Cover not available

In:The Acquisition of Turkish in Childhood
Edited by Belma Haznedar and F. Nihan Ketrez
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 20] 2016
► pp. 99–118

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

What does online parsing in Turkish-speaking children reveal about grammar?

 | Harvard University, USA
Published online: 18 November 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.20.05ozg
Abstract
This paper summarizes recent studies with Turkish-speaking children that explore whether children’s online parsing shares adult processing features. We review findings from a self-paced listening study on the processing of relative clauses that reveals incremental integration of case-marking cues and an eye-tracking study that reveals predictive interpretation of case-marking cues independent of the verb and the word order. We discuss the idea that prediction is a natural by-product of incremental interpretation once we assume that our competence grammar is a lexicalized one that allows one-to-one correspondence between syntactic and semantic rules. We then show how Combinatory Categorial Grammar could secure a parsing mechanism combining incrementality and predictivity, without sacrificing a bottom-up algorithm, thanks to its monotonic and monostratal nature that allows flexible constituency.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Is child parsing incremental and predictive?
  • 3.Online findings from children’s interpretation in head-final languages
  • 4.What do these findings imply about the grammar?
    • 4.1Why CCG as a competence grammar?
    • 4.2Interpretation of the findings in Özge et al. (2015) and Özge et al. (2013)
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (43)
References
Akhtar, N. & Tomasello, M. 1997. Young children’s productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology 33(6): 952–965. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D.I. 1985. The acquisition of Turkish. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 1: The Data, D.I. Slobin (ed.), 839–880. Hillsdale NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altmann, G.T.M. & Kamide, Y. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73: 247–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altmann, G. & Steedman, M. 1988. Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 30(3): 191–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arai, M. & Mazuka, R. 2014. The development of Japanese passive syntax as indexed by structural priming in comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 67(1): 60–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. 1987. Competition, variation, and language learning. In Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, B. MacWhinney (ed), 157–193. Hillsdale NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bever, T.G. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Cognition and the Development of Language, J.R. Hayes (ed.), 279–362. New York NY: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bozşahin, C. 2002. The combinatory morphemic lexicon. Computational Linguistics 28(2): 145–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brauer, J. Anwander, A., Perani, D. & Friederici A.D. 2013. Dorsal and ventral pathways in language development. Brain and Language 127(2): 289–295. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Choi, Y. & Trueswell, J. 2010. Children’s (in)ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 106(1): 41–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. 2008. German children’s comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. Child Development 79(4): 1152–1167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friederici, A.D. 2011. Brain basis of language processing: From processing to function. Physiological Reviews 91(4): 1357–1392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garnsey, S.M., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Chapman, R.M. 1989. Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18: 51–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Göksun, T., Küntay, A.C. & Naigles, L.R., 2008. Turkish children use morphosyntactic bootstrapping in interpreting verb meaning, Journal of Child Language 35: 291–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, J. 2001. A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language Technologies 2001 (NAACL ’01), 1–8. Morristown NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopp, H. 2013. Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research 29(1): 33–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Y. & Snedeker, J. 2011. Cascading activation across levels of representation in children’s lexical processing. Journal of Child Language 38: 644–661. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hurewitz, F., Brown-Schmidt, S., Thorpe, K., Gleitman, L. & Trueswell, J. 2000. One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog: Factors affecting children’s syntactic choices in production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 597–626. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamide, Y., Scheepers, C. & Altmann, G. 2003. Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(1): 37–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ketrez, F.N. & Aksu-Koç, A. 2009. Early nominal morphology in Turkish: Emergence of case and number. In Development of Nominal Inflection in First Language Acquisition: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, U. Stephany & M.D. Voeikova (eds), 15–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knoll, L.J. Obleser, J., Schipke, C.S., Friederici, A.D. & Brauer, J. 2012. Left prefrontal cortex activation during sentence comprehension covaries with grammatical knowledge in children. Neuroimage 62(1): 207–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levy, R. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3): 1126–1177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. & Tyler, L.K. 1980. The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition 8(1): 1–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Omaki, A., Davidson White, I., Goro, T., Lidz, J. & Phillips, C. 2014. No fear of commitment: Children’s incremental interpretation in English and Japanese wh-questions. Language Learning and Development 10: 206–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Özge, D. 2010. Mechanisms and Strategies in the Processing and Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Turkish Monolingual and Turkish-English Bilingual Children. PhD dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara-Turkey.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Özge, D. & Marinis, T. 2010. Predictive processing in children acquiring a head final language: Evidence from Turkish relative clauses. Poster presented at AMLAP 2010, York, UK.
Özge, D., Küntay, A. & Snedeker, J. 2013. Predictive use of case marking during sentence comprehension: An eye-tracking study of Turkish-speaking children (and adults). Poster presented at CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, May 2013 South Carolina, USA.
Özge, D., Marinis, T. & Zeyrek, D. 2015. Incremental processing in head-final child language: On-line comprehension of relative clauses in Turkish-speaking children and adults. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30: 1230–1243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Özge, D., Küntay, A. & Snedeker, J. Under revision. Why wait for the verb? Turkish speaking children use case for incremental thematic interpretation.
Özge, D., Marinis, T. & Zeyrek, D. 2013. Object-first orders in Turkish do not pose a challenge during processing. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Languages, U. Özge (ed.), 269–280. Cambridge MA: MITWPI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schipke, C.S., Knoll, L.J., Friederici, A.D. & Oberecker, R. 2012. Preschool children’s interpretation of object-initial sentences: Neural correlates of their behavioral performance. Developmental Science 15(6): 762–774. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, D.I. 1982. Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, E. Wanner & L.R. Gleitman (eds.), 128–170. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, D.I. & Bever, T.G. 1982. Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition 12: 229–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. 2004. The developing constraints on parsing decisions: The role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology 49(3): 238–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steedman, M. 2000. The Syntactic Process. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swingley, D., Pinto, J.P. & Fernald, A. 1999. Continuous processing in word recognition at 24 months. Cognition 71(2): 73–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Eberhard, K. & Sedivy, J. 1995. The interaction of visual and verbal information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268: 1632–1634. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2000. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74: 209–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trueswell, J., & Gleitman, L. 2007. Learning to parse and its implications for language acquisition. In Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, G. Gaskell (ed.), 319–346. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trueswell, J., Sekerina, I.A., Hill, N.M., & Logrip, M.L. 1999. The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73(2): 89–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. & Tanenhaus, M.K. 1994. Toward a lexical framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Perspectives on Sentence Processing, C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (eds), 155–179. Hillsdale NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ural, A.E., Yuret, D., Ketrez, F. N., Koçbaş, D. & Küntay, A. 2009. Morphological cues vs. number of nominals in learning verb types in Turkish: The syntactic bootstrapping mechanism revisited. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(10): 1393–1405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue