Agent-backgrounding in Turkish Sign Language (TİD)

Abstract

This paper investigates agent-backgrounding constructions in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). TİD displays many of the agent-backgrounding strategies reported in the literature that signed (and spoken) languages employ (Barberà & Cabredo Hofherr, this volume). Use of non-specific indefinite pronominals is a major strategy, and this paper is the first study that identifies these forms in TİD. Moreover, we show that TİD has ways of marking clusivity distinctions of indefinite arguments, and has a special sign that derives exclusive indefinite pronominals, other. We argue that (i) whereas lateral-high R-locus is unambiguously associated with non-specificity, non-high (lateral and central) loci are underspecified in terms of specificity; (ii) the R-locus of indefinite arguments observed in agent-backgrounding contexts in TİD consists of two spatial features [+high] and [+lateral] which express non-specificity and exclusivity. This study further shows that clusivity, usually associated with personal pronouns, must be extended to indefinite pronouns.

Including the Sign Language Community in Language Research, Learning and Teaching: Video Reference Grammar of Slovenian Sign Language (SZJ)

“…Therefore, the simple answer to the research question is positive: to my knowledge, there has never been a comparable sign language learning project involving predominantly members of the deaf community, and, more remarkably, this is the first time that sign language has been used as a metalanguage in a sign language reference grammar. Although this grammar is based on a handbook for authors of sign language grammars, namely SignGram Blueprint (Quer et al, 2017), it differs from the other reference grammars that have emerged from it and have been published for Catalan Sign Language (Quer & Barberà, 2020), German Sign Language (Proske et al, 2020), Italian Sign Language (Branchini & Mantovan, 2020), Sign Language of the Netherlands (Klomp & Pfau, 2020) and Turkish Sign Language (Kelepir, 2020). The main goal of these reference grammars is to describe the language linguistically, while the SZJ Handy grammar specifically aims to help deaf SZJ users discover their language (the grammar) on a conscious and metalinguistic level.…”

“…It consists of two complementary parts: the list of grammatical phe-| Research Papers nomena (phonology, morphology, lexicon, syntax, and semantics) and the accompanying handbook with the relevant background information (definitions, methodological issues, examples, tests and references). Based on this work and as a spin-off project, the SIGN-HUB 2016-2020 was launched to create reference grammars for Catalan Sign Language (Quer & Barberà, 2020), German Sign Language (Proske et al, 2020), Italian Sign Language (Branchini & Mantovan, 2020), Sign Language of the Netherlands (Klomp & Pfau, 2020) and Turkish Sign Language (Kelepir, 2020). In addition to these, there are also a handful of older reference grammars, namely for American Sign Language (Liddell, 2003), Indo-Pakistani Sign Language (Zeshan, 2000), Australian Sign Language (Johnston & Schembri, 2007) and New Zealand Sign Language (McKee, 2015).…”

“…Although all existing sign language reference grammars come with illustrated examples of language use and are often supplemented by video resources, their metalanguage is either spoken English or the local spoken language (Zeshan, 2000;Liddell, 2003;Johnston & Schembri, 2007;McKee, 2015;Branchini & Mantovan, 2020;Kelepir, 2020;Klomp & Pfau, 2020;Proske et al, 2020;Quer & Barberà, 2020;Proske et al, 2020). As far as I know, no attempt has yet been made to create a comprehensive reference grammar entirely in the sign language described in the grammar.…”

“…After initial attempts (Podboršek & Moderndorfer, 1984;Podboršek, 1992), three textbooks (Podboršek & Kranjc, 2006;2010; and corresponding picture dictionaries (Podboršek, 2010;2013a;2013b; have been published in recent decades, but they do not use SZJ as a metalanguage (which does not correspond to modern L1/L2 teaching); they do not meet the standards of the linguistic profession as they were not created by linguists (they often provide inadequate or contradictory descriptions without | Research Papers reference to the data source); they do not deal with grammar but mostly present only vocabulary; they do not follow modern approaches to language teaching (real everyday situations and dialogues, attractive exercises, design). In all these respects, the new textbook series (Kranjc et al, 2019;2020, 2023a follows modern standards but has a very limited scope, as it is intended for students aged 6 to 8 in the first and second years of primary school education. Note that these textbooks are bilingual, as the same content is presented in both Slovenian and SZJ.…”

“…Sign languages are insufficiently researched linguistically, especially sign languages with extremely small communities -which also applies to Slovenian Sign Language (slovenski znakovni jezik; hereafter SZJ), where only the most basic phenomena have been researched (Pavlič, 2015(Pavlič, , 2016a(Pavlič, ,b, 2018. Although there is work that supports linguists theoretically and practically in the creation of reference grammars for sign languages (Quer et al, 2017) and the number of available reference grammars is slowly growing (Zeshan, 2000;Liddell, 2003;Johnston & Schembri, 2007;McKee, 2015;Branchini & Mantovan, 2020;Kelepir, 2020;Klomp & Pfau, 2020;Proske et al, 2020;Quer & Barberà, 2020; | Research Papers Proske et al, 2020), sign language linguists from Deaf communities are still extremely rare, meaning that Deaf signers often contribute to such grammars as informants, but not as researchers. However, the most sustainable solution for any disadvantaged community is not to seek outside help (i.e.…”