Bir Derlem: İlgi Tümceciği (RC) Cümle İşlemleme

Öz

Anadil konuşanlarının ve ikinci dil öğrenenlerinin konuşmayı farklı şekillerde işleyip işlemediği ve aynı zamanda aktarım sonuçlarının mevcut olup olmadığı sorusu, doğal dil işlemede kullanılan temel ayrıştırma işlemlerinden biri olan belirsizlik kararıyla incelenerek cevaplanabilir. Araştırmalar, farklı dillerin L1 ve L2 konuşanlarının RC belirsizliğini nasıl ele aldıklarına farklı bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirmiştir. Aktarım etkileri ile L1 ve L2 transferini ayırt etme arasındaki farklılıklara dikkat çekmek için, anadil konuşmacıların ve ikinci dil öğrenenlerinin ayrıştırma seçimleri arasındaki farklar, ayrıca belirsizlik çözümlemesi deneylerinde kullanılan bazı faktörler (çalışma belleği, canlılık, söylem, sözdizim veya anlamsal bilgi vb.) tamamen yeni bir bakış açısı ekleyebilir. Çoğu çalışma tek aşamalı veya çift aşamalı modellerle çözüm sunmaya çalışsa da, bu çalışmanın esas savı şudur: L1 ve L2 işleme ve belirsizliği çözme arasında kesinlikle farklılıklar olduğu ve aynı zamanda evrenselliğin imkansız olduğudur. Bu nedenle, bu farkın arkasındaki nedeni belirtmek için çok daha fazla kanıta ihtiyaç vardır. Aynı araçlar, görevler ve bilgi kaynaklarıyla yürütülen, farklı yaş gruplarından veya farklı arka planlardan katılımcı gruplarının geniş bir yelpazesine yapılan çok daha fazla çalışma gereklidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : İlgi tümceciği
• iliştirme
• belirsizlik
• cümle işleme.

A Review: RC Sentence Processing

Öz

The question of whether and how native speakers and L2 learners process speech differently, as well as if transfer implications being available, may be answered by looking at ambiguity decision, one of the basic parsing procedures used in natural language processing. Studies have looked into how L1 and L2 speakers of different languages handle the RC ambiguity differently. In order to address the issues of transfer effects as well as the distinctions between L1 and L2 interpreting, differences between native speakers' and L2 learners' parsing selections, as well as some factors (working memory, animacy, discourse, syntax or semantic information, etc.) used during the experiments in ambiguity resolution, may add an entirely novel viewpoint. Although most of the studies tried to bring a solution with one-stage or two-stage models, the argument of this study is that there are definitely differences between the L1 and L2 processing and ambiguity resolving, and also, universality is impossible. Therefore, there needs to be much more evidences with the same instruments, tasks, and same sources of information conducted to vast amount of participant groups (from different ages, or different backgrounds) in order to reach a certain conclusion to state the reason behind this difference.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Relative clause
• attachment
• ambiguity
• sentence processing

Kaynakça

1. Arabmofrad, A., and Marefat, H. (2008). Relative clause attachment ambiguity resolution in Persian. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 29-49.
2. Aydin Yildiz, T. (2018). The role of discourse information in the resolution of RC attachment ambiguity in L2 English, Ph.D. Thesis, Social Sciences of İstanbul Aydın University, İstanbul.
3. Bader, M., Bayer, J., and Meng, M. (1999). Case features in sentence comprehension. Paper presented at the 12th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing in New York, New York.
4. Barto-Sisamout, K., Nicol, J., Witzel, J., and Witzel, N. (2009). Transfer effects in bilingual sentence processing. Journal of Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, 16, 1-26.
5. Bentrovato, S., Devescovi, A., D'Amico, S., and Bates, E. (1999). Effect of grammatical gender and semantic context on lexical access in Italian. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 28, 677-693.
6. Bergmann, A., Armstrong, M., and Maday, K. (2008). Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish: A production study. Speech Prosody, (pp. 507-508).
7. Bidaoui, A., Foote, R., and Abunasser, M. (2016). Relative clause attachment in native and L2 Arabic. International Journal of Arabic Linguistics, 2(2), 75-95.
8. Boland, J., Tanenhaus, M., Garnsey, S., and Carlson, G. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 774-806.

9. Brysbaert, M., and Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A, 49(3), 664-695.
10. Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and Evidence, (1-479). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
11. Carreiras, M., and Clifton, C. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory and Cognition, 27(5), 826-833.
12. Clahsen, H., and Felser, C. (2006). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 107-126.
13. Clifton, C., Jr., and Duffy, S. (2001). Sentence comprehension: Roles of linguistic structure. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 167-196.
14. Cuetos, F., and Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73-105.
15. Dekydtspotter, L., Donaldson, B., Edmonds, A. C., Fultz, A. L., and Petrush, R. A. (2008). Syntactic and prosodic computations in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English-French learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 453-480.
16. Desmet, T., de Baecke, C., Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., and Vonk, W. (2006). Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 453-485.
17. Dinçtopal-Deniz, N. (2010). Relative clause attachment preferences of Turkish L2 speakers of English. Research in second language processing and parsing, 53, 27-63.
18. Dussias, P. E., and Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 10(1), 101-116.
19. Ehrlich, K., Fernández, E. M., Fodor, J. D., Stenshoel, E., and Vinereanu, M. (1999). Low attachment of relative clauses: New data from Swedish, Norwegian, and Romanian. Poster presented at the 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.
20. Eubank, L. (1994). Optionality and the initial state in L2 development. elopment. In: Hoekstra T and Schwartz B (eds). Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp.369-388). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
21. Felser, C., Roberts, L., Marinis, T., and Gross, R. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 453-489.
22. Fernandez, E. M. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in bilinguals and monolinguals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23. Ferreira, F., and Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 75-87.
24. Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse?. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285-319.
25. Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Connecticut, USA.
26. Frazier, L. (1990). Parsing modiers: Special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism?. In D.A. Balota , G.B. Flores d‟Arcais, and K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 303-330). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
27. Frazier, L., and Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. (p.1-236). Massachusetts: Mit Press.
28. Frazier, L., and Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
29. Frenck-Mestre, C., and Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 50(1), 119-148.
30. Frenck-Mestre, C., and Pynte, J. (2000). Romancing syntactic ambiguity: Why the French and the Italians don‟t see eye to eye. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, and J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a Perceptual Process (pp. 549-564). Elsevier, Oxford, UK.
31. Gibson, E., and Pearlmutter, N. J. (1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in cognitive sciences, 2(7), 262-268.
32. Goad, H., Guzzo, N. B., and White, L. (2021). Parsing ambiguous relative clauses in L2 English: Learner sensitivity to prosodic cues. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(1), 83-108.
33. Havik, E., Roberts, L., Van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., and Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing subject‐object ambiguities in the L2: A self‐paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59(1), 73-112.
34. Hawkins, R., and Chan, C. Y. H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second language research, 13(3), 187-226.
35. Hemforth, B., Fernandez, S., Clifton Jr, C., Frazier, L., Konieczny, L., and Walter, M. (2015). Relative clause attachment in German, English, Spanish and French: Effects of position and length. Lingua, 166, 43-64.
36. Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., and Onghena, P. (2013). Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47, 659–676.
37. Holmes, V. M., Kennedy, A., and Murray, W. S. (1987). Syntactic structure and the garden path. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 277- 293.
38. Hopf, J. M., Bader, M., Meng, M., and Bayer, J. (2003). Is human sentence parsing two-stage or constraint-based?: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 15(2), 165-177.
39. Hsieh, Y., Boland, J. E., Zhang, Y. and Yan, M. (2009). Limited syntactic parallelism in Chinese ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(7/8), 1227-1264.
40. Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1-33.
41. Juffs, A. (1998). Some effects of first language argument structure and morphosyntax on second language sentence processing. Second Language Research, 14(4), 406-424.
42. Jun, S., A. (2010). The implicit prosody hypothesis and overt prosody in English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7-9), 1201-1233.
43. Jun, S. A., and Koike, C. (2008). Default prosody and relative clause attachment in Japanese. Japanese-Korean Linguistics, 13(1), 41-53.
44. Just, M., and Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: New frontiers of evidence and arguments. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149. Liu, H., Bates, E., and Li, P. (1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(4), 451-484.
45. Karimi, M. N., Samadi, E., and Babaii, E. (2021). Relative clause attachment ambiguity resolution in L1-persian learners of L2 English: The effects of semantic priming and proficiency. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 8(3), 153-185.
46. Kırkıcı, B. (2004). The processing of relative clause attachment ambiguities in Turkish. Turkic languages, 8(1), 111-121.
47. Kim, J. H., and Christianson, K. (2013). Sentence complexity and working memory effects in ambiguity resolution. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 42, 393-411.
48. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., and Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
49. Marefat, H., and Farzizadeh, B. (2018). Relative clause ambiguity resolution in l1 and l2: Are processing strategies transferred?. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 125-161.
50. Mazuka, R., and Lust, B. (1990). On parameter setting and par sing: Predictions for cross-linguistic differences in adult and child processing. In L. Frazier and J. de Villiers (Eds.), Langua ge processing and language a cauisition (pp. 16 3-205). Netherlands: Kluwer Press.
51. McClelland, J. L., and Rumelhart. D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part l. An account of basic finding. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
52. Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 375-409). New York: Academic Press.
53. Mitchell, D. C., and Brysbaert, M. (1998). Challenges to recent theories of crosslinguistic variation in parsing: Evidence from Dutch. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Sentence processing: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 313–355). New York: Academic Press.
54. Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., and Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposurebased models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469- 488.
55. Miyao, M., and Omaki, A. (2006, November). No ambiguity about it: Korean learners of Japanese have a clear attachment preference. In A supplement to the proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston.
56. Nitschke, S., Kidd, E., and Serratrice, L. (2010). First language transfer and long-term structural priming in comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(1), 94-114.
57. Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research, 21(2), 98-120.
58. Papadopoulou, D., and Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 501-528.
59. Rah, A. (2010). Transfer in L3 sentence processing: Evidence from relative clause attachment ambiguities. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(2), 147-161.
60. Rayner, K., and Clifton, C., Jr (2002). Language comprehension. In D. L. Medin (Eds.), Stevens handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 261–316). Wiley, New York.
61. Rohde, H., Levy, R., and Kehler, A., (2011). Anticipating explanations in relative clause processing. Cognition, 118, 339-358.
62. Schwartz, B. D. (1998). The second language instinct. Lingua, 106(1-4), 133-160.
63. Shabani, K. (2018). Resolving relative clause attachment ambiguity in Persian sentences. Lingua, 212, 10-19.
64. Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., and Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1521-1543.
65. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.
66. Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., and Clifton, C. Jr., (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558-592.
67. Trueswell, J.C., Tanenhaus, M. K., and Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.
68. Vainikka, A., and Young-Scholten, M. (1996). The early stages in adult L2 syntax: Additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research, 12(2), 140-176.
69. Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., and Traxler, M. J. (2000). Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, and J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 621-648). New York: Elsevier Science.
70. Yao, Y. (2013). Rethinking Transfer Effects: Evidence from ambiguity resolution in Mandarin. In Selected Proceedings of the 2011 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 44-53). Somerville, MA, USA.