Çocuklarda imgesel anlama ve bağlam ipuçları: Türkçede bir çözümleme

Öz

Bu çalışma, yetişkin dil girdisinin çocuklarla olan iletişim sürecinde önemli ve belirleyici olduğu ve bu sürecin fiziksel ve dilsel bağlam ipuçlarınca biçimlendirildiği savlarından yola çıkar. Çalışmada bu amaçla öncelikle çocuk dili, imgesel dil işlemleme ve bağlamın imgesel dil işlemlemedeki etkisine ilişkin alanyazın gözden geçirilerek çalışmanın veri toplama süreci tanıtılmıştır. Ardından, bir televizyon programından derlenen ve doğal dil verisi içeren konuşma örnekleri çeviriyazılarak oluşturulan veritabanı, i. Çocuklara yöneltilen tetikleyici sorular nasıldır? ii. Çocuklara yöneltilen asıl sorular nasıldır? iii. Çocukların imgesel anlamı anlama süreçlerinde ipuçlarının rolü nedir? soruları çerçevesinde dilsel olarak çözümlenmiştir. Bu amaçla, öncelikle verinin sayısal görünümleri, belirlenen ulamlar çerçevesinde ortaya koyulmuş, ardından çocuk ve yetişkinler arası başarılı ve başarısız iletişim durumları içeren tüm veri, bağlamsal ipucu bakış açısından incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın temel öngörüsü, çocuklara yöneltilen soruların imgesel ifadeler içerdiği veride, dilsel ipucunun varlığının imgesel anlamı anlamayı kolaylaştırdığı (dolayısıyla doğru yanıt verme olasılığını artırdığı) iken, çalışmanın sonuçları ipucu varlığının böyle bir etkisi olmadığını, belirleyici olanın, ipucunun niteliği olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İmgesel anlam
• imgesel anlam anlama
• çocuklarda imgesel anlam anlama
• çocuk dili
• bağlam ipuçları

Contextual cues and children’s non-literal comprehension: An analysis on Turkish

Abstract

This study moves from the arguments on one side that language input (specifically the adult language) has a significant part and a shaping function in the communication process with children, on the other side that this process is exclusively shaped by co-textual and contextual cues. With this aim in mind, in this study, first, the related literature on child language, non-literal comprehension, and the effect of context on non-literal comprehension were overviewed then the data collection process of the study was introduced. And then, the database that includes the transcription of the pieces of a natural conversation with children in a TV show was analyzed around three questions in terms of: i. What is the nature of the trigger questions directed to children? ii. What is the nature of the main questions directed to children? and iii. What is the role of the clues in the non-literal comprehension process of children? To achieve this end, firstly, the quantitative aspects of the database were revealed, and non-literal expressions were analyzed as cues for children to answer the related questions within specified classifications. Secondly, the overall data including the cases of successful or unsuccessful communication instances between adults and the children were interpreted within the contextual cue perspective. While the main hypothesis is that in the database of pieces of conversation that include non-literal questions directed to children, clue existence enhances the comprehension of the non-literal meaning (hence the correct answers given), the results of the study have shown that it’s not the case and it is the nature of the clue not the existence that is determining.

Keywords

• Non-literal meaning
• non-literal comprehension
• children’s non-literal comprehension
• child language
• contextual cues

References

1. Abel, D. A., Schneider J., & Maguire, Mandy J. (2018). N400 Response Indexes Word Learning from Linguistic Context in Children. Language Learning and Development 14/1, 61-71.
2. Abkarian, G., Jones, A. and West, G. (1992). Young children’s idiom comprehension: Trying to get the picture. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 35, 580–587.
3. Ackerman, B. P. (1982). On comprehending idioms: Do children get the picture? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 33, 439-454.
4. Aksu Koç, A and Slobin, D. (1986) The acquisition of Turkish. In Slobin, D. (Ed.) (1986). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (839-878). New Jersey: Lawrance Erlbaum.
5. Allen, S. (2009). Verb argument structure. In Bavin, E. (2009). The Cambridge handbook of child language. (217-234). Cambridge: CUP.
6. Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: The Acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
7. Beck, S. D., & Weber, A. (2016). L2 Idiom Processing: Figurative Attunement in Highly Idiomatic Contexts. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman, & J. C. Trueswell (Eds.). Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Recognizing and Representing Events, CogSci 2016 (1817-1822). Philadelphia.
8. Behrens, H. E. (2006). The input-output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes 21, 2-24.

9. Bernicot, J. et al. (2007). Non-literal forms in children: In what order are they acquired in pragmatics and metapragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 2115-2132.
10. Blasko, D. and D. Briihl. (1997). Reading and recall of metaphorical sentences: Effects of familiarity and context. Metaphor and Symbol 12/4, 261-285.
11. Blum-Kulka, S., and C. E. Snow (Eds.). (2002). Talking to adults: The contribution of multiparty discourse to language acquisition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Boswell, D. A. (1986). Speakers’ Intentions: Constraints on Metaphor Comprehension. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1/3, 153-170.
13. Bryant, J. B. (2009). Pragmatic development. In Bavin, E. (2009). The Cambridge handbook of child language. (339-354). Cambridge: CUP.
14. Cacciari, C., Corrardini, P., & Ferlazzo, F. (2018). Cognitive and personality components underlying spoken idiom comprehension in context. An exploratory study. Frontiers in Psychology 9, Article 659.
15. Camp, E. (2005). Metaphor in context. NOUS 39/4, 715-731.
16. Cieślicka, A. B., & Heredia, R. R. (2011). Hemispheric asymmetries in processing L1 and L2 idioms: Effects of salience and context. Brain and Language 116/3, 136–150.
17. Condit, C. M. et al. (2002). Recipes or blueprints for our genes? How contexts selectively activate the multiple meanings of metaphors. Quarterly Journal of Speech 88/3, 303-325.
18. Cureton, R. (1990). Of context and metaphor. American Speech 65/3, 258-260.
19. Diaz, M. et al. (2011). The influence of context on hemispheric recruitment during metaphor processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23/11, 3586-3597.
20. Dikken, M. (2000). The Syntax of Features. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29/1, 5-23.
21. Elman, J., E. A. Bates and M. H. Johnson. Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge: MIT.
22. Fernandez, P. R. et al. (2016). Are single and extended metaphors processed differently? A test of two relevance-theoretic accounts. Journal of Pragmatics 94, 15-28.
23. Forceville, C. (2017). Asymmetry in metaphor: The importance of extended context. Poetics Today 16/4, 677-708.
24. Gibbs, R. and R. Gerrig. (1989). How context makes metaphor comprehension seem special. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 4/3, 145-158.
25. Gibbs, R. W. (1987). Linguistic factors in children’s understanding of idioms. Journal of Child Language 14, 569–586.
26. Gibbs, R.W. (1991). Semantic analyzability in children’s understanding of idioms. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 34, 613–620.
27. Gleason, J. B. (1975). The acquisition of routines in child language. Language Society 5, 129-136.
28. Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition 1/1, 3-55.
29. Harris, R. J. et al. (2006). Attribution of discourse goals for using concrete and abstract tenor metaphors and similes with or without discourse context. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 863-879.
30. Haznedar, B. and E. Gavruseva (2008). Current trends in child second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
31. Holsinger, E., & Kaiser, E. (2014). Effects of context on processing (non)-compositional expressions. LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts; LSA Meeting Extended Abstracts 2010. Retrieved from: 1. 10.3765/exabs.v0i0.492.
32. İbe Akcan, P. & Akkök, E. (2016). Non-literal Meaning Comprehension: A Small-Scale Analysis on Turkish Speakers. International Journal of Language & Linguistics 3/4, 65-78.
33. Inhoff, A. W., Lima, S. D., & Carroll, P. J. (1984). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory & Cognition, 12(6), 558-567.
34. Kövecses, Z. (2009). The Effect of Context on the Use of Metaphor in Discourse. Iberica 17, 11-24.
35. Küntay, A. and D. Slobin. (1999). The acquisition of Turkish as a native language. Johanson, L. et al. (1999). Turkic languages. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
36. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
38. Lemaire, B. and Bianco, M. (2003). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension: Experiment and simulation. Retrieved from: http://cogprints.org/3205/1/iccm03_lemaire.pdf
39. Lieven, E. (2010). Input and first language acquisition: Evaluating the role of frequency. Lingua 120, 2546-2556.
40. MacWhinney, B. (Ed.). (1999). The emergence of language. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41. Malone, M. and Guy, R. (1982) A comparison of mothers’ and fathers’ speech to their three year old son. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11/6, 599-608.
42. McCabe, A. (1998). Effect of different contexts on memory of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 3/2, 105-132.
43. McConnell-Ginet, S. (2017). Language in context. In R. T. Lakoff, & L. Sutton (Eds.), Context counts: Papers on language, gender, and power (pp. 7-32). New York: Oxford University.
44. Nanji, A. (1990). Between metaphor and context. Arabica 37/2, 234-239. Neagu, M. I. (2010) Interpreting conceptual metaphors: Between context and co-text. Bulentinul LXII, 45-50.
45. Newbury, J. and M. Hoskins. (2010). Making meaning in context: The puzzling relationship between image and metaphor. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 23, 167-194.
46. Nicaise, L. (2010). Metaphor and context of use: A multidimensional approach. Metaphor and Symbol 25, 63-73.
47. Panou, D. (2013). Children’s idiom comprehension. TESOL Newsletter 109, 36-38.
48. Paradis, C., J. Hudson et al. and U. Magnusson (Eds.). (2013). The Construal of Spatial Meaning: Windows into Conceptual Space. Oxford: OUP.
49. Petterson, K. J. (2017). When is a metaphor not a metaphor: An investigation into lexical characteristics of metaphoricity among uncertain cases. Metaphor and Symbol 32/2, 103-117.
50. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
51. Poznan, K. (2007). Metaphor comprehension by preschool children. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Adam Mickiewicza University.
52. Prat, C. et al. (2012). An fMRI investigation of analogical mapping in metaphor comprehension: The influence of context and individual cognitive capacities on processing demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology 38/2, 282-294.
53. Ritchie, D. (2004). Metaphors in conversational context: Toward a connectivity theory of metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol 19/4, 265-287.
54. Ritchie, D. (2006). Context and connection in metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
55. Rommers, J., Dijkstra, T., & Bastiaansen, M. (2013). Context-dependent semantic processing in the human brain: Evidence from idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 25/5, 762–776.
56. Samur, D. et al. (2015). Emotional context modulates embodied metaphor comprehension. Neuropsychologica 78, 108-114.
57. Semino, E. et al. (2013). Metaphor, genre, recontextualization. Metaphor and Symbol 28, 41-59.
58. Shinjo, M. (1986). The effect of the context in metaphor comprehension. MA Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
59. Slack, M. J. (1980). Metaphor comprehension: A special mode of language processing? Paper presented at the Annual Metting of the Association of Computational Linguistics.
60. Slobin, D. (1987). Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 435-445.
61. Steen, G. (2004). Can discourse properties of metaphor affect metaphor recognition? Journal of Pragmatics 36, 1295-1313.
62. Tang, X. et al. (2017). Comprehension of scientific metaphors: Complementary processes revealed by ERP. Journal of Neurolinguistics 42, 12-22.
63. Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1-2), 61–82.
64. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
65. Van Dijk, T. (1989). Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.
66. Vosniadou, S. (1989). Context and development of metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 4/3, 159-171.
67. Wang, F. (2013). Cognitive mechanism for metaphor translation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 3/12, 2327-2332.
68. Yu, X. (2011). A psycholinguistic study of metaphor processing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 1/11, 1614-1617.
69. Zhou, D. (2009). Dynamics in metaphor comprehension. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Essen University.
70. Zhou, D., & Heineken, E. (2009). The use of metaphors in academic communication: Traps or treasures. Ibérica 18, 23-42.