Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structural priming in the production of Turkish possessive noun phrases and noun clauses

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We provide an overview of a structural priming study in Turkish and an analysis of the data using logit mixed-effects modeling. As Turkish is an agglutinative language, it constitutes a unique testing ground for the universal and language-specific aspects of structural priming and linguistic representations. Using the idiosyncratic properties of Turkish, this study demonstrates priming effects in written production of Turkish by adult native speakers. The structures of interest are possessive noun phrases (nominal structure) (e.g. Ali[Ayşe-nin ses-in]-i duydu: Ali [Ayşe-GEN voice-3SG.POSS]-ACC heard “Ali heard [Ayşe’s voice]”) and noun clauses (verbal structure) which are embedded complementizer phrases with a genitive subject and a nominalized verbal predicate (e.g. Ali[Ayşe-nin git-tiğ-in]-i duydu: Ali [Ayşe-GEN leave-VN-3SG.POSS]-ACC heard “Ali heard [that Ayşe was leaving/(had) left]”. Certain verbs such as duy- (“to hear”) allow both such nominal and verbal structures as their direct object. The two structures have the same GEN-POSS morphology, but different inner constituents. Participants completed sentence target fragments (which are equally likely to be completed with either type under normal circumstances) with more nominal structures after nominal primes and with more verbal structures after verbal primes, which indicates a significant priming effect. Structural priming accesses the inner nominal vs. verbal constituents of these structures and is sensitive to the distinction between phrases and clauses. Despite their identical external morphological template, the two structures are represented distinctly and not as a single, general GEN-POSS form in Turkish native speakers’ minds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Please note that the first author’s surname changed from Bahadır to Mercan in 2013.

  2. In the representation of morphemes, we use capital letters to indicate a segment that alternates according to the phonological rules of Turkish such as vowel and consonant harmony. The consonants in parentheses are deletable and only used to avoid vowel sequences.

  3. A complementizer such as that in English turns a clause into a complement. A phrase projected by a complementizer is called a CP (e.g. Webelhuth 1995). Although the concept of CP may often be associated with X-bar theory (first introduced by Chomsky 1970) as a functional category, here, we use the term not as a commitment to a particular theory of syntax, but rather to indicate the grammatical status of the embedded noun clause which is not a full sentence “S” (its predicate—the nominalized verb—is not a fully inflected verb and the structure cannot stand alone) nor a simple VP (it has its assigned genitive subject) and also to capture the observation that although Turkish does not have an overt complementizer like that, the nominalization morpheme -DIK within the noun clause does play that function.

  4. Turkish is a head-final language (Kural 1997) and although its unmarked word order in its verbal sentences is SOV (Göksel and Kerslake 2005), it uses separate word orders for different functions (Kural 1992).

  5. The 14 verbs were divided into two main groups in order to reduce the completion time of the task. There were also four different orderings within each of these two groups. As a result, each participant was assigned to one of eight versions (each including seven experimental sentences and 21 fillers).

  6. This seems to indicate that even after extensive piloting, our seven chosen verbs were still somewhat differently prone to elicit a verbal or nominal response despite the fact that we had chosen them from the “middle range”, which attests the importance of careful selection of experimental items.

  7. The results of the present analysis confirm the original by-subjects 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA reported in Bahadır (2012) and Bahadır and Hohenberger (2012) and an additional by-items ANOVA which we ran on the data. In these ANOVAs, target type was not treated as a dependent variable but rather as an independent variable, as the aim was to investigate the interaction between the prime and the target. The dependent variable was the raw frequency of nominal and verbal completions in target fragments, ranging between 0 and 7. Neither analysis provided any main effects (p > 0.5), but both indicated a significant interaction between prime type and target type: In the by-subjects ANOVA, participants provided more nominal targets (M = 3.95, SE = 0.28) than verbal targets (M = 2.67, SE = 0.30) following nominal primes and they provided more verbal targets (M = 4.00, SE = 0.27) than nominal targets (M = 2.38, SE = 0.27) following verbal primes (F1 = (1, 20) = 17.39, p < 0.001, η 2p  = 0.47); in the by-items ANOVA, again, there were more nominal targets (M = 11.86, SE = 1.92) than verbal targets (M = 8.00, SE = 1.89) after nominal primes, and more verbal targets (M = 12.00, SE = 2.10) than nominal targets (M = 7.14, SE = 1.70) after verbal primes (F2 = (1, 6) = 14.02, p = 0.01, η 2p  = 0.70). These results also indicate a facilitating priming effect.

  8. Turkish allows null subjects, including embedded GEN-subjects.

  9. We would also like to note that although our study is similar to Scheepers (2003) and Desmet and Declercq (2006) in that the structures differ in meaning; it is also highly different in a significant aspect. These studies involved the same set of phrase structure rules and what is primed was the order of these rules. In the present study, on the other hand, the hierarchical structure has the same configuration in both conditions and the two alternatives are located at the same corresponding level in a tree structure, but the category of each is different (therefore, the phrase structure rule is primed). We should also note that the category of the target forms could have turned out to be identical (if nominalized verbs had been found indistinguishable from regular NPs), so CPs could well have turned out to be equivalent to NPs.

References

  • Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD Thesis, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Akpınar, S. (2015). Processing genitive-possessive long distance dependencies in Turkish. Master’s Thesis, İstanbul: Boğaziçi University.

  • Altan, A. (2008). What experimental data tells us about acquisition of complementation in Turkish. Turkic Languages,12, 122–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arai, M. (2012). What can head-final languages tell us about syntactic priming (and vice versa)? Language and Linguistics Compass,6(9), 545–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 390–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahadır, G. (2009). Syntactic representations in language production and comprehension: insights from structural priming. Paper presented at MGML, 2nd mediterranean graduate meeting in linguistics, Mersin, Turkey, 12–13 March, 2009.

  • Bahadır, G. (2012). Structural priming in Turkish genitive-possessive constructions. PhD Thesis, Ankara: Middle East Technical University.

  • Bahadır, G. & Hohenberger, A. (2009a). Morpho-syntactic processing and priming in Turkish: noun phrases vs. noun clauses. Poster presented at CUNY, 22nd conference on human sentence processing, UC Davis, CA, USA, 26–28 March, 2009.

  • Bahadır, G. & Hohenberger, A. (2009b). Türkçenin Biçimdizimsel İşlemlenmesinde Yapısal Hazırlama (Structural priming in the morpho-syntactic processing of Turkish). Paper presented at UDK, 23rd national linguistics convention, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, 14–15 May, 2009.

  • Bahadır, G. & Hohenberger A. (2010). Structural priming in Turkish genitive-possessive constructions. Paper presented at ICTL, 15th international conference on Turkish linguistics, Szeged, Hungary, August 20–22, 2010.

  • Bahadır, G., & Hohenberger, A. (2012). Türkçedeki ilgi-iyelik yapılarında yapısal hazırlama (Structural priming of genitive-possessive constructions in Turkish). In É. Kincses-Nagy & M. Biacsi (Eds.), The Szeged Conference: proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 111–123). Szeged: University of Szeged. (Publication in Turkish).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahadır, G., & Polinsky, M. (2011). Structural priming and the phrasal/clausal distinction: the case of CQs. In A. Botinis (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Experimental Linguistics (ExLing 2011) (pp. 15–18). ISCA and the University of Athens. https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/exling_2011/papers/el11_015.pdf.

  • Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language,68(3), 255–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software,67(1), 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Shared syntactic representations in bilinguals: evidence for the role of word-order repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology,33(5), 931–949.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology,18, 355–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition,31(2), 163–186.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition,35(1), 1–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,40, e282.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic coordination in dialogue. Cognition,75, B13–B25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & McLean, J. F. (2005). Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology,31(3), 468–481.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., McLean, J. F., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The role of global and local syntactic structure in language production: evidence from syntactic priming. Language and Cognitive Processes,21, 974–1010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Z. G., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2012). Mapping concepts to syntax: evidence from structural priming in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language,66(4), 833–849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cangır, H., Büyükkantarcıoğlu, S. N., & Durrant, P. (2017). Investigating collocational priming in Turkish. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies,13(2), 465–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 217–229.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Waltham: Ginn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language,49(2), 214–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csató, É. Á., & Johanson, L. (1998). Turkish. In L. Johanson & É. Á. Csató (Eds.), The Turkic languages (pp. 203–235). London, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dell, G. S., & Ferreira, V. S. (2016). Thirty years of structural priming: an introduction to the special issue. Journal of Memory and Language,91, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desmet, T., & Declercq, M. (2006). Cross-linguistic priming of syntactic hierarchical configuration information. Journal of Memory and Language,54, 610–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, A. P. (1995). An analysis of subordinate clauses in Turkish. Journal of Linguistics Research,6, 182–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erguvanlı Taylan, E. (1998). What determines the choice of nominalizer in Turkish nominalized complement clauses? (CD ROM). In B. Caron (Ed.), Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Linguists (paper no. 220). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, V. S. (2003). The persistence of optional complementizer production: why saying ‘that’ is not saying ‘that’ at all. Journal of Memory and Language,48, 379–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, V. S., & Slevc, L. R. (2007). Grammatical encoding. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 453–469). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, L. M., & Kornfilt, J. (1981). Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In F. Heny (Ed.), Binding and filtering (pp. 105–127). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2011). Turkish, an essential grammar. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, S. M., Wheeldon, L., & Segaert, K. (2019). Structural priming is determined by global syntax rather than internal phrasal structure: Evidence from young and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning. Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000754 (in press).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartsuiker, R. J., Beerts, S., Loncke, M., Desmet, T., & Bernolet, S. (2016). Cross-linguistic structural priming in multilinguals: further evidence for shared syntax. Journal of Memory and Language,90, 14–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1998). Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech,41(2), 143–184.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science,15(6), 409–414.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hohenberger, A., & Leuninger, H. (2012). Production. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign language. An international handbook (pp. 711–738). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language,59(4), 434–446.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Keskin, C. (2009). Subject agreement-dependency of accusative case in Turkish, or jump-starting grammatical machinery. Utrecht: LOT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kırkıcı, B., & Clahsen, H. (2013). Inflection and derivation in native and non-native language processing: masked priming experiments on Turkish. Bilingualism,16(04), 776–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. PhD Thesis, Cambridge: Harvard University.

  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish grammar. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornfilt, J. (2001). Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses. In E. Erguvanlı Taylan (Ed.), The verb in Turkish (pp. 183–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornfilt, J. (2003). Subject case in Turkish nominalized clauses. In U. Junghanns & L. Szucsich (Eds.), Syntactic structures and morphological information (pp. 129–215). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornfilt, J. (2007). Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 305–332). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornfilt, J., & Whitman, J. (2011). Introduction: nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua,121(7), 1160–1163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunduracı, A. (2013). Pseudo-3rd person marker and possessive constructions in Turkish. In S. Luo (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA 2013).

  • Kural, M. (1992). Properties of scrambling in Turkish. Manuscript. Los Angeles: UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kural, M. (1993). V-to(-C-to)-I in Turkish. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics,11, 17–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kural, M. (1997). Postverbal constituents in Turkish and the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry,28(3), 498–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutlu, A. (2015). Shared Syntax in Turkish-English Bilinguals. Master’s Thesis, Ottawa: Carleton University.

  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,22, 1–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahowald, K., James, A., Futrell, R., & Gibson, E. (2016). A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language,91, 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercan, G. (2016). Structural priming in L2 Turkish: a study on possessive noun phrases and noun clauses. In A. Gürel (Ed.), Second language acquisition of Turkish (pp. 313–332). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercan, G., & Simonsen, H. G. (2019). The production of passives by English-Norwegian and Turkish-Norwegian bilinguals: a preliminary investigation using a cross-linguistic structural priming manipulation. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-019-00040-6. (in press).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özer, S. (2010). Morphological priming in Turkish nominal compound processing. Master’s Thesis, Ankara: Middle East Technical University.

  • Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language,39(4), 633–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1999). Syntactic priming in language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,3(4), 136–141.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: a critical review. Psychological Bulletin,134(3), 427–459.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2018). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.

  • Raffray, C. N., Pickering, M. J., Cai, Z. G., & Branigan, H. P. (2014). The production of coerced expressions: evidence from priming. Journal of Memory and Language,74, 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition,42, 107–142.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofs, A. (1993). Testing a non-decompositional theory of lemma retrieval in speaking: retrieval of verbs. Cognition,47, 59–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Say, B., Zeyrek, D., Oflazer, K., & Özge, U. (2004). Development of a corpus and a treebank for present day written Turkish. In K. İmer & G. Doğan (Eds.), Current research in Turkish Linguistics: proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 183–192). T. R. Northern Cyprus: Eastern Mediterranean University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheepers, C. (2003). Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition,89(3), 179–205.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, J.-A., & Christianson, K. (2009). Syntactic processing in Korean-English bilingual production: evidence from cross-linguistic structural priming. Cognition,112(1), 175–180.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sodacı, H. (2018). Role of structural priming in contact-induced change: subject pronoun expression in NL-Turkish. Master’s Thesis, Nijmegen: Radboud University.

  • Tanaka, J., Tamaoka, K., & Sakai, H. (2007). Syntactic priming effects on the processing of Japanese sentences with canonical and scrambled word orders. Cognitive Studies,14(2), 173–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thothathiri, M., & Snedeker, J. (2008). Syntactic priming during language comprehension in three- and four-year-old children. Journal of Memory and Language,58(2), 188–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooley, K. M., & Traxler, M. J. (2010). Syntactic priming effects in comprehension: a critical review. Language and Linguistics Compass,4(10), 925–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Schaaik, G. J. (2001). The bosphorus papers. Studies in Turkish grammar 1996–1999. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltereit, R. (2017). Argument structure and argument structure alternations. In A. Dufter & E. Stark (Eds.), Manual of romance morphosyntax and syntax (pp. 154–182). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webelhuth, G. (1995). X-bar theory and case theory. In G. Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and binding theory and the minimalist program (pp. 15–95). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, B. (2013). Linear models and linear mixed effects models in R with linguistic applications. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5499.pdf. Accessed 27 Sept 2018.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) through the BİDEB 2211 National Doctoral Scholarship granted to the first author for her PhD studies at the Middle East Technical University. We would like to thank Deniz Zeyrek Bozşahin, Cem Bozşahin, Aslı Göksel, Maria Polinsky and Ayşe Betül Toplu for their helpful comments. This study is based on a certain part of the data presented in the first author’s unpublished doctoral dissertation (Bahadır 2012) and on the proceedings paper written in Turkish by Bahadır and Hohenberger (2012) on the basis of their presentation at the International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (ICTL) in 2010 (Bahadır and Hohenberger 2010). The paper was presented in English with the title “Structural Priming in Turkish Genitive-Possessive Constructions” at the conference, then appeared in the conference proceedings in Turkish in 2012 with title “Türkçedeki ilgi-iyelik yapılarında yapısal hazırlama”. Furthermore, some versions and parts of the study were also presented at various conferences such as the 22nd CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing [Bahadır and Hohenberger (2009a). Morpho-syntactic Processing and Priming in Turkish: Noun Phrases vs. Noun Clauses. Poster presented at 22nd CUNY, UC Davis, CA, USA, 26–28 March, 2009], the 23rd National Linguistics Convention (UDK) [Bahadır and Hohenberger (2009b). Türkçenin Biçimdizimsel İşlemlenmesinde Yapısal Hazırlama. Paper presented at 23rd UDK, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, 14-15 May, 2009] and the 2nd Mediterranean Graduate Meeting in Linguistics (MGML) [Bahadır (2009). Syntactic Representations in Language Production and Comprehension: Insights from Structural Priming. Paper presented at 2nd MGML, Mersin, Turkey, 12–13 March, 2009]. We are grateful to the audiences of ICTL 2010, CUNY, UDK and MGML 2009, the editors of the 2012 Proceedings of ICTL 2010 and all the volunteers who participated in our study. We also thank the editors of this special issue and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cognitive Science, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

    Gözde Mercan & Annette Hohenberger

  2. Institute of Cognitive Science, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany

    Annette Hohenberger

Authors
  1. Gözde Mercan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annette Hohenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gözde Mercan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of both authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Experimental items

Each of the seven target matrix verbs constituted an experimental item in the experiment. Each item is presented in the following order: nominal prime condition: PRIME, nominal prime condition: TARGET, verbal prime condition: PRIME and verbal prime condition: TARGET. English glosses are given in parentheses below each fragment.

figure g
figure h
figure i
figure j
figure k
figure l
figure m

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mercan, G., Hohenberger, A. Structural priming in the production of Turkish possessive noun phrases and noun clauses. J Cult Cogn Sci 3 (Suppl 1), 5–24 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-019-00043-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-019-00043-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation