A Developmental Study of Turkish Connectives

Enis Oğuz; Duygu Özge

EN TR

A Developmental Study of Turkish Connectives

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

Kaynakça

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

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

-

Bölüm

Düzeltme

Yazarlar

Enis Oğuz ^*
0000-0001-5819-4926
Türkiye

Duygu Özge
0000-0002-1698-5479
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

30 Aralık 2020

Gönderilme Tarihi

4 Mart 2020

Kabul Tarihi

18 Haziran 2020

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 1970 Cilt: 31 Sayı: 2

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA42NC85MJ

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Oğuz, E., & Özge, D. (2020). A Developmental Study of Turkish Connectives. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 31(2), 339-361. https://izlik.org/JA42NC85MJ

Türkçe Bağlaçlar Üzerine Gelişimsel Bir Çalışma

A Developmental Study of Turkish Connectives

Abstract

Keywords

Türkçe Bağlaçlar Üzerine Gelişimsel Bir Çalışma

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Konular

Bölüm

Yazarlar

Yayımlanma Tarihi

Gönderilme Tarihi

Kabul Tarihi

Yayımlandığı Sayı

IZ

Kaynak Göster