Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçede Biçim-Sesbilgisel Değişimlerin Edinimi

Öz

Sözcüklerin dil edinicisinin zihinsel sözlüğünde nasıl saklandığı ve bunlara nasıl erişildiği uygulamalı dilbilimin en sık araştırılan konularından biridir. Alan yazınında sözcük işlemlemeye dair çeşitli modeller sunulmuştur. Fakat bu modeller, Türkçe gibi biçimler açısından zengin sondan eklemeli dillerdeki sözcük tanıma sürecini açıklamakta yetersiz kalmaktadır. Görsel sözcük tanıma sürecinde sözcük erişimini etkileyen birçok faktör (örn. seslem ve seslem başlangıç etkisi, dil edinim yaşı, fonolojik ve imla komşu sayısı vb.) olmasına rağmen uygulamalı dilbilim çalışmalarında sıklıkla iki ana faktöre atıfta bulunulmaktadır: a) biçimbilimsel faktörler ve b) sözcük sıklığı etkisi. Görsel sözcük tanıma sürecine ilişkin modellerin çoğunlukla tek dilli bireylerden elde edilen bulgularla sınırlı olduğu görülmektedir. Bu nedenle bu çalışmada, yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğrenen bireylerin biçim-sesbilgisel değişimleri edinme yolları incelenmiş, çekimli sözcüklerin zihinsel sözlükte temsilinin araştırılması amaçlamıştır. Yarı-deneysel araştırma deseninin kullanıldığı bu çalışmada katılımcılara süreç-içi yöntemlerden sözcüksel karar testi uygulanmıştır. Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğrenen bireylerin a) dil yeterlik düzeylerinin, b) biçim-sesbilgisel değişim türünün (düzenli veya düzensiz) ve c) sözcük sıklığının (düşük veya yüksek) görsel sözcük tanıma sürecini ne yönde etkilediği araştırılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biçim-sesbilgisel değişimler
• zihinsel sözlük
• dil edinimi
• sözcük işlemleme
• kullanım sıklığı

Acquisition of Morpho-phonological Changes in Individuals Learning Turkish as a Foreign Language

Öz

One of the most frequently researched topics in the field of applied linguistics is how words are stored and accessed in a lexicon. Although various models of word processing can be found in the literature, they have failed to explain the word recognition process in agglutinative languages such as Turkish. Moreover, despite the fact that there are many factors that can affect the visual word recognition process (e.g., sound onset effect, age of language acquisition, number of phonological and orthographic neighbors), previous studies in applied linguistics have frequently referred to two main factors: a) morphological factors and b) the word frequency effect. Meanwhile, the majority of the models related to the visual word recognition process have been limited to the findings of monolingual individuals. Therefore, this study examines the acquisition of morpho-phonological changes among a sample of individuals learning Turkish as a foreign language, with specific focus on the representation of inflected words in the lexicon. For this purpose, a quasi-experimental research design was used and a lexical decision test was administered to the participants. In this regard, the effects of language proficiency levels, morphophonemic changes (regular or irregular), and word frequency (low or high) on their visual word recognition process were investigated. Based on the data obtained, it is concluded that (1) in the acquisition of morpho-phonological changes by adults with L2 Turkish, words are processed holistically at the beginner level - as a whole without separating roots and affixes – and as their proficiency level increases, the analysis of roots and affixes develops afterwards, in other words, dual mechanisms are effective in the lexical access process depending on the proficiency level. Also, (2) the words with a high number of orthographic neighbors have a positive effect only on the linguistic performance of the L2 A2 level group, and (3) the words with a high frequency of use have a positive effect only on the linguistic performance of the L2 B2 level group, while processing words with regular morpho-phonological changes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Morpho-phonological changes
• lexicon
• language acquisition
• word processing
• word frequency effect

Kaynakça

1. Andrews, S. (1992). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(2), 234-254. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.2.234 google scholar
2. Andrews, S. (1989). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Activation or search? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 802-814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.802 google scholar
3. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M.J., & Yap, M. (2006). Visual Word Recognition: The Journey from Features to Meaning (A Travel Update). M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Dü.) içinde, Handbook of Psycholinguistics, (s. 285-376). A.B.D.:Elsevier google scholar
4. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133(2), 283-316. https://doi. org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.283 google scholar
5. Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(3), 340-357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.3.340 google scholar
6. Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation. B. Butterworth (Dü.) içinde, Language Production (s. 257294). London: Academic Press. google scholar
7. Booij, G. (2007). The Grammar of Words. Oxford University Press. google scholar
8. Caramazza, A., Luadanna, A, & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28(3), 297-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90017-0 google scholar

9. Chialant, D., & Caramazza, A. (1995). Where is morphology and how is it processed? The case of written word recognition. L. B. Feldman (Dü.) içinde, Morphological aspects of language processing (s. 55-76). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. google scholar
10. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204-256. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204 google scholar
11. Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. G. Underwood (Dü.) içinde, Strategies of Information Processing (s. 151-216). San Diego, CA: Academic Press google scholar
12. Davelaar, E., Coltheart, M., Besner, D., & Jonasson, J. T. (1978). Phonological recoding and lexical access. Memory & Cognition, 6(4), 391-402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197471 google scholar
13. Field, J. (2003). Psycholinguistics: A resource book for students. London: Routledge. google scholar
14. Frauenfelder, U.H., Schreuder, R. (1992). Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: The role of productivity. G. Booij, J. van Marle (Dü.) Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (s. 165-183). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2516-1_10 google scholar
15. Fromkin, V., Hyams, N., & Rodman, R. (2011). An introduction to language. Australia : Thomson Wadsworth. google scholar
16. Gonnerman, L. M., Seidenberg, M. S., & Andersen, E. S. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 323-345. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.323 google scholar
17. İmer, K., Kocaman, A., & Özsoy, A. S. (2011). Dilbilim Sözlüğü. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi. google scholar
18. Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting Reaction Time Research in Second Language Studies. London: Routledge google scholar
19. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329 google scholar
20. Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Busta, J., JakuHcek, M., Kovar, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychly, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography, 1: 7-36. google scholar
21. Lehtonen, M., & Laine, M. (2003). How word frequency affects morphological processing in monolinguals and bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(3), 213-225. google scholar
22. McGinnies, E., Comer, P. B., & Lacey, O. L. (1952). Visual-recognition thresholds as a function of word length and word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44(2), 65-69. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063142 google scholar
23. Milin, P., Smolka, E., & Feldman, L. B. (2018). Models of Lexical Access and Morphological Processing. E. M. Fernandez, & H. Smith Cairns (Dü) içinde, The Handbook of Psycholinguistics (s. 240-268). Wiley Blackwell. google scholar
24. Peirce, J. W., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M. R., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., Lindeİ0v, J. (2019). PsychoPy2: experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods. 10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y google scholar
25. Pollatsek, A., Perea, M., & Binder, K. S. (1999). The effects of “neighborhood size” in reading and lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 1142-1158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.1142 google scholar
26. Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., & Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 9(5), 487-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80091-3 google scholar
27. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. L. B. Feldman (Dü.) içinde, Morphological aspects of language processing (s. 131-154). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. google scholar
28. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 15(6), 607-620. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5371(76)90054-2 google scholar
29. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 14(6), s. 638-647. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80051-X google scholar
30. Uygun, S. & Gürel, A. (2016). Processing morphology in L2 Turkish: The effects of morphological richness in the L1 (s. 251-279). A. Gürel (Dü.) içinde, Second Language Acquisition of Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. google scholar
31. Van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458-483. google scholar
32. Weekes, B. S. (1997). Differential Effects of Number of Letters on Word and Nonword Naming Latency. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 50(2), 439-456. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755710 google scholar