Acquisition of canonical and non-canonical word orders in L1 Turkish
While some studies on child language acquisition demonstrate that the properties of syntax are acquired before syntax-pragmatics interface and the children experience difficulties in several aspects of pragmatic language use, some others, report early sensitivity to the syntax-pragmatics interface. This study aims to explore whether the syntax-before-pragmatics argument can account for acquisition of Turkish word order by examining the syntactic and pragmatic word order preferences of Turkish children. The data obtained from 12 Turkish monolingual children aged between 2;0–6;0 reveal that at 2;0, Turkish children show sensitivity to the syntax-pragmatics interface and use various word orders in line with their pragmatic intentions and the pragmatic constraints of their language increase with the age.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
-
2.Syntactic and pragmatic development in the acquisition of L1 word order
- 3.Acquisition of Turkish word order
- 4.Word order in Turkish
- 5.Pragmatic considerations in Turkish
- 6.The study
- 7.Results and discussion
- 8.Conclusion
-
Note
-
References
References (32)
References
Altan, A. 2006. Acquisition of word order in Turkish. In Proceedings of 20th National Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Y. Çotuksöken & N. Yalçın (eds), 51–61. İstanbul: Maltepe University.
Batman-Ratyosyan, N. & Stromswold, K. 1999. What Turkish acquisition tells us about underlying word order and scrambling. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 37–52.
De Cat, C. 2009. Experimental evidence for preschoolers’ mastery of “topic”. Language Acquisition 16(4): 224–239. 

Dyakonova, M. 2004. Information structure development: Evidence from the acquisition of word order in Russian and English. Nordlyd 32: 88–109.
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.
Göksel, A. & Özsoy, A.S. 2000. Is there a focus position in Turkish? In Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages; Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, A. Göksel & C. Kerslake (eds), 219–228. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Greenberg, J.H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, J.H. Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Grinstead, I. 2004. Subjects and interface delay in child Spanish and Catalan. Language 80(1): 40–72.
Hickmann, M. 2003. Children’s Discourse: Person, Space and Time across Languages. Cambridge: CUP.
Hoffman, B. 1995. The Computational Analysis of the Syntax and Interpretation of “Free” Word Order in Turkish. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
İpek, C. & Kaiser, E. 2011. Production and perception of focus in Turkish: Prosodic and Syntactic cues. Poster presented at Experimental and Theoretical Advances in Prosody II. Montreal, September 23–25. <[URL]>
İşsever, S. 2000. Türkçede Bilgi Yapısı (Information Structure in Turkish). PhD dissertation, Ankara University, Ankara.
İşsever, S. 2003. Information structure in Turkish: Word order-prosody interface. Lingua 113(11): 1025–1053. 

Johanson. L. & Csató, É. 1998. The Turkic Languages. London: Routledge.
Kılıçaslan, Y. 1994. Information Packaging in Turkish. MSc dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.
Kural, M. 1992. Properties of scrambling in Turkish. Ms, UCLA.
Narasimhan, B. & Dimroth, C. 2008. Word order and information status in child language. Cognition 107: 317–329. 

Poeppel, D. & Wexler, K. 1993. The full competence hypothesis of clause structures in early German. Language 69: 1–33. 

Prince, E. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), 223–256. New York NY: Academic Press.
Radford, A. 1990. Syntactic Theory and Acquisition of English Syntax: The Nature of Early Child Grammars in English. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rothman, J. 2009. Understanding the nature of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism 13(2): 155–163. 

Rozendaal, M. 2007. The acquisition of the morphosyntax-pragmatics interface in French L1: Evidence from reference with articles and pronouns. In The Acquisition of Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the Romance Turn II, S. Baauw, J. Kampen & M. Pinto (eds), 145–164. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT).
Serratrice, L. 2005. The role of discourse pragmatics in the acquisition of subjects in Italian. Applied Psycholinguistics 3: 437–462.
Slobin, D.I. 1982. Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, E. Wanner & L.R. Gleitman (eds), 128–172. Cambridge: CUP.
Slobin, D.I. & Bever, T. 1982. Children use canonical sentence schemas: A cross-linguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition 12(3): 229–265. 

Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Karaca, Figen, Susanne Brouwer, Sharon Unsworth & Falk Huettig
2024.
Morphosyntactic predictive processing in adult heritage speakers: effects of cue availability and spoken and written language experience.
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 39:1
► pp. 118 ff.

Antonova-Ünlü, Elena
2019.
Syntax–pragmatic and morphology–pragmatic interfaces in sequential bilingual language acquisition: The case of Russia-Turkish and English-Turkish bilingual children.
International Journal of Bilingualism 23:5
► pp. 1137 ff.

BROUWER, Susanne, Deniz ÖZKAN & Aylin C. KÜNTAY
2019.
Verb-based prediction during language processing: the case of Dutch and Turkish.
Journal of Child Language 46:1
► pp. 80 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 november 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.