TİD’de Hece

Bu makalenin iki amacı var. Birinci amaç, Türk İşaret Dili (TİD) ezgisinde Hecenin varlığını göstermek. Ezgisel bir gruplamanın varlığı, ancak tanımında bu gruplamanın kullanıldığı sesbilimsel bir olay var olduğu zaman kanıtlanmış olur. Bu ölçütten yola çıkarak, makalenin birinci amacını gerçekleştirmek, yani hecenin varlığını ispatlamak için, sesbilimsel olaylardan kanıtlar sunuyoruz. Bu olayların tanımında heceden söz etmek gerekir. Bu sesbilimsel olaylardan ilki, ödünç alınmış ve tek elle harflenen iki yapım ekinin TİD’e uyarlamış şeklinin hece boyutuna sığdırılmasıdır. İkincisi, bileşenleri tek tek iki hece oluşturmasına rağmen bazı bileşik işaretlerin hece sayısının bir hece ile sınırlandırılmasıdır. Üçüncüsü, hece sayısı bir ile sınırlı olan İç-İçe Geçme olayıdır. Bu üç sesbilimsel olay tüm hece alanını kapsamaktadır ve tanımlanabilmek için hece kavramını içermek zorundadır. Ayrıca, hecenin iki ucundan bahsederek tanımlanması gereken iki sesbilimsel olay sunuyoruz. Bunlar Göçüşme ve Geriye İşaretlemedir. Bir ezgisel gruplamanın bağımsız olarak var olduğunu göstermek için, bu gruplamanın Biçimbilim veya Sözdizimdeki başka ilgili gruplamalardan farklı olduğunu göstermek gerekir (Nespor ve Vogel, 2007). Bu amaçla, bitirmeden önce, hecenin Dilbilgisindeki ilgili iki gruplama olan Biçimbirim ve İşaretten farklı bir gruplama olduğunu gösteriyoruz. Son bölümde makaleyi özetleyip, hece ile ilgili gelecekte yapılabilecek çalışmalara değiniyoruz.

Syllables in TİD

ABSTRACT: We have two aims in this paper. Our first aim is to show thatsyllables exist in TİD prosody (Türk İşaret Dili – Turkish Sign Language). Aspecific domain in prosody is substantiated only if there are phonologicalphenomena that refer to that domain as part of their definition. Therefore, forour first aim, we present evidence from phonological phenomena which needto refer to the notion syllable in their definition. As for these phenomena, wepresent Fingerspelling of one-handed suffixes which are restricted to a singlesyllable size in their lexicalized form. We also present some compoundswhich are reduced to a single syllable size while the lexemes beforecompounding form separate syllables. Next, as a case of phonological fusion,Coalescence will be shown to be limited to a single syllable size. These threephonological phenomena are domain processes which, to be defined, need theentire domain of syllable. We also show two phonological phenomena thatneed to refer to the edges of a syllable. These are Metathesis and BackwardsSigning in both of which the order of the initial and final edges of the syllableare reversed. To support the existence of a prosodic domain, it is important toshow that the specific prosodic domain is independent - it is not isomorphic toa morphological or a syntactic domain (Nespor and Vogel, 2007). Therefore,our second goal is to show that syllables are independent of two other units ingrammar - Morpheme and Sign - by illustrating differences between them.We finish this paper by summary and indicating potential topics of study.

PDF

___

Battison, R. (1978). Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring: Linstok Press.
Brentari, D. (1994). Prosodic constraints in American Sign Language. In H. Bos & D. Brentari (Eds.), Sign Language Research, 39-52. Hamburg: Signum Press.
Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. MIT Press.
Brentari, D., & Crossley, L. (2002). Prosody on the hands and face. Evidence from American Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics 5, 105-130.
Coulter, G., (1982). On the nature of ASL as a monosyllabic language. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, CA.
Cowan, N., Cartwright, C., Winterowd, C., & Sherk M. (1987). An adult model of preschool children’s speech memory. Memory and Cognition 15, 511-517.
Dikyuva, H., Makaroğlu, B., & Arık, E. (2017). Turkish Sign Language Grammar. Ministry of Family and Social Policies Press: Ankara.
Jantunnen, T. (2006). The complexity of lexical movements in FinSL. SKY Journal of Linguistics 19, 335–344.
Kegl, J., & Wilbur, R. (1976). When does structure stop and style begin? Syntax, morphology and phonology vs. stylistic variation in American Sign Language.
Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society 12, 376–396.
Kubus, O. (2008). An analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TİD) phonology and morphology. MA Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Kubus, O., & Hohenberger, A. (2011). The phonetics and phonology of TI ̇D (Turkish Sign Language) bimanual alphabet. In R. Channon & H. van der Hulst (Eds.), Formational units in sign languages, 43-63. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Liddell, S. K., & Johnson, R. E. (1986). American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4(4), 445-513.
Liddell, S. K., & Johnson, R. E. (1989). American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign language studies, 64(1), 195-277.
Makaroğlu, B., & Dikyuva, H. (Ed.) (2017). Güncel Türk İşaret Dili Sözlüğü. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı: Ankara. Erişim adresi: http://tidsozluk.net.
Morgan, G. (2005). Learning to talk about movement and location in British Sign Language. Paper presented at the Lustrum symposium, Mgr. J.C. van Overbeekstichting, St Michielsgestel.
Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (2007). Prosodic phonology: with a new foreword (Vol. 28). Walter de Gruyter.
Sandler, W. (1986). The spreading hand autosegment of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 50, 1–28.
Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and non-linearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris
Sandler, W. (1999). Cliticization and Prosodic Words in a Sign Language. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4, 223-254.
Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of American deaf. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
Taşçı, S. S., Göksel, A., & Gökgöz, K. (in prep). (Non-)simultaneity as a predictor for semantics and iconicity in complex lexemes.
Taşçı, S. S. (2012). Phonological and morphological aspects of lexicalized fingerspelling in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
Van der Kooij, E. (2002). Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: the role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. PhD Dissertation, University of Leiden.
Van der Kooij, E., & Crasborn, O. (2008). Syllables and the word-prosodic system in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Lingua, 118(9), 1307-1327.
Wilbur, R. (1987). American Sign Language: Linguistic and applied dimensions. Boston: College Hill Press.
Wilbur, R. (2011). Sign Syllables. The Blackwell companion to phonology, 1-26.
Wilbur, R., & Allen, G. (1991). Perceptual evidence against internal structure in ASL syllables. Language and Speech, 34, 27–46.
Wilbur, R., & Nolen, S. (1986). Duration of syllables in American Sign Language. Language and Speech, 29, 263–280.
Wilbur, R., & Petersen L. (1997). Backwards signing and ASL syllable structure. Language and Speech 40, 63-90.
Wilbur, R., & Schick, B. (1987). The effects of linguistic stress on ASL signs. Language and Speech, 30, 301–323.