KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2

Türkçede Tümce İşlemlemede Sözdizimsel Yapı ve Uzaklık Etkisi

The Syntactic Structure and Distance Effect on Sentence Processing in Turkish

Selin Çalışkan(ANKARA UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-6791-9108
Alper Kumcu(HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-0844-3562
İpek Pınar Uzun(ANKARA UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-3103-0758
Sayfa
49–75
Yayın Tarihi
2025-12-28
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Önceki araştırmalar, Görsel Dünya Paradigması’nı (GDP) kullanarak, tümce işlemlemenin, tümcelerin sunulduğu görsel ortamdan etkilendiğini göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Önceki araştırmalar, Görsel Dünya Paradigması’nı (GDP) kullanarak, tümce işlemlemenin, tümcelerin sunulduğu görsel ortamdan etkilendiğini göstermektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:İşitsel-görsel bilginin sözdizimsel karmaşıklık (içe-gömülü ve çizgisel) ve tümce uzaklığı (kısa ve uzun) ile nasıl etkileşime girdiği incelenmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgularımız, sözdizimsel karmaşıklığın bakış sürelerini etkilediğini ve çizgisel uzaklığın belirgin bir etkisinin bulunduğunu göstermiştir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Sözdizimsel Karmaşıklık · Türkçe · Çizgisel Uzaklık

Özet

Önceki araştırmalar, Görsel Dünya Paradigması’nı (GDP) kullanarak, tümce işlemlemenin, tümcelerin sunulduğu görsel ortamdan etkilendiğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, GDP kullanılan bir göz izleme deneyi aracılığıyla Türkçede tümce işlemlemede sözdizimsel karmaşıklığın ve çizgisel uzaklığın süreç-içi işlenmesini araştırmaktadır. İşitsel-görsel bilginin sözdizimsel karmaşıklık (içe-gömülü ve çizgisel) ve tümce uzaklığı (kısa ve uzun) ile nasıl etkileşime girdiği incelenmiştir. Çalışmada işitsel-görsel bilginin, özne ilgi tümceciklerinde sözdizimsel karmaşıklığın süreç-içi işlemlemesine duyarlı olduğu ve eylem-öncesi ile eylem-sonrası arasındaki çizgisel uzaklığın artımlı işlemleme açısından önemli olduğu varsayımlanmıştır. Bulgularımız, sözdizimsel karmaşıklığın bakış sürelerini etkilediğini ve çizgisel uzaklığın belirgin bir etkisinin bulunduğunu göstermiştir.

Abstract

Previous research using the Visual World Paradigm (VWP) has shown that sentence processing is influenced by the visual environment in which sentences are presented. This study investigates online processing of syntactic complexity and linear distance in Turkish sentence processing through an eye-tracking experiment using the VWP. We examined how auditory-visual information interacts with syntactic complexity (nested vs. linear) and sentence distance (short vs. long). We hypothesized that auditory-visual information is sensitive to online processing of syntactic complexity in subject-relative clauses (SRCs), and the linear distance between pre- and postverbal positions is critical for incremental processing. Our findings showed that syntactic complexity affected gaze duration, whereas linear distance had a distinct effect.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Çalışkan, S., Kumcu, A., Uzun, İ. P. (2025). Türkçede Tümce İşlemlemede Sözdizimsel Yapı ve Uzaklık Etkisi. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2, 49–75. https://ajindex.com/articles/1583194

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (130)

  1. Abney, S.P. A. (1989). Computational Model of Human Parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01069051
  2. Akal, T. (2021). Recency preference in ambiguous relative clause attachment in Turkish. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(1), 139-159.
  3. Altmann, G. T. M. & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 502–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.12.004
  4. Aoshima, S., Phillips, C., & Weinberg, A. (2004). Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 23–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.001
  5. Arslan, B., Hohenberger, A., & Verbrugge, R. (2017). Syntactic Recursion Facilitates and Working Memory Predicts Recursive Theory of Mind. Plos One, 12(1), e0169510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169510
  6. Aydın, Ö. (2007). The comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in second language acquisition and agrammatism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 295-315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070154
  7. Aydın, Ö. & Cedden, G. (2010). Sözdizim İşlemlemesinde Sağa Taşıma Etkisi. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 21(1), 1-9.
  8. Aydın, Ö. & Zagvozdkina, V. (2019). İlgi Tümceciklerinin İşlemlemesinde Özne-Nesne Bakışımsızlığı. In K. İşeri (Ed.), Dilbilimde Güncel Tartışmalar (pp. 47-57). Dilbilim Derneği.
  9. Babyonyshev, M. & E. Gibson. (1999). The complexity of nested structures in Japanese. Language, 75(3), 423-450. https://doi.org/10.2307/417056
  10. Baddeley, A. (1995). Working memory. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 755–764). The MIT Press.
  11. Bader, M., & Lasser, I. (1994). German verb-final clauses and sentence processing: Evidence for immediate attachment. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 225–242). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  12. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2013). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version, 1(7), 1-23.
  13. Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2023). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program], Version 6.3.
  14. Brodeur, M. B., Dionne-Dostie, E., Montreuil, T. & Lepage, M. (2010). The Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS), a new set of 480 normative photos of objects to be used as visual stimuli in cognitive research. PLoS One, 5(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010773
  15. Bulut, T., Yarar, E., & Wu, D. H. (2019). Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye-tracking and Corpus Analysis. Dil, Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 211-246.
  16. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). Springer.
  17. Caplan, D. & Waters, G. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 77–126.
  18. Caplan, D. & Waters, G. (2002). Working memory and connectionist models of parsing: A reply to MacDonald and Christiansen (2002). Psychological Review, 109(1), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.66
  19. Chapman, L. J. & Chapman, J. P. (1987). The measurement of handedness. Brain and Cognition, 6(2), 175-183.
  20. Chen, B., Ning, A., Bi, H., & Dunlap, S. (2008). Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object-relative clauses. Acta Psychologica, 129(1), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.04.005
  21. Cheng, T. (2023). What Memory‑Load Interference Tasks Tell Us about Spoken Relative Clause Processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 52(3), 691-720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09928-x
  22. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. (1. Edition). MIT Press.
  23. Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
  24. Chomsky, N. (2016). Minimal computation and the architecture of language. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 12(1), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2016-0003
  25. Cohen-Mimran, R., Adwan-Mansour, J., & Sapir, S. (2013). The Effect of Morphological Complexity on Verbal Working Memory: Results from Arabic Speaking Children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9200-z
  26. Collins, C. (1994). Economy of derivation and the generalized proper binding condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 45–61.
  27. Çalışkanel, G. (2013). The Relationship Between Working Memory, English (L2) And Academic Achievement in 12–14-Year-Old Turkish Students: The Effect of Age and Gender. [Unpublished MA thesis]. METU.
  28. Degen, J. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2016). Availability of Alternatives and the Processing of Scalar Implicatures: A Visual World Eye-Tracking Study. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 172–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12227
  29. Delage, H. & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2020). Relationship between working memory and complex syntax in children with Developmental Language Disorder. Journal of child language, 47(3), 600–632. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000919000722
  30. Delage, H., Stanford, E., & Durrleman, S. (2021). Working memory training enhances complex syntax in children with Developmental Language Disorder. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(5), 1341-1375. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716421000369
  31. Demberg, V. & Keller, F. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.008
  32. Dinçtopal-Deniz, N. (2010). Relative clause attachment preferences of Turkish L2 speakers of English. In B. VanPatten & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research in Second Language Processing and Parsing. John Benjamins Press. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.53.02din
  33. Domenico, di A. & Matteo, di R. (2009). Processing Italian Relative Clauses: Working Memory Span and Word Order Effects on RTs. The Journal of General Psychology, 136(4), 387-406. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221300903266671
  34. Erguvanlı, E. (1984). The function of word-order in Turkish grammar. [Doctoral dissertation, Minnesota University]. University of California Press.
  35. Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E., & Rohde, D. (2006). The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension: Evidence against domain-specific working memory resources. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 541-553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.006.
  36. Fiebach, C.J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A.D. (2001). Syntactic Working Memory and the Establishment of Filler-Gap Dependencies: Insights from ERPs and fMRI. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010447102554
  37. Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., Lohmann, G., von Cramon, D. Y., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Revisiting the role of Broca's area in sentence processing: syntactic integration versus syntactic working memory. Human brain mapping, 24(2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20070
  38. Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing Strategies and Constraints on Transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(3), 427–473.
  39. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  40. Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(2), 93–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968908406359
  41. Gibson, E., Hickok, G., & Schütze, C. T. (1994). Processing empty categories: A parallel approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23(5), 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143946
  42. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.
  43. Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium. The MIT Press.
  44. Gibson, E. & Wu, H. H. I. (2013). Processing Chinese relative clauses in context, Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1-2), 125-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.536656
  45. Göksel, A. (1998). Linearity, focus and the postverbal position in Turkish. In L. Johanson, E. A. Csató, V. Locke, A. Menz, & D. Winterling (Eds.), The Mainz Meeting. Harrassowitz Verlag.
  46. Grodner, D. & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the Serial Nature of Linguistic Input for Sentenial Complexity. Cognitive science, 29(2), 261–290. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_7
  47. Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholin-guistic model. In Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Asssociation for Computational Linguistics (NAACL). Pittsburgh, PA.
  48. Hankamer, I. & Knecht, L. (1976). The role of subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of relative clause participle in Turkish. Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, 2, 197-219.
  49. Hawkins, J. A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75(2), 244-285.
  50. Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford University Press.
  51. Hsu, C. C. & Chen, J. Y. (2013). How linear distance and structural distance affect the processing of gap-filler dependencies in head-final relative clauses: An eye-tracking study on Mandarin Chinese. In Z. Jin-Schmidt (Ed.) Increased Empiricism: Recent advances in Chinese Linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  52. Ivanova, I. & Ferreira, V. S. (2019). The role of working memory for syntactic formulation in language production. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 45(10), 1791–1814. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000672
  53. Ito, A., & Knoeferle, P. (2023). Analysing data from the psycholinguistic visual-world paradigm: Comparison of different analysis methods. Behavior Research Methods, 55(7), 3461-3493. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01969-3
  54. İşsever, S. (2003). Information Structure in Turkish: the word order-prosody interface. Lingua, 113(11), 1025-1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00012-3
  55. İşsever, S. (2007). Towards a unified account of clause-initial scrambling in Turkish: A feature analysis. Turkic Languages, 11(1), 93-123.
  56. Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122
  57. Kaan, E. (1997). Processing Subject-Object Ambiguities in Dutch. [Unpublished PhD Dissertation]. University of Groningen.
  58. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909600386084
  59. Kaan, E. (2002). Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in agreement processing: An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(2),165-193. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014978917769
  60. 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.
  61. 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.
  62. Kaiser, E., Podesva, R. J., & Sharma, D. (2018). Experimental paradigms in psycholinguistics. In L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research Methods in Linguistics, Second Edition. Bloomsbury.
  63. Kaya, M. (2012). Working memory and relative clause attachment preferences in Turkish: An eye-tracking study. Studia Uralo-Altaica, 49, 265–278.
  64. Kılıçaslan, Y. (2004). Syntax of information structure in Turkish. Linguistics, 42(4), 717–765. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2004.024
  65. Kırkıcı, B. (2004). The processing of relative clause attachment ambiguities in Turkish. Turkic Languages, 111-121.
  66. Kidwai, A. (2000). XP-Adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and Binding in Hindi-Urdu. In R. Kayne (ed.), Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Oxford University Press.
  67. King, J. & Just, M. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H
  68. Kim, J.H. & Christianson, K. (2013). Sentence Complexity and Working Memory Effects in Ambiguity Resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 393–411 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9224-4
  69. Knoeferle, P. & Crocker, M. W. (2007). The influence of recent scene events on spoken comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 519–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.003
  70. Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. W. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00548-5
  71. Kornfilt, J. (1998). On Rightward Movement in Turkish. In L. Johanson, E. Csató-Johanson (Eds.), The Mainz Meeting: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (1994), (pp. 107-123). Otto Harrassowitz.
  72. Kornfilt, J. (2003). Scrambling, sub-scrambling and case in Turkish. In S. Karimi (Ed.), Word Order and Scrambling. Blackwell.
  73. 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. Mouton de Gruyter.
  74. Koster, J. (1978). Locality principles in syntax. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110882339
  75. Kumcu, A. & Thompson, R. L. (2020). Less imageable words lead to more looks to blank locations during memory retrieval. Psychological Research, 84(3), 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1084-6
  76. Kural, M. (1992). Properties of scrambling in Turkish. [Unpublished MA Thesis]. UCLA.
  77. Kural, M. (1997). Postverbal Constituents in Turkish and the Linear Correspondence Axiom. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(3), 498–519. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178988
  78. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P.B., & Christensen, R.H.B. (2016). lmerTest: tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-33.
  79. Kwon, N. (2008). Processing of Syntactic and Anaphoric Gap-Filler Dependencies in Korean: Evidence from Self-Paced Reading Time, ERP and Eye-Tracking Experiments. [Unpublished PhD Dissertation]. University of California San Diego.
  80. Romero, L. L. J., Reis, J., Cohen, L.G., Cecchetto, C. & Papagno, C. (2010). A case for the involvement of phonological loop in sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 48(14), 4003-4011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.10.019
  81. Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
  82. Liu, X. & Wang, W. (2019). The Effect of Distance on Sentence Processing by Older Adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02455
  83. Logačev, P., Aydın, Ö., & Tuncer, A. M. (2022). Absence of evidence for underspecification in prenominal relative clause attachment. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2022.2029868
  84. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676–703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
  85. Mahajan, A. K. (1990). The A/A-Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. [Unpublished PhD Dissertation]. MIT.
  86. Makuuchi, M., Bahlmann, J., Anwander, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2009). Segregating the core computational faculty of human language from working memory. PNAS, 106(20), 8362-8367. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810928106
  87. Manetta, E. (2012). Reconsidering Rightward Scrambling: Postverbal Constituents in Hindi-Urdu. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(1), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00073
  88. Miyake, A., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1994). Working memory constraints on the resolution of lexical ambiguity: Maintaining multiple interpretations in neutral contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 175–202. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1009
  89. Miyamoto, E. T., & Nakamura, M. (2003). Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. WCCFL 22 (West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics).
  90. Miyamoto, E. T., & Takahashi, S. (2002). Sources of difficulty in processing scrambling in Japanese. In M. Nakayama (Ed.), Sentence processing in East Asian languages. Stanford: CSLI.
  91. Miyamoto, E. T. & Takahashi, S. (2004). Filler-gap dependencies in the processing of scrambling in Japanese. Language and Linguistics, 5, 153-166.
  92. Myachykov, A., Scheepers, C., Garrod, S., Thompson, D., & Fedorova, O. (2013). Syntactic flexibility and competition in sentence production: The case of English and Russian. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(8), 1601-1619. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.754910
  93. Nakano, Y., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2002). Antecedent priming at trace positions in Japanese long-distance scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(5), 531–571. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021260920232
  94. Nakatani, K. & Gibson, E. (2009). An On-Line Study of Japanese Nesting Complexity. Cognitive Science, 34(1), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01067.x
  95. Newmeyer, F. J. (1992). Iconicity and Generative Grammar. Language, 68(4), 756-796. https://doi.org/10.2307/416852
  96. Ng, S. (2008). An Active Gap Strategy in the processing of filler-gap dependencies in Chinese. In C. MKM, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20), Vol. 2, (pp. 943–957). The Ohio State University.
  97. Norman, S., Kemper, S., & Kynette, D. (1992). Adults' reading comprehension: effects of syntactic complexity and working memory. Journal of Gerontology, 47(4), P258–P265. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/47.4.p258
  98. O’Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic Development. University of Chicago Press.
  99. O’Grady, W., Lee, M., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000172
  100. O'Grady, W. (1999). Toward a new nativism. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 621-633. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199004040
  101. Özçelik, Ö. (2006). Processing Relative Clauses in Turkish As a Second Language. [Unpublished MA Thesis]. University of Pittsburgh.
  102. Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek, D. (2015). Incremental processing in head-final child language: online comprehension of relative clauses in Turkish-speaking children and adults. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 30, 1230-1243. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.995108
  103. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.026
  104. Pearlmutter, N. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (1995). Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(4), 521–542. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1024
  105. Phillips, C. (2003). Linear order and constituency. Linguistic inquiry, 34(1), 37-90.
  106. Porretta, V., Tucker, B. V., & Järvikivi, J. (2016). The influence of gradient foreign accentedness and listener experience on word recognition. Journal of Phonetics, 58, 1–21. https://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.05.006
  107. Pozniak, C., Huang, J., & Hemforth, B. (2016). Competition of linear and structural distance in relative clause processing. Evidence from Mandarin and Cantonese Visual World experiments. Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing. Bilbao, Spain.
  108. Riemsdijk, H. V. (1990). Functional Prepositions. in H. Pinkster, & I. Genèe (eds.), Unity in Diversity: Papers Presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th birthday, Foris, Dordrecht.
  109. R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/. 18.08.2024. Version 4.4.0
  110. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. [Unpublished PhD Dissertation]. MIT.
  111. Salthouse, T. A., & Babcock, R. L. (1991). Decomposing adult age differences in working memory. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 763–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.763
  112. Santi, A. & Grodzinsky, Y. (2007). Working memory and syntax interact in Broca's area. NeuroImage, 37(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.04.047
  113. Stanford, E., Durrleman, S., & Delage, H. (2019). The Effect of Working Memory Training on a Clinical Marker of French-Speaking Children with Developmental Language Disorder. Am J Speech Lang Pathol., 28(4), 1388-1410.
  114. Tanenhaus, 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(5217), 1632–1634. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7777863
  115. Tarallo, F. & Myhill, J. (1983). Interference and natural language processing in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 33, 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00986.x
  116. Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object-relative clauses: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2836
  117. Traxler, M. J. & Tooley, K. M. (2007). Lexical mediation and context effects in sentence processing. Brain Research, 1146, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.10.010
  118. Traxler, M. J., Johns, C. L., Long, D. L., Zirnstein, M., Tooley, K. M., & Jonathan, E. (2012). Individual differences in eye-movements during reading: Working memory and speed-of-processing effects. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.5.1.5
  119. Turan, C. (2018). An Eye-Tracking Investigation of Attachment Preferences to Relative Clauses in Turkish. [Unpublished PhD Dissertation]. Hacettepe University.
  120. Turan, C. (2020). High Vs Low: Turkish Parser’s Attachment Preferences to Relative Clauses. ISPEC International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(3), 241-270. https://doi.org/10.46291/ISPECIJSSHvol4iss3pp241-270
  121. Underhill, R. (1972). Turkish Participles. Linguistic Inquiry, 3(1), 87-99.
  122. Uzunca, A. & Akal, T. (2023). The Role of Animacy in Turkish Relative Clause Production and Distribution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 52, 2517–2544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-023-10010-3
  123. van Rij, J., Wieling, M., Baayen, R. H., & van Rijn, H. (2017). itsadug: Interpreting time series and autocorrelated data using GAMMs. Comprehensive R Archive Network, CRAN.
  124. Vasishth, S. Jain, S. Patel-Grosz, P., & Mishra, R.K. (2011). Working Memory in Sentence Comprehension: Processing Hindi Center Embeddings. Cognitive Science, 35(5), 963-987.
  125. Véliz de Vos, M., Riffo, B., Salas-Herrera, J.L., & Roa-Ureta, R. (2018). Left sentences processing in Spanish: effects of age, working memory, syntactic complexity, and a concurrent memory load. Alpha (Osorno) 46, 175-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22012018000100175
  126. Weighall, A. R. & Altmann, G. T. M. (2011). The role of working memory and contextual constraints in children's processing of relative clauses. Journal of Child Language, 38(3), 579–605. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000910000267
  127. Wendt, D., Brand, T., & Kollmeier, B. (2014). An eye-tracking paradigm for analyzing the processing time of sentences with different linguistic complexities. PloS One, 9(6), e100186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100186
  128. Wood, S. (2018). Mgcv. 1, 8–23. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mgcv
  129. Xu, Y. (2013). ProsodyPro - A tool for large-scale systematic prosody analysis. TRASP’13, 01-1, 7-10. France.
  130. Yücel, A. G. (2022). Task complexity and working memory in performing listen-to-speak integrated tasks in a second language. [Unpublished MA Thesis]. Boğaziçi University.