1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 4, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-7245
  • E-ISSN: 2211-7253
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Speakers achieve coherence in discourse by alternating between differential lexical forms e.g. noun phrase, pronoun, and null form in accordance with the accessibility of the entities they refer to, i.e. whether they introduce an entity into discourse for the first time or continue referring to an entity they already mentioned before. Moreover, tracking of entities in discourse is a multimodal phenomenon. Studies show that speakers are sensitive to the informational structure of discourse and use fuller forms (e.g. full noun phrases) in speech and gesture more when re-introducing an entity while they use attenuated forms (e.g. pronouns) in speech and gesture less when maintaining a referent. However, those studies focus mainly on non-pro-drop languages (e.g. English, German and French). The present study investigates whether the same pattern holds for pro-drop languages. It draws data from adult native speakers of Turkish using elicited narratives. We find that Turkish speakers mostly use fuller forms to code subject referents in re-introduction context and the null form in maintenance context and they point to gesture space for referents more in re-introduction context compared maintained context. Hence we provide supportive evidence for the reverse correlation between the accessibility of a discourse referent and its coding in speech and gesture. We also find that, as a novel contribution, third person pronoun is used in re-introduction context only when the referent was previously mentioned as the object argument of the immediately preceding clause.

© 2015 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.4.2.06aza
2016-02-11
2024-09-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dujal.4.2.06aza
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ariel, M
    (1990) Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Berman, R.A. , & Slobin, D.I
    (1994) Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Carminati, M.N
    (2002) The processing of Italian subject pronouns. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Chafe, W.L
    (1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, defmiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp.25–55). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. (1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Davidson, B
    (1996) ‘Pragmatic weight’ and Spanish subject pronouns: The pragmatic and discourse uses of ‘tú and yo’ in spoken Madrid Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 543–565. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00063‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00063-1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Debreslioska, S. , Özyürek, A. , Gullberg, M. , & Perniss, P
    (2013) Gestural viewpoint signals referent accessibility. Discourse Processes, 50(7), 431–56. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2013.824286
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.824286 [Google Scholar]
  8. Demir, O.E. , So, W.-C. , Özyürek, A. , & Goldin-Meadow, S
    (2012) Turkish- and English-speaking children display sensitivity to perceptual context in the referring expressions they produce in speech and gesture. Language and Cognitive Processess, 27(6), 844–867. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2011.589273
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.589273 [Google Scholar]
  9. Doğruöz, A.S
    (2007) Synchronic variation and diachronic change in Dutch Turkish: A corpus based analysis. Ph.D. Thesis. Tilburg University
  10. Enç, M
    (1986) Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In D.I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp.195–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.8.11enc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.8.11enc [Google Scholar]
  11. Erguvanlı, E
    (1984) The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Erguvanlı-Taylan, E
    (1986) In D.I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds), Typological Studies in Language (8): Studies in Turkish Linguistics: proceedings of the third conference on Turkish linguistics (pp.209–231). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Furman, R. , Kuntay, A. , & Özyürek, A
    (2014) Early language-specificity of children’s event encoding in speech and gesture: Evidence from caused motion in Turkish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 29, 620–634.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Givón, T
    (1983) Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp.1–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.3.01giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3.01giv [Google Scholar]
  15. Grice, H.P
    (1975) Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds), Syntax and semantics volume 3: Speech acts (pp.41–58). New York : Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gullberg, M
    (2003) Gestures, referents, and anaphoric linkage in learner varieties. In C. Dimroth & M. Starren (Eds.), Information structure, linguistic structure and the dynamics of language acquisition (pp.311–328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.26.15gul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.26.15gul [Google Scholar]
  17. (2006) Handling discourse: Gestures, reference tracking, and communication strategies in early L2. Language learning, 56(1), 155–196. doi: 10.1111/j.0023‑8333.2006.00344.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00344.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Haznedar, B
    (2010) Transfer at the syntax-pragmatics interface: Pronominal subjects in bilingual Turkish. Second Language Research, 26(3), 355–378. doi: 10.1177/0267658310365780
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310365780 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hickmann, M. , & Hendriks, H
    (1999) Cohesion and form in children’s narratives: a comparison of English, French, German, and Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language, 26, 419–452. doi: 10.1017/S0305000999003785
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000999003785 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hulk, A. , & Müller, N
    (2000) Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 227–244. doi: 10.1017/S1366728900000353
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728900000353 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kerslake, C
    (1987) In E.H. Boeschoten & L.Th. Verhoeven (Eds), Studies on modern Turkish: Proceedings of the third conference on Turkish linguistics (pp.91–104). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kita, S. , Van der Hulst, H. , & Van Gijn, I
    (1998) Movement phase in signs and co-speech gestures, and their transcriptions by human coders. In I. Wachsmuth & M. Fröhlich (Eds), Gesture and Sign Language in Human-Computer Interaction (pp.23–35). Springer. doi: 10.1007/BFb0052986
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0052986 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kita, S. , & Özyürek, A
    (2003) What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal?: Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 16–32. doi: 10.1016/S0749‑596X(02)00505‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00505-3 [Google Scholar]
  24. Küntay, A. , & Özyürek, A
    (2002) Joint attention and the development of the use of demonstrative pronouns in Turkish. In B. Skarabela , S. Fish , & A.H. Do (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.336–347). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lausberg, H. , & Sloetjes, H
    (2009) Coding gestural behavior with the NEUROGES-ELAN system. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 41(3), 841–849. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.3.841
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.841 [Google Scholar]
  26. Levy, E. , & Fowler, C
    (2000) Grounding references in perception. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gerture (pp.215–234). New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Levinson, S
    (1987) Pragmatics and the grammar of form: A partial pragmatic reduction of Binding and Control phenomena. Linguistics23, 379–434. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700011324
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011324 [Google Scholar]
  28. McNeill, D. , & Levy, E
    (1993) Cohesion and gesture. Discourse Processes, 16, 363–386. doi: 10.1080/01638539309544845
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539309544845 [Google Scholar]
  29. Montrul, S
    (2004) The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in monolingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lald.37
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.37 [Google Scholar]
  30. Özyürek, A
    (2002) Speech-gesture relationship across languages and in second language learners: Implications for spatial thinking and speaking. In B. Skarabela , S. Fish , & A.H. Do (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.500–509). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Perniss, P.M. , & Özyürek, A
    (2015) Visible cohesion: A comparison of reference tracking in sign, speech, and co-speech gesture. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(1), 36–60. doi: 10.1111/tops.12122
     https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12122 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pierce, A
    (1992) Language aquisition and syntactic theory: A comparative analysis of French and English child language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Polinsky, M
    (1995) Cross-linguistic parallels in language loss. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 14(1–2), 88–123.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Serratrice, L. , Sorace, A. , & Paoli, S
    (2004) Crosslinguistic influence at the syntaxpragmatic interface: Subjects and objects in English-Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 183–205. doi: 10.1017/S1366728904001610
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001610 [Google Scholar]
  35. So, W.C. , Kita, S. , & Goldin-Meadow, S
    (2009) Using the hands to identify who does what to whom: Speech and gesture go hand-in-hand. Cognitive Science, 33, 115–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2008.01006.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2008.01006.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Yoshioka, K
    (2008) Gesture and information structure in first and second language. Gesture, 8(2), 236–255. doi: 10.1075/gest.8.2.07yos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.8.2.07yos [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.4.2.06aza
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Discourse; gesture; pro-drop languages; reference tracking; Turkish

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error