___

• Altan, A. 2008. Türkçe’de Sözcük Diziminin Edinimi. In 20nci Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. y. Çotuksöken & N. Yalçın (eds.) Maltepe Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul, Turkey. 51-63.
• Blom, E. and van Geert, P. 2004. Signs of developing grammar: subject drop and inflection in early child Dutch. Linguistics. Vol. 42. Mouton de Gruyter.
• Bloom, L. 1970. Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA: M. I. T. Press.
• Bloom, P. 1990. Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 491–504.
• Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
• Clahsen, H. 1991. Constraints on parameter setting. A grammatical analysis of some acqui- sition stages in German child language, Language Acquisition 1, 361–391.
• Enç, M. 1986. Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish, Studies in Turkish Linguistics, D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (eds.). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
• Erguvanlı, E. 1984.The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. California: University of California Press.
• Gerken, L. A. 1991. The metrical basis for children’s subjectless sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30. 431–451.
• Göksel, A. and C. Kerslake 2005 [third reprint 2010]. Turkish, A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
• Grinstead, J. 2004. Subjects and interface delay in child Spanish and Catalan. Language. Vol, 80. Linguistic Society of America.
• Hyams, N. 1986. Language Acquisition and The Theory of Parameters. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
• Hyams, N. 1992. A reanalysis of null subjects in child language. J. Weissenborn, H.
• Hyams, N. and Wexler, K. 1993. On the grammatcal basis of null subjects in child langua- ge in Linguistic Inquiry, 24. 421–459.
• Kim, Y. 1996. The acquisition of Korean. In D. Slobin (ed.). The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 4. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1984. Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
• Lillo-Martin, D. 1986. Effects of the Acquisition of Morphology on Syntactic Parameter Setting. In S. Berman, J.-W. Choe, & J. McDonough (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 16, 305–321. Amherst: GLSA.
• Lillo-Martin, D. 1986. Effects of the Acquisition of Morphology on Syntactic Parameter Setting. In S. Berman, J.-W. Choe, & J. McDonough (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 16, 305–321. Amherst: GLSA.
• Lillo-Martin, D. 1991. Universal Grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the Null Argument Parameters.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Lillo-Martin, D. 1994. Setting the null argument parameters: Evidence from American Sign Language and other languages. In B. Lust, G. Hermon, J.Kornfilt (eds.), In Sytanctic Theory and First Language Acquisition- Crosslinguistics Perspectives: Binding, Dependencies and Learnability, 301- 318. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• MacWhinney, B. 1995. The CHILDES project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
• Mazuka, R., Lust, B. Wakayama, T & Snyder, W. 1986. Distinguishing effects of parame- ters in early syntax acquisition: A cross- linguistic study of Japanese and English in Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 25, 73–82.
• Özsoy, S. 1987. Null subject parameter and Turkish, Studies on Modern Turkish, H. E. Boeschoten & L. Th. Verhoeven (eds). Proceedings of the Third Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Tilburg University Press.
• Öztürk, B. 1999. Turkish as a non-pro-drop language. MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
• Öztürk, B. 2000. Bir Adıl-Düşürme dili olarak Türkçe. XIII. Türk Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, (Proceedings of the XIII. National Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
• Pierce, A. 1992 Language Acquisition and Syntactic Theory: A Comparative Analysis of French and English Child Grammars. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
• Slobin, D. I. 1982. Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In Language Acquisition: The State of Art. Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Slobin, D. I & Talay, A. 1986. Development of Pragmatic Uses of Subject Pronouns in Turkish child language. In A. Aksu-Koç & Erguvanlı Taylan (eds.). Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference. Pp 207–228. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
• Taylan, E. E. 1986. Pronominal vs. Zero Representation of Anaphora in Turkish. In Studies in Turkish Linguistics, (eds.) Dan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer, Amsterdam: John Benjamins,206–233.
• Valian, V. 1991. Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children.Cognition 40, 21–81.
• Valian, V. & Aubry, S. 2005. When opportunity knocks twice: two-year-olds’ repetition of sentence subjects. Journal of Child Language 32, 617–641.
• Valian, V. & Eisenberg, Z. 1996. Syntactic subjects in the speech of Portuguese-speaking children. Journal of Child Language 23, 103–128.
• Wang, Q., Lillo- Martin, D., Best, C. T., Levitt, A. 1992. Null subjects vs. Null object: some evidence from the acquisition of Chinese and English. Language Acquisition, 2. 221–254.
• Weissenborn, J. 1992. Null Subjects in Early Grammars: Implications for Parameter Setting Theories, in J. Weissenborn, H. Goodluck and T. Roeper, eds., Theoretical Issues in Language Acquisition, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Zimmer, K. 1984. On the sytnactic properties of empty categories. In Türk Dilbilimi Konferansı Bildirileri. 9–10 Ağustos 1984. Aksu-Koç, A. & Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (eds.) Boğaziçi University.