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. 385–418

Null arguments in Turkish Sign Language

 | Boğaziçi University
 | Boğaziçi University | Harvard University
 | Boğaziçi University
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.
Keywords: Turkish Sign Language, null subject, null object, agreement, discourse topic, variable licensing
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
Published online: 15 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.215.14kay
References (57)
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar, Duarte, Maria Eugenia L. & Kato, Maria Aizawa. 2005. Null Subjects in European and Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4: 11–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bizarri, Camille. 2015. Russian as a pro-drop language. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie Occidentale 49: 335–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camacho, José A. 2013. Null Subjects. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campos, Héctor. 1986. Indefinite object drop. Linguistic inquiry 17(2): 354–359.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. MIT Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 20]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Dimitriadis, Alexis. 1994a. Clitics and island-insensitive object drop. In Proceedings of FSLM 5. Urbana-Champaign, IL.
. 1994b. Clitics and object drop in Modern Greek. In Proceedings of SCIL 6. MITWPL.
Enc, Mürvet. 1986. Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In Studies in Turkish Linguistics [Typological Studies in Language 8], Dan Isaac Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds), 195–209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 1990. Null objects in Brazilian Portuguese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8(3): 325–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Merchant, Jason. 1997. On the interpretation of null indefinite objects in Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics 17: 141–155. Aristotle University, Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (ed.). 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-language Study [Typologial Studies in Language 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Sag Ivan, A. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–428.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C. T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574.Google Scholar
. 2010. Between Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Koulidobrova, Elena. 2017. Elide me bare. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35(2): 397–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1986. Two kinds of null arguments in sign language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4(4): 415–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Universal Grammar and American Sign Language. Setting the Null Argument Parameters [Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 13]. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane, & Meier, Richard P. 2011. On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3-4): 95–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The evolution of verb classes and verb agreement in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics 38(1/2). 145–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Padden, Carol A., Aronoff, Mark & Sandler, Wendy. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43(3): 531–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, Kegl, Judy, MacLaughlin, Dawn, Bahan, Benjamin & Lee, Robert. 2000. The Syntax of American Sign Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1981. Some arguments for syntactic patterning in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 32(1), 239–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983. Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego (Published 1988, New York NY: Garland).
. 1988. Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland, Steinbach, Markus & Woll, Bencie (eds). 2012. Sign Language – An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quer, Josep & Rosselló Ximenes, Joana. 2013. On sloppy readings, ellipsis and pronouns. Missing arguments in Catalan Sign Language (LSC) and other argument-drop languages. In Information Structure and Agreement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 197], Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel Jiménez-Fernández, Javier Martin-Conzález & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds), 337–370. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2005. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Sato, Yosuke & Kim, Chonghyuck. 2012. Radical pro drop and the role of syntactic agreement in Colloquial Singapore English. Lingua 122: 858–873. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita & Yépez, Maria. 1988. Null definite objects in Quiteño. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 511–519.Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne & Levy, Yonata. 1999. Empty subjects in Finnish and Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17(3): 613–671. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two 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. DOI logo
Kayabaşı, Demet & Natasha Abner
2022. On the Reflexive KENDİ in Turkish Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 july 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.