TY  - JOUR
T1  - Uzamsal Referans Çerçeveleri ve Türkçedeki Görünümleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme
TT  - Spatial Frames of Reference and an Investigation of Their Representations in Turkish
AU  - Atak, Ata
AU  - Uzun, Gülsün Leyla
PY  - 2019
DA  - May
DO  - 10.18492/dad.510165
JF  - Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi
JO  - JLR
PB  - Dilbilim Derneği
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 1300-8552
SP  - 69
EP  - 101
VL  - 30
IS  - 1
LA  - tr
AB  - Buçalışma uzamsal referans çerçeveleri üzerine Türkçeden bakıldığında ne türgörünümlere erişilebileceği sorusundan hareketle yapılmıştır. Türkçe içinkullanılan uzamsal referans çerçevelerini tespit etmek amacıylagerçekleştirilen uygulamada, konumlanış ilişkisi aktaran ikili nesnedüzenlemelerinden oluşan dört farklı üretimgörevi (production task) 40 kadın ve 40 erkek olmak üzere toplam 80katılımcı tarafından yerine getirilmiştir.Çalışma, bu uygulamada katılımcıların yerine getirdiği üretim görevlerindenelde edilen verilere dayalı bir tartışma sunmaktadır.Çalışmanınöne çıkardığı bulguların ilki Türkçede iki nesne arasındaki konumlanışilişkisini aktarmak amacıyla içsel(intrinsic) ve göreli (relative)referans çerçevelerinin kullanılıyor oluşudur. Öte yandan, konumlanan ilekonumlayan olan nesnelerin özelliklerinin uzamsal referans çerçevesi seçiminiTürkçede de doğrudan etkilemekte olduğu çalışmanın bir diğer bulgusunuoluşturmuştur. Öyle ki, kullanım sıklıkları, konumlanan ve konumlayan olan nesnelerinözelliklerine göre ve nesne düzenlemelerine göre farklılık göstermektedir. Buçalışmanın araştırma soruları çerçevesinde cinsiyetin uzamsal referansçerçevesi seçiminde bir değişken olmadığı saptanmıştır. Bunun yanında fenbilimleri ile sosyal bilimlerden gelen katılımcılar arasında göreli referansçerçevesi kullanımı açısından anlamlı bir fark olmazken içsel referansçerçevesi kullanma eğilimi fen bilimlerinden gelen katılımcılarda dahafazladır.
KW  - uzam
KW  - uzamsal dil
KW  - uzamsal referans çerçeveleri
N2  - This study was carried out to answer what kind of representations inTurkish could be obtained on spatial frames of reference. In the experimentwhich was conducted to determine spatial frames of reference used in Turkish,four different production tasks consisting of two object arrangements whichindicate localization were done by total 80 participants 40 of whom were femaleand 40 of whom were male. This study presents a discussion based on the datawhich were obtained from the production tasks by the participants.The first highlighted finding of this study is that intrinsic andrelative frames of reference are used to convey the relation of localizationbetween two objects in Turkish. On the other hand, the features of objectswhich are figure and ground affect directly the selection of spatial frames ofreference in Turkish is the other finding of this study. So much so thatfrequency of their usage varies according to the features of objects which arefigure and ground and their arrangements. It was determined that gender was notvariable in the selection of spatial frames of reference within the scope ofresearch questions of this study. Besides that, there was not a significantdifference in terms of relative frame of reference usage between theparticipants from social science and physical science, tendency of intrinsicframe of reference usage was higher in the participants from physical science.
CR  - Beller, S., Singmann, H., Hüther L. & Bender, A. (2015). Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison. Frontiers in Psychology, 6: 1283, 1-17.
CR  - Borillo, A. (1998). L’espace et Son Expression en Français. Paris: Ophrys.
CR  - Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2000). Frames of spatial reference and their acquisition in Tenejapan Tzeltal. In L. P. Nucci, G. B. Saxe, & E. Turiel (Eds.), Culture, thought, and development. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 167–197.
CR  - Carlson, L.A. & Hill, P.L. (2007). Experimental methods for studying language and space. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson & M.J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. sf. 250-276.
CR  - Carlson-Radvansky, L.A. & Irwin, D. (1993). Frames of reference in vision and language: where is above? Cognition, 46, 223-244.
CR  - Carlson-Radvansky, L.A., & Irwin, D.E. (1994). Reference frame activation during spatial term assignment. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 646–671.
CR  - Carlson-Radvansky, L.A., & Radvansky, G.A. (1996). The influence of functional relations on spatial term selection. Psychological Science, 7, 56–60.
CR  - Clark, H. (1973). Space, time, semantics and the child. In T.E.Moore, ed. Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. 28-63. New York: Academic Press.
CR  - Cox, M.V. (1985). Deictic and Nondeictic Interpretations of 'in front of' and 'behind' in Fronted Object Tasks. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8: 183-193.
CR  - Coventry, K.R. (1998). Spatial prepositions, functional relations, and lexical specification. In P. Olivier & K.-P. Gapp (Eds.), Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 247–262). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
CR  - Coventry, K.R., & Prat-Sala, M. (1998). Geometry, function, and the comprehension of Over, Under, Above and Below. In M.A. Gernsbacher & S.J. Derry (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 261–266. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
CR  - Gallistel, C.R. (2002). Language and spatial frames of reference in mind and brain. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 321–322.
CR  - Haviland, J.B. (1993) Anchoring, iconicity, and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 3, 3–45.
CR  - Haviland, J.B. (1998) Guugu Yimithirr cardinal directions. Ethos 26, 25–47.
CR  - Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CR  - Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions of English. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
CR  - Herskovits, A. (1998). Schematization. In P. Olivier & K.-P. Gapp (Eds.), Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 149–162). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
CR  - Hill, C. (1982). Up/Down, Front/Back, Left/Right. A Contrastive Study of Hausa and English. In Here and There. Cross-Linguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstration, J. Weissenborn and W. Klein (eds.). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
CR  - Imai, M., Nakanishi, T., Miyashita, H., Kidachi, Y. and Ishizaki, S. (1999) The Meanings of FRONT/BACK/LEFT/RIGHT. Cognitive Studies, 6, 207-225.
CR  - Johnston, J. ve Slobin, D. (1979). The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croation, and Turkish. Journal of Child Language, 6, 529-45.
CR  - Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 217-238.
CR  - Levelt, W. J. M. (1984). Some perceptual limitations on talking about space. In A. van Doom, W. van de Grind, and J. Koenderink (Eds.), Limits of perception: Essays in honour of Maarten A. Bouman, 323-358. Utrecht: VNU Science Press.
CR  - Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
CR  - Levelt, W.J.M. (1996). Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions, in P. Bloom, M. Peterson,L. Nadel and M. Garrett (eds.), Language and space, 77 -108. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
CR  - Levinson, S.C. (1994). Vision, shape and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics 32, 791–855.
CR  - Levinson, S.C., (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: crosslinguistic evidence. In: Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L., Garrett, M. (Eds.), Language and Space. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 109–170.
CR  - Levinson, S.C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CR  - Levinson, S.C. & Wilkins, D.P. (Eds.) (2006). Grammars of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CR  - Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D., & Levinson, S. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8(3), 108–114.
CR  - Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
CR  - Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D., Levinson, S., Kita, S., & Senft, G. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language, 74(3), 557–589.
CR  - Pederson, E. (2003) How many reference frames? (Freska, C. et al., eds),  Spatial Cognition III: Routes and Navigation, Human Memory and Learning, Spatial Representation and Spatial Learning. 287–304, Springer Verlag.
CR  - Piaget, J. (2011). Çocukta Akıl Yürütme ve Karar Verme. (Çev: Sabri Esat Siyavuşgil), Ankara: Palme Yayıncılık.
CR  - Retz-Schmidt, G. (1988). Various Views on Spatial Prepositions. AI Magazine, Vol. 9, No. 2, 95-105.
CR  - Shusterman, A. & Li, P. (2016). Frames of reference in spatial language acquisition. Cognitive Psychology, 88, 115–16.
CR  - Sogo, E., Wada, Y. & Kato, T. (2000). Selection of frame of reference in spatial cognition: Effects of the inherent direction of reference and located objects. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 1, 13-21.
CR  - Svorou, S. (1994). The grammar of space. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.
CR  - Taylor, H.A., & Tversky, B. (1992). Descriptions and depictions of environments. Memory and Cognition, 20, 483–496.
CR  - Tversky, B. (1991) Spatial mental models. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, vol. 27, 109-146. New York: Academic Press.
CR  - Vandeloise, C. (1986), L'espace en français: semantique des prepositions spatiales. Paris: Le Seuil.
CR  - Vandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 157–184.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.510165
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/728340
ER  -