Türkçe Basit Bildirim Tümcelerinde Odaklanılan İçsel ve Dışsal Yüklem Öğelerinin İşlenmesi

Öz

Bilgi yapılandırması, bir tümce içindeki bilginin düzenlenmesidir. Bilgi yapılandırma parçalarından biri olarak odak, bir tümcede yeni bilgi taşıyan dilbilimsel unsur olarak değerlendirilir ve tek geçişli (monotransitive) eylemler herhangi biri odak olabilen içsel veya dışsal yüklem öğesi gerektirir. Bu makale, ayrı ayrı odaklanmış yüklem öğesinin farklı söz öncesi konumlarının Türkçede basit bildirim tümcelerini işlemleme üzerindeki etkisini araştırmaktadır. Bunun için farklı eylem öncesi konumlarda içsel veya dışsal yüklem öğesi işlevinde bulunan odaklanmış AÖ'leri barındıran 128 soru-cevap seti, kendi hızında okuma testi aracılığıyla anadili Türkçe olan 28 kişiye uygulanmıştır. İstatistiksel analizler, Türkçede farklı eylem öncesi pozisyonlarda ayrı ayrı odaklanmış içsel ve dışsal yüklem öğelerini içeren basit bildirim tümcelerinin okuma süresinde bir fark olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Dışsal yüklem öğelerine odaklanan tümcelerin okuma süresindeki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olmasa da içsel yüklem öğeleri için eylem öncesi pozisyonlara bağlı okuma süresi farkı istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olarak görülmüştür. Çalışma sonucunda içsel yüklem öğelerinin eylem öncesi konumdayken daha hızlı işlemlemlendiği ama bu konumun dışsal yüklem öğelerinin işlemlenmesinde fark yaratmadığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Bulgular, düşük bellek yükünün ve eyleme bitişikliğin Türkçedeki basit bildirim tümcelerindeki odağın işlenmesinde önemli bir rolü olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türkçe
• çalkalama
• odak
• odak konumu
• hemen eylem öncesi konum
• tümce başı konumu.

Processing of Internal and External Arguments in Focus in Simple Declarative Sentences in Turkish

Öz

Information structuring is the organization of information within a sentence. Among the segments of information structuring, focus is considered as the linguistic element bearing new information in a sentence and monotransitive verbs require one external and one internal argument, either of which can be focused. This paper investigates the effect of different preverbal positions of separately focused arguments on processing simple declarative sentences in Turkish. To achieve this, 128 sets of question-answer pairs hosting focused NPs functioning as either internal or external arguments in different preverbal positions are administered to 28 native speakers of Turkish via a self-paced reading test. The statistical analyses reveal a difference in reading time of simple declarative sentences containing separately focused internal and external arguments scrambled into different preverbal positions in Turkish. Although the difference in reading time of sentences focusing on external arguments is not statistically significant, the reading time difference for internal arguments depending on the preverbal positions is statistically significant. The study reveals that internal arguments are processed faster in the immediate preverbal position, but this position does not make a difference in the processing of external arguments. The findings suggest that low memory load and adjacency to the verb have an important role in the processing of the focus in simple declarative sentences in Turkish.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Turkish
• scrambling
• focus
• focus position
• immediate preverbal position
• sentence-initial position.

Kaynakça

1. Aydın, Ö., & Cedden, G. (2010). Sözdizim işlemlemesinde sağa taşıma etkisi. Dilbilim Araştırmaları (1), 1-13.
2. Chung, E. S., & Lee, E. K. (2017). Morpho-syntactic processing of Korean case-marking and case drop. Linguistic Research, 34(2), 191-204.
3. Dalyrmple, M., & Nikolaeva, I. (2011). Objects and information structure. Cambridge University Press.
4. Erguvanlı, E. E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. University of California Press.
5. Erkü, F. (1983). Discourse pragmatics and word order in Turkish [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Univ. of Minnesota.
6. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, (41), 1149-1160.
7. Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In M. Hirotani (Ed.), Proceedings of the thirty-second annual meeting of the North-Eastern linguistic society (pp. 113-137). University of Massachusetts.
8. Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.

9. Göksel, A., & Özsoy, A. S. (2000). Is there a focus position in Turkish? In A. Göksel, & C. Kerlake, Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages (pp. 219-228). Harrasowitz Verlag. Retrieved Feb. 28th, 2018, from https://linguistics.boun.edu.tr/sites/linguistics.boun.edu.tr/files/uploads/Go%CC%88ksel%26Ozsoy.2000.pdf
10. Göksel, A., & Özsoy, A. S. (2003). dA: A focus/topic associated clitic in Turkish. Lingua, 113, 1143-1167.
11. Hoffman, B. (1994). Generating context-appropriate word orders in Turkish. Proceedings of seventh international workshop on natural language generation, (pp. 117-126). Kennebunkport, Maine.
12. Hoffman, B. (1995). The computational analysis of the syntax and interpretation of "free" word order in Turkish [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] University of Pennsylvania.
13. İşsever, S. (2003). Information structure in Turkish: the word order-prosody interface. Lingua, 113, 1025-1053.
14. İşsever, S. (2006). On the NSR and Focus Projection in Turkish. In S. Yağcıoğu, & A. C. Değer (Eds.), Advances in Turkish Linguistics: proceedings of the 12th international conference on Turkish linguistics (pp. 421-435). Dokuz Eylül University Press. Retrieved May 31st, 2023, from https://selcukissever.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/issever-ictl2004.pdf
15. Jasbi, M. (2015). Semantics of differential object marking in Persian. 89th meeting of the Linguistics Society of America. Retrieved December 19th, 2020, from https://jasbi.github.io/research/persian_dom_semantics_draft.pdf
16. Kahraman, B., & Hirose, Y. (2018). Online comprehension of SOV and OSV sentences in Turkish with a supporting context. In T. Levin, & R. Masuda (Eds.), The proceedings of 10th workshop on Altaic formal linguistics. MIT working papers in linguistics, 87. Cambridge, MA.
17. Kamide, Y., Scheepers, C., & Altmann, G. M. (2003a). Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic Evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(1), 37-55
18. Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003b). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133-156.
19. Kennelly, S. D. (1997). The presentational focus position of nonspecific objects in Turkish. In K. İmer, & N. E. Uzun (Ed.), Proceedings of the VIIIth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 25-36). Ankara University Press.
20. Kılıçaslan, Y. (1994). Information packaging in Turkish. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Edinburgh.
21. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Routledge.
22. Kural, M. (1992). Properties of scrambling in Turkish. UCLA.
23. Marinis, T. (2010). Using on-line processing methods in language acquisition research. In S. Unsworth, & E. Blom (Eds.), Experimental methods in language acquisition research (pp. 139-162). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
24. Moro, A. (2000). Dynamic antisymmetry. MIT Press.
25. Önem, E. E. (2022). Processing of preverbal scrambling in Turkish [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University.
26. Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek Bozşahin, D. (2009). Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In S. Ay, Ö. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever, & S. Peçenek (Eds.), Essays on Turkish Linguistics, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of Turkish Linguistics (ICTL). Harrasowitz Verlag.
27. Özge, U. (2003). A tune-based account of Turkish information structure. [Unpublished master's thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
28. Özge, U., & Bozşahin, C. (2010). Intonation in the grammar of Turkish. Lingua, 120, 132-175.
29. Peirce, J. W. (2009). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2(10), 1-8. doi:10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008
30. Stolterfoht, B., Friederici, A. D., Alter, K., & Steube, A. (2007). Processing focus structure and implicit prosody during reading: Differential ERP effects. Cognition, 104(3), 565-590.
31. Tun, P. A., Benichov, J., & Wingfield, A. (2010). Response latencies in auditory sentence comprehension: Effects of linguistic versus perceptual challenge. Psychology and Aging, 25(3), 730-735.
32. Vallduvi, E. (1990). The informational component. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Pennsylvania.
33. Vallduvi, E., & Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 34, 459-519.
34. Yarar, E. (2018). Differential case marking in Turkish wh-object phrases. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics, 19, 29-46.