Araştırma Makalesi
PDF EndNote BibTex Kaynak Göster

Verbs in Turkish Sign Language: A cognitive linguistic approach

Yıl 2018, Cilt 29, Sayı 1, 119 - 137, 02.07.2018
https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.374146

Öz

Recent studies show that semantic components of event structure are decomposable. In this study, the semantic components of events and event structure constructions will be examined within the framework of Talmy (2000) and Tang & Yang (2007)’s model on sign languages. Our analysis shows that lexical verbs have the same mechanisms with classifier predicates in terms of event structure constructions. Besides, we have determined that semantic components of event structure have an effect on lexicalization which seems to be one of the most important reasons of lexical variations in Turkish Sign Language (TİD).

Kaynakça

  • Ahlner, F., & Zlatev, J. (2010). Cross-modal iconicity: A cognitive semiotic approach to sound symbolism. Sign System Studies, 38, 298-348.
  • Arık, E. (2015). Expressing manner, location, and orientation in manner-only motion events in Turkish Sign Language. Trames: A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 19(3), 205-220 . Arık, E. (2009). Spatial language: Insights from sign and spoken languages. PhD Dissertation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
  • 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., (1992). The visual world of BSL: an introduction. In: Brien, D. (Ed.), Dictionary of British Sign Language (pp. 1-133). Faber & Faber, London.
  • Brentari, D., (1998). A Prosodic Model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Brentari, D., (2002). Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Modality differences in sign language phonology and morphophonemics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Duncan, S., (2003). Gesture in language: issues for sign language research. In: Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 259-268). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
  • Engberg-Pedersen, E., (1993). Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Signum Press, Hamburg.
  • Emmorey, K., (1999). Do signers gesture? In: Messing, L., Campbell, R. (Eds.), Gesture, speech, and sign (pp. 133-159). Oxford University Press, New York.
  • Evans V., & Green M., (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Frishberg, N., (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51, 676–710.
  • Grimshaw, J., (1990). Argument structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Jackendoff, R., (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Jackendoff, R., (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kegl, J., (1990). Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL lexicon. In: Lucas, C. (Ed.), Sign language research: theoretical issues (pp. 149-175). Gallaudet University Press, Washington, DC.
  • Klima, E., & Bellugi, U., (1979). The signs of language. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Lau, P., (2002). Causative alternation in Hong Kong Sign Language, Unpublished MPhil. thesis. Chinese University of Hong Kong.
  • Levin, B., & Pinker, S. (Eds.), (1992). Lexical and conceptual semantics. Blackwell, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
  • Levin, B., Rappaport, M., (1995). Unaccusativity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Liddell, S.K., (2003). Sources of meaning in ASL classifier predicates. In: Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 199-220). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
  • Liddell, S.K., & Metzger, M., (1998). Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 657–697.
  • Liddell, S.K., & Johnson, R., (1987). An analysis of spatial locative predicates in American Sign Language, Paper presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research. Lappeenranta, Finland, 15–19 July.
  • Morford, J., (2002). The expression of motion event in homesign. Sign Language and Linguistics, 5, 55–72.
  • Özyürek, A., & Perniss, P., (2011). Event representation in sign language: A crosslinguistic perspective. In: Bohnemeyer, J. & Pederson, E. (Eds.), Event Representation in Language: Encoding Events at the Language-Cognition Interface (pp. 84-107). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pustejovsky, J., (1988). The geometry of events. In: Tenny, C. (Ed.), Studies in generative approaches to aspect, lexical project working Papers 24. center for cognitive science at MIT, Cambridge, MA.
  • Pustejovsky, J., (1995). The generative lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Schembri, A., (2003). Rethinking ‘‘classifiers’’ in signed languages. In: Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages (pp. 3-34). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
  • Schick, B., (1990). Classifier predicates in American Sign Language. International Journal of Sign Linguistics, 1, 5–40.
  • Slobin, D.I., Hoiting, N., Kuntze, M., Lindert, R., Weinberg, A., Pyers, J., Anthony, M., Biederman, Y., Thumann, H., (2003). A cognitive/functional perspective on the acquisition of ‘classifier’. In: Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages (pp. 297-319). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
  • Slobin, D.I., & Hoiting, N., (1994). Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: typological considerations. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 20 (pp. 487-505). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
  • Sonesson, G., (1989). Pictorial concepts. Inquiries into the semiotic heritage and its relevance for the analysis of the visual world. Lund University.
  • Supalla, T., (1982). Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, CA.
  • Supalla, T., (1986). The classifier system of American Sign Language. In: Craig, C. (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp. 181-214). John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
  • Talmy, L., (1985). Lexicalization patterns. In: Shopen, T. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57-138). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • Talmy, L., (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. I and II. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Tang, G., (2003). Verbs of motion and location in Hong Kogn Sign Language: conflation and lexicalization. In: Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (143-163). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
  • Tang, G., & Yang, G., (2007). Events of motion and causation in Hong Kong Sign Language, Lingua, 117(7), 1216-1257.
  • Taylor, J. R., (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • 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.
  • Wierzbicka, A., (1988). The semantics of grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
  • Wunderlich, D., (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 27–68.

Türk İşaret Dilinde Eylemler: Bilişsel dibilimsel bir yaklaşım

Yıl 2018, Cilt 29, Sayı 1, 119 - 137, 02.07.2018
https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.374146

Öz

Son yıllardaki araştırmalar, olay yapısının anlamsal bileşenlerinin parçalanabilir özellikte bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışmada Talmy (2000)’in devinim olay yapısına ilişkin kavramsal çerçevesi ve Tang ve Yang (2007)’nin işaret dillerine özgü sunduğu model takip edilerek TİD’de olayın anlamsal bileşenlerinin sözcüksel eylemlerdeki görünümü ve olay yapısının sözcüksel düzeyde kurulumu incelenmektedir. Sözcüksel eylemler, sınıflandırıcı yüklemcil yapıların aksine sözlüksel düzeyde bulunmasına karşın olay kurulumunun benzer kavramsal şemaya sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca olay yapısının anlamsal bileşenlerinin sözlükselleşme sürecinde etkisi bulunduğu ve TİD’in sözvarlığındaki sözlüksel çeşitliğin en önemli nedenlerinden biri olduğu gözlemlenmiştir.

Kaynakça

  • Ahlner, F., & Zlatev, J. (2010). Cross-modal iconicity: A cognitive semiotic approach to sound symbolism. Sign System Studies, 38, 298-348.
  • Arık, E. (2015). Expressing manner, location, and orientation in manner-only motion events in Turkish Sign Language. Trames: A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 19(3), 205-220 . Arık, E. (2009). Spatial language: Insights from sign and spoken languages. PhD Dissertation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
  • 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., (1992). The visual world of BSL: an introduction. In: Brien, D. (Ed.), Dictionary of British Sign Language (pp. 1-133). Faber & Faber, London.
  • Brentari, D., (1998). A Prosodic Model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Brentari, D., (2002). Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Modality differences in sign language phonology and morphophonemics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Duncan, S., (2003). Gesture in language: issues for sign language research. In: Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 259-268). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
  • Engberg-Pedersen, E., (1993). Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Signum Press, Hamburg.
  • Emmorey, K., (1999). Do signers gesture? In: Messing, L., Campbell, R. (Eds.), Gesture, speech, and sign (pp. 133-159). Oxford University Press, New York.
  • Evans V., & Green M., (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Frishberg, N., (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51, 676–710.
  • Grimshaw, J., (1990). Argument structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Jackendoff, R., (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Jackendoff, R., (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kegl, J., (1990). Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL lexicon. In: Lucas, C. (Ed.), Sign language research: theoretical issues (pp. 149-175). Gallaudet University Press, Washington, DC.
  • Klima, E., & Bellugi, U., (1979). The signs of language. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Lau, P., (2002). Causative alternation in Hong Kong Sign Language, Unpublished MPhil. thesis. Chinese University of Hong Kong.
  • Levin, B., & Pinker, S. (Eds.), (1992). Lexical and conceptual semantics. Blackwell, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
  • Levin, B., Rappaport, M., (1995). Unaccusativity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Liddell, S.K., (2003). Sources of meaning in ASL classifier predicates. In: Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 199-220). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
  • Liddell, S.K., & Metzger, M., (1998). Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 657–697.
  • Liddell, S.K., & Johnson, R., (1987). An analysis of spatial locative predicates in American Sign Language, Paper presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research. Lappeenranta, Finland, 15–19 July.
  • Morford, J., (2002). The expression of motion event in homesign. Sign Language and Linguistics, 5, 55–72.
  • Özyürek, A., & Perniss, P., (2011). Event representation in sign language: A crosslinguistic perspective. In: Bohnemeyer, J. & Pederson, E. (Eds.), Event Representation in Language: Encoding Events at the Language-Cognition Interface (pp. 84-107). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pustejovsky, J., (1988). The geometry of events. In: Tenny, C. (Ed.), Studies in generative approaches to aspect, lexical project working Papers 24. center for cognitive science at MIT, Cambridge, MA.
  • Pustejovsky, J., (1995). The generative lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Schembri, A., (2003). Rethinking ‘‘classifiers’’ in signed languages. In: Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages (pp. 3-34). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
  • Schick, B., (1990). Classifier predicates in American Sign Language. International Journal of Sign Linguistics, 1, 5–40.
  • Slobin, D.I., Hoiting, N., Kuntze, M., Lindert, R., Weinberg, A., Pyers, J., Anthony, M., Biederman, Y., Thumann, H., (2003). A cognitive/functional perspective on the acquisition of ‘classifier’. In: Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages (pp. 297-319). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
  • Slobin, D.I., & Hoiting, N., (1994). Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: typological considerations. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 20 (pp. 487-505). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
  • Sonesson, G., (1989). Pictorial concepts. Inquiries into the semiotic heritage and its relevance for the analysis of the visual world. Lund University.
  • Supalla, T., (1982). Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, CA.
  • Supalla, T., (1986). The classifier system of American Sign Language. In: Craig, C. (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp. 181-214). John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
  • Talmy, L., (1985). Lexicalization patterns. In: Shopen, T. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57-138). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • Talmy, L., (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. I and II. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Tang, G., (2003). Verbs of motion and location in Hong Kogn Sign Language: conflation and lexicalization. In: Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (143-163). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
  • Tang, G., & Yang, G., (2007). Events of motion and causation in Hong Kong Sign Language, Lingua, 117(7), 1216-1257.
  • Taylor, J. R., (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • 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.
  • Wierzbicka, A., (1988). The semantics of grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
  • Wunderlich, D., (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 27–68.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Sosyal
Yayınlanma Tarihi 2018/1
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Bahtiyar MAKAROĞLU> (Sorumlu Yazar)
ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ
0000-0002-7641-6665
Türkiye


Elif ARICA AKKÖK>
ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ


Yeşim AKSAN>
MERSİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ

Yayımlanma Tarihi 2 Temmuz 2018
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2018, Cilt 29, Sayı 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Makaroğlu, B. , Arıca Akkök, E. & Aksan, Y. (2018). Verbs in Turkish Sign Language: A cognitive linguistic approach . Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi , Türk İşaret Dili (TİD) Özel Sayısı (Konuk Editör: A. Sumru Özsoy) , 119-137 . DOI: 10.18492/dad.374146