Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

The challenge of marking relative clauses in Turkish Sign Language

Yıl 2018, , 139 - 160, 02.07.2018

Okan Kubus , Derya Nuhbalaoglu

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.373454
Cited By: 2

Öz

This paper aims to show to what degree relativization
strategies in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) are influenced by discourse functions
of relative clauses, extending Kubus’ study (Kubus,
2016). In his
study, Kubus describes various relativization strategies (i.e. internally
headed, externally headed and free relatives) and identifies non-manual (i.e.
squint, brow raise or slight-headshake) and occasionally additional manual
relativizers (i.e. clause initial/final index (ix),
ayni ‘same’ or different
combinations of them). We outline possible reasons for the presence of these
competing relative markers and discuss whether the above-mentioned non-manuals
should be analyzed as prosodic/pragmatic or syntactic markers. We suggest that
the nature of relative clauses in TİD can best be understood at the level of
discourse.

Anahtar Kelimeler

relativization strategies Turkish Sign Language (non)-manual markers optionality

Kaynakça

  • Adam, R. (2012). Language contact and borrowing. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign Languages: An International Handbook, (pp. 841-62). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Aksu-Koç, A., & Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1998). The functions of relative clauses in narrative discourse. In L. Johanson (Ed.), The Mainz Meeting Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 271-284). Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag.
  • Andrews, A. D. (2007). Relative clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 2: Complex constructions (2nd edition), (pp. 206-236). Cambridge: CUP.
  • Aydın, Ö. (2007). The Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses in second language acquisition and agrammaticism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 295-315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070154
  • Branchini, C. (2014). On relativization and clefting: An analysis of Italian Sign Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Branchini, C. (2017, June). Digging up the core features of (non)restrictiveness in sign languages’ relative constructions. Presented at the conference Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Language Theory (FEAST), Reykjavik.
  • Branchini, C., & Donati, C. (2009). Italian Sign Language relatives: a contribution to the typology of relativization strategies. In A. Liptak (Ed.), Correlatives: Theory and typology (North Holland Linguistic series 68), (pp. 157-191). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Brunelli, M. (2011). Antisymmetry and sign languages: A Comparison between NGT and LIS. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.
  • Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., & Zucchi, S. (2006). Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24, 945-975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9001-x
  • Cecchetto, C., & Donati, C. (2016). Relativization in Italian Sign Language: the missing link of relativization. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & A. Herrmann (Eds.), A matter of complexity, (pp. 182-203). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, (pp. 21-55). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Cinque, G. (2011). On double-headed relative clauses. Linguistica, 6, 67-91. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10278/45599
  • Cole, P. (1987). The Structure of Internally Headed Relative Clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,5, 277-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166587
  • Crasborn, O. (2007). How to recognise a sentence when you see one. Sign Language & Linguistics, 10 (2), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.10.2.03cra
  • Çağrı, İ. (2005). Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland College Park. Retrieved from https://drum.lib.umd.edu.
  • Dachkovsky, S., & Sandler, W. (2009). Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech, 52 (2/3), 287-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909103175
  • Dachkovsky, S. (2015, October). Grammaticalization of facial intonation: The case of squint in ISL relative clauses. Poster presented at the Nonmanuals at the Gesture Sign Interface (NaGSI), Göttingen.
  • de Vries, L. (1993). Forms and Functions in Kombai, an Awyu language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Australian National University (Pacific Linguistics, Series B –108).
  • de Vries, M. (2002). The Syntax of Relativization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT. Retrieved from https://www.lotpublications.nl.
  • Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66, 297-317. doi: 10.2307/414888
  • Galloway, T. (2011, June). Why agreement matters: The syntax of relative clauses in ASL. Poster presented at the conference Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Language Theory (FEAST), Venice.
  • Göksel, A., Kelepir, M., & Üntak-Tarhan, A. (2010). Decomposing the non-manual tier: Cross-modality generalisations. In I. Kwon, H. Pritchett, & J. Spence (Eds.), Proceedings of BLS-35, Special Session on Non-Speech Modalities, (pp. 1-11).
  • Hankamer, I., & Knecht, L. (1976). The role of subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of relative clause participle in Turkish. Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, 2, 197-219.
  • Hendery, R. (2010). Grammaticalisation of discourse marking elements in relative clauses. In R. Hendery, & J. Hendriks (Eds.), Grammatical Change: Theory and Description, (pp. 105-122). Canberra: Australian National University Press.
  • Ichida, Y. (2010). Introduction to Japanese Sign Language: lconicity in language. Studies in Language Sciences, 9, 3-32.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement and empty categories in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net.
  • Kubus, O. (2016). Relative clause constructions in Turkish Sign Language. Ph.D dissertation, University of Hamburg. Retrieved from http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de.
  • Liddell, S. (1978). An introduction to relative clauses in ASL. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, (pp. 59-90). New York: Academic Press.
  • Liddell, S. (1980). American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Mosella Sanz, M. (2011, June). The position of fronted and postposed relative clauses in Catalan Sign Language. Presented at the conference Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Theory (FEAST), Venice.
  • Özsoy, A. S. (1994). Türkçe’de Ortaç Yapısı [Relative Clause Structure in Turkish]. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, [Linguistic Investigations], 21-30. Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.
  • Padden, C. (1988). Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
  • Pfau, R. (2011). A point well taken: On the typology and diachrony of pointing. In D. J. Napoli, & G. Mathur (Eds.), Deaf around the world. The impact of language, (pp. 144-163). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2005). Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extra- position and reconstruction. In L. Bateman, & C. Ussery (Eds.), Proceeding of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35) Vol. 2, (pp. 507-521). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
  • Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2006). Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages (Linguistics in Potsdam 24). Potsdam: Universitäts-Verlag. Retrieved from: https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/1005/file/linguistics24.pdf
  • Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2016). Complex sentences in sign languages: Modality – typology – discourse. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & A. Herrmann (Eds.), A matter of complexity: Subordination in sign languages, (pp. 1-35). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Sandler, W. (2011). Prosody and syntax in sign language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 108 (3), 298-328. doi:10.1111/j.1467-968X.2010.01242.x
  • Tang, G., & Lau, P. (2012). Coordination and subordination. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign Languages: An International Handbook, (pp. 340-364). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Tang, G., Lau, P., & Lee, J. (2010, October). Strategies for relativization in HKSL. Paper presented at the conference Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR) 10, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
  • Underhill, R. (1972). Turkish participles. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 87-99.
  • Wilbur, R. (2017). Internally-headed relative clauses in sign languages. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2 (1): 25, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgi.183
  • Zeshan, U. (2006). Negative and interrogative structures in Türk İşaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). In U. Zeshan (Ed.), Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages, (pp. 128-164). Nijmegen: Ishara Press.

Türk İşaret Dili’nde İlgi Tümceciklerini Belirleme Sorunsalı

Yıl 2018, , 139 - 160, 02.07.2018

Okan Kubus , Derya Nuhbalaoglu

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.373454
Cited By: 2

Öz

Bu çalışma Türk
İşaret Dili’nde (TİD) ilgi tümceciklerinin söylem işlevlerinden ne derecede etkilendiklerini, Kubus’un
araştırmasını (Kubus, 2016) genişleterek göstermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Kubus,
analizinde TİD’de farklı ilgi tümcecikleri (içten başlı, dıştan başlı ve özgür
ilgi tümceciği) ve farklı el-dışı hareketleri (gözleri kısarak bakmak, kaş
kaldırma ve başın hafifçe sallanması) ile ayrıca, sık görülmese de, ele ait
ilgi tümceciği belirticileri (tümcecik başı/sonu index (ix),
ayni
ve bunların farklı şekillerde birleşimleri) olduğunu tespit etmektedir.
Çalışmamızda bu belirticilerin rekabet halinde olmalarının muhtemel sebepleri
sıralanıp yukarıda bahsi geçen el-dışı hareketlerinin bürünsel/edimbilimsel mi
yoksa sözdizimsel mi olduğu tartışılmakta ve TİD’deki ilgi tümceciklerinin
doğasının en iyi söylem düzeyinde anlaşılabileceği önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ilgi tümcecikleri Türk İşaret Dili el-(dışı) belirticileri seçimlilik

Kaynakça

  • Adam, R. (2012). Language contact and borrowing. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign Languages: An International Handbook, (pp. 841-62). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Aksu-Koç, A., & Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1998). The functions of relative clauses in narrative discourse. In L. Johanson (Ed.), The Mainz Meeting Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 271-284). Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag.
  • Andrews, A. D. (2007). Relative clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 2: Complex constructions (2nd edition), (pp. 206-236). Cambridge: CUP.
  • Aydın, Ö. (2007). The Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses in second language acquisition and agrammaticism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 295-315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070154
  • Branchini, C. (2014). On relativization and clefting: An analysis of Italian Sign Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Branchini, C. (2017, June). Digging up the core features of (non)restrictiveness in sign languages’ relative constructions. Presented at the conference Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Language Theory (FEAST), Reykjavik.
  • Branchini, C., & Donati, C. (2009). Italian Sign Language relatives: a contribution to the typology of relativization strategies. In A. Liptak (Ed.), Correlatives: Theory and typology (North Holland Linguistic series 68), (pp. 157-191). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Brunelli, M. (2011). Antisymmetry and sign languages: A Comparison between NGT and LIS. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.
  • Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., & Zucchi, S. (2006). Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24, 945-975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9001-x
  • Cecchetto, C., & Donati, C. (2016). Relativization in Italian Sign Language: the missing link of relativization. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & A. Herrmann (Eds.), A matter of complexity, (pp. 182-203). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, (pp. 21-55). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Cinque, G. (2011). On double-headed relative clauses. Linguistica, 6, 67-91. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10278/45599
  • Cole, P. (1987). The Structure of Internally Headed Relative Clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,5, 277-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166587
  • Crasborn, O. (2007). How to recognise a sentence when you see one. Sign Language & Linguistics, 10 (2), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.10.2.03cra
  • Çağrı, İ. (2005). Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland College Park. Retrieved from https://drum.lib.umd.edu.
  • Dachkovsky, S., & Sandler, W. (2009). Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech, 52 (2/3), 287-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909103175
  • Dachkovsky, S. (2015, October). Grammaticalization of facial intonation: The case of squint in ISL relative clauses. Poster presented at the Nonmanuals at the Gesture Sign Interface (NaGSI), Göttingen.
  • de Vries, L. (1993). Forms and Functions in Kombai, an Awyu language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Australian National University (Pacific Linguistics, Series B –108).
  • de Vries, M. (2002). The Syntax of Relativization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT. Retrieved from https://www.lotpublications.nl.
  • Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66, 297-317. doi: 10.2307/414888
  • Galloway, T. (2011, June). Why agreement matters: The syntax of relative clauses in ASL. Poster presented at the conference Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Language Theory (FEAST), Venice.
  • Göksel, A., Kelepir, M., & Üntak-Tarhan, A. (2010). Decomposing the non-manual tier: Cross-modality generalisations. In I. Kwon, H. Pritchett, & J. Spence (Eds.), Proceedings of BLS-35, Special Session on Non-Speech Modalities, (pp. 1-11).
  • Hankamer, I., & Knecht, L. (1976). The role of subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of relative clause participle in Turkish. Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, 2, 197-219.
  • Hendery, R. (2010). Grammaticalisation of discourse marking elements in relative clauses. In R. Hendery, & J. Hendriks (Eds.), Grammatical Change: Theory and Description, (pp. 105-122). Canberra: Australian National University Press.
  • Ichida, Y. (2010). Introduction to Japanese Sign Language: lconicity in language. Studies in Language Sciences, 9, 3-32.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement and empty categories in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net.
  • Kubus, O. (2016). Relative clause constructions in Turkish Sign Language. Ph.D dissertation, University of Hamburg. Retrieved from http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de.
  • Liddell, S. (1978). An introduction to relative clauses in ASL. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, (pp. 59-90). New York: Academic Press.
  • Liddell, S. (1980). American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Mosella Sanz, M. (2011, June). The position of fronted and postposed relative clauses in Catalan Sign Language. Presented at the conference Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Theory (FEAST), Venice.
  • Özsoy, A. S. (1994). Türkçe’de Ortaç Yapısı [Relative Clause Structure in Turkish]. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, [Linguistic Investigations], 21-30. Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.
  • Padden, C. (1988). Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
  • Pfau, R. (2011). A point well taken: On the typology and diachrony of pointing. In D. J. Napoli, & G. Mathur (Eds.), Deaf around the world. The impact of language, (pp. 144-163). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2005). Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extra- position and reconstruction. In L. Bateman, & C. Ussery (Eds.), Proceeding of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35) Vol. 2, (pp. 507-521). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
  • Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2006). Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages (Linguistics in Potsdam 24). Potsdam: Universitäts-Verlag. Retrieved from: https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/1005/file/linguistics24.pdf
  • Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2016). Complex sentences in sign languages: Modality – typology – discourse. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & A. Herrmann (Eds.), A matter of complexity: Subordination in sign languages, (pp. 1-35). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Sandler, W. (2011). Prosody and syntax in sign language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 108 (3), 298-328. doi:10.1111/j.1467-968X.2010.01242.x
  • Tang, G., & Lau, P. (2012). Coordination and subordination. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign Languages: An International Handbook, (pp. 340-364). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Tang, G., Lau, P., & Lee, J. (2010, October). Strategies for relativization in HKSL. Paper presented at the conference Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR) 10, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
  • Underhill, R. (1972). Turkish participles. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 87-99.
  • Wilbur, R. (2017). Internally-headed relative clauses in sign languages. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2 (1): 25, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgi.183
  • Zeshan, U. (2006). Negative and interrogative structures in Türk İşaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). In U. Zeshan (Ed.), Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages, (pp. 128-164). Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
Toplam 42 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Okan Kubus

Derya Nuhbalaoglu

Yayımlanma Tarihi 2 Temmuz 2018
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2018

Kaynak Göster

APA Kubus, O., & Nuhbalaoglu, D. (2018). The challenge of marking relative clauses in Turkish Sign Language. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 29(1), 139-160. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.373454

Cited By

Emergence of a subordinate construction in a sign language: Intonation ploughs the field for morphosyntax
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics
https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.9074
Nominal Word Order Typology in Signed Languages
Frontiers in Communication
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.802596

88x31.png

Bu eser


Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad