SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2014 / Sayı: 1

Türkçede Karşıtsal Odak ve Sunumsal Odak Öğelerin Bürün Bilimsel Özellikleri

Prosody of Contrastive Focus and Discourse New Constituents in Turkish

Aslı GÜRER
Pages
31–58
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

There is no phonetic difference between narrow focus and broad focus sentences and also between contrastive focus and discourse new constituents when focus phrase is in the immediately preverbal position as this is the position where IP stress is realized in the default phonology.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the prosodic realization of focus phrases in Turkish in the immediately preverbal position in SOV order.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the literature it was suggested that focus phrases are marked distinctively with H*L pitch accent (Özge & Bozşahin, 2010) or only contrastive focus is marked via prosody (İşsever, 2003).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There is no phonetic difference between narrow focus and broad focus sentences and also between contrastive focus and discourse new constituents when focus phrase is in the immediately preverbal position as this is the position where IP stress is realized in the default phonology.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study investigates the prosodic realization of focus phrases in Turkish in the immediately preverbal position in SOV order. A two way distinction is made for focus phrases as contrastive focus and discourse new information. In the literature it was suggested that focus phrases are marked distinctively with H*L pitch accent (Özge & Bozşahin, 2010) or only contrastive focus is marked via prosody (İşsever, 2003). The aim of this study is to find out how focus phrases are marked in the prosody of Turkish and the investigation is based on an experimental study on f0 and duration measurements. The results of the study indicate that when contrastive focus and discourse new constituents are in the immediately preverbal position they do not differ from broad focus constructions with respect to f0 or duration measurements. The results of this experimental study provide empirical support to the hypothesis that focus phrases bear the highest prominence in the focus domain and attract intonation phrase level stress (Kabagema-Bilan, Jimenez, & Truckenbrodt, 2011). There is no phonetic difference between narrow focus and broad focus sentences and also between contrastive focus and discourse new constituents when focus phrase is in the immediately preverbal position as this is the position where IP stress is realized in the default phonology.

Özet

Bu çalışma özne-nesne-yüklem sıralamasında yüklem öncesi konumdaki odak öbeklerinin bürün bilimsel özelliklerini araştırır. Odak öbeklerini (i) karşıtsal odak ve (ii) sunumsal odak olarak ikili bir ayrım yapıyoruz. Literatürde odak öbeklerinin farklı olarak H*L perde aksanıyla işaretlendiğini (Özge ve Bozşahin, 2010) ya da sadece karşıtsal odağın bürün bilimsel olarak işaretlendiği (İşsever, 2003) söylenmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı odak öbeklerinin bürün bilimsel olarak nasıl işaretlendiğini bulmaktır ve araştırma temel frekans ve süre ölçümlerine dayanmaktadır. Çalışmanın sonucu karşıtsal odak ve sunumsal odak öbeklerinin yüklem öncesi konumda olduğunda genel odak cümlelerinden temel frekans ya da süre ölçüm noktalarında bir farklılık göstermediğini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu deneysel çalışmanın sonuçları odak öbeklerinin kendi alanlarında en yüksek derecede önem taşıdıklarını ve ezgileme öbeği düzeyinde vurgu çektiğini hipotezini (Kabagema-Bilan, Jimenez, ve Truckenbrodt, 2011) desteklemektedir. Kısıtlı ve genel odak öbekleri yüklem öncesi konumda yer aldığında aralarında ses bilimsel bir fark bulunmamaktadır çünkü yüklem öncesi konum olağan durumda ezgileme düzeyi vurgunun gerçekleştiği konumdur.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜRER, A. (2014). Türkçede Karşıtsal Odak ve Sunumsal Odak Öğelerin Bürün Bilimsel Özellikleri. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 1, 31–58. https://ajindex.com/articles/153212

References (13)

  1. Boersma, P., & D. Weenink. (1992-2010). Praat, doing phonetics by computer, http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/.
  2. Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and its parts: melody in spoken English. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
  3. Cevat, A. (1931). Yeni bir gramer metodu hakkında layıha. İstanbul:
  4. Devlet Matbaası Demircan, Ö. (1996). The rules of inversion in Turkish. Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics, In B. Rona (ed.), Ankara:
  5. Hitit Yayınevi.
  6. Erguvanlı, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  7. Göksel, A., & Özsoy, A. S. (2000). Is there a focus position in Turkish?. In A. Göksel & C. Kerslake (eds.). Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages, Proceedings of the ninth international conference on Turkish linguistics (pp. 219-228). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Inkelas, S. (1989). Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University İşsever, S. (2003). Information structure in Turkish: the word order–prosody interface, Lingua, 113, 1025–1053. Ladd, R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
  8. Ladefoged, P. (2006).
  9. A course in Phonetics. Thomson, Wadsworth. Kabagema-Bilan, Elena, Beatriz Lopez-Jimenez, & Hubert Truckenbrodt (2011). Multiple focus in Mandarin Chinese. In N. Dehe, I. Feldhausen & S. Ishihara (eds), Lingua, 121(13), 1890-1905.
  10. Kamali, B. (2011). Topics at the PF interface of Turkish. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University. Kan, S. (2009). Prosodic domains and the syntax-prosody mapping in Turkish. MA thesis, Boğaziçi University. Katz, J., & Selkirk E. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language, 87(4), 771-816.
  11. Kennelly, S. (1997). The p-focus position in Turkish. Abstract, 20th GLOW Colloquium, Rabat. Kiss, K. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, 245-273. Kiss, É. K. (2002). The syntactic structure of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Kural, M. (1993). Scrambling in Turkish. Manuscript. Levi, S. (2005). Acoustic correlates of lexical accent in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 35, 73-97.
  13. Lieberman, M., & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 249- 336. Neeleman, A., Titov E., Van de Koot H., & Vermeulen R. (2012). A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In J. van Craenenbroeck (ed.), Alternatives to cartography. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nespor, M., & Vogel