Processing of Subject and Object Case Markers in Turkish

Öz

There is no consensus in terms of processing subject- object case markers (Bornkessel, et al., 2004; Schlesewsky & Frisch, 2005; Mueller, et al., 2005; Chow, et al., 2018). The purpose of this study is to determine how +/- definite objects affect the processing cost and to reveal whether there is a processing difference in subject-object case markers. In the first analysis, it is observed that + definite objects are processed easier than - definite objects. Possible reasons are different definiteness and specificity of +/- definite objects and - definite objects creating pseudo incorporation with verb, which causes additional processing cost. In the second analysis, it is observed that subject case creates more processing cost than object case. It is thought that assignment of case markers of subject within TP, object within VP, linear distance between subject and verb, and involvement of more features in subject assignment may cause this difference.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Subject case
• Object case
• + Definite object case
• - Definite object case
• Verb

Kaynakça

1. Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483.
2. Anderson, S. R. (1976). On the notion of subject in ergative languages.
3. Aygen, G. (2007). Syntax and Semantics of Genitive Subject-Case in Turkic. California Linguistic Notes, 32(2), 1- 39.
4. Aygen, N. G. (2002, 2004, 2006). Finiteness, Case and Clausal Architecture: PhD dissertation Harvard University (Vol. 13). Cambridge MA: MITWPL Occasional Papers in Linguistics.
5. Aygüneş, M. (2013). Türkçede Uyum Özelliklerinin Olaya İlişkin Beyin Potansiyelleri (OİP) açısından incelenmesi. Doktora Tezi, 1-169.
6. Aygüneş, M., Aydın, O., & Demiralp, T. (2014). Özne durumu ile uyum arasındaki ilişki: Olaya ilişkin beyin potansiyelleri (OİP) incelemesi. 28. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Programı. Sakarya.
7. Baker, M. C. (2013). On agreement and its relationship to case: Some generative ideas and results. Lingua, 130, 14-32. Ercan, G. S., & Bakırlı, O. C. (2009). Türkçede Özne Beli̇rtme Ve Özne Yükleme: İşlevsel Di̇lbi̇lgi̇si̇ Çerçevesi̇nde Bi̇r Çalişma. Researchgate, 42- 58.
8. Bornkessel, I., McElree, B., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 495–522.

9. Carreiras, M., Quiñones, I., Mancini, S., Hernández-Cabrera, J. A., & Barber, H. (2015). Verbal and nominal agreement: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 120, 88–103.
10. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1983). Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory & Cognition, 11(5), 539- 550.
11. Carreiras, M., Salillas, E., & Barber, H. (2004). Event-related potentials elicited during parsing of ambiguous relative clauses in Spanish. Cognitive Brain Research, 20(1), 98- 105.
12. Cho, S., Lee, M., O’grady, W., Song, M., Suzuki, T., & Yoshinaga, N. (2002). Word order preferences for direct and indirect objects in children learning Korean. J. Child Language, 29, 897- 909.
13. Chow, W.-Y., Nevins, A., & Carreiras, M. (2018). Effects of subject-case marking on agreement processing: ERP evidence from Basque. Cortex, 319-329.
14. Comrie, B. (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell, and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Díaz, B., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Erdocia, K., Mueller, J. L., & Laka, I. (2011). On the cross-linguistic validity of electrophysiological correlates of morphosyntactic processing: A study of case and agreement violations in Basque. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 11, 357–373.
16. Dik, S. (1989). The theory of functional grammar. Part I: The structure of the clause. Dordrecht: Foris. Emeksiz, Z. E. (2003). Özgüllük ve Belirlilik. Doktora Tezi, 1- 165.
17. Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1- 25.
18. Ercan, G. S., & Bakırlı, O. C. (2009). Türkçede Özne Beli̇rtme Ve Özne Yükleme: İşlevsel Di̇lbi̇lgi̇si̇ Çerçevesi̇nde Bi̇r Çalişma . Researchgate, 42- 58.
19. Erguvanlı Taylan, E., & Zimmer, K. (1994). Case Marking in Turkish Indefinite Object Constructons. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore (pp. 547-552). eLanguage, the Linguistic Society of America's digital publishing platform.
20. Erguvanlı, E. E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Pereyra, J.F.S, Klarman, L., Lin, L. J.-F., & Kuhl, P. K. (2005). Sentence processing in 30-month-old children: an event-related potential study. Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology, 16(6), 645- 648.
21. Franck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Rizzi, L. (2006). Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition, 101, 173–216.
22. Frenck-Mestre, C., Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., & Foucart, A. (2008). The effect of phonological realization of inflectional morphology on verbal agreement in French: Evidence from ERPs. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 528- 536.
23. Friederici, A. D., & Frisch, S. (2000). VerbArgument Structure Processing: The Role of Verb-Specific and Argument-Specific Information. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 476–507.
24. Frisch, S., & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). The resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective. Cognitive Brain Reseach, 484-498.
25. Frisch, S., & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). The resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 484 – 498.
26. Gronbech, K. (1995). Türkçenin Yapısı. TDK Yayınları, Ankara.
27. Hagoort, P. (2003). Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(6), 883-899.
28. Haskell, T. R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2005). Constituent structure and linear order in language production: Evidence from subject agreement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 891–904.
29. Jegerski, J. (2015). The processing of case in near-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 31(3), 281–307.
30. Karataş, N. B. (2019). The Comparison of L1 and L2 Case Processing: ERP Evidence from Turkish. Dissertation, 109.