Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:18:11.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of language system in context-dependent language use in Turkish-speaking versus English-speaking older adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2013

EVRIM G. MARCH  and
PHILIPPA PATTISON
EVRIM G. MARCH*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
PHILIPPA PATTISON
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Evrim March, St. Vincent's Mental Health, University of Melbourne, 46 Nicholson Street, Fitzroy 3065, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Deixis is a linguistic bridge between spoken language and communicative context, and its use is intrinsically dependent on the context as well as the language system itself. This cross-linguistic study examined the impact of two distinct language systems, English and Turkish, on the uses of nouns, spatial deixis, and person deixis in 26 Turkish versus 26 Anglo Australian healthy older adults. The study revealed a predilection for spatial deictic use in Turkish versus person deictic use in English speakers at task-specific levels, and the pattern of relationships between language use forms were partially distinct between the two languages. The study provided empirical evidence to deictic theories regarding the role of language structure in discourse production, with implications on brain–language relationships.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , November 2014 , pp. 1087 - 1108
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aksu-Koc, A., & Slobin, D. I. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 1. The data. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Arguelles, T., Loewenstein, D., & Arguelles, S. (2001). The impact of the native language of Alzheimer's disease and normal elderly individuals on their ability to recall digits. Aging and Mental Health, 5, 358–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, E., Friederici, A., & Wulfeck, B. (1987). Grammatical morphology in aphasia: Evidence from three languages. Cortex, 23, 545–574.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1986). A crosslinguistic perspective: Morphology and syntax. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (Eds.), Language acquisition: Studies in first language development (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Braun, F. (1998). Prototype theory and covert gender in Turkish. In Koenig, J.-P. (Ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1982). The deictic field of language and deictic words. In Jarvella, J. & Klein, W. (Eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 9–30). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chapman, S. B., Highley, A. P., & Thompson, J. L. (1998). Discourse in fluent aphasia and Alzheimer's disease: Linguistic and pragmatic considerations. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 11, 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherney, L. R., & Canter, G. J. (1992). Informational content in the discourse of patients with probable Alzheimer's disease and patients with right brain damage. In Lemme, M. L. (Ed.), Clinical aphasiology (Vol. 21). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. L., & Benson, D. F. (1989). Speech and language alterations in dementia syndromes. In Ardila, A. & Ostrosky-Solis, F. (Eds.), Brain organization of language and cognitive processes. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Davis, G. A., O'Neill-Pirozzi, T. M., & Coon, M. (1997). Referential cohesion and logical coherence of narration after right hemisphere stroke. Brain and Language, 56, 183–210.Google Scholar
De Villiers, J. G., & De Villiers, P. A. (1985). The acquisition of English. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 1. The data. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, J. S. (1994). Studies of discourse production in adults with Alzheimer's disease. In Bloom, R. L., Obler, L. K., DeSanti, S., & Ehrlich, J. S. (Eds.), Discourse analysis and applications: Studies in adult clinical populations (pp. 149–160). Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Erku, F. (1984, 1986). Discourse pragmatics and syntactic description in Turkish. Paper presented at the Turkish Linguistics Conference, Istanbul.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1996). Context in language. In Slobin, D. I., Gerhardt, J., Kyratzis, A., & Guo, J. (Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language (Essays of honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1982). Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In Jarvella, R. J. & Klein, W. (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1997). Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini mental state. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.Google Scholar
Forrester, M. A. (1996). Psychology of language. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Fuchs, A. (1993). Remarks on deixis. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar
Giles, E., Patterson, K., & Hodges, J. R. (1996). Performance on the Boston Cookie Theft picture description task in patients with early dementia of the Alzheimer's type: Missing information. Aphasiology, 10, 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodglass, H., & Kaplan, E. (1983). Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Holler, J., & Wilkin, K. (2009). Communicating common ground: How mutually shared knowledge influences speech and gesture in a narrative task. Language and cognitive processes, 24, 267–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvella, R. J., & Klein, W. (Eds.). (1982). Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kaplan, E. F., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). The Boston Naming Test (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. D., Ozyurek, A., & Maris, E. (2010). Two sides of the same coin: Speech and gesture mutually interact to enhance comprehension. Psychological Science, 21, 260–267.Google Scholar
Kempler, D., & Zelinski, E. M. (1994). Language in dementia and normal aging. In Huppert, F. A., Brayne, C., & O'Connor, D. W. (Eds.), Dementia and normal aging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuntay, A. C., & Ozyurek, A. (2006). Learning to use demonstratives in conversation: What do language specific strategies in Turkish reveal? Journal of Child Language, 33, 303–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuruoglu, G. (1986). Semantic effects of word order in complex sentences. In Slobin, D. I. & Zimmer, K. (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Relativity in spatial conception and description. In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, D. A., Arguelles, T., Arguelles, S., & Linn-Fuentes, P. (1994). Potential cultural bias in the neuropsychological assessment of the older adult. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 16, 623–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1981). Language and linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macken, M. A. (1986). Phonological development: A crosslinguistic perspective. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (Eds.), Language acquisition: Studies in first language development (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
March, E. G., Pattison, P., & Wales, R. (2009). The role of cognition in context-dependent language use: Evidence from Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 18–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, E. G., Wales, R., & Pattison, P. (2006). The uses of nouns and deixis in discourse production in Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 19, 311–340.Google Scholar
March, E. G., Worrall, L. E., & Hickson, L. M. H. (2000). Performance of an Australian sample on the Boston Naming Test and comparability of short form test versions. Clinical Neuropsychological Assessment, 1, 179–192.Google Scholar
Martin, A., & Fedio, P. (1983). Word production and comprehension in Alzheimer's disease: The breakdown of semantic knowledge. Brain and Language, 19, 124–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menn, L. (2001). Comparative aphasiology: Cross-language studies of aphasia. In Berndt, R. S. (Ed.), Handbook of neuropsychology: Vol. 3. Language and its disorders (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Nicholas, M., Obler, L. K., Albert, M. L., & Helm-Estabrooks, N. (1985). Empty speech in Alzheimer's disease and fluent aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 405–410.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., Petersson, K. M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). On sense and reference: Examining the functional neuroanatomy of referential processing. NeuroImage, 37, 993–1004.Google Scholar
Ripich, D. N., Carpenter, B. D., & Ziol, E. W. (2000). Conversational cohesion patterns in men and women with Alzheimer's disease: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 35, 49–64.Google Scholar
Schulz, C. M. (1976). Peanuts Jubilee: My life and art with Charlie Brown and others. Ringwood, Australia: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Sebuktekin, H. (1970). Turkish–English contrastive analysis. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Segal, E. M. (1995). Narrative comprehension and the role of deictic shift theory. In Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., & Hewitt, L. E. (Eds.), Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shadden, B. B., Burnette, R. B., Eikenberry, B. R., & DiBrezzo, R. (1991). All discourse tasks are not created equal. In Prescott, T. E. (Ed.), Clinical aphasiology (Vol. 20). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Introduction: Why study acquisition crosslinguistically? In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 1. The data. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1991). Aphasia in Turkish: Speech production in Broca's and Wernicke's patients. Brain and Language, 41, 149–164.Google Scholar
Smith, S. R., Chenery, H. J., & Murdoch, B. E. (1989). Semantic abilities in dementia of the Alzheimer's type. II. Grammatical semantics. Brain and Language, 36, 533–542.Google Scholar
Smith, S. R., Murdoch, B. E., & Chenery, H. J. (1989). Semantic abilities in dementia of the Alzheimer's type. I. Lexical semantics. Brain and Language, 36, 312–324.Google Scholar
Tomoeda, C. K., & Bayles, K. A. (1993). Longitudinal effects of Alzheimer disease on discourse production. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 7, 223–236.Google Scholar
Trask, R. L. (1999). Key concepts in language and linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Underhill, R. (1986). Turkish. In Slobin, D. I. & Zimmer, K. (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Schaaik, G. (1996). Studies in Turkish grammar. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Waters, G. S., Caplan, D., & Rochon, E. (1995). Processing capacity and sentence comprehension in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 1–30.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1987). WMS-R: Wechsler Memory Scale—Revised edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Weissenborn, J., & Klein, W. (Eds.). (1982). Here and there: Cross-linguistic studies on deixis and demonstration. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zakzanis, K. K., Leach, L., & Kaplan, E. (1999). Neuropsychological differential diagnosis. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar