Cover not available
Article published In:
The role of input on early first language morphosyntactic development: Le rôle de l’input sur le développement morphosyntaxique précoce en langue maternelle
Edited by Sophie Kern, Frédérique Gayraud and Florence Chenu
[Language, Interaction and Acquisition 5:1] 2014
► pp. 62–81

Input offers and child uptakes

Acquiring mood and modal morphology in Turkish

 | Department of Psychology, Bogaziçi University
 | Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, University of Connecticut
 | Department of Western Languages and Literatures, Bogaziçi University
The present study examines input–output relations in the emergence of verbal affixes that mark modal distinctions in Turkish, a morphologically rich language. Longitudinal naturalistic speech data were analyzed from two girls between ages 1;3–2;6 and their caregivers. Four stages of development were identified. Significant associations between verb inflection and modal notion, observed to be stable across the stages in the input, were noted to develop gradually in the children’s speech. Order of emergence of modal inflections was found to be related to input frequency and transparency of inflectional types, whereas development of inflectional paradigms was observed to be related to inflectional diversity. Conceptual accessibility and pragmatic relevance of the modal notions were considered as child-related factors in this development.
Keywords: input–output relations, Turkish, mood and modality, morphological development
Published online: 7 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.5.1.03aks
References (51)
Aksu-Koç, A. (1998). The role of input vs. universal predispositions in the emergence of tense-aspect morphology: evidence from Turkish. First Language 181, 255–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. & Ketrez, F.N. (2003). Early verbal morphology in Turkish: emergence of inflections. In W.U. Dressler, D. Bittner & M. Kilani-Schoch (eds.), Development of verb inflection in first language acquisition: a cross linguistic perspective (27–52). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. (2004). Evidentiality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E. & Goodman, J.C. (1999). On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: evidence from acquisition. In M. Tomasello & E. Bates (eds.), Language development: the essential readings (134–162). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2006). The input-output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes 211, 2–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brodsky, P., Waterfall, H. & Edelman, S. (2007). Characterizing motherese: on the computational structure of child-directed language. In D.S. McNamara & J.G. Trafton (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (833–838). Austin, T.X.: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Bybee J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Choi S. (1995). The development of epistemic sentence-ending modal forms and functions in Korean children. In J. Bybee & S. Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (165–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, S. (2006). Acquisition of modality. In W. Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality (141–171). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Choi, S. & Gopnik, A. (1995). Early acquisition of verbs in Korean: a cross-linguistic study. Journal of Child Language 221, 497–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, E. & Szczerbinski, M. (2006). Polish children’s productivity with case marking: the role of regularity, type frequency, and phonological diversity. Journal of Child Language 331, 559–597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Haan, F. (2006). Typological approaches to modality. In W. Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality (27–69). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dressler, W.U. (ed.) (1997). Studies in pre- and protomorphology. Wien: Verlag der Österreichi-schen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Dressler W.U. & Karpf, A. (1995). The theoretical relevance of pre- and protomorphology in language acquisition. In G. Booj & J. van Merle (eds.) Yearbook of Morphology 19941 (99–122). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W.U., Kilani-Schoch, M. & Klampfer, S. (2003). How does a child detect morphology? Evidence from production. In H.R. Baayen & R. Schreuder (eds.), Morphologial structure in languge processing (391–425). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: linguistic relativity versus natural partioning. In S. Kuczaj (ed.), Language development, Vol. II: language, thought and culture (301–334). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (2009). The ontogeny of complex verb phrases: how children learn to negotiate fact and desire. In T. Givón & M. Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution (311–388). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, M. (2003). Children’s discourse: person, space and time across languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E. & Levine, S. (2002). Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology 451, 337–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ingram, D. & Thompson, W. (1996). Early syntactic acquisition in German: evidence for the modal hypothesis. Language 721, 97–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ketrez, F.N. (2003a). Variation in a Turkish mother’s style. In S. Özsoy, D. Akar, M. Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, E. Erguvanlı-Taylan & A. Aksu-Koç (eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (447–453). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar
. (2003b). Distributional properties of nouns and verbs in Turkish child-directed speech. USC Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 121–144.Google Scholar
Ketrez, F.N. & Aksu-Koç, A. (2009). Early nominal morphology in Turkish: emergence of case and number. In U. Stephany & M. Voeykova (eds.), Development of noun inflection in first language acquisition: a cross linguistic perspective (15–48). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Küntay, A. & Slobin, D.I. (1996). Listening to a Turkish mother: some puzzles for acquisition. In D.I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis & J. Guo (eds.), Social interaction, social context and language: essays in honour of Susan Ervin-Tripp (265–286). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. (2001). Discourse behavior of lexical categories in Turkish child-directed speech: nouns vs. verbs. In M. Almgren, A. Barreña, M. Ezeizabarrena, I. Idiazabal & B. MacWhinney (eds.), Research on child language acquisition: Proceedings for the 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language (928–946). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lee, C. (2009). The acquisition of modality. In C. Lee, G. Simpson, & Y. Kim (eds.), The handbook of Korean psycholinguistics (187–220). London: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E. & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 231, 127–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maratsos, M. (1982). The child’s construction of grammatical categories. In E. Wanner & L.R. Gleitman (eds.), Language acquisition: the state of the art (240–266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marchman, V. & Bates, E. (1994). Continuity in lexical and morphological development: a test of the critical mass hypothesis. Journal of Child Language 211, 339–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L. & Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). Why are some verbs learned before other verbs? Effects of input frequency and structure on children’s early verb use. Journal of Child Language 251, 95–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. (2001). Mood and modality (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pan, B.A., Rowe, M.L., Singer, J.D. & Snow, C.E. (2005). Maternal Correlates of growth in toddler vocabulary production in low-income families. Child Development 761, 762–782.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rozendaal, M. (2008). The acquisition of reference: a crosslinguistic study. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Shepherd, S. (1982). From deontic to epistemic: an analysis of modals in the history of English, creoles, and language acquisition. In A. Ahlqvist (ed.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (316–123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In D.I. Slobin (ed.), Crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 21, 1157–1256). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. (2001). Form-function relations: how do children find out what they are? In M. Bowerman & S.C. Levinson (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (406–449). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stephany U. (1986). Modality. In P. Fletcher & M. Garman (eds.), Language acquisition (375–400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stephany, U. (1993). Modality in first language acquisition: the state of the art. In N. Dittmar & A. Reich (eds.), Modality in language acquisition (133–144). New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sofu, H. & Türkay, F. (2006). Input frequency effects in terms of noun/verb dominance. Çukurova Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 3/321, 229–241.Google Scholar
Tardif, T., Gelman, S.A. & Xu, F. (1999). Putting the “noun bias” in context: a comparison of English and Mandarin. Child Development 70(3), 620–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terziyan, T., Taylan, E, & Aksu-Koç, A. (in press). Acquisition of modality in Turkish. Proceedings of the International Conference on Turkish Linguistics , 2012. Harrasowitz Verlag. DOI logo
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Türkay, F. & Kern, S. (2007). Türk ve Fransız anneler tarafından çocuğa yönlendirilmiş konuşmadaki farklılıklar: ad/eylem kullanımına karşılaştırmalı bir bakış açısı. XXI . Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri (373–376). Mersin, 10-11 Mayıs 2007. [Differences in the child directed speech of Turkish and French mothers: A contrastive perspective on noun/verb usage. Proceedings of the XXI. National Linguistics Conference , Mersin, May 10-11, 2007.]Google Scholar
Wells, G. (1979). Learning and using the auxiliary verb in English. In V. Lee (ed.), Language Development (250–270). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Weizman, Z.O. & Snow, C.E. (2001). Lexical input as related to children’s vocabulary acquisition: effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning. Developmental Psychology 371, 265–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wijnen, F.N.K. (1998). The temporal interpretation of Dutch children’s root infinitivals: the effect of eventivity. First language 181, 379–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xanthos, A., Laaha, S., Gillis, S., Stephany, U., Aksu-Koç, A., Christofidou, A., Gagarina, N., Hrzica, G., Ketrez, F.N., Kilani-Schoch, M., Korecky-Kröll, K., Kovačević, M., Laalo, K., Palmović, M., Pfeiler, B., Voeikova, M.D. & Dressler, W.U. (2011). On the role of morphological richness in the early development of noun and verb inflection. First Language 31(4), 461–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six 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
Karayayla, Tuğba
2020. Effects of first language attrition on heritage language input and ultimate attainment. In Lost in Transmission [Studies in Bilingualism, 59], ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo
Bassano, Dominique & Paul van Geert
2018. Chapter 10. New perspectives on input-output dynamics. In Sources of Variation in First Language Acquisition [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 22], ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo
Ketrez, F. Nihan
2017. Chapter 7. Sibling influence on morphological development?. In Social Environment and Cognition in Language Development [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 21], ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Haznedar, Belma & F. Nihan Ketrez
2016. Introduction. In The Acquisition of Turkish in Childhood [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 20], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Arslan, Seçkin, Roelien Bastiaanse & Claudia Felser
2015. Looking at the evidence in visual world: eye-movements reveal how bilingual and monolingual Turkish speakers process grammatical evidentiality. Frontiers in Psychology 6 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 august 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.