Acquisition of Object Relative Clauses by Turkish Adult Learners of English

Abstract

The acquisition of complex sentences plays an important role in first and second language studies because evidence of complex sentences in the field of theoretical and applied language is still evolving. 40 sophomore and junior students majoring in Translation and Interpreting were involved in the study. Participants first took a standard test, the Michigan test. The aim of this test was to provide homogeneity in the study. The participants then received 5 different data collection tools. First of all, grammaticality judgment test was given to the participants to check to what extent they provided the accuracy of the sentences. Then the participants were asked to make sentences about object relative clauses In the third stage, the participants were asked to produce at least 20 different pictures and sentences. In the fourth stage, they were told to repeat the object relative clause constructions. In the final stage, the participants were given Turkish sentences and be translated into English. At the end of the study, important data about the acquisition of adjective clauses in object position were reached. The results of the study show that most of the participants tended to avoid using ablative prepositions possible due to the effect of first language that uses only one suffix, while they performed far better in accusative case.

Keywords

• complex sentences,adjective clauses,language acquisition,applied linguistics

İngilizceyi Öğrenen Yetişkin Türk Öğrencilerinin Nesne Konumundaki Sıfat Cümleciklerini Edinimi

Abstract

Karmaşık cümlelerin edinimi, birinci ve ikinci dil çalışmalarında önemli bir rol oynamaktadır, çünkü teorik ve uygulamalı dil alanındaki karmaşık cümlelerin kanıtları hala gelişmektedir. Çalışmaya 40 ikinci sınıf öğrencisi ve Çevirmenlik ve Çevirmenlik bölümünden mezun olan genç öğrenciler katılmıştır. Katılımcılar ilk önce standart bir test olan Michigan testini aldı. Bu testin amacı, çalışmada homojenliği sağlamaktı. Katılımcılar daha sonra 5 farklı veri toplama aracı aldı. Her şeyden önce, katılımcılara cümlelerin doğruluğunu ne ölçüde sağladıklarını kontrol etmek için gramerlik değerlendirme testi uygulandı. Daha sonra katılımcılardan nesne ile ilgili cümlecikler hakkında cümleler kurmaları istenmiştir. Üçüncü aşamada katılımcılardan en az 20 farklı resim ve cümle üretmeleri istenmiştir. Dördüncü aşamada, nesneye göre yan tümce yapılarını tekrarlamaları söylendi. Son aşamada katılımcılara Türkçe cümleler verildi ve İngilizce'ye çevrildi. Çalışmanın sonunda, nesne sıfat sıfat cümleciklerinin alınmasıyla ilgili önemli verilere ulaşıldı. Çalışmanın sonuçları, katılımcıların çoğunun, sadece bir sonek kullanan ilk dilin etkisinden dolayı mümkün olan ablatif edatları kullanmaktan kaçınma eğiliminde olduklarını göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Karmaşık Tümceler,Sıfat Cümlecikleri,Dil Edinimi,Uygulamalı Dilbilim

References

1. Alotaibi, A. M. (2016). Examining the Learnability of English Relative Clauses: Evidence from Kuwaiti EFL Learners. English Language Teaching, 9(2), 57-65.
2. Andrews, A. D. (2007). Relative clauses. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 206–236). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Baldauf Jr, R. B. (1978). The Validity of the Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency as a General Measure of High School English Achievement in American Samoa. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38(2), 429-432.
4. Baldauf JR, R. B., and Dawson, R. L. (1980). The predictive validity of the Michigan test of English language proficiency for teacher trainees in Papua New Guinea. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(4), 1201-1205.
5. Bardovi- Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and salience in second language acquisition. Language and Learning, 37(3), 385-407.
6. Barton, K. C. (2015). Elicitation techniques: Getting people to talk about ideas they don’t usually talk about. Theory and Research in Social Education, 43(2), 179-205.
7. Bergen, B., and Chang, N. (2005). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, 3, 147-190.
8. Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes, (ed.). Cognition and the Development of Language, pp. 279-362. New York: Wiley.

9. Bod, R. (2006). Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples. The Linguistic Review, 23(3), 291-320.
10. Boran, B. (2018). The role of context on processing of Turkish subject and object relative clauses. Unpublished master thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
11. Brink, H. I. (1993). Validity and reliability in qualitative research. Curationis, 16(2), 35-38.
12. Chaudron, C. (2003). Data collection in SLA research. In C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 762-828). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
13. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
14. Comrie, B. (1981). The formation of relative clauses. In B. Lloyd and J. Gay (eds.), Universals of Human Thought: Some African Evidence, 215–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
16. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Psychometrika, 16 (3). 297-334.
17. De Vries, M. (2002). The syntax of relativization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Utrecht, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
18. Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Diessel, H. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25(2), 108-127.
20. Diessel, H. and Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81(4), 882-906.
21. Downing, B. (1978). Some Universals of Relative Clause Structure. In J. Greenberg (ed) Universals of Human Language. (pp. 375-418). Volume 4. Syntax. Stanford, California: University Press.
22. Duarte, I., Santos, A. L. and Alexandre, N. (2015). How relative are purpose relative clauses?. Probus, 27(2), 237-269.
23. Frank, S. L. and Ernst, P. (2018). Judgements about double-embedded relative clauses differ between languages. Psychological Research, 83(7), 1-13.
24. Frenck-Mestre, C. and Pynte, J. (2000). Resolving syntactic ambiguities: Cross-linguistic differences. In M. De Vincenzi and V. Lombardo (eds.). Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Language Processing, (pp. 119–148). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
25. Gennari, S. P. and MacDonald, M. C. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 161-187.
26. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 69, 1-76.
27. Guasti, M., Vernice, M. and Franck, J. (2018). Continuity in the adult and children’s comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in French and Italian. Languages, 3(3), 24.
28. Haig, G. (1997). Turkish relative clauses: A tale of two participles. Turkic Languages, 1(2), 184- 209.
29. Hamilton, R. (1994). Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning, 44, 123-157.
30. Hamilton, R. L. (1995). The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy in SLA: Determining the basis for its developmental effects. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham and R. Weber (eds.), Second language acquisition theory and practice, pp. 101–114. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Housen, A. and Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 163-175.
32. Hawkins, J. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75, 244-285.
33. Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
34. Jach, D. (2018). A Usage‐Based approach to preposition placement in English as a second language. Language Learning, 68(1), 271-304.
35. Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Keenan, E. and Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-100.
37. Klein, W., and Perdue, C. (1997). The Basic variety (or: Couldn't natural languages be much simpler?). Second language research, 13(4), 301-347.
38. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge.
39. Kornfilt, J. (2000a). Locating relative agreement in Turkish and Turkic. In C. Kerslake, and A. Göksel (Eds.). Studies in Turkish and Turkic languages, (pp.189-196). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
40. Kornfilt, J. (2000). Some syntactic and morphological properties of relative clauses in Turkish. The Syntax of Relative Clauses. In A. Alexiadou, P. Law, A. Meinunger and C. Wilder (eds.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 121-159.
41. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18(2). 141–165.
42. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Lynne C. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. Lee, T. (2016). Dominant language transfer in the comprehension of L 2 learners and heritage speakers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 190-210.
44. Lehmann, C. (1986). On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics, 24(4). 663–680.
45. MacDonald, M. C. and Christiansen, M. (2002). Reassessing working memory: comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1999). Psychological Review, 109, 35-54.
46. Mackey, A., and Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design. London : Routledge.
47. Mellow, J. D. (2006). The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 645-670.
48. Nevo, B. (1985). Face validity revisited. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 287-293.
49. Nunan, D. (1996). Issues in second language acquisition research: examining substance and procedure. In W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Ritchie and Bhatia, 349–74.
50. O’Grady, W. (2011). Relative clauses: Processing and acquisition. In E. Kidd (Ed.), The Acquisition of Relative Clauses: Processing, Typology, and Function (pp. 13–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51. O’Grady, W., Lee, M., Choo, M. (2003). A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 433-448.
52. Oluwatayo, J. A. (2012). Validity and reliability issues in educational research. Journal of educational and social research, 2(2), 391-400.
53. Ordem, E. (2017). Acquisition of Zero Relative Clauses in English by Adult Turkish Learners of English. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(1), 190-195.
54. Ordem, E., Özezen, M. Y., Darancık, Y., Mavaşoğlu, K and Hadutuğlu, K. (2018). Syntactic variation of zero object (non-subject) relative clauses: A cross-linguistic perspective. International Journal of Language Academy, 6(5), 391-401.
55. Özçelik, Ö. (2006). Processing relative clauses in Turkish as a second language (Doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, PA, The United States of America.
56. Özge, D., Marinis, T. and Zeyrek, D. (2015). Incremental processing in head-final child language: online comprehension of relative clauses in Turkish-speaking children and adults. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1230-1243.
57. Roberts, P., and Priest, H. (2006). Reliability and validity in research. Nursing standard, 20(44), 41-46.
58. Paluluoğlu, N. Ş. (2017). Syntactic processing differences and the effects of memory-load interference for object relative and subject relative clauses in Turkish. Unpublished master thesis, University of Yeditepe, İstanbul.
59. Perpiñán, S. (2015). L2 grammar and L2 processing in the acquisition of Spanish prepositional relative clauses. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(4), 577-596.
60. Rahmany, R. and Haghpour, M. I. N. A. (2015). The effect of relative clause types on processing difficulty. Research Journal of English Language and Literature, 3(2), 38-50.
61. Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Reprinted as Infinite Syntax! (1986). Norwood, New Jersey: ABLEX Publishing Corporation.
62. Sánchez-Walker, N., and Montrul, S. (2016). Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses by second language learners of Spanish. Language Acquisition Beyond Parameters: Studies in honour of Juana M. Liceras, 51, 149-185.
63. Seliger, H. W. and Shohamy, E. (1989). Second Language Research Methods. London: Oxford University Press.
64. Sharp, V. (1979). Statistics for the Social Sciences. Boston: Little, Brown.
65. Skehan P. and Foster P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1,3.
66. Smith, C. (1964). Determiners and Relative Clauses in a Generative Grammar of English. Language 40 (1), 37-52.
67. Tabor, W., Juliano, C., and Tanenhaus, M. K. (1997). Parsing in a dynamical system: an attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2), 211-272.
68. Tarollo, F. and Myhill, J. (1983). Interference and natural language processing in relative clauses and wh-questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 39-70.
69. Thornton, H. (2016). An introduction to transformational syntax. London: Routledge
70. Turan, C. (2012). Degree of access to universal grammar / transfer from L1 in the learning of relative clauses by Turkish learners of English. Unpublished master thesis, University of Hacettepe, Ankara.
71. Turan, C. (2018). An eye-tracking investigation of attachment preferences to relative clauses in Turkish. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Hacettepe, Ankara.
72. Ulasan, A. R. (2018). University Students' Avoidance Behavior in English Classes. Online Submission, 6(2), 37-44.
73. Wiechmann, D. (2015). Understanding relative clauses: A usage-based view on the processing of complex constructions (Vol. 268). Walter de Gruyter GmbH and Co KG.: Berlin.
74. Wilson, W. (1963). Relative Constructions in Dagbani. Journal of African Languages 2 (2), 139-144.
75. Wu, F., Kaiser, E., and Vasishth, S. (2018). Effects of Early Cues on the Processing of Chinese Relative Clauses: Evidence for Experience‐Based Theories. Cognitive science, 42, 1101-1133
76. Yas, E. (2016). Acquisition of English Relative Clauses by German L1 and Turkish L1 Speakers (Doctoral dissertation). Südwestdeutsche Verlag für Hochschulschriften, Germany.
77. Yip, V., and Matthews, S. (1991). Relative Complexity: Beyond Avoidance. CUHK Papers in Linguistics, 3, 112-124.
78. Young, S. K. (2018). Relation between Frequency and Processing Difficulty of English Relative Clauses by L2 Learners: A Learner Corpus Analysis. 언어연구, 34(3), 491-504.
79. Yun, J., Chen, Z., Hunter, T., Whitman, J., and Hale, J. (2015). Uncertainty in processing relative clauses across East Asian languages. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 24(2), 113-148.