Is L1 Transfer Operative at the Syntax-Discourse Interface? The Acquisition of Null and Overt Subjects in L2 Turkish

Year 2022, Volume: 39 Issue: 2, 748 - 766, 30.12.2022

Oktay Çınar

https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.1061445

Abstract

Recent studies on L2 acquisition focus on how interface-related properties are acquired at the end state grammars. Proposed as part of this theme, the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace & Filiaci, 2006; Sorace, 2011) claims that the syntax-discourse interface is particularly challenging to acquire, irrespective of the L1 and L2 of the speakers. On the other hand, the Full Transfer / Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996) predicts that L2 acquisition is L1-constrained and UG is directly accessed. This study tests these assumptions on the acquisition of null and overt subjects in L2 Turkish to understand whether L1 transfer operates in the domain that needs the mapping of syntax on the discursive knowledge. This was tested in a study on advanced Korean and Japanese L2 Turkish speakers (n=27) by employing contextualized grammaticality judgment task (CGJT). In this task, participants were asked to judge whether the contextualized sentences they read were pragmatically odd or not (for each condition n=4). The discursive constraints (topic continuity and topic shift) on the use of null and overt subjects were not violated in the first two conditions. However, the latter two conditions violated the discursive constraints, rendering unacceptable null and overt subject constructions. The results of the CGJT revealed that the L2 participants were insensitive to the discourse of null and overt subject distribution. Since the very same constraints that regulate the null and overt subject distribution hold both in the L1 and L2 of the speakers, this finding suggests that L1 transfer is not operative at the syntax-discourse interface, which is in line with the claim that the properties at this interface cannot be fully acquired as postulated by the Interface Hypothesis.

Keywords

Null and overt subjects, discursive constraints, L1 transfer, L2 Turkish, Korean and Japanese speakers, Interface Hypothesis

D1 Aktarımı Sözdizim-Söylem Ara Kesitinde İşlemsel Mi? Boş ve Dolu Öznelerin D2 Türkçede Edinimi

Abstract

Son yıllarda D2 edinimi üzerine yapılan çalışmalar, son aşamadaki dilbilgisinde arakesitle ilgili özelliklerin nasıl edinildiğine odaklanmaktadır. Bu temanın bir parçası olarak ortaya atılan Arakesit Varsayımı (Sorace & Filiaci, 2006; Sorace, 2011) D1 ve D2’lere bakmaksızın, sözdizim-söylem arakesitinin edinilmesinin özellikle zor olduğunu iddia etmektedir. Diğer taraftan, Tam Aktarım / Tam Erişim Varsayımı (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996) ise D2 ediniminin D1 tarafından sınırlandırıldığını ve ED’nin doğrudan erişilebileceğini tahmin etmektedir. Bu çalışma, sözdizimin söylemsel bilgiyle eşlendiği bir alanda D1 aktarımının işlemsel olup olmadığını anlamak için, bu varsayımları D2 Türkçedeki boş ve dolu öznelerin edinimi üzerinden test etmektedir. Bu da, bağlamsal dilbilgisellik yargı testi kullanılarak, ileri düzeyde Türkçe edinen ana dili Korece ve Japonca konuşurlar (n=27) üzerine yapılan bir çalışmayla test edilmiştir. Bu testte, katılımcılardan okumuş oldukları bağlamlı tümcelerin söylemsel açıdan uygun olup olmadığına karar vermeleri istenmiştir (her bir koşul için n=4). İlk iki koşulda boş ve dolu özne kullanımına yönelik söylemsel sınırlılıklar (konu devamı ve konu değişimi) ihlal edilmemişken, söylemsel açıdan uygun olmayan boş ve dolu özne yapıları yaratan son iki koşul ise bu sınırlılıkları ihlal etmiştir. Testin sonuçları D2 konuşurlarının boş ve dolu özne dağılımının söylemsel özelliklerini edinemediklerini ortaya koymuştur. Boş ve dolu özne dağılımını yöneten aynı sınırlılıklar hem D1 hem de D2’de bulunduğu için, bu bulgu sözdizim-söylem arakesitinde D1 aktarımının işlemsel olmadığını ileri sürmektedir; bu da bu Arkesit Varsayımın ileri sürdüğü gibi arakesitteki özelliklerin edinilemeyeceği iddiasıyla örtüşmektedir.

Keywords

Boş ve dolu özneler, söylemsel sınırlılıklar, D1 aktarımı, D2 Türkçe, Korece ve Japonca konuşurları, Arakesit Varsayımı

References

• Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657–689. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9026-9
• Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
• Enç, M. (1986). Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 209-231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1986). Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish. In D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 209-231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Good, J., & Yu, C. L. (2005). Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms. In L. Heggie & F. Ordonez (Eds.), Clitic and affix combinations, theoretical perspectives (pp. 315-374). John Benjamins.
• Gürel, A. (2006). L2 acquisition of pragmatic and syntactic constraints in the use of overt and null subject pronouns. In R. Slabakova, S. Montrul, & P. Prévost (Eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development: In honor of Lydia White (pp. 259–282). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Huang, C. T-J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic inquiry, 15, 531-574.
• Jackendoff, R., (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kim, S. Y. (2007). Topics and null arguments in Korean: The syntax and discourse. Proceedings of workshop in general linguistics (pp. 63-76).
• Kornfilt, J. (2018). NP versus DP: Which one fits Turkish nominal phrases better? Turkic Languages, 22(2), 155-166.
• Lewis, G. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Liceras, J. M. (1988). Syntax and stylistics: more on the pro-drop parameter. In J. Pankhurst, M. Sharwood Smith & P. Van Buren (Eds.), Learnability and second languages: A book of readings (pp. 71–93). Dordrecht: Foris.
• Liceras J. M. (1989). On some properties of the pro-drop parameter: Looking for missing subjects in non-native Spanish. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives in second language acquisition (pp. 109-133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lozano, C. (2018). The development of anaphora resolution at the syntax-discourse interface: Pronominal subjects in Greek learners of Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(2), 411-430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9541-8
• Margaza, P., & Bel, A. (2006). Null subjects at the syntax-pragmatics interface: Evidence from Spanish interlanguage of Greek speakers. In M. Grantham O’Brien, C. Shea, & J. Archibald (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th generative approaches to second language acquisition conference (pp. 88–97). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
• Margaza, P., & Gavarró, A. (2020). Null/overt subject alternations in L2 Spanish and L2 Greek. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 55, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.969
• Montrul, S. (2011). Multiple interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua, 121 (4), 591-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.006
• Montrul, S., & Louro, C.R. (2006). Beyond the syntax of the null subject parameter: A look at the discourse-pragmatic distribution of null and overt subjects by L2 learners of Spanish. In V. Torrens, & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in romance languages (pp. 401–418). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Ortega, L. (2011). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
• Rothman, J. (2007) Pragmatic solutions for syntactic problems: Understanding some L2 syntactic errors in terms of discourse-pragmatic deficits. In S. Baauw, F. Dirjkoningen & M. Pinto (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory (pp. 299-320). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 951–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007
• Rothman, J., & Iverson, M. (2007). Input type and parameter resetting: Is naturalistic input necessary? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(4), 285-319. https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2007.013
• Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2018). The state of the science in generative SLA and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 417– 442. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000134
• Schwartz, B. D. (1998). On two hypotheses of ‘Transfer’ in L2A: Minimal trees and absolute L1 influence. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono & W. O’Neil (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 35–59). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access Model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839601200103
• Slabakova, R. (2013). Discourse and pragmatics. In J. Herschensohn, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 482-504). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
• Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr271oa
• Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Revisiting the processing vs. representation distinction. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909339810
• Tsimpli, I.M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter-resetting in L2? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149–70.
• Tsimpli, I.M., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia & C. Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual BUCLD (pp. 653 – 664). Cascadilla.
• Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1994). Direct Access to X'-Theory--Evidence from Turkish and Korean adults learning German. In B. Schwartz & T. Hoekstra (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 265-316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12(1), 7-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839601200102
• Vallduví, E. (2003). A theory of informatics. In J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ed.), Semantics: Critical concepts in linguistics (pp. 359-384). London: Routledge.
• White, L. (1985). The ‘‘pro-drop’’ parameter in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 35, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01014.x
• White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• White, L. (2009). Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 49–68). UK: Bingley.
• White, L. (2011). Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua, 121, 577-590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.005
• Yamada, K. (2009). Acquisition of zero pronouns in discourse by Korean and English learners of L2 Japanese. In M. Bowles et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th generative approaches to second language acquisition conference (pp. 60-68). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
• Yano, Y. (1983). Bun o koeru bunpou [Grammar over sentences]. Nihongogaku 2, Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.