BLC day on 03.02.2016
The Department of Linguistics is happy to announce six talks on linguistic topics as part of the BLC day on Friday, February 3rd. The talks will take place in JF 321 and will be open to everyone.
We hope to welcome many of you, both faculty and students.
Location: JF, 321
|10:00-10:30||Structural puzzles: diye and de- 'say|
|10:30-11:10||Turkish person markers and the debate about the theoretical significance of paradigms|
|Münevver E. Akşehirli|
|11:30-12:10||The Talking Dictionary: A Tool for Community-Led Language Revitalization|
|13:10-13:50||A Morphosemantic Analysis of Turkish Suffixes That Derive Nouns From Verbs|
|13:50-14:30||Socio-historical background of Turkish Sign Language|
|Süleyman S. Taşçı|
|14:50-15:30||Valence and saturation in phonology|
Hilal Gündoğdu, Structural puzzles: diye and de- 'say
Diye is frequently observed marking a variety of subordinate clauses that include complement clauses, adverbial clauses and relative clause-like constructions in Turkish. A model that is first introduced for Kalmyk (Knyazev, 2015) and modified in this study for Turkish seems to present a unified analysis for all but one of the instances of diye. Although it is common for diye to introduce the content of verbs of quotation, i.e. to mark ‘content clauses’ (Jespersen, 1933), it is not the case when this verb is de- ‘say’ unless the subordinate clause with diye denotes the reason of the action denoted by the matrix verb which is de- ‘say’ in our case. An alternative analysis seems to cover that exception yet creates another one. It fails to explain the co-occurrence of diye and de- ‘say’ when the subordinate clause with diye appears post-verbally. In this talk, you will be presented these two analyses for diye. We will discuss these analyses and the problems they pose together in the search for an answer.
Münevver E. Akşehirli, Turkish person markers and the debate about the theoretical significance of paradigms
This presentation will introduce the primary motivation for my thesis which aims to focus on the structure of person markers in Turkish. The studies have mainly dealt with the question whether the paradigmatic sets of person markers are affixes or clitics and their morphosyntactic behavior. However, not only paradigm-internal but also transparadigmatic relations and different patterning of these markers along with the disputable theoretical significance of paradigms need investigation.
Audrey Richardson, The Talking Dictionary: A Tool for Community-Led Language Revitalization
This multimedia presentation will introduce the concept of the talking dictionary (TD), detailing its form, function, and impact. The role of both linguists and communities in language revitalization efforts (specifically in the development of TDs) will be explored. The presentation will conclude by discussing common shortcomings of existing TDs and describing an ongoing research project aiming to remedy these shortcomings in the creation of a modified TD for the Pazar dialect of Laz.
Noyan Dokudan, A Morphosemantic Analysis of Turkish Suffixes That Derive Nouns From Verbs
I present the results of a study which tested whether some derivational morphemes in Turkish carry more dominant meanings compared to others. 43 suffixes which form nominals from verbal bases were identified. Using existing verb roots and suffixes, 86 possible Turkish words were created. Participants were required to assign meanings to these words and also rate their feasibility of existing in Turkish through an online questionnaire. Specific semantic functions of suffixes are discussed.
Filiz Mutlu, Valence and saturation in phonology
Segmental components (features, elements, etc) are unequal in their contribution to phonotactic strength and their role in phonological interactions. For example, nasals assimilate to obstruents but not vice versa; in+possible → impossible. Existing theories assume acoustic/articulatory components which stand in no inherent hierarchical relation to one another. They cope with attested asymmetries by arranging these components into feature-geometric nodes (Clements 1985, Padgett 1994) or by assigning properties like charm (Kaye et al. 1990). Such arrangement is stipulative since it does not follow from the components themselves.