28.1636, Review: Turkish; Altaic; General Ling; Language Acquisition; Pragmatics: Gürel (2016)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-1636. Tue Apr 04 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.1636, Review: Turkish; Altaic; General Ling; Language Acquisition; Pragmatics: Gürel (2016)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2017
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:33:09
From: Francesco Romano [fbroma at essex.ac.uk]
Subject: Second Language Acquisition of Turkish

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36223137


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/27/27-2451.html

EDITOR: Ayşe  Gürel
TITLE: Second Language Acquisition of Turkish
SERIES TITLE: Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 59
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2016

REVIEWER: Francesco Romano, University of Essex

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

Ayşe Gürel’s “The Second Language Acquisition of Turkish” is an edited volume
whose purpose is to represent research on this less commonly taught and
studied second language (L2) and address a number of open issues in the field
of Turkish language learning and teaching. The eleven chapters in this volume
are a menagerie of studies concentrating exclusively on adult L2 speakers,
setting aside investigations of Turkish child language development, adult
heritage speakers, and language attrition. In the Introduction written by the
editor, Gürel first highlights a few important aspects pertinent to the
Turkish language related to the issues discussed in the volume: the origins
and geo-linguistic distribution of Turkish; a growing interest in Turkish as a
taught and learned L2; key morphological, phonological, syntactic, and
discourse/pragmatic characteristics of the language. The Introduction ends
with a summary of the 11 chapters and their legacy to the broader field of
second language acquisition (SLA). 

The remainder of the book is organized into four parts made up of eleven
chapters, and a conclusion. Each part includes studies of the acquisition and
processing of language. While Part I, II, and III focus on the acquisition L2
phonology, morphosyntax, and discourse/pragmatics respectively, Part IV homes
in on the L2 processing of morphosyntactic elements. In the Conclusion, Gürel
suggests future directions and discusses pedagogical implications of the works
in the volume. 

To follow is a brief summary of the eleven chapters and the conclusion.

Chapter 1, “The effects of purely phonological and phonosyntactic issues”, by
Öner Özçelik, reports two studies. In the first study, Canadian English and
French speakers’ L2 development of Turkish lower-level prosody was tracked in
order to test whether first language (L1) phonological features like [±foot]
transfer to L2 and access to Universal Grammar (UG) is possible. The author
claims their results to uphold both of these predictions. The acquisition of
higher-level prosody by English speakers of Turkish is the focus of the second
study. Although the L1-L2 differ for the parameter-setting and usage of
prosodic structures, participants are purported to be able to re-set
parameters to the L2 value and adopt L2-like prosody. 

In Chapter 2, Öner Özçelik and Rex Sprouse test adult instructed English
learners of Turkish dependence on orthographic and auditory stimuli in
developing phonological competence. By means of a multiple-choice test, the
authors exploit canonical suffixation, normally guided by vowel harmony, and
non-canonical exceptional suffixation patterns, as in loanwords from Persian,
Arabic, and other European languages, to measure accuracy in choice of a
suffix. Their results show with good confidence that across proficiency
levels, bi-modal presentation of stimuli leads to higher accuracy scores in
choice of a suffix reflecting the canonical pattern compared to auditory
presentation alone. More advanced learners, however, outperform beginners in
both the canonical and non-canonical suffixation conditions, and depend less
on orthographic presentation to make accurate decisions on non-canonical
suffixation.

Chapter 3 titled “The acquisition of TAM markers in L2 Turkish” is a study of
the acquisition of Turkish tense, agreement, and mood markers by intermediate
and advanced Greek speakers. The authors Hasan Kaili, Aytaç Çeltek, and
Despina Papadopoulou, compare L2 speakers with natives on written and oral
production of –yor, -r, cek/cak verbal morphemes which encode tense, aspect,
and modality. Their results show L2 speakers are more accurate in use of tense
and aspect than modal markers consistent with work in other richly inflected
L2s like Italian (Giacalone-Ramat, 1992) and French (Howard, 2002). They
conjecture part of the difficulty participants experience with use of L2
verbal inflectional morphology is due to differences in the lexicalization of
the relevant abstract features between L1 and L2.

In Chapter 4, “The causative and inchoative morphology in L2 Turkish under the
Feature Reassembly Approach”, is a revisiting of Silvina Montrul’s article
originally published in 2001 in Second Language Research. In this chapter,
Montrul describes her study of the L2 acquisition of two classes of Turkish
causative verbs by adult English, Spanish, and Japanese learners. She tests
the semantic and morphological acceptability of sentences comprising the two
verb classes by means of a picture judgment task, controlling for transitivity
and morphological realization. One generalization emerging from Montrul’s
findings is that the L1 morphological patterns resulting from
causative/inchoative combinations with verb transitivity influence L2 judgment
of equivalent patterns in the L2.

Chapter 5, “Someone judges every sentence: Third language acquisition of
quantifier scope in Turkish” by Şıla Ay and Özgür Aydın, is an investigation
in L1 Japanese L2 English L3 Turkish. This study had the objective of
identifying the nature of language transfer in the interpretation of
quantifier scope in Turkish SOV and OSV sentences. After comparing the L3
speakers with native speakers on a picture-matching rating task modelling the
two sentence types, the authors found: (1) surprising evidence of neither L1
nor L2 transfer in the L3 group; (2) the native interpretations differed from
predictions based on the literature. 

In Chapter 6, “Syntax/semantics/pragmatics of yes/no questions in second
language Turkish”, Martina Gračanin-Yuksek and Bılal Kırkıcı examine the
acquisition of Turkish yes/no questions by adult speakers from a number of L1
backgrounds. More specifically, the authors tested a cross-sectional sample of
L2 speakers at three different proficiency levels to ascertain whether their
knowledge of separate syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic constraints on the
question marker mi/mı in different sentential positions differs from that of
native speakers. Results of a rating task used for each of the three
grammatical domains revealed that L2 syntactic and semantic competence exceeds
pragmatics, in line with claims that internal interfaces are less vulnerable
than external (Tsimpli and Sorace, 2006). 

In “Cross-linguistic effects in the use of suggestion formulas by L2 Turkish
learners” 
Yasemin Bayyurt and Leyla Martı examine native-nonnative differences in use of
suggestions in L2 Turkish. The results of a discourse completion and written
task reveal considerable differences in sensitivity to the social contexts
between native and advanced English speakers of Turkish. This study indicates
L2 speakers struggle with the acquisition of speech acts even after
considerable instruction in the L2.

In Chapter 8, “Explicit apologies in L2 Turkish”, Çiler Hatipoğlu researches
the quantitative and qualitative features of explicit apologies in Turkish
produced by L1 Russian and Arabic speakers in study abroad contexts. She also
attempts to define how L2 speakers adjust their pragmatic competence to suit
the L2. Evidence is shown to support the claim that L1 language and culture
affect the rate and success with which L2 speakers identify target-like means
and strategies for contextually appropriate apologizing. 

Chapter 9, “Processing morphology in L2 Turkish: the effects of morphological
richness in L1” 
Serkan Uygun and Ayşe Gürel examine the processing of Turkish nominal
inflection via an unprimed lexical decision task completed by L1 Russian and
English speakers at two different proficiency levels, intermediate and
advanced. The L1 choice in this study is meaningful insofar as the authors
hypothesize that the closer the L1 and L2 typologically, the more similar the
processing pattern. Their results, instead, show that cross-linguistic
influence is not warranted but that proficiency level has a much greater
effect on the type of pattern observed. More specifically, the advanced L2
group tended to reflect a full-listing pattern like the native speakers, while
the intermediate group relied more on decomposition. These findings imply that
the L1’s morphological structure does not play a dominant role in L2
morphological processing. 
  
In Chapter 10, “Non-native syntactic processing of case and agreement:
evidence from event-related potentials”, the three authors, Özgür Aydın,
Mehmet Aygüneş, and Tamer Demiralp report on a neurolinguistic study comparing
syntactic processing in L1 and L2 speakers taking L1-L2 language distance and
L2 proficiency into account. In this study, event-related potentials were
measured during the processing of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences with
either subject case or finite and non-finite subject-verb agreement
violations. Aydın, Aygüneş, and Demiralp found that an increase in L2
proficiency implies more native-like processing of subject-verb but not case
agreement, and that lower proficiency learners are subject to a
finite/non-finite effect in that their performance is only sometimes
native-like. 

Chapter 11, “Structural priming in L2 Turkish: A study of possessive noun
phrases and noun clauses”, by Gözde Mercan, is a psycholinguistic experiment
in structural priming. The author sets out to test whether L2 speakers of
Turkish from a variety of L1 backgrounds, ranging in proficiency from
intermediate to advanced, have a single syntactic possessive representation
for possessive marked NPs and noun clauses with nominalized verbs. Her
findings somewhat suggest L2 speakers have separate syntactic representations
for these structures, despite their being equally possessive marked.   

The volume closes with Ayşe Gürel’s Conclusion, in which she reviews the
methods used by the studies in the volume and addresses three important
limitations thereof, all connected to homogeneity of participant sample:
controlling for L1, using sizeable groups by proficiency level, and
establishing an L2 standardized proficiency test. Next, Gürel discusses
implications of the 11 studies for the general field of SLA, mainly from a
generative perspective. She relates the implications to critical issues in the
field such as the L2 endstate (Sorace, 2003), persistent variability (White,
1991), access to UG (White 2003), and feature reconfiguration (Lardiere,
2008). Finally, she addresses three important aspects emerging from the
studies in the volume for the teaching of L2 Turkish: (1) selecting
appropriate teaching approaches based on difficulty of L2 feature; (2) taking
developmental readiness (Pienemann, 1985) into account; (3) the relevance of
markedness theory (e.g., Doughty, 1991). The book concludes with some
suggestions for the planning of L2 Turkish language programs and pedagogical
activities. 

EVALUATION

As one of the very few researchers in Turkey to conduct research on L2 Turkish
grounded in generative grammar, Gürel has edited a volume which may deservedly
be called a state-of-the-art overview for Turkish and international audiences.
The volume is unique with its focus on an agglutinative richly inflected
language like Turkish and how its intrinsic characteristics affect the
acquisition process. Furthermore, the book successfully fulfils its purpose by
capturing the full range of issues it promised to address, reporting studies
utilizing a wide array of behavioral and physiological measures. The book
displays great breadth of inquiry, while the editor’s evaluation of the
studies reflects impressive knowledge of generativist SLA and key notions in
the literature of research-informed L2 teaching. 

Issues core to the contemporary generative approaches to SLA are dealt with
well in at least four of the chapters: Chapter 2 tests prosodic transfer from
L1 to L2 (Goad and White, 2009); Chapter 3 describes UG access and L1 transfer
in the development of L2 functional categories (Schartz and Sprouse, 1996;
Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 2006); Chapter 6 and 7 look at the development of
internal versus external interfaces (Tsimpli and Sorace, 2006); Chapter 3 and
4 reflect persistent variability and difficulty in reconfiguring features from
the L1 to L2 (Lardiere, 2008). This book is the pinnacle of a research program
bravely developing in a social and political context that does not
sufficiently embrace the very values of cultural and linguistic diversity
needed to conduct research on SLA and improve current Turkish language
teaching practices.

There are, however, a few areas of improvement worthwhile noting which
represent potential avenues for future scientific inquiry into the L2 and L3
acquisition of Turkish. Chapter 5 by Ay and Aydın is (potentially) the only
study in the volume looking at L3 acquisition. As such, this chapter in my
view would have been better placed in a volume dedicated to L3 acquisition
which, as Ay and Aydın underscore, has in the last decade grown to become a
field in its own right. Related to L3 acquisition is a widespread experimental
problem in L2 research, namely the potential intervening effect of L2 English
on L3 Turkish. Many non-anglophone L2 Turkish learners, be they naturalistic
or instructed learners of the target language, tend to have some knowledge of
English which acts as a temporary, and often permanent, vehicle for everyday
communication in a culture where interaction with locals would otherwise not
be possible. Thus, several of the studies in this volume, like many other
studies on lesser known L2s, should better inform readers of the degree to
which English as a vehicle language intervenes in the development/acquisition
of L2 Turkish. 

Related to unwanted experimental effects are three other important variables
the editor correctly identifies in her conclusion to the volume: L1 effects,
proficiency effects, and proficiency tests. In Chapters 6, 10, and 11, for
instance, the authors had difficulty recruiting participants belonging to one
or two specific L1 backgrounds and in Chapter 11, the L2 proficiency groups
forming the sample are fairly uneven in size. From an experimental point of
view, results in these studies will suffer from undesirable unequal variance
in the dependent variable and non-parametric distributions. As the editor
explains, these problems are due, on the one hand, to the incipient status of
foreign/second language study in Turkish, and on the other, to the relatively
small number of foreigners accessible for the purpose of recruitment to
research. One solution to the above would be to conduct research with those
linguistic minorities that make up Turkey’s rich cultural and historical
heritage. The Kurdish, Greek, and French minorities are some notable examples.
Another way around this sampling impasse in studies is conducting rigorous
studies of L2 Turkish as a foreign language around the rest of the world.
Thirdly, there is the issue of access to a standardized proficiency test,
perhaps one in tune with Europe’s Common Framework Reference for languages.
The problem of access to a reliable and valid standardized proficiency test,
though, is not as insurmountable as the aforementioned difficulties in
sampling homogeneously in terms of L1 and level of proficiency. Many studies
nowadays, and the one in Chapter 4 by Silvina Montrul, make use of cloze tests
which are widely held to be valid measures of L2 proficiency, provided they
are carefully designed. 

REFERENCES

Doughty, C. (1991). Second Language Acquisition does make a difference:
evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.

Goad, H., & White, L. (2006). Ultimate Attainment in Interlanguage Grammars: a
prosodic approach. Second Language Research, 22, 243-268. 

Giacalone-Ramat, A. (1992). Grammaticalization processes in the area of
temporal and modal relations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14,
297-322. 

Howard, M. (2008). Morphosyntactic development in the expression of modality:
The subjunctive in French L2 acquisition. Canadian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 11, 171-192.

Lardiere, D. (2008). Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In
Liceras, J., Zobl, H., & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of features in second
language acquisition (pp.106–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In Hyltenstam,
K. & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition
(pp. 23-76). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
 
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2007). Linear sequencing strategies or
UG-defined hierarchical structures in L2 acquisition? A reply to Meisel. In
Karimi, S., Samiian, V.  & W. Wilkins (Eds.), Phrasal and Clausal
Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation: In Honor of Joseph E.
Emonds (pp.295-318). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Sorace, A. (2003). Near-nativeness. In Daughty, C. & M. H. Long (Eds.),
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 131-151). Oxford: Blackwell.

Tsimpli, I.M., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance
in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In Bamman, D.,
Magnitskaia, T. & C. Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston
University Conference on Language Development, BUCLD 30 (pp. 653-664).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2006). The roots of syntax and how they
grow. In Unsworth, S., Parodi, T., Sorace, A. & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.),
Paths of Development in L1 and L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some
effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language
Research, 7, 133-61. 

White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Francesco Romano's primary research interests focus on generative approaches
to second language acquisition/development. He has published research on L2
Italian and is currently conducting research of structural priming in L2
English by near-native Chinese and Turkish speakers.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2017
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

This year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $70,000. This money
will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our 
Student Editors for the coming year.

Don't forget to check out the Fund Drive 2017 site!

http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/

We collect donations via the eLinguistics Foundation, a
registered 501(c) Non Profit organization with the federal tax
number 45-4211155. The donations can be offset against your
federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax payers
only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact
your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program. Contact
your human resources department and send us the necessary form.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-1636	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/