Türk Dili Öğrencilerinde Boş Bir Cümlenin Kullanılması: Bir Arayüz Problemi mi?

Year 2017, Issue: 9, 101 - 112, 21.10.2017

Anna Lia Ergun

https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.347563

Abstract

Son yıllarda yapılan araştırmalara göre sözdizim-söylem
arayüzündeki yapılar ikidilliler için zafiyet alanı teşkil etmektedir. Arayüz
varsayımı (AV) (Sorace, 2006; Sorace & Serratrice, 2009; Sorace, 2011),
sözdizim-söylem arayüzü gibi durumlarda, sözdizim dışarıdan diğer dışsal
bilişim (kognitif) sistemlerle karşılaştığında diller arası karışma meydana geldiğini
ve bunun ikinci dil öğrenicileri için zorluk teşkil ettiğini ileri sürer.
Başta, diller arası karışmanın iki dilin sözdizimsel özellikleri kısmen
örtüştüğü zaman (seçeneksel artış dolayısıyla) meydana geldiği öne sürülmüştü.
Ancak daha sonraki çalışmalar (Bini, 1993; Margaza e Bel 2006) diller arası
karışmanın iki tipolojik olarak benzer dil konuşan ikidillilerde meydana
geldiğini göstermiştir. Bu araştırma, İtalyanca'yı İkinci dil (D2) olarak
öğrenen orta ve ileri seviye Türk öğrencilerde kapalı ve boş zamir dağılımı
(konusunda) AV'yi test etmektedir. 

Keywords

edinme, boş konu, arayüz, Türkçe-İtalyanca

Use of the null subject in the Turkish language learners: an interface problem?

Abstract

The research carried out in
the recent years indicates that the structures at the syntax-discourse
interface fall in a vulnerable domain for
bilinguals (Sorace, 2011 for review). Interface Hypothesis (IH) (Sorace,
2006; Sorace & Serratrice, 2009; Sorace, 2011) proposes
that cross-linguistic interference occurs
when syntax encounter other external cognitive systems like in the case of
syntax-discourse interface so that it becomes the locus of difficulties for L2
learners Initially, it was proposed that cross-linguistic
interference occurs when syntactic features of the two languages partially
overlap (due to the rise of optionality. However, the later studies ((Bini,
1993; Margaza e Bel 2006).) found cross-linguistic interference to occur in
bilinguals speaking two typologically similar languages. This study tests the
HI with intermediate and advanced Turkish students learning Italian as an L2 on
the distribution of overt and null pronoun. 

Keywords

acquisition, null subject, interface, Turkish-Italian

References

• Chomsky N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Gürel, A. (2002). First language attrition: the effect of the second. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Acquisition. Pp. 255-265. Boston: Cascadilla Press Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press (awarded the Duke of Edinburgh prize for the best book in applied linguistics). Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. In Oxford Introduction to Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Enç, M. (1986.) Towards a Referential Analysis of Temporal Expresions. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 405–426 Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K (1989): The Null Subject Parameter and Parametric Theory. In: O. Jaeggli & K. Safir, eds., The Null Subject Parameter. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Keenan, E. & Schieffelin, B. (1976). Topic as a discourse notion: A study of topic in the conversations of children and adults in: Subject and topic, ed. by C. Li. New York: Academic Press. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge. Lehmann, W. (1976). From topic to subject in Indoeuropean. In C.Li . Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. (pp. 45–56). Liceras J.M. (1988). Syntax and stylistics: more on the pro-drop parameter. In J. Pankhurst, M. Sharwood-Smith and P. van Buren (Eds), Learnability and Second Languages (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 and J. Schachter (Eds) Linguistic perspectives in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 109- 133). Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press. Lozano, C. (2006). The development of the syntax-discourse interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages, pp. 371-399. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Margaza, P., & Bel, A. ( 2006). Null subjects at the syntax-pragmatics interface: Evidence from Spanish interlanguage of Greek speakers. In M. G. O’Brien, C. Shea, & J.Archibald (Eds.), Proceedings of GASLA 2006 (pp. 88-97). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Öztürk, B. (2002) Turkish as a non-pro-drop language. The Verb in Turkish, ed. E. Erguvanli-Taylan, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 239-260Rizzi L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30 (3), 333-357. Sorace, A. (2016). Referring expressions and executive functions in bilingualism. Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1:1-33. Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7: 143-145. Sorace, A. e Serratrice, L. 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13: 195-210. Tsimpli, I.M., Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax semantics and syntaxdiscourse phenomena. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, and C. Zaller (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, BUCLD 30, pp. 653-664. Somerville, MA. : Cascadilla Press. Tsimpli, T. Sorace, A., Heycock, C. and Filiaci, F. 2004. First language attrition and syntactic subjects: a study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism 8: 257-277. Underhill, R. (I97I). Turkish Grammar. Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University. Wilson, F., Sorace, A., & Keller, F. (2009). Antecedent preferences for anaphoric demonstratives in L2 German. In J. Chandlee, M. Franchini, S. Lord, & G-M. Rheiner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. pp.634–645. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.