Türk İşaret Dili’nde İlgi Tümceciklerini Belirleme Sorunsalı

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.

The Challenge of Marking Relative Clauses in Turkish Sign Language

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.

PDF

___

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
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 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
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/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1619425
Cole, P. (1987). The structure of internally headed relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5(2), 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166587
Cormier, K., Smith, S., & Sevcikova-Sehyr, Z. (2016). Rethinking constructed action. Sign Language & Linguistics, 18(2), 167–204. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor
Crasborn, O. (2008). How to recognise a sentence when you see one. Sign Language & Linguistics, 10(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.10.2.03cra
Dachkovsky, S. (2015, October). Grammaticalization of facial intonation: The case of squint in ISL relative clauses. Poster presented at the Nonmanuals at the Gesture Sign Interface (NaGSI), Göttingen.
Dachkovsky, S., & Sandler, W. (2009). Visual Intonation in the Prosody of a Sign Language. Language and Speech, 52(2/3), 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909103175
De Vries, L. (1993). Forms and functions in Kombai, an Awyu language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Australian National University.
De Vries, M. (2002). The syntax of relativization. Utrecht: LOT.
Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1990). A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative Clauses in English Conversation. Language, 66(2), 297–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/414888
Göksel, A., & Kelepir, M. (2013). The phonological and semantic bifurcation of the functions of an articulator: HEAD in questions in Turkish Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics, 16(1), 1–30.
Hankamer, J., & Knecht, L. (1976). The role of the subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of relative clause participle in Turkish. Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, 2, 197–219.
Hendery, R. (2010). Grammaticalisation of discourse marking elements in relative clauses. In R. Hendery & J. Hendriks (Eds.), Grammatical Change: Theory and Description (pp. 105–122). Canberra: Australian National University Press.
Ichida, Y. (2010). Introduction to Japanese Sign Language: lconicity in language. Studies in Language Sciences, 9, 3–32.
Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish (PhD dissertation). Harvard University.
Kubus, O. (2016). Relative Clause Constructions in Turkish Sign Language (PhD dissertation). Universität Hamburg. Retrieved from http://ediss.sub.unihamburg.de/volltexte/2016/7909/pdf/Dissertation.pdf
Liddell, S. (1978). An introduction to relative clauses in ASL. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 59–90). New York: Academic Press.
Liddell, S. (1980). American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
Mosella, M. (2011, June). The position of fronted and postposed relative clauses in Catalan Sign Language. Presented at the Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Language Theory - FEAST 2011, Venice.
Nunes, J., & de Quadros, R. M. (2008). Phonetically realized traces in American Sign Language and Brazilian Sign Language. In J. Quer (Ed.), Signs of the time. Selected papers from TISLR 2004 (pp. 177-190.). Seedorf: Signum-Verlag.
Özsoy, A. S. (1994). Türkçede ortaç yapısı [Relative Clause Structure in Turkish]. In Dilbilim Araştırmaları, [Linguistic Investigations] (pp. 21–30). Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.
Padden, C. (1988). Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Padden, C. (1990). The Relation Between Space and Grammar in ASL Verb Morphology. In L. Ceil (Ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues (pp. 118–132). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Pfau, R. (2011). A point well taken: On the typology and diachrony of pointing. In D. J.
Napoli & G. Mathur (Eds.), Deaf around the world. The impact of language (pp. 144–163). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2005). Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extraposition and reconstruction. In L. Bateman & C. Ussery (Eds.), Proceeding of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35) Vol. 2 (pp. 507–521). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2006). Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages (Linguistics in Potsdam 24). Potsdam: Universitäts-Verlag. Retrieved from https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4- ubp/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/1005/file/linguistics24.pdf
Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2016). Complex sentences in sign languages: Modality – typology – discourse. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & A. Herrmann (Eds.), A matter of complexity: Subordination in sign languages (pp. 1–35). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Sandler, W. (2010). Prosody and syntax in sign languages. Transactions of the Philological Society, 108(3), 298–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 968X.2010.01242.x
Tang, G., & Lau, P. (2012). Coordination and subordination. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, B. Woll, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign Languages: An International Handbook (pp. 340– 364). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Tang, G., Lau, P., & Lee, J. (2010, October). Strategies for relativization in HKSL. Presented at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR) 10, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Underhill, R. (1972). Turkish participles. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 87–99.
Wilbur, R. (2017). Internally-headed relative clauses in sign languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgi.183
Zeshan, U. (2006). Negative and interrogative structures in Türk İşaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). In U. Zeshan (Ed.), Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages (pp. 128–164). Nijmegen: Ishara Press.