Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Şablon Biçimbilim Açısından Türk İşaret Dilinde (TİD) Uyum Eylemleri

Year 2018, , 51 - 86, 02.07.2018

Bahtiyar Makaroğlu , Selçuk İşsever

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.374152
Cited By: 1

Abstract

İşaret
diline özgü ilginç durumlardan biri, eylemlerin sözlükçede uyum türleri
açısından ayrılmasıdır. Padden (1983, 1988, 1990), bunları (i) basit eylemler,
(ii) uyum eylemleri ve (iii) uzamsal eylemler olarak sınıflandırmaktadır. Ancak,
bu türler arasında sıklıkla geçişim gözlenmekte, dolayısıyla, Padden’ın bu klasik
sınıflandırması eylem türlerinin açıkça birbirinden ayrılabileceği bir
karşılıklı dışlama ölçütü sunmamaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, bu çalışmanın amacı,
işaret dillerinin biçimbilimsel [kök + şablon] birleşimi sergileyen Sami
dillerine benzediği görüşünü izleyerek (Liddell, 1984; Fernald &
Lillo-Martin, 2006), eylem türlerinin köklerin farklı eylemcil şablonlarla
birleşimine bağlı olduğunu TİD verisi çerçevesinde ortaya koymaktır. Bu
çerçevede, çözümlememiz, tür açısından belirsiz sözlüksel ve sesbilimsel
çekirdekler olarak ele aldığımız köklerin sözlükselleşme sürecinde belirli
eylemcil şablonlarla bileşmeleri sayesinde sesletilebilir/işaretlenebilir eylemler
durumuna geldiğini ve TİD’de uyumun belirleyici olduğu altı farklı eylemcil
şablon bulunduğunu iddia etmektedir.

Keywords

eylem sınıfları uyum işaret dili şablon biçimbilim TİD

References

  • Arad, M. (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 737–778.
  • Arık, E. (2013). Türk İşaret Dili’nde sınıflandırıcılar üzerine bir çalışma. Bilig, 67, 1-24.
  • Arad, M. (2005). Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-syntax. Springer.
  • Battison, R. M. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
  • Benedicto, E., & Brentari, D. (2004). Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 743-810.
  • Brennan, M. (1990). Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
  • Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA.
  • Brentari, D. (2002). Modality differences in sign language phonology and morphophonemics. In, R. Meier, D. Quinto-Pozos, & K. Cormier (Eds.) Modality in Language and Linguistic Theory. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK. pp. 35–64.
  • Brentari, D., & Padden, C. (2001). Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A lexicon with multiple origins. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Foreign Vocabulary in Sign Languages (pp. 87-119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Brentari, D. (2012). Phonology. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.). Sign Language: An International Handbook (pp. 21-54). Berlin/Boston: Gruyter Mouton.
  • Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs, & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar (pp. 184-221). Waltham, MA: Ginn.
  • Chomsky, N. (1998). ‘Minimalist inquiries: the framework’, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Clements, G. N. (1985). The Geometry of Phonological Features. Phonology Yearbook 2 (pp. 225-252). Cambridge University Press.
  • Costello, B. D. N. (2015). Language and modality: Effects of the use of space in the agreement system of Lengua De Signos Espanola (Spanish Sign Language). Utrecht: LOT.
  • Dikyuva, H., Makaroğlu, B., & Arık, E. (2015). Türk İşaret Dili Dilbilgisi Kitabı. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı Yayınları: Ankara.
  • Engberg-Pedersen, E. (1993). Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum.
  • Fernald, T., & Napoli, D. J. (2000). Exploitation of morphological possibilities in signed languages: Comparison of American Sign Language with English. Sign Language & Linguistics, 3, 3-58.
  • Fischer, S., & B. Gough. (1978). Verbs in American Sign Language. SLS, 18, 17-48.
  • Glück, S., & Pfau, R. (1998). On classifying classification as a class of inflection in German Sign Language. In T. Cambier-Langeveld, A. Lipták, & M. Redford (Eds.), Proceedings of ConSole VI. Leiden: SOLE, 59-74.
  • Glück, S., & Pfau, R. (1999). A Distributed morphology account of verbal ınflection in German Sign Language. In T. Cambier-Langeveld, A. Lipták, M. Redford, E. J. van der Torre (Eds.), Proceedings of ConSole VII. Leiden: SOLE, 65-80.
  • Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale, & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20 (pp. 111-176). MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Hunger, B. (2006). Noun/verb pairs in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language & Linguistics, 9(1-2), 71-94.
  • Janis, W. D. (1992). Morphosyntax of the ASL verb phrase. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.
  • Johnston, T. (2001). Nouns and verbs in Australian Sign Language: An Open and shut case?. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6, 235-257.
  • Johnston, T. & Schembri, A. (1999). On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2(2), 115–185.
  • Kubuş, O. (2008). An analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TID) phonology and morphology. Master’s thesis. METU, Ankara.
  • Liddell, S. K. (1984). Unrealized-inceptive aspect in American Sign Language: feature insertion in syllabic frames. Papers from the Chicago linguistic society, 257-270.
  • Liddell, S. K. (2003). Sources of meaning in ASL classifier predicates. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on Classifiers in Sign Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Makaroğlu, B., & Dikyuva, H. (Ed.). (2017). Güncel Türk İşaret Dili Sözlüğü. Ankara: Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı. Retrieved from http://tidsozluk.net.
  • Mathur, G. (2000). Verb agreement as alignment in signed languages. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
  • McCarthy, J. (1979). Formal problems in semitic phonology and morphology, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
  • McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 373-418.
  • McDonald, B. H. (1982). Aspects of the American Sign Language predicate system. Doctoral dissertation, University of Buffalo.
  • Meir, I. (1998). Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
  • Meir, I., Padden, C. A., Aronoff, M., & Sandler, W. (2007). Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics, 43(3), 531–563.
  • Padden, C. A. (1983). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language, Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
  • Padden, C. A. (1988). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Garland Publishing, New York.
  • Padden, C. A. (1990). The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues (pp. 118-132). Gallaudet University Press, Washington DC.
  • Perniss, P., & Özyürek, A. (2015). Visible cohesion: A comparison of reference tracking in sign, speech, and cospeech gesture. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(1), 36–60.
  • Quadros, R. M. de. (1999). Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation. PUC/RS. Porto Alegre.
  • Quadros, R. M. de & Quer, J. (2008). Back to back(wards) and moving on: On agreement, auxiliaries and verb classes in sign languages. In Quadros, R.M. de (Ed.), Sign languages: spinning and unraveling the past, present, and future. Forty-five papers and three posters from TISLR 9, Florianopolis, Brazil, December 2006. Petrópolis: Editora Arara Azul.
  • Özkul, A. (2013). A phonological and morphological analysis of instrumental noun-verb pairs in Turkish Sign Language. Master's thesis. Bogazici University, Istanbul. Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, W. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schembri, A. (2001). Issues in the analysis of polycomponential verbs in Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney.
  • Schembri, A., Wigglesworth, G., Johnston, T., Leigh, G., Adam, R., & Barker, R. (2002). Issues in development of the test battery for Australian sign language morphology and syntax. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(1), 18-40.
  • Schembri, A. & Johnston, T. (2007). Sociolinguistic variation in fingerspelling in Australian Sign Language (Auslan): A pilot study. Sign Language Studies, 7(3), 319-47.
  • Schreurs, L. (2006). The distinction between formally and semantically related noun-verb pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam.
  • Shepard-Kegl, J. A. (1985). Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation, syntax and discourse. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  • Strickland, B., Geraci, C., Chemla, E., Schlenker, P., Kelepir, M., & Pfau, R. (2015). Event representations constrain the structure of language: Sign language as a window into universally accessible linguistic biases,112(19), 5968-5973.
  • Supalla, T. (1982). Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of San Diego.
  • Supalla, T. (1986). The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Craig, C. (Ed.), Noun Classes and Categorization (pp.181-214). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Supalla T. & Newport, E. (1978). How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In Siple, P. (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research. Academic Press; New York: pp. 91–132.
  • Sutton-Spence, R., & Woll, B. (1999). The linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Tkachman, O. & Sandler, W. (2013). The noun-verb distinction in two young sign languages. Gesture 13(3), 287-308.
  • Wallin, L. (1996). Polysynthetic signs in Swedish Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm.
  • Wallin, L. (2000). Two kinds of productive signs in Swedish Sign Language: Polysynthetic signs and size and shape specifying signs. Sign Language and Linguistics, 3, 237-256.
  • Wilbur R. B. (2008). Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In J. Quer (Ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004 (pp.217-250). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
  • Zwitserlood, I. (2003). Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT.

Agreement Verbs in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) from the Perspective of Templatic Morphology

Year 2018, , 51 - 86, 02.07.2018

Bahtiyar Makaroğlu , Selçuk İşsever

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.374152
Cited By: 1

Abstract











One of the peculiarities of sign languages is that verbs are listed in the lexicon according to agreement types that are categorized by tripartite verb classification of Padden (1983, 1988, 1990): (i) plain verbs, (ii) agreement verbs, and (iii) spatial verbs. However, Padden’s classical classification does not clearly present the mutually exclusive criteria between the verb types in that transitions between the types have been frequently observed. In this study we aim to show that verb types are related to the combination of roots with specific verbal templates within TİD data, by following the view that SLs are similar to Semitic languages in exhibiting morphological [root + template] combination (Liddell, 1984; Fernald & Lillo-Martin, 2006). We analyze the root as an underspecified lexical and phonological core that becomes a pronounceable/signable verb in combining with verbal patterns/templates in the lexicalization process and suggest that TİD has six different verbal templates which can be characterized in terms of agreement.    

Keywords

verb classes agreement sign language templatic morphology TİD

References

  • Arad, M. (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 737–778.
  • Arık, E. (2013). Türk İşaret Dili’nde sınıflandırıcılar üzerine bir çalışma. Bilig, 67, 1-24.
  • Arad, M. (2005). Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-syntax. Springer.
  • Battison, R. M. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
  • Benedicto, E., & Brentari, D. (2004). Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 743-810.
  • Brennan, M. (1990). Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
  • Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA.
  • Brentari, D. (2002). Modality differences in sign language phonology and morphophonemics. In, R. Meier, D. Quinto-Pozos, & K. Cormier (Eds.) Modality in Language and Linguistic Theory. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK. pp. 35–64.
  • Brentari, D., & Padden, C. (2001). Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A lexicon with multiple origins. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Foreign Vocabulary in Sign Languages (pp. 87-119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Brentari, D. (2012). Phonology. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.). Sign Language: An International Handbook (pp. 21-54). Berlin/Boston: Gruyter Mouton.
  • Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs, & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar (pp. 184-221). Waltham, MA: Ginn.
  • Chomsky, N. (1998). ‘Minimalist inquiries: the framework’, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Clements, G. N. (1985). The Geometry of Phonological Features. Phonology Yearbook 2 (pp. 225-252). Cambridge University Press.
  • Costello, B. D. N. (2015). Language and modality: Effects of the use of space in the agreement system of Lengua De Signos Espanola (Spanish Sign Language). Utrecht: LOT.
  • Dikyuva, H., Makaroğlu, B., & Arık, E. (2015). Türk İşaret Dili Dilbilgisi Kitabı. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı Yayınları: Ankara.
  • Engberg-Pedersen, E. (1993). Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum.
  • Fernald, T., & Napoli, D. J. (2000). Exploitation of morphological possibilities in signed languages: Comparison of American Sign Language with English. Sign Language & Linguistics, 3, 3-58.
  • Fischer, S., & B. Gough. (1978). Verbs in American Sign Language. SLS, 18, 17-48.
  • Glück, S., & Pfau, R. (1998). On classifying classification as a class of inflection in German Sign Language. In T. Cambier-Langeveld, A. Lipták, & M. Redford (Eds.), Proceedings of ConSole VI. Leiden: SOLE, 59-74.
  • Glück, S., & Pfau, R. (1999). A Distributed morphology account of verbal ınflection in German Sign Language. In T. Cambier-Langeveld, A. Lipták, M. Redford, E. J. van der Torre (Eds.), Proceedings of ConSole VII. Leiden: SOLE, 65-80.
  • Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale, & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20 (pp. 111-176). MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Hunger, B. (2006). Noun/verb pairs in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language & Linguistics, 9(1-2), 71-94.
  • Janis, W. D. (1992). Morphosyntax of the ASL verb phrase. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.
  • Johnston, T. (2001). Nouns and verbs in Australian Sign Language: An Open and shut case?. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6, 235-257.
  • Johnston, T. & Schembri, A. (1999). On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2(2), 115–185.
  • Kubuş, O. (2008). An analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TID) phonology and morphology. Master’s thesis. METU, Ankara.
  • Liddell, S. K. (1984). Unrealized-inceptive aspect in American Sign Language: feature insertion in syllabic frames. Papers from the Chicago linguistic society, 257-270.
  • Liddell, S. K. (2003). Sources of meaning in ASL classifier predicates. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on Classifiers in Sign Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Makaroğlu, B., & Dikyuva, H. (Ed.). (2017). Güncel Türk İşaret Dili Sözlüğü. Ankara: Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı. Retrieved from http://tidsozluk.net.
  • Mathur, G. (2000). Verb agreement as alignment in signed languages. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
  • McCarthy, J. (1979). Formal problems in semitic phonology and morphology, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
  • McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 373-418.
  • McDonald, B. H. (1982). Aspects of the American Sign Language predicate system. Doctoral dissertation, University of Buffalo.
  • Meir, I. (1998). Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
  • Meir, I., Padden, C. A., Aronoff, M., & Sandler, W. (2007). Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics, 43(3), 531–563.
  • Padden, C. A. (1983). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language, Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
  • Padden, C. A. (1988). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Garland Publishing, New York.
  • Padden, C. A. (1990). The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues (pp. 118-132). Gallaudet University Press, Washington DC.
  • Perniss, P., & Özyürek, A. (2015). Visible cohesion: A comparison of reference tracking in sign, speech, and cospeech gesture. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(1), 36–60.
  • Quadros, R. M. de. (1999). Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation. PUC/RS. Porto Alegre.
  • Quadros, R. M. de & Quer, J. (2008). Back to back(wards) and moving on: On agreement, auxiliaries and verb classes in sign languages. In Quadros, R.M. de (Ed.), Sign languages: spinning and unraveling the past, present, and future. Forty-five papers and three posters from TISLR 9, Florianopolis, Brazil, December 2006. Petrópolis: Editora Arara Azul.
  • Özkul, A. (2013). A phonological and morphological analysis of instrumental noun-verb pairs in Turkish Sign Language. Master's thesis. Bogazici University, Istanbul. Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, W. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schembri, A. (2001). Issues in the analysis of polycomponential verbs in Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney.
  • Schembri, A., Wigglesworth, G., Johnston, T., Leigh, G., Adam, R., & Barker, R. (2002). Issues in development of the test battery for Australian sign language morphology and syntax. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(1), 18-40.
  • Schembri, A. & Johnston, T. (2007). Sociolinguistic variation in fingerspelling in Australian Sign Language (Auslan): A pilot study. Sign Language Studies, 7(3), 319-47.
  • Schreurs, L. (2006). The distinction between formally and semantically related noun-verb pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam.
  • Shepard-Kegl, J. A. (1985). Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation, syntax and discourse. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  • Strickland, B., Geraci, C., Chemla, E., Schlenker, P., Kelepir, M., & Pfau, R. (2015). Event representations constrain the structure of language: Sign language as a window into universally accessible linguistic biases,112(19), 5968-5973.
  • Supalla, T. (1982). Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of San Diego.
  • Supalla, T. (1986). The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Craig, C. (Ed.), Noun Classes and Categorization (pp.181-214). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Supalla T. & Newport, E. (1978). How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In Siple, P. (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research. Academic Press; New York: pp. 91–132.
  • Sutton-Spence, R., & Woll, B. (1999). The linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Tkachman, O. & Sandler, W. (2013). The noun-verb distinction in two young sign languages. Gesture 13(3), 287-308.
  • Wallin, L. (1996). Polysynthetic signs in Swedish Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm.
  • Wallin, L. (2000). Two kinds of productive signs in Swedish Sign Language: Polysynthetic signs and size and shape specifying signs. Sign Language and Linguistics, 3, 237-256.
  • Wilbur R. B. (2008). Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In J. Quer (Ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004 (pp.217-250). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
  • Zwitserlood, I. (2003). Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT.
There are 57 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Bahtiyar Makaroğlu

Selçuk İşsever

Publication Date July 2, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018

Cite

APA Makaroğlu, B., & İşsever, S. (2018). Agreement Verbs in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) from the Perspective of Templatic Morphology. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 29(1), 51-86. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.374152

Cited By

https://doi.org/

88x31.png

Bu eser


Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad