in Germany are closer to the monolingual German preferences, constructing verbs with Path satellites in 67 % of the cases. Overall the differences between the four groups are significant (χ2 = 25.916, df = 3, p < .01). Table 6 shows the differences between the groups in detail. Table 6. Comparison between structures containing a Path satellite in Turkish compared with German in Event 1/Ball story. Group comparison Test results (two-tailed) Outcome Effect size (Cramer’s V) Mono T and Mono (χ2 = 18.876, df =1, p < .01) ** .439 Ger B-stud and B-return (χ2 = 1.477, df =1, p = .224) ns n/a B-stud and (χ2 = 16.539, df = 1, p = < .01) ** .376 monolingual Turks B-stud and (χ2 = .783, df = 1, p = .379) ns n/a monolingual Germans B-return and (χ2 = 3.539, df = 1, p = .060) .233 German monolinguals B-return and (χ2 = 6.077, df = 1, p = .014) * .243 Turkish monolinguals
in Germany are closer to the monolingual German preferences, constructing verbs with Path satellites in 67 % of the cases. Overall the differences between the four groups are significant (χ2 = 25.916, df = 3, p < .01). Table 6 shows the differences between the groups in detail. Table 6. Comparison between structures containing a Path satellite in Turkish compared with German in Event 1/Ball story. Group comparison Test results (two-tailed) Outcome Effect size (Cramer’s V) Mono T and Mono Ger (χ2 = 18.876, df =1, p < .01) ** .439 B-stud and B-return (χ2 = 1.477, df =1, p = .224) ns n/a B-stud and monolingual Turks (χ2 = 16.539, df = 1, p = < .01) ** .376 B-stud and monolingual Germans (χ2 = .783, df = 1, p = .379) ns n/a B-return and German monolinguals (χ2 = 3.539, df = 1, p = .060) .233 B-return and Turkish monolinguals (χ2 = 6.077, df = 1, p = .014) * .243