* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *


LINGUIST List 25.2628

Wed Jun 18 2014

Qs: Turkish nom-acc case-marking optionality

Editor for this issue: Alex Isotalo <alxlinguistlist.org>

Date: 18-Jun-2014
From: Becky Chu <bchuu.rochester.edu>
Subject: Turkish nom-acc case-marking optionality
E-mail this message to a friend

Hello Linguists,

I just recently read a paper about the dependent accusative case-
marking of object nouns in Turkish language, and I found it
particularly interesting because I was informed that Turkish
case-marking is always present and not optional. Yet, Dr.
Kilicaslan's 2006 paper (A situation-theoretical approach to case
marking semantics in Turkish) suggests otherwise.

I intend to conduct some language-learning research evaluating
transfer effects of case-marking and planned to use Turkish
because we thought its case-marking system was non-optional. For
my experiment that seeks to investigate the role of L1 knowledge
on learning case in a new L2, we need to have a qualitative
estimate of the informativity of case-marking in simple
transitive sentences. That is, we are curious to know a) how
often themes in simple transitive sentences are case-marked
(leaving pronouns aside) and b) how often that case-marking is
unambiguous (i.e. there is no case-syncretism with the nominative
marker).

I am very curious and would appreciate if you would kindly reply
to these questions. Any pointers you could provide in this
direction would be much appreciated. Thank you!

Linguistic Field(s): Syntax

Subject Language(s): Turkish (tur)

Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 18-Jun-2014

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT Logo
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.