Türk İşaret Dilinde Anlamsal Bağlantılığın ve Gösterimselliğin Sözlüksel Erişime Etkisi

Year 2020, , 276 - 289, 31.12.2020

Bahtiyar Makaroğlu

https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.673802

Cited By: 1

Abstract

İşaretlenen diller üzerine yapılan çalışmalar, sözlüksel önceleme etkilerine ve belki de insan dilinin doğasının ne olduğu konusundaki bilgiye doğrudan bir etki oluşturabileceğini işaret etmektedir. Sözlüksel erişimi inceleyen son çalışmalar, dilsel bilginin zihinsel sözlükçede nasıl yapılaştığı ve bu sözlükçeye nasıl ulaştığı hakkında detaylı bilgi sunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada ise Türk İşaret Dilinde anlamsal bağlantılığın ve gösterimselliğin, sözlüksel erişim sürecine etkisi ve sözlüksel işlemleme hızı araştırılmaktadır. Katılımcılara SuperLab 5.0 programı yardımıyla birincil-gösterimsel hedef işaret çiftinden (örn. SİLGİ) oluşan ve ikinci işareti tanımayı amaçlayan çevrimiçi Sözlüksel Karar Testi uygulanmıştır. Birincil işaretler şu şekildedir: (i) gösterimsel ve anlamsal bağlantılı (örn. KALEMTRAŞ) (ii) gösterimsel olmayan ve anlamsal olarak bağlantılı (örn. ÖĞRENCİ) (iii) anlamsal olarak bağlantısız (örn. ÇATAL). Araştırmaya Türk işaret dili (TİD) anadili konuşucusu olan ve en az 10 yıldan beri günlük hayatında, Türkiye’deki Sağır toplumun parçası olan TİD ile bağlantısını olduğunu belirten 17 doğuştan sağır birey katılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, sözlüksel erişim sürecinde anlamsal bağlantılığın önemli derece kolaylaştırıcı etkisi olmasına karşın gösterimselliğin herhangi bir önceleme etkisini artırmadığını göstermiştir.

Keywords

Gösterimsellik, sözlüksel erişim, anlamsal önceleme

Effects of Semantic Relatedness and Iconicity on Lexical Access in Turkish Sign Language

Abstract

The study of signed language promises to have a profound effect on lexical priming effects, and perhaps ultimately on our understanding of the nature of human language. Recent studies on lexical access have given detailed information about how linguistic information is structured and accessed in the mental lexicon. In this study, the effects of semantic relatedness and iconicity on lexical access in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) and lexical processing speed were studied. Being composed of primer-iconic target sign, an online lexical decision task which aims to recognise target sign (e.g., plastıc-eraser) was applied to deaf participants via SuperLab 5.0. Prime signs were as follows: (i) iconic and semantically related (e.g., pencıl-sharpener) (ii) non-iconic and semantically related (e.g., student), or (iii) semantically unrelated (e.g., fork). 17 deaf, native TİD signers who are a part of Turkish deaf community for more than 10 years and who stated that they had daily contact with TİD took part in the study. The findings showed that semantic relatedness has significant facilitation effect on lexical access processing yet iconicity does not increase the priming effect.

Keywords

Iconicity, lexical access, semantic priming

References

• Anderson, D. ve Reilly, J. S. (2002). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory: Normative data for American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7, 83-106.
• Baus, C., Carreiras, M. ve Emmorey, K. (2013). When does iconicity in sign language matter? Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 261-271.
• Boyes Braem, P. (1986). Two aspects of psycholinguistic research: iconicity and temporal structure. B. Tervoort (ed.), Signs of Life-Proceedings of the Second European Congress on Sign Language Research içinde (No. 50, ss. 65-74).
• Bosworth, R. G. ve Emmorey, K. (2010). Effects of iconicity and semantic relatedness on lexical access in American Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(6), 1573.
• Breadmore, H. L. (2007). Inflectional morphology in the literacy of deaf children. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). The University of Birmingham.
• Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA:MIT press.
• Campbell, R., Martin, P. ve White, T. (1992). Forced choice recognition of sign in novice learners of British Sign Language. Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 185-201.
• Carreiras, M., Gutiérrez-Sigut, E., Baquero, S. ve Corina, D. (2008). Lexical processing in Spanish Sign Language (LSE). Journal of Memory and Language, 58(1), 100-122.
• Corina, D. P. ve Emmorey, K. (1993). Lexical priming in American Sign Language. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Washington.
• Corina, D. P. ve Hildebrandt, U. (2002). Psycholinguistic investigations of phonological structure in American Sign Language. R. P. Meier, K. Cormier ve D. Quinto-Pozos (Ed.), Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages içinde (s. 88-111). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Cormier, K., Schembri, A., Vinson, D. ve Orfanidou, E. (2012). First language acquisition differs from second language acquisition in prelingually deaf signers: Evidence from sensitivity to grammaticality judgement in British Sign Language. Cognition, 124(1), 50-65.
• Dikyuva, H., Makaroğlu, B. ve Arık, E. (2015). Türk İşaret Dili Dilbilgisi kitabı. Ankara: Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı Yayınları.
• Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Emmorey, K. (1991). Repetition priming with aspect and agreement morphology in American Sign Language. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 20(5), 365-388.
• Emmorey, K., Grabowski, T., McCullough, S., Damasio, H., Ponto, L., Hichwa, R. ve Bellugi, U. (2004). Motor-iconicity of sign language does not alter the neural systems underlying tool and action naming. Brain and language, 89(1), 27-37.
• Emmorey, K. ve Corina, D. (1990). Lexical recognition in sign language: Effects of phonetic structure and morphology. Perceptual and motor skills, 71(3_suppl), 1227-1252.
• Gaustad, M.G. ve Kelly, R. R. (2004). The Relationship between reading achievement and morphological word analysis in deaf and hearing students matched for reading level. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9, 269-285.
• Grosjean, F. (1981). Sign and word recognition: A first comparison. Sign Language Studies, 32, 195-219.
• Güçlütürk, Y. (2018). The event structure of two-handed lexical verbs in TİD. 12. Dilbilim Öğrenci Konferansı, ODTÜ, Ankara, 16-17 Nisan 2018.
• Hamano, S. (1998). The sound-symbolic system of Japanese. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
• Imai, M. ve Kita, S. (2014). The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for language acquisition and language evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20130298.
• Klima, E. ve Bellugi, U. (1979). The Signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Lepic R., Börstell, C., Belsitzman, G. ve Sandler, W. (2016). Taking meaning in hand: Iconic motivations for twohanded signs. Sign Language & Linguistics, 19(1).
• Makaroğlu, (2020). İşaret dillerinin sesbilimsel görünümü. Uzun, İ.P. (ed.) Kuramsal ve Uygulamalı Sesbilim içinde (ss. 351-382). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Makaroğlu, B. ve Ergenç, İ. (2016). Inflectional morphological awareness of Turkish deaf students. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 30-46.
• Marshall, J., Atkinson, J., Smulovitch, E., Thacker, A. ve Woll, B. (2004). Aphasia in a user of British Sign Language: Dissociation between sign and gesture. Cognitive neuropsychology, 21(5), 537-554.
• Mathur, G. ve Rathmann, C. (2006). Variability in verbal agreement forms across four signed languages. Laboratory phonology, 8, 185-212.
• Meier, R. P. (2002). Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 1-25.
• Meteyard, L., Rodriguez Cuadrado, S., Bahrami, B. ve Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48, 788–804.
• Monaghan, P., Mattock, K. ve Walker, P. (2012). The role of sound symbolism in language learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1152.
• Nygaard, L. C., Cook, A. E. ve Namy, L. L. (2009). Sound to meaning correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition, 112, 181–186.
• Ormel, E., Hermans, D., Knoors, H. ve Verhoeven, L. (2012). Cross-language effects in written word recognition: The case of bilingual deaf children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(2), 280-303.
• Pallier, C. (2007). Critical periods in language acquisition and language attrition. Theoretical Perspectives. John Benjamins: Amsterdam.
• Parault, S. J. ve Parkinson, M. (2008). Sound symbolic word learning in the middle grades. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 647–671.
• Perea, M. ve Rosa, E. (2002). The effects of associative and semantic priming in the lexical decision task. Psychological Research, 66(3), 180-194.
• Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L. ve Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 227.
• Poizner, H., Bellugi, U. ve Tweney, R. D. (1981). Processing of formational, semantic, and iconic information in American Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7(5), 1146. Taub, S. F. (2001). Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P. ve Vigliocco, G. (2009). The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 550-557.
• Thompson, R. L., Vinson, d. P. ve Vigliocco, G. (2010). The link between form and meaning in British Sign Language: Effects of iconicity for phonological decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1017–1027.
• Thompson-Schill, S. L., Kurtz, K. J. ve Gabrieli, J. D. (1998). Effects of semantic and associative relatedness on automatic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 440-458.
• Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Woolfe, T., Dye, M. W. ve Woll, B. (2005). Words, signs and imagery: When the language makes the difference. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 1859–1863.
• Vinson, D., Thompson, R. L., Skinner, R. ve Vigliocco, G. (2015). A faster path between meaning and form? Iconicity facilitates sign recognition and production in British Sign Language. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 56-85.
• Wilbur, R. B. (2008). Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar?.J. Quer (ed.) Signs of the Time. Selected papers from TISLR 8 içinde (ss. 217-250). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
• Wilcox, P.P. (1998). GIVE: Acts of Giving in American Sign Language. J. Newman (ed.), The Linguistics of Giving içinde (ss.175-207). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Zeshan, U. (2003). Aspects of Türk İşaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). Sign Language & Linguistics, 6(1), 43-75.