ACQUISITION OF A NULL SUBJECT LANGUAGE

Abstract

This study analyzes the use of pro-drop in speech among children between the ages2;0- 4;8 acquiring Turkish as a native language. The data analyzed is part of theCHILDES data base and includes cross-sectional language data from a total of 48children. The data was categorized according to the type of verb (verbal, nonverbal, existential or imperative) and the age of the child. Those cases wherethe child omitted the pronoun where it was not recoverable from the context arehighlighted. The analysis of the data demonstrates that children from all age groupsomit the subject pronouns, especially in verbal sentences. The data from children inthe smallest age group demonstrates that they tend to overgeneralize the pro-droprule to cause ambiguity in some cases. The rate of pro-drop decreases with age andchildren tend to use it more correctly

Keywords

• Language acquisition
• native language acquisition
• pro-drop

BİR ADIL DÜŞÜRME DİLİNİN EDİNİMİ

Öz

Bu çalışmada Türkçe’yi anadil olarak edinmekte olan 2;0- 4;8 yaş aralığındakiçocukların adıl düşürme özelliğini konuşmalarında kullanımları araştırılmıştır.Çalışmada kullanılan veriler CHILDES veritabanından (Mac Whinney, 1995) eldeedilmiş olup kesitsel yöntemlerle 4 ay aralıklara toplam 48 çocuğun konuşmalarınıiçeren verilerdir. Veriler yaş gruplarına ve adılların kullanıldığı yüklemin çeşidinegöre sınıflandırılmış (eylem, yüklem, var/yok tümcesi, emir kipi) ve incelenmiştir.Bağlama uygun olmayacak şekilde adıl düşürüldüğü durumlar belirlenmiştir.Verilerin incelenmesi sonucunda tüm yaş gruplarındaki çocukların Türkçenin adıldüşürme özelliğini kullandıkları, özellikle de eylem içeren tümce yapılarında adıldüşürmeyi tercih ettikleri gözlemlenmiştir. Küçük yaş gruplarındaki çocukların adıldüşürme özelliğini fazla genellemeleriyle iki anlamlılık ve anlam karışıklığına yolaçtığı gözlemlenmiştir. Çocukların yaşlarının büyümesiyle adıl düşürme oranınınazalması ve kullanımının anlam karmaşası içermeyerek doğru kullanım olduğu verilerden açıkca görülmektedir.Anahtar kelimeler: Dil edinimi, anadil edinimi, adıl düşürme

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Anahtar kelimeler: Dil edinimi
• anadil edinimi
• adıl düşürme.

References

1. Altan, A. 2008. Türkçe’de Sözcük Diziminin Edinimi. In 20nci Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. y. Çotuksöken & N. Yalçın (eds.) Maltepe Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul, Turkey. 51-63.
2. Blom, E. and van Geert, P. 2004. Signs of developing grammar: subject drop and inflection in early child Dutch. Linguistics. Vol. 42. Mouton de Gruyter.
3. Bloom, L. 1970. Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA: M. I. T. Press.
4. Bloom, P. 1990. Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 491–504.
5. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
6. Clahsen, H. 1991. Constraints on parameter setting. A grammatical analysis of some acqui- sition stages in German child language, Language Acquisition 1, 361–391.
7. Enç, M. 1986. Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish, Studies in Turkish Linguistics, D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (eds.). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
8. Erguvanlı, E. 1984.The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. California: University of California Press.

9. Gerken, L. A. 1991. The metrical basis for children’s subjectless sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30. 431–451.
10. Göksel, A. and C. Kerslake 2005 [third reprint 2010]. Turkish, A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
11. Grinstead, J. 2004. Subjects and interface delay in child Spanish and Catalan. Language. Vol, 80. Linguistic Society of America.
12. Hyams, N. 1986. Language Acquisition and The Theory of Parameters. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
13. Hyams, N. 1992. A reanalysis of null subjects in child language. J. Weissenborn, H.
14. Hyams, N. and Wexler, K. 1993. On the grammatcal basis of null subjects in child langua- ge in Linguistic Inquiry, 24. 421–459.
15. Kim, Y. 1996. The acquisition of Korean. In D. Slobin (ed.). The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 4. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1984. Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
17. Lillo-Martin, D. 1986. Effects of the Acquisition of Morphology on Syntactic Parameter Setting. In S. Berman, J.-W. Choe, & J. McDonough (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 16, 305–321. Amherst: GLSA.
18. Lillo-Martin, D. 1986. Effects of the Acquisition of Morphology on Syntactic Parameter Setting. In S. Berman, J.-W. Choe, & J. McDonough (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 16, 305–321. Amherst: GLSA.
19. Lillo-Martin, D. 1991. Universal Grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the Null Argument Parameters.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
20. Lillo-Martin, D. 1994. Setting the null argument parameters: Evidence from American Sign Language and other languages. In B. Lust, G. Hermon, J.Kornfilt (eds.), In Sytanctic Theory and First Language Acquisition- Crosslinguistics Perspectives: Binding, Dependencies and Learnability, 301- 318. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. MacWhinney, B. 1995. The CHILDES project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
22. Mazuka, R., Lust, B. Wakayama, T & Snyder, W. 1986. Distinguishing effects of parame- ters in early syntax acquisition: A cross- linguistic study of Japanese and English in Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 25, 73–82.
23. Özsoy, S. 1987. Null subject parameter and Turkish, Studies on Modern Turkish, H. E. Boeschoten & L. Th. Verhoeven (eds). Proceedings of the Third Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Tilburg University Press.
24. Öztürk, B. 1999. Turkish as a non-pro-drop language. MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
25. Öztürk, B. 2000. Bir Adıl-Düşürme dili olarak Türkçe. XIII. Türk Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, (Proceedings of the XIII. National Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
26. Pierce, A. 1992 Language Acquisition and Syntactic Theory: A Comparative Analysis of French and English Child Grammars. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
27. Slobin, D. I. 1982. Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In Language Acquisition: The State of Art. Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Slobin, D. I & Talay, A. 1986. Development of Pragmatic Uses of Subject Pronouns in Turkish child language. In A. Aksu-Koç & Erguvanlı Taylan (eds.). Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference. Pp 207–228. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
29. Taylan, E. E. 1986. Pronominal vs. Zero Representation of Anaphora in Turkish. In Studies in Turkish Linguistics, (eds.) Dan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer, Amsterdam: John Benjamins,206–233.
30. Valian, V. 1991. Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children.Cognition 40, 21–81.
31. Valian, V. & Aubry, S. 2005. When opportunity knocks twice: two-year-olds’ repetition of sentence subjects. Journal of Child Language 32, 617–641.
32. Valian, V. & Eisenberg, Z. 1996. Syntactic subjects in the speech of Portuguese-speaking children. Journal of Child Language 23, 103–128.
33. Wang, Q., Lillo- Martin, D., Best, C. T., Levitt, A. 1992. Null subjects vs. Null object: some evidence from the acquisition of Chinese and English. Language Acquisition, 2. 221–254.
34. Weissenborn, J. 1992. Null Subjects in Early Grammars: Implications for Parameter Setting Theories, in J. Weissenborn, H. Goodluck and T. Roeper, eds., Theoretical Issues in Language Acquisition, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Zimmer, K. 1984. On the sytnactic properties of empty categories. In Türk Dilbilimi Konferansı Bildirileri. 9–10 Ağustos 1984. Aksu-Koç, A. & Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (eds.) Boğaziçi University.