Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=_Hp_u2RPYD95M-KA-d95sShFjLeAda5k_ZxRjie5vwI&_path=id%3D287720%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Dtr%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Wh-Argument/Adjunct Asymmetry in Sentence Processing

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 28 Sayı: 2, 43 - 71, 29.12.2017

Taylan Akal

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.287720

Öz
















This study investigates the processing of
complex sentences with wh-phrases trying to point out whether the proposals
stating that arguments are processed easier than adjuncts work for wh-phrases
in case of Turkish. A wh-argument and a wh-adjunct were used in two
eye-tracking experiments with two word orders, and two embedded verb types as
the variables. The orders and the type of the embedded verbs were the same in
each experiment to provide the wh-phrase type to be the main variable to
compare. The general outcome of the study showed that wh-argument was processed
more quickly than wh-adjunct supporting the diversification proposed by both
formal and experimental approaches in terms of argument adjunct distinction. In
a particular condition, in which the subcategorization features of the embedded
verb mismatched with the number of arguments, the processing of wh-adjunct was
faster than wh-argument. This seems to support a verb-oriented approach in
licensing the scrambled wh-phrases.    

Anahtar Kelimeler

wh-argument wh-adjunct sentence processing eye-tracking

Kaynakça

  • Adger, D. (2004). Core Syntax. A Minimalist Aproach, Oxford University Press, NY.
  • Akar, D. (1990). Wh-questions in Turkish. M.A. Thesis. Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
  • Boland, J. E., and Boehm – Jernigan, H. (1998). Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 684 – 719.
  • Carnie, A. (2007). Syntax: A generative introduction, 2nd Edition, Blackwell Publishing.
  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Clifton, C., Speer, S., and S. P. Abney. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 30-2, 251 – 271.
  • Erguvanlı, E. (1984). The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. University of California Publications.
  • Ferretti, T. R., McCrae, K., and Hatherall, A. (2001). Integrating verbs, situation schemas and thematic role concepts, Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 516 – 547.
  • Frazier, L., and Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, v.14, 178 – 210.
  • Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Eye-movement recording as a tool for studying syntactic processing in a second language: a review of methodologies and experimental findings. Second Language Research, 21 (2), 175 – 198.
  • Haegeman, L. (1992). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, Blackwell.
  • Kennison, S. M. (2002). Comprehending noun phrase arguments and adjuncts, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31 (1), 65 – 81.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2003). Scrambling, subscrambling, and case in Turkish. S. Karimi (Ed.). in Word Order and Scrambling (pp.125 – 155). Blackwell Publishing.
  • Liversedge, S. P., Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., and van Gompel, R. P. G. (1998). Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and context: The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 461 – 475.
  • Liversedge, S. P., and Findlay, J. M. (2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (1), 6 – 14.
  • Liversedge, S. P., Pickering, M. J., Clayes, E. L., and Branigan, H. P. (2003). Thematic processing of adjuncts: Evidence from eye-tracking experiment. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10 (3), 667 – 675.
  • Garrod, S. (2006). Psycholinguistic Research Methods. Keith Brown (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd Edition (251 – 257). Elsevier.
  • Miyagawa, S. (2003). Wh-in-situ and scrambling in the context of comparative Altaic syntax. Paper Presented at WAFL 1 (Workshop in Altaic Formal Linguistics, MIT).
  • Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar: A first course. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (3), 372 – 422.
  • Rayner, K., and Juhasz, B. (2006). Reading processes in adults. K. Brown. (Ed.). In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp.373 – 378). Elsevier.
  • Rayner, K., and Pollatsek, A. (2006). Eye movement control in reading. M. J. Traxler and M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.). Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd Edition (pp.613 – 657). Elsevier.
  • Smiecinska, J. (2001). Towards a minimalist analysis of the argument-adjunct asymmetries in English. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 37, 195 – 209.

Tümce İşlemlemede Ne-Üyesi/Eklentisi Asimetrisi

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 28 Sayı: 2, 43 - 71, 29.12.2017

Taylan Akal

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.287720

Öz
















Bu çalışma, üyelerin eklentilerden daha hızlı
işlemlendiğini belirten önermelerin ne-öbekleri için de Türkçe bağlamında
geçerli olup olmadığını ortaya çıkartmayı amaçlayarak ne-öbeği içeren karmaşık
tümcelerin işlemlenmesini inceler. Çalışmada iki göz-izleme deneyinde, bir
ne-üyesi ve bir ne-eklentisi, diğer değişkenler olan iki farklı sözcük dizilişi
ve iki tür yantümce eylemiyle (geçişli ve çift geçişli) birlikte
kullanılmıştır. Ne-öbeğinin türünün karşılaştırılacak başlıca değişken olması
için, her iki deneyde de aynı tür yantümce eylemleri ve aynı sözcük dizilişi tekrar
kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın genel sonucu ne-üyesinin ne-eklentisinden daha hızlı
işlemlendiğini göstererek formal ve deneysel yaklaşımlar tarafından üye ve
eklenti üzerine öne sürülen farklılığı destekler niteliktedir. Yantümce
eyleminin altulamlama özelliklerinin üye sayısıyla eşleşmediği özel bir koşulda
ise ne-eklentisi ne-üyesinden daha hızlı işlemlenmiştir. Bu da yer değiştiren
ne-öbeklerinin lisanslanmasında eylem-odaklı bir yaklaşımı destekler
niteliktedir. 



Anahtar Kelimeler

ne-üyesi ne-eklentisi tümce işlemleme göz-izleme

Kaynakça

  • Adger, D. (2004). Core Syntax. A Minimalist Aproach, Oxford University Press, NY.
  • Akar, D. (1990). Wh-questions in Turkish. M.A. Thesis. Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
  • Boland, J. E., and Boehm – Jernigan, H. (1998). Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 684 – 719.
  • Carnie, A. (2007). Syntax: A generative introduction, 2nd Edition, Blackwell Publishing.
  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Clifton, C., Speer, S., and S. P. Abney. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 30-2, 251 – 271.
  • Erguvanlı, E. (1984). The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. University of California Publications.
  • Ferretti, T. R., McCrae, K., and Hatherall, A. (2001). Integrating verbs, situation schemas and thematic role concepts, Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 516 – 547.
  • Frazier, L., and Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, v.14, 178 – 210.
  • Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Eye-movement recording as a tool for studying syntactic processing in a second language: a review of methodologies and experimental findings. Second Language Research, 21 (2), 175 – 198.
  • Haegeman, L. (1992). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, Blackwell.
  • Kennison, S. M. (2002). Comprehending noun phrase arguments and adjuncts, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31 (1), 65 – 81.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2003). Scrambling, subscrambling, and case in Turkish. S. Karimi (Ed.). in Word Order and Scrambling (pp.125 – 155). Blackwell Publishing.
  • Liversedge, S. P., Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., and van Gompel, R. P. G. (1998). Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and context: The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 461 – 475.
  • Liversedge, S. P., and Findlay, J. M. (2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (1), 6 – 14.
  • Liversedge, S. P., Pickering, M. J., Clayes, E. L., and Branigan, H. P. (2003). Thematic processing of adjuncts: Evidence from eye-tracking experiment. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10 (3), 667 – 675.
  • Garrod, S. (2006). Psycholinguistic Research Methods. Keith Brown (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd Edition (251 – 257). Elsevier.
  • Miyagawa, S. (2003). Wh-in-situ and scrambling in the context of comparative Altaic syntax. Paper Presented at WAFL 1 (Workshop in Altaic Formal Linguistics, MIT).
  • Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar: A first course. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (3), 372 – 422.
  • Rayner, K., and Juhasz, B. (2006). Reading processes in adults. K. Brown. (Ed.). In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp.373 – 378). Elsevier.
  • Rayner, K., and Pollatsek, A. (2006). Eye movement control in reading. M. J. Traxler and M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.). Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd Edition (pp.613 – 657). Elsevier.
  • Smiecinska, J. (2001). Towards a minimalist analysis of the argument-adjunct asymmetries in English. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 37, 195 – 209.
Toplam 23 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Taylan Akal

Yayımlanma Tarihi 29 Aralık 2017
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2017 Cilt: 28 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Akal, T. (2017). Tümce İşlemlemede Ne-Üyesi/Eklentisi Asimetrisi. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 28(2), 43-71. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.287720

88x31.png

Bu eser


Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad