TÜRK ÇOCUKLARININ TÜMCE İŞLEMLEME SÜREÇLERİ: GÖZ İZLEME ÇALIŞMASI

Author :  

Year-Number: 2020-Year: 13 - Number: 80
Language : İngilizce
Konu : Sosyal, Beşeri ve İdari Bilimler Temel Alanı- Dilbilimi
Number of pages: 213-230
Mendeley EndNote Alıntı Yap

Abstract

Cümleyi kavramak, hem cümleyi oluşturan herbir kelimeyi anlamlandırmayı hem de kelimeler arasındaki hiyerarşik ilişkiyi anlamlandırmaya bağlıdır. Günümüze kadar birçok bilim adamı cümlelerin kavranmasını bir çok farklı yöntem kullanarak araştırmıştır. Bu araştırmada, cümlelerin kavranması, herhangi bir dilsel gelişim bozukluğu olmayan okul çağındaki çocuklarda göz izleme yöntemi kullanılarak araştırılmıştır. Veriler on set cümleden oluşan, her setin dört farklı anlamsal durum içerdiği, gerçek anlam, mecazi anlam, yan anlam ve teknik anlam taşıyan cümlelerden oluşmaktadır. Herbir durumda hedef kelime, ilgi alanı belirlenmiş ve toplam 40 cümle kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışmada dört farklı anlamsal durumda bulunan Türkçe cümlelerin işlemlenmesini inceleyebilmek için göz izleme metrikslerinden ‘ilk odaklanma süresi’, ‘ toplam odaklanma süresi’, ‘toplam ziyaret süresi’ kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçları toplam odaklanma süresi ve toplam ziyaret süresi değişkenlerinde dört anlam kategorisinde anlamsal fark göstermiştir. Toplam odaklanma süresi ve toplam ziyaret süresi değişkenlerinde gerçek ve yan anlam kategorileri arasında, mecazi anlam ve yan anlam kategorileri arasında anlamlı fark vardır. Bunun aksine gerçek anlam ve mecaz anlam, gerçek anlam ve teknik anlam ve mecaz anlam ve teknik anlam kategorileri arasında anlamsal bir fark bulunmamıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçları aynı sözcüğün farklı anlamları farklı şekilde işlemlenebileceğini ve farklı zorlukta olabileceğini göstermiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları yan anlam içeren cümlelerin gerçek, terim ve mecazi anlam içeren cümlelerden daha uzun sürede işlemlendiğini göstermiştir. Çocukların gerçek anlamla yan anlam arasındaki bağı kurmada zorlandıkları düşünülmektedir. Eğitimciler çocukların bilişsel kabiliyetlerini geliştirmeli ve onlara gerçek ve yan anlam arasındaki bağı kurmalarına yardımcı olmalıdırlar. Çalışmanın sonuçları çocukların daha sık karşılaştıkları anlamları daha hızlı işlemlediklerini göstermektedir ve çalışmanın bulguları Giora’nın Graded Salience Hipotezi ile uyumludur.

Keywords

Abstract

Sentence comprehension depends on the understanding of both the individual words and their hierarcical relations with other words. So far, researchers have studied sentence processing by using different methods. In this study, sentence comprehension of school-aged children without developmental language disorder were investigated by using eye tracking measure. The data collection tool consists of ten sets of sentences in four different meaning conditions such as literal sense, figurative sense, polysemous sense and technical sense. In each condition the same target word, area of interest, were identified, which make a total of 40 target sentences. In this study, ‘the first fixation duration’, ‘total fixation duration’ and ‘total visit duration’ are used as the metrics of eye tracking data to analyze the processing of different types of Turkish sentences. The results revealed that in TVD and TFD parameters there was significant difference among all 4 categories of meanings. Furthermore, there was significant difference in TVD and TFD parameter among literal and polysemous meaning categories and figurative and polysemous meaning categories. On the contrary there was no significant difference among literal and figurative, literal and technical and figurative and technical meaning categories. The results of this study indicate that different meanings of the same word can cause different processing difficulties. The processing of polysemous meaning takes longer time than processing of literal, figurative and technical meaning. The children have difficulty in making connection between the literal meaning and polysemous meaning. Educators should improve children’s cognitive abilities and help them to create the connection between the literal and polysemous sense. The results suggest that salient meaning is more activated than the less frequent meaning. The results of the study are in consistence with Giora’s Graded Salience Hypothesis revealing that salient meaning is activated faster than the nonsalient meaning.

Keywords


  • Akkök E. A., Uzun İ.P. (2018). Metaphor Processing in Turkish: An Eye-Movement Study. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 15(1), 105-124.

  • Aksan, D. (2006). Anlambilim Konuları ve Türkçenin Anlambilimi. 4. Basım. Ankara: Engin Yayınevi.

  • Alptekin C., Erçetin G. (2015). Eye movements in reading span tasks to working memory functions and second language reading. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 35-56.

  • Alkan S., Cagiltay K. (2007). Studying computer game learning experience through eye tracking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 538-542.

  • Andrews, G., Ogden, J.E, and Halford, G.S. (2017). Resolving conflicts between syntax and plausibility in sentence comprehension. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 13, 11-27.

  • Archibald, L.M.D., and Gathercole, S. E. (2007). The complexities of complex memory span: Storage and processing deficits in specific language impairment. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 177-194.

  • Arnon, I., and Clark, E. V. (2011). Why brush your teeth is better than teeth- Children’s word production is facilitated in familiar sentence-frames. Language Learning and Development, 7, 107129.

  • Arnon, I., McCauley, S. M., and Christiansen, M. H. (2017). Digging up the building blocks of language: Age- of- acquisition effects for multiword phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 92- 256-280.

  • Bannard, C., and Lieven, E. (2012). Formulaic language in L1 acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 3-16.

  • Bergelson, E., and Swingley, D. (2012). At 6-9 months, human infants know the meanings of many common nouns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences f the United States of America, 109(9), 3253-3258.

  • Blewitt P. (1982). Word Meaning Acquisition in Young Children: A Review of Theory and Research. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 17, 139-195.

  • Bobrow, S. A. and Bell, S. M. (1973). On Catching on to Idiomatic Expressions. Memory & Cognition, 1(3), 343-346.

  • Bohrn, C.I., Altmann, U. & Jacobs, A.M. (2012). Looking at the brains behind figurative language-A quantative meta analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing. Neuropsycologica (50), 2669-2683.

  • Bortfeld, H. and McGlone, M. S. (2001). The continuum of metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1-2), 75-86.

  • Bozavlı E. (2017) İlkokul Çağındaki Çocuklarda Kavram Edinimi ve Söylemsel Sapmalar. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(61): 509-518.

  • Büyüköztürk Ş., Çakmak E. K., Akgün Ö. E., Karadeniz Ş., Demirel F. (2018) Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.

  • Cacciari, C., and Tabossi, P. (1988). The Comprehension of Idioms, Journal of Memory and Language, 27(6), 668-683.

  • Cruse, A. (2011). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. 3rd edition.

  • Columbus, G., Sheikh, A.N., Cote-Lecaldare, M. & Hauser, K. (2015). Individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing: An Eye-Movement Study of Sentence Reading. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (8), 10-57.

  • Crocker, M. W. (1999). Mechanisms for sentence processing. S. Garrod and M. Pickering (Eds.), Language Processing, 191-223. Psychology Press ltd. Publishers, UK.

  • Cuyckens, H. and Zawada, B. E. (Eds.). (2001). Polysemy in cognitive linguistics: selected papers from the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997 (Vol. 177). John Benjamins Publishing.

  • Dolgunsöz E. (2016). Using Eye-Tracking to Measure Lexical Inferences and its Effects on Reading Rate during EFL Reading. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(1), 63-78.

  • Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547-619.

  • Dussias P. E. (2010) Uses of Eye-Tracking Data in Second Language Sentence Processing Research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Volume 30.149-166.

  • Friederici A. D. (2002) Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78-84.

  • Frisson, S. and Pickering, M.J. (1999). Processing ambiguous verbs: evidence from eyemovements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (25)6, 1366-1383.

  • Garrod, S. (2006). Psycholinguistic Research Methods. Keith Brown (Ed.) Encyclopediaof Language and Linguistics, 2nd Edition (251 – 257). Elsevier.

  • Gibbs, R. W. (1980). Spilling the Beans on Understanding and Memory for Idioms in Conversation. Memory & Cognition, 8(2), 149-156.

  • Gibbs Jr, R. W., & Nayak, N. P. (1989). Psycholinguistic Studies on the Syntactic Behavior of Idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 100-138.

  • Gibbs, RW (2002) A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 457-486.

  • Gibbs, RW., Colston HL. (2012) Interpreting Figurative Meaning. Newyork: Cambridge University Press

  • Giora, R. (1997). Understanding Figurative and Literal Language: The Graded Salience Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 183-206.

  • Giora, R. (2002). Literal vs. Figurative language: Different of Equal? Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 487-506.

  • Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words.USA: Harvard University Press

  • Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language From Metaphors to Idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(2), 92-96.

  • Haavisto, M. L., and Lehto, J. E. (2005) Fluid/spatial and crystallized intelligence in relation to domain- specific working memory: A latent-variable approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 121.

  • Hani R. (1996). What is the literal meaning of a sentence? Links&Letters 3 39-48.

  • Harley, T. (2005). The psychology of language. Hove; New York: Psychology Press.

  • Hazar, M. (2014). Türkçe (Sözcük) Anlam Bilimi-1. Eğitim Yayınevi.

  • Höhle, B., Hörnig, R., Weskott, T., Knauf, S., and Krüger, A. (2014). Effects of focus and definiteness on children’s word order: Evidence from German five-year-olds’ reproductions of double object constructions. Journal of Child Language, 41(4).

  • Holcomb, P. J., Coffey, S. A., and Neville, H. J. (1992). Visual and auditory sentence processing- A developmental analysis using event-related brain potentials. Developmental Neuropsychology, 8(23), 203-241.

  • İbe Akcan, P. and Akkök, E. (2016). Non-literal meaning comprehension: A small-scale analysis on Turkish speakers. International Journal of Language & Linguistics (3)4, 65-78.

  • Karaman, B. İ. (2009). Terim oluşturma yöntemleri. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı-Belleten, 57(2), 45-59.

  • Karaman, B. İ. (2017). Adli Metin Türlerinde Anlambilimsel Çözümlemeler. The Bulletin of Legal Medicine, 22(3), 208-217.

  • Kutas, M., and Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463-470.

  • Laine, M., and Koivisto, M. (1998). Lexical access to inflected words as measured by lateralized visual lexical decision. Psychological Research, 61, 220-229.

  • Lightbown P.M. and Spada N. (2017). How languages are learned. United Kingdom, Oxford University Press.

  • Liversedge, S. P., Findlay, J. M. (2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (1), 6 – 14.

  • Lowder, M.W. and Gordon, C.P. (2013). It’s hard to offend the college: Effects of sentence structure on figurative-language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition (39)4, 993-1011.

  • Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.

  • Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1-71.

  • Marton, K., Campanelli, L., Eichorn, N., Scheuer, J., and Yoon, J. (2014). Information processing and proactive interference in children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 106-119.

  • McCauley, S. M., Isbilen, E., and Christiansen, M. H. (2017). Chunking ability shapes sentence processing at multiple levels of abstraction. In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, and E. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2681-2686). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

  • Mitchell, D.C. (1994) Sentence parsing. In Handbook of Psycholinguistics (Gernsbacher, M.A. ed), 375- 409, Academic Press.

  • Montgomery, J. W., Evans, J. L., Fargo, J. D., Schwartz, S., Gillam, R. B. ( 2018) Structural relationship between cognitive processing and syntactic sentence comprehension in children with and without developmental language disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61, 2950-2976.

  • Nöth, W. (1995). Handbook of Semiotics, Indiana University Press.

  • Oberecker, R., Friedrich, M., and Friederici, A. D. (2005). Neural correlates o syntactic processing in two-year-olds. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(10), 1667-1678.

  • Picht, H., & Draskau, J. (1985). Terminology: an introduction (Vol. 2). University of Surrey, Department of Linguistic and International Studies.

  • Rayner, K., and Pollatsek, A. (2006). Eye movement control in reading. M. J. Traxlerand M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.). Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd Edition (pp.613 – 657). Elsevier.

  • Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press.

  • Roberts, L., and Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2013). Using Eye-Tracking to Investigate Topics in L2 Acquisition and L2 Processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35:213-235.

  • Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making Sense of Semantic Ambiguity: Semantic Competition in Lexical Access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46:245-266.

  • Sager, J. C. (1990). Practical course in terminology processing. John Benjamins Publishing.

  • Senemoğlu, N. (2007). Gelişim Öğrenme ve Öğretim Kuramdan Uygulamaya, Ankara: Gönül Yayıncılık.

  • Simpson, G.B., Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and Selection Processes in the Recognition of Ambiguous Words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(1), 28-39.

  • Suonuuti, H. (1997). Guide to terminology. Tekniikan Sanastokeskus.

  • Swinney, D. A., and Cutler, A. (1979). The Access and Processing of Idiomatic Expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(5), 523-534.

  • Tannenhaus, M. K., Magnuson, J. S., Dahan, D., & Chambers, C. (2000). Eye movements and lexical access in spoken-language comprehension: Evaluating a linking hypothesis between fixations and linguistic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 557–580

  • Tannenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.

  • Titone, D. A. and Connine, C. M. (1999). On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31: 1655–1674.

  • Trueswell, J. C. , Sekerina I., Hill N. M, Logrip M. L. (1999) The kindergarten-path effect: studying on- line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73: 89-134.

  • Sözlük, T. T. (2011). Prepared by: Şükrü Haluk Akalın. 11. Ed. Türk Dil Kurumu, Ankara.

  • Ungerer F., Schmid H. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Taylor&Francis. USA.

  • Weismer, S. E., Evans, J., and Hesketh, L. J. (1999). An examination of verbal working memory capacity in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 1249-1260.

  • Yule, G. (2010). The Study of Language, UK: Cambridge University Press. APPENDIX The forty sentences (literal meaning, polysemous meaning, figurative meaning and

                                                                                                                                                                                                        
  • Article Statistics