Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

Oxford Handbook of Corpus Phonology

Edited by Jacques Durand, Ulrike Gut, and Gjert Kristoffersen

Offers the first detailed examination of corpus phonology and serves as a practical guide for researchers interested in compiling or using phonological corpora


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History

By Bernard Spolsky

A vivid commentary on Jewish survival and Jewish speech communities that will be enjoyed by the general reader, and is essential reading for students and researchers interested in the study of Middle Eastern languages, Jewish studies, and sociolinguistics.


New from Brill!

ad

Indo-European Linguistics

New Open Access journal on Indo-European Linguistics is now available!


Query Details


Query Subject:   Turkish nom-acc case-marking optionality
Author:   Becky Chu
Submitter Email:  click here to access email

Linguistic LingField(s):  Syntax
Subject Language(s):  Turkish


Query:   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!
LL Issue: 25.2628
Date posted: 18-Jun-2014



Back

Sums main page