web stats

Turkish Grammar Agreement

Turkish Grammar Agreement

Aygea, M. (2013). Turkéede uyum `zelliklerinin olaya iliékin beyin potansiyelleri éer`evesinde incelenmesi, PhD Thesis, Ankara University. Carminati, M. N. (2005). Processing the reflexes of the hierarchy of features (person> number> sex) and implications for language theory. Lingua, 115 (3), 259-285. Harley, H., Ritter, E. (2002). The person and the number in pronouns: motivate a geometric analysis of the characteristics. Language 78, 482-526. Hartsuiker, R.

J., Kolk, H.H., Huinck, W. J. (1999). Grammatical production of the verb-subject chord: the effect of the conceptual number. Brain and Language, 69 (2), 119-160. Janssen, U., Penke, M. (2002). How are flexible affixes organized in the mental lexicon?: evidence of examination of errors of concordance in agrammatic aphasics.

Brain and Language, 81 (1), 180-191. Mavia, . Toram, B. (2009). Afazi Dil De`erlendirme Testi (ADD) kullan`m y-nergesi Ankara: Detay Yay`nlar. O. (1993). Mr. Afazi. Ankara: GATAme Basvi Keywords: Brocas Aphasia, Subject agreement, inclination, syntax, agramatism This term, borrowed from Greek grammar, means `unconsolidated` and describes well what the Turks call geni`zaman `the broad meaning`, which means continuous activity. Turkish is a very agglutinative language, because much of the grammar is expressed by suffixes that are added to nouns and verbs. It is very regular compared to many European languages.

For example, “houses” can be analyzed as ev “house,” -ler (pluralsuffix), -the (ablative case, which means “of”); gidiyorum “I am going” as git “go,” -iyor (currently continuous tension), -um (1. singular person – “I”). Numerous researches on agramatism have shown that verbal morphology is particularly vulnerable in people with agrammatic aphasia. However, only limited studies have examined the asymmetry between the subcategory of the agreement, i.e. person, number and gender (Hartsuiker, Kolk, Huinck, 1999; Janssen – Penke, 2002). This study examines the morphology of the verbal-agreement (SV) by examining in Turkish two grammatical characteristics necessary for the identification of the SV agreement: a) person and b) number. In Turkish, the SV chord is characterized by affixes on the verb that encode the morphosyttic characteristics of the person (π) and number. In Harley and Ritters (2002) function geometry model, the participant node (partial knots) and its dependent persons, address (Addr) and Speaker, are used to represent the person (1), and the individual (Ind) knots and its dependent knots, group and minimal (min), are used to represent the number function. (1) Person has.

1P: [π [part]] b. 2P: [π [Part] Addr (2) Number a. SG: [-[Ind]] b.PL: [[Ind] Group ] As Speaker (1P) is the default person and min (singular) is the standard number, these characteristics should not be explicitly represented in geometry (Harley -Ritter 2002). As a result, Turkey has a 2P > 1P and PL > SG hierarchy. If coupled with the person and the number, the hierarchy of the agreement is: 2PL > 1PL – 2SG > 1SG. Since 1P forms contain only [part] function without the [Addr] function, it is expected that agrammatic participants will be more accurate on 1P forms than 2P forms. Since the singular forms are represented by the projection of the [Ind] function without the [Group] function, it is predicted that agrammatic participants will be more accurate on the singular 1SG than on the 1SG form than on the 2SG than on the 2SG form.