Araştırma Makalesi
PDF EndNote BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye-tracking and Corpus Analysis

Yıl 2019, Cilt 2, Sayı 3, 211 - 246, 13.01.2020

Öz

Purpose: Previous studies in English revealed that it is easier to comprehend subject relative clauses (SRCs) compared to object relative clauses (ORCs). However, subsequent research into processing of relative clauses in typologically different languages produced conflicting results. The present study aimed to investigate relative clause processing in Turkish and to test the predictions of the accounts of relative clause processing. 

Method: Thirty-six Turkish adult monolinguals took part in an eye-tracking experiment. Eye movements of the participants were recorded while they read Turkish sentences with subject and object relative clauses. 

Results: Analyses of both comprehension scores and eye-movement measures indicated a disadvantage in processing Turkish ORCs as revealed by more comprehension errors and elevated total reading times as well as more regressions. Furthermore, a corpus analysis conducted using a balanced corpus of Turkish revealed that SRCs are more frequent than ORCs in Turkish. 

Conclusion: The results are discussed with respect to the predictions of the relative clause processing accounts. It is suggested that a combination of factors including syntactic structure, structural frequency and morphological information shapes and constrains processing patterns of relative clauses.

Kaynakça

  • Aksan, Y. et al. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). In Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012). Istanbul, Turkey. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/papers.html
  • Aydın, Ö. (2007). The comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in second language acquisition and agrammatism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 295-315.
  • Aydın, Ö., & Zagvozdkina, V. (2019). İlgi Tümceciklerinin işlemlemesinde özne-nesne bakışımsızlığı, Yay. İşeri, K., Çapan Tekin, S., Aydın Öztürk, E. Sözmez Öz, E, Schneider, Z. Dilbilimde Güncel Tartışmalar 2019 (pp. 47-57). Ankara: Dilbilim Derneği Yayınları.
  • Betancort, M., Carreiras, M., & Sturt, P. (2009). The processing of subject and object relative clause in Spanish: An eye-tracking study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1915-1929.
  • Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language (pp. 279-352). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Bever, T. G., & McElree, B. (1988). Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 35–43.
  • Boran, B. (2018). The Role of context on processing of Turkish subject and object relative clauses. Unpublished MA thesis, Hacettepe University.
  • Bulut, T., Cheng, S. K., Xu, K. Y., Hung, D. L., & Wu, D. H. (2018). Is there a processing preference for object relative clauses in Chinese? Evidence from ERPs. Frontiers in Psychology, 9:995.
  • Bulut, T., Hung, Y. H., Tzeng, O., & Wu, D. H. (2017). Neural correlates of processing sentences and compound words in Chinese. Plos One, 12(12), e0188526.
  • Bulut, T., Uysal, H., & Wu, D. H. (2016). Processing asymmetry between subject and object relative clauses in English as a second language. Dilbilim Dergisi, 1(29), 45-68.
  • Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., De La Cruz-Pavía, I., & Laka, I. (2010). Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition, 115(1), 79-92.
  • Chen, B.G., Ning, A.H., Bi, H.Y., & Dunlap, S. (2008). Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object-relative clauses. Acta Psychologica, 129, 61-65. 240.
  • Cheng, T., Wu, J. T., & Huang, S. (2018). Use of memory-load interference in processing spoken Chinese relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(5), 1035-1055.
  • Cohen, L., & Mehler, J. (1996). Click monitoring revisited: An on-line study of sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 24, 94-102.
  • Collins, C. (1994). Economy of derivation and the Generalized Proper Binding Condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 45–61.
  • Ekmekçi, Ö. (1990). Acquisition of relativization in Turkish. Fifth international conference on Turkish linguistics. SOAS, University of London, England.
  • Frauenfelder, U., Segui, J., & Mehler, J. (1980). Monitoring around the relative clause. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 328-337.
  • Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory, 5, 519-559.
  • Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
  • Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 161-187.
  • 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 Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95-126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 1411-1423.
  • Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97-114.
  • Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
  • 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. (2003). The information conveyed by words in sentences. In Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (Vol. 32, pp. 101–123).
  • Hankamer, I., & Knecht, L. (1976). The role of the subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of relative clause participle in Turkish. Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, 2, 197–219.
  • Hermon, G. Öztürk Ö., & Kornfilt J. (2007). Acquisition of relative clauses in Turkish. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Relative Clauses (Rel 07), University of Cambridge, 13-15 September.
  • Holmes, V. M., & O’Regan, J. K. (1981). Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative-clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 417-430.
  • Hsiao, F., & Gibson, E. (2003). Processing relative clause in Chinese. Cognition, 90, 3-27.
  • Inhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (1998). Definition and Computation of Oculomotor Measures in the Study of Cognitive Processes. In Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception (pp. 29–53).
  • Ishizuka, T. (2005). Processing relative clauses in Japanese. In R. Okabe & K. Nielsen (Eds.), UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, no.13, Papers in Psycholinguistics, 2, 135-157.
  • 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.
  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory capacity. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
  • Kahraman, B (2015). Processing Turkish relative clauses in context. In D. Zeyrek, Ç.S. Şimşek & U. Atas (eds.) Ankara Papers in Turkish and Turkic Linguistics. Series Turcologica, Vol. 103, (pp: 98-109). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  • Kahraman, B., Sato, A., Ono, H., & Sakai, H. (2010). Relative clauses processing before the head noun: Evidence for strong forward prediction in Turkish. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL6)) (Vol. 61, p. 155).
  • King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic parsing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.
  • King, J., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and cause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376-395.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Kükürt, D. (2004). Comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in Broca’s aphasics and children. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Kwon, N., Gordon, P. C., Lee, Y., Kluender, R., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of pre-nominal relative clauses in Korean. Language, 86(3), 546-582.
  • Kwon, N., Polinsky, M., & Kluender, R. (2006). Subject preference in Korean. In D. Baumer, D. Montero, & M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 1-14). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  • Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177.
  • Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375–419.
  • Lin, C. J. C. & Bever, T. G. (2006). Subject Preference in the Processing of relative Clauses in Chinese. In D. Baumer, D. Montero, and M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 254-260.
  • Lin, Y. & Garnsey, S.M. (2011). Animacy and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. In H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose, J. L. Packard (Eds.), Processing and Producing Head-final Structures (pp. 241-275). Springer Netherlands.
  • Luke, K. K., Liu, H. L.,Wai, Y. Y.,Wan, Y. L., & Tan, L. H. (2002). Functional anatomy of syntactic and semantic processing in language comprehension. Human Brain Mapping, 16, 133–145. MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157-201.
  • Mak, P., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 50-68.
  • Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54, 466-490.
  • Mansbridge, M. P., Tamaoka, K., Xiong, K., & Verdonschot, R. G. (2017). Ambiguity in the processing of Mandarin Chinese relative clauses: One factor cannot explain it all. PloS one, 12(6), e0178369.
  • Martin, R. C. (2003). Language processing: Functional organization and neuroanatomical basis. Annual Review Psychology 54, 55-89.
  • McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283-312.
  • Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, D. (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition 23, 477-494.
  • 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(03), 433-448.
  • Özcan, F. H. (1997). Comprehension of Relative Clauses in the Acquisition of Turkish. In K. İmer and E. Uzun (Eds.) Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Turkish linguistics, 149-155, Ankara.
  • Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek, D. (2009). Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In S. Ay, Ö. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever, & D. Peçenek, editors,Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of Turkish Linguistics (ICTL), Wiesbaden. Harrasowitz Verlag.
  • Özge, D., Marinis, T. & Zeyrek, D. (2010) Production of relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Supplement. Cascadilla Press. ISBN 9781574731552.
  • Özge, D., Marinis, T., & 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.
  • 2019 Özsoy, S. (1994). Türkçede ortaç yapısı. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1994, 21–30.
  • Pickering, M. J. (1994). Processing local and unbounded dependencies: A unified account. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23, 323-352.
  • Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Strategies for processing unbounded dependencies: First-resort vs. lexical guidance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1401– 1410.
  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124, 372-422.
  • Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2006). Eye-movement control in reading. In M. Traxler and M. Gernsbacher (Eds.) Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Academic Press.
  • Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(1), 1-23.
  • Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., & Kühn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language 34, 499-520.
  • Slobin, D. I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In L. R. Gleitman and E. Wanner (Eds.) Language acquisition: state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sun, X., Hancock, R., Bever, T. G., Cheng, X., C., Schmidt, L., & Seifert, U. (2016). Processing relative clauses in Chinese: Evidence from event-related potentials. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 92- 114.
  • Sung, Y. T., Cha, J. H., Tu, J. Y., Wu, M. D., & Lin, W. C. (2016). Investigating the processing of relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from eye-movement data.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(5), 1089-1113.
  • Sung, Y. T., Tu, J. Y., Cha, J. H., & Wu, M. D. (2016). Processing preference toward object-extracted relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese by L1 and L2 speakers: An eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 4.
  • Tobii Technology (2006). User manual: Tobii eye tracker and ClearView analysis software. Stockholm, Sweden: © Tobii Technology AB.
  • Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 69-70.
  • Turan, C. (2018). An Eye-Tracking Investigation of Attachment Preferences to Relative Clauses in Turkish. Unpublished PhD thesis, Hacettepe University.
  • Ueno, M., & Garnsey, S. (2008). An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes 23, 646-688.
  • Underhill, R. (1972). Turkish participles. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 87–99.
  • Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 157–166.
  • Vasishth, S., Chen, Z., Li, Q., & Guo, G. (2013). Processing Chinese Relative Clauses: Evidence for the Subject-Relative Advantage. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e77006. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077006
  • Wang, H. L., Yue, W., Li, Q., & Li, J. R. (2017). An ERP study of the object preference in processing Chinese relative clauses. Journal of Electronic Science and Technology, 15(1), 5-19.
  • Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85, 79-112.
  • Wu, F., Luo, Y., & Zhou, X. (2013). Building Chinese relative clause structures with lexical and syntactic cues: evidence from visual world eye-tracking and reading times. Language and Cognitive Processes, 00(00), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.841969
  • Xu, K., Duann, J. R., Hung, D. L., & Wu, D. H. (2019). Preference for object relative clauses in Chinese sentence comprehension: Evidence from online self-paced reading time. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2210.

Türkçe İlgi Tümceciklerinin Anlaşılması: Göz İzleme ve Derlem Çalışması

Yıl 2019, Cilt 2, Sayı 3, 211 - 246, 13.01.2020

Öz

Amaç: Önceki çalışmalarda İngilizce özne ilgi tümceciklerinin (xÖİT) nesne ilgi tümceciklerine (NİT) kıyasla daha kolay bir şekilde anlaşıldığı gösterilmiştir. ÖİT ve NİT arasındaki bu bakışımsızlığı açıklamak amacıyla çeşitli varsayımlar ortaya atılmıştır. Çizgisel Uzaklık Varsayımı, boşluk-dolgu gibi bağımlılıklar arasındaki çizgisel uzaklığın (araya giren sözcük sayısının) bu yapıların işlemlenme hızını etkilediğini iddia etmektedir. Yapısal Uzaklık Varsayımına göre ise bu tür bağımlılıkların işlemlenmesindeki belirleyici faktör, boşluğun sözdizim ağacının ne kadar derinlerinde yer aldığı, yani boşluk ile dolgu arasında ne kadar budak olduğudur. Tümce işlemleme desenlerini etkilediği öne sürülen bir diğer etken ise ilgili yapıların sıklığıdır. Sıklığı temel alan yaklaşımlara göre bir dilde sıkça kullanılan yapılar, daha az kullanılan yapılara göre daha kolay bir şekilde işlemlenmektedir. Bu üç farklı varsayım İngilizce gibi baş-ilk dillerde aynı öngörüde bulunarak ÖİT’nin NİT’ye göre daha kolay bir şekilde işlemleneceğini öne sürmektedir. Türkçe gibi baş-son dillerde ise çizgisel ve yapısal uzaklığın öngörüleri farklılaşmakta, Çizgisel Uzaklık Varsayımına göre NİT’nin, Yapısal Uzaklık Varsayımına göre ise ÖİT’nin daha kolay işlemleneceği beklenmektedir. Türkçede daha önce dengeli bir derlem kullanılaraÖİT ve NİT’ye ilişkin sıklık bilgileri incelenmemiş olup, mevcut çalışma kapsamında dengeli bir derlem kullanılarak bu yapıların sıklığı belirlenecek, böylelikle yapısal sıklığı temel alan yaklaşımların bakışımsızlığın yönüne ilişkin öngörüsü tespit edilecektir. Çalışmanın amacı yukarıda bahsedilen tümce işlemleme kuramlarının Türkçe ilgi tümceciklerinin işlemleme sürecine ilişkin olarak ortaya koyduğu hipotezlerin test edilmesidir. 

Yöntem: Çalışma kapsamında bir göz izleme deneyi gerçekleştirilmiş, anadili Türkçe olan otuz altı tek dilli yetişkin deneye katılmıştır. Katılımcılar ÖİT ve NİT içeren tümceler okurken göz izleme cihazı ile göz hareketleri kaydı alınmıştır. Deney tümceleri içerisinde ilgi alanları şu şekilde belirlenmiştir: ilgi tümceciği içerisindeki ad ve eylem, baş sözcük, taşma alanı ve ana tümcenin eylemi. Her bir ilgi alanı üzerinde katılımcıların sergilediği ilk sabitleme süreleri, toplam okuma süreleri ve geriye dönüşler (regresyonlar) analiz edilmiştir. Göz izleme çalışmasına ek olarak sırasıyla ÖİT ve NİT belirten -(y)An ve -DIK+iyelik biçimbirimlerinin sıklıkları, Türkçe Ulusal Derlemi kullanılarak tespit edilmiştir. 

Bulgular: ÖİT içeren tümcelere kıyasla NİT içeren tümcelerde daha fazla anlama hataları yapılmış, katılımcılar NİT içeren tümcelerde daha fazla toplam okuma süreleri ve geriye dönüşler sergilemiştir. Dolayısıyla hem anlaşılma oranları hem de göz hareketleri bakımından NİT yapılarının ÖİT yapılarına göre daha fazla işlemleme güçlüğünü beraberinde getirdiği saptanmıştır. Bu farklılık baş sözcüğün hemen ardından gelen taşma alanında görülmüştür. Derlem incelemesi neticesinde ise Türkçede -(y)An biçimbirimi ile kurulan ÖİT yapılarının -DIK+iyelik biçimbirimleriyle kurulan NİT yapılarına göre daha sık kullanıldığı saptanmıştır.

Sonuç: Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular, İngilizce gibi baş-ilk dillerde elde edilen sonuçlara benzer olarak baş-son Türkçede ÖİT’nin, NİT’ye göre daha kolay işlemlendiğini göstermiştir. Bu sonuç, sözdizimsel yapıyı temel alan Yapısal Uzaklık Varsayımının öngörüleriyle örtüşmekte, Çizgisel Uzaklık Varsayımının tahminleriyle uyuşmamaktadır. Bununla birlikte elde edilen bulgular yapısal sıklığı temel alan yaklaşımların öngörüleri ile de tutarlı görünmektedir. Genel olarak bakıldığında çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular birçok dilde gözlenen ÖİT ve NİT bakışımsızlığını desteklemektedir. Çalışma neticesinde sözdizimsel yapı, yapısal sıklık ve morfolojik bilgiler dahil olmak üzere bir dizi faktörün, ilgi tümceciklerinin işlemlenme desenini şekillendirdiği ve sınırlandırdığı sonucuna varılmıştır.

Kaynakça

  • Aksan, Y. et al. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). In Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012). Istanbul, Turkey. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/papers.html
  • Aydın, Ö. (2007). The comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in second language acquisition and agrammatism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 295-315.
  • Aydın, Ö., & Zagvozdkina, V. (2019). İlgi Tümceciklerinin işlemlemesinde özne-nesne bakışımsızlığı, Yay. İşeri, K., Çapan Tekin, S., Aydın Öztürk, E. Sözmez Öz, E, Schneider, Z. Dilbilimde Güncel Tartışmalar 2019 (pp. 47-57). Ankara: Dilbilim Derneği Yayınları.
  • Betancort, M., Carreiras, M., & Sturt, P. (2009). The processing of subject and object relative clause in Spanish: An eye-tracking study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1915-1929.
  • Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language (pp. 279-352). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Bever, T. G., & McElree, B. (1988). Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 35–43.
  • Boran, B. (2018). The Role of context on processing of Turkish subject and object relative clauses. Unpublished MA thesis, Hacettepe University.
  • Bulut, T., Cheng, S. K., Xu, K. Y., Hung, D. L., & Wu, D. H. (2018). Is there a processing preference for object relative clauses in Chinese? Evidence from ERPs. Frontiers in Psychology, 9:995.
  • Bulut, T., Hung, Y. H., Tzeng, O., & Wu, D. H. (2017). Neural correlates of processing sentences and compound words in Chinese. Plos One, 12(12), e0188526.
  • Bulut, T., Uysal, H., & Wu, D. H. (2016). Processing asymmetry between subject and object relative clauses in English as a second language. Dilbilim Dergisi, 1(29), 45-68.
  • Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., De La Cruz-Pavía, I., & Laka, I. (2010). Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition, 115(1), 79-92.
  • Chen, B.G., Ning, A.H., Bi, H.Y., & Dunlap, S. (2008). Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object-relative clauses. Acta Psychologica, 129, 61-65. 240.
  • Cheng, T., Wu, J. T., & Huang, S. (2018). Use of memory-load interference in processing spoken Chinese relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(5), 1035-1055.
  • Cohen, L., & Mehler, J. (1996). Click monitoring revisited: An on-line study of sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 24, 94-102.
  • Collins, C. (1994). Economy of derivation and the Generalized Proper Binding Condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 45–61.
  • Ekmekçi, Ö. (1990). Acquisition of relativization in Turkish. Fifth international conference on Turkish linguistics. SOAS, University of London, England.
  • Frauenfelder, U., Segui, J., & Mehler, J. (1980). Monitoring around the relative clause. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 328-337.
  • Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory, 5, 519-559.
  • Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
  • Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 161-187.
  • 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 Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95-126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 1411-1423.
  • Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97-114.
  • Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
  • 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. (2003). The information conveyed by words in sentences. In Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (Vol. 32, pp. 101–123).
  • Hankamer, I., & Knecht, L. (1976). The role of the subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of relative clause participle in Turkish. Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, 2, 197–219.
  • Hermon, G. Öztürk Ö., & Kornfilt J. (2007). Acquisition of relative clauses in Turkish. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Relative Clauses (Rel 07), University of Cambridge, 13-15 September.
  • Holmes, V. M., & O’Regan, J. K. (1981). Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative-clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 417-430.
  • Hsiao, F., & Gibson, E. (2003). Processing relative clause in Chinese. Cognition, 90, 3-27.
  • Inhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (1998). Definition and Computation of Oculomotor Measures in the Study of Cognitive Processes. In Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception (pp. 29–53).
  • Ishizuka, T. (2005). Processing relative clauses in Japanese. In R. Okabe & K. Nielsen (Eds.), UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, no.13, Papers in Psycholinguistics, 2, 135-157.
  • 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.
  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory capacity. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
  • Kahraman, B (2015). Processing Turkish relative clauses in context. In D. Zeyrek, Ç.S. Şimşek & U. Atas (eds.) Ankara Papers in Turkish and Turkic Linguistics. Series Turcologica, Vol. 103, (pp: 98-109). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  • Kahraman, B., Sato, A., Ono, H., & Sakai, H. (2010). Relative clauses processing before the head noun: Evidence for strong forward prediction in Turkish. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL6)) (Vol. 61, p. 155).
  • King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic parsing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.
  • King, J., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and cause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376-395.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Kükürt, D. (2004). Comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in Broca’s aphasics and children. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Kwon, N., Gordon, P. C., Lee, Y., Kluender, R., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of pre-nominal relative clauses in Korean. Language, 86(3), 546-582.
  • Kwon, N., Polinsky, M., & Kluender, R. (2006). Subject preference in Korean. In D. Baumer, D. Montero, & M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 1-14). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  • Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177.
  • Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375–419.
  • Lin, C. J. C. & Bever, T. G. (2006). Subject Preference in the Processing of relative Clauses in Chinese. In D. Baumer, D. Montero, and M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 254-260.
  • Lin, Y. & Garnsey, S.M. (2011). Animacy and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. In H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose, J. L. Packard (Eds.), Processing and Producing Head-final Structures (pp. 241-275). Springer Netherlands.
  • Luke, K. K., Liu, H. L.,Wai, Y. Y.,Wan, Y. L., & Tan, L. H. (2002). Functional anatomy of syntactic and semantic processing in language comprehension. Human Brain Mapping, 16, 133–145. MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157-201.
  • Mak, P., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 50-68.
  • Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54, 466-490.
  • Mansbridge, M. P., Tamaoka, K., Xiong, K., & Verdonschot, R. G. (2017). Ambiguity in the processing of Mandarin Chinese relative clauses: One factor cannot explain it all. PloS one, 12(6), e0178369.
  • Martin, R. C. (2003). Language processing: Functional organization and neuroanatomical basis. Annual Review Psychology 54, 55-89.
  • McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283-312.
  • Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, D. (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition 23, 477-494.
  • 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(03), 433-448.
  • Özcan, F. H. (1997). Comprehension of Relative Clauses in the Acquisition of Turkish. In K. İmer and E. Uzun (Eds.) Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Turkish linguistics, 149-155, Ankara.
  • Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek, D. (2009). Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In S. Ay, Ö. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever, & D. Peçenek, editors,Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of Turkish Linguistics (ICTL), Wiesbaden. Harrasowitz Verlag.
  • Özge, D., Marinis, T. & Zeyrek, D. (2010) Production of relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Supplement. Cascadilla Press. ISBN 9781574731552.
  • Özge, D., Marinis, T., & 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.
  • 2019 Özsoy, S. (1994). Türkçede ortaç yapısı. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1994, 21–30.
  • Pickering, M. J. (1994). Processing local and unbounded dependencies: A unified account. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23, 323-352.
  • Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Strategies for processing unbounded dependencies: First-resort vs. lexical guidance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1401– 1410.
  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124, 372-422.
  • Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2006). Eye-movement control in reading. In M. Traxler and M. Gernsbacher (Eds.) Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Academic Press.
  • Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(1), 1-23.
  • Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., & Kühn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language 34, 499-520.
  • Slobin, D. I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In L. R. Gleitman and E. Wanner (Eds.) Language acquisition: state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sun, X., Hancock, R., Bever, T. G., Cheng, X., C., Schmidt, L., & Seifert, U. (2016). Processing relative clauses in Chinese: Evidence from event-related potentials. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 92- 114.
  • Sung, Y. T., Cha, J. H., Tu, J. Y., Wu, M. D., & Lin, W. C. (2016). Investigating the processing of relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from eye-movement data.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(5), 1089-1113.
  • Sung, Y. T., Tu, J. Y., Cha, J. H., & Wu, M. D. (2016). Processing preference toward object-extracted relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese by L1 and L2 speakers: An eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 4.
  • Tobii Technology (2006). User manual: Tobii eye tracker and ClearView analysis software. Stockholm, Sweden: © Tobii Technology AB.
  • Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 69-70.
  • Turan, C. (2018). An Eye-Tracking Investigation of Attachment Preferences to Relative Clauses in Turkish. Unpublished PhD thesis, Hacettepe University.
  • Ueno, M., & Garnsey, S. (2008). An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes 23, 646-688.
  • Underhill, R. (1972). Turkish participles. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 87–99.
  • Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 157–166.
  • Vasishth, S., Chen, Z., Li, Q., & Guo, G. (2013). Processing Chinese Relative Clauses: Evidence for the Subject-Relative Advantage. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e77006. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077006
  • Wang, H. L., Yue, W., Li, Q., & Li, J. R. (2017). An ERP study of the object preference in processing Chinese relative clauses. Journal of Electronic Science and Technology, 15(1), 5-19.
  • Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85, 79-112.
  • Wu, F., Luo, Y., & Zhou, X. (2013). Building Chinese relative clause structures with lexical and syntactic cues: evidence from visual world eye-tracking and reading times. Language and Cognitive Processes, 00(00), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.841969
  • Xu, K., Duann, J. R., Hung, D. L., & Wu, D. H. (2019). Preference for object relative clauses in Chinese sentence comprehension: Evidence from online self-paced reading time. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2210.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Sağlık Bilimleri ve Hizmetleri
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Talat BULUT> (Sorumlu Yazar)
İSTANBUL MEDİPOL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ
Türkiye


Emine YARAR>
HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ, İNGİLİZ DİLBİLİMİ BÖLÜMÜ
Türkiye


Denise Hsien WU Bu kişi benim
National Central University, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience
Taiwan

Yayımlanma Tarihi 13 Ocak 2020
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2019, Cilt 2, Sayı 3

Kaynak Göster

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { dkyad634808, journal = {Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi}, eissn = {2651-2548}, address = {}, publisher = {Dil ve Konuşma Terapistleri Derneği}, year = {2020}, volume = {2}, number = {3}, pages = {211 - 246}, title = {Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye-tracking and Corpus Analysis}, key = {cite}, author = {Bulut, Talat and Yarar, Emine and Wu, Denise Hsien} }
APA Bulut, T. , Yarar, E. & Wu, D. H. (2020). Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye-tracking and Corpus Analysis . Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi , 2 (3) , 211-246 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/dkyad/issue/51840/634808
MLA Bulut, T. , Yarar, E. , Wu, D. H. "Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye-tracking and Corpus Analysis" . Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi 2 (2020 ): 211-246 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/dkyad/issue/51840/634808>
Chicago Bulut, T. , Yarar, E. , Wu, D. H. "Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye-tracking and Corpus Analysis". Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi 2 (2020 ): 211-246
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Türkçe İlgi Tümceciklerinin Anlaşılması: Göz İzleme ve Derlem Çalışması AU - TalatBulut, EmineYarar, Denise HsienWu Y1 - 2020 PY - 2020 N1 - DO - T2 - Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 211 EP - 246 VL - 2 IS - 3 SN - -2651-2548 M3 - UR - Y2 - 2020 ER -
EndNote %0 Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye-tracking and Corpus Analysis %A Talat Bulut , Emine Yarar , Denise Hsien Wu %T Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye-tracking and Corpus Analysis %D 2020 %J Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi %P -2651-2548 %V 2 %N 3 %R %U
ISNAD Bulut, Talat , Yarar, Emine , Wu, Denise Hsien . "Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye-tracking and Corpus Analysis". Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi 2 / 3 (Ocak 2020): 211-246 .
AMA Bulut T. , Yarar E. , Wu D. H. Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye-tracking and Corpus Analysis. dkyad. 2020; 2(3): 211-246.
Vancouver Bulut T. , Yarar E. , Wu D. H. Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye-tracking and Corpus Analysis. Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2020; 2(3): 211-246.
IEEE T. Bulut , E. Yarar ve D. H. Wu , "Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye-tracking and Corpus Analysis", Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi, c. 2, sayı. 3, ss. 211-246, Oca. 2020

21796         21795