Displaying 1 - 8 of 8
-
Furman, R., & Ozyurek, A. (2006). The use of discourse markers in adult and child Turkish oral narratives: Şey, yani and işte. In S. Yagcioglu, & A. Dem Deger (
Eds. ), Advances in Turkish linguistics (pp. 467-480). Izmir: Dokuz Eylul University Press. -
Furman, R., Ozyurek, A., & Allen, S. E. M. (2006). Learning to express causal events across languages: What do speech and gesture patterns reveal? In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller (
Eds. ), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 190-201). Somerville, Mass: Cascadilla Press. -
Gullberg, M., & Ozyurek, A. (2006). Report on the Nijmegen Lectures 2004: Susan Goldin-Meadow 'The Many Faces of Gesture'. Gesture, 6(1), 151-164.
-
Küntay, A. C., & Ozyurek, A. (2006). Learning to use demonstratives in conversation: What do language specific strategies in Turkish reveal? Journal of Child Language, 33(2), 303-320. doi:10.1017/S0305000906007380.
Abstract
Pragmatic development requires the ability to use linguistic forms, along with non-verbal cues, to focus an interlocutor's attention on a referent during conversation. We investigate the development of this ability by examining how the use of demonstratives is learned in Turkish, where a three-way demonstrative system (bu, su, o) obligatorily encodes both distance contrasts (i.e. proximal and distal) and absence or presence of the addressee's visual attention on the referent. A comparison of the demonstrative use by Turkish children (6 four- and 6 six-year-olds) and 6 adults during conversation shows that adultlike use of attention directing demonstrative, su, is not mastered even at the age of six, while the distance contrasts are learned earlier. This language specific development reveals that designing referential forms in consideration of recipient's attentional status during conversation is a pragmatic feat that takes more than six years to develop. -
Ozyurek, A., Kita, S., Allen, S., Furman, R., & Brown, A. (2005). How does linguistic framing of events influence co-speech gestures? Insights from crosslinguistic variations and similarities. Gesture, 5(1/2), 219-240.
Abstract
What are the relations between linguistic encoding and gestural representations of events during online speaking? The few studies that have been conducted on this topic have yielded somewhat incompatible results with regard to whether and how gestural representations of events change with differences in the preferred semantic and syntactic encoding possibilities of languages. Here we provide large scale semantic, syntactic and temporal analyses of speech- gesture pairs that depict 10 different motion events from 20 Turkish and 20 English speakers. We find that the gestural representations of the same events differ across languages when they are encoded by different syntactic frames (i.e., verb-framed or satellite-framed). However, where there are similarities across languages, such as omission of a certain element of the event in the linguistic encoding, gestural representations also look similar and omit the same content. The results are discussed in terms of what gestures reveal about the influence of language specific encoding on on-line thinking patterns and the underlying interactions between speech and gesture during the speaking process. -
Senghas, A., Ozyurek, A., & Kita, S. (2005). [Response to comment on Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua]. Science, 309(5731), 56c-56c. doi:10.1126/science.1110901.
-
Ozyurek, A., & Trabasso, T. (1997). Evaluation during the understanding of narratives. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 305-337. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=12673020&site=ehost-live.
Abstract
Evaluation plays a role in the telling and understanding of narratives, in communicative interaction, emotional understanding, and in psychological well-being. This article reports a study of evaluation by describing how readers monitor the concerns of characters over the course of a narrative. The main hypothesis is that readers tract the well-being via the expression of a character's internal states. Reader evaluations were revealed in think aloud protocols obtained during reading of narrative texts, one sentence at a time. Five kinds of evaluative inferences were found: appraisals (good versus bad), preferences (like versus don't like), emotions (happy versus frustrated), goals (want versus don't want), or purposes (to attain or maintain X versus to prevent or avoid X). Readers evaluated all sentences. The mean rate of evaluation per sentence was 0.55. Positive and negative evaluations over the course of the story indicated that things initially went badly for characters, improved with the formulation and execution of goal plans, declined with goal failure, and improved as characters formulated new goals and succeeded. The kind of evaluation made depended upon the episodic category of the event and the event's temporal location in the story. Evaluations also served to explain or predict events. In making evaluations, readers stayed within the frame of the story and perspectives of the character or narrator. They also moved out of the narrative frame and addressed evaluations towards the experimenter in a communicative context. -
Trabasso, T., & Ozyurek, A. (1997). Communicating evaluation in narrative understanding. In T. Givon (
Ed. ), Conversation: Cognitive, communicative and social perspectives (pp. 268-302). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Share this page