SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 2

Wh-Argument/Adjunct Asymmetry in Sentence Processing

Tümce İşlemlemede Ne-Üyesi/Eklentisi Asimetrisi

Taylan AKAL
Pages
43–71
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️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)

This seems to support a verb-oriented approach in licensing the scrambled wh-phrases

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This seems to support a verb-oriented approach in licensing the scrambled wh-phrases
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

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

Özet

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. Neöbeğinin 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

🔖

Cite This Article

AKAL, T. (2022). Wh-Argument/Adjunct Asymmetry in Sentence Processing. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 2, 43–71. https://ajindex.com/articles/488417

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Adger, D. (2004).
  2. Core Syntax. A Minimalist Aproach, Oxford University Press,
  3. NY. Akal, T. (2014). Eye-tracking analysis of the processing of Turkish complex sentences wth wh-phrases. Journal of Faculty of Letters, 31 (1), 1 - 22. Akar, D. (1990). Wh-questions in Turkish. M.A. Thesis. Boğaziçi University, İstanbul,
  4. Turkey. Carnie, A. (2007). Syntax: A generative introduction, 2nd Edition,
  5. Blackwell Publishing. Uzun, N.E. (2000). Ana çizgileriyle evrensel dilbilgisi ve Türkçe. İstanbul:
  6. Multilingual. Steapanov, A., and Stateva, P. (2015). Cross-linguistic evidence for memory storage costs in filler gap dependencies with wh-adjuncts. Frontiers in Psycholinguistics, 6, 1 – 19. Smiecinska, J. (2001). Towards a minimalist analysis of the argument-adjunct asymmetries in English. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 37, 195 – 209. Sabel, J. (2002). A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands. The Linguistic Review, 19, 271 – 315. 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. 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. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (3), 372 – 422. Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar: A first course. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Özsoy, S. (2009). Turkish as a (non)-wh-in-situ language. E. A. Csato, G. Ims, J. Parslow, F. Thiesen, E. Türker (Eds.). In Turcological Letters to Bernt Brendemoen, 221 – 232. Oslo: Novus Forlag. Özsoy, S. (1996). A’ dependencies in Turkish. B. Rona (Ed.). Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 15 – 17 August, 1990, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1, 139-158.
  8. Hitit Yayınevi, Ankara. O’Grady, W., Lee, M., and Choo, M. (2003). A subject–object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 433–448.
  9. 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). Meseguer, E., Carreiras, M., and Clifton, C. Jr. (2002). Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mil