Gradient Effects of Animacy on Differential Object Marking in Turkish

Elif Krause 1  and Klaus von Heusinger 2
  • 1 Institute of German Language and Literature I, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  • 2 Institute of German Language and Literature I, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Abstract

Animacy is a pervasive cognitive category that is displayed in the grammatical behavior of the world’s languages through categorical or gradient effects. We argue in this paper that animacy is a crucial parameter for Differential Object Marking (i.e., the optional marking of the direct object) in Turkish. DOM languages are typically categorized according to their dependency on definiteness and animacy. Turkish has thus far been assumed to depend only on definiteness; however, we present the first set of empirical evidence based on perceived acceptability judgment measures that show a significant effect of animacy on Turkish DOM. Moreover, we show the gradient nature of this effect. This original finding provides further evidence for the assertion that animacy is a crucial linguistic parameter in Turkish DOM and illustrates how the conceptual category of animacy is deeply entrenched in the grammar of Turkish.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483.

  • Austin, Peter. 1981. Case marking in Southern Pilbara languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1. 211–226.

  • Aydemir, Yasemin. 2004. Are Turkish preverbal bare nouns syntactic arguments? Linguistic Inquiry 35(3). 465–474.

  • Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Bamyacı, Elif, Jana Häussler & Barış Kabak. 2014. The interaction of animacy and number agreement: An experimental investigation. Lingua 148. 254–277.

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

  • Blake, Barry. 2004. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 1–25.

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

  • 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.

  • Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2008. Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua 118. 190–202.

  • Gair, James. 1970. Colloquial Sinhalese Clause Structure. The Hague: Mouton.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Göksel, Asli & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic Languages 9. 3–44.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Ioup Georgette. 1977. Specificity and the interpretation of quantifiers, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 233-245.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Leonetti, Manuel. 2004. Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3. 75–114.

  • Lyons 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Mak, Willem M., Wietske Vonk & Herbert Schriefers. 2002. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47. 50–68.

  • 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.

  • McGregor, Roland Stuart.1972. Outline of Hindi grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118. 203–221.

  • 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.

  • Öztürk, Balkiz. 2005. Case, referentiality and phrase structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

  • Team, R Core. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Open Linguistics is a new academic peer-reviewed journal covering all areas of linguistics. The objective of this journal is to foster free exchange of ideas and provide an appropriate platform for presenting, discussing and disseminating new concepts, current trends, theoretical developments and research findings related to a broad spectrum of topics: descriptive linguistics, theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics.

Search