Erratum
BibTex RIS Cite

A Developmental Study of Turkish Connectives

Year 2020, Volume: 31 Issue: 2, 339 - 361, 30.12.2020

Enis Oğuz Duygu Özge

Abstract

Connectives present an interesting phenomenon; while even 3-year-olds can produce them accurately, the real mastery of understanding their meanings takes much more time in language acquisition. Despite its allure, studies focusing on connective acquisition are limited in number, especially in Turkish. In order to investigate the developmental path of different Turkish connectives, 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 5th graders show an adult-like performance. Regarding connective types, temporal connectives posed a greater challenge for children compared to causal and adversative connectives. The questions were more challenging for all groups (but especially for 3rd graders and low-achieving 5th graders) when they require a backward temporal connective (before that) as the correct answer or include object-referred clauses. We explain these results in light of the multi-dimensional account of connective acquisition.


The original article was published on 28 June 2020. http://dad.boun.edu.tr/en/pub/issue/55345/698824

Keywords

Turkish connective acquisition connective types

References

  • Aksu, A. (1978). The Acquisition of Causal Connectives in Turkish. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 129-139.
  • 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).
  • 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., & 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 (p. 477-508). New York, NY : Cambridge University Press.
  • Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Öney, B. (1999). A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading and Writing, 11(4), 281-299.
  • 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
  • George, D. (2011). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update, 10/e. Pearson Education India.
  • 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 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 35, No. 35).
  • 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.
  • MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. transcription format and programs (Vol. 1). Psychology Press.
  • 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.
  • Öney, B., & Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (1997). Beginning to read in Turkish: A phonologically transparent orthography. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(1), 1-15.
  • 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
  • Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: a primer. Statistical methods in medical research, 8(1), 3-15.
  • Sofu, H., & Şimşek, T. (2016, February) Acquisition of Coordination in Turkish Children: Additive Connectives. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Language, Innovation, Culture and Education (ICLICE), Singapore.
  • 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., & Demberg, V. (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 Casteren, M., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Mix, a program for pseudorandomization. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 584-589.
  • 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, Volume: 31 Issue: 2, 339 - 361, 30.12.2020

Enis Oğuz Duygu Özge

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. Cazibesine rağmen, bağlaç edinimi üzerine yoğunlaşan çalışmalar sayı olarak oldukça sınırlıdır -özellikle de Türkçede. Bu çalışma Türkçe bağlaç edinimindeki gelişimsel rotayı incelemek amacıyla zamansal, nedensel ve karşıtsal bağlaçların anlamlandırılma süreçlerini anadili Türkçe olan 184 ilkokul çağında çocuk ve 20 yetişkin ile test etti. Sonuçlar, akademik başarıları 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. Doğru cevabı geriye dönük zamansal bağlaç (öncesinde) olan veya nesnelere atıfta bulunan tümce içeren sorular ise tüm gruplar için fazladan zorlayıcıydı (özellikle 3. sınıf öğrencileri ve akademik başarıları düşük olarak değerlendirilen 5. sınıf öğrencileri için). Elde edilen bu bulgular bağlaç ediniminde çok boyutlu anlamlandırma bakış açısını destekler niteliktedir.


Bu makalenin ilk hali 28-06-2020 tarihinde yayınlandı. http://dad.boun.edu.tr/tr/pub/issue/55345/698824

Keywords

Türkçe bağlaç edinimi bağlaç türleri

References

  • Aksu, A. (1978). The Acquisition of Causal Connectives in Turkish. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 129-139.
  • 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).
  • 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., & 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 (p. 477-508). New York, NY : Cambridge University Press.
  • Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Öney, B. (1999). A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading and Writing, 11(4), 281-299.
  • 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
  • George, D. (2011). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update, 10/e. Pearson Education India.
  • 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 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 35, No. 35).
  • 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.
  • MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. transcription format and programs (Vol. 1). Psychology Press.
  • 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.
  • Öney, B., & Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (1997). Beginning to read in Turkish: A phonologically transparent orthography. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(1), 1-15.
  • 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
  • Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: a primer. Statistical methods in medical research, 8(1), 3-15.
  • Sofu, H., & Şimşek, T. (2016, February) Acquisition of Coordination in Turkish Children: Additive Connectives. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Language, Innovation, Culture and Education (ICLICE), Singapore.
  • 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., & Demberg, V. (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 Casteren, M., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Mix, a program for pseudorandomization. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 584-589.
  • 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 31 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Düzeltme
Authors

Enis Oğuz 0000-0001-5819-4926

Duygu Özge 0000-0002-1698-5479

Publication Date December 30, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020Volume: 31 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Oğuz, E., & Özge, D. (2020). A Developmental Study of Turkish Connectives. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 31(2), 339-361.

88x31.png

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) International License.


Journal DOI: 10.18492/dad