Edilgen Yapıların Edinimi: Anlambilimsel Ve Edimbilimsel Yaklaşım

Year 2019, October 2019 Special Issue, 53 - 63, 30.10.2019

Sercan Karakaş

https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.610878

Abstract

Bu makale, edilgen yapıların edinilmesi açısından
alanyazının genel bir incelemesini sunmanın yanı sıra, edilgen yapıların temel
zorluk nedenleri olduğu düşünülen anlambilimi ve edimbilimi göz önünde
bulundurularak yeni bir teorik yaklaşım sunmaktadır. Alanyazında edilgen
yapıların zor olup olmadığı ve eğer zor ise, bu zorluğun altında yatan
nedenlerin ne olabileceği konusunda bir anlaşmazlık vardır. Alanyazında sunulan
argümanlara dayanarak, sözdizimsel hipotez (Wexler 2004) ve artımlı işleme
hipotezi (Trueswell ve Gleitman 2004) öne çıkmaktadır. Wexler'ın sözdizimsel
hipotezi, çocukların tüm küçük eylem öbeklerini ve tümleyici öbeklerini güçlü
fazlar olarak görmelerini savunur ve bunun sonucunda çocuklar edilgen yapıları
dilbilgisi dışı olarak gördüklerini iddia eder ki bu da Wexler’a göre zorluğun
kaynağıdır. Bununla birlikte, her iki durumda da (sözdizimsel hipotez veya
artımlı işleme), bu yapıların frekansı büyük rol oynamaktadır. Bu çalışmada son
olarak ise edilgen yapıların neden bazı dillerde edinilmesinin zor olduğunu
açıklamak için anlambilimsel ve edimbilimsel bakış açıları temel alınarak
kuramsal bir analiz sunulmaktadır çünkü alanyazındaki edilgen yapılar ile
ilgili çalışmalar anlam bileşenini ihmal etmektedir. Bu çalışmada, edilgen
yapıların edinilmesine yeni teorik bir bakış açısı sağlamak için içlemsel
anlambilim modeli (Von Fintel ve Heim 2011) kullanılmıştır.

Keywords

Edilgen Yapılar, Kısa Edilgen Yapılar, Artımlı İşleme Hipotezi, Sözdizimsel Hipotez

Acquisition of Passives: A Semantico-Pragmatic Approach

Abstract

This paper presents a general review of literature in
terms of acquisition of passives as well as providing new theoretical insights
considering the semantics and pragmatics of passives, which are thought to be
the underlying reasons of difficulty. There is a disagreement in the literature
as to whether passive structures are difficult and if so, what may be the
underlying causes of this difficulty. Based on the arguments presented in the
literature, the syntactic hypothesis (Wexler 2004) and the incremental
processing hypothesis (Trueswell and Gleitman 2004) stand out. Wexler’s
syntactic hypothesis is that children regard all vP’s and CP’s as strong
phases, which makes non-grammatical passives for them, which is the source of
the difficulty. In the meantime, in both cases (syntax or incremental
processing), frequency plays a major role in boosting the acquisition process
by either making children be faster at reassigning thematic roles, which is the
source of difficulty according to incremental processing hypothesis, or making
children be aware of the fact that vPs are not strong phases, thereby making
passives grammatical, so that children can use them. Finally, in this study, a
theoretical analysis based on semantic and pragmatical perspectives is
presented to explain why passive structures are difficult to acquire in some
languages because the studies on passive structures in the literature neglect
the meaning component. In this study, the introspective semantics model (Von
Fintel and Heim 2011) was used to provide a new theoretical perspective on the
acquisition of passive structures.

 

Keywords

Syntactic Accounts for Passives, Incremental Processing Hypothesis, Passives, Truncated Passives

References

• Alcock, K. J., Rimba, K., & Newton, C. R. (2012). Early production of the passive in two Eastern Bantu languages. First Language, 32(4), 459-478.Allen, S., Crago M. (1996). Early passive acquisition in Inuktitut. Journal of Child Language 23(1). 129–155.Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing, 3, 73-112.Bates, E., MacWhinney, B., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, 157-193.Bencini, G. M. L., Valian V. (2008). Abstract sentence representation in 3-year-olds: Evidence from comprehension and production. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 97– 133.Borer, H., Wexler K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In Thomas Roeper & Edwin Williams (eds.), Parameter Setting and Language Acquisition, 123–172. Dordrecht: Reidel.Borer, H., Wexler K. (1992). Bi-unique relations and the maturation of grammatical principles. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10. 147–189.Bresnan, J., Mchombo, S. (1987). Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63. 741–782.Brooks, Patricia & Michael Tomasello. 1999.Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology 35(1). 29–44.Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A life in language. 1- 52. Cambridge: MIT Press.Demuth, K. (1989). Maturation and the acquisition of the Sesotho passive. Language 65(1). 56–80.Embick, D. (2004). On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English, Linguistic Inquiry 35(3).Fox, D., Grodzinsky, Y. (1998). Children’s passives: A view from the by-phrase. Linguistic Inquiry 29(2). 311–332.Gordon, P., Chafetz, J. (1990). Verb-based versus class-based accounts of actionality effects in children’s comprehension of passives. Cognition, 36(3), 227–254.Hirsch, C., Wexler, K. (2006). Children’s passives and their resulting interpretation. In The proceedings of the inaugural conference on generative approaches to language acquisition–North America, University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 4, pp. 125-136).Huang, Y. T., Zheng, X., Meng, X., Snedeker, J. (2013). Children’s assignment of grammatical roles in the online processing of Mandarin passive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 589-606.Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E., Levine, S. (2002). Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology, 45(3), 337.Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva M., Shimpi P. (2004). Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of Memory and Language 50. 182–195.Kline, M., Demuth, K. (2010). Factors facilitating implicit learning: The case of the Sesotho passive. Language acquisition, 17(4), 220-234.Messenger, K., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., Sorace, A. (2012). Is young children’s passive syntax semantically constrained? Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 568-587.Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of children’s linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science, 6(5), 557.Stromswold, K. (1996). Does the VP-internal subject stage really exist? Paper presented at the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Trueswell, J., Gleitman, L. (2004). Children’s eye movements during listening: Developmental evidence for a constraint-based theory of sentence processing. The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world, 319-346.Wexler, K. (2004). Theory of Phasal Development: Perfection in Child Grammar. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 48, 159-209.