Amea folklor institutu

İSTİFADƏ EDİLMİŞ ƏDƏBİYYAT
1. F. Qasımzadə. XIX əsr Azərbaycan ədəbiyyatı tarixi.Bakı: Maarif, 1974, 488 s.
2. Ə. Əfəndiyev. Qafqaz əraziləri və xalqlarının təsvirinə dair materiallar toplusu- QƏXTMT (SMOMPK).İzahlı biblioqrafiya. Bakı: Qartal, 1999, 218 s.
3. P. Əfəndiyev. Azərbaycan şifahi xalq ədəbiyyatı. Bakı: Maarif, 1981, 409 s.
4. İ.Abbasov. Azərbaycan folklorşünaslığı: təşəkkülü və inkişaf yolları. Azərbaycan şifahi xalq ədəbiyyatına dair tədqiqlər. IX kitab. Bakı: Səda, 2000, s. 3-40.
5. V. Vəliyev. Azərbaycan folkloru. Bakı: Maarif, 1985, 414 s.
6. Y.Əliyev. Azərbaycan folklorşünaslıq elminin tarixi. Bakı: Səda, 1999, 150 s.
7. M. İmrani. SMOMPK məcmuəsində paremioloji vahidlər. /Namizədlik dissertasiyasının avtoreferatı. Bakı: 2008, 28 s.
8. A. Nəbiyev. Azərbaycan uşaq folkloru. Bakı: Elm, 2000, 76 s.
9. СМОМПК, (Сборник материалов для описаний месностей и племен Кавказа), I выпуск, Тифлис, 1881
10. СМОМПК, (Сборник материалов для описаний месностей и племен Кавказа), II выпуск, Тифлис, 1882
11. СМОМПК, (Сборник материалов для описаний месностей и племен Кавказа), III выпуск, Тифлис, 1883
12. СМОМПК, (Сборник материалов для описаний месностей и племен Кавказа), IV выпуск, Тифлис, 1884
13. СМОМПК, (Сборник материалов для описаний месностей и племен Кавказа), V выпуск, Тифлис, 1886
Tamar maxarobliZeE
filologiis mecnierebaTa doqtori
Jestur enaTa nacionalizaciis procesi
The Process of Nationalization of Sign Languages
Dr. Tamar Makharoblidze
The Georgian sign language – GESL was under the influence of Russian sign language for a long time during the soviet period, as there was no book or text book about GESL. One can watch the Russian dominant in the old Georgian dactyl alphabet and in the lexical level of the language as well. The same linguistic picture is in the all sign languages of the post Soviet space.
From one hand the deaf people can communicate in this space and they care about keeping this communications, but form another hand the process of nationalization of the sign languages and the linguistic reintegration has already began. It’s important that in opposite with the lexical level the grammar of these languages seem more free form the Russian /soviet clichés.
Any language is a system. The sign languages have their linguistic systems just like the spoken languages. They are visual spatial languages, where the information is coded by the hands, facial mimics and a head or a body replacing. This language is understood by a vision only.
The sign Languages have the all levels of a language hierarchy. There are the morphological, the syntactical and the lexical levels in these languages. The logical-semantic level is also existed in the sign languages. We disagree with the opinion exposing the phonological level in these languages. As the sign languages are different from the spoken languages and they are soundless, we can’t speak about phonemes at all. Instead a phonological level we argue to expose a cinematic level and we can split the sign words into the cinemas, which will be consisted of chiremas and mimics.
cinema

mimic + chirema
A mimic is a facial expression with the concrete grammatical function and a chirema (with all its components) is a sign performed by the hands.
There are the linguistic constructions in the sign languages which are introduced into the 3D space and the all components are participating in this communication system. The sign-word in such a system can be exposed as following:
sign

Static (one-phase) Dynamic

two-phase multi-phase
The both types of speech with sound and sign are directed by the thinking. We have the close two-way relations between the language and thinking. In case of spoken languages the linguistic system is created by the ideas – as the first, then the sounds, while in case of sign languages the linguistic system is based on the ideas – the first and then the cinematic moving.