KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / 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
Sayfa
139–160
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

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

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez: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).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri: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).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:We suggest that the nature of relative clauses in TİD can best be understood at the level of discourse.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2016 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

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.

Abstract

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.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KUBUS, O., NUHBALAOĞLU, D. (2018). The Challenge of Marking Relative Clauses in Turkish Sign Language. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 1, 139–160. https://ajindex.com/articles/150368

Kaynakça (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