Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 46, Issue 6, pp 1397–1425 | Cite as

The Interaction of Contextual and Syntactic Information in the Processing of Turkish Anaphors

  • Martina Gračanin-Yuksek
  • Sol Lago
  • Duygu Fatma Şafak
  • Orhan Demir
  • Bilal Kırkıcı


In contrast with languages where anaphors can be classified into pronouns and reflexives, Turkish has a tripartite system that consists of the anaphors o, kendi, and kendisi. The syntactic literature on these anaphors has proposed that whereas o behaves like a pronoun and kendi behaves like a reflexive, kendisi has a more flexible behavior and it can function as both a pronoun and a reflexive. Using acceptability judgments and a self-paced reading task, we examined how Turkish anaphors are processed in isolated sentences and within larger discourse contexts. We manipulated contextual information by creating passages where the context favored a local, long-distance or extra-sentential referent prior to the appearance of the anaphor. We measured the effect of the context on participants’ reading times and their end-of-trial coreference assignments. Our results suggest that contextual information affects the interpretive possibilities associated with an anaphor, but that the influence of context depends on the degree to which the anaphor is syntactically constrained.


Coreference Turkish Syntactic constraints Discourse Sentence processing 


  1. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphora. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 748–769.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random-effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.Google Scholar
  4. Box, G. E. P., & Cox, D. R. (1964). An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 26, 211–252.Google Scholar
  5. Carminati, M. N. (2002). The processing of Italian subject pronouns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  6. Cem Değer, A. (1996). Türkçedeki dönüşlü adılların yönetici ulamlarının tanımlanması. In L. Oktar & A. Cem Değer (Eds.), X. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri (pp. 41–47).Google Scholar
  7. Chen, H.-C., Cheung, H., Tang, S., & Wong, Y. (2000). Effects of antecedent order and semantic context on Chinese pronoun resolution. Memory and Cognition, 28, 427–438.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  9. Chow, W. Y., Lewis, S., & Phillips, C. (2014). Immediate sensitivity to structural constraints in pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clifton, C, Jr., Kennison, S. M., & Albrecht, J. (1997). Reading the words ‘her’, ‘his’, and ‘him’: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 276–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clifton, C, Jr., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivisita di Linguistica, 11, 11–39.Google Scholar
  12. Clifton, C, Jr., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. P. G. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341–372). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cozijn, R., Commandeur, E., Vonk, W., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2011). The time course of the use of implicit causality information in the processing of pronouns: A visual world paradigm study. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 381–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Almeida, R. G., & Libben, G. (2005). Changing morphological structures: The effect of sentence context on the interpretation of structurally ambiguous English trimorphemic words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dinçtopal, N. (2009). Anaphora in Turkish. Linguistics in the Big Apple: CUNY/NYU working papers in linguistics. Retrieved from:
  16. Enç, M. (1983). Anchored expressions. In M. Barlow, D. P. Flickinger, & M. T. Westcoat (Eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on formal linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 79–88). Stanford: Stanford Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
  17. Enç, M. (1986). Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In D. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Typological studies in language 8: Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 195–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Enç, M. (1989). Pronouns, licensing, and binding. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 7, 51–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erguvanlı Taylan, E. (1986). Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish. In D. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Typological studies in language 8: Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 209–233). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Featherstone, C. R., & Sturt, P. (2010). Because there was a cause for concern: An investigation into a word-specific prediction account of the implicit-causality effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 3–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. George, L. M., & Kornfilt, J. (1981). Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In F. W. Heny (Ed.), Binding and Filtering (pp. 105–128). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 699–717.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Gernsbacher, M. A., Hargreaves, D. J., & Beeman, M. (1989). Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 735–755.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Gordon, P. C., & Scearce, K. A. (1995). Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation. Memory and Cognition, 23, 313–323.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gürel, A. (2002). Linguistic characteristics of second language acquisition and first language attrition: Turkish overt versus null pronouns. Doctoral dissertation. McGill University.Google Scholar
  28. Gürel, A. (2004). Selectivity in L2-induced L1 attrition: A psycholinguistic account. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gürel, A. (2006). L2 acquisition of pragmatic and syntactic constraints in the use of overt and null subject pronouns. In R. Slabakova, S. A. Montrul, & P. Prévost (Eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development: In honor of Lydia White (pp. 259–282). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hofmeister, P. (2011). Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 376–405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.Google Scholar
  32. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaiser, E. (2016). Discourse level processing. In P. Knoeferle, P. Pyykkönen-Klauck, & M. W. Crocker (Eds.), Visually situated language comprehension. (pp. 151–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. Kaiser, E., & Cherqaoui, B. (2016). Effects of coherence on anaphor resolution, and vice versa: Evidence from French personal pronouns and anaphoric demonstratives. In A. Holler & K. Suckow (Eds.), Empirical Perspectives on Anaphora Resolution (pp. 51–78). Berlin, Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  36. Kennison, S. M. (2003). Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: Implications for theories of referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kliegl, R., Masson, M. E. J., & Richter, E. M. (2010). A linear mixed model analysis of masked repetition priming. Visual Cognition, 18, 655–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koornneef, A. W., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 445–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  40. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Kornfilt, J. (2001). Local and long-distance reflexives in Turkish. In P. Cole, G. Hermon, & J. C.-T. Huang (Eds.), Long-distance reflexives (pp. 197–225). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kornfilt, J. (2007). Review: Case, referentiality and phrase structure by Balkız Öztürk. Journal of Linguistics, 43(3), 736–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuznetsova, A., Bruun Brockhoff, P.,  & Haubo Bojesen Christensen, R. (2014). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 2.0–11.
  44. Lee, M. W., & Williams, J. N. (2008). The role of grammatical constraints in intra-sentential pronoun resolution. Unpublished manuscript. London Metropolitan University and Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  45. Li, D. C.-H., & Kaiser, E. (2009). Overcoming structural preference: Effects of context on the interpretation of the Chinese reflexive Ziji. In S. L. Devi, A. Branco, & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium (DAARC 2009) (pp. 64–72). AU-KBK Research Centre, Anna University.Google Scholar
  46. Maratsos, M. P. (1973). The effects of stress on understanding pronominal coreference in children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meral, H. M. (2010). Some notes on Turkish pronominal anaphora. Turkish Studies, 5, 535–563.Google Scholar
  48. Meral, H. M. (2013). Binding as an ‘A’-phenomenon’?: Some remarks from Turkish. Iberia: International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 5, 45–68.Google Scholar
  49. Nicol, J. L., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Özbek, A., & Kahraman, B. (2016). Interpretations of Turkish reflexive pronouns kendi and kendisi. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 13, 71–94.Google Scholar
  51. Patterson, C., Trompelt, H., & Felser, C. (2014). The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 147. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Pyykkönen, P., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension. Experimental Psychology, 57, 5–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  54. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 618–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rudnev, P. (2008). Some syntax and semantics of long-distance reflexives in Turkish and elsewhere. Unpublished manuscript. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  56. Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Assigning reference to reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Experimental tests of binding theory. Cognitive Science, 30, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schimke, S., & Colonna, S. (2016). Native and non-native speakers’ interpretation of different pronominal forms: Evidence from French and Turkish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 131–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002a). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
  59. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002b). E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
  60. Sezer, E. (1980). On reflexivization in Turkish. In I. Ševčenko & F. E. Sysyn (Eds.), Harvard Ukrainian Studies Eucharisterion: Essays presented to Omeljan Pritsak on his Sixtieth Birthday by his Colleagues and Students (Vol. 3/4, pp. 748–759). Cambridge, MA: Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  61. Sezer, E. (1991). Topics in Turkish syntax. Doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.Google Scholar
  62. Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stevenson, R., Nelson, A., & Stenning, K. (1995). The role of parallelism in strategies on pronoun comprehension. Language and Speech, 38, 393–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Streb, J., Rösler, F., & Hennighausen, E. (1999). Event-related responses to pronoun and proper name anaphors in parallel and nonparallel discourse structures. Brain and Language, 70, 273–286.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sturt, P. (2013). Syntactic constraints on referential processing. In R. P. G. van Gompel (Ed.), Sentence processing (pp. 136–159). East Sussex: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  67. Turan, Ü. D. (2001). The properties of null objects in Turkish. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2000–2001, 131–144.Google Scholar
  68. Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Vasishth, S., & Drenhaus, H. (2011). Locality in German. Dialogue and Discourse, 1, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2009). Illusory licensing cross dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain and Language, 108, 40–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Yakut, A. B. (2015). The logophoric behavior of the strict local anaphor kendi ‘self’ in Turkish. In A. Joseph & E. Predolac (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th workshop on Altaic formal linguistics, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics #76. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  72. Yang, F., Mo, L., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Effects of local and global context on processing sentences with subject and object relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Foreign Language EducationMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Potsdam Research Institute for MultilingualismPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.University of BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations