Prosody of Contrastive Focus and Discourse New Constituents in Turkish
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.
Türkçede Karşıtsal Odak ve Sunumsal Odak Öğelerin Bürün Bilimsel Özellikleri
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.
___
Boersma, P., & D. Weenink. (1992-2010). Praat, doing phonetics by computer, http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/.Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and its parts: melody in spoken English. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Cevat, A. (1931). Yeni bir gramer metodu hakkında layıha. İstanbul: Devlet Matbaası Demircan, Ö. (1996). The rules of inversion in Turkish. Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics, In B. Rona (ed.), Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.
Erguvanlı, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
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 orderprosody interface, Lingua, 113, 10251053.
Ladd, R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Ladefoged, P. (2006). 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.
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.
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.
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.
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, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Foris, Dortrecht.
Özge, U. (2003). A tune based account of Turkish information structure. Masters Thesis, Middle East Technical University.
Özge, U., & Bozşahin, C. (2010). Intonation in the grammar of Turkish. Lingua, 120, 132-175.
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Rooth, Mats E. (1985). Association with focus. Unpubl. Ph.D. Diss., University of Massachusetts.
Rooth, Mats (1996). Focus. In S. Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 271-297). Oxford: Blackwell.
Selkirk, E. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology, Phonology Yearbook, 371-405.
Selkirk, E. (1995). Sentence prosody: intonation, stress and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, London: Blackwell.
Selkirk, E. (2002). Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodic evidence from right node raising in English. Speech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on speech prosody (pp. 643-646). Aix-en-Provence, France.
Truckenbrodt, H. (1995). Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Doctoral thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Truckenbrodt, H. (2013). Information structure and tonal height in intonation. In C. Féry & S. Ishihara (eds.) The Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford University Press.
Xu, Y. (1999) Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of f0 contours. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 55-105.
Xu, Y. (2013). ProsodyPro A tool for large-scale systematic prosody analysis.
Proceedings of tools and resources for the analysis of speech prosody (TRASP 2013) (pp. 7-10). Aix-en-Provence, France.
Zimmermann, M. (2008) Contrastive Focus and Emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 347-360.
- ISSN: 1300-8552
- Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
- Başlangıç: 1990
- Yayıncı: Dilbilim Derneği
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler
Türkçede Boş Artgönderim ve Söylem Atlama
AYTAÇ ÇELTEK KAİLİ, Lütfiye OKTAR
Prosody of Contrastive Focus and Discourse New Constituents in Turkish
Combinatory Linguistics. Cem Bozsahin, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012, 283 p. ISBN 3110251701
Neslihan YETKİNERA KANSU, Lütfiye OKTAR, Yasemin YAVUZ, MURAT ÖZGEN