Gradient Effects of Animacy on Differential Object Marking in Turkish

References

Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483.10.1023/A:1024109008573Search in Google Scholar

Austin, Peter. 1981. Case marking in Southern Pilbara languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1. 211–226.10.1080/07268608108599274Search in Google Scholar

Aydemir, Yasemin. 2004. Are Turkish preverbal bare nouns syntactic arguments? Linguistic Inquiry 35(3). 465–474.10.1162/0024389041402607Search in Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686Search in Google Scholar

Bamyacı, Elif, Jana Häussler & Barış Kabak. 2014. The interaction of animacy and number agreement: An experimental investigation. Lingua 148. 254–277.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.06.005Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Douglas, Bolker Ben & Martin Mächler. 2012. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0.Search in Google Scholar

Blake, Barry. 2004. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schesewsky. 2009. The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1). 19–58.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00099.xSearch in Google Scholar

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky. 2014. Scales in real-time language comprehension: A review. In Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej L. Malchukov & Marc D. Richards (eds.), Scales and hierarchies. A cross-disciplinary perspective, 321–352. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110344134.321Search in Google Scholar

Bossong, Georg. 1983. Animacy and markedness in universal grammar. Glossologia 2:7-20.Search in Google Scholar

Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar

Chiriacescu, Sofiana. 2014. The discourse structuring potential of indefinite noun phrases. Special markers in Romanian, German and English. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1975. Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana 3. 13–21.Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dede, Müserref. 1986. Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish verbal sentences. In Dan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics, 147–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.8.09dedSearch in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Order of subject, object and verb. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 330–333. UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 1–25.Search in Google Scholar

Erguvanlı, Eser Emine. 1984. The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Erguvanlı, Eser Emine & Karl Zimmer. 1994. Case marking in Turkish indefinite object constructions. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 547–552. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v20i1.1442Search in Google Scholar

Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2008. Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua 118. 190–202.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.004Search in Google Scholar

Gair, James. 1970. Colloquial Sinhalese Clause Structure. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110873207Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1978. Definiteness and referentiality. In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, 291–330. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.3.01givSearch in Google Scholar

Göksel, Asli & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203340769Search in Google Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey. 1980. Basic materials in Ritharngu: Grammar, texts and dictionary. Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus & Elif Bamyacı. 2017. Specificity effects of Turkish differential object marking. In Leyla Zidani-Eroğlu, Matthew Ciscel & Elena Koulidobrova (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL12), Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus & Georg A. Kaiser. 2003. Animacy, specificity, and definiteness in Spanish. In Klaus von Heusinger & Georg A. Kaiser (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages (Arbeitspapier 113), 41–65. Universtität Konstanz.Search in Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus & Jaklin Kornfilt. 2005. The case of the direct object in Turkish:Search in Google Scholar

Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic Languages 9. 3–44.Search in Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus, Jaklin Kornfilt & Semra Kızılkaya. (to appear). Differential Object Marking, partitivity and specificity in Turkish. In Tanya Bondarenko, Justin Colley, Colin Davis & Mitya Privoznov (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL14). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.Search in Google Scholar

Hoeks, John C. J., Laurie A. Stowe & Gina Doedens. 2004. Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research 19. 59–73.10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.022Search in Google Scholar

de Hoop, Helen & Bhuvana Narasimhan. 2005. Differential case-marking in Hindi. In Mengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case, 321–345. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/B978-008044651-6/50015-XSearch in Google Scholar

Ioup Georgette. 1977. Specificity and the interpretation of quantifiers, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 233-245.Search in Google Scholar

Kamali, Beste. 2015. Caseless direct objects in Turkish revisited. In André Meinunger (ed.), Byproducts and side effects : Nebenprodukte und Nebeneffekte. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 58, 107–123. Berlin: ZAS.10.21248/zaspil.58.2015.430Search in Google Scholar

Kibrik, Andrej E. 1985. Towards a typology of ergativity. In Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clause, 286–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2008. DOM and two types of DSM in Turkish. In Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking, 79–111. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-6497-5_5Search in Google Scholar

Kornfilt, Jaklin & Klaus von Heusinger. 2009. Specifity and partitivity in some Altaic languages. In Ryosuke Shibagaki & Reiko Vermeulen (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Formal Altaic Linguistics (WAFL 5), 19–40. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Kuperberg, Gina R., Tatiana Sitnikova, David Caplan & Phillip J. Holcomb. 2003. Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research 17. 117–129.10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00086-7Search in Google Scholar

Kuperberg, Gina R., Donna A. Kreher, Tatiana Sitnikova, David N. Caplan & Phillip J. Holcomb. 2007. The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language 100. 223–237.10.1016/j.bandl.2005.12.006Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert. 1984. Actance variations and categories of the object. In Frans Plank (ed.), Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 267–292. London: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Leonetti, Manuel. 2004. Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3. 75–114.10.5565/rev/catjl.106Search in Google Scholar

Lyons 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511605789Search in Google Scholar

Mak, Willem M., Wietske Vonk & Herbert Schriefers. 2002. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47. 50–68.10.1006/jmla.2001.2837Search in Google Scholar

Mak, Willem M., Wietske Vonk & Herbert Schriefers. 2006. Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54. 466–490.10.1016/j.jml.2006.01.001Search in Google Scholar

McGregor, Roland Stuart.1972. Outline of Hindi grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118. 203–221.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005Search in Google Scholar

Özge, Umut. 2011. Turkish indefinites and accusative marking. In Andrew Simpson (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL8), 253–267. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Öztürk, Balkiz. 2005. Case, referentiality and phrase structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.77Search in Google Scholar

Seidel, Elyesa. (to appear). Bare direct objects in Turkish: Pseudo-incorporated or weak arguments. In Tanya Bondarenko, Justin Colley, Colin Davis & Mitya Privoznov (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL14). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.Search in Google Scholar

Sezer, Engin. 1972. Some observations on the role of genitive phrases in Turkish nominalizations. Unpublished M.S., Harvard University.Search in Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar

de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Team, R Core. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Search in Google Scholar

Tigau, Alina-Mihaela. 2012. The accusative morpheme -(y)i in Turkish and differential object marking in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 14 (2), 57- 76.Search in Google Scholar

Traxler, Matthew J., Robin K. Morris & R. E. Seely. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47. 69–90.10.1006/jmla.2001.2836Search in Google Scholar

Traxler, Matthew J., Rihana S. Williams, Shelley A. Blozis & Robin K. Morris. 2005. Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 53. 204–224.Search in Google Scholar

Tura, Sebahat. 1973. A Study on the articles in English and their counterparts in Turkish. Michigan: University of Michigan dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Westfall, Peter H., Randall D. Tobias & Russell D. Wolfinger. 2011. Multiple comparisons and multiple tests using SAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Search in Google Scholar