Rawan Charefeddine

Thomas Castelain
email: thomas.castelain@udg.edu

Jean-Baptiste Van Der Henst

The association of power and gender in maya children 1 When Maya children do not see power as more masculine: evidence from selfperception and gender-power association tasks

Keywords: Dominance, Gender, Self-perception, Maya, Preschoolers

Recent research has shown that by the age of 4, preschool children tend to associate social power with the male gender. The present study examined this association with a group of children from a Maya community in Guatemala, where gender inequalities are high, and tested the prediction that a strong gender hierarchy reduces girls' perception of themselves as being dominant in dyadic power situations. However, contrary to our predictions, we did not find that children associated power with the male gender. In Experiment 1, we asked 4 to 7 years-old children (N = 70) to identify themselves with a dominant or subordinate character in same-gender and mixed-gender relationships. In contrast, to what was previously observed with French children, the results showed no significant difference between male and female participants, both of whom strongly identified with the dominant character. In Experiment 2, we asked 4 to 6 years-old participants (N = 70) to assign a gender to a dominant and subordinate character and found a strong own-gender effect, with all participants, males and females, assigning their own gender to the powerful character. Again, this contrasts with previous findings indicating that children from France, Norway and Lebanon did consistently associate power with the male gender. The absence of a male-power association in Maya children is discussed in terms of cultural differences regarding exposure to gender stereotypes, power values and representations of female-male comparisons.

When Maya children do not see power as more masculine: evidence from selfperception and gender-power association tasks

In most human groups, the gender distinction is grounded on a system of social hierarchy that tends to guarantee more resources and more power roles to men than to women. Psychological stereotypes that attribute a higher status to men than to women tend to legitimize this asymmetry and thus contribute, along with structural factors, to the maintenance of this system [START_REF] Eagly | Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Ridgeway | Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world[END_REF][START_REF] Rudman | Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders[END_REF]. The influence of gender hierarchy norms on gender representations is evident from early childhood. Preschoolers are already aware of the hierarchical connotations of their gender groups, which is likely to influence their self-perception in mixed-gender interactions. For example, in such contexts, preschool girls see themselves as less dominant than boys [START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Associate Power with Gender in Male-Female Interactions: A Cross-Cultural Investigation[END_REF], and with age the internalization of status differences between genders seems to lead girls to ask for fewer resources from a male evaluator than from a female evaluator in a negotiation game [START_REF] Arnold | Children Show a Gender Gap in Negotiation[END_REF]. Although gender hierarchies are a ubiquitous phenomenon, they are more or less pronounced depending on cultures. Given that cultures partly influence early gender stereotypes [START_REF] Williams | Measuring sex stereotypes. A thirty-nation study[END_REF], the question arises as to whether culture influences children's conceptions of gender hierarchies. The aim of the present study was to examine whether children's self-concepts and gender stereotypes in a more gender differentiated culture, such as the Maya community in Guatemala, reflect the male power norm even more strongly than in Western cultures.

Early conceptions of gender and social hierarchies

From the earliest age, both gender and hierarchy are fundamental characteristics of the environment that profoundly shape social life and the way others are perceived (Gender: [START_REF] Halim | Gender attitudes in early childhood: Behavioral consequences and cognitive antecedents[END_REF][START_REF] Maccoby | Perspectives on gender development[END_REF][START_REF] Martin | Social cognition on the playground: Children's beliefs about playing with girls versus boys and their relations to sex segregated play[END_REF]Hierarchy: Sluckin & Smith, 1977;[START_REF] Edelman | Dominance hierarchies in young children[END_REF]. Even before the age of 1, infants can differentiate individuals based on their gender [START_REF] Quinn | Face processing in infancy and beyond: The case of social categories[END_REF] and dominance status [START_REF] Pun | Foundations of Reasoning About Social Dominance[END_REF]. At preschool age, children demonstrate a fairly rich understanding of these two concepts. From the age of 3-4, when they are explicitly asked "Who's the boss?" or "Who's in charge?", they interpret differences in size, age, body posture, resources or facial features as cues to power [START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Use Cues of Dominance to Make Sense of The association of power and gender in maya children 26 Their Social Environment[END_REF][START_REF] Enright | Children's Understanding and Use of Four Dimensions of Social Status[END_REF]Lourenço et al., 2016;[START_REF] Terrizzi | Children's developing judgments about the physical manifestations of power[END_REF].

In more interactional contexts, preschoolers also designate the power-holder as the individual who imposes their preferences, sets standards, grants permissions, physically dominates another, or the one who is imitated [START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Use Cues of Dominance to Make Sense of The association of power and gender in maya children 26 Their Social Environment[END_REF][START_REF] Gülgöz | Who's the boss? Concepts of social power across development[END_REF][START_REF] Over | Children infer affiliative and status relations from watching others imitate[END_REF].

Regarding gender, research has shown that at 2-3-year-old children categorize individuals according to their gender, and acquire gender stereotypes for items and activities (Kuhn et al., 1078). Knowledge of gender stereotypes about appearance, toys and activities peaks in preschool years [START_REF] Martin | Patterns of gender development[END_REF]. Moreover, children use gender labels before the age of 2 [START_REF] Zosuls | The acquisition of gender labels in infancy: Implications for gender-typed play[END_REF]. When children begin to think that they have an immutable gender identity, they strive to align their preferences, behaviors and social attitudes with gender stereotypes [START_REF] Aubry | The role of gender knowledge in children's gender-typed preferences[END_REF][START_REF] Halim | Gender attitudes in early childhood: Behavioral consequences and cognitive antecedents[END_REF][START_REF] Ruble | Gender Development[END_REF][START_REF] Liben | The Developmental Course of Gender Differentiation: Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Constructs and Pathways[END_REF][START_REF] Yee | The development of gender differentiation in young children[END_REF]). Children's self-perception -characterized by their assessment of their own abilities in various areas (academic, sporting, social relationships, physical appearance), their motivation to engage in tasks requiring certain skills and their general sense of self-esteem [START_REF] Harter | The development of self-representations during childhood and adolescence[END_REF] -also reflects gender stereotypes [START_REF] Martin | A developmental perspective of self-construals and sex differences: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997)[END_REF][START_REF] Wilgenbusch | Gender differences in self-concept among children and adolescents: A meta-analysis of multidimensional studies[END_REF]. For example, in elementary school, girls

The association of power and gender in maya children 6 develop a self-perception more oriented towards close friendships than boys, while boys see themselves as more athletic and less anxious than girls [START_REF] Wilgenbusch | Gender differences in self-concept among children and adolescents: A meta-analysis of multidimensional studies[END_REF].

A recent contribution on this matter is the work by [START_REF] Bian | Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children's interests[END_REF].

In some of their experiments, they asked participants aged between 5-to 7-year-old to indicate to what extent they would be interested in a novel game "for children who are really, really smart". At the age of 5, girls were just as interested in such a game as boys, but by the age of 6-7 their interest diminished in comparison with boys. Importantly, the authors found that the 'male = brilliance' stereotype, which emerged at 6, mediated this effect. Similarly, studies with Western adult populations show that men's and women's self-perceptions diverge in ways coherent with gender stereotypes of independent, dominant male and dependent, other-oriented female [START_REF] Fiske | A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition[END_REF][START_REF] Josephs | Gender and self-esteem[END_REF][START_REF] Cross | Models of the self: Self-construals and gender[END_REF]Markus & Oyserman, 1987;[START_REF] Guimond | Social comparison, self-stereotyping, and gender differences in self-construals[END_REF].

Developmental origins of male power expectations

Regarding the perception of gender hierarchy, a key question is then to identify when children begin to form stereotypes of male power and whether they integrate this stereotype into their self-perception. While gender hierarchies based on occupations or general positions of men and women in the society began to be captured at school age [START_REF] Liben | Pink and blue collar jobs: Children's judgments of job status and job aspirations in relation to sex of worker[END_REF][START_REF] Neff | Children's and adolescents' developing perceptions of gender inequality[END_REF][START_REF] Weisgram | Gender, values, and occupational interests among children, adolescents, and adults[END_REF], recent research has shown that in concrete interactions, even preschoolers believe that male figures are endowed with more power than female figures. For instance, in one of their experiments, [START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Associate Power with Gender in Male-Female Interactions: A Cross-Cultural Investigation[END_REF] presented preschoolers with two non-gendered interacting characters who displayed a dominance or a submission body posture (Experiment 1; see also Figure 1). By age 4, a majority of children estimated that the dominant character was more likely to be a boy than a girl. This result was observed for both female and male participants but also in countries that differed in terms of gender inequality (i.e., Norway, France and Lebanon).

However, an influence of the participant's gender was observed in tasks highlighting the gender of the characters used as stimuli (i.e., a female vs. a male), unlike tasks using nongendered characters. For instance, when 4-5-year-old-children from Lebanon and France had to guess who between a male puppet and a female puppet imposed their will on the other, and who was endowed with more money, about 70% of boy participants in both countries considered that it was the male puppet, while girl participants were at chance (Charafeddine et al., 2020, Experiment 3). Likewise, using a vertical rope to symbolize status, Mandalaywala et al. (2020) observed that U.S. boys (3.5-6.9 y.o.) believed that a boy character was more likely to access more resources and hold decision-making power than a girl character, while U.S. girls were at chance. A similar finding was also reported with Indian children (5-10 y.o.) in an election prediction task, and in a task requesting to draw a leader [START_REF] Santhanagopalan | Leadership, gender, and colorism: Children in India use social category information to guide leadership cognition[END_REF].

These studies show that, overall, children attribute more power to males than to females, but in some tasks, girls are less likely to do so than boys. This gender difference indicates that children exhibit an own-gender preference leading them to attribute more power to their gender group [START_REF] Bian | Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children's interests[END_REF][START_REF] Halim | From pink frilly dresses to 'one of the boys': A social-cognitive analysis of gender identity development and gender bias[END_REF][START_REF] Powlishta | Gender, ethnic, and body type biases: The generality of prejudice in childhood[END_REF][START_REF] Yee | The development of gender differentiation in young children[END_REF][START_REF] Zosuls | It's not that we hate you': Understanding children's gender attitudes and expectancies about peer relationships[END_REF] but also suggests that this preference interacts with their representation of gendered power. In particular, the representation of the male power norm and the own-gender preference act in the same direction in the case of boys, leading to a high level of male-power association, but in opposite directions in the case of girls, resulting in a lower level of male-power association. These results invite us to question the way in which children's representations of power affect their own self-perception according to their gender, in other words, how boys and girls perceive themselves in gendered situations of power.

The association of power and gender in maya children 8

Self-perception in power situations

A common observation is that children, at least in Western countries, show a positivity (self-enhancement) bias when evaluating their cognitive and social skills [START_REF] Boseovski | Evidence for "rose-colored glasses" : An examination of the positivity bias in young children's personality judgments[END_REF][START_REF] Harter | The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children[END_REF][START_REF] Stipek | Developmental change in children's assessment of intellectual competence[END_REF]. This bias has been also found in the case of power and status. Indeed, early developmental studies on the perception of dominance showed that children from kindergarten tend to overestimate their status when they answer questions such as "Who is tougher between You and X (a classmate)?" [START_REF] Edelman | Dominance hierarchies in young children[END_REF][START_REF] Sluckin | Two approaches to the concept of dominance in preschool children[END_REF][START_REF] Strayer | The perception of preschool social dominance[END_REF]. More recently, in a study in which children (3.5-6.9 y.o.) were asked to indicate their social position on a vertical rope symbolizing status, both girls and boys placed themselves at the top of the rope (highest status position; Mandalaywala & Rhodes, 2020). Likewise, Santhangolapan et al. (2022) reported that both girls and boys (5-10 y.o.) prefer holding a leadership position (i.e., President) than a position with less leadership (i.e., Treasurer, Welcomer, Notetaker; see also Mandalaywala & Rhodes, 2020). Finally, Charafeddine et al. (2020, Experiment 2) observed that when French children (4-5 y.o.) were fictionally placed in same-gender dyadic relationships, both girls and boys view themselves as dominant rather than subordinate.

However, the tendency to perceive oneself as having a high-power position also depends on culture and on the gender of the interactants. Indeed, [START_REF] Charafeddine | Cross-cultural differences in the valuing of dominance by young children[END_REF] reported that contrary to French children, Japanese children overall showed no preference to identify more with the dominant than with the subordinate character. Moreover, when French children were placed in mixed-gender dyadic relationships, girls self-enhanced to a lower extent than did boys (Charafeddine et al., 2020, Experiment 2). In particular, when girls imagined they were interacting with a boy, they identified less with the dominant position (see Figure 1) than did boys when they imagined that they were interacting with a girl (63%

The association of power and gender in maya children 9 for girls and 87% for boys). It should also be emphasized that girls did not identify more with the subordinate character than with the dominant character. Hence, on the one hand, the results of Charafeddine et al. (2020, Experiment 1) showed that girls did consider the dominant position to be more likely that of a male, but on the other hand they did not consider that a boy would exert power over them when they imagined that they themselves were interacting with him (Experiment 2). In other words, although girls were aware of the prevalence of male power, their self-perception did not fully align with this awareness, suggesting that the self-enhancement mechanism attenuated this alignment.

However, it is important to note that these results were obtained with a group of participants from France, a Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD; country [START_REF] Henrich | The weirdest people in the world?[END_REF], where the level of gender inequality is lower than in other countries (see Gender Inequality Index -United Nations Development Program) and where individuals develop self-reliance and self-independent values [START_REF] Markus | Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation[END_REF][START_REF] Triandis | Individualism & collectivism[END_REF]. Cultural norms that encourage girls to view power as more masculine may have been counterbalanced by individualistic self-construal values. One might expect that in societies with greater gender inequality, the male power norm would more strongly affect children's self-perception related to gendered power; more specifically, girls may identify more with the subordinate character than with the dominant character while boys will identify more with the dominant character.

The current sample and the current experiments

Although previous work [START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Associate Power with Gender in Male-Female Interactions: A Cross-Cultural Investigation[END_REF][START_REF] Santhanagopalan | Leadership, gender, and colorism: Children in India use social category information to guide leadership cognition[END_REF] has investigated children's associations of gender and power in different cultural contexts, the preschooler's self-perceptions in a mixed-gender power relation has only been examined with The association of power and gender in maya children 10 French children [START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Associate Power with Gender in Male-Female Interactions: A Cross-Cultural Investigation[END_REF]. In the current work, we explore this issue with children from a Maya society, where gender inequality is striking, and where men and women have markedly different roles. We interviewed a sample of Maya children from indigenous Kaqchikel Guatemalan families. In Guatemala, the wage gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people is high and this gap is even higher in the case of women as indigenous women suffer from various employment discrimination and lower wage for the same job [START_REF] Vásquez | Ethnic and gender wage discrimination in Guatemala[END_REF]. At a general level, Guatemalan women also face a high level of daily violence and have little political power [START_REF] Menjívar | Violence and women's lives in Eastern Guatemala: A conceptual Framework[END_REF][START_REF] Ogrodnik | Women under attack: Violence and poverty in Guatemala[END_REF].

Gender inequality is also salient in terms of education. In 2014, female literacy was about 10% lower than male literacy among adults (World Bank, see [START_REF] Tarallo | Gender Inequality in Guatemala: Why Girls Receive Less Education Than Boys[END_REF]. Although the gender gap in school enrollment has significantly narrowed [START_REF] Tarallo | Gender Inequality in Guatemala: Why Girls Receive Less Education Than Boys[END_REF], indigenous girls are the least likely to enroll in school and when they do, they do so at a later age than boys [START_REF] Hallman | Multiple disadvantages of Mayan females: The effects of gender, ethnicity, poverty, and residence on education in Guatemala[END_REF].

The children who participated in this study were all from Kaqchikel indigenous families living in three villages around the Lake Atitlan in the department of Sololá, Guatemala (see [START_REF] Castelain | The influence of power and reason on young Maya children's endorsement of testimony[END_REF] for an example of another study with the same population). In these villages, the majority of the population is illiterate (INE, 2002). At the age of 4, children start gender-mixed pre-school where they participate in educational activities for approximately four hours a day (UNDP, 2005). The experiments described below required the participation of almost all the residents in the relevant age-group. The limited sample size available affected data collection in two ways. First, in Experiment 1 on self-concepts we had to assign more participants to one of the experimental conditions than to the other. We gave priority to the condition in which mixed-gender dyadic power relations were presented. Second, in Experiment 2, we had no choice but to recruit participants who had already participated in Experiment 1 in order to have a satisfactory sample size. This was the case for 49% of the children who participated in Experiment 2. Note that Experiment 2 was run 2 weeks after Experiment 1 and that the data were collected in August/September 2014.

Experiment 1

Method

Participants. Seventy children aged 4 to 7 years-old (Mage = 72.5 months, SD = 10.12; 33 girls and 37 boys) from indigenous Kaqchikel families took part in this experiment.

Most of them also participated in Castelain et al.'s study [START_REF] Castelain | The influence of power and reason on young Maya children's endorsement of testimony[END_REF] dedicated to the development of epistemic vigilance. Participants were recruited in their schools with the approval of the principals, the teachers and the parents.

Materials and procedure. The experiment took place in the school of each village and was conducted in Kaqchikel, the children's native language, by two women from the community who were recruited and trained by one of the authors. Each child was interviewed individually in a quiet room for about 5 minutes. Translation of the material and instructions from Spanish to Kaqchikel was done by one of the experimenters, the back-translation by the other experimenter. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion with one of the authors.

There are many ways to implement power relations in tasks presented to children and some cues to power may be easier to grasp for young preschoolers (e.g., [START_REF] Gülgöz | Who's the boss? Concepts of social power across development[END_REF]. In the study by [START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Associate Power with Gender in Male-Female Interactions: A Cross-Cultural Investigation[END_REF], children aged 3-4 from three countries (i.e., Lebanon, Norway and France) readily associated a dominance body posture with power statements (see also [START_REF] Charafeddine | Cross-cultural differences in the valuing of dominance by young children[END_REF] for a sample of Japanese children).

Other work has also shown that 4-year-old preschoolers use postures to infer power status [START_REF] Terrizzi | Children's developing judgments about the physical manifestations of power[END_REF] and that children rely more on postures than on other socially relevant cues such as skin color [START_REF] Dukler | Children use race to infer who is "in charge[END_REF]. We thus decided to use postures as stimuli.

The experiment was adapted from Charafeddine et al.'s (2020) Experiment 2 and involved two stages, a power comprehension stage and a self-identification stage. Children were presented with a drawing of two non-gendered characters interacting with each other, one displaying a dominance posture and the other a submission posture (see Figure 1). Then, the experimenter said "Look, there are two children playing together. We are going to listen to them" [Original statement in Kaqchikel: Tatz'ita', chiri', jek'o' je ka'e' ak'ala' yetetz'an. And the (other) boy (girl) where is s/he?" [Tak'utu' chinuwach, ¿chika jat k'uwa rat? In jun ta (ti) ala' (xtan) chik, ¿chika k'uwa'?]. The order in which the participant ("you") and the other child were mentioned was counterbalanced across participants. The material was presented on a binder while the experimenter told the story and asked the questions.

To ensure that self-perception as a male or female is comparable to that of western children, we also asked three gender stability questions (adapted from [START_REF] Slaby | Development of Gender Constancy and Selective Attention to Same-Sex Models[END_REF] As reported in other cultural contexts, in the same-gender condition, we expected that girls and boys would equally identify with the dominant character. However, in the mixedgender condition, we would expect in this specific population a difference between boys and girls, girls identifying themselves more with the subordinate character.

Results

A total of 63 out of 70 children correctly matched the dominance posture with the power statement and the submission posture with the subordination statement (90%, p < .001, 95% CI [82.92, 97.08]). A linear regression analysis revealed that this proportion did not significantly differ according to children's age (F(1, 68) = 0.320, p = .573). No significant difference in gender was found (χ 2 (1, 70) = 0.269, p = .604). The seven participants who answered inaccurately both dominance questions were excluded from the following analyses.

Thus, the final sample was composed of 22 participants in the same-gender condition and 41 participants in the mixed-gender condition.

In the same-gender condition, children identified more with the dominant than with the subordinate character (18 out of 22, 81.82%, p < .01, 95% CI [61.80,98.20]). This effect was found both for girls (9 out 11, 81.82%, p < .05, 95% CI [54.64, 100]) and boys (9 out 11, 81.82%, p < .05, 95% CI [54.64,100]). In the mixed-gender condition, children identified more with the dominant than with the subordinate character (37 out of 41, 90.24%, p < .001, 95% CI [81.05,99.43]). This effect was found both for girls (17 out of 20, 85%, p < .01, 95% CI [67.86,100]) and boys (20 out of 21, 95.24%, p < .001, 95% CI [85.30,100]). No significant difference between girls and boys was found (χ 2 (1, 41) = 1.220, p = .269). A linear

The association of power and gender in maya children 15 regression analysis revealed no effect of age on the identification to the dominant overall, F(1, 61) = .001, p = .974, neither in the same-gender (F(1, 20) = .031, p = .863) nor the mixed-gender (F(1, 39) = .050, p = .824) conditions.

Finally, 100% of the children responded to the three stability questions in a manner consistent with a stable representation of gender, a result that is in line with what is commonly observed in Western populations [START_REF] Slaby | Development of Gender Constancy and Selective Attention to Same-Sex Models[END_REF].

Discussion

The results of Experiment 1 showed that children shared intuitions about power and gender identity that are consistent with what has been reported in the literature. Indeed, a large majority of Maya preschoolers associated the dominance body posture with power and the submission posture with a lack of power, a finding that has also been reported with French, American, Norwegian, Lebanese and Japanese preschoolers [START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Use Cues of Dominance to Make Sense of The association of power and gender in maya children 26 Their Social Environment[END_REF][START_REF] Tarallo | Gender Inequality in Guatemala: Why Girls Receive Less Education Than Boys[END_REF]2020;[START_REF] Terrizzi | Children's developing judgments about the physical manifestations of power[END_REF]. Consistent with previous research, Maya children considered their gender identity to remain stable over time. Moreover, the self-identification task indicated that participants perceived themselves as the dominant individual in the dyad, consistent with the self-enhancement bias in the context of a power relationship.

However, contrary to our prediction, girls did not identify more with the subordinate character than with the dominant one in the mixed-gender condition. Despite the high degree of gender inequality in their cultural environment, they were not significantly less likely than boys to show a self-enhancement bias, and thus largely identified with the dominant character. This finding differs from what was previously observed with French girls who were less likely than boys to identify themselves with the dominant character in the mixedgender condition [START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Associate Power with Gender in Male-Female Interactions: A Cross-Cultural Investigation[END_REF]. Initially, our line of reasoning was that the male-power association, which has been previously reported in the literature, would have prevailed over the self-enhancement bias in a culture where gender inequality is high. Hence, Maya girls would have identified more with the subordinate character than with the dominant one. However, a simple, although unanticipated, reason why this result has not been observed could be that, in contrast with French, Norwegian and Lebanese girls, Maya girls did not view power, expressed in Experiment 1, to be more exerted by a male than by a female. To examine this issue, Experiment 2 investigated whether Maya children expected the dominant individual to be a male in a gender-power association task. If the male-power association is also present among Maya girls, this would mean that their gendered representations of power did not influence their self-perception in Experiment 1. If the male-power association is not found, this would suggest that only self-enhancement mechanisms operated in Experiment 1. In addition, it would also show that Maya girls differ from Lebanese, Norwegian and French girls [START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Associate Power with Gender in Male-Female Interactions: A Cross-Cultural Investigation[END_REF]. Materials and procedure. First, children saw the same picture as in Experiment 1 and had to associate the postures of the characters with the power and subordination statements, following the same procedure and verbatim as described in Experiment 1.

Second, participants were told that in the picture there was a girl and a boy: "Now, in that picture, imagine that there is a boy and a girl." [Wikame', chupan jun ti achib'al ri', tab'ana' imaginar ke k'o jun ta ala' in jun ti xtan chick.]. Then the experimenter asked the children: "Show me, where is the boy?" [Tak'utu' chinuwach, ¿chika k'uwa ri ta ala'?] "And the girl, where is she?" [In ti xtan, ¿chika k'uwa'?]. Their task consisted in indicating which one was the boy and which one was the girl by pointing to the character depicting a dominance or submission posture. The order in which the boy and the girl were mentioned and the order of the questions were counterbalanced across participants. The material was presented on a binder while the experimenter told the story and asked the questions.

Results

A total of 69 out of 70 children correctly associated postures with power and subordination statements (98.57%, p < .001, 95% CI [95.77,100]). A linear regression analysis revealed that this proportion did not significantly differ according to children's age (F(1, 68) = 0.346, p = .558). No significant difference in gender was found (χ 2 (1, 70) = 0.269, p = .604). The only participant who answered incorrectly the dominance and subordination questions was excluded from the following analyses.

The analysis of the gender assignment revealed that the male-power association was at chance level (32 out of 69, 46.38%, p = .630, 95% CI [34.61,58.15]). This proportion did not significantly differ as a function of children's age, F(1, 67) = 1.04, p = .311. However, there was a strong difference between boys and girls as all the boys (100%, p < .001) and none of the girls (0%, p < .001) associated the dominant character with the male gender (Fisher's exact test, p < .001) revealing a strong own-gender bias.

Discussion

The current experiment did not show a clear male-power association. In fact, both boys and girls associated the dominant character with their own gender. The own-gender bias among Maya girls contrasted with the results found with [START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Associate Power with Gender in Male-Female Interactions: A Cross-Cultural Investigation[END_REF] where about 70% of girls from Lebanon, Norway and France associated the dominant character with the male gender. Here, none of them did so. This obviously sheds light on the results of Experiment 1 as the absence of male-power association and the strong own-gender bias might have largely led girls to identify with the dominant character. We will come back to this issue in the General Discussion.

General discussion

The initial goal of the current study was to examine how the gender of children from a rural, patriarchal, non-Western culture influence their identification to power figures. Given the high level of gender inequality in the Guatemalan Maya society, we expected children to internalize male power so that girls would identify more with the subordinate position and boys with the dominant position. The results of Experiment 1 contradicted this prediction, as girls largely identified with the dominant position, and no significant difference was observed between girls and boys. This prediction was made on the assumption that, overall, Maya children did believe that males were more likely to exert power over females than vice versa. However, this assumption was not confirmed, as in Experiment 2 all the boys judged the dominant character to be a boy and all the girls judged the dominant character to be a girl.

The results of these two experiments differ from previous findings on the early representations of power in other populations of children. First, when a mixed-gender condition of a self-identification task was presented to French children, boys largely identified with the dominant character while girls were at chance [START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Associate Power with Gender in Male-Female Interactions: A Cross-Cultural Investigation[END_REF].

Second, the most striking difference with previous studies is the one we found between the results of Experiment 2 and those reported with Norwegian, Lebanese and French children in Charafeddine et al.'s study (2020, Experiment 1). In these three groups, a significant majority of girls and boys associated the dominance posture with a male character. None of the Maya girls did so. This is paradoxical considering that Norway is one of the countries with the lowest gender inequality and that Maya society is patriarchal and imbued with gender roles.

In other populations of preschoolers, such own-gender bias is typically observed for other stereotypes such as niceness and brilliance [START_REF] Bian | Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children's interests[END_REF] and in other types of situations such as trust, decision making and partner choice [START_REF] Shutts | Young children's preferences: Gender, race, and social status[END_REF]. What is striking here is that it occurs in a situation where it usually does not appear. Even in tasks where girls attribute less status to male characters than do boys, they do not however attribute more status to female than to male characters (Charafeddine et al., 2020, Experiment 3;Mandalaywala et al., 2020;[START_REF] Santhanagopalan | Leadership, gender, and colorism: Children in India use social category information to guide leadership cognition[END_REF]).

The difference with past studies is probably not due to a lack of understanding of the concepts involved in the task. First, Maya children answered the gender stability questions in a way consistent with children from other populations. Second, Maya children perfectly associated dominance and submission postures with their corresponding statements, and in another study, they considered also the character who prevails in a conflict to be the boss [START_REF] Castelain | The influence of power and reason on young Maya children's endorsement of testimony[END_REF]. Third, by associating power holding with elements relevant to themselves, namely their own identity (Experiment 1) or their own gender (Experiment 2), children have assigned a positive valence to power.

Accounting for the absence of a 'power = male' association in Maya children

If, as we just argued, the divergence between Maya preschoolers and preschoolers from other cultures is not due to differing perceptions of gender or power, how then can we explain the non-replication of previous results? In this section, we put forward several propositions, which will need to be tested in future research. The first possibility relates to the validity of our initial cultural hypothesis. We reasoned that children reared in more gender differentiated cultures would be more exposed to environmental input about the gender hierarchy in the daily interactions in which they are passively or actively engaged. However, this may be counterbalanced by the diversity of sources of information about gender roles and relations.

While the study by [START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Associate Power with Gender in Male-Female Interactions: A Cross-Cultural Investigation[END_REF] focused on urban children exposed to a range of gender role cues from television, advertising, illustrated stories and magazines, at the time of the study the Maya population had only limited access to the internet and electricity, and no libraries or bookstores. Exposure to mass media is a powerful catalyst in the formation of gender stereotypes and this media still convey simplistic gender roles in Western cultures (see for example [START_REF] Leaper | Variations in the genderstereotyped content of children's television cartoons across genres[END_REF]Perlmann, 2002 for TV and[START_REF] Spinner | Gender Stereotypes in Young Children's Magazines[END_REF]Tennenbaum, 2023 for magazines). Consequently, lack of access to mass media could explain why Maya children do not acquire stereotypes of male power as early as previous urban groups.

The second possibility emphasizes the relatively harsh living conditions of the Maya population. People who live in uncertain and difficult environments are more likely to value dominant personalities and dominant self-concepts [START_REF] Kakkar | When the appeal of a dominant leader is greater than a prestige leader[END_REF][START_REF] Safra | Childhood harshness predicts long-lasting leader preferences[END_REF][START_REF] Schwartz | Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies[END_REF]. Children are sensitive to the values prescribed by their culture and they often demonstrate self-enhancement biases on the traits that are adaptive in their environment before nuancing them according to those prescribed for their gender category. If Maya children place a higher positive value on dominance than children from

The association of power and gender in maya children 21 wealthier and safer societies, then our results may reflect higher levels of self-enhancement and own-gender bias on this dimension. In other words, the valuing of dominance among Maya girls may have delayed the emergence of the association between power and the male gender.

A third possibility is based on the proposal by [START_REF] Guimond | Culture, gender, and the self: Variations and impact of social comparison processes[END_REF] that gender differences in values and stereotypes are more pronounced in societies where people tend to engage in between-gender comparisons, as is the case in more gender equal countries. This approach relies on intergroup theory [START_REF] Tajfel | An integrative theory of intergroup conflict[END_REF] and states that the way people consider their self is not absolutely fixed and immutable, but varies according to the comparisons they make between ingroup and outgroup characteristics. In particular, when people evaluate their own traits and attributes while considering the traits and attributes of the other gender, they enter in a comparison process that leads them to stereotyping themselves further in order to better distinguish themselves from the comparison group.

According to [START_REF] Guimond | Culture, gender, and the self: Variations and impact of social comparison processes[END_REF], a cultural factor that influences between-group comparison is the Power Distance (PD; [START_REF] Hofstede | Culture and Organizations[END_REF][START_REF] Hofstede | Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations[END_REF] as high PD cultures tend to discourage comparisons between social groups. When it comes to gender, high PD cultures legitimize the gender hierarchy and do not promote interactions and comparisons between genders whereas in low PD cultures, people tend to challenge the relevance of the gender hierarchy and accept comparisons between genders [START_REF] Hofstede | Culture and Organizations[END_REF][START_REF] Hofstede | Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations[END_REF][START_REF] Sidanius | Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression[END_REF]. In their study, [START_REF] Guimond | Culture, gender, and the self: Variations and impact of social comparison processes[END_REF] asked adults to rate self-attributes in two critical conditions. In the "intragroup condition", they rated themselves on different attributes in comparison to people of their own gender, and in an "intergroup condition", they rated themselves in comparison to people of the other gender. In most cultures, the intergroup condition yielded more differences between ratings of men and women than the intragroup condition. However, the authors also showed that in Malaysia (PDI = 104), the highest PD culture according to Hofstede's criteria (https://clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-culturaldimensions/power-distance-index/), women characterized themselves as less relational and more agentic than Dutch women (PDI = 38), even in the intergroup condition.

These considerations allow a fairly straightforward interpretation of the results of Experiment 1. Indeed, in Guatemala, which ranks second on the PD dimension (just behind Malaysia), Maya children may consider gender comparisons as less relevant than French children, which may explain why, at the same age groups, they do not self-stereotype in a way coherent with the male power norm. In particular, Maya girls may have been less sensitive to the mixed gender nature of the power relation than French girls.

With regard to the results of Experiment 2, the model of [START_REF] Guimond | Culture, gender, and the self: Variations and impact of social comparison processes[END_REF] offers a less direct interpretation, as it focuses on the mechanisms of self-perception. However, the logic of between-gender comparisons may still apply at the level of stereotypes. When gender comparisons are less important, as it is the case in the high PD Maya culture, references to gender and gender comparison such as "girls are nicer than boys" or "boys are tougher than girls" are less frequent in the environment and therefore less important for self-definition.

Tenants of the developmental intergroup theory [START_REF] Bigler | A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice[END_REF]Liben & Coyle, 2018) argue that what makes the gender category such important to children is its salience in the environment. When the salience of gender is experimentally enhanced by frequent labeling of gender categories (e.g., "Good morning, boys and girls!") or by adding functional significance to these categories (e.g., boys' drawings vs. girls' drawings), then gender stereotyping increases [START_REF] Bigler | The role of classification skill in moderating environmental influences on children's gender stereotyping: A study of the functional use of gender in the classroom[END_REF]. According to this interpretation, our results suggest that gender comparisons may already influence the development of the male power stereotype.

Future work should investigate these hypotheses and propose a characterization of societies that can account for developmental differences in the formation of expectations about gender and power.

Limitations

Due to the limited number of accessible children in our target population, we had to make certain methodological choices that constrained data collection. Firstly, in Experiment 1, we included more participants in the mixed-gender condition than in the same-gender condition, as the former was the main condition of interest. Secondly, some of the children who participated in Experiment 1, also participated in Experiment 2. With regard to the first point, although the number of participants was small in the same-gender condition (Experiment 1), the results showed that participants nevertheless identified significantly with the dominant character. As for the second point, the children gave the same answers to Experiment 2, whether they had participated in Experiment 1 or not.

In addition, to better understand gendered representations of power in Maya children, the use of other types of stimuli should be considered. In the current study, we only used postures-related cues to power, in line with previous research showing that children from various countries were sensitive to such cues (Terrizi, et al., 2019;[START_REF] Charafeddine | How Preschoolers Use Cues of Dominance to Make Sense of The association of power and gender in maya children 26 Their Social Environment[END_REF][START_REF] Charafeddine | Cross-cultural differences in the valuing of dominance by young children[END_REF]. Maya children also understood these cues very well and even considered them as desirable characteristics of the self and the ingroup. However, it may be possible that these cues do not reflect how social dominance between genders is expressed in the Maya culture.

Finally, the stimuli we used involved non-gendered characters, which somehow make the gender dimension less salient. This may have blurred the distinction between male and female characters, and in particular the power differential that may be associated with them.

In a society where gender comparisons are less salient, the presentation of more explicit interactions between clearly identified male and female characters could facilitate the activation of gender-differentiated representations.

Conclusion

Studying the environmental-cultural variables that influence gendered selfperceptions in childhood, in particular those stereotypes that may undermine girls' perceptions of their abilities to hold dominant positions is an important issue. Our understanding of these mechanisms can benefit greatly from investigating how they operate in children outside of urban, Western or Westernized cultures. In this work, we originally made the simple and directional hypothesis that gender inequality of Maya society would have an impact on Maya preschool girls' self-perceptions reflecting the 'female = submissive' trait. However, this study failed to show that Maya children exhibit male power stereotypes in both the self-perception and the third-party task. It does, however, show that Maya children's self-perceptions in mixed-gender power situations (namely, 'dominant = me') are consistent with their expectations third-party (namely, 'dominant = my gender').

Similarly, French girls' inferences in the first-person task were also consistent with their stereotypical expectations of male power, as they were more reluctant to perceive themselves as dominants when they were in the mixed-gender condition (i.e., when they imagined interacting with a boy; Charafeddine et al., 2020 Experiment 2). This indirect finding is in line with the hypothesis that self-perceptions are, in some cases, a result of the application of social stereotypes to the self.

  Ye qa k'axajna' ye tzijon]. Then she approached her ear to the image and told the children what she heard: "I am the one in charge, we do everything I want!" [Jin rin yib'ano' mandar, niqab'an juntir lo que rin niwajo'!] (Power statement) and: "It is fine, I am not the one in charge." [Utz k'are', majintarin yi b'ano' mandar.] (Subordination statement). A minor difference with the Charafeddine et al.'s procedure (2020; Experiments 1-2) is that the current dialogue more explicitly assigns power status to the interacting characters: "I am the one in charge, we do everything I want!" vs. "I am not the one in charge" (instead of "You have to do everything I say! Do what I want!" vs. "Ok! I will do what you want"). In the first stage, children had to determine who was dominant and who was subordinate by associating each posture with one statement. In particular, the experimenter asked two questions: "Could you show me who said: 'I am the one in charge, we do everything I want!'" [Tak'utu' chinuwach, chikaruwach nib'in: "Jin rin yib'ano' mandar!"] and "Could you show me who said: 'It is fine, I am not the one in charge'" [In chikaruwach nib'in: "Utz k'are', majinta rin yi b'ano' mandar."]. Participants answered by pointing to the characters. The position of the characters (left vs. right), the order of statements (power vs. subordination) and the order of the questions were counterbalanced across participants. In the second stage, children had to identify themselves with the dominant or subordinate character. Twenty-four participants were assigned to the same-gender condition and 46 children to the mixed-gender condition.The experimenter told the children: "Now, in that picture imagine, that there is you and a boy (girl)[mixed-gender]/another boy (girl)[same-gender]." [Wikame', chupan jun ti achib'al ri', tab'ana' imaginar ke jat k'o, rat in jun ta (ti) ala' (xtan) chik]. "Show me, where are you?

  : 1) "When you were a baby, were you a boy, or a girl or sometimes a boy and sometimes a girl?" [Taq xatok pa ti laj nik, ¿jat ala', o jat xtan, o k'o jantaq ala' in jantaq xtan?]; 2) "When you will grow up, will you be a man, a woman or sometimes a man and sometimes a woman?" [Taq xkatok nim, ¿yatok jun achi', o jun ixoq, o jantaq achi' in jantaq ixoq?]; 3) "If you have kids when you grow up, will you be a mommy, a daddy or sometimes a mommy and sometimes a daddy?" [Wi awilk'a'al pa jun q'ij, ¿ya tok te'ej, o tatixel, o jan taq te'ej o jan taq tatixel?].

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Two characters displaying postures of dominance and submission.

  Seventy children from the same villages and aged 4 to 6 years-old (Mage = 68 months, SD = 10.03; 38 girls and 32 boys) were recruited for this experiment. Thirtyfour out of the 70 participants (48.57 %) previously took part in Experiment 1(twelve of them saw the same-gender condition in Experiment 1 and 22 the mixed-gender condition).

Acknowledgements and funding

We thank all the children who participated, the teachers and directors of the schools of Tzununá, Jaibalito, and Santa Cruz as well as Elena Simaj Mendoza and Eva Pérez, who ran the experiments. The authors are also thankful to Hugo Mercier who helped funding this research.

This work has been carried out with the support of several fellowships: Ambizione grant PZ001P1_142388/1 (from the Swiss National Science Foundation), ANR-21-CE28-


Suzan D Tokaç-Scheffer

Lyndsey Nickels

Seçkin Arslan

One suitcase, two grammars: What can we conclude about Australian Turkish heritage speakers' divergent processing of evidentiality?

Keywords: Turkish, Evidentiality, Heritage Language Speakers, Contact

This study investigated the processing of evidentiality using an auditory sentence verification task in heritage speakers of Turkish residing in Sydney, Australia. Evidentiality is a grammatical category that marks the sources of information through which the speaker comes to know information regarding an event. Turkish obligatorily marks two distinct forms of direct and indirect evidentials. We compared the sensitivity to evidentiality-information source mismatches of the speakers of Turkish as a heritage language to Turkish speakers who were late arrivals to Australia. The results showed that the heritage language speakers performed less accurately and with longer response times than late arrivals, and both the groups' response accuracy was largely predicted by amount of exposure to Turkish during their development. The data suggest that heritage speakers of Turkish show insensitivity to evidentiality. Moreover, diminishing exposure to Turkish throughout heritage speakers' development appears to be an important trigger for divergent attainment of evidentiality in Turkish heritage grammar.

Introduction

Heritage language speakers are bilingual individuals who have grown up in homes where the language spoken is not the dominant language in the community (i.e., a heritage language) 1 (Benmamoun et [START_REF] Rothman | Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages[END_REF][START_REF] Valdés | Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost or seized?[END_REF]. A heritage language is a home language, spoken mainly by the parents/family, and by the local community, but not spoken by the broader community. Heritage language speakers (HLS) often have their first contact with the majority language at school. Typically, the further heritage language speakers proceed through education and the broader their social life, the less heritage language input there is. In parallel, they increasingly master the dominant societal language, and this often ultimately becomes their preferred language for communication (see e.g., [START_REF] Benmamoun | Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics[END_REF]. As a result, adult HLS often diverge from the baseline grammar of the heritage language, reanalysing and/or restructuring grammatical forms [START_REF] Aalberse | Heritage languages: A language contact approach[END_REF]. Explanations of this divergence range from incomplete acquisition [START_REF] Montrul | Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor[END_REF] to attrition after full acquisition of heritage grammars [START_REF] Polinsky | Reanalysis in adult heritage language[END_REF] Burgeoning research on heritage languages has shown that certain grammatical structures are particularly vulnerable to such contact-induced change in heritage language conditions, one of which is the verbal inflection [START_REF] Polinsky | Understanding heritage languages[END_REF]. Several studies have shown that verbal inflectional forms for aspect/mood in heritage grammars deviate from the 1 We acknowledge that heritage language may not be the only language spoken at home by the heritage language speaker and another language could also be spoken and acquired from birth but within the scope of this study we focus on this language.

In the current study, we examined Turkish spoken as a heritage community language in Sydney, Australia with a particular focus on verbal inflection of evidentiality-grammatical marking for sources of information.

1.1.Evidentiality and Turkish as a heritage language

Evidentiality is described as a grammatical form that codifies the sources of information from which a speaker comes to know about the events uttered in proposition [START_REF] Aikhenvald | Evidentiality[END_REF].

In English, evidential meanings are mostly conveyed through optional lexical elements such as perception verbs [START_REF] Whitt | Evidentiality and perception verbs in English and German[END_REF]. However, in Turkish, expressing evidentiality is mandatory when referring to past and is encoded through inflectional morphology, meanings of which are reserved for marking sources of information (Aksu-Koç & [START_REF] Slobin | The acquisition and use of relative clauses in Turkic and Indo-European languages[END_REF][START_REF] Slobin | Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential[END_REF][START_REF] Underhill | Turkish grammar[END_REF]. The direct evidential marks the speaker's firsthand access to information via witnessing or participation (see Example 1), whereas the indirect evidential -mIş encodes that the speaker has non-firsthand access to information through forms of inference or report from another speaker (Example 2).

(1) Direct evidential Studies using experimental techniques also suggest evidentials are vulnerable in Turkish heritage grammar. For instance, Arslan, Bastiaanse, and Felser (2015), using an eyemovement monitoring while-listening methodology, examined three groups of Turkish speakers, those who were exposed to German from birth, those who learned it later in life, and Turkish monolinguals. They found that the bilingual groups had fewer accurate responses and a smaller number of target-looks in direct evidential than indirect evidential conditions. Furthermore Arslan, de Kok, and Bastiaanse (2017) employed an auditory sentence verification task to examine Turkish HLS in the Netherlands compared to monolinguals living in Turkey. The authors used sentence materials, which contained a clause introducing either firsthand witnessing ('I saw the man eating') or non-firsthand inferred/reported ('They saw the man eating') information sources followed by a direct or indirect evidential marker (see Table 1). Their participants were asked to respond as soon as they detected any unacceptability. The Turkish HLS performed poorly in detecting evidentiality mismatches with longer response times than monolinguals and with low accuracy of 31% in firsthand information and 32% in non-firsthand information conditions. Similar findings were reported for Turkish HLS in Canada speaking English as a dominant society language [START_REF] Karaca | Comprehension of Evidentiality in Spoken Turkish: Comparing Monolingual and Bilingual Speakers University of Alberta[END_REF]. The authors, as in many other heritage language studies, screened for the amount of exposure during adulthood, but, critically not during earlier development.

In the current study, we examined adult Turkish-English bilingual speakers residing in Sydney, Australia and divided them into two groups based on their language acquisition background. Our first group comprised typical 'heritage language speakers' of Turkish who were either born in or came to Australia at a very young age (i.e., before 5 years of age 2). To examine proficiency, we administered one English and one Turkish cloze test taken from The European Language Certificates (telc GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany, 2014). All participants currently were exposed to Turkish for around 30% of their daily lives.

Experimental group -Turkish Heritage Language Speakers (HLS): Twenty participants (10 female) were heritage speakers of Turkish, who were born in Australia or moved there before the age of five. They were exposed to Turkish from birth at home and to English from either birth or at start of primary school (around the age of 5). All of the HLS had native Turkish speaking parents with both parents' English level reported to vary between elementary (n=9), intermediate (n=8) and advanced (n=3). Six of the HLS participants reported having at least one sibling with whom they communicated mainly in English. Fifteen HLS received some degree of Turkish schooling (MTR schooling = 4.9years. SD = 3.3) usually approximately 4 hours a week through the Saturday School of Community Languages or as a language class at primary school.

Reference group -Turkish speaking late arrivals (LA): Twenty-one participants (10 female) were Turkish speakers who were born and raised in monolingual setting in Turkey and were late arrivals in Australia after puberty and had been residing there 8.51 years on average. They were also late bilinguals. They were first exposed to English later than the HLS (see Table 2) and in a formal school setting, starting between the age of 6 and 15 years of age.

The use of English in the LA group was diverse, 14 LA speakers reported that at least one of their parents had a working level of English. Six participants reported that their children preferred to communicate with them in English, and two spoke English with their non-Turkish speaking partner. As would be expected, on average, the HLS showed higher English proficiency and the LA higher Turkish proficiency (see Table 2).

2.2.Materials and procedure

Stimuli were taken from [START_REF] Arslan | Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers[END_REF]. Evidentiality sentences contained 30 items in four conditions (see Table 1, earlier). In two conditions, Firsthand-Direct (Example 1, Table 1), Non-firsthand-Indirect (Example 2, Table 1), there was a compatible interpretation between the phrase indicating the information source and the evidential marker. The other two conditions, Firsthand-Indirect (Example 3, Table 1), and Non-firsthand-Direct (Example 4, Table 1), were pragmatically incongruent with a mismatch between information source and evidential form (see Appendix 1 for a full list of items).

In addition, we used 80 control sentences with evidentiality-neutral verb forms. The control conditions contained future or past temporal adverbs either matching or mismatching to verbal participles referring to past or future, hence creating four conditions: past-past, futurepast, future-future, past-future (see Appendix 2).

The same procedure as Arslan et al. (2017) was followed. 2 The experiment was programmed using E-Prime 3.0 (Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburgh, PA) in a Latin Square design with two blocks of trials to avoid each evidential mismatch condition appearing more than once per set of sentences per participant. Participants were asked to press the space bar as fast as possible when they heard an unacceptability in sentences. Each participant was tested individually in a quiet room and received a remuneration of A$20 for their time. This research was approved by Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee.

Accuracy and response times for correct responses (RT) were analysed using (generalized) linear mixed-effects regression models using the lme4 package in R [START_REF] Bates | Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4[END_REF]. RTs 2 Minor changes were made to non-critical timing parameters to shorten the experiment duration and help maintain participants' attention, compared to [START_REF] Arslan | Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers[END_REF]. Each trial started with a fixation cross presented for 500ms and inter stimulus intervals were reduced to 3000ms (from 5000ms).

were log-transformed and continuous variables were centered and scaled where appropriate.

Evidentiality condition (Direct × Indirect) and participant group (HLS × LA) were included as fixed effects; item blocks nested within trials and participants were added as random structures. To test whether the participants' exposure to Turkish during early/late childhood, and adolescence impacted their performance we used a set of separate generalized linear logistic regression models with Exposure and Group as fixed effects.

Results

Table 3 presents a summary of the data and Table 4 provides the outputs from the mixedeffects regression models.

Control sentences

In the control, time reference, sentences, there was only a significant effect of group in both Accuracy and RT analyses with the LA group responding significantly more accurately and somewhat faster than the HLS group. There was no significant effect of condition, nor an interaction. Participants performed comparably in the Fut-Past and Past-Fut conditions (see Table 3).

Evidentiality sentences

There were significant fixed effects of Evidentiality condition and Participant Group on accuracy without a significant interaction between them. The HLS group performed more poorly in detecting evidentiality mismatches than the LA group. Tukey post-hoc comparisons confirmed that this was true for both the Nonfirsthand-Direct (ß = 1.95, SE = 0.68, z = 2.85, p = .004) and Firsthand-Indirect (ß = 2.05, SE = 0.69, z = 2.96, p = 0.003) conditions. The effect of condition indicated that the Firsthand-Indirect conditions were significantly more accurate (better detection of mismatches) than the Nonfirsthand-Direct condition. Our participants also produced false alarms, where they indicated that they judged "Match" sentences as unacceptable. Although HLS' false alarms were only minimal (about 9% in indirect evidential and 4% in direct evidential conditions), these false alarm rates increased as the participants' length of stay in Australia increased (ß = 0.03, SE = 0.008, z = 3.75, p<0.001)

In terms of response times, there was a significant fixed effect of Group with longer response times for the HLS group than the LA group. No other significant effects were observed (see Table 4).

We computed an additional set of logistic regression models to further investigate exposure to Turkish. Outputs from these models are given in Table 5, and illustrated in Figure 1 (panels A-D). These models showed that there was a different picture depending on the amount of exposure in each phase of the developmental trajectory. Exposure to Turkish during early childhood (i.e., 3-6 years of age) significantly predicted response accuracy overall with greater accuracy when there was greater exposure. This pattern did not significantly interact with group. However, it should be noted that this pattern was, most likely, driven by the HLS as during this period the LA group had exposure only to Turkish (see Figure 1, Panel A). Exposure to Turkish during late childhood (i.e., 6-12 years) did not yield any significant impact on performances nor an interaction with group. In contrast, exposure during adolescence (12-18 years) showed a significant interaction between exposure and speaker group: the LA group's accuracy benefitted from greater Turkish exposure, while the HLS group's accuracy did not (Figure 1, Panel C). Finally, current exposure during adulthood significantly influenced accuracy in our participants (with no interaction with group). However, this relationship was not as expected: greater exposure to Turkish was associated with poorer response accuracy in understanding evidentiality (see

Discussion

In this study, we examined processing of evidentiality in Turkish heritage speakers (HLS) living in Australia in comparison to a group of Turkish speakers of English as a second language who arrived as adults in Australia (i.e., Late Arrivals, LA). Our aim was to examine the extent to which Turkish bilingual speakers under heritage language conditions were able to interpret evidentials and the extent to which this was modulated by the amount of exposure to Turkish during their childhood (3-6 & 6-12) and adolescence (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18).

Following Arslan et al.'s (2017) results for Turkish HLS in the Netherlands, we predicted that the Turkish HLS in Australia would perform poorly in detecting mismatches on the evidentiality task. Our results supported this prediction: the HLS group performed poorly and with longer response times as compared to the LA group. This finding converges with previous studies that used sentence interpretation tasks including evidential conditions Following [START_REF] Putnam | What's so incomplete about incomplete acquisition?: A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars[END_REF], who proposed reduced quantity of exposure to heritage language would trigger grammatical divergence at the end stage of heritage grammars, we further predicted that those participants with more limited exposure to Turkish during development would encounter greater difficulty in processing evidentiality conditions.

To test this prediction, we conducted a complementary analysis, examining whether accuracy on the evidentiality task was predicted by the amount of exposure to Turkish during developmental stages from early childhood to adulthood. The outcomes showed that the HLS group benefited from exposure to Turkish in early childhood (i.e., 3-6 years of age) as those who received a greater amount of input during this period performed better on the evidentiality task than those who received lower amount of input. However, after this period, the HLS did not seem to have benefitted from exposure to Turkish unlike the LA group (see Figure 1). Recall that Arslan and Bastiaanse (2020) found that critical amount of exposure to Turkish (they reported 2.8 hours per day to be precise) was vital for maintenance of evidentiality in Turkish heritage grammar, and suggested that less than this amount would lead to greater likelihood of inappropriate use of evidential suffixes in narratives. In the current study, we provide converging evidence that reduced exposure to heritage language during early childhood is one important factor leading to gaps in heritage grammar. These findings are in fact very much in line with the heritage language acquisition literature. See, for instance, Montrul (2018), who argued that the initial state of acquisition in bilingual children resembles first language acquisition, while the ultimate attainment in the heritage language lags behind monolingual language acquisition. Our results therefore point to the fact that exposure to the heritage language during early childhood is an important factor that might shape the ultimate attainment of heritage language grammar.

Inappropriate usage of evidential markers has in fact been reported in child heritage speakers of Turkish: [START_REF] Aarssen | Development of temporal relations in narratives by Turkish-Dutch bilingual children[END_REF] found that Turkish HLS produced inappropriate evidential forms in their narratives until the age of 10, and [START_REF] Pfaff | Turkish language development in Germany[END_REF] reported HL speaking children with German as a society language were more likely to produce fewer evidential forms than Turkish-dominant bilingual children. Therefore, our finding that amount of exposure predicts ultimate attainment of the evidentiality system in Turkish heritage grammar, fully supports Putnam and Sánchez' (2013) claim that reduced exposure to heritage language during development triggers the divergent attainment of heritage grammar structures. Please note that these findings are also in line with [START_REF] Polinsky | Understanding heritage languages[END_REF] who suggest input conditions to be sensitive triggers for shaping heritage grammars.

We observed a divergence in evidentiality in Turkish heritage grammars in the form of the speakers' insensitivity to unacceptable sentences; however, we should note that there was substantial individual variability among the participants in reference to amount of Turkish exposure in adulthood even in the LA group. This is reconcilable with [START_REF] Yağmur | First language attrition among Turkish speakers in Sydney[END_REF] who found that long-term Australian resident Turkish speakers with a later onset of exposure to English as a dominant society language (i.e., first generation immigrants to Australia) experienced difficulty maintaining a consistent use of evidential forms in narratives. In support of this finding, we have shown that false alarm rates reflecting erroneous responses that acceptable sentences were unacceptable were much higher in individuals with a longer length of stay in Australia. In other words, the longer Turkish speakers stay away from the baseline grammar, the more likely it is that they will tune to the divergent heritage grammar characteristics.

Above we mentioned that an asymmetry emerged in our participants' profiles pointing to better performance in responding to the condition where a firsthand information source was mismatched with an Indirect evidential marker than when a non-firsthand information source was mismatched with a Direct evidential marker condition. Following [START_REF] Polinsky | Understanding heritage languages[END_REF], in addition to factors relating to input conditions and amount of exposure to Turkish, we may have expected our HLS to perform poorly on the evidentiality task as a consequence of the extensive cognitive demands required when processing evidentiality. Recall that (Polinsky & Scontras, 2020) proposed that cognitively demanding structures are likely to be restructured and simplified in heritage grammars in order to avoid exceeding the limits of cognitive processing. However, our data is somewhat at odds with this claim since the HLS performed seemed to have performed better on a set of evidentiality neutral control sentences including time reference mismatches within subject relative clause constructions (Fut-Past 81% and Past-Fut 79%) than on evidentiality sentences. Subject relative constructions are also known to be syntactically complex and difficult to process [START_REF] Polinsky | Reanalysis in adult heritage language[END_REF], and further, relative participles in Turkish do not fully develop before the age of 8 (see [START_REF] Slobin | The acquisition and use of relative clauses in Turkic and Indo-European languages[END_REF]. Therefore, our data do not seem to support the idea that cognitive limitations on complex grammar structures shape the ultimate attainment in heritage grammars.

This selective insensitivity to the evidentiality but not time reference per se might, however, reflect crosslinguistic influences on performance. It is possible that the Turkish HLS speakers have simplified evidential distinctions under the influence of the majority language, which does not have the same realization of this linguistic unit ( [START_REF] Polinsky | Incomplete acquisition: American Russian[END_REF]. Specifically, as mentioned in the Introduction, unlike Turkish, in English, evidentiality is not grammaticalized and it is optional to refer to the source of the information while referring to past. Consequently, it is possible that heritage language speakers oversimplified evidentiality distinctions in past tense due to the lack of a crosslinguistic equivalent in English. Indeed, this is consistent with the performance of the heritage language speakers, who exhibited better performance on sentences with violations of past or future time reference, structures which are found in English, compared to sentences with violations of the information source through mismatching evidentiality markers, structures which are not found in English.

Finally, this study was not without limitations. We examined divergence of a structure from a reference group of bilingual speakers. However, without having a baseline control group of monolinguals, it is impossible to contemplate on whether our 'late arrival' LA group was affected by language attrition. However, they do seem to have similar accuracy and response times as the monolingual Turkish speakers reported in [START_REF] Arslan | Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers[END_REF].

Although we agree that using a monolingual group is common practice in heritage language research, we should note that it has disadvantages. This is because monolinguals' performance might not differ from HLS just because they have had full acquisition or better mastery of the baseline grammar but also because they have different linguistic systems by virtue of being monolingual rather than bilingual. Consequently, we chose to use a group of speakers who grew up as monolingual Turkish speakers, prior to becoming bilinguals later in life and now also experience heritage language conditions putting them on an equal footing.

In conclusion, we have replicated earlier findings that grammatical coding of evidentiality is vulnerable to restructuring and simplification in heritage grammars evidenced with forms of insensitivity to evidentiality-information source mismatches. The HLS performed more poorly and more slowly in their responses to evidentiality sentences with incorrect information source contexts as compared to a reference group of LA speakers of Turkish. This insensitivity was predicted by the amount of exposure during heritage language development. We suggest that lack of exposure to the heritage language is an important trigger shaping heritage language structures. As there were qualitative similarities between the two bilingual groups, we suggest that the performance that HLS exhibit in their heritage language is better characterised as different rather than 'poor' or 'defective' relative to the monolingual standard.

  ; see Lohndal et al. 2019; Putnam and Sánchez 2013 for overviews)).

Figure 1 ,

 1 Figure 1, Panel D).

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Accuracy on evidentiality task predicted by A) exposure to Turkish during early

(

  [START_REF] Arslan | Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers[END_REF][START_REF] Karaca | Comprehension of Evidentiality in Spoken Turkish: Comparing Monolingual and Bilingual Speakers University of Alberta[END_REF][START_REF] Schmid | The roles of age, attitude, and use in first language development and attrition of Turkish-English bilinguals[END_REF]. Our HLS here seem to have slightly outperformed those reported in[START_REF] Arslan | Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers[END_REF] with around 50% compared to 32% accuracy on this same task. This difference could be due to the fact that the HLS in the current study had access to instruction in heritage language through community schools in Australia, while those in[START_REF] Arslan | Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers[END_REF] may not have had equivalent opportunities in the Netherlands.Unlike Arslan et al. (2017), we found an effect of condition: bilingual speakers in the current study found indirect evidential forms that violated witnessed (i.e. firsthand) information source contexts easier to identify than direct evidentials that violated nonwitnessed (i.e. nonfirsthand) information source contexts. Author and colleagues in fact report a similar asymmetry for their monolingual Turkish speakers who responded to violations by indirect evidentials with faster response times than violations by direct evidentials, suggesting that they took less time to identify mismatches in the former condition. The lack of this asymmetry for HLS in Arslan et al.'s study might have been caused by a 'floor effect' given their poor performance overall (32%).

  al., 2013; Montrul, 2015; Pascual y Cabo & Rothman, 2012; Polinsky &

	Scontras, 2020;

  Mastering the meanings of evidential forms is not a simple task even in monolingual development (see e.g., (Aksu-Koç, 1988),[START_REF] Papafragou | Evidentiality in language and cognition[END_REF]). Monolingual Turkish children typically acquire the direct evidential first and the indirect evidential a few months

	later at around the age of 3 (Aksu-Koç, 1988). Nonetheless, children's ability to monitor and
	distinguish reported and inferential sources from direct witnessing does not fully develop
	until after the age of 6 or 7 (Ozturk & Papafragou, 2016).
		Yağmur (1997), using narrative speech production tasks, examined a group of Turkish
	speakers who were born in Turkey and settled in Sydney during adulthood. He reported that
	Emeti	kuyruklu yıldız-∅	korkusun-dan	küfeye	saklan-dı.
	Emeti	comet-NOM	fear-ABL	basket-DAT	hide-PST/EVID
	'Emeti hid in a basket due to her fear of comets.' [witnessed/direct information]
	(2) Indirect evidential
	Emeti	kuyruklu yıldız-∅	korkusun-dan	küfeye	saklan-mış.
	Emeti	comet-NOM	fear-ABL	basket-DAT	hide-EVID

'Emeti hid in a basket due to her fear of comets.' [reported/inferred] these speakers, when shifting between direct/indirect evidentials and present tense forms, displayed difficulty in maintaining consistent use of tense/evidentiality markers. These inconsistencies in narrative conventions have also been observed in child HLS of Turkish (living in The Netherlands) who produced large numbers of pragmatically unmotivated shifts between evidentials as late as around the age of

10 (Aarssen, 2001)

. Further studies of adult HLS of Turkish in the Netherlands (Arslan & Bastiaanse, 2020) and in UK

[START_REF] Schmid | The roles of age, attitude, and use in first language development and attrition of Turkish-English bilinguals[END_REF]

similarly point to an overuse of direct evidentials over indirect evidentials in narrative speech.

Table 1 :

 1 Examples of Direct and Indirect evidential sentences, where the evidential marker either matches or mismatches with the information source from Arslan et al. (2017).

	(1)	Non-firsthand information source -indirect evidential
		Yerken görmüşler	az	önce	adam	yemeğ-i	ye-miş
		Eat	see-IN.EVID-3PL just	before man	meal-ACC	eat-IN.EVID-3SG.
		'They saw the man eating, he ate the food.' (The speaker is claiming he has
		indirect/reported information on event reported by others)
	(2)	Firsthand information source -direct evidential match
		Yerken	gör-dü-m	az	önce	adam	yemeğ-i	ye-di
		Eat	see-DI.EVID-	just	before man	meal-ACC eat-DI.EVID-3SG.
			1SG.
		'I saw the man eating, he ate the food.' (The speaker is claiming to have a direct
		information on the event)
	(3)	Firsthand information source -indirect evidential mismatch
		Yerken	gör-dü-m	az	önce	adam	yemeğ-i	ye-miş
		Eat	see-DI.EVID-	just	before man	meal-ACC eat-IN.EVID-3SG.
			1SG.
		'I saw the man eating, he ate the food.' (The speaker is claiming to have seen an
		indirect/reported event)
	(4)	Non-firsthand information source -direct evidential mismatch

Table 2 .

 2 Language

	background of participants: Mean (Standard Deviation) of self-report
	measures from the Language and Social Background Questionnaire
		HLS (N=20)	LA (N=21)
	Age	30.35 (8.73)	35.95 (7.90)
	Age of Onset: English	1.25 (2.07)	11.33 (1.98)
	Proficiency*: Turkish (max = 22)	12.80 (4.56)	20.24 (1.84)
	Proficiency*: English (max = 22)	17.40 (2.44)	12.95 (4.09)
	Years of residence in Australia	28.85 (8.71)	8.51 (7.41)
	Exposure to Turkish (ages 3-6 years) %	70.50 (27.38)	100 (0.00)
	Exposure to Turkish (ages 6-12 years) %	45.50 (22.59)	98.29 (4.55)
	Exposure to Turkish (ages 12-18 years) %	38.25 (21.72)	77.29 (25.64)
	Exposure to Turkish (current) %	28.50 (18.36)	30.00 (17.03)
	Turkish Material -Written (hr/week)	2.97 (2.75)	9.78 (8.92)
	English Material -Written (hr/week)	24.00 (20.00)	23.33 (17.94)
	Turkish Material -Audio & Video (hr/day)	1.68 (1.31)	1.57 (2.16)
	English Material -Audio & Video (hr/day)	4.15 (6.25)	3.00 (1.30)
	HLS: Heritage Language Speakers; LA: Late arrivals
	Age of Onset: refers to the age in which the participants had first contact with a given language.
	% refers to the (rated) percentage of language exposure during each age bracket that was in Turkish,
	the remaining percentage is the English use.

*Proficiency refers to the scores from the telc Turkish/English Cloze Test (max score = 22).

Table 3 .

 3 Mean (SD) response accuracy to mismatching conditions and response times to correctly identified mismatching sentences.

	HLS

Table 4 .

 4 Statistical outputs from mixed-effect regression models conducted on response times and accuracy data from evidentiality and time reference conditions.

		Evidentiality sentences		Time Reference Sentences
	Accuracy	b	SE	z	p	b	SE	z	p
	Intercept	1.23	0.34	3.67	<0.001	2.60	0.25	10.40	<0.001
	Condition	-0.48	0.19	-2.57	0.017	0.18	0.25	0.72	0.47
	Group	-2.00	0.67	-3.00	0.002	-1.49 0.46	-3.26	<0.001
	Condition × Group	0.10	0.34	0.76	0.76	-0.65 0.38	-1.70	0.09
	Response Times	b	SE	t	p	b	SE	t	p
	Intercept	7.48	0.07	104.93	<0.001	7.48	0.06	119.04	<0.001
	Condition	0.04	0.04	0.98	0.33	-0.03 0.03	-0.90	0.37
	Group	0.35	0.14	2.51	0.01	0.25	0.12	2.05	0.05
	Condition × Group	-0.02	0.06	-0.42	0.68	-0.02 0.05	-0.40	0.69

Table 5 .

 5 Statistical outputs from generalized linear regression models investigating impact of

	Turkish exposure on response accuracy
		b	SE	z	p
		Accuracy predicted by early childhood exposure (3-6 ages)
	Intercept*	0.84	0.32	2.61	0.009
	Exposure_TR3_6	0.06	0.03	2.07	0.037
	Group	-1.14	0.16	-7.14	<0.001

Accuracy predicted by later childhood exposure (6-12 ages)

	Intercept	1.64	2.29	0.71	0.47
	Exposure_TR6_12	-0.01	0.23	-0.06	0.94
	Group	-1.67	2.30	-0.72	0.46
	Exposure × Group	0.05	0.23	0.24	0.80

Accuracy predicted by adolescence exposure (12-18 ages)

	Intercept	0.09	0.28	0.33	0.73
	Exposure_TR12_18	0.18	0.03	4.94	<0.001
	Group	0.26	0.33	0.79	0.42
	Exposure × Group	-0.24	0.05	-4.47	<0.001
		Accuracy predicted by current exposure
	Intercept	2.18	0.21	10.12	<0.001
	Current Exposure	-0.21	0.05	-3.89	<0.001
	Group	-1.17	0.27	-4.32	<0.001
	Exposure × Group	-0.07	0.07	-1.07	0.28

* Interaction removed from the model due to ceiling exposure in the LA group (all individuals reported 10h max score).

  The indirect evidential is semantically more marked as it signals a range of functions from inference to reported non-firsthand information, and it is acquired slightly later in typical development possibly due to its cognitively demanding nature. See, for instance,[START_REF] Ozturk | The acquisition of evidentiality and source monitoring[END_REF] who noted that Turkish children's ability to monitor non-firsthand information (i.e. reported or inferred) is only mastered much later in development than firsthand information.

  similar results have been shown in other languages for various linguistic units e.g., Kim & Montrul, 2004; Kim et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2009; Gürel & Yilmaz, 2011; Montrul 2010;