Papers, thesis and talks by Beste Kamali
Theoretical Linguistics, 2020
Much recent research has recognized the importance of focus and contrastive topic in assertions f... more Much recent research has recognized the importance of focus and contrastive topic in assertions for discourse coherence. However, with few exceptions, it has been neglected that focus and contrastive topic also occur in questions, and have a similar role in establishing coherence. We propose a framework of dynamic interpretation based on the notion of Commitment Spaces that show that a uniform interpretation of focus and contrastive topic is possible. The algebraic representation format is rich enough so that a separate introduction of discourse trees is not necessary. The paper discusses these phenomena for Turkish, a language with an explicit focus marker for polar and alternative questions, which distinguishes focus from contrastive topic.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Pre-print version of paper that appeared in Turkic Languages 18, 2014
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Proceedings of ICTL 16 at METU, D. Zeyrek et al. (eds.), 2015
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Proceedings of ICTL 16 at METU, D. Zeyrek et al. (eds.), 2015
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Turcology and Linguistics: Eva Csato Festschrift. N. Demir et al. (eds.), 2014
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Proceedings of WAFL 8, 2013
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
in proceedings of WCCFL 28, Mary Byram Washburn, Sarah Ouwayda, Chuoying Ouyang, Bin Yin, Canan Ipek, Lisa Marston, Aaron Walker (eds)
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This thesis presents new data in Turkish concerning phrasing and accent representation, question ... more This thesis presents new data in Turkish concerning phrasing and accent representation, question particle placement, and scope-sensitive prosodic phrasing. The issues at hand are discussed and analyzed within the perspective of minimalist assumptions to syntax and the interfaces, focusing on the PF interface.
To set the record straight in terms of previous research, Chapter 2 is devoted to a detailed critical review of the relevant literature in word accent, phrase and sentence accent, and phrasing in Turkish.
Chapter 3 amends some of the shortcomings of previous research with an intonation experiment investigating the focus-neutral phrasing and intonation in Turkish. The results are described and analyzed from the perspective of a pitch accent language, and tied to recent proposals of PF mapping of prosodic phrases relying on multiple spellout, where the highest phrase in the spellout domain is phrased as a Major Phrase within another Major Phrase corresponding roughly to the VP .
Chapter 4 introduces new data concerning the placement of the yes/no question particle. After reviewing prosodic, semantic, and syntactic factors at play, it is argued that the wide focus placement of the particle follows main stress. In parallel to the main stress analysis, an analysis relying on multiple spellout is presented where the particle phrase merges with the VP and attracts the closest phrase to its specifier. Moreover, in this chapter it is shown that the landscape of pre-stressing particles including the question particle can be addressed in syntactic terms.
Chapter 5 takes up another interface issue: phrasing-induced scope-taking. It is argued that this phrasing instantiates the IP in Turkish and it is show with various locality effects and a parallelism between Japanese and Turkish that IP phrasing also has its roots in the syntax.
The main tenet in all of these explanations is syntactocentric. This approach is not to be mistaken to invade the territory of other subdisciplines, however. It is instead presented as an overall viable and effective approach to deal with problems at the interfaces to account for phenomena which Phonology or Semantics alone have to have recourse to undesired irregularities and ad hoc adjustments.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The Uppsala Meeting. Eva Csato et al. (eds.), 2016
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
3rd Conference on Tone & Intonation in …, Jan 1, 2008
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This paper provides an instrumental description of the durational properties of Turkish vowels as... more This paper provides an instrumental description of the durational properties of Turkish vowels as part of a larger research project for a fuller acoustic description of the sounds of the language. The basic aim of the paper is to contribute to the very few instrumental phonetic analyses of Turkish. By using audio recording and speech processing tools such as WaveSurfer, HTK, and WavRec, 111 Turkish words uttered by 6 native speakers were recorded and analyzed in terms of mean durations of eight equally distributed Modern Standard Turkish (MST) vowels. It is found that (i) vowels in the initial syllables of multisyllabic words have significantly lower mean durations when compared to vowels in final syllables; (ii) high vowels have lower mean durations than low vowels, confirming the findings of some earlier studies (Şayli 2002), (Şayli & Arslan 2003).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Older versions by Beste Kamali
to appear in Proceedings of ICTL 16, METU
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
to appear in Proceedings of ICTL 16, METU
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers, thesis and talks by Beste Kamali
To set the record straight in terms of previous research, Chapter 2 is devoted to a detailed critical review of the relevant literature in word accent, phrase and sentence accent, and phrasing in Turkish.
Chapter 3 amends some of the shortcomings of previous research with an intonation experiment investigating the focus-neutral phrasing and intonation in Turkish. The results are described and analyzed from the perspective of a pitch accent language, and tied to recent proposals of PF mapping of prosodic phrases relying on multiple spellout, where the highest phrase in the spellout domain is phrased as a Major Phrase within another Major Phrase corresponding roughly to the VP .
Chapter 4 introduces new data concerning the placement of the yes/no question particle. After reviewing prosodic, semantic, and syntactic factors at play, it is argued that the wide focus placement of the particle follows main stress. In parallel to the main stress analysis, an analysis relying on multiple spellout is presented where the particle phrase merges with the VP and attracts the closest phrase to its specifier. Moreover, in this chapter it is shown that the landscape of pre-stressing particles including the question particle can be addressed in syntactic terms.
Chapter 5 takes up another interface issue: phrasing-induced scope-taking. It is argued that this phrasing instantiates the IP in Turkish and it is show with various locality effects and a parallelism between Japanese and Turkish that IP phrasing also has its roots in the syntax.
The main tenet in all of these explanations is syntactocentric. This approach is not to be mistaken to invade the territory of other subdisciplines, however. It is instead presented as an overall viable and effective approach to deal with problems at the interfaces to account for phenomena which Phonology or Semantics alone have to have recourse to undesired irregularities and ad hoc adjustments.
Older versions by Beste Kamali
To set the record straight in terms of previous research, Chapter 2 is devoted to a detailed critical review of the relevant literature in word accent, phrase and sentence accent, and phrasing in Turkish.
Chapter 3 amends some of the shortcomings of previous research with an intonation experiment investigating the focus-neutral phrasing and intonation in Turkish. The results are described and analyzed from the perspective of a pitch accent language, and tied to recent proposals of PF mapping of prosodic phrases relying on multiple spellout, where the highest phrase in the spellout domain is phrased as a Major Phrase within another Major Phrase corresponding roughly to the VP .
Chapter 4 introduces new data concerning the placement of the yes/no question particle. After reviewing prosodic, semantic, and syntactic factors at play, it is argued that the wide focus placement of the particle follows main stress. In parallel to the main stress analysis, an analysis relying on multiple spellout is presented where the particle phrase merges with the VP and attracts the closest phrase to its specifier. Moreover, in this chapter it is shown that the landscape of pre-stressing particles including the question particle can be addressed in syntactic terms.
Chapter 5 takes up another interface issue: phrasing-induced scope-taking. It is argued that this phrasing instantiates the IP in Turkish and it is show with various locality effects and a parallelism between Japanese and Turkish that IP phrasing also has its roots in the syntax.
The main tenet in all of these explanations is syntactocentric. This approach is not to be mistaken to invade the territory of other subdisciplines, however. It is instead presented as an overall viable and effective approach to deal with problems at the interfaces to account for phenomena which Phonology or Semantics alone have to have recourse to undesired irregularities and ad hoc adjustments.