The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study

Mehmet AYGÜNEŞ, (Istanbul University, Department of Linguistics, Fatih, Istanbul)
Itir Kasikci, (Istanbul Commerce University, Department of Psychology, Beyoglu, Istanbul)
Özgür AYDIN, (Ankara University, Department of Linguistics, Sıhhiye, Ankara)
Tamer DEMİRALP (Istanbul University, Department of Physiology, Fatih, Istanbul)
Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi
4 0
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 32 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 31 - 52 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.18492/dad.779572 İndeks Tarihi: 02-09-2022

The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study

Öz:
Agreement is one of the most studied linguistic features in the field of language processing. There are two views regarding the processing of Person and Number features. According to the first view, Person and Number features are defined as distinct probes in derivation, while the latter view suggests that these features are bundle features. The current study investigated whether there is any difference in the processing of Person and Number features in Turkish using Event Related Potentials (ERP). Results revealed N400 + P600 patterns in the processing of both Person and Number features, with a greater N400 amplitude for the Person feature than in the Number feature. A greater N400 amplitude suggests more resources are required for the processing of a Person feature than the Number feature. Supporting the distinct features view mentioned above, our results show that there is a difference in the processing of Person and Number features and we claim that Person feature has a privileged linguistic status.
Anahtar Kelime:

Türkçede Kişi ve Sayı özelliklerinin işlemlenmesi: Olaya İlişkin Beyin Potansiyelleri (OİP) Çalışması

Öz:
Uyum, dil işlemleme çalışmalarında en çok çalışılan konulardandır. Kişi ve sayı özelliklerinin işlemlenmesi ile ilgili iki temel görüş bulunmaktadır. Kişi ve Sayı özelliklerinin türetime ayrık sondalar olarak girdiğini öne süren birinci görüşün karşısında ikinci görüş bu özelliklerin demet özellikler olduğunu iler sürmektedir. Bu çalışmada Türkçede kişi ve sayı özelliklerinin işlemlenmesi sürecinde bir farklılığın olup olmadığı Olaya İlişkin Potansiyeller (OİP) ile incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda gerek Kişi özelliklerinin gerekse Sayı özelliklerinin işlemlenmesinde N400+P600 bileşeni oluştuğu ancak Kişi özelliğinin N400’ün genliğinin Sayı özelliğine göre daha büyük olduğu ve iki özelliğin farklılaştığı belirlenmiştir. Kişi özelliğinde daha büyük N400 genliğinin oluşması bu özelliğin işlemlenmesinde, Sayı özelliğinin işlemlenmesine göre daha fazla kaynağa ihtiyaç olduğunu görülmektedir. Elde edilen bulgular Kişi ve Sayı özelliklerinin işlemlenmesinde farklılık olduğunu ve Kişi özelliğinin ayrıcalıklı bir dilbilimsel konuma sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik
  • Angrilli, A., Penolazzi, B., Vespignani, F., De Vincenzi, M., Job, R., Ciccarelli, L., Palomba, D., Stegagno, L. (2002). Cortical brain responses to semantic incongruity and syntactic violation in Italian language: An event related potential study. Neuroscience Letters, 322(1), 5-8.
  • Aydın, Ö. (2007). Türkçede üçüncü kişi buyrum yapıları, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 47(1), 151-163.
  • Aygüneş, M. (2012). Türkçede uyum özelliklerinin onarım tabanlı incelenmesi. Mersin University Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 1-19.
  • Aygüneş, M. (2013a). Türkçede uyum özelliklerinin Olaya İlişkin Beyin Potansiyelleri (OİP) çerçevesinde incelenmesi, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ankara University.
  • Aygüneş, M. (2013b). Türkçede üçüncü kişide kişi ve sayı özelliklerinin özelliklerinin onarım tabanlı incelenmesi. Turkish Studies, 255-268.
  • Baker, M. C. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Baker, M. C. (2011). When agreement is for number and gender but not person. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29(4), 875-915. Banguoğlu, T. (1974/1986). Türkçenin grameri. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
  • Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2003). Integrating gender and number information in Spanish word pairs: An ERP study. Cortex, 39(3), 465-482.
  • Barber, H. A. & Carreiras, M. (2005). Grammatical gender and number agreement in Spanish: An ERP comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(1), 137-153.
  • Béjar, S. (2000a). Structural markedness in formal features: Deriving interpretability. Revue québecoise de linguistique 28(1), 47-72.
  • Béjar, S. (2000b). Locality, cyclicity and markedness in Georgian verbal morphology. GLOW 23, Vitoria, Spain.
  • Béjar, S. & Rezác, M. (2003). Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In AnaTeresa Pérez-Leroux & Yves Roberge (Ed.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition (pp. 49-61). 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 from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(4), 495–522.
  • Burkhardt, P., Fanselow, G. & Schlesewsky, M. (2007). Effects of (in)transitivity on structure building. Brain Research 1163, 100-110.
  • Carreiras, M., Salillas, E., & Barber, H. A. (2004). Event related potentials elicited during parsing of ambiguous relative clauses in Spanish. Cognitive Brain Research, 20(1), 98-105.
  • Carminati, M.N. (2005). Processing reflexes of hierarchy (person>number>gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua,115(3), 259–285.
  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, & Juan Uriagereka (Ed.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, (pp. 89-155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Eds.), Structures and beyond, (pp.104-131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Choudhary, K., Schlesewsky, M., Roehm, D., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2009). The N400 as a correlate of interpretively-relevant linguistic rules: Evidence from Hindi. Neuropsychologia, 47(13), 3012-3022.
  • Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(1), 21–58.
  • De Vincenzi, M., Job, R., Di Matteo, R., Angrilli, A., Penolazzi, B., Ciccarelli, L. (2003). Differences in the perception and time course of syntactic and semantic violations. Brain and Language, 85(2), 280-296.
  • Díaz, B., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Erdocia, K., Mueller, J. & Laka, I. (2011). On the crosslinguistic validity of electrophysiological correlates of morphosyntactic processing: A study of case and agreement violations in Basque. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24(3), 357–373.
  • Ergin, M. (1992). Edebiyat ve Eğitim Fakültelerinin Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Bölümleri için Türk Dil Bilgisi. İstanbul: Özal Matbaası.
  • Friederici, A. D., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain processes:First-pass and second-pass parsing processes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(1), 157-176.
  • Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Saddy, D. (2002). Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(1), 45-63.
  • Frisch, S., & Schlesewsky, M. (2001). The N400 indicates problems of thematic hierarchizing. Neuroreport, 12(15), 3391–3394.
  • Greenberg, J.H. (1963). Some universal of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg, (Eds.), The universals of language, (pp.73-113). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Good, J. and Yu, A. C. (2005). Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject prominal paradigms. Clitic and affix combinations. In Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordonez, (Ed.), Theorical perspectives, (pp. 315-341). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 439-483.
  • Hagoort, P., Brown, C.M. (1999). Gender electrified: ERP evidence on the syntactic nature of gender processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,28(6), 715–728.
  • Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. (2000a). ERP effects of listening to speech: Semantic ERP effects. Neuropsychologia, 38(11), 1518-1530.
  • Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. (2000b). ERP effects of listening to speech compared to reading: The P600/SPS to syntactic violations in spoken sentence and rapid serial visual presentation. Neuropsychologia, 38(11), 1531–1549.
  • Hagoort, P., Wassenaar, M., ve Brown, C. (2003). Real-time semantic compensation in patients with agrammatic comprehension: Electrophysiological evidence for multipleroute plasticity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(7), 4340–4345.
  • Harley, H. & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis, Language, 78(3), 482-526.
  • Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P.J. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159-201.
  • Kaan, E., & Swaab, T.Y., (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 15(1), 98-110.
  • Kabak, B. (2007). Turkish suspended affixation. Linguistics 45(2),311-347.
  • Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993a). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196– 214.
  • Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993b). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 573–633.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement and empty categories in Turkish. Doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.
  • Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980a). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205.
  • Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980b). Reading between the lines: Event related brain Potentials during natural speech processing. Brain and Language, 11, 354–273.
  • Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1983). Event related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory and Cognition, 11(5), 539-550.
  • Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., Besson, M. (1988). Event related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69, 218–233.
  • Linn, M.S., & Rosen, S. (2003). The functional projections of subject splits. In W.E. Griffin (Eds.), The Role of Agreement in Natural Language: TLS 5 Proceedings (pp. 135-146) Texas Linguistic Forum, 53.
  • Lück, M., Hahne, A., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Brain potentials to morphologically complex words during listening. Brain Research, 1077(1), 144-52.
  • 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.
  • Mancini, S., Postiglione, F., Laudanna, A. & Rizzi, L. (2014). On the person-number distinction: Subject-verb agreement processing in Italian. Lingua, 146, 28-38.
  • Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. D., (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with Event related potentials. Memory & Cognition, 23, 477-494.
  • Molinaro, N., Barber, H. A. & Carreiras, M. (2011). Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex, 47(8), 908-930.
  • Molinaro, N., Vespignani, F., & Job, R. (2008a). A deeper reanalysis of a superficial feature: An ERP study on agreement violations. Brain Research, 1228, 161-176.
  • Molinaro, N., Kim, A., Vespignani, F., & Job, R. (2008b). Anaphoric agreement violation: An ERP analysis of its interpretation. Cognition, 106(2), 963-974.
  • Münte, T. F., Heinze, H. J., Matzke, M., Wieringa, B. M., & Johannes, S. (1998). Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: no evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia, 36(3), 217-26.
  • Münte, T. F., Matzke, M., & Johannes S. (1997). Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(3), 300-311.
  • Neville, H. J., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from Event related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151-165.
  • Nevins, A. (2011). Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language ve Linguistic Theory, 29, 939-971.
  • 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.
  • Osterhout, L. & Mobley, L. A., (1995). Event related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language 34, 739–773.
  • Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P.J. & Swinney, D.A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by gardenpath sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 20(4), 786- 803.
  • Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806.
  • Palolahti, M., Leinob, S., Jokelab, M., Koprab, K., & Paavilainen, P. (2005). Event related potentials suggest early interaction between syntax and semantics during on-line sentence comprehension. Neuroscience Letters, 38(3), 222-227.
  • Preminger, O., (2011). Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: a commentary on Baker’s SCOPA. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4), 917-937.
  • Roehm, D., Bornkessel, I., Haider, H. & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). When case meets agreement: Event related potential effects for morphology-based conflict resolution in human language comprehension. NeuroReport, 16(8), 875-878.
  • Rezác, M. (2003). The fine structure of cyclic Agree. Syntax 6.156–82.
  • Sezer, F. E. (2001) Finite inflection in Turkish. In E. Taylan, (Eds.), The verb in Turkish. (pp. 1-45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Shlonsky, U. (1989). The hierarchical representation of subject-verb agreement. Haifa: University of Haifa.
  • Sigurðsson, H. A. (2004). The syntax of person, tense and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 16, 219-251.
  • Silva-Pereyra, J. F. & Carreiras, M. (2007). An ERP study of agreement features in Spanish. Brain Research, 1185(14), 201-211.
  • Silverstein, M. (1985). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Muysken, P., van Riemsdijk, H. (Ed.), Features and Projections, (pp.163-232). Foris, Dordrecht.
  • Yu, A. C. and Good, J. C. (2000). Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject prominal pradigms, In North East Linguistics Society (Vol. 30, No. 2, p. 24).
  • Zawiszewski, A. & Friederici, A.D. (2009). Processing canonical and non-canonical sentences in Basque: the case of object-verb agreement as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Brain Research, 1284, 161–179.
  • Zawiszewski, A., Santesteban, M. & Laka, I. (2015). Phi-features reloaded: An ERP study on person and number agreement processing. Applied Psycholinguistics. 37(3), 601- 626.
  • Zwicky, A. & Pullum, G. (1983). Cliticization vs inflection: English n’t. Language 59, 502-513.
APA AYGÜNES M, Kasikci I, Aydın Ö, Demiralp T (2021). The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study. , 31 - 52. 10.18492/dad.779572
Chicago AYGÜNES MEHMET,Kasikci Itir,Aydın Özgür,Demiralp Tamer The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study. (2021): 31 - 52. 10.18492/dad.779572
MLA AYGÜNES MEHMET,Kasikci Itir,Aydın Özgür,Demiralp Tamer The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study. , 2021, ss.31 - 52. 10.18492/dad.779572
AMA AYGÜNES M,Kasikci I,Aydın Ö,Demiralp T The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study. . 2021; 31 - 52. 10.18492/dad.779572
Vancouver AYGÜNES M,Kasikci I,Aydın Ö,Demiralp T The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study. . 2021; 31 - 52. 10.18492/dad.779572
IEEE AYGÜNES M,Kasikci I,Aydın Ö,Demiralp T "The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study." , ss.31 - 52, 2021. 10.18492/dad.779572
ISNAD AYGÜNES, MEHMET vd. "The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study". (2021), 31-52. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.779572
APA AYGÜNES M, Kasikci I, Aydın Ö, Demiralp T (2021). The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 32(1), 31 - 52. 10.18492/dad.779572
Chicago AYGÜNES MEHMET,Kasikci Itir,Aydın Özgür,Demiralp Tamer The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 32, no.1 (2021): 31 - 52. 10.18492/dad.779572
MLA AYGÜNES MEHMET,Kasikci Itir,Aydın Özgür,Demiralp Tamer The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol.32, no.1, 2021, ss.31 - 52. 10.18492/dad.779572
AMA AYGÜNES M,Kasikci I,Aydın Ö,Demiralp T The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2021; 32(1): 31 - 52. 10.18492/dad.779572
Vancouver AYGÜNES M,Kasikci I,Aydın Ö,Demiralp T The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2021; 32(1): 31 - 52. 10.18492/dad.779572
IEEE AYGÜNES M,Kasikci I,Aydın Ö,Demiralp T "The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study." Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 32, ss.31 - 52, 2021. 10.18492/dad.779572
ISNAD AYGÜNES, MEHMET vd. "The processing of Person and Number features in Turkish: An Event Related Potentials (ERP) Study". Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 32/1 (2021), 31-52. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.779572
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 2:59

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları