YABANCI DIL OLARAK İNGILIZCE ÖĞRENEN TÜRK ÖĞRENCILERIN İNGILIZCE SÜRERLILIK GÖRÜNÜŞÜ KULLANIMLARINDA KAVRAMSAL YAPILANDIRMA VE ANADIL AKTARIMI

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Türkçedeki kavramsal yapılandırmanın (construal) yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen Türk öğrencilerin İngilizce sürerlik görünüşü kullanımını nasıl etkilediği incelenmektedir. Uluslararası İngilizce Öğrenici Derlemi’nin (ICLE) Türkçe alt derleminden seçilen 276 öğrenci metninde belirlenen 594 sürerlik kullanımı çözümlenmiştir. Çözümlenen metinlerin 214’ü en az bir sürerlik kullanımı içermektedir. İlk aşamada, adlaşmış ya da sıfat işlevli -ing kullanımlarını hariç tutan önceden tanımlı ölçütleri içeren kural tabanlı desenlerle metinlerdeki be + V-ing örnekleri derlemden çıkartılmıştır. İkinci aşamada bu örnekler tek bir kodlayıcı tarafından manuel biçimde incelenmiş ve zamansal sınırlandırma, kuvvet dinamikleri, sınırlılık kayması, bakış düzeni ve ölçek ayarlaması olmak üzere beş kavramsal işleme göre etiketlenmiştir. Bulgular betimsel olarak sunulmuş; anadil-uyum oranı için iki yönlü Wilson güven aralığı %95 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Şimdiki zaman yapısıyla kullanılan sürerlik görünüşü, toplam örneklerin %85,9’unu (510/594) oluşturmaktadır. Kavramsal işlem dağılımında zamansal sınırlandırma ve kuvvet dinamikleri işlemleri %9,6’lık (57) oranla öne çıkmaktadır; bu işlemleri %3,4’lük (20) oranla sınırlılık kayması, %2,9’luk (17) oranla bakış düzeni ve %1,5’lik (9) oranla ölçek ayarlaması işlemi izlemektedir. Genel olarak incelenen metinlerdeki sürerlik kullanımlarının %26,9’u (160/594) Türkçedeki –(I)yor ile %95 GA: %23,5–%30,6 oranında uyumlu kullanımlardır. Bu örüntüler özellikle for/since ile kurulan süre belirten yapılarda, durum/tamamlama eylemleriyle kullanıldığı durumlarda, sıklık belirteçleriyle kurulan alışkanlık bağlamlarında ve geçmiş ya da genel/ansiklopedik ifadelerde görülen görünüş yapılarının birbirinin yerine kullanıldığı durumlarda yoğunlaşmaktadır. Hedef dilde doğru kabul edilen sürerlik kullanımları (örn. eşzamanlı gerçekleşen eylem betimlemelerinde try/struggle eylemleri ile) anadilden aktarılanların toplamından ayrı tutulmuştur. Sonuçlara göre görünüş edinimi, biçimbirimsel doğruluğun yanı sıra kavramsal bir yeniden ayarlamadır. Yabancı dil eğitimi açısından, çıktılar sürerlik görünüşü seçiminde rol oynayan kavramsal işlemleri öne çıkaran etkinliklere öncelik verilmesini; özellikle süre belirteçli yapılar (şimdiki zaman ile perfect/progressive karşılaştırması), durum-tamamlama karşıtlıkları ve alışkanlık-tutum ayrımları üzerinde durulması gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilişsel Dilbilim
• Kavramsal Yapılandırma
• Anadil Aktarımı
• Sürerlilik Görünüşü
• Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce

CONSTRUAL AND L1 TRANSFER IN TURKISH EFL LEARNERS’ USE OF ENGLISH PROGRESSIVE ASPECT

Abstract

This study examines how Turkish L1 construal shapes Turkish EFL learners’ use of the English progressive and identifies where L1 transfer surfaces in learner production. Using the Turkish subcorpus of the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE), we analyzed 594 progressive constructions drawn from 276 learner essays (214 essays contained at least one progressive). Candidates were retrieved with rule-based patterns and explicit exclusion rules for nominal/attributive -ing, then manually screened by a single coder. Tokens were coded for five construal operations—temporal bounding, force dynamics, boundedness shift, viewing arrangement, and scalar adjustment—and summarized descriptively; the headline proportion is reported with a two-sided 95% Wilson confidence interval. Learners predominantly use the present progressive (510/594; 85.9%). Two operations dominate—temporal bounding and force dynamics (57 tokens each; 9.6% apiece)—followed by boundedness shift (20; 3.4%), viewing arrangement (17; 2.9%), and scalar adjustment (9; 1.5%). Overall, 160/594 = 26.9% of tokens are –(I)yor-consistent (95% CI: 23.5–30.6), concentrated in long-span for/since contexts, progressive uses with stative/achievement verbs, habitual frames with frequency adverbs, and aspectual substitution in past or generic statements. Target-like progressives (e.g., live-process uses with try/struggle) were separated from transfer-consistent cases. Findings frame progressive-aspect acquisition as conceptual recalibration rather than only morphological learning. Pedagogically, instruction should make the relevant construal choices explicit at the point of use, especially in duration frames (present vs perfect/progressive), stative/achievement contrasts, and the habitual–stance distinction with frequency adverbs.

Keywords

• Cognitive Linguistics
• Construal
• L1 Transfer
• Progressive Aspect
• English as a Foreign Language

References

1. Aktuğ Ekinci, D. (2022). English tense and aspect constructions in the opinion essays of pre intermediate level Turkish EFL students (Doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University.
2. Andersen, R. W., & Shirai, Y. (1996). The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: The pidgin/creole connection. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 527–570). Academic Press.
3. Athanasiadou, C., Canakis, C., & Cornillie, B. (Eds.). (2006). Subjectification: Various paths across languages. Mouton de Gruyter.
4. Axelsson, M. W., & Hahn, A. (2001). The use of the progressive in Swedish and German advanced learner English: A corpus based study. ICAME Journal, 25, 5–30.
5. Bada, E., & Genc, B. (2007). An investigation into the tense/aspect preferences of Turkish speakers of English and native English speakers in their oral narration.
6. Bardovi Harlig, K. (1998). Narrative structure and lexical aspect. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(4), 471–508.
7. Bardovi Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition. Blackwell.
8. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bergström, A. (1996). Acquisition of tense and aspect in second language and foreign language learning: Learner narratives in ESL and FFL. Canadian Modern Language Review, 52(2), 308-330.

9. Bergs, A. (2010). Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A Construction Grammar perspective. English Language & Linguistics, 14(2), 217-238.
10. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
11. Bozdağ, F. Ü. (2019). Error mapping and remedial intervention regarding English tense–aspect structures of Turkish EFL learners [Unpublished manuscript].
12. Bylund, E., & Jarvis, S. (2011). L2 effects on L1 event conceptualization. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 47–59.
13. Cadierno, T. (2004). Expressing motion events in L2 Spanish: A cognitive typological approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 57–77.
14. Collins, L. (2002). The roles of L1 influence and lexical aspect in the acquisition of temporal morphology. Language Learning, 52(1), 43–94.
15. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge University Press.
16. Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press.
17. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
18. Daller, M. H., Treffers Daller, J., & Furman, R. (2011). Conceptual transfer in bilinguals: Motion events in Turkish and German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 95–119.
19. De Wit, A., & Brisard, F. (2014). A Cognitive Grammar account of the English present progressive. Journal of Linguistics, 50(1), 49–90.
20. Declerck, R. (2006). The grammar of the English verb phrase (Vol. 1). Mouton de Gruyter.
21. Eriksson, A. (2008). Tense and aspect in second language Swedish (Doctoral dissertation). Lund University.
22. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2013). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Routledge.
23. Granger, S., Dupont, M., Meunier, F., Naets, H. & Paquot, M. (2020) The International Corpus of Learner English. Version 3. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
24. Han, Z., & Cadierno, T. (2012). Linguistic relativity in second language acquisition. In The Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition. Routledge.
25. Haznedar, B. (2007). The acquisition of tense–aspect in child second language English. Second Language Research, 23(4), 483–521.
26. Hopper, P. J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 12): Discourse and syntax (pp. 213–241). Academic Press.
27. Jarvis, S. (2011). Conceptual transfer: Cross linguistic effects in categorization and construal. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 1–8.
28. Jarvis, S., and Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge. Johanson, L. (2000). Viewpoint operators in European languages. In Ö. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp. 27–187). Mouton de Gruyter.
29. Kanık, M. (2015). The Turkish aorist and progressive in spoken discourse. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 11(1), 103–115.
30. Kermer, F. (2020). A Cognitive Grammar perspective on temporal conceptualization in SLA. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 55(1), 223–246.
31. Kilimci, A. (2014). LINDSEI-TR: A new spoken corpus of advanced learners of English. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 4(2), 401-410.
32. Kilimci, A., & Şahin Kızıl, A. (2014). Recurrent phrases in Turkish EFL learners’ spoken interlanguage. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(1), 195–210.
33. Killie, K. (2004). Subjectivity and the English progressive. English Language and Linguistics, 8(1), 25–46.
34. Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1997). The Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13(4), 301–347.
35. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
36. Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume II, Descriptive application. Stanford University Press.
37. Langacker, R. W. (2006). Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes. Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity, 17-40.
38. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
39. Li, P., & Shirai, Y. (2000). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect (Vol. 16). Walter de Gruyter.
40. Matlock, T. (2004). Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1389–1400.
41. Navarro, S., & Nicoladis, E. (2005). Describing motion events in adult L2 Spanish narratives. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(4), 715–745.
42. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press.
43. Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. (1985). A University Grammar of English, 1973. Harlow: Longman.
44. Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. John Benjamins.
45. Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008). Cognitive linguistics, SLA and instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 489–545). Routledge.
46. Robison, R. (1995). The aspect hypothesis revisited: A cross sectional study. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 344–370.
47. Römer, U. (2005). Progressives, patterns, pedagogy: A corpus driven approach to English progressives. John Benjamins.
48. Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge University Press.
49. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vols. 1–2). MIT Press.
50. Traugott, E. C. (2010). Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization(pp. 29–70). De Gruyter Mouton.
51. Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning. Routledge.
52. Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Cornell University Press.
53. Wang, X., & Wang, L. (2022). Coercion and information structure in progressive constructions. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 5(2), 96–111.
54. Zeng, X., Shirai, Y., & Chen, X. (2021). Universals and transfer in the acquisition of the progressive aspect. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59(2), 267–292.