Chapter in:
The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking
Edited by Alexandru Mardale and Silvina Montrul
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 26] 2020
► pp. 313341
References

References

Aissen, J.
(2003) Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. Crossref link
Aksu-Koç, A., & Slobin, D. I.
(1985) The acquisition of Turkish. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, 2: Theoretical issues (pp. 839–880). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Aydemir, Y.
(2004) Are Turkish preverbal bare nouns syntactic arguments? Linguistic Inquiry, 35(3), 465–474. Crossref link
Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Bamyacı, E., Häussler, J., & Kabak, B.
(2014) The interaction of animacy and number agreement: An experimental investigation. Lingua, 148, 254–277. Crossref link
Bamyacı, E.
(2016) Competing structures in the bilingual mind: A psycholinguistic investigation of optional verb number agreement. Cham: Springer. Crossref link
Bates, D., Bolker, B., & Mächler, M.
(2012) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.999999–0).
Bossong, G.
(1985) Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.
Chamorro, G., Sturt, P., & Sorace, A.
(2016) Selectivity in L1 attrition: Differential Object Marking in Spanish near-native speakers of English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45, 697–715. Crossref link
Clancy, P.
(1992) Referential strategies in the narratives of Japanese children. Discourse Processes, 15, 441–467. Crossref link
Croft, W.
(1990) Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dasinger, L.
(1995) The development of discourse competence in native Finnish speaking children: A study of the expression of definiteness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
Dede, M.
(1986) Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish verbal sentences. In D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 147–163). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Enç, M.
(1991) The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1–25.
Erguvanlı, E.
(1984) The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Erguvanlı, E., & Zimmer, K.
(1994) Case marking in Turkish indefinite object constructions. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 547–552). Berkeley, CA: BLS.
Featherston, S.
(2008) Thermometer judgements as linguistic evidence. In C. Riehl & A. Rothe (Eds,), Was ist linguistische Evidenz? (pp. 69–89). Aachen: Shaker.
Göksel, Asli, & Kerslake, C.
(2005) Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., & Marinis, T.
(2007) Acquiring the syntax/semantic interface in L2 Spanish: The personal preposition a. Eurosla Yearbook, 7, 67–87.
 Crossref link
(2009) The acquisition of personal preposition a by Catalan-Spanish and English-Spanish bilinguals. In J. Collentine, M. García, B. Lafford, & F. Marcos Marín (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 81–92). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Haspelmath, M.
(2013) Occurrence of nominal plurality. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Heusinger, K. von, & Bamyacı, E.
(2017) Specificity effects of Turkish Differential Object Marking. In L. Zidani-Eroğlu, M. Ciscel, & E. Koulidobrova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL12). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Heusinger, K. von, & Kornfilt, J.
(2005) The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic Languages, 9, 3–44.
Hržica, G., Palmović, M., Kovačević, M., Voeikova, M., Ivanova, K., & Galkina, E.
(2015) Animacy and case in the acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Croatian and Russian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4), 351–368.
Hulk, A. & Müller, N.
(2000) Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(3), 227–244. Crossref link
Ketrez, F. N.
(1999) Early verbs and the acquisition of Turkish argument structure (Unpublished MA thesis). Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.

(2006) A case study on the Accusative case in Turkish. In M. T. Martinez, A. Alcazar, & R. Mayoral (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 2004) Volume 16 (pp. 163–173). Fresno, CA: California State University, Fresno Publications.
(2015) Incomplete acquisition of the Differential Object Marking in Turkish. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4), 421–430.
Ketrez, F. N., & Aksu-Koç, A.
(2009) Early nominal morphology: Emergence of case and number. In U. Stephany & M. D. Voeikova (Eds.), Development of nominal inflection in first language acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 15–48). Berlin: De Gruyter. Crossref link
Kornfilt, J.
(1997) Turkish. London: Routledge.
(2008) DOM and two types of DSM in Turkish. In H. de Hoop & P. de Swart (Eds.), Differential subject marking (pp. 79–111). Dordrecht: Springer.
Krause, E.
(2020) High sensitivity to conceptual cues in Turkish speakers with dominant German L2: Comparing semantics-morphosyntax and pragmatics-morphosyntax interfaces. In Bernhard Brehmer & Jeanine Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Lost in transmission: The role of attrition and input in heritage language development. Studies in Bilingualism, 59 John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Krause, E., Eulitz, C., & Rinker, T.
(to appear). Investigating the effects of L1 proficiency and cross-linguistic influences: RT data on morphosyntactic processing of plural NPs in L1. Turkish speakers with dominant German L2. In F. Bayram Ed. Studies in Turkish as a heritage language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Krause, E., & Heusinger K. von
(2019) Gradient effects of animacy on Differential Object Marking in Turkish. In D. Nelson & V.-A. Vihman (Eds.), Effects of animacy in grammar and cognition. Special issue of Open Linguistics, 5(1), 171–190.
Küntay, A.
(2002) Development of the expression of indefiniteness: Presenting new referents in Turkish picture-series stories. Discourse Processes, 33, 77–101. Crossref link
Montrul, S.
(2004) Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125–142. Crossref link
(2010) Dominant language transfer in Spanish L2 learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research, 26(3), 293–925. Crossref link
(2011) Interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua, 212(4), 591–604. Crossref link
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M.
(2009) Back to basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 363–383. Crossref link
Montrul, S., & Gürel, A.
2015The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish by Turkish speakers. In T. Judy & S. Perpiñán (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish by speakers of less commonly studies languages (pp. 281–308). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N.
(2013) Differential Object Marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20, 1–24. Crossref link
Müller, N., & Hulk, A.
2001Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 1–21. Crossref link
Nakamura, K.
(1993) Referential structure in Japanese children’s narratives: The acquisition of wa and ga. In S. Choi (Ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics (pp. 84–99). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Oldfield, R. C.
(1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113. Crossref link
Özge D., Küntay, A., & Snedeker J.
(2019) Why wait for the verb? Turkish speaking children use case markers for incremental language comprehension. Cognition, 183, 152–180. Crossref link
R Core Team
2012R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Sharwood-Smith, M., & Truscott, J.
(2014) The multilingual mind: A modular processing perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slobin, D. I., & Bever, T. G.
(1982) Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflection. Cognition, 12(3), 229–265.
 Crossref link
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F.
(2006) Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.
 Crossref link
Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L.
(2009) Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 195–210. Crossref link
Ticio, E., & Avram, L.
(2015) The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish and Romanian: Semantic scales or semantic features? Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4), 383–402.
Weskott, T., & Fanselow, G.
(2008) Scaling issues in the measurement of linguistic acceptability. In S. Featherston & S. Winkler (Eds.), The fruits of empirical linguistics 1 (pp. 229–245). Berlin: De Gruyter.
(2011) On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language, 87, 249–273. Crossref link
Westfall, P. H., Randall D. T., & Wolfinger, R. D.
(2011) Multiple comparisons and multiple tests using SAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Yamamoto, M.
(1999) Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link