Cover not available
Part of
Teachability and Learnability across Languages
Edited by Ragnar Arntzen, Gisela Håkansson, Arnstein Hjelde and Jörg-U. Keßler
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 6] 2019
► pp. 205–234

Chapter 10
The acquisition of Turkish (genitive-)possessive structures by adult Norwegian learners

ORCID logo | University of Oslo | Statped
ORCID logo | University of Oslo | Ufuk University
This study investigates the development of phrasal and clausal (Genitive)-Possessive structures in L2 Turkish. The phrasal structures under scrutiny are possessive noun phrases and nominal phrases/compounds consisting of a bare noun and a following possessive noun. The clausal structures are subordinated noun clauses with verbal predicates nominalized through the -mA and -DIK suffixes. The data comprise translations and exam essays of Norwegian university students who received Turkish instruction at the University of Oslo across four semesters over two years. We provide a descriptive analysis of the target and non-target structures produced by these learners. This study may pave the way for a future Processability Theory analysis of these structures in the data from this particular group of L2 learners.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Turkish at the University of Oslo
  • 3.Methodology-participants-data
  • 4.Linguistic structures
    • 4.1Phrasal structures: n_gen+n_poss and n+n_poss structures
    • 4.2Clausal structures: Noun clauses with -DIK and -mA
  • 5.PT
  • 6.Data coding and analysis
    • 6.1Phrasal structures
      • 6.1.1n+n_poss structures
      • 6.1.1n_gen+n_poss structures
    • 6.2Clausal structures: Noun clauses with -mA and -DIK
  • 7.Discussion and conclusions
    • 7.1Discussion of the results on phrasal structures
    • 7.2Discussion of the results on clausal structures
    • 7.3Comparison of the results for phrasal and clausal structures
  • 8.General discussion and further research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 6 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.6.10hei
References (25)
References
Artoni, D. & Magnani, M. 2013. Contributions in second language acquisition research: The development of case in Russian L2. In Proceedings of the LFG13 conference, M. Butt & T. Holloway King (eds), 69–89. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bayram, F. 2013. Acquisition of Turkish by Heritage Speakers: A Processability Approach. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Bayram, F. & Wright, C. 2018. Turkish heritage language acquisition and maintenance in Germany. In The Springer International Handbooks of Education: Research and Practice in Heritage Language Education, P. P. Trifonas & T. Aravossitas (eds), 481–502. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Bettoni, C. & Di Biase, B. 2015. Processability Theory: Theoretical bases and universal schedules. In Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory [Eurosla Monograph Series 3], B. Di Biase & C. Bettoni (eds), 19–79. Paris: Eurosla. <[URL]>
Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-functional Syntax. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buttkewitz, P. 2014. Revised processability stages for Turkish as a second language. Paper presented at the 14th Annual International Symposium of Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition (PALA), Paderborn University.
Buttkewitz, P. S. 2016. Case acquisition in Turkish: Determining stages of processability. Ms.Google Scholar
Dede, M. 1978. A Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of Nominal Compounds in Turkish. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S. & Vannebo, K. I. 1997. Norsk Referansegrammatikk (Norwegian Reference Grammar). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish. A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayasi, T. 1996. The dual status of possessive compounds in Modern Turkish. In Symbolae turcologicae [Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, Transactions 6], Á. Berta, B. Brendemoen & C. Schönig (eds), 119–129. Sweden: Textgruppen i Uppsala AB.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. & Norrby, C. 2010. Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning 60(3): 628–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G. 2013. Processability Theory: Explaining developmental sequences. In Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition [AILA Applied Linguistics Series 9], M. D. P. Garcia Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez Mangado & M. Martínez Adrián (eds), 111–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L. & Csató, É. Á.. 1998. Turkish. In The Turkic Languages, L. Johanson & É. Á. Csató (eds), 203–235 London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. & Bresnan, J. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, J. Bresnan (ed.), 173–281. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lødrup, H. 2011. Norwegian possessive pronouns: Phrases, words or suffixes? In Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, M. Butt & T. Holloway King (eds), 339–359. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H. & Pienemann, M. 1981. On determining developmental sequences in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3: 109–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. & Bickel, B. 2013. Locus of marking in possessive noun phrases. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (13 October 2016).
Pienemann, M. 1998. Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory [Studies in Bilingualism 15]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. An introduction to Processability Theory. In Cross-linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory [Studies in Bilingualism 30], M. Pienemann (ed.), 1–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Processability Theory. In Theories in Second Language Acquisition, B. VanPatten & J. Williams (eds), 137–154. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schönström, K. 2014. Visual acquisition of Swedish in deaf children: An L2 processability approach. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4(1): 61–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Schaaik, G. 1996. Studies in Turkish Grammar [Turcologica 28]. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Kawaguchi, Satomi, Bruno Di Biase & Yumiko Yamaguchi
2023. Chapter 1. Processability Theory, second language learning and teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. In Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 9], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Keßler, Jörg‐U. & Anke Lenzing
2022. Grammar in Foreign and Second Language Classes. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.