Cover not available
Part of
The Acquisition of Turkish in Childhood
Edited by Belma Haznedar and F. Nihan Ketrez
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 20] 2016
► pp. 79–98

Acquisition of canonical and non-canonical word orders in L1 Turkish

| Middle East Technical University, Turkey
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.
Keywords: syntax-before-pragmatics argument, word order, syntax-pragmatics interface, L1 Turkish
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
Published online: 18 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.20.04sag
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
De Cat, C. 2009. Experimental evidence for preschoolers’ mastery of “topic”. Language Acquisition 16(4): 224–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyakonova, M. 2004. Information structure development: Evidence from the acquisition of word order in Russian and English. Nordlyd 32: 88–109.Google Scholar
Ekmekçi, Ö. 1986. Significance of word order in the acquisition of Turkish. In Studies in Turkish Linguistics [Typological Studies in Language 8], D. Slobin & K. Zimmer (eds), 265–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erguvanlı, E. 1984. The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Erkü, F. 1983. Discourse Pragmatics and Word Order in Turkish. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hoffman, B. 1995. The Computational Analysis of the Syntax and Interpretation of “Free” Word Order in Turkish. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
2003. Information structure in Turkish: Word order-prosody interface. Lingua 113(11): 1025–1053. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson. L. & Csató, É. 1998. The Turkic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kılıçaslan, Y. 1994. Information Packaging in Turkish. MSc dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kural, M. 1992. Properties of scrambling in Turkish. Ms, UCLA.Google Scholar
Narasimhan, B. & Dimroth, C. 2008. Word order and information status in child language. Cognition 107: 317–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Platzack, C. 1996. The Initial Hypothesis of Syntax: A minimalist perspective on language acquisition and attrition. In Generative Perspectives on Language Acquisition: Empirical Findings, Theoretical Considerations and Cross-linguistic Comparison [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 14], H. Clahsen (ed.), 161–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poeppel, D. & Wexler, K. 1993. The full competence hypothesis of clause structures in early German. Language 69: 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), 223–256. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1990. Syntactic Theory and Acquisition of English Syntax: The Nature of Early Child Grammars in English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. 2009. Understanding the nature of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism 13(2): 155–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Schaeffer, J. 2000. The Acquisition of Direct Object Scrambling and Clitic Placement: Syntax and Pragmatics [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serratrice, L. 2005. The role of discourse pragmatics in the acquisition of subjects in Italian. Applied Psycholinguistics 3: 437–462.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. & Talay, A. 1986. Development of pragmatic uses of pronouns in Turkish child language. In Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference, A.A. Aksu-Koç & E. Erguvanlı Taylan (eds), 207–228. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. 2005. Selective optionality in language development. In Syntax and Variation [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 265], L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (eds), 55–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
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. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.