TÜMCE İŞLEMLEME SÜREÇLERİ

Yıl 2020, , 46 - 69, 07.07.2020

Duygu Özge

https://doi.org/10.33690/dilder.693690

Öz

Bu çalışma, sözlü tümce anlama süreç ve mekanizmasını oluşturan bileşenleri ve bu bileşenlerin birbirleri ile etkileşimlerini ortaya koyan belli başlı kuramları derlemeyi hedeflemektedir. Bu derleme, özellikle yapısal çözümleme süreçlerine dair varolan kuramların tartışmalarının yanı sıra, bu kuramların üzerinde anlaştığı belli başlı bulguları özetleyerek, insan dil işleme mekanizmasının doğasına dair güncel bilgi sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İlk bölüm tümce anlama mekanizmasının doğasını, ikinci bölüm ise dil anlama süreçlerine dair kuramsal sorular ve bu sorular için alanyazındaki çözümleri ele almaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Language parsing, Human language processing, Parsing mechanisms, Spoken language interpretation, Dil çözümleme, dil işleme süreçleri, Çözümleme mekanizmaları, Sözlü dil anlama

Kaynakça

• Altmann, G. T. ve Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264.
• Altmann, G. ve Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30(3), 191–238.
• Altmann, G. T. M., Garnham, A., van Nice, K. ve Henstra, J. A. (1998). Late closure in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 459 – 484.
• Bates, E. ve MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), Erlbaum, 157-193.
• Beach, C.M. (1991). The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 644-663
• Berwick R.C. ve Weinberg A.S. (1984). The computational basis of linguistic performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.

• Binder K.S. ve Morris, R.K. (1995). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Effects of prior encounter and discourse topic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1186-1196.
• Boston, M., Hale, J., Kliegl, R., Patil, U. ve Vasishth, S. (2008). Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam Sentence Corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(1), 1–12.
• Bresnan, J. ve Kaplan, R. M. (1984). Introduction: Grammars as mental representations of language. In W. Kintsch, J. R. Miller, & P. P. G. (Eds.), Methods and Tactics in Cognitive Science (pp. 103–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Buttery, P. (2003). Computational models for first language acquisition. CLUK-6, Edinburgh.
• Carlson, G. N. ve Tanenhaus, M. K. (1988). Thematic roles and language comprehension. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 21. Thematic Relations (Vol. 21, pp. 263–288). San Diago, CA: Academic Press.
• Crain, S. ve Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: the use of context by the psychological parser. In L. Kartunnen, D. Dowty, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 320–358). Camridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Cuetos, F. ve Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73–105.

• Demberg, V. ve Keller, F. (2008). Data from eyetracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109(2), 193–210.
• De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian: the minimal chain principle. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
• Elman, J. L., Hare, M. ve McRae, K. (2005). Cues, constraints, and competition in sentence processing. In Michael Tomasello ve Dan Slobin (Eds.), Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates (pp. 111–138). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Frazier, L. (1979). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Dissertation Collection for University of Connecticut.

• Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 601–681). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Frazier, L. (1995). Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 437–468.
• Frazier, L. (2013). Syntax in sentence processing. Sentence processing. Psychology Press, 33-62.
• Frazier, L. ve Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage model of the parser. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
• Frazier, L. ve Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210.

• Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E. ve Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58 –93. Gibson E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.
• Gibson E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In: Miyashita Y, Marantx P, O’Neil W, eds. Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 95–112.
• Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language Technologies (pp. 1–8). Association for Computational Linguistics.
• Hale, J. (2006). Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science, 30(4), 643–672.
• Kimball, J., 1973. Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition 2, 15–47.
• Lewis, R. L. (2000). Specifying architectures for language processing: Process, control, and memory in parsing and interpretation. In M. W. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton Jr. (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 56–89). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126-1177.
• MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J. ve Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Syntactic ambiguity resolution as lexical ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing (pp. 123–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J. ve Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in online sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 38, 283-312.
• O’Grady, W. D. (1997). Syntactic Development. USA: University of Chicago Press. O’Grady, W. D., 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.
• Özge D., Marinis, T. ve Zeyrek D. (2013). Online processing of word order variation in Turkish. In Özge, U. (ed.). Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge: MIT Press, 269-280.
• Özge, D., Marinis, T. ve Zeyrek, D. (2015). Incremental processing in head-final child language: on-line comprehension of relative clauses in Turkish-speaking children and adults. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience (formerly titled Language and Cognitive Processes), 30, 1230-1243.
• Pickering, M. J., ve Van Gompel, R. P. (2006). "Syntactic parsing. " Handbook of psycholinguistics. Ed. Traxler, M. ve Gernsbacher. London: Academic Press, 455-503.
• Perea, M. ve Pollatsek, A. (1998). The effects of neighborhood frequency in reading and lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 767-779.
• Rayner, K., Pacht, J. M. ve Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 527-544.
• Roland D, Dick F, Elman JL. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 348–379.
• Roland, D. ve Jurafsky, D. (2002). Verb sense and subcategorization probabilities. In P. Merlo & S. Stevenson (Eds.), The Lexical Basis of Sentence Processing: Formal, Computational and Experimental Issues (pp. 303–324). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Sereno, S. C., Pacht, J. M. ve Rayner, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological Science, 3, 296-300.
• Speer, S. R., Kjelgaard, M. M. ve Dobroth, K. M. (1996). The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 247–268.
• Spivey, M.J. ve Tanenhaus, M.K. (1998) Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse:modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 1521–1543.
• Spivey-Knowlton, M. ve Sedivy, J. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55(3), 227–267.

• Steedman, M. (2000). The Syntactic Process. USA: MIT Press.

• Tanenhaus, M., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Eberhard, K. ve Sedivy, J. (1995). The interaction of visual and verbal information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–34.
• Trueswell, J. C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of memory and language 35(4), 566-585.
• Trueswell, J. C. ve Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Clifton, Jr., C., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (Eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing, pp. 155–179. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
• Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus ve M. K., Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol 19, 528-553.
• Yun, J., Whitman, J. ve Hale, J. (2010). Subject-object asymmetries in Korean sentence comprehension. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 215272157).
• Xiang, M., Harizanov, B., Polinsky, M. ve Kravtchenko, E. (2011). Processing morphological ambiguity: An experimental investigation of Russian numerical phrases. Lingua 121, 548–560.
• Zagar, D., Pynte, J. ve Rativeau, S. (1997). Evidence for early closure attachment on first-pass reading times in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 421-438.