1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Sign Language & Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of ve (‘and’) as a multifunctional discourse connective in Turkish-to-Turkish Sign Language simultaneous interpreting
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This study investigates the multifunctionality of the Turkish discourse connective ‘and’ in simultaneous interpreting from Turkish into Turkish Sign Language (TİD) in broadcast news. Using a corpus of interpreted news texts, it examines how this polyfunctional connective is transferred across modalities. Drawing on Halliday and Hasan’s cohesion model and the Penn Discourse Treebank typology, the study identifies discourse relations expressed by ve — such as , and — and analyzes how they are conveyed in TİD through explicit signs, implicit marking, or omission. Most relations are preserved, though often implicitly, reflecting the economy principle in signed languages. Manual signs used to express , including -1 and , vary systematically with relation type. This points to a cross-modal tendency for explicit realization under increased processing demands. As the data derive from hearing interpreters rather than native Deaf signers, the findings reflect interpreter-mediated strategies rather than monolingual Deaf discourse norms.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.25005.cel
2026-08-13
2026-09-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sll.25005.cel
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Asada, Yuko
    2019 General use coordination in Japanese and Japanese Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics(). –. 10.1075/sll.18003.asa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18003.asa [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
    2007 Segmented discourse representation theory: Dynamic semantics with discourse structure. InHans Bunt, Reinhard Muskens & Elias Thijsse (eds.), Computing meaning II, –. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑0572‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0572-2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Asr, Fatemeh Torabi & Vera Demberg
    2012 Implicitness of discourse relations. InProceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, –. Mumbai, India: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee. https://aclanthology.org/C12-1163.pdf (accessed15 July 2026).
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Mona
    1992 In other words: A coursebook on translation. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bell, Roger T.
    1991 Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
    1999 Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1986 Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. InJuliane House & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition, –. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2000 Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. InLawrence Venuti (ed.), The translation studies reader, –. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Braffort, Annelies, Laurence Bolot, Estelle Chételat-Pelé, Maxime Delorme, Michael Filhol, Jérémie Segouat, Cyril Verrecchia, Flora Badin & Nadège Devos
    2010 Sign language corpora for analysis, processing and evaluation. InProceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10), –. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/555_Paper.pdf (accessed15 July 2026). 10.63317/59aju62ddtfd
     https://doi.org/10.63317/59aju62ddtfd [Google Scholar]
  10. Brentari, Diane
    1998 A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohen, Jacob
    1960 A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement(). –. 10.1177/001316446002000104
     https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 [Google Scholar]
  12. Comrie, Bernard, Martin Haspelmath & Balthasar Bickel
    2008 The Leipzig glossing rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Revised version of February 2008. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/pdf/Glossing-Rules.pdf (accessedJuly 15 2026).
  13. Conker, Nesrin
    2020 Sign language interpreting in the Turkish public service domains in the 21st century. Translation Studies Journal. –. 10.37599/ceviri.811094
     https://doi.org/10.37599/ceviri.811094 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cormier, Kearsy, Adam Schembri & Bencie Woll
    2010 Diversity across sign languages and spoken languages: Implications for language universals. Lingua(). –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.016 [Google Scholar]
  15. Coppock, Peter J.
    1992 Interpreting discourse — signs for the future?InJudith Plant-Moeller (ed.), Expanding horizons: Proceedings of the twelfth national convention of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, –. Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications. https://search.worldcat.org/de/title/expanding-horizons-proceedings-of-the-12th-national-convention-of-the-registry-of-interpreters-for-the-deaf-august-6-11-1991/oclc/28601924 (accessed15 July 2026).
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Crible, Ludivine, Ágnes Abuczki, Nijolė Burkšaitienė, Péter Furkó, Anna Nedoluzhko, Sigita Rackevičienė, Giedrė Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė & Šárka Zikánová
    2019 Functions and translations of discourse markers in TED Talks: A parallel corpus study of underspecification in five languages. Journal of Pragmatics. –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.012 [Google Scholar]
  17. Crible, Ludivine & Sílvia Gabarro-Lopez
    2020 Coherence relations across speech and sign language: A comparable corpus study of additive connectives. Languages in Contrast(). –. 10.1075/lic.19010.cri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19010.cri [Google Scholar]
  18. Cuenca, Maria-Josep
    2022 Translating discourse markers: Implicitation and explicitation strategies. InMaria-Josep Cuenca & Liesbeth Degand (eds.), Discourse markers in interaction: From production to comprehension, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110790351‑009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110790351-009 [Google Scholar]
  19. Davidson, Kathryn
    2013 ‘And’ or ‘or’: General use coordination in ASL. Semantics & Pragmatics(). –. 10.3765/sp.6.4
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.4 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dikyuva, Hasan, Bahtiyar Makaroğlu & Engin Arık
    2015 Turkish Sign Language grammar book. Ankara: Republic of Turkey Ministry of Family and Social Policies. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314041221_Turkish_Sign_Language_Grammar (accessed15 July 2026).
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Fox Tree, Jean E.
    2014 Discourse markers in writing. Discourse Studies(). –. 10.1177/1461445614557758
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614557758 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fraser, Bruce
    1999 What are discourse markers?Journal of Pragmatics(). –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00101‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gabarró-López, Sílvia
    2019 When the meaning of same is not restricted to likeness: A preliminary study from the perspective of discourse relational devices in two sign languages. Discourse. 10.4000/discours.10053
     https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.10053 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2020 Are discourse markers related to age and educational background? A comparative account between two sign languages. Journal of Pragmatics. –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.019 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2024 Towards a description of palm-up in bidirectional signed language interpreting. Lingua. 103646. 10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103646
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103646 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2025 Discourse markers in French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB) dialogues and their translation into French: A corpus-based study. Languages(). . 10.3390/languages10090243
     https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10090243 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gile, Daniel
    2009 Comprehension of specialized discourse in interpreting and translation. InBasic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8.04com
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8.04com [Google Scholar]
  28. Gökçe, İmren
    2018 (In)Accessibility of the Deaf to the television contents through sign language interpreting and SDH in Turkey. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake
    2005 Turkish: A Comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hartmann, Katharina, Roland Pfau & Iris Legeland
    2021 Asymmetry and contrast: Coordination in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics, Article 101. 10.16995/glossa.5872
     https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5872 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hoek, Jet, Sandrine Zufferey, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders
    2017 Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics. –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hoza, Jack
    2011 The discourse and politeness functions of hey and well in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet UniversityMA thesis. https://ssl.gallaudet.edu/gupress/excerpts/DISL.pdf (accessed15 July 2026). 10.2307/j.ctv2rh28s4.9
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh28s4.9 [Google Scholar]
  34. Johanson, Lars
    1996 Kopierte Satzjunktoren im Türkischen. STUF-Language Typology and Universals. –. 10.1524/stuf.1996.49.1.39
     https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.1996.49.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2010 Three kinds of clause junctors. InGeorg Ziegelmeyer & Norbert Cyffer (eds.) Aspects of co- and subordination. Case studies from African, Slavonic, and Turkic languages, –. Cologne: Köppe Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 2021 Turkic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139016704
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704 [Google Scholar]
  37. Johnston, Trevor
    2015 Auslan corpus annotation guidelines. Sydney: Macquarie University; Melbourne: La Trobe University. https://media.auslan.org.au/django-summernote/2024-07-01/AuslanCorpusAnnotationGuidelines_UpLoaded_2024_07_01.pdf (accessed15 July 2026).
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kelly, Jean E.
    2004 ASL-to-English interpretation: “Say it like they mean it.”Alexandria, VA: RID Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Knott, Alistair & Robert Dale
    1994 Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes(). –. 10.1080/01638539409544883
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544883 [Google Scholar]
  40. Konrad, Reiner, Thomas Hanke, Susanne König, Gabriele Langer, Silke Matthes, Rie Nishio & Anja Regen
    2012 From form to function: Annotating the DGS corpus. InProceedings of the LREC2012 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between Corpus and Lexicon, –, Istanbul, Turkey. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kunz, Kerstin & Ekaterina Laphinova-Koltunski
    2015 Cross-linguistic analysis of discourse variation across registers. Nordic Journal of English Studies(). –. 10.35360/njes.347
     https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.347 [Google Scholar]
  42. La Bue, Mary A.
    1998 Interpreted education: A study of deaf students’ access to the content and form of literacy instruction in a mainstreamed high school English class. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPhD dissertation. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. No. 9830061.
  43. Landis, J. Richard & Gary G. Koch
    1977 An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics(). –. 10.2307/2529786
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786 [Google Scholar]
  44. Langer, Elizabeth C.
    2007 Classroom discourse and interpreted education: What is conveyed to Deaf elementary school students. Boulder, CO: University of ColoradoPhD dissertation. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. No. 3256442.
  45. Liddell, Scott K.
    2003 Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lu, Pengfei & Matt Huenerfauth
    2010 Collecting a motion-capture corpus of American Sign Language for data-driven generation research. InProceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Speech and Language Processing for Assistive Technologies, –. Los Angeles, CA. https://aclanthology.org/W10-1312.pdf (accessed15 July 2026).
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Lugaresi, Camillo & Barbara Di Eugenio
    2013 Translating Italian connectives into Italian Sign Language. InProceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, –. Sofia, Bulgaria. https://aclanthology.org/P13-1027.pdf (accessed15 July 2026).
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Maier, Robert M., Carolin Hofmockel & Anita Fetzer
    2016 The negotiation of discourse relations in context: Co-constructing degrees of overtness. Intercultural Pragmatics(). –. 10.1515/ip‑2016‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0003 [Google Scholar]
  49. Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1988 Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text(). –. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
  50. McDermid, Campbell
    2014 Cohesion in English to ASL simultaneous interpreting. Translation & Interpreting(). –. 10.12807/ti.106201.2014.a05
     https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.106201.2014.a05 [Google Scholar]
  51. McKee, Rachel
    1992 Footing shifts in American Sign Language lectures. Los Angeles, CA: University of CaliforniaPhD dissertation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316588419_Footing_Shifts_in_American_Sign_Language_Lectures (accessed15 July 2026).
  52. Metzger, Melanie & Ben Bahan
    2001 Discourse analysis. InCeil Lucas (ed.), The sociolinguistics of sign languages, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612824.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612824.007 [Google Scholar]
  53. Morrissey, Sara, Harold Somers, Robert Smith, Shane Gilchrist & Sandipan Dandapat
    2010 Building sign language corpus for use in machine translation. InProceedings of the 4th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpora and Sign Language Technologies (CSLT 2010), –. Valletta, Malta. https://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/lrec/pub/10032.pdf (accessed15 July 2026).
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Murray, John D.
    1997 Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition(). –. 10.3758/BF03201114
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114 [Google Scholar]
  55. Pérez, Yolanda
    2006 Manual markers in narrative discourse in Venezuelan Sign Language. Letras(). –. https://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?pid=S0459-12832006000100006&script=sci_arttext (accessed15 July 2026).
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Prasad, Rashmi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi & Bonnie Webber
    2008 The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. InProceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08). www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/pdf/754_paper.pdf (accessed15 July 2026). 10.63317/55sr8v9kexr7
     https://doi.org/10.63317/55sr8v9kexr7 [Google Scholar]
  57. Rodrigues, Angélica & Roland Pfau
    2023 Language prejudice and language structure: On missing and emerging conjunctions in Libras and other sign languages. InGladis Massini-Cagliari, Rosane Andrade Berlinck & Angélica Rodrigues (eds.), Understanding linguistic prejudice: Critical approaches to language diversity in Brazil, –. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑031‑25806‑0_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25806-0_10 [Google Scholar]
  58. Roy, Cynthia B.
    1989 Features of discourse in an American Sign Language lecture. InCeil Lucas (ed.), The sociolinguistics of deaf communities, –. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑458045‑9.50017‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-458045-9.50017-3 [Google Scholar]
  59. Russell, Debra
    2005 Consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. InTerry Janzen (ed.), Topics in signed language interpreting, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.63.10rus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.10rus [Google Scholar]
  60. Sanders, Ted
    2005 Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. InProceedings of the SEM-05: First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning, –. University of Toulouse-le-Mirail. https://research-portal.uu.nl/en/publications/coherence-causality-and-cognitive-complexity-in-discourse (accessed15 July 2026).
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Schembri, Adam, Jordan Fenlon, Robert Rentelis, Sarah Reynolds & Kearsy Cormier
    2013 Building the British Sign Language Corpus. Language Documentation and Conservation. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Siple, Linda
    1995 The use of addition in sign language transliteration. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, The State University of New YorkPhD dissertation. UMI No. 9617912. intrpr.info/library/siple-use-of-addition-in-sl-transliteration.pdf (accessed15 July 2026).
  63. Sloetjes, Han & Peter Wittenburg
    2018 ELAN (Version 5.2) [Computer software]. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan (accessed15 July 2026).
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Sunnari, Marianna
    1995 Processing strategies in simultaneous interpreting: Experts vs. novices. InPeter W. Krawutschke (ed.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, –. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1985 Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol.. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Villameriel, Saul
    2010 en-cambio y es-decir: Origen de los marcadores discursivos de la lengua de signos en el español oral. InActas del IX Congreso de Lingüística General. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272357859_EN-CAMBIO_y_ES-DECIR_origen_de_dos_marcadores_discursivos_de_la_lengua_de_signos_en_el_espanol_oral (accessed15 July 2026).
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Webber, Bonnie, Rashmi Prasad, Alan Lee & Aravind Joshi
    2019 The Penn Discourse TreeBank 3.0 annotation manual. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/docs/LDC2019T05/PDTB3-Annotation-Manual.pdf (accessed15 July 2026).
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Zeyrek, Deniz & Bonnie Webber
    2008 A discourse resource for Turkish: Annotating discourse connectives in the METU Turkish Corpus. InProceedings of the 6th Workshop on Asian Language Resources, The Third International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJNLP), Hyderabad, India, January 2008 https://open.metu.edu.tr/handle/11511/36215 (accessed15 July 2026).
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Zeyrek, Deniz & Murathan Kurfalı
    2017 TDB 1.1: Extensions on Turkish discourse bank. InProceedings of the 11th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, –. https://aclanthology.org/W17-0809.pdf (accessed15 July 2026). 10.18653/v1/W17‑0809
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-0809 [Google Scholar]
  70. Zeyrek, Deniz, Amália Mendes & Murathan Kurfalı
    2018 Multi-lingual extension of PDTB-style annotation: The case of TED multi-lingual discourse bank. InProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), –. Miyazaki, Japan. https://aclanthology.org/L18-1301.pdf (accessed15 July 2026). 10.63317/57ndug7eq9xq
     https://doi.org/10.63317/57ndug7eq9xq [Google Scholar]
  71. Zeyrek, Deniz & Kezban Başıbüyük
    2019 TCL: A lexicon of Turkish discourse connectives. InProceedings of the First International Workshop on Designing Meaning Representations, –. https://aclanthology.org/W19-3308.pdf (accessed15 July 2026). 10.18653/v1/W19‑3308
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-3308 [Google Scholar]
  72. Zeyrek, Deniz, Amália Mendes, Giedrė Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė & Sibel Özer
    2022 An exploratory analysis of TED talks in English and Lithuanian, Portuguese and Turkish translations: Results from the analysis of an annotated multilingual corpus. Contrastive Pragmatics. –. 10.1163/26660393‑bja10052
     https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10052 [Google Scholar]
  73. Zufferey, Sandrine
    2016 Discourse connectives across languages: Factors influencing their explicit or implicit translation. Languages in Contrast(). –. 10.1075/lic.16.2.05zuf
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.2.05zuf [Google Scholar]
  74. Zufferey, Sandrine & Liesbeth Degand
    2017 Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives in multilingual corpora. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory(). –. 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0022 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.25005.cel
Loading
ve (‘and’) as a multifunctional discourse connective in Turkish-to-Turkish Sign Language simultaneous interpreting
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.25005.cel
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.25005.cel
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.25005.cel
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: discourse relations ; cohesion ; Turkish ; cross-modal interpreting ; discourse connectives ; simultaneous interpreting ; Turkish Sign Language

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error