Is L1 Transfer Operative at the Syntax-Discourse Interface? The Acquisition of Null and Overt Subjects in L2 Turkish
Öz
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.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Null and overt subjects, discursive constraints, L1 transfer, L2 Turkish, Korean and Japanese speakers, Interface Hypothesis
Kaynakça
- 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.
