PDF Zotero Mendeley EndNote BibTex Kaynak Göster

TÜRKÇEDEKİ UYUM ÖZELLİKLERİNİN ONARIM TABANLI İNCELENMESİ

Yıl 2012, Cilt 9, Sayı 1, 1 - 19, 14.01.2013

Öz

Özellik Hiyerarşisi Varsayımına göre, uyum özellikleri arasında kişi>sayı>cinsiyet biçiminde bir hiyerarşi bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı,Türkçede kişi ve sayı özellikleri arasında bir hiyerarşinin olup olmadığını onarım süreci üzerinden incelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda çalışmada yer alan 70 katılımcıya kişi, sayı ve hem kişi hem sayı özellikleri açısından bozulmalar içeren tümceler sunulmuş ve katılımcılardan bu tümceleri düzeltmeleri istenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda katılımcıların kişi bozulması içeren tümceleri özneye göre onarırken sayı ve kişi-sayı bozulmaları içeren tümceleri benzer oranda eylem çekimine ve özneye göre onardıkları gözlenmiştir. Kişi, sayı ve kişi-sayı bozulmaları ikili olarak karşılaştırıldığında çalışmanın bulgularının Özellik Hiyerarşisi Varsayımını desteklediği, diğer bir deyişle Türkçede kişi>sayı biçiminde bir hiyerarşinin bulunduğu görülmektedir. Bu çalışma ile ulaşılan bir diğer bulgu ise, onarım sürecinde çizgiselliğin değil, baş ile gösterici arasındaki ilişkinin belirleyici olduğudur. Çünkü, onarım sürecinde tümcelerin özne-eylem ya da eylem-özne dizilişine sahip olmasının bir etkisinin olmadığı görülmüştür. Her iki durumda da katılımcılar kişi bozulmaları içeren tümceleri özneye göre düzeltmiştir.

Kaynakça

  • Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A. (2003). Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 681-735.
  • Bahloul, M., & Harbert, W. (1993). Agreement Asymmetries In Arabic. Paper presented at the Eleventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford, CA.
  • Baker, M. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Benmamoun, E. (2000). Agreement Asymmetries and The PF Interface. J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm ve U. Shlonsky (Haz.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar (Papers from the Third Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Sophia Antipolis, France, 1996 ed.) içinde. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Bianchi, V. (2006). On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua, 116 (12), 2023–2067.
  • Bornkessel, I., Mcelree, B., Schlesewsky, M. & Friederici, A.D. (2004). Multidimensional contribution to garden-path strength: Dissociating phrase structure fromcase marking. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 495–522.
  • Bornkessel, I. & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113 (4), 787–821.
  • Carminati, M. N. (2005). Processing reflexes of hierarchy (Person>number>gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua, 115, 259–285.
  • Citko, B. (2005). Agreement asymmetries in coordinate structures. Formal approaches to slavic linguistics: The Ottawa meeting. Ottawa: Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications
  • Franck, J., Vigliocco, G. & Nicol, J. (2002). Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 371- 404.
  • Friederici, A.D., Hahne, A. & Saddy, D. (2002). Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 45–63.
  • Friederici, A. D. & Kotz, S. (2003). The brain basis of syntactic processes: Functional imaging and Lesion studies. Neuroimage, 20, S8–S17.
  • Göz, İ. (2003). Yazılı Türkçenin kelime sıklığı sözlüğü. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
  • Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universal of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. J. H. Greenberg, (Haz.), The universals of language, (73-113). MIT Press,Cambridge, MA.
  • Greenhouse, S., Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychonomics, 24, 95–112.
  • Guasti, M. T., & Rizzi, L. (2002). Agreement and tense as distinct syntactic positions: Evidence from acquisition. G. Cinque (Haz.), The structure of DP and IP—The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 1). (167-194) New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Harley, H. & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis, Language, 78 (3), 482-526.
  • Haskell, T. & MacDonald, M. (2005). Constituent structure and linear order in language production: Evidence from subject-verb agreement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31, 891–904.
  • Linn, M.S., Rosen, S. (2003). The functional projections of subject splits. W.E. Griffin (Haz.), The role of agreement in natural language: TLS 5 Proceedings, (135-146). Texas Linguistic Forum, 53.
  • Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L. & Carreiras, M. (2011a). A person is not a number: Discourse involvement in subject–verb agreement computation. Brain Research, 1412 (2), 64-76.
  • Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L. & Carreiras, M. (2011b).When persons disagree: An ERP study of unagreement in Spanish. Psychophysiology, 48 (10), 1361–1371.
  • Nevins, A., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S. & Phillips, C. (2007). The role of feature-number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research, 1164, 81–94.
  • Preminger, O. (2011). Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: A commentary on Baker’s SCOPA. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29 (4), 917–937.
  • Shlonsky, U. (1989). The hierarchical representation of subject-verb agreement. Ms, University of Haifa.
  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2001). Inflectional features and clausal structure. J. Niemi & J. Heikkinen (Haz.), Nordic and Baltic morphology: Papers from A NorFa Course, Tartui June 2000 [Studies in languages 36], (99-111). University of Joenssu.
  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. ve Holmberg, A. (2008). Icelandic dative intervention: Person and number are separate probes. R. D’Alessandro, S. Fischer & G. Hrafnbjargarson (Haz.), Agreement Restrictions, (251–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Sigurdsson, H. Á. (2004). The syntax of person, tense and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 16, 219–251.
  • Sigurdsson, H. Á. (2006). Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. C. Boeckx, (Haz.), Agreement Systems (201-237). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Silva-Pereyra, J. & Carreiras, M. (2007). An ERP Study of agreement features in Spanish. Brain Research, 1185, 201–211.
  • Silverstein, M. (1985). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Muysken P. V. & Riemsdijk, H. (Haz.), Features And Projections, (163–232). Foris, Dordrecht.
  • Smallwood, C. (1997). Dis-agreement in Canadian English existentials. Proceedings of the 1997 annual conference of the Canadian linguistic association, (227–238). Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
  • Sparks, R. B. (1984). Here’s few more facts. Linguistic Inquiry, 15 (1), 179-183.
  • Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68, 13–29.

Yıl 2012, Cilt 9, Sayı 1, 1 - 19, 14.01.2013

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A. (2003). Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 681-735.
  • Bahloul, M., & Harbert, W. (1993). Agreement Asymmetries In Arabic. Paper presented at the Eleventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford, CA.
  • Baker, M. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Benmamoun, E. (2000). Agreement Asymmetries and The PF Interface. J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm ve U. Shlonsky (Haz.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar (Papers from the Third Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Sophia Antipolis, France, 1996 ed.) içinde. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Bianchi, V. (2006). On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua, 116 (12), 2023–2067.
  • Bornkessel, I., Mcelree, B., Schlesewsky, M. & Friederici, A.D. (2004). Multidimensional contribution to garden-path strength: Dissociating phrase structure fromcase marking. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 495–522.
  • Bornkessel, I. & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113 (4), 787–821.
  • Carminati, M. N. (2005). Processing reflexes of hierarchy (Person>number>gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua, 115, 259–285.
  • Citko, B. (2005). Agreement asymmetries in coordinate structures. Formal approaches to slavic linguistics: The Ottawa meeting. Ottawa: Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications
  • Franck, J., Vigliocco, G. & Nicol, J. (2002). Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 371- 404.
  • Friederici, A.D., Hahne, A. & Saddy, D. (2002). Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 45–63.
  • Friederici, A. D. & Kotz, S. (2003). The brain basis of syntactic processes: Functional imaging and Lesion studies. Neuroimage, 20, S8–S17.
  • Göz, İ. (2003). Yazılı Türkçenin kelime sıklığı sözlüğü. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
  • Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universal of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. J. H. Greenberg, (Haz.), The universals of language, (73-113). MIT Press,Cambridge, MA.
  • Greenhouse, S., Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychonomics, 24, 95–112.
  • Guasti, M. T., & Rizzi, L. (2002). Agreement and tense as distinct syntactic positions: Evidence from acquisition. G. Cinque (Haz.), The structure of DP and IP—The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 1). (167-194) New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Harley, H. & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis, Language, 78 (3), 482-526.
  • Haskell, T. & MacDonald, M. (2005). Constituent structure and linear order in language production: Evidence from subject-verb agreement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31, 891–904.
  • Linn, M.S., Rosen, S. (2003). The functional projections of subject splits. W.E. Griffin (Haz.), The role of agreement in natural language: TLS 5 Proceedings, (135-146). Texas Linguistic Forum, 53.
  • Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L. & Carreiras, M. (2011a). A person is not a number: Discourse involvement in subject–verb agreement computation. Brain Research, 1412 (2), 64-76.
  • Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L. & Carreiras, M. (2011b).When persons disagree: An ERP study of unagreement in Spanish. Psychophysiology, 48 (10), 1361–1371.
  • Nevins, A., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S. & Phillips, C. (2007). The role of feature-number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research, 1164, 81–94.
  • Preminger, O. (2011). Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: A commentary on Baker’s SCOPA. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29 (4), 917–937.
  • Shlonsky, U. (1989). The hierarchical representation of subject-verb agreement. Ms, University of Haifa.
  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2001). Inflectional features and clausal structure. J. Niemi & J. Heikkinen (Haz.), Nordic and Baltic morphology: Papers from A NorFa Course, Tartui June 2000 [Studies in languages 36], (99-111). University of Joenssu.
  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. ve Holmberg, A. (2008). Icelandic dative intervention: Person and number are separate probes. R. D’Alessandro, S. Fischer & G. Hrafnbjargarson (Haz.), Agreement Restrictions, (251–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Sigurdsson, H. Á. (2004). The syntax of person, tense and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 16, 219–251.
  • Sigurdsson, H. Á. (2006). Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. C. Boeckx, (Haz.), Agreement Systems (201-237). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Silva-Pereyra, J. & Carreiras, M. (2007). An ERP Study of agreement features in Spanish. Brain Research, 1185, 201–211.
  • Silverstein, M. (1985). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Muysken P. V. & Riemsdijk, H. (Haz.), Features And Projections, (163–232). Foris, Dordrecht.
  • Smallwood, C. (1997). Dis-agreement in Canadian English existentials. Proceedings of the 1997 annual conference of the Canadian linguistic association, (227–238). Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
  • Sparks, R. B. (1984). Here’s few more facts. Linguistic Inquiry, 15 (1), 179-183.
  • Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68, 13–29.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Mehmet Aygüneş
0000-0002-0327-6905

Yayımlanma Tarihi 14 Ocak 2013
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2012, Cilt 9, Sayı 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Aygüneş, M. (2013). TÜRKÇEDEKİ UYUM ÖZELLİKLERİNİN ONARIM TABANLI İNCELENMESİ . Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi , 9 (1) , 1-19 . Retrieved from http://ded.mersindilbilim.info/tr/pub/issue/19508/207842