Analysis of Relative Clause Constructions (RCC) in Turkish ... · Analysis of Relative Clause Constructions (RCC) in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) in Discourse Modes Okan Kubus & Christian

1

Analysis of Relative ClauseConstructions (RCC) in

Turkish Sign Language (TİD)in Discourse Modes

Okan Kubus & Christian RathmannUniversität Hamburg

33. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS)

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen 23. - 25. Februar 2011

2

Outline• Introduction

– RCCs in Sign Languages– RCCs in TiD

• Methodology• Discourse Modes• Proposal: Interaction between RCCs and

Discourse Modes• Analysis using (Segmented) Discourse

Representation Theory• Conclusion and Discussion

3

Relative Clause:Working Definition

– „A Relative Clause (RC) is a subordinate clause whichdelimits the reference of Noun Phrase (NP) by specifying therole of the referent of that NP is in the role of the referent ofthat NP in the situation described by the RC“(Andrews 2008, p.206)

– „What distinguishes relative clauses from other subordinateclauses is that there is a direct link between an element inthe relative and in the matrix.“(de Vries, p.1)

– IHRC vs. EHRC

4

Overview on RCCs in Sign Lgs• American SL (ASL):

– Liddell 1978, 1980, 2003: IHRC (Internal HeadRelative Clause)

• Italian SL (LIS):– Branchini 2006: PE clauses, IHRC– Cecchetto et al. 2004: Correlatives– Brunelli 2006: EHRC (External Head Relative Clause)

• Hong Kong SL (HKSL):– Tang et al. 2010: IHRC

• Brazil SL (LIBRAS):– Nunes & de Quadros 2004 (in Branchini et al 2007)

EHRC

5

RCCs in TİD

• TİD: IHRC– Nonmanual cues:

• cheek-raise and tensed upper lip• Squint: Shared Information

(Dackovsky & Sandler 2009)

• (Optional) Relative Pronouns– co-occur with raised eyebrows– optional mouthing: /o/ (open lip)

6

IHRCRCs in TiD > 3. RCs in TiD > c. Preliminary Results

rc [ İKİNCİ ÜÇÜNCÜ EVLİ EVLİ AYNI ] O(iki el) MiSAFiR(istes) SOHBET [ SECOND THIRD MARRIED MARRIED SAME ] PROREL(2h) VISIT(rec) CHAT Second and third women, both of whom are married too, were chatting.

7

Methodology

Corpus-Based Data:

– Naturalistic data (approx. 3 hours video)– Free storytellings– sign vlogs (publicly accessible in internet)

– monologues in various discourse modes:– narrative, descriptive and information modes

(Smith 2003)

8

Annotation and Transcription: iLex

9

Discourse modes

• Narrative– Consists episodes, events and states in sequences, which are

temporally related to each other

• (movie 8 code 242)

rc– [FIRSTi GET-PREGNANT CANNOT OLD] PRORELi GET-PRENANT.

• The first (woman), who cannot get pregnant and is old, got pregnant.

(Smith 2001 p.186)

Discourse modes

• Description– Introduces states and events into universe of discorse. Tense is

anaphoric to an established time.

• . (movie 7 code 0035)

– [RELATIVE FACTORY CEMENTi WORK FACTORYi] PRORELiBEAUTIFUL GOOD RELIABLE.

• The cement factory where my relatives works is good, reliable.

10

Discourse modes

• Informative– Introduces generalizing statives, which are atemporal

• (movie 18 code 0011)

rc– [HOUSE SOME PAPER WALLi EXIST] PRORELi FOR REMOVE

• The wall papers which some houses have should be removed

11

Discourse modes

• Report– Like Narrative, concerned with events and states, but in Report mode

Speech Time determines the temporal advancement.

BEISPIEL HIER

12

13

Semantic-Discourse Functionsof RCCs

• Head– Introduction: bringing out new Head– Reintroduction: a referent brought into focal

consciousness

• Modifying Clause– Identification: establishing the referent– Reidentification: given referents are reintroduction– Characterization: express additional descriptive

information about head

(Aksu-Koç & Erguvanlı Taylan 1998, p. 277)

Proposal

• RCs exhibit distinct semantic andpragmatic functions in certaindiscourse modes.

– (1) RCCs exhibit more frequently innarrative contexts

– (2) RCCs in TİD• Narrative: Reidentification• Descriptive & Information: Characterization

14

15

Token Analysis

• Token Analysis:– 106 RC-constructions (out of 2456 chunks)

934Report1759Information314Description

196592Narrative

ChunkRCoccurence

16

Functions of RCCs in Discourse

• According to the data, RCCs in TİD isobserved to have two basic discoursefunctions:– RCCs as discourse deixis (Characterization)

• No discourse anaphora

– RCCs as anaphora (Reidentification)• Referents or events have reference within the text.• Justified with SDRT

17

Segmented DRT(Asher & Lascarides 2003)

• Framework for the examples involvinganaphora and other kinds of semanticdisambiguities

• in Rhetorical Structure

• Discourse referents is also involved, we caninterrelate the labels (π1... πk).

18

rel(4) [ İKİNCİi ÜÇÜNCÜj EVLİ EVLİ AYNI ] O(iki el)i,j SOHBET [ SECONDi THIRDj MARRIED MARRIED SAME ] PROREL(2h)i,j CHAT

Second and third women, both of whom are married too, were chatting.

Context: (in a village) There arethree women. One ofthem is single while two of them aremarried. Single onesis jealous of these married womenbecause they are visitingeachother.

19

SDRSSegmented Discourse Representation Structures

• ....• π3:There were three women knowing each

other for years• π4: One woman was married• π4: Another woman married thereafter• π5: The one was still single• ....• π10: Second and third women, both of

whom are married too, visited each other.

20

Rhethorical Structure TheoryMann & Thompson (1988)

π3

π4 π5 π6

π10

elaboration

elaboration

narration narration

21

Results

22

8-118Information

1-3-4Report

4--13Description

1468107412Narrative

CharacterizedReidentifiedIdentifiedReintroducedIntroduced

Modifying ClauseHead

23

Conclusion

• RCCs => narrative context– Refers to the entities which are introduced earlier– REINTRODUCTION

• descriptive and informative modes =>disambiguation / clarification– Shared information with addressee– CHARACTERIZATION

• RCCs in TİD should be analyzed atsemantic/discourse level.

24

ComparisonTİD vs. Turkish

• RCCs in TİD in narrative context– (Re)identification

• RCCs as discourse anaphora– Modality specific?

• Turkish Relative Clauses in narrative context– Aksu-Koç & Erguvanlı Taylan 1998– Characterization

25

Implications

• Modality dependent features– Nonmanual elements– Functions: (probably) reidentification

• Language specific features– Syntactic constructions– Semantic functions

26

References• Andrews, A. 2008. Relative clauses. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description,

vol 2. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.• Asher, N. & A. Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.• Bergman, B. 1995. Manual and nonmanual expression of negation in Swedish Sign Language. In: Bos,

H. & T. Schermer (eds.) Sign Language Research 1994. Proceedings of the 4th European Congress onSign Language Research, München 1994. Hamburg: Signum Press, 85-103.

• Branchini, C. 2006. On relativization and clefting in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Ph.D. dissertation,University of Urbino.

• Branchini, C., Caterina D., Roland P. & Markus S. 2007. Relatively similar: Relative clause typology andsign languages. 2nd Conference of the Association Francaise de Linguistique Cognitive (AFLiCo),Lille, May 10th, 2007.

• Brunelli, M. (2006), The grammar of Italian Sign Language, with a study about its restrictive relativeclauses. Tesi di Laurea Specialistica, Universita Ca’Foscari, Venezia.

• Cecchetto, C., C. Geraci & S. Zucchi. 2006. Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. NaturalLanguage & Linguistic Theory 24, pp. 945-975.

• Chafe, W. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, Russel. (ed.). 1987. Coherenceand Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 21-52.

• Dachkovsky, S. & Sandler, W. 2009. Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. (PDF)Language and Speech 52 (2/3), pp. 287-314.

• Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. 1993. From discourse to logic: introduction to modeltheoretic semantics ofnatural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers,London, Boston, Dordrecht. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Volume 42

• Mann, W. C. and S. A. Thompson, 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of textorganization, Text 8(3), 243-281.

27

• Liddell, S. 1978. Non-manual signals and relative clauses in ASL. In P. Siple (ed.),Understanding Language through Sign Language Research pp. 59-90. New York:Academic Press.

• Liddell, S. 1980. American Sign Language Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.• Liddell, S. K. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.• Nunes, J. & R. M. de Quadros 2004. Phonetic realization of multiple copies in Brazilian

Sign Language. Paper presented at 8th Conference on Theoretical Issues in SignLanguage Research (TISLR 8), Barcelona, September 2004.

• Smith C. 2001. Discourse Modes: aspectual entities and tense interpretation. Cahiers deGrammatique. Cahiers de Grammatique, 26, pp.183-206.

• Smith, C. S. 2003. Modes of discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.• Tang, G., Lau, P. & J. Lee 2010. Strategies of Relativization in Hong Kong Sign Language.

Unpublished paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Theoretical Issues inSign Language Research, Purdue, the US.

• Taylan, E.E., & A.A. Koc, 1998. Function of Relative Clauses in Narrative Discourse. InLars Johanson (ed.) Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on TurkishLinguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag, 271-285.

• Vries, M. de. 2002. The syntax of relativization. LOT, Utrecht, Netherlands.

28

Additional slides

29

Interaction between RCCsand Discourse modes

• Smith (2003)– Five main discourse modes:

• (i) Narrative• (ii) Description• (iii) Report• (iv) Information• (v) Argument

30

RCCs within (S)DRTframwork

• Discourse Representation Theory (Kampand Reyle 1993)‘s core function:

– to assign meaning to natural language texts anddiscourses

– to account for the contextual dependency ofmeaning

31

Discourse Anaphora

• Strongly observed in narrativecontext

• RCCs as anaphora (see the example SDRS)• Chafe (1987) Cognitive Constraints on

Information Flow– Activation: „active“, „inactive“, „semi-active“– linguistic constituents with grammatical cues: given

information (Chafe 1987) (In this case RCCs)

32

Comparison• TİD RCCs

– Reidentification

• Turkish RC– Characterization (Aksu-Koç & Erguvanlı Taylan 1998)

• [+ human] animate referents• [- human] temporal locative expressions

• [- definite]: evaluative function (voice shift)– i.e. someone

• (Re)Identification (Which one?) vs. Characterization (How?)