Uzamsal Referans Çerçeveleri ve Türkçedeki Görünümleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Bu çalışma uzamsal referans çerçeveleri üzerine Türkçeden bakıldığında ne tür görünümlere erişilebileceği sorusundan hareketle yapılmıştır. Türkçe için kullanılan uzamsal referans çerçevelerini tespit etmek amacıyla gerçekleştirilen uygulamada, konumlanış ilişkisi aktaran ikili nesne düzenlemelerinden oluşan dört farklı üretim görevi (production task) 40 kadın ve 40 erkek olmak üzere toplam 80 katılımcı tarafından yerine getirilmiştir. Çalışma, bu uygulamada katılımcıların yerine getirdiği üretim görevlerinden elde edilen verilere dayalı bir tartışma sunmaktadır. Çalışmanın öne çıkardığı bulguların ilki Türkçede iki nesne arasındaki konumlanış ilişkisini aktarmak amacıyla içsel (intrinsic) ve göreli (relative) referans çerçevelerinin kullanılıyor oluşudur. Öte yandan, konumlanan ile konumlayan olan nesnelerin özelliklerinin uzamsal referans çerçevesi seçimini Türkçede de doğrudan etkilemekte olduğu çalışmanın bir diğer bulgusunu oluşturmuştur. Öyle ki, kullanım sıklıkları, konumlanan ve konumlayan olan nesnelerin özelliklerine göre ve nesne düzenlemelerine göre farklılık göstermektedir. Bu çalışmanın araştırma soruları çerçevesinde cinsiyetin uzamsal referans çerçevesi seçiminde bir değişken olmadığı saptanmıştır. Bunun yanında fen bilimleri ile sosyal bilimlerden gelen katılımcılar arasında göreli referans çerçevesi kullanımı açısından anlamlı bir fark olmazken içsel referans çerçevesi kullanma eğilimi fen bilimlerinden gelen katılımcılarda daha fazladır

Spatial Frames of Reference and an Investigation of Their Representations in Turkish

This study was carried out to answer what kind of representations in Turkish could be obtained on spatial frames of reference. In the experiment which was conducted to determine spatial frames of reference used in Turkish, four different production tasks consisting of two object arrangements which indicate localization were done by total 80 participants 40 of whom were female and 40 of whom were male. This study presents a discussion based on the data which were obtained from the production tasks by the participants. The first highlighted finding of this study is that intrinsic and relative frames of reference are used to convey the relation of localization between two objects in Turkish. On the other hand, the features of objects which are figure and ground affect directly the selection of spatial frames of reference in Turkish is the other finding of this study. So much so that frequency of their usage varies according to the features of objects which are figure and ground and their arrangements. It was determined that gender was not variable in the selection of spatial frames of reference within the scope of research questions of this study. Besides that, there was not a significant difference in terms of relative frame of reference usage between the participants from social science and physical science, tendency of intrinsic frame of reference usage was higher in the participants from physical science.

___

Arık, E. (2003). Spatial representations in Turkish and sign language of Turkey (TİD). Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. University of Amsterdam.
Beller, S., Singmann, H., Hüther L. & Bender, A. (2015). Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison. Frontiers in Psychology, 6: 1283, 1-17.
Borillo, A. (1998). L’espace et Son Expression en Français. Paris: Ophrys.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2000). Frames of spatial reference and their acquisition in Tenejapan Tzeltal. L. P. Nucci, G. B. Saxe, & E. Turiel (Haz.) içinde, Culture, thought, and development (s. 167–197). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carlson, L.A. & Hill, P.L. (2007). Experimental methods for studying language and space.
M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson & M.J. Spivey (Haz.) içinde, Methods in cognitive linguistics(s: 250-276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Carlson-Radvansky, L.A. & Irwin, D. (1993). Frames of reference in vision and language: where is above? Cognition, 46, 223-244.
Carlson-Radvansky, L.A., & Irwin, D.E. (1994). Reference frame activation during spatial term assignment. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 646–671.
Carlson-Radvansky, L.A., & Radvansky, G.A. (1996). The influence of functional relations on spatial term selection. Psychological Science, 7, 56–60.
Clark, H. (1973). Space, time, semantics and the child. T.E.Moore (Haz.) içinde, Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (s. 28-63). New York: Academic Press.
Cox, M.V. (1985). Deictic and Nondeictic Interpretations of 'in front of' and 'behind' in Fronted Object Tasks. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8: 183-193.
Coventry, K.R. (1998). Spatial prepositions, functional relations, and lexical specification. P. Olivier & K.-P. Gapp (Haz.) içinde, Representation and processing of spatial expressions (s. 247–262). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coventry, K.R., & Prat-Sala, M. (1998). Geometry, function, and the comprehension of Over, Under, Above and Below. M.A. Gernsbacher & S.J. Derry (Haz.) içinde, Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (s. 261–266). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gallistel, C.R. (2002). Language and spatial frames of reference in mind and brain. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 321–322.
Haviland, J.B. (1993). Anchoring, iconicity, and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 3, 3–45.
Haviland, J.B. (1998). Guugu Yimithirr cardinal directions. Ethos 26, 25–47.
Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions of English. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Herskovits, A. (1998). Schematization. P. Olivier & K.-P. Gapp (Haz.) içinde, Representation and processing of spatial expressions (s. 149–162). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hill, C. (1982). Up/Down, Front/Back, Left/Right. A Contrastive Study of Hausa and English. J. Weissenborn and W. Klein (Haz.) içinde, Here and There. CrossLinguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstration. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Imai, M., Nakanishi, T., Miyashita, H., Kidachi, Y. and Ishizaki, S. (1999). The Meanings of FRONT/BACK/LEFT/RIGHT. Cognitive Studies, 6, 207-225.
Johnston, J. ve Slobin, D. (1979). The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croation, and Turkish. Journal of Child Language, 6, 529-45.
Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 217-238.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1984). Some perceptual limitations on talking about space. A. van Doom, W. van de Grind, and J. Koenderink (Haz.) içinde, Limits of perception: Essays in honour of Maarten A. Bouman (s. 323-358). Utrecht: VNU Science Press.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1996). Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions, P. Bloom, M. Peterson,L. Nadel and M. Garrett (Haz.) içinde, Language and space (s. 77 -108). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levinson, S.C. (1994). Vision, shape and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics 32, 791–855.
Levinson, S.C., (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: crosslinguistic evidence. Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L., Garrett, M. (Haz.) içinde, Language and Space (s. 109-170). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levinson, S.C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S.C. & Wilkins, D.P. (Haz.) (2006). Grammars of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linn, M. C., Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and Characterization of Sex Differences in Spatial Ability: A Meta-Analysis. Child Development. 56 (6): 1479–1498.
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D., & Levinson, S. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8(3), 108–114.
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Özyürek, A. (2000). Differences in spatial conceptualization in Turkish and English discourse: Evidence from both speech and gesture. A. Goksel, & C. Kerslake (Haz.) içinde, Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages (s. 263-272). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D., Levinson, S., Kita, S., & Senft, G. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language, 74(3), 557–589.
Pederson, E. (2003). How many reference frames? Freska, C. et al. (Haz.) içinde, Spatial Cognition III: Routes and Navigation, Human Memory and Learning, Spatial Representation and Spatial Learning (s. 287–304). Springer Verlag.
Piaget, J. (2011). Çocukta Akıl Yürütme ve Karar Verme. (Çev: Sabri Esat Siyavuşgil), Ankara: Palme Yayıncılık
Retz-Schmidt, G. (1988). Various Views on Spatial Prepositions. AI Magazine, Vol. 9, No. 2, 95-105.
Shusterman, A. & Li, P. (2016). Frames of reference in spatial language acquisition. Cognitive Psychology, 88, 115–16.
Sogo, E., Wada, Y. & Kato, T. (2000). Selection of frame of reference in spatial cognition: Effects of the inherent direction of reference and located objects. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 1, 13-21.
Sümer, B., Zwitserlood, I., Perniss, P. M., & Özyürek, A. (2013). Acquisition of locative expressions in children learning Turkish Sign Language (TİD) and Turkish. E. Arik (Haz.) içinde, Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research (s. 243-272). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Sümer, B., Zwitserlood, I., Perniss, P., & Özyürek, A. (2016). Yer Bildiren İfadelerin Türkçe ve Türk İşaret Dili’nde (TİD) Çocuklar Tarafından Edinimi. E. Arık (Haz.) içinde, Ellerle Konuşmak: Türk İşaret Dili Araştırmaları (s. 157-182). İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Svorou, S. (1994). The grammar of space. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Taylor, H.A., & Tversky, B. (1992). Descriptions and depictions of environments. Memory and Cognition, 20, 483–496.
Tversky, B. (1991) Spatial mental models. G. H. Bower (Haz.) içinde, The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, vol. 27 (s. 109-146). New York: Academic Press.
Vandeloise, C. (1986). L'espace en français: semantique des prepositions spatiales. Paris: Le Seuil.
Vandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 157–184.
Weiss, E. M., Kemmler, G., Deisenhammer, E. A., Fleischhacker, W.W., Delazer, M. (2003). Sex differences in cognitive functions. Personality and Individual Differences. 35 (4): 863–875.