilia Tschudinovski for the testing. We are very grateful to Janet

McLaughlin and Ana Maria Iglesias for their helpful comments.

Declaration of interest statement

The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organisation or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers' bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or nonfinancial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Appendix


Reservoir E Dobrica
email: edobrica@unm.edu

R C Ogliore

C Engrand

K Nagashima

A J Brearley

OXYGEN ISOTOPE SYSTEMATICS OF MAGNETITE IN HYDRATED ANTARCTIC MICROMETE-ORITES: NEW

Introduction: Secondary phases in hydrated Antarctic micrometeorites (AMMs) will show an oxygen isotopic signature from their likely formation by aqueous processes, in either a comet or asteroid parent body. Asteroidal water may be distinguishable from cometary water in its oxygen isotopic composition. The oxygen isotopic composition of water in asteroidal-derived hydrated AMMs should be close to Δ 17 O ~ 0 if their parent body is carbonaceous chondrite (CC)-like (similar to the hydrated interplanetary dust particles (IDPs) measured so far [1]) or Δ 17 O ~ +6.6‰ if their parent body is ordinary chondrite (OC)-like [e.g. [2][3][4]. Any hydrated AMMs with significantly different Δ 17 O values would be evidence that these particles formed from non-asteroidal water. If Jupiterfamily comets (JFCs) accreted outer nebular water, the O composition of their secondary minerals could be similar to the cosmic symplectites (COSs) from Acfer 094 [5][6].

Here we present the mineralogy and oxygen isotope compositions of magnetite grains and a magnetitedolomite assemblage that were identified in five AMMs. The purpose of these measurements is to investigate the diversity of the water reservoir from which hydrated AMMs formed and the temperature at which these minerals co-precipitated.

Methods: Secondary ion mass spectrometer (SIMS) analyses was carried out using the Cameca ims-1280 ion microprobe. We used a ~25 pA Cs + primary beam focused to ~2 µm with total impact energy of 20 keV. Masses 16 O -, 17 O -, and 18 O -were measured simultaneously in multicollection mode on a Faraday cup and two electron multipliers, respectively. We made sure we cleanly measured the desired phase by later imaging of the analyzed grains by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). We corrected 16 OH interference contribution onto 17 O (< 0.5‰).

Detailed SEM studies were performed on five polished sections using a FEI Quanta 3D field emission gun (FEG) SEM/FIB operating at 30 kV. Eight transmission electron microscopy (TEM) sections of a selected region containing magnetite with different morphologies were prepared using the FIB technique with a FEI Quanta 3D Dualbeam® FIB. Bright and darkfield TEM images and quantitative EDS X-ray analyses were carried out at 200 kV on a JEOL 2010F FEG TEM/Scanning TEM (STEM).

Results: Five unmelted AMMs (99-12-45, 94-4B-21, 03-26-59, 03-36-46, and 07-13-01, Fig. 1) were analyzed in this study. The first 2 samples were collected from blue ice fields at Cap-Prudhomme [7] and the last 3 from the pristine CONCORDIA snow in 2002 and 2006 [8]. Sample 07-13-01 is a fragment of a larger micrometeorite. The rest are whole particles collected from ice or snow. The AMMs vary in size from 25 x 50 µm (particle 07-13-01) to 100 x 200 µm (particle 94-4B-21).

SEM imaging of the five polished sections analyzed in this study show the presence of magnetite embedded in a fine-grained, fibrous material. An enstatite (En 88 ) of ~15 µm in length was identified in the sample 07-13-01 (Fig. 1d). Magnetite was identified in all particles and has four different morphologies (plaquettes, framboidal, spherulite, anhedral) up to 7 µm in size (Fig. 2). Additionally, we identified a magnetite-dolomite assemblage in 03-36-46 (Fig. 1f).

The TEM study show that the magnetite is associated to phyllosilicates in three of the samples analyzed, except 07-13-01. Sample 07-13-01 was heated during the atmospheric entry as evidenced by the presence of vesicles, which are commonly formed upon melt devolatilization during atmospheric entry. Other signs of heating during the atmospheric entry are observed in the sample 94-4B-21, which shows the presence of a continuous <1 µm-thick magnetite rim (made during atmospheric entry) in one of the FIB sections.

The Δ 17 O values of magnetites in the AMMs range from 1.3‰ to 4.2‰ (Fig. 3). The magnetite δ 18 O values span a range of ~30‰, much larger than those of analytical artifact [9]. Generally, the magnetites measured show a large range within individual AMMs. For example, the magnetite measured in the sample 94-4B-21 spans the largest range in δ 18 O: -9.8‰ to +17.4‰. We measured the magnetite-dolomite assemblage to be differ by 18+/-3‰ (2𝜎) in δ 18 O.

Discussion: The oxygen isotopic compositions and the morphologies of the magnetites analyzed in this study show that they are formed during precipitation processes from a gel-like phase during aqueous alteration of the planetesimals [10]. Their O isotopic compositions indicate that the water reservoir from which hydrated AMMs formed is intermediary between CCs and OCs, and that the particles were not modified during the atmospheric entry heating [11]. The δ 18 O val-

2666.pdf 49th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference 2018 (LPI Contrib. No. 2083)

ues of magnetites in AMM 94-4B-21 show a ~27‰ mass-dependent spread in a single 100 x 200 µm particle. This spread is 4 times larger than that for δ 18 O values of all magnetites measured in the CR chondrite Renazzo [2] that is in turn orders of magnitude larger in size. It has been suggested that the mass-dependent spread in O isotopes measured in CR indicates changes in fluid temperature and/or composition during magnetite formation [2]. The large heterogeneity of the oxygen isotopic composition could indicate that there was a localized control on the fluid composition. If we assume that the magnetite and dolomite formed in equilibrium, the relative equilibrium Oisotope fractionation between dolomite and magnetite can be used to extract the temperature at which these minerals co-precipitated [e.g. 2]. The δ 18 O difference between carbonate and magnetite in the magnetitedolomite assemblage in 03-36-46 is 18‰, corresponding to the precipitation temperature between 160 and 280°C (100-200°C warmer than a calcite-magnetite assemblage from the CR2 chondrite, Al Rais [2]).

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Secondary (a) and backscattered electron (b-f) images showing the AMMs studied. Framboidal magnetite was identified in all five particles. Additionally, plaquettes, spherulite and anhedral magnetite are present in particles 94-4B-21 (c) and 07-13-01 (d). e) Particle 03-36-46 contains a magnetite-dolomite assemblage (details of the white square in 1f). S = sulfide, mt = magnetite, do = dolomite, En = enstatite.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Dark-field STEM images of the different morphologies of magnetites identified in the AMMs studied (a -framboidal, b -plaquettes, and c -anhedral). Conclusion: Our measurements indicate that the parent-bodies of hydrated AMMs sampled a different water reservoir than the parent bodies of OCs and CCs. Recently, similar results were obtained by the IR and Raman measurements of hydrated AMMs, indicating that the AMMs sampled parent bodies different from CR and CM chondrites [12].

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Comparisons between Δ 17 O values and δ 18 O values of the magnetite from the five AMMs (this work) and one dolomite (03-36-46*, aquamarine circle), OCs (grey squares), and CCs (CO, CR, CV in grey signs [e.g. 2-3] and CM, CI black signs [13]). Framboidal magnetites (*blue circles) measured in the same particle 94-4B-21 have higher average δ 18 O (avg. 1.9‰) than the anhedral magnetites (**yellow circles, δ 18 O = avg. -3.3‰).

Acknowledgements: This work was funded by NASA grant NNH16ZDA001N to E. Dobrica (PI).