(2020) Science and education, 2, 64-72. Odessa.

Abdülkadir Kabadayı,
PhD (Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences), associate professor, Dr.,
A.K. Faculty of Education, Department of Basic Education,
Necmettin Erbakan University, Meram Kampüsü, Meram Yeniyol,
42090, Meram Yeniyol, Konya, Turkey

ANALYZING THE TURKISH PRESCHOOLERS’ NATIVE LANGUAGE USE IN RESPECT OF THE
CONTENT & FUNCTION WORDS

Human beings come to the World by the innate capacity of learning and using the language in the society they were born. Learning any language is the most important gift given by the God to the human beings. Any child should have some difficulties or hard experience in the process of acquiring his / her mother tongue. Therefore, it is inevitable for a child to make some mistakes in the acquisition process. Content and the function words in any language are the language elements exposed to be discussed. Less is known about differences in how content and function words are produced. Therefore, it is highly important to analyze the situation of the children’s use of the content and function words in the process of their language use. The purpose of this research is to analyze the content & function words the preschoolers use in acquiring their native language, Turkish. As it is a longitudinal study Qualitative research method was used to collect the study data. The aim is to reveal to what rate and to what extend the children use content & function words most during their free time activities, language activities, nature and science activities, and drama activities etc. 76 children participated in the research. 33 of them were female and the 43 of them were male. The participants were 5 and 6 years old. They are still dwelling in Konya and Manisa the districts of Turkey. The findings were classified under linguistics categories as nouns, verbs, adjectives, pronoun, prepositions, prefix, suffix and affixes etc. In this research, 5-year-old preschoolers used 30 percent of the language units in the CONTENT words frame while 6-year-old preschoolers used 70 percent of the language units in the FUNCTION words frame. Males used 54 percent and female used 46 percent of the NOUNS including common, proper noun, abstract, concrete, singular and Psychology - Medicine - Education Science and Education, 2020, Issue 2 65 plural nouns. 5-year-old preschoolers used 27 percent of the VERBS while 6-year-old preschoolers used 73 percent of them CONTENT words. In this research, males used 58 percent and female used 42 percent of the ADJECTIVES in CONTENT words. In this research, males used 47 percent and female used 53 percent of the PRONOUNS including personal, denotative, interrogative and transformative pronouns in FUNCTION words. 5-year-old preschoolers used 25 percent of the ADVERBS while 6-year-old preschoolers used 75 percent of the ADVERBS in CONTENT words. In this research, males used 30 percent and female used 70 percent of the PREPOSITIONS including in FUNCTION words. Males used 48 percent and female used 52 percent of the CONJUCTIONS in FUNCTION words. Males used 35 percent and female used 65 percent of the GERUNDS in CONTENT words. 5-year-old preschoolers used 30 percent of the STRUCTURE OF VERBS while 6-year-old preschoolers used 70 percent of the STRUCTURE OF VERBS comprising transitive, intransitive, causative, active, passive and transformative structures in CONTENT words. Males used 48 percent and female used 52 percent of the INFLACTIONALS in FUNCTION words. As a last remark, some recommendations will be made to the teachers and the parents of the preschoolers about the descriptive result of the study.

Qualitative, Content, Longitudinal, Konya, Manisa, Preschool institutions, Function words.

1. Bell, A., Brenier, Jason M., Gregory, M., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability Effects on Durations of Content and Function Words in Conversational English, Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 92-111. 
2. Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J.R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley. 
3. Caramazza, A., & Berndt, R. S. (1985). A multicomponent deficit view of agrammatic Broca’s aphasia. In M. L. Kean (Ed.), Agrammatism (pp. 27-63). Orlando: Academic Press. 
4. Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, 9, 133-177. London: Academic Press.
5. Garrett, M. F. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), Language production, 1, 177-220. 
6. Goodglass, H., & L. Menn. (1985). Is agrammatism a unitary phenomenon? In M.L. Kean (Ed.), Agrammatism (pp. 1-26). Orlando: Academic Press. 
7. Gerken, L. A., Landau, B., & Remez, R. E. (1990). Function morphemes in young children’s speech perception and production. Developmental Psychology, 27, 204-216. 
8. Gerken, L. A., & McIntosh, B. J. (1993). The interplay of function morphemes and prosody in early language. Developmental Psychology, 29, 448–457.
9. Gleitman, L., Gleitman, H., Landau, B., & Wanner, E. (1988). Where learning begins: initial representations for language learning. In F. J. Newmeyer, Linguistics, the Cambridge Survey, 3, 150-193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
10. Herron, D. T., & Bates, E. A. (1997). Sentential and acoustic factors in the recognition of open- and closed-class words. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 217-239. 
11.Jefferson, G. L. (1969) Lexical and structural items as predictors of readability for high and low ability readers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia. 
12.Lapointe, S. G., & Dell, G. S. (1989). A synthesis of some recent work in sentence production. In G. N. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 107-156). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 
13. Morgan, J., Allopenna, P., & Shi, R. (1996). Perceptual bases of rudimentary grammatical categories: Toward a broader conceptualization of bootstrapping. In J. Morgan and K. Demuth (Eds.). 
14.Santelmann, L., & Jusczyk, P. (1998). Sensitivity to discontinuous dependencies in language learners: Evidence for limitations in processing space. Cognition. 69(2), 105-134. 
15. Segalowitz, S. J., & Lane, K. C. (2000). Lexical access of function versus content words. Brain and Language, 75, 376–389.
16. Shafer, V. L., Shucard, D. W., Shucard, J. L., & Gerken, L. A. (1998). An electrophysiological study of infants' sensitivity to the sound patterns of English speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41(4), 874-886. 
17. Shady, M. (1996). Infants’ sensitivity to function morphemes. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo. 
18. Shi, R., Gick, B., Kanwischer, D., & Wilson, I. (2005). Frequency and category factors in the reduction and assimilation of function words: EPG and acoustic measures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 341-364. 
19. Shi, R. (2005). Early syntactic categories in infants. In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 481-495). Elsevier. 
20. Shi, R., Morgan, J., & Allopenna, P. (1998). Phonological and acoustic bases for earliest grammatical category assignment: a cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Child Language, 25, 169-201. 
21.Stemberger, J. P. (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In A. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (pp. 143-186). London: Erlbaum. 
22. Thomas, D. R. (1962) Oral language sentence structure and vocabulary of kindergarten children living in low socio-economic urban areas. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, Inc.
23. Weaver, W. W. (1964) On the psychology of reading, In E. L. Thurston & L. E. Bather (Eds.), Thirteenth yearbook of the National reading conference. Milwaukee: National Reading Conference.