Cover not available
Part of
Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries: In honour of Aslı Göksel
Edited by Aslı Gürer, Dilek Uygun-Gökmen and Balkız Öztürk
[Studies in Language Companion Series 215] 2020
► pp. 313–352

Aspects of clause structure and morphology in Turkish Sign Language

| Boğaziçi University
| Harvard University

We highlight some aspects of the clause structure of Turkish Sign Language (TİD). There are zero to three-argument predicates in TİD. We divide the paper into chapters according to the number of arguments, but morphological categorization of predicates is instrumental in understanding different members of these groups. Zero-place weather predicates, unaccusatives, unergatives, and transitives can belong to the morphologically plain predicates group. However, there are no plain ditransitive predicates. On the other hand, except for weather predicates which lack an argument to start with, locus and classifier agreement apply to some members of all the predicate groups. Lastly, we show that there is no one-to-one relation between a classifier type and a transitive argument structure.

Keywords: Turkish Sign Language, TİD, argument structure, morpho-syntax, classifiers, agreement
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Morphological categorization of predicates, referential loci, and classifiers
  • 3.Weather Predicates
  • 4.Intransitive predicates
    • 4.1Unaccusative predicates
    • 4.2Unergative predicates
    • 4.3Intransitive predicates and argument realization
    • 4.4Intransitive predicates and nonmanual morphology
  • 5.Transitive predicates
    • 5.1Transitive sentences with plain predicates
    • 5.2Transitive sentences with locus agreement predicates
      • 5.2.1Transitive sentences with single locus agreement predicates
      • 5.2.2Transitive sentences with double locus agreement predicates
      • 5.2.3Transitive sentences with backwards locus agreement predicates
    • 5.3Transitive sentences with classifiers
  • 6.Ditransitives predicates
    • 6.1Ditransitives predicates which agree with the referential locus of the subject and the indirect object
    • 6.2Ditransitives predicates which agree with the referential locus of the source and goal
    • 6.3Ditransitives predicates with an incorporated theme
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Glossing conventions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.215.12gok
References
Alibašić Ciciliani, Tamara A. & Wilbur, Ronnie B.
2006 Pronominal system in Croatian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 9(1): 95–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker-Shenk, Charlotte Lee & Cokely, Dennis
1991 American Sign Language: A Teacher's Resource Text on Grammar and Culture. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bellugi, Ursula & Fischer, Susan
1972 A comparison of sign language and spoken language. Cognition 1(2–3): 173–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Brentari, Diane
2004 Where did all the arguments go? Argument changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4): 743–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berenz, Norine
2002 Insights into person deixis. Sign Language & Linguistics 5(2): 203–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berenz, Norine & Ferreira-Brito, Lucinda
1990 Pronouns in BCSL and ASL. In Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, William H. Edmondson & Fred Karlson (eds), 26–36. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane
1998. A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane & Crossley, Laurinda
2002 Prosody on the hands and face: Evidence from American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 5(2): 105–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
1986 Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy, Wechsler, Stephen & Meier, Richard P.
1999 Locus agreement in American Sign Language. In Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, Gert Webelhuth, Jean-Pierre Koenig & Andreas Kathol (eds), 215–229. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno A., van der Kooij, Els, Waters, Dafydd, Woll, Bencie & Mesch, Johanna
2008 Frequency distribution and spreading behavior of different types of mouth actions in three sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 11(1): 45–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Quadros, Ronice Müller & Quer, Josep
2008 Back to back (wards) and moving on: On agreement, auxiliaries and verb classes in sign languages. In Proceedings of the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference 9, Florianopolis, Brazil 2006, Ronice Müller de Quadros (ed.), 530–551. Petropolis: Editora Arara Azul.Google Scholar
de Quadros, Ronice Müller & Lillo-Martin, Diane
2010 Clause structure. In Sign languages, Diane Brentari (ed.), 225–251. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
2011 Phi-feature inflection and agreement: An introduction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4): 857–874. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durie, Mark
1988 Preferred argument structure in an active language: Arguments against the category ‘intransitive subject’. Lingua 74(1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
1993 Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Gökgöz, Kadir
In preparation. A syntactic typology of verbal classifiers across two modalities.
2017 Commentary on Bos (1998). Sign Language & Linguistics 20(2): 270–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. The Nature of Object Marking in American Sign Language, PhD dissertation, Purdue University, Indiana.
Göksel, Aslı & Kelepir, Meltem
2016 Observations on clausal complementation in Turkish Sign Language. In A Matter of Complexity: Subordination in Sign Languages, Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Annika Hermann (eds), 65–94. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grose, Donovan & Schalber, Katharina
2008 The semantics, syntax, and phonology of event-related nonmanuals in ÖGS and ASL. In Proceedings of the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference 9, Florianopolis, Brazil, 2006, Ronice Müller de Quadros (ed.). Petropolis: Editora Arara Azul.Google Scholar
Hakgüder, Emre
2015 Complex Clauses with Embedded Constituent Interrogatives in Turkish Sign Language. MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
He, Jia & Tang, Gladys
2018 Causativity and transitivity in classifier predicates in Tianjin Sign Language. Presented at Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory, FEAST 2018, June 18–20, Ca’ Foscari University, Venice.
Janis, Wynne
1992 Morphosyntax of the ASL Verb Phrase. PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Kayabaşı, Demet
2019 Türk İşaret Dili’nde Alt-Yüz El-Dışı İşaretlerinin Üretiminde Edinim Yaşının Etkileri (Effects of age of acquisition on the production of lower face non-manuals). Presented at 33. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı, 9–10 May 2019, Mersin, Turkey.
Kayabaşı, Demet & Gökgöz, Kadir
2019 Causative-inchoative alternation in Turkish Sign Language. Poster presented at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research – TISLR 13, 26–28 September, Hamburg University.
Kimmelman, Vadim
2018 Basic argument structure in Russian Sign Language. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, Pfau, Roland & Aboh, Enoch O.
2019a. Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Online First, 3 April 2019. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, de Lint, Vanja, de Vos, Connie, Oomen, Marloes, Pfau, Roland, Vink, Lianne, & Aboh, Enoch O.
2019b Argument structure of classifier predicates: Canonical and non-canonical mappings in four sign languages. Open Linguistics 5(1): 332–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, Paul R.
2005. Analysing Grammar: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kubus, Okan
2008 An Analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TİD) Phonology and Morphology. MA thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Liddell, Scott K.
1980. American Sign Language Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Klima, Edward
1990 Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Vol. 1: Linguistics, Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds), 191–210. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lourenço, Guilherme & Wilbur, Ronnie B.
2018 Are plain verbs really plain? Co-localization as the agreement marker in sign languages. FEAST. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign language Theory 2: 68–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makaroğlu, Bahtiyar & Dikyuva, Hasan
(eds) 2017 The Contemporary Turkish Sign Language Dictionary. Ankara: The Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policy. [URL] (4 January 2020).Google Scholar
Makaroğlu, Bahtiyar & İşsever, Selçuk
2018 Agreement verbs in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) from the perspective of templatic morphology. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 29(1): 51–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meier, Richard Paul
1982 Icons, Analogues, and Morphemes: The Acquisition of Verb Agreement in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Meir, Irit
2002 A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20(2): 413–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998a Syntactic-semantic interaction in Israeli Sign Language verbs: The case of backwards verbs. Sign Language & Linguistics 1(1): 3–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998b Thematic Structure and Verb Agreement in Israeli Sign Language. PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Napoli, Donna Jo, Spence, Rachel Sutton & de Quadros, Ronice Müller
2017 Influence of predicate sense on word order in sign languages: Intensional and extensional verbs. Language 93(3): 641–670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol J., Kegl, Judy, MacLaughlin, Dawn, Bahan, Benjamin & Lee, Robert G.
2000 The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT press.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A.
1983 Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Perlmutter, David M.
1978 Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Jeri J. Jaeger (ed.), 157–189. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland, Salzmann, Martin & Steinbach, Markus
2018 The syntax of sign language agreement: Common ingredients, but unusual recipe. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Lillo-Martin, Diane
2006 Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sevgi, Hande
2019 Effects of Age of Acquisition on Morphosyntactic Structures in Turkish Sign Language: Evidence from Classifiers. MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
Sevinç, Ayça Müge
2006 Grammatical Relations and Word Order in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). MA thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Sorace, Antonella
2000 Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76(4): 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinbach, Markus & Onea, Edgar
2015 A DRT analysis of discourse referents and anaphora resolution in sign language. Journal of Semantics 33(3): 409–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Supalla, Ted R.
1982 Structures and Acquisition of the Verbs of Motion and Location in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Zaenen, Annie
1988 Unaccusative verbs in Dutch and the syntax-semantics interface. CSLI Reports 88–123.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge E. P.
2003 Classifying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Sevgi, Hande & Kadir Gökgöz
2023. Classifiers, argument expression, and age of acquisition effects in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Sign Language & Linguistics 26:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.