An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language

Engin ARIK (Nuh Naci Yazgan Üniversitesi, Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi, Psikoloji Bölümü, Kayseri, Türkiye)
Bilig / Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi
6 0
Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 0 Sayı: 94 Sayfa Aralığı: 75 - 96 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 15-11-2020

An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language

Öz:
Th present study offrs an experimental linguistic perspective to investigate wordorder in sign languages, focusing particularly on word order in Turkish SignLanguage (Türk İşaret Dili-TİD), one of the oldest, yet relatively understudied,sign languages. Two experiments were conducted to investigate TİD signers’acceptability judgments of various orders of linguistic forms in a sentence.Experiment 1 consisted of 26 intransitive sentences with a 2x2 (SV vs. VS;Human vs. Animal) within-subjects design whereas Experiment 2 consistedof 28 transitive sentences with a 3x2 (Subject order: First vs. Middle vs. Last;Object order: Object-before-Verb vs. Object-after-Verb) within-subjects design.Both experiments asked native TİD signers (n=8 and n=6, respectively) to ratesentences using 5-point Likert scales. Results from Experiment 1 showed thatthere was a signifiant main effct of Sign Order, indicating that participantsgave signifiantly higher ratings to SV order over VS order. Thre was no maineffct of Subject Type but an interaction between Sign Order and Subject Type.Results from Experiment 2 showed a signifiant main effct of object-verborder indicating that participants’ ratings for the Object-before-Verb order weresignifiantly higher than those for the Verb-before-Object order. In Experiment 2,there was no signifiant main effct of subject order or interaction. Thse fidingssuggested that TİD has a preference for SV and OV over other possible orders.
Anahtar Kelime:

Экспериментальный подход к порядку слов в турецком языке жестов

Öz:
Настоящее исследование предлагает экспериментальную лингвистическую перспективу для изучения порядка слов в языках жестов, уделяя особое внимание порядку слов в турецком языке жестов, одном из старейших, но относительно недостаточно изученных. В исследовании приемлемости для использующих турецкий язык жестов различных порядков лингвистических форм в предложении были проведены два эксперимента. Эксперимент 1 состоял из 26 непереходных предложений с конструкцией 2х2 (SV vs. VS; Human vs. Animal) внутри субъекта, тогда как Эксперимент 2 состоял из 28 переходных предложений с конструкцией 3х2 (Subject order: Firs vs. Middle vs. Last Object order: Object-beforeVerb vs. Object-after-Verb) в рамках темы. В обоих экспериментах пользователей турецким языком жестов просили оценивать предложения с использованием 5-балльной шкалы Лайкерта (n = 8 и n = 6 соответственно). Результаты эксперимента 1 показали, что существенный основной эффект порядка жестов показал, что участники дали значительно более высокий рейтинг порядку SV по сравнению с порядком VS. Не было никакого основного эффекта Типа Предмета, но наблюдалось взаимодействие между Порядком Знака и Типом Предмета. Результаты эксперимента 2 показали значительный основной эффект порядка Объект-Глагол, свидетельствующий о том, что рейтинги участников для порядка Объект-перед-Глаголом были значительно выше, чем оценки для порядка Глагол-перед-Объектом. В эксперименте 2 не было никакого существенного основного эффекта от предметного порядка или взаимодействия. Эти результаты показали, что турецкий язык жестов предпочитает SV и OV другим возможным порядкам.
Anahtar Kelime:

Türk İşaret Dili’nde Sözdizime Deneysel Bir Yaklaşım

Öz:
Bu çalışma en eski işaret dillerinden birisi olmasına rağmen görece üzerine az çalışma yapılmış olan Türk İşaret Dili’nde (TİD) sözdizimine odaklanarak deneysel dilbilim bakış açısıyla işaret dillerinde sözdizim çalışmasını sunmaktadır. değişik sözcük/işaret sıralamalarının yer aldığı tümcelerde TİD işaretçilerinin kabuledilebilirlik yargılarını araştırmak üzere iki deney yürütüldü. Deney 1 katılımcılar-arası 2x2 (Özne-Eylem / Eylem-Özne; İnsan / Hayvan) deseniyle oluşturulan 26 geçişsiz tümceden oluşurken Deney 2 katılımcılar-arası 3x2 (Özne sırası: Başta / Ortada / Sonda; Nesne sırası: Nesne eylemden önce / Nesne eylemden sonra) deseniyle oluşturulan 28 geçişli tümceden oluşmaktaydı. Her iki deneyde de TİD işaretçilerinden (n=8 ve n=6) 5-noktalı Likert tipi ölçek kullanarak tümceleri puanlamaları istendi. Deney 1’den elde edilen sonuçlarda İşaret Sırasının anlamlı bir etkisi bulundu: Katılımcılar Özne-Eylem sıralamasıyle yer alan tümcelere Eylem- Özne sıralamasıyla verilen tümcelerden daha yüksek puan verdiler. Özne Tipinin bir ana etkisi bulunmazken İşaret Sırası ve Özne Tipi anlamlı bir etkileşimdeydiler. Deney 2’nin sonuçları ise Nesne Sırasının anlamlı bir etkisini gösterdi: Katılımcılar Nesne eylemden önce tümcelerine Nesne eylemden sonra tümcelerinden daha yüksek puan verdiler. Bu deneyde ne Özne Sırasının bir etkisi ne de bir etkileşim bulundu. Bulgular göstermektedir ki TİD Özne-Eylem ve Nesne eylemden önce sıralamasını diğer sıralamalara göre daha çok tercih etmektedirler
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Açan, Ayşe Zeynep (2007). A linguistic analysis on basic sentence types in Turkish Sign Language (TID) with reference to non-manual activity. Doctoral dissertation. Ankara: Hacettepe University.
  • Arik, Engin (2006). Nonmanual markers and constituency in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Purdue University.
  • Arik, Engin (2013). “Türk İşaret Dili’nde sınıflndırıcılar üzerine bir çalışma [Classifirs in Turkish Sign Language]”. bilig 67: 1-24.
  • Bouchard, Denis and Collette Dubuisson (1995). “Grammar, order and position of wh-signs in Quebec sign language”. Sign Language Studies 87: 99-139.
  • Brentari, Diane (2010). Sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Crasborn, Onno, Els van der Kooij, Johan Ros and Helen de Hoop (2009). “Topic agreement in NGT (Sign Language of the Netherlands)”. Th Linguistic Review 26 (2/3): 355-370.
  • Coerts, Jane A. (1994). “Constituent order in Sign Language of the Netherlands”. Word-order issues in sign language: Working papers. Eds. M. Brennan and G Turner. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association. 47-72
  • Cormier, Kearsy and Jordan Fenlon (2009). “Possession in the visual-gestural modality: How possession is expressed in British Sign Language”. Th Expression of Possession. Ed. W. McGregor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 389- 422.
  • de Quadros, Ronice M. (2003). “Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language”. Crosslinguistic perspectives in sign language research. Selected papers from TISLR 2000. Eds. A. Baker, B. Van den Bogaerde and O. Crasborn. Hamburg: Signum Verlag. 141-162.
  • Deuchar, Margaret (1983). “Is BSL an SVO language?”. Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language. Eds. J. G. Kyle and B. Woll. London and Canbara: Croom Helm. 69-76.
  • Dryer, Matthew S. (1991). “SVO Languages and the OV/VO Typology”. Journal of Linguistics 27: 443-482.
  • Dryer, Matthew S. (1992). “Th Greenbergian word order correlations”. Language 68: 81-138.
  • Dryer, Matthew S. (2005). “Order of subject, object, and verb”. Th World Atlas of Language Structures. Eds. M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil and B. Comrie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Dryer, Matthew S. (2013). “Against the six-way order typology, again”. Studies in Language 37 (2): 267-301.
  • Dryer, Matthew S. and Martin Haspelmath (Eds.) (2005). Th World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info, Accessed on 2014-01- 12).
  • Dunn, Michael, Simon J. Greenhill, Stephen C. Levinson and Russell D. Gray (2011). “Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals”. Nature 473: 79-82.
  • Erguvanli, Eser (1984). Th function of word order in Turkish. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Fischer, Susan D. (1975). “Inflences on word order change in American Sign Language”. Word Order and Word Order Change. Ed. C. N. Li. New York: Academic Press. 1-25.
  • Fischer, Susan D. (1996). “Th role of auxiliaries in sign language”. Lingua 98: 103–119.
  • Gell-Mann, Murray and Merritt Ruhlen (2011). “Th origin and evolution of word order”. PNAS 108 (42): 17290-17295.
  • Glück, Susanne and Rolan Pfau (1998). “On classifiing classifiation as a class of inflction in German Sign Language”. Proceedings of ConSOLE 6. Eds. T. A. Cambier-Langeveld, A. Lipták and M. Redford. Leiden: SOLE. 59-74
  • Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Wing Chee So, Asli Ozyurek and Carolyn Mylander (2008). “Th natural order of events: How speakers of diffrent languages represent events nonverbally”. PNAS 105: 9163-9168.
  • Greenberg, Joseph H. (1963). “Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements”. Universals of grammar. Ed. J. H. Greenberg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 73-113.
  • Gökgöz, Kadir (2011). “Negation in Turkish Sign Language: Th syntax of nonmanual markers”. Sign Language and Linguistics 14 (1): 49-75.
  • Gökgöz, Kadir and Engin Arik (2011). “Distributional and syntactic characteristics of nonmanual markers in Turkish Sign Language (Turk Isaret Dili, TID)”. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 62: Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics: 63-78.
  • Hawkins, John A. (1983). Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press.
  • Hawkins, John A. (2004). Effiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Jantunen, Tommi (2008). “Fixed and free: order of the verbal predicate and its core arguments in declarative transitive clauses in Finnish Sign Language”. SKY Journal of Linguistics 21: 83-123.
  • Kegl, Judy, Carol Neidle, Dawn MacLaughlin, Jack Hoza and Ben Bahan (1996). “Th case for grammar, order and position in ASL: A reply to Bouchard and Dubuisson”. Sign Language Studies 90: 1-23.
  • Kimmelman, Vadim (2011). “Word order in Russian Sign Language”. Sign Language Studies 12 (3): 414-445.
  • Leeson, Lorraine and John I. Saeed (2012). “Word order”. Sign Language: An international handbook. Eds. R. Pfau, M. Steinbach and B. Woll. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 245-264.
  • LaPolla, Randy J. and Dory Poa (2006). “On describing word order”. Catching Language: Th Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing. Eds. F. Ameka, A. Dench and N. Evans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 269-295.
  • Lehmann, Winfred P. (1978). “English: A characteristic SVO language”. Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language. Ed. W. P. Lehmann. Austin: University of Texas Press. 169-222.
  • Liddell, Scott (1980). American Sign Language Syntax. Th Hague: Mouton.
  • Milković, Marina, Sandra Bradarić-Jončić and Ronnie B. Wilbur (2006). “Word order in Croatian Sign Language”. Sign Language and Linguistics 9 (1/2): 169-206.
  • Morales-Lopez, Esperanza, César Reigosa-Varela and Nancy Bobillo-Garcia (2012).
  • “Word order and informative functions (topic and focus) in Spanish Signed Language utterances”. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (4): 474-489.
  • Nadeau, Marie and Louis Desouvrey (1994). “Word order in sentences with directional verbs in Quebec Sign Language”. Perspectives on sign language structure: Papers from fith international symposium on Sign Language Research. Eds. I. Ahlgren, B. Bergman and M. Brennan. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association. 149-158.
  • Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn Maclaughlin, Benjamin Bahan and Robert G. Lee (2000). Th Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Newmeyer, Frederick J. (2004). “Against a parameter-setting approach to typological variation”. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4: 181-234.
  • Newmeyer, Frederick J. (2005). Possible and probable languages: A general perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Padden, Carol (1988). Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics IV. New York: Garland Press.
  • Pichler, Deborah C. (2001). Word order variation and acquisition in American Sign Language. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Connecticut.
  • Pfau, Roland, Markus Steinbach and Bencie Woll (2012). Sign language: An international handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Quer, Josep (2002). Negative operators in Catalan Sign Language. Manuscript. ICREA and Universitat de Barcelona.
  • Rathmann, Christian (2000). Th optionality of agreement phrase: Evidence from signed languages. Master’s thesis. University of Texas at Austin.
  • Rosenstein, Ofra (2001). Israeli sign language: A topic prominent language. Master’s thesis. Haifa University.
  • Sandler, Wendy and Diane Lillo-Martin (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sandler, Wendt, Irit Meir, Carol Padden and Mark Aronof (2005). “Th emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language”. PNAS 102: 2661- 2665.
  • Senghas, Ann, Marie Coppola, Elissa L. Newport and Ted Supalla (1997). “Argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language: Th emergence of grammatical devices”. Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 2. Eds. E. Hughes, M. Hughes and A. Greenhill. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 550-561.
  • Sevinç, Ayça Müge (2006). Grammatical Relations and Word Order in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Master’s thesis. Middle East Technical University.
  • Sinnemäki, Kaius (2010). “Word order in zero-marking languages”. Studies in Language 34 (4): 869-912.
  • Smith, Wayne H. (2005). “Taiwan Sign Language research: A historical overview”. Language and Linguistics 6 (2): 187-215.
  • Sprenger, Kristen and Gaurav Mathur (2012). “Observations on word order in Saudi Arabian Sign Language”. Sign Language Studies 13 (1): 122-134.
  • Sze, Felix (2003). “Word order of Hong Kong Sign Language”. Cross-linguistic perspectives in sign language research: Selected papers from TISLR 2000. Eds. A. Baker, B. van den Bogaerde and O. Crasborn. Hamburg: Signum. 163- 192.
  • Tomlin, Russell S. (1986). Basic word order: functional principles. Croom Helm, London.
  • Torigoe, Takashi (1994). “Resumptive X structure in Japanese Sign Language”. Perspectives on sign language structure: Papers from fith international symposium on Sign Language Research. Eds. I. Ahlgren, B. Bergman and M. Brennan. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association. 187-198.
  • Vennemann, Tho (1976). “Categorial grammar and the order of meaningful elements”. Linguistic Studies Offred to Joseph Greenberg on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. A. Juilland. Saratoga, Cal: Anma Libri. 615-634.
  • Wilbur, Ronnie B. (2002). “Phrase structure in ASL and ÖGS”. Progress in Sign Language Research: In Honor of Siegmund Prillwitz. Eds. R. Schulmeister and H. Reinitzer. Hamburg: Signum. 235-248.
  • Zeshan, Ulrike (2003). “Aspects of Türk Isaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language)”. Sign Language and Linguistics 6 (1): 43-75.
  • Zeshan, Ulrike (2006). Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen, NL: Ishara Press.
APA Arik E (2020). An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language. , 75 - 96.
Chicago Arik Engin An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language. (2020): 75 - 96.
MLA Arik Engin An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language. , 2020, ss.75 - 96.
AMA Arik E An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language. . 2020; 75 - 96.
Vancouver Arik E An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language. . 2020; 75 - 96.
IEEE Arik E "An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language." , ss.75 - 96, 2020.
ISNAD Arik, Engin. "An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language". (2020), 75-96.
APA Arik E (2020). An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language. Bilig / Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 0(94), 75 - 96.
Chicago Arik Engin An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language. Bilig / Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 0, no.94 (2020): 75 - 96.
MLA Arik Engin An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language. Bilig / Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, vol.0, no.94, 2020, ss.75 - 96.
AMA Arik E An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language. Bilig / Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2020; 0(94): 75 - 96.
Vancouver Arik E An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language. Bilig / Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2020; 0(94): 75 - 96.
IEEE Arik E "An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language." Bilig / Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 0, ss.75 - 96, 2020.
ISNAD Arik, Engin. "An Experimental Approach to Word Order in Turkish Sign Language". Bilig / Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 94 (2020), 75-96.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
10-05-2024 11:42

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları