Marking various aspects in Turkish Sign Language

Karabüklü, Serpil; Wilbur, Ronnie Β.

doi:10.1075/sll.20006.kar

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Zeshan (2006b), Gökgöz (2011) and Pfau (2016a) report data in which negative indefinites sometimes appear alongside a negative marker, as in (23a), and sometimes appear alone, as in (23b). More precisely, Dikyuva et al (2017) make the generalization that in preverbal position, the sign HİÇ (roughly 'never') is only grammatical when it appears in the scope of a negative marker, as in (24a-b), but that in postverbal position, the sign may appear as the only marker of negation, as in (24c) (see also Karabüklü and Wilbur 2021). * IX-1 HİÇ SEE c.…”

Section: "True" Negative Concord In Turkish Sign Language?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative concord in Russian Sign Language

Kuhn

Pasalskaya

2022

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we provide the first systematic description of negative concord in Russian Sign Language (RSL). Although non-manual markers have been argued to participate in negative concord in sign languages, negative concord involving only manual signs has been shown to be much rarer. The RSL pattern thus fills this typological gap, providing one of the first clear cases of negative concord of manual signs in sign language. We show that RSL contributes important new data to the typology of negative concord known from spoken language. First, we show that RSL (like Hungarian) shows characteristics of both strict and non-strict patterns of negative concord. In neutral contexts without movement, NC items in both subject and object position require a negative licensor; on the other hand, in contexts with appropriate information structure, focused NC items may appear in specific structural positions without a licensor. These facts provide evidence against analyzing the strict/non-strict divide as a language-level property. Second, focusing on non-strict concord, we show that RSL diverges from other languages with respect to important macro-syntactic properties. In RSL, like in a number of other sign languages, negative elements may appear in a structure on the right edge. It is precisely this position that allows NC items to appear without a licensor; in this respect, RSL is a mirror-image of languages like Italian. These syntactic properties provide new evidence that structural hierarchy, not linear order, is responsible for explaining the presence or absence of a licensor in patterns of non-strict concord.1 Terminologically, we use the term 'negative marker' to refer to an overt verbal marker of sentential negation: for example, the word not in English, the word ne in Russian, and the word glossed NOT in RSL. We use the term 'negative indefinite' to refer to quantificational words used to express negation: the words nobody, nothing, never in English, the words nikto, nichego, nikogda in Russian, and the words glossed NOBODY, NOTHING, NEVER1, NEVER2 in RSL. The term 'negative element' is used as a general term that encompasses both negative markers and negative indefinites. We reserve the term 'NC item' specifically for those negative elements whose grammaticality depends on the presence of a negative licensor. Thus, the Russian negative indefinite nichego is a NC item, but the English negative indefinite nothing is not.We further show that RSL, like Hungarian, is a language with characteristics of both strict and nonstrict negative concord. When NC items appear in their in situ position, they require a negative licensor, regardless of whether this in situ position is before, after, above, or below the verb. Such findings mirror the strict concord patterns observed in languages like Russian, in which both preverbal subjects and postverbal objects require a negative licensor. On the other hand, focused NC items may be dislocated to the right edge of the clause; in such cases, they may appear without any additional ov...

show abstract

Section: "True" Negative Concord In Turkish Sign Language?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative concord in Russian Sign Language

Kuhn

Pasalskaya

2022

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The grammaticalization of the existential sign var in Turkish Sign Language: a Construction Grammar approach

Makaroğlu

2024

Folia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the development of the existential sign var ‘there’ in Turkish Sign Language from a synchronic point of view. The sign has been previously described as being restricted to clause-final predicate position and typically used for two main linguistic functions: (i) existential and (ii) possessive. However, abundant corpus evidence indicates that var can also be used for other linguistic functions in post-verbal position, which have not been reported in the literature before. Following Construction Grammar, this study presents a theoretical framework to investigate how the construction [verb + var] arose and what its semantic motivation is, paying particular attention to the notion of possession. It is argued that this construction has three different functions: (i) habitual, (ii) evidential, and (iii) assumptive. According to this account, var originated as an existential marker and subsequently developed into a marker of possession, before evolving to encompass its other linguistic functions in three stages. Using Labov’s Apparent Time Hypothesis (Labov, William. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19(3). 273–309), closer examination also revealed that a progressive difference exists between age groups. Younger TİD signers use the construction [verb + var] more frequently, and as the age of the TİD signer decreases, the usage of this construction in the assumptive function increases considerably.

show abstract

Aspectual reduplication in Sign Language of the Netherlands: reconsidering phonological constraints and aspectual distinctions

van Boven

2024

Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the use of predicate reduplication to express aspectual meaning in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). The study focuses on three aspect types that have been found to be encoded by reduplication across sign languages – habitual, continuative, and iterative – and addresses potential phonological restrictions. Naturalistic corpus data and data elicited from six deaf NGT signers were taken into account. The results suggest that (i) predicate reduplication can express all three aspect types, but it is optional; (ii) reduplication expressing habitual and continuative aspect appears to be phonologically constrained; and (iii) such phonological constraints do not apply to iterative reduplication, whose form is different from the other two aspects, in that the reduplication cycles are separated by pauses. Since there is no formal difference between habituals and continuatives in the data, it is suggested that this semantic distinction may not be grammaticalized in the language, and that, possibly, the inflectional system of NGT instead more broadly distinguishes imperfective/perfective viewpoint. While this latter suggestion is in line with findings reported for many spoken languages, the results are different from what has previously been described for NGT as well as for other sign languages. Potential explanations for these differences can be found in both methodological and sociolinguistic factors.

show abstract

Marking various aspects in Turkish Sign Language

Cited by 3 publications

References 17 publications

Negative concord in Russian Sign Language

Negative concord in Russian Sign Language

The grammaticalization of the existential sign var in Turkish Sign Language: a Construction Grammar approach

Aspectual reduplication in Sign Language of the Netherlands: reconsidering phonological constraints and aspectual distinctions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About