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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
Beedham, C. (2005). Language and meaning: The structural creation of reality (Vol. 55). John Benjamins Publishing.
Berendson, E. (1986). The phonology of cliticization. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht.
Bialystok, E. (1991). Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers (linguistic inquiry monograph 13). London: Cambridge, Mass.
Crystal, D. (1980). A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Colorado: Westview Press Boulder.
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).
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).
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In The structure of phonological representations 1 (pp. 131–175).
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).
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.
Lopez, A. (2008). Statistical machine translation. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 40(3), 8.
Lozano, C. (2006). The development of the syntax-discourse interface. In The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages 41 (p. 371).
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.
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.
Newmeyer, F. J. (2000). Language form and language function. Cambridge: Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Paradis, J., & Crago, M. B. (2004). Dual language development & disorders: A handbook on bilingualism & second language learning (Vol. 11). Cambridge: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
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).
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(02), 169–190.
Pollock, J. Y. (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 3.
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.
Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5–27.
Sanjay, S. J. (2010). Smile please. India: Pratham Books.
Selkirk, E. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Shwayder, K. (2014). Morphosyntactic structure of phonological words. In Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology (1, 1).
Tarone, E. (1988). Variation in interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.
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.
Ulum, & Kara. (2016). The effects of war on Syrian refugees’ academic achievement. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies. Summer II, 48, 413–423.
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.
Whitehead, T. L. (2005). Basic classical ethnographic research methods. Cultural ecology of health change. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zec, D. (1993). Rule domains and phonological change. In S. Hargus & E. Kaisse (Eds.), Studies in lexical phonology (pp. 365–405). San Diego: Academic.
Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Heads. Journal of Linguistics, 21(01), 1–29.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Üredi, L., Ulum, Ö.G. (2018). A Study on the Morpho-syntactic Profiles of Syrian Children Learning Turkish as a Second Language. In: Erçetin, Ş. (eds) Chaos, Complexity and Leadership 2016. ICCLS 2016. Springer Proceedings in Complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64554-4_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64554-4_34
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64552-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64554-4
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)