Türkçede Eylem Çekiminde -ler Ekinin Yer Alması Kabul Edilemez Mi? Olaya İlişkin Beyin Potansiyelleri Çalışması

Year 2023, Issue: 28, 482 - 507, 25.10.2023

Mehmet Aygunes

https://doi.org/10.30767/diledeara.1342007

Abstract

Dilsel yapılar arasındaki uyum ilişkisi sinirdilbilim çalışmaları içerisinde geniş bir yer tutmaktadır. Özellikle Olaya İlişkin Beyin Potansiyelleri (OİP) yönteminin kullanıldığı ça- lışmalarda farklı dillerde ve farklı uyum ilişkilerinde ne tür OİP bileşenlerinin oluştuğu ve bu bileşenlerin işlevsel yorumunun ne olduğu sorgulanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada Türkçede eylem çekiminde üçüncü çoğul kişiyi (Onlar) yansıttığı düşünülen -lEr ekinin açık bir biçimde bu- lunmasının (Ör: Onlar şimdi pasta yapıyor-lar) ve açık biçimde bulunmamasının (Ör: Onlar şimdi pasta yapıyor-Æ) işlemleme sürecine yarattığı etki incelenmiştir. Bunun için yüksek zaman çözünürlüğüne sahip bir yöntem olan OİP kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada anadili Türkçe olan 33 katılımcı yer almıştır. Katılımcılara öznesi üçüncü tekil kişi (O) ve üçüncü çoğul kişi (Onlar) ile oluşturulmuş ve eylem çekiminde -lEr ekinin açık biçimde yer aldığı ve açık bi- çimde yer almadığı üç dilbilgisel ve bir dilbilgisi dışı koşul sunulmuştur. OİP bulguları bütün koşullarda Sol Ön Negativite (SÖN), geç-SÖN ve P600 bileşenlerinin oluştuğunu göster- mektedir. Her ne kadar bütün koşullarda benzer OİP bileşenleri oluşsa da koşullar arasında genlik farklılıklarının oluştuğu belirlenmiştir. Buna göre -lEr ekinin eylem çekiminde açık biçimde yer alması ile yer almaması arasında anlamlı farklılığın oluştuğu, ekin yer alması durumunda SÖN bileşeninin genliğinin arttığı dahası öznenin üçüncü çoğul kişi (Onlar) ile oluşturulduğu yapılarda eylem çekiminde -lEr ekinin açık biçimde yer almasının dilbilgisi dışı yapılara benzer bir etki yarattığı belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışma SÖN bileşeninin Türkçede biçimsözdizimsel süreçlere duyarlı olduğunu göstermektedir. Bulgular çerçevesinde SÖN bileşeninin biçimsözdizimsel uyumsuzluğu ve biçimsözdizimsel süreçlerin çalışma belle- ğinde daha fazla kaynak kullanmaya olan ihtiyacı yansıttığı öne sürülmektedir. Dilbilgisel açıdan ise Türkçede -lEr ekinin eylem çekiminde açık biçimde yer alması durumunda, bu tümceler ne kadar dilbilgisel olarak kabul edilse de işlememe açısında dilbilgisi dışı yapılara benzediği belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Sözdizim, dil işlemleme, üçüncü kişi, -lEr eki, OİP, SÖN, P600

References

• Ackema, P ve Neeleman, A. (2019). “Processing Differences Between Person and Number: A Theoretical Interpretation”. Front. Psychol. 10:211.
• Ackema, P., ve Neeleman, A. (2013). “Subset controllers in agreement”. Morphology 23, 291–323.
• Ackema, P., ve Neeleman, A. (2018). “Features of Person: From the Inventory of Persons to their Morphological Realization”. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Angrilli, A., Penolazzi, B., Vespignani, F., De Vincenzi, M., Job, R., Ciccarelli, L., ve diğ. (2002). “Cortical brain responses to semantic incongruity and syntactic violation in Italian language: An event-related potential study”. Neuroscience Letters, 322(1), 5-8.
• Aydın, Ö. (2007). “Türkçede üçüncü kişi buyrum yapıları.” Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 47(1), 151-163.
• Aygüneş, M. (2012). “Türkçede uyum özelliklerinin onarım tabanlı incelenmesi”. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 9 (1), 1-19.
• Aygüneş, M. (2013a). Türkçede uyum özelliklerinin Olaya İlişkin Beyin Potansiyelleri (OİP) çerçevesinde incelenmesi, Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi.
• Aygüneş, M. (2013b). “Türkçede üçüncü kişide kişi ve sayı özelliklerinin özelliklerinin onarım tabanlı incelenmesi”. Turkish Studies, 8(4), 255-268.
• Aygüneş, M. (2021). “Person and number hierarchy in Turkish: A processing-based approach”. Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları,24, 409-440.
• Aygüneş, M., Kaşıkçı, I., Aydın, Ö., Demiralp, T. (2021). “The processing of person and number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study”. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 32(1), 31-52.
• Barber, H. A. ve Carreiras, M. (2005). “Grammatical gender and number agreement in Spanish: An ERP comparison”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(1), 137-153.
• Bentin, S., Mouchetant-Rostaing, Y., Giard, M. H., Echallier, J. F., ve Pernier, J. (1999). “ERP manifestations of processing printed words at different psycholinguistic levels: Time course and scalp distribution”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 235-260.
• Beyersmann, E., Bolger, D., Pattamadilok, C., New, B., Grainger, J. ve Ziegler, J. C. (2019). “Morphological processing without semantics: an ERP study with spoken words”. Cortex. 116, 55-73.
• Bianchi, V. (2006). “On the syntax of personal arguments”. Lingua,116 (12), 2023-2067.
• Bonferroni, C.E. (1936). “Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilit `a. Pubblicazioni del R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali di Firenze”, 8, 3-62.
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. ve Schlesewsky, M. (2008). “An alternative perspective on "Semantic P600" effects in language comprehension”. Brain Research Reviews, 59(1), 55-73.
• Bornkessel, I. ve Schlesewsky, M. (2006). “The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages”. Psychological Review, 113(4), 787-821.
• Brouwer, H., Fitz, H. ve Hoeks, J., (2012). “Getting real about semantic illusions: rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension”. Brain Research, 1446, 127-143.
• Brunellière, A. (2011). “Brain response to subject-verb agreement during grammatical priming”. Brain Research, 1372, 70-80.
• Carminati, M.N. (2005). “Processing reflexes of hierarchy (person>number>gender) and implications for linguistic theory”. Lingua,115, 259–285.
• Carreiras, M., Salillas, E. ve Barber, H. A. (2004). “Event-related potentials elicited during parsing of ambiguous relative clauses in Spanish”. Cognitive Brain Research, 20(1), 98-105.
• Choudhary, K. K., Schlesewsky, M., Roehm, D., ve Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2009). “The N400 as a correlate of interpretively-relevant linguistic rules: Evidence from Hindi”. Neuropsychologia, 47, 3012-3022.
• Coulson, S., King, J. ve Kutas, M. (1998). “Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations”. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(1), 21-58.
• De Vincenzi, M., Job, R., Di Matteo, R., Angrilli, A., Penolazzi, B., Ciccarelli, L., ve diğ. (2003). “Differences in the perception and time course of syntactic and semantic violations”. Brain and Language, 85, 280-296.
• Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M. ve Friederici, A. D. (2002). “Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German wh-questions”. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(2), 250-272.
• Foucart, A. ve Frenck-Mestre, C. (2011). “Grammatical gender processing in L2: Electrophysiological evidence of the effect of L1-L2 syntactic similarity”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 379-399.
• Foucart, A. ve Frenck-Mestre, C. (2012). “Can late L2 learners acquire new grammatical features? Evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking”. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 226-248.
• Frenck-Mestre, C., Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., ve Foucart, A. (2008). “The effect of phonological realization of inflectional morphology on verbal agreement in French: Evidence from ERPs”. Acta Psychologica, 128, 528-536.
• Friederici, A. D. (2002). “Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78-84.
• Friederici, A. D. ve Frisch, S. (2000). “Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information”. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 476-507.
• Friederici, A.D. (2002). “Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78-84.
• Friederici, A.D., Hahne, A., Saddy, D., (2002). “Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 45-63.
• Greenhouse, S., Geisser, S. (1959). “On methods in the analysis of profile data”. Psychonomics, 24, 95-112.
• Göksel, A. ve Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
• Hagoort, P. (2003). “Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 883-899.
• Hagoort, P. ve Brown, C. M. (2000a). “ERP effects of listening to speech compared to reading: The P600/SPS to syntactic violations in spoken sentences and rapid serial visual presentation”. Neuropsychologia, 38(11), 1531-1549.
• Hahne, A., ve Friederici, A. D. (1999). “Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 194-205.
• Harley, H. ve Ritter, E. (2002). “Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis”, Language, 78(3), 482-526.
• Holcomb, P. J. (1993). “Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: Implications for the role of the N400 in language processing”. Psychophysiology, 30, 47-61.
• Kaan, E. ve Swaab, T. Y. (2003). “Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(1), 98-110.
• Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E. ve Holcomb, P. J. (2000). “The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty”. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159-201.
• Kaan, E., Swaab, T., (2003). “Repair, revision and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 98-110.
• Kluender, R. ve Kutas, M. (1993). “Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(2), 196-214.
• Korkmaz, Z. (2003). Türkiye Türkçesinin Grameri. Ankara: TDK Yayınları.
• Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi. Harvard Üniversitesi.
• Kornfilt, J. (1996). “On copular clitic forms in Turkish”. ZAS Working Papers, 96-114.
• Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge.
• Kuperberg, G. R., (2007). “Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: challenges to syntax”. Brain Research, 1146, 23-49.
• Kuram, K. (2020). “Null and overt subjects in rich agreement languages”. Dil Dergisi,171/2, 119-159.
• Kuruoğlu, G. (1990). Reciprocal constructions in Turkish, İçinde, B. Rona (Yay.) Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fitfth Internatinal Conference on Turkish Linguistics,15-17, 126-138. Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.
• Kutas, M., ve Hillyard, S. A. (1983). “Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies”. Memory and Cognition, 11, 539-550.
• Kutas, M., ve Hillyard, S. A. (1984). “Event-related potentials in cognitive science”. İçinde, Gazaaniga. (Yay.), Handbook of cognitive neuroscience, 384-409. New York: Plenum Press.
• Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S. ve Phillips, C. (2006). “The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis”. Brain and Language, 98, 74–88.
• Leckey, M., Federmeier, K.D., (2019). “The P3b and P600(s): Positive contributions to language comprehension”. Psychophysiology, 57(1), e13351.
• Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L. ve Carreiras, M. (2011). “A person is not a number: Discourse involvement in subject-verb agreement computation”. Brain Research, 1410, 64-76.
• McGinnis, M. (2005), “On markedness asymmetries in person and number”, Langauge 8 (3), 699-718.
• Molinaro, N., Barber, H. A. ve Carreiras, M. (2011a). “Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions”. Cortex, 47/8, 908-930.
• Molinaro, N., Barber, H. A., Caffarra, S. ve Carreiras, M. (2015). “On the left anterior negativity (LAN): The case of morphosyntactic agreement: A Reply to Tanner et al”. Cortex, 66, 156-159.
• Molinaro, N., Canal, P., Vespignani, F., Pesciarelli, F. ve Cacciari, C. (2013). “Are complex function words processed as semantically empty strings? A reading time and ERP study of collocational complex prepositions”. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(6), 762-788.
• Molinaro, N., Vespignani, F. ve Job, R. (2008a). “A deeper reanalysis of a superficial feature: An ERP study on agreement violations”. Brain Research, 1228, 161-176.
• Molinaro, N., Vespignani, F., Zamparelli, R. ve Job, R. (2011). “Why brother and sister are not just siblings: Repair processes in agreement computation”. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(3), 211-232.
• Munte, T.F., Matzke, M. ve Johannes, S. (1997a). “Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(3), 318-329.
• Munte, T.F., Szentkutia, A., Wieringaa, B.M., Matzkea, M. ve Johannes, S. (1997b). “Human brain potentials to reading syntactic errors in sentences of different complexity”. Neuroscience Letters, 235(3), 105-108.
• Nevins, A., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., ve Phillips, C. (2007). “The role of feature number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations”. Brain Research, 1164, 81-94.
• Nevins, A. (2011). “Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number”. Natural Language ve Linguistic Theory, 29, 939-971.
• Ojima, S., Nakata, H. ve Kakigi, R. (2005). “An ERP study of second language learning after childhood: Effects of proficiency”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1212-1228.
• Osterhout, L. ve Holcomb, P. J. (1992). “Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly”. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785-806.
• Osterhout, L. ve Mobley, L. A. (1995). “Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree”. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(6), 739-773.
• Osterhout, L., ve Holcomb, P. J. (1993). “Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech”. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 413-437.
• Özsoy, S. A. (1987). The null subject parameter and Turkish. İçinde, H. E. Boeschoten ve L. Th. Verhoeven (Yay.) Studies on Modern Turkish: Proceedings of the Third Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press, 82–91.
• Öztürk, B. (2001). Turkish as a non-pro-drop language. İçinde: Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (Yay.) The Verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Hahne, A., ve Friederici, A. D. (2005). “When word category information encounters morphosyntax: An ERP study”. Neuroscience Letters, 26, 228-233.
• Royle, P., Drury, J. E. ve Steinhauer, K. (2013). “ERPs and task effects in the auditory processing of gender agreement and semantics in French”. The Mental Lexicon, 8, 216-244.
• Rugg, M. D. (1987). “Dissociation of semantic priming, word and non-word repetition effects by event-related potentials”. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 123-147.
• Sassenhagen, J., Schlesewsky, M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., (2014). “The P600-as-P3 hypothesis revisited: Single-trial analyses reveal that the late EEG positivity following linguistically deviant material is reaction time aligned”. Brain and Language, 137, 29-39.
• Sezer, E. (1978). “Eylemlerin çoğul öznelere uyumu”, Genel Dilbilim Dergisi, 1, 25-32.
• Sezer, E. (2001). Finite inflection in Turkish. Taylan, E. (Yay.) İçinde, The verb in Turkish, 1-45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Sigurdsson, H. A. (2004). “The syntax of person, tense and speech features”. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16, 219-251.
• Silva-Pereyra, J. F. ve Carreiras, M. (2007). “An ERP study of agreement features in Spanish”. Brain Research, 1185, 201-211.
• Silverstein, M. (1985), "Hierarchy of features and ergativity, Muysken, P., van Riemsdijk, H. (Yay.), Features and Projections, (ss 163-232). İçinde: Foris, Dordrecht.
• Regel, S., Opitz A., Müller, G., Friederici A. D. (2019). “Processing inflectional morphology: ERP evidence for decomposition of complex words according to the affix structure”. Cortex, 116, 143-153.
• Steinhauer, K., Alter, K. ve Friederici, A. D. (1999). “Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing”. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 191-196.
• Steinhauer, K., Drury, J. E., Portner, P., Walenski, M. ve Ullman, M. T. (2010). “Syntax, concepts, and logic in the temporal dynamics of language comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials”. Neuropsychologia, 48, 1525-1542.
• Streb, J., Rosler, F. ve Hennighausen, E. (1999). “Event-related responses to pronoun and proper name anaphors in parallel and nonparallel discourse structures”. Brain and Language, 70(2), 273-286.
• Tanner, D., (2015). “On the left anterior negativity (LAN) in electrophysiological studies ofmorphosyntactic agreement: a commentary on “grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions” by Molinaro et al., 2014”. Cortex, 66, 149.
• Tokowicz, N. ve MacWhinney, B. (2005). “Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204.
• Van Der Meij, M., Cuetos, F., Carreiras, M., ve Barber, H. A. (2011). “Electrophysiological correlates of language switching in second language learners”. Psychophysiology, 48(1), 44-54.
• Wicha, N. Y., Moreno, E. M., ve Kutas, M. (2004). “Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(7), 1272-1284.
• Zawiszewski, A. ve Friederici, A.D. (2009). “Processing canonical and non-canonical sentences in Basque: the case of object-verb agreement as revealed by event-related brain potentials”. Brain Research, 1284, 161–179.
• Zawiszewski, A., Santesteban, M. ve Laka, I. (2016), “Phi-features reloaded: An ERP study on person and number agreement processing”. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(3), 601- 626.