Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

TURKISH-SPEAKING CHILDREN’S COMPREHENSION OF ENGLISH RELATIVE CLAUSES: SUBJECT / OBJECT ASSYMETRY

Yıl 2011, Sayı: 151, 53 - 71, 01.03.2011
https://doi.org/10.1501/Dilder_0000000143

Öz

Relative clauses in Turkish and in English differ syntactically. While in English, ahead-initial language, the relative clause together with a relative pronoun modifiesthe immediately preceding noun phrase, in Turkish, a head-final language, there isno relative pronoun and the relative clauses precede the head noun. The findingsobtained from the studies generally focusing on the acquisition of English relativeclauses have shown that there is a hierarchy from most accessible for relativizationto least accessible, which is named as the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy(NPAH) hypothesis. One of the purposes of this study is to investigate whether 910 year-old Turkish –speaking children learning English follow this hierarchy andfind subject relative (SR) clauses easier to process than object relative (OR) clauses. The findings obtained from the picture-selection task have shown that the participants follow the hierarchy proposed by NPAH and that the learners process SRclauses easier than OR clauses. The reason of such outcome can be explained bythe Structural Distance Hypothesis. Another purpose of this study is to find outwhether the presentation type affects the comprehension of SR and OR clauses. Forthis purpose each item was presented with an imperative or a question. The analyses of the data have revealed that the presentation type may be a factor affectingthe comprehension since the students have comprehended the clauses presentedwith an imperative better than those presented with a question. This may be due tothe fact that the frequency of using imperative sentences may be higher than that ofthe questions in the classroom input. The other purpose of the study is to analyzewhether the errors made by the learners are reversal errors or head errors. Thestudents made more reversal errors and fewer head errors indicating that they significantly comprehended the head of the NP

Kaynakça

  • Adani, F. (2008). Re-thinking the acquisition of relatives: A new comprehension study with Italian children. Proceeding of the 27th West Coast, Conference in Formal Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, A.B.D.
  • Aydın, Ö. (2007). The comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in second language acquisition and agrammatisim. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28 (2), 295-315.
  • Baysal, A. (2001). The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (NPAH) in the Acquisition of English Restrictive Relative Clauses by Turkish Adult Learners of English. Yayınlanmış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
  • Çağrı, I. (2007). Specificity and case interactions: A view from Turkish relatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 54: WAFL II Proceedings. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
  • Clashen H. & Fesler, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learning, Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3-42.
  • Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81, 882-906.
  • Ekmekçi, Ö. (1990). Acquisition of relativization in Turkish. Fifth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, SOAS, London University, England.
  • Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. & Aksu-Koç, A. (1998). Function of relative clauses in narrative discourse. L. Johanson (ed.) içinde, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (s. 271-285). Wiesbaden: Harrosowitz Verlag.
  • Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 69, 1- 76.
  • Hashimoto, K. (2007). Subject/Object Asymmetry in the Comprehension of English Relative Clauses by Japanese Learners of English. University of Queensland Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 1, 22-34.
  • Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53(2), 285-323.
  • Kadoi, M. (2009). Acquisition English relative clauses by Japanese learners of English. TESOL Working Paper Series, 7 (1), 14-26.
  • Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-100.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2000). Some syntactic and morphological properties of relative clauses in Turkish.
  • A. Alexiadou, P. Law, A. Meinenger, & C. Wilder (Ed.) içinde, The Syntax of Relative Clauses (s.121-159). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Kükürt, D. (2004). Comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in Broca’s aphasics and
  • children. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Matsumoto, Y. (2007). Interaction of multiple factors in relative clause construal and acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 367-374.
  • 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.
  • Özcan, F. H. (1997). Comprehension of relative clauses in the acquisition of Turkish. K.
  • İmer and E. Uzun (Ed.) içinde, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Turkish linguistics, (s.149-155). Ankara.
  • Özge, D., Marinis, T. & Zeyrek, D. (2010). Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. S. Ay, Ö. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever &
  • D. Peçenek (Ed.) içinde, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of Turkish
  • Linguistics (ICTL), Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag.
  • Özçelik, Ö. (2006). Processing Relative Clauses in Turkish as a Second Language. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Pittsburgh Üniversitesi, PA, A.B.D.
  • Rah, A. & Adone, D. (2010). Processing of the reduced relative clauses versus main verb ambiguity in L2 learners at different proficiency levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 79-109.
  • Slobin, D. I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. L. R. Gleitman & E. Wanner (Ed.) içinde, Language Acquisition: State of the Art. Cambridge: CUP.
  • Yarbay-Duman, T., Aygen, G. & Bastiaanse, R. (2008). The production of Turkish relative clauses in agrammatism: Verb inflection and costituent order. Brain and Language, 105, 149-160.
  • Yürekli, A.(2007). The importance of genitive in assigning markedness degrees to English relative clauses. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, 108- 114. EK 1 RESİM SEÇME ÖLÇEĞİ

Turkish-speaking children’s comprehension of English relative clauses: subject / object assymetry

Yıl 2011, Sayı: 151, 53 - 71, 01.03.2011
https://doi.org/10.1501/Dilder_0000000143

Öz

Sözdizimsel olarak Türkçe ve İngilizce ilgi tümcecikleri farklılık gösterirler. Başönde bir dil olan İngilizcede ilgi adılı ile ilgi tümcecikleri baş adı takip ederken,baş-sonda bir dil olan Türkçede ilgi adılı yoktur ve ilgi tümcecikleri baş adın önünegetirilir. İngilizce ilgi tümceciklerinin edinimi üzerine yoğunlaşan çalışmalarınsonuçları Ad Öbekleri Erişim Sıralaması (Noun Phrase Accessibility HierarchyNPAH) savında öne sürülen ilgilendirme sıralamasını desteklemektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, İngilizce öğrenen 9-10 yaş Türkçe anadil konuşuru çocukların, busıralamayı takip ederek, özne ilgi (Öİ) tümceciklerini nesne ilgi (Nİ) tümceciklerinden daha iyi anlayıp anlamadıklarını incelemektir. Resim-seçme ölçeğindenelde edilen verilerin sayısal çözümlemeleri, katılımcıların anadillerinden sözdizimsel olarak farklı olan İngilizce öğrenirken, NPAH savında öngörülen sıralamayauyduklarını ve özne ilgi tümceciklerini nesne ilgi tümceciklerinden daha iyianladıklarını göstermektedir. Bunun nedeni alanyazında Yapısal Uzaklık Savı ileaçıklanmaktadır. Ayrıca, sunum şeklinin öğrenicilerin anlamalarını etkileyen biretmen olabileceği düşüncesiyle bu tümcecikler soru ve emir tümceleri içerisindesunulmuştur. Bulgular, tümceciklerin sunum şekillerinin de öğrencilerin anlamalarını etkileyen bir etmen olduğunu işaret etmektedir. Katılımcılar, emir tümceleri içerisinde sunulan ilgi tümceciklerini anlamada soru içerisinde sunulanlarıanlamadan daha başarılı oldular. Bu çalışmada incelenen son konu öğrenicilerinyaptıkları hataların tersine hatalar mı yoksa baş hataları mı olduğudur. Öğrenicilerin yaptıkları hataların incelenmesi sonucunda, onların tümcecikte bulunan ilkAÖ’yü kılıcı olarak yorumlamalarının neden olduğu baş hataların sayısının tersinehataların sayısından çok daha az olduğu bulunmuştur

Kaynakça

  • Adani, F. (2008). Re-thinking the acquisition of relatives: A new comprehension study with Italian children. Proceeding of the 27th West Coast, Conference in Formal Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, A.B.D.
  • Aydın, Ö. (2007). The comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in second language acquisition and agrammatisim. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28 (2), 295-315.
  • Baysal, A. (2001). The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (NPAH) in the Acquisition of English Restrictive Relative Clauses by Turkish Adult Learners of English. Yayınlanmış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
  • Çağrı, I. (2007). Specificity and case interactions: A view from Turkish relatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 54: WAFL II Proceedings. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
  • Clashen H. & Fesler, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learning, Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3-42.
  • Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81, 882-906.
  • Ekmekçi, Ö. (1990). Acquisition of relativization in Turkish. Fifth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, SOAS, London University, England.
  • Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. & Aksu-Koç, A. (1998). Function of relative clauses in narrative discourse. L. Johanson (ed.) içinde, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (s. 271-285). Wiesbaden: Harrosowitz Verlag.
  • Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 69, 1- 76.
  • Hashimoto, K. (2007). Subject/Object Asymmetry in the Comprehension of English Relative Clauses by Japanese Learners of English. University of Queensland Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 1, 22-34.
  • Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53(2), 285-323.
  • Kadoi, M. (2009). Acquisition English relative clauses by Japanese learners of English. TESOL Working Paper Series, 7 (1), 14-26.
  • Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-100.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2000). Some syntactic and morphological properties of relative clauses in Turkish.
  • A. Alexiadou, P. Law, A. Meinenger, & C. Wilder (Ed.) içinde, The Syntax of Relative Clauses (s.121-159). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Kükürt, D. (2004). Comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in Broca’s aphasics and
  • children. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Matsumoto, Y. (2007). Interaction of multiple factors in relative clause construal and acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 367-374.
  • 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.
  • Özcan, F. H. (1997). Comprehension of relative clauses in the acquisition of Turkish. K.
  • İmer and E. Uzun (Ed.) içinde, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Turkish linguistics, (s.149-155). Ankara.
  • Özge, D., Marinis, T. & Zeyrek, D. (2010). Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. S. Ay, Ö. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever &
  • D. Peçenek (Ed.) içinde, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of Turkish
  • Linguistics (ICTL), Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag.
  • Özçelik, Ö. (2006). Processing Relative Clauses in Turkish as a Second Language. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Pittsburgh Üniversitesi, PA, A.B.D.
  • Rah, A. & Adone, D. (2010). Processing of the reduced relative clauses versus main verb ambiguity in L2 learners at different proficiency levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 79-109.
  • Slobin, D. I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. L. R. Gleitman & E. Wanner (Ed.) içinde, Language Acquisition: State of the Art. Cambridge: CUP.
  • Yarbay-Duman, T., Aygen, G. & Bastiaanse, R. (2008). The production of Turkish relative clauses in agrammatism: Verb inflection and costituent order. Brain and Language, 105, 149-160.
  • Yürekli, A.(2007). The importance of genitive in assigning markedness degrees to English relative clauses. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, 108- 114. EK 1 RESİM SEÇME ÖLÇEĞİ
Toplam 31 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Dilbilim
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Türkay Bulut Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Mart 2011
Gönderilme Tarihi 1 Ocak 2011
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2011 Sayı: 151

Kaynak Göster

APA Bulut, T. (2011). TURKISH-SPEAKING CHILDREN’S COMPREHENSION OF ENGLISH RELATIVE CLAUSES: SUBJECT / OBJECT ASSYMETRY. Dil Dergisi(151), 53-71. https://doi.org/10.1501/Dilder_0000000143