Article published in:
Second Language Acquisition of Turkish
Edited by Ayşe Gürel
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 59] 2016
► pp. 251–279

Processing morphology in L2 Turkish

The effects of morphological richness in the L1

| Yeditepe University
| Bogaziçi University
Cross-linguistic research suggests that the processing of multimorphemic words in a language is tuned by its morphological characteristics. This means the processing pattern of a language either as a first (L1) or a second language (L2) can be influenced by its morphological properties. In L2 acquisition, the question is whether learners demonstrate, like native speakers, a processing pattern that is shaped by the morphological structure of that language or whether they follow an L1-based processing route. The present study explores this via unprimed lexical decision data from L1-English and L1-Russian learners of L2 Turkish. The results revealed decomposition in Russian-speaking participants but not in Turkish speakers or English-speaking participants. This implies L2 proficiency-­based differences in the extent of L1 transfer in processing inflection.
Keywords: L1 transfer, L2 acquisition, morphological processing, Turkish
Published online: 25 May 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.59.10uyg
References

References

Alegre, M. & Gordon, P.
1999 Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 41–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R.H., Dijkstra, T. & Schreuder, R.
1997 Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language 37: 94–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Babcock, L., Stowe, J.S., Maloof, C.J., Brovetto, C. & Ullman, M.T.
2012 The storage and composition of inflected forms in adult-learned second language: A study of the influence of length of residence, age of arrival, sex, and other factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15(4): 820–840. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Basnight-Brown, D.M., Chen, L., Hua, S., Kostić, A. & Feldmann, L.
2007 Monolingual and bilingual recognition of regular and irregular English verbs: Sensitivity to form similarity varies with first language experience. Journal of Memory and Language 57: 65–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, R., Laine, M. & Karvinen, K.
1999 The interplay of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity in lexical processing: Evidence from a morphologically rich language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28(3): 213–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowden, H.W., Gelfand, M.P., Sanz, C. & Ullman, M.T.
2010 Verbal inflectional morphology in L1 and L2 Spanish: A frequency effects study examining storage versus composition. Language Learning 60(1): 44–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, B.
1983 Lexical representation. In Language Production: Development, Writing, and Other Language Processes, Vol. 2, B. Butterworth (ed.), 257–294. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A. & Romani, C.
1988 Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition 28: 297–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A.
2002 An Introduction to English Morphology: Words and their Structure. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
ChernigovskayaT. & Gor, K.
2000 The complexity of paradigm and input frequencies in native and second language verbal processing: Evidence from Russian. Language and Language Behavior 3(2): 20–37.Google Scholar
Chialant, D. & Caramazza, A.
1995 Where is morphology and how is it processed? The case of written word recognition. In Morphological Aspects of Language Processing, L.B. Feldman (ed.), 55–76. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Eisenbeiss, S. & Sonnenstuhl, I.
1997 Morphological structure and the processing of inflected words. Theoretical Linguistics 23(3): 201–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Felser, C., Neubauer, K., Sato, M. & Silva, R.
2010 Morphological structure in native and non-native language processing. Language Learning 60(1): 21–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Balkhair, L., Schutter, J.S. & Cunnings, I.
2013 The time course of morphological processing in a second language. Second Language Research 29(1): 7–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B.
2009 Russian. In The World’s Major Languages, 2nd edn, B. Comrie (ed.), 274–288. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cubberly, P.
2002 Russian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R.M.
2005 What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55(1): 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W.U.
2007 Introduction to: Early development of nominal and verbal morphology from a typological perspective. In Typological Perspectives on the Acquisition of Noun and Verb Morphology [Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 112], S. Laaha & S. Gillis (eds), 3–9. 
Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
2002 Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 223–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, L.B. & Basnight-Brown
2007 Origins of cross-language differences in word recognition. In The Mental Lexicon: Core Perspectives, G. Jarema & G. Libben (eds), 129–158. Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, L.B., Kostic, A., Basnight-Brown, D.M., Filipovic-Durdevic, D. & Pastizzo, M. J.
2010 Morphological facilitation for regular and irregular verb formations in native and non-native speakers: Little evidence for two distinct mechanisms. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13(2): 119–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Finegan, E.
2009 English. In The World’s Major Languages, 2nd edn, B. Comrie (ed.), 59–85. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Frauenfelder, U. & Schreuder, R.
1992 Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: The role of productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology, G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds), 165–183. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Frost, R. & Grainger, J.
2000 Cross-linguistic perspectives on morphological processing: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes 15(4–5): 321–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gor, K.
2010 Introduction: Beyond the obvious: Do second language learners process inflectional morphology? Language Learning 60(1): 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gor, K. & Chernigovskaya, T.
2001 Rules in the processing of Russian verbal morphology. In Current Issues in Formal Slavic Linguistics, G. Zybatow, U. Junghanns, G. Mehlhorn & L. Szucsich (eds), 528–535. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2005 Formal instruction and the acquisition of verbal morphology. In Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition, A. Housen & M. Pierrard (eds), 131–164. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gor, K. & Cook, S.
2010 Nonnative processing of verbal morphology: In search of regularity. Language Learning 60(1): 88–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gor,K. & Jackson, S.
2013 Morphological decomposition and lexical access in a native and second language: A nesting doll effect. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(7): 1065–1091. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C.
2005 Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gürel, A.
1999 Decomposition: To what extent? The case of Turkish. Brain and Language 68: 218–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gürel, A. & Uygun, S.
2013 Representation of multimorphemic words in the mental lexicon: Implications for second language acquisition of morphology. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference on Language Development, S. Baiz, N. Goldman & R. Hawkes (eds), 122–133. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
Hahne, A., Mueller, J. & Clahsen, H
2006 Morphological processing in a second language: Behavioural and event-related potential evidence for storage and decomposition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18(1): 121–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, J.
1989 Morphological parsing and the lexicon. In Lexical Representation and Process, W.D. Marslen-Wilson (ed.), 392–408. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacob, G., Fleischhauer, E. & Clahsen, H.
2013 Allomorphy and affixation in morphological processing: A cross-modal priming study with late bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(4): 924–933. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, L., Rexer, K. & Lukatela, G.
1991 The processing of inflected words. Psychological Research 53: 25–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kazanina, N., Dukova-Zheleva, G., Geber, D., Kharlamov, V. & Tonciulescu, K.
2008 Decomposition into multiple morphemes during lexical access: A masked priming study of Russian nouns. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(6): 800–823. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kırkıcı, B. & Clahsen, H.
2013 Inflection and derivation in native and non-native language processing: Masked priming experiments on Turkish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16: 776–791. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, J.
1997 Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2009 Turkish and the Turkic languages. In The World’s Major Languages, 2nd edn, B. Comrie (ed.)519–544. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Laine, M.
1996 Lexical status of inflectional and derivational suffixes: Evidence from Finnish. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 37: 238–248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laine, M. & Koivisto, M.
1998 Lexical access to inflected words as measured by lateralized visual lexical decision. Psychological Research 61: 220–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laine, M., Vainio, S. & Hyönä, J.
1999 Lexical access routes to nouns in a morphologically rich language. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 109–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D.
1998 Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research 14(1): 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laudanna, A. & Burani, C.
1985 Address mechanisms to decomposed lexical entries. Linguistics 23: 775–792. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehtonen, M. & Laine, M.
2003 How word frequency affects morphological processing in monolinguals and bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6(3): 213–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehtonen, M., Niska, H., Wande, E., Niemi, J. & Laine, M.
2006 Recognition of inflected words in a morphologically limited language: Frequency effects in monolinguals and bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 35(2): 121–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lukatela, G., Gligorijevic, B., Kostic, B. & Turvey, A.
1980 Representation of inflected nouns in the internal lexicon. Memory and Cognition 8: 415–423. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W.D.
2007 Morphological processes in language comprehension. In The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, G. Gaskel (ed.), 175–193. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. & Tyler, L.K.
1998 Rules, representations, and the English past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2 (11): 428–435. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morris, J. & Stockall, L.
2012 Early, equivalent ERP masked priming effects for regular and irregular morphology. Brain and Language 123(2): 81–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Münte, T.F., Say, T., Clahsen, H., Schiltz, K. & Kutas, M.
1999 Decomposition of morphologically complex words in English: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research 7: 241–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neubauer, K. & Clahsen, H.
2009 Decomposition of inflected words in a second language: An experimental study of German participles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31: 403–435. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, J., Laine, M. & Tuominen, J.
1994 Cognitive morphology in Finnish: Foundations of a new model. Language and Cognitive Processes 3: 423–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J.
1960 A Frequency Count of Turkish Words. Ankara: Milli Egitim Mudurlugu.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Ullman, M.T.
2002 The past tense debate: The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(11): 456–463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Portin, M. & Laine, M.
2001 Processing cost associated with inflectional morphology in bilingual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4(1): 55–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Portin, M., Lehtonen, M. & Laine, M.
2007 Processing of inflected nouns in late bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics 28: 135–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Portin, M., LehtonenM., Harrer, G., Wande, E., Niemi, J. & Laine, M.
2008 L1 effects on the processing of inflected nouns in L2. Acta Psychologica 128: 452–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romanova, N.
2008 Mechanisms of verbal morphology processing in heritage speakers of Russian. Heritage Language Journal 6(1): 105–126.Google Scholar
Sakaguchi, K.
2006 Morphological processing of inflection in native speakers and second language learners of English: A masked priming study. MA thesis, University of Essex.
Say, B., Zeyrek, D., Oflazer, K. & Özge, U.
2004 Development of a corpus and a treebank for present-day written Turkish. In Current Research in Turkish Lingustics, K. İmer & G. Doğan (eds), 183–192. Famagusta: Eastern Mediterranean University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A. & Zuccolotto, A.
2002 E-Prime: Reference Guide.Pittsburgh PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Schreuder, R. & Baayen, R.H.
1995 Modelling morphological processing. In Morphological Aspects of Language Processing, L.B. Feldman (ed.), 131–154. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sereno, J.A. & Jongman, A.
1997 Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory and Cognition 25(4): 425–437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silva, R.
2008 Morphological processing in a second language: Evidence from psycholinguistic experiments. PhD dissertation, University of Essex.
Silva, R. & Clahsen, H.
2008 Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11(2): 245–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stanners, R.F., Neiser, J.J., Hernon, W.P. & Hall, R.
1979 Memory representation for morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18: 399–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, J.P. & MacWhinney, B.
1986 Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory and Cognition 14(1): 17–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M.
1979 Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory and Cognition 7: 263–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M. & Forster, K.
1975 Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14: 638–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M.T.
1999 Acceptability ratings of regular and irregular past-tense forms: Evidence for a dual-system model of language from word frequency and phonological neighborhood effects. Language and Cognitive Processes 14: 47–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Mind and Context in Adult Second Language Acquisition: Methods, Theory and Practice, C. Sanz (ed.), 141–178. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Vainio, S., Pajunen, A. & Hyönä, J.
2014 L1 and L2 word recognition in Finnish: Examining L1 effects on L2 processing of morphological complexity and morphophonological transparency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36: 133–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vannest, J., Bertram, R., Järvikivi, J. & Niemi, J.
2002 Counterintuitive cross-linguistic differences: More morphological computation in English than Finnish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31(2): 83–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Durand López, Ezequiel M.
2020. A bilingual advantage in memory capacity: Assessing the roles of proficiency, number of languages acquired and age of acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism ► pp. 136700692096571 ff. Crossref logo
Jacob, Gunnar, Duygu Fatma Şafak, Orhan Demir & Bilal Kırkıcı
2019. Preserved morphological processing in heritage speakers: A masked priming study on Turkish. Second Language Research 35:2 ► pp. 173 ff. Crossref logo
Uygun, Serkan & Harald Clahsen
2020. Morphological processing in heritage speakers: A masked priming study on the Turkish aorist. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 2020. 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.