SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkbilig / 2025 / Cilt: 2025 Sayı: 49

THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXT TYPE IN DISAMBIGUATING RELATIVE CLAUSES IN TURKISH

Türkçe Ortaç Yantümcelerinin Çözümlenmesinde Bağlam Türünün Etkileri

Yasemin Aydın0000-0001-6273-5879
Taylan Akal(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ, İNGİLİZ DİLBİLİMİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-8740-7908
Journal
Türkbilig
Pages
28–58
Publication Date
2025-06-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Comparing the context types, the findings further suggest that linguistic context is more effective than situational context.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:By examining the processing difficulties incurred by relative clause ambiguities, significant findings are derived on how sentence processor works.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The results reveal that NP1 preference observed in neutral contexts transforms into NP2 when both types of contexts bias NP2.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Comparing the context types, the findings further suggest that linguistic context is more effective than situational context.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ortaç yantümceleri · bulanıklık · ilişkilendirme tercihleri

Abstract

By examining the processing difficulties incurred by relative clause ambiguities, significant findings are derived on how sentence processor works. The goal of the present study is to understand the effect of context types in relative clause attachment in Turkish. The situational and linguistic contexts are manipulated to observe if attachment preference differs in neutral and context-dependent settings via off-line and on-line tasks. The results reveal that NP1 preference observed in neutral contexts transforms into NP2 when both types of contexts bias NP2. Comparing the context types, the findings further suggest that linguistic context is more effective than situational context.

Özet

Ortaç yantümcelerinin sebep olduğu bulanıklığın çalışılması tümce işlemleyicinin nasıl çalıştığına ilişkin olarak önemli bulgular sağlar. Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkçe ortaç yantümceleri ilişkilendirilmesinde bağlam türünün etkisini ortaya çıkartmaktır. Çevrimdışı ve çevrimiçi yöntemlerle, ilişkilendirme tercihlerinin bağlam dışı ve bağlam bağıntılı kurgularda değişip değişmediğini gözlemlemek amacıyla durumsal ve dilsel bağlam manipülasyonu uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, bağlam dışı durumda gözlemlenen AÖ1 tercihinin, her iki bağlam türü de AÖ2 tercihini etkilediğinde AÖ2’ye dönüştüğünü göstermektedir. Bağlam türlerinin karşılaştırılması ise dilsel bağlamın durumsal bağlamdan daha etkili olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aydın, Y., Akal, T. (2025). THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXT TYPE IN DISAMBIGUATING RELATIVE CLAUSES IN TURKISH. Türkbilig, Cilt: 2025 Sayı: 49, 28–58. https://doi.org/10.59257/turkbilig.1495905

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (52)

  1. Akal, T. (2021). Recency preference in ambiguous relative clause attachment in Turkish. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies,17(Special Issue 1), 139-159.
  2. Altmann, G., and Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30 (3), 191–238.
  3. Baltazar D., and Kister, L. (1995). Corrélation entre détermination et sélection d’unanaphorisé dans une structure N de N. Paper presented at the Séminaire “Anaphore et Référence”, Nancy (CRIN), 20-22 September.
  4. Başer, Z. (2018). Syntactic Priming of Relative Clause Attachment in Monolingual Turkish Speakers and Turkish Learners of English (Doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University Graduate School of Informatics, Ankara.
  5. Brysbaert, M., and Mitchell, D.C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence processing: Evidence from Dutch. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49(3), 664–695.
  6. Carreiras, M., and Clifton, C. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36(4), 353–372.
  7. Carreiras, M., and Clifton, C. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eye- tracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory and Cognition, 27, 826–833.
  8. Clifton, C., Traxler, M. J., Mohamed, M. T., Williams, R. S., Morris, R. K., and Rayner, K. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 317–334.
  9. Crain, S. and Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen and A.M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 320-358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Cuetos, F., and Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: restrictions on the issue of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition 30, 73 – 105.
  11. Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D.C., and Corley, M.M.B. (1996). Parsing in different languages. In M. Carreiras, J.E. Garcia–Albea, and N. Sebastian–Galles (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish (pp. 145–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  12. De Vincenzi, M., and Job, R. (1995). An investigation of late closure: the role of syntax, thematic structure and pragmatics in initial and final interpretations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 21(6), 1303-1321.
  13. Desmet, T., De Baecke, C., and Brysbaert, M. (2002). The influence of referential discourse context on modifier attachment in Dutch. Memory & Cognition, 30, 150–157.
  14. Dinçtopal-Deniz, N. (2010). Relative clause attachment preferences of Turkish L2 speakers of English. In B. Van Patten and J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research in Second Language Processing and Parsing (pp. 27-63). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  15. Ehrlich, K., Fernandez, E., Fodor, J.D., Stenshoel, E., and Vinereanu, M. (1999, March). Low attachment of relative clauses: New data from Swedish, Norwegian and Romanian. Poster presented at the 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, USA.
  16. Ferreira, F., and Clifton Jr, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(3), 348-368.
  17. Fernández, E. M. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub.
  18. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies (Doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
  19. Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5, 519 – 559.
  20. Frazier, L., and Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  21. Frazier, L. and Clifton, C. (1997). Construal: Overview, motivation, and some new evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26 – 3, 277 – 295.
  22. Frazier, L., and Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291 – 326.
  23. Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., and Hyams, N. (2011). An introduction to language. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.
  24. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzales, and Hickock, G. E. (1996). Recency preferences in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition 59, 23 – 59.
  25. Gilboy, E., Sopena, J.M., Clifton, C., Jr., and Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs, Cognition, 54, 131-167.
  26. Göksel, A., and Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.
  27. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., and Strube, G. (1998). Syntactical ambiguity resolution in German. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: A crosslinguistic perspective (Vol. 31, pp. 293–312). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  28. Kahraman, B. (2015). Processing Turkish relative clauses in context. In D. Zeyrek, Ç.S. Şimşek, J. Rehbein and U. Atas (Eds.), Turcologica: Ankara Papers in Turkish and Turkic Linguistics (Vol. 103, pp. 98–109). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
  29. Kamide, Y., and Mitchell, D.C. (1997). Relative clause attachment: nondeterminism in Japanese parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 26, 247 – 254.
  30. Kırkıcı, B. (2004). The processing of relative clause attachment ambiguities in Turkish. Journal of Turkic Languages, 8(1), 111-121.
  31. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B. Scheepers, C., and Strube, G. (1997) The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 307-348.
  32. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Routledge, London.
  33. Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., and Schriefers, H. (2002). The Influence of Animacy on Relative Clause Processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 50-68.
  34. Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., and Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 466–490. McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., and Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312.
  35. Mitchell D. C. and Cuetos F. (1991). The origins of parsing strategies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Current Issues in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1-12). Austin: University of Texas, Centre for Cognitive Science.
  36. Mitchell D. C., Cuetos F., Corley M. M. B., and Brysbaert M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469–488.
  37. Mitchell, D. C., and Brysbaert, M. (1998). Challenges to recent theories of crosslinguistic variation in parsing: Evidence from Dutch. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Sentence processing: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 313–335). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  38. Pan, H.-Y., and C. Felser (2011). Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: Evidence from self- paced reading. Lingua, 121, 221–236.
  39. Pan, H.-Y., Schimke, S., and Felser, C. (2015). Referential context effects in non-native relative clause ambiguity resolution. International Journal of Bilingualism 19(3), 298–313.
  40. Papadopoulou, D. (2006). Cross-linguistic variation in sentence processing: Evidence from RC attachment preferences in Greek. Dordrecht: Springer.
  41. Pynte J. (1998). The time course of attachment decisions: Evidence from French. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Sentence processing: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 227–245). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  42. Quinn, D., Abdelghany, H., and Fodor, J. D. (2000). More evidence of implicit prosody in reading: French and Arabic relative clauses. Poster presented at the 13th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, CA, March 30–April 1.
  43. Ratcliff, J. E. (1987). The plausibility effect: Lexical priming or sentential processing? Memory & Cognition, 15(6), 482–496.
  44. Sekerina, I. (1997). The Late Closure Principle in processing of ambiguous Russian sentences. Paper presented at the Second European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages. University of Potsdam, Germany.
  45. Song, L. (2010). The Role of Context in Discourse Analysis. Journal of Language Teaching & Research. 6(1), 876-879.
  46. Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Trueswell, J. C., and Tanenhaus, M. K. (1993). Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 47(2), 276–309.
  47. Traxler, M. J., and Gernsbacher, M. A. (2006). Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed.). Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier/Academic Press.
  48. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., and Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.
  49. Turan, C. (2020). High Vs Low: Turkish Parser’s Attachment Preferences to Relative Clauses. ISPEC International Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 4(3), 241–270.
  50. Wijnen, F. (1998). Dutch relative clause attachment in two- and three-site contexts. Poster presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Conference. New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
  51. Yule, G. (2010). The study of language. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  52. Zagar, D., Pynte, J., and Rativeau, S. (1997). Evidence for early closure attachment on first- pass reading times in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 50(2), 421–438.