Cover not available
Part of
Second Language Acquisition of Turkish
Edited by Ayşe Gürel
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 59] 2016
► pp. 75–106

The acquisition of TAM markers in L2 Turkish

Evidence from Greek learners

| Ankara University
| Kirikkale University
| Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
The acquisition of tense, aspect and modality (TAM) poses a major acquisition problem for adult second language (L2) learners. Early interlanguages are reported to be impoverished with respect to the use of TAM markers. In this paper, we investigate the acquisition and the use of TAM morphemes -(I)yor, -A/Ir, -(y)AcAK, -DI and -mIş by providing empirical data from the interlanguage of adult Greek learners of Turkish. More specifically, the purpose of the present study is to identify the most problematic morphology within TAM and to account for the results on the basis of the inherent functional characteristics of the relevant morphology in Turkish as well as first language (L1) Greek influence.
Keywords: Modern Greek, TAM markers, Turkish as a second language
Published online: 25 May 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.59.04kai
References (53)
References
Aikhenvald, A. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. 1988. The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R.W. 1991. Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect marking in second language acquisition. In Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theories [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 2], T. Huebner & C.A. Ferguson (eds), 305–324. 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R.W. & Shirai, Y. 1994. Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16(2): 133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: the pidgin-creole connection. In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, W. C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (eds), 527–570. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Balcı, A. 2000. Grammatical categories. In Turkish Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, 
Z. Balpınar (ed.), 95–130. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2013. Acquisition of tense and aspect. In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition, P. Robinson (ed.), 6–8. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bartning, I. 2003. ‘Je ne pense pas que ce soit vrai’ – le subjonctif un trait tardif dans l’acquisition du français L2. In Hommage à Jane Nystedt, M. Metzeltin (ed.), 31–49. Wien: Drei Eidechsen.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clairis, C. & Babiniotis, G. 1999. Γραμματική της Νέας Ελληνικής (Δομολειτουργική – Επικοινωνιακή) τ. ΙΙ: Το Ρήμα της Νέας Ελληνικής: η Οργάνωση του Μηνύματος (Modern Greek Grammar: Structural, Functional and Communicative, II: The Verb: the Organization of the Message). Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. & Terborg, H. 1991. Modality and second language learning. In Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theories [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 2], T. Huebner & C. Ferguson (eds), 347–383. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Efstathiadi, L. 2010. The use of epistemic markers as a means of hedging and boosting in the discourse of L1 and L2 speakers of Modern Greek: A corpus-based study in informal letter-writing. Themes in Science and Technology Education 3: 181–206.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. 1996. On the parameter of aspect in Turkish. In Modern Studies in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics , 
A. Konrot (ed.), 153–168. Eskişehir: Anadolu University.
. 1997. Türkçede görünüş, zaman ve kiplik ilişkisi: {-DI} biçimbirimi. XI. Dilbilim Kurultayı: Bildiriler, 1–11.Google Scholar
. 2001. On the relation between temporal/aspectual adverbs and the verb form in Turkish. In The Verb in Turkish [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 44], E. Erguvanlı-Taylan (ed.), 97–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. & Özsoy, S. 1993. Türkçedeki bazı kiplik biçimlerinin öğretimi üzerine. VII. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. 2006. Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics 27: 464–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The elicited oral imitation test as a measure of implicit knowledge. In Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing, and Teaching, R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Edler, R. Erlam, J. Philp & H. Reinders (eds), 65–93. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Gallimore, R. & Tharp, R.G. 1981. The interpretation of elicited sentence imitation in a standardized context. Language Learning 31(2): 369–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A. 1992. Grammaticalization processes in the area of temporal and modal relations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14: 297–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Güven, M. 2006. Adverbials in Turkish: The Third Parameter in Aspectual Interpretation. 
Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Harley, B. 1992. Patterns of second language development in French immersion. Journal of French Language Studies 2: 159–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holton, D., Mackridge, P. & Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1997. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Howard, M. 2008. Morphosyntactic development in the expression of modality: The subjunctive in French L2 acquisition. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11: 171–192.Google Scholar
Iakovou, M. 1999. Τροπικές Κατηγορίες στο Ρηµατικό Σύστηµα της Νέας Ελληνικής (Modal categories in the verbal system of Modern Greek). PhD Dissertation, University of Athens.
Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidentials and Relevance [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 86]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, B.D. & Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1987. Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Κaili, H. 2008. Πόσο διαρκεί ο χρόνος διαρκείας της Τουρκικής; Μια προσπάθεια επαναπροσδιορισμού του Geniş Zaman (How long does the Aorist of Turkish last? An attempt to redefine Geniş Zaman). In Languages for Intercultural Dialogue, J. Burston, E. Gavriel, 
M. Monville-Burston & P. Pavlou (eds), 75–85. Nicosia: Representation of the European Union in Cyprus.Google Scholar
Kaili, H. & Çeltek, A. 2011. The Puzzling Case of Geniş Zaman for the Greek-speaking learners of Turkish. In Theoretical and Applied Researches on Turkish Language Teaching, L. Uzun & Ü. Bozkurt (eds), 545–557. Εssen: Die Blaue Eule.Google Scholar
. 2012. On the teaching of -mIş to foreign learners of Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları 2012/2: 1–20.Google Scholar
Mozer, A. 1994. Ποιόν και απόψεις του ρήματος (Aktionsart and Aspects of the Verb). Athens: Parousia.Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., Varlokosta, S., Spyropoulos, V., Kaili, H., Prokou, S. & Revithiadou, A. 2011. Case morphology and word order in L2 Turkish: Evidence from Greek learners. Second Language Research 27 (2): 173–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plungian, V.A. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 349–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ralli, A. 2005. Μορφολογία (Morphology). Athens: Patakis.Google Scholar
Rosch, E.H. 1973. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, T.E. Moore (ed.), 111–144. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roussou, A. 1999. Modals and the subjunctive. In Studies in Greek Syntax, A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks & M. Stavrou (eds), 169–183. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setatos, M. 1994a. Επιχειρηματολογικές χρήσεις πραγματολογικών μορίων στην κοινή νεοελληνική (Argumentative Uses of Pragmatic Particles in Standard Modern Greek). In Γλωσσολογικές Μελέτες (Linguistic Studies), M. Setatos (ed.), 127–146. Thessaloniki: 
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
. 1994b. Επιχειρηματολογικές χρήσεις του λέγω (Argumentative uses of lego). In Γλωσσολογικές Μελέτες (Linguistic Studies), M. Setatos (ed.), 147–166. Thessaloniki: 
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Shirai, Y. & Andersen, R.W. 1995. The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: A prototype account. Language 71(4): 743–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temürcü, C. 2007. A Semantic Framework for Analyzing Tense, Aspect and Mood: An Application to the Ranges of Polysemy of -Xr, -DIr, -Iyor and -Ø in Turkish. PhD dissertation, University of Antwerp.
Terrell, T., Baycroft, B. & Perrone, C. 1987. The subjunctive in Spanish interlanguage: Accuracy and comprehensibility. In Foreign Language Learning: A Research Perspective, B. VanPatten, T.R. Dvorak & J. Lee (eds), 23–48. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Tsangalidis, A. 1999. WILL and THA: A Comparative Study of the Category Future. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Κριτήρια τροπικότητας: η κατηγορία των τροπικών μορίων στα νέα ελληνικά (Criteria for modality: the category of modal particles in Modern Greek). In Μελέτες για την ελληνική γλώσσα(Studies for the Greek Language) 21: 759–770. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
. 2003. Kριτήρια τροπικότητας ΙΙ: η κατηγορία των τροπικών (ημι)βοηθητικών ρημάτων στη νέα ελληνική(Criteria for modality II: the category of modal (semi)auxiliary verbs in Modern Greek). In Μελέτες για την ελληνική γλώσσα (Studies for the Greek Language) 23: 733–744. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
. 2004. Unidirectionality in the grammaticalization of modality in Greek. In Up and Down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59], Ο. Fischer, M. Norde & H. Perridon (eds), 193–209. Αmsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Modals in Greek. In Modals in the Languages of Europe: A Reference Work, B. Hansen & F. De Haan (eds), 139–163. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2012. Evidentiality and modality: Evidence from emerging evidentials in Greek. Paper presented at the Conference ‘The Nature of Evidentiality ’, 14–16 June, Leiden University, The Netherlands.
Veloudis, G. 1985. Η δήλωση του χρόνου στα να- συμπληρώματα (The denotation of tense in na complements in Greek). In Μελέτες για την ελληνική γλώσσα (Studies for the Greek Language), 183–198. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
. 2001. Νά και να (Ná and na). In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, G. Aggouraki, A. Arvaniti, J. Davy, D. Goutsos, M. Karyolemou, A. Panayiotou, A. Papapavlou, P. Pavlou & A. Roussou (eds), 243–250. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.Google Scholar
Weitze, M., McGhee, J., Graham, R.C., Dewey, D.P., & Eggett, D.L. 2011. Variability in L2 acquisition across L1 backgrounds. In Selected Proceedings of the 2009 Second Language Research Forum, L. Plonsky & M. Schierloh (eds), 152–163. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Yavaş, F. 1980. Οn the Meaning of the Tense and Aspect Markers in Turkish. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Coşkun Kunduz, Aylin & Silvina Montrul
2023. Input factors in the acquisition of evidentiality by Turkish heritage language children and adults in the United States. Language Acquisition ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Tosun, Sümeyra & Luna Filipović
2022. Lost in translation, apparently: Bilingual language processing of evidentiality in a Turkish–English Translation and judgment task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 25:5 ► pp. 739 ff. DOI logo
Tosun, Sümeyra & Luna Filipović
2024. Better late than early: The effect of formal second language training on processing of evidentiality in Turkish-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 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.