SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Litera: Dil Edebiyat ve Kültür Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 2

Linguistic Typology in Motion Events: Expression of Motion Events in Translated Versions of Turkish and English Novels

Cemre İŞLER
Pages
833–859
Publication Date
2023-01-15
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)

Therefore, along with the findings, discussions of the study highlight the importance of ranging languages in a continuum as either “high-manner-salient language” or “low-manner salient language” based on whether they belong to S-or V-type language class.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims at exploring how speakers of typologically different languages, Turkish “verb-framed” and English “satellite-framed” express motion events in translations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In accordance with the aim, the study deals with Turkish and English in terms of statistical and qualitative comparisons in translations and questions how each language adapts itself to the demands of the other in relation to the same content. 6 Turkish and English novels were analyzed for the lexicalization patterns of motion events, and for the diversity of translation strategies adapted by the translators.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, along with the findings, discussions of the study highlight the importance of ranging languages in a continuum as either “high-manner-salient language” or “low-manner salient language” based on whether they belong to S-or V-type language class.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:linguistic typology · motion events · manner of motion verbs

Abstract

This study aims at exploring how speakers of typologically different languages, Turkish “verb-framed” and English “satellite-framed” express motion events in translations. In accordance with the aim, the study deals with Turkish and English in terms of statistical and qualitative comparisons in translations and questions how each language adapts itself to the demands of the other in relation to the same content. 6 Turkish and English novels were analyzed for the lexicalization patterns of motion events, and for the diversity of translation strategies adapted by the translators. As for the qualitative comparisons, the translations were further explored in terms of how Turkish translators handle the abundance of verbs with manner information in English texts, and how English translators accommodate Turkish texts to the needs of English. Findings shed light on nuances that should be concerned in the examination of two language types with regard to how each accommodates one another’s need for lexicalization patterns and structures. Rather than a strict binary typology, the present study raises an issue that languages can vary within the same typological class, and we cannot take it for granted that languages belong strictly to one group of language. Therefore, along with the findings, discussions of the study highlight the importance of ranging languages in a continuum as either “high-manner-salient language” or “low-manner salient language” based on whether they belong to S-or V-type language class.

🔖

Cite This Article

İŞLER, C. (2023). Linguistic Typology in Motion Events: Expression of Motion Events in Translated Versions of Turkish and English Novels. Litera: Dil Edebiyat ve Kültür Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 2, 833–859. https://ajindex.com/articles/878023

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Aksu-Koç, A. A. (1994). Development of linguistic forms: Turkish. In R. A. Berman & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating Events in Narrative: A Cross Linguistic Developmental Study (pp. 329-388).
  2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. google scholar Bassnett, S. (2002). Translation Studies. London: Routledge google scholar Berthele R. (2004) The typology of motion and posture verbs: A variationist account. In Kortmann B. (Eds.), Dialectology Meets Typology Dialect Grammar From a Cross-Linguistic Perspective (pp. 93-126).
  3. De Gruyter, Berlin, New York. google scholar Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N. J., Essegbey, J., Ibarretxe-Antunano, I., Kita, S., Lüpke, F., & Ameka, F. K. (2007). Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language, 495-532. google scholar Demirtaş, A. D. (2009). Motion event descriptions in English by Turkish EFL Instructors [M.A. Thesis]. Anadolu University, Eskişehir. google scholar Ferez, P. C. & Gentner, D. (2006). Naming motion events in Spanish and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 443-462. google scholar Goddard, C. (1998). Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. google scholar Ibarretxe-Antunano, I. (2012). Linguistic typology in motion events: Path and manner. Anuario del Seminario de Filologia Vasca ‘Julio de Urquijo’ International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology, 1-39. google scholar Özçalijkan, $., & Slobin, D. I. (2000). Climb up vs. ascend climbing: Lexicalization choices in expressing motion events with manner and path components. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 2, pp. 558-570).
  4. Somerville, MA, Cascadilla Press. google scholar Özçalijkan, $. (2003). In a caravanserai with two doors I am walking day and night: Metaphors of death and life in Turkish. Cognitive linguistics, 281-320. google scholar Özçalijkan, $. & Slobin, D.I. (2003). Codability effects on the expression of manner of motion in English and Turkish. In A.S. Özsoy, D. Akar, M. Nakipoglu-Demiralp, E.E. Taylan & A. Aksu-Ko^ (Eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics (pp. 259-270). Istanbul: Bogaziq University Press. google scholar Özçalijkan, $. (2004). Typological variation in encoding the manner, path, and ground components of a metaphorical motion event. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2(1), 73-102. google scholar Slobin, D. I. (1996a). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity,