1916

Türkçenin İkinci Dil Olarak Ediniminde Gösterimsel Kaydırma Değişkeni

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.

L2 Acquisition of the Indexical Shift Parameter in Turkish

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.

PDF

___

Akkuş, F. (2019). Un-shifting indexicals. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.
Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. In R. B. Young (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT 14 (pp. 20–37). CLC Publications.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis 20, 3-49.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clashen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5, 1-29.
Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). ‘Where Have All the Adjectives Gone?’ and other essays in semantics and syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
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 A. Simpson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL7) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 62 (pp. 269-284). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In Almog, Perry, and Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481-563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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. (2012). When I is not me: A preliminary case study of shifted indexicals in Turkish. Manuscript, UCLA.
Özyıldız, D. (2014). Online Data Collection for the Description of Shifted Indexicals in Turkish. (Unpublished MA thesis). CNRS - Institut Jean-Nicod UMR.
Özyıldız, D., Major, T., & Maier, E. (2019). Communicative Reception Reports as Hear-say: Evidence from Indexical Shift in Turkish. In R. Stockwell, M. O’Leary, Z. Xu, & Z. L. Zhou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 296-305). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
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.
Roberts, I., & Holmberg, A. (2010). Introduction. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory (pp. 1-56) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In S. M. Gass and J. Schachter (Eds), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 73-88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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), 29-120. Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (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.
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 S. Fischer, & S. Gabriel (Eds.), Manuals of Romance Linguistics (MRL): Grammatical Interfaces (pp. 392-362). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Shklovsky, K., & Sudo, Y. (2014). The syntax of monsters. Linguistic Inquiry, 45(3), 381-402.
Sundaresan, S. (under review). A new theory of indexical shift. Available at https://www.sndrsn.org/indexicalshift.
Tsimpli, I., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter resetting in L2? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149-169.
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.
von Stechow, A. (2002). Binding by Verbs: Tense, Person and Mood under Attitudes. Manuscript, Tübingen.
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.
Yuan, B. (2001). The status of thematic verbs in the second language acquisition of Chinese: against inevitability of thematic-verb raising in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(3), 248-272.