Türkçedeki Çift Nesneli Yapılarda Nesne Sıralamasının İşlemleme Farkı

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 1 - 14, 29.12.2025

Buse Şen Erdoğan , Emine Yarar

https://doi.org/10.51726/jlr.1676651

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkçe çift nesneli yapıların işlemlemesini, öz-ilerlemeli okuma yöntemiyle yürütülen bir deneyden elde edilen veriler aracılığıyla incelemektedir. Deneyde, anadili Türkçe olan toplam 156 katılımcı yer almıştır. Katılımcılara, 24’ü dolgu olmak üzere toplam 48 tümce sunulmuştur. Test tümceleri, belirtme durumu > yönelme durumu nesnesi ve yönelme durumu > belirtme durumu nesnesi sıralamalarını içermekte ve her biri ilgili bir bağlamla birlikte verilmiştir. Çift nesneli tümcelerdeki her iki nesne, iki değişken temelinde yapılandırılmıştır: canlılık ve eski bilgi olup olmama durumu. Bulgular, nesne sıralamasının (belirtme durumu > yönelme durumu ya da yönelme durumu > belirtme durumu) ve nesnelerin canlı veya eski bilgi olup olmamasının herhangi bir işlemleme yüküne yol açmadığını göstermektedir. Farklı nesne sıralamalarına sahip çift nesneli tümcelerin okuma süreleri arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır. Bulgular, katılımcıların nesnelerin taşıdığı durum eklerini kullanarak tümceleri kademeli bir şekilde işlediklerini ve bu sayede ek bir işlem yükünden kaçındıklarını göstermesi bakımından artımsal işlemleme yaklaşımıyla uyumludur. Ayrıca, nesnelerin aldığı durum ekinden, canlı ya da cansız olmasından ve eski bilgi olmasından bağımsız olarak, tümcede ilk konumda yer alan nesnelerin daha hızlı okunduğu saptanmıştır. Bu durum, belirtme ve yönelme durum takılarının okuyucu açısından eşdeğer yapısal ipuçları sunduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma, Türkçe ikili nesneli yapılarda farklı nesne sıralamalarının benzer sözdizimsel yapılara sahip olduğunu ve işlemleme açısından eşdeğerlik taşıdığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

çift nesneli tümceler , canlılık , belirtme durumu nesnesi , yönelme durumu nesnesi , nesne sıralaması

Processing Difference in Object Orders of Ditransitive Structures in Turkish

Öz

This study examines the processing of Turkish ditransitive sentences using the data obtained from a self-paced reading experiment. A total of 156 native speakers of Turkish participated in the experiment. They were presented with 48 sentences, of which 24 were filler sentences. The test sentences contained the orders ACC>DAT and DAT>ACC which were accompanied by a relevant context. Both objects in the ditransitive sentences were constructed across two variables: animacy and givenness. The findings indicate that neither the object order (ACC>DAT vs. DAT>ACC) nor the animacy or givenness status of the objects lead to any processing cost. Therefore, there is no significant difference in the reading times of ditransitive sentences with different object orders. These findings are consistent with the incremental processing approach in that the participants use the case marker information that the objects bear. This reliance on the case markers makes it possible for them to avoid extra processing load in both object order options. It is also found that the first objects, regardless of their case, their animacy, and givenness status, are read faster, suggesting that both accusative and dative cases in these sentences present an equal cue to the readers, signaling the position of the objects. In conclusion, the findings clearly illustrate that Turkish ditransitive sentences with different orders of objects have a similar processing pattern and a syntactic structure.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ditransitive sentences , animacy , dative object , accusative object , object order

Kaynakça

• Altmann, G. T. M., and Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73 (3), 247–264.
• Aoshima, S., Yoshida, M., and Phillips, C. (2009). Incremental processing of coreference and binding in Japanese. Syntax 12 (2), 93–134.
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
• Bresnan, J., and Nikitina, T. (2010). The gradience of the dative alternation. Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life, In Linda Ann Uyechi and Lian-Hee Wee (eds.), Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Inf, 161–184.
• Faghiri, P., and Samvelian, P. (2014). Constituent ordering in Persian and the weight factor. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 10, In C. Piñón (ed.), CNRS, 215–232.
• Faghiri, P., and Samvelian, P. (2020). Word order preferences and the effect of phrasal length in SOV languages: evidence from sentence production in Persian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 1-33.
• Faghiri, P., Samvelian, P., and Hemforth, B. (2014). Accessibility and word order: The case of ditransitive constructions in Persian. Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 217-237.
• Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
• Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., and Goldberg, R. (1991). Affectedness and direct objects: the role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 41 (1–3), 153–195.
• Güngördü, Z. (1997). Incremental constraint-based parsing: An efficient approach for head-final languages. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Edinburg.
• Hoji, H. (1985). Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Washington.
• Jiang, N. (2013). Conducting Reaction Time Research in Second Language Studies. Routledge.
• Kahraman, B., Sato, A. and Sakai, H. (2010). Processing two types of ditransitive sentences in Turkish: Preliminary results from a self-paced reading study. Technical Report of IEICE, 110, 37–42.
• Kaiser, E., and Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94 (2), 113–147.
• Kornfilt, J. (2013). Turkish. New York: Routledge.
• Krifka, M. (2004). Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4 (1), 1–32.
• Kural, M. (1992). Scrambling and mixed positions in Turkish. North East Linguistics Society 22 (1), 259–272.
• Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. London: University of Chicago Press.
• Matsuoka, M. (2003). Two types of ditransitive constructions in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12, 171-203.
• Miyamoto, Edson T. (2002). Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31 (4), 307-347.
• Mitsugi, S., and MacWhinney, B. (2010). Second language processing in Japanese scrambled sentences. Research in second language processing and parsing. In Bill VanPatten and Jill Jegerski (eds.), Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 159-176.
• Miyagawa, S. (1997). Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 1–25.
• Özge, D., Küntay, A., and Snedeker, J. (2019). Why wait for the verb? Turkish speaking children use case markers for incremental language comprehension. Cognition 183, 152–180.
• Öztürk, B. (2005). Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Park, K. S. (2018). Information structure in canonical and scrambled dative orders in L2 Korean. Linguistics Vanguard 4, 1-14.
• Pickering, M. J., and Gompel, R. P. G. van. (2006). Syntactic Parsing. Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, In Matthew J. Traxler and Morton A. Gernsbacher (eds.), Second Edition, Amsterdam; Boston, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press, 455–503.
• Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
• Thuilier, J., Grant, M., Crabbé, B., and Abeillé, A. (2021). Word order in French: The role of animacy. Glossa 6 (1), 1–21.
• Underhill, R. (1972). Turkish participles. Linguistic Inquiry 3 (1), 87–99.
• Yamashita, H. (1997). The effects of word-order and case marking information on the processing of Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26 (2), 163–188.