Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

A Developmental Study of the Turkish Connectives

Year 2020, , 77 - 100, 28.06.2020

Enis Oğuz Duygu Özge

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.698824
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Connectives present an interesting phenomenon; while even 3-year-olds can produce them accurately, the real mastery of understanding their meaning takes much time in language acquisition. We tested the comprehension of temporal, causal, and adversative connectives in 184 Turkish-speaking primary-school children and 20 Turkish-speaking adults. Our results demonstrated that high-achieving 5-graders show an adult-like performance. Regarding the type of the connective, temporal connectives posed greater challenge for children compared to causal and adversative connectives. We explain these results in light of the multi-dimensional account of connective acquisition.


An Erratum to this article was published on 30 December 2020. http://dad.boun.edu.tr/en/pub/issue/58756/849534

Keywords

Turkish connective acquisition connective types

References

  • Aksu, A. (1978). The Acquisition of Causal Connectives in Turkish.
  • Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D. (1985). The Acquisition of Turkish. The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol.1. (D.I.Slobin, Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey
  • Altenberg, B. (2007). The Correspondence of Resultive Connectors in English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 6(1).
  • Bax, L., Yu, L. M., Ikeda, N., Tsuruta, H., & Moons, K. G. (2006). Development and validation of MIX: comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data. BMC medical research methodology, 6(1), 50.
  • Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, K., & Fiess, K. (1980). Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of Child Language, 7(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900002610
  • Blything, L. P., Davies, R., & Cain, K. (2015). Young Children’s Comprehension of Temporal Relations in Complex Sentences: The Influence of Memory on Performance. Child Development, 86(6), 1922–1934. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12412
  • Cain, K. E., Patson, N., & Andrews, L. (2005). Age- and ability-related differences in young readers’ use of conjunctions. Journal of Child Language, 32(4), 877. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000905007014
  • Cain, K., Towse, A. S., & Knight, R. S. (2009). The development of idiom comprehension: An investigation of semantic and contextual processing skills.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102(3), 280-298.
  • Cain, K., & Nash, H. M. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022824
  • Crain, S., Shankweiler, D., Macaruso, P. & Bar-Shalom, E. (1990). Working memory and comprehension of spoken sentences: investigations of children with reading disorder. In V. Giuseppe & T. Shallice (eds), Neuropsychological impairments of short-term memory. New York, NY : Cambridge University Press.
  • Ercikan, K., & Julian, M. (2010). Applied Measurement in Education Classification Accuracy of Assigning Student Performance to Proficiency Levels : Guidelines for Assessment Design Classification Accuracy of Assigning Student Performance to Proficiency Levels : Guidelines for Assessment D. Compute, 7347(April 2011), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1503
  • Evers-vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2009). The emergence of Dutch connectives; how cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 36(36), 829–854. https://doi.org/10.1017/
  • Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2011). Discovering domains–On the acquisition of causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1645-1662.
  • Ford, C. E., & Mori, J. (1994). Causal Markers in Japanese and English Conversations: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Interactional Grammar. Pragmatics, 4(1), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.4.1.03for
  • Goldman, S. R., & Murray, J. D. (1992). Knowledge of connectives as cohesion devices in text: A comparative study of native-English and English-as-a-second-language speakers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 504.
  • Im-Bolter, N., Yaghoub Zadeh, Z., & Ling, D. (2013). Early parenting beliefs and academic achievement: The mediating role of language. Early Child Development and Care, 183(12), 1811-1826.
  • Köhne, J., & Demberg, V. (2013). The time-course of processing discourse connectives. In CogSci.
  • Levorato, M. C., & Cacciari, C. (1995). The effects of different tasks on the comprehension and production of idioms in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60(2), 261-283.
  • Levorato, M. C. (1999). Idiom comprehension in children: Are the effects of semantic analysability and context separable?. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11(1), 51-66.
  • Maury, P., & Teisserenc, A. (2005). The role of connectives in science text comprehension and memory. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(3), 489–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000151
  • Murray, J. D. (1995). Logical connectives and local coherence. Sources of coherence in reading, 107-125.
  • Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227-236.
  • Sanders, T., Land, J., & Mulder, G. (2007). Linguistics markers of coherence improve text comprehension in functional contexts. Information Design Journal, 15(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.15.3.04san
  • Sofu, H., & Şimşek, T. (2016) Acquisition of Coordination in Turkish Children: Additive Connectives.
  • Şen, B. (2019). An Analysis of Turkish Singular Pronouns Based on Accessibility Theory (Master's thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey). Retrieved from http://www.openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11655/7714/10262139.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  • Torabi Asr, F., & Dember. (2012). Implicitness of Discourse Relations. Coling, (December 2012), 2669–2684.
  • Turan, Ü. D. (1996). Null vs. overt subjects in Turkish discourse: A centering analysis. IRCS Technical Reports Series, 95.
  • van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2014). Connectives as Processing Signals: How Students Benefit in Processing Narrative and Expository Texts. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 47–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
  • Zufferey, S., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2015). A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on the Acquisition of Causal Connectives and Relations *. International Review of Pragmatics, 7(January), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00701002

Türkçe Bağlaçlar Üzerine Gelişimsel Bir Çalışma

Year 2020, , 77 - 100, 28.06.2020

Enis Oğuz Duygu Özge

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.698824
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Çocuklar üç yaşındayken bile bağlaçları doğru olarak kullanabilirken, anlamlarını tam manasıyla edinmeleri ve anlamlandırmaları çok daha uzun zaman gerektirmektedir; bu bakımdan bağlaçlar gelişimsel açıdan ilginç bir olgu sunar. Bu çalışma zamansal, nedensel ve karşıtsal bağlaçların anlamlandırılma süreçlerini anadili Türkçe olan 184 ilkokul çağında çocuk ve 20 yetişkin ile test etmektedir. Sonuçlar, ders başarısı öğretmenleri tarafından yüksek olarak değerlendirilen 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin yetişkin seviyesinde performans gösterdiklerini ortaya koymaktadır. Bağlaç türleri ile ilgili bulgular ise zamansal bağlaçların çocuk grupları için nedensel ve karşıtsal bağlaçlara göre daha zor olduğunu göstermektedir. Elde edilen bu bulgular bağlaç ediniminde çok boyutlu anlamlandırma bakış açısını destekler niteliktedir.


Bu makale için 30-12-2020 tarihinde bir düzeltme yayınlandı. http://dad.boun.edu.tr/tr/pub/issue/58756/849534

Keywords

Türkçe bağlaç edinimi bağlaç türleri

References

  • Aksu, A. (1978). The Acquisition of Causal Connectives in Turkish.
  • Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D. (1985). The Acquisition of Turkish. The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol.1. (D.I.Slobin, Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey
  • Altenberg, B. (2007). The Correspondence of Resultive Connectors in English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 6(1).
  • Bax, L., Yu, L. M., Ikeda, N., Tsuruta, H., & Moons, K. G. (2006). Development and validation of MIX: comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data. BMC medical research methodology, 6(1), 50.
  • Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, K., & Fiess, K. (1980). Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of Child Language, 7(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900002610
  • Blything, L. P., Davies, R., & Cain, K. (2015). Young Children’s Comprehension of Temporal Relations in Complex Sentences: The Influence of Memory on Performance. Child Development, 86(6), 1922–1934. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12412
  • Cain, K. E., Patson, N., & Andrews, L. (2005). Age- and ability-related differences in young readers’ use of conjunctions. Journal of Child Language, 32(4), 877. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000905007014
  • Cain, K., Towse, A. S., & Knight, R. S. (2009). The development of idiom comprehension: An investigation of semantic and contextual processing skills.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102(3), 280-298.
  • Cain, K., & Nash, H. M. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022824
  • Crain, S., Shankweiler, D., Macaruso, P. & Bar-Shalom, E. (1990). Working memory and comprehension of spoken sentences: investigations of children with reading disorder. In V. Giuseppe & T. Shallice (eds), Neuropsychological impairments of short-term memory. New York, NY : Cambridge University Press.
  • Ercikan, K., & Julian, M. (2010). Applied Measurement in Education Classification Accuracy of Assigning Student Performance to Proficiency Levels : Guidelines for Assessment Design Classification Accuracy of Assigning Student Performance to Proficiency Levels : Guidelines for Assessment D. Compute, 7347(April 2011), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1503
  • Evers-vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2009). The emergence of Dutch connectives; how cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 36(36), 829–854. https://doi.org/10.1017/
  • Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2011). Discovering domains–On the acquisition of causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1645-1662.
  • Ford, C. E., & Mori, J. (1994). Causal Markers in Japanese and English Conversations: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Interactional Grammar. Pragmatics, 4(1), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.4.1.03for
  • Goldman, S. R., & Murray, J. D. (1992). Knowledge of connectives as cohesion devices in text: A comparative study of native-English and English-as-a-second-language speakers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 504.
  • Im-Bolter, N., Yaghoub Zadeh, Z., & Ling, D. (2013). Early parenting beliefs and academic achievement: The mediating role of language. Early Child Development and Care, 183(12), 1811-1826.
  • Köhne, J., & Demberg, V. (2013). The time-course of processing discourse connectives. In CogSci.
  • Levorato, M. C., & Cacciari, C. (1995). The effects of different tasks on the comprehension and production of idioms in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60(2), 261-283.
  • Levorato, M. C. (1999). Idiom comprehension in children: Are the effects of semantic analysability and context separable?. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11(1), 51-66.
  • Maury, P., & Teisserenc, A. (2005). The role of connectives in science text comprehension and memory. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(3), 489–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000151
  • Murray, J. D. (1995). Logical connectives and local coherence. Sources of coherence in reading, 107-125.
  • Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227-236.
  • Sanders, T., Land, J., & Mulder, G. (2007). Linguistics markers of coherence improve text comprehension in functional contexts. Information Design Journal, 15(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.15.3.04san
  • Sofu, H., & Şimşek, T. (2016) Acquisition of Coordination in Turkish Children: Additive Connectives.
  • Şen, B. (2019). An Analysis of Turkish Singular Pronouns Based on Accessibility Theory (Master's thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey). Retrieved from http://www.openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11655/7714/10262139.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  • Torabi Asr, F., & Dember. (2012). Implicitness of Discourse Relations. Coling, (December 2012), 2669–2684.
  • Turan, Ü. D. (1996). Null vs. overt subjects in Turkish discourse: A centering analysis. IRCS Technical Reports Series, 95.
  • van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2014). Connectives as Processing Signals: How Students Benefit in Processing Narrative and Expository Texts. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 47–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
  • Zufferey, S., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2015). A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on the Acquisition of Causal Connectives and Relations *. International Review of Pragmatics, 7(January), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00701002
There are 29 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Enis Oğuz 0000-0001-5819-4926

Duygu Özge

Publication Date June 28, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020

Cite

APA Oğuz, E., & Özge, D. (2020). A Developmental Study of the Turkish Connectives. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 31(1), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.698824

Cited By

Individual Variations in the Mastery of Discourse Connectives from Teenage Years to Adulthood
Language Learning
https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12481

88x31.png

Bu eser


Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad