Advertisement

A Study on the Morpho-syntactic Profiles of Syrian Children Learning Turkish as a Second Language

  • Lütfi Üredi
  • Ömer Gökhan Ulum
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

Having a multifaceted complex structure, language is a combination of a pile of mental states or thoughts which are transferred by means of shared rules or principles created on the grounds of phonology, morphology, and semantics. Language, being such a humanly and complicated formation, is highly in touch with a group of pertinent scientific zones like psychology and sociology, and this interaction may mirror the morpho-syntactic features of people. That is to say, selecting and forming any word, structuring a full sentence, and seeing the meaning of the sentence necessitate intricate rules or phases. With respect to this phenomenon, intricate mental or cognitive processes might be challenged in second language learning which means picking up the syntactic rules of a language and converting these rules into language skills. In this study, ten Syrian children, being educated in a primary school and owning different psychological schemas, as well as being not at similar ages, were inspected. The children were required to talk about the picture book Smile Please by Sanjiv Jaiswal “Sanjay” in Turkish language, and the narrations were audiotaped by the researchers. Being formed on a descriptive research design, the data were gathered and analyzed qualitatively. As a consequence of the study that checked the general morpho-syntactic profiles of Syrian children, both different and shared morpho-syntactic characteristics were found out.

Keywords

Primary school Syntax Morpho-syntactic Syrian children Turkish as a second language 

References

  1. Akbaşlı, S., & Üredi, L. (2015). An evaluation of the classroom teachers’ attitudes towards the constructivist approach according to complexity theory: A case of Mersin. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin (Ed.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2013 (pp. 419–434). Cham: Springer International.Google Scholar
  2. Babayiğit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2010). Component processes of early reading, spelling, and narrative writing skills in Turkish: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 23(5), 539–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beedham, C. (2005). Language and meaning: The structural creation of reality (Vol. 55). John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Berendson, E. (1986). The phonology of cliticization. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Bialystok, E. (1991). Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bybee, J.L., & Pagliuca, W. (1987). The evolution of future meaning. In Papers from the 7th international conference on historical linguistics (pp. 108–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. Chang, F., Dell, G. S., Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers (linguistic inquiry monograph 13). London: Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  9. Crystal, D. (1980). A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Colorado: Westview Press Boulder.Google Scholar
  10. Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2013). A two dimensional analysis of the future: modal adverbs and speaker’s bias. In Proceedings of the Amsterdam colloquium (Vol. 2013, pp. 115–122).Google Scholar
  11. Goldwater, S., & McClosky, D. (2005). Improving statistical MT through morphological analysis. In Proceedings of the conference on human language technology and empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 676–683).Google Scholar
  12. Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In The structure of phonological representations 1 (pp. 131–175).Google Scholar
  13. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Prediction or retrodiction?: The coming together of research and teaching. In Spotlight on re-search: A new beginning. The selected proceedings of the 2008 MITESOL Conference (pp. 5–16).Google Scholar
  14. Lázaro, A., & Garcia Mayo, M. D. P. (2012). L1 use and morphosyntactic development in the oral production of EFL learners in a CLIL context. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 50(2), 135–160.Google Scholar
  15. Lopez, A. (2008). Statistical machine translation. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 40(3), 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lozano, C. (2006). The development of the syntax-discourse interface. In The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages 41 (p. 371).Google Scholar
  17. Montrul, S. A. (2004). The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in monolingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition (Vol. 37). Holland: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mueller Gathercole, V. C. (2007). Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: A constructivist account of morphosyntactic development in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 224–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newmeyer, F. J. (2000). Language form and language function. Cambridge: Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  20. Paradis, J., & Crago, M. B. (2004). Dual language development & disorders: A handbook on bilingualism & second language learning (Vol. 11). Cambridge: Paul H Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Perdue, C., Benazzo, S., Giuliano, P. (2002). When finiteness gets marked: The relation between morphosyntactic development and use of scopal items in adult language acquisition (pp. 849–890). Baltimore: Linguistics, 40(4; ISSU 380).Google Scholar
  22. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(02), 169–190.Google Scholar
  23. Pollock, J. Y. (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 3.Google Scholar
  24. Rooryck, J. (2003). The morphosyntactic structure of articles and pronouns in Dutch. Germania et alia. A linguistic webschrift for Hans den Besten, http://odur.let.rug.nl/~koster/DenBesten/contents.htm.
  25. Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sanjay, S. J. (2010). Smile please. India: Pratham Books.Google Scholar
  27. Selkirk, E. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sengül, M. (2015). The opinions of instructors teaching Turkish to foreigners about the writing skills of Syrian students. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(5), 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shwayder, K. (2014). Morphosyntactic structure of phonological words. In Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology (1, 1).Google Scholar
  30. Tarone, E. (1988). Variation in interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  31. Toth, P. D. (2008). Teacher-and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2), 237–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ulum, & Kara. (2016). The effects of war on Syrian refugees’ academic achievement. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies. Summer II, 48, 413–423.Google Scholar
  33. Üredi, L. (2015). Evaluating the primary school teachers’ level of forming a constructivist learning environment according to chaos theory. In Chaos, complexity and leadership 2013 (pp. 537–566). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Whitehead, T. L. (2005). Basic classical ethnographic research methods. Cultural ecology of health change. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Zec, D. (1993). Rule domains and phonological change. In S. Hargus & E. Kaisse (Eds.), Studies in lexical phonology (pp. 365–405). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Heads. Journal of Linguistics, 21(01), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mersin University, Education FacultyMersinTurkey
  2. 2.Adana Science and Technology UniversityAdanaTurkey

Personalised recommendations