Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:36:16.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turkish children use morphosyntactic bootstrapping in interpreting verb meaning*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2008

TILBE GÖKSUN ,
AYLIN C. KÜNTAY  and
LETITIA R. NAIGLES
TILBE GÖKSUN
Affiliation:
Temple University and Koç University
AYLIN C. KÜNTAY*
Affiliation:
Koç University
LETITIA R. NAIGLES
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
*
Address for correspondence: Aylin C. Küntay, Koç University, Department of Psychology, Rumelifeneri Yolu, Sariyer, Istanbul, Turkey34450. tel: +90.212.338.1409; fax: +90.212.338.3760; e-mail: akuntay@ku.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How might syntactic bootstrapping apply in Turkish, which employs inflectional morphology to indicate grammatical relations and allows argument ellipsis? We investigated whether Turkish speakers interpret constructions differently depending on the number of NPs in the sentence, the presence of accusative case marking and the causative morpheme. Data were collected from 60 child speakers and 16 adults. In an adaptation of Naigles, Gleitman & Gleitman (1993), the participants acted out sentences (6 transitive and 6 intransitive verbs in four different frames). The enactments were coded for causativity. Causative enactments increased in two-argument frames and decreased in one-argument frames, albeit to a lesser extent than previously found in English. This effect was generally stronger in children than in adults. Causative enactments increased when the accusative case marker was present. The causative morpheme yielded no increase in causative enactments. These findings highlight roles for morphological and syntactic cues in verb learning by Turkish children.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , May 2008 , pp. 291 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This work has been supported by the Turkish Academy of Sciences, in the framework of the Young Scientist Award Program to Aylin C. Küntay (EA-TÜBA-GEBİP/2001-2-13), and by Koç University, which sponsored Letitia Naigles' sabbatical. Portions of this research have been presented at the 2005 Meeting of the International Association for the Study of Child Language, at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, and at Boğaziçi University and the University of Connecticut. We thank our audiences for their comments; we also thank James Boster, Reyhan Furman, Len Katz, Nihan Ketrez and Aslı Özyürek for their specific and valuable suggestions on earlier versions of this manuscript. We also thank İrem Güroğlu for coding the data for inter-rater reliability. We owe this work to the cooperation of many children in several preschools in Istanbul, and their parents and teachers.

References

Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The cross linguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1, 839–80. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. & Ketrez, F. N. (2003). Early syntactic combinations: Emergence of argument structures in Turkish. Paper presented at SRCD 2003 Biennial Meeting, Florida. 24–27 April 2003.Google Scholar
Allen, S. E. M. (2007). Interacting pragmatic influences on children's argument realization. In Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (eds), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: implications for learnability. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Allen, S. E. M. & Schroder, H. (2003). Preferred argument structure in early Inuktitut spontaneous speech data. In Du Bois, J. W., Kumpf, L. E. & Ashby, W. J. (eds), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 301–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batman-Ratyosyan, N. & Stromswold, K. (2002). Morphosyntax is easy, discourse pragmatics is hard. In Skarabela, B, Fish, S. & Do, A. H. (eds), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Vol. 2, 793–804. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Behrend, D. A., Harris, L. L. & Cartwright, K. B. (1995). Morphological cues to verb meaning: verb inflections and the initial mapping of verb meaning. Journal of Child Language 22, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (2007). Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: implications for learnability. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S., Brody, R. E., Fisch, S. M. & Weisberger, M. J. (1990). Can children use a verb without exposure to its argument structure? Journal of Child Language 17, 313–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, P. (2007). Verb specificity and argument realization in Tzeltal child language. In Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (eds), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: implications for learnability, 167–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. M. (1985). The acquisition of Japanese. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The cross linguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1, 839–80. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. M. (2003). The lexicon in interaction: Developmental origins of preferred argument structure in Korean. In Du Bois, J. W., Kumpf, L. E. & Ashby, W. J. (eds), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 81–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. (1996). Early verbs, event types, and inflections. In Johnson, C. & Gilbert, J. (eds), Children's language, Vol. 9, 61–73. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dede, M. (1986). Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish verbal sentences. In Slobin, D. I. & Zimmer, K. (eds), Studies in Turkish linguistics, 147–63. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekmekçi, Ö. (1979). Acquisition of Turkish: A longitudinal study on early language development of a Turkish child. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1–25.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, C. (1996). Structural limits on verb mapping: the role of analogy in children's interpretations of sentences. Cognitive Psychology 31, 41–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, C., Hall, G. D., Rakowitz, S. & Gleitman, L. (1994). When it is better to receive than to give: Syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth. In Gleitman, L. & Landau, B. (eds), The acquisition of the lexicon, 333–75. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L. & Lederer, A. (1999). Human simulation of vocabulary learning. Cognition 73, 135–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gleitman, L. R. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition 1, 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1999) The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), The emergence of language, 197–211. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2004). But do we need Universal Grammar? Comment on Lidz et al. (2003). Cognition 94, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Imai, M., Haryu, E., Okada, H., Kajikawa, S. & Saalbach, H. (2007) Case-marking and argument-number dilemma in children learning an argument dropping language. Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ketrez, N. F. (1999). Early verbs and the acquisition of Turkish argument structure. Unpublished masters thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.Google Scholar
Ketrez, N. F. (2004). Children's accusative case and indefinite objects. Dilbilim Arastirmalari 2004, 63–74.Google Scholar
Ketrez, N. F. (2005). Children's scope of indefinite objects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Küntay, A. & Slobin, D. I. (1996). Listening to a Turkish mother: some puzzles for acquisition. In Slobin., D. I., Gerhardt, J., Kyratzis, A. & Guo, J. (eds), Social interaction, social context, and language, 265–86. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: a phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition 38, 245–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, B. & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. & Naigles, L. R. (2005). Input to verb learning in Mandarin Chinese: a role for syntactic bootstrapping. Developmental Psychology 41, 529–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, J. & Naigles, L. R. (in press). Syntactic bootstrapping in Mandarin Chinese from preschoolers to adults: evidence from comprehension. Cognition.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lidz, J. (2006). The grammar of accusative case in Kannada. Language 82, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidz, J., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. (2003). Understanding how input matters: verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar. Cognition 87, 151–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidz, J. & Gleitman, L. (2004). Argument structure and the child's contribution to language learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 157–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidz, J. & Musolino, J. (2006). On the quantificational status of indefiniteness: the view from child language. Language Acquisition 13, 73–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuo, A., Sinya, Y., Kita, S. & Naigles, L. R. (2007). Japanese two-year-olds use morphosyntax to learn verb meanings. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. R. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language 17, 357–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naigles, L. R., Fowler, A. & Helm, A. (1992). Developmental shifts in the construction of verb meanings. Cognitive Development 7, 403–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L. R., Gleitman, L. R. & Gleitman, H. (1993). Children acquire verb meaning components from syntactic evidence. In Dromi, E. (ed.), Language and cognition: a developmental perspective, 104–40. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. R., Küntay, A. C., Göksun, T. & Lee, J. N. (2006). Language-specific properties influence children's acquisition of argument structure. In Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T. & Zaller, C. (eds), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 388–98. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. R. & Lehrer, N. (2002). Language-general and language-specific influences on children's acquisition of argument structure: a comparison of French and English. Journal of Child Language 29, 545–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naigles, L. R. & Swensen, L. D. (2007). Syntactic supports for word learning. In Hoff, E. and Shatz, M. (eds) The handbook of language development. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Narasimhan, B., Budwig, N. & Murty, L. (2005). Argument realization in Hindi caregiver-child discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 461–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rispoli, M. (1995). Missing arguments and the acquisition of predicate meanings. In Tomasello, M. & Merriman, W. E. (eds) Beyond names for things: Young children's acquisition of verbs, 331–52. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6, 382–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirai, Y. & Anderson, R. (1995). The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: a prototype account. Language 71, 743–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. & Bever, T. G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: a cross-linguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition 12, 229–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedeker, J. & Gleitman, L. (2004). Why it is hard to label our concepts. In Hall, G. & Waxman, S. (eds) Weaving a lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. P. (2007). Same argument structure, different meanings: Learning ‘put’ and ‘look’ in Arrernte. In Bowerman, M. and Brown, P. (eds) Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: implications for learnability, 141–66. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar