Null arguments in Turkish Sign Language
This paper argues that phonologically null arguments in Turkish Sign Language (henceforth, TİD) are licensed as discourse topic(s). We observe that both null subjects and objects are licensed by both plain and agreeing verbs as well as classifiers. Moreover, we show that null arguments of both plain and agreeing verbs behave the same in syntactic environments, i.e. islands, across-the-board extractions and long distance topicalization constructions. We suggest that phonologically null arguments of plain verbs are licensed by a null topic operator co-indexed with the discourse topic(s) at the syntax-discourse interface level and the phonologically null arguments of agreement verbs are licensed by the agreement morphology that functions as an overt topic operator in TİD.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.A word on methodology
- 3.Null arguments and verb categories
- 3.1Handshape as agreement
- 4.Constraints on null arguments
- 4.1Topicalization
- 4.2Island effects
- 4.3Null arguments and ATB constructions
- 4.4Null arguments and complement clauses
- 5.Null arguments and localization
- 6.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References
Azaryad, D.
2000 Null object constructions in Turkish. In
Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Vol. 2,
Bengisu Rona (ed.). Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.
Bahan, Benjamin, Kegl, Judy, Lee, Robert G., MacLaughlin, Dawn & Neidle, Carol
2000 The licensing of null arguments in American Sign Language.
Linguistic Inquiry 31(1): 1–27.
Barbosa, Pilar, Duarte, Maria Eugenia L. & Kato, Maria Aizawa
2005 Null Subjects in European and Brazilian Portuguese.
Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4: 11–52.
Bizarri, Camille
2015 Russian as a pro-drop language. Annali di Ca’ Foscari.
Serie Occidentale 49: 335–362.
Camacho, José A.
2013 Null Subjects. Cambridge: CUP.
Campos, Héctor
1986 Indefinite object drop.
Linguistic inquiry 17(2): 354–359.
Chomsky, Noam
1982 Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. MIT Press: Cambridge.
Chomsky, Noam
1995.
The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam
2000 Beyond Explanatory Adequacy [
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 20]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam
2001 Derivation by phase. In
Ken Hale. A Life in Language,
Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Costello, Brendan
2015 Language and modality: Effects of the use of space in the agreement system of lengua de signos espanola (Spanish Sign Language). PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Dikyuva, Hasan, Makaroğlu, H. & Arık, E.
2007 Turkish Sign Language Grammar. Ankara: Ministry of Family and Social Policies Press.
Dimitriadis, Alexis
1994a Clitics and island-insensitive object drop. In
Proceedings of FSLM 5
. Urbana-Champaign, IL.
Dimitriadis, Alexis
1994b Clitics and object drop in Modern Greek. In
Proceedings of SCIL 6
. MITWPL.
Farrell, Patrick
1990 Null objects in Brazilian Portuguese.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8(3): 325–346.
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Merchant, Jason
1997 On the interpretation of null indefinite objects in Greek.
Studies in Greek Linguistics 17: 141–155. Aristotle University, Thessaloniki.
Göksel, Aslı & Kelepir, Meltem
2016 Observations on clausal complementation in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). In
A Matter of Complexity: Subordination in Sign Languages,
Annika Herrmann,
Roland Pfau &
Markus Steinbach (eds), 65-94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Glück, Susanne & Pfau, Roland
1998 On classifying classification as a class of inflection in German Sign Language. In
Console VI” Proceedings. Sixth Annual Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe,
Tina Cambier-Langeveld,
Anikó Lipták &
Michael Redford (eds), 59–74. Leiden: Sole.
Hankamer, Jorge & Sag Ivan, A.
1976 Deep and surface anaphora.
Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–428.
Holmberg, Anders, Nayudu, Aarti & Sheehan, Michelle
2009 Three partial null-subject languages: A comparison of Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Marathi.
Studia Linguistica 53(1): 59–97.
Huang, C. T. James
1984 On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns.
Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574.
Huang, C. T. James
2010 Between Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge.
Kayabaşı, Demet
2018 Null subjects in TID: Pro-drop or topic-drop? Ms, Boğaziçi University.
Kimmelman, Vadim
2018 Null arguments in Russian Sign Language.
Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory (FEAST) 1: 27–38.
Koulidobrova, Elena
2017 Elide me bare.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35(2): 397–446.
Kubuş, Okan
2008 An analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TİD) phonology and morphology. MA Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Liddell, Scott K.
1995 Real, surrogate, and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL. In
Language, Gesture, and Space,
Karen Emmorey &
Judy Reilly (eds), 19–41. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lillo-Martin, Diane
1986 Two kinds of null arguments in sign language.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4(4): 415–444.
Lillo-Martin, Diane
1991 Universal Grammar and American Sign Language. Setting the Null Argument Parameters [
Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 13]. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lillo-Martin, Diane, & Meier, Richard P.
2011 On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages.
Theoretical Linguistics 37(3-4): 95–141.
McKee, Rachel, Schembri, Adam, McKee, David & Johnston, Trevor
2012 Tracing down the elusive subject: Findings from research on ‘null subject’ in NZSL & AUSLAN. Paper presented at Australian Sign Language Interpreters National Conference, Melbourne, 23 August 2009.
Meir, Irit
2002 A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 413–450.
Meir, Irit
2012 The evolution of verb classes and verb agreement in sign languages.
Theoretical Linguistics 38(1/2). 145–152.
Meir, Irit, Padden, Carol A., Aronoff, Mark & Sandler, Wendy
2007 Body as subject.
Journal of Linguistics 43(3): 531–563.
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.
Neidle, Carol, Kegl, Judy, MacLaughlin, Dawn, Bahan, Benjamin & Lee, Robert
2000 The Syntax of American Sign Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Özsoy, Sumru
1987 Null subject parameter and Turkish. In
Studies on Modern Turkish: Proceedings of the Third Conference on Turkish Linguistics,
Hendrik E. Boeschoten &
Ludo T. Verhoeven (eds), 82–91. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Öztürk, Balkız
2001 Turkish as a non pro-drop language. In
The Verb in Turkish [
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 44],
Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan (ed.), 239–258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Padden, Carol
1981 Some arguments for syntactic patterning in American Sign Language.
Sign Language Studies, 32(1), 239–259.
Padden, Carol
1983 Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego (Published 1988, New York NY: Garland).
Padden, Carol
1988 Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. New York NY: Garland.
Pfau, Roland, Steinbach, Markus & Woll, Bencie
(eds) 2012 Sign Language – An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Pfau, Ronald, 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.
Quer, Josep & Rosselló Ximenes, Joana
Quer, Josep, Cecchetto, Carlo & Donati, Caterina, Geraci, Carlo, Kelepir, Meltem, Pfau, Roland & Steinbach, Markus
(eds) 2019 SignGram Blueprint. A Guide to Sign Language Grammar Writing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
[URL] (21 July 2019).
Raposo, Eduardo P.
1984 On the Null Object in European Portuguese, Ms, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Rizzi, Luigi
1986 Null objects in Italian and the Theory of pro
.
Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–557.
Sandler, Wendy & Lillo-Martin, Diane
2005 Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: CUP.
Sato, Yosuke & Kim, Chonghyuck
2012 Radical pro drop and the role of syntactic agreement in Colloquial Singapore English.
Lingua 122: 858–873.
Sevinç, Ayca Muge
2006.
Grammatical Relations and Word Order in Turkish Sign Language. MA thesis, Middle East Technical University.
Sevinç, Ayca Muge & Bozşahin, Cem
2010 Verbal categories in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). In
Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
Sigurðsson, Hallidór Á., & Maling, Joan
2007 On Null Arguments. In
Proceedings of the “XXXII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa”,
M. C. Pic, &
A. Pona (Eds.), 167–180. Edizioni dell'Orso. Firenze.
Suñer, Margarita & Yépez, Maria
1988 Null definite objects in Quiteño.
Linguistic Inquiry 19: 511–519.
Vainikka, Anne & Levy, Yonata
1999 Empty subjects in Finnish and Hebrew.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17(3): 613–671.
Van Gijn, Ingeborg & Zwitserlood, Inge
2006 Agreement phenomena in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In
Arguments and Agreement,
Peter Ackema,
Patrick Brandt,
Maake Schoorlemmer &
Fred Weerman (eds), 195–229. Oxford: OUP.
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Jaber, Angélique, Caterina Donati & Carlo Geraci
2022.
On the properties of null subjects in sign languages: the case of French Sign Language (LSF).
The Linguistic Review 39:4
► pp. 655 ff.
Kayabaşı, Demet & Natasha Abner
2022.
On the Reflexive KENDİ in Turkish Sign Language.
Frontiers in Psychology 13
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.