TÜRKÇE'DEKİ GEÇMİŞ ZAMAN BİLDİRME KİPLERİNİN TÜMCE HATIRLAMAYA ETKİSİ

Year 2019, Volume: 59 Issue: 1, 353 - 369, 01.01.2019

Çağla Aydın Stanka Fıtneva

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Türkçe'deki geçmiş zaman bildirme eklerinin, tümcelerin hatırlanmasına olan etkisi incelenmiştir. Gelişimsel alan yazın kapsamında, bilginin kaynağını dilde zorunlu olarak, doğrudan -dI eki ile ya da dolaylı olarak -mIŞ eki ile kodlamaya yarayan bu eklerin varlığının, zihin kuramının daha erken anlaşılmasına yol açabileceği sıklıkla tartışılmaktadır. Buna rağmen, geçmiş zaman-kaynak bildirme eklerinin zihinde nasıl temsil edildiği ile ilgili çok az sayıda araştırma vardır. Bu çalışmanın bulgularına göre -dI eki ile ifade edilen tümcelerin hatırlanma oranı –mIş eki ile ifade edilen tümcelere göre daha yüksektir. Buna göre, ana dili Türkçe olan bireyler için, birinci el kaynaktan elde edilen bilginin, dolaylı yoldan elde edilen bilgiye göre zihinde daha kuvvetli temsil edildiği fikri desteklenmektedir. Bulguların niteliği, dil ve düşünce arasındaki ilişkiyi konu alan kuramsal çerçeveler ışığında tartışılmış ve alan yazına olan katkısı değerlendirilmiştir.

Keywords

Türkçe, Geçmiş Zaman Bildirme Kipleri, Tanıtsallık, Bellek, Tümce Hatırlama

THE EFFECT OF TURKISH TENSE-ASPECT MARKERS ON MEMORY FOR SENTENCES

Abstract

The present study investigates the influence of the past tense-aspect evidential markers in Turkish on the recall of sentences. It has been widely discussed in the cognitive developmental literature whether learners of languages imbued with source distinctions direct perceptual sources vs indirect sources would be more sensitive to tracking the informational stance of the speakers compared to the learners of the languages which do not code this distinction as a standard part of the message. Interestingly however, how evidential markers are represented in the mind is rarely investigated. In the present study, adult participants recalled sentences marked with the direct perception marker -dI more accurately than sentences marked with the indirect source marker, -mIş. These findings present the first empirical support with a free recall task that native Turkish speakers may privilege first-hand sources more than the second-hand sources when learning information, suggesting that obligatory coding of source information in language may influence memory processes. The findings were discussed within the scope of the theoretical framework on the language and cognition relationship as well as the implications education.

Keywords

Past Tense in Turkish, Tense-aspect Markers, Evidentiality, Memory, Memory for Sentences

References

• Aikhenvald, Alexandra. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
• Aksu-Koç, Ayhan. The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1988. --. “Some aspects of the acquisition of evidentials in Turkish.” Evidentials: Turkic,
• Iranian and neighbouring languages Ed. L. Johanson ve B. Utas. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. 15–28.
• Aksu-Koç, Ayhan, Hale Ögel-Balaban ve Ercan Alp. “Evidentials and source knowledge in Turkish.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 2 (2009): 13-28.
• Aksu-Koç, Ayhan ve Dan Slobin. “A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish.” Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology Ed. W. Chafe ve J. Nichols, Norwood, 1986.159–167.
• Aydın, Çağla ve Stephen. J. Ceci. “The role of culture and language in avoiding misinformation: pilot findings.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 31.5 (2013): 573. --. “Evidentiality and suggestibility: A new research venue.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 125.2 (2009): 79–93.
• Brainerd, Charles J., Çağla Aydın ve Valerie F. Reyna. “Development of Dual-Retrieval Processes in Recall: Learning, Forgetting, and Reminiscence.” Journal of Memory and Language 66.4 (2012): 763-788.
• Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser. “On the relation between temporal/aspectual verbs and the verb form in Turkish.” The verb in Turkish. Ed. E. Erguvanlı-Taylan. Boston: John Benjamins, 2001. 97-129.
• Fausey, Caitlin M. ve Lera Boroditsky. “Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eyewitness memory.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 18.1 (2011):150–157.
• Fausey, Caitlin M. ve Teenie Matlock. “Can grammar win elections?” Political Psychology 32.4 (2011): 563–574.
• Fitneva, Stanka A. “Epistemic marking and reliability judgments: Evidence from Bulgarian.” Journal of Pragmatics 33.3 (2001): 401–420. --. “Evidentiality and trust: The effect of informational goals.” New Directions for
• Child and Adolescent Development 125.2 (2009): 49–62.
• Gül, Demet. “Evidentiality in Turkish: Native speaker judgment”. International Journal of Language Academy 20.5 (2017): 17-29.
• Hart, William ve Dolores Albarracin. “Learning about what others were doing: Verb aspect and attributions of mundane and criminal intent for past actions.” Psychological Science 22.2 (2010): 261-266.
• Jacoby, Larry L., Jeffrey P Toth ve Andrew Yonelinas. “Separating conscious and unconscious influences of memory: Measuring recollection.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 122.2 (1993):139 –154.
• Matsui, Tomoko ve diğerleri. “Young children’s early sensitivity in their selective word learning.” Lingua175.6 (2016): 83-96.
• Matsui, Tomoko ve Stanka Fitneva. “Knowing how we know: Evidentiality and cognitive development.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development (2009):1-11.
• Levinson, Stephen C. “Language in mind: Let’s get the issues straight ” Language in mind: Advances in the issues of language and thought. Ed. D. Gentner ve S. Goldin-Meadow. Boston: The M.I.T. Press, 2003. 25–46.
• Ögel, Hale. Developments in source monitoring and linguistic encoding of source. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, 2007.
• Paivio, Allan. “Mental representations: A dual-coding approach.” New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
• Papafragou, Anna ve diğerleri. “Evidentiality in language and cognition.” Cognition 2 (2007): 253–299.
• Robinson, Elizabeth J., Stephen A. Butterfill ve Erika Nurmsoo. “Gaining knowledge via other minds.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 29.4 (2011): 961
• Slobin, Dan I. ve Ayhan Aksu. “Tense, aspect, modality, and more in Turkish evidentials.” Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Ed. P. Hopper, Boston: John Benjamins, 1982. 185–200.
• Slobin, Dan I. “Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity.” Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition editörler: Dedre Gentner & Susan Goldin-Meadow, M.I.T. Press, 2003, pp. 157– --. “From thought and language to thinking for speaking” Rethinking linguistic relativity. Ed. J. Gumperz ve S. Levinson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 70–96.
• Tosun, Sümeyye, Jyotsna Vaid ve Lisa Geraci. “Does obligatory linguistic marking of source of evidence affect source memory? A Turkish/English investigation.” Journal of Memory and Language 69.2 (2013): 121–134.
• Uzundağ, Berna. A., Süleyman Taşçı ve Aylin C. Küntay. “Nonfactual meanings in early use of evidentials in Turkish child-caregiver interactions.” Social environment and cognition in language development: Studies in honor of Ayhan Aksu-Koç. Ed. N. Ketrez, A. Küntay, A. Özyürek ve Ş. Özçalışkan. Boston: John Benjamins Publications, 2017. 167-178.
• Ünal, Ercenur ve diğerleri. “Monitoring sources of event memories: A cross-linguistic investigation.” Journal of Memory and Language 87.2 (2016):157-176.
• Üstünova, Kerime. “Türkçe’de zaman kavramı ve işleyişi.” Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen- Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 9.2 (2005):187-201.
• Whorf, Benjamin. Language, thought, and reality. Boston: The M.I.T. Press,1956.
• Wolff, Phillip ve Kevin Holmes. “Linguistic relativity.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2.1 (2011):253–265.