Research Article
PDF EndNote BibTex Cite

Türk İşaret Dilinde Çoklu Eylemlere İlişkin Bir Sınıflandırma Önerisi

Year 2022, Volume 33, Issue 1, 29 - 59, 30.06.2022
https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1004541

Abstract

Eylem çoğulluğu, yineleme belirteçlerinin kullanımıyla sözcüğe anlamsal boyutta çoğulluk ve dağılım gibi bilgilerin kodlanmasıyla meydana gelen bir dilbilgisel kategoridir. Bu belirteçlerin dağılım kodlamasının, kişi, sayı, yer ve zaman içerebildiği görülmektedir. Güncel çalışmalarda, çoklu eylem konusu üzerine bir eğilim bulunmasına rağmen kapsamlı bir eylem çoğulluğu sınıflandırması bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, TİD’de eylem çoğulluğu olgusuna dair yapısal ve işlevsel açıdan bulgulara dayalı ve derlem tabanlı bir eylem çoğulluğu sınıflandırması ortaya konmaya çalışılacaktır. Yapısal açıdan bakıldığında TİD’de, bağımsız, el dışı ve birleşimsel olarak farklı eylem çoğulluğu belirleyicileri bulunmaktadır. Bağımsız türler; /-TEK/, /-YAY/, /-DEĞ/ ve /-2EL/ eylem çoğulluğu belirleyicilerinden oluşmaktadır. El dışı türler ise /-YŞ/ ve /-BK/ eylem çoğulluğu belirleyicilerini içermektedir. Birden fazla belirleyici içeren birleşimsel türde ise, /-TEK + YAY/, /-TEK + 2EL/, /-YAY + 2EL/, /-TEK + BK/, /TEK + YŞ/, /-DEĞ + YŞ/, /-DEĞ + BK/, /-YAY + BK/ ve /-YAY + YŞ/ eylem çoğulluğu belirleyicileri bulunmaktadır. İşlevsel açıdan ele alındığında ise Kuhn ve Aristodemo (2017)’nin ortaya koyduğu anlamsal sınıflandırma temelinde incelendiğinde, TİD’de eylem çoğulluğu belirleyicileri, tek türün yanı sıra, (a) ve (b), (b) ve (c) ya da üç türün hepsinin kodlanmasını sağlayabilmektedir. Diğer işaret dilleriyle karşılaştırıldığında, TİD’de el dışı biçimbirimlerin de eylem çoğulluğu belirleyicisi olarak ele ait biçimbirimler kadar etkili olduğu görülmektedir.

References

  • Aksan, Y., & Aksan, M. (2008). A typology of pluractional forms in Turkish. In Essays on Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, August 6-8 (p. 33).
  • Börstell , C. (2011). Revisiting Reduplication. Toward a Description of Reduplication in Predicative Signs in Swedish Sign Language. Stockholm.
  • Börstell, C., Lepic, R., & Belsitzman, G. (2016). Articulatory plurality is a property of lexical plurals in sign language. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 39(2), 391-407.
  • Brooks, B. (1991). Pluractional verbs in African languages. Afrikanische Arbeitspapiere, 28, 157-168.
  • Cabredo-Hofherr, P. C., & Laca, B. (Eds.). (2012). Verbal plurality and distributivity (Vol. 546). Walter de Gruyter.
  • Collins, C. (2001). Aspects of plurality in ǂHoan. Language, 456-476.
  • Couvee, S., & Pfau, R. (2018). Structure and grammaticalization of serial verb constructions in Sign Language of the Netherlands—A corpus-based study. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 993.
  • Crevels, E. I. (2006). Verbal number in Itonama.
  • Cusic, D. D. (1981). Verbal plurality and aspect. Ph.D. diss, Stanford University.
  • Emmorey, K. (ed.) 2003. Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey
  • Faller, M. (2008, November). pluractionality in Cuzco Quechua. In a handout of a paper presented at the Workshop for Nominal and Verbal plurality.
  • Fischer, S. D. (1973). Two processes of reduplication in the American Sign Language. Foundations of language, 9(4), 469-480.
  • Geraci, C., Bayley, R., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., & Donati, C. (2015). Variation in Italian Sign Language (LIS): The case of wh-signs. Linguistics, 53(1).
  • Henderson, R. (2011, September). Pluractional distributivity and dependence. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (Vol. 21, pp. 218-235).
  • Hurch, B., & Mattes, V. (Eds.). (2005). Studies on reduplication (No. 28). Walter de Gruyter.
  • Klomp, U. (2019). Conditional Clauses in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Sign Language Studies, 19(3), 309-347.
  • Kuder, A., Filipczak, J., Mostowski, P., Rutkowski, P., & Johnston, T. (2018). What corpus-based research on negation in Auslan and PJM tells us about building and using sign language corpora. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Involving the Language Community (pp. 101-106).
  • Kuhn, J., & Aristodemo, V. (2017). Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French Sign Language. Semantics and Pragmatics, 10.
  • Lasersohn, P. (1995). Locating the ambiguity. In Plurality, Conjunction and Events (pp. 81-127). Springer, Dordrecht.
  • Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press.
  • Lima, S. O. D. (2008). A estrutura argumental dos verbos na língua Juruna (Yudja): da formação dos verbos para a análise das estruturas sintáticas (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo).
  • Makaroğlu, B. (2019). Pluractionality and non-manual behaviors in Turkish Sign Language. SignNonmanuals Workshop 2, Graz, 3-4 May 2019.
  • Mithun, M. (1999). Athapaskan–Eyak–Tlingit family. The languages of native North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 346-367.
  • Müller, A., & Sanchez-Mendes, L. (2008). Pluractionality in karitiana. In Proceedings of SuB (Vol. 12, pp. 442-454).
  • Newman, P. (1980). The classification of Chadic within Afroasiatic.
  • Newman, P. (2000). The hausa language. An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New Haven.
  • Oda, O. (2010, August). Pluractionality in Konso. In Workshop on Pluractionality, Leiden (Vol. 26).
  • Oomen, M., & Pfau, R. (2017). Signing NOT (or not): A typological perspective on standard negation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Linguistic Typology, 21(1), 1-51.
  • Quer, J. (2019). Reduplication revisited: verbal plurality and exhaustivity in the visual-gestural modality. Sensos-e. 2019 Sep 16; 6 (1); 5-17.
  • Salanova, A. P. (2014). Reduplication and Verbal Number in Mẽbengokre. In Reduplication in indigenous languages of South America (pp. 247-272). Brill.
  • Schembri, A., Cormier, K., & Fenlon, J. (2018). Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’in sign languages. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 3(1).
  • Schlenker, P. (2014). Iconic features. Natural Language Semantics, 22(4), 299-356. Sloetjes, H. and P. Wittenburg. 2018. ELAN (version 5.2). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Retrieved from https://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/
  • Soucková, K. (2011). Pluractionality in Hausa. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
  • Thompson, J. J. (2009). On verbal number in Upriver Halkomelem. Ms. University of British Columbia.
  • Wood, E. J., & Garrett, A. (2002). The semantics of Yurok intensive infixation. In Proceedings from the fourth Workshop on American Indian Languages (pp. 112-126).
  • Wood, E. J. (2007). The semantic typology of pluractionality. University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
  • Xrakovskij, V. S. (1997). Semantic types of the plurality of situations and their natural classification. Typology of iterative constructions, 3, 64.

The Appearance of Pluractionality in Turkish Sign Language: A Corpus-based examination and Classification

Year 2022, Volume 33, Issue 1, 29 - 59, 30.06.2022
https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1004541

Abstract

Pluractionality is a grammatical category that is formed by encoding information such as plurality and distribution in the semantic dimension with the use of reduplication markers. The pluractionality markers encode person, number, place and time distributions in the semantic dimension of the word. Although there is a trend towards pluractionality in current studies, there is no extensive classification on pluractionality. In this study, a classification on TİD pluractionality is presented by portraying structural and functional findings obtained from the corpus-based examination on pluractionality in TİD. Observing the structure of pluractionality in TİD there are many independent, non-manual and combinatory pluractional markers, in TİD. The independent type consists of /-REP/, /-ARC/, /-PC/ and /-2HND/ pluractional markers. The non-manual type includes /-PC/ and /-BS/ pluractional markers. As for the combinatory type which consists of at least two markers, it consists of /-REP + ARC/, /-REP + 2HND/, /-ARC + 2HND/, /-REP + BS/, /-REP + PC/, /-ALT + PC/, /-ALT + BS/, /-ARC + BS/ and /-ARC + PC/ pluractional markers. On a functional level, the semantic behaviours were examined in terms of the semantic classification put forward by Kuhn and Aristodemo (2017), TİD pluractional markers enable all three types, the marker can enable the readings (a) and (b), (b and (c), or all three readings. Compared with pluractional structures in other sign languages, non-manual pluractional markers in TİD are as effective as manual pluractional markers.

References

  • Aksan, Y., & Aksan, M. (2008). A typology of pluractional forms in Turkish. In Essays on Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, August 6-8 (p. 33).
  • Börstell , C. (2011). Revisiting Reduplication. Toward a Description of Reduplication in Predicative Signs in Swedish Sign Language. Stockholm.
  • Börstell, C., Lepic, R., & Belsitzman, G. (2016). Articulatory plurality is a property of lexical plurals in sign language. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 39(2), 391-407.
  • Brooks, B. (1991). Pluractional verbs in African languages. Afrikanische Arbeitspapiere, 28, 157-168.
  • Cabredo-Hofherr, P. C., & Laca, B. (Eds.). (2012). Verbal plurality and distributivity (Vol. 546). Walter de Gruyter.
  • Collins, C. (2001). Aspects of plurality in ǂHoan. Language, 456-476.
  • Couvee, S., & Pfau, R. (2018). Structure and grammaticalization of serial verb constructions in Sign Language of the Netherlands—A corpus-based study. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 993.
  • Crevels, E. I. (2006). Verbal number in Itonama.
  • Cusic, D. D. (1981). Verbal plurality and aspect. Ph.D. diss, Stanford University.
  • Emmorey, K. (ed.) 2003. Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey
  • Faller, M. (2008, November). pluractionality in Cuzco Quechua. In a handout of a paper presented at the Workshop for Nominal and Verbal plurality.
  • Fischer, S. D. (1973). Two processes of reduplication in the American Sign Language. Foundations of language, 9(4), 469-480.
  • Geraci, C., Bayley, R., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., & Donati, C. (2015). Variation in Italian Sign Language (LIS): The case of wh-signs. Linguistics, 53(1).
  • Henderson, R. (2011, September). Pluractional distributivity and dependence. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (Vol. 21, pp. 218-235).
  • Hurch, B., & Mattes, V. (Eds.). (2005). Studies on reduplication (No. 28). Walter de Gruyter.
  • Klomp, U. (2019). Conditional Clauses in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Sign Language Studies, 19(3), 309-347.
  • Kuder, A., Filipczak, J., Mostowski, P., Rutkowski, P., & Johnston, T. (2018). What corpus-based research on negation in Auslan and PJM tells us about building and using sign language corpora. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Involving the Language Community (pp. 101-106).
  • Kuhn, J., & Aristodemo, V. (2017). Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French Sign Language. Semantics and Pragmatics, 10.
  • Lasersohn, P. (1995). Locating the ambiguity. In Plurality, Conjunction and Events (pp. 81-127). Springer, Dordrecht.
  • Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press.
  • Lima, S. O. D. (2008). A estrutura argumental dos verbos na língua Juruna (Yudja): da formação dos verbos para a análise das estruturas sintáticas (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo).
  • Makaroğlu, B. (2019). Pluractionality and non-manual behaviors in Turkish Sign Language. SignNonmanuals Workshop 2, Graz, 3-4 May 2019.
  • Mithun, M. (1999). Athapaskan–Eyak–Tlingit family. The languages of native North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 346-367.
  • Müller, A., & Sanchez-Mendes, L. (2008). Pluractionality in karitiana. In Proceedings of SuB (Vol. 12, pp. 442-454).
  • Newman, P. (1980). The classification of Chadic within Afroasiatic.
  • Newman, P. (2000). The hausa language. An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New Haven.
  • Oda, O. (2010, August). Pluractionality in Konso. In Workshop on Pluractionality, Leiden (Vol. 26).
  • Oomen, M., & Pfau, R. (2017). Signing NOT (or not): A typological perspective on standard negation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Linguistic Typology, 21(1), 1-51.
  • Quer, J. (2019). Reduplication revisited: verbal plurality and exhaustivity in the visual-gestural modality. Sensos-e. 2019 Sep 16; 6 (1); 5-17.
  • Salanova, A. P. (2014). Reduplication and Verbal Number in Mẽbengokre. In Reduplication in indigenous languages of South America (pp. 247-272). Brill.
  • Schembri, A., Cormier, K., & Fenlon, J. (2018). Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’in sign languages. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 3(1).
  • Schlenker, P. (2014). Iconic features. Natural Language Semantics, 22(4), 299-356. Sloetjes, H. and P. Wittenburg. 2018. ELAN (version 5.2). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Retrieved from https://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/
  • Soucková, K. (2011). Pluractionality in Hausa. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
  • Thompson, J. J. (2009). On verbal number in Upriver Halkomelem. Ms. University of British Columbia.
  • Wood, E. J., & Garrett, A. (2002). The semantics of Yurok intensive infixation. In Proceedings from the fourth Workshop on American Indian Languages (pp. 112-126).
  • Wood, E. J. (2007). The semantic typology of pluractionality. University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
  • Xrakovskij, V. S. (1997). Semantic types of the plurality of situations and their natural classification. Typology of iterative constructions, 3, 64.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Language and Linguistics
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Yasemin GÜÇLÜTÜRK> (Primary Author)
ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ
0000-0002-2217-199X
Türkiye


İclâl ERGENÇ>
ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ
0000-0003-0380-9844
Türkiye

Publication Date June 30, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022, Volume 33, Issue 1

Cite

APA Güçlütürk, Y. & Ergenç, İ. (2022). Türk İşaret Dilinde Çoklu Eylemlere İlişkin Bir Sınıflandırma Önerisi . Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi , 33 (1) , 29-59 . DOI: 10.18492/dad.1004541