Testing the Interface Hypothesis: The evidence from fossilized errors in the use of Turkish case markers

Elena Antonova-ünlü

doi:10.18492/da.99838

EN TR

Testing the Interface Hypothesis: The evidence from fossilized errors in the use of Turkish case markers

Abstract

Sorace & Filiaci (2006) proposed the Interface Hypothesis (IH), according to which interface structures requiring interface between syntax and other cognitive domains are more likely to be vulnerable to incomplete acquisition and fossilization than structures that involve syntactic knowledge only. The aim of this study is to provide a piece of evidence validating or rejecting the IH by investigating the use of case markers in Turkish by native speakers of Russian who are highly proficient speakers of Turkish and have been residing in Turkey for a long period. Fictional narratives are used in the study as the tool for data collection. The findings reveal that the participants demonstrate native-like use of Turkish case markers production of which does not involve external interface. The use of case markers of direct objects, which involves the activation of external interface, is marked with fossilized errors and/or incomplete acquisition in the production of the participants. The findings of the study can be used as a piece of evidence in favor of the IH. Keywords: Interface Hypothesis, case markers, Turkish, native speakers of Russian

Keywords

Interface Hypothesis, case markers, Turkish, native speakers of Russian

References

Akdoğan, G. (1993). Yabancıların Türkçe Öğreniminde Ad Durumu ve Çekim Açısından Sık Rastlanan Yanlışlar ve Nedenleri. MA Thesis, Ankara University, Ankara.
Aksu-Koç, A. & Ketrez, F. N. (2003). Acquisition of Noun and Verb Categories in Turkish, In S. Özsoy, D. Akar, D. Nakipoglu, E. Erguvanlı-Taylan and A. Aksu- Koç, (Eds.) Studies in Turkish Linguistics, 239-246. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D. I. (1985). The Acquisition of Turkish. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, 839-880. Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Akyol, Ö. (2009). Acquisition of Turkish by a Bilingual Child: A Case Study. Unpublished MA Thesis. Çukurova University, Adana.
Altunkol, E. & Balcı, B. (2013). The Usage of Turkish Grammatical Morphemes by Learners of Turkish As a Second Language. Athens: Atiner’s Conference Papers Series, No: Lng2013-0711.
Belletti, A., Bennati, E. & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and Developmental Issues in the Syntax of Subjects: Evidence from Near-Native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657-689.
Berman, R. A. (1999). Bilingual Proficiency/Proficient Bilingualism. Insights from Narrative Texts. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Bilingualism And Migration, 187- 208. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Comrie, B. (1987). The World's Major Languages. London: Routledge.

Corbett, G. (1982). Gender in Russian: An Account of Gender Specification and its Relationship to Declension.” Russian Linguistics 6, 197-232.
Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, G. & Fraser, N. (1993). Network morphology: A DATR Account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29 (1), 113-142.
Ekmekçi, Ö. (1979). Acquisition of Turkish: A Longitudinal Study on the Early Language Development of a Turkish Child. Ph.D. Diss., University of Texas, Austin.
Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of Specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22 (1), 1-25.
Erguvanlı, E. (1984). The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Göksel, A. (1993). Levels of Representation and Argument Structure in Turkish. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Linguistics, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
Grosjean, F. (2001). The Bilingual’s Language Modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing, 1-22. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Gürel, A. (2000). Missing Case Inflection: Implications for Second Language Acquisition. In C. Howell, S. A. Fish & K. L. Tea (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 45, 379–390. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Güven, E. (2007). Yabancıların Türkçe Öğrenirken Ad Durum Eklerinde Yaptıkları Hataların Çözümlenmesi ve Bu Hataların Giderilmesine Yönelik Öneriler. MA Thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir.
Haznedar, B. (2006). Persistent Problems with Case Morphology in L2 acquisition. In C. Lleó (Ed.), Interfaces in Multilingualism, 179–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haznedar, B. (2007). Crosslinguisitic influence in Turkish-English Bilingual First Language Acquisition: The Overuse of Subjects in Turkish. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA), 124-134. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Hopp, H. (2004). Syntactic and Interface Knowledge in Advanced and Near-Native Interlanguage Grammars. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace, & M. Ota (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook 4, 67-94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ivanov, I. (2009). Second Language Acquisition of Bulgarian Object Clitics: A Test Case for the Interface Hypothesis. Phd Diss., University of Iowa. Http://Ir.Uiowa.Edu/Etd/300.
Kamynina, A. 1999. Sovremennyi Russkij Jazyk. Morfologija. (Modern Russian language. Morphology). Moscow: Moskovskij Universitet.
Ketrez, F. N. (2004). Children’s Accusative Case and Indefinite Objects. Dilbilim Arastırmaları, 63-73. Istanbul.
Ketrez, F. N. (2005). Children’s Scope of Indefinite Objects and Negation. Proceedings Volume of ICTL 2004: 12th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey, August 11-13.
Ketrez, F. N. (2006). A Case-study on the Accusative Case in Turkish. WECOL 2004, 163-174.
Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge
Kupersmitt, J. & Berman, R. (2001). Linguistic Features of Spanish-Hebrew Children’s Narratives. In L. Verhoeven & S. Strömqvist (Eds.), Narrative Development in a Multilingual Context, 277-319. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kurilovich, E. (1962). Ocherki po Lingvistike. (Linguisitic essays). Moskva: Inostrannaya Literature.
Lanza, E. (2001). Temporality and Language Contact in Narratives by Children Bilingual in Norwegian and English. In L. Verhoeven & S. Strömqvist (Eds.), Narrative Development in a Multilingual Context, 15-55. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lozano, C. (2006). The Development of the Syntax-Information Structure Interface: Greek Learners of Spanish. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages, 371-399. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Margaza, P. & Bel, A. (2006). Null Subjects at the Syntax–Pragmatics Interface: Evidence from Spanish Interlanguage of Greek Speakers. In M. G. O’Brien, C. Shea & J.Archibald (Eds.), Proceedings of GASLA 2006, 88–97. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Meisel, J. (2007). The Weaker Language in Early Child Bilingualism: Acquiring a First Language as a Second Language? Applied Psycholinguistics 28, 495-514.
Mueller, N. & Hulk, A. (2001). Crosslinguistic Influence in Bilingual Language Acquisition: Italian and French as Recipient Languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4(1), 1-21.
Nakipoğlu, M. (2009). The Semantics of the Turkish Accusative Marked Definites and the Relation between Prosodic Structure and Information Structure. Lingua 119 (9), 1253-1280.
Öztürk, B. (2005). Case, Referentiality, and Phrase Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Öztürk, B. (2009). Incorporating Agents. Lingua, 119(2), 334-358.
Papadopoulou, D., Varlokosta, S., Spyropoulous, V., Kaili, H., Prokou, S. & Revithiadou, A. (2011). Case Morphology and Word Order in Second Language Turkish: Evidence from Greek Learners. Second Language Research 27, 173–205.
Paradis, J. & Navarro, S. (2003). Subject Realization and Crosslinguistic Interference in the Bilingual Acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the Role of Input? Journal of Child Language 30, 1–23.
Pavlenko, A. (2003). “I Feel Clumsy Speaking Russian”; L2 Influence on L1 in Narratives of Russian L2 Users of English. In V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the Second Language on the First, 32-61. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Rothman, J. (2008). How Pragmatically Odd : Interface Delays and Pronominal Subject Distribution in the L2 Spanish of English Natives. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 1, 2, 317-339.
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning Down the Concept of Interface in Bilingualism. Linguistic approaches to bilingualism 1 (1), 1-34.
Sorace, A. (2012). Pinning Down the Concept of Interface in Bilingualism. A Reply to Peer Commentaries. Linguistic approaches to bilingualism 2 (2), 209-216.
Sorace, A. & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora Resolution in Near-Native Speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 339-368.
Sorace, A., Serratrice, L., Filiaci, F. & Baldo, M. (2009). Discourse Conditions on Subject Pronoun Realization: Testing the Linguistic Intuitions of Bilingual Children. Lingua 119, 460–477.
Sorace, A. & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and External Interfaces in Bilingual Language Development: Beyond Structural Overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13 (2), 195-210.
Timberlake, A. (2004). A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Topbaş, S., Maviş, İ. & Başal, M. (1996). Acquisition of Bound Morphemes: Nominal Case Morphology in Turkish. In K. İmer & E. Uzun (Eds). VIII. Uluslar arası Türk Dilbilimi Konferansı Bildiri Kitabı. Ankara Üniv. Yay.
Tsimpli, T., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. & Filiaci, F. (2004). First Language Attrition and Syntactic Subjects: A Study of Greek and Italian Near-native Speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism 8, 257–277.
Tsimpli, I. M. & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating Interfaces: L2 Performance in Syntax-Semantics and Syntax-Discourse Phenomena. Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 30, 653-664.
Van der Heijden, H. & Verhoeven, L. (1994). Early Bilingual Development of Turkish Children in the Netherlands. In G. Extra & L Verhoeven (Eds.), The Cross-linguisitc Study of Bilingual Development, 51-73. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse akademie van Wetenschappen.
Viberg, A. (2001). Age-Related and L2-Related Features in Bilingual Narrative Development in Sweden. In L. Verhoeven & S. Strömqvist (Eds.), Narrative Development in a Multilingual Context, 15-55. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
White, L. (2003). Fossilization in Steady State L2 Grammars: Persistent Problems with Inflectional Morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6, 129-141.
White, L. (2007). Linguistic Theory, Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. In B. van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: an introduction (pp. 37-55). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

-

Journal Section

-

Authors

Elena Antonova-ünlü

Publication Date

July 7, 2015

Submission Date

July 7, 2015

Acceptance Date

-

Published in Issue

Year 2015 Volume: 26 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.18492/da.99838

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA23NF94XR

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Antonova-ünlü, E. (2015). Testing the Interface Hypothesis: The evidence from fossilized errors in the use of Turkish case markers. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 26(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.18492/da.99838

Cited By

Interfaces in the returnees’ heritage language: Is the complete (re-)activation possible?

International Journal of Bilingualism

https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069211043572

The role of external factors on the reactivation of the heritage language of Turkish-German returnees

Frontiers in Psychology

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1156779

Testing the Interface Hypothesis: The evidence from fossilized errors in the use of Turkish case markers

Abstract

Keywords

Testing the Interface Hypothesis: The evidence from fossilized errors in the use of Turkish case markers

Öz

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite

Cited By

Interfaces in the returnees’ heritage language: Is the complete (re-)activation possible?

The role of external factors on the reactivation of the heritage language of Turkish-German returnees