TÜRK İŞARET DİLİNDE TÜRETİM OLGUSUNA BÜRÜNSEL BİR BAKIŞ

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 305 - 339, 22.10.2020

Bahtiyar Makaroğlu

Öz

İşaret dillerinin Sami dillerindeki biçimbilimsel [kök+şablon] birleşimlere benzer olduğu görüşünü (bkz. Fernald ve Napoli, 2000; Brentari, 2002; Belsitzman ve Sandler, 2016) takip eden bu çalışma, işaret dillerindeki içsel ve bürünsel özelliklerin bir tür şablon karakteristiği taşıdığını ve kökün ikili birlikteliğinden – el şekli ve konum – dolayı “iki-özellikli” olarak tanımlanması gerektiğini öne sürmektedir. Ayrıca bu makalede, derlem tabanlı Güncel Türk İşaret Dili Sözlüğündeki en sık görülen 2.000 sözcük, anlambilimsel ve sesbilimsel benzerlikler açısından incelenmiş ve çekirdek anlama sahip 96 farklı üretici özellikteki kök bulunmuştur. İşaret dili sözlükçelerindeki sesbilimsel bileşenleri etkileyen anlambilimsel etmenler çoğunlukla göz ardı edilmesine karşın bürünsel yaklaşım, hem köklerin türetimsellik güçlerinin hem de şablon yapısının sistematiğinin belirlenmesine yönelik birçok örnek sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

bürünsel biçimbilim, türetim, işaret dilleri, sesbilimsel şablonlar, kaynaştırma

A prosodical approach to derivation phenomenon in Turkish Sign Language

Öz

Following the view that signed langugaes are similar to Semitic languages in exhibiting morphological [root + template] combinations (e.g., Fernald ve Napoli, 2000; Brentari, 2002; Belsitzman and Sandler, 2016), this study claims that inherent features and prosodic features in sign languages carry a kind of templatic character and the root can be seen as ‘bi-featural’ due to its having dual associations – i.e, handshape and location. Moreover, the present article analyzed the most common 2,000 words in the corpus based Contemporary Turkish Sign Language Dictionary (Makaroğlu and Dikyuva 2017) in terms of the semantic and phonological similarities of lexical items and found 96 different productive roots having core meaning. Although semantic factors that underlie phonological elements in sign languages lexicons have often been ignored, the prosodical approach provides numerous examples to determine the derivational power of the roots as well as the systematicity of the templatic system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

prosodic morphology, derivation, sign languages, phonological templates, blending

Kaynakça

• Arad, M. (2005). Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Springer.
• Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Sandler, W. (2005). The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81(2), 301–344.
• Arık, E. (2013). Türk İşaret Dili’nde sınıflandırıcılar üzerine bir çalışma. Bilig, 67. 1-24.
• Belsitzman, G., & Sandler, W. (2016). Motivated phonological templates in Sign Language. Proceedings of the Mediterranean Morphology Meetings (MMM), 10, 31-44.
• Berman, J. M. (1961). Contribution on blending. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistic 9: 287–281.
• Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.
• Boyes Braem, P. (1986). Two aspects of psycholinguistic research: iconicity and temporal structure. In: B. Tervoort (ed.), Signs of Life-Proceedings of the Second European Congress on Sign Language Research (No. 50, pp. 65-74).
• Brennan, M. (1990). Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
• Brentari, D. (1990). Theoretical foundations of American Sign Language phonology. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Chicago.
• Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Brentari, D. (2002). Modality differences in sign language phonology and morphophonemics. In: R. Meier, D. Quinto-Pozos, & K. Cormier (eds.) Modality in Language and Linguistic Theory (pp. 35-64). Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK.
• Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Clements, G. N. (1985). The Geometry of phonological features. In: Phonology Yearbook 2 (pp. 225-252). Cambridge University Press.
• Dikyuva, H., Makaroğlu, B., & Arık, E. (2015). Türk İşaret Dili Dilbilgisi Kitabı. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı Yayınları: Ankara.
• Emmorey, K., & Corina, D. (1990). Lexical recognition in sign language: Effects of phonetic structure and morphology. Perceptual and motor skills 71(3): 1227–1252.
• Engberg-Pedersen, E. (1993). Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language, vol. 19. International studies of sign language and communication of the deaf. Hamburg, Germany: Signum.
• Fernald, T., & Napoli, D. J. (2000). Exploitation of morphological possibilities in signed languages: Comparison of American Sign Language with English. Sign Language & Linguistics, 3, 3-58.
• Güçlütürk, Y. (2018). The event structure of two-handed lexical verbs in TİD. 12. Dilbilim Öğrenci Konferansı, ODTÜ, Ankara, 16-17 Nisan 2018.
• Hohenberger, A., Happ, D., & Leuninger, H. (2002). Modality-dependent aspects of sign language production: Evidence from slips of the hands and their repairs in German Sign Language. In: R. P. Meier, K. Cormier, & D. Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages (pp. 112–142). Cambridge University Press.
• Hunger, B. (2006). Noun/verb pairs in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language & Linguistics, 2(2), 71-94.
• Jantunen, T. (2007). Tavu suomalaisessa viittomakielessä [The Syllable in Finnish Sign Language]. Puhe ja kieli, 27, 109-126.
• Johnston, T. (2001). Nouns and verbs in Australian Sign Language: An open or shut case?. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6(4), 235-257.
• Johnston T., & Schembri, A. (1999). On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2(2), 115-185.
• Kastner, I. (2016). Form and Meaning in the Hebrew Verb. PhD. Dissertation. New York University. Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell. Kubuş, O. (2008). An analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TİD) phonology and morphology. Master’s Thesis. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
• Kubuş, O., & Hohenberger, A. (2011). The phonetics and phonology of TİD (Turkish Sign Language) bimanual alphabet. In: R. Channon & H. van der Hulst (eds.), Formational units in sign languages (pp. 43-63). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lepic, R. (2016). Lexical blends and lexical patterns in English and in American Sign Language. In: J. Audring & F. Masini & W. Sandler (eds.), Online proceedings of the tenth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting MMM10 (Haifa) 7–10 September 2015, 98–111.
• Lepic, R. (2019). A usage-based alternative to “lexicalization” in sign language linguistics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1). 23. 1-30.
• Lepic R., Börstell, C., Belsitzman, G., & Sandler, W. (2016). Taking meaning in hand: Iconic motivations for twohanded signs. Sign Language & Linguistics, 19(1).
• Liddell, S. (1984). Unrealized-inceptive aspect in American Sign Language: feature insertion in syllabic frames. In: Papers from the Chicago linguistic society (pp. 257-270).
• Liddell, S. K., & Johnson, R. E. (1989). American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies, 64, 197-277.
• Makaroğlu, B. (2018). Türk İşaret Dilinde uyum: şablon biçimbilim açısından bir inceleme. Doktora Tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi.
• Makaroğlu, B., & Dikyuva, H. (ed.) (2017). Güncel Türk İşaret Dili sözlüğü. Ankara: Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı. Erişim adresi: http://tidsozluk.net.
• Makaroğlu, B., Arıca Akkök, E., Aksan, Y. (2018). Verbs in Turkish Sign Language: A cognitive linguistic approach. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 29 (1), 119-137.
• McCarthy, J. (1979). Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. PhD Dissertation. MIT: Cambridge.
• McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 373-418.
• Napoli, D. J. (2019). Morphological theory and sign languages. In: The Oxford handbook of morphological theory (pp. 594-614).
• Napoli, D. J., & Sutton-Spence, R. (2010). Limitations on simultaneity in sign language. Language, 86(3), 647-662.
• Meir, I., Padden, C., Aronoff, M., & Sandler, W. (2013). Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(2), 309-343.
• Özkul, A. (2013). A Phonological and morphological analysis of instrumental noun-verb pairs in Turkish Sign Language. Master’s Thesis. Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
• Perniss, P. (2007). Space and iconicity in German Sign Laguage. Nijmegen, NL: MPI Series in Psycholinguistics, 45.
• Perniss P., Thompson, R. L., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1 (227).
• Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht, NL: Foris Publications.
• Sandler, W. (1999). Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. In: U. Kleinhenz, & T. Hall (eds.), Studies on the Phonological Word (pp. 223-254). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press.
• Schembri, A. (2003). Rethinking “classifiers” in signed languages. In: K. Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 3-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Schembri, A., Wigglesworth, G., Johnston, T., Leigh, G., Adam, R., & Baker, R. (2002). Issues in development of the test battery of Australian Sign Language morphology and syntax. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(1), 18-40.
• Schreurs, L. (2006). The Distinction between formally and semantically related noun-verb pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Master’s Thesis. University of Amsterdam.
• Slobin, D., Hoiting, N., Kuntze, M., Lindert, R., Weinberg, A., Pyers, J., Anthony, M., Biederman, Y., & Thumann, H. (2003). A cognitive/functional perspective on the acquisition of “classifiers”. In: K. Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 271-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics Occasional Papers 8. Buffalo: University of Buffalo Press.
• Stokoe, W., Casterline, D., & Croneberg, C. (1965). A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
• Strickland, B., Geraci, C., Chemla, E., Schlenker, P., Kelepir, M., & Pfau, R. (2015). Event representations constrain the structure of language: Sign language as a window into universally accessible linguistic biases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (19): 5968-5973.
• Supalla, T., & Newport, N. (1978). How many sits in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In: P. Siple (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 91-132). New York: Academic Press.
• Sutton-Spence, R., & Woll, B. (1999). The linguistics of British Sign Language: an introduction. Cambridge University Press.
• Taşçı, S. S. (2012). Phonological and morphological aspects of lexicalized fingerspelling in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Master's Thesis. Bogazici University, Istanbul.
• Taşçı, S. S., & Göksel, A. (2014). The morphological categorization of polymorphemic lexemes: A study based on lexicalized fingerspelled forms in TİD. Dilbilim Araştırmaları. Special Issue in Honor of Prof. A. Sumru Özsoy, 165-180.
• Taub, S. F. (2001). Language from the Body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tkachman, O., & Sandler, W. (2013). The noun–verb distinction in two young sign languages. Gesture, 13(3), 253-286.
• Wilbur, R. B. (2008). Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar?. In: J. Quer (ed.) Signs of the time. Selected papers from TISLR 8. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
• Wilcox, S. (2004). Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 119-147.
• Zeshan, U. (2000). Sign language in Indo-Pakistan: A description of a signed language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Zwitserlood, I. (2003). Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Doctoral Dissertation. Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT.