jlr Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 1300-8552 2587-0939 Dilbilim Derneği 10.18492/dad.373454 The challenge of marking relative clauses in Turkish Sign Language Türk İşaret Dili’nde İlgi Tümceciklerini Belirleme Sorunsalı Kubus Okan University of Hamburg Nuhbalaoglu Derya University of Goettingen 07 02 2018 29 1 139 160 11 11 2017 06 08 2018 Copyright © 1990, Journal of Linguistics Research 1990 Journal of Linguistics Research

This paper aims to show to what degree relativizationstrategies in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) are influenced by discourse functionsof relative clauses, extending Kubus’ study (Kubus,2016). In hisstudy, Kubus describes various relativization strategies (i.e. internallyheaded, externally headed and free relatives) and identifies non-manual (i.e.squint, brow raise or slight-headshake) and occasionally additional manualrelativizers (i.e. clause initial/final index (ix),ayni ‘same’ or differentcombinations of them). We outline possible reasons for the presence of thesecompeting relative markers and discuss whether the above-mentioned non-manualsshould be analyzed as prosodic/pragmatic or syntactic markers. We suggest thatthe nature of relative clauses in TİD can best be understood at the level ofdiscourse.

Bu çalışma Türkİşaret Dili’nde (TİD) ilgi tümceciklerinin söylem işlevlerinden ne derecede etkilendiklerini, Kubus’unaraştırmasını (Kubus, 2016) genişleterek göstermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Kubus,analizinde TİD’de farklı ilgi tümcecikleri (içten başlı, dıştan başlı ve özgürilgi tümceciği) ve farklı el-dışı hareketleri (gözleri kısarak bakmak, kaşkaldırma ve başın hafifçe sallanması) ile ayrıca, sık görülmese de, ele aitilgi tümceciği belirticileri (tümcecik başı/sonu index (ix),aynive bunların farklı şekillerde birleşimleri) olduğunu tespit etmektedir.Çalışmamızda bu belirticilerin rekabet halinde olmalarının muhtemel sebeplerisıralanıp yukarıda bahsi geçen el-dışı hareketlerinin bürünsel/edimbilimsel miyoksa sözdizimsel mi olduğu tartışılmakta ve TİD’deki ilgi tümceciklerinindoğasının en iyi söylem düzeyinde anlaşılabileceği önerilmektedir.

 relativization strategies Turkish Sign Language (non)-manual markers optionality ilgi tümcecikleri Türk İşaret Dili el-(dışı) belirticileri seçimlilik Adam, R. (2012). Language contact and borrowing. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign Languages: An International Handbook, (pp. 841-62). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Aksu-Koç, A., & Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1998). The functions of relative clauses in narrative discourse. In L. Johanson (Ed.), 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. Vol. 2: Complex constructions (2nd edition), (pp. 206-236). Cambridge: CUP. Aydın, Ö. (2007). The Comprehension of Turkish Relative Clauses in second language acquisition and agrammaticism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 295-315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070154 Branchini, C. (2014). On relativization and clefting: An analysis of Italian Sign Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Branchini, C. (2017, June). Digging up the core features of (non)restrictiveness in sign languages’ relative constructions. Presented at the conference Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Language Theory (FEAST), Reykjavik. Branchini, C., & Donati, C. (2009). Italian Sign Language relatives: a contribution to the typology of relativization strategies. In A. Liptak (Ed.), Correlatives: Theory and typology (North Holland Linguistic series 68), (pp. 157-191). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Brunelli, M. (2011). Antisymmetry and sign languages: A Comparison between NGT and LIS. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation. Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., & Zucchi, S. (2006). Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24, 945-975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9001-x 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, (pp. 182-203). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, (pp. 21-55). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cinque, G. (2011). On double-headed relative clauses. Linguistica, 6, 67-91. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10278/45599 Cole, P. (1987). The Structure of Internally Headed Relative Clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,5, 277-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166587 Crasborn, O. (2007). 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 Çağrı, İ. (2005). Minimality and Turkish Relative Clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland College Park. Retrieved from https://drum.lib.umd.edu. 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 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. de Vries, L. (1993). Forms and Functions in Kombai, an Awyu language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Australian National University (Pacific Linguistics, Series B –108). de Vries, M. (2002). The Syntax of Relativization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT. Retrieved from https://www.lotpublications.nl. Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66, 297-317. doi: 10.2307/414888 Galloway, T. (2011, June). Why agreement matters: The syntax of relative clauses in ASL. Poster presented at the conference Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Language Theory (FEAST), Venice. Göksel, A., Kelepir, M., & Üntak-Tarhan, A. (2010). Decomposing the non-manual tier: Cross-modality generalisations. In I. Kwon, H. Pritchett, & J. Spence (Eds.), Proceedings of BLS-35, Special Session on Non-Speech Modalities, (pp. 1-11). Hankamer, I., & Knecht, L. (1976). The role of 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. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net. Kubus, O. (2016). Relative clause constructions in Turkish Sign Language. Ph.D dissertation, University of Hamburg. Retrieved from http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de. 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 Sanz, M. (2011, June). The position of fronted and postposed relative clauses in Catalan Sign Language. Presented at the conference Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Theory (FEAST), Venice. Özsoy, A. S. (1994). Türkçe’de Ortaç Yapısı [Relative Clause Structure in Turkish]. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, [Linguistic Investigations], 21-30. Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi. Padden, C. (1988). Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc. 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: Extra- position 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. (2011). Prosody and syntax in sign language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 108 (3), 298-328. doi:10.1111/j.1467-968X.2010.01242.x Tang, G., & Lau, P. (2012). Coordination and subordination. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & 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. Paper presented at the conference 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): 25, 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.