L2 Acquisition of Indexical Shift Parameter in Turkish

Kadri Kuram

doi:10.18492/dad.628387

TR EN

Türkçenin İkinci Dil Olarak Ediniminde Gösterimsel Kaydırma Değiştirgeni

Öz

Bu makale gösterimsel kaydırma olarak bilinen değiştirgenin D2 edinimini araştırmaktadır. Gösterimseller öncülü bağlamda bulunan sözlüksel birimlerdir. Örneğin, “ben” ve “sen” adılları sırasıyla konuşmanın konuşucusunu ve dinleyicisini gösterir. Ancak bazı diller çekimli iç tümcelerde bulunan gösterimsellerin bağlama alanını kaydırır ve bu sözlüksel birimler ana tümcede bulunan başka bir öncüle bağlanır. Diğer bir deyişle, diller gösterimselleri kaydıran ve kaydırmayan diller olarak kabaca ikiye ayrılabilir. Buradan hareketle, D1’in D2’de gösterimsel kaydırma değiştirgeninin edinimine etkisi nedir sorusu gündeme gelmektedir. Bu çalışmada bu soruyu cevaplamak için ana dilinde gösterimsel kaydırma olan ve olmayan öğrenci gruplarının Türkçe edinimleri üzerinden bir deney yapılmıştır. Sonuçta, Türkçenin gösterimsel kaydırma yaptığı ve öğrencilerin ana dili konuşucularının kaydırma seviyelerinin gerisinde kaldığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ancak kaydırma yapan ve yapmayan dillerden gelen öğrenciler arasındaki edim farkı istatistiksel olarak önemsiz seviyededir. Çalışma ayrıca Türkçe ana dili konuşucularının bu değiştirgen ile ilgili başka çalışmalarda ulaşılan konuşucu yargılarını tekrarlamakta ve yeni öngörüler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

L2 Acquisition of Indexical Shift Parameter in Turkish

Öz

This paper investigates the L2 acquisition of a specific syntactic phenomenon known as indexical shift. Indexicals are lexical items that pick their referents in discourse. For instance, ‘I’ and ‘you’ refer to the speaker and addressee of the conversation. In some languages, however, indexicals may shift to pick a different referent in the matrix clause when they are embedded in a finite complement clause. In other words, languages are largely divided into two groups: shifting and non-shifting languages. Therefore, a natural question to ask is to what extent does L1 affect the L2 acquisition of indexical shift? To answer this question, I carry out an experiment with learners of Turkish from shifting and non-shifting languages and find that L1 has no effect on the learners’ level of native-like performance. Turkish strongly favours shift and learners fall behind native speakers. But the difference between learners from shifting and non-shifting languages is insignificant. The paper also reiterates and elaborates on the judgments of native speakers previously attained elsewhere.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Anand, P. & Nevins, A. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. In Proceedings of SALT 14, ed. by Robert B. Young, 20–37.
Baker, M. (1996). The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis 20, 3-49.
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In von Stechow, J. Jacobs A., Sternefeld, W. & Vennemann, T. (eds.). Syntax: an international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: De Gruyter. Reprinted in: The Minimalist Program, ch.1. Chomsky 1995, 13-127. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy In: Belletti, A. (ed.) Structures and Beyond. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1-22.
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

Clashen, H. & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG Paradox in L2 Acquisition. Second Language Research 5: 1-29.
Clements, G. (1975). The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10: 141–177.
Culy, C. (1994). Aspects of Logophoric Marking. Linguistics 32:1055-1094.
Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). ‘Where Have All the Adjectives Gone?’ and other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Enç, M. (1987). Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633-657.
Eubank, L. (1993). On the transfer of parametric values in L2 development. Language Acquisition 3: 183-208.
Flynn, S. (1983). A study of the effects of principal branching direction in second language acquisition: The generalization of a parameter of Universal Grammar from first to second language acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Gilligan, G. (1987). A Cross-linguistic Approach to the Pro-drop Parameter. PhD thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
Gültekin Şener, N. & Şener, S. (2011). Null subject, indexicality in Turkish and Uyghur. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL7), ed. by Andrew Simpson. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 62. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Hale, K. L. & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. Ms. (MIT).
Haznedar, B. (1997). L2 acquisition by a Turkish-speaking child: evidence for L1 inﬂuence. In E. Hughes, M. Hughes and A. Greenhill (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 245–56). Somerville,MA: Cascadilla Press.
Holmberg, A. (2005). Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533-564.
Holmberg, A. (2010). Null Subject Parameters. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan, Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 88-124.
Huang, J. C-T. (2012). On Macro Variations and Microvariations in Parametric Theory. In Yung-O Biq and Lindsey Chen (eds), The Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Chinese Language and Linguistics (IsCLL-13). (pp. 1-18).
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In Almog, Perry, and Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press.
Kayne, R. (2005). Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In Guglielmo Cinque and Richard Kayne (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax. (pp. 3-69). New York: Oxford University Press.
Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D. (1989). Pronouns, logical variables and logophoricity in Abe. Linguistic Inquiry 20 (4), 555–588.
Martohardjono, G. (1993). Wh-movement in the Acquisition of a Second Language: A Cross-linguistic Study of Three Languages with and without Movement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Özyıldız, D. (2014). Online Data Collection for the Description of Shifted Indexicals in Turkish. Unpublished MA thesis. CNRS - Institut Jean-Nicod UMR.
Perlmutter, D. M. (1971). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Platzack, C. (1996). The initial hypothesis of syntax: A minimalist perspective on language acquisition and attrition. In H. Clahsen (ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition: empirical ﬁndings, theoretical considerations, crosslinguistic comparisons (pp. 369–414). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rizzi L. (1997). The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Haegeman L. (eds), Elements of Grammar. Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics. Springer, Dordrecht.
Roberts, I. & Holmberg, A. (2010). Introduction. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan, Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-56.
Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In S. M. Gass and J. Schachter (eds), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
Schlenker, P. (1999). Propositional Attitudes and Indexicality (A Cross-Categorial Approach), Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Schlenker, P. (2003). A Plea for Monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 1, (pp. 29-120).
Schwartz, B. D. & R. Sprouse. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 317–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40-72.
Sells, P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18 (3), 445–479.
Sheehan, M. (2006). The EPP and null subjects in Romance. Ph.D. dissertation. Newcastle University.
Sheehan, M. (2015). Subjects, null-subjects and expletives in Romance. In Fischer, S. and Gabriel, S. (eds.) Manuals of Romance Linguistics (MRL): Grammatical Interfaces. De Gruyter Mouton.
Shklovsky, K. & Sudo, Y. (2014). The syntax of monsters. Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 45, Number 3, pp. 381-402.
Speas, M. (2004). Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua 114, 255-276.
Stechow, A.V. (2002). Binding by Verbs: Tense, Person and Mood under Attitudes. Manuscript, Tübingen.
Tsimpli, I. & Roussou, A. (1991) Parameter resetting in L2? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3, 149-169.
Tosun, G. A. (2002). Finiteness, case and clausal architecture. Unpublished Phd dissertation. Harvard University.
Uziel, S. (1993). Resetting Universal Grammar parameters: evidence from second language acquisition of subjacency and the empty category principle. Second Language Research, 9, 49-83.
White, L. (1985). The ‘Pro-Drop’ parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning 35, 47-62.
White, L. (1987). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12, 51–97.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

-

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Kadri Kuram
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

30 Aralık 2020

Gönderilme Tarihi

2 Ekim 2019

Kabul Tarihi

25 Aralık 2020

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2020 Cilt: 31 Sayı: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.628387

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA46XM38YT

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Kuram, K. (2020). L2 Acquisition of Indexical Shift Parameter in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 31(2), 231-263. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.628387

AMA

1.Kuram K. L2 Acquisition of Indexical Shift Parameter in Turkish. JLR. 2020;31(2):231-263. doi:10.18492/dad.628387

Chicago

Kuram, Kadri. 2020. “L2 Acquisition of Indexical Shift Parameter in Turkish”. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 31 (2): 231-63. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.628387.

EndNote

Kuram K (01 Aralık 2020) L2 Acquisition of Indexical Shift Parameter in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 31 2 231–263.

IEEE

[1]K. Kuram, “L2 Acquisition of Indexical Shift Parameter in Turkish”, JLR, c. 31, sy 2, ss. 231–263, Ara. 2020, doi: 10.18492/dad.628387.

ISNAD

Kuram, Kadri. “L2 Acquisition of Indexical Shift Parameter in Turkish”. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 31/2 (01 Aralık 2020): 231-263. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.628387.

JAMA

1.Kuram K. L2 Acquisition of Indexical Shift Parameter in Turkish. JLR. 2020;31:231–263.

MLA

Kuram, Kadri. “L2 Acquisition of Indexical Shift Parameter in Turkish”. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, c. 31, sy 2, Aralık 2020, ss. 231-63, doi:10.18492/dad.628387.

Vancouver

1.Kadri Kuram. L2 Acquisition of Indexical Shift Parameter in Turkish. JLR. 01 Aralık 2020;31(2):231-63. doi:10.18492/dad.628387

Cited By

A REVIEW OF STUDIES ON ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF GENERATIVE LINGUISTICS

Journal of Language and Communication

https://doi.org/10.47836/jlc.11.02.04