The Historical Development of Turkic Loanwords in Modern Uzbek

Hafizullayeva Kamolaxon Ismatilla qizi

Uzbekistan State World Languages University

English First Faculty

Abstract: This article explores the historical trajectory and linguistic integration of Turkic loanwords in the Modern Uzbek language, tracing their evolution from early Turkic influences to contemporary usage. The Uzbek language, with its southeastern Turkic roots, has absorbed vocabulary from Kipchak, Karluk, and Oghuz branches due to centuries of migration, political consolidation, and cultural interconnectivity in Central Asia. These loanwords, though often from genetically related languages, represent dynamic borrowings reflecting regional, functional, and social developments. Drawing upon historical texts, etymological studies, and modern Uzbek corpora, the article identifies prevalent semantic fields such as kinship, governance, warfare, and daily communication where these loanwords dominate. It also examines their phonological adaptations and morphological integration into Uzbek’s agglutinative grammar. The study highlights the cultural continuity and identity-building role of these words, showing how they persist in standard and dialectal Uzbek speech. This research contributes to broader discussions on language contact, internal borrowing, and Turkic linguistic heritage.

Keywords: Uzbek language, Turkic loanwords, historical linguistics, Central Asia, Chagatai, lexical borrowing, language evolution

The Uzbek language, a principal representative of the southeastern (Karluk) branch of the Turkic language family, demonstrates a rich amalgamation of linguistic features inherited from various periods of cultural and political transformation in Central Asia. While Modern Uzbek is often viewed through the lens of Soviet-era reforms and Persian-Arabic-Russian influences, a critical yet underexamined layer of its vocabulary consists of Turkic loanwords—lexical items borrowed or adapted from sister languages within the Turkic family. Unlike borrowings from unrelated languages, Turkic-to-Turkic lexical transfers occur within a shared typological and genetic framework, often blurring the line between inheritance and borrowing.

This paper investigates the historical development, integration, and contemporary function of Turkic loanwords in Uzbek. It provides a diachronic analysis by considering the socio-historical contexts that facilitated these borrowings, ranging from nomadic confederations to sedentary empires. Through semantic, phonological, and morphological analysis, the study aims to highlight how Turkic loanwords reflect broader historical and identity-forming processes in Uzbek linguistic culture.

The formation of the Uzbek language cannot be separated from the broader historical landscape of Central Asia—a region long inhabited and ruled by Turkic-speaking peoples. From the 6th century onward, the Turkic migrations, notably under the Göktürks, Uighurs, and later the Karluks, laid the foundation for a Turkic-speaking continuum across the steppe and settled regions. The Karluks, in particular, played a central role in establishing what would become the Chagatai literary tradition, a precursor to modern Uzbek.

During the Timurid Renaissance (14th–15th centuries), Chagatai Turkic flourished as a lingua franca and literary language, incorporating elements from both Karluk and Kipchak dialects. Later, during the Shaybanid and Ashtarkhanid periods, the influence of Kipchak Turkic grew stronger due to political realignments and migration. With the rise of national languages in the 20th century and Soviet standardization, Modern Uzbek emerged as a distinct codified language, retaining many archaic and regional Turkic words despite increased Persian, Arabic, and Russian influence.

These historical layers created a complex linguistic ecosystem in which Turkic loanwords were not just retained but actively maintained across dialects, literature, and oral traditions. Today, these words serve as linguistic fossils, offering insights into historical interactions, tribal affiliations, and the sociopolitical dynamics of Turkic-speaking societies.

Turkic loanwords in Uzbek are particularly prevalent in the following areas:

1. Kinship and Social Relations: Words like ota (father), aka (older brother), tog’a (maternal uncle), and jiyan (nephew/niece) are of Turkic origin. These terms are crucial in expressing familial hierarchy and social roles in Uzbek society.
2. Governance and Warfare: Terms such as xon (khan), askari (soldier), bek (chieftain), and urush (war) originate from early Turkic military and political systems and retain their symbolic and linguistic relevance.
3. Nature and Environment: Words like yulduz (star), oy (moon), qush (bird), daryo (river), and tosh (stone) exhibit semantic stability, reflecting a deep continuity with nature-based worldviews of Turkic nomadic cultures.
4. Everyday Vocabulary: Verbs like kelmoq (to come), yemoq (to eat), olmoq (to take), and nouns such as yo‘l (road), qul (slave), and ko‘z (eye) demonstrate the foundational role of Turkic-origin words in everyday Uzbek speech.

Turkic loanwords in Uzbek often retain recognizable Turkic phonological features, although some changes occur due to dialectal variation and standardization. Palatal consonants, vowel harmony, and consonant clusters may shift in different regions. For example, the Old Turkic küč (strength) becomes kuch in Uzbek, reflecting vowel fronting and simplification.

Morphologically, these loanwords maintain agglutinative patterns, facilitating their integration into the Uzbek grammar system. Nouns easily take case endings, possessive suffixes, and plural markers, while verbs accept tense, mood, and aspect markers. This morphological compatibility aids their seamless assimilation into both literary and colloquial Uzbek.

An analysis of literary texts, dictionaries, and contemporary spoken Uzbek reveals a strong persistence of Turkic-origin lexicon, especially in rural dialects, traditional poetry, and informal discourse. Kinship terms, for instance, are predominantly Turkic in origin and usage, and they are central to both verbal interaction and cultural customs.

In sociolinguistic surveys, speakers often associate Turkic-origin words with authenticity and cultural pride, contrasting them with Russian borrowings that may evoke a sense of modernity but alienation. For instance, in conversational Uzbek, the word urush (war) is more frequently used than the Russian-derived voyna.

Turkic loanwords also act as cultural and ideological markers. Titles like bek, xon, and bobo carry social prestige and imply ancestral lineage. The sustained use of these terms in proverbs, idioms, and ceremonies shows their embeddedness in Uzbek identity. In education, students naturally absorb these words through textbooks and oral storytelling traditions, ensuring their intergenerational transmission.

Phonological variations across dialects further reveal how Turkic loanwords adapt to local speech patterns while retaining core semantic content. For instance, in Fergana and Khorezm dialects, phonetic shifts like aka vs eke (brother) indicate regional trajectories of Turkic lexical forms.

The historical development and sustained presence of Turkic loanwords in Modern Uzbek exemplify the profound and enduring linguistic, cultural, and social ties that connect the Uzbek language to its broader Turkic heritage. Far from being obsolete or merely historical relics, these words constitute a vital and dynamic component of the modern Uzbek lexicon. They permeate everyday speech, literary expression, traditional customs, and national identity, illustrating how language serves as a repository of collective memory and cultural continuity.

The resilience of these loanwords demonstrated by their continued adaptability across various dialects, registers, and generational groups highlight their functional relevance in both formal and informal contexts. In a linguistic environment increasingly influenced by global languages, particularly Russian and English, the sustained use of Turkic-origin vocabulary reflects an implicit yet powerful cultural stance: a commitment to linguistic authenticity and heritage preservation. These words are not only linguistic units but also symbolic artifacts that reinforce a shared historical consciousness among Turkic-speaking populations.

Moreover, their semantic versatility and phonological integration into Modern Uzbek reveal a process of natural internalization, rather than superficial borrowing. As such, the prevalence of Turkic elements in contemporary Uzbek discourse underscores a broader sociolinguistic phenomenon—where language functions not only as a means of communication but also as a marker of collective identity, resilience, and historical pride.

Additionally, the retention of these words in literature, media, and oral culture suggests a linguistic conservatism that values authenticity, familiarity, and cultural coherence. In this way, Turkic loanwords are both functional linguistic tools and symbolic vessels of heritage.

By examining the semantic domains, phonological developments, and cultural connotations of Turkic-origin words in the Uzbek language, a broader narrative emerges-one that reflects linguistic continuity, cultural resilience, and the shaping of collective identity. The enduring presence and seamless integration of these lexical items into contemporary Uzbek is not merely a matter of etymological interest; it illustrates deep-rooted historical ties and reinforces the structural and cultural cohesion within the Turkic language family. These lexical continuities serve as markers of shared heritage and linguistic solidarity across Turkic-speaking communities.

To build upon this foundation, future research can adopt a multidisciplinary approach. Corpus-based lexical frequency analysis would provide empirical insight into the prevalence and distribution of Turkic-origin words across different registers and genres. Comparative phonological studies with neighboring Turkic languages such as Kazakh, Kyrgyz, or Turkmen could further reveal sound correspondences and shifts that reflect both divergence and convergence within the family. Additionally, sociolinguistic fieldwork focusing on generational attitudes, regional variation, and identity-related perceptions of Turkic vocabulary would enrich our understanding of how historical borrowings continue to influence and shape the modern Uzbek linguistic landscape.

References:

1. Johanson, L. (1998). The Structure of Turkic. In The Turkic Languages, ed. Lars Johanson and Éva Ágnes Csató. London: Routledge.
2. Eckmann, J. (1966). Chagatay Manual: Introduction, Grammar, Reader, and Vocabulary. Indiana University Press.
3. Räsänen, M. (1969). Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Turksprachen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
4. Brown, K. D. & Ogilvie, S. (2008). Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. Elsevier.

Yearning Rain
‎‎
‎You have given me the gift of the rain of separation
‎What shall I give you in return?
‎The bond of separation and tears!
‎The fascination of love is playing on the cadamba’ s branches
‎My self floats in the water of the monsoon
‎Sometimes the seven-colored sky smiles.
‎
‎I pour rain on my head
‎I am in great troubles
‎The eyes are wet with tears,
‎The jealousy of my body is drowned in the rain
‎But the heart is so proud of the drought
‎As much as I am burnt by the summer
‎I am burnt more by the water of sadness
‎I burn and burn and live on the burning
‎How far are you from the fire that you kindle?
‎
‎The traveler searches for the sun in the rainy sky
‎The sun finds its way
‎Which ocean of love do you swim in?
‎I want rain at the end of the rainy season
‎There is nothing left to burn
‎When the rain touches me does it touch you?
‎I have no fear of burning in the rain.
‎

A man is not as strong as you think. A man is not as strong-willed as you think. A man is not as rugged as you think. I would know because people had told me how stubborn and difficult Ibekwe could be, and so they are surprised that I’m able to live with him, despite having had two children with another man, despite not being a fresh leaf.

They said I must have gone somewhere and got some charms with which I held him down, na njipia. You know that sort of stories portrayed in Nollywood movies in the early 2000s, stories of wives or girlfriends holding their partners with charms collected from powerful dibias. I think we Nigerians have consumed so much of those movies that we now think that every successful marriage must be dependent on charms. They said there must be something I did, or I’m doing, that has made it possible for us to live together.

My first husband died of motor accident, God bless his soul, and it wasn’t up to a year before I met Ibekwe. What do you suppose a woman should do? Ibekwe had never married before, but according to the stories I’ve heard, he had cast off some girlfriends, and when he saw me, I was the one he chose to marry. His family were enraged when he took me to them. “Of all women to marry, Ibekwe, you chose a widow with two children. What has come over you?” they asked.

They gave me odd stares which did not really bother me. I knew too well that I wasn’t forcing myself on anybody. I was on my own when Ibekwe came asking to marry me. I had not expected to remarry too soon, but I was a woman. When I saw how genuine he was, how honest he was, how loving he was, and how sexy he was, I decided to accept his proposal. Ibekwe is the sexiest man I ever met. I don’t know if people of today actually use sexy to describe a man, but permit me to use it here, biko. I hope he wouldn’t read this, that I’m calling him sexy. That man is also a reader.

Ibekwe’s people were enraged because Ibekwe should marry a fresh leaf, ọnụ-ugu, not someone who had been used by another man. Ibekwe insisted I was the one he would marry. It was me or no other person. Ibekwe loved me. He knew I had two kids. He knew I had married before. He even knew my husband when he was alive. He heard about the news of his death in a motor accident, but Ibekwe chose to marry me, befuddling many connoisseurs of what a proper wife should be for a man who had not married before. I had mourned my dead husband for eleven months before I met Ibekwe in the new supermarket in town. I had gone to get some bread for I and my children when he walked up to me to help. He asked for my phone number and I gave it to him. He was handsome and charming. There was a soothing effect that his eyes gave.

 When he called in the evening I didn’t hesitate to tell him that I was a widow with two kids. I wasn’t ready for any wahala. I wanted to have peace within myself. I wanted to be truthful so that I would be able to sleep in the nights, so that I wouldn’t be worried about covering up lies. I told him my truth, and we started dating. When I went to bed in the night I slept peacefully, knowing fully well that I wasn’t deceiving anyone. I wasn’t lying to anyone. I was surprised that he knew my dead husband. He was a bit popular in Aba, an upcoming singer who would later die in a motor accident on his way to perform in a function in Lagos. “He was the one who performed on my elder brother’s wedding ceremony some years ago. Emenike was his name,” he said.

“Yes,” I said. “Emenike was his name. Emenike Onyeudo.”

That night, after we talked, I cried for a few minutes, because we talked about Emenike in the past tense: was.

.

A man is not difficult to love and please when the man knows your spirit and soul. I’m Ibekwe’s fresh leaf. I’m the perfect ọnụ ugu for him, because we are still living together after a couple of years, because Ibekwe’s love for me is out of this world, because the connoisseurs of what a perfect marriage should entail are not truthful.

Author’s Note:

Among the Igbo people of Nigeria, a fresh leaf or ọnụ ugu is a young woman who had never been married before, and who is probably a virgin.

Isaac Dominion Aju lives in Nigeria where he works as a fashion designer. His literary works encompasses poetry, essays and fiction. He has appeared in Poetry X Hunger, Kalahari Review, Flapper Press, Steel Jackdaw magazine, and Synchronized Chaos Magazine.

For the first time,

leading my tiny hand,

The teacher who showed me the world as light.

Grab a pen and paper and draw from today

The future is yours,

You said, teacher

You are calling for goodness,

And driving away evil.

You are shining like the sun,

Starting our path towards goals.

Because of you,

I take a step into life,

With you, poetry leads forward.

I am the victim of that flawless walk,

When I aspired to a teacher like you

Azimova Munisa, 9th grade student of school 20, Bukhara city

The Light of Knowledge

The Power and Value of Knowledge

Knowledge is like light in the darkness. It opens our minds, guides our choices, and helps us understand the world around us. In every society and every time period, knowledge has been the key to development and success. Without it, we remain unaware, confused, and unprepared to face life’s challenges.

Education is the foundation of knowledge. Through schools, books, teachers, and technology, we gather information and learn how to think, speak, and solve problems. However, real knowledge is more than just memorizing facts. It is about applying what we know in real life, asking questions, being creative, and thinking critically.

Learning is a lifelong journey. Even outside the classroom, we continue to learn through experiences, mistakes, conversations, and even failures. A curious mind is never satisfied—it always looks for new answers, new ideas, and better ways to improve.

Why Knowledge Matters Today

In the modern world, knowledge is more important than ever before. Science, medicine, engineering, and technology are all built on the foundation of knowledge. Every discovery, every innovation, every invention starts with someone asking: “Why?” or “What if?”

The internet has made knowledge more available than ever. A student in Fergana can now learn from the best universities in the world online. But this also means we need to be careful and wise—we must learn how to tell what is true, what is useful, and what is not. Knowing how to use knowledge is just as important as gaining it.

In addition, knowledge helps build peace and understanding. When we learn about other cultures, languages, and histories, we become more respectful and open-minded. Knowledge breaks walls and builds bridges between people, countries, and generations.

Conclusion: Knowledge is the Future

Knowledge is not just power—it is freedom. It gives us the ability to dream, to create, to lead, and to grow. Every young person has a spark inside them, and education helps that spark become a bright flame.

As a student, I believe that it is our duty to keep learning and sharing what we know with others. Let us all be seekers of knowledge. Let us read more, ask more, listen more, and grow every day. Because the future belongs to those who are prepared—and knowledge is the best preparation of all.

The path I have chosen is for the future of children.

Every time I hear the laughter of children, something flutters in my heart. As if a voice inside me says: “That’s why you live.” They are innocent, pure, sincere. 

One of their tears shakes the world, one of their smiles warms the heart. 

I want to live for children. Not just that – as a person who listens to their pain, heart, and breath. I want to protect them. That’s why I chose Pediatrics. 

This profession requires not only knowledge, but also heart, love, and patience. You can’t just treat a child – you also need to understand him. You need to look into his fearful eyes and give him confidence. 

Being a doctor is not just about writing prescriptions, it’s about giving love, receiving blessings, and being a reason to live. Even though I’m still a student, I’m learning slowly. Every lesson, every page of a book brings me closer to my dreams. Every night I memorize terms, every morning I wake up – all this is for the future I want. 

Sometimes I get tired, cry, and suffer. Questions like “why did I choose this profession?” also arise inside me. But suddenly my parents’ voices are heard, and every time I write to my father, they say: “Daughter, you will grow up, you are our greatest hope, we trust you, you will justify our trust.” These words give strength to my heart. In fact, the biggest reason for me to choose this profession is my father. My father’s faith in me, his dreams, and his prayers will not stop me from my path. I did not choose this path by chance. My heart chose this path. For the children, for the future, and above all, for the trust in my parents.

Rushana Raupova Sanjar qizi was born on May 7, 2005 in Yakkabag district of Kashkadarya region. Currently she resides in Tashkent city. She is a 2nd year student of the Faculty of Pediatrics of Tashkent State Medical University and participated in the international anthology in Turkey. Her articles are being published in the international anthology. 

Investigating Lexical Access Latency in Trilingual Uzbek–Russian–English Speakers in a Psycholinguistic Perspective

Tojimurodova Latofat Farxod qizi

Uzbekistan State World Languages University

English first Faculty

Abstract: This study investigates lexical access latency in trilingual speakers proficient in Uzbek (L1), Russian (L2), and English (L3). Lexical access, the mental process through which words are retrieved from the mental lexicon during speech production and comprehension, is a critical aspect of language processing. In multilingual individuals, factors such as language dominance, frequency of use, emotional salience, and context of acquisition can significantly affect the speed of access across different languages. Utilizing a cross-modal lexical decision task (LDT), we examined reaction times for high-frequency and low-frequency words in each language using computerized experimental software. Data was collected from 30 university-level participants in Uzbekistan who reported regular use of all three languages in distinct domains—home, education, and digital communication. Our findings revealed that lexical access was fastest in the most dominant or contextually relevant language, though this varied across participants. Uzbek generally yielded the shortest response times, followed by Russian and English. The study contributes to psycholinguistic research by highlighting how multilingual lexical systems interact dynamically depending on linguistic environment and usage patterns. These results offer practical implications for multilingual education and cognitive assessments in diverse sociolinguistic contexts.

Keywords: Lexical access, trilingualism, Uzbek–Russian–English, reaction time, psycholinguistics, language dominance, lexical decision task.

Lexical access—the retrieval of stored words from the mental lexicon—is fundamental to real-time language comprehension and production. In monolinguals, this process is typically automatic and efficient. However, in multilingual individuals, lexical access becomes significantly more complex due to the presence of multiple, overlapping language systems. Trilingualism, especially in linguistically diverse regions like Uzbekistan, introduces a unique dynamic wherein each language plays a different sociocultural and functional role. Uzbek, as the official state language, is often acquired first (L1) and used predominantly in familial and national contexts. Russian, although not an official language, retains strong sociolinguistic influence due to historical, academic, and media exposure, functioning as a de facto second language (L2) for many. English, increasingly integrated into the educational system and international communication, typically serves as the third language (L3), acquired later through formal instruction.

Understanding how these languages are accessed in the mind has both theoretical and applied significance. From a psycholinguistic standpoint, it allows us to examine how cognitive resources are distributed across language systems. Practically, it informs language teaching, cognitive assessment, and clinical diagnosis for multilingual individuals.

The present study focuses on measuring lexical access speed across three languages using a Lexical Decision Task (LDT). Specifically, it addresses the following research questions:

1. Which language yields the fastest lexical access among trilingual Uzbek–Russian–English speakers?
2. How do language dominance and usage frequency influence access speed?
3. Are there consistent patterns in word retrieval latency across participants?

By systematically comparing access speeds and drawing correlations with self-reported language use, this study aims to contribute empirical insights to the broader field of bilingual and trilingual processing models. The outcomes not only shed light on the cognitive structure of trilingual speakers but also propose implications for educational policy, particularly in contexts where multilingualism is the norm rather than the exception.

Lexical access in multilingual individuals has long intrigued psycholinguists, especially in contexts involving unbalanced language exposure and usage. Classic models such as Levelt’s (1989) model of speech production emphasize a serial progression from conceptualization to articulation, where lexical retrieval plays a key intermediate role. For bilinguals and trilinguals, this process is not always linear due to the co-activation of multiple lexicons (Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Dijkstra & van Heuven, 2002). The Bilingual Interactive Activation Plus (BIA+) model further refines this understanding by suggesting that both target and non-target languages are simultaneously activated during word recognition, with inhibitory mechanisms managing language selection.

Recent empirical research on trilinguals indicates that lexical access latency is modulated by a range of variables: age of acquisition (AoA), language dominance, frequency of use, and emotional significance (Costa et al., 2000; Tokowicz & Kroll, 2007). For instance, de Groot (2011) observed that L1 access remains fastest in most contexts, but domain-specific proficiency may reverse this trend, especially when the L2 or L3 is frequently used in academic or professional settings.

In Central Asian multilingual communities, research remains limited. However, studies by Sharipov (2018) and Nurmurodova (2020) indicate that Uzbek speakers often switch to Russian in academic discourse and to English in digital and professional spheres. This pragmatic distribution suggests a form of contextual language dominance, which may not always align with chronological order of acquisition.

Despite these advances, trilingual lexical access in post-Soviet societies remains understudied. The current study fills this gap by offering quantitative data on access speed across three actively used languages in Uzbekistan, drawing connections between cognitive activation and sociolinguistic patterns.

This study highlights the intricate and dynamic nature of lexical access in trilingual speakers of Uzbek, Russian, and English. The data suggest that although Uzbek generally serves as the dominant and most accessible language for most participants—presumably due to early acquisition and daily usage—Russian, which holds significant functional value in academic, scientific, and media domains in Uzbekistan, at times surpassed Uzbek in lexical retrieval speed. This finding challenges the traditional assumption that the first language (L1) always ensures the fastest access, emphasizing instead the role of contextual language dominance and domain-specific language activation.

English, as the third language (L3) and often acquired through formal education rather than naturalistic exposure, demonstrated comparatively slower access speeds. This result is consistent with the weaker links hypothesis, which posits that less frequently used languages create weaker associative pathways in the mental lexicon, leading to delayed retrieval.

These findings have several pedagogical and theoretical implications. First, they support the idea that language proficiency alone is insufficient to predict lexical access efficiency; educators and researchers must also consider the emotional salience, frequency of use, and functional distribution of each language within a speaker’s life. Language educators in multilingual societies like Uzbekistan should adopt a more context-sensitive approach, designing instruction that mirrors learners’ real-world language environments. Furthermore, the results reinforce psycholinguistic models that emphasize co-activation and competition among multiple lexicons, particularly in multilinguals navigating sociolinguistically layered settings. The overlap and interaction between languages in the brain appear to be shaped by both linguistic history and current sociocultural utility. 

For future research, it is advisable to expand the demographic scope of participants to encompass a more diverse range of language users, including older adults, early childhood trilinguals, and individuals from rural or monolingual-dominant regions. Such inclusion would allow for a more comprehensive analysis of how variables such as age, linguistic exposure, and local language ecology influence lexical access and processing in multilingual individuals. These demographic extensions could reveal developmental, experiential, and sociolinguistic dimensions of multilingual lexical organization that are not captured in studies with homogenous participant pools.

Furthermore, integrating neuroimaging techniques—such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) or Electroencephalography (EEG)—would offer valuable insights into the neural correlates of lexical activation and selection in multilingual speakers. These methods could empirically substantiate behavioral findings and help delineate the cognitive and neurological mechanisms underlying the management of multiple lexicons. By combining behavioral data with neurophysiological evidence, future studies can deepen our understanding of how multilingual minds store, access, and control language in both everyday and cognitively demanding contexts.

References

1. Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175–197.
2. Kroll, J. F., & Tokowicz, N. (2005). Models of bilingual representation and processing: Looking back and to the future. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 531–553). Oxford University Press.
3. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. MIT Press.
4. de Groot, A. M. B. (2011). Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals: An Introduction. Psychology Press.
5. Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967.