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. 353–384

The universal quantifier ‘all’ in Turkish Sign Language

| Boğaziçi University
| Boğaziçi University
This paper discusses four signs in TİD that play a role in expressing universal quantification. We argue that all and the mouthing of the Turkish word hepsi ‘all’ /hepsi/ are universal quantificational determiners. The other two are morphologically complex signs. all_of_those is the product of the cliticization of the mouthing /hepsi/ to a demonstrative determiner those. This sign forms a partitive universal quantifier with the meaning ‘All of those (N)’. all_of_those^same, expresses a proposition whose components are a universal quantifier subject and an adjectival predicate with the meaning ‘All of those are the same’. Our findings have implications on the role of mouthing and on cliticization and incorporation as well as the syntactic typology of quantificational determiners in sign languages.
Keywords: Turkish Sign Language, universal quantifiers, mouthing, cliticization, incorporation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Quantificational nature of all and all_of_those
  • 4.Syntactic properties of all and all_of_those
    • 4.1Syntactic properties of quantifiers in sign languages
    • 4.2Syntactic distribution of all and all_of_those
    • 4.3 all and all_of_those and nominal ellipsis
  • 5.Morpho-semantic properties of all and all_of_those
    • 5.1 all : A simple determiner
    • 5.2 all_of_those : A complex sign
      • 5.2.1Mouthing contributes the universal quantification
      • 5.2.2Space functions in restricting the quantifier domain
        • 5.2.2.1Previous studies on space and restriction of quantifier domain
        • 5.2.2.2The role signing space plays in the meaning of all_of_those
    • 5.3Interim summary
  • 6.A new type of incorporation: all_of_those^same
  • 7.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • Acknowledgement
  • References
Published online: 15 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.215.13sar
References (39)
References
Abner, Natasha & Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2017. Quantification in American Sign Language. In Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language, Vol. 2, Denis Paperno & Edward L. Keenan (eds), 21–59. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Açan, Zeynep. 2001. A Study on Sign Languages and Turkish Sign Language. MA thesis, Hacettepe University.
Baker, Anne, van den Bogaerde, Beppie, Pfau, Roland & Schermer, Trude (eds). 2016. The Linguistics of Sign Languages: An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barberà, Gemma. 2012. The meaning of space in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Reference, specificity and structure in signed discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
. 2014. Use and functions of spatial planes in Catalan Sign Language (LSC) discourse. Sign Language Studies 14(2): 147-174. <[URL]> (6 January 2020). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. The Meaning of Space in Sign Language. Reference, Specificity and Structure in Catalan Sign Language discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton and Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barberà, Gemma & Kimmelman, Vadim. 2017. Signing space. In Quer, et al. (eds), 745–758.Google Scholar
Bertone, Carmela. 2009. The syntax of noun modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS). University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 7–28.Google Scholar
Bisnath, Felicia. 2017. Quantifiers in NGT: A corpus study. Paper presented at 12th T.W.I.S.T Student Conference in Linguistics, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Branchini, Chiara. 2007. On relativization and clefting in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 10(2): 201–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunelli, Michele. 2011. Antisymmetry and Sign Languages: A Comparison between NGT and LIS. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo & Kelepir, Meltem. 2017. Interrogatives. In Quer, et al. (eds), 322–337.Google Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy A. 2002. Grammaticization of Indexic Signs: How American Sign Language Expresses Numerosity. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Davidson, Kathryn & Gagne, Deanna. 2014. Vertical representation of quantifier domains. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuș, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman (eds), 110–127. <[URL]> (6 January 2020).Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gökgöz, Kadir. 2011. Negation in Turkish Sign Language: The syntax of nonmanual markers. Sign Language and Linguistics 14(1): 49–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halvorsen, Rolf P., Schröder, Odd-I., Barman Wold, Brittta & Schröder, Bogumila. 2014. Noun and plural constructions in Norwegian Sign Language. Ms.
Kelepir, Meltem. 2018. “Embracing the other”: Clusivity distinctions in indefinite arguments in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Paper presented at Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory (FEAST). Venice, Italy.
Kelepir, Meltem, Özkul, Aslı & Tamyürek Özparlak, Elvan. 2019. Agent-backgrounding in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Sign Language and Linguistics 21(2): 257–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim. 2009. Reflexive pronouns in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands. MA thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
. 2017. Quantifiers in Russian Sign Language. In Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language, Vol. 2, Denis Paperno & Edward L. Keenan (eds), 803–855. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kubus, Okan. 2008. An Analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TİD): Phonology and Morphology. MA thesis, Middle East Technical University.
Lai, Yu-Ting. 2005. Noun Phrase in Taiwan Sign Language. MA thesis, National Chung Cheng University.
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Klima, Edward S. 1990. Pointing out differences: Asl pronouns in syntactic theory. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 1: 191–210.Google Scholar
Liskova, Elena I. 2017. Universal Quantification in the Nominal Domain in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Mantovan, Lara & Geraci, Carlo. 2017. The syntax of nominal modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sign Language and Linguistics 20(2): 183–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayberry, Rachel I. & Eichen, Ellen B. 1991. The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language 30(4): 486–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penfield, Wilder & Roberts, Lamar. 1959. Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Göksel, Aslı. 2017. Derivation. In Quer, et al. (eds), 188–200.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Quer, Josep. 2010. Nonmanuals: Their grammatical and prosodic roles. In Sign Languages, Diane Brentari (ed.), 381–402. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Steinbach, Markus. 2006. Pluralization in sign and speech: A cross-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology 10: 135–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland, Halvorsen, Rolf P. & Schröder, Odd-I. 2017. Nominal inflection. In Quer, et al. (eds), 277–285.Google Scholar
Quer, Josep, Cecchetto, Carlo, Donati, Caterina, Geraci, Carlo, Kelepir, Meltem, Pfau, Roland & Steinbach, Markus (eds). 2017. SignGram Blueprint: A Guide to Sign Language Grammar Writing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quer, Josep, Rondoni, Eva M., Barberà, Gemma, Frigola, Santiago, Iglesias, Pilar, Boronat, Josep, Martínez, Marina, Aliaga, Delfina & Gil, Joan. 2005. Gramàtica bàsica LSC. CD-ROM. Barcelona: Federació de persones sordes de Catalunya.Google Scholar
Sevinç, Ayça M. 2006. Grammatical Relations and Word Order in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). MA thesis, Middle East Technical University.
Schlenker, Philippe, Lamberton, Jonathan & Santoro, Mirko. 2013. Iconic variables. Linguistics and Philosophy 36(2): 91-149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I., Hoiting, Nini, Kuntze, Marlon, Lindert, Reyna, Weinberg, Amy, Pyers, Jennie, Anthony, Michelle, Biederman, Yael & Thumann, Helen. 2003. A cognitive/functional perspective on the acquisition of ‘classifiers’. In Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages, Karen Emmorey (ed.), 271–298. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Taşçı, Süleyman S. & Göksel, Aslı. Forthcoming. Compounding. In A Grammar of Turkish Sign Language (TİD) [SIGN-HUB Sign Language Grammars Series], Meltem Kelepir (ed.). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2012. Classifiers. In Sign Language: An International Handbook, Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds), 158–186. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar