KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Psikoloji Çalışmaları / 2026 / Cilt: 41 Sayı: 1

Prosodic Focus Marking in Turkish:An Electrophysiological Study

İpek Pınar Uzun(Ankara Üniversitesi, Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi, Dilbilim Bölümü, Nörobilim ve Nöroteknoloji Mükemmeliyet Merkezi, Ankara, Türkiye)0000-0003-3103-0758
Özgür Aydın(Ankara Üniversitesi, Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi, Dilbilim Bölümü, Nörobilim ve Nöroteknoloji Mükemmeliyet Merkezi, Ankara, Türkiye)0000-0003-2925-4146
Canan Kalaycıoğlu(Ankara Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Fizyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Nörobilim ve Nöroteknoloji Mükemmeliyet Merkezi, Ankara, Türkiye)0000-0001-5203-1712
İclal Ergenç(Ankara Üniversitesi, Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi, Dilbilim Bölümü, Ankara, Türkiye)0000-0003-0380-9844
Sayfa
331–364
Yayın Tarihi
2021-02-08
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular bürünsel bozulmada beynin arka bölgelerinde sol yarıküreye yanallaşmış geniş yayılımlı bir pozitivite (400-1200 ms) ve sağ ön negativite (RAN) etkisi (300-500 ms) olduğunu göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Odaklı birimler genellikle sözdizimsel düzenlilik ve bürün ile belirlenmektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Günümüz psikodilbilim araştırmaları, bürün ve sözdizim arasında süreç-içi tümce anlamlandırma aşamasında odak aracılığıyla bir etkileşim oluştuğunu varsaymaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular bürünsel bozulmada beynin arka bölgelerinde sol yarıküreye yanallaşmış geniş yayılımlı bir pozitivite (400-1200 ms) ve sağ ön negativite (RAN) etkisi (300-500 ms) olduğunu göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Odak · bürün · sözdizim

Özet

Odaklı birimler genellikle sözdizimsel düzenlilik ve bürün ile belirlenmektedir. Serbest sözdizimine sahip bir dil olan Türkçe odağı işaretlemek için hem sözdizimsel hem de bürünsel bilgiyi kullanmaktadır. Ancak bu dil, eylem-sonu ko-numunda odak işaretlemeye izin vermemektedir. Bu araştırmada bürünsel ve sözdizimsel bilgi kullanılarak Türkçede odağın nörofizyolojik süreçleri incelenmiştir. Günümüz psikodilbilim araştırmaları, bürün ve sözdizim arasında süreç-içi tümce anlamlandırma aşamasında odak aracılığıyla bir etkileşim oluştuğunu varsaymaktadır. Bu çalışma kapsamında anadili Türkçe ve tekdilli Türkçe konuşan, herhangi bir nörolojik, duyma ya da dile özgü bozukluğu bulunmayan 30 ka-tılımcı (19-33 yaş aralığında 16 kadın ve 14 erkek) Elektroensefalografi (EEG) ile ölçüm yapılan deneylerde yer almıştır. Olaya ilişkin potansiyeller (OİP) kullanan bu araştırma, Türkçede bürün ve sözdizim arasındaki geç dönem etkileşimini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışmanın deneysel deseni bürünsel, sözdizimsel ve bürün-sözdizimsel bozulmalar içermektedir. Katılımcılardan bozuk ve düzgün odaklı tümceleri içeren 300 işitsel uyaranı (100 dolgu uyaranı) dinlemeleri isten-miştir. Uyaranlar her bir deney koşulu için 50 tümceden oluşmaktadır. Tüm kritik sözcükler tümce-sonu konumunda bulunmaktadır. Bürünsel bozulmada kritik sözcüklere eylem-sonu konumunda bozuk odaklama yapılarak, sözdizimsel bozulmada kritik sözcükler durum işaretleme (belirtme durumuna karşı yönelme durumu bozulması) ile bozulmuştur. Bununla birlikte bürün-sözdizim etkileşimine ilişkin bozulmada kritik sözcükler hem bozuk olarak odaklanmış, hem de bozuk durum işaretleme yapılmıştır. Bulgular bürünsel bozulmada beynin arka bölgelerinde sol yarıküreye yanallaşmış geniş yayılımlı bir pozitivite (400-1200 ms) ve sağ ön negativite (RAN) etkisi (300-500 ms) olduğunu göstermektedir. Sözdizimsel bozulma ise çiftyönlü ön negativite (300-500 ms) oluştuğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bürünsel ve sözdizimsel süreçlerde pozitif 600 (P600) ve Pozitif Kapanma Etkisi’nin (KPE) nöral bütünleşmesinin destekleyici etkisine ulaşıl-mıştır. Bulgular Türkçede tümce-sonu konumunda bürün ve sözdizimi etkileşimine ilişkin günümüz nörobilişsel yakla-şımlarına destek sunmaktadır.

Abstract

Focused elements are generally marked with syntactic canonicity and prosody. Being a scrambled language, Turkish uses both syntactic and prosodic information to mark the focus. However, it does not allow for focus marking in post-verbal position. In this study, the neurophysiological processes of the focus in Turkish are examined by using prosodic and syntactic information. Recent psycholinguistics studies assume that there is an interaction between prosody and syntax through the focus in the online sentence comprehension process. Thirty participants (16 female and 14 male between the ages of 19 and 33), whose native language was Turkish and who spoke monolingual Turkish, and who did not have any neurological, hearing, or linguistic impairments, took part in the experiments measured with Electroencephalogram (EEG). Using an event-related potentials (ERPs) design, this study provides evidence for an interaction between prosody and syntax in Turkish. The experimental design of the study consisted of prosodic, syntactic, and prosodic-syntactic violations. Participants were asked to listen 300 auditory stimuli (100 filler sentences) including sentences with both congruent and incongruent focus. The stimuli consisted of 50 sentences for each experimental condition. All critical words occurred in the sentence-final positions. For the prosodic violation critical words were focused via incongruent focusing on post-verbal position, and for the syntactic violation critical words were manipulated with case marking manipulation (i.e., accusative case versus dative case violations). In addition, for the interaction of prosodic and syntactic violations, critical words were incongruent focused and incongruent case was marked. The results revealed that prosodic incongruity elicited a broadly distributed positivity in posterior regions (400-1200 ms) lateralized to the left hemisphere and a right anterior negativity (RAN) (300-500 ms) effect. Syntactic violations also indicated a distributed anterior negativity (300-500 ms) effect. Supportive evidence for the late interaction of prosodic and syntactic processing in the neural integration of positive 600 (P600) and Closure Positive Shift (CPS) was observed. The findings provide support for recent neurocognitive approaches for late interaction between prosody and syntax in the sentence-final position in Turkish sentences.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Uzun, İ. P., Aydın, Ö., Kalaycıoğlu, C., Ergenç, İ. (2021). Prosodic Focus Marking in Turkish:An Electrophysiological Study. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, Cilt: 41 Sayı: 1, 331–364. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-0065

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (81)

  1. Atasoy, A., Höhle, B., Bastiaanse, R., & Popov, S. (2020). Focus and focus asymmetries in Turkish naturalistic speech. Unpublished manuscript, IdeaLab (International Doctorate for Experimental Approaches to Language and Brain), University of Groningen. google scholar
  2. Aydın, Ö., & Cedden, G. (2010). Sözdizim işlemlemesinde sağa taşıma etkisi. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 21(1), 1-9. doi: 10.18492/dad google scholar
  3. Batman-Ratyosyan, N., & Stromswold, K. (1999). What Turkish acquisition tells us about underlying word order and scrambling. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 37-52. google scholar
  4. Bayrak-Kurt, D. (2020). Processing focus structures in L1 Turkish and L2 English. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Boğaziçi University, Department of Foreign Language Education. google scholar
  5. Beckman, M. E. (1996). The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 17-67. google scholar
  6. Bekar, İ. P. (2016). Türkçede eylem-sonu konumunda bürün-sözdizim etkileşimi: Bir elektrofizyolojik inceleme. (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Ankara University, Department of Linguistics. google scholar
  7. Boersma, P. (2006). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Retrieved from: http://www. praat. org/. google scholar
  8. Bögels, S., Schriefers, H., Vonk, W., Chwilla, D. J., & Kerkhofs, R. (2010). The interplay between prosody and syntax in sentence processing: The case of subject- and object-control verbs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(5), 1036-1053. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21269 google scholar
  9. Bögels, S., Schriefers, H., Vonk, W., & Chwilla, J. D. (2011). The role of prosodic breaks and pitch accent in grouping words during on-line sentence processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9), 2447-2467. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21587 google scholar
  10. Cedden, G., & Aydın, Ö. (2019). Do non-native languages have an effect on word order processing in first languageTurkish?. InternationalJournal ofBilingualism, 23(4), 804-816. doi: 10.1177/1367006917703454 google scholar
  11. Chapman, L., & Chapman, J. P. (1987). The measurement of handedness. Brain and Cognition, 6, 175 -83. doi: 10.1016/0278-2626(87)90118-7 google scholar
  12. Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 21-58. doi: 10.1080/016909698386582 google scholar
  13. Delogu, F., Brouwer, H., & Crocker, M.W. (2019). Event-related potentials index lexical retrieval (N400) and integration (P600) during language comprehension. Brain and Cognition, 135, 103569. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2019.05.007 google scholar
  14. Deniz, N. D., & Fodor, J. D. (2017). Phrase lengths and the perceived informativeness of prosodic cues in Turkish. Language and Speech, 60(4), 505-529. doi: 10.1177/0023830916665653 google scholar
  15. Dinçtopal-Deniz, N. (2010). Relative clause attachment preferences of Turkish L2 speakers of English: Shallow parsing in the L2? In B. VanPatten, & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research on second language processing and parsing (pp. 27-63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: doi.org/10.1075/ lald.53.02din google scholar
  16. Duman, T.Y., Aygen, G., Özgirgin, N., & Bastiaanse, R. (2007). Object scrambling and finiteness in Turkish agrammatic production. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(4), 306-331. doi: 10.1016/j. jneuroling.2007.01.001 google scholar
  17. Eckstein, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Late interaction of syntactic and prosodic processes in sentence comprehension as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 130-143. doi: 10.1016/j. cogbrainres.2005.05.003 google scholar
  18. Eckstein, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2006). It’s early: Event-related potential evidence for initial interaction of syntax and prosody in speech comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 16961711. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1696 google scholar
  19. Ergenç, İ. (1995). Konuşma dili ve Türkçenin söyleyiş sözlüğü. Ankara: Multilingual. google scholar
  20. Erguvanlı, E. E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. google scholar
  21. Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78-84. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01839-8 google scholar
  22. Friederici, A. D., & Frisch, S. (2000). Verb Argument Structure Processing: The Role of Verb Specific and Argument-Specific Information. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 476-507. doi: 10.1006/ jmla.2000.2709 google scholar
  23. Frisch, S., & Schlesewsky, M. (2001). The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport, 12, 3391-3394. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200110290-00048 google scholar
  24. Frisch, S., & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). The resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(2), 484-498. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.07.010 google scholar
  25. Göksel, A. (1998). Linearity, focus, and the post-verbal position in Turkish. In L. Johanson (Ed.), The Mainz Meeting Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, (pp. 85-106), Wiesbaden: Harrosowitz, Verlag. google scholar
  26. Göksel, A. (2013). Flexible word order and anchors of the clause. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 3-25. google scholar
  27. Göksel, A., & Özsoy, S. (2000). Is there a focus position in Turkish? In A. Göksel, & C. Kerslake (Eds.), Proceedings of Ninth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. (pp. 219-228). Wiesbaden: Harrosowitz, Verlag. google scholar
  28. Göksel, A., & Özsoy, A. S. (2003). dA: a focus/topic associated clitic in Turkish. Lingua, 113, 11431167. doi: 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00016-0 google scholar
  29. Gunter, T. C., Friederici, A. D., & Schriefers, H. (2000). Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(4), 55668. doi: 10.1162/089892900562336 google scholar
  30. Güneş, G. (2013). On the role of prosodic constituency in Turkish. In U. Özge (Ed.), Proceedings of the WAFL8 MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA. google scholar
  31. Güneş, G. (2014). Constraints on syntax-prosody correspondence: The clausal and subclausal parentheticals in Turkish. Lingua, 150, 278-314. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.021 google scholar
  32. Hagoort, P., Brown, C.M., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of sentenceprocessing. Language & Cognitive Processes, 8, 439-483.doi:10.1080/01690969308407585 google scholar
  33. Hagoort, P., Brown, C.M., & Osterhout, L. (1999). The neurocognition of syntactic processing. In C.M. Brown, & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 273-316). Oxford: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  34. Honbolygo, F., Török, Â., Banreti, Z., Hunyadi, L., & Csepe, V (2016). ERP correlates of prosody and syntax interaction in case of embedded sentences. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 37, 22-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.08.001 google scholar
  35. Hopf, J. M., Bayer, J., Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1998). Event-related brain potentials and case information in syntactic ambiguities. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 264-280. doi: 10.1162/089892998562690 google scholar
  36. Hruska, C., & Alter, K. (2004). How prosody can influence sentence perception. In A. Steube (Ed.), Information structure: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects (pp. 211-226). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. google scholar
  37. Hruska, C., Alter, K., Steinhauer, K., & Steube, A. (2001). Misleading dialogs: Human’s brain reaction to prosodic information. In C. Cave, I. Guaitella, & S. Santi (Eds.), Orality and Gestures (pp. 425-430). Paris: L’Hartmattan. google scholar
  38. Hwang, H., & Steinhauer, K. (2011). Phrase length matters: The interplay between implicit prosody and syntax in Korean ‘garden path’ sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3555-3575. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00001 google scholar
  39. Itzhak, I., Pauker, E., Drury, J. E., Baum, S. R., & Steinhauer, K. (2010). Event-related potentials show online influence of lexical biases on prosodic processing. Neuroreport, 21, 8-13. doi: 10.1097/ WNR.0b013e328330251d google scholar
  40. İşsever, S. (2000). Türkçede bilgi yapısı. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Ankara University. google scholar
  41. İşsever, S. (2007). Towards a unified account of clause-initial scrambling in Turkish: A feature analysis. Turkic Languages, 11(1), 93-123. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag. google scholar
  42. İşsever, S. (2008). EPP-driven scrambling and Turkish, In Kurebito, T. (Ed.), Ambiguity of Morphological and Syntactic Analyses. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies (Research Institute for Languages of Asia and Africa [ILCAA]) Press. google scholar
  43. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. J. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159-201. doi: 10.1080/016909600386084 google scholar
  44. Kaan,E.,&Swaab,T.Y.(2003).Repair,revision,andcomplexityinsyntacticanalysis:Anelectrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Neuroscience, 15(1), 98-110. doi: 10.1162/089892903321107855 google scholar
  45. Kabak, B. (2011). Turkish vowel harmony. In M. van Oostendorp, C.J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology (pp. 1-24). Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0118 google scholar
  46. Kabak, B., & Revithiodou, A. (2009). An interface approach to prosodic word recursion. In J. Grijzenhout, & B. Kabak (Eds.), Phonological domains: Universals and deviations (pp. 105-133). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. google scholar
  47. Kahraman, B. (2013). Word order preferences of ditransitives in Turkish. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 67, 175-180. google scholar
  48. Kahraman, B., & Hirose, Y. (2018). Online comprehension of SOV and OSV sentences in Turkish with a supporting context. In T. Levin, & R. Masuda (Eds.), The Proceedings of 10th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 87. Cambridge, MA. google scholar
  49. Kahraman, B., Sato, A, & Sakai, H. (2010). Processing two types of ditransitive sentences in Turkish: Preliminary results from a self-paced reading study. Technical Report of IEICE, 110, 37-42. google scholar
  50. Kan, S. (2009). Prosodic domains and the syntax-prosody mapping in Turkish. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Boğaziçi University, İstanbul. google scholar
  51. Kelepir, M. (2001). Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. google scholar
  52. Kerkhofs, R., Vonk, W., Schriefers, H., & Chwilla, D. J. (2007). Discourse, syntax, and prosody: The brain reveals an immediate interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1421-1434. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.9.1421 google scholar
  53. Kornfilt, J. (2003). Scrambling, sub-scrambling and case in Turkish. In S. Karimi (Ed.), Word Order and Scrambling (pp. 125-155). Oxford: Blackwell. google scholar
  54. Kornfilt, J. (2005). Asymmetries between pre-verbal and post-verbal scrambling in Turkish, In J. Sabel, & M. Saito (Eds.), The Free Word Order Phenomenon: It’s Syntactic Sources and Diversity (pp. 163-180). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. google scholar
  55. Kural, M. (1992). Properties of scrambling in Turkish. (Unpublished Master Thesis). University of California, Los Angeles. google scholar
  56. Kural, M. (1997). Post-verbal constituents in Turkish and the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(3), 498-519. google scholar
  57. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11, 99-116. doi: 10.1016/0301-0511(80)90046-0 google scholar
  58. Kühn, J. (2013). Towards Focus Typology in Turkish. In M. Oliveira Jr. (Ed.), IV Coloquio Brasileiro De Prosodia Da Fala, 2. Maceio: Universidade Federal de Alagoas. google scholar
  59. Li, W., & Jang, Y. (2009). Perception of prosodic hierarchical boundaries in Mandarin Chinese sentences. Neuroscience, 158, 1416-1425. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.10.065 google scholar
  60. MacWhinney, B., Osman-Sagi, J., & Slobin, D. I. (1991). Sentence comprehension in aphasia in two clear case-marking languages. Brain and Language, 41, 234-249. doi: 10.1016/0093-934X(91)90154-S google scholar
  61. Magne, C., Astesano, C., Lacharet-Dujour, A., Morel, M., Alter, K., & Besson, M. (2005). On-line Processing of “Pop-Out” Words in spoken French Dialogues. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17(5), 740-756. doi: 10.1162/0898929053747667 google scholar
  62. Mannel, C., & Friederici, A. D. (2009). Pauses and Intonational Phrasing: ERP Studies in 5 month-old German Infants and Adults. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(10), 1988-2006. doi: 10.1162/ jocn.2009.21221 google scholar
  63. Maviş, İ., Arslan, S., & Aydın, Ö. (2019). Comprehension of word order in Turkish aphasia. Aphasiology, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2019.1622646 google scholar
  64. Meyer, M., Alter, K., Friederici, A.D., Lohmann, G., & von Cramon, D.Y. (2002). FMRI reveals brain regions mediating slow prosodic manipulations in spoken sentences. Human Brain Mapping, 17(2), 73-88. doi: 10.1002/hbm.10042 google scholar
  65. Nalçacı, E., Kalaycıoğlu, C., Güneş, E., & Çiçek, M. (2002). El tercihi anketinin geçerlik ve güvenilirliği. Journal of Turkish Psychiatry, 13(2), 99-106. google scholar
  66. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, L. (1992). Event-related potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785-806. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z google scholar
  67. Özge, U. (2003). A tune-based account of Turkish information structure. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Middle East Technical University. google scholar
  68. Özge, U., & Bozşahin, C. (2010). Intonation in the grammar of Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 35, 73-97. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.001 google scholar
  69. Özge, D., Küntay, A., & Snedeker, J. (2019). Why wait for the verb? Turkish speaking children use case markers for incremental language comprehension. Cognition, 183, 152-180. doi:10.1016/j. cognition.2018.10.026 google scholar
  70. Özge, D., Marinis, T., Zeyrek, D., & Özge, U. (2013). Object-first orders in Turkish do not pose a challenge during processing. In U. Özge (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (67) (pp. 269-280). MIT, Cambridge. google scholar
  71. Pannekamp, A., Toepel, U., Alter, K., Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Prosody-driven sentence processing: an event-related brain potential study. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 17(3), 407421. doi: 10.1162/0898929053279450 google scholar
  72. Pauker, E., Itzhak, I., Baum, S. R., & Steinhauer, K. (2011). Effects of cooperating and conflicting prosody in spoken English garden path sentences: ERP evidence for the boundary deletion hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2731-2751. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2011.21610 google scholar
  73. Qi, Z., Beach, S. D., Finn, A. S., Minas, J., Goetz, C., Chan, B., & Gabriel, J. D. E. (2017). Native-language N400 and P600 predict dissociable language-learning abilities in adults. Neuropsychologia, 98, 177-191. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.10.005 google scholar
  74. Sammler, D., Grosbras, M. H., Anwander, A., Bestelmeyer, P. E. G., & Belin, P. (2015). Dorsal and ventral pathways for prosody. Current Biology, 25(23), 3079-3085. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.10.009 google scholar
  75. Slobin, D., & Bever, T. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A cross-linguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12(3), 229-265. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(82)90033-6 google scholar
  76. Steinhauer, K. (2003). Electrophysiological correlates of prosody and punctuation. Brain and Language, 86, 142-164. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00542-4 google scholar
  77. Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature America, 2, 191-196. doi: 10.1038/5757 google scholar
  78. Toepel, U., Pannekamp, A., & Alter, K. (2007). Catching the news: Processing strategies in listening to dialog as measured by ERPs. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3, 53. doi: 10.1186/1744-9081-3-53 google scholar
  79. Ueno, M., & Kluender, R. (2003). On the processing of Japanese wh-questions: Relating grammar and brain. In G. Garding, & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 491-504). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. google scholar
  80. Uzun, İ.P., Arslan, S., & Aydın, Ö. (2020). What eye movements during silent reading can tell us about pre-verbal focus in Turkish? [Poster presentation] Laboratory Phonology Conference (LabPhon17). University of British Columbia. Vancouver, Canada. google scholar
  81. Wolff, S., Schlesewsky, M., Hirotani, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language, 107, 133-157. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.06.003 google scholar