SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 1

The Challenge of Marking Relative Clauses in Turkish Sign Language

Türk İşaret Dili’nde İlgi Tümceciklerini Belirleme Sorunsalı

Okan KUBUS
Derya NUHBALAOĞLU
Pages
139–160
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

We suggest that the nature ofrelative clauses in TİD can best be understood at the level of discourse.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper aims to show to what degree relativization strategiesin Turkish Sign Language (TİD) are influenced by discourse functions ofrelative clauses, extending Kubus’ study (Kubus, 2016).
📊
Key Findings & Data:In his study, Kubusdescribes various relativization strategies (i.e. internally headed, externallyheaded and free relatives) and identifies non-manual (i.e. squint, brow raise orslight-headshake) and occasionally additional manual relativizers (i.e. clauseinitial/final index (IX), AYNI ‘same’ or different combinations of them).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We suggest that the nature ofrelative clauses in TİD can best be understood at the level of discourse.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

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

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

KUBUS, O., NUHBALAOĞLU, D. (2022). The Challenge of Marking Relative Clauses in Turkish Sign Language. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 1, 139–160. https://ajindex.com/articles/488413

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Aksu-Koç, A., & Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1998). The functions of relative clauses in narrative discourse. In 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 (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 206–236). Cambridge: CUP. Aydın, Ö. (2007). The comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in second language acquisition and agrammatism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(02), 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070154
  2. Branchini, C. (2015). On relativization and clefting: An analysis of Italian Sign Language (Vol. 5). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Branchini, C. (2017, June). Digging up the core features of (non)restrictiveness in sign languages’ relative constructions. Presented at the Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Language Theory - FEAST 2017, Reykjavík, Iceland. Branchini, C., & Donati, C. (2007). Italian Sign Language relatives: A contribution to the typology of relativization strategies. In A. Liptàk (Ed.), Correlatives: Theory and typology (pp. 157–191). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Branchini, C., & Kelepir, M. (2017). Coordination & Subordination. In J. Quer, C. Cecchetto, C. Donati, C. Geraci, M. Kelepir, R. Pfau, & M. Steinbach (Eds.), SignGram Blueprint: A Guide to Sign Language Grammar Writing (pp. 404–490). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. Brunelli, M. (2011). Antisymmetry and Sign Languages: A Comparison between NGT and LIS. Utrecht: LOT. Çağrı, İ. M. (2005). Minimality and Turkish relative clauses (PhD Thesis). University of Maryland College Park. Retrieved from https://drum.lib.umd.edu
  3. 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: Subordination in Sign Languages (Vol. 6, pp. 182–203). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., & Zucchi, S. (2006). Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 24(4), 945–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9001-x
  4. Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (Vol. 11, pp. 21–55). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cinque, G. (2013). Typological Studies: Word Order and Relative Clauses. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/choice/pu