A magyar morfológia elsajátításának kezdetei
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Absztrakt
Pszicholingvisztikai szempontból igen jelentős, és máig vitatott kérdés, hogyan dolgozzák fel a beszélők a morfológiailag komplex szóalakokat: egészlegesen, elemeikre bontva vagy a két stratégiát flexibilisen használva. Még kevésbé ismert, hogyan sajátítható el a magyar és a hozzá hasonló nyelvek komplex agglutináló morfológiája. A magyar morfológia elsajátítását óvodás korú és annál nagyobb gyermekek beszédében az elmúlt évtizedekben nagy részletességgel feltárták. Sokkal kevesebbet tudunk azonban e tanulási folyamat kezdeteiről. A jelen tanulmány néhány újabb kutatást foglal össze, amelyek magyar csecsemők beszédészlelésében és nyelvfeldolgozásában vizsgálják az alaktan kibontakozásának kezdeteit, különösképpen a magánhangzó-harmónia és a morfológiai dekompozíció megjelenését.
Letöltések
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Hivatkozások
Altan, Aslı – Utku Kaya – Annette Hohenberger 2016. Sensitivity of Turkish infants to vowel harmony in stem-suffix sequences: preference shift from familiarity to novelty. In Jennifer Scott – Deb Waughtal (szerk.) BUCLD 40 Online Proceedings Supplements. https://tinyurl.com/JENY-2019-2-Ger1
Bertoncini, Josiane – Jacques Mehler 1981. Syllables as units in infant speech perception. Infant Behavior and Development 4:247–260. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(81)80027-6
Brent, Michael R. – Timothy A. Cartwright 1996. Distributional regularity and phonotactic constraints are useful for segmentation. Cognition 61/1–2:93–125. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00719-6
Butterworth, Brian 1983. Lexical representation. In Brian Butterworth (szerk.) Language Production. Vol. 2. London: Academic Press. 257–294.
Cunillera, Toni – Juan M. Toro – Nuria Sebastián-Gallés – Antoni Rodríguez-Fornells 2006. The effects of stress and statistical cues on continuous speech segmentation: An event-related brain potential study. Brain Research 1123/1:168–178. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.046
Curtin, Suzanne – Toben H. Mintz – Morten H. Christiansen 2005. Stress changes the representational landscape: Evidence from word segmentation. Cognition 96/3:233–262. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.005.
Csibra, Gergely 2008. Goal attribution to inanimate agents by 6.5-month-old infants. Cognition 107/2:705–717. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.08.001
Eimas, Peter D. – Einar R. Siqueland – Peter Jusczyk – James Vigorito 1971. Speech perception in infants. Science 171/3968:303–306. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3968.303
Falck-Ytter, Terje – Gustaf Gredebäck – Claes von Hofsten 2006. Infants predict other people’s action goals. Nature Neuroscience 9/7:878–879. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1729
Gábor, Bálint – Ágnes Lukács 2012. Early morphological productivity in Hungarian: Evidence from sentence repetition and elicited production. Journal of Child Language 39/2:411–442. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000911000110
Gergely, György – Csaba Pléh 1994. Lexical processing in an agglutinative language and the organization of the lexicon. Folia Linguistica 28/1–2:175–204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1994.28.1-2.175
Gervain, Judit – Ramón Guevara Erra 2012. The statistical signature of morphosyntax: A study of Hungarian and Italian infant-directed speech. Cognition 125/2:263–287. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.010
Giraudo, Hélène – Serena Dal Maso 2016. The salience of complex words and their parts: Which comes first? Frontiers in Psychology 7/1778. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01778
Goldowsky, Boris N. – Elissa L. Newport 1993. Modeling the effects of processing limitations on the acquisition of morphology: The less is more hypothesis. In Eve V. Clark (szerk.) The Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Child Language Research Forum. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language (CSLI). 124–138.
Gonzalez-Gomez, Nayeli – Silvana Schmandt – Judit Fazekas – Thierry Nazzi – Judit Gervain 2019. Infants’ sensitivity to nonadjacent vowel dependencies: The case of vowel harmony in Hungarian. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 178:170–183. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.08.014
Gósy Mária 1984. Hangtani és szótani vizsgálatok hároméves gyermekek nyelvében. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Heffernan, Kevin – Yo Sato 2017. Relative frequency and the holistic processing of morphology. Asia-Pacific Language Variation 3/1:67–94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/aplv.3.1
Hohenberger, Annette – Utku Kaya – Aslı Altan 2017. Discrimination of vowel-harmonic vs vowel-disharmonic words by monolingual Turkish infants in the first year of life. In Maria LaMendola – Jennifer Scott (szerk.) Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University conference on language development. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 309–322.
Hunter, Michael A. – Elinor W. Ames – Raymond Koopman 1983. Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarization time on infant preferences for novel and familiar stimuli. Developmental Psychology 19/3:338–352. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.19.3.338
Jiang, Nan 2004. Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 25/4:603–634. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001298
Kabak, Barış – Kazumi Maniwa – Nina Kazanina 2010. Listeners use vowel harmony and word-final stress to spot nonsense words: A study of Turkish and French. Laboratory Phonology 1/1:207–224.
Kampen, Anja van – Güliz Parmaksiz – Ruben van de Vijver – Barbara Höhle 2008. Metrical and statistical cues for word segmentation: The use of vowel harmony and word stress as cues to word boundaries by 6-and 9-month-old Turkish learners. In Anna Gavarró – M. João Freitas (szerk.) Language Acquisition and Development: Proceedings of GALA 2007. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 313–324.
Kornai, András 1985. The internal structure of Noun Phrases. In István Kenesei (szerk.) Approaches to Hungarian 1. Szeged: JATE. 79–93.
Ladányi, Enikő – Ágnes Melinda Kovács – Judit Gervain elbírálás alatt. How 15-month-old infants process morphologically complex forms in an agglutinative language?
Leminen, Alina – Minna Lehtonen – Mirjana Bozic – Harald Clahsen 2016. Editorial: Morphologically complex words in the mind/brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10:47. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00047
Lengyel Zsolt 1981a. A gyermeknyelv. Budapest: Gondolat.
Lengyel Zsolt 1981b. Tanulmányok a nyelvelsajátítás köréből. (Nyelvtudományi Értekezések 107) Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Lengyel Zsolt 1982. Gyermeknyelvi kutatások Magyarországon. Óvodai Nevelés 9.
Lukács, Ágnes – Laurence B. Leonard – Bence Kas 2010. Use of noun morphology by children with language impairment: The case of Hungarian. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 45/2:145–161. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/13682820902781060
Lukács, Ágnes – Mihály Racsmány – Csaba Pléh 2001. Vocabulary and morphological patterns in Hungarian children with Williams syndrome: A preliminary report. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 48/1:243–269.
Lukatela, Georgije – Claudia Carello – Michael T. Turvey 1987. Lexical representation of regular and irregular inflected nouns. Language and Cognitive Processes 2/1:1–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968708406349
Lukatela, Georgije – A. Kostić – Dejan Todorović – Claudia Carello – Michael T. Turvey 1987. Type and number of violations and the grammatical congruency effect in lexical decision. Psychological Research 49/1:37–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309201
MacWhinney, Brian 1975. Rules, rote, and analogy in morphological formations by Hungarian children. Journal of Child Language 2/1:65–77. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900000891
Macwhinney, Brian 1976. Hungarian research on the acquisition of morphology and syntax. Journal of Child Language 3/3:397–410. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900007261
MacWhinney, Brian 2013. Hungarian language acquisition as an exemplification of a general model of grammatical development. In Dan Isaac Slobin (szerk.) The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale: Psychology Press. 121–302.
MacWhinney, Brian – Csaba Pléh – Elizabeth Bates 1985. The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian. Cognitive Psychology 17/2:178–209. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(85)90007-6
Magyari Lilla 2008. A mentális lexikon modelljei a magyar nyelvben. In Gervain Judit – Pléh Csaba (szerk.) A láthatatlan nyelv. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó. 98–119.
Marquis, Alexandra – Rushen Shi 2012. Initial morphological learning in preverbal infants. Cognition 122/1:61–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.004
Milin, Petar – Eva Smolka – Laurie Beth Feldman 2017. Models of lexical access and morphological processing. In Eva M. Fernández – Helen Smith Cairns (szerk.) The Handbook of Psycholinguistics. John Wiley & Sons. 240–268. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118829516.ch11
Mintz, Toben H. 2013. The segmentation of sub-lexical morphemes in English-learning 15-month-olds. Frontiers in Psychology 4/24. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00024
Németh Dezső – Ivády Rozália Eszter – Miháltz Márton – Krajcsi Attila – Pléh Csaba 2006. A verbális munkamemória és a morfológiai komplexitás. Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle 61/2:265–298. doi: https://doi.org/10.1556/MPSzle.61.2006.2.4
Pelucchi, Bruna – Jessica F. Hay – Jenny R. Saffran 2009. Learning in reverse: Eight-month-old infants track backward transitional probabilities. Cognition 113/2:244–247. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.011
Perruchet, Pierre – Stéphane Desaulty 2008. A role for backward transitional probabilities in word segmentation? Memory & Cognition 36/7:1299–1305. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.7.1299
Pinker, Steven 1997. Words and rules in the human brain. Nature 387/6633:547–548. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/42347
Pinker, Steven – Alan Prince 1994. Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In Susan D. Lima – Roberta Corrigan – Gregory K. Iverson (szerk.) The Reality of Linguistic Rules. (Studies in Language Companion 26) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 321–352. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.26.21pin
Pléh Csaba 1980. A pszicholingvisztika horizontja. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Pléh Csaba – Juhász Levente 1995. Processing of multimorphemic words in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 43/1–2:211–230.
Pléh Csaba – Lukács Ágnes 2001. A magyar morfológia pszicholingvisztikája. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.
Pléh, Csaba – Ágnes Lukács – Mihály Racsmány 2003. Morphological patterns in Hungarian children with Williams syndrome and the rule debates. Brain and Language 86/3:377–383. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00537-0
Pléh Csaba – Palotás Gábor – Lőrik József 2002. Nyelvfejlődési szűrővizsgálat (PPL). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Pléh Csaba – Vinkler Zsuzsanna – Kálmán László 1997. Early morphology of spatial expressions in Hungarian children: A CHILDES study. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44/1–2:249–260.
Recski, Gábor 2014. Hungarian noun phrase extraction using rule-based and hybrid methods. Acta Cybernetica 21/3:461–479. doi: https://doi.org/10.14232/actacyb.21.3.2014.11
Réger, Zita 1979. Bilingual Gypsy children in Hungary: Explorations in ‘natural’ second-language acquisition at an early age. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1979/19:59–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1979.19.59
Saffran, Jenny R. – Richard N. Aslin – Elissa L. Newport 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274/5294:1926–1928. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926
Sandra, Dominiek – Marcus Taft (szerk.) 1994. Morphological Structure, Lexical Representation and Lexical Access. Taylor & Francis.
Slobin, Dan I. – Thomas G. Bever 1982. Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition 12/3:229–265. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(82)90033-6
Southgate, Victoria – Mark H. Johnson – Imen El Karoui – Gergely Csibra 2010. Motor system activation reveals infants’ on-line prediction of others’ goals. Psychological Science 21/3:355–359. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610362058
Stemberger, Joseph Paul – Brian MacWhinney 1986. Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory & Cognition 14/1:17–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209225
Suomi, Kari – James M. Mcqueen – Anne Cutler 1997. Vowel harmony and speech segmentation in Finnish. Journal of Memory and Language 36/3:422–444. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2495
Taft, Marcus 1988. A morphological-decomposition model of lexical representation. Linguistics 26/4:657–668. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1988.26.4.657
Vroomen, Jean – Jyrki Tuomainen – Beatrice de Gelder 1998. The roles of word stress and vowel harmony in speech segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language 38/2:133–149. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2548
Werker, Janet F. – D. Geoffrey Hall – Laurel Fais 2004. Reconstruing U-shaped functions. Journal of Cognition and Development 5/1:147–151. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327647jcd0501_15