Acquisition of L2 Turkish prosody
The effects of purely phonological and phonosyntactic issues
This paper investigates second language acquisition of lower-level (i.e. word-level) and higher-level prosody in Turkish to address the role of Universal Grammar (UG) via two different studies. The results of the first study demonstrate that lower-level prosody presents particular challenges for English-speaking learners, as the task for them involves expunging a prosodic constituent from the grammar, which is hypothesized to be impossible. Higher-level prosody, on the other hand, was found to be relatively easy to acquire, despite not being taught in Turkish language classes in a comprehensive and linguistically correct manner. Although learners were not native-like in their performance on lower-level prosody, their representations were UG-constrained. Thus, it is concluded that learners have access to UG for prosody at both levels.
References
Akita, M.O
2006 Global foreign accent and classroom input in L2 perception and production. In
Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development
,
D. Bamman,
T. Magnitskaia &
C. Zaller (eds), 1–14. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
Akita, M.O
2007 Global foreign accent and the effectiveness of a prosody-oriented approach in EFL classrooms. In
Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development
,
H. Caunt-Nulton,
S. Kulatilake &
I. Woo (eds), 46–57. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
Archibald, J
1992 Transfer of L1 parameter settings: Some evidence from Polish metrics.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37: 301–339.
Archibald, J
1993 Language Learnability and L2 Phonology: The Acquisition of Metrical Parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Archibald, J
1998 Second language phonology, phonetics, and typology.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 190–211.
Beck, M.L
1998 L2 acquisition and obligatory head movement: English-speaking learners of German and the local impairment hypothesis.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 311–348.
Beckman, M.E
1986 Stress and Non-stress Accent. Dordrecht: Foris.
Belikova, A
2008 Explicit instruction vs. linguistic competence in adult L2-acquisition. In
Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development
,
H. Chan,
E. Kapia &
H. Jacob (eds), 48–59. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
Belikova, A
2013 Getting L2 Reflexive and Reciprocal Verbs Right. PhD dissertation, McGill University.
Berwick, R.C
1985 The Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Bley-Vroman, R
1990 The logical problem of foreign language learning.
Linguistic Analysis 20: 3–49.
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D
2011 Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program]. Version 5.2.27, retrieved
March 2011 from
[URL]
Clahsen, H. & Hong, U
1995 Agreement and null subjects in German L2 development: New evidence from reaction-time experiments.
Second Language Research 11: 57–87.
Demircan, Ö
1996 Türkçenin Ses Dizimi. İstanbul: Der Yayınevi.
Demuth, K
1995 Markedness and development of prosodic structure. In
Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS 25),
J. Beckman (ed.), 13–25. Amherst MA: GLSA.
Dresher, E. & Kaye, J
1990 A computational learning model for metrical phonology.
Cognition 34: 137–195.
Erguvanlı, E
1984 The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Erkü, F
1983 Discourse Pragmatics and Word Order in Turkish. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Féry, C
2001 Focus and phrasing in French. In
Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow,
C. Féry &
W. Sternefeld (eds), 153–181. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Fikkert, P
1994 On the Acquisition of Prosodic Structure. PhD dissertation, HIL dissertations 6, Leiden University. The Hague: HAG.
Flynn, S. & Martohardjono, G
1994 Mapping from the initial state to the final state: the separation of universal principles and language-specific principles. In
Syntactic Theory and First Language Acquisition: Crosslinguistic Perspectives, Vol. 1: Heads, Projections and Learnability,
B. Lust,
M. Suner &
J. Whitman (eds), 319–335. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fry, D
1955 Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27: 765–768.
Goad, H
1997 Codas, word minimality, and empty-headed syllables. In
Child Language Research Forum 28,
E.V. Clark (ed.), 113–122. Stanford CA: CSLI.
Goad, H
To appear.
Phonological processes in child speech. In
The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics,
J. Lidz,
W. Snyder &
J. Pater (eds) Oxford OUP
Goad, H. & Prévost, A.E
2011 A test case for markedness: The acquisition of Québec French stress. Ms, McGill University.
Goad, H. & White, L
2006 Ultimate attainment in interlanguage grammars: A prosodic approach.
Second Language Research 22: 243–268.
Goad, H. & White, L
2008 Prosodic structure and the representation of L2 functional morphology: A nativist approach.
Lingua 118: 577–594.
Goad, H., White, L. & Steele, J
2003 Missing inflection in L2 acquisition: Defective syntax or L1-constrained prosodic representations? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 48: 243–263.
Gordon, M
2014 Disentangling stress and pitch-accent: A typology of prominence at different prosodic levels. In
Word Accent: Theoretical and Typological Issues,
H. van der Hulst (ed.), 83–118. Cambridge: CUP.
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C
2005 Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. New York NY: Routledge.
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J.-R
1987 An Essay on Stress. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Hawkins, R. & Chan, C.Y
1997 The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’.
Second Language Research 13: 187–226.
Hayes, B
1981 A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules. PhD dissertation, MIT. (Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club).
Hayes, B
1995 Metrical Stress Ttheory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Hualde, J.I., Elordieta, G., Gamind, I. & Smiljanic, R
2002 From pitch-accent to stress-accent in Basque. In
Laboratory Phonology 7,
C. Gussenhoven,
N. Warner &
T. Rietveld (eds), 547–584. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hyman, L.M
2014 Do all languages have word accent? In
Word Accent: Theoretical and Typological Issues,
H. van der Hulst (ed.), 56–82. Cambridge: CUP.
Inkelas, S. & Orgun, C.O
1998 Level (non)ordering in recursive morphology: Evidence from Turkish. In
Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax,
S.G. Lapointe,
D.K. Brentari &
P.M. Farrell (eds), 360–410. Stanford CA: CSLI.
Inkelas, S. & Orgun, C.O
2003 Turkish stress: A review.
Phonology 20: 139–161.
İşsever, S
2003 Information structure in Turkish: The word order-prosody interface.
Lingua 113: 1025–1053.
İpek, C
2011 Phonetic realization of focus with no on-focus pitch-range expansion in Turkish. In
Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhs 17)
,
W.-S. Lee &
E. Zee (eds), 140–143.
İpek, C. & Zubizarreta, M.L
2014 Nuclear stress as an abstract rhythmic notion: Evidence from Turkish. Paper presented at
the 10th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics
, MIT, Cambridge MA.
Jun, S.-A. & Fougeron, C
2000 A phonological model of French intonation. In
Intonation: Analysis, Modelling and Technology,
A. Botinis (ed.), 209–242. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kabak, B. & Vogel, I
2001 The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish.
Phonology 18: 315–360.
Kamali, B
2011 Topics at the PF Interface in Turkish. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
Kılıçaslan, Y
1994 Information Packaging in Turkish. MA thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Konrot, A
1981 Physical correlates of linguistic stress in Turkish.
University of Sussex Language Centre Occasional Papers 24: 26–52.
Konrot, A
1987 Stress in Turkish: Is it determined phonologically or morphologically? In
Studies on Modern Turkish: Proceedings of the Third Conference on Turkish Linguistics
,
H. E. Boeschoten &
L.T. Verhoeven (eds). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Kornfilt, J
1997 Turkish Grammar. London: Routledge.
Ladd, D.R
1996 Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.
Lieberman, P
1960 Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 32: 451–454.
Liberman, M. & Prince, A
1977 On stress and linguistic rhythm.
Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336.
Marcus, M.P
1980 A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A
1986 Prosodic morphology. Ms, Brandeis University and University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Nespor M. & Vogel, I
1986 Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Özçelik, Ö
2011 Redefining the Prosodic Hierarchy. Paper presented at
Phonology in the 21st Century: In Honour of Glyne Piggott
, McGill University, Montréal.
Özçelik, Ö
2013 Exceptions in stress assignment: Feet in input. In
Proceedings of 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 40)
,
S. Kan,
C. Moore-Cantwell &
R. Staubs (eds). Amherst MA: GLSA.
Özçelik, Ö
2014 Prosodic faithfulness to foot edges: The case of Turkish stress.
Phonology 31: 229–269.
Özçelik, Ö
To appear.
The Foot is not an obligatory constituent of the Prosodic Hierarchy: “stress” in Turkish, French and child English.
The Linguistic Review [forthcoming 2017].
Özçelik, Ö & Nagai, M
2010 Possible syntactic subject positions in Turkish: Evidence from phonology. In
Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 6) [
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 61],
Hiroki Maezawa &
Azusa Yokogoshi (eds). Cambridge MA: MITWPL.
Özçelik, Ö. & Nagai, M
2011 Multiple subject positions: A case of perfect match between syntax and prosody. In
Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference for Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 28)
,
M. Byram &
B. Tomaszewicz (eds), 303–312. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
Özge, U
2012 Notes on focus projection in Turkish. In
Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics
,
É. Kincses-Nagy &
M. Biacsi (eds), 141–154. Szeged: Studia Uralo-Altaica.
Peterson, G. & Lehiste, I
1960 Duration and syllable nuclei in English.
Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 32: 693–703.
Post, B
2003 French phrasing and accentuation in different speaking styles. In
Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 8,
E. Grabe &
D. Wright (eds), 69–83.
Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R
Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, B
1996 L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model.
Second Language Research 12: 40–72.
Selkirk, E
1984 Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Selkirk, E
1986 On derived domains in sentence phonology.
Phonology 3: 371–405.
Tremblay, A
2007 Bridging the Gap between Theoretical Linguistics and Psycholinguistics in L2 Phonology: The Acquisition and Processing of Word Stress by French Canadian L2 learners of English. PhD dissertation, University of Hawai’i.
Trofimovich, P. & Baker, W
2006 Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 1–30.
Tsimpli, I.M. & Sorace, A
2006 Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax–semantics and syntax–discourse phenomena. In
Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development,
D. Bamman,
T. Magnitskaia, &
C. Zaller (eds), 653–664. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
White, L
1989a Linguistic universals, markedness and learnability: comparing two different approaches.
Second Language Research 5: 127–140.
White, L
2003 Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.
Zubizarreta, M.L
1998 Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
GÜNGÖR, Haluk & Halit KARATAY
2023.
Fluent Reading Skills of Learners of Turkish as A Foreign Language.
Participatory Educational Research 10:2
► pp. 105 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.