Dikyuva, H., Makaroğlu, B. & Arık, E. (2017). Turkish Sign Language Grammar. Ministry of Family and Social Policies Press: Ankara

TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR ISBN: 978-605-4628-99-5 THIS BOOK PUBLISHED BY THE TURKISH MINISTRY OF FAMILY AND SOCIAL POLICIES. THIS BOOK IS FREE OF CHARGE

TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR PROJECT OWNER The Republic of Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies

PROJECT COORDINATORS Elçin ER Head of Department of Education Rehabilitation and Participation in Social Life Directorate General for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Services The Republic of Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies

Serap ÖZTÜRK Child Development Specialist Department of Education Rehabilitation and Participation in Social Life Directorate General for Person with Disabilities and Elderly Services The Republic of Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies

Project Team Authors Hasan DİKYUVA, Ankara University Bahtiyar MAKAROĞLU, Ankara University Engin ARIK, Istanbul Medipol University ISBN: 978-605-4628-99-5 © The Republic of Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies. Free of charge, cannot be sold.

Contractor YAPIMCI Medya İletişim Tel: 0312 436 73 29 Project Manager: Ayşe Sönmez Firm Owner: Emre Soysal

Ankara, 2017

Editor Engin ARIK, Istanbul Medipol University

LIST OF TRANSLATORS Engin ARIK, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Istanbul Medipol University Emre HAKGÜDER, M.A., PhD Student, University of Chicago Deniz İLKBAŞARAN, Ph.D., Post-doctoral scholar, University of California Bahtiyar MAKAROĞLU, M.A., PhD candidate, Ankara University Derya NUHBALAOĞLU, M.A., PhD student, University of Göttingen Aslı ÖZKUL, M.A., PhD candidate, Boğaziçi University Burcu SARAL, MA Student, Boğaziçi University Beyza SÜMER, Ph.D., Post-doctoral scholar, Radboud University Nijmegen Cem ŞEFTALİCİOĞLU, Psychologist, Translator Abdullah TOPRAKSOY, M.A., PhD student, Hacettepe University

Printing Office: Fersa Ofset • Tel: 0312 386 17 00 Ostim 36. Sokak No: 5 / C-D Yenimahalle / ANKARA

PREFACE This is first book about Turkish Sign Language grammar*. As one of the outputs of extensive fieldwork and a corpus study, this book convincingly shows that Turkish Sign Language, Türk İşaret Dili (TİD), is a national sign language used by the Deaf community across Turkey. This book also shows that TİD is not a signed version of Turkish. TİD is not derived from another sign language, either. TİD is a natural language and emerged naturally as did other natural signed and spoken languages. TİD has unique grammar and, thus, is a different language from Turkish or other signed languages. TİD is used in the daily lives of the Deaf community across Turkey, in theatre, sports, the arts, and so on. As detected in natural languages, there are regional variations with respect to some lexical items in TİD but its grammar is the same across Turkey. Therefore, this book suggests that TİD should be used in every domain of life, including education, health services, and legal services. This book is based on fieldwork and a corpus study which was conducted in six months in the second half of 2015. During this time, team members were trained, pilot studies were conducted, the study was planned, fieldwork was conducted, analyses were made, and the book was written and published. For the fieldwork, the data were collected in one-quarter of Turkish cities (a total of 26 cities) across Turkey. In each city, at least four native Deaf signers (a total of 113 native Deaf individuals [age range 12-65]) participated in this study. The data consisted primarily of natural conversations and narrations of picture books and short films. During data collection, hearing nonsigners were not present. The corpus consisted of 800,000 words / signs obtained from 6,240 minute-long video recordings from the fieldwork. One-quarter of this corpus was transcribed by native Deaf team members using ELAN. After that, the writing process of this book began. To our knowledge, this project has been the most extensive grammar project on sign languages worldwide. Accomplishing this task within a very short period of time would have been impossible without the contributions of the Deaf participants and the research team members. This project was supported by the Turkish Ministry of Family and Societal Policies, Directorate General for Person with Disabilities and Elderly Services. The academic team consisted of four consultants and three researchers. Each of these team members was an expert in sign language research. One of them was native Deaf signer, while three of them were hearing signers. The team members conducting fieldwork, analysis, and technical support consisted of eight native Deaf signers who had previous experience in research projects on TİD. We first and foremost thank the Republic of Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies, Directorate General for Person with Disabilities and Elderly Services for its support and the Deaf individuals for their participation. Without them, it would have been impossible to complete such a project. * This English version edited by Engin Arik is a translated, edited, and updated version of the book published in Turkish at the end of 2015 (Dikyuva, Makaroğlu, & Arık, 2015). The Turkish version was intended to address the hearing, hard-of-hearing, deaf, and Deaf individuals as well as researchers working on TİD in Turkey. Therefore, both Turkish and TİD examples were used to explain some of the linguistic issues and to show how these languages differ from each other. In the English version, some issues regarding Turkish were removed to help international audience to focus on TİD. The English version aims at addressing international audience including deaf/Deaf individuals, sign language researchers, linguists, among others. We thank Emre Hakgüder, Deniz İlkbaşaran, Bahtiyar Makaroğlu, Derya Nuhbalaoğlu, Aslı Özkul, Burcu Saral, Beyza Sümer, Cem Şeftalicioğlu, Abdullah Topraksoy, and Engin Arik for their help translating this book within a very short period of time.

PRESENTATION Since the beginning of the existence of social life, individuals have engaged in dialogue. They have communicated with each other using many different forms. Therefore, the concept of interpersonal communication is as old as human history. Interpersonal communication has developed into two formats since the beginning of humankind: verbal and nonverbal communication. Sign language is a visual language and is one of the non-verbal communication methods. It is sign language that enables the deaf community to express itself. According to the results of Persons with Disabilities Research in 2002, the ratio of persons with hearing difficulties among the entire population of persons with disabilities is 0.38%. A comprehensive and large-scale research study about Turkish Sign Language that has been used for years by the deaf community in our country was carried out in 2015 by the Directorate General of Services for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly People under the name of “Turkish Sign Language Research Project”. Turkish Sign Language, which addresses the communication needs of the deaf community in our country, was granted official status in 2005 through the Persons with Disabilities Law. The year 2005 was clearly a milestone for Turkish Sign Language. In this book, the grammar properties of Turkish Sign Language are analyzed in detail. This book will contribute to the popularization of Turkish Sign Language and accelerate works aimed at creating a corpus.

Dr. Fatma Betül SAYAN KAYA Minister of Family and Social Policies

As the Republic of Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies, we have carried out a comprehensive study on Turkish Sign Language. The preparation of the Turkish Sign Language Grammar Book and Exemplary Dictionary is a very important contribution to deaf persons’ integration and communication with society. This book has been prepared in a very short time using scientificmethod techniques and is a first in this area. The Turkish version of the book was published in 2015. This English version intends to introduce Turkish Sign Language to a larger international community to raise awareness of this language and to facilitate works on other sign languages all over the world. I believe this book will offer insight into and raise awareness of disabilities, similar to the current effort to raise awareness of the importance of education, in all areas of our country. I would like to thank the personnel of the Directorate General of Services for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly People of our Ministry for this valuable study.

PRESENTATION Difficulties in communication negatively affect an individual’s life. Individuals take the path that gives them the easiest way to communicate. It is a natural right for hearing-impaired individuals to be able to communicate with each other and with hearing individuals, conveying their feelings and thoughts to others. Turkish Sign Language is the primary language used by the hearing impaired in Turkey as a means of communication. The Turkish Sign Language used by the deaf community in our country has been neglected for many years in every respect. According to Article 15, Paragraph 6 of the No. 5378 Disability Law, “Turkish Sign Language system is established in order to provide education to and communication of hearing impaired. The principles and procedures for the establishment, development and implementation of this system are determined by the jointly issued regulation of the Ministry of National Education and the Turkish Linguistic Society (TDK) under the coordination of the Ministry of Family and Social Policies.” The first legislation related to Turkish Sign Language was prepared, and its dissemination activities promoted, by “The Regulation on the Determination of the Procedures and Principles for the Establishment and Implementation of the Turkish Sign Language System”. Thus, the procedures and principles related to the research to be carried out in the field of Turkish Sign Language were determined. For people to learn a language, a grammar book and a dictionary for that language must exist. Our Ministry has prepared the Turkish Sign Language Research Project based upon a scientific foundation to prepare a grammar book and a model dictionary using analysis of the data obtained from scientific methods and techniques carried out by field specialist academicians. The project was prepared and carried out within the scope of public investment projects in 2015 and maintaining the characteristics mentioned above; it is the first systematic scientific research on sign language in Turkey.

İshak ÇİFTÇİ Director of Services for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly People

Sign language grammar studies have been carried out over a period of time in other countries. In our country, by means of a serious team and field study, a specific system approach has been carried out within a period of six months. This book and the model dictionary which is the output of the project (and which marks many “firsts”) will be some of the main tools promoting the survival of Turkish Sign Language as a language. The creation of a database using data obtained from the Turkish Sign Language Research Project and the opening of the database to use by academicians who will conduct research in this field are other short-term goals for us. The implementation of the online dictionary and the grammar book and the preparation of the English translations for sign language for the hearing impaired are our medium-term goals. We feel honored and proud to prepare this book, which will be a steppingstone study for both learning and teaching—as well as, ultimately, the proliferation of—the Turkish Sign Language. Our ministry will continue to support studies on sign language. We are pleased to offer this service to all segments of society. We thank our project team and everyone who has worked with faith and diligence during the preparation of this book.

LIST OF DEAF PARTICIPANTS Abdülkadir CANIŞ Van Ahmet TÜRKMEN Muğla Ahmet ÇEKİLMEZ Şanlıurfa Ahmet GEROÇ Trabzon Akif ERMAN Mersin Ali Rıza POLAT Erzurum Arzu AY Trabzon Ayşe KÖŞEOĞLU Şanlıurfa Ayşenur YIMAZ İzmir Bakiye AKMAN Çanakkale Barış ÖZEROĞLU Kars Barış ERDAĞI Kars Binnur YILMAZ İzmir Burcu PİŞKİN AYDIN Adana Buse YÖRÜKOĞLU İzmir Bülent CEYLAN Mersin Candar ATALAY Batman Caner EKİCİ Samsun Cemil ATİLLA Van Demet TERZİ İstanbul Derya YÜKSEK Ankara Derya ALABAY Kayseri Dilek AKIL Şanlıurfa Ebru BURAN Bursa Efe GİRAYLAR İzmir Elif YAKŞI Batman Emre TOPRAK Sivas Emre Çınar UĞUZLAR Antalya Enver GER Muğla Ergin SADIÇ Tekirdağ Ersin KERVAN Adana Ertan KAVAK Çanakkale Eylem BİLGEN Mersin Fadime ÇAĞLAK Sivas Fatih ATAKUL Sivas Fatma BAYRAM Diyarbakır Feyruz ÇETİNKAYA Eskişehir Firat İNCİ Mersin Galip Şükrü AFSAR Denizli Gökçe PİŞKİN Adana Gürşah ULUKURT Bursa G.Gamze SEKLİKOĞLU Eskişehir Hacı Yusuf OKUR Sivas Halit DEMİRKOÇ Kars Hanife GÜRKAN Balıkesir Hasan METİN Mersin Hatice ŞAHİN Antalya Hatice Nur ALTUN Konya Havva YAVUZ Samsun Hayriye TOPALOĞLU Rize Hemsile TOPALOĞLU Rize Hikmet TEMİZYÜREK Kayseri Hikmet ÖNAT Kocaeli Hüseyin Avni TOPALOĞLU Rize Jinda AKYILDIZ Diyarbakır Kadri ÇETİNKAYA Eskişehir Koray CONİ Edirne

Mehmet Nejat TANGÜNER Mehmet Zafer DEMİR Melahat Ecem ŞAFAK Merve ÇAKIRTAŞ Merve SAĞIROĞLU Merve Karatekin KARAL Mesut YILDIRIM Metin ATAK Metin ÇAKIRTAŞ Metin YAZAN Mısra ÖSKAN Muhabbet Nuri TERZİ Muhammet İÇGÜLEÇ Muharrem UĞUZ Munife AYDIN Murat TANYERİ Mustafa KAHVECİOĞLU Mustafa TANRIVERDİ Muzaffer MUREN Münire KOCAER Müslüm DADAK Nazlı Sevgim ÖNER Nevin ÇALAPKOLU Hiyazi GÜRKAN Nurseli GÜVEN Orhan ÖZTÜRKMEN Osman YILDIRIM Osman TAYDEMİR Ömer OTAMIŞ Özkan DEMİR Özlem YAZAN Özlem AKIL Özlem AŞAN Özol UTSUKARCI Rahmi ÇOLAK Rüstem AY Samet KÖKLÜ Saniye BAYRAKTAR Seda ÖLÇER Sefa İŞCAN Seher KARACA Serap TANYERİ Serap Güvenal TÜRKER Sinan ALTUN Sümeyye DOĞAN Şehmus DİLSİZ Şenol KIRLI Şevket TÜRKMEN Şükriye ULUSOY Şükriye Dİlek YILDIRIM Şükrü KOCAER Tugay GÜNDOĞDU Yavuz KELEŞOĞLU Yusuf KARAAHMETOĞLU Yusuf ÇELİK Züleyha İLBEY

Diyarbakır Erzurum Mersin Bursa İzmir Kocaeli Muğla İzmir Bursa Kocaeli Edirne İstanbul Van Konya Antalya Ankara Samsun Şanlıurfa Denizli Balıkesir Batman İstanbul Van Balıkesir Adana Konya Diyarbakır Eskişehir Denizli Erzurum Kocaeli Şanlıurfa Trabzon İzmir Trabzon Trabzon Kayseri Samsun Antalya Denizli Kars Ankara Ankara Batman Rize İzmir Çanakkale Muğla Konya Çanakkale Balıkesir Tekirdağ Erzurum İstanbul Şanlıurfa Kayseri

This research was contracted to the G&I Research and Consultancy firm by the Ministry of Family and Social Policies, Directorate General of Services for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly People, in 2015 to describe how the grammatical structure of the Turkish Sign Language differs from spoken languages such as Turkish to determine the differences in basic linguistic areas such as phonology, morphology, semantics, and syntax, and to prepare and publish the basic-level “Turkish Sign Language Grammar Book” and “Turkish Sign Language Exemplary Dictionary” with the support of the data obtained from Deaf individuals from different regions of Turkey. All information and documents obtained during the research belong to the General Directorate and cannot be distributed and published without the prior permission of the General Directorate. All written and visual materials in this book may not be copied or used without reference.

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS There are some abbreviations and symbols used in this book. Terms and concepts are written in bold. Examples from Turkish are given in italics and their English translations are given in single quotation marks ‘’. Following the consensus, Turkish and English translations of TİD signs are given in citation forms and written in small capıtal letters: For example, çocuk ev gıtmek ‘chıld go school’ ‘The child went to the school’. The Abbreviations and Symbols used in the book are the following: Abbreviation Explanation APA ASHA ASL ASPB AUSLAN BSL CL CODA dB DPT ELAN FinSL LSF MEB NGT NSL NZSL RAM S-I-G-N SIGN SIGN__ SIGN^SIGN SIGN+ SIGN+SIGN ______ab SVO TBMM TDK TİD TİDBO TİEMF TISLR TPD TRT TÜBİTAK USA x1 x1-x2 x1-x3 x2 x2-x1 x2-x3 x3 x3-x1 x3-x2 xnSIGNxm *

American Psychological Association American Speech-Language-Hearing Association American Sign Language The Turkish Ministry of Family and Societal Policies Australian Sign Language British Sign Language Classifier Child of Deaf Adults Decibel The Turkish State Planning Organization EUDICO Linguistic Annotator Finnish Sign Language French Sign Language The Turkish Ministry of Education Sign Language of the Netherlands Nicaraguan Sign Language New Zealand Sign Language The Turkish Centers for Guidance and Research Fingerspelled sign Turkish / English glosses of signs (in small caps) Countinous sign (e.g., hold) Compound Repeated sign Single sign glossed with more than one word Bar above a sign indicates facial expressions / nonmanuals Subject-Verb-Object (word order) The Turkish Grand National Assembly The Turkish Language Association Turkish Sign Language (Türk İşaret Dili) TİD Board of Science and Approval The Turkish National Federation for Deaf Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Turkish Psychological Association The Turkish Radio and Television Corporation The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey The United States of America I I -> You I -> He/She/It You You -> I You -> He/She/It He/She/It He/She/It -> I He/She/It -> You Agreement between persons n and m (e.g., subject-object verb agreement) Ungrammatical structure

XII TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

XIII TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

CONTENTS List of Tables.................................................................................................. XVII List of Figures.................................................................................................. XIX 1. Introduction and Methods........................................................................... 1 1.1 Things that need to be known about sign languages............................ 7 1.2 Some differences between sign languages and spoken languages (language modality) ..................................................................................... 8 1.3 Why do we study sign languages? ..................................................... 10 1.4 The history of scientific research on sign languages........................... 11 1.5 Books on sign language grammar / linguistics.................................... 13 1.6 Turkish Sign Language (TİD)................................................................ 18 1.7 Turkish Sign Language and regional variations .................................. 19 1.8 Ethics of sign language research ........................................................ 26 1.8.1 Turkish Sign Language Research Ethical Principles................... 27 1.9 Methods............................................................................................... 28 1.9.1 Research team............................................................................ 28 1.9.2 Consent Form and Language Profile Form ................................ 29 1.9.3 Fieldwork and participants ......................................................... 30 1.9.4 Demographic information about the participants....................... 31 1.9.5 Data collection............................................................................ 33 1.9.5.1 Materials for data collection ........................................... 34 1.9.6 Data transcription........................................................................ 36 1.9.7 Data sharing among team members........................................... 41 1.10 Summary of the book......................................................................... 42 Form A. The Consent Form........................................................................ 44 Form B. The Language Profile Form.......................................................... 46 2. Sociolinguistic Overview........................................................................... 47 2.1 The History of TİD................................................................................ 49 2.2 “Hearing impairment”, deafness, and the Deaf community................. 54 2.3 The language profile of deaf people.................................................... 55 2.4 Bilingualism, multilingualism, and language contact........................... 56 2.5 Language contact and fingerspelling................................................... 58 2.6 Mouthing and lipreading...................................................................... 60 2.7 Summary.............................................................................................. 61

XIV TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 3. Phonetics and Phonology (Sign Language Phonetics and Sign Language Phonology)............................................................................ 63 3.1 The internal structure of signs.............................................................. 65 3.2 Minimal pairs........................................................................................ 66 3.2.1 Manual signs............................................................................... 70 3.2.1.1 Handshape...................................................................... 70 3.2.1.2 Orientation...................................................................... 79 3.2.1.3 Movement....................................................................... 81 3.2.1.4 Location.......................................................................... 83 3.2.2 Nonmanual signs........................................................................ 85 3.2.2.1 Head and body movements............................................ 86 3.2.2.2 Facial expressions.......................................................... 87 3.2.2.3 Mouth gestures............................................................... 87 3.3 Simultaneity and sequentiality............................................................. 89 3.4 Prosodic structure................................................................................ 91 3.4.1. Prosodic weight......................................................................... 94 3.4.2 Syllable vs. Morpheme................................................................ 94 3.5 Phonological processes....................................................................... 96 3.6 The place of fingerspelling within phonology..................................... 102 3.7 Summary............................................................................................ 104 4. Morphology: Sign Construction and Formation.................................... 105 4.1 Morphological aspects in sign and spoken languages...................... 107 4.2. Morpheme......................................................................................... 109 4.3. Derivational and inflectional morphemes.......................................... 113 4.4. Formation types of signs................................................................... 114 4.4.1 Lexical extension...................................................................... 114 4.4.2 Affixation................................................................................... 116 4.4.3 Reduplication............................................................................ 120 4.4.3.1 Derivational reduplication............................................. 121 4.4.3.2 Inflectional reduplication............................................... 124 4.4.4 Compound................................................................................ 128 4.4.4.1 The semantic approach................................................ 128 4.4.4.2 Syntactic approach....................................................... 132 4.4.4.3 Metacompounds .......................................................... 135 4.4.4.4 Sign-language-specific compound types..................... 135 4.4.4.5 Productivity in compounds........................................... 138 4.4.4.6 Phonological processes................................................ 139

XV TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.4.5 Numeral incorporation.............................................................. 141 4.4.6 Movement construction............................................................ 144 4.4.7 Borrowing.................................................................................. 147 4.5. Sign modification.............................................................................. 152 4.5.1 Noun modification..................................................................... 152 4.5.1.1. Location....................................................................... 152 4.5.1.2 Number......................................................................... 154 4.5.1.3. Size and Shape Specifiers (SASS)............................... 156 4.5.1.4. Classifiers..................................................................... 158 4.5.1.4.1 Semantic classifiers in TİD............................ 158 4.5.1.4.2 Instrument classifiers in TİD......................... 161 4.5.1.4.3 Descriptive classifiers in TİD......................... 161 4.5.1.4.4 Handling classifiers in TİD............................ 162 4.5.1.5. Intensification............................................................... 165 4.5.2. Verb modifications................................................................... 167 4.5.2.1. Agreement................................................................... 167 4.5.2.1.1 Person and number agreement.................... 169 4.5.2.1.2 Location Agreement..................................... 176 4.5.2.2. Manner............................................................ 177 4.5.2.3. Time / tense, aspect, and modality.............................. 182 4.5.2.3.1 Time.............................................................. 182 4.5.2.3.2. Aspect ......................................................... 184 4.5.2.3.3. Modality....................................................... 186 4.5.2.4. Reciprocity .................................................................. 188 4.6.1. The type of movements .......................................................... 195 4.6.2. The number of movements ..................................................... 196 4.6.3. The direction of movements.................................................... 199 4.6.4. The duration of movements..................................................... 200 4.7. Pronouns........................................................................................... 201 4.7.1. Personal pronouns................................................................... 201 4.7.1.1. Singular personal pronouns ........................................ 201 4.7.1.2. Plural personal pronouns............................................. 203 4.7.2. Possessive pronouns.............................................................. 204 4.7.3. Reciprocal pronouns ............................................................... 204 4.8. Summary........................................................................................... 206 5. Syntax........................................................................................................ 207 5.1 Word Order ....................................................................................... 209 5.1.1 Word order with intransitive verbs............................................ 211 5.1.2 Word order with transitive verbs............................................... 212 5.1.3 Word order with ditransitive verbs ........................................... 213 5.2 Noun phrases..................................................................................... 213 5.3 Sentence Types ................................................................................ 218

XVI TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 5.4 Affirmative and declarative sentences............................................... 218 5.5 Negation............................................................................................. 219 5.5.1 Main negation: değİl ‘not’.......................................................... 219 5.5.2 Other types of negation ........................................................... 221 5.5.2.1 Existential Negation: yok ‘there-ıs-not’.......................... 221 5.5.2.2 Negative Aspect............................................................ 222 5.5.2.2.1. Negative Completion: “ap”........................... 223 5.5.2.2.2. Negative Perfective: hİç ‘never’..................... 224 5.5.2.3 Negative Modality......................................................... 226 5.5.2.3.1. Negative Ability: Modal-tongue out.............. 227 5.5.2.3.2 Negative Possibility: olmaz ‘not-be’................ 229 5.5.2.3.3 (Negative) Prohibition: hayır-2 ‘no-2’............. 230 5.6 Interrogative Sentences .................................................................... 231 5.6.1 Polar Questions......................................................................... 232 5.6.2. Content Questions................................................................... 235 5.7 Coordinate Structures and Subordinate Clauses ............................. 239 5.7.1 Coordinate Clause & Subordinate Clause................................ 239 5.8 Summary............................................................................................ 241 6. Semantics................................................................................................. 243 6.1 Sense and reference.......................................................................... 245 6.2 Iconicity.............................................................................................. 246 6.3 Meanings of signs in TİD and meanings of words in Turkish ............ 246 6.4 Types of meaning .............................................................................. 247 6.4.1 Homophony.............................................................................. 248 6.4.2 Polysemy................................................................................... 249 6.4.3 Synonmy................................................................................... 250 6.4.4 Antonymy.................................................................................. 253 6.5 Metaphor............................................................................................ 256 6.6 Metonymy.......................................................................................... 260 6.7 Meaning in discourse......................................................................... 261 6.8 Sentential meaning ............................................................................ 263 6.9 Discourse markers............................................................................. 264 6.10 Idioms............................................................................................... 266 6.11 Summary ......................................................................................... 268 7. Conclusion................................................................................................ 269 References.................................................................................................... 277 Fihrist............................................................................................................. 311

XVII TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 The methods, sampling, database, and corpus in this study. ......... 28 Table 1.2 Fieldwork done in cities according to regions. ................................. 30 Table 1.3 Number of participants by city. ........................................................ 30 Table 1.4 Gender information about the participants according to region....... 32 Table 1.5 Age ranges of participants according to region................................ 32 Table 1.6 Level of education of participants according to region..................... 33 Table 1.7 List of topics...................................................................................... 34 Table 1.8 Coding system in ELAN for pronouns and agreement...................... 37 Table 1.9 Examples of other coding systems in ELAN..................................... 37 Table 2.1 The number of students enrolled in elementary schools for the deaf (ESD) and vocational high schools for the deaf (VHSD), as well as the percentage of VHSD students by ESD students (%), based on Turkish Ministry of Education statistics (Kemaloğlu, 2016).......................... 56 Table 3.1 Examples of signs using the handshapes in TİD............................... 72 Table 3.2 Possible locations and examples of them from TİD.......................... 84 Table 3.3 Phonological simultaneity in sign languages..................................... 90 Table 4.1 Endocentric compounds in TİD....................................................... 129 Table 4.2 Exocentric compounds in TİD......................................................... 130 Table 4.3 Copulative compounds in TİD......................................................... 131 Table 4.4 Right-headed compounds in TİD.................................................... 132 Table 4.5 Left-headed compounds in TİD....................................................... 133 Table 4.6 Co-headed compounds in TİD........................................................ 135 Table 4.7 Compounds with fingerspelling in TİD............................................ 136 Table 4.8 Compounds consisting of the words kİşİ ‘person’ and yer ‘place’

in TİD............................................................................................... 139

Table 4.9 Classifier handshapes commonly used in TİD................................ 163 Table 4.10 Examples for the backward and forward agreeing verbs in TİD... 172 Table 4.11 The most frequent spatial verbs in TİD......................................... 176

XVIII TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

XIX TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 pazar ‘sunday’ and acele ‘hurry’ as an example of minimal pairs in TİD........................................................................................................... 9 Figure 1.2a Ali book read-PAST ↑ Q-particle ↓ (Fidan, 2002)............................... 10 Figure 1.2b lesson want? (Makaroğlu, 2013)................................................................ 10 Figure 1.3 An example from picture production test: şemsİye+çanta+telaşla yürümek ‘umbrella+bag+walk hastily’........................................................ 21 Figure 1.4 sıgn written in sign writing........................................................................... 22 Figure 1.5 language written in sign writing.................................................................. 22 Figure 1.6 konmak ‘land’ in TİD in Muğla region........................................................ 23 Figure 1.7 lazım ‘requıred,’ lİse ‘hıgh school,’ and lokal ‘club’ in TİD................. 25 Figure 1.8 Pilot study. A picture from a transcribed section from ELAN........ 38 Figure 1.9 Pilot study, transcriptions in ELAN with two additional tiers......... 39 Figure 1.10 Pilot study. Transcription in ELAN with time codes.......................... 40 Figure 1.11 Sample from a transcribed section in ELAN with picture materials from the pilot study.................................................................... 40 Figure 1.12 Detailed sample from a transcribed section in ELAN with picture materials from the pilot study..................................................... 41 Figure 1.13 Coding system for videorecordings........................................................ 42 Figure 2.1 A picture of deaf people in the Ottoman Empire................................ 49 Figure 2.2 A picture of the lipreading method in Merzifon Anatolian High School in 1910. http://dlib.anatolia.edu.gr/jspui/handle/1886/289.................. 50 Figure 2.3 The TİD manual alphabet (the most frequently used fingerspelled letters in TİD)......................................................................... 59 Figure 2.4 The TİD manual alphabet (the least frequently used fingerspelled letters in TİD)......................................................................... 60 Figure 3.1 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD: yil ‘year’ and kaba ‘rude’........... 67 Figure 3.2 The phonemic inventory of handshapes in TİD (the handshapes are taken from Kubuş (2008)).................................. 71 Figure 3.3 An example of the selected and unselected fingers in TİD: mİsafİr ‘guest’........................................................................................... 73 Figure 3.4 Examples of minimal pairs in in TİD distinguished by selected fingers: şans ‘chance’ and kavaklıdere ‘wıne’........................................... 74 Figure 3.5 Examples of minimal pairs in Turkish Sign Language distinguished by joint configuration: şans ‘chance’ and sıcak ‘hot’..... 76 Figure 3.6 The most unmarked handshapes in ASL (Boyes-Braem, 1981)... 76 Figure 3.7 The unmarked handshapes in TİD (Kubuş, 2008).............................. 77 Figure 3.8 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by distinctive features of unmarked handshapes: İstemek ‘want’ and sabır ‘patıence’............................................................................................................. 78 Figure 3.9 Marked handshapes (Boyes-Braem, 1981).......................................... 78

XX TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Figure 3.10 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by distinctive features of marked handshapes: tasarruf ‘savıng’ and İdare ‘admınıstratıon’.................................................................................................. 79 Figure 3.11 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by the direction of movement determined by the hand joint: akıllı ‘clever’ and akılsız ‘fool’.................................................................... 80 Figure 3.12 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by the direction of the movement determined by the orientations of parts of the hand: İlk ‘fırst’ and eksİ ‘mınus’..................................... 81 Figure 3.13 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by the type of movement: lİse ‘lycee’ and lokal ‘club’................................... 82 Figure 3.14 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by the form of path movement: lazım ‘ought’ and lİse ‘lycee’...................................... 83 Figure 3.15 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by the location of the sign: kan ‘blood’ and yedek ‘substıtute’...................... 85 Figure 3.16 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by head and body movements: konya ‘konya’ and kendİ ‘self’............................................. 86 Figure 3.17 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by the facial expressions: şans ‘chance’ and belkİ ‘perhaps’...................................... 87 Figure 3.18 Mouthing: merhaba merhaba ‘hello’ in TİD/Turkish............................ 88 Figure 3.19 Examples of mouth gestures in TİD: ölü ‘dead’ and zorlanmak ‘slog’............................................................................................... 89 Figure 3.20 The hierarchical structure of prosody in signed and spoken languages (Brentari, 2011).......................................................................... 92 Figure 3.21 Movement types in TİD................................................................................ 93 Figure 3.22 Prosodic weight in TİD................................................................................. 95 Figure 3.23 An example of two syllables in one morpheme in TİD: İstİfa ‘resıgnatıon’.............................................................................................. 96 Figure 3.24 Location assimilation in TID: bİl^değİl ‘know^not’.............................. 98 Figure 3.25 Location assimilation in TİD: kalp^kötü ‘heart^bad’ ‘evil’................ 99 Figure 3.26 Movement deletion in TİD: hepsİ^İçİn ‘for all’...................................... 99 Figure 3.27 Handshape deletion in TİD maaş ‘salary’.............................................. 100 Figure 3.28 Movement epenthesis in TİD: üç^ay ‘three^month’........................ 101 Figure 3.29 The locations of phonological processes in TİD............................... 102 Figure 3.30 An example of a lexical sign with TİD alphabet: b-o-n-o ‘bono’......103 Figure 3.31 Examples of lexicalized fingerspellings in TİD: lazım ‘requıred’, lİse ‘hıgh school’ and lokal ‘club’............................................................ 103 Figure 3.32 psİkolojİ ‘psychology’, ceket ‘coat’, kola ‘coke’ and taksİ ‘taxi’...... 104 Figure 4.1 Examples from TİD: 2^sınıf ‘2^class’, 3^sınıf ‘3^class’, 1^hafta^önce ‘1^week^before’ and 1^hafta^sonra ‘1^week^after’....... 108 Figure 4.3 Bound morphemes in TİD: Hour and number incorporation........ 110 Figure 4.2 Bound morphemes in TİD: Decimal derivation.................................. 110 Figure 4.4 Bound morphemes in TİD: Person and number agreement........ 111

XXI TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Figure 4.5 Bound morphemes in TİD: Nonmanuals.............................................. 112 Figure 4.6 Bound morphemes in TİD: Nonmanual determiners....................... 112 Figure 4.7 Clitization in TİD: Basic negative marker değİl ‘not’......................... 113 Figure 4.8 Lexical extension in TİD: kırmak ‘to break’ and müşterİ ‘customer’....... 114 Figure 4.9 Lexical extension in TİD: malatya, sıhhİye, and samsun..................... 115 Figure 4.10 Lexical extension in TİD: hesap ‘calculatıon’, polİtİka ‘polıtıcs’ and sıkışmak ‘need toılet’............................................................ 116 Figure 4.11 Examples of borrowed affix types in TİD: can+l+ı ‘alıve’ and İzmİr+l+ ı ‘from-İzmİr’........................................................................... 117 Figure 4.12 A grammaticalized affix in TİD: hİç ‘nothıng’....................................... 119 Figure 4.13 An affix in grammaticalization process in TİD: kİşİ ‘person’........... 120 Figure 4.14 Examples of derivational reduplication in TİD: çevİrmek ‘to turn’ and çevİrİ ‘translatıon’............................................................... 121 Figure 4.15 Examples of derivational reduplication in TİD: ayakta^dİkİlmek ‘to stand’ and zıplamak+repetition ‘to jump’.................................................. 122 Figure 4.16 Examples of derivational reduplication in TİD: olumlu ‘favourable’ and beğenİ ‘lıke’.............................................................................................. 122 Figure 4.17 Examples of derivational reduplication in TİD: kötü ‘bad’ and kötülemek ‘denıgrate’.................................................................................... 123 Figure 4.18 Examples of derivational reduplication in TİD: çanta ‘bag’ and pazar ‘bazaar’.......................................................................................... 123 Figure 4.19 Examples of inflectional reduplication in TİD: ev ‘house’ and ev+repetition ‘house’.............................................................................................. 124 Figure 4.20 Examples of inflectional reduplication in TİD: kız ‘gırl’ and kız+repetition kız ‘gırls’....................................................................................... 125 Figure 4.21 Examples of inflectional reduplication in person-number agreement in TİD: sormak+repetition. ‘askıng you’...................................... 126 Figure 4.22 Examples of inflectional reduplication in determiner meaning in TİD: sormak ‘to ask’ and sormak+repetition/aynı konum. ‘ı asked you many tımes’................................................................................. 126 Figure 4.23 Examples of inflectional reduplication for plurality meaning in TİD: çıkmak ‘to arıse’ and problem çıkmak+repetition/different location ‘problems arıse’............................................................................................... 127 Figure 4.24 Examples of double-headed compounds in TİD: haklı ‘rıght’ and gazete ‘newspaper’................................................................................. 134 Figure 4.25 The sign İmzalamak ‘to sıgn’ in TİD......................................................... 137 Figure 4.26 The sign konmak ‘to land on’ in TİD........................................................ 138 Figure 4.27 The sign haftasonu ‘weekend’ in TİD........................................................ 140 Figure 4.28 The sign çİrkİn ‘ugly’ in TİD....................................................................... 141 Figure 4.29 Examples of numeral incorporation in TİD: dört^saat ‘four^hour’ ‘four hours’, üç^yüz ‘three^year’ ‘three years’, and İkİ^ay ‘two^month’ ‘two months’ in TİD........................................ 141 Figure 4.30 İkİ^yıl ‘two^year’ ‘two years’ and dört^yıl ‘four^year’ ‘four years’ in TİD......................................................................................... 142

XXII TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Figure 4.31

üç^gün ‘three^day’

‘three days’, İkİ^bİn ‘two^thousand’ ‘two thousand’, ‘and dört^hafta ‘four^week’ ‘four weeks’ in TİD........ 143 Figure 4.32 altı^sınıf ‘sıx^grade’ ‘sixth grade’ and yedİ^hafta ‘seven^week’ ‘seven weeks’ in TİD................................................................................... 143 Figure 4.33 görmek ‘to see’, göz^gezdİrmek ‘to skım over’, and göz^gezdİrerek^okumak ‘to read by skımmıng over’ signs in TİD..... 144 Figure 4.34 ev ‘house’, komşu ‘neıghbour’, aynı ‘the same’, and aynı^şekİlde ‘ın the same way’ in TİD................................................................................. 145 Figure 4.35 bağırmak ‘to yell’ and üşenmek ‘to be too lazy to’ in TİD.................. 146 Figure 4.36 kötü ‘bad’, kötülemek ‘denıgrate’, and alay^etmek ‘rıdıcule’ in TİD...... 147 Figure 4.37 Examples of borrowed words in the form of the finger alphabet in TİD: lokal ‘local’ and lazİm ‘requİred’............................. 148 Figure 4.38 The process of transmission of a borrowed word: okey ‘ok’........ 149 Figure 4.39 Examples of borrowed words due to phonetic similarity: model/modern ‘model/modern’ and ısparta/İspanya ‘ısparta/spaın’...... 149 Figure 4.40 Meaning change/semantic restriction in borrowed words: sohbet ‘conversatıon’.................................................................................... 150 Figure 4.41 Borrowed words preserving their meanings in the source and target languages: düşünmek ‘to thınk’ (BSL). ..............................151 Figure 4.42 Borrowed words preserving their meanings in the source and target languages: aynı ‘same’ (TİD) and aynı ‘same’ (ASL)................. 151 Figure 4.43 Signing space in sign languages............................................................ 152 Figure 4.44 Sign production plane in the signing space....................................... 153 Figure 4.45 Location affix in TİD: masa ‘table’+locatıon................................................. 154 Figure 4.46 Pluralization in TİD: elma çok ‘apple more’ ‘apples’........................... 154 Figure 4.47 Pluralization in TİD: elma snf+ ‘apple cl+’ ‘apples’............................ 155 Figure 4.48 Pluralization in TİD: 4 elma ‘4 apple’ ‘4 apples’................................... 155 Figure 4.49 Assimilation / numeral incorporation in noun modifications in TİD: 2^gün 2^day ‘two days’, 3^day ‘3^day’ ‘three days’, and 4^day ‘4^day’ ‘four days’................................................................... 156 Figure 4.50 Assimilation / numeral incorporation in noun modifications in TİD: 2^hafta^önce ‘2^week^before’ ‘two weeks ago’...................... 156 Figure 4.51 Examples of the size and shape specifiers in TİD: kutu ‘box’, kutu+küçük ‘box+small’ ‘small box’, and kutu+büyük ‘box+large’ ‘big box’.......157 Figure 4.52 Examples for the use of semantic classifiers: ‘The two cars are facing each other.’................................................... 159 Figure 4.53 Examples for the use of semantic classifiers: ‘The two men are facing each other.’................................................... 160 Figure 4.54 Examples for the use of semantic classifiers: ‘The man is walking towards the tree.’................................................ 160 Figure 4.55 An example for for the use of instrument classifiers: ‘paınt /to paınt+’ in TİD............................................................................... 161

XXIII TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Figure 4.56 An example for for the use of descriptive classifiers: The xpression of ‘the frame is on the wall’ in TİD............................ 161 Figure 4.57 An example for for the use of handling classifiers: kİtap koymak ‘to put a book’ in TİD........................................................... 162 Figure 4.58 An example for for the use of handling classifiers: çanta^taşımak ‘bag^carry’ in TİD............................................................. 162 Figure 4.59 An example for intensification: ‘rıch’ and ‘very^rıch’ in TİD........ 166 Figure 4.60 An example for intensification: ‘fast’ and ‘fast+ıntensıfıcatıon’ in TİD.....166 Figure. 4.61 An example for intensification: ‘cold’ and ‘cold+ıntensıfıcatıon’ in TİD.... 167 Figure 4.62 An example for agreement verbs in TİD: vermek ‘to gıve’............... 170 Figure 4.63 Hypothetical reference in agreement verbs....................................... 171 Figure 4.64 Body-anchored agreement verbs.......................................................... 172 Figure 4.65 An example for the backward agreement verbs in TİD.................. 173 Figure 4.66 Types of pluralization in agreeing verbs (Sandler & Lillo-Martin, 2006)................................................................... 174 Figure 4.67 Two-handed dual number agreement.................................................. 174 Figure 4.68 An example for the person-number agreement verb in TİD: haber^vermek ‘to ınform.’................................................................. 175 Figure 4.69 An example for the use of spatial verbs in TİD: kİtap Xkoymaky ‘book XputY’ ‘I put the book from here to there.’................................ 177 Figure 4.70 hızlı^çalışmak ‘to work fast’, yavaş^çalışmak ‘to work slowly’, İsteklİ^çalışmak ‘to work wıllıngly’ and gayretle^çalışmak ‘to work dılıgently’ in TİD........................................................................... 179 Figure 4.71 İşaretleşmek ‘to make sıgns’ and akıcı^İşaretleşmek ‘to make sıgns fluently’ in TİD................................................................... 180 Figure 4.72 düşünmek ‘to thınk’ and detaylı^düşünmek ‘to thınk deeply’ in TİD....... 180 Figure 4.73 durmadan^aramak ‘to call endlessly’ and çabucak^unutmak ‘to forget quıckly’ in TİD............................................................................. 181 Figure 4.74 dün ‘yesterday,’ geçen ‘last,’ 2^yıl^önce ‘2^year^before,’ ‘2 years ago,’ in TİD..................................................................................... 183 Figure 4.75 yarın ‘tomorrow,’ 2^hafta^önce ‘2^week^before’ ‘2 weeks later’, and 3^yıl^sonra ‘3^year^later’ ‘3 years later’ in TİD...................... 183 Figure 4.76 ‘bn’ completive aspect in TİD.................................................................. 184 Figure 4.77 ‘ee’ (inceptive aspect) in TİD.................................................................... 185 Figure 4.78 ‘lele’ (progressive aspect) in TİD........................................................... 185 Figure 4.79 An example for the ability modal in TİD............................................... 186 Figure 4.80 An example for the use of permission modal in TİD....................... 187 Figure 4.81 An example for the use of the obligation modal in TİD.................. 187 Figure 4.82 An example for the use of the necessity modal in TİD................... 188 Figure 4.83 An example for reciprocals in simple verbs in TİD........................... 190 Figure 4.84 An example for reciprocals in simple verbs in TİD........................... 190

XXIV TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Figure 4.85 An example for a reciprocal meaning with repetitions of personal pronouns in TİD.......................................................................... 191 Figure 4.86 An example for reciprocity in agreeing verbs in TİD....................... 192 Figure 4.87 An example for reciprocity in agreeing verbs in TİD....................... 192 Figure 4.88 An example for reciprocity in agreeing verbs in TİD....................... 193 Figure 4.89 bıçak ‘knıfe’ and bıçaklamak ‘to stab’ in TİD......................................... 195 Figure 4.90 ‘to work’ and ‘work’ in TİD....................................................................... 195 Figure 4.91 öğretmek ‘to teach’ and öğretmen ‘teacher’ in TİD............................ 196 Figure 4.92 kİlİtlemek ‘to lock’ and anahtar ‘key’ in TİD......................................... 197 Figure 4.93 ödemek ‘to pay’ and ödeme ‘payment’ inTİD.......................................... 197 Figure 4.94 oturmak‘to sıt’ and sandalye ‘chaır’ in TİD............................................ 198 Figure 4.95 yapmak ‘to do’ and yapım ‘doıng’ in TİD................................................. 198 Figure 4.96 evlenmek ‘to marry’ and eş ‘spouse’ in TİD............................................ 199 Figure 4.97 okumak ‘to read’ and okul ‘school’ in TİD............................................ 199 Figure 4.98 karşılaşmak ‘to encounter’ and görüşme ‘ıntervıew’ in TİD............. 200 Figure 4.99 bıçak ‘knıfe’ and bıçaklamak ‘stıck-a-knıfe-ın.’....................................... 201 Figure 4.100 Personal pronouns in TİD.......................................................................... 202 Figure 4.101 Plural personal pronouns in TİD:............................................................ 203 Figure 5.1 spor çeşİtlİ gİtmek ben ‘sport varıous go İ’ ‘I went to various sports.’....... 214 Figure 5.2 farklı şehİr gİtmek lazım ‘different cıty go requıred’ ‘We should go to different cities.’.......................................................... 215 Figure 5.3 An example for the main negation in TİD: değİl ‘not.’..................... 220 Figure 5.4 The existential negation in TİD: yok ‘nonexıst.’................................... 222 Figure 5.5 Negative completion aspect in TİD: “ap”: gİtmek+ap ‘go+ap’............ 223 Figure 5.6 Negative perfective aspect in TİD: hİç ‘never.’................................... 224 Figure 5.7 Modals for negative ability and negative possibility in TİD........... 227 Figure 5.8 Manual negative ability and negative possibility modals in TİD: İmkansİz ‘impossible’ and olumsuz ‘negative.’................................. 228 Figure 5.9 Negative possibility in TİD: olmaz+bgy ve kk ‘not-be+hb and ebr.’................ 229 Figure 5.11 The facial expression in polar questions in TİD................................ 232 Figure 5.12 The question particle in TİD...................................................................... 234 Figure 5.13 yer ‘place’ and nerede ‘where’; number ‘sayı’ and kaç ‘how many’ in TİD........................................................................................... 236 Figure 5.14 Wh-questions n TİD..................................................................................... 237 Figure 6.1 Reference with pointing and imitation: kulak ‘ear’ and köpek ‘dog’..... 245 Figure 6.2 Homonymy in TİD: parça ‘part’ and soğan ‘onıon’, fatura ‘bıll’ and polİs ‘polıce’, and avukat ‘lawyer’ and aksaray (a place name)............................................................................................... 248 Figure 6.3 Homonymy and lexicalization in TİD: fanta ‘fanta’ (a trademark of a beverage) and federasyon ‘federatıon’................ 248

XXV TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Figure 6.4 Examples for polysemy in TİD: kahve / kahverengİ / kafe ‘coffee / brown / coffee shop’, yol / yöntem ‘road / method’, sıcak / yaz / hararet ‘hot / summer / heat’, sır / koyu ‘secret / dark’ and kaçık / özgür / serbest ‘nutcase / free / unrestrıcted’................ 249 Figure 6.5 Examples of synonymy in TİD: yardım1 ‘help1’, yardım2 ‘help2’, üzülmek1 ‘sorrow1’ and üzülmek2 ‘sorrow2’....................................... 250 Figure 6.6 Examples of lexical variation and synonymy in TİD: cumartesİ ‘saturday’ (Istanbul), cumartesİ ‘saturday’ (Ankara), yaş ‘age’ (Izmir) and yaş ‘age’ (Ankara)................................................... 251 Figure 6.7 Examples of borrowing and synonymous signs in TİD: tuvalet ‘restroom’ (TİD), tuvalet ‘restroom / wc’ (Borrowing), İnşallah ‘god wıllıng’ (TİD) and İnşallah ‘god wıllıng’ (Borrowing)................. 252 Figure 6.8 Examples of old and new signs and synonymy in TİD: İstemek1 ‘want1’ and İstemek2 ‘want2’.................................................... 253 Figure 6.9 Examples of complementary antonymy in TİD: yanlış ‘wrong’ and doğru ‘rıght’, sağ ‘rıght’ and sol ‘left’.............. 254 Figure 6.10 Examples of gradable antonymy in TİD: yaşlı ‘old’ and genç ‘young’, zor ‘hard’ and kolay ‘easy’......................................................... 255 Figure 6.11 Examples of relational antonymy in TİD: anne ‘mother’ and baba ‘father’, kadın ‘woman’ and erkek ‘man’......................................... 256 Figure 6.12 yarin ‘tomorrow’, gelecek^yil ‘next^year’, dün ‘yesterday’ and geçen ‘past’ in TİD................................................................................. 257 Figure 6.13 Z-coordinate and the relationship between SPACE-TIME (Pfau, Steinbach & Woll, 2012)................................................................ 258 Figure 6.14 The metaphor of TO UNDERSTAND IS TO CATCH and unutmak ‘forget’, anlamak ‘understand’, and öğrenmek ‘learn’ in TİD........... 259 Figure 6.15 In TİD, the metaphor of GOOD THINGS ARE UP and galİp ‘wınner’ and başarı ‘success’; the metaphor of BAD THINGS ARE DOWN and mağlup ‘loser’ and pİs ‘dırty’.................................... 260 Figure 6.16 An example of idioms: kuş dal^konmak ‘bırd branch^land’............ 267 Figure 6.17 An example of idioms: parmak^ısırmak ‘fınger^bıte’.......................... 267 Figure 6.18 An example of idioms: para yağmak ‘money fall’................................ 268

CHAPTER 1

1

INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

2 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD As it is well-known, languages can be divided into two groups: Natural languages and artificial languages. There are two types of natural languages: Spoken languages such as Turkish, English, Mandarin Chinese, etc., and sign languages such as American Sign Language (ASL), British Sign Language (BSL), Turkish Sign Language (TİD), etc. In addition, there are artificial spoken languages such as Esperanto, Klingon (from Star Trek), Elvish (from The Lord of the Rings), Dothraki (from Game of Thrones), etc. and computer languages such as C++, Pascal, etc. Natural languages (spoken and sign languages) emerge naturally; they are not created artificially. They share common features such as causality and duality found in natural languages. Moreover, they can be investigated from linguistic fields of study, such as phonology, morphology, syntax, and pragmatics. Until now, research has found that there are about 100 sign languages worldwide. The aim of this research is to show the unique grammar of TİD. The present book, which is the first book on Turkish Sign Language grammar, is one of the outputs of a research project supported by the Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies. This chapter first introduces the rationale behind this research, the aims of the study, and the way in which the study was conducted, then presents a general introduction to sign languages (Section 1.1). It goes on to examine the differences between sign languages and spoken languages with regard to language modality (Section 1.2). After that, it highlights the scientific and societal motivations for research on sign languages (Section 1.3), which is followed by a section about the history of scientific research on sign languages (Section 1.4). Section 1.5 provides examples for sign language grammar books on languages other than TİD. The following section (1.6) provides general information about TİD, followed by a discussion of regional variations on its use (Section 1.7). Every research project with a scientific and societal impact should apply the Code of Ethics to establish the highest principles and standards. This book, as one of the outputs of a research project, closely followed ethical guidelines and maintained the utmost respect for participants and communities. To that end, Section 1.8 discusses ethics in sign language research and declares the Turkish Sign Language Research Ethical Principles. Section 1.9 introduces the team that conducted the research project and its methods, presenting the Consent Form and the Language Profile Form (also provided at the end of this

3

4 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR chapter), providing demographic information about participants, outlining the fieldwork, and outlining the procedures for data collection and analysis. The last section summarizes this chapter. The rationale for this study is given below. Article 15 of the Turkish Disability Act states that: Turkish Sign Language is established for deaf education and for deaf communication. The studies toward the establishment, improvement, and use of this system of communication [are] regulated by the Regulation by The Ministry of Family and Social Policies (the coordinator), The Ministry of National Education, and The Turkish Language Association. In addition, due to this Act, Article 1 of the Regulation for the System for the Application of Turkish Sign Language states: ...to support individuals with hearing impairment, language and speech disorders, to analyze and to evaluate sign language from linguistic perspectives, to prepare written and visual materials, to systematize Turkish Sign Language, to educate the sign language translators and teachers and to prevent unsanctioned uses… Following these, a research project entitled the Turkish Sign Language Grammar and Dictionary Project was conducted by the Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies, Directorate General for Person with Disabilities and Elderly Services to create a sign language database / corpus and to use this database to prepare a Turkish Sign Language Grammar Book and Exemplary Dictionary. The project was completed within six months in 2015. Türk İşaret Dili Dilbilgisi Kitabı ‘Turkish Sign Language Grammar Book’ (Dikyuva, Makaroglu, & Arik, 2015) was one of the outputs of the project. The present book is the English version of that book. The aims of this study were the following: 1. to show to what extent TİD grammar is different from spoken languages such as Turkish, 2. to describe TİD’s phonology, morphology, semantics, and syntax, 3. to show lexical regional variations and the meanings of those lexical items, 4. to prepare and publish the “Turkish Sign Language Grammar Book” on the basis of the data collected from “hearing-impaired” individuals living in different areas.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD To reach these aims, this project used methods from various subfields of linguistics, such as computational linguistics, corpus linguistics, and field linguistics, benefited from previous research findings, and applied an ethical code of conduct following international ethical committees and methods specific to sign language research. Deaf participants participated in this study voluntarily. For this study, semi-structured elicitation methods, some of the closest methods to elicit “natural” data, were used. During data collection, the effect of Turkish was minimized. The research team consisted of 15 experts. With the exception of two members, the team consisted of Deaf individuals who were fluent in TİD. During the study, the translation methods from Turkish to TİD or from TİD to Turkish were not applied. TİD is very important for communication among members of the “Deaf Community.” TİD is also very important for individuals who are not Deaf but who may be part of the Deaf community or in contact with them in their daily lives. Therefore, the description of TİD’s linguistic structures is a societal need in Turkey to recognize the Deaf community and to communicate with Deaf individuals. The description of Turkish Sign Language grammar is also very helpful for teachers of hearing-impaired students, TİD translators, individuals who want to learn TİD, researchers who want to conduct scientific study on this language, and so on. Because of this, the increase in the number of hearingimpaired individuals and the impetus of new research into their needs make the description of TİD grammar even more important. Previous research has shown that the use of TİD and its linguistic structures are different from those of the Turkish language. Therefore, it is very clear that an urgent need exists for the description of TİD’s grammar and the investigation of its linguistic structures such as its phonology, morphology, semantics, and syntax. Yet no such book was previously available. Grammar books on sign languages are available for the sign languages used in many countries, such as the USA, Germany, Australia, and the Netherlands. Those books are in use in education, in health care, and in other societal domains. The present book fulfills these needs of the Deaf and hearing communities in Turkey, opens new research pathways into this language, and contributes to linguistic studies on sign languages.

5

6 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR In the present study, data were collected from a total of 113 TİD Deaf users (50 females, 63 males) who are residents of 26 cities across Turkey. Aged between 12 and 60, these participants are native TİD signers who were deaf from birth or who lost their hearing between the ages of 0 and 3. None of these participants had physical or mental problems. If so, their language production might have been affected. To minimize the effect of the Turkish language, data were not collected from CODAs (hearing children of Deaf adults) or late signers who learned TİD as children or adults. Data were collected in the cities in which the participants resided. When needed, the research team contacted the participants online by using software such as Skype after the data collection. Before data collection, the participants filled in the Consent Form and the Language Profile Form given in written Turkish and explained in TİD. Two HD cameras and other tools were used to create a portable and professional data collection environment. Only Deaf individuals were present during videorecording sessions. The videorecording sessions amounted to 6,240 minutes, which created a database consisting of 800,000 signs. Due to time constraints, only 180,000 signs of this corpus were transcribed by the Deaf research assistants using Eudico Language Annotator (ELAN) software. The book, as one of the outputs of this research project, is comparable to similar books on other sign languages (e.g., Neidle, Kegl, MacLaughlin, Bahan, & Gee, 1999; Sutton-Spence, Rachel, & Woll, 1999; Johnston & Schembri, 2007) with respect to the number of participants and the methods in use. While the other studies had only several participants, the present study had 113 Deaf participants. The other studies did not collect and analyze data from participants living all over their countries, while the present study included participants from 26 cities (four participants from each) in six regions of Turkey. In this way, regional variations at the lexical level were detected, which eventually contributed to the dictionary being prepared. The other studies used mostly grammaticality judgments as a method of data collection, whereas the present study not only applied semi-structured elicitation tools but also used pictures and videos to elicit data.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD 1.1 Things that need to be known about sign languages Similar to spoken languages, sign languages are natural languages but the literature on sign languages is less complete than that on spoken languages. As found in spoken languages such as Turkish, English, Mandarin Chinese, and so on, sign languages such as American Sign Language, British Sign Language, Turkish Sign Language, etc., also have word / sign formations, word / sign orders, interrogatives, meaning formations, grammatical rules, etc. In other words, linguistically speaking, sign languages are as rich and complex as spoken languages. For example, sign languages can convey not only concrete meanings (e.g., cat, book, etc.) but also abstract meanings (e.g., mind, intelligence, religion, etc.). Sign languages can be used in theatre, poetry, and literature. There is more than one sign language all over the world. In fact, research has shown that there are more than 100 natural sign languages all over the world. Having learned one sign language does not lead to proficiency in another one. For example, similar to how a Turkish speaker learns English, a TİD signer learns American Sign Language. Being a hearing-impaired or a Deaf individual is not sufficient to be proficient in a sign language. As in other parts of the world, in Turkey many deaf people do not know any sign language. In contrast, they use what is called homesigning systems developed by their family members (Goldin-Meadow, 2005). Only about 5% of Deaf people are native signers. The rest learn a sign language when they are enrolled in schools for the Deaf and when they become members of Deaf clubs and associations. Furthermore, sign languages are not derived from spoken languages. For example, while English is the main language spoken in the USA, the UK, and Australia, sign languages in those countries are different from one another: American Sign Language (ASL), British Sign Language (BSL), and Australian Sign Language (AUSLAN), respectively. These three sign languages are neither derived from English nor have the same grammar. A common misunderstanding about sign languages is that sign languages are merely signed words. Sign languages are not equal to spoken words translated into signs word by word. This creates gibberish. Sign languages have unique grammars. A misconception exists that a sign language in a culture / country is derived from the spoken language used in the same culture / country. However,

7

8 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR not only are sign languages not derived from spoken languages but also there is not a single sign language used in all the cultures / countries (Emmorey, 2003; Dikyuva & Zeshan, 2008, p. 15). The sign language in each culture is unique and has its own grammatical and meaning structures. Furthermore, sign languages are not affixal languages such as Turkish. Not being an affixal language does not mean they are “weak” languages. In fact, most of the languages in the world are not affixal languages. Additionally, some languages have a few suffixes but several prefixes. Having no suffixes for time (e.g., morphological tense markers) does not mean that sign languages are inferior languages. For example, Mandarin Chinese, the language with the most speakers in the world, does not have tense markers such as markers for past tense or future (non-past) tense.

1.2 Some differences between sign languages and spoken languages (language modality) Sign languages and spoken languages are similar to each other with respect to their societal and cognitive roles (Sandler & Lillo-Martin, 2006) but differ from each other in the way they construct the language or their language modality. Sign languages use a visual-gestural system whereas spoken languages use an auditory-vocal system. Because of the differences in the language modality, sign languages use the hands, the torso, and the face, while spoken languages use the lips, the mouth, the tongue, or articulatory gestures (MacSweeney et al., 2008). For this reason, spatial relations in language production are more important in sign languages than in spoken languages (Bellugi et al., 1989). From phonological and morphological perspectives, differences exist between signed and spoken languages. Spoken languages produce sounds and perceive them using an auditory system. Sign languages have (at least) four different parameters in language production: handshape, orientation, location, and movement. When one of the sounds in a word changes in spoken languages, the meaning of the word can be altered. The pair of sounds that changes the meaning is called minimal pairs. In TİD, too, when a change exists in four parameters, the meaning can be altered. Therefore, TİD has minimal pairs as well (Makaroğlu, Bekar, & Arık, 2013). Consider pazar ‘sunday’ and acele ‘hurry’.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD From a phonological perspective, pazar ‘sunday’ and acele ‘hurry’ in TİD have the same movement and location but differ in handshapes, while pazar ‘sunday’ has a handshape in which only the index finger is selected and acele ‘hurry’ selects both index and middle fingers (Figure 1.1).

pazar ‘sunday’

acele ‘hurry’

Figure 1.1 pazar ‘sunday’ and acele ‘hurry’ as an example of minimal pairs in TİD. TİD and Turkish differ from each other morphologically. As shown in Figure 1(a-b), case markers as suffixes are attached to noun phrases in Turkish but TİD has no overt case markers (Makaroğlu & Ergenç, 2015). (1) Cases in TİD and Turkish a. Ben dün okul-a gittim.

(dative case, Turkish)

I yesterday school-DAT go-PAST-3sg b. ben dün okul gİtmek (TİD) ‘I went to the school yesterday.’ TİD and Turkish also differ from each other intonationally in yes-no questions (see Figure 1.2a). In Turkish the pitch gets lower on the question particle, while in TİD the pitch (i.e., eyebrow movement) gets higher throughout the sentence (see Figure 1.2b). There are also significant differences in TİD and Turkish in wh-questions (Gökgöz & Arık, 2011).

9

10 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR (2) Yes-No questions in TİD and Turkish

Figure 1.2a Ali book read-PAST ↑ Q-particle ↓ (Fidan, 2002).

kurs ‘lesson’

İstemek ‘want’

Figure 1.2b lesson want? (Makaroğlu, 2013).

As shown in the examples above, TİD grammar and Turkish grammar differ from each other. For this reason, there is a need for studies on TİD grammar based on these differences and from a linguistic perspective.

1.3 Why do we study sign languages? Despite the language modality differences, signed and spoken languages are similar to each other in a variety of ways. For example, because of these

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

11

similarities, research can be conducted on language emergence, language contact, language acquisition, factors affecting communication, grammar, word order, etc. in both types of languages. Research on only spoken languages may not help us understand the human language capacity. Sign language research can provide new insights into natural human communication systems. For example, research on Nicaraguan Sign Language (Senghas, Kita, & Özyürek, 2004) and Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (Sandler, Meir, Padden, & Aronoff, 2005) provided strong evidence for the ways in which natural languages emerged, how they changed over time, and how linguistic rules emerged. Moreover, sign languages are a “must” for local Deaf (sub)cultures. Research must be done on sign languages to officially recognize them and promote their use in the daily lives of individuals in education, health care, business, and politics so as to avoid ignoring this subculture. Thus, studying both signed and spoken languages is very important for the scientific literature and Deaf communities.

1.4 The history of scientific research on sign languages The first scientific studies on sign languages were conducted in the Netherlands by Tervoort (1953) and in the USA by Stokoe (1960). From those studies on, sign language studies have accelerated exponentially. Today, sign language studies are very diverse from not only linguistic, sociolinguistic, and psycholinguistic perspectives but also from educational, medical, and computational perspectives. In recent years, three handbooks on sign language research have been published: Sandler & Lillo-Martin (2006), Brentari (2010), and Pfau et al. (2012). Sign language research has been indexed in the Web of Science, one of the most respected databases for scientific studies. According to the Web of Science indices, there are 2460 publications in 14 languages published by researchers from 66 countries between 1980-2013. Of these publications, 95.24% are in English and 49.71% are authored by researchers from the USA. Our research showed that, in this database, the first sign language research was published in 1902. There has been an increase in publications on sign language in recent years. Of these publications, 86.26% were published between 1990-

12 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 2013. However, each sign language is not equally represented: 63.46% of the publications were on ASL and 9.33% of the publications were on BSL. These publications are from diverse fields of study, from psychology to computer sciences. However, most of the publications are from psychology (25.6%), linguistics (20.93%), and rehabilitation (20.48%). Furthermore, the authors of these studies are from 66 countries, yet almost half the publications are from the USA (49.71%) followed by the UK (9.59%) and Canada (4.67%) (Arık, 2014). There are publications about 40 different sign languages in Web of Science. Of them, most are on ASL (721) followed by BSL (106). By June 2015, there were 11 publications on TİD indexed in Web of Science. These were Makaroglu, Bekar, & Arık (2014), Arık (2013, 2012a, 2012b, 2011), Zwitserlood et al. (2012), Kose et al. (2012), Demir (2010), Özyürek et al. (2010), and Haberdar & Albayrak (2006, 2005). In addition to the publications, scientific activities on sign languages have increased in recent years. The international conference Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research – TISLR first gathered in 1979. Since then, this conference has been repeated about every three years. There are also many other conferences where sign language researchers / linguists publish their research (see http://www.slls.edu). Moreover, the Sign Language Linguistics Society was established in 2004. Since 1998 the journal Sign Language and Linguistics and since 2000 the journal Sign Language Studies have published and disseminated research on sign languages internationally. There are also important developments in the field of education. In addition to classical studies such as deafness and deaf education, new graduate programs have been established focusing on sign language linguistics. Among them are Gallaudet University in the US, the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, Hamburg University in Germany, and Jyväskylä University in Finland. In the UK, University College London has two graduate programs focusing on sign language studies.1 Research has shown that signs consist of manual signs (handshapes, locations, and movements), nonmanual signs (facial expressions, head 1

For a recent survey, please visit http://turkishsignlanguage.enginarik.com/sign-languagestudies-higher-education

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

13

movements, and torso movements), and the signing space, the space surrounding signers. All of these contribute to sign language phonology, morphology, syntax, and discourse. There are about 100 sign languages in the world. Some of them, such as French Sign Language (LSF) and ASL, are related to each other historically. Some others, such as Nicaraguan Sign Language and Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language, have emerged very recently. TİD is a very important sign language because it is believed that TİD is one of the oldest sign languages in the world. Moreover, TİD is not related to any other sign language historically. It is not derived from another sign language. Thus, it has its own unique grammar.

1.5 Books on sign language grammar / linguistics There are many scientific studies and popular books about sign languages, yet there are few grammar books about sign languages. To our knowledge, more than one grammar book has been published on ASL and BSL. In this section, two of them are introduced (Valli et al., 1992; Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999). Among others, there are two additional grammar books worth mentioning. One of them is on Australian Sign Language (AUSLAN) (Johnston & Schembri, 2007), and the other is on Israeli Sign Language (ISL) (Meir & Sandler, 2007). These two are also introduced in this section. Valli, C., Lucas, C., Mulrooney, K. J., & Villanueva, M. (1992, 1st edition; 2011, 5th edition). Linguistics of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. This book by Valli et al. is the most extensive grammar book on ASL. There are only five ASL deaf signers used as models. The table of contents of the book is the following: Introduction, Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Chapters on language use. Chapter 1 is devoted to the basic concepts used in the book. Chapter 2 focuses on sign language phonology from sign constituents, the Stokoe system, simultaneity, the Movement-Hold model, and formational issues. Morphology is the topic of Chapter 3. This chapter starts by comparing morphology and phonology, followed by nouns derived from verbs, compounding signs, lexicalized fingerspelling, borrowed signs, numeral incorporation, the use of space, classifiers, verbs with classifiers, aspect, subjectverb agreement, nouns, tense, derivation and inflection, and so on.

14 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR ASL syntax is the topic of Chapter 4. This chapter explains relevant definitions, simple sentences, agreeing verbs, and simple sentence structure. Chapter 5 focuses on Semantics. This chapter introduces semantic analyses of signs and sentences. The last chapter discusses language use. This chapter explains language variation and historical change, ASL discourse, bilingualism and language contact, and the use of sign language in poetry and narration. Sutton-Spence, R., & Woll, B. (1999). Linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This book, which was published in 1999, is the first grammar book on BSL. Seven BSL models are featured in this book. The topics of this book are the following: Linguistics and sign language linguistics, BSL and its social context, Sign sentence structures, Interrogatives and negation, Mouthings and facial expressions, Morphology and morpheme, Aspect, manner, and mood, Space and verb types, Gestures and sign structures, Visual motivation and metaphors, The established and productive lexicon, Borrowing and name signs, Socially unacceptable signs, and Extended use of language in BSL. Chapter 1, Linguistics and sign language linguistics, explains whether BSL is a full / natural language, its difference from sign-supported spoken language, fingerspelling, differences between BSL and signed English, and so on. After that, in BSL and its social context, the following issues are discussed: social variation in BSL depending on social class, age, dialect, regional variations, gender differences, ethnicity, religion, different spoken language identities, attitudes toward BSL, history of BSL and new signs, and language standardization. Chapter 3 focuses on pronouns, verb structures, classifiers, word order, adjectives, the use of tense, interrogatives, and nouns and verbs. Chapter 4 focuses on asking questions and negation covering yes-no questions, wh-questions, and rhetorical/sentential questions. The sections that cover negation introduce facial expressions, head movements, and negative signs. Chapter 5 is devoted to mouthings and facial expressions, which covers mouthings and mouth movements, adverbials, and negation related to them. The following sections discuss the use of facial expressions in minimal pairs, interrogatives, emotional expressions, head nods and headshakes, and the use of eye gaze in differentiating signs and role taking. Chapter 6 focuses on morphology and morpheme, describing what morpheme is in BSL, pluralization, verbal morphology, nouns, verbs, and adjectives in BSL.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

15

Chapter 7 is devoted to aspect, manner, and mood in BSL. This chapter explains the use of time, aspectual inflections, and static and dynamic event descriptions in BSL. Chapter 8 describes spatial and verbal types. This chapter focuses on the linguistic and topographic use of space, verb types, space and verbs, plain verbs, agreeing verbs, spatial verbs, verb sandwiches, and serial verbs. Chapter 9 describes gestures and sign structures, while Chapter 10 focuses on visual motivation and metaphors. This chapter also explains iconicity and motivated sign structures. In addition, the use of metaphors and idioms in BSL are explained. Chapter 11 describes the established and productive lexicon. This chapter explains how lexical items become productive using derivations and inflections. It focuses on pronominal and adverbial inflection, size and shape specifiers, and simultaneity and simultaneous signs. Chapter 12 takes into account borrowings from English, the effects of fingerspelling, the effects of bilingualism, and name signs. Chapter 13 describes socially unacceptable signs, focusing on taboo signs, swear signs, signs for degradation, politically correct signs, and euphemisms. The last chapter is about the extended uses of BSL in poetry, narratives, and humor and their linguistic structures. Johnston, T. & Schembri, A. (2007). Australian Sign Language (AUSLAN): An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This book, published in 2007 by Johnston & Schembri, is the first linguistic book on AUSLAN. The table of contents of the book is the following: Sign languages and linguistics, AUSLAN’s place in the society, AUSLAN and other sign languages, Phonetics and phonology, Morphology, Lexicon, Syntax, Semantics and pragmatics, Discourse, and Various problems in sign language research. Chapter 1 of this book is about Sign languages and linguistics. This chapter starts with the definitions of language and linguistics followed by misconceptions about sign languages, the history of sign language research, and sign languages and gestures. Chapter 2 focuses on AUSLAN in a social context. It starts with deaf society and its use of AUSLAN, which is followed by topics such as bilingualism and language variation. Chapter 3 is about AUSLAN and other sign languages. This chapter starts with Aboriginal Sign Language

16 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR followed by a discussion of the relationship between AUSLAN and BSL and Irish Sign Language. This chapter also provides information about newly emerged sign languages. Chapter 4 is about phonetics and phonology. This chapter deals with sign structures, national systems, sign types, manual signs, nonmanual signs, rules, simultaneity and sequentiality, syllables, and phonological processes. Chapter 5 is on morphology, discussing morpheme, inflectional and derivational morphology. Chapter 6 is about lexicon, sentence types and constituency, topic questions, topicalization, rhetorical questions, negation, complex sentence structures, coordination, and basic word order in AUSLAN. Chapter 8 is about semantics and pragmatics. This chapter deals with meaning types, sign and sentence meaning, iconicity, and metaphor in AUSLAN. Discourse is the topic of Chapter 9. This chapter discusses information structure in detail. The last chapter focuses on difficulties in sign language research and ways to address them. Meir, I. & Sandler, W. (2007). A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. This book, published in 2007, is the first linguistic book on ISL. The book uses eight ISL signers as models. The book is divided into three parts. The table of contents is the following: ISL and its users, Word structure, Lexicon, Pronouns, Verb agreement, Tense and aspect, Word order, Classifiers, Negation and interrogation, Facial expressions, The history of Israeli Deaf society, The emergence of ISL and its development, Voices from Deaf society, The differences and similarities among sign languages, and Contributions of sign language research to linguistics. The first chapter is devoted to ISL and its users. This chapter starts with misconceptions about sign languages, followed by other sign languages. It then introduces the book. Chapter 2 is about ISL grammar, focusing on handshapes, hand movements, and the signing space. The following sections are about phonetics and simultaneity and sequentiality in sign languages. Chapter 3 discusses plain and complex signs. In addition, this chapter highlights ISL as a dynamic language with emerging signs, borrowings, and poetry. Chapter

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

17

4 focuses on pronominals and the signing space, dealing with pronouns, pronominals, and role taking. Chapter 5 is devoted to verb agreement, discussing agreement in sign languages, particularly in ISL, morphological agreement, and agreeing verbs. Tenses and aspect are the topics of Chapter 6. This chapter deals with aspects of ISL, comparing ISL and Hebrew and time expressions. Chapter 7 focuses on classifiers. This chapter discusses size and shape classifiers, handling classifiers, entity classifiers, and when to use them in detail. In addition, this chapter compares classifiers in sign languages and those in spoken languages. Chapter 8 is devoted to syntax, focusing on topic-comment order, word order in possessive constructions, and topic-comment orders in other languages. Negation and interrogation are the topics of Chapter 9. This chapter deals with negative sentences, negative signs, negative markers, and linguistic rules related to negation. After that, this section explains yes-no questions, wh-questions, and sentential questions in ISL. Chapter 10 deals with facial expressions in ISL. The chapter starts with prosody of facial expressions, intonation, eyebrow movements, eye squints, rhythm, morphology of facial expressions, mouth movements and mouthings, and emotional expressions in ISL. Chapter 11 focuses on the history of Israeli Deaf society. The chapter introduces the emergence of Deaf society, schools for the Deaf, the educational system, changes in attitude toward ISL, and Israeli Deaf society today. Chapter 12 deals with the emergence of ISL and its development, discussing the effects of other sign languages on ISL and the development of the lexicon. Voices from Deaf society are in Chapter 13. The last two chapters discuss the differences between and similarities among sign languages and the contributions of sign language research to linguistics. As shown above, there are several grammar books about other sign languages but none on TİD prior to the present book. This project fills that gap. The grammar books about other sign languages use about eight models, but this project includes as models 113 Deaf participants living in 26 cities in Turkey, which makes this book more comprehensive as compared to books on the other sign languages.

18 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 1.6 Turkish Sign Language (TİD) It is believed that TİD is one of the oldest sign languages in the world. It is not related to any other sign language historically. That means TİD is not derived from another sign language, but has its own unique grammar. The first study on TİD was a dictionary (word list) prepared by the Turkish Ministry of Education in 1995. Scientific research on TİD began in the 2000s. The first researchers studying TİD scientifically were Aslı Özyürek, Engin Arık, Deniz İlkbaşaran, Hasan Dikyuva, and Ulrike Zeshan. Today, researchers in Turkey and abroad are working on TİD. The researchers in Turkey are affiliated with Ankara, Boğaziçi, Gazi, and Hacettepe Universities, among others. In recent years, there has been an increase in interest in TİD from both societal and scientific perspectives. TİD was first discussed in the Meeting for Habilitation and Rehabilitation of Hearing Impairments by the state-run Board of Impairments on June 7-8, 2001. This meeting had a workshop on Extending the Use of Turkish Sign Language, which created a report about what to do on this subject. The Ministry of Education, universities, NGOs, “hearing-impaired” individuals, and their families supported this declaration. This report suggested the preparation of a law. With Article 15 of The Disability Act (Law no. 5378), the existence of TİD was accepted: Turkish Sign Language is established for deaf education and for deaf communication. The studies toward the establishment, improvement, and use of this system of communication [are] regulated by the Regulation by The Ministry of Family and Social Policies (the coordinator), The Ministry of National Education, and The Turkish Language Association. In addition, due to this act, Article 1 of the Regulation for the System for the Application of Turkish Sign Language stated: ...to support individuals with hearing impairment, language and speech disorders, to analyze and to evaluate sign language from linguistic perspectives, to prepare written and visual materials, to systematize Turkish Sign Language, to educate sign language translators and teachers and to prevent unaccepted applications…

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

19

was published in the Turkish Official Gazette (no. 26139) on April 14, 2006. With this regulation, the Turkish Language Association (head), the Turkish Ministry of Education, and the Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies became responsible for the linguistic analysis and evaluation of TİD, preparation of educational materials, systemization of TİD, education of sign language translators and teachers, and prevention of wrongdoings (Change:RG-21/6/2012-28330). In addition, the Turkish Sign Language Scientific Approval Board was established. With Law no. 6518, the Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies became the coordinator of this organization. The first scientific studies on TİD can be summarized as the following: Master’s theses by Açan (2001) and Arık (2003) as well as journal articles by Zeshan (2002, 2003). See the Turkish Sign Language Bibliography for the compilation (Arık, 2012-2015). According to this bibliography, by the end of 2013 there were two articles in national newspapers, 19 journal articles, 17 conference proceedings, three books, 18 book chapters, two doctoral dissertations (Açan, 2007; Arık, 2009), eight master’s theses (Açan, 2001; Arık, 2003; Sevinç, 2006; Kubuş, 2008; Gökgöz, 2009; Dikyuva, 2011; Makaroğlu, 2012; Taşçı, 2012; Özkul, 2013), and more than 100 conference presentations. In the Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science, seven articles were found with the keyword “Turkish Sign Language” on December 19, 2013: Haberdar & Albayrak, 2005, 2006; Özyürek, Zwitserlood, & Perniss, 2010; Demir, 2010; Arık, 2011, 2012a, 2012b. It is expected that there will be an increase in the number of publications in the coming years. 1.7 Turkish Sign Language and regional variations As observed in other natural languages (Labov, 1994; Aitchison, 1991), TİD changes over time. Yet these changes appear to be at the lexical level. If there was a change in grammar, there would have been changes in the language as well, suggesting that there would have been an increase in grammatical differences resulting in miscommunication among users. Previous research suggested otherwise: There is no grammatical change but lexical change in TİD (Arık, 2013, 2012-2015). For example, there are versions of

cumartesİ ‘saturday’

used in different regions. Although lived in very diverse areas, speakers of Old Turkish could have understood each other. Today, however, grammatical differences exist among

20 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Anatolian Turkish (Wright, 1999). Therefore, for example, Anatolian Turkish and Kyrgyz are hardly mutually intelligible. From a historical perspective, these two languages were derived from the same language but today they share fewer grammatical structures; therefore, they are two different languages. From this perspective, the users of TİD living across Turkey have no difficulty understanding each other because there are no grammatical differences. However, there are lexical differences because of social needs, borrowings from Turkish, and meaning differences and meaning extensions. To provide an example from Turkish, there are two words, gevrek and simit, meaning “bagel” in Turkish. Except in Izmir, simit is used across Turkey. However, this does not mean that the languages spoken in Izmir and in the rest of Turkey, for example in Istanbul, differ from each other. For instance, if the negative marker in Ankara, -mA, were used as in yap-MI-yor-um and if the negative marker in İstanbul were -sA as in yap-SA-yor-um, it could have been inferred that these two languages were different. That is not the case. In TİD, the negative sign, değİl ‘not’, is the same all over Turkey. Lexical differences emerge for a variety of reasons. For example, there are seven words in Arabic to describe the color of camel hair; each refers to a variety of hues of brown. There are no correspondences for these colors in Turkish because, most likely, there is no need for them in the daily lives of Turkish people. For example, kaldirik is the name of an edible plant found in the Black Sea region of Turkey. Because this plant is found only in that region, a name has been given to it and is used in that region only. As discussed above, lexical differences do not cause any difficulty during communication among people using different words from the same language. As observed in other sign languages (Padden, 1983; Aronoff & Padden, in press), TİD has agreeing verbs which mark the beginning (e.g., subject) and end (e.g., object) of the same event. However, in Turkish there is only subjectverb agreement. For example, in Ben seni gördüm, -m attaching the verb to the end of the sentence marks the first person, the subject, yet no morphological marker exists for the object attaching the verb. In contrast, in TİD, there must be markers for both the subject and the object of the sentence. For example, that sentence would have been Ben seni görüyorumsun in Turkish if Turkish were similar to TİD in terms of subject-object-verb agreement. Therefore, TİD and Turkish are very different languages in the ways they mark agreement.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

21

One of the unique aspects of sign languages is producing two signs at the same time (Vermerbergen et. al., 2007). In spoken languages such as Turkish, the words ben and gidiyorum in the sentence Ben gidiyorum cannot be uttered at the same time, but instead are uttered sequentially. Yet in sign languages, more than one word can be signed simultaneously. The sentence Bir elimde şemsiye diğer elimde çanta tutarak telaşlı şekilde yürüyordum ‘(appr.) I have an umbrella in one of my hands and a bag in another while walking hastily can be an example of this (Figure 1.3) as it is signed simultaneously. These constructions are rarely found in daily communication but they can often be observed in signing about pictures and movies.

Figure 1.3 An example from picture production test: şemsİye+çanta+telaşla yürümek ‘umbrella+bag+walk hastily’.

Another unique linguistic aspect of sign languages is the linguistic structure of interrogative sentences. There are two types of interrogative sentences: Yesno questions and Wh-questions. In yes-no questions, question words such as who, what, and why cannot be used (e.g., sen okula gittin mi? ‘Did you go to the school?’). These words can be used only in wh-questions (e.g., neden okula gittin? ‘Why did you go to the school?’). From a phonological perspective, the same prosody is used in the two types of questions in Turkish. However, in TİD, the uses of linguistic markers such as eyebrows and head movements change depending on the type of questions (Makaroğlu, 2012). Previous studies showed that there is nonmanual eyebrow raising in yes-no questions but eyebrow lowering in wh-questions in TİD.

22 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Another unique linguistic aspect of sign languages is the use of fingerspelling (Padden, 1991). Regional variations exist in the use of fingerspelling in TİD. As already known, in natural languages, spoken or signed language is the primary system, whereas written language is the secondary system, which is artificial. Early human beings communicated with each other by speaking or signing; written systems emerged only a few thousand years ago (Corballis, 2009). That is why most researchers focus on natural languages spoken or signed. Changes in languages at the lexical level are expected naturally. However, changes in written systems do not affect spoken languages. For example, when the writing system was changed in Turkey in 1928, Turkish speakers did not change their language. The only thing that changed was the script they used, from Arabic to Latin. There is no written form of TİD or of other sign languages (or of most of the 7000 spoken languages worldwide). There have been some studies to create writing systems for signs worldwide (Sutton, 2000) with little success. One of the reasons for this is language modality, as spoken languages use vocal productions but sign languages use visual productions with more than one articulator. In addition, signers can produce more than one sign simultaneously. The examples below provide the written forms for sıgn and language in BSL.

Figure 1.4 sıgn written in sign writing.

Figure 1.5 language written in sign writing.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

23

As observed in other sign languages, fingerspelling in TİD has been influenced by the script (i.e., Latin) used in the surrounding community. Therefore, fingerspelling in TİD is not only an artificially created system but also depended on Turkish. This can be observed in ASL as well, since ASL contains fingerspelled letters such as Q, W, and X, which are used in written forms of English. Because fingerspelling is an artificial system, regional variations exist in some of the fingerspelled letters. TİD users know all forms of these fingerspelled letters, for example, three forms of E. When asked, participants may produce only one, but this does not mean they are aware of the other forms. Previous research showed that fingerspelling can occur in 5-6% of natural conversations in sign languages (Akamatsu & Stewart, 1989). Some evidence exists for this depending on the method applied. When signers are asked to talk about terms for which they do not know the signed forms, they use fingerspelling. For example, when asked the sign for ‘foreign exchange’, they prefer fingerspelling, k-a-m-b-İ-y-o, because there is no sign for this term in TİD. So far it has been discussed whether grammatical differences exist across cities, which would not be expected. However, there could be some lexical differences in the use of TİD across regions. As expected, it was found that there are some lexical differences across cities but not grammatical differences. Otherwise, there might be more than one dialect of TİD or even more than one language. Consider the following. The sign konmak, ‘to land’ in Muğla, means to sit. In Ankara, it is used for animals to land on something, such as a branch of a tree, while in Muğla it is used for people to sit at home (Figure 1.6).

Figure 1.6 konmak ‘land’ in TİD in Muğla region.

24 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR In TİD there are two versions of

hasta

‘sick’, meaning a person who gets

worse because of their health condition. However, it is important to further investigate whether these two versions have submeanings because any two words can mean the same thing but their usage can be different in context. For example, in Turkish there are two words meaning white: ak and beyaz. While it is possible to use beyaz in painting, as in duvarı beyaza boyayalım ‘Let’s paint the wall white’, it is not acceptable to use ak in painting as in *duvarı aka boyayalım. Every natural language borrows words from other natural languages (Haugen, 1950; Battison, 1978, 1989). TİD, too, has borrowed words / signs from other spoken or signed languages. Depending on the types of borrowings, words / signs can be grouped in a variety of ways (see Section 4.4.7). Languages can borrow words from other languages even if they have words for the same meanings. For example, in Turkish, even though there is a word, belgelendirme, meaning ‘documentation,’ it borrowed from English the word dokümantasyon, which has the same meaning (with some phonotactical changes). At times, there could be changes in their submeanings or usage depending on the context. Today, belgelendirme is used to document research findings but not for reports, suggesting that the two words differ from each other depending on the context, similar to ak and beyaz discussed above. For example, Beyaz bir kâğıt verir misin? ‘Give me a white paper?’ is an acceptable sentence but *Ak bir kağıt verir misin? is not, suggesting that words with the same meaning must differ from one another in their usage to avoid becoming obsolete. TİD, too, borrows words from both signed and spoken languages. As discussed above, when borrowed, words can change in the target language depending on their usage, or phonotactics. As shown above, the use of dokümantasyon, ‘documentation’, in Turkish and its phonological characteristics slightly differ from that of ‘documentation’ in English even though it was originally borrowed from English. The same can be observed in the word Istanbul, which was stan-poli originally and borrowed from Greek. Over time, it changed phonologically following Turkish phonotactics. Consider the following. In TİD, signs such as

lazım, lİse,

and

lokal

are derived from the fingerspelled

letter L, which is borrowed from written Turkish. Similar to what happened to ‘Istanbul’, the fingerspelled L underwent some changes in TİD, resulting in the three different words (Figure 1.7)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

lazım ‘requıred’

Figure 1.7

lİse ‘hıgh school’

25

lokal ‘club’

lazım ‘requıred,’ lİse ‘hıgh school,’

and lokal ‘club’ in TİD.

When borrowed, words with affixes may lose their morphological structures. For example, the suffix –At in Arabic is a plural marker. When Turkish borrowed words with this suffix, it was no longer a plural marker. While hayvan-at ‘animal-s’ in Arabic means ‘animals,’ it means generic ‘animal’ in Turkish. This suggests that when languages borrow words from each other, they keep their own grammatical / morphological structures intact. Yet borrowed words are naturalized to become part of the lexicon. In this study, this was also observed in TİD. The examples above are examples of full borrowings, but partial borrowings also exist. In this study, it was found that TİD has partial borrowings. For example,

g

+

tümce ‘g

+

sentence

/

grammar’

means dilbilgisi, ‘grammar,’ in

TİD. While g is borrowed from written English, tümce is part of the TİD lexicon. One of the reasons that TİD has partial borrowings is that TİD is a visual 3D language which benefits from 3D images in production. For example, to interrupt somebody who is talking, Turkish speakers say söz kesmek ‘(lit.) word cut,’ meaning ‘interruption,’ but TİD signers say el kesmek ‘(lit.) hand cut’. While söz ‘word’ is a 2D abstract word, el ‘hand’ is a 3D concrete word in TİD. Therefore, changes in lexicon also reflect the structure of the language. More than 100 studies (Arık, 2013, 2012-2015)2 have so far shown that Turkish Deaf society uses TİD in their daily lives. Yet, in Turkey there could be other sign languages in use as well. Research showed that in the city of Mardin 2

For an updated TİD bibliography, please visit http://turkishsignlanguage.enginarik.com/bibliography

26 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR in Turkey, a family consisting of 80 individuals with the last name Dilsiz ‘(lit.) without a language’ uses what is called Mardin Sign Language (Dikyuva, 2012). This language is a dying language and only individuals 70 years of age and older in the same family use it. Most members of the family no longer reside in Mardin. Since they moved to Izmir or Istanbul, they learned TİD and started using TİD instead of Mardin Sign Language in their daily lives. In sign language literature, sign languages are divided into three groups: National sign languages, community sign languages, and home sign languages or homesigning systems (Zeshan & de Vos, 2012). TİD is used by a very large community and has approximately more than 100,000 users. Mardin Sign Language, as a dying language, has been used by only single family members. Therefore, as a community sign language, Mardin Sign Language is similar to languages with 20-30 speakers found only, for example, in Africa. Home sign languages, or homesigning systems, are not developed as full-fledged sign languages (Goldin-Meadow, 2005). These systems are used by families with Deaf children and hearing parents. Thus, TİD is the national sign language in Turkey used legally in, for example, the Turkish Radio-TV Broadcast. One of the biggest misconceptions about TİD is that huge variations exist across regions and that there are no standards. As discussed above, the existence of more than one form meaning the same thing does not mean this language has no grammar or rules. This is observed in natural languages, suggesting that language change can be found at the lexical level. In this study, therefore, it was found that TİD has grammatical rules that applied to all the regions. 1.8 Ethics of sign language research Ethical rules and guidelines should be followed in scientific research. To that end, regulations for responsible codes of conduct or research ethics have been published for scientific organizations (e.g., American Psychological Association Ethical Principles, Turkish Psychological Association Ethical Principles, Linguistic Society of America Ethics Statement, Sign Language Linguistics Society Ethics Statement, etc.). On the basis of these regulations, the present study prepared a Turkish Sign Language Studies Ethics Statement and followed it very strictly.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

27

1.8.1 Turkish Sign Language Research Ethical Principles 1. Turkish Sign Language is a natural language of the Deaf community. The people who conduct / run the study cannot “change” or “improve” Turkish Sign Language in any way. 2. To conduct / run a study on Turkish Sign Language, people should have some proficiency in Turkish Sign Language and have knowledge of Deaf culture. If they do not, people can conduct the study with the help of sign language translators. In this case, there may be some (unavoidable) mistakes due to translation. Therefore, to conduct / run a study on Turkish Sign Language, people should learn Turkish Sign Language with the help of Deaf signers and benefit from their linguistic knowledge. 3. Ethics code should be followed to conduct / run a study on Turkish Sign Language. 4. In Turkish Sign Language Studies, the maximum benefit should be aimed at society and the Deaf community. 5. In Turkish Sign Language Studies, individuals, groups, society, and the Deaf community should not be harmed in any way. Information obtained as a result of the study cannot be abused. The people who conduct the study and participants are equal to each other. 6. Before the study begins, the people who conduct the study should inform participants about the study in detail. This information should be provided in written Turkish and in Turkish Sign Language. 7. No one can be forced to participate in the study. The people who conduct the study cannot force participants to act or produce language in the way researchers desire. 8. Every participant can leave the study at any time they want. If they leave the study early, they still have the right to claim full participation. 9. Without the consent of participants, the results obtained from the study cannot be used or shared with others. 10. The aims of the study cannot be kept secret. The people who conduct the study must clearly inform participants about the aims of the study, financial matters, and the way the results are to be used.

28 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 11. Information and documents obtained from the study cannot be used for financial gain unless declared. 12. Information and documents obtained from the study cannot be distorted or changed by the people who conduct the study. 13. The people who run the study cannot produce a novel sign or sign structures or try to change the way language works. 14. Participants can request a copy of the research section in which they participated. 1.9 Methods Data collection procedures followed both international ethical guidelines and methods used in sign language research. People participated in this study voluntarily. The study used semi-structured methods to obtain data as naturally as possible. The methods, sampling, database, and corpus in this study are summarized in Table 1.1. Table 1.1 The methods, sampling, database, and corpus in this study. Data collection methods:

Semi-structured methods: “Topic production tests” and signing about pictures / videos

Sampling:

113 participants, early signers aged above 12 from 26 cities

Database:

6,240 minutes long, about 800,000 words / signs

Corpus:

180,000 signs documented and transcribed by ELAN

1.9.1 Research team Any study as large as the present study can be conducted only by researchers who have sign language research experience and by team members with technical experience and fieldwork experience. For this reason, the research team consisted of academics affiliated with (inter)national universities, who had worked on TİD for at least for five years, and who had a background of international research collaboration. The team for fieldwork and technical issues consisted of Deaf individuals who had various level of experience with respect to the research project. The project was completed by a total of seven academics and eight people for fieldwork and technical issues.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

29

1.9.2 Consent Form and Language Profile Form There were two forms used in this study: The Consent Form and the Language Profile Form. A consent form should be used in any study conducted on humans; it explains the aims of the study, data sharing, etc. Participants were informed about the project before data collection began. After signing the consent forms, participants took part in this study. The Consent Form was prepared on the basis of regulations for responsible codes of conduct or research ethics published for scientific organizations (American Psychological Association Ethical Principles, Turkish Psychological Association Ethical Principles, Linguistic Society of America Ethics Statement, Sign Language Linguistics Society Ethics Statement, etc.). On the basis of these regulations, this study prepared a Turkish Sign Language Studies Ethics Statement. Participants were asked to sign these forms to give permission to the researchers to conduct the study. This form contained information about the researchers, their affiliations, the places that participants could contact for research misconduct, and so on. The form also included information about voluntary participation, confidentiality, and when and how to stop research participation. If the participants felt they no longer wished to participate in this study for any reason, they could leave the recording room. With this form, researchers obtained consent from the participants to use the data in research publications, on the internet, and at conferences. Participants read the form at the beginning of the session. The team also signed the document in TİD at the beginning. Whenever the participant asked questions for clarification, answers were given in TİD. After the participant signed the form, the session began. In the Language Profile Form, participants were asked questions about their demographic information, where they lived as children, their contact information, their education level, their level of hearing loss, how long they had used TİD, whether they used TİD in their daily lives, their use of hearing aids, whether they had (elder) Deaf family members, whether they used TİD during their preschool years, etc. Since there could be some problems when applying the Consent Form, the team responsible for fieldwork was informed about possible problems and how to handle them. They were also instructed on how to use these forms in both written Turkish and TİD. These two forms can be found at the end of this chapter (Form A and Form B).

30 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 1.9.3 Fieldwork and participants To describe Turkish Sign Language grammar and show regional variations (if any), participants were selected to represent the Deaf society residing in all regions in Turkey. For this, data were collected in those cities where Deaf individuals, clubs and associations, and schools for the Deaf could be found more frequently than in other cities. The fieldwork was conducted in 26 cities in six regions across Turkey, as indicated in the following table. Table 1.2 Fieldwork done in cities according to regions. 1. Region

Muğla, Denizli, İzmir, Balıkesir, Çanakkale

2. Region

Edirne, İstanbul, Kocaeli, Bursa

3. Region

Eskişehir, Ankara, Kayseri, Sivas

4. Region

Samsun, Trabzon, Rize, Erzurum, Kars

5. Region

Van, Batman, Diyarbakır, Şanlıurfa

6. Region

Adana, Mersin, Konya, Antalya

At least four people from each city participated in this study. The number of participants by city is given in Table 1.3. Table 1.3 Number of participants by city. No

City

Number of Participants

1

Muğla

4

2

Denizli

4

3

İzmir

8

4

Çanakkale

4

5

Balıkesir

4

6

Edirne

4

7

İstanbul

4

8

Kocaeli

4

9

Bursa

4

10

Eskişehir

4

11

Ankara

4

12

Samsun

4

13

Trabzon

5

14

Rize

4

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD 15

Erzurum

4

16

Kars

4

17

Van

4

18

Batman

4

19

Diyarbakır

4

20

Şanlıurfa

6

21

Adana

4

22

Mersin

6

23

Konya

4

24

Antalya

4

25

Sivas

4

26

Kayseri

Total

31

4 113

1.9.4 Demographic information about the participants The sample consisted of 113 Deaf participants living in 26 cities. Though it was not anticipated, in some cities there were more female participants while in others there were more male participants. This was because the participants had to be early native signers, who were found less frequently than late signers. Educational levels were not equally represented because very few Deaf individuals had postgraduate degrees. As discussed above, the rate of deafness from birth is about 0.2-0.3% of the entire population. The participants for this project were either deaf from birth or lost their hearing early (age 0-3) with no other “disability” such as autism, brain trauma, or developmental disorders. They were all early native signers of TİD and they acquired TİD as their first language (age 0-5). They used TİD as their primary language in their daily lives. They had Deaf family members older than themselves. (For general information on deafness in Turkey, see also Kemaloğlu, in press.) Deaf individuals who have Deaf parents constitute only 5-6% of the entire Deaf community. Therefore, about 0.01% of the population could be Deaf of Deaf, suggesting that about 7,000 Deaf individuals is the universe for the present project, considering that the population of Turkey is around 70 million. When

32 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR other factors, such as a lack of other health issues or disabilities, TİD as a first language, and so on, were taken into account, the universe for the present study was even smaller. Table 1.4 Gender information about the participants according to region. Female

Male

Total

1. Region

7

13

20

2. Region

8

8

16

3. Region

9

8

17

4. Region

9

12

21

5. Region

7

11

18

6. Region

10

8

18

Total

50

59

113

Data were obtained from different age groups to observe regional and generational differences in TİD (Table 1.5). Table 1.5 Age ranges of participants according to region. 12-19

20-35

36-50

50+

Total

1. Region

2

7

4

7

20

2. Region

2

12

2

0

16

3. Region

1

12

4

0

17

4. Region

2

15

3

1

21

5. Region

1

15

2

0

18

6. Region

4

10

4

0

18

Total

12

71

19

8

113

The socio-economic status of the participants was also taken into account in this study. To represent the entire Deaf population, the participants were selected according to their educational level. However, very few Deaf individuals had masters or doctoral degrees (see Kemaloğlu, in press); therefore, equal representation of all educational levels could not be expected. In addition, because there were changes in compulsory education in Turkey, more participants had high school degrees than the others. The level of education of the participants according to region is given below.

33

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD Table 1.6 Level of education of participants according to region. Primary Secondary School School

High College Graduate school (University) School

Total

1. Region

4

7

9

0

0

20

2. Region

2

0

11

3

0

16

3. Region

0

3

11

3

0

17

4. Region

3

1

14

2

0

20

5. Region

2

1

9

6

0

18

6. Region

0

3

11

4

0

18

Total

11

15

65

18

0

113

1.9.5 Data collection Collecting data for research on TİD grammar was possible only with a portable studio that had the appropriate tools and equipment in a suitable environment. Such conditions were created for this study. The studio consisted of a 20-30 m² empty space, two cameras, three spotlights, two comfortable chairs, a 3x7m green background, and two tripods. To obtain high-quality data with a focus on manual, facial, and body movements, Chroma Key background was used. As much as possible, these materials were used in the same manner at all the data collection sites. For high-quality videorecordings, three 800W continuous light sources were used. The spots were not directed at the participants so as not to cause discomfort and to ensure high quality. During videorecordings, two portable HD cameras were used. The cameras were positioned to record all the movements of the signers during communication. One of the cameras focused on the main participant while the other focused on both interlocutors. To catch unexpected movements, remote controls were used to make changes in the tripod. In the present study, the positions of the participants were very important, especially when they communicated information about the items in the list of topics from the semi-structured elicitation materials. In doing so, the participants sat face to face, with no distractions between them. Additionally, because videorecording the session could take a long time, the participants were seated comfortably. When pictures were used, they were shown on the laptop screen or as colored print-outs. When movies were used, they were shown full-screen on the laptop. No nonsigners or hearing individuals were present at the data collection sites during the videorecordings.

34 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 1.9.5.1 Materials for data collection Semi-structured elicitation tasks consisted of a list of topics, pictures, and movies used as materials. The list of topics consisted of topics that were as diverse as possible. As in similar research projects, pictures and movies were also used (Slobin, 1986), especially to elicit complex predicates and classifier constructions in TİD. Because TİD is a natural language with its own unique grammatical rules, the topics in the list consisted of only a single word to avoid the effect of Turkish as much as possible. The list of topics was prepared based on previous (inter) national studies on sign languages. During the pilot studies, some of the topics were excluded and new topics were added to the list. The final version of the list consisted of 68 topics. The topics in the list were as simple and diverse as possible because participants came from a variety of socioeconomic statuses and backgrounds. The aim of these elicitation materials was to trigger conversations among the participants. The list consisted of 68 topics as indicated in Table 1.7. Table 1.7 List of topics. Psychology

Hobbies

Memoirs

College

Geography

Accounting

Hospital

Migration

Economy

Military service

Translator

Birth

Sports

Grocery store

Communication

Foreign countries

Television

Photography

Reading

First aid

Technology

Traffic

Association

Court

Turkish Sign Language

Special education

Animal

Physics

Religion

Chemistry

Discrimination

Mathematics

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD Sea

Turkish

Advertisement

Foreign language

Research

Painting

Security

Music

Tourism

Transportation

Cinema

Employment

Entertainment

Technical works

Factory

Clothing

Meal

Nature

Conferences

Culture

Football

Forestry

Terror

Violence

Marriage

Family

Subtitles

Banks

Elderly life

School

Youth

Fun

Election

Politics

Illness

Places to visit

35

As visual data elicitation materials, some of the picture materials used in international research projects and silent movies were used: 1. Benjamin Bruening Scope Fieldwork Project: Elicitation materials prepared using toys to create events (77 pictures). 2. Zeshan Picture Contrast Test (29 pictures). 3. Pixar Short Movies (a total of 12 short films). The pictures were shown on a PowerPoint slide, Adobe Reader, or a colored print-out book. The movies were shown full screen on a laptop. The participants looked at the pictures and described, one by one, what they saw to another participant. Similarly, the participants watched the movies, then described what they saw and remembered to another participant. These tasks were time limited; therefore, the participants were not expected to describe all the pictures or to narrate all the movies.

36 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 1.9.6 Data transcription In this study, ELAN (EUDICO Linguistic Annotator) software, which was developed in the Netherlands and which has been used in similar research projects, was employed. The software was developed by the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen. This software has been used in research projects on gesture studies and sign language studies. This software is the only program freely available to help transcribe data in multiple tiers. For example, while in one tier signs could be transcribed, in another they could be coded linguistically. When needed, several tiers can be added to code other linguistic and behavioral issues. With the help of ELAN, some of the data from the fieldwork was transcribed using the same notational / coding system. Since ELAN was developed in the Netherlands and has been used to transcribe the Sign Language of the Netherlands and British Sign Language, their notational systems were borrowed as models for the present study. In transcribing sign language data, capital letters were used to differentiate them from spoken language data. Therefore, in the transcriptions, CAPITAL LETTERS represented signs in ELAN. Since pronouns are constructed with index fingers, they were represented with INDEX in English. In this project, it was abbreviated as X to help recognize them internationally: x1 is the first-person singular, x2 is the second-person singular, and x3 is the third-person singular. As observed in other sign languages, signs can be combined in TİD to create morphologically rich and complex structures. To represent this, the symbol ^ was used. For example, this symbol was used to show a negative marker attached to verbs (e.g., acı^çekmek

bİlmek^değİl ‘know^not’)

and compounding signs (e.g.,

‘(lit.) ‘paın^hold’ ‘to suffer’). In addition, the symbol ‘?’ was used to

code interrogative sentences (e.g.,

sormak x2?

‘+’ was used to code repeated signs (e.g.,

‘ask

aynı+

ındex2?’),

and the symbol

‘same+’). In addition, nouns

were attached to the verb to indicate subject-object-verb agreement (e.g., x3görmekx1? ‘ındex3seeındexx1?).

The following coding system was developed by consensus before the teams started transcribing the data (Table 1.8 and Table 1.9). Similar coding systems have been used in previous TİD research (see papers in Arik, 2013).

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

37

Table 1.8 Coding system in ELAN for pronouns and agreement. Ben ‘I’

X1

Sen ‘You’

X2

O ‘He/She/It’

X3

Ben -> Sen ‘I->You’

X1-X2

Sen -> Ben ‘You->I’

X2-X1

O -> Ben ‘He/She/It->I’

X3-X1

Ben -> O ‘I->He/She/It’

X1-X3

O -> Sen ‘He/She/It-You’

X3-X2

Sen -> O ‘You->He/She/It’

X2-X3

Table 1.9 Examples of other coding systems in ELAN. Turkish Translation

TID Coding System

Bilmiyorum ‘I don’t know’

bİlmek^değİl ‘know^not’

Görmedim ‘I didn’t see’ Sordun mu? ‘Did you ask?’ Sordun mu? ‘Did you ask me?’ Gördün mü? ‘Did you see?’ Gördün mü? ‘Did he/she see me?’ Acı çektim ‘I suffered’ Gittim ‘I went’

görmek^değİl ‘see^not’

Misafir gitmek ‘I visited’

mısafİrx3 ‘vısıtındex3’

Gitmedim ‘I didn’t go’ Aynı aynı aynı ‘Same same same’ Berna, Hasan, Sinan

gİtmek^değıl ‘go^not’

sormak x2? ‘ask ındex2?’ x2sormakx1? ‘ındex2askındex1?’ görmek x2? ‘see ındex2?’ x3görmekx1? ‘ındex3seeındex1?’ acı^çekmek ‘paın^hold’ gİtmek ‘go’

aynı+ ‘same+’

(person name)

Since previous studies on TİD have focused on certain, but not all, linguistic aspects, it was expected that the team would have difficulties coming up with Turkish translations for some of the TİD signs. To solve problems in translations, a WhatsApp group named “Türk İşaret Dili Saha Araştırma Grubu” (the Turkish Sign Language Fieldwork Group) was created. This group followed the Peer Education model. With the help of this group, all members of the project could communicate with each other instantly in TİD or written Turkish to solve problems related to transcription and translation.

38 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR In ELAN, videorecordings from the two different cameras were synchronized on the same screen, then transcribed together. Samples from the pilot studies on Semi-Structured Signing are shown below. As shown in the three examples, the videorecordings from the two different cameras were synchronized according to the time codes. The first screen was for Camera A, focusing on the two participants together, whereas the second screen was for Camera B, focusing on the main participant. With the help of the buttons below the screens, changes in milliseconds in the videorecordings can be observed (Figure 1.8).

Figure 1.8 Pilot study. A picture from a transcribed section from ELAN.

As shown in Figure 1.8, after the videorecordings from the two cameras were synchronized, the team started transcribing the data. The first tier was devoted to the signer on the left (A-TİD), while the second tier was devoted to the signer on the right (B-TİD). As discussed above, capital letters were used in sign transcriptions. During transcription of the data, the beginning and the end of the sign were selected. With the help of the red line, the time codes could be changed to look at the signs in the sections of the movie. The red line above is on (A-TİD) doğmak ‘to be born’.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

39

Figure 1.9 Pilot study, transcriptions in ELAN with two additional tiers.

In Figure 1.9, the two additional tiers were added to the transcription shown in Figure 1.8. They were A-TÜRKÇE 1 ‘A-TURKISH 1’ and B-TÜRKÇE 1 ‘B-TURKISH 1’. A-TÜRKÇE 1 was just below A-TİD 1. In this tier, the Turkish translations were of the beginning and the end of the signs produced by signer A on the left. As shown above, the sign sequences merhaba ben İyİ aynı sen İyİ ‘hello ı good same you good’

were translated into Turkish as Merhaba, ben iyiyim, aynı

durumdayım, sen iyi misin? ‘Hello, I am good, the same, are you ok?’ Similarly, B-TÜRKÇE 1 was just below B-TİD 1. In this tier, the Turkish translations were of the beginning and end of the signs produced by signer B on the right. The sign sequences of signer B

merhaba İyİ? ben İyİ ‘hello good? ı good’

were translated

into Turkish as Merhaba, iyi misin? Ben iyiyim ‘Hello, are you ok? I am good.’ Notice that the two signers were signing to each other at almost the same time, which is very natural in daily conversations. This can be seen with the help of the time codes. When needed, these transcriptions could be converted into other formats such as .xlsx, .html, and others, for further analyses. When converted, the new files also have the same time codes. As shown in Figure 1.10, with the help of the red line, the user could go to any part of the conversation to see the signs and their translations depending on the time code. If needed, the user could select any time interval.

40 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

Figure 1.10 Pilot study. Transcription in ELAN with time codes.

Team members were instructed about how to use ELAN and how to transcribe the data when there was a conversation or when a signer described a picture or a movie. When transcribing the picture/movie descriptions, the signer’s description and the picture/movie were synchronized. On one screen was a signer; on the other was a picture or a movie synchronized. Two examples are given below (Figure 1.11 and Figure 1.12).

Figure 1.11 Sample from a transcribed section in ELAN with picture materials from the pilot study.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

41

In Figure 1.11, the participant signed about the picture (shown on the right-hand side of the screen) to another native signer (not shown) who sat in front of her. During transcription, videorecording of the participant and the picture were synchronized as shown in the figure. Then, a tier was created for transcription (shown underneath the videorecording and the picture). Each sign was transcribed one by one and located in capital letters in the tier. As needed, multiple tiers were created for further transcription and translation.

Figure 1.12 Detailed sample from a transcribed section in ELAN with picture materials from the pilot study. In Figure 1.12, a transcription of the description of another picture is given in ELAN. As shown in the figure, the videorecording of the signer was on the left screen and the picture she was describing was on the right screen. The transcription in tiers was given in capital letters. With the help of the red line, the user could go to any time interval of the videorecording and the transcription with their correspondences in Turkish.

1.9.7 Data sharing among team members Data were coded and shared online among team members. The file coding system was as follows. Two codes were created: The first code was the file code and the second code was the session code. They were separated by a dash (-). The file code was the traffic code of the city. The sessions were about 10 minutes in length.

42 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

Figure 1.13 Coding system for videorecordings.

The two cameras were also coded. Code A was the videorecording of the signer on the right-hand side while code B was the videorecording of the signer on the left-hand side. As shown in Figure 1.13, each folder contained both videorecordings. The code “35-001A” showed that the videorecording was done in İzmir, the file contained the first 10 minutes of the session, and the data were from the signer sitting on the right. The folders also had the ELAN transcription files with the extensions .eaf and .pfsx, associated with the videorecordings. All the files were located on an online cloud server. Depending on the responsibilities and tasks, the team members could access the files at any time. Additionally, there was a file containing meta-data information about the transcriptions. Therefore, the team members residing in various cities could work in tandem.

1.10 Summary of the book Following previous research on TİD and other sign languages, and applying the ethics code for its own study, this book is the first book on TİD grammar. The data were collected from 113 native Deaf signers residing in 26 cities across Turkey. The data were analyzed using a variety of methods from computational, corpus, and theoretical linguistics. The book aims to outline TİD grammar and show to what extent it differs from spoken languages such as Turkish and other signed languages such as ASL. In the book, TİD is examined with respect to the main aspects of its grammar, from phonetics to syntax as well as regional variations in its use.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

43

The outline of the book is as follows. The present chapter, Chapter 1, is Introduction and Method. This chapter first introduced sign languages, comparing them to spoken languages, then discussed why we conduct scientific studies on sign languages. After that, it presented the history of scientific studies on sign languages, focusing on the grammar books about sign languages. The sections that followed were devoted to the present study on TİD, starting with its introduction, history, and possible regional variations in use. After declaring the ethical standards and guidelines for responsible conduct for TİD studies, the chapter outlined the methodology used in this study, focusing on the research team, the Consent Form and the Language Profile Form, the fieldwork, the data collection, and the data analysis. It also provided information about how ELAN was used to transcribe the data and how the research team collaborated and stored the data. Chapter 2 covers sociolinguistic issues. In this chapter, the history of TİD is given, followed by an introduction to the Turkish Deaf society. After that, the following topics are discussed: the language profile of Turkish Deaf society, bilingualism, multilingualism, and language contact. Chapter 3 covers (sign language) phonetics and phonology. The subtopics are fingerspelling, sign structures, minimal pairs, manual signs, nonmanuals, syllable structure, simultaneity and sequentiality, and phonological rules. Chapter 4 is devoted to morphology, focusing on inflectional and derivational morphology, word classes, pronouns, classifiers, plurality, compounds, tense, aspect, mood, and agreement. Chapter 5 discusses the syntax of TİD. This chapter focuses on sign order (word order), noun phrases, sentence types, negation, interrogative sentences, compound sentences, and (in)dependent clauses. Chapter 6 focuses on semantics. The subtopics are meaning types; sign, sentence and utterance meaning; sign meaning; iconicity; metaphors; metonymy; sentential meaning; and utterance meaning. Chapter 7 concludes the book and is followed by a Index in which the terms, English correspondences, and additional information where relevant are given. In References, not only the works cited in this book but also previous studies on TİD are given.

44 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Form A. The Consent Form.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

45

46 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Form B. The Language Profile Form.

CHAPTER 2

2

SOCIOLINGUISTIC OVERVIEW

48 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

CHAPTER 2 SOCIOLINGUISTIC OVERVIEW

49

In this section, we provide a sociolinguistic overview of TİD. While Section 2.1 looks at TİD from a historical perspective, Section 2.2 introduces the Deaf and hard-of-hearing communities in Turkey, as well as their relationship to TİD. Section 2.3 offers the linguistic profile of the Deaf community in Turkey and discusses TİD as both a native language and a late-acquired language. Section 2.4 is concerned with bilingualism, multilingualism, and language contact. With such focuses, this section investigates the relationship between TİD and Turkish, as well as other languages, from a language interaction perspective. Finally, section 2.5 summarizes the chapter.

2.1 The History of TİD In Turkey, the history of sign language(s) dates back further than typically assumed. Kemaloğlu and Yaprak Kemaloğlu (2012) provided information from historical sources about the existence of deaf people in Anatolia for 3500 years since the Hittites and about the fact that they communicated with their hands. Miles (2000) mentioned the use of sign language in the Ottoman Palace and Courts. According to Zeshan (2002, 2003), the potential continuity between this sign language and TİD is a topic worth further investigation.

Figure 2.1 A picture of deaf people in the Ottoman Empire.

50 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR The first school for the deaf was founded between 1889-1891 by Grati Efendi during the reign of the Sultan Abdülhamit II. This school’s first deaf teacher was Pekmezyan. During the same period, four other deaf schools were founded in the cities of Merzifon, Korfu, Thesalloniki, and Izmir (see Figure 2.2). Strong evidence exists regarding the potential use of sign language in the education system at these schools. However, since 1925 the use of sign language in deaf education has been restricted in Turkey. By the 1950s, there were a total of four deaf schools in Turkey, located in Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara, and Diyarbakir. Since 1953, the use of sign language has not been recommended in deaf education (Kemaloğlu & Kemaloğlu, 2012). That said, significant changes have been seen in attitudes toward TİD in recent years, following scientific research on this language and recent legislative regulations (for a detailed description, see İlkbasaran & Taşçı, 2012; Kemaloğlu, 2016; Yaprak Kemaloğlu, 2016; and Kubuş, İlkbaşaran, & Gilchrist, 2016).

Figure 2.2 A picture of the lipreading method in Merzifon Anatolian High School in 1910. http://dlib.anatolia.edu.gr/jspui/handle/1886/289 The existence of sign languages has been recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the European Parliament’s Resolution on Sign Languages, which was passed in 1988 (Reagan, 2010; Wheatley & Pabsch, 2010). Although scientific research on TİD dates back to the early 2000s in Turkey, it wasn’t until July 1, 2007 that TİD

CHAPTER 2 SOCIOLINGUISTIC OVERVIEW

51

was officially recognized by “The Law on People with Disabilities and Changes Concerning Some Laws and Decree Laws”, which was passed that day by the Turkish Grand National Assembly and published in the Official Gazette on July 7, 2005. Article 15 of this law gives TİD an official status with the statement: “... in order to aid the education and communication of hearing disabled people, a Turkish sign language system is to be constituted by the Presidency of the Turkish Language Institute”. From July 7-8, 2007, the very first national TİD workshop was held and the fingerspelling alphabet was accepted. The TİD Science and Approvals Board (TİDBO) was founded in 2011, with “The Legislation Concerning the Identification of Procedures and Principles Concerning the Constitution and Application of the Turkish Sign Language System”, published in the Official Gazette (#26139). Since then, there have been two changes made to this legislation and published in the Official Gazette, one in 2011 (#27819) and another in 2012 (#28330). The Preliminary TİD Workshop of TİDBO was held from October 15-16, 2010. During and following this workshop, three working groups were established: (1) the TİD Grammar working group, (2) the TİD Dictionary working group, and (3) the TİD Educational Materials working group. However, there have been difficulties in putting these working groups in action. All legislative arrangements and works concerning TİD have been conducted under the chairmanship of the Turkish Language Institute between 2005-2013, in collaboration with the Ministry of Family and Social Policies (formerly the Prime Ministry Department of the Administration of the Disabled) and the Ministry of Education. Article 73 - Article 15 of the law no. 5378 is changed as follows. Article 15 - The education of people with disabilities cannot be hindered based on any justification. People with disabilities are to be provided lifelong educational opportunities in integrated settings where they reside, while taking their special circumstances and differences into consideration.

52 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR The planning for the integrated education of people with disabilities [is] to take place within the mainstream education system. Necessary measures are to be taken in order to include people with disabilities [in] formal education, who for various reason[s] are late to enter this educational system. In order to ensure the active participation of college students with disabilities in education, Advisory and Coordination Centers for People with Disabilities are to be founded under the Higher Education Council of Turkey, working on providing compatible education, educational resources and materials for people with disabilities, as well as research and housing opportunities. The working procedures and principles of the Advisory and Coordination Centers for People with Disabilities are designated by the legislation that the Ministry of Family and Social Policies, the Ministry of Education and the Higher Education Council of Turkey passes in coordination. [The] Turkish sign language system is to be constituted, in order to provide education and communication for people who are hearing impaired. The procedures and principles regarding the constitution of this system [are] determined by the legislation that is passed jointly by the Ministry of Education and the Turkish Language Institute, under the coordination of the Ministry of Family and Social Policies. In order to meet all educational, social and cultural needs of people with disabilities, necessary operations in providing materials such as Braille, audio and e-books, [and] videos that are captioned, interpreted to sign language, or [that] have audio descriptions are to be performed by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. (roughly translated) Although no grammar book on TİD exists other than this one, research has been conducted on TİD. Initial studies in this area began in the early 2000s,

CHAPTER 2 SOCIOLINGUISTIC OVERVIEW

53

among which are the work of Açan (2001), Zeshan (2002, 2003) and Arık (2003). Until the end of 2013, two national newspaper/journal entries, 19 journal articles, 17 full-text academic and in-progress papers, three books (including this one), 18 book chapters (except those in this book), two doctoral dissertations (Açan, 2007; Arık, 2009), eight masters’ theses (Açan, 2001; Arık, 2003; Sevinç, 2006; Kubuş, 2008; Gökgöz, 2009; Dikyuva, 2011; Makaroğlu, 2012; Taşçı, 2012; and Özkul, 2013), and more than 100 conference and workshop presentations had been produced. As of June 2015, there were 11 articles on TİD on the Web of Science. Those were Makaroğlu, Bekar, and Arik (2014), Arik (2013, 2012a, 2012b, 2011), Zwitserlood et al. (2012), Köse et al. (2012), Demir (2010), Özyürek et al. (2010), and Haberdar and Albayrak (2006, 2005). As can be seen here, we can predict that research concerning TİD will continue to increase in the coming years (see Arık, 2012-2015).1 To date, no TİD dictionary has been published based on scientific research. However, various word-sign lists do exist, and could potentially function as TİD dictionaries. Such works consist of sign translations based on Turkish words. While some are in book format, others are available online. The first is titled “The Sign Language Manual for Adults” and was published in 1995 by the General Directorate of Special Education, Guidance, and Counselling Services under the Ministry of Education. This work was revised in 2012 and was renamed “The Dictionary of Turkish Sign Language”. There is also a “Turkish Sign Language Dictionary” published by the Turkish Language Institute, and a “Turkish Sign Language Dictionary for Religious Terms” that was published by the Directorate of Religious Affairs. In addition, there is a “Word List of Turkish Sign Language” consisting of 750 lexical items, which was published online in 2004 as a result of research that took place at Koc University (Özyürek, İlkbaşaran, & Arık, 2004). Similarly, a “Dictionary of Turkish Sign Language v1.0” was published online. In addition to these resources, TİD is among the sign languages included in the international Spread the Sign project, a multilingual sign language dictionary of largely technical and occupational terms. While the Ministry of Education sponsored numerous workshops regarding TİD dictionaries, official educational 1

Visit the following website for the most updated bibliography of TİD: http://turkishsignlanguage. enginarik.com/bibliography

54 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR materials in TİD do not yet exist. In 2008, another Turkish Sign Language word list was published online by the Turkish Association of the Handicapped as part of its “The Sound of Two Hands” project (Dikyuva, 2008). In 2012, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Social Services’ “Turkish Sign Language Educational Materials” was published online (İ.B.B, 2012). In the same year, there was another book, entitled “Turkish Sign Language Guide” (Barışık, 2012). In 2013, the Cankaya Deaf and Sign Language Association produced a TİD-Turkish dictionary under the title “Smart Sign Language”. Finally, in 2014 a Turkish-TİD translation dictionary was published online by the Faculty of Open Education in Anadolu University. 2.2 “Hearing impairment”, deafness, and the Deaf community While “hearing impairment” is traditionally viewed as a disability in Turkey, recent international discourse on this topic has led to the use of the terms “deaf” and “Deaf” among both deaf individuals and researchers working on sign language in the country. As Kemaloğlu (2016) and Yaprak Kemaloğlu (2016) mentioned in their works, the inability to hear is defined as both a medical and socio-cultural condition. Human spoken language takes place between 5004000 Hz, and hearing impairment is defined as having one’s mean threshold of hearing being above 15dB-HL in children and 25dB-HL in adults. However, in scientific research regarding sign language and deafness, the term “deafness” is used to refer to the condition of hearing impairment and is not seen as a “barrier” or “disability” (Baker & Padden, 1978; Padden, 2007). That said, Deaf with a capital “D” is used in particular to refer to individuals whose primary means of communication is sign language and who feel an affiliation with the Deaf community. On the other hand, “Deaf community” refers to the collection of individuals who are part of a dominant community and culture while being internally organized and using sign language in daily communication. The Deaf community of Turkey is a rich subculture with numerous deaf associations spread across the country, their own art and performance events, and registered athletes who compete both nationally and internationally.

CHAPTER 2 SOCIOLINGUISTIC OVERVIEW

55

2.3 The language profile of deaf people The prevalence of deafness in Turkey ranges from 0.2-0.3% (Kemaloğlu, 2007; Durgun et al., 2008). However, roughly 90% of congenitally deaf children are born to hearing parents (Kemaloğlu, 2007; Bolat & Genç, 2012). When we also count those who become deaf after birth as a result of diseases like meningitis, this rate could be considered closer to 95%, as is the case in other countries (Mitchell & Karchmer, 2004). That is why there is only a small group of deaf people in Turkey who acquire TİD as their native language, while the majority acquires TİD either at deaf schools or deaf associations later in life. Currently, TİD is not used as a medium of instruction at schools for the deaf in Turkey. However, there are three undergraduate degree programs across the nation for teachers of deaf and hard-of-hearing students, and there is ongoing work to add TİD to their curricula (Kubuş et al., 2016). As stated above, the rate of native deaf signers in Turkey is approximately 0.01%. Thus, deaf and hardof-hearing students who know any sign language when they begin studying at deaf schools are an exception. Instead, to communicate, some of these deaf students know and use some homesign developed in their families (Kubuş et al., 2016; for homesign see Goldin-Meadow et al., 2015). Deaf students often learn sign language from their peers or older students, while hearing teachers learn some signs from their deaf students. Table 2.1 below shows the breakdown of deaf students attending schools for the deaf in Turkey by academic year (Ministry of Education Official Statistics, 2011; Kemaloğlu, 2016). According to the official national educational statistics released by the Turkish Ministry of Education for the 2014-2015 school year, a total of 938 students (555 males, 383 females) were enrolled across 45 elementary schools for the deaf. These students were being educated by 309 teachers in 230 classrooms. Similarly, 2,065 students (1198 males, 867 females) were enrolled in middle school across these 45 institutions, being educated by 651 teachers in 384 classrooms. In addition, there were 19 Special Education Vocational High Schools (deaf and hard-of-hearing only) reported to serve 2,066 students (1243 males, 823 females) by 439 teachers in 225 classrooms. The decline in enrollment in deaf institutions is likely due to the increase of the use of cochlear implants despite inconclusive evidence about their success rate, followed by the integration of implanted deaf children in mainstream education, supported by additional individualized instruction and therapy under the Ministry of Education.

56 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Table 2.1 The number of students enrolled in elementary schools for the deaf (ESD) and vocational high schools for the deaf (VHSD), as well as the percentage of VHSD students by ESD students (%), based on Turkish Ministry of Education statistics (Kemaloğlu, 2016). School Year

ESD

VHSD

%

1996-1997

6,042

321

5.31

1997-1998

6,116

502

8.21

1998-1999

6,303

646

10.25

1999-2000

6,343

667

10.51

2000-2001

6,354

789

12.42

2001-2002

6,239

931

14.92

2002-2003

6,133

850

13.86

2003-2004

5,756

1,173

20.38

2004-2005

5,732

1,174

20.48

2005-2006

5,738

1,178

20.53

2006-2007

5,429

1,279

23.56

2007-2008

4,967

1,301

26.19

2008-2009

4,821

1,692

35.10

2009-2010

4,598

1,822

39.63

Upon graduating from vocational high schools for the deaf, some students are placed in two-year vocational undergraduate degree programs through a special quota. A smaller group of deaf students continues to attend four-year undergraduate programs, particularly the School of Physical Education and Sports. Because hearing impairment is legally considered a disability in Turkey, deaf individuals can also benefit from the disability quota for employment, in both public and private institutions. 2.4 Bilingualism, multilingualism, and language contact As stated above, a minority of deaf individuals in Turkey acquire TİD early, as their native language. The majority acquire TİD at deaf schools or deaf associations. That said, while their proficiency in Turkish and TİD varies, most deaf individuals who know TİD are bilingual. Some factors behind this are: (1) Turkish is the official language of the country and belongs to the dominant culture,

CHAPTER 2 SOCIOLINGUISTIC OVERVIEW

57

(2) the official language of instruction is Turkish and TİD is not formally taught at deaf schools, (3) a majority of deaf people in Turkey acquire TİD late, just like Turkish, and (4) almost all educational materials, as well as prevalent media, are in written or spoken Turkish. However, most deaf individuals are not fluent in both/either Turkish and TİD. This is largely due to both languages being acquired late and to modality differences between the two languages, as discussed in section 1. While Turkish is an auditory/oral language that is more compatible with hearing and speaking individuals, TİD is a visual/gestural language that is compatible with deaf individuals. Although Turkish has been the main language of instruction at deaf schools for almost as long as the Turkish Republic (founded in 1923) has been in existence, Turkish literacy rates among deaf people are low (see İlkbaşaran, 2016). There are similar findings with respect to the literacy of deaf people from other countries and cultures (Conrad, 1979; Traxler, 2000). The interaction between two or three languages, namely language contact, is shaped largely by geographic proximity, domestic and international migration patterns, education and schooling practices, and other political, economic, and technological factors (see Thomason, 2001; Appel & Muysken, 2005). In addition to these factors, sign language contact is informed by the changing dynamics between national sign languages and their corresponding dominant spoken languages, which are shaped by factors such as advances in information and communication technologies (ICTs) (Lucas & Valli, 1992; Valli, 2001). TİD is a natural language and is in contact with other languages, primarily Turkish. This is the result of both Turkish being the official language used in formal education and the fact that often Turkish and TİD are acquired at the same time by deaf individuals. One-third of spoken languages do not have a writing system, and this is the same for sign languages (apart from various attempts at sign writing), including TİD.

58 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 2.5 Language contact and fingerspelling Fingerspelling is a subsystem developed based on the written alphabet corresponding to the spoken language of the hearing community in which a particular sign language is used. The nature of language contact between a spoken and sign language is quite visible in such fingerspelling systems. As is the case with other sign languages (Ann, 2001), TİD fingerspelling is informed by Turkish. Worth mentioning here is the fact that a writing system does not necessarily use a single fingerspelling system. For example, the Latin alphabet is used in both the United Kingdom and the United States of America, yet the fingerspelling systems used in these two countries are drastically different. Similarly, although written Turkish also uses the Latin alphabet, TİD fingerspelling is different from both American Sign Language (ASL) fingerspelling and British Sign Language (BSL) fingerspelling. Fingerspelling systems around the world are observed to use either one hand or two hands. While ASL uses a one-handed fingerspelling alphabet, the TİD fingerspelling system (like BSL) is two-handed. As stated in Section 1, sign languages are not forms of spoken languages. Fingerspelling can be used when words are borrowed from spoken languages. It can also be used when a signer interacts with a hearing nonsigner. Fingerspelling is reported to be in 2-10% of the natural conversations in sign language (Padden & Gunsauls, 2003; Schembri & Johnston, 2007; McKee & Kennedy, 2006). We do not currently have a study that looks at the rate of fingerspelling in TİD. However, across Taşçı (2012), the Dictionary of Turkish Sign Language v1.0 and Dikyuva and Zeshan (2008), 66 of 870 signs (8%) make use of fingerspelling. In the current study, we found that only 7,613 lexical items out of 800,000 in the TİD corpus were identified as fingerspelling, suggesting a very low occurrence (0.95%) of fingerspelling in natural conversations among native signers. It is possible that a different methodology could have resulted in a different rate, such as Turkish-TİD translations or a TİD dictionary survey. However, since the current study uses semi-structured natural methods, the rate acquired is likely to be more reflective of the TİD fingerspelling rate in daily conversations. TİD fingerspelling can be seen in Figure 2.3 below.

CHAPTER 2 SOCIOLINGUISTIC OVERVIEW

Figure 2.3 The TİD manual alphabet (the most frequently used fingerspelled letters in TİD).

59

60 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

Figure 2.4 The TİD manual alphabet (the least frequently used fingerspelled letters in TİD). 2.6 Mouthing and lipreading As observed among signers of other languages (Ann, 2001), signers of TİD manipulate the complexity and quality of their productions depending on the language background of their interlocutors. In other words, signing with a native TİD signer versus a deaf or hearing late learner of TİD would be different. In the latter case, their signing would be slow, while their use of fingerspelling and Turkish mouthing would increase. In many cases, the syntactic rules of TİD are violated in these circumstances and the grammar of Turkish is adopted, resulting in what is called “Signed Turkish” (code-mixing). Signed Turkish can often be observed in simultaneous sign language interpreting, particularly of news on television. Since the deaf community is a subculture in Turkey, deaf signers sometimes attempt to lipread and/or mouth/speak when communicating with non-signer Turkish speakers.

CHAPTER 2 SOCIOLINGUISTIC OVERVIEW

61

2.7 Summary This section provided an overview of the sociolinguistic characteristics of TİD. Strong historical evidence exists that sign language has been used for a very long time in the geographic area currently marked by modern Turkey, dating back to the Hittites (13th century AD). There have also been reports of sign language being used in the Ottoman Palace and Courts. However, further research is needed to determine whether these sign languages that have been observed across centuries are, in fact, directly related to TİD. The first deaf school in this geographical area was founded in the 1890s, and many followed in the next century. These schools for the deaf typically provide education from the elementary to high-school level. Since only about 95% of the deaf population is born to signing deaf parents, the majority typically acquires TİD from their peers if and when they enter deaf schools. In Turkey, there is a rich Deaf community that uses TİD as its primary means of communication and that is involved with various arts and sports events. TİD and Turkish are inevitably in contact due to the intersectional nature of Deaf and Turkish communities socioculturally. The Turkish Deaf community consists of deaf individuals who are bilingual in Turkish and TİD to varying degrees. The two-handed Turkish fingerspelling system, which constitutes 1% of natural conversations, emerged at deaf schools as needed for the instruction of written Turkish and was then adopted by the Deaf community at large. Only a few signs in TİD have been lexicalized based on this fingerspelling system. Another materialization of language contact between TİD and Turkish is mouthing and lip reading. Because deaf people in Turkey are also members of the larger Turkish culture, they often try to use lip reading and mouthing in their interactions with hearing individuals. The next section will investigate the phonetics and phonology of TİD (sign phonology and phonetics).

CHAPTER 2

3

PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY (SIGN LANGUAGE PHONETICS AND SIGN LANGUAGE PHONOLOGY)

64 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

65

Vocalizations and sounds are the vibrations which can be recognized by the auditory organs of living beings and can be diffused in waves through mediums such as air and water. They have been investigated in various disciplines such as physiology, linguistics, physics, and engineering. In spoken language phonology, sounds are considered building blocks produced by human language specific oral channels and a combination of which produce words. The role of phonology in linguistics is to examine how the smallest parts of language are formed and how they change over the course of time. In language descriptions, it is common to examine the smallest parts or segments of a language (Hockett, 1960). In sign languages, it is also possible to examine the smallest parts of a sign. Thus, this field of inquiry is called sign language phonology even though it is not related to ‘phone’ or sound. Phonetics, as one of the subfields of linguistics, investigates physiology, acoustic properties, and the perception of the sounds produced by humans, while phonology investigates how these sounds form different patterns and the types of rules they follow systematically. In other words, it describes the sounds and the rules which govern their distribution universally. Therefore, terminologically we can talk about the phonology of English, the phonology of Turkish or the phonology of TİD. Originally, the term ‘phonology’ was derived from the term ‘phone,’ which means ‘sound’ in English. In sign language literature, this term has also been used to refer not to sounds but to the smallest units of signs. In this chapter, phonetics and phonology are used interchangeably with sign language phonetics and sign language phonology. The outline of this chapter is as follows. First, it presents how to analyze the smallest structural units of sign languages, particularly TİD, starting with the internal structure of a sign with a particular focus on TİD (Section 3.1), the minimal pairs (Section 3.2), issues regarding the simultaneous and sequential productions of signs (Section 3.3), the structure of a syllable (Section 3.4), phonological processes (Section 3.5), and fingerspelling from the perspective of phonetics (Section 3.6). At the end of the chapter, a summary is provided. 3.1 The internal structure of signs In spoken languages like Turkish, sound patterns systematically follow particular constraints and rules to form words. In all traditional frameworks investigating spoken languages, these sounds, being composed of distinctive

66 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR features, constitute the smallest building blocks of a language. Therefore, changing only one of the many sounds of a word (i.e., replacing the sound ‘l’ with ‘k’ in the Turkish word alın ‘forehead’ results in akın ‘invasion’ alın>akın) or removing one sound from a word (e.g., deleting the sound ‘k’ in Turkish kas ‘muscle’ results in as ‘ace’ kas>as) can either change or distort the meaning of the whole word. The minimal units of sound systems of the languages, which cause contrasts in meaning, are called phonemes (Bloomfield, 1933). It has been reported that a spoken language can have 20 to 40 phonemes in its phonemic inventory; however, this number varies from language to language (Crystal, 1997). The studies investigating the phonetic structure of languages have a long history; however, the first research which systematically analyzed the internal structure of the signs was conducted by Stokoe for ASL in 1960. Until that date, sign languages were considered communication systems much simpler than spoken languages and to be random combinations of gestures produced in the same manner as gestural movements of hands and arms by the speakers. However, Stokoe (1960) radically changed the scientific perspective toward sign languages, and since then many spoken-language-oriented theoretical frameworks and approaches have included sign languages as well. In sign languages, the signs have been articulated with both manual (hand parameters; handshape, movement and mouth gestures) and nonmanual (head and body movements, facial expressions, mouth gestures) articulators. In sign languages, as in all natural languages, it is necessary to determine the basic phonemic inventory. The phonemic inventory can be determined only by looking at minimal differences in manual and nonmanual components of almost similar words/ signs. The words/signs that can be distinguished by only one component of their phonetic structures are called minimal pairs. In the next section, we examine the phonemes which differentiate the two signs (or minimal pairs) in TİD. 3.2 Minimal pairs Minimal pairs in spoken languages are known as the basic units formed by a contrast of unrelated morphemes in terms of either the presence or absence of a particular phonetic form (Kenstowicz, 1994). As has already been discussed in Section 1.2, spoken languages make use of the auditoryvocal channel of communication, while sign languages use the visual-gestural channel. Depending on the channel of articulation, words in spoken languages

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

67

are composed of segments such as vowels, consonants, and suprasegmentals such as intonation. Yet, in sign languages, words are combined with handshape, location, the movements of one or two hands, palm and finger orientations, and nonmanuals (see Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999). Because sign languages have a greater number of phonemes than spoken languages, the definition of minimal pairs can have some differences between the two types of languages. Irrespective of these differences, the phonologies of both spoken and sign languages show structural similarities in phonemes and a similar distribution of their features (Corina & Sandler, 1993). Therefore, previous studies have shown that all natural languages have “a system that selects and uses contrastive distinctions” (Corina, 1990, p.7). In spoken languages, a combination of sounds (phonemes) forms morphemes, whereas in sign languages, a combination of handshapes, locations, and movements forms new signs. For instance, the words (DİL) > [dII] ‘language’ and (FİL) > [fII] ‘elephant’ in Turkish differ only in terms of the place of articulation of their initial phones. In particular, [d] in [dII] is dental and [f] in [fII] are labio-dental sounds. Minimal pairs which contain binary phonological contrasts in TİD can be formed in the same structural way as in Turkish. For example, yıl ‘year’ and kaba ‘rude’ (see Figure 3.1) differ only in terms of the location of the hand so that yıl ‘year’ is articulated on the chin, while kaba ‘rude’ is articulated on the nose. Thus, the handshape parameter can form a binary contrast that differentiates the two words from each other (Kubuş, 2008).

yıl ‘year’

kaba ‘rude’

Figure 3.1 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD: yil ‘year’ and kaba ‘rude’.

68 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR To determine the phonemic inventory of sign languages, a variety of hypotheses have been proposed. Stoke, Casterline, and Croneber (1965) were the first to propose that sign languages have a tripartite system of phonological parameters, which are handshape, movement, and location. Battison (1978) added palm and finger orientations to this system because palm and finger orientations also have distinctive properties in sign language phonology. Subsequently, Liddell and Johnson (1989) showed that nonmanual markers such as facial expressions and mouth, head, and body movements play a crucial role in the internal structure of the signs. Therefore, these nonmanual markers are also added to the phonological parameters. The challenges and difficulties involved in analyzing nonmanual expressions have been assumed to be the main reason why nonmanual expressions have been integrated very late into the model of phonology. Yet, signers tend to pay more attention to nonmanual productions of the signs in their daily communication (Siple, 1978; Swisher, Christie, & Miller, 1989). This indicates that nonmanuals have a number of functions (in addition to their phonological functions) and, therefore, they are as important as the manual components of signs in sign languages. Furthermore, it has already been shown that some signs in ASL are phonologically ill-formed when produced without nonmanuals (Neidle, Kegl, MacLaughlin, Bahan, & Lee, 2000, p. 40). In the same manner, the data from other sign languages support the claim that facial expressions are phonemic. For instance, in Catalan Sign Language the signs which have the meaning

compassıon

and

be^ın love

share similar manual parameters and

differ only in their facial expressions, such that

compassıon

expressions (furrowed eyebrows and contracted lips) while

has negative facial be^ın love

is signed

with positive facial expressions (Pfau & Quer, 2010). In the rest of this section, we investigate minimal pairs in TİD following Brentari’s (2005) study of the structure of handshapes and Pfau and Quer’s (2010) categorization of nonmanual markers. According to Brentari (2005), manual signs in sign languages are composed of and varied based on four main parameters, which are handshape, movement, orientation, and location.

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

69

The features of these four parameters in sign language phonology are as follows (Brentari, 2005, pp. 147-148): 1. Handshape a. The quantity of selected and unselected fingers b. Joint configurations c. Unmarked handshapes: variations of “index” or “all” selected fingers d. Marked handshapes: other combinations of selected fingers 2. Movement a. Path and local movement b. Path shapes: arc, straight, circle 3. Place of articulation (location) a. Head, arm, torso, and nondominant hand 4. Orientation a. The handshape node dominates parts of the hand specified for orientation b. Parts of the hand relevant in orientation; palm, dorsal/ventral side of the fingers, back of the hand, radial, ulnar, tips, base According to Pfau and Quer (2010), nonmanual signs can be classified into three groups. For them, phonological (lexical) nonmanual markers are as follows (Pfau & Quer, 2010): a. Head and body movements b. Facial expressions c. Mouth movements In the following sections, we combine these two proposals to analyze TİD.

70 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 3.2.1 Manual signs Minimal pairs can be formed by a change in the parameters of the manual signs. In this subsection, we focus on the following parameters of manual signs, respectively: handshape, location, orientation, and movement. 3.2.1.1 Handshape Studies of ASL have described handshape as the form the hand takes during sign production. Sign languages are known to differ in terms of their handshape inventories (Eccarius, 2002), which include approximately 30-40 distinctive handshapes. Kubuş (2008) has shown that the phonemic inventory of TİD contains 33 handshapes (see Figure 3.2). Two methods are used frequently in the literature to name handshapes. According to the first one, the properties of handshapes such as open-5 are described in detail. However, this method is problematic, as the naming of handshapes has no restrictions. In the second method, if the handshapes exist in the manual alphabet of either the language under discussion or another sign language, they are named according to these letters, e.g., ASL-A. Both methods have their own drawbacks. In this book, the aim is to follow a minimalist perspective in having the shortest descriptions and minimizing any influence from different languages in naming handshapes. For these reasons, we assigned numbers to the TİD handshapes. We give these handshapes in Figure 3.2 with examples in Table 3.1 below.

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

Figure 3.2 The phonemic inventory of handshapes in TİD (the handshapes are taken from Kubuş (2008)).

71

72 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Table 3.1 Examples of signs using the handshapes in TİD. Handshape TİD-1 TİD-2

Examples desteklemek ‘support’, peynİr ‘cheese’, komİk ‘funny’ otobüs ‘bus’, grup, ‘group’, bardak ‘glass’

TİD-3

armut ‘pear’, yumuşak ‘soft’, dosya’ folder’

TİD-4

düdük ‘whısle’, şüphe’ suspİcİon’, İnce ‘thın’

TİD-5

gol’goal’, ceza ‘punıshment’, vİcdan ‘conscıence’

TİD-6

boru ‘pİpe’, sİlİndİr ‘cylınder’, omurga ‘spıne’

TİD-7

kİbrİt ‘match’, İzİn ‘permİssİon’, İp ‘rope’

TİD-8

çocuk ‘chıld’, İyİ ‘good’, yemek ‘food’

TİD-9

çıkarmak ‘remove’, kovmak ‘fıre’, dİyet ‘dıet’

TİD-10

rapor ‘report’, tanımamak ‘know’, on^İkİ ‘twelve’

TİD-11

zor ‘dİffıcult’, başvuru ‘applıcatİon’, ödeme ‘payment’

TİD-12

gezmek ‘wander’, camı ‘mosque’, yatak ‘bed’

TİD-13

kötü ‘evıl’, mİsafİr ‘guest’, torpİl ‘preferrentıal treatment’

TİD-14

aynı ‘same’, uçak ‘aırplane’, eğlence ‘fun’

TİD-15

üzülmek ‘be sorry’, zİraat ‘agrıculture’, alevİ ‘alawıt’

TİD-16

aİle ‘famıly’, hapİs ‘prıson’, savunma ‘defence’

TİD-17

İlk ‘fırst’, kırmızı ‘red’, şans ‘chance’

TİD-18

görmek ‘see’, moda ‘fashıon’, polİs ‘polıce’

TİD-19

İstemek ‘want’, durdurmak ‘stop’, sıra ‘row’

TİD-20

türkİye ‘turkey’, kahve ‘coffee’, ay ‘mouth’

TİD-21

bağırmak ‘yell’, perşembe ‘thursday’, köy ‘vıllage’

TİD-22

altın ‘gold’, hİç ‘nothong’, organİzasyon ‘organısatıon’

TİD-23

psİkolog ‘psychologıst’, boş ‘empty’, dolandırmak ‘defraud’

TİD-24

boğaz ‘throat’, şüphe ‘suspıcıon’, düdük ‘whısle’

TİD-25

sıkılmak ‘get bored’, çarpışmak ‘crash’, baskı ‘oppressıon’

TİD-26

başkan ‘leader’, maç ‘match’, atama ‘allocatıon’

TİD-27

eşİt ‘equal’, karate ‘karate’, ayna ‘mırror’

TİD-28

arkadaş ‘frıend’, cahİl ‘ıllıterate’, yok ‘non-exıstent’

TİD-29

kendİ ‘self’, beklemek ‘waıt’, anne ‘mother’

TİD-30

kız ‘gırl’, şarap ‘wıne’, kurs ‘traınıng’

TİD-31

aşk ‘love’, sandalye ‘chaır’, mavİ ‘blue’

TİD-32

sıcak ‘hot’, soruşturma ‘ınvestıgatıon’, bulmak ‘fınd’

TİD-33

unutmak ‘forget’, kaçmak ‘run away’, hızlı ‘quıckly’

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

73

The hands can show many different configurations because of the variety of parameters, such as location and number and selection of the fingers, as well as different shapes of joints, such as flat or bent. According to Brentari (2005), the handshape parameter in sign languages can be categorized under four groupings: the number of selected and unselected fingers, joint configurations, unmarked handshapes (variations of index or all selected fingers), and marked handshapes (other combinations of selected fingers). Mandel (1981) has suggested that the fingers should be categorized into two subgroups according to their phonological roles, namely, selected and unselected fingers. A selected finger is the finger(s) used in the process of articulation of a sign, whereas an unselected finger is the finger(s) which remain(s) stable during articulation of the sign; it is also named the non-active finger. For instance, in the TİD-17 handshape, the index finger is the selected finger and the remaining fingers are unselected fingers. In the TİD-12 handshape, the selected fingers are the thumb, index, and pinky fingers. According to the Redundancy Rule of Unspecified Fingers proposed by Corina (1993), unspecified fingers follow certain restrictions depending on whether they are open or closed: Unspecified Fingers Redundancy Rule (Corina, 1993, p. 74): If specified fingers are closed, unspecified fingers are open; otherwise, unspecified fingers are closed. This rule can be applied to TİD phonology. For example, in mİsafİr ‘guest’, the pinky finger is selected and the remaining fingers are unselected during the articulation of this sign (see Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3 An example of the selected and unselected fingers in TİD: mİsafİr ‘guest’.

74 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Selected fingers can occur in many configurations, which gives rise to many minimal pairs and new vocabulary items. Nevertheless, sign languages have restrictions on their possible handshapes and differ in terms of the types of handshapes allowed in their lexicons (Eccarius, 2008; Fischer & Gong, 2010). This is comparable to the fact that spoken languages allow only 30-50 phonemes among many others present in the International Phonetic Alphabet-IPA. a) The number of selected and unselected fingers The number of selected fingers can be defined as the number of fingers which either move towards the body and/or have contact with the body during sign production. For instance, şans ‘chance’ and şarap ‘wıne’ in TİD have the same orientation, location, and movement while differing only in terms of the selected fingers of the dominant hand (Figure 3.4), while şans ‘chance’ has a handshape in which only the index finger is selected (TİD-17) and şarap ‘wıne’ selects both index and middle fingers (TİD-30).

şans ‘chance’

kavaklıdere

/ şarap ‘wıne’

Figure 3.4 Examples of minimal pairs in in TİD distinguished by selected fingers: şans ‘chance’ and kavaklıdere ‘wıne’.

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

75

b) Joint configurations Joint configurations can be defined as the shape the fingers take during the articulation of a sign. Joints can have various forms, such as flat or bent (Brentari, 2005). Handshapes can have a number of forms depending on the number of selected fingers. Joint configurations are of four types: open, closed, bent, and curved. Brentari (1998) added three more to these types. These are (Brentari, 1998, pp. 106–109): a) Fully open: No joints are specified, b) Curved (closed): The non-base joints are specified, c) Flat-open: The base joints are specified, being bent at less than a 90-degree angle, d) Flat-closed: The base joints are specified, being bent at more than a 90-degree angle, e) Bent-open: The base and non-base joints are specified, being bent without any palm contact, f) Bent-closed: The base and non-base joints are specified, being bent with palm contact, g) Fully closed: The base and non-base joints are specified, being fully bent. Different hand configurations give rise to new morphemes in sign languages such as TİD.

şans ‘chance’

and

sıcak ‘hot’

in TİD are similar to each

other in terms of movement (a single-path movement) and orientation (from inner to outer) of the hands, while they differ only in terms of joint configurations so that

şans

‘chance’ has a flat handshape, while

configuration (Figure 3.5).

sıcak

‘hot’ has a curved joint

76 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

şans ‘chance’

sıcak ‘hot’

Figure 3.5 Examples of minimal pairs in Turkish Sign Language distinguished by joint configuration: şans ‘chance’ and sıcak ‘hot’.

c) Unmarked handshapes: Variations of “index” or “all” selected fingers From a phonological perspective, unmarked handshapes are those handshapes that are more natural and more frequently found than other handshapes. Battison (1978) was the first to propose a group of unmarked handshapes. According to Boyes-Braem (1981), the unmarked handshapes in ASL are the seven handshapes given in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6 The most unmarked handshapes in ASL (Boyes-Braem, 1981).

Boyes-Braem (1981) showed that these handshapes are the most frequently used ones in both ASL and other sign languages. According to her, these are unmarked handshapes for the following reasons:

77

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

They are frequently used in daily actions such as showing, grasping, or holding things. Due to the anatomy of a hand, these handshapes are articulated more easily than marked ones. Moreover, because unmarked handshapes are more salient and easier to perceive, it has been claimed that deaf children acquire earlier those signs articulated with them. In his study, which shows the inventory and distribution of the handshapes in TİD, Kubuş (2008) argued that unmarked handshapes in TİD are very different from those proposed by Boyes-Bream (1981). According to Kubuş’s study, the most frequent handshapes in the lexicon of TİD are as shown in Figure 3.7 below. The 69.79% of words contained in Kubuş’s corpus are composed of these handshapes.

Figure 3.7 The unmarked handshapes in TİD (Kubuş, 2008).

In addition, the unmarked handshapes in TİD can show distinctive characteristics. For example, the signs

İstemek ‘want’

and

sabır ‘patıence’

have

the same location (chest), movement (repetitive path movement), and joint specification (fully open) parameters. They contrast with each other in terms of closure of the fingers: TİD-19, while

İstemek ‘want’

sabır ‘patıence’

is articulated with a fully open handshape,

is produced with handshape TİD-27, in which the

fingers are adjoined to each other. Moreover, during the production of these signs, in

İstemek ‘want’

the tip of the thumb while in

thumb makes contact with the body (see Figure 3.8).

sabır ‘patıence’

the whole

78 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

sabır ‘patience’

İstemek

‘want’

Figure 3.8 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by distinctive features of unmarked handshapes: İstemek ‘want’ and sabır ‘patıence’.

d) Marked handshapes: other combinations of selected fingers Unlike unmarked handshapes, marked handshapes include finger movements which are difficult to make motorically. Several marked handshapes are given in Figure 3.9 below.

Figure 3.9 Marked handshapes (Boyes-Braem, 1981). Marked handshapes can form minimal pairs as well. In TİD, for example, tasarruf ‘savıng’ and İdare ‘admınıstratıon’ are composed of complex handshapes which are difficult to articulate motorically. Both signs have the same movement (local and arc) and the same joint configurations (flat-open) as well as the same number of selected fingers (two). However, these signs differ in terms of the combination of the selected fingers: tasarruf ‘savıng’ is produced with the index and pinky fingers, whereas İdare ‘admınıstratıon’ is articulated with the index and middle fingers (see Figure 3.10).

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

tasarruf ‘saving’

79

İdare ‘administration’

Figure 3.10 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by distinctive features of marked handshapes: tasarruf ‘savıng’ and İdare ‘admınıstratıon’.

3.2.1.2 Orientation Battison (1978) was the first to define orientation as the direction of the palm and fingers, giving importance to them during productions of signs. There are two views of the phonological status of orientation in sign language literature. First, according to Sandler and Lillo-Martin (2006), orientation is part of a handshape and should be categorized as one of its features. Second, according to Brentari (1998) and Crasborn and van der Kooij (1997), orientation should be considered a separate category rather than a feature of a handshape. In this section, we follow the second view so that orientation in TİD shows distinctive properties. As mentioned before, Brentari (2005) classifies orientation into two subgroups: a) the joint of a hand has contact with the body and the location of this contact determines the direction of the subsequent movements and b) the parts of a hand such as the palm, fingertips, back, and inner and outer planes determine the orientation.

80 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR a) The joint of a hand determines the direction of the movement. There are signs in which the orientation of the index finger is determined by the contact point of the hand rather than the finger itself. Consider the signs akıllı ‘clever’ and akılsız ‘fool’ in TİD, given in Figure 3.11. They differ from each other in terms of orientation. In akıllı ‘clever’, the inner part of the hand contacts the head; hence, the direction of the index finger is towards the front. Yet in akılsız ‘fool’, the outer part of the hand contacts the head; therefore, the index finger is obligatorily directed toward the back side of the body.

akIllI ‘clever’

akılsız ‘fool’

Figure 3.11 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by the direction of movement determined by the hand joint: akıllı ‘clever’ and akılsız ‘fool’.

b) The parts of a hand such as the palm, fingertips, back, and inner and outer planes determine orientation. This distinctive feature is usually classified according to the orientation of a particular part of the hand in the signing space. Orientations of the abovementioned parts of the hand are composed of a number of phonological features, such as left, right, up, down, front, back, and side. Consider İlk ‘fırst’ and eksİ ‘mınus’ in TİD, given in Figure 3.12. These signs are almost identical in terms of movement (straight, path), handshape (TİD-17), and location (in front of the signer) of the sign, but differ in orientation. In İlk ‘fırst’, the fingertips are directed upwards in the signing space, while in eksİ ‘mınus’, they are directed toward the left side of the signing space.

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

İlk ‘fırst’

81

eksİ ‘mınus’

Figure 3.12 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by the direction of the movement determined by the orientations of parts of the hand: İlk ‘fırst’ and eksİ ‘mınus’.

3.2.1.3 Movement Movements of the hands have many crucial roles in the grammar of sign languages. In this section, as one of the phonological parameters in sign languages, we examine their roles in TİD minimal pairs. Movement is an essential component of the models investigating the phonological structure of sign languages (Stokoe, 1960; Liddell & Johnson, 1989; Brentari, 1998; Sandler, 1993). According to Brentari (1998, p. 129), the movement parameter consists of two types: path movement and local movement. On the one hand, path movement is formed by elbows or shoulder joints and is realized either on the body, which is the inner part of the signing space, or in the outer part of the signing space, also known as the distal area in front of the signer. On the other hand, the local movement is realized by wrists or finger joints and triggers change either in handshapes or hand orientations. Besides this basic classification, path movement can be further divided into three subcategories: circular, straight, and arc movement. According to Sandler and Lillo-Martin (2006), the underlying movement parameter should be the path movement in terms of the type and the straight movement in terms of the form.

82 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR a) Path and local movements The easiest way to determine whether a sign is articulated with a path or local movement is to determine the type of joint active in sign production. In particular, in the path movement, the elbows and shoulders are active, whereas in the local movement, the wrist of the hand and fingers are active. Consider lİse ‘lycee’ and lokal ‘club’ in TİD, given in Figure 3.13. These signs are very similar to each other, differing only in terms of the type of movement involved in their productions: lİse ‘lycee’ has a path movement produced via the elbow and the shoulder joints while lokal ‘club’ has a local movement in which the wrist is an active articulator while the elbow and shoulders are passive articulators.

lİse

‘lycee’

lokal ‘club’

Figure 3.13 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by the type of movement: lİse ‘lycee’ and lokal ‘club’. b) Types of path movement: straight, circle, and arc The path movement can be realized through the direction of a hand/ arm as the main determinant of the form of this type of movement. An example comes from lazım ‘ought’ and lİse ‘lycee’ in TİD (Figure 3.14). These signs have identical handshapes articulated with repetitive hand movements in front of the signer’s chest in the neutral signing space. However, these two signs can be differentiated from each other according to the type of path movement so that lazım ‘ought’ is articulated with the straight path movement in which the hand moves forward and backward repetitively, while lİse ‘lycee’ is articulated with the circular path movement formed by the hand moving in a circular manner in the neutral signing space.

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

lazim ‘ought’

83

lİse ‘lycee’

Figure 3.14 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by the form of path movement: lazİm ‘ought’ and lİse ‘lycee’.

3.2.1.4 Location Location (place of articulation) is another parameter that distinguishes signs from one another to form minimal pairs. It is usually defined as the position of the hand on the body or in the signing space during the production of the sign. In the sign language literature, there are some disagreements about the parameters of locations because of the availability of many parts of the body as locations for the signs and because of the difficulty involved in determining reliable criteria for the categorization of these locations. According to Stokoe (1960), there are 12 types of locations at which all signs are articulated. These are the signing space, face / whole head, forehead / eyebrows / upper face, eye / nose / middle of the face, lips / chin / lower face, cheek / temple / ear / side of the face, neck, shoulders / chest / torso, upper arm, elbow / lower arm, and inner and outer parts of the wrist. For Brentari (2005), there are only four main groups: head, torso, arm, and non-dominant hand. Table 3.2 below shows these possible locations of signs and their subcategories suggested by Schembri and Johnston (2007). We also provide examples from TİD of all these locations.

84 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Table 3.2 Possible locations and examples of them from TİD. Location Head Above head Top of head Whole of head Side of head Forehead Ipsilateral Central Eye Side of eye Under eye Nose Bridge of nose Tip of nose Under nose Ear Whole ear Earlobe Behind ear Over ear Cheek Mouth Mouth Teeth Side of mouth Chin Under chin Neck Ipsilateral Central Shoulders Above Below Chest Ipsilateral Central Contralateral Armpit Stomach Waist Back Thigh Arm Upper arm Elbow Lower arm Wrist Hand Back of hand Palm

Example hoca ‘master’ beyİn ‘braın’ utanmak ‘blush’ İşİtme ‘hear’

anlamak ‘understand’ sıcak ‘hot’ bakmak ‘look’ ağlamak ‘cry’ kartal ‘eagle’ kaba ‘rude’ afrİka ‘afrıca’ İşİtme^cİhazİ ‘hearıng^aıd’ küpe ‘ear rıng’

koklear-İmplant ‘cochlear ımplant’ kİraz ‘cherry’ pembe ‘pınk’ sİgara ‘cıgarette’ yaş ‘age’ eskİ ‘old’ renk ‘color’ avrupa ‘europe’ klüp ‘club’ boğaz ‘throat’ dİyarbakİr ‘dİyarbakİr’ komutan ‘commander’ kamu ‘publıc’ kendİ ‘self’ sevmek ‘love’ avukat ‘lawyer’ aç ‘hungry’ öğrencİ ‘pupıl’ geçmİş ‘past’ bacanak ‘brother ın law’ yurt ‘dorm’ memleket ‘homeland’ yardım ‘help’

onay ‘consent’ kopya ‘copy’

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

85

Changes in these locations can form minimal pairs in TİD. Consider kan ‘blood’ and yedek ‘substıtute’ in Figure 3.15. They use the same handshapes composed of the fist and the path movement articulated by the elbows. These two signs can be differentiated only in terms of their locations. While kan ‘blood’ is articulated with the hand contact on the nose, yedek ‘substıtute’ is articulated with the contact on the chin.

kan ‘blood’

yedek ‘substitute’

Figure 3.15 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by the location of the sign: kan ‘blood’ and yedek ‘substİtute’.

3.2.2 Nonmanual signs In addition to manual signs, nonmanual signs can form minimal pairs in sign languages. The features of the nonmanual signs include head, body, and facial movements, which play a very important role in the production of the signs, from phonology to syntax to intonation (see Pfau & Quer, 2010). TİD also makes use of nonmanuals in its phonology, syntax, and intonation (see Baker & Padden, 1978, for ASL; Coerts, 1992, for NGT; and Zeshan, 2000, for IndoPakistani Sign Language). Nonmanuals can be obligatory components of some syllables. When they are omitted, there can be ill-formed structures (Neidle, Kegl, MacLaughling, Bahan, & Lee, 2000, p. 40). Their roles in various parts of TİD grammar are discussed throughout this book.

86 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR In sign languages, there have been a number of nonmanual movements identified thus far. These include eyebrow movements (lowering and raising of the eyebrows), eye gaze, mouthings, mouth gestures, head movements (sideward head shakes), head nods, head tilts, and body leans (forward and backward). These signs can occur either in combination or on their own in sentences (Zeshan, 2004a). In what follows, we examine the roles of nonmanuls in forming minimal pairs in TİD, focusing on head and body movements (3.2.2.1), facial expressions (3.2.2.2), and mouth gestures (3.2.2.3). 3.2.2.1 Head and body movements The TİD lexicon contains a number of words which can form minimal pairs differentiated only by the head and body movements. For example, konya ‘konya’ (a city in Turkey) and kendİ ‘self’ share the same movement (single path), location (chest), and handshape (curved-5) parameters, and differ only in terms of the head and body movements. As can be seen in the illustrations below, kendİ ‘self’ is articulated with almost neutral movement, while konya ‘konya’ is produced with a simultaneous movement of hands and repetitive movements of the head to the sides (Figure 3.16).

konya ‘konya’

kendİ ‘self’

Figure 3.16 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by head and body movements: konya ‘konya’ and kendİ ‘self’.

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

87

3.2.2.2 Facial expressions Facial expressions, which have a distinctive role in sign language phonology, are produced by the movement of a number of body parts, such as the eyebrows, lips, cheek, and chin. The difference in facial expressions can form minimal pairs in TİD as well. Consider şans ‘chance’ and belkİ ‘perhaps’ in TİD, given in Figure 3.17. They form a minimal pair in TİD because they differ from each other only by a change in the position of an eyebrow. Both signs are produced with path movement articulated the by index finger on the forehead, but the eyebrow raise can be found in belkİ ‘perhaps’, not in şans ‘chance’.

şans ‘chance’

belkİ ‘perhaps’

Figure 3.17 Examples of minimal pairs in TİD differentiated by the facial expressions: şans ‘chance’ and belkİ ‘perhaps’. 3.2.2.3 Mouth gestures Mouth gestures, too, can form minimal pairs in sign languages. Analyses of spontaneous language production show that the mouth area is very active in signers. Such mouth movements are classified into two groups according to their functions: mouth gestures and mouthings, respectively. Mouth gestures are sign-language-specific elements, while mouthings are closely connected to spoken language and do not have any role in the grammar of sign languages (Sutton-Spence & Boyes-Braem, 2001). In fact, a signer tends to use more mouthings if the addressees are not proficient signers. This remains an interesting topic for sociolinguistic studies (Ann, 2001).

88 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR There are many reasons why mouthings are frequently used by the Deaf community, one of them being the close contact with spoken language. In particular, the members of this community receive their education in a spoken language; they also follow television programs in a spoken (written) language. Despite the fact that they do not receive any acoustic input, the signers are considered bilinguals given that they are exposed to both sign and (written) spoken languages. The signers can use mouthings either accompanied by sounds or with only slight movements of the lips in a silent manner. As can be seen in the example below in Figure 3.18, merhaba ‘hello’ is signed manually in TİD and articulated with mouthing in Turkish.

MER

HA

BA

Figure 3.18 Mouthing: merhaba merhaba ‘hello’ in TİD/Turkish.

Mouth gestures can form minimal pairs in TİD. For instance, for the articulation of ölü ‘dead’ in TİD, not only manual but also nonmanual movements (i.e., the tongue must be pulled out) are obligatory (Dikyuva, 2011). In the same manner, the absence of facial expressions such as whiffled mouth in kağıt ‘paper’ and rüzgar ‘wınd’ and puffed cheeks in zorlanmak ‘slog’ results in illformed sign productions (see Figure 3.19).

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

ölü ‘dead’

Figure 3.19 Examples of mouth gestures in TİD:

89

zorlanmak ‘slog’ ölü ‘dead’

and zorlanmak ‘slog’.

All natural languages can be examined from a phonological viewpoint. In this section, we focused on one of the most-studied topics in phonology: minimal pairs. We showed that TİD as a natural language has minimal pairs. In what follows, we focus on a sign-language-specific characteristic of language productions: sequential language production, which is found in both spoken and signed languages, and simultaneous language production, which is found only in signed languages. 3.3 Simultaneity and sequentiality Sign language research in the last 50 years has focused not only on the nature and origins of sign languages, but also on the influence and characteristics of language modality. The studies have shown that modality differences between spoken and sign languages have a great impact on the phonological and morphological structures of these languages (Meier, 2002). Sign languages differ from spoken languages in their channels of articulation, which gives rise to possible simultaneity. Simultaneity can be defined as the simultaneous occurrences of functionally different language units. Miller (1994, p. 133) explains simultaneity in two ways:

90 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR a) Production of different word units independently and simultaneously in different articulatory channels and, b) Combination of these units via some kind of syntactic relation. This definition focuses on simultaneity on only the syntactic level, and does not really say much about simultaneous productions at other levels, such as phonology or morphology. Therefore, we find it necessary to define phonological simultaneity as a subtype of simultaneity. Phonological simultaneity can be defined as co-occurrences of phonological parameters (handshape, movement, orientation, and nonmanual signs) of the sign at the same fragment of time in the same syllable. For instance, the handshape cannot occur in a syllable on its own; there must be other phonological parameters present for the handshape to form a syllable. Syllabic structure in spoken languages has sequential characteristics as opposed to the simultaneous structure of sign syllables. We illustrate the simultaneously articulated phonological elements of monosyllabic minimal pairs in TİD in the following table, focusing on İlk and eksİ’ mınus’ (Table 3.3). Table 3.3 Phonological simultaneity in sign languages. İlk ‘fırst’

eksİ ‘mınus’

1-handshape

1-handshape

Front of the body

Front of the body

Movement

Straight-Path-Single

Straight-Path-Single

Orientation

Up-to-Down

Left-to-Right

Handshape Location

Words in sign languages can be investigated in terms of their minimal building blocks by a model initially proposed by Stokoe (1960) and further developed by many other sign language researchers (Liddell & Johnson, 1989; Sandler, 1989, Brentari, 1998). As has been discussed above, simultaneity can be observed at different levels in different sign languages, which influences the structural/typological properties of these languages.

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

91

3.4 Prosodic structure Traditional accounts define prosody as the syllabic structure covering pitch, loudness, tempo, and rhythm. A syllable is a sound unit composed of phones and has at least one vowel in its nucleus. It is not possible to produce a syllable that does not have a vowel, although very few languages, such as Serbo-Croatian, can have liquids, e.g., [r] as the syllabic nuclei. For instance, the word fren ‘brake’ in Turkish is considered monosyllabic by traditional linguists; however, according to structural linguistics it is disyllabic. The consonant cluster [fr] is broken by an epenthetic [i] during speech production. This Turkish example shows where the written syllable and the phonetic prosody part ways. As discussed throughout this book, sign languages and spoken languages differ in their modality of linguistic production. Several models1 have been proposed to describe the syllabic structure in sign languages, which rely on the visual-gestural modality. This section follows the Prosodic Model to examine prosodic structures in TİD (Brentari, 1998). The Prosodic Model focuses on the (non-)linearity in sign language prosody and explains changes in handshape. The main assumption of this model is that sign language prosodic structure is similar to that of spoken language in that the spoken vowels correspond to the movements in sign. Just like spoken-language syllables can be composed of a single nuclear vowel (e.g., Turkish a-da), so can signed syllables, i.e., a single movement (see also Section 3.3). Recall from the section on minimal pairs that signed phonemes are produced via the simultaneous articulation of five parameters and that sequentiality is not a big part of it. Therefore, phones in a syllable in sign languages are composed of simultaneous movements within a particular period of time. According to the Minimal Word Hypothesis, a word / sign must have at least one syllable to form. While the vowel in spoken languages takes on the role, it is the movement that carries the syllable in sign languages (Brentari, 1990; Jantunen, 2007). Signed and spoken languages differ in their prosodic structures in their prosodic hierarchy. In spoken languages, the smallest phonological unit X tops the hierarchy and melody, where prosody is brought together, is at the bottom (see Figure 3.20). Conversely, the phonological unit X in sign languages is at the 1

Cheremic Model (Stokoe, 1960; Stokoe, 1695), Hold-Movement Model (Liddell & Johnson, 1989), Hand-Tier Model (Sandler, 1989), and Prosodic Model (Brentari, 1998).

92 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR bottom of the prosodic hierarchy. Phonological units in spoken languages are distinguishable such that single units come before the production of a syllable. However, phonological units in a sign language can be divided into smaller units only after linguistic production (melody) takes place (Brentari, 2011). In other words, while spoken-language syllables allow for the part-to-whole relation, sign languages allow for only whole-to-part. The reason for this is the simultaneity of the prosodic structure in sign languages. a) Spoken Languages

b) Sign Languages

X (Unit)

(Root)

Kök

Melodi

Melodi

X (Unit)

Figure 3.20 The hierarchical structure of prosody in signed and spoken languages (Brentari, 2011). According to the Prosodic Model, a syllabic structure consists of four types of movement of the hand: location movement, path movement, orientation movement, and hand configuration movement. In addition to manual signs, TİD has lexical signs that are articulated only by nonmanual articulators (Makaroğlu & Bekâr, 2015). Therefore, the Prosodic Model in TİD is composed of five types of movement, including the nonmanual movements, which are described below: Location movement: A path movement articulated in a particular part of the body with two locations. Path movement: A movement that has a direction or a path articulated using the elbow and the forearm. Orientation movement: A movement articulated using the wrist and the forearm. Hand configuration movement: A movement in the finger joints. Nonmanual movement: A movement composed of the mouth, lips, eyebrows, and upper torso.

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

93

We provide examples below to show the five different types of movement in TİD (see also Figure 3.21). anne ‘mother’ is articulated with the location movement with two contact points located on the chest. This movement creates a monosyllabic sign composed of the location movement at its nucleus. The sign for İlk ‘fırst’ is an example of the path movement using the elbow and shoulders, with the hand moving down along the torso. The sign dİğer ‘other’ is articulated with the orientation movement, where the palm changes its orientation. Even though the handshape and its location stay the same, the upward change in the hand orientation makes up the nucleus of the sign. The articulation of the sign mİkrop ‘other’ does not incorporate the shoulders, the wrists, or the elbows. The movement is locally restricted to finger joints, which is called the hand movement configuration. The handshape changes repeatedly from the closed fist to the three curved selected fingers: the thumb, index, and middle fingers. alsancak (a district of Izmir, Turkey) has no manual articulators in its articulation. The sign is articulated nonmanually with the mouth twisted sideward. Location

Path

Orientation

anne ‘mother’

İlk ‘fırst’

dİğer ‘other’

Manual

Nonmanual

mİkrop ‘other’

alsancak

Figure 3.21 Movement types in TİD.

94 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 3.4.1. Prosodic weight Prosodic weight is defined as the number and quality of the units that constitute a syllable. For instance, the first syllable of the word a-ta ‘ancestor’ in Turkish is composed of a single vowel and, therefore, is considered light. Conversely, the syllable of the word Türk-çe, ‘Turkish language’, is composed of four sounds and, therefore, is considered heavy. Brentari (1998) described the prosodic weight in sign languages as the number of simultaneous movements that occur in a sign. Syllables with a single-path movement or a single local movement are light, whereas those with both path and local simultaneous movements are heavy. Brentari argued that the maximum prosodic weight of a syllable in sign languages can be two units, although studies of Finnish Sign Language have shown that the prosodic weight in sign languages can be more than two units (Jantunen, 2005; Jantunen & Takkinen, 2010). Similarly, Makaroğlu and Bekâr (2015) argued that prosodic weight in TİD can go up to four units. The sign

dün

‘yesterday’ in TİD has a single-path movement; therefore,

its prosodic weight is one. Conversely,

kavun

‘melon’ has two simultaneous

movements: (i) a path movement from the central signing space to the peripheries, and (ii) a local movement where the handshape changes from open fingers to closed. Therefore, this sign’s prosodic weight is two. The sign teşekkür ‘thank’ has three movements: (i) a path movement in which the hand moves from the neck to the waist level, (ii) a change in the hand joints, and (iii) a change in the palm orientation. The simultaneous articulation of these three movements means that this sign has prosodic weight three. Likewise, the sign pİs ‘dırty’ has four simultaneous movements: a path movement where the hand goes down along the torso, a change in the handshape orientation, a change in the finger joints, and a nonmanual movement. This means that the prosodic weight of the sign for ‘dirty’ is four (see Figure 3.22 below). 3.4.2 Syllable vs. Morpheme Most sign language words are composed of a single syllable (Coulter, 1982). However, disyllabic signs are also frequently observed. While prosody is a phonological term that refers to a group of phones that come together to form a unit, a morpheme has morphological and structural qualities. For instance, the word gel-dim, ‘I arrived’, in Turkish has two syllables: gel- and

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY One

Two

dün ‘yesterday’

kavun ‘melon’

Three

Four

teşekkür ‘thank’

pİs ‘dırty’

95

Figure 3.22 Prosodic weight in TİD. -dim. A closer inspection of the second syllable -dim shows that it is composed of two morphemes: the past-tense morpheme -di and the first-person-singular agreement marker -m. Therefore, a single syllable can incorporate more than one morpheme. We made similar observations while examining the TİD corpus. Consider the sign İstİfa ‘resıgnatıon’ given in Figure 3.23. This sign has two sequential movements, not simultaneous. This means that the sign is disyllabic. The first syllable has a contralateral path movement, while the second syllable has a change in the hand orientation from downward facing to upward facing. These two sequential movements have no structural correspondence; therefore, this sign is composed of two syllables but is a single morpheme.

96 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

İstİfa ‘resıgnatıon’

Figure 3.23 An example of two syllables in one morpheme in TİD: İstİfa ‘resıgnatıon’. 3.5 Phonological processes Although words in spoken languages are separated by a space to form independent units in their written forms, they are articulated in a continuous manner, that is, without breaks. Words come together to create bigger structures with continuous flows. Consider this from colloquial Turkish. The word geliyor ‘(she/he) is coming’ is articulated as geliyo, where the final consonant ‘r’ is deleted. While the standard written form has the word-final ‘r’, this phonological deletion rule is reflected in informal texts. Such phonological processes which we observe in the production of spoken languages enable the smaller – and, therefore, quicker – articulation of phonological units as per the Ease of Articulation law (Martinet, 1962). Therefore, speech sounds can be produced with less effort and within a shorter period. Likewise, such phonological processes are frequently found in sign languages. Signs, just like spoken words, are affected by similar phonological processes in fast articulation (Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Phonological processes in spoken languages can be divided into three groups: 1. Assimilation and dissimilation 2. Epenthesis and elision 3. Metathesis

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

97

Turkish, due to its agglutinative morphology, depicts many phonological processes (Ergenç, 2002). For instance, words ending in a voiceless consonant such as [t] undergo a voicing operation following the concatenation of an affix that has an initial vowel. The voiceless [t] becomes the voiced [d] in words such as [kaɯt] ‘paper’ where the accusative [ɯ] is added to the stem. The new, morphologically complex form will be [kaɯdɯ]. Similarly, voiceless [p, t͡ʃ ] become [b, d͡ʒ ], respectively. As explained in the previous chapters, spoken languages are composed of minimal units called consonants and vowels. However, in sign languages we see a different picture. Because sign languages are not based on sequential sound units but instead on simultaneous visual-manual bits, the parameters of sign language phonology are essentially different from those of spoken languages. Consonants and vowels in spoken languages are replaced by (at least) five parameters: handshape, place of articulation, hand orientation, hand movement, and nonmanuals. Therefore, phonological processes in sign languages are described as assimilation / dissimilation, epenthesis or elision of one or more of these five parameters during the concatenation of affixes or the compounding of words. The first of these phonological processes in sign languages is location assimilation, in which the place of articulation of a sign is assimilated into the place of articulation of another sign which is articulated sequentially. For instance, when the sign for the sentential negation değİl ‘not’ is articulated right after the verb bİl ‘know’ in TID, it takes the place of the articulation of the verb (Figure 3.24). The citation form of negation in TID is articulated ipsilaterally next to the head. However, the location assimilation with ‘know’ results in the articulation of negation on the chin where ‘know’ is articulated. This process is fundamentally similar to voicing assimilation in Turkish, e.g., [sokak]+[Dan]>[sokaktan] ‘from (the) street’.

98 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

bİl ‘know’

değİl ‘not’

değİl ‘not’

Figure 3.24 Location assimilation in TID: bİl^değİl ‘know^not’. Consider kalp^kötü ‘heart^bad’ ‘evil’ and tad^İyİ ‘taste^good’ ‘delicious’ for the location assimilation in TİD. In their citation forms, the sign for heart is articulated at the location of the heart while the sign for bad is articulated ipsilaterally. When these two signs are compounded to form the sign for ‘evil’, the second part of the compound, meaning ‘bad’, is articulated close to the heart (contralaterally). Similarly, the second sign in the compound tad^İyİ ‘taste^good’ meaning ‘delicious’ undergoes location assimilation to be articulated at the same place as the first sign. The location assimilation of these two signs is predictable. As per Ease of Articulation, the different places of articulation of the two signs are assimilated.

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

kötü ‘bad’

99

kalp^kötü ‘heart^bad’

Figure 3.25 Location assimilation in TİD: kalp^kötü ‘heart^bad’ ‘evil’. Movement deletion is another phonological process in which the movement parameter of a sign is dropped so that it can be produced faster and with less effort. Movement comprises the prosodic structure of a sign and determines its syllabic weight. Movement deletion is frequently observed in repetitive signs and results in the production of the sign with a single movement (Johnston & Schembri, 2007, p. 115). Moreover, movement deletion in sign languages results in the loss of prosodic prominence and a decrease in syllabic weight. Consider the example from TİD below.

hepsİ ‘all’

İçİn ‘for’

hepsİ^İçİn ‘for all’

Figure 3.26 Movement deletion in TİD: hepsİ^İçİn ‘for all’.

100 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Handshape deletion is a phonological process in which two-handed signs are reduced to a single hand during discourse. This process can be observed in TİD, too. For instance, the sign maaş ‘salary’ is articulated with a repetitive contact movement of the dominant hand on the non-dominant hand (Figure 3.27). As a result of handshape deletion, the non-dominant hand is dropped and the sign is articulated with the dominant hand without a change in other parameters, that is, location and orientation.

maaş ‘salary’

(two-handed)

maaş ‘salary’

(one-handed)

Figure 3.27 Handshape deletion in TİD maaş ‘salary’. Handshape assimilation occurs during the compounding of two signs that have different handshapes. As is the case with most sign languages, TİD has number incorporation and compounding, which are considered derivational morphological processes. For instance, the selected fingers in the sign ay ‘month’ are the thumb and the index finger; incorporating a number, such as three, assimilates the handshape into the handshape of the number. Therefore, the sign month undergoes handshape assimilation and is articulated with the addition of the middle finger to its handshape. also undergoes movement addition / epenthesis, a process in which a movement is added to the sign stem, increasing its prosodic weight. The citation form of month has a contralateral movement of the hand from the wrist. Compounding this with üç ‘three’ adds a small curve movement to the sign located in the selected finger joints, resulting in a change in the sign’s syllabic weight (Figure 3.28). The sign

ay ‘month’

101

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

ay ‘month’

üç^ay ‘three^month’

Figure 3.28 Movement epenthesis in TİD:

üç^ay ‘three^month’.

TİD offers many examples in which two or more phonological processes of the same type or different types have taken place at the same time. For instance, the sign for ‘ten’ in TİD has a side-to-side movement from the wrist while the sign dokuz ‘nıne’ has a forward-backward movement. When these two signs are adjacent, they both lose their local movements. The examples in this section have provided a general picture of the phonological processes attested to in TİD derivational morphology. Moreover, this gives us an idea of how the internal structure of signs might be composed and what phonological processes might be behind the forming of TİD signs. The Location of Phonological Processes TİD has movement deletion. For instance, a sign such as

yİrmİ ‘twenty’

has side-to-side movement occurring in the wrist. When it is compounded with a sign such as beş ‘fıve’, it loses that movement. Although in the examples given so far, the phonological operation takes place in the second sign,

yİrmİ^beş

‘twenty^fıve’ undergoes an operation in the first sign (Figure 3.29). This shows that phonological processes in TİD are not limited to the second signs in compounds or affixes.

102 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

yİrmİ ‘twenty’

yİrmİ^beş ‘twenty^fıve’

Figure 3.29 The locations of phonological processes in TİD. Some examples show that both signs in a compound or the sign and the affix together can undergo a phonological operation. The signs cumartesİ ‘saturday’ and pazar ‘sunday’ have repetitive movements in the wrist and in the elbow, respectively. When these two signs come together to form haftasonu ‘weekend’, the repetitive movements in both signs are dropped and replaced by a single movement. 3.6 The place of fingerspelling within phonology TİD has acquired a fingerspelled alphabet from written Turkish (see Bilingualism, Multilingualism, Language contact), as is the case with other sign languages (Ann, 2001). The TİD alphabet is two-handed and different from any other known sign-language alphabets. Fingerspelled alphabets are a part of sign languages. Some signs borrowed from the surrounding dominant spoken language have partial fingerspelling and became lexicalized in time (see Battison, 1978; Brentari & Padden, 2001; Schembri & Johnston, 2007). Lexicalized fingerspelling in TİD was studied by Kubuş (2008), Kubuş & Hohenberger (2011) and Taşçı (2012). TİD makes use of its alphabet in various ways. One such way is fingerspelling concepts that don’t have a sign in TİD, such as b-o-n-o ‘bono’. Another use of fingerspelling is when one of the signers does not know a sign. This technique is especially useful if the signer acquired TİD at a later stage.

CHAPTER 3 PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

103

Figure 3.30 An example of a lexical sign with TİD alphabet: b-o-n-o ‘bono’.

Fingerspelling is also used to borrow a letter or word from Turkish. For instance, TİD has borrowed lazİm ‘requıred’, lİse ‘hıgh school’ and lokal ‘club’ (Figure 3.31) from Turkish; only the letter “L” is incorporated into all three signs. These three signs in TİD are distinguishable by their different movement parameters. Other such examples are given in Figure 3.32 in which “P” in psİkolojİ ‘psychology’, “C” in ceket ‘coat’ and kola ‘coke’, and “T” in taksİ ‘taxı’ are borrowed from Turkish.

lazim ‘requıred’

lİse ‘hıgh school’

lokal ‘club’

Figure 3.31 Examples of lexicalized fingerspellings in TİD: lazım ‘requıred’, lİse ‘hıgh school’ and lokal ‘club’.

104 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

psİkolojİ ‘psychology’

ceket ‘coat’

kola ‘coke’

taksİ ‘taxi’

Figure 3.32 psİkolojİ ‘psychology’, ceket ‘coat’, kola ‘coke’ and taksİ ‘taxi’.

3.7 Summary In this chapter, TİD phonology was examined in detail, starting with the internal structure of signs and sign phonemes. Then, minimal pairs in TİD were examined. In the section that followed, the issues of sequentiality and simultaneity with regards to sign language phonology were discussed. This was followed by an introduction to prosodic / syllabic structure and phonological processes. Lastly, the phonological processes with regard to fingerspelling in TİD were presented. The following chapter tackles sign language morphology.

CHAPTER 2

4

MORPHOLOGY SIGN CONSTRUCTION AND FORMATION

106 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

107

Morphology is a field of linguistics that examines word structures, words’ roots, affixes, and word formation rules in a language. As stated in Chapter 3, phonological aspects of sign languages differ from those of spoken languages. So does morphology. Although words are formed by sounds coming together sequentially and systematically in spoken languages, signs are formed by five different parameters (handshape, orientation, location, movement, and nonmanual) in sign languages. This distinction in the basic structure of these two languages ensures that different types of morphemes can be seen. This chapter is about general aspects of TİD’s morpheme structure, focusing on the processes through which the five parameters (handshape, orientation, location, movement, and nonmanual) contribute to word production and affixation. After providing general information about the morphological features of sign and spoken languages (4.1), the chapter discusses the concept of morphemes (4.2) and derivational and inflectional morphology (4.3). Then, sign production processes (lexical extension, affixation, reduplication, compounding, movement configuration, and borrowing) are explained in detail, with examples. The section (4.4) that follows examines noun configurations with location, number, size and shape specifiers and reduplication. After that, verb configuration is examined, focusing on agreement, manner, tense, aspect, modality, and reciprocals. Section 4.6 focuses on noun and verb differences in word / sign classes. Then, pronouns in TİD are discussed. Section 5.8 provides a summary of this chapter. 4.1 Morphological aspects in sign and spoken languages In spoken languages such as Turkish, a morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit forming words. For example, in Turkish, -lAr in kitap-lar ‘bookPL’ ‘books’ is a morpheme that has a grammatical meaning which is plurality; however, it does not have any meaning on its own. The morphological complexity of words in spoken languages is related to the number of morphemes added to the word root. For instance, in Turkish, in kol-lar-ım-da ‘arm-PL-POSS-LOC’ ‘in my arms’, the word has a plural suffix -[lAr], a possessive suffix [-Im], and the locative case marker [-dA]. Similarly, the TİD signs introducing number, tense, and before-after relation such as 3^hafta^önce ‘3^week^before’ ‘three weeks ago’ and 2^yıl^sonra ‘2^year^after’ ‘two years

108 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR later’ are morphologically more complex than signs such as araba ‘car’, kalem ‘pencİl’, and kedİ ‘cat’. In spoken languages such as Turkish, morphemes are generally added to word roots and have grammatical meanings, while in sign languages, changes in the five parameters, such as handshape and movement, can have morphemic structures adding to the morphological complexity of the sign. Consider 2^sınıf ‘2^class’ ‘second year student’ and 3^sınıf ‘3^class’ ‘third year student’; and 1^hafta^önce ‘1^week^before’ ‘a week ago’ and 1^hafta^sonra ‘1^week^later’ ‘a week later’ in TİD. In the former pairs, the change in the handshape from 2 to 3 creates changes in the meaning of the signs, while in the latter pairs, the change in the movement orientation (backward or forward) creates the changes in meaning of the signs (Figure 4.1).

2^sınıf ‘2^class’

1^hafta^önce ‘1^week^before’

3^sınıf ‘3^class’

1^hafta^sonra ‘1^week^after’

Figure 4.1 Examples from TİD: 2^sınıf ‘2^class’, 3^sınıf ‘3^class’, 1^hafta^önce ‘1^week^before’ and 1^hafta^sonra ‘1^week^after’.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

109

4.2. Morpheme Contemporary linguistic studies have suggested the use of the concept of the morpheme instead of the term affix because ‘affix’ cannot clearly explain some theoretical issues. Although the term affix contains grammatical structures which are added only to the word root and which cannot be seen alone (e.g., kitap-çı ‘book-er’ ‘bookshop’), the term morpheme is more inclusive, containing both the structures that cannot be seen alone (e.g., nominalizer in kitap-lık ‘bookNOM.’ ‘bookcase’) and the word forms (araba ‘car’). In the literature, the morpheme is generally defined as the smallest meaningful unit. The morpheme that reveals the features and functions of the smallest meaningful structures in languages is essentially divided into two main types: bound and free morphemes (Bloomfield, 1933). Bound morphemes are small structures that cannot be seen alone and that must be combined with a root to be seen. For example, the negative marker morpheme (-mA) in Turkish is a bound morpheme because it cannot be seen alone (gel-me-m ‘come-NEG1stSG’ ‘I don’t come’). On the other hand, free morphemes can be seen alone and do not necessarily combine with any other roots. Morph is one of the morphemes or the form of morpheme that is phonetically realized. In languages such as Turkish, which have a great deal of vowel harmony, it is expected that a morpheme can have more than one morph. Due to vowel harmony, the morphs in Turkish vary greatly, contrary to morphemes. As an example, the morpheme -CI has eight forms (-çı, -çi, -çu, -çü, -cı, -ci, -cu, -cü) and the morpheme -TA has four forms (-ta, -da, -te, -de), while the morpheme -ken appears to have one form. Sign languages have no morphs due to the complexity of signs, the simultaneous use of phonetic structures, and the visual-gestural modality. As in other natural languages, both derivational and inflectional morphology can be observed in TİD. The facts that syllable structures in sign languages are different from those in spoken languages such as Turkish and that morphemes are seen simultaneously at the root lead to various morphemic structures in TİD. In TİD, no movement is involved while signing numbers such as bİr ‘one’, İkİ ‘two’, üç ‘three’; however, the handshape must be the same but there must be a bidirectional path movement while signing numbers such as on ‘ten’, yİrmİ ‘twenty’, otuz ‘thırty’.

This suggests that bidirectional path movement can derive decimals

from numbers because that movement is a type of derivational bound morpheme.

110 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

on ‘ten’

yİrmİ ‘twenty’

otuz ‘thırty’

Figure 4.2 Bound morphemes in TİD: Decimal derivation.

Another example of the type of sign and number association (numeral incorporation) comes from the word saat ‘hour’. In the above examples, decimal derivation encoding number is a bound morpheme; however, in this example, the sign saat ‘hour’ seems to be a bound morpheme instead of the number.

2^saat ‘2^hour’

4^saat ‘4^hour’

Figure 4.3 Bound morphemes in TİD: Hour and number incorporation.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

111

As explained in detail in the following sections (see 4.5.1 Derivation and 4.5.2 Inflection), derivation and inflection consist of both manuals and nonmanuals. Bound morphemes would be both derivational and inflectional. Consider haber^vermek ‘to ınform’, one of the agreeing verbs. This sign is produced by a flat movement of the handshape in space. When a semicircular path movement is added to this sign, it means ‘asking everyone’. Therefore, semicircular movement behaves as a bound morpheme here (Figure 4.4).

haber^vermek ‘to ınform’

haber^vermek+++ ‘askıng everyone’

Figure 4.4 Bound morphemes in TİD: Person and number agreement.

Apart from the derivational function, nonmanuals in sign languages are also used extensively in negation and interrogation. In TİD, many aspectual categories are formed by nonmanuals associated with verbs. For example, the movement of the mouth called (bn) encodes the perfective aspect in TİD (Dikyuva, 2011). As for the negative aspect, the mouthing (ap) is used. Because mouthing cannot be produced alone, both aspects are considered bound morphemes. In the following example, (bn) with the word koymak ‘put’ changes meaning to ‘I have put it already’, whereas (ap) with the same verb changes the meaning to ‘I have not put it yet.’

112 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

koymak+bn

‘put.perf’

koymak+ap

‘put. ımperf’

Figure 4.5 Bound morphemes in TİD: Nonmanuals.

Similar to the above examples, when puffed cheeks and head nods are used with verbs, they alter their meanings such that the action is made ‘imprecisely’. Although there is no nonmanual in the citation form of the verb koymak ‘put’, the determiner is coded on the verb with the nonmanual specified above. Obviously, many nonmanuals that can be associated with roots and complex signs function as bound morphemes in sign languages.

çalışmak+özensizce ‘workıng ımprecısely’

Figure 4.6 Bound morphemes in TİD: Nonmanual determiners.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

113

Some of the words in the lexicon are subject to phonological loss, a process called cliticization, as they are attached to the words before or after themselves. These kinds of words are called clitic (Uzun, 2006). TİD has clitics, too. The basic negative marker değİl ‘not’ in TİD can also be both a bound morpheme (bİlmek^değİl ‘know^not’) or a free morpheme (bİlmek değİl ‘know not’) (Figure 4.7).

bİlmek değİl ‘know not’

bİlmek^değİl ‘know^not’

Figure 4.7 Clitization in TİD: Basic negative marker değİl ‘not’.

4.3. Derivational and inflectional morphemes The previous part clearly explains how morphemes create new words and assign different meanings in existing lexical units. The process of creating new words from existing morphemes is called derivation. The purpose of derivation in the context of lexical morphology is to produce new words with morphological changes (Matthews, 1991, p. 37). For instance, in Turkish the word orman ‘forest’ means ‘wide area covered with trees’, but with the affix -CI ormancı ‘forester’ is derived. This new word derived from orman ‘forest’ means ‘someone in charge of protecting the forest, forest protection officer’. Later, with the addition of the -lIk morpheme to this word, the term ormancılık ‘forestry’ is derived, meaning ‘a scientific field that deals with the upbringing and maintenance of forests’.

114 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR In contrast, inflection is defined as the process of assigning grammatical meaning to words and encoding grammatical relations in sentences. It is a process that reveals different forms of the same lexical morpheme (Mathews, 1991, p. 38). For the sentence structure, inflection is a mandatory process due to the presentation of the grammatical context (see Bybee, 1985). 4.4. Formation types of signs 4.4.1 Lexical extension One of the most important methods of producing words to represent new concepts in languages ​​is the lexical extension of the words to eventually gain new meanings. New words are needed because languages’ vocabularies evolve rapidly due to changes in the modern world, such as changes in technology and science and the creation of new communication systems, such as social media. For example, as computers entered everyday life, many words such as window, network, and freeze acquired new meanings. TİD signs also acquire new meanings via lexical extension of signs. For example, the sign kırmak ‘break’ means ‘to separate parts of hard and fragile objects’. Over time, it underwent lexical extension so that it has acquired a new meaning: ‘to capture or acquire the password of the personal account or a program’. Another example comes from the sign mİsafİr ‘vısıtor’ in TİD. This sign also undergoes lexical extension, acquiring another meaning, müşterİ ‘customer’ (see Figure 4.8).

kırmak

‘to break’

müşterİ ‘customer’

Figure 4.8 Lexical extension in TİD: kırmak ‘to break’ and müşterİ ‘customer’.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

115

The sign names used in place of nicknames in spoken languages can be used in lexical extension to create new meanings indicating objects and places. The sign for Ismet Inonu, the second President of the Republic of Turkey, carries characteristics of his hearing loss. Over time, Ismet Inonu’s sign name has become a sign of Malatya, the province where his family lived, through extension and the gaining of new meaning. Thus, a sign name has become a name of a place / province (malatya) through lexical extension. Other examples come from the signs for sİhhİye, a district in Ankara, and samsun, a city. The sign for sİhhİye is the lexical extension of the geyİk ‘deer’ sign through the establishment of a connection with the deer figures in the Hittite Sun Disc Monument in this district. Similarly, the sign for the city samsun is derived from the cigarette company that has the same name. It is the same with the sİgara ‘cıgarette’ sign due to lexical extension (Figure 4.9).

malatya

sİhhİye

samsun

Figure 4.9 Lexical extension in TİD: malatya, sıhhİye, and samsun.

The meanings of words can be extended within the same conceptual domain in TİD. For instance, the sign matematİk ‘math’ has gained the meaning hesap ‘calculatıon’.

Because the word aşı ‘vaccıne’ (which is used to remove a health issue in an organism) is one of the methods used in hormone therapy, the lexical extent of this sign is expanded and used as a hormon ‘hormone’. The sign kılıç ‘sword’ is extended to osmanlı ‘ottoman’ and polİtİka ‘polıtıcs’ because of wars and diplomatic relations during the Ottoman period in Anatolia.

116 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Both metaphorical and metonomical appearances are frequently encountered in the process of lexical extension. The sign zorluk / dayanmak ‘dıffıculty / to endure’ has extended to sıkışmak ‘need-toılet’ according to the semantic relation of the desire to urinate because of physiological needs. The word hırsız ‘thıef’ has been extended to kestİrme^yol ‘shortcut’ to establish a semantic relation such that thieves would prefer the easiest way to escape (Figure 4.10).

hesap ‘calculatıon’

polİtİka ‘polıtıcs’

sıkışmak ‘need-toılet’

Figure 4.10 Lexical extension in TİD: hesap ‘calculatıon’, polİtİka ‘polıtıcs’ and sıkışmak ‘need toılet’. 4.4.2 Affixation Affixation is the process of insertion of an affix, which cannot stand alone in a sentence, to a distinct root (Uzun, 2006). Suffixation and prefixation are the most common types of affixation used in languages. Examples of suffixation in Turkish can be seen in both derivational processes such as ağaç-lık ‘tree-NOM’, çay-cı ‘tea-maker’, and sanat-sal ‘artistic’, and in inflectional process such as bak-acak ‘see-FUT’, git-ti-m ‘go-PAST-1stSG’, and izle-mi-yor-um ‘watch-NEGCONT.-1stSG’. There is no example of prefixation in Turkish, but this process is common in Western languages. In these languages, prefixing has many functions, such as anti-bacterial and il-legal in English. Inflection in sign languages is less distributed and has fewer varieties than do languages such as Turkish. The basic reason for this is that sign languages

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

117

generally show simultaneous derivation rather than sequential derivation. For this reason, many sign languages such as BSL (Brennan, 1990), ASL (Liddell & Johnson, 1989), ISL (Sandler & Lillo-Martin, 2006) and TİD have limited sequential affixation because of differences in modality and syllable structure. For cultural, social, and political reasons, languages add many words or linguistic units from other languages to their vocabularies through borrowing (Uzun, 2006). Although TİD and Turkish are languages with different communication channels, it is inevitable that both of these languages would undergo the process of borrowing because of their being spoken / signed in the same geographical area. In addition, borrowing is especially seen in fingerspelled units because sign languages’ finger alphabets are formed by taking the alphabet of the spoken language shared by the region (Sutton-Spence, 2006). The Turkish suffixes -lI, meaning ‘to belong to something, to exist’ and -CI, meaning ‘maker, the person who makes’ have been borrowed by TİD, as they are added to words by fingerspelling with the same meaning in Turkish (Kubuş, 2008). For example, the word

can+l+ı ‘alıve’

is derived from the word

can ‘lıfe’, the word İzmİr+l+ı ‘from-İzmİr’ is derived from the word İzmİr (a city in Turkey) and the word su+c-u ‘water-seller’ is derived from the word su ‘water’ (Figure 4.11). But this does not mean that these Turkish suffixes are used by TİD exactly as they are in Turkish. For example, the words formed by the -CI suffix in Turkish, such as sav-cı ‘argument-er’ meaning ‘prosecutor’, and bek-çi ‘watch-

er’, are seen as a single root

savcı ‘prosecutor’

and bekçİ ‘watcher’ in TİD without

any fingerspelled suffixes.

can+l+ı ‘alıve’

İzmİr+l+İ ‘from İzmİr’

Figure 4.11 Examples of borrowed affix types in TİD: can+l+ı ‘alıve’ and İzmİr+l+İ ‘from-İzmİr’.

118 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Affixation can also be due to grammaticalization processes. Grammaticalization occurs when a lexical unit or structure undergoes change to have a grammatical function in a certain linguistic context (Hopper & Traugott, 2003, p. 232). The lexical unit experiences some loss during the grammaticalization process. In particular, it loses its lexical meaning, desemanticization, and changes its category (decategorization); It also loses some of its phonological structure (phonological erosion) (Heine & Kuteva, 2002). Although the grammaticalization process can be relatively easily observed in written languages such as Turkish, this process can be detected in sign languages only by the phonological similarity. In TİD, hİç ‘nothıng’ exhibits affixation due to grammaticalization. Formed by the handshape generated in a long path, it has a determiner function in a sentence. This word has gained two meanings over time: the first is the determiner and the second is the derivational suffix, similar to -sIz in Turkish or im- (as in impossible) in English with the same meaning. In this grammaticalization process, the word underwent some phonological processes. The handshape is generated in a short path rather than a long path, i.e., shortening of the path of the movement in space, similar to the loss of the last sounds of a spoken word (Figure 4.12).

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

hİç’nothıng’

tat+hİç ‘taste+nothıng’

ses+hİç ‘sound+nothıng’

başari+hİç ‘success+nothing’

Figure 4.12 A grammaticalized affix in TİD: hİç ‘nothıng’.

119

120 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR In some languages, compounds can be very productive and become grammatical, behaving like affixes. Consider the following. Turkish has a word hane ‘house’, originally borrowed from Persian. This word forms many compounds, e.g., post+ane ‘post office’, hast+ane ‘hospital’, çamaşır+hane ‘laundry’, past+ane ‘pastry shop’, doğumhane ‘delivery room’, dersane ‘private teaching institution’, and so on. It acts like an affix specifying place. Similarly, in TİD, apart from its lexical meaning, the sign kİşİ ‘person’ adds different meanings to the words to which it is combined. When it is combined with a verb, it has a ‘person making the action, the doer’ meaning; when it is combined with a noun, it has a ‘person working with that object, producing, etc.’ meaning. In fact, this word has the same meaning as the Turkish suffix -CI (kitap-çı ‘book seller’) and the English suffix -er (teach-er). This word, which is thought to be in the process of grammaticalization, is expected to become a derivational morpheme in the future.

çalışmak+kİşİ ‘to work+person’

‘worker’

Figure 4.13 An affix in grammaticalization process in TİD: kİşİ ‘person’. 4.4.3 Reduplication From a morphological point of view, reduplication, one of the most common formations in sign languages, can be defined as two or more repetitions of the movement units of a sign. In addition to having functions such as plurality and aspect, reduplication has a derivational function because it can change the meaning of the sign to form a new word.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

121

In Turkish, the functions of reduplication are intensifying, multiplexing, and exaggeration (Uzun, 2006). Structurally, there are two types of reduplication: full reduplication and partial reduplication. The former corresponds to a full repetition of an entire word while the latter corresponds to a partial repetition of a word. In Turkish, reduplications such as yavaş yavaş ‘slowly’ (çalışmak ‘to work’) and küçük küçük ‘small’ (doğramak ‘to chop’) are examples of a full reduplication, whereas sap+sarı ‘bright yellow’, kıp+kırmızı ‘bright red’, and ap+açık ‘obvious’ are examples of a partial reduplication. This process is also observed in many sign languages. Reduplication in sign languages can be at a derivational level and an inflectional level. In what follows, we examine these levels of reduplication by providing examples from TİD. 4.4.3.1 Derivational reduplication With derivational reduplication, a word gains a new meaning via repeating the movement taking part in the word root. In the sign language literature, it is often examined so as to identify noun-verb pairs (see Supalla & Newport, 1978) and is one of the formations having the function of specifying the category of a sign. Consider the word çevİrmek ‘to turn’ in TİD (Figure 4.14). It is a verb formed by the movement of the handshape from the wrist in one single movement. With the reduplication of this sign, the word çevİrİ ‘translatıon’ is derived. Thus, reduplication can be used to derive nouns from verbs.

çevİrmek ‘to turn’

çevİrİ+repetition ‘translatıon’

Figure 4.14 Examples of derivational reduplication in TİD: çevİrmek ‘to turn’ and çevİrİ ‘translatıon’.

122 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Consider now the word ayakta^dİkİlmek ‘to stand’ in TİD, shown in Figure 4.15. This sign has different handshapes produced by both dominant and non-dominant hands and also has a path movement in the elbow. When the movement is repeated, the word zıplamak ‘to jump’ is derived. Unlike the example above, reduplication in this example helps derive a verb from another verb.

ayakta^dİkİlmek ‘to stand’

zıplamak+yineleme ‘repetition’ ‘to jump’

Figure 4.15 Examples of derivational reduplication in TİD: ayakta^dİkİlmek ‘to stand’ and zıplamak+repetition ‘to jump’. The word

olumlu ‘favourable’,

classified as an adjective, is formed by a path movement (Figure 4.16). When this movement is repeated in the same location, the word beğenİ ‘lıke’ is derived; it is used in particular as a social media term. As for this example, reduplication has a function that helps derive a noun from an adjective.

olumlu ‘favourable’

beğenİ ‘lıke’

Figure 4.16 Examples of derivational reduplication in TİD: olumlu ‘favourable’ and beğenİ ‘lıke’.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

123

Another example comes from the word kötü ‘bad’ (Figure 4.17). This sign, classified as an adjective, is formed by a path movement of a flat handshape. When it is reduplicated, the word kötülemek ‘denıgrate’, classified as an agreeing verb, is derived (see also 4.5.2.1.1, person and number agreement).

kötü

‘bad’

kötülemek+repetition‘denıgrate’

Figure 4.17 Examples of derivational reduplication in TİD: kötü ‘bad’ and kötülemek ‘denıgrate’. Although the reduplication phenomenon is generally described as a repetition of the movement in the root of the word, multiplying the number of hands as in the following example can be regarded as a kind of reduplication. Consider çanta ‘bag’ (Figure 4.18). This sign is formed by repeatedly moving the dominant hand up and down from the elbow. When the movement is done by both dominant and non-dominant hands, the word pazar ‘bazaar’ is derived.

çanta ‘bag’ pazar+repetition ‘bazaar’ Figure 4.18 Examples of derivational reduplication in TİD: çanta ‘bag’ and pazar ‘bazaar’.

124 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.4.3.2 Inflectional reduplication In inflectional reduplication, the repetition of the movement in the root of the word leads to a change in the grammatical meaning of the word. However, in this type of reduplication, the lexical meaning of the word does not change in any way. In TİD, previous studies have shown that inflectional reduplication is used in plurality and harmony (Kubuş, 2008), but the data obtained from the present corpus indicate that it has many more functions. Reduplication is used in nominal plurality, one of these functions. When the movement in the formation of the noun is repeated, it makes the noun plural. TİD uses reduplication for this purpose. For instance, the repetition of the movement forming the word ev ‘house’ in different locations in the signing space derives the plural form of that word, ev++ ‘house++’ ‘houses’ (Figure 4.19). Nominal plurality should not be seen as a simple repetition of the word because it is basically associated with a different location of the word in the signing space.

ev ‘house

ev +yineleme ‘repetition’ ‘houses’

Figure 4.19 Examples of inflectional reduplication in TİD: ev ‘house’ and ev+repetition ‘house’.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

125

For nominal plurality, reduplication is a very productive process because it can be done with different signs at different positions in the signing space, including the body. Consider a body-anchored word, kız ‘gırl’, in TİD. Since it is body-anchored, it cannot be located freely in space. When it is pluralized, the body is rotating in the horizontal plane from one side to the other (Figure 4.20). As it is repeated, it means kız+repetition kız ‘gırls’.

kız ‘gırl’

kız+repetition

‘gırls’

Figure 4.20 Examples of inflectional reduplication in TİD: kız ‘gırl’ and kız+repetition kız ‘gırls’. Inflectional reduplication also encodes the number paradigm in agreeing verbs, and the sign, which has the path movement on the y-plane, progresses in succession with different positions. Similar to the situation seen in nominal plurality, the sign moves to different locations, not to the same location in the signing space. In the following example, by directing repeatedly towards the objects, the verb sormak ‘to ask’ means ‘asking you and you and you’ (plural).

126 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

sormak ‘to ask’

sormak+repetition ‘askıng you’

Figure 4.21 Examples of inflectional reduplication in person-number agreement in TİD: sormak+repetition. ‘askıng you’. Another function of inflectional reduplication is to encode the meaning of the verb. With repetition in the same location in space, the verb can be repeated, indicating that the plurality is incorporated in the verb. Consider the example in Figure 4.22. In this example, the verb sormak ‘to ask’ is repeated at the single location in the signing space. It now means ‘I asked you many times.’

sormak+repetition/aynı konum ‘İ asked you many tımes’

Figure 4.22 Examples of inflectional reduplication in determiner meaning in TİD: sormak ‘to ask’ and sormak+repetition/aynı konum. ‘İ asked you many tımes’.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

127

Careful consideration of the TİD corpus has revealed that repetitions of verbs rather than nouns give plural meaning to the sentence. Consider the example in Figure 4.23. The word ‘problem’ in this sentence is singular. When the verb çıkmak ‘to arıse’ is repeated in the different locations in the signing space, problem is pluralized, indicating that now the sentence means ‘the problems arise.’

çıkmak ‘to arıse’

problem ‘problem’

çıkmak+repetition/different location ‘to arıse’

Figure 4.23 Examples of inflectional reduplication for plurality meaning in TİD: çıkmak ‘to arıse’

and problem çıkmak+repetition/different location ‘problems arıse’.

So far we have examined the functions and varieties of both derivational and inflectional reduplications. In doing so, we have provided several examples from the TİD corpus. Now we turn to compounding in TİD.

128 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.4.4 Compound The basic definition of compounds is an association between (at least) two lexical words or combining (at least) two words or two roots or two free morphemes. The new form has an independent meaning and a separate lexical entry. Compounds constitute one way to create new words in natural languages. For example, while the words demir ‘iron’ and yol ‘road’ have their own independent meanings in Turkish, they come together to form demiryolu ‘railroad’, an independent lexical entry. In TİD, there are compound words created in a similar way. For example, while the words

tad ‘taste’

and

dİkdörtgen ‘rectangle’

have their own meanings, when they come together to form a compound, the word baklava ‘baklava’ (tad+dİkdörtgen ‘taste+rectangle’) is created. Although the process of compound word formation is rarely studied from linguistic typological perspectives (Guevara & Scalise, 2009), some researchers argue that compounds exist in all languages in the world and that this grammatical structure is a universal language (Bauer, 2009). In particular, studies of sign languages in recent years indicate that compounds must not be classified according to spoken languages only and that different features detected in sign languages reveal new insights into compounding in terms of language typology. Many kinds of compounds are proposed from semantic and syntactic perspectives. The following section (4.4.4.1) presents a semantic approach based on the meaning of the words to examine compounds in TİD. It is followed by a brief introduction of a syntactic approach based on the head position of the compound structure in TİD (4.4.4.2). 4.4.4.1 The semantic approach Various semantic classifications exist according to the semantic head of the compound and the formation of the compound (Scalise & Bisetto, 2009). Although minor differences exist between researchers’ perspectives, the most accepted classifications of compounds are endocentric, exocentric, and copulative (see Coolen, 1994; Plag, 2003; Scalise & Bisetto, 2009).

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

129

a) Endocentric compounds In endocentric compounds, one of the words in the compound is the semantic head and the other is the modifier, restricting the meaning of the head (see Plag, 2003, p. 145). In other words, the whole compound contains a subcategory of the head (Coolen, 1994, p. 6). TİD includes this type of compound. Consider the word sözlük ‘dıctıonary’ in TİD, which is a compound formed by the words söz ‘word’ and kİtap ‘book’. sözlük ‘dıctıonary’ is a subcategory of ‘book’; both words forming the compound do not lose their own meanings because sözlük ‘dıctıonary’ (söz ‘word’ +kİtap ‘book’) is a kind of book including words. The word

sağanak ‘downpour’

in TİD is an endocentric compound as well. This word is formed by combining the signs hızlı ‘rapıd’ and yağmur ‘raın’. In this compound, similar to the above example, sağanak ‘downpour’ is a subtype of rain and yağmur ‘raın’ is both the head and the upper term of the compound. Some other examples of endocentric compounds in TİD appear in the table below. Table 4.1 Endocentric compounds in TİD. Units of the Compound

Meaning of the Compound

buz^dolap ‘ıce^cupboard’

buzdolap ‘frıdge’

kaynana^kardeş ‘mother-ın-law^sıblıng’

kayİnbİrader ‘brother-ın-law’

çocuk^bez ‘chıld^cloth’

çocuk-bezİ ‘dıaper’

çİçek^fanus ‘flower^bell glass’

saksı ‘flowerpot’

tren^yol ‘traın^road’

demİryolu ‘raılway’

denİz^kenar ‘sea^border’

sahİl ‘seasıde’

kız^kİyafet ‘gırl^dress’

abİye ‘dressy’

sıcaklık^derece ‘warmht^degree’

termometre ‘termometer’

İmam^kaban ‘İmam^coat’

cübbe ‘cassock’

fotoğraf^çerçeve ‘photo^frame’

tablo ‘paıntıng’

psİkolojİ^doktor ‘psychology^doctor’

psİkolog ‘psychologıst’

saat^kaç ‘tıme^run’

rötar ‘delay’

hızlı^soğuk ‘rapİd^cold’

ayaz ‘black frost’

uyku^kıyafet ‘sleep^dress’

pİjama ‘sleepwear’

130 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR b) Exocentric compounds Contrary to endocentric compounds, the semantic head of exocentric compounds is not among the words in the compound structure; instead, it is set apart from the compound (Plag, 2003). In exocentric compounds, both words forming the compound are set apart from their own lexical meanings so that they have a new meaning. For example, the compound hanımeli ‘honeysuckle’ in Turkish is formed by the words hanım ‘woman’ and el ‘hand’; they become the name of a flower so that neither the word hanım ‘woman’ nor the word el ‘hand’ are related to hanımeli ‘honeysuckle’, a flower, in terms of meaning. Therefore, the semantic head of the compound is not found in the structure and can be found outside the compound. The semantic head of exocentric compounds contains many metaphors. In terms of productivity, as opposed to exocentric compounds, endocentric compounds appear to be found more often in the vocabularies of languages. Data obtained from the TİD corpus have revealed that exocentric compounds are also found in TİD, for instance,

açgözlü

‘greedy’ consisting of

the words para ‘money’ and aç ‘hungry’. In this compound, although the word aç ‘hungry’ normally means ‘a person or animal who needs to eat’, in the compound it is used metaphorically to mean ‘money seeker’. The compound of ‘evıl-mınded’, consisting of the words

kalp ‘heart’

and

kötü ‘bad’,

an exocentric compound. The lexical meaning of the word

art nİyetlİ

in TİD is also

kalp ‘heart’

is not

connected with ‘bad’ in any aspect and the conceptual metaphor is formed as kalp ‘heart’,

only works for pumping blood in the body, is the center of all the

emotions and intentions. Some other examples of exocentric compounds in TİD appear in the table below. Table 4.2 Exocentric compounds in TİD. Units of the Compound kalp^kötü ‘heart^bad’ kafa^sert ‘head^rıgıd’ kara^serpmek ‘black^sprınkle uyku^yumuşak ‘sleep^soft’ beyaz^yuvarlak ‘whıte^round’ kırmızı^ev ‘red^house’ oyun^çadır ‘play^tent’

Meaning of the Compound art nİyetlİ ‘evıl-mınded’ İnatçİ ‘stubborn’

karabİber ‘black pepper’ yastık ‘pıllow’ lahana ‘cabbage’ kremİt ‘roof tıle’ sırk ‘cırcus’

131

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY ekşİ^yağ ‘sour^oıl’

sırke ‘vınegar’

şapka^fırlatmak ‘hat^throw’

mezunİyet ‘graduatıon’

hava^çerçeve ‘aır^frame’

pencere ‘wındow’

yeşİl^yuvarlak ‘green^round’

brokolİ ‘broccolİ’

kırmızı^çİçek ‘red^flower’

kızamık ‘measles’

koku^serpmek ‘scent^sprınkle’

nane ‘mınt’

son^rüzgar ‘last^wınd’

sonbahar ‘autumn’

c) Copulative compounds From a semantic point of view, copulative compounds consitute the third class of compounds, also called dvandva, meaning ‘double’ in Sanskritic. In this type of compound, both words that make up the compound have the quality of being the head of the compound and neither word has structural superiority to the other. For example, in TİD, the sign

abİye ‘dressy’,

of an endocentric compound, is formed by the words ‘dress’. In this sign,

kıyafet ‘dress’

is the superior term to

kız

an example

‘gırl’ and

kİyafet

is the semantic head of the compound and

abİye ‘dressy’.

However, in copulative compounds, no

semantic head is in the structure and there is no upper term relation. From this point of view, the two words forming the compound make an equal contribution to the meaning (Plag, 2003). Consider

kontrol

‘control’ in TİD. This compound is formed by the

combination of bakmak ‘look’ and İncelemek ‘examıne’. Both words contribute equally to the concept formation of kontrol ‘control’ and its contextual interpretation. From a semantic point of view, it cannot be claimed that one has superiority over the other. In the following table, we provide other examples of copulative compounds in TİD. Table 4.3 Copulative compounds in TİD. Units of the Compound

Meaning of the Compound

su^toprak ‘water^soıl’

çamur ‘mud’

sİyah^koyu ‘black^dark’

karanlık ‘darkness’

cumartesİ^pazar ‘saturday^sunday’

haftasonu ‘weekend’

anne^baba ‘mother^father’

ebeveyn ‘parents’

okuma^yazma ‘read^wrıte’

okuryazarlık ‘lıteracy’

bakmak^İncelemek ‘look^examıne’

kontrol ‘control’

132 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.4.4.2 Syntactic approach From a syntactic approach, there are four basic types of compounds in the literature: left-headed compounds, right-headed compounds, doubleheaded compounds, and co-headed compounds. Contrary to the suggestion that compound heads in languages are a single type that is systematic and universal (Fabb, 1998), there are right-headed English compounds and leftheaded Hebrew compounds. Although Turkish compounds are right-headed, similar to English, it has been suggested that some borrowed words and some compounds form other types, too (Göksel & Haznedar, 2008). Below we show that the four types of compounds are found in TİD. a) Right-headed compounds Right-headed compounds are the most common type of compound in TİD that are frequently found in the corpus. For example, the compound reçete ‘prescrıptıon’ is formed by the words hap ‘pıll’ and yazİ ‘wrıtıng’. The word yazİ ‘wrıtıng’, which is the head of the compound, is located to the right of the compound. In the following table we provide other right-headed compounds in TİD. Table 4.4 Right-headed compounds in TİD. Units of the Compound

Meaning of the Compound

bİlet^gİrİş ‘tıcket^entrance’

gİşe ‘bookıng offıce’

su^dökme ‘water^pourİng’

sürahİ ‘water bottle’

oyun^çadır ‘play^tent’

sİrk ‘cırcus’

buz^dolap ‘ıce^cupboard’

buzdolabİ ‘frİdge’

dİl^bİlİm ‘language^scıence’

dİlbİlİm ‘lınguıstıcs’

uçak^yer ‘plane^place’

havaalanı ‘aırport’

atatürk^mezar

‘ataturk^grave’

anİtkabİr ‘ataturk’s mausoleum’

para^değer ‘money^value’

borsa ‘stock market’

kafa^uyum ‘head^rapport’

anlaşmak ‘agree’

kırmızı^çİçek ‘red^flower’

kızamık ‘measlas’

kalın^kİtap ‘thıck^book’

katalog ‘catalog’

yüz^yıl ‘hundred^year’

asır ‘century’

hızlı^soğuk ‘rapİd^cold’

ayaz ‘black^frost’

beyaz^kahve ‘whıte^coffee’

boza ‘boza’

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

133

b) Left-headed compounds In left-headed compounds, as opposed to right-headed compounds, the constructive word is located to the left in terms of word order. According to Göksel and Haznedar (2008), left-headed compounds in Turkish are seen in some compounds, which are borrowed from different languages, especially Arabic (for example, tebdil-i kıyafet ‘changing clothes’ and arz-ı hal ‘petition’ (Göksel & Haznedar, 2008)). Although left-headed compounds in Turkish are limited in number and are especially seen in borrowing words, they are quite common in TİD. Examples of left-headed compounds in TİD appear in the table below. Table 4.5 Left-headed compounds in TİD. Units of the Compound

yaş^önemlİ ‘age^ımportant’

Meaning of the Compound kaydetmek ‘to save’ yastık ‘pıllow’ doğumgünü ‘bırthday’

kutu^çekmece ‘case^drawer’

şİfonyer ‘chest of drawers’

yemek^aİle ‘food^famıly’

mutfak ‘kıtchen’

resİm^mİmİk ‘pıcture^small’

karİkatür ‘comıcs’

kafa^taş ‘head^stone’

dİk kafalı ‘unsubmıssıve’

yüklemek^dosya ‘to load^fıle’ yumuşak^uyku ‘soft^sleep’

tad^İyİ ‘taste^good’

lezzetlİ ‘delıcıous’

yüz^güzel ‘face^beautıful’

yakışıklı ‘handsome’

yüz^kötü ‘face^bad’

çırkın ‘ugly’

kalp^kötü ‘heart^bad’

art nİyetlİ ‘evıl-mınded’

saat^geç ‘tıme^late’

rötar ‘delay’

geyİk^kız ‘deer^gırl’

ceylan ‘antılope’

kafa^sert ‘head^rıgıd’

İnatçı ‘stubborn’

c) Double-headed compounds In this type of compound, the head forming the compound can be both on the left and on the right word of the compound. From a semantic point of view, the compound has two different sequences, although it is still the same concept. The word ızgara ‘grill’, head of the compounds tavuk ızgara ‘chicken grill’ and ızgara tavuk ‘grilled chicken’, can be located at both the left and right because there is no meaning difference in Turkish. On the other hand, while the right-headed compound ızgara köfte ‘grilled meatball’, whose head is ızgara ‘grill’, exists in Turkish, the left-headed compound is köfte ızgara ‘meatball grill’.

134 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR There are plenty of double-headed compounds in TİD. For example, the compound word haklı ‘rıght’ is formed by the words hak ‘rıght’ and doğru ‘correct’, in which the two orders of the words, hak^doğru ‘rıght^correct’ and doğru^hak ‘correct^rıght’, are found in TİD. Another example comes from the compound of gazete ‘newspaper’. This compound is formed by joining the word basmak ‘publısh’,

indicating the process of newspaper production, and the word açmak ‘open’, indicating the use. It also has right-headed and left-headed forms (see Figure 4.24).

haklı ‘rıght’

gazete ‘newspaper’

Figure 4.24 Examples of double-headed compounds in TİD: haklı ‘rıght’ and gazete ‘newspaper’. d) Co-headed compounds As mentioned above, the head in the compounds carries different structural and functional features according to the word next to it. In co-headed compounds, both words forming the compound are in the same grammatical and semantic position relative to each other and both are candidates at the same level for being head of the compound. Unlike with double-headed compounds, there is no flexibility in the order of the words forming this type of compound. Turkish has a few co-headed compounds, such as gelgit ‘tide’ and gelinkaynana ‘bride-mother in law’, in which both words in the compounds can be the head. Unlike with double-headed compounds, the order of the words cannot be changed, such as *gitgel ‘tide’ and *kaynana-gelin ‘mother in law-bride’.

135

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

Co-headed compounds are found in TİD. From a semantic point of view, this type of compound in copulative compounds is seen frequently. For example, the compound and

baba ‘father’,

ebeveyn ‘parents’

is formed by the words

anne ‘mother’

which are at the same level in terms of phrase construction

and semantic presentation of the term. Some other examples of co-headed compounds in TİD appear in the table below. Table 4.6 Co-headed compounds in TİD. Units of the Compounds su^toprak ‘water^soıl’ okuma^yazma ‘read^wrıte’ anne^baba ‘mother^father’ cumartesİ^pazar ‘saturday^sunday’

Meaning of the Compounds çamur ‘mud’ okuryazarlık ‘lıteracy’ ebeveyn ‘parents’ haftasonu ‘weekend’

seslenmek^satmak ‘to call^to sell’

manav ‘greengrocer’

saplamak^bıçaklamak ‘to stab^to chıve’

cİnayet ‘murder’

sİyah^koyu ‘black^dark’

karanlık ‘darkness’

bakmak^İncelemek ‘look^examıne’

kontrol ‘control’

4.4.4.3 Metacompounds In their examination of the production of new words in Chinese, Ceccagno and Basciano (2007) observed that some compounds create new compounds by merging with another noun. They called these compounds metacompounds. Turkish does not have metacompounds but TİD has several. For example, the compound meyve ‘fruıt’ consists of the words malzeme ‘ıngredİent’ and yemek ‘food’; this compound forms a metacompound by merging with the word su ‘water’. Another example comes from the word metacompound because, first, the words

salça

kırmızı

‘tomato

‘red’ and

paste’.

küre

It is a

‘globe’ are

combined, forming the compound domates ‘tomato’. This compound then merges with the word dökmek ‘pourıng’ to form salça ‘tomato paste’. 4.4.4.4 Sign-language-specific compound types In addition to the compound types observed in both spoken and sign languages, there are compound types specific to sign languages. These are compounds with fingerspelling and simultaneous compounds. This subsection examines these compounds in TİD.

136 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR a) Compounds with fingerspelling Fingerspelling is a linguistic feature specific to sign languages that reflects the writing system of the spoken language to the sign language (Patrie & Johnson, 2010). In TİD, fingerspelled items are used in around 8% of linguistic materials (Taşçı, 2012). In the present corpus we found only around 1% of the data to be fingerspelled. Fingerspelling is frequently used in the formation of compounds. For example, in TİD, the sign first letter

l

levrek ‘sea bass’

is formed by the combination of the

of the word levrek ‘sea bass’ in Turkish and the word

balık ‘fısh’

(l^balık ‘l^fısh’ = levrek ‘sea bass’). Similarly, the sign grafİker ‘grapher’ is formed by the combination of the first letter

g

of the word and the word

resİm ‘pıcture’

(g+resİm ‘g+pıcture’ = grafİker ‘grapher’). From a syntactic point of view, it appears that the hand is often located in the complement rather than in the head position of the compound. However, examples exist quite to the contrary. For example, in the compound pansİyon ‘half pensıon’, yarım ‘half’

yarİm

is in the word form and the word p (=pansİyon)

‘pensıon’ is the head (yarİm ‘half’+p=yarım pansıyon ‘half pensİon’). Although compounds containing fingerspelling in TİD are formed by borrowing from Turkish intensively, we observed that TİD also borrows words from foreign spoken languages such as English, which is not a native language in the same geography as TİD. For example, the compound

dİlbİlgİsİ ‘grammar’

consists of the combination of the first letter g of the word ‘grammar’, which has the same meaning in English, and the word tümce ‘sentence’, a native sign in TİD vocabulary. We provide other examples of compounds with fingerspelling in TİD in the table below. Table 4.7 Compounds with fingerspelling in TİD. Units of the Compound

Meaning of the Compound

j+asker ‘j+soldıer’

jandarma ‘gendarmerıe’

h+zemİn ‘h+floor’

halİ ‘carpet’

ı+okul ‘ı+school’

İlkokul ‘prımary school’

v+mİkrop ‘v+mıcrobe’

vİrüs ‘vırus’

c+ateş ‘c+fever’

cehennem ‘hell’

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY d+benzİn ‘d+gasolıne’

dİzel ‘dıesel’

h+davet^etmek ‘h+to ınvıte’

hoşgeldİn ‘welcome’

g+aşağı ‘g+below’

güney ‘south’

k+yukarı ‘k+up’

kuzey ‘north’

ı+servİs ‘ı+servıce’

İskender ‘ıskender kebab’

w+İnternet ‘w+ınternet’

kablosuz-İnternet ‘wı-fı’

r+tutmak ‘r+to hold’

randevu ‘appoıntment’

137

b) Simultaneous compounds Signs in sign languages can be produced simultaneously with both hands because hands can move independently; therefore, two words would be produced at the same time. Meir, Aranoff, Sandler, and Padden (2010) call this process simultaneous compound. In TİD, this type of compound is observed. For example, when the word İmzalamak ‘to sıgn’

is examined, the non-dominant handshape representing ‘the

paper’ is flat while the dominant handshape representing ‘the pencil’ is the index finger (see Figure 4.25). In this compound, the flat handshape forming the compound İmzalamak ‘to sıgn’ does not have any lexical meaning on its own but eventually gains the meaning ‘the paper’.

İmzalamak ‘to sıgn’

Figure 4.25 The sign İmzalamak ‘to sıgn’ in TİD.

138 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Another example of simultaneous compounds in TİD comes from the sign konmak ‘to land on’. This sign is formed by the combination of the V-hooked handshape (the index and middle fingers are bent and the aperture is open) representing the word ‘claw’ and the V-closed handshape (the index and middle fingers are open but the aperture is closed) representing the word ‘branch’. In the process of the movement of the dominant hand’s V-hooked handshape, the V-closed handshape of the non-dominant hand stays in the signing space with no movement (see Figure 4.26).

Figure 4.26 The sign konmak ‘to land on’ in TİD.

4.4.4.5 Productivity in compounds The term ‘productivity’ in the morphological level of languages ​​can be defined both quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative view considers productivity as the applicability of a particular morphological rule or structure to various morphological units in the process of creating a new word (Dal, 2003; Bauer, 2001). The qualitative view considers it the application of various methods on the language corpus (Baayen, 1992, 1993; Baayen & Renouf, 1996). Here we follow the quantitative view. In Turkish, compounds consisting of the words hane ‘house’ and name ‘letter’ are frequently found: yatakhane ‘dorm’, dershane ‘private teaching institution’, pastane ‘pastry shop’, eczane ‘pharmacy’, postane ‘post office’, kanunname ‘lawbook’, siyasetname ‘political treatise’, beyanname ‘declaration’,

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

139

takdirname ‘commendation’, and so on. Therefore, these words are considered productive. TİD, too, has similar productive words, for example, the TİD compounds

kİşİ

‘person’ and

yer

‘place’. We present some examples in the

following table. Table 4.8 Compounds consisting of the words kİşİ ‘person’ and yer ‘place’ in TİD. Units of the Compound

Meaning of the Compounds

öğretmek+kİşİ ‘to teach+person’

öğretmen ‘teacher’

satmak+kİşİ ‘to sell+person’

satıcı ‘seller’

ödemek+yer ‘to pay+place’

alışverİş merkezİ ‘shoppıng mall’

İş+kİşİ ‘work+person’

İşçİ ‘worker’

köy+kİşİ ‘vıllage+person’

köylü ‘vıllager’

doktor+yer ‘doctor+place’

hastane ‘hospıtal’

bİlet+yer ‘tıcket+place’

gİşe ‘bookıng offİce’

balık+kİşİ ‘fısh+person’

balıkçı ‘fısher’

temİzlemek+kİşİ ‘to clean+person’

temİzlİk görevlİsİ ‘janıtor’

hava+yer ‘aır+place’

açıkhava ‘fresh aır’

tamİr+kİşİ ‘repaır+person’

tamİrcİ ‘repaırman’

görev+kİşİ ‘duty+person’

görevlİ ‘attendant’

uçak+yer ‘plane+place’

havaalanı ‘aırport’

okumak+kİşİ ‘to read+person’

okutman ‘lecturer’

4.4.4.6 Phonological processes As is well-known, compounds are linguistic units that undergo a lexicalization process; thus, they stand alone in the lexicon. As lexical entries, they can be exposed to phonological processes such as deletion (for phonological processes in TİD, see Chapter 3). For example, the word cumartesi ‘Saturday’ in Turkish is formed by the combination of the word cuma ‘Friday’, borrowed from Arabic, and ertesi ‘after’, a native Turkish word. In the compounding process, the first sound of the word ertesi ‘after’ is dropped because of the deletion. In sign languages, too, deletion or shortening is observed in the phonological units of the sign / word (Klima & Bellugi, 1979, p. 213). These phonological processes are often seen as a change in the movement unit of the first sign of the compound (Liddell & Johnson, 1986; Sandler, 1993a).

140 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR When signs are combined to form compounds in TİD, some of them are also subject to phonological processes. For example, the TİD compound haftasonu ‘weekend’

is formed by the signs cumartesİ ‘saturday’ and pazar ‘sunday’.

When these signs are produced separately, they contain movements as their phonological units. When they join together to mean

haftasonu

‘weekend’,

repeated movements are deleted in both signs (see Figure 4.27).

Figure 4.27 The sign haftasonu ‘weekend’ in TİD.

In the process of compound formation, TİD signs are transformed into simpler and smaller structures by undergoing phonological processes. Consider the sign çİrkİn ‘ugly’ given in Figure 4.28. This sign is formed by the combination of

yüz ‘face’

and

kötü ‘bad’

in which the first word

yüz ‘face’

has an index finger

handshape and circular movement on its own. However, in the formation process of the compound, not only movement but also handshapes are affected; there is a deletion of movement process so that the circular movement of the first sign is dropped. Moreover, the first word’s handshape, index finger, and the second word’s handshape, little finger, are connected, thus becoming the horn handshape (index and little fingers are open while the others are closed).

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

141

çİrkİn ‘ugly’

Figure 4.28 The sign çİrkİn ‘ugly’ in TİD. 4.4.5 Numeral incorporation Some morphological processes in sign languages are rarely found in spoken languages because sign languages (though not spoken languages) allow both sequential and simultaneous constructions. One of these processes is the simultaneous expression of the number adjectives on nouns such as ‘year’ and ‘hour’. In Turkish, iki yıl ‘two years’ is formed by the word yıl ‘year’, the time word, and iki ‘two’, indicating the number of times sequentially and separately. In sign languages, the concept of both time and number can be seen in a single word and can be described as the simultaneous production of the two signs. This process is sometimes called numeral incorporation (see Figure 4.33 for examples).

dört^saat‘four^hour’

üç^yüz‘three^hundred’

İkİ^ay‘two^month’

Figure 4.29 Examples of numeral incorporation in TİD: dört^saat ‘four^hour’ ‘four hours’, üç^yüz ‘three^year’ ‘three years’, and İkİ^ay ‘two^month’ ‘two months’ in TİD.

142 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Numeral incorporation is a derivational process rather than an inflectional process (Fuentes et al., 2010, p. 58). In this process, a number and a base (day, month, etc.) come together to form an incorporated sign. Therefore, the sign that looks structurally like a single word indicates the number of weeks, days, and years. From this point of view, İkİ^yıl ‘two^year’ ‘two years’ is seen as a single word stating both the number and time. Although the phonological parameters of the signs, e.g., location, orientation, and movement, remain the same in the case of numeral incorporation such as yıl ‘year’ or saat ‘hour’, the handshapes of the number words change these signs’ handshapes and transfer their own handshapes to them during the numeral incorporation (Johnston & Schembri, 2007). Although all the other phonological parameters remain the same, only the handshape indicating the number of the year changes in the signs’ productions, such as İkİ^yıl ‘two^year’ ‘two years’ and dört^yıl ‘four^year’ ‘four years’ (Figure 4.30). Some researchers suggest that signs that allow numeral incorporation are in fact bound root morphemes which can be detected only when combined with numbers. In addition, these signs also must be considered bimorphemic signs (Liddell, 1996).

İkİ^yıl

‘two^year

dört^yıl

‘four^year’

Figure 4.30 İkİ^yıl ‘two^year’ ‘two years’ and dört^yıl ‘four^year’ ‘four years’ in TİD. As in other sign languages, in TİD numeral incorporation is very common and productive but all potential numeral incorporation words do not show numeral incorporation (Zeshan, 2002, p. 261). In TİD, while the words for time such as yıl ‘year’, ay ‘month’, hafta ‘week’, gün ‘day’, and saat ‘hour’ form numeral incorporation, the signs dakİka ‘mınute’ and sanİye ‘second’ do not. In contrast, these words remain separate, such as üç dakİka ‘three mınute’ ‘three minutes’ and İkİ sanİye ‘two second’ ‘two seconds’. Similarly, while numbers such

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

143

as yüz ‘hundred’ and bİn ‘thousand’ form numeral incorporation such as üç^yüz ‘three^hundred’ ‘three hundred’ and yüzdört^bİn ‘one hundred four^thousand’ ‘one hundred and four thousand’, mİlyon ‘mıllıon’ and mİlyar ‘bıllıon’ do not allow for numeral incorporation.

üç^gün‘three^day’

İkİ^bİn‘two^thousand’

dört^hafta ‘four^week’

Figure 4.31 üç^gün ‘three^day’ ‘three days’, İkİ^bİn ‘two^thousand’ ‘two thousand’, ‘and dört^hafta ‘four^week’ ‘four weeks’ in TİD. Some limitations exist in the distribution of numeral incorporation. While numeral incorporations formed between 2 and 5 such as dört^yıl ‘four^year’ ‘four years’ and üç^sınıf ‘three^grade’ ‘third grade’ are possible, numeral incorporations formed with 6 to 9 have very restrictive distributions. For example, altı^sınıf ‘sıx^grade’ ‘sixth grade’ and yedİ^hafta ‘seven^week’ ‘seven weeks’ are included in the lexicon while altı yıl ‘sıx year’ ‘six years’ and yedİ gün ‘seven days’ ‘seven days’ are not allowed to form numeral incorporations.

altı^sınıf ‘sıx^grade’

‘sixth grade’

yedİ^hafta

‘seven^week’ ‘seven weeks’

Figure 4.32 altı^sınıf ‘sıx^grade’ ‘sixth grade’ and yedİ^hafta ‘seven^week’ ‘seven weeks’ in TİD.

144 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.4.6 Movement construction As explained in the phonology section (see 3.5, Syllable structure), syllable structures in sign languages are different from those in spoken languages. In sign languages, words take a very limited number of prefixes or suffixes and they usually consist of a single syllable. It is the movement in sign languages that is the determinant of the weight and structure of the syllable and that derive new words. In sign languages, in the process of derivation, parameters such as handshape and location remain unchanged while the movement and orientation of the fingers and hands change. Consider the word görmek ‘to see’ in TİD (Figure 4.33). This sign has the V/2 handshape (the index and middle fingers are open and extended, and the aperture is open) and has path and flat movements starting from the eye level to forward in the signing space. göz^gezdİrmek ‘to skım over’ is derived from this word. It has the same handshape and location but its movements are different. Now it has local and circular movements. göz^gezdİrerek^okumak ‘to read by skımmıng over’ is also derived from görmek ‘to see’. This sign is formed by both a path and a flat movement with an orientation from left to right and a small movement of the wrist down and up simultaneously.

görmek ‘to see’

göz^gezdİrmek

‘to skım over’

göz^gezdİrerek^okumak ‘to read by skımmıng over’

Figure 4.33 görmek ‘to see’, göz^gezdİrmek ‘to skım over’, and göz^gezdİrerek^okumak ‘to read by skımmıng over’

signs in TİD.

Another example comes from the word tam^türkİye ‘all of turkey’ (throughout turkey), which is derived from the word türkİye ‘turkey’ and formed by the back-and-forth path movement of the C handshape on the forehead (in a repetitive manner). In the derivation process, a repeated arc movement instead of a single flat is used.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

145

Many other subcategories of movement formation exist in derivation. One is related to the part of the arm responsible for the path or local movements. Another subcategory is related to the number of single or repetitive movements. In terms of the number of the movement, the sign gİtmek ‘to go’ has a single movement and the sign düşünmek ‘to thınk’ has a repetitive movement consisting of two or more repetitions. Yet another relates to the type of movement formed in the signing space during the production of the sign. For example, the sign İlk ‘fırst’ has a flat movement, the sign bulmak ‘to fınd’ has an arc movement, and the sign dolaşmak ‘to walk around’ has a circular movement. New words can be derived from the changes made in one or a few of these subcategories. Consider the following signs to further examine the formation of movements: ev ‘house’, komşu ‘neıghbour’, aynı ‘the same’, and aynı^şekİlde ‘ın the same way’. While the sign ev ‘house’ has a repetitive local movement produced by the wrist, in the derivation of the sign komşu ‘neıghbour’, the local movement is dropped and a path movement is used instead. aynı ‘same’ is formed by a repetitive movement of the handshape from the elbows and moving up and down in a straight way. aynı^şekİlde ‘the same way’ is derived from this sign by making a single movement from the elbow and forming an arc movement from right to left.

ev ‘house’

aynı ‘the same’

Figure 4.34

komşu ‘neıghbour’

aynı^şekİlde ‘ın the same way’

ev ‘house’, komşu ‘neıghbour’, aynı ‘the same’, same way’

in TİD.

and aynı^şekİlde ‘ın the

146 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR So far, we have provided examples concerning the shaping of the movements of the hand for derivation. However, it is also possible to derive words with the help of various formations of nonmanuals, such as the head, upper body, eyebrows, and lips. Consider the sign bağırmak ‘to yell’, which is formed by the L-handshape and the movement starting from the lips and proceeding forward (Figure 4.35). Even though this sign has a repetitive movement, no nonmanual is associated with it. In the derivation of the word üşenmek ‘be too lazy to’

from bağırmak ‘to yell’, the repetitive movement is dropped and now the sign is formed by a single movement. However, a nonmanual marker, puffing, is added to the hand movement.

bağırmak ‘to yell’

üşenmek ‘to be too lazy to’

Figure 4.35 bağırmak ‘to yell’ and üşenmek ‘to be too lazy to’ in TİD.

Because the syllable structure and morphological appearance of sign languages ​​differ from those of spoken languages, it is a daunting, if not impossible, task to structurally determine whether derivation occurs directly from the root word or from the derived word. For this reason, the order of derivation depends on only semantic assumptions and word meanings. It would be more inclusive and descriptive to argue that it is from a unit considered as having the same hand-shaped and locational root as opposed to the word having a direct lexical feature in derivation in sign languages. Consider kötü ‘bad’, kötülemek ‘denıgrate’ and alay^etmek ‘rıdıcule’ in TİD (Figure 4.36). They are related to each other from the semantic point of view and have the same handshape. However, their locations and movements differ. At this point, there is no way to determine the root of these signs; it could be the handshape or the location.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

kötü ‘bad’

kötülemek ‘denıgrate’

147

alay^etmek ‘rıdıcule’

Figure 4.36 kötü ‘bad’, kötülemek ‘denıgrate’, and alay^etmek ‘rıdıcule’ in TİD.

4.4.7 Borrowing Borrowing is the transfer of words from one language to another for economic, political, cultural, and technological reasons. It is found in every natural language (Haugen, 1950; Battison, 1978). It is also a natural process for TİD to transfer words from both spoken and other sign languages. The process of word formation by borrowing is not a new phenomenon from a historical point of view. Even when written examples of ancient histories are examined, it is observed that languages ​​sometimes take their vocabulary from other languages in some ways (Aksan, 2009, p. 137). Especially with technological developments over the last twenty years, even speakers from different areas of the world can easily communicate with each other. It can be said that the increase in linguistic interaction partially accelerates the borrowing process. Similar to the case in spoken languages, sign languages ​​add new words to their vocabularies by adapting various lexicons from the spoken or sign languages around them (Janzen, 2012). Due to the modality difference of the sign languages, it is expected that words will be borrowed from the samelooking languages ​​but they are also borrowed from spoken languages ​​in the same geographic area in different types. The words borrowed from languages in a different modality to sign languages are generally divided into six types (Göksel & Pfau, in press).

148 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Ways of borrowing in sign languages 1. Various uses of the finger alphabet, 2. Mouthing, 3. Homophony based on similarity in the sound structure in the spoken language’s words, 4. Movements being signed when introducing a phoneme in a spoken language, 5. Borrowing based on meaning, 6. Borrowing from other sign languages. Despite the fact that sign languages are not written languages, they use the alphabet system of the spoken language used in the same geography in the form of the manual alphabet because of different purposes (see 3.1, Finger alphabet). Fingerspelling is also used in a lexicalization process of the first letter of the spoken word (Brentari & Padden, 2001, p. 104). As can be seen in the words lokal ‘local’ and lazım ‘requıred’, the letter L from Turkish goes through movement derivations according to phonetic and phonological aspects in TİD (Figure 4.37). Thus, the first word is formed by the repetitive local movement in the wrist and the second word is formed by the path movement in the elbow. This type of derivation is very common in TİD (Taşçı, 2012, 2013).

lokal ‘local’

lazım ‘requıred’

Figure 4.37 Examples of borrowed words in the form of the finger alphabet in TİD: lokal ‘local’ and lazİm ‘requİred’.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

149

Adapting okey ‘okay’ from ASL or International Sign Language into the TİD vocabulary presents an interesting case (Figure 4.38), that is, a word borrowed from a spoken language via fingerspelling is transferred to another sign language’s vocabulary. Note that the fingerspelled K in TİD is a two-handed sign and the fingerspelled K in ASL is a one-handed sign.

okey ‘ok’

Figure 4.38 The process of transmission of a borrowed word: okey ‘ok’. In another type of borrowing, when the phonetic properties of the words in the spoken language are similar to each other, they are considered homonyms in TİD. Therefore, they are produced in the form of a single word in TİD because of the similarity of the sounds in the words model / modern ‘model / modern’ and ısparta / İspanya ‘ısparta / spaın’ (Figure 4.39). Note that in these examples, no semantic relationship exists other than the phonetic similarity among the homonyms.

model

/ modern ‘model / modern’

ısparta

/ İspanya ‘ısparta / spaın’

Figure 4.39 Examples of borrowed words due to phonetic similarity: model / modern ‘model / modern’ and ısparta / İspanya ‘ısparta / spaın’.

150 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR In the borrowing process, some of the meanings of the words in the source language may change completely or may have a semantic restriction. Thus, the meaning of the word in the source language and the meaning in the target language do not exactly overlap. For example, the word meaning İletİşİm (communİcatıon) in DGS, ASL, and Brazilian Sign Language lost its meaning as it entered the TİD vocabulary. In TİD, it has gained a new meaning: sohbet ‘conversatıon’.

sohbet ‘conversatıon’

(TİD)

sohbet ‘conversatıon’ (DGS, BSL, Brazilian Sign Language)

Figure 4.40 Meaning change/semantic restriction in borrowed words: sohbet ‘conversatıon’.

There are also many borrowed words in TİD from various sign languages​​ in geographically distinct regions. They preserve the meaning of the source language or show a similar aspect in the socio-cultural context. For example, the word düşünmek ‘to thınk’ in British Sign Language (BSL) is transferred to TİD by preserving its category and meaning in the source language. Although the word düşünmek ‘to thınk’ (TİD) is found in TİD vocabulary and is very similar to the BSL counterpart in terms of phonology, both words now belong to TİD vocabulary (Figure 4.41).

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

düşünmek ‘to thınk’

(TİD)

düşünmek ‘to thınk’

151

(BSL

Figure 4.41 Borrowed words preserving their meanings in the source and target languages: düşünmek ‘to thınk’ (BSL). Similar to the above example, TİD also borrowed the word aynı ‘same’ from ASL. It preserves the meaning of the source language and can be considered synonymous with aynı ‘same’ in TİD.

aynı ‘the same’

(TİD)

aynı ‘the same’

(ASL)

Figure 4.42 Borrowed words preserving their meanings in the source and target languages: aynı ‘same’ (TİD) and aynı ‘same’ (ASL). Up to this point, we have shown that some words are borrowed from both spoken and sign languages in TİD vocabulary and that in the borrowing process these words undergo both meaning changes and phonetic changes, which we call structural change. In what follows, we show how to modify signs in TİD.

152 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.5. Sign modification 4.5.1 Noun modification Noun modification is the idiosyncratic formation of a word in a noun category or, in other words, a noun phrase for both derivational and inflectional means. Noun modifications in sign languages have always been a matter of debate for sign language researchers because some of the characteristics are unique to sign languages. It has been argued that there are more limited ways to modify nouns than verbs in sign languages (see Wilbur, 1987; Pizzuto & Corazzo, 1996). This section first deals with the formation of location in noun modifications, which is specific to sign languages ​​due to the modality difference. Then it focuses on numeral modifications of nouns. After that, it examines size and shape specifiers. Finally, it analyzes the role of classifiers in noun modification in TİD. 4.5.1.1. Location Signers use the space around their bodies and the locations their hands can reach. This quarter-circular area, called the signing space, contains the head, the area above the head, the body, the empty space in front of the body, and both sides of the body (Pfau & Steinbach, 2006, p. 27; see Figure 4.43). The signing space is used for a variety of purposes, including referential purposes. The space the signer uses for a variety of linguistic purposes offers a richer structure than the gesture space that speakers use while speaking (see Perniss & Ozyurek, 2015).

Figure 4.43 Signing space in sign languages.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

153

The signing space in sign languages is used for a variety of purposes, such as agreement, pluralization, pronominalization, and so on, and is a 3D space consisting of x, y, and z planes, with the signers’ body being the origin of these coordinates. These coordinate planes can be defined in sign languages as ​​ follows: plane X is the plane that is forward in the orientation the signer’ s body (posture) faces, plane Y is the horizontal plane parallel to the signer’s shoulders, and plane Z is the vertical plane from the top to the bottom of the signer’s body, as shown in Figure 4.44.

Figure 4.44 Sign production plane in the signing space. As it is well-known, in the process of sign production, those signs that do not necessarily touch a certain point of the body (in other words, those that are not body-anchored), are formed by free movement in the hand space. The lexical form of these kinds of words is usually produced in the front of the body, and the words produced in this position can be said to be in bare form. For example, the bare position of the word masa ‘table’ is produced in the front part of the body. The location of this sign is encoded, as it is produced at a different location than the location for the bare form in the signing space (see Pizzuto & Corazza, 1996, for Italian Sign Language, Johnston & Schembri, 2007, for AUSLAN). Consider the example in Figure 4.45. Unlike the bare form, the masa+yer ‘table+locatıon’ word is produced on the right side of the signer; thus it means ‘the table on the right’.

154 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

Figure 4.45 Location affix in TİD: masa ‘table’+locatıon. Because of this topographic use of the signing space, any entity can be located at any position, such as below, up, left, right, front, or behind in the signing space. Sometimes this way of locating entities in the signing space is considered a case marker. Therefore, the bare or default position of the nouns and their various positions in space are morphologically different forms. 4.5.1.2 Number In addition to locative modifications, nouns can be modified by number (e.g., singular vs plural) in sign languages. Languages ​​such as Turkish and English have affixes for numeral modification such as elma > elma+lar ‘apple > apples’; there is no such affix in sign languages, including TİD. For plurality, TİD uses a variety of methods: using çok ‘more’, a number sign, and the signing space when classifiers are in use. We provide examples of the use of çok ‘more’ in Figure 4.46, classifiers in Figure 4.47, and number in Figure 4.48.

elma ‘apples’

çok ‘more’

Figure 4.46 Pluralization in TİD: elma çok ‘apple more’ ‘apples’.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

elma ‘apples’

Figure 4.47 Pluralization in TİD:

4

155

snf+ ‘cl+’ elma snf+ ‘apple cl+’

‘apples’.

elma ‘apples’

Figure 4.48 Pluralization in TİD: 4 elma ‘4 apple’ ‘4 apples’.

When numbers are in use for modification, they can be incorporated with nouns related to the day, week, and month (see 4.4.5, Numeral incorporation). We provide examples of this in Figure 4.49, where the numbers 2, 3, and 4 are assimilated with the sign for gün ‘day’, and in Figure 4.50, where temporals such as ‘before’ and ‘after’ are also assimilated with noun phrases with number modifications, 2^hafta^önce ‘2^week^before’ ‘two weeks ago’.

156 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

1^day ‘1^day’ ‘one day’

2^gün 2^day ‘two days’

3^day ‘3^day’ ‘three days’

Figure 4.49 Assimilation / numeral incorporation in noun modifications in TİD: 2^gün 2^day ‘two days’, 3^day ‘3^day’ ‘three days’, and 4^day ‘4^day’ ‘four days’.

2^hafta^önce ‘2^week^before’ ‘two weeks ago’ Figure 4.50 Assimilation / numeral incorporation in noun modifications in TİD: 2^hafta^önce ‘2^week^before’ ‘two weeks ago’. 4.5.1.3. Size and Shape Specifiers (SASS) Size and Shape Specifiers (SASS) present characteristics of the entities, such as the sizes and shapes they describe; therefore, they modify nouns (see Kyle & Woll, 1985). As has already been discussed in this book, the visualgestural modality in sign languages makes ​​ it possible to present some of the physical properties of entities very similar to the real world (see 6.2, Iconicity). SASS can be used with a variety of nouns, such as masa ‘table’, kutu ‘box’, çadır ‘tent’, kİtap ‘book’, and top ‘ball’ in TİD to describe their sizes and shapes, indicating whether they are small, large, small, or huge.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

157

In the following example, we further explain the use of SASS (Figure 4.51). While the citation form of the word kutu ‘box’ is produced by the width of the movement in a certain range, it has a narrower range when it means ‘small box’ and a wider range when it means ‘big box’. of motion than its dictionary form in the Turkish equivalent of small table style, and has a wider range of motion in the sense of a large table. Thus, the word encodes the size and shape properties by taking a morpheme on it.

kutu ‘box’

kutu+küçük

kutu+büyük ‘box+large’ ‘big

‘box+small’ ‘small box’

box’

Figure 4.51 Examples of the size and shape specifiers in TİD: kutu ‘box’, kutu+küçük ‘box+small’ ‘small box’, and kutu+büyük ‘box+large’ ‘big box’.

158 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.5.1.4. Classifiers ‘Classifiers’ are also used to modify nouns in sign languages. Classifiers in sign languages ​​are of interest for at least two reasons. First, classifiers in sign languages are highly complex multi-component morphological constructs unique to sign languages (see Schembri, 2003, and Slobin et al., 2003) and different from classifiers in spoken languages. The classifiers and the objects referred to in the sentences are grouped in terms of their form, size, function, and movement in space (Supalla, 1986; Engberg-Pedersen, 1993; Emmorey, 2002). Second, classifiers establish an iconic notational relationship between signs and their referents (Taub, 2001, Sallandre et al., 2002, Emmorey et al., 2003, Schembri, 2003, Wilcox, 2004, Talmy, 2006, Perniss, 2007). The use of classifiers in sign languages ​​is often observed in expressions in which the relative locations of objects, their orientation, their movement (e.g., moving or stationary), and their actions are described. TİD studies investigating the locations and movements of objects in the signing space have indirectly touched on classifiers (e.g., Arik 2003, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011, 2012, Arik et al., 2007, 2010, Özyürek et al., 2010, Özyürek et al., 2011, Perniss et al., 2008, Perniss et al., 2011, Sumer et al., 2012, Zwitserlood et al., in press). Moreover, Arik (2013) presents an overview of the use of classifiers in TİD. As in other sign languages, classifiers are used in TİD. There are no classifiers made with non-manual signs while classifiers are made by handshapes and by using the signing space. In TİD, too, classifiers have more than one sign variance when they are used in the signing space. Traditionally, classifiers have been divided into many groups: size and shape classifiers, body parts classifiers, object classifiers, handling classifiers, instrument classifiers, numeral classifiers, etc. Here we follow Brentari and Eccarius’s classification (2010) to examine classifiers in TİD. 4.5.1.4.1 Semantic classifiers in TİD Semantic classifiers are the classifiers in which the handshapes are used to classify the entire object according to the meaning of the noun. For example, the use of a pointing finger vertically for İnsan ‘person’ in TİD. As in other sign languages, in semantic classifiers in TİD, the whole hand refers to the entity or

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

159

object which can be a round object, a flat object, a pedal object, an object with a direction, a standing object, and so on. If the object is stationary, the classifier handshape is stationary in the signing space. If the object being referred to is in motion, the classifier handshape moves accordingly with straight, circular and local movements of the selected fingers. In Figure 4.52, we give an example from TİD in which the expression refers to two stationary cars that are face-to-face. In this expression, the horizontal position of the classifier handshape in the signing space is the morphological codings of the positions of the cars relative to each other. Since the fingertips of the classifier handshapes are the morphological codings of the two cars facing each other. The stationary situation of the hand encodes the two cars’ situation morphologically.

İkİ ’two’

araba ‘car’

snfb+yatay+sabit ‘clb+horızontal+statıonary’ snfb+yatay+sabit ‘clb+horızontal+statıonary’

Figure 4.52 Examples for the use of semantic classifiers: ‘The two cars are facing each other.’

The phrase ‘the two people standing and facing each other ‘ is also coded in a similar way grammatically. However, in this expression classifier handshape 1 is used. The ventral of the pointing finger in this handshape indicates the orientation of the people in the expression.

160 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

İkİ ‘two’

adam ‘man’

snf1+dikey+sabit ‘cl1+vertıcal+statıonary’ snf1+dikey+sabit ‘cl1+vertıcal+statıonary’

Figure 4.53 Examples for the use of semantic classifiers: ‘The two men are facing each other.’ As in other sign languages, more than one classifier can be used simultaneously in TİD, in which case they can express direction and motion of more than one different entity in the event as well (such as going to a house or falling down to the ground) according to the handshape used and / or the body of the signer. For example, the expression that ‘the man walks towards the tree’ (Figure 4.54) is encoded with two classifiers in TİD. The classifier handshape 2 is used for the movement of the man: The hand position shows the direction of the man to the tree, the dorsal of the fingers shows the orientation of the man, the movements of the fingers show the movement of the legs, and the horizontal movement of the hand indicates the direction of the walk.

ağaç ’tree’

adam ‘man’

snf2 ‘cl2’ snfb ‘clb’

Figure 4.54 Examples for the use of semantic classifiers: ‘The man is walking towards the tree.’

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

161

4.5.1.4.2 Instrument classifiers in TİD Another type of classifier is instrument classifiers. Instrument classifiers classify the whole of the object, too, and they refer to the physical properties of the tools used in the event. For example, in (duvar) boya / boyamak+ ‘(wall) paınt / to paınt+’ in TİD, the fingers refer to the brush, and the up and down movements of the dominant hand refer to the ongoing painting.

snfb+ ‘clb+’

Figure 4.55 An example for for the use of instrument classifiers: ‘paınt /to paınt+’ in TİD 4.5.1.4.3 Descriptive classifiers in TİD Descriptive classifiers describe a person or an object by referring to the dimensions of the object, such as 2D and 3D, and its place in the signing space. Consider çerçeve ‘frame’ in TİD. Figure 4.56 shows the two-dimensional shape of the frame with this sign. In this sign, the position of the frame on the wall is encoded grammatically with the placement of the classifier handshape on a certain position in the three-dimensional signing space.

çerçeve snfc ‘frame clc’

Figure 4.56 An example for for the use of descriptive classifiers: The xpression of ‘the frame is on the wall’ in TİD.

162 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.5.1.4.4 Handling classifiers in TİD Handling classifiers classify not the object, but the shape of the hand using the object. For example, in Figure 4.57, the handshape looks like they are holding the book, thus showing the position of the book in the signing space in TİD. In Figure 4.58, the handshape looks like they are holding the handle of the handbag in çanta^taşımak ‘bag^carry’ and the movement of the hand in the signing space refers to the carrying of the bag.

kİtap

‘book’

snfc ‘clc’

Figure 4.57 An example for for the use of handling classifiers: kıtap koymak ‘to put a book’

çanta ‘bag’

in TİD.

çanta^taşımak

’bag^carry’

Figure 4.58 An example for for the use of handling classifiers: çanta^taşımak ‘bag^carry’

in TİD.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

163

In what follows, we give a list of the classifier handshapes commonly used in the TİD corpus. Table 4.9 Classifier handshapes commonly used in TİD. Classifier cla

claopen

clb

clc

clc

Sample Picture

164 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

cly

cl1

cl2

cl3bend

cl5mıdclosed

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

165

4.5.1.5. Intensification Intensification is used to increase the meaning of a word in a gradable way. In languages, adjective words are reinforced either with the help of the adverbs near to them or with the changes in the structure of this word. The reinforcement in Turkish is done with the help of adverbs as in çok ince ‘very thin’ and çok güzel ‘very beautiful,’ or with the partial reduplication as in bembeyaz (bem+beyaz) ‘lily-white’ and kıpkırmızı (kıp+kırmızı) ‘crimson red.’ In English, it can be done in a gradual way: big, bigger, the biggest; bad, worse, the worst. As it is often found in other natural languages, in sign languages intensification occurs in the form of independent words. For example, free morphemes such as çok ‘very’, daha ‘more’ and adjectives like temİz ’clean’, yavaş ‘slow’ have an intensifier function in TİD. In sign languages, intensification also occurs in some structural changes. The general types and characteristics of these structural changes are as follows: Morphological changes in the intensification process of words in sign language (Wilbur, Malaia, & Shay, 2011):

I.

Increase in tension in face and hand in general



II.

Motion pattern • Addition of motion or expansion of trajectory • Delay / slow motion start

III. Formation of nonmanual movements (face, head, body) • Lowering of the eyebrows • Tilting back The data obtained from the TİD corpus shows that the study supports Wilbur, Malaia and Shay’s study (2011). Intensification in TİD is performed by the hand movement, the nonmanual movement, or both. Delaying or slowing of the movement is commonly used in TİD for intensification. We explain this by giving examples from TİD. When the word zengİn ‘rıch,’ which is formed by the lowering of the handshape from the cheek down, is produced at a slower rate then at a normal rate by changing the speed of movement, the word

zengİn+pekiştirme

‘rıch+ıntensıfıcatıon’ with the meaning ‘very rich’ is derived (Figure 4.59). Similarly, the words

karanlık+pekiştirme ‘darkness+ıntensıfıcatıon’

‘utterly dark,’ and

yavaş+pekiştirme

‘slow+ıntensıfıcatıon’ ‘very slow’ which have slower movement speeds than normal, have undergone structural changes.

166 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

zengİn ‘rıch’

çok^zengİn ‘very^rıch’

Figure 4.59 An example for intensification: ‘rıch’ and ‘very^rıch’ in TİD. Now consider çabuk ‘fast’ in TİD. When intensified to mean very fast, it undergoes morphological changes. In the citation form, çabuk ‘fast’ is produced with the repetition of the handshape from the wrist. But in the intensified form, çabuk+pekiştirme ‘fast+ıntensıfıcatıon’ ‘very fast,’ its circular movement in the signing space expands in addition to a single and big movement from the elbow.

çabuk ‘fast’

çabuk+pekiştirme ‘fast+ıntensıfıcatıon’

Figure 4.60 An example for intensification: ‘fast’ and ‘fast+ıntensıfıcatıon’ in TİD. In addition to changing the citation form, there are other more complicated ways to intensify meaning in TİD by the simultaneous change of the hand movement and the use of nonmanuals. Consider soğuk ‘cold’ in TİD. The citation form of the sign soğuk ‘cold’ is constructed with the hand movement turning inward from the wrist. To intensify its meaning to soğuk+pekiştirme ’cold+ıntensıfıcatıon’ ‘very cold’ the hand moves slower than normal and the nonmanual blowing is used.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

soğuk ‘cold’

167

soğuk+pekiştirme ’cold+ıntensıfıcatıon’

Figure. 4.61 An example for intensification: ‘cold’ and ’cold+ıntensıfıcatıon’ in TİD.

So far, we have examined noun modifications in TİD. Now we turn to verb modifications in TİD. 4.5.2. Verb modifications In TİD, verbs are modified in a variety of ways. In this section, we focus on agreement, manner, time/tense, aspect, modality, and reciprocity. 4.5.2.1. Agreement Agreement can be termed as the connection that the two elements within the sentence have established in terms of their structural and semantic properties (Steel, 1978, p. 610). Verbs in many languages carry out a morphological inflection process by having person, number, and gender relationships with other elements in the sentence. For example, in Turkish sen okula geldin, ‘you came to school,’ a person agreement has occurred between the 2nd person singular pronoun (sen ‘you’) which is in the subject position of the sentence and the verb, and the second person singular marker -n has been added to the verb gel ‘come.’ In the sentence, biz tatile gittik ‘we went on holiday,’ the subject is plural and depending on that, the verb is conjugated with the 1st person plural marker -k. Otherwise, the sentence becomes ungrammatical. For instance, *ben

168 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR tatile gittik is ungrammatical because the subject of the sentence is singular whereas the verb is inflected for plural. In other words, it is necessary for the elements having agreement in a sentence to match each other in terms of their features. While there are person and number agreements in Turkish, there is no gender agreement in Turkish. Agreement in TİD has been examined in detail by Sevinç (2006) and Kubuş (2008) but there is still need for further research due to too many subtypes of this category and some disagreements. Although all verbs in Turkish are inflected in terms of person and number, all verbs sign languages, ​​such as TİD, are not inflected for person or number. Yet some are. For example, despite the fact that the verb sevmek ‘to love’ in TİD does not have any person-number inflection, the verb taşımak ‘to carry’ is inflected in terms of location and the verb haber vermek ‘to

ınform’

is inflected for person and number. Studies conducted so far in the

literature have not yet reached any definite linguistic evidence regarding how some of the verbs in sign language are inflected in terms of person-number and some others are not1. Verbs in spoken languages are generally defined as simple or complex according to their structural properties. The 3D signing space offers sign languages the possibility to perform grammatical syntactic, morphologic, and (linguistic) discourse- coding in the space. Thus, various thematic roles such as ACTOR, THEME(PATIENT), SOURCE, and GOAL are presented in the topographic signing space. These characteristics have led sign language researchers to create sign language-specific verb classifications. Verbs in sign languages ​​are divided into simple, agreeing and spatial verbs in terms of whether they agree with nouns in terms of person, number, and location: (1) simple verbs are not inflected for number or person, nor do they take locational affixes, (2) agreeing verbs are inflected for person and number, 1

Although there is an assertion that body-anchored signs made by touching a part of the body during the sign production process do not encode agreement, the fact that non-body-dependent signs, such as those bulmak ‘to fınd’ in TİD, do not enter into agreement process weakens this claim very much.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

169

but they do not take locational affixes, and (3) spatial verbs take locational affixes but are not inflected for person or number (Padden, 1990, p. 119). In addition, directions of some of the agreeing verbs are from subject to object and others are in a reverse direction. In the following subsections, we focus on agreeing and spatial verbs, since we have already discussed simple verbs elsewhere in terms of aspect, manner, and intensification. 4.5.2.1.1 Person and number agreement In natural languages, with typological diversity, the person, number, and gender agreement are the three most common types of agreement. From this point of view, in Russian, the verb enters into three types of agreement, while English enters into agreement only in terms of person and number. In contrast, Chinese clearly does not show morphological agreement (Corbett, 1998). In sign languages ​​such as TİD, the agreement mechanism differs greatly from the spoken languages. Often in spoken languages, if a verb, for example, shows person agreement, all verbs in the vocabulary can enter this kind of agreement without any restriction. In sign languages, the presence of agreement and the type of agreement is related to the type of verb. If the verb is of an agreeing type, it can agree with both the subject and the object of the sentence. In TİD, agreement verbs such as desteklemek ‘to support,’ vermek ‘to gıve,’ and göndermek ‘to send’ are produced with the movement of the path towards the persons (i.e., the subject and the objects) they agree with in the signing space. If the verb

vermek ‘to gıve’

is formed with 1st person singular subject and 2nd

person singular object as in ‘I gave you (something),’ then the beginning of the vermek ‘to gıve’

sign starts from the signer (1st singular) and moves towards the

addressee (2nd singular). In contrast, when the subject is the 2nd person singular and the object is the 1st person singular, the direction of the hand movement is the opposite (Figure 4.62). Lillo-Martin and Meier (2011) suggest that there is a structural difference between the citation form and the agreeing form: The citation form does not carry the path movement that has taken a certain distance in the signing space of the hand.

170 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

vermek ‘to gıve’

vermek ‘to gıve’X2

X1

(citation form)

vermek ‘to gıve’X1

X2

“Ben sana verdim” ‘I gave to you’ “Sen bana verdin” ‘You gave to me’ Figure 4.62 An example for agreement verbs in TİD: vermek ‘to gıve’. If the signers in the subject and object roles of the sentence are physically present in the signing environment, the direction of the motion of the path is towards the physical location of these persons. For example, if the physical position of the object is on the right side of the subject, the direction of the agreement verb is not towards the front of the signer but to the right, the position of the object. In situations where the subject and / or object are not physically present in the signing environment, the signer can encode all agreement verbs in the hypothetical locations for the subject and the object in the signing space (Cormier, 2014). An example is given in Figure 4.63. In this example, the signer may hypothetically include the object / person in the signing environment by generating a location for the çocuk ‘chıld’ that is not present in the signing environment. In all subsequent discourse, that person’s hypothetical position is in that specified location, and all referential functions, including agreement, are constructed on the position of the child.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

çocuk chıld

ımSOL ındexLEFT

X1

171

söylemekSOL 1sayLEFT

‘I said to child.’ Figure 4.63 Hypothetical reference in agreement verbs. In agreeing verbs, the directions of the hand movement and the orientation of the hand are considered as the inflectional structure encoding person agreement. As shown in the TİD examples above, the starting point of the movement encodes the subject having a theta role of actor, and the end point encodes the object having different theta roles like theme (patient), recipient, or experiencer. Padden (1988) argued that the starting and end points of the movement in the signing space are similar to the prefixes and suffixes in the spoken languages. Therefore, the position closest to the signer’s body encodes the 1st person affix, which is both singular and plural (e.g., I and we), and the physical location across the signer encodes the 2nd person affix, which can be both singular and plural (you-SG and you-PL). The (real or hypothetical) position of the person or the object indicates the 3rd person, which can be both singular and plural (he/she/it and they). The agreement verbs such as

bakmak ‘to look’

ve görmek ‘to see’ are of body-anchored types, i.e. the hand touches the body, and phonetic constraints do not prevent the realization of the path movement. In the example below, which can be translated as ‘he/she saw me,’ in the verb görmek ‘to see,’ due to the phonetic constraints the hand starts to move from around the eye to the third person in the subject position on the right side. In this way, it makes a path movement towards the signer (self) in the object position (see Figure 4.64).

172 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

görmekX1 ‘3see1’

X3

‘He/she saw me.’ Figure 4.64 Body-anchored agreement verbs.

We have so far given examples for the (forward) agreeing verbs. There are also backward agreeing verbs, which are found less frequently in the TİD corpus. In the forward agreeing verbs, the starting point of the hand movement verbs encodes the subject and their end point encodes the object; whereas, in the backward agreeing verbs, the starting point of the movement encodes the object and the end point encodes the subject. In other words, the prefix expressing the starting point of the verb indicates the object while the suffix expressing the end point of the verb indicates the subject. This has been determined by the intrinsic characteristics of the verbs, and so far there has not been any consistent linguistic justification in the literature to explain this situation. Some of the most common forward and backward verbs in TİD as found in the corpus are given in Table 4.10. Table 4.10 Examples for the backward and forward agreeing verbs in TİD. Forward Agreement Verbs

Backward Agreement Verbs

görmek ‘to see’

etkİlemek ‘to affect’

sormak ‘to ask’

seçmek ‘to choose’

söylemek ‘to say’

davet etmek ‘to ınvıte’

eğİtmek ‘to teach’

almak ‘to take’

durdurmak ‘to stop’

kopyalamak ‘to copy’

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

173

Consider the verb seçmek ‘to choose’ in TİD given in Figure 4.65. In this verb, the hand movement starts from the 3rd person and goes toward the 1st person. Unlike forward agreement verbs, yet, the meaning of the sentence is ‘I chose him/her’ instead of ‘S/he chose me.’ Therefore, depending on the type of agreeing verb, the beginning and end points of the hand movements mark the subject and the objects of the sentence.

seçmekX1

X3

‘1choose3’ ‘I chose him/her.’ Figure 4.65 An example for the backward agreement verbs in TİD.

Turkish has different affixes for singular and plural person agreement. Unlike Turkish, TİD has only singular forms of personal markers, which are used both singularly and plurally. For example, the verb

ödemek ‘to pay’

takes singular

affix, it has both singular meaning, ‘I paid you,’ and plural meaning ‘we paid to you’ depending on the context. Although agreement verbs do not have plural person, they may show number agreement on the verb, which we examine it in below. Number agreement in sign languages ​​are of three different types: Dual, exhaustive, and multiple number agreement (Sandler & Lillo-Martin, 2006, p. 39): In dual plurality, the sign having the path movement on the y-plane moves to two different positions successively, in exhaustive plurality, the sign having the path movement on the y-plane advances sequentially to three or more different positions, and in multiple plurality, the sign having the path movement on the y-plane has an arc movement (illustrated in Figure 4.66).

174 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

Dual

Exhaustive

Multiple

Figure 4.66 Types of pluralization in agreeing verbs (Sandler & Lillo-Martin, 2006). There are two different ways for dual number agreement to work. If the agreement verb is a two-handed sign such as desteklemek ‘to support’ in TİD, dual and sequential repetitions of the movement toward different locations / referents provide number agreement. If it is a single-handed sign such as sormak ‘to ask’ in TİD, simultaneous movement of two hands also provides dual number agreement. In this simultaneous production, one hand encodes a person / referent and the other hand encodes another person / referent (see Figure 4.67). Thus, while both sequential and simultaneous dual number agreements are alternatively possible for single-handed agreement verbs, only sequential dual number agreement is possible for two-handed agreement verbs.

sormakX1

X2+X2

‘2+2ask1’

‘Ask me.’ Figure 4.67 Two-handed dual number agreement.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

175

Similar to dual number agreement, three or more repetitions of the agreement verb to various positions in the signing space encode the exhaustive number agreement. Unlike dual agreement, the verb does not represent as many people or referents as the number of repetitions. For example, the production of the verb with three repetitions can refer to three, four, or more people. Although the dual and exhaustive number agreements can be seen in all the agreement verbs, the multiple number agreement is used with only a few verbs. The multiple number agreement is coded by an arc movement of the verb in the signing space, and, as in other kinds of number agreements, the direction of the hand is toward the person/referent for agreement. We illustrate the differences in number agreements by giving examples with the verb haber^vermek ‘to ınform’ in TİD in Figure 4.68.

snfb+ ‘clb+’

haber^vermek ‘to ınform’

(Exhaustive)

haber^vermek ‘to ınform’

(Multiple)

Figure 4.68 An example for the person-number agreement verb in TİD: haber^vermek ‘to ınform.’

176 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.5.2.1.2 Location Agreement As noted in the previous section (see 4.5.2.1 agreement), there are generally three types of verbs in sign languages, and simple verbs do not enter into any agreement process whereas agreement verbs encode person-number paradigm on themselves. Spatial verbs, as the third category, present information about the location where the verb takes place by using some kind of location affixes (Meir, 1998, 2002; Meir et al., 2007). As we have already shown previously, sign languages have the signing space in which the signer can provide topographic information about the events. By indicating the locations of the real-world objects in the signing space, the signer can linguistically encode the spatial relations among the objects in the linguistic events. For this reason, in spatial verbs, the starting location of the verb in the signing space has the thematic role of SOURCE and the end location indicates the thematic role of GOAL. Despite the fact that moving a verb from one place to another within the signing space does not provide any information about the subject, who is the actor/doer or about the object which is the theme-patient/experiencer of the verb, it gives information about the location of the linguistic event (Padden, 1988). The most frequent spatial verbs in the TİD corpus are as follow: Table 4.11 The most frequent spatial verbs in TİD. Spatial Verbs koymak ‘to put’ taşımak ‘to carry’ çekmek ‘to pull’ yürümek ’to walk’ fırlatmak ’to throw’ İtmek ‘to push’

Consider the verb

koymak ‘to put’

in TİD in Figure 4.69. In this verb, the

starting point of the verb

koymak ‘to put’

is located on the left of the signer and

the end point is on the right of the signer. Therefore, the interpretation of the sentence is that the object kİtap ‘book’ is placed from location X to location Y, or from here to there.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

kİtap ‘book’

177

koymaky ‘XputY’

X

Figure 4.69 An example for the use of spatial verbs in TİD: kİtap Xkoymaky ‘book putY’ ‘I put the book from here to there.’ X 4.5.2.2. Manner Manner is briefly defined as a configuration of a verb taken to describe how, and in what ways, an event occurs. Aspect is the presentation of the point at which a verb is located on a timeline, its completion or continuation, and of its relationship on the timeline with other verbs. From this point of view, the manner emerges as a structure which does not offer any temporal relationship but gives information only about the way a verb takes place. The languages can be grouped in a variety of ways to present manner information about events. For example, manner is usually encoded with adverbs or adverb phrases that appear together with the verb in Turkish. In the following Turkish examples, information regarding the manner of the event is given in italics (4.1-4). (4.1) Kedi yavaşça masaya yaklaştı

‘The cat slowly approached the table.’

(4.2) İşlerine üzüntülü şekilde devam ediyor.

‘He/she keeps his business sadly.’

(4.3) Akşamki konseri heyecanla bekliyoruz.

‘We are waiting the concert tonight excitedly.’

(4.4) Herkes delicesine bir yerlere koşuyor.

‘Everyone is running around somewhere insanely.’

178 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR In addition to manner given by the adverbs, manner can inherently be encoded in the verbs (i.e., manner verbs). For example, there are many words in Turkish that present internally the realization of the walking event: koşmak ‘to run,’ tökezlemek ‘to stumble,’ zıplamak ‘to jump,’ sıçramak ‘to leap,’ sekmek ‘to bounce,’ adımlamak ‘to step,’ koşuşmak ‘to run up,’ topallamak ‘to hobble,’ aksamak ‘to limp,’ sendelemek ‘to stagger,’ yalpalamak ‘to totter,’ koşuşturmak ‘to scurry,’ koşturmak ‘to rush,’ emeklemek ‘to crawl,’ ilerlemek ‘to move ahead,’ and so on. All of these words generally differ in terms of manner, although they are linked to the verb gitmek ‘to go,’ which means someone’s change of location from one place to another. TİD also uses manner adverbs and manner verbs. Verbs such as

koşmak

‘to run,’ topallamak ‘to hobble,’ and koşuşturmak ‘to scurry’ include the manner internally. In the following examples, the manner of the verb is conveyed through adverbs (4.5-8). (4.5)

o

acele

(4.6) tv

televİzyon

(4.7)

eskİ

gİbİ

değİşmek

old

lıke

change

(4.8)

hızlı

yürümek

ben

fast

walk

ı

gelmek

s/he

hastıly come ‘He came hastily.’

rahat anlamak television confortably understand ‘I understand tv series/movies comfortably.’

‘It changed like the old one.’

‘I walk fast.’

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

179

In addition to the above examples, manners of the events are conveyed with changes to the morphological structure of the verb in TİD (Dikyuva, 2011). The changes can be both hand-related (movement, handshape, location, and orientation) and particularly nonmanuals as in other sign languages ​​(see Brennan, 1992). The fact that the manner of the verbs has a different structure from the citation forms in terms of both hand-related and nonmanual changes suggest that this is a derivative process. Consider the verb çalışmak ‘to work’ in TİD given in Figure 4.70. This verb is produced with a handshape with circular repetitive movements. If this repetitive movement is made slower, then it means ‘working slowly,’ and if it is faster than the citation form, it means ‘working fast.’ In addition, nonmanuals contribute to its meaning in terms of the manner of the action. If there is a lip bite, then it means ‘working willingly,’ and if the lips are pursed then it means ‘working diligently.’

yavaş^çalışmak

hızlı^çalışmak

‘to work slowly’

‘to work fast’

İsteklİ^çalışma

gayretle^çalışmak

‘to work wıllıngly’

‘to work dılıgently’

Figure 4.70 hızlı^çalışmak ‘to work fast’, yavaş^çalışmak ‘to work slowly’, İsteklİ^çalışmak ‘to work wıllıngly’ and gayretle^çalışmak ‘to work dılıgently’ in TİD.

180 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR When the manners of verbs are changed, the structures of the verbs are changed drastically. Consider İşaretleşmek ‘to communıcate wİth sıgns’ in TİD given in Figure 4.71. The citation form of this verb is produced with a handshape with circular repetitive movements. When there are repetitive movements of the handshape from the wrist, it means akıcı^İşaretleşmek ‘to make sıgns fluently.’

İşaretleşmek

akıcı^İşaretleşmek

‘to communıcate wıth sıgns’

‘to communıcate wıth sıgns fluently’

Figure 4.71 İşaretleşmek ‘to make sıgns’ and akıcı^İşaretleşmek ‘to make sıgns fluently’ in TİD. It appears that as manner changes, one or more phonological parameters change. Consider düşünmek ‘to thınk’ in TİD, given in Figure 4.72. This verb is produced by the movement of the index finger repeatedly at the side area of ​​the forehead. When it is produced with two hands rather than a single hand, with a path movement in the elbow instead of a local movement in the wrist, it means detaylı^düşünmek ‘to thınk deeply.’

düşünmek

detaylı^düşünmek

‘to thınk’

‘to thınk deeply’

Figure 4.72 düşünmek ‘to thınk’ and detaylı^düşünmek ‘to thınk deeply’ in TİD.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

181

Another type of manner is the repetitive production of the verb whose citation form includes a single movement. This type of manner can be used with a state verb like düşünmek ‘to thınk’ or action verb like koşmak ‘to run.’ When the action verb aramak ‘to call’ is produced with a repetition, it means durmadan^aramak ‘to call endlessly.’ Similarly, when the state verb unutmak ‘to forget’

is repeated, it means çabucak^unutmak ‘to forget quıckly’ (Figure 4.73).

durmadan^aramak ‘to call endlessly’

çabucak^unutmak ‘to forget quıckly’

Figure 4.73 durmadan^aramak ‘to call endlessly’ and çabucak^unutmak ‘to forget quıckly’ in TİD.

Nonmanuals such as eyebrow lowering can be used to change the manner of the verb, if the citation form has a neutral facial expression. When eyebrows are lowered, the verb is modified with ‘diligently and precisely.’ We provide examples for this below in (4.9-10). (4.9)

araştırmak search ‘I searched the topic diligently yesterday.’

(4.10)

çocuk bakmak chıld to-look-after ‘The mother looks after her child carefully.’

dün



yesterday

anne



hasta

mother ıll

bu



thıs

konu

topıc

182 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Mouthing can also be used to add manner to the verbs. For example, ‘bababa’ can be added to a verb to mean ‘swiftly.’ We give examples for this in (4.11-12).



(4.11)

fİrma



bu



yıl



bababa

gelİşmek



company thıs



‘The company grew swiftly this year.’

year



grow



(4.12)

okul



İç



matematİk



bababa



school ınsıde



‘I improved my math knowledge at school.’

math



İlerlemek

ımprove

4.5.2.3. Time / tense, aspect, and modality In this section, we discuss how time, aspect, and modality are expressed in TİD. 4.5.2.3.1 Time Linguistic time (or tense) can be briefly defined as the coding of an event or state on a timeline. The time category is divided into two subtypes, grammatical time and lexical time, depending on theoretical approaches in linguistics. Grammatical time is the category that indicates the movement, event, or occurrence located at universal time. In other words, it is defined as the grammaticalization of the time of verb (Comrie, 1985). In Turkish, the -DI morpheme encodes the past time by being attached to the verb. Lexical time presents the time period in which the event takes place, with adverbs such as yesterday, today, and now. Studies have shown that verbs in sign languages are not inflected for tense, but time is encoded lexically (Friedman 1975; Cogen 1977). This situation is not unique to sign languages, but in many spoken languages, similarly, the time category is only encoded with adverbs (e.g., Mandarin Chinese).

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

183

From the viewpoint of the lexical time in language (see 6.5 metaphor), the time adverbs in TİD seem to be located on a line similar to the timeline. For example, the orientation of signs such as dün ‘yesterday,’ geçen ‘last,’ 2^yıl^önce ‘2 years ago,’ which are related to the past time in TİD, is toward the back of the body (Figure 4.74).

dün

geçen

‘yesterday’

‘last’

Figure 4.74

2^yıl^önce ‘2^year^before’

dün ‘yesterday,’ geçen ‘last,’

2^yıl^önce ‘2^year^before,’ ‘2 years ago,’ in TİD.

In contrast, the signs such as yarın ‘tomorrow,’ 2^hafta^sonra ‘2 weeks and 3^yıl^sonra ‘3 years later,’ which are related to the future time in TİD, are toward the front of the body (Figure 4.75). later,’

yarın ‘tomorrow’

2^hafta^önce ‘2^week^before’

3^yıl^sonra ‘3^year^later’

Figure 4.75 yarın ‘tomorrow,’ 2^hafta^önce ‘2^week^before’ ‘2 weeks later’, and 3^yıl^sonra ‘3^year^later’ ‘3 years later’ in TİD.

184 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.5.2.3.2. Aspect Aspect can be defined as a grammatical category indicating the internal arrangement of the events (Comrie, 1976). Many of the sign languages ​​encode the timeline and the temporal internal structure of events with the help of aspectual markers (see Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1998, p.118). Aspect is often confused with time because they are both responsible for coding temporal relationships in the sentence. Time is often used to determine the location of an event or a situation on the timeline (Borik, 2006, p. 20), while aspect changes the state of the verb. Aspect in many languages is presented with inflectional units added to the verb. For example, in English, an aspect of the verb to walk is presented with the -ing suffix attached to the verb as walking. Aspect in sign languages is examined in two ways with respect to handbased signs and nonmanual signs. In this section, nonmanual signs that encode aspects in TİD are analyzed focusing on completive, inceptive, and progressive aspects. Completive aspect in TİD is the result of a nonmanual sign in which the tongue tip is pulled out and jammed into the teeth during the production of the verb. This is called ‘bn,’ based on the sound produced during the production of this nonmanual sign (see Dikyuva, 2011). We give an illustration of this aspect in Figure 4.76.

Figure 4.76 ‘bn’ completive aspect in TİD.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

185

Inceptive aspect is used to indicate that an event or a situation is about to begin or that the event has newly started (see Sandler and Lillo-Martin, 2006, p. 48). Although both action and process verbs may have an inceptive aspect, this kind of aspect is called the ingressive aspect showing the beginning (or inchoative) closeness when it is applied to the verbs (Comrie, 1976, p. 20). The inceptive aspect in TİD is called ‘ee,’ where the mouth edges are pulled back and the teeth are grinded with the nonmanual movement (see Dikyuva, 2011). We give an illustration of this aspect in Figure 4.77.

Figure 4.77 ‘ee’ (inceptive aspect) in TİD.

Progressive aspect indicates that an event is going on at the time of speech/sign. In TİD, this type of aspect occurs with the tongue hitting the lower and upper teeth successively. Similar to the above types, because of the associated sound in the production of this aspect, it is called ‘lele’ (see Dikyuva, 2011). We give an illustration of this aspect in Figure 4.78.

Figure 4.78 ‘lele’ (progressive aspect) in TİD.

186 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.5.2.3.3. Modality Modality is defined as the “speaker’s idea and attitude towards a situation or proposition denoted by the sentence.” (Lyons, 1977, p.452). Palmer (1986, 2001) who emphasizes the subjectivity of the modality considers the modality to be the grammaticalization of the speaker’s subjective view and attitudes. The structural characteristics of the modality types in TİD have a complex appearance and often have a coexistence of hand movement and nonmanual movement. In Turkish, and most other languages, the types of the modals are negated by using basic negativity. In contrast, the positive and negative forms of the modals in TİD are presented in different forms (see 5.5.2.3 negative modality). In this section, the four different types of modality in TİD, i.e., ability, permission, obligation and necessity, are analyzed. a) Ability modal Ability modal is used to indicate the speaker’s power of realizing a task or event related to the verb. In TİD, the ability modal is realized as the lip puffing (‘dş’) with olumlu ‘posıtıve,’ which follows the verb. An example is given in Figure 4.79.

bİlgİsayar

‘computer’

kurtarmak

olumlu

‘recover’

‘posıtıve’

‘ I can recover the computer.’ Figure 4.79 An example for the ability modal in TİD.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

187

b) Permission modal Permission modal is used to indicate that the speaker / signer has approved the listener to perform an action. In TİD, the permission modal is realized by the use of the sign serbest ‘free,’ which comes after the verb (Figure 4.80).

serbest

gİtmek

‘free’

‘to go’ ‘You may go early.’

Figure 4.80 An example for the use of permission modal in TİD. c) Obligation modal Obligation modal is used to indicate that the action must be performed based on the law, rule, regulation or ritual originating from any hierarchical social relation. In TİD, the obligation modal is realized by the sign mecbur ‘oblıged-to,’ which comes after the verb. Along with this sign, the nonmanual pursed lips are often produced (Figure 4.81).

toplantı

katılmak

mecbur

‘meetıng’

‘attend’

‘oblıged’

‘We must certainly attend the meeting.’ Figure 4.81 An example for the use of the obligation modal in TİD.

188 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR d) Necessity Modal Necessity modal is used to indicate the description of desired, ideal or ordinary situations, or the presentation of the prerequisite relation. Contrary to obligation, there is no strong enforcement, but there is a precondition for the achievement of a desired work / occurrence / situation for the agent in the event. In TİD, the sign lazım ‘necessary’ is used as the necessity modal, which comes after the verb.

akşam

çalışmak

lazım

‘evenıng’

‘to work/study’

‘necessary’

‘We need to work/study in the evening.’ Figure 4.82 An example for the use of the necessity modal in TİD. 4.5.2.4. Reciprocity In the previous subsections, we have discussed how TİD verbs are modified according to agreement, manner, time / tense, aspect, and modality. In this subsection, we turn to yet another way to modify verbs, reciprocity. Reciprocals come into play with the simultaneous formation of the two transitive verbs, where the subject of the first verb is formed as the object of the second verb and the subject of the second verb as the object of the first verb. In this process, the subject and the object of the sentence are reduced to a single structure, the subject. In this way, the verb is transformed into a two-member form, in other words, a transitive verb becomes an intransitive verb (Givon, 1990, p. 628). The content of the reciprocal structure is composed of at least two simple situations (e.g., ‘Ali looks at Ayşe’ and ‘Ayşe looks at Ali’) and these two situations combine to form a single expression that contains both (e.g., ‘Ali and Ayşe look at each other’).

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

189

Reciprocity is coded with widespread pronominals or with verbal affixes in languages (Nikolaeva, 2007). In addition, despite their low frequency in languages, reciprocity is also encoded with clause doubling, clitics, adverbials, zero-marking, and reduplication (Nedjalkov, 2007). Reciprocals in English are only produced with pronominals and there is no morphological change in the verb. In the sentence we know each other, the reciprocity is realized with the pronominal each other. In Turkish, the reciprocity is expressed both with the pronominal (e.g. birbirimize anlatırız ‘we tell each other’), where there is no change in the verb, and with the marker -Iş added to the verb (e.g., yarın görüşürüz ‘see you tomorrow’). These two forms cannot be found together because they perform the same function. Similar to the spoken languages, reciprocals in sign languages are produced with various types (see Fisher & Gough, 1980, for ASL; Pfau & Steinbach, 2003, 2005, for DGS). In their work on DGS, Pfau and Steinbach (2003, p. 10) argue that reciprocal structures are not only dependent on the morphological features of the verb but also on its phonological form. The phonological form of the verb is particularly influential in the reciprocal formation of the agreement verbs. In support of this argument, Kubus (2008) suggests that the reciprocal formation of the verbs in the TİD vocabulary is related both to single or two-handed production of the signs and the simple or agreeing verb types. We discuss them below. a) Reciprocals in simple verbs Declarative sentences with simple verbs encode three different types of reciprocals. The linguistic realizations and criteria of these types are presented below with examples from TİD. Double pronouns produced with one hand: For this, the pronominal (i.e.,

İkİmİz

‘both of us’) produced with one hand comes before the verb of a

declarative sentence. We give an example in Figure 4.83 where this reciprocal is used after the verb anlamak ‘understand’ in TİD.

190 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

anlamak

İkİmİz

‘to understand’

‘both of us’

‘We understand each other.’ Figure 4.83 An example for reciprocals in simple verbs in TİD. Personal pronoun produced with two hands: Similar to the previous reciprocal, a declarative sentence can be reciprocal, meaning the reciprocal pronominal (i.e., bİrbİrİmİz ‘each other’) is added before the verb. This reciprocal is a two-handed sign. We give an example in Figure 4.84, where this reciprocal is used before the verb düşünmek ‘thınk’ in TİD.

bİrbİrİmİzİ

‘each other’

düşünmek

lazım

‘thınk’

‘necessary’

‘We need to think each other.’ Figure 4.84 An example for reciprocals in simple verbs in TİD.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

191

Repetition of the personal pronoun: There is a kind of reciprocal in TİD in which two simple situations are encoded with declarative sentences separately, without any reduction. The two sentences together provide a reciprocal meaning. Figure 4.85 illustrates this by giving an example from TİD.



ben İ



anlamak

sen

understand

you

anlamak understand

‘We understand each other.’ Figure 4.85 An example for a reciprocal meaning with repetitions of personal pronouns in TİD.

b) Reciprocity in agreement verbs Agreeing verbs have more complex morphological structures than simple verbs (see 4.5.2.1 for agreeing verbs). In this respect, agreement verbs can carry three different types of reciprocity: i. Copy of movement: In this case, the agreeing verb produced by one hand is copied by the other hand and both hands move simultaneously. This two handed version of the agreeing verb codes the subject-object-agreement, while the subject of the hand is the object of the other and vice versa. Therefore, it codes reciprocity. We give an example for this in Figure 4.86.

192 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

Y

göndermekYX ‘YXsendYX’

X

‘We understand each other.’ Figure 4.86 An example for reciprocity in agreeing verbs in TİD.

ii. Transformation of movement: Another way of using agreeing verbs to carry reciprocal meaning is that the verb first codes the subject and the object, then the direction of the movement changes to code the subject and the object in the reverse order. Therefore, reciprocity is coded by the same verb sequentially due to the change of the direction of the hand movement. We give an example for this in Figure 4.87.

sormak ‘Xask’

X

sormakY ‘askY’

Figure 4.87 An example for reciprocity in agreeing verbs in TİD.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

193

iii. Copy of movement and agreement deletion: This is similar to the first type of reciprocity coded by the agreeing verbs. However, with this type, the two-handed production of the verb, which is originally one-handed, provides reciprocal meaning, but the verb loses its agreement paradigm during this process. An example for this is given below in Figure 4.88.

0

0

görmek ‘see00’

‘We see each other.’ Figure 4.88 An example for reciprocity in agreeing verbs in TİD. 4.6. Word Classes (Noun-Verb Distinction) Identifying and describing word classes in languages ​​have an important place in linguistic studies (see Bloomfield, 1933). In this section, we examine word / sign classes in TİD, with the data obtained from the TİD corpus. Studies conducted so far indicate that words are divided into 10 basic categories: noun (book, child, door), verb (to run, to look, to write), adjective (beautiful, cheap, young), adverb (today, often, immediately), adposition (for, according to, despite), pronoun (I, all of you, someone), article (the, a/an), conjunction (or, because, and), numerals (one, couple of, third), and exclamation (boo, alas, come on). In determining the class a word belongs to, a variety of ways are used on the basis of different characteristics of the word such as social (generic or term word) and historical (native or borrowed word), as well as grammatical such as phonological, morphological, semantic and syntactic criteria. In this section, we focus only on noun-verb distinction of the words in the TİD lexicon from a morphosyntactic perspective.

194 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR There is a matter of debate whether all spoken and signed languages have all of these categories. Some languages ​​do not make a distinction between nouns and verbs, both morphologically (Broscart, 1997- Tongan language) and syntactically (see Jacobsen, 1979, for Nootka language, Himmelmann, 1991 for Tagalog, Launey, 2004, for Classical Nahuatl language). A similar debate has been going on in sign language literature since the classical study by Stokoe, Castorline, & Croneberg (1965), which suggested that there is no structural difference between noun and verb in ASL. Contrary to this view, Supalla & Newport (1978), in their work on the same language, argued that the noun and verb categories are morphologically distinguishable, and that the frequency and manner of movement is a criterion to determine the category of a word. There are many studies conducted on this topic on ASL (Stokoe, Castorline, & Croneberg, 1965; Supalla & Newport, 1978), AUSLAN (Johnston, 2001), Russian Sign Language (Kimmelman, 2009), Austrian Sign Language (Hunger, 2006), and NGT (Schreurs, 2006) but because of the typological and modality differences, a general picture is yet to emerge. One of the biggest controversies about the word class in sign language is that the noun-verb distinction is not made systematically (see Johnston, 2001). In this section, we show that the data obtained from the TİD corpus supports Özkul (2013) and Kubuş’s (2008) previous observations, in that there are noun and verb categories in TİD that can be distinguishable with regard to the hand movements. Note that some of the noun-verb pairs cannot be distinguishable on the basis of their phonetic or morphological structures. For example araba^sürmek ‘to drıve a car’ and sürücü ‘drıve’ have the same linguistic patterns. The only way to distinguish them (if necessary) is due to constituency and / or context. Note also that in some cases, the noun-verb pairs that are semantically related to each other can have different linguistic roots. For example, the verb antreman^yapmak ‘to traın’ and the noun antrenör ‘traıner’ are totally different signs in TİD. Another example comes from the noun bıçak ‘knıfe’ and the verb bıçaklamak ‘to stab’ in TİD given in Figure 4.89. Although they are semantically related to each other (and in Turkish the verb is derived from the noun), their roots are different from each other in TİD. While the noun bıçak ‘knıfe’ has a handshape in which the index finger is active, the verb bıçaklamak ‘to stab’ has a fist-like handshape.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

bıçak ‘knıfe’

195

bıçaklamak ‘to stab’

Figure 4.89 bıçak ‘knıfe’ and bıçaklamak ‘to stab’ in TİD. In what follows, we focus on how to distinguish noun-verb pairs according to the the type of movements, the number of movements, the direction of movements, and the duration of movements. 4.6.1. The type of movements The word category differs according to the type of movement. Consider the word çalışmak ‘to work’ in TİD (Figure 4.90). It has a path movement from the elbow. We think that it is derived from the noun İş ‘work’ in TİD, which has a local movement from the wrist. These two signs are very similar to each other in the positions of the hand, the shapes of the movement (circular), the handshapes, and the orientations, yet they differ from each other in the type of movement involved: Path vs local movements.

çalışmak ‘to work’

İş ‘work’

Figure 4.90 ‘to work’ and ‘work’ in TİD.

196 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR The words in the noun category that are semantically related to the words in the verb category are usually produced via local movements. For instance, in contrast to the verb öğretmek ‘teach’ in TİD, which has a path movement, the word öğretmen ‘teacher’ in TİD is produced with a local movement (see Figure 4.91 below).

öğretmek

‘to teach’

öğretmen

‘teacher’

Figure 4.91 öğretmek ‘to teach’ and öğretmen ‘teacher’ in TİD. 4.6.2. The number of movements In addition to the type of movements, the number of movements help distinguish nouns and verbs in TİD. Consider the sign kİlİtlemek ‘to lock’ in TİD. In this verb, there is only one wrist movement by rotating the wrist to both sides, whereas in its noun verb, the sign anahtar ‘key’ has more than one wrist movement (Figure 4.92).

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

kİlİtlemek

‘to lock’

197

anahtar ‘key’

Figure 4.92 kİlİtlemek ‘to lock’ and anahtar ‘key’ in TİD . Another example comes from the verb ödemek ‘to pay’ in TİD. In this verb, the handshapes of the dominant hand and the nondominant hand are different and it is constructed with a single touch of the dominant hand to the palm of the nondominant hand. When the movement is repeated more than once, it becomes a noun ödeme ‘payment’ (see Figure 4.93).

ödemek ‘to pay’

Figure 4.93 ödemek ‘to pay’ and

ödeme ‘payment’ ödeme ‘payment’

inTİD.

In the examples given so far, the repetition of the movement is done at the same position, but the repetition can be at another location in distinguishing nouns and verbs in TİD. Consider the word sandalye ‘chaır’ in TİD, which is formed by the repetition of the sign oturmak ‘to sıt’ in a different location in space (Figure 4.94). Although the phonological parameters of oturmak ‘to sıt’ and sandalye ‘chaır’ are the same, the verb is formed with a single movement, and the noun is produced with three repetitions of the movement (Kubuş, 2008).

198 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

oturmak ‘to sıt’

Figure 4.94

sandalye ‘chaır’

oturmak‘to sıt’

and sandalye ‘chaır’ in TİD.

In the previous examples, the two hands move in a synchronic manner. But in distinguishing nouns and verbs, they can move in a different manner. An example comes from the verb yapmak ‘to do’ in TİD, which is produced by moving the two hands (or a single hand) in a straight, downward movement. Yet, the noun category version of this sign yapım ‘constructıon / manufacturıng’ is produced by the nonsynchronic up and down movements of two hands (Figure 4.95).

yapmak ‘to do

yapım ‘constructıon

Figure 4.95 yapmak ‘to do’ and

/ manufacturıng’

yapım ‘doıng’

in TİD.

In some noun-verb pairs, word category can be changed by multiple changes, as opposed to just one structural change. The verb evlenmek ‘to marry’ is an example for this. It is formed by a single path on the elbow. Nevertheless, the noun eş ‘spouse’ is exactly the same sign, with the exception that it is formed by a local and repetitive movement of the wrist (see Figure 4.96). Similarly, the pairs of haber ‘news’ and haber^vermek ‘to ınform’ have the same handshape but the noun haber ‘news’ has a local and repetitive movement and the verb haber^vermek ‘to ınform’ has a single path movement.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

evlenmek ‘to marry’

Figure 4.96

evlenmek ‘to marry’

199

eş ‘spouse’

and eş ‘spouse’ in TİD.

4.6.3. The direction of movements In addition to the type and the number of movements, the direction of movements can also help distinguish pairs of nouns and verbs. Consider the word okumak ‘to read’ in TİD. It is produced with the repetitive movements of the handshape to the right and left in front of the mouth. okumak ‘to read’ and okul ‘school’ are similar to each other, but they differ in terms of the direction of movement of the hand. In okumak ‘to read,’ the hand moves from right to left (or vice versa); whereas, in okul ‘school’, it moves forward and backward in a repetitive manner. This pair of signs is illustrated in Figure 4.97.

okumak ‘to read’



okul ‘school’

Figure 4.97 okumak ‘to read’ and okul ‘school’ in TİD.

200 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.6.4. The duration of movements The duration of the hand movements can be at expected speed (neutral), fast, or slow. According to the change in the duration of the movements, a pair of noun-verbs can be distinguishable. For example, the noun görüşme ‘ıntervıew’ and the verb karşılaşmak ‘to encounter’ have the same phonetic structure (Figure 4.98). They only differ in terms of the duration of the hand movements: The verb karşılaşmak ‘to encounter’ is produced in a shorter time than the noun görüşme ‘ıntervıew’ is.

karşılaşmak ‘to encounter’

görüşme ‘ıntervıew’

Figure 4.98 karşılaşmak ‘to encounter’ and görüşme ‘ıntervıew’ in TİD.

So far, we have shown that the types of the hand movements can distinguish nouns from verbs. There are noun-verb pair of signs in the TİD lexicon, that are semantically related but phonetically different from each other. Consider bıçak ‘knıfe’ and bıçaklamak ‘stıck-a-knıfe-ın’ (Figure 4.99). In Turkish, the verb is derived from the noun by adding -lA suffix. Yet, in TİD, there is a change in the handshape and the movement. In bıçak ‘knıfe’, both index fingers are active whereas in bıçaklamak ‘stıck-a-knıfe-ın’ the dominant hand takes a fist handshape and moves from proximal to distal in the signing space.

201

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

bıçak ‘knıfe’

bıçaklamak ‘stıck-a-knıfe-ın’

Figure 4.99 bıçak ‘knıfe’ and bıçaklamak ‘stıck-a-knıfe-ın.’ In sign language linguistics literature, there is a huge debate on whether noun-verb pairs could be distinguished in a systematic way (see Johnston, 2001). A closer examination of TİD data has shown that in TİD this distinction is made systematically. 4.7. Pronouns Pronouns are a set of grammatical items that can be used instead of noun phrases. They can refer to person, things, and locations. This section focuses on personal pronouns, possessive pronouns, reflexive pronouns, and reciprocal pronouns in TİD. 4.7.1. Personal pronouns All natural languages, signed or spoken, have personal pronouns. Due to the visual-gestural modality, sign languages use deictic expressions in the signing space. Personal pronouns are formed by pointings in the signing space in TİD. 4.7.1.1. Singular personal pronouns Pointings at the signer’s torso refer to the first person singular

ben

‘ı’.

When there is an addressee present, pointing toward the addressee refers to the second person singular,

sen ‘you’.

However, there are two forms of these

pointing signs: Both TİD-17 and TİD-28 handshapes. Their functions are the same. We give examples below.

202 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

ben1 ‘İ’

sen1 ‘you’

o1 ‘he/she/ıt’

ben2 ‘İ’

sen2 ‘you’

o2 ‘he/she/ıt’

Figure 4.100 Personal pronouns in TİD.

(4.13) ben1 utanmak^değİl ı be-embarras^not ‘I was not embarrassed.’

İç (4.14) ben2 ev aİle ı house ınsıde famıly ‘I am waiting for my family at home.’

(4.15) sen1 ben hatırlamak^değİl you ı remember^not ‘You didn’t remember me.’

beklemek waıt



CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY

203

4.7.1.2. Plural personal pronouns Similar to the singular personal pronouns, the plural personal pronuns are formed in the signing space in TİD similar to the singular personal pronouns. It appears that the singular personal pronouns also have plural meanings. For example, sen ‘you’ second person singular can be used instead of sİz ‘you’ second person plural, where the context help distinguish them.

bİz ‘we’

sİz ‘you’

onlar‘they’

Figure 4.101 Plural personal pronouns in TİD:

bİlmek+değİl sağır öyle (4.16) ben ı know+not deaf lıke-that ‘I don’t know, we, the Deaf, are like this.’

bİz we

(4.17)

sİz

alışmak

erkek



you

get-used-to

man

‘You, men, get used to do things together as a group’

(4.18)

anlaşmak+değİl

tamam

onlar



get-along+not

ok

they

kabul^etmek

bİtmek

grup+alışmak

sen

group+get-used-to

you





group grup

erkek man

accept done ‘We didn’t agree, then, after they accepted, everything became ok’

204 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.7.2. Possessive pronouns Possessive pronouns are pronouns that indicate possession and ownership. TİD has possessive pronouns and has different forms for singular and plural possessive pronouns. The two forms used to indicate possession are TİD-18 and TİD-29. TİD-18 are used for all kinds of possessive pronouns. When its direction is toward the torso of the signer, it means benİm ‘mıne’; whereas, when its direction is toward the addressee, it means

senin ‘yours’.

Moreover, its direction is toward

elsewhere, it means onun ‘hıs/her/ıts’. These have plural meanings too. For example, the same sign is used for benİm ‘mıne’ and bİzİm ‘ours’.

(4.19)



olmak sağır

mentally dısabled to-be



z-zİhİnsel engellİ

deaf

kardeş benİm sıblıng mıne

‘My deaf sibling is/became mentally disabled.’

(4.20)

ben bİrİktİrmek İş



save

job

yok

senİn emeklİ baba+emeklİ



ı



‘I am saving but don’t have any job, (but) your father is retired.’

The other possessive pronoun is

non-exıst your

kendi+op,

retıred father+retıred

whose use is restricted. It

is used only for precious and valuable things. For example, it is not used for ordinary possessed things, *kalem kendi+op ‘pencıl mıne’ ‘my pencil’ but it can be used for a house as given below.

(4.21)

ev



kendİ+op



house





‘My house is beautiful’

güzel

own+nonmanual beautıful

4.7.3. Reciprocal pronouns Reciprocal pronouns are pronouns that are used to indicate that an action is done by two or more people. TİD has reflexive pronouns derived from numbers such as

İkİ ‘two’

and

üç ‘three’.

For example,

İkİ-bİz ‘two-us’

and

İki-sİz ‘two-yo.

In the former, the direction of the hand is from the signer to the addressee; whereas, in the latter, the direction of the hand is between the addresses that are present. We give examples for the TİD reciprocal pronouns below.

CHAPTER 4 MORPHOLOGY (4.22)

İkİ-bİz



two-we





çalışmak

lazım

work

must

205

‘We must work together.’

(4.23)

İkİ-sİz



two-we



‘Both of you must work together.’



çalişmak



lazim

work

must

When there are more than two addresses present, the hand moves circular in the signing space (4.39 and 4.40). (4.24)

üç-bİz





three-we



‘(lit.) The three of us talk to one another today.’

(4.25)

üç-sİz



three-you today



‘(lit.) The three of you talk to one another today.’



bugün



konuşmak

today

bugün

talk



konuşmak talk

4.7.4. Reflexive pronouns Reflexive pronouns are pronouns that establish possessive relationships referring back to the subject of the sentence. In TİD, kendİ ‘own’ is the reflexive pronoun. (4.26)

sen



kendİ



you



own



‘((lit.) You improve yourself by reading (studying).’

(4.27)

ben



i



‘I must go by myself (alone).’







kendİ own





okumak read





gelİşmek ımprove



gİtmek

lazim

go

must



var exıst

206 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 4.8. Summary Chapter 4 has focused on the morphology of signs in TİD. It started with the roots, the affixes, and the rules governing them. Then, it dealth with derivations and inflections in TİD. Then, it examined how signs are forme showing that there are seven ways to form new signs: Extensions, additions, repetition, conjunction, numeral incorporation, movement, and borrowing. Then, it went into detail of noun and verb formations. The sections that follow was on sign classes focusing on the types, number, directions, and durations of movements. The last section was devoted to pronouns in TİD.

CHAPTER 2

5

SYNTAX

208 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX

209

Syntax is one of the subfields in linguistics investigating such topics as clause structure, phrase structure, and word order. In this chapter, we examine TİD in terms of syntax. First, we analyze the word order and its rules (Section 5.1) and the structure of noun phrases in TİD (Section 5.2). After that, we examine sentence types (Section 5.3), declarative sentences (Section 5.4), negative sentences (Section 5.5), interrogative sentences (Section 5.6), and coordination and subordination (Section 5.7) in detail. A brief summary is provided at the end of this chapter. 5.1 Word Order Word order is mostly about how the constituents of a clause are ordered and the rules, if present, restricting how these constituents are ordered. In spoken languages, these constituents are subject (S), object (O), and the verb (V) (Greenberg, 1963). A sentence could be intransitive, transitive or ditransitive depending on the subject and object selecting properties of the verb. Intransitive verbs have only a subject which could function as an agent, a patient, or an experiencer. Transitive verbs, on the other hand, take two arguments: a subject and an object, whereas, ditransitive verbs have three arguments which are realized as a subject and two objects. Word order is usually understood as the possible (sequential) orders of S, O, and V in transitive verbs. Typologically speaking, the possible word orders are the following: SOV, SVO, OSV, OVS, VSO, and VOS. The two most common word orders in spoken languages are SOV as in Turkish and SVO as in English (Lehmann, 1978). There are findings indicating that the oldest word order is SOV in terms of the history and origin of world languages (Gell-Mann & Ruhlen, 2011). Since languages display changes throughout time, there are strong findings showing that SOV languages are actually derived from SVO languages (Vennemann, 1976). In his study, Dryer (2005) examined the word orders of 1,228 languages in his research. He found that 497 languages have SOV order, 435 have SVO order, 85 have VSO order (i.e., Irish, Arabic, Hebrew), 26 have VOS order (i.e., Nias), 9 have OVS order (i.e., Hixkaryana) and 4 have OSV order (i.e., Nadëb). Yet, no basic word order is attested in 172 of these languages. Some of these languages make use of morphological markings while ordering words (i.e. Turkish accusative case marker -I for the object) whereas some others use no marking at all. Among these latter type of languages, there

210 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR are Thai with SVO order, Arára Karó with SOV order, Quiegolani Zapotec with SVO order, and Minangkabau with no basic word order (see Sinnemäki, 2010). Due to the differences in language modality, it is hard to determine word order (sequential orders of signs) in sign languages since the use of both hands, head, and the rest of the body allows the production of S, O, and V simultaneously. As mentioned in the discussion on agreement, the differences among different verb types (see Section 4.8) and the structure of classifiers result in varieties in word orders (Kimmelman, 2011). Studies on word order have also been conducted on sign languages, and the findings of those show that the most common word orders SOV and SVO are also observed in sign languages (see Leeson & Saeed, 2012). Some examples from these studies are given below: a. Sign languages that have a SVO word order: ASL (Fischer, 1975; Kegl et al., 1996; Liddell, 1980; Neidle et al., 2000; Pichler, 2001; Sandler & Lillo-Martin, 2006), Brazilian Sign Language (de Quadros, 2003), Croatian Sign Language (Milkovic et al., 2006), Finnish Sign Language (Jantunen, 2008), Hong Kong Sign Language (Sze, 2003), Russian Sign Language (Kimmelman, 2011, 2012), and Taiwan Sign Language (Smith, 2005). b. Sign languages that have a SVO word order: Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (Sandler, Meir, Padden & Aronoff, 2005), AUSLAN (Wilbur, 2002), Catalan Sign Language (Quer, 2002), German Sign Language (Glück & Pfau, 1998; Rathmann, 2000), Japanese Sign Language (Fischer, 1996; Torigoe, 1994), and Nicaraguan Sign Language (Senghas, Coppola, Newport & Supalla, 1997). c. Saudi Sign Language has SVO, OSV and SOV word orders (Sprenger & Mathur, 2012). There are sign languages which allow various word orders depending on the topic-comment structures. For example, BSL (Deuchar, 1983), Danish Sign Language (Engberg-Pedersen, 1994), Israeli Sign Language (Rosenstein, 2001), Quebec Sign Language (Nadeau & Desouvrey, 1994; Bouchard & Dubuisson, 1995), Sign Language of the Netherlands (Coerts, 1994; Crasborn et al., 2009), and Spanish Sign Language (Morales-Lopez et al., 2012), etc.

211

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX

Previous research has claimed that the word order in TİD is SOV but other word orders are also possible (Arık, 2006; Sevinç, 2006; Açan, 2007; Aslan Demir, 2010; Gökgöz & Arık, 2011; Gökgöz, 2011). According to Arık (2006), TİD is a language which marks its verb clause-finally and marks the phrases with nonmanual markers. To illustrate, both orders of

book two

and

two book,

which have the same meaning, are used. Verbs could be negated through head backward or head nod nonmanual markers (see also Gökgöz, 2011). Wh-signs could be in-situ or at the clause final position. The rest of this section is devoted to word order with intransitive verbs, word order with transitive verbs and word orders with ditransitive verbs. 5.1.1 Word order with intransitive verbs The word order attested in TİD is SV when the verb has only a subject, which could be semantically an agent, a patient or an experiencer. Examples for a single argument selecting verb (5.1), noun (5.2), and adjective (5.3) are given below. The examples which are not grammatical in TİD is shown with an asterisk (*). kiz

koşmak



girl

run



‘The girl is running.’

(5.1)



a.

b. * run girl

(5.2) a.

benİm baba



my



‘My father is a teacher.’





öğretmen

father



teacher

b. * self teacher father

(5.3) a.

çanta ağir



bag



‘The bag is heavy.’



heavy

b. * heavy

bag



212 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR The verb is at the clause final position when the predicate has one argument, but there is more than one noun with different semantic functions. The examples given below include a locative clause (5.4), an existential clause (5.5), and two possessive clauses (5.6-5.7). (5.4)

masa

üst kİtap over book ‘There is a book on the table.’

(5.5)

oda

(5.6)

benİm

(5.7)

o

table

sandalye var chair exist ‘There is a chair in the room.’

room



ev

house ‘I have a house.’

my

var exist



kiz kardeş var

s/he

sister ‘S/he has a sister.’

exist

5.1.2 Word order with transitive verbs The word order SOV is used in TİD when the verb has two arguments, semantically an agent and a patient. Examples (5.8-5.11) exemplify the word order with such verbs. (5.8)

kiz

bebek

girl

baby

(5.9)

kiz

erkek

(5.10)

ben

kİtap

yazmak

i

book

write

(5.11)

ben

portakal

yemek

i

orange

eat

öpmek

kiss ‘The girl kissed the baby.’

sevmek

girl

boy love ‘The girl loves the boy.’

‘I wrote a book.’

‘I ate an orange.’

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX

213

5.1.3 Word order with ditransitive verbs The word order is SO1O2V in TİD when the verb is ditransitive, which means there is semantically an agent, a patient and another object as arguments of the verb. (5.12) and (5.13) exemplify this situation. (5.12)

çocuk



anne





child



mother money



‘The child took money from her/his mother.’

(5.13)

çocuk

dede



child

grandfather



‘The child sent a letter to her/his grandfather.’

para

almak



take

mektup

göndermek

letter

send





5.2 Noun phrases A phrase consists of more than one lexical item, and it could be defined as the constituency among adjacent items. Even though there is more than one item in a phrase, there is always one central element in these phrases (Uzun, 2000). This central element in a phrase is called head, and it is the fundamental element of the phrase (see Extended X-bar Theory, Chomsky, 1981, 1982). Moreover, the head of a phrase determines the category of the phrase. So, if the head of a phrase is a verb, then it is called a verb phrase. Similarly, if the head of a phrase is a noun, the category of this phrase is a noun phrase. The lexical items which do not function as the fundamental elements in a phrase are called complements. In the Turkish phrase kırmızı kalem ‘red pen’, pen is the head and red is the complement. There are universal classifications according to the types of units and their ordering (see Greenberg, 1963). When a noun phrase including a number and an adjective is examined, it is grammatical in Turkish if the number precedes the adjective (5.14). But, it is ungrammatical if the number follows the adjective (5.15). (5.14) (5.15)

bugün



beş



yenİ



kİtap



al-dı-m.

today



five



new



book



buy-past-1sg

‘I bought five books today.’ *bugün yenİ

beş



kİtap



al-dı-m.



five



book



buy-past-1sg

today

new



Intended: ‘I bought five books today.’

214 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Similarly, the sentence is ungrammatical in Turkish when the adjective or the number is preceded by the head noun. Thus, the items constituting the noun phrase do not have a random sequence. On the contrary, they are in an adjacency relationship based on certain grammatical rules. (5.16) (5.17)

*yarın üç fİlm güzel seyred-eceğ-İm. tomorrow three movie nice watch-fut-1sg Intented: ‘I will watch three nice movies tomorrow.’ *yarın

güzel fİlm

tomorrow nice

movie

üç

seyred-eceğ-İm.

three watch-fut-1sg

Intended: ‘I will watch three nice movies tomorrow.’

AS in other sign languages, TİD has a more flexible sequencing of the lexical items that constitute a noun phrase. There is no word order rule regarding the number signs and adjective signs with respect to each other. In other words, two-word orders are alternatively possible in that an adjective can follow or precede a number (Özsoy & Nuhbalaoğlu, 2014). In the following example, the word çeşİtlİ ‘various’ which belongs to the adjective category follows the head noun spor ‘sport’ (Figure 5.1). The adjective farkli ‘different’ precedes the head in the other example (Figure 5.1). As clearly shown, TİD allows the adjective complement both preceding and following the head noun.



spor ‘sport’

çeşİtlİ ‘varıous’

gİtmek

‘go’



ben

‘ı’

Figure 5.1 spor çeşİtlİ gİtmek ben ‘sport varİous go İ’ ‘I went to various sports.’

215

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX



farklı





dıfferent

şehİr

gİtmek

cıty

go

lazım requıred

Figure 5.2 farklı şehİr gİtmek lazım ‘different cİty go requıred’ ‘We should go to different cities.’

Similarly, there are many examples of TİD compounds in which the head is on the left (see 4.4.4.5 Syntactic approach). Some of these compounds which are mostly adjective-noun are the following: Components of the Compound

Meaning of the Compound

taste^good

delicious

face^beautiful

handsome

age^important

birthday

head^strong

stubborn

face^bad

ugly

hour^late

delay

head^stone

obstinate

Additionally, when a number word is the complement of a noun, it can be found on both sides of the noun freely as other adjectives do. In the first following example, the number sign

üç ‘three’

precedes the head (5.18). Yet, in

the second example, the number sign beş ‘five’ follows the head (5.19). Note that although Turkish has a flexible word order, these structures are ungrammatical in Turkish.

216 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR (5.18) sabah hep gazete üç almak morning always newspaper three buy ‘I always buy three newspapers in the morning.’ (5.19) yarİn beş adam tomorrow five man ‘Yarın beş adam gelecek.’

gelmek come

As mentioned above, TİD has a flexible word order with regard to the ordering of number and adjective signs. However, there is a restriction in the word ordering of TİD when the noun phrase consists of two different nouns. Consider the example in (5.20) in which the noun phrase consists of two nouns; it is grammatical when the word çanta ‘bag’ is on the right side of the phrase whereas it is ungrammatical when the word is on the left side of the phrase (5.21). (5.20) okul çanta almak İstemek school bag buy want ‘I want to buy a school bag.’

(5.21) * çanta okul almak İstemek bag school buy want Intended: ‘I want to buy a school bag.’ Nonetheless, the sign

yüzde ‘percent,’

a noun, is semantically related to numbers, can be on both sides of the head, which is contrary to the word order restrictions given in (5.21) and (5.22). Two TİD examples are given in (5.22) and (5.23). The underlying reason for this pattern is not clearly known and it is obvious that this pattern needs to be examined by further studies. (5.22) yüzde ellİ şans var percent fifty chance exist ‘She/he has fifty percent chance.’ (5.23) yİrmİ yüzde hak vermek twenty percent right give ‘I find him right for twenty percent.’

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX

217

When the noun phrase consists of a possessive pronoun, it is observed that the possessive pronoun can be on both sides of the head noun (ben İş ‘i job’ ‘my job’ in 5.24 and arkadaş sen ‘friend you’ ‘your friend’ in 5.25) even though there is no overt grammatical marking of possession. (5.24)

ben



job teacher ‘My job is teaching.’

(5.25)



İş



öğretmen



i

arkadaş sen

hİç



görmek değİl

you never see ‘I have never seen your friend.’ friend

not

Whereas the word order pattern in noun phrases is relatively more flexible in TİD, the adpositional phrases with İçİn ‘for,’ kadar ‘until/up to,’ and göre ‘according to’

have a rigid word order. The complement of the head in an adpositional phrase is always on the left (5.26 and 5.28). When the complement is on the right, it is an ungrammatical sentence (5.27 and 5.29).

(5.26)

sinav

İçİn

okul gelmek exam for school come ‘I came to school for the exam.’

(5.27)

*İçİn

sinav

okul



for

exam

school come

(5.28)

gelmek

Intended: ‘I came to school for the exam.’ masa

gİbİ

bİr^şey

almak

lazim





table like something buy necessary ‘It is necessary to buy something like a table.’

(5.29)

*gİbİ



bİr^şey almak lazim like table something buy necessary Intended: ‘It is necessary to buy something like a table.’ masa

218 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 5.3 Sentence Types Sentences could be classified in many respects. They could be bare/ simple, coordinates and subordinates in terms of complexity whereas they could be categorized as declarative, negative, interrogative, and exclamative in terms of meaning. A sentence could be made up of a single verb, a single noun, a single adjective, or a single adverb. As observed in other languages, TİD has these types of sentences, too. In the following sections, we examine declarative sentences (Section 5.4), negative sentences (Section 5.5), interrogative sentences (Section 5.6.), coordinate and subordinate sentences (Section 5.7) in TİD in detail. 5.4 Affirmative and declarative sentences TİD has affirmative sentences as all natural languages have. The sentences given above are all examples of affirmative sentences. A sentence might consist of a single verb as in (5.30) a nominal predicate as in (5.31), an adjectival predicate as in (5.32), and an adverbial predicate as in (5.33). (5.30) ben gelmek i come ‘I come.’

(5.31) baba öğretmen father teacher ‘My father is a teacher.’

(5.32) araba kirmizi car red ‘The car is red.’

(5.33) bİlgİsayar yavaş computer slow ‘The computer is slow.’

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX

219

5.5 Negation Negation could be roughly defined as the differentiation of the proposition from an affirmative clause through a negation marker. Negation in Turkish is maintained through the suffix -mA and this suffix does not get phonological stress, but stress is on the preceding syllable. In other words, negation in Turkish could be claimed to consist of two processes: (i) the suffixation as a morphosyntactic process and (ii) the attachment of the stress as a phonological process. We provide two examples from Turkish for negation in (5.34) and (5.35). TİD has negation too. In the following sections, we examine how sentences are negated in TİD. (5.34)

Bu

televizyon

çalış-mı-yor.



This

television

work-NEG-PROG



‘This television is not working.’

(5.35)

Yarın

kursa git-me-yeceğ-im.



Tomorrow

class go-NEG-FUT-1sg



‘I will not go to the class tomorrow.’

5.5.1 Main negation: değil ‘not’ As in other sign languages, the negation in TİD consist of both manual signs and nonmanual markers. In that respect, it could be asserted that it is a two-level process as in Turkish. Whereas the suffix -mA is the main negation for many structures in Turkish, TİD has several structures. The most common standard or base negation is maintained through the negation of the verbal element in declarative clauses (Payne, 1985). The main negation in TİD is the sign değİl ‘not’ which is attached to the verb, as shown in many studies to date (Zeshan, 2006; Açan, 2007; Dikyuva & Zeshan, 2008; Gökgöz, 2009; Gökgöz, 2011). Besides, the word which is negated by

değİl ‘not’

is also accompanied

by the non-manuals head backward (hb) and eyebrow raising (ebr). We give an illustration of this negation in Figure 5.3 and two TİD examples in (5.36) and (5.37).

220 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

görmek ‘see’

değİl ‘not’

Figure 5.3 An example for the main negation in TİD: değİl ‘not.’



hb ebr

(5.36) çocuk gİtmek değİl child go not ‘The child did not go.’ (5.37) ben

i

hb ebr bamya

sevmek

değİl

okra

like

not

‘I do not like okra.’

As shown in the examples above, the main negation is maintained through both the manual sign değİl ‘not’ and the non-manuals head backward and eyebrow raising. TİD without the non-manuals in negative sentences or with the non-manuals but scope over different signs yields ungrammatical utterances. değİl ’not’ negates not only verbal predicates but also nominal and adjectival predicates. As shown in the following examples, değİl ’not’ function as the negative marker for the verbal predicate as in (5.38) and the adjectival predicate as in (5.39).

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX (5.38)

hb ebr kiz

güzel

değİl

girl

beatİful

not



‘The girl is not beautiful.’

(5.39)

221

hb ebr fİlm İzlemek değİl film watch





not

‘I did not watch the film.’

5.5.2 Other types of negation Besides the main negation in TİD, there are many other types of negation. This section is devoted to four types negation types: Existential negation, negative aspect, negative modality and negative discourse.

5.5.2.1 Existential Negation: yok ‘there-ıs-not’ Existential sentences refer the existence of a person / thing or the happening of a situation / an event. Similar to Turkish, affirmative existential clauses are formed with var ‘exist,’ and negative existential clauses are formed with yok ‘nonexist’ in TİD (Figure 5.4). In terms of non-manuals, head backward and eyebrow raising are the ones that are observed with the negated word. These non-manuals for negative existential sentences are simultaneously used yok ‘nonexist’ only. We provide two examples below in (5.40) and (5.41).

222 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

yok ‘nonexıst.’

Figure 5.4 The existential negation in TİD: yok ‘nonexıst.’



hb



ebr



(5.40)

pİlav tuz

yok



rice

nonexist



‘There is no salt in the rice.’

salt



hb



ebr



(5.41)

bugün moral yok



today mood



‘I am not in the mood today.’

nonexist

5.5.2.2 Negative Aspect As explained before (see Section 4.5.2.3), aspect could be defined as “the evaluation of an event with subjective perspectives that focus on different parts” (Comrie, 1976; Johanson, 1994, p. 247). In other words, it encodes that the event has happened (perfective-completive) or the event is going on (progressive). Negation in Turkish is maintained through the main negation suffix -mA in the sentences in which progressive aspect marker -yor is used and the completive aspect suffix -mIş is used as in (5.42) and (5.43).

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX (5.42)

Ahmet çay-ı-nı iç-mi-yor-du. Ahmet tea-3sg.POSS-ACC drink-NEG-PROG-PAST ‘Ahmet was not drinking his tea.’

(5.43)

Ahmet çay-ı-nı iç-me-miş-ti.



Ahmet tea-3sg.POSS-ACC drink-NEG-COMP-PAST ‘Ahmet had not drunk his tea.’

223



This observation reveals that the aspect of the verb does not determine the type of negation. However, the type of negation differs depending on the type of verbal aspect, and the aspect could be determined according to the type of negation. We observe two types of negation in terms of aspect in TİD that we discuss in the following subsections. 5.5.2.2.1. Negative Completion: “ap” Completive aspect is about whether a verb has been completed or in the process of happening and it denotes that the verb comes to an end after it is thoroughly completed (Heine & Kutewa, 2002, p.18). On the contrary, negative completion aspect indicates that these verbs have not come to an end. That a verb has not been completed in TİD is encoded with a puffed mouth that accompanies the verb. This nonmanual is named after the sound ‘ap,’ which is produced during this mouth movement (Figure 5.5). This type of negation which co-occurs with the verb simultaneously could be seen in not only past but also future related sentences (see examples 5.44-46).

gİtmek+ap. ‘go+ap.’

Figure 5.5 Negative completion aspect in TİD: “ap”: gİtmek+ap ‘go+ap’

224 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR ap (5.44) yenİ lİste vermek new list gİve ‘I did not give the new list.’ (5.45)

ben



kİtap

ap

almak

book buy ‘I did not buy the book.’

i

(5.46)

dün

dosya

yesterday

file

ap

yüklemek upload

‘The file was not uploaded yesterday.’

5.5.2.2.2. Negative Perfective: hiç ‘never’ Negative perfective aspect indicates that the verb did not take place before the speech time and is mostly related to the inner process of the verb. In terms of semantics, this type of aspect has many functions such as indicating habitual aspect. The attachment of the word hİç ‘never,’ which functions as an adverb in TİD, to the verb encodes the negative perfective aspect (Figure 5.6). Even though the word hİç ‘never,’ as an adverb, precedes the verb in a sentence, hİç ‘never,’ as an aspect marker, comes after the verb. In other words, the function and the category of the word hİç ‘never’ could be determined by its position with regard to the verb. Contrary to other types of negatives, negative perfective aspect does not include any non-manual marker. Below we provide examples in (5.47-50).

hİç ‘never.’

Figure 5.6 Negative perfective aspect in TİD: hİç ‘never.’

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX (5.47)

ben



denemek

hİç



try

never





i



‘I have never tried.’

(5.48)

sen



sormak

hİç



you



ask

never



‘You have never asked.’

(5.49)

gazİantep ben görmek

hİç



gazİantep i

never



‘I have never seen Gaziantep.’

(5.50)

ben alişmak



i



‘I have never got used to it.’



see

hİç

ben

225











get-used-to never i

As shown in the following example (5.51), if the sentence has the word hİç ‘never’ which only functions as an adverb, the sentence is neither negative nor grammatical. A negative sentence is formed through the obligatory addition of değİl ‘not’

to the verb in such structures as in (5.52).

(5.51)

*ben

hİç



i

never see



Intended: ‘I have never seen (it).’

görmek





hb



ebr

(5.52)

ben hİç görmek değİl



i never



‘I have never seen (it).’

see



not





226 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 5.5.2.3 Negative Modality Mood/modality is a term that is hard to define. Some researchers argue that it is not possible for modality to have one single definition. According to the most widely accepted definition in the literature, modality is the “speaker’s idea and attitude towards a situation or proposition denoted by the sentence.” (Lyons, 1977, p.452). Palmer (1986, 2001) who emphasizes the subjectivity of the modality considers the modality as the grammaticalization of the speaker’s subjective view and attitudes. To illustrate, the necessity modal in Turkish is expressed through the suffixation of the morpheme -mAlI to the verb whereas lexically dependent words ‘must’ and ‘have to’ are used as necessity modals in English. Two examples from Turkish are provided below. (5.53)

Sınava kadar iyi hazırlan-malı-yım. exam-date until well get. prepared-NEC-1sg ‘I must get prepared well until the exam.’ (or I must get well- prepared before the exam)

(5.54) Herkesi bu konuda uyar-malı-sın. Everyone-ACC this subject-LOC warn-NEC-2sg ‘You must warn everybody about this subject.’ As in many languages, some modal structures in Turkish have more than one meaning. Therefore, the types of modality need to be analyzed based on these meanings given by these aspects. The following examples illustrate how the modal -AbIl are used in different meanings such as permission (5.55), ability (5.56), and possibility (5.57) in Turkish. (5.55)

Ali araba sür-ebil-ir. Ali car drive-ABIL-AOR ‘I permit Ali to drive a car.’ (or I permitted Ali to drive a car)

(Permission)

(5.56) Ali araba sür-ebil-ir. (Ability) Ali car drive-ABIL-AOR ‘Ali has the knowledge/ability to drive a car.’ (5.57) Orada bardak kırıl-abil-ir. There glass break- ABIL-AOR ‘The glass might get broken there.’

(Possibility)

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX

227

Even though the negative formation of modal structures in Turkish is formed through the main negative suffix -mA which precedes these bound morphemes, the negative forms of the modals in TİD differ from each other. The interpretation of the modal could be understood via the type of the negative as in (5.58-60). (5.58)

Çocuk şimdi koş-ma-malı. child now run-NEG-NEC ‘The child should not run now.’

(5.59)

Çocuk şimdi koş-ma-yabilir. child now run-NEG-ABIL-AOR ‘The child may not run now.’

(5.60)

Çocuk şimdi koş-ma-yacak. child now run-NEG-FUT ‘The child will not run now.’

TİD has modals and specific negative markers for them. We examine them in the following subsections. 5.5.2.3.1. Negative Ability: Modal-tongue out The ability modal is about the speaker’s power of realizing a task or event related to the verb. On the contrary, negative ability denotes that the speaker does not have that potential. TİD expresses negative ability via non-manuals: modal tongue out (m-to) and the tongue moves towards the side of the mouth. In terms of structure, this modal type displays three different patterns in a sentence.

Figure 5.7 Modals for negative ability and negative possibility in TİD.

228 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR As shown in Figure 5.7, this modal offers three structural patterns. The first one, modal-tongue out accompanies the verb as a modal, and it is produced with only non-manuals. The second one, the word İmkansiz ‘İmpossible’ is added after the verb, and the modal-tongue out occur simultaneously with this unit (Figure 5.8). It occurs only with the word İmkansiz ‘impossible’; thus, no other modal marking is observed on the verb. In the third pattern, the sign olumsuz ‘negative’ is cliticized to the verb like the second one and the modal-tongue out co-occur with this unit. Although the modal-tongue out is obligatory in these structures, the manual signs İmkansiz ‘impossible’ and olumsuz ‘negative’ are optional.

İmkansız+kipsel-dil çıkarma

‘İmpossıble+modal-tongue out’

olumsuz+kipsel-dil çıkarma

‘negatıve+modal-tongue out’

Figure 5.8 Manual negative ability and negative possibility modals in TİD: İmkansİz ‘impossible’ and olumsuz ‘negative.’

Although this modal offers three structural patterns, there is no difference in terms of meaning. In other words, all three patterns could be used as negative ability modals. We provide three TİD examples below.





(5.61) ben sabah çalişmak i morning work ‘I cannot work this morning.’

m-to olumsuz negative

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX

229

m-to İmkansiz (5.62) bu sözcük çevİrmek thİs word translate impossible ‘I cannot translate this word.’ (5.63) kamyon sürmek

m-to olumsuz



drive negative ‘I cannot drive a truck.’ truck

5.5.2.3.2 Negative Possibility: olmaz ‘not-be’ The possibility modal refers to the speaker’s encoding the possibility of whether an event or a situation takes place on the verb. In the Turkish sentence, herhalde evde olmalı ‘S/he might be possibly at home,’ the possibility of the person’s being at home is expressed with the modal suffix –mAlI. Similarly, the possibility of the store being open is expressed with the modal –Abilmek in the sentence dükkan bu saatte açık olabillir ‘the store might be open at this hour.’ The negative possibility, in contrast, is the encoding of the realization of an event is of low possibility from the speaker’s point of view. This modality is realized through the sign olmaz ‘not-be’ in TİD. This modal is always accompanied by nonmanual markers, head backward (hb) and eyebrow raising (ebr). We illustrate this modal in Figure 5.9 and give TİD examples in (5.64-65).

olmaz+bgy ve kk

‘not be+hb and ebr.’

Figure 5.9 Negative possibility inTİD: olmaz+bgy ve kk ‘not-be+hb and ebr.’

230 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

hb



ebr



(5.64)

yarİn



tatİl



olmaz



tomorrow



‘Tomorrow will not be off.’



holiday

not-be



hb



ebr



(5.65)

yağmur yüzünden

gezmek

olmaz

wander

not-be



rain



‘We will not be able to wander due to the rain.’

because-of



Zeshan (2006) argues that this modality denotes “the behavior or event which is not appropriate for the situation.” This usage is based on the possible effects of the realization of the event rather than the realization of the event. Examples of this usage are given below.

hb



ebr



(5.66)

saat dokuz,



şİmdİ gİtmek



olmaz



hour nine



‘Now it’s nine, it is not (proper) to go now.’

now go

not-be

5.5.2.3.3 (Negative) Prohibition: hayır-2 ‘no-2’ Prohibition could be defined as not permitting someone to do something and ordering someone not to do that action. Whereas

hayir ’no’

in TİD consists

of a handshape moving from one side of the body towards the other side with a single movement at the elbow,

hayir-2 ‘no-2’

in TİD consists of a handshape

at the wrist moving to both sides. The nonmanual, eyebrow lowering (ebl), accompanies the sign

hayİr-2

‘no-2’ that follows the verb. This sign gives a

prohibition meaning. We illustrate TİD examples in (5.67) and (5.68).

hayir-2 ‘no-2’

in Figure 5.10 and provide two

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX

231

hayır-2 ‘no-2.’

Figure 5.10 Negative prohibition in TİD: hayır-2 ‘no-2’.

ebl

(5.67)

tek

gİtmek



alone

go



‘You cannot go alone.’





hayir-2



no-2



ebl

(5.68)

kendİ karar^vermek





self



‘You cannot decide by yourself.’

decide

hayir-2



no-2

5.6 Interrogative Sentences This section aims to present the main patterns of the two types of questions in TİD: Polar questions and content questions. It explains these question types and the functions of the accompanying nonmanual markers. Based on their structural properties, interrogative sentences could be categorized as simple or complex sentences. For instance, a sentence which includes a reported speech is regarded as a complex sentence. Even though many studies have been conducted on interrogative questions (e.g., Zeshan, 2006; Açan, 2007; Gökgöz, 2009; Göksel, Kelepir & Üntak-Tarhan, 2009; Gökgöz & Arık, 2011; Makaroğlu, 2012; Makaroğlu, 2013; İşsever & Makaroğlu, 2013), further research is needed to determine the characteristics of these complex sentences. Thus, the following subsections are mostly about the structural properties of simple interrogative sentences.

232 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 5.6.1 Polar Questions Polar questions in TİD are both different from and similar to content questions in terms of nonmanual markers. In both types of questions, eyes are widely open, and the head is forward (Figure 5.11). The findings in the literature are parallel to the ones in the corpus: In constructing interrogative sentences, signers have wide open eyes, their heads are forward, and they raise their eyebrows. These two structures which are among nonmanual markers differentiate interrogative sentences from declarative sentences. The movement of the eyebrow is observed both in polar questions and content questions, but they display different patterns. Therefore, the shape of the eyebrow movement determines the type of interrogative sentences.

Figure 5.11 The facial expression in polar questions in TİD. Face recognition programs are commonly used in sign language research particularly to specify the properties of non-manual markers. However, both the physiological (anatomical) difficulties in detecting the facial movements and the reliability of the programs create great problems for sign language researchers. In addition to the technological problems, it is also hard to find out whether the non-manual markers have a grammatical function (or not) depending on how frequently and at what rate they are used. As in other sign languages, the fact that non-manuals are not observed in some interrogative sentences in TİD makes it more difficult to determine the functions and distribution of these nonmanuals. Thus, it is a well-accepted idea that non-manuals have a function in marking interrogative questions even though there are minor disagreements about the functions of the non-manuals in interrogatives among researchers.

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX

233

Scope is the term which is used to express on which signs Non-manuals are observed and where non-manuals start and stop. In polar questions, the scope of the non-manuals include the whole sentence, and it spreads from the beginning to the end of the clause. Moreover, if the non-manuals are examined in terms of their intensity, which specifies the degree between the highest position of the eyebrow and its neutral position, it was found that the intensity is at its highest level towards the end of the clause. Yet, this difference regarding the intensity of non-manuals does not yield a grammatical difference. When the polar questions obtained from the corpus are examined, it was found that most of the polar questions consist of only non-manuals as given in (5.69) and (5.70).





yes-no

(5.69)

okul



school education good



‘Is the education of the school good?’





(5.70)

eğİtİm

İyİ



yes-no

sen dİzİ

İzlemek sen



you tv-series

watch



‘Do you watch TV series?’



you

It was also found that a manual sign which is described as a question particle “?” which has the same function with the affix (-mI) in Turkish is used in less than 5% of polar questions in the corpus (Figure 5.12). Question particles are used to indicate that the clause is an interrogative one both in spoken and signed languages. According to Zeshan (2004b), at least one question particle is found in one in third or fourth of the signed languages. Although it is rarely used in TİD, the question particle displays an interesting pattern in terms of both its position in the clause and its interaction with the non-manuals. We give an example for Q-particle in TİD in (5.71).

234 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

Figure 5.12 The question particle in TİD. (5.71) sen kardeş var s-par you sibling exist q-part ‘Do you have a sibling?’ We also observed some differences on the spreading of the non-manuals over the interrogative sentences. Though non-manuals spread over the whole clause in simple interrogative sentences, they spread over the main clause in complex interrogative sentences. In other words, they accompany the main clause. In the following example (5.72), while the part until the word gİtmek ‘go’ is the inner clause, the rest of the sentence belongs to the main clause. It is clearly seen that the non-manual is specifically over the main clause when the spreading / scope / simultaneity of the nonmanual is examined.

yes-no

İstanbul gİtmek İstemek sen (5.72) yarin tomorrow İstanbul go want you ‘Do you want to go to İstanbul tomorrow?’

Non-manuals in sign languages has a grammatical function in negative sentences as well as interrogative sentences. How two different non-manuals co-occur in one single clause in negative sentences has always been a subject of inquiry for researchers. Though the non-manual accompanies only the negative unit and the negation sign (değİl ‘not’) in negative sentences, non-manuals spreads over the whole clause in polar questions. As shown in the following example (5.73), whereas the non-manuals head forward and eyebrow raising

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX

235

accompany the clause from the beginning, which is a marker for polar questions, head backward, which is the marker of negation, spreads over the unit ‘go’, which is negated, and the sign

değİl ‘not’.

gİtmek

Since eyebrow raising is used

in both negative and interrogative sentences, it does not trigger a limitation regarding the coexistence of two structures in the same clause. Because head forward is the non-manual for interrogative sentences and head backward is the non-manual for negative sentences, it is not possible for these two nonmanuals to be produced simultaneously. Thus, head backward is seen only over the negated unit, and head forward is seen in the rest of the clause as in (5.73) and (5.74). (5.73)

h-forward



h-backward



kk



adana hİç



adana never



‘Haven’t you been to Adana?

(5.74)



h-forward

gİtmek

değİl sen

go

not



h-backward



you

kk



bugün

toplantİ

katilmak

değİl



today

meeting

join

not



‘Won’t you join the meeting today?



5.6.2. Content Questions Content questions in TİD have been investigated in many studies. It was found that non-manuals are also observed in these question sentence types, and they have a grammatical function. However, there are disagreements about which types of non-manuals co-occur with the content questions. As mentioned above, head forward is frequently observed in interrogative sentences in TİD according to the findings obtained from the current corpus. Since this observation is not made for declarative sentences, it could be said that head forward is the indicator of interrogative sentences.

236 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR The position of the head is forward, and the eyebrows are lowered in content questions, and this pattern is commonly seen in content questions. The interesting pattern here is that the intensity of eyebrow lowering increases towards the end of the clause. Besides, the lowest eyebrow height is observed at the end of the clause. This observation shows that the lowest level of the eyebrow and the content question phrases are seen in similar positions (see 5.75).

what

(5.75) şİmdİ yapmak ne now do what ‘What to do now?’ A few studies conducted on content questions claimed that head nod is frequently observed in these types of questions and this nonmanual has a grammatical function. When the data from corpus is examined, head nod is observed particularly with nerede ‘where’ and kaç ‘how many.’ Moreover, it is turned out that the types of head nod co-occur with these question words are different from each other. The fact that the head nods are different from each other in two question words indicates that this non-manual may not be related to the interrogative sentence. Furthermore, head nod is not observed with the question word ne ‘what’ in the interrogative sentences. As in many languages, some of the wh-question words in TİD are derived from other wh-questions. We give two examples for this in Figure 5.13. Accordingly, nerede ‘where’ is derived from yer ‘place’ and kaç ‘how many’ is derived from number ‘sayi’.

  

yer ‘place’

    nerede ‘where’  number ‘sayı’  kaç ‘how many’

Figure 5.13 yer ‘place’ and nerede ‘where’; number ‘sayı’ and kaç ‘how many’ in TİD.

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX

237

The wh-questions in TİD are given in Figure 5.14. These are ne ‘what’, kİm ‘who’, sebep ‘why’, ne zaman ‘when’, nerede ‘where’, and kaç ‘how many’.

ne ‘what’





ne zaman ‘when’

kİm ‘who’





nerede ‘where’

sebep ‘why’

kaç ‘how many’

Figure 5.14 Wh-questions n TİD.

Depending on the context, these basic wh-questions gain new meanings. For example, when ne ‘what’ comes before kİtap ‘book’, it means which. For this, two examples are given below in (5.76) and (5.77). (5.76)

akşam

ne

evening what

okumak read



sen you

‘What will you read this evening?’

238 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

(5.77)

akşam

kİtap

ne

okumak sen

what

read



evening book



‘Which book will you read this evening?’

you

The wh-question signs can be in a variety of positions in a sentence. They can sentence-initial or mid-sentence or sentence-final. We provide examples for these usages below (see also İşsever & Makaroğlu, 2013).

(5.78)

nerede tatİl

gİtmek

sen

(sentence initial)



where vacation go



‘Where will you go to for vacation?’



(5.79)  

ortaokul



you

ne

yapmak o

what

do

(mid-sentence)



mİddle-school



‘What did s/he do at the middle school?’



(5.80)

amelİyat



s/he

ben

İmzalamak

kİm

(sentence-final)

i

sİgn

who



operation



‘Who will sign (the documents) for my operation?’

Sometimes, the wh-question signs can be doubled and situated in various places in a sentence as in (5.81) and (5.82) (Zeshan, 2006; Makaroğlu, 2012).



nerede



noon

where



‘Where will you have lunch?’



(5.81)  

(5.82)

öğle



yemek eat

nerede where

İş

İçİn

araba

ne

almak

ne



work

for

car

what

take

what



‘Which car will you use for work?’

Similarly, sometimes wh-question signs are not use at all (Açan, 2007; Makaroğlu, 2012). In these questions, nonmanuals give the question meaning in zaman ‘time’

 ‘What time is it?’ and sağlik sen ‘health you’ ‘How are you?’ see also

5.83).

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX (5.83)

şİmdİ



yapmak

ben

do

i

239





now



‘what am i going to do now?’

In this section, we have examined interrogative sentences in TİD. We now turn to coordination and subordination in TİD.

5.7 Coordinate Structures and Subordinate Clauses 5.7.1 Coordinate Clause & Subordinate Clause A coordinate clause is the type of clause when two syntactically equal sentences are combined. A subordinate clause, on the other hand, is the clause which is not autonomous and is dependent on the main clause. In the following example (5.84), the two Turkish sentences that are connected with the conjunction ve ‘and’ are coordinate clauses since they have equal positions with respect to each other. In (5.85), adam tamiri bitirirse ‘if the man finishes the repair’ is the subordinate clause, and it is dependent on the main clause, gelirim ‘I will come.’ In contrast, to coordinate clauses, subordinate clauses are obligatorily dependent on the main clause, and there is a hierarchical relation between them as shown in the examples.

(5.84)

Dün okula git-ti-m ve



yesterday school-dat go-PAST-1sg and



sınav sonuç-ları-mı öğren-di-m.



exam result-PLU-1sg.POSS learn-PAST-1sg



(Coordinate clause)



‘I went to school yesterday, and I learned my exam results.’

(5.85)

Adam tamir-i bitir-ir-se gel-iri-m.



man repair-ACC finish-AOR-COND come-AOR-1sg





(Subordinate Clause)

‘If the man finishes the repair, I will come.’

240 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR The following TİD sentences which report the process of a person’s trip are in the form of coordinate clauses. Therefore, changing the position of these units in the sentence does not yield any ungrammaticality. There are no structural adjacency conditions except for the chronological ordering of the clauses. Each clause in a coordinate clause is different from each other in terms of the patterns of the prosodic units in spoken languages. Thus, each clause that constitutes the coordinate clause could be determined by tracking the prosodic units. Similar observations are also made for TİD, for instance, chin moves downwards (cd) when each clause ends in the following coordinate clause.



(5.86)



İlk

first

hollanda



gİtmek



İkİncİ

the netherlands go

second





fransa

gİtmek

üçüncü

almanya

gİtmek



france

go

third

germany

go



(Coordinate clause)



‘First, I went to the Netherlands, secondly,



I went to France, and thirdly, I went to Germany.’

As stated above, subordinate clauses are classified structurally into various types depending on the main clause. One of them is conditional clauses that consist of subordinate clauses. Therefore, it is composed of a condition clause (p) and the main clause (q). In other words, there are two clausal structures which are the condition clause and the result clause. Eyebrows are raised (ebr) in the condition clause in TİD whereas the face is neutral in the main clause (5.87 and 5.88). Thus, the main clause and the subordinate clause could be differentiated from each other in this complex clause. Moreover, chin moves downwards in the process of passing from the subordinate clause to the main clause, which is similar to coordinate clauses.



(5.87)





ebr

baba



ellİ

bİn

cd vermek olmak başarmak muhakkak



father fifty thousand gİve

be

achieve



‘I will be successful if my father gives fifty thousand.’

certainly

CHAPTER 5 SYNTAX

241

(5.88) ebr cd İş^almak beledİye para aktarmak olumlu kİşİ municipality money transfer positive person hire ‘If the municipality transfers the money, many people could be hired.’ 5.8 Summary This chapter provided a syntactic analysis of TİD. It showed that the most common word order in TİD is stated to be S(ubject) O(bject) V(erb). While the word order with intransitive verbs is SV, it is OV with transitive verbs. The word order SO1O2V is observed with ditransitive verbs. Then, it provided a discussion on noun phrases. It showed that the constituents of a noun phrase in TİD could be both on the right and the left side of the head. In the section that followed, the sentence types are examined including affirmative and simple sentences with single verbs, sentences in which the predicate is a noun, sentences in which the predicate is an adjective, and sentences in which the predicate is an adverb are exemplified. Then, it focused on negation in TİD. Content questions and polar questions were analyzed in the following section. The final section was devoted coordinate and subordinate clauses in TİD. We will examine the semantics of TİD in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 2

6

SEMANTICS

244 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

CHAPTER 6 SEMANTICS

245

Semantics, one of the subfields of linguistics, is the study of meaning (Hurford, Heasley, & Smith, 2007; Yule, 2010). There are two types of meaning in a language: Conceptual meaning and relational meaning. Conceptual meaning is a mental representation of a word based on the structure and form of the word, while relational meaning is a representation of a word based on its associations with other words. Therefore, linguistic meaning covers all the word meaning, phrasal meaning, sentential meaning, and discourse meaning. For this reason, semantic studies benefit from morphological, syntactic, and pragmatic studies. This chapter consists of sections about sense and reference (6.1), iconicity (6.2), meaning of words in Turkish and signs in TİD (6.3), types of meaning (6.4), metaphor (6.5), idioms (6.6), metonymy (6.7) and sentential meaning. A summary of the chapter is given at the end. 6.1 Sense and reference Words in languages are symbolic. They refer to people, things, events, and relationships in the real world. When they use language in signing / speaking, seeing / hearing, and interpreting, humans know these properties of words. Words and morphemes have meaning extensions. Thus, sense is the meaning of a word in relation to other words, while reference is the meaning of a word in relation to the real world. Referents are objects, states, or affairs to which expressions relate. In sign languages, signs can directly refer to their references in the real world, and their forms can be similar to their references in the real world. For example, the sign for kulak ‘ear’ in TİD is pointing at the signer’s ear, while the sign for köpek ‘dog’ is produced by using two hands representing the jaws of a dog (Figure 6.1).

kulak ‘ear’

köpek ‘dog’

Figure 6.1 Reference with pointing and imitation: kulak ‘ear’ and köpek ‘dog’.

246 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 6.2 Iconicity Because of the use of visual cues and hands, sign languages appear to be more iconic than spoken languages (Taub, 2001). On the one hand, spoken languages have onomatopoeic words which are created to imitate the sounds of nature, e.g., bees buzz. However, they are not frequently found in the lexicon. On the other hand, sign languages have signs that look like their referents in the real world, perhaps due to language modality. These signs are called iconic signs; they are more frequently found in sign languages than iconic or onomatopoeic words are in spoken languages in the lexicon. Iconic signs encode shapes, specifications or movements of the realworld entities to which they are referring (Campbell, Martin, & White, 1992). TİD has iconic signs, too. Consider the following examples from TİD. In muz ‘banana’ in TİD, the fingertips of the nondominant hand orient upward, which makes the shape of the hand similar to the shape of a banana, and the dominant hand moves around the nondominant hand as if it peels the banana. For example, in TİD when a signer signs about a person’s walking (if the signer is right-handed), the index finger represents the left leg of the walking person and the middle finger represents the right leg of the walking person. In this way, the relationship and similarity between sense and reference are preserved (Taub, 2001; see also structure-preserving correspondences in Wilcox, 1998). Nevertheless, this does not mean that iconic signs in all sign languages are similar to each other. Nor are iconic signs universal. For example, the signs for “tree” are iconic in ASL, Danish Sign Language, and Chinese Sign Language, but their forms are different from one another (Klima & Bellugi, 1979). 6.3 Meanings of signs in TİD and meanings of words in Turkish A misconception exists that in TİD signs are derived from Turkish words. This misconception suggests that signs are direct translations of words so that the meanings of TİD signs are exactly the same as those of Turkish words. It also suggests that, similar to written representations of spoken Turkish, TİD is just another way to represent spoken Turkish. To the contrary, we have already showed in Chapter 3 that the phonology of TİD is different from that of Turkish. So is its semantics. For example, as a first approximation, bakmak ‘to look at’ in Turkish has the same meaning as bakmak ‘to-look-at’ in TİD. However, in Turkish

CHAPTER 6 SEMANTICS

247

bakmak has another sense: ‘to spy on’ and another lexical entry: ‘to take care of’; however, in TİD bakmak does not have these meanings. 6.4 Types of meaning Meanings of words / signs are related to language-internal factors and non-linguistic factors such as entities in the world, situations in which the word is uttered / signed, thought processes of interlocutors, and intentions of interlocutors. Therefore, it is not an easy task to derive meaning from a linguistic perspective only. Nonetheless, senses in the mind can refer to both physical and nonphysical entities. Therefore, natural languages have words (and signs) for both physical and nonphysical entities. As a natural language, TİD, too, has signs to carry concrete and abstract meanings, for example, signs for concrete things such as

kİtap ‘book’, kalem ‘pencil’

ruh ‘soul’, şeytan ‘devil’

and signs for abstract entities such as

and ejderha ‘dragon’ in TİD.

Traditionally, there are three meaning types: Descriptive, social, and expressive. Two other types of meanings are denotation and connotation (Lyons, 1977). These two terms are often considered opposites. In denotational meaning, similar to literal meaning, meaning can be decomposed into or in relation to several features. For example, in TİD

köpek ‘dog’

has the following

features: +live, -human, +carnivorous, and so on. In connotational meaning, meaning comes from a subjective interpretation of words / signs. For example, sağır ‘deaf’ roughly means a person who lacks hearing in Turkish. In TİD,

sağir

‘deaf’ means a person who is a part of the Deaf community, carrying Deaf identity, whereas in TİD normal ‘normal’ means a hearing person. In natural languages, the meaning types are the following: synonymy (6.4.3), antonymy (6.4.4), homophony (6.4.1), polysemy (6.4.2), metaphor (6.5) and metonymy. When two or more words have the same meaning, they are synonyms. However, when two or more words have the exact opposite meanings, they are antonyms. When two words have the same form but different, unrelated meanings, they are homonyms. However, if they have related meanings, they are called polysemyous. A word can be used metaphorically to refer to something other than its original meaning. When it refers to something similar, often with an extended meaning, it is called metonymy. In what follows, these meaning types are described by using examples from TİD.

248 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 6.4.1 Homophony Two words can have the same phonetic structure while meaning two different things. This is called homonymy. For example, in Turkish yüz means ‘100’ and ‘face’. There is no clear relationship between 100 and face; therefore, yüz in Turkish is homonymous. TİD, too, has homonyms. Below we provide three pairs of homonymous signs in TİD: parça ‘part’ and soğan ‘onion’, fatura ‘bill’ and polİs ‘police’, and avukat ‘lawyer’ and aksaray.

parça ‘part’

and soğan; ‘onıon’ fatura ‘bıll’ and polİs ‘polıce’; avukat ‘lawyer’ and aksaray

Figure 6.2 Homonymy in TİD: parça ‘part’ and soğan ‘onıon’, fatura ‘bıll’ and polİs ‘polıce’, and avukat ‘lawyer’ and aksaray (a place name). There are lexical signs that consist of lexicalized fingerspellings, which we discussed in the previous chapters. During lexicalization processes, for example, TİD borrows the first letter of a written word in Turkish, fingerspells it, then creates a sign. Over time, it becomes a part of the TİD lexicon. Below we provide two examples: fanta and federasyon. Both signs use the fingerspelled letter f and are homonymous.

fanta ‘fanta’

and federasyon ‘federatıon’

Figure 6.3 Homonymy and lexicalization in TİD: fanta ‘fanta’ (a trademark of a beverage) and federasyon ‘federatıon’.

CHAPTER 6 SEMANTICS

249

6.4.2 Polysemy In polysemy, a word can have a single form but multiple related meanings. In TİD there are many polysemous signs. Below we provide examples: kahve / kahverengİ / kafe ‘coffee / brown / coffee shop’, yol / yöntem ‘road / method’, sicak / yaz / hararet ‘hot / summer / heat’, sir / koyu ‘secret / dark’ and kaçik / özgür / serbest ‘nutcase / free / unrestricted’.

kahve

/ kahverengİ / kafe

sır

/ koyu

yol

/ yöntem

sıcak

kaçık

/ yaz / hararet

/ özgür / serbest

Figure 6.4 Examples for polysemy in TİD: kahve / kahverengİ / kafe ‘coffee / / coffee shop’, yol / yöntem ‘road / method’, sİcak / yaz / hararet ‘hot / summer / heat’, sır / koyu ‘secret / dark’ and kaçık / özgür / serbest ‘nutcase / free / unrestrıcted’. brown

250 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR 6.4.3 Synonmy When two words differ from each other in their phonological forms but mean the same thing, they are synonymous. Yet some slight differences can exist in their meanings depending on the context. For example, in Turkish both kırmızı and al mean ‘red’. Yet kırmızı but not al can be used with ruj as in kırmızı ruj ‘a red lipstick’. TİD, too, has synonyms. For example, there are two signs for ‘help’: yardim1 and yardim2, and two signs for ‘sorrow’: üzülmek1 and üzülmek2 (Figure 6.5).

yardım1 ‘help1’

üzülmek1 ‘sorrow1’

yardım2 ‘help2’



üzülmek2 ‘sorrow2’

Figure 6.5 Examples of synonymy in TİD: yardım1 ‘help1’, yardım2 ‘help2’, üzülmek1 ‘sorrow1’ and üzülmek2 ‘sorrow2’. Synonymy can sometimes be due to lexical differences across regions and dialects. TİD has these regional variations at the word level, too. For example, the signs for cumartesİ ‘saturday’ differ in Istanbul and Ankara, while the signs for yaş ‘age’

differ in Izmir and Ankara (Figure 6.7).

CHAPTER 6 SEMANTICS

cumartesİ ‘saturday’

yaş ‘age’

(Istanbul)

(Izmir)

cumartesİ ‘saturday’

yaş ‘age’

251

(Ankara)

(Ankara)

Figure 6.6 Examples of lexical variation and synonymy in TİD: cumartesİ ‘saturday’ (Istanbul), cumartesİ ‘saturday’ (Ankara), yaş ‘age’ (Izmir) and yaş ‘age’ (Ankara).

Because of various social, political, and educational reasons as well as motivations, languages borrow linguistic structures from one another. Synonymy can sometimes be due to borrowings. For example, the following words are synonymous due to borrowings from Arabic: bağışlamak and affetmek ‘forgive’, kas and adele ‘muscle’, yapıt and eser ‘one’s work’, and yanlış and hata ‘wrong’. Sometimes, a language first borrows a word from another language and creates another unique form for the same word but uses both words. This can also lead to synonymous words. For example, Turkish borrowed kompüter ‘computer’ first, then created another word, bilgisayar ‘computer’, later on. These two words are synonymous. TİD, too, has similar synonymous signs, some of which are given in the following Figure 6.7.

252 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

tuvalet ‘restroom’

(TİD)

İnşallah ‘god wıllıng’

(TİD)

tuvalet ‘restroom

/ wc’ (Borrowing)

İnşallah ‘god wıllıng’

(Borrowing)

Figure 6.7 Examples of borrowing and synonymous signs in TİD: tuvalet ‘restroom’ (TİD), tuvalet ‘restroom / wc’ (Borrowing), İnşallah ‘god wıllıng’ (TİD) and İnşallah ‘god wıllıng’ (Borrowing). In addition, some differences across age groups can exist in their use of language, especially in terms of lexical items. It is well observed that young people and old people can use different words to mean the same thing. This is also observed in TİD. Consider İstemek1 ‘want1’ and İstemek2 ‘want2’. İstemek1 ‘want1’ is used by the old generation of TİD signers while İstemek2 ‘want2’ is used by the young generation of TİD signers. Both generations are aware of this difference.

CHAPTER 6 SEMANTICS

İstemek1

253

İstemek2

Figure 6.8 Examples of old and new signs and synonymy in TİD: İstemek1 ‘want1’ and İstemek2 ‘want2’.

6.4.4 Antonymy Two words are said to be antonymous when they mean exactly opposite things or portray exactly opposite concepts, for example, kisa-uzun ‘short-long’ and alt-üst ‘down-up’ in TİD. There are three types of antonymy: Complementary antonymy, gradable antonymy, and relational antonymy. Below we provide examples of them in TİD. a. Complementary antonymy: In complementary antonymy, two words are exactly opposite of each other in terms of their meaning. These two cannot refer to the same thing at the same time. Below we provide examples from TİD: yanliş ‘wrong’

and doğru ‘right’, sağ ‘right’ and sol ‘left’.

254 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

yanlış ‘wrong’

sağ ‘rıght’

doğru ‘rıght’

sol ‘left’

Figure 6.9 Examples of complementary antonymy in TİD: yanlış ‘wrong’ and doğru ‘rıght’, sağ ‘rıght’ and sol ‘left’.

b. Gradable antonymy: In gradable antonymy, two words are the opposite of each other but their meanings are gradable so that degrees of differences exist between antonymous words. Below we provide examples from TİD: yaşli ‘old’ and genç ‘young’, zor ‘hard’ and kolay ‘easy’.

CHAPTER 6 SEMANTICS

yaşlİ ‘old’

zor ‘hard’

255

genç ‘young’

kolay ‘easy’

Figure 6.10 Examples of gradable antonymy in TİD: yaşlı ‘old’ and genç ‘young’, zor ‘hard’ and kolay ‘easy’.

c. Relational antonymy: Another type of antonymy is called relational antonymy. In this type, two words are in a relationship and have opposite meanings. In this way, each of the words forming a relational antonymy cannot exist without the other. Below we provide examples from TİD, such as anne ‘mother’ and baba ‘father’, kadin ‘woman’ and erkek ‘man’.

256 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

anne ‘mother’

kadın ‘woman’

baba ‘father’

erkek ‘man’

Figure 6.11 Examples of relational antonymy in TİD: anne ‘mother’ and baba ‘father’, kadın ‘woman’ and erkek ‘man’. 6.5 Metaphor Traditionally, metaphor is considered the use of words outside of their literal meanings. With the rise of cognitive semantics, metaphors become part of a linguistic theory. In cognitive linguistics, metaphor means a way to conceptualize one cognitive domain in terms of another (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). So far, many metaphors have been identified which are found across many languages (Lakoff ve Johnson, 1980). For example, TIME IS MONEY is a conceptual metaphor in which the concept of time is related to the conceptual domain of money. In metaphors, there are two conceptual domains: SOURCE, somewhat concrete, and TARGET, relatively abstract (Lakoff ve Johnson, 1980). Consider the following conceptual metaphor: LOVE IS A JOURNEY. In this metaphor, JOURNEY is the source domain and LOVE is the target domain, which is a relatively abstract concept. There are many concepts related to these domains. JOURNEY consists of a road, passenger, starting point, ending point, and so on, each of which is associated with the concepts in LOVE. Road is associated with the relationship, passengers are associated with lovers, the starting point

CHAPTER 6 SEMANTICS

257

is associated with the first date, etc. TİD also has conceptual metaphors. We discuss them below. As in many sign languages, TİD signs related to the future, such as yarin ‘tomorrow’, gelecek^yil ‘next^year’, gelecek^hafta, and ‘next^week’, are formed in front of the signer from the proximal to the distal signing space, while signs related to the past, such as dün ‘yesterday’, geçmİş ‘past’, geçen^yil ‘last^year’, and geçen^hafta ‘last^weak’ are formed toward the back of the signer from the distal to the proximal signing space. These signs use the TIME IS SPACE metaphor (see Figure 6.13 for the timeline).

yarın ‘tomorrow’

gelecek^yıl ‘next^year’

dün ‘yesterday’

geçen ‘past’

Figure 6.12 yarin ‘tomorrow’, gelecek^yil ‘next^year’, dün ‘yesterday’ and geçen ‘past’ in TİD.

258 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

Past

Future Now

Figure 6.13 Z-coordinate and the relationship between SPACE-TIME (Pfau, Steinbach & Woll, 2012).

Consider the metaphors for EATING. For eating, there is a need for a mouth to eat edible things and for a whole digestive system. As many languages do, TİD uses EATING as a conceptual metaphor. Consider the following sentence in TİD: telefon hemen pİl yemek ‘phone quickly battery eat’ (lit.) ‘The phone is eating its battery very fast’. In this sentence, although phones do not have a mouth and a digestive system, and batteries are not edible, EATING is used metaphorically to mean consumption. Turkish, too, has EATING metaphors: Sınavlar beni yedi (lit.) ‘Exams ate me’, Bu iş çok zaman yiyor ‘This job eats too much time’, and Hastalık tüm birikimimi yedi ‘The illness ate all of my savings’. Now consider the use of the UNDERSTANDING IS CATCHING metaphor in TİD. The signs for anlamak ‘understand’, öğrenmek ‘learn’, and unutmak ‘forget’ are located at the head of signers. The sign for anlamak ‘understand’ represents catching something close to the head. öğrenmek ‘learn’ represents putting an entity in hand to the head. When repeated, it represents an ongoing state of affairs. The sign for unutmak ‘forget’ represents loosing an entity from hand around the head (Figure 6.14). Therefore, all these signs are related to the metaphor of UNDERSTANDING IS CATCHING.

CHAPTER 6 SEMANTICS

unutmak ‘forget’

259

anlamak ‘understand’

öğrenmek ‘learn’

Figure 6.14 The metaphor of TO UNDERSTAND IS TO CATCH and unutmak ‘forget’, anlamak ‘understand’, and öğrenmek ‘learn’ in TİD.

There are metaphors such as GOOD THINGS ARE UP and BAD THINGS ARE DOWN (Kövecses, 2000). TİD uses these metaphors, too. Consider galİp ‘winner’, başari ‘success’, mağlup ‘loser’, and pİs ‘dirty’. In galİp ‘winner’ and başari ‘success’, the dominant hand moves up in the signing space, while in mağlup ‘loser’ and pİs ‘dirty’ it moves down in the signing space. The former signs have positive meanings; therefore, they use the GOOD THINGS ARE UP metaphor. The latter two signs have negative meanings; therefore, they use the BAD THINGS ARE DOWN metaphor.

260 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

galİp ‘wınner’



mağlup ‘loser’

başarı ‘success’

pİs ‘dırty’

Figure 6.15 In TİD, the metaphor of GOOD THINGS ARE UP and galİp ‘wınner’ and başarı ‘success’; the metaphor of BAD THINGS ARE DOWN and mağlup ‘loser’ and pİs ‘dırty’. 6.6 Metonymy Traditionally, metonymy is defined as “a figure in which one word is substituted for another on the basis of some material, causal, or conceptual relation” (Preminger & Brogan, 1993). In cognitive linguistics, it is defined as “a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same idealized cognitive model” (Radden & Kövecses, 1999, p. 18). The main difference between metaphor and metonymy is that in metaphor, associations are made between two conceptual domains, while in metonymy associations are made within the same conceptual domain (Kövecses, 2002). We provide examples for metonymy in TİD below.

261

CHAPTER 6 SEMANTICS

In (6.1), the association is made between organization and administration. Although the report was accepted by the president and the administration, it is stated that the whole organization from the president to the members accepted the report. In (6.2), the association is made between organization and place. Although the deaf association started offering TİD language courses, it is stated that the city of Denizli (in which the association is located) offered the courses. In (6.3), an association is made between controller and controlled. Even though the bike hit another vehicle the person was driving, it is stated that the person was hit. (6.1)

(organization-administration)



federasyon dün rapor kabul^etmek



federation yesterday report accept



‘(The deaf) federation accepted the report yesterday.’

(6.2)

(organization-place)



denİzlİ

t-İ-d

eğİtİm



denİzlİ

t-İ-d

education



‘(The deaf association in) Denizli started offering TİD courses.’

(6.3)

(controller-controlled)



sabah



morning bike



‘The bike hit me in the morning.’



bİsİklet ben



i





başlamak start

çarpmak hit

6.7 Meaning in discourse So far we have discussed meaning at the lexical and sentential levels in TİD. Now we turn to meaning at the discourse level in TİD. As observed in spoken languages, users of sign languages, too, make assumptions during communication in relation to world meaning. For example, while communicating with each other, when Signer A signs başkan gİtmek ‘president go’ ‘The president left’, s/he assumes that Signer B knows what

başkan

means and to which

president Signer A refers. So, here, the meaning (and reference) of

başkan

is

contextual. When ambiguity exists, Signer B might ask for further information in context.

262 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR One of the contextual cues is to use deictic meaning. When two signers communicate with each other, they can point at a thing present around them. This is similar to the use of bu ‘this’ ve şu ‘that’ in Turkish, as well as the use of pointing gestures. Another way to use pointing is by pointing in the signing space for coreference. For example, in (6.4) o ‘he’ is formed by the pointing in the signing space. When the signer refers back to the same person, s/he can sign at the same location. In this way, that particular location is associated with o ‘he’

the patron ‘boss’.

(6.4)

o gelmek he/she come ‘The patron came (here).’

patron boss

Another way to use context to construct meaning is to make associations between sentences. Consider the TİD example (6.5). In this sentence, dernek ‘association’ refers back to the association in the city of rİze. Moreover, dernek ‘association’ refers to a particular association, the association for Deaf people. In dernek yenİ güzel ‘association new beautiful’ ‘The association is new and beautiful’, dernek ‘association’ might mean only an association without any contextual cues, it refers to The Rize Hearing Impaired / Deaf Association with the context.

(6.5)

güzel. rİze go. association new beautiful. ‘I went to Rize. The association (there) is new and beautiful.’ rİze



gİtmek.

dernek

yenİ

Contextual cues also help clarify a particular meaning of homonyms and polysemous words. For example, the sign for polİtİka ‘politics’ and müze ‘museum’ has the same form. Without context, (6.6) might mean ‘I have never been to a museum.’ However, with context it means ‘I never planned to be a politician.’

(6.6)

ben i



polİtİka gİrmek



hİç

polİtİcs enter never ‘I never planned to be a politician.’

CHAPTER 6 SEMANTICS

263

6.8 Sentential meaning Nouns in a sentence have thematic roles. These thematic or semantic roles are agent, patient, theme, instrument, experiencer, location, source, and goal, among others. Entities performing the action in a sentence is called the agent of the sentence. Patient is the entity that undergoes change, whereas theme is the entity that undergoes the action. When the agent uses an entity to perform the action, that entity is called the instrument. When a sentence refers to the sensations and emotions of an entity, that entity is called the experiencer. When the sentence refers to an event in which entities are in a state or in a motion, the place where the event takes place is called the location, the starting point of the (metaphorical or literal) motion event is called the source and the ending point of the event is called the goal. The entities in TİD sentences, too, take semantic roles. We provide examples below. In (6.7), ben ‘i’ performs the eating event; therefore, it is the agent of the sentence, while elma ‘apple’ undergoes the eating event, being eaten; therefore, it is the agent of the sentence.

(6.7)

ben elma



i



yemek

‘I ate an apple.’ apple

eat

In (6.8), the cutting event is performed by

‘i’, which has the agent role, with the help of biçak ‘knife’; therefore, bİçak ‘knife’ is the instrument of the sentence. In (6.9), masa ‘table’ is the location of the event while elma ‘apple’ is the theme. (6.8)

biçak^kesmek i apple cut^with^knife ‘I cut the apple with a knife.’

(6.9)

masa



table

ben



ben

elma



İkİ



two

elma



apple

var exist

‘There are two apples on the table.’

264 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR In (6.10), the going event is performed by the sentence. The event started at ev ‘house’

ev ‘house’

ben sevİnmek ‘i be-please’

which is the agent of

and ended at

is the source of the going event while

going event. In

ben ‘i’,

okul ‘school’.

okul ‘school’

‘I am pleased’,

ben ‘i’

Thus,

is the goal of the

is the experiencer

of the sentence.

(6.10)

ben



ev



house

okul



gİtmek



i



‘İ went from the house to the school.’

school go

6.9 Discourse markers Although it is common to use discourse markers in sentences, it is hard to categorize them as word categories (Schiffrin, 1987; Trillo, 2002). The functions of discourse markers vary: Conceptual, communicational, social, and textual (Schiffrin, 1987). They are also used as attentional cues (Redeker, 1991). Discourse markers have both linguistic and interactional functions (Schiffrin, 1987; Maschler, 1998; Fraser, 1999; Jucker & Smith, 1998). Examinations of conversations show that discourse markers are frequently used, which indicates their importance in communication (Fung & Carter, 2007). Because discourse markers have multiple functions (Schiffrin, 1987), they have roles within and outside the discourse and create a relationship between speakers/users and context (Maschler, 1998). However, because of their various functions, it is hard to distinguish discourse markers from other linguistic categories (Jucker ve Ziv, 1998; Aijmer, 2002). Perhaps they do not form a single category either because they relate to context in many ways (Blakemore, 2002). The functions of discourse markers in a sentence may change depending on their positions in a sentence (Altenberg, 1990). There are many discourse markers in Turkish, such as yani, şey, işte, tabi, aman, eee, hımm, hani, ha, and so on (see Ilgın & Büyükkantarcıoğlu, 1994; Özbek, 1995; Yılmaz, 2004). TİD, too, has discourse markers, some of which are lexical, such as kesİnlİkle ‘absolutely’, and yanİ ‘i mean’, while others, such as naf and ann, do not have meanings on their own. We provide examples of them below.

CHAPTER 6 SEMANTICS

265

kesİnlİkle ‘absolutely’ in TİD has a lexical meaning and a discourse marker. When used in discourse, it states that the signer agrees with his/her interlocutor and approves of his/her opinion as in (6.11).

(6.11)

kesİnlİkle



absolutely



doğru



right

söylemek say

(lit.) ‘What you are saying is absolutely right.’

Not all discourse markers have lexical meanings in TİD. Consider

ann,

glossed as the sounds the signer produced with this vocal sign. ann does not have any meaning on its own. This sign is used in multiple ways: In the beginning of turn taking and in various positions in a sentence. In (6.12), it has a commentary function; in (6.13) it makes the signer’s opinion stronger, while in (6.14) it functions as a hesitation marker, where it can be used multiple times depending on the duration of the hesitation.

(6.12)

3d gözlük^takmak ann ateş^etmek yansimak 3d wear^glass ann fire reflect ‘Wearing 3D glasses make everything clearer, like, when a gun is fired, it reflects.’

(6.13)

aci^konuşmak ann bitter sign bitter^say ‘I mean, his/her words are bitter.’

(6.14)

kural göre

ann

rule

İşaret

ann+yineleme

uluslararasi

according-to ann+yineleme

international



standart göre çalişmak standard according-to work

‘We are working according to the rules, I mean, according to the international standards.’

266 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Similar to

ann, naf

its own. It is glossed as

as a discourse marker does not have any meaning on naf

to represent the sounds the signer produced with

this vocal sign. It is used to underline the fact that the signer does not agree with others’ opinions or finds them unimportant (see (6.15)).



(6.15)

herkes



korkmak naf ben gİrmek



everybody scared naf i enter



‘Everybody was scared, (but) I entered.’

fuu

is another discourse marker in TİD. It is used to mark that the message

the signer carries has importance and needs the further attention of interlocutors.



(6.16)



fuu

toplanti



çok



meeting



very

önemlİ



fuu





‘(Hey) the meeting is important.’

important

So far, we have shown that TİD has discourse markers as natural languages do. We have discussed discourse markers, some of which have lexical meanings and some of which do not. Some of the discourse markers have various functions depending on their positions in a sentence. In the following section, we show that TİD has idioms as natural languages do. 6.10 Idioms Idioms are a set of words which together form a meaning independent of the individual words in the set. Syntactically speaking, they behave as a single unit in that the order of the words cannot be altered. They have a strong relationship with metaphors. There are many idioms in TİD. Consider branch^land’

kuş dal^konmak ‘bird

‘The bird landed on a branch (of a tree)’. In this idiom,

kuş ‘bird’

refers to the lucky person, dal ‘branch’ refers to luck, and konmak ‘land’ refers to things that bring luck. Therefore, the idiom as a whole means the lucky person who easily earns something, which is independent of the lexical meanings of kuş ‘bird’, dal ‘branch’, and and konmak ‘land’.

CHAPTER 6 SEMANTICS

267

kuş dal^konmak ‘bırd branch^land’

Figure 6.16 An example of idioms: kuş dal^konmak ‘bırd branch^land’. In parmak^isirmak ‘finger^bite’, meaning ‘S/he bites his/her finger’, parmak ‘finger’ represents the person who suffers and isirmak ‘bite’ indicates the difficult situation. Moreover, teeth indicates the reasons for this situation, and finger^between^teeth shows perseverance. Therefore, the idiom of parmak^isirmak ‘finger^bite’ means (to some extent) perseverance.

Figure 6.17 An example of idioms: parmak^ısırmak ‘fınger^bıte’. Similarly, in the idiom of para yağmak ‘money fall’ (from the sky), a relationship exists between yağmak ‘(rain) fall’ and support: As rain is needed for plants to grow, support in the means of money is needed for people to reach their aims.

268 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

para ‘money’

yağmak ‘fall’

Figure 6.18 An example of idioms: para yağmak ‘money fall’.

6.11 Summary This chapter has focused on the semantics of TİD. First, sense and reference in signs were explained theoretically; then issues of iconicity were discussed. The sections that followed were devoted to antonymy, homonymy, and polysemy in TİD. Then examples from TİD were given to explain metaphors and metonymy in TİD. After that, sentential and discourse meaning in TİD was discussed. Some examples of semantic roles such as agent, patient, experiencer, theme, instrument, location, source, and goal were given to explain sentential meaning. The section that followed focused on discourse markers such as naf and ann in TİD. Finally, idiomatic expressions in TİD were explained. The next chapter is devoted to the conclusion of the book.

CHAPTER 2

7

CONCLUSION

270 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION

271

This is the first grammar book on Turkish Sign Language. This work has been supported by the Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies, and is based on the 15th article of the law on people with disabilities, numbered 5378, being as one of its legal justifications: Turkish Sign Language is set up with the aim of providing education and communication services to the deaf. The endeavours for the setting up, bettering, and applying this system [are] regulated by the rules published by the Ministry of Education and Turkish Language Society under the coordination of [the] Ministry of Family and Social Policies. (roughly translated) Another legal justification is the first article of regulations regarding setting up and applying Turkish Sign Language: It regulates the rules and the conditions to analyse and evaluate the sign language linguistically to support the needs of the people with hearing and speech problems; prepare the written and visual educational tools; [set up] the system of Turkish Sign Language; educate the sign language interpreters and teachers, and prevent other practices within this field. (roughly translated) As has been clearly presented in this book, Turkish Sign Language is a natural language and differs from other spoken languages such as Turkish and English, as well as from other sign languages such as ASL and Dutch Sign Language (NGT). It has a unique grammar system. Every natural language interacts with other languages for political, geographical, commercial, and educational reasons, so they can borrow from one another. Because Deaf people and hearing people share the same dominant culture and almost all TİD users are bilingual, TİD interacts with Turkish. In particular, the use of fingerspelling has been influenced by written Turkish. Fingerspelling in TİD employs two hands and has unique formations. It has not been influenced by other sign languages. From a sociolinguistic perspective, TİD is the only national sign language in Turkey. The results of the fieldwork have shown that TİD is used in all regions of the country. However, regional variations such as accents and dialects have been detected. Notable variations exist, especially at the word level, but not much at the grammatical level. The use of a sign language in Anatolia can be traced back to the Hittite Empire. The findings indicate a pervasive and respectful use

272 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR of sign language in the Ottoman Empire as well. However, the current studies allow us to date back TİD to the establishment of the first schools for the Deaf in the 1890s, so little is known about how and to what extent TİD is connected to these early sign languages. This is the first grammar book on Turkish Sign Language. It examines TİD, a natural language, in terms of several linguistic domains such as phonology, morphology, semantics, and syntax. It also clarifies common misconceptions about sign languages and discusses the history of studies on TİD and other sign languages. Additionally, it explains how TİD differs from Turkish. It also discusses regional variations at the lexical level. In addition to being the first grammar book on TİD, it differs from other grammar books about sign languages other than TİD in terms of its extensive coverage and the methods used. Benefitting from previous national and international studies, this book has been completed in six months. It followed the ethical rules of national and international scientific research on data collection in the field and the sharing and coding of data strictly. The data, which are 6,240 minutes long in total, were collected from 113 native deaf signers in 26 cities. The fieldwork was conducted using elicitation methods such as semi-structured data collection techniques. Due to time restrictions, one-quarter of the collected data were annotated through ELAN by the team, whose members are all Deaf signers. Methods of corpus linguistics were utilized during analyses of the data. To the best of our knowledge, no other grammar book on sign languages is based on such extensive fieldwork and methods. Deaf people are those who use sign language as their first language and who take active participation in Deaf society. In Turkey, Deaf society is quite active and organizes both national and international events through Deaf sports and theater clubs in many parts of the country. Similar to other Deaf societies, the percentage of native Deaf signers is around 5%, which is relatively low. Ninety-five percent of Deaf babies are born into hearing families, and language learning takes place after they enroll in school. TİD has not yet been part of the curriculum in schools for the Deaf in Turkey. At the time of the completion of this book, Deaf education is centered on teaching written and spoken Turkish. However, low literacy is common among Deaf children as compared to hearing children, most probably due to language modality and late language acquisition.

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION

273

Spoken languages employ auditory-vocal modality while sign languages employ visual-spatial modality. This modality difference makes sign languages unique in terms of their grammar. Due to the difference in language modality, one of the characteristics of sign languages is “simultaneity”, forming sentences while simultaneously expressing signs. While speakers produce words in a sequential order, signers can employ various phonetic features such as handshapes, hand orientations, hand locations, and movements in addition to head movements and facial expressions simultaneously, which leads to the production of more than one word (sign) in a certain time period. Similarly, in TİD, it is possible to simultaneously produce several words (signs) and sentences. Another characteristic of sign languages that stems from the difference in language modality is the complex expression of spatial situations and motion events. For example, in sign languages it is possible to express the location of entities with respect to each other, their orientation, movement, size, and the viewpoint of the signer by using classifiers in a simultaneous manner. TİD also uses classifiers, so it is possible to produce simultaneous words (signs) and sentences during the expression of spatial situations and motion events. Any natural language can be analyzed in linguistic domains such as phonetics and phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics. As also shown in this book, TİD, as a natural language, can be analyzed for its phonemes (phonology) and the structural properties of its phonemes (Chapter 3). In spoken languages such as Turkish, phonemes are the smallest units, whereas in sign languages such as TİD, handshapes, hand orientation, location, and movement in addition to head and facial expressions are the smallest units. The combinations of these units follow certain phonological rules. TİD employs a number of handshapes, not all the possible shapes a person can make. Thus, the use of fingers, bending fingers and/ or hands, small and/or big movements of the hands, their location, the circular, straight or arch movement of the hands, and non-manual movements (eyebrow movements, directed gaze, mouthing, lip movements, head movements, and bending torso) are all realized based on a set of phonological principles rather than as random gestures. Similar to spoken languages, many phonological processes such as assimilation, dissimilation, intrusion, omission, and metathesis are observed in TİD. Furthermore, the signs formed as a result of fingerspelling and which TİD borrowed from the written Turkish alphabet have become lexicalized following the phonological rules of TİD.

274 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR In addition to phonetic and phonological analyses of TİD, this book analyzed TİD from a morphological perspective, which yielded very productive results (Chapter 4). The structural properties of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and verbs have been examined extensively. The morphemes in TİD can be both inflectional and derivational (but not as in spoken languages such as Turkish). Infections and derivations in TİD can be achieved in several ways, such as through processes of assimilation, sign repetitions, benefiting from the structural properties of the signing space, and the use of entity, handling, or descriptive classifiers. Compound nouns in TİD can be formed as endocentric, exocentric, or copulative. The syntactic analysis of these compounds shows that they can be left-, right-, or double-headed. While some compounds are the result of the lexicalization of fingerspelling, the others are formed by the simultaneous use of both hands. TİD also has subject, number, and location agreement. Moreover, TİD expresses time by using time expressions and the Z-axis of the signing space. The completion and continuity of TİD has been subject to grammatical rules. Linguistic moods and modals are complex forms in TİD using manual and nonmanual features at the same time. TİD has modals to express necessity, obligation, and ability. TİD nouns and verbs can be discriminated on the basis of the shape of the sign, the number of the repetition, the movement direction, and the movement duration. Furthermore, TİD has person pronouns. In line with the “minimum effort” principle, they are articulated by moving to a particular point in the signing space. For example, by pointing to herself, a signer indicates the first person singular. Chapter 5 examined TİD, a natural language, in terms of its syntax. It has been found that TİD prefers Subject-Verb order in cases in intransitives. In sentences with transitive verbs, Object-Verb is the grammatically accepted order. In sentences with ditransitive verbs, the preferred order is SubjectObject1-Object2-Verb. The analysis of noun phrases in TİD has shown that the head noun can take complementizers to its left or right. As in every natural language, TİD also has simple, negated, and question sentences as well as the coordination of sentences and subclauses. Especially in negation, questions, and subclauses, nonmanual signs (e.g., head, eyebrow, and chin movements) are very fundamental. In Chapter 6, TİD was analysed from a semantic perspective. Due to modality differences, iconicity in sign languages is more prominent compared

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION

275

to that of spoken languages. So, although not very common, TİD also has iconic structures. In natural languages, words have synonyms and antonyms, and can be polysemous. If TİD were an artificial language, each sign would have only one meaning. However, quite to the contrary, TİD has signs with synonyms and antonyms and can be polysemous because, as also explained in this book, TİD is a natural language and emerged on its own. TİD is also very rich in metaphors, metonymy, and idioms. Every natural language employs discourse markers, which are meaningless on their own. This research has shown that TİD has discourse markers, too. As in every natural language, the TİD nouns in a sentence have various semantic roles, such as agent, patient, experiencer, topic, instrument, source, and target, all of which contribute to the meaning of a sentence. For effective communication, interlocutors make various assumptions. As shown in this chapter, TİD signers can also make similar assumptions during their interactions with one another. Also, the meaning can sometimes be vague, but clear in a context. Because TİD is a natural language, signers can sometimes elicit the meaning from the context. Being the first grammar book on TİD, this book is based on data obtained from 113 native signers of TİD from 26 cities in Turkey, and has been completed in a five-and-a-half-month period. With that in mind, it is possible that this book has certain shortcomings which make the publication of an extended version necessary; such a version should include chapters on other sub-grammar parts such as pragmatics and discourse analysis. As mentioned in Chapter 1, most of the time, signers learn a sign language from their peers when they are school age. For this reason, it is of great importance to maintain an applied and theoretical perspective and include studies on the late and early acquisition of TİD in such a book in addition to course books. Recently, growing interest has been noticed for sign languages in both Turkey and the world and for understanding the necessity of using a sign language. For this reason, further research is needed to understand how TİD is learned as a second language. This issue should be addressed in the grammar books as well. As mentioned in Chapters 1 and 2, the growing interest in TİD has resulted in the publication of dictionaries by some institutions and individuals. Although these endeavours have the purpose of meeting a societal need, they are at the

276 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR level of word lists translated from Turkish to TİD. There is an obvious need for a dictionary based on TİD. We are now compiling such an electronic dictionary on the basis of this corpus. As shown in this book, TİD is as rich and unique as Turkish. Due to language modality differences, sign languages, which are visual-spatial, are the natural language used by people with different degrees of hearing loss (i.e., Deaf people) and by (some) hearing individuals. As shown in this book, TİD is a natural language that can be analyzed in the context of every domain of linguistics. Consequently, Deaf people in Turkey should be using their own language, which is TİD, for their education, while health and legal services should be provided in TİD. The right to an education in TİD is fundamental for mastering the written form of Turkish, which is the national and official language of the country, so bilingual education is inevitable. Because TİD and Turkish are different languages, they cannot be used at the same time during education; they should be used consecutively rather than using Turkish-supported signs.

REFERENCES

278 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

279 REFERENCES Açan, Z. (2001). A Study on Sign Languages and Turkish Sign Language. Master’s thesis. Hacettepe University, Ankara. ______ (2007). A linguistic analysis on basic sentence types in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) with reference to non-manual activity. Doctoral dissertation. Hacettepe University, Ankara. Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Aitchison, J. (1991). Language change: Progress or decay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Akalın, Ş. H., Oral, A. Z., & Cavkaytar, S. (2014). Türk İşaret Dili. Eskişehir: Anadolu University Press. Akamatsu, C. T., & Stewart, D. A. (1989). The role of fingerspelling in simultaneous communication. Sign Language Studies, 65, 361–374. Aksan, D. (2009). Her yönüyle dil, ana çizgileriyle Dilbilim. (5th Edition). Ankara: Turkish Language Association Press: 439. Altenberg, B. (1990). Spoken English and the dictionary. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research (pp. 177-192). Lund: Lund University Press. Altun, O., Albayrak, S., Ekinci, A., & Bükün, B. (2006). Turkish fingerspelling recognition system using axis of least inertia based fast alignment. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4304, 473-481. American Psychological Association Ethics Code. http://www.apa.org/news/ press/releases/2014/06/informed-consent.aspx American Speech- Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (2011). Type, Degree, and Configuration of Hearing Loss. Retrieved June 30, 2014 from http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/AIS-Hearing-Loss-Types-DegreeConfiguration.pdf Anderson, D., & Reilly, J. S. (2002). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory: Normative data for American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7, 83–106.

280 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Ankara Çankaya Sağırlar Uluslararası İşaret Dili Araştırma Eğitim Öğretim ve Spor Kulubü Derneği, “Akıllı Türk İşaret Dili” (2013). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Press. Ann, J. (2001). Bilingualism and language contact. In C. Lucas (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of sign languages (pp. 33-60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Appel, R., & Muysken, P. (2005). Language contact and bilingualism. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press. Aran, O., Arı, I., Guvensan, A., Haberdar, H. et al. (2007). A database of non-manual signs in Turkish Sign Language. IEEE CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS. Arı, I., Uyar, A., & Akarun, L. (2008). Facial feature tracking and expression recognition for sign language. IEEE CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS. Arık, E. (2003). Spatial representations in Turkish and Sign Language of Turkey (TİD). Master’s thesis. University of Amsterdam, NL. ______ (2003, June). Spatial representations in Turkish and Sign Language of Turkey (TID). Paper presented at Scriptiefestival 2003 at University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam, NL, June 2006. ______ (2006, December). Locative constructions in Turkish Sign Language (TID). Poster presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 9, Florianapolis, Brazil, 9-12 December 2006. ______ (2007, April). Location vs. orientation in spatial representations: The case of Turkish Sign Language. PLA Symposium 2007, Purdue University, IN, 28 April 2007. ______ (2007, July). Spatial and temporal relations in Turkish Sign Language (TID): A Cognitive Analysis. Paper presented at the 10th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Krakow, Poland, 15-20 July 2007. ______ (2008a). Locative constructions in Turkish Sign Language (TID). In R. M. de Quadros (Ed.), Sign Languages: spinning and unraveling the past, present, and future. TISLR9, the Theoretical Issues in Sign Languages Research Conference (pp. 15-31). Petropolis/RJ, Brazil: Editorar Arara Azul.

281 REFERENCES ______ (2008b). Body and space in representing space in Turkish, Croatian, Austrian, and American Sign Languages. Working Paper Series: 9th Conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse, & Language (CSDL9). Social Science Research Network. ______ (2009). Spatial language: Insights from sign and spoken languages. Doctoral dissertation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, US. ______ (2010a). A crosslinguistic study of the language of space: Sign and spoken languages. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ______ (2010b). Describing motion events in sign languages”. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 46(4), 367-390. ______ (2010, October). Türk İşaret Dili’nde Sınıflandırıcılar [Classifiers in Turkish Sign Language]. Talk given at the Turkish Sign Language Workshop by the Turkish Language Association (TDK), Bilkent Otel, Ankara, Turkey, 16-17 October 2010. ______ (2011). Left/right and front/back in sign, speech, and co-speech gestures across languages: What do data from Turkish Sign Language, Croatian Sign Language, American Sign Language, Turkish, Croatian, and English reveal? Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 47(3), 442-469. ______ (2011, May). İşaret dillerinde sınıflandırıcıların bilişsel ve dilbilgisel işlevleri. Paper presented at the 6th International Language and Speech Disorders Congress, Eskişehir, Turkey, 28-30 May 2011. ______ (2012). Expressions of space during interaction in American Sign Language, Croatian Sign Language, and Turkish Sign Language. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 48(2), 179-202. ______ (2012). Space, time, and iconicity in Turkish Sign Language (TID). Trames: A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 16(4), 345-358. ______ (2012, September). Türkçe ve Türk İşaret Dili’nde İç ve Üst İlişkisi Kurulabilen Yer Belirtme Tümcelerinin Bir Karşılaştırılması. Paper presented at the 7th International Turkish Language Conference (7. Uluslararası Türk Dili Kurultayı), Ankara, Turkey, 24-28 September 2012.

282 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR ______ (2012-2015).  Turkish Sign Language Bibliography - Türk İşaret Dili (TİD) Kaynakçası. http://www.enginarik.com/turkish-sign-language-bibliography ______ (2013). Türk İşaret Dili’nde sınıflandırıcılar üzerine bir çalışma. Bilig, 67, 1-24. ______ (2013). Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ______ (2013). Introduction: Previous and current research on Turkish Sign Language (TİD). In E. Arık (Ed.), Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research (pp.1-17). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.  ______ (2013). Expressions of space in Turkish Sign Language. In E. Arık (Ed.), Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research (pp. 219-242). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ______ (2014). Sign language research in Web of Science. Journal of Scientometric Research, 3(3), 143-149. ______ (2015). Expressing manner, location, and orientation in manner-only motion events in Turkish Sign Language. Trames: A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 19(3), 205-220. _____ (Ed., 2016). Ellerle Konuşmak: Türk İşaret Dili Araştırmaları. Istanbul: Koç University Press. Arık, E., & Milkovic, M. (2007). Perspective taking strategies in Turkish Sign Language and Croatian Sign Language. In R. Shields (Ed.), LSO Working Papers in Linguistics 7: Proceedings of WIGL 2007, 17-31. ______ (2007, March). Perspective taking strategies in Turkish Sign Language and Croatian Sign Language. Paper presented at Workshop in General Linguistics 5 (WIGL 5 (2007)), University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, 2-3 March 2007. ______ (2008, October). Is spatial language of sign languages the same?: A crosslinguistic study of space in Croatian, American, and Turkish Sign Languages. Poster presented at the Cognitive Linguistics Between Universality and Variation Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 30 September - 1 October 2008.

283 REFERENCES ______ (2010). Causative motion events in sign languages. Learning & Perception 2, Supplement, 1-36 (Abstracts of the 2nd Dubrovnik Conference on Cognitive Science, 6-9 May 2010). ______ (2010, May). Causative motion events in sign languages. Poster presented at the 2nd Dubrovnik Conference on Cognitive Science (DuCog Perceptual Learning’10), Dubrovnik, Croatia, 6-9 May 2010. ______ (2010, June). Topological relations in sign languages. Poster presented at the 13th Congress of the International Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics Association, Oslo, Norway, 23-26 June 2010. ______ (2010, October). “IN” and “ON” in Turkish and Croatian Sign Languages (TID and HZJ): A parallel architecture view. Poster presented at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference (TISLR10), West Lafayette, IN, 30 September - 2 October 2010. Arık, E., Milkovic, M, & Schalber, K. (2008, June). Describing space in three sign languages: Not as iconic as you think. Poster presented at the 12th Congress of the International Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics Association, Istanbul, Turkey, 25-28 June 2008. Arık, E. & Nadolske, M. A. (2006, November). Conceptualization of space in Turkish Sign Language (TID). Paper presented at the 8th Conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language: Language in Action (CSDL8) at UCSD, La Jolla, CA, 3-5 November 2006. Arık, E. & Nuhbalaoğlu, D. (2014, May). Türk İşaret Dili’nde hareket tarzının ifade ediliş biçimleri. Paper presented at the 28th National Linguistics Congress, Sakarya, Turkey, 8-9 May 2014. Arık, E. & Özyürek A. (2001, June). Enhanced cognitive abilities of Turkish Deaf signers. Poster presented at the 13th Annual Convention of American Psychological Association, New York, NY, 14 June 200. ______ (2002, April). Frames of reference in users of Sign Language of Turkey. Poster presented at the 12th National Congress of Psychology, METU, Ankara, Turkey, April 2002. Arık, E. & Wilbur, R. (2008, January). Locatives, existentials, and possessives in Turkish Sign Language (TID). Poster presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago, IL, 3-6 January 2008.

284 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Aronoff, M., Meir, I., Padden, C., & Sandler, W. (2005). Morphological universals and the sign language type. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 19-39. Aronoff, M. & Padden, C. (in press). Sign language verb agreement and the ontology of morphosyntactic categories. Theoretical Linguistics. Aslan Demir, S. (2010). Sessizliğin dili: Türk İşaret Diline dair gözlemler. Bilig, 54, 1-20. Aslan, E., Danacı, G., & Arslan, N. (2007). The colour signaling process in Turkish Sign Language. Dil Dergisi, 138, 34-42. Baayen, R. H. (1992). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. Yearbook of Morphology, 109-149. ______ (1993). On frequency, transparency and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology, 181-208. Baayen, H., & Renouf A. (1996). Chronicling the times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language, 72, 69-96. Baker, C., & Padden, C. (1978). American Sign Language. A look at its history, structure, and community. Silver Spring: Linstok Press. Barışık, E. (2012). Türk İşaret Dili Kılavuzu. Ankara: Yargı Press. Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Linstok Press. Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, L. (2009). Typology of compounds. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 343-356). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bayrak, S., & Nabiyev, V. V. (2006). Yapay sinir ağları ile Türk İşaret Dilinin sesli harflerinin tanınması [Recognition of Vowels Letters of Turkish Sign Language by Artificial Neural Networks]. IEEE CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS. Birleşmiş Milletler Engellilerin Haklar Sözleşmesi. United Nations Convention on the right of persons with disabilities. (2006). Retrieved April 19, 2014 from http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml.

285 REFERENCES Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt. Borik, O. (2006). Aspect and reference time. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Bosworth, R. G., & Emmorey, K. (2010). Effects of iconicity and semantic relatedness on lexical access in American Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 66(36), 1573-81. Bouchard, D., & Dubuisson, C. (1995). Grammar, order and position of wh-signs in Quebec Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 87, 99-139. Brennan, M. (1990). Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: University of Stockholm Press. ______ (1992). The visual world of BSL: An introduction. In D. Brien (Ed.), Dictionary of British Sign Language/English (pp. 1-133). London: Faber & Faber. Brentari, D. (1990). Theoretical foundations of American Sign Language phonology. Doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago, IL, US. ______ (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. ______ (2005). Representing handshapes in sign languages using morphological templates. In H. Leuninger & D. Happ (Eds.), Gebärdensprachen: struktur, erwerb, verwendung (Linguistische Berichte Special Issue 15) (pp. 145-178). Hamburg: Buske. ______ (2010). Sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ______ (2011). Sign language phonology. In J. A. Goldsmith, J. Riggle, & A. C. L. Yu (Eds.), The handbook of phonological theory (2nd Revised Edition) (pp. 691-721). Oxford: Blackwell.

286 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Brentari, D., & Eccarius, P. (2010). Handshape contrasts in sign language phonology. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages (pp. 284-311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brentari, D., & Padden, C. (2001). Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A lexicon with multiple origins. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages (pp. 87-119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Broschart, J. (1997). Why Tongan does it differently. Categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs. Linguistic Typology, 1, 123-165. Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Campbell, R., Martin, P., & White, T. (1992). Forced choice recognition of sign in novice learners of British Sign language. Applied Linguistics, 13, 185–201. Ceccagno, A., & Basciano, B. (2007). Compound headedness in Chinese:An analysis of neologisms. Morphology, 17(2), 207–231. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht. ______ (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge: MIT Press. Coerts, J. (1992). Nonmanual grammatical markers: An analysis of interrogatives, negations and topicalisations in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam, NL. ______ (1994). Constituent order in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In M. Brennan & G. Turner (Eds.), Word-order issues in sign language: Working papers (pp. 47-72). Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association. Cogen, C. (1977). On Three Aspects of Time Expression in American Sign Language. In L. A. Friedman (Ed.), On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language. New York: Academic Press. Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: CUP. Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

287 REFERENCES Conrad, R. (1979). The deaf school child. London: Harper Collins. Coolen, R. (1994). The semantic processing of isolated novel nominal compounds. Nijmegen: Quickprint. Proefschrift Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. Corballis, M. C. (2009). Mirror neurons and the evolution of language. Brain and Language, 112, 25-35. Corbett, G. G. (1998). Agreement in Slavic (position paper). Workshop on Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax. Indiana University, IN, US. Corina, D. (1990). Handshape assimilation in hierarchical phonological representation. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues (pp. 27-49). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. _____ (1993). To branch or not to branch: Underspecification in ASL handshape con-tours. In G. Coulter (Ed.), Current issues in ASL phonology (pp. 63– 95). New York: Academic Press. Corina, D., & Sandler, W. (1993). On the nature of phonological structure in sign language. Phonology, 10, 165-207. Corina, D. P., & Emmorey, K. (1993). Lexical priming in American Sign Language. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Washington, DC. Cormier, K. (2014). Pronouns, agreement and classifiers: What sign languages can tell us about linguistic diversity and linguistic universals. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 26, 1-12. 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. Crasborn, O., van der Kooij, E., Ros, J., & de Hoop, H. (2009). Topic agreement in NGT (Sign Language of the Netherlands). The Linguistic Review, 26(2/3), 355–370. Croft, W. (2003). Typology and language universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

288 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dal, G. (2003). Productivité morphologique: définitions et notions connexes. dans Langue française, 140, 3-23, Cedex, Larousse, Paris. De Quadros, R. M. (2003). Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. In A. Baker, B. Van den Bogaerde, & O. Crasborn (Eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives in sign language research. Selected papers from TISLR 2000 (pp. 141-162). Hamburg: Signum Verlag. Demirci K. (2008). Dilbilgiselleşme üzerine bir inceleme. Bilig, 45, 131-146. Deuchar, M. (1983). Is BSL an SVO language? In J. G. Kyle & B. Woll (Eds.), Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language (pp. 6976). London and Canbara: Croom Helm. Dibekhoğlu, H., Dikici, E., Santemiz, P. et al. (2007). Sign language motion tracking and generating 3D motion pieces using 2D features. IEEE CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS. Dikyuva, H. (2008). “İki Elin Sesi” Türk İşaret Dili Kelimeler Listesi. Türkiye Sakatlar Derneği Mardin Şubesi. Dikyuva, H. (2011). Aspectual non-manual expressions in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Master’s thesis. University of Central Lancashire: Preston, UK. ______ (2012). Mardin Sign Language: signing in a “deaf family.” In U. Zeshan & C. De Vos (Eds.), Sign languages in village communities: Anthropological and linguistic insights (pp. 395-400). Berlin: de Gruyter. Dikyuva, H., & Zeshan, U. (2008). Türk İşaret Dili - Birinci düzey. Nijmegen: Ishara Press. Dryer, M. S. (2005). Order of subject, object, and verb. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eccarius, P. (2002). Finding common ground: A comparison of handshape across multiple sign languages. Master’s thesis. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, US.

289 REFERENCES ______ (2008). A constraint-based account of handshape contrast in sign languages. Doctoral dissertation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, US. Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition, and brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ______ (2003). Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Emmorey, K., Grabowski, T., McCullough, S., Damasio, H., Ponto, L., Hichwa, R., & Bellugi, U. (2004). Motor-iconicity of sign language does not alter the neural systems underlying tool and action naming. Brain and Language, 89, 27–37. Emmorey, K., & Herzig, M. (2003). Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions (pp. 221-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 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. Ergenç, İ. (2002) Konuşma dili ve Türkçenin söyleyiş sözlüğü. Istanbul: Multilingual. Ergenç, İ., İşsever, S., Makaroğlu, B., Dikyuva, H., & Zeshan, U. (2013, February). Türk İşaret Dili kullanıcılarında çok dilli görünümler: Yeni bir projeye ilk adım. İşaret Dili Çalıştayı, Ankara University, 25 February 2013. Fabb, N. (1998). Compounding. In A. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 66-83). Oxford: Blackwell. Figueiredo Silva, M. C., & Sell, F. F. (2011). Algumas notas sobre compostos em português brasileiro e em Libras. In R. P. De Oliveira & C. Mioto (Eds.), Percursos em teoria da gramática (pp. 17-41). Florianópolis: Editora da UFSC. Fischer, S. D. (1975). Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. In C. N. Li (Ed.),  Word order and word order change (pp. 1–25). New York: Academic Press. ______ (1996). The role of auxiliaries in sign language. Lingua, 98, 103–119.

290 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Fischer, S. & Q. Gong (2010). Variation in East Asian sign language structures. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages (pp. 502-521). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-53. Friedman, L. A. (1975) Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Language, 51(4), 940-961. Fuentes, M., Massone, M. I., Fernández-Viader, M. P., & Makotrinsky, A. (2010). Numeral-incorporating roots in numeral systems: A comparative analysis of two sign languages. Sign Language Studies, 11(1), 55–75. Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogical settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410-439. Gell-Mann, M., & Ruhlen, M. (2011). The origin and evolution of word order. PNAS, 108(42), 17290–17295. Glück, S., & Pfau, R. (1998). On classifiying classification as a class of inflection in German Sign Language. In T. A. Cambier-Langeveld, A. Lipták, & M. Redford (Eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE 6 (pp. 59-74). Leiden: SOLE. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). What language creation in the language modality tells us about the foundations of language. The Linguistic Review, 22, 199-225. Goldin-Meadow, S., Namboodiripad, S., Mylander, C., Ozyurek, A., & Sancar, B. (2015). The resilience of structure built around the predicate: Homesign gesture systems in Turkish and American deaf children. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16, 55-80. Gökgöz, K. (2009). Topics in Turkish Sign Language (Türk İşaret Dili – TID) Syntax: Verb movement, negation, and clausal structure. Master’s thesis. Boğaziçi University, Istanbul. ______ (2009, April). Inflectional categories and verb movement in Türk İşaret Dili (TİD-Turkish Sign Language. Workshop on Nonmanuals in Sign Languages. Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 4-5 April 2009.

291 REFERENCES ______ (2011). Negation in Turkish Sign Language: The syntax of nonmanual markers. Sign Language and Linguistics, 14(1), 49-75. Gökgöz, K., & Arık, E. (2010, October). Distributional and syntactic characteristics of nonmanual markers in Turkish Sign Language (Türk İşaret Dili, TID). Paper presented at the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Languages (WAFL7), LA, CA, 29-31 October 2010. _____ (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 Göksel, A. (2009, July). The prosodic structure of questions: Turkish and Turkish Sign Language (TİD). University of Konstanz, 13 July 2009. ______ (2013, April). Asymmetric signs: Simplex lexemes or semantically decomposable forms? Talk given at Sign Language Workshop, University of Haifa, 2 April 2013. Göksel, A., & Haznedar, B. (2008). Remarks on compounding in Turkish. Unpublished

manuscript.

http://componet.sslmit.unibo.it/download/

remarks/TR.pdf Göksel, A., & Kelepir, M. (2011, June). The syntax of nested spreading domains. Poster presented at Venice Feast: Formal approaches to sign languages, University of Venice, 20-22 June 2011. ______ (2011, October). Issues in complexity: Sentential complementation in Turkish Sign Language. Complex sentences and beyond in sign and spoken languages, University of Göttingen, 13-14 October 2011. ______ (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. Göksel, A., Kelepir, M., & Üntak-Tarhan, A. (2007, May). The role of intonation in clause typing across modalities: Question intonation in Turkish and Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Paper presented at the Workshop on Morphology/Phonology – Syntax Interface in Signed and Spoken Languages. Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, 25 May 2007.

292 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR _____ (2009, April). Interrogatives in Turkish Sign Language: The specific functions of head tilt, head shake and head nod. Paper presented at the Workshop on Nonmanuals in Sign Languages. Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, 4-5 April 2009. ______ (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, 1-11. Göksel, A. & R. Pfau (in press). Non-native lexicon. Manual for Sign Language Grammar Developers COST SignGram Project IS 1006. Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of grammar (pp. 73-113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Guevara, E., & S. Scalise. (2009). Searching for universals in compounding. In S. Scalise, E. Magni, & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals of language today (pp. 101–128). Dordrecht: Springer. Güvensan, M. A., & Haberdar, H. (2007). Detection and tracking of face and facial features for Recognition of Turkish Sign Language. IEEE CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS. Haberdar, H., & Bayraktar S. (2006). A two-stage visual Turkish Sign Language recognition system based on global and local features. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4203, 29-37. ______ (2006). Real time isolated Turkish Sign Language Recognition from video using Hidden Markov Models with global features. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3733, 677-687. Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D. (2011). Understanding morphology (2nd Edition). London: Hodder Education. Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26(2), 210231. Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

293 REFERENCES Himmelmann, N. P. (1991). The Philippine challenge to Universal Grammar. Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts 15. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Hockett, C. 1960. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003) [(1993)]. Grammaticalization (2nd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hunger, B. (2006). Noun/verb pairs in Austrian Sign Language (OGS). Sign Language and Linguistics, 9, 71–94. Hurford, J. R., Heasley, B., & Smith, M. B. (2007). Semantics: A coursebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hyman, L. M., Inkelas, S., & Sibanda, G. (2009). Morpho-syntactic correspondence in Bantu reduplication. In K. Hanson & S. Inkelas (Eds.), The nature of the word: Studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky (pp. 273-309). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ilgın, L., & Büyükkantarcıoğlu, N. (1994). Türkçe’de “YANİ” Sözcüğünün Kullanımı Üzerine bir İnceleme. VIII Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri (pp. 24-38). Istanbul: Istanbul University. Işıkdoğan, F., & Albayrak, S. (2011). Automatic recognition of Turkish fingerspelling. IEEE CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS. İlkbaşaran, D. (2013). Communicative practices of deaf people in Turkey and the sociolinguistics of Turkish Sign Language. In E. Arık (Ed.), Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research (pp. 19-53). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ______ (2015). Literacies, mobilities and agencies of Deaf Youth in Turkey: Constraints and opportunities in the 21st Century. Doctoral dissertation. UCSD, San Diego, CA, US. İlkbasaran, D. & Taşçı, S. S. (2012). Ideology and language in the early republic: A history of deaf education in Turkey. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Language and Communication: Research Trends and Challenges (ISLC) (pp. 1767-1777). Erzurum: Mega Press.

294 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Sağlık Hizmetleri “Türk İşaret Dili Eğitim Materyalleri”. Retrieved November 19, 2015 from http://www.ibb.gov.tr/ sites/SaglikVeSosyalHizmetler/isom/Pages/TURKISARETDILI.aspx. İşsever, S., & Makaroğlu, B. (2013). Wh-movement in Turkish Sign Language. In E. Arık (Ed.), Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research (pp. 167-189). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Jacobsen, W.H. (1979). Noun and verb in Nootkan. In B. Efrat (Ed.), The Victorian Conference on Northwestern Languages (pp. 83–153). British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria. Jantunen, T. (2005). Mistä on pienet tavut tehty? Analyysi suomalaisen viittomakielen tavustaprosodisen mallin viitekehyksessä [What are the little syllables made of? A Prosodic Model account of the Finnish Sign Language syllable]. Licentiate thesis. University of Jyväskylä, Finlandiya. ______ (2007). Tavu suomalaisessa viittomakielessä [The Syllable in Finnish Sign Language; with English abstract]. Puhe ja kieli, 27, 109-126. ______ (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. Jantunen, T. & Takkinen, R. (2010). Syllable structure in sign language phonology. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages (pp. 312–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnston, T. (2001). Nouns and verbs in Australian Sign Language: an open or shut case? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6, 235–257. Johnston, T., & Schembri, A. (2007). Australian Sign Language (AUSLAN): An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jucker, A. H., & Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse markers: Introduction. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kegl, J., Neidle, C., MacLaughlin, D., Hoza, J., & Bahan, B. (1996). The case for grammar, order and position in ASL: A reply to Bouchard and Dubuisson. Sign Language Studies, 90, 1-23.

295 REFERENCES Kelepir, M. & Göksel, A. (2013). Aspects of reported utterances in Turkish Sign Language. In E. Arık (Ed.), Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research (pp. 191-218). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kemaloğlu Y. K. (2007). Çocuklarda işitme kaybının erken tanısının önemi ve Türkiye’de Ulusal Yenidoğan İşitme Tarama Programı. Türkiye KlinikleriPediatrik Bilimler. Pediatrik KBB Özel Sayısı, 12(3), 52-66. ______ (2012). Türkiye’de İşitme Kayıplarının ve İşitme Engelinin Genel Görünümü. Türkiye Klinikleri J E.N.T. Special Topics, 5(2), 1 -10. ______ (2016). Türkiye’de sağırların görünürlüğü ve toplumsal ve eğitimsel sorunları üzerine demografik bir inceleme. In E. Arık (Ed.), Ellerle Konuşmak: Türk İşaret Dili Araştırmaları. Istanbul: Koç University Press. ______ (in press). http://engelsiz.karatekin.edu.tr/e_isit/dosya/EK-01.pdf Kemaloğlu, Y. K., & Yaprak Kemaloğlu, P. (2012). The history of sign language and deaf education in Turkey. Kulak Burun Boğaz İhtisas Dergisi, 22(2), 65-76. Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Kimmelman, V. (2009). Parts of speech in Russian Sign Language. The role of iconicity and economy. Sign Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 161-186. _____ (2011). Word order in Russian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 12(3), 414-445. Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press. Kubuş, O. (2008). An analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TID) phonology and morphology. Master’s thesis. METU, Ankara. Kubuş, O., & Hohenberger, A. (2007, March). The effect of phonological similarity and irrelevant visual input on working memory in Turkish Sign Language (TID). Poster presented at the 20th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Special Session ‘The psycholinguistics of spoken and signed languages’, La Jolla, CA, 29-31 March 2007.

296 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR _____ (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. _____ (2013). Phonology and phonetics of reciprocals in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). In E. Arık (Ed.), Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research (pp. 101-142). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kubuş, O., İlkbaşaran, D., & Gilchrist, S. K. (2016). Türkiye’de işaret dili planlaması ve Türk İşaret Dili’nin yasal durumu. In E. Arık (Ed.), Ellerle Konuşmak: Türk İşaret Dili Araştırmaları. Istanbul: Koç University Press. Kubuş, O., & Rathmann, C. (2011, February). Analysis of relative clause constructions (RCC) in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) in discourse modes. 33. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS). Georg-August-Universität Göttingen 23. - 25 February 2011. Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Blackwell. Lakoff G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Launey, M. (2004). The features of omnipredicativity in Classical Nahuatl. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 57(1), 49–69. Leeson, L. ve Saeed, J. I. (2012). Word order. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign language: An international handbook (pp. 245-264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lehmann, W. P. (1978). English: A characteristic SVO language. In W. P. Lehmann (Ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language (pp. 169-222). Austin: University of Texas Press. Liddell, S. (1980). American Sign Language Syntax. The Hague: Mouton. ______ (1996). Numeral Incorporating Roots & Non-Incorporating Prefixes in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 92, 201-225. Liddell, S. K., & Johnson, R. E. (1986). American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization and phonological remnants. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 4, 415-444.

297 REFERENCES _____ (1989). American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies, 64, 197-277. Lillo-Martin, D., & Meier, R. P. (2011). On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics, 37, 95-141. Linguistic Society of America Ethics Statement. https://lsaethics.wordpress. com/2008/07/ Lucas, C. (Ed.). (2001). The sociolinguistics of sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lucas, C., & Valli, C. (1992). Language contact in the American Deaf community. New York: Academic Press. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macsweeney, M., Capek, C. M., Campbell, R., & Woll, B. (2008). The signing brain, the neurobiology of sign brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 432-440. Makaroğlu, B. (2012).  Türk İşaret Dili’nde soru: Kaş hareketlerinin dilsel çözümlemesi. Master’s thesis. Ankara University, Ankara. ______ (2013). Türkiye’de yasaklı eller bayramı Türk İşaret Dili ve işitme engellilik dosyası. BilimSol, 13 June 2013. ______ (2013). Interrogatives in Turkish Sign Language (TİD): The role of eyebrows. In E. Arık (Ed.), Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research (pp. 143-165). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Makaroğlu, B., & Bekar, İ. P. (2015). Türk İşaret Dili’nde (TİD) seslem yapısının dağılımsal görünümleri. Poster presented at the 29th National Linguistics Congress, Kocaeli, 21-22 May 2015. Makaroğlu, B., Bekar, İ. P., & Arık, E. (2014). Evidence for minimal pairs in Turkish Sign Language. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 50(3), 207230. Makaroğlu, B., & Dikyuva, H. (2015). Yabancı dil olarak Türk İşaret Dili (A1-A2 düzeyi) öğrenci kitabı. Ankara: Ankara University Press.

298 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Marshall, J., Atkinson, J., Smulovitch, E., Thacker, A., & Woll, B. (2004). Aphasia in a user of British Sign Language: Dissociation between sign and gesture. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 537–554. Martinet, A. (1962). A functional view of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Maschler, Y. (1998). Rotsè Lishmoa Kéta? Wanna Hear Something Weird/ Funny? [lit.a segment]: Segmenting Israeli Hebrew Talk-in-Action. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Matthews, P. (1991). Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McKee, D., & Kennedy, G. (2000). Lexical comparison of signs from American, Australian, British and New Zealand Sign Languages. In K. D. Emmorey & H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 49-76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Meir, I. (1998). Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. ______ (2002). A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 413–450. Meir, I., Padden, C., Aronoff, M., & Sandler, W. (2007). Body as Subject. Journal of Linguistics, 43, 531-563. Meier, R. (2002). Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and noneffects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. In R. P. Meier, K. Cormier, & D. Quinto-Pozos (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Meir, I., & Sandler, W. (2007). A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Memiş, A., & Albayrak. S. (2013). Turkish Sign Language recognition using spatio-temporal features on Kinect RGB video sequences and depth maps. IEEE CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS.

299 REFERENCES Miles, M. (2000). Signing in the Seraglio: mutes, dwarfs and jestures at the Ottoman Court 1500-1700. Disability & Society, 15, 115-134. Milković, M., Bradarić-Jončić, S., & Wilbur, R. B. (2006). Word order in Croatian Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics, 9(1/2), 169-206. Miller, C. (1994). Simultaneous constructions in Quebec Sign Language. In M. Brennan & G. Turner (Eds.), Word order issues in sign languagesWorking papers (pp. 89–112). Durham: ISLA. Milli Eğitim İstatistikleri: Örgün Eğitim 2014-2015. Retrieved November 7, 2015 from

http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/meb_istatistikleri_orgun_

egitim_2014_2015.pdf. Mitchell, R. E., & Karchmer, M. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4(2), 138-163. Moralez-Lopez, E., Reigosa-Varela, C., & Bobillo-Garcia, N. (2012). Word order and informative functions (topic and focus) in Spanish Signed Language utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(4), 474-489. Nadeau, M., & Desouvrey, L. (1994). Word order in sentences with directional verbs in Quebec Sign Language. In I. Ahlgren, B. Bergman, & M. Brennan (Eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure: Papers from fifth international symposium on Sign Language Research (pp. 149-158). Durham: ISLA. Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B., & Gee, R. G. (1999). The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Özbek, A. (2012). Noun-verb pairs in TİD: A methodological criticism. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Language and Communication: Research Trends and Challenges (pp. 1709-1716). Erzurum: Mega Press. Özbek, A. (2012, April). Türk İşaret Dilinde araçsıl fiilerin fonolojik analizi. Dilbilim Topluluğu VI. Öğrenci Konferansı. Hacettepe University, Ankara, 25 April 2012.

300 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Özbek, A. (2012, June). Noun-verb pairs in TİD: A methodological criticism. Paper presented at International Symposium on Language and Communication: Research Trends and Challenges. Izmir University, Izmir. 10-13 June 2012. Özbek, A. (2012, September). Verbal complexity in Turkish Sign Language: Instrumental verbs and classifiers. Poster presented at 45th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. Stockholm University. 29 August - 1 September 2012. Özbek, A. (2012, September). Identifying noun verb pairs in Turkish Sign Language: Turkish-TİD Interaction. International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. METU, Ankara. 18-21 September 2012. Özbek, N. (1995). Discourse markers in Turkish and English: A comparative study. Doctoral dissertation. Nottingham University, UK. Özkul, A. (2013). A phonological and morphological analysis of instrumental noun-verb pairs in Turkish Sign Language. Master’s thesis. Boğaziçi University, Istanbul. Özsoy, S., Arık, E., Göksel, A., & Kelepir, M. (2012). When established methods hit the sign: Methodological issues in documenting sign languages. Proceedings book of international symposium on language and communication: Research trends and challenges (pp. 385-393). Erzurum: Mega Press. Özsoy, S., Arık, E., Göksel, A., & Kelepir, M. (2012, June). When established methods hit the sign: Methodological issues in documenting sign languages. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Language and Communication: Research Trends and Challenges (ISLC2012). Izmir, Turkey, 10-13 June 2012. Özsoy, A. S., Arık, E., Göksel, A., Kelepir, M., & Nuhbalaoğlu, D. (2013). Documenting Turkish Sign Language (TİD): A report on a research project. In E. Arık (Ed.), Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research (pp. 55-69). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

301 REFERENCES Özsoy, A. S, Göksel A., Kelepir M., & Nuhbalaoğlu, D. (2012, September). Türk İşaret Dilinde ad öbeği yapısı ve işaret dizimi. Paper presented at the 7th International Turkish Language Conference (7. Uluslararası Türk Dili Kurultayı). Ankara, Turkey, 24-28 September 2012. Özsoy, S., & Nuhbalaoğlu, D. (2014, June). Linearization in noun phrases in Turkish Sign Language. Formal and experimental approaches in sign languages. University of Venice, 9-11 June 2014. Özyürek, A. (2004). Çocukların işaret dili. Radikal 2, 3 October 2004. Özyürek, A., & İlkbaşaran, D. (2004). The use of space in transfer verbs in Turkish Sign Language: Implications for typological variation. Crosslinguistic perspectives in sign language research workshop at the German Linguistic Society Conference, Mainz, Germany. Özyürek, A., Ilkbasaran, D., & Arık, E. (2005). Türk İşaret Dili Websitesi. http:// turkisaretdili.ku.edu.tr/ Özyürek, A., & Perniss, P. M. (2011). Event representations in signed languages. In J. Bohnemeyer & E. Pederson (Eds.), Event representations in language and cognition (pp. 84-107). New York: Cambridge University Press. Özyürek, A., Zwitserlood, I., & Perniss, P. M. (2010). Locative expressions in signed languages: A view from Turkish Sign Language (TID). Linguistics 48(5), 1111-1145. Padden, C. A. (1983). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation. UCSD, San Diego, CA, US. Padden, C. (1988). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language: Outstanding dissertations in linguistics, Series IV. New York: Garland Press. ______ (1990). The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues (pp. 118132). Washington: Gallaudet University Press. ______ (1991). The acquisition of fingerspelling by deaf children. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 1991.

302 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Padden, C. A., & Gunsauls, C. (2003). How the alphabet came to be used in a sign language. Sign Language Studies, 4(1), 10-33. Patrie, C. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2010). Fingerspelled word recognition through rapid serial visual presentation. San Diego, CA: DawnSign Press. Perniss, P. (2007). Space and iconicity in German Sign Laguage. Nijmegen, NL: MPI Series in Psycholinguistics, 45. Perniss, P., & Özyürek, A. (2004). How many pots in the window sill? Number and quanitification in German and Turkish Sign Languages. Crosslinguistic perspectives in sign language research workshop, German Linguistic Society Conference, Mainz, Germany. ______ (2008). Representations of action, motion and location in sign space: A comparison of German (DGS) and Turkish (TID) sign language narratives. In J. Quer (Ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 8 (pp. 353-376). Seedorf: Signum Press. ______ (2015). Visible cohesion: A comparison of reference tracking in sign, speech, and co-speech gesture. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(1), 3660. Perniss, P. M., Zwitserlood, I., & Özyürek, A. (2011). Does space structure spatial language? Linguistic encoding of space in sign languages. In L. Carlson, C. Holscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1595-1600). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Pfau, R. & Quer, J. (2010). Nonmanuals: Their grammatical and prosodic roles. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2005). Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extraposition and reconstruction. In L. Bateman & C. Ussery (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 507–521). Amherst, MA: GLSA. Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B. (Eds.) (2012). Sign language: An international handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

303 REFERENCES Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B. (2012). Tense, aspect, and modality. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Wol (Eds.), Sign Language. An International Handbook (pp. 186-204). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pichler, D. C. (2001). Word order variation and acquisition in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut, CT, US. Pizzuto, E., & Corazza, S. (1996). Noun morphology in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Lingua, 98, 169-196. Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Poizner, H., Bellugi, U., & Tweney, R. D. (1981). Processing of formational, semantic, and iconic information in American Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1146–1159. Preminger A., & Brogan, T. (Eds.) (1993). The new Princeton encyclopedia of poetry and poetics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Quer, J. (2002). Negative operators in Catalan Sign Language. Yayınlanmamış makale. ICREA and Universitat de Barcelona. Radden G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. K. Panther & G. Radden (Ed.), Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rathmann, C. (2000). The optionality of agreement phrase: Evidence from signed languages. Master’s thesis. University of Texas at Austin, TX, US. Reagan, T. (2010). Language policy and planning for sign languages. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29, 1139-1172. Rosenstein, O. (2001). Israeli Sign Language: A topic prominent language. Master’s thesis. Haifa University, Israel.

304 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Sallandre, M., & Cuxac, C. (2002). Iconicity in sign language: A theoretical and methodological point of view. In I. Wachsmuth & T. Sowa (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2298: Gesture and sign language in humancomputer interaction (pp. 173-180). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht, NL: Foris Publications. ______ (1993). Linearization of phonological tiers in American Sign Language. In G. R. Coulter (Ed.), Phonetics and phonology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sandler, W., Meir, I., Padden, C., & Aronoff, M. (2005). The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. PNAS, 102, 2661– 2665. Santemiz, P., Aran, O., Saraclar, M. et al. (2009). Alignment based extraction of isolated signs from sign language videos. IEEE CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS. Scalise, S., & A. Bisetto. (2009). The classification of compounds. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 34-53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schembri, A. (2003). Rethinking “classifiers” in signed languages. K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 3-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schembri, A., & Johnston, T. (2007). Sociolinguistic variation in fingerspelling in Australian Sign Language (Auslan): A pilot study. Sign Language Studies, 7(3), 319-347. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

305 REFERENCES Schreurs, L. (2006). The distinction between formally and semantically related noun-verb pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands/NGT. Master’s thesis. Universiteit of Amsterdam, NL. Senghas, A., Coppola, M., Newport, E. L., & Supalla, T. (1997). Argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language: The emergence of grammatical devices. In E. Hughes, M. Hughesi, & A. Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 2 (pp. 550–561). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Senghas, A., Kita, S. & Özyürek, A. (2004). Children creating core properties of language: evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science, 305(5691), 1779-1782. Sevinç, A. M. (2006). Grammatical relations and word order in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Master’s thesis. METU, Ankara. Sevinç, A. M., & Bozşahin, C. (2006). Verbal categories in Turkish Sign Language TİD. The 13th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 2006. Siple, P. (1978). Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies, 19, 97-112. Sign Language and Linguistics Society Ethics Statement for Sign Language Research. http://slls.eu/slls-ethics-statement-for-discussion/ Sinnemäki, K. (2010). Word order in zero-marking languages. Studies in Language, 34(4), 869-912. Slobin, D. I. (Der., 1986). The crosslinguistic study of the language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum. 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. Smith, W. H. (2005). Taiwan Sign Language research: A historical overview. Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 187-215.

306 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Spread the sign. http://www.spreadthesign.com Sprenger, K., & Mathur, G. (2012). Observations on word order in Saudi Arabian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 13(1), 122-134. Steel, S. (1978). Word order variation: A typological study. In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of Human Language IV: Syntax. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf (Vol. 8). Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Stokoe, W., Casterline, D., & Croneberg, C. (1965). A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Supalla, T. (1986). The classifier system in American Sign Language. In C. Craig (Ed.), Noun classification and categorization (pp. 181-214). Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins. Supalla, T., & Newport, E. (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, V. (2009). Sign writing. The Sign Writing Press. Sutton-Spence, R. (2006). Fingerspelling. In K. Brown (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd Edition), Vol. 4, (pp. 468-473). Oxford: Elsevier. Sutton-Spence, R., & Woll, B. (1999). Linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sutton-Spence, R. & Woll, B. (1998). The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sümer, B. (2015). Acquisition of spatial language by signing and speaking children: A comparison of Turkish Sign Language (TİD) and Turkish. Doctoral dissertation. Radboud University of Nijmegen, NL.

307 REFERENCES Sümer, B., Zwitserlood, I., Perniss, P., & Özyürek, A. (2011). The expression of spatial relations and their acquisition in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) by native deaf adults and children. Sign 5 International Conference of Sign Language Users, jointly organized Gazi University and Lancaster University, Ankara, Turkey. _____ (2012). Development of locative expressions by Turkish deaf and hearing children: Are there modality effects? In A. K. Biller, E. Y. Chung, & A. E. Kimball (Eds.), BUCLD 36: Proceedings of the 36th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Volume 2 (pp. 568580). Boston: Cascadilla Press. ______ (2013). Acquisition of locative expressions in children learning Turkish Sign Language (TİD) and Turkish. In E. Arık (Ed.), Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research (pp. 243-272). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ______ (2013, July). Revisiting modality effects in children’s acquisition of spatial language: Insights from Turkish and Turkish Sign Language. Paper presented at TISLR11, London, UK. Swisher, V., Christie, K., & Miller, S. (1989). The reception of signs in peripheral vision by deaf persons. Sign Language Studies, 63, 99-125. Sze, F. (2003). Word order of Hong Kong Sign Language. In A. Baker, B. van den Bogaerde, & O. Crasborn (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives in sign language research: Selected papers from TISLR 2000 (pp. 163-192). Hamburg: Signum. Talmy, L. (2006). The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive processes (pp. 207-238). Philadelphia, PA: Johns Benjamins. Taşçı, S. S. (2012). Phonological and morphological aspects of lexicalized fingerspelling in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Master’s thesis. Boğaziçi University, Istanbul. Taşçı, S. S. (2013). Hand reversal and assimilation in TİD lexicalized fingerspelling. In E. Arık (Ed.), Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research (pp. 71-100). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

308 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Taşçı, S. & Özbek, A. (2011, July). Determining word boundaries in Turkish Sign Language. Sign language Phonology Workshop. Université de BretagneSud, Vannes, France. 6-8 July 2011. Taub, S. (2001). Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. TDK (2015). Tabii. Retrieved November 12, 2015 from http://www.tdk.gov.tr/ index.php?option=com_gts. Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Torigoe, T. (1994). Resumptive X structure in Japanese Sign Language. In I. Ahlgren, B. Bergman, & M. Brennan (Eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure: Papers from fifth international symposium on Sign Language Research. (pp. 187-198). Durham: ISLA. Traxler, C. B. (2000). Measuring up to performance standards in reading and mathematics: Achievement of selected deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the national norming of the 9th Edition Stanford Achievement Test. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 337–348. Trillo, J. R. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 769-784. Türk İşaret Dili: İşitme Engelliler İçin İşaret Dili Sözlüğü. http://www.turkisaretdili.org Türk İşaret Dili Dini Kavramlar Sözlüğü. Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı. http://engelsiz. diyanet.gov.tr Türk İşaret Dili Sözlüğü. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. http://orgm.meb.gov.tr/www/turkisaret-dili-sozlugu-yayimlandi/icerik/541 Türk

İşaret

Dili

Sözlüğü.

Türk

Dil

Kurumu.

http://tdk.gov.tr/index.

php?option=com_content&view=article&id=264 Türk İşaret Dili Sözlüğü v1.0. Boğaziçi University. http://www.cmpe.boun.edu.tr/ pilab/tidsozlugu/ Turkish Psychological Association Ethics Statement.i http://www.psikolog.org. tr/turkey-code-tr.pdf

309 REFERENCES Uzun,

N. E. (2000), Ana çizgileriyle Evrensel Dilbilgisi ve Türkçe. Istanbul: Multilingual.

______ (2006). Biçimbilim, Temel Kavramlar. Istanbul: Papatya Yayımcılık. Valli, C., Lucas, C., Mulrooney, K. J., & Villanueva, M. (1992/2011). Linguistics of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Vennemann, T. (1976). Categorial grammar and the order of meaningful elements. In A. Juilland (Ed.), Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday (pp. 615-634). Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri. Vermerbergen, M., Leeson, L., & Crasborn, O. (Eds.) (2007). Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wheatley, M., & Pabsch, A. (2010). Sign language legislation in the European Union. Brussels: EUD. Wilbur, R. B. (2002). Phrase structure in ASL and ÖGS. In R. Schulmeister & H. Reinitzer (Eds.), Progress in sign language research: In Honor of Siegmund Prillwitz. (pp. 235-248). Hamburg: Signum. Wilbur, R. B., Malaia, E., & Shay, R. (2011). Degree modification and intensification in American Sign Language adjectives. Amsterdam Colloquium on Logic, Language and Meaning, 92-101. Wilcox, P. P. (1998). GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language. In J. Newman (Ed.), The linguistics of giving. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wilcox, S. (2004). Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in sign languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 119-147. Wright, S. (1999). Kyrgyzistan: The political and linguistic context. Current Issues in Language and Society, 6(1), 85-91. Yaprak Kemaloğlu, P. (2016). Sağır ve ilgili paradigmaların biyolojik, politik ve sosyo-kültürel inşası. In E. Arık (Ed.), Ellerle Konuşmak: Türk İşaret Dili Araştırmaları. Istanbul: Koç University Press. Yetişkinler İçin Türk İşaret Dili Kılavuzu. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (1995). Yılmaz, E. 2004. A Pragmatic analysis of Turkish discourse particles: Yani, İşte and Şey. Doctoral dissertation. METU, Ankara.

310 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR Yule, G. (2010). The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zeshan, U. (2000). Sign language in Indo-Pakistan: A description of a signed language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ______ (2002). Sign Language in Turkey: The story of a hidden language. Turkic Languages, 6(2), 229-274. ______ (2003). Aspects of Türk Isaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). Sign Language and Linguistics, 6(1), 43–75. ______ (2004a). Hand, head and face: negative constructions in sign languages. Linguistic Typology, 8(1), 1-58. ______ (2004b). Interrogative constructions in signed languages: cross-linguistic perspectives. Language, 80(1), 7-39. ______ Negative and interrogative structures in Türk Isaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). In U. Zeshan (Ed.), Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages (pp. 128-164). Nijmegen: Ishara Press. Zeshan, U. (2008). Roots, leaves and branches – The typology of sign languages. In R. M. de Quadros (Ed.), Sign Languages: spinning and unraveling the past, present, and future. TISLR9, the Theoretical Issues in Sign Languages Research Conference. Petropolis/RJ, Brazil: Editorar Arara Azul. Zeshan, U., & De Vos, C. (Eds.) (2012). Sign languages in village communities: Anthropological and linguistic insights. Berlin: de Gruyter. Zeshan, U., Ergenç, E, İşsever, S., Makaroğlu, B. & Dikyuva, H. (2013, May). Türk İşaret Dili kullanıcılarında çokdilli görünümler. Paper presented at the 27th National Linguistics Congress, Antalya, 2-4 May 2013. Zwitserlood, I., Perniss, P. M., & Özyürek, A. (2012). An empirical investigation of expression of plural entities in Turkish Sign Language: Are there modality effects? Lingua, 112(14), 1636-1667. Zwitserlood, I., Perniss, P., & Özyürek, A. (2013). Expression of multiple entities in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). In E. Arık (Ed.), Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research (pp. 273-302). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

INDEX

312 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

313 INDEX English

Page no

ability

186, 226-8, 274

actor

see agent

168, 171, 176, 188, 209, 211-3, 263-4, 268, 275

adjective

14, 122-3, 141, 165, 193, 211, 213-6, 218, 241, 274

adposition

193, 217

adverb

165, 177-8, 182-3, 189, 193, 218, 224-5, 241

affix

8, 25, 97, 101-2, 107, 109, 113, 11620, 154, 1689, 171, 173, 176, 189, 206, 233

affixation

see affix

agreeing verb

see also agreement

13, 16-7, 20, 36-7, 43, 95, 107, 111, 123, 126, 153, 167-76, 188-9, 191, 193, 210, 274

agreement American Sign Language

14, 15, 17, 20, 111, 123, 125, 168-9, 171-4, 189, 191-93

see also ASL

3, 7, 13, 26, 29, 58

antonym

247, 253-6, 268, 275

article

193

ASL

3, 7, 12-4, 23, 42, 58, 66, 68, 70, 76, 85, 117, 149-51, 189, 194, 210, 246, 271

aspect

13-7, 43, 111, 120, 130, 167, 169, 177, 182, 184-5, 188, 221-4

assimilation

97-100, 156, 273-4

auditory-vocal modality

8, 273

AUSLAN

7, 13, 15-6, 153, 194, 210

Australian Sign Language

see AUSLAN

bilingual bilingualism

14-5, 43, 49, 56, 61, 88, 102, 271, 276 see bilingual

body lean

86

body-anchored

125, 153, 168, 171-2

borrowing

14-6, 20, 24-5, 107, 117, 133, 136, 147-51, 206, 251-2

British Sign Language

see BSL

BSL

3, 7, 12-6, 22, 36, 58, 117, 150-1, 210

Catalan Sign Language

68, 210

citation form

97-8, 100, 112, 157, 166, 169-70, 179-81,

classifier

13-7, 34, 43, 152, 154, 158-63, 210, 273-4

clitic clitization

113, 189, 228 see also clitic

113

314 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR English co-headed compound

Page no see compound

CODA Code of Ethics

6 see ethics

code-mixing

60

complement

136, 213-5, 217, 274

completive aspect

184, 222-3

compound

13, 36, 43, 97-8, 100-2, 107, 120, 12740, 215, 274

conjunction

193, 206, 239

Consent Form

3, 6, 27, 29, 43-4

coordination

16, 209, 239, 274

copulative compound

see compound

deaf community

5, 26-7, 31, 49, 54, 60-1, 88, 247

deafness

12, 31, 54-5

decategorization

118

declarative

189-91, 209, 218-9, 232, 235

deletion

96, 99-101, 139-40, 193

derivation

13, 15-6, 43, 100-1, 107, 109-11, 113, 116-8, 120-3, 127, 142, 144-6, 148, 152, 206, 274

derivational reduplication

see also reduplication 120-3, 127

descriptive classifier

161, 274

DGS

12, 150, 189, 210, 240

dialect

see also regional variation

13-6, 100, 168, 170, 221, 245, 261, 264-6, 268, 275

discourse discourse markers double-headed compound

14, 23, 250, 271

264-6, 268, 275 see compound

doubling

189

dual

173-5

ease of articulation

96, 98

ELAN

6, 28, 36-43, 272

endocentric compound

see compound

epenthesis

97, 100-101

ethics

3, 26-7, 29, 42

exclamation

193

exhaustive

173-5

exocentric compound experiencer

see compound 171, 176, 209, 211, 263-4, 268, 275

315 INDEX English

Page no

eye gaze

14, 86, 273

eyebrow movement

9, 17, 21, 68, 83, 86-7, 92, 146, 165, 181, 230, 232, 273-4

facial expressions

see also nonmanuals

12, 14, 16-7, 66, 68-9, 86-8, 273

fieldwork

4, 28-30, 35-7, 43, 271-2

fingerspelling

13-5, 22-3, 43, 51, 58, 60-1, 65, 102-4, 117, 135-6, 148-9, 248, 271, 273-4

full reduplication

see reduplication

German Sign Language

see DGS

goal

168, 176, 263-4, 268

grammatical time

8, 167, 182, 274

grammaticalization

118, 120, 182, 186, 226

handling classifier

17, 158, 162, 274

handshape assimilation

see also assimilation

97, 100

handshape deletion

see also deletion

100, 140

head movement

12, 14, 21, 66, 68, 80, 83, 85-7, 97, 165, 273-4

hearing impairment

4, 18, 54, 56

homonymy

248, 268

iconicity

15-6, 43, 156, 245-6, 268, 274

idiom

15, 245, 266-8, 275

inceptive aspect

184-5

inflection

13-6, 43, 107, 109, 111, 113-4, 116, 121, 124-7, 142, 152, 167-8, 171, 184, 206, 274

inflectional reduplication

see also reduplication 107, 121, 124-7

instrument classifier

158, 161

intensification

165-7, 169

interrogative

7, 14, 21, 36, 43, 209, 218, 231-6, 239

intonation

9, 17, 67, 85

ISL

13, 16-7, 117, 210

Israeli Sign Language

see ISL

language contact

5-6, 11, 14, 43, 49, 56-8, 61, 88, 102

Language Profile Form left-headed compound

3, 6, 29, 43, 46 see compound

lexical time

182-3

lexicalized fingerspelling

13, 61, 102-3, 248, 273

location assimilation manner

see also assimilation

97-100 14-5, 82, 107, 144, 167, 169, 177-82, 188, 194, 198-9, 273

316 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR English

Page no

manual alphabet

59, 70, 148

marked handshape metacompound

69, 73, 76-9 see compound

metaphor

14-6, 43, 116, 130, 183, 245, 247, 25660, 263, 266, 268, 275

metonymy

43, 245, 247, 260, 268, 275

minimal pair

8, 9, 14, 43, 65-70, 74-91, 104

modal

182, 186-8, 194, 221, 226-30, 274

mood

see also modal/modality

morph morpheme

14-5, 43, 226, 274 109

see Chapter 4

mouth gestures

66, 86-9

mouthing

14, 17, 60-1, 86-8, 111, 148, 182, 273

movement addition / epenthesis see also epenthesis

100

movement deletion

see deletion

multilingual multilingualism

43, 49, 54, 56, 102 see multilingual

necessity

186, 188, 226, 274

negation

14-7, 43, 97, 111, 219-23, 235, 241, 274

negative ability

186, 226-8

negative completion

223

negative perfective

111, 222, 224

negative possibility

226-9

NGT nominal plurality

85, 194, 271 see plurality

124-5

nonmanual

12, 16, 21, 43, 66-9, 85-97, 107, 111-2, 146, 165-166, 181-7, 204, 211, 219, 223, 229-38, 274

noun modification

152-155, 167

noun phrase

9, 43, 135, 152, 155, 159, 201, 209-17, 241, 274

number agreement

see also agreement

numeral incorporation

13, 110, 141-3, 155-6, 206

obligation partial reduplication

107, 111, 123, 126, 167-9, 173-6, 274 186-8, 274

see also reduplication 121, 165

patient

168, 171, 176, 209-13, 263, 268, 275

permission

186,7, 226

person agreement

see also agreement

20, 36-7, 95, 111, 123, 126, 167-76, 191, 274

317 INDEX English

Page no

phoneme

see Chapter 3

phonetics

see Chapter 3 16, 65, 96-7, 100-4, 107, 118, 139-40, 219, 273-4

phonological processes phonological rules

see phonological processes

phonology

see Chapter 3

16, 43, 65, 107, 273-4

place of articulation

67, 69, 83, 97-8

plurality

43, 107, 120, 124-7, 154, 173

polar question

see also yes-no question

231-5, 241

polysemy

247, 249, 268

prefix

8, 116, 144, 171-2

progressive aspect

184-5, 222

pronominal

see also pronoun

15, 17, 153, 189-90

pronoun

14-7, 36-7, 43, 107, 167, 189-93, 2016, 217, 274

prosody

17, 21, 91-4

puffed cheek

88, 112

pursed lips

179, 187

question particle

9-10, 233-4

reciprocal reciprocity

107, 168, 188-93, 201, 204 see reciprocal

reduplication

107, 120-7, 165, 189

regional variation

3, 4, 6, 14, 19, 22-3, 30, 42-3, 250, 271-2

repetition

120-7, 145, 166, 174-5, 181, 191, 197, 206, 274

right-headed compound

see compound

selected finger

69, 73-8, 93, 100, 159

semantic classifier semantics

13, 14, 16, 43, 159-60, 273-4 see Chapter 6

sequentiality

16, 43, 89, 91, 104

Sign Language of the Netherlands

see NGT

sign order

see word order

simultaneity

13, 15, 16, 43, 89-90, 92, 104, 234, 273

size and shape specifiers

15, 107, 152, 156-7

source

151, 168, 176, 256, 263-4, 268, 275

spatial verb

see also agreement

15, 168-9, 176-7

318 TURKISH SIGN LANGUAGE GRAMMAR English subject-verb agreement

Page no see agreement

subordination

209, 239

suffix

8, 9, 25, 107, 116-20, 144, 171-2, 184, 200, 219, 222, 226-9

syllable

see Chapter 3

synonymy

247, 250-1, 253

syntax

see Chapter 5

tense

see time

theme

168, 171, 176, 263, 268

time

8, 15, 17, 141-2, 167, 177, 182-8, 224, 256-8, 274

Turkish Sign Language Research Ethical Principles

see ethics

unmarked handshape

69, 73, 76-8

unselected finger

69, 73-4

visual-gestural modality

8, 57, 91, 109, 156, 201

wh-questions

9, 14, 17, 21, 236-8

whiffled mouth

88

word order

210-6

yes-no questions

9, 10, 14, 21, 232-4

zero-marking

189