Ana dil Türkçe konuşanların ikinci dil Rusçada görünüş bilgisini edinimi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkçeyi ileri yaşta ikinci dil (D2) olarak öğrenenler tarafından Rusçada sözcüksel görünüşü açıkça belirten işlevsel morfolojinin edinimini incelemektedir. Rusça ve Türkçe, hem dilbilgisel hem de sözcüksel görünüşü belirtme biçimleri açısından farklıdır. Rusçada hem dilbilgisel hem de sözcüksel (erekli) görünüşler, açık fiil morfolojisi ile belirtilir. Öte yandan Türkçede fiillerin dilbilgisel görünüşü, zaman ve/veya kipi de ifade eden çekim biçimbirimleriyle (Kornfilt, 1997); sözcüksel görünüş (ereklilik) ise dinamik fiillerle birlikte kullanılan nicelendirilmiş ad argümanları ile belirtilir. Ereklilik ve bağımlılık anlam özelliklerine sahip bir Anlamsal Gerektirim görevi (SET) ve miktara bağlı olan ve olmayan dahili argüman temaları içeren tamamlanmış ve tamamlanmamış formlu cümleleri kapsayan bir Doğruluk Değeri Yargısı (TVJ) görevinden oluşan bu çalışma, 16 D1 Türkçe/D2 Rusça konuşanı ile 16 D1 Rusça konuşanına uygulanmıştır. SET görevinin sonuçları, D2 Rusça konuşanlarının tamamlanmamış cümlelerden ziyade, tamamlanmış cümlelere en mantıksal gerektirmeyi seçmekte D1 Rusça konuşanları kadar başarılı olmadıklarını göstermiştir. İki grup arasındaki farklılıklar istatiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmuştur. TVJ görevinin sonuçları da D2 Rusça konuşanlarının tamamlanmış ve tamamlanmamış cümleleri doğru resimlerle eşleştirmede D1 Rusça konuşanlarından daha az başarılı olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu bulgular, ileri yaşta D2 konuşanlarının işlevsel morfolojinin, özellikle de görünüş morfolojisi ve onun ereklilik özelliğinin ediniminde zorlandığı iddiasını desteklemektedir.

Keywords

• Grammatical aspect; lexical aspect; telicity; L1 Turkish; L2 Russian
• Grammatical aspect
• lexical aspect telicity
• L1 Turkish
• L2 Russian

L2 acquisition of Russian aspect by L1 Turkish speakers

Abstract

This study examines the acquisition of functional morphology which overtly marks lexical aspect in Russian by adult second language (L2) learners of Turkish. Russian and Turkish are different in the ways they mark both grammatical and lexical aspects. In Russian, both grammatical and lexical (telic) aspects are marked by overt verbal morphology. In Turkish, however, while the grammatical aspect of verbs is marked by inflectional morphemes, which also express tense and/or mood (Kornfilt, 1997), lexical aspect (telicity) is marked by quantized nominal arguments combined with dynamic verbs. We tested 16 L1 Turkish/L2 Russian learners and 16 L1 Russian speakers on a Semantic Entailment (SE) task with telicity and boundedness semantic features and a Truth-Value Judgment (TVJ) task involving sentences with perfective and imperfective forms including quantity and non-quantity internal argument themes. The results of the SE task indicated that L2 Russian speakers were not as successful as L1 Russian speakers in choosing the most logical entailment to perfective sentences rather than imperceptive sentences. The differences between the two groups were statistically significant. The results of the TVJ task also indicated that L2 Russian speakers were less successful than L1 Russian speakers in matching perfective and imperfective sentences with correct pictures. These findings support the claim that adult L2 speakers have difficulty with the acquisition of functional morphology, in particular aspectual morphology and its telicity feature.

Keywords

• Grammatical aspect
• lexical aspect telicity
• L1 Turkish
• L2 Russian

References

1. Aksan, Y. (2004). Event structure, scale structure and the representation of selected accomplishment verbs in Turkish and Korean. S.O. Lee et.al. (Eds.) Inquiries into Korean Linguistics I. Seoul: Thaehaksa, 261-280.
2. Ayhan Aksu-Koç (1988). The acquisition of aspect and modality. The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Ayhan Aksu-Koç (1997). Verb inflections in Turkish: A preliminary analysis in the early stage. In: Wolfgan U. Dressler (ed.) Studies in Pre- and Proto Morphology, 127-139.
4. Al-Thubaiti, K. A. (2015). Chapter 7. L2 acquisition of English aspect by L1 Arabic speakers. In The Acquisition of the Present (pp. 185–214). https://doi.org/10.1075/z.196.07alt
5. Andersen, R. W. (1991). ‘Developmental sequence: The emergence of aspect marking in second language acquisition.’ In Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theories, (T. Huebner & C. A. Ferguson (eds). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
6. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell.
7. Borik, O. (2006). Aspect and reference time. (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 13). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University Press.

9. Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Anderson, B. (1997). The interpretive interface in L2 acquisition: the process–result distinction in English–French interlanguage grammars. Language Acquisition, 6, 297–332.
10. De Swart, H., & Verkuyl, H. (1999). Tense and aspect in sentence and discourse. Reader, ESSLLI summer school, Utrecht. http://folli.loria.fr/cds/1999/library/pdf/hhh.pdf
11. Domínguez, L., Tracy-Ventura, N., Arche, M. J., Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2013). The role of dynamic contrasts in the L2 acquisition of Spanish past tense morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(3), 558-577. doi:10.1017/S1366728912000363
12. Epstein, S., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 19, 677-758.
13. Erguvanli, T. (2002). The Verb in Turkish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Linguistik Aktuell/Lingvistics Today, 44].
14. Flynn, & Martohardjono, (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19(04), 677 – 714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00043521
15. Gabriele, A. (2005). The acquisition of* aspect in a second language: A bidirectional study of learners of English and Japanese. City University of New York.
16. Gabriele, A. (2008). Mapping between Form and Meaning: A Case of Imperfect L2 Acquisition. 電子 情報通信学会技術研究報告. TL, 思考と言語, 108(184), 101-106.
17. Goksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London & New York: Routledge.
18. Güven, A. (2012). Toplumsal Dilbilimin Kapsam Alanı, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (13), 55-62.
19. Haznedar, B., Schwartz, B.D. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In E. Hughes, M. Hughes, & A. Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Boston University Conference on Language Development, 21, 257–268. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
20. Hawkins, R. & Chan C. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: the ‘failed functional features hypotheses. Second Language Research, 13,3, pp. 187–226.
21. Hawkins, R., Casillas, G., Hattori, H., Hawthorne, J., Husted, R., Lozano, C., … Yamada, K. (2008). The semantic effects of verb raising and its consequences in second language grammars. In The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 328–351). New York: Taylor & Francis.
22. Hirakawa, M. (1999). L2 Acquisition of Japanese Unaccusative Verbs by Speakers of English and Chinese. In The Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language, 89.
23. Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing Effects in Second Language Sentence Processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(04), 483–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S027226310001442X
24. Juffs, A. (1996). Learnability and the lexicon: theories and second language acquisition research. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
25. Kozlowska-Macgregor, M. (2002). The state of near-native grammar: A study of aspect in L2 Polish. Doctoral Dissertation. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics.
26. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. (Descriptive Grammars.) London: Routledge.
27. Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem & P. van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and contextual expressions, pp. 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.
28. Lardiere, D. (1998). Case and tense in the fossilised steady state. Second Language Research, 14/1, 1-26.
29. Lardiere, D. (2000). Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In J. Archibald (ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
30. Lardiere, D. (2005). On morphological competence. In L. Dekydtspotter, R. A. Sprouse, & A. Liljestrand (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004), pp. 178–192. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press
31. Lenchuk, I. (2016) Aspect and case in interlanguage grammars: The case of English learners of Russian. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). York University, Toronto, Ontario.
32. Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
33. Li, P., & Shirai, Y. (2000). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
34. Liszka, S. A. (2015). Chapter 3. The L2 acquisition of the English Present Simple – Present Progressive distinction. In The Acquisition of the Present (pp. 57–86). https://doi.org/10.1075/z.196.03lis
35. Meisel, Jürgen M. (1997). The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German: contrasting first and second language development. Second Language Research, 13(3), 227 – 263.
36. Tsimpli, I. (2003). Features in L1 and L2 acquisition: Evidence from Greek clitics and determiners. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère, 20, 87–128
37. Mikhaylova, A. (2018). Morphological Bottleneck: The Case of Russian Heritage Speakers. Journal of Language Contact 11, 286-303.
38. Montrul, S. (1997). The L2 acquisition of dative experiencer subjects. Second Language Research, 13, 264–298.
39. Montrul, S., (1999). Causative errors with unaccusative verbs in Spanish as a second languageю. In: Second Language Research, 15(2), 191-219.
40. Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2002). Acquiring morphosyntactic and semantic properties of aspectual tenses in L2 Spanish. In A.T. Perez-Lerouz & J. Liceras (eds.), The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax: the L1- L2 connection, 113-149. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
41. Montrul, S. & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence Similarities between Native and Near-Native Speakers: An Investigation of the Preterit/Imperfect Contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351-398.
42. Nossalik, L. (2009). L2 Acquisition of Russian Aspect. Doctor Dissertation, McGill University.
43. Prévost, P,. & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16-2, 103-133.
44. Richardson, K. (2007). Case and aspect in Slavic. New York: Oxford University Press.
45. Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and Schools Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black–White Achievement Gap.
46. Salaberry, R. (2000). The development of past tense morphology in L2 Spanish. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
47. Schwatz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
48. Schwartz , B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 Cognitive States and the Full Transfer/Full Access Model. Second Language Research 12, 40-72.
49. Slabakova, R. (2001). Telicity in the second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/lald.26
50. Slabakova R., & Montrul, S. (2002). “On Viewpoint Aspect and Its L2 Acquisition: A UG Perspective”, in. R. Salaberry and Y. Shirai (Eds.), Tense-Aspect Morphology in L2 Acquisition, pp. 363-398. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51. Slabakova, R. (2005). What is So Difficult about Telicity Marking in L2 Russian? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8, 63-77.
52. Slabakova, R. (2006). Is There a Critical Period for Semantics? Second Language Research 22.3, 302-338.
53. Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the Second Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
54. Slabakova, R. (2013). What is easy and what is hard to acquire in a second language: A generative perspective. Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition 9.5, 528.
55. Smith, C. S. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
56. Smith, N. & Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria. (1995). The Mind Of a Savant: Language Learning and Modularity. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
57. Sorace, A. (1995). Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a second language. The unaccusative/unergative distinction. In Eubank, L., L. Selinker, and M. S. Sharwood (eds.), The Current State of Interlanguage. Amsterdam: BenjaminsItalian. Second Language Research, 9, 22- 47.
58. Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76, 859-890.
59. Sorace, A. & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr271oa
60. Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of "interface" in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1-33.
61. Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times‛. The philosophical review, 66, pp. 143-160.
62. Verkuyl, H. (1999). Tense, aspect, and aspectual composition. In M. Dimitrova-Vulchanova & L. Hellan (eds.), Topics in South Slavic syntax and semantics, pp. 125–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
63. White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
64. White, L. (1990/1991). The verb-movement parameter in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 1, 337-360.
65. White, L. (2000). Second Language Acquisition: From Initial to Final State. Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell.