Cover not available
Article published In:
Impersonal human reference in Sign Languages
Edited by Gemma Barberà and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr
[Sign Language & Linguistics 21:2] 2018
► pp. 257–283
Special issue articles

Agent-backgrounding in Turkish Sign Language (TİD)

| Boğaziçi University
| Boğaziçi University | İstanbul Bilgi University
| Boğaziçi University
This paper investigates agent-backgrounding constructions in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). TİD displays many of the agent-backgrounding strategies reported in the literature that signed (and spoken) languages employ (Barberà & Cabredo Hofherr, this volume). Use of non-specific indefinite pronominals is a major strategy, and this paper is the first study that identifies these forms in TİD. Moreover, we show that TİD has ways of marking clusivity distinctions of indefinite arguments, and has a special sign that derives exclusive indefinite pronominals, other. We argue that (i) whereas lateral-high R-locus is unambiguously associated with non-specificity, non-high (lateral and central) loci are underspecified in terms of specificity; (ii) the R-locus of indefinite arguments observed in agent-backgrounding contexts in TİD consists of two spatial features [+high] and [+lateral] which express non-specificity and exclusivity. This study further shows that clusivity, usually associated with personal pronouns, must be extended to indefinite pronouns.
Keywords: impersonal agents, agent-backgrounding, indefinites, non-specificity, clusivity, high R-locus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.No overt expression of the agent
    • 2.1Null subjects
    • 2.2Agent-reduction
  • 3.Null subjects interpreted as impersonal 3rd person plural pronouns
    • 3.1Plural marking of the verb
    • 3.2Mouthing of the Turkish verb inflected for 3rd person plural
  • 4.First and second person pronouns with generic uses
  • 5.Indefinite agents: Pronouns and/or verb agreement
    • 5.1Non-specific indefinite pronouns
    • 5.2Exclusive-inclusive distinction in indefinite pronouns
      • 5.2.1 other
      • 5.2.2 One lat-high and One central-low
    • 5.3Expressing impersonal agents through agreement
      • 5.3.1Agreement in lateral-high R-locus
      • 5.3.2Single argument agreement verbs signed in high R-locus
  • 6.Discussion of the findings and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00020.kel
References (47)
References
Aloni, Maria & Angelika Port. 2015. Epistemic indefinites and methods of identifications. In Luis Alonso-Ovalle & Paula Menéndez-Benito (eds.), Epistemic indefinites, 117–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Paula Menéndez-Benito. 2013. Two views on epistemic indefinites. Language and Linguistic Compass 7(2). 105–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bahan, Benjamin, Judy Kegl, Robert Lee, Dawn MacLaughlin & Carol Neidle. 2000. The licensing of null arguments in ASL. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1). 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barberà, Gemma. 2012. A unified account of specificity in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). In Rick Nouwen, Anna Chernilovskaya & Ana Aguilar-Guevara (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16(1), 43–55. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2015. The meaning of space in sign language. Reference, specificity and structure in Catalan Sign Language discourse. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Indefiniteness and specificity marking in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Sign Language & Linguistics 19(1). 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barberà, Gemma & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr. 2017. Backgrounded agents in sign language: passives, middles or impersonals? Language 93(4). 767–798. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. This volume. R-Impersonals in sign languages: Introduction & questionnaire.
Barberà, Gemma & Kearsy Cormier. 2017. Reference. In Josep Quer, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Carlo Geraci, Meltem Kelepir, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), SignGram Blueprint: A guide to sign language grammar writing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Barberà, Gemma & Josep Quer. 2013. Impersonal reference in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). In Laurence Meurant, Aurélie Sinte, Mieke van Herreweghe & Myriam Vermeerbergen (eds.), Sign language research, uses and practices: Crossing views on theoretical and applied sign language linguistics, 237–258. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy. 2012. Pronouns. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.) Sign language: An international handbook, 227–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costello, Brendan. 2015a. Language and modality: Effects of the use of space in the agreement system of lengua de signos española (Spanish Sign Language). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2015b. Getting (more) impersonal in LSE. Talk at Workshop on Impersonals and Passive in Sign Languages , June 2015, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.
Davidson, Kathryn & Deanna Gagne. 2014. Vertical representation of quantifier domains. Sinn und Bedeutung 181. 110–127. Basque Country, Spain.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dikyuva, Hasan, Bahtiyar Makaroğlu & Engin Arık. 2015. Türk İşaret Dili dilbilgisi kitabı [Turkish Sign Language grammar book]. Ankara: TC Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 221. 1–25.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 2002. Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 191. 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filimonova, Elena (ed.). 2005. Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean & Ivan Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 51. 355–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, Klaus von. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 191. 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isenhath, John O. 1990. The linguistics of American Sign Language. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland and Company.Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry, Barbara O’Dea & Barbara Shaffer. 2001. The construal of events: Passives in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 1(3). 281–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karabüklü, Serpil. 2016. Time and aspect in Turkish Sign Language (TİD): Manual and nonmanual realization of ‘finish’. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University MA Thesis.Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy. 1990. Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL lexicon. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: theoretical issues, 149–175. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Kelepir, Meltem. 2018. Embracing the other: clusivity distinctions in indefinite arguments in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Invited talk at FEAST 2018. Università Ca’ Foscari, Venice.
Kelepir, Meltem & Aslı Özkul. 2015. Passive-like constructions with inanimate themes in Turkish Sign Language. Talk at Workshop on Impersonals and Passive in Sign Languages , June 2015, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.
. In preparation. Passive-like constructions in Turkish Sign Language.
Kelepir, Meltem, Aslı Özkul & Elvan Tamyürek Özparlak. In press. Clusivity distinction in indefinites in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). 53rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS), University of Chicago.
Kemaloğlu, Yusuf & Pınar Yaprak Kemaloğlu. 2012. The history of sign language and deaf education in Turkey. Kulak Burun Boğaz İhtisas Dergisi 22(2). 65–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koulidobrova, Elena. 2017. Elide me bare. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35(2). 397–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kubus, Okan. 2008. An analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TID) phonology and morphology. Ankara: Middle East Technical University MA Thesis.Google Scholar
L’Huillier, Marie-Thérèse, Marie-Anne Sallandre & Brigitte Garcia. 2015. Impersonal reference to humans in LSF: a first glance. Talk presented at the Workshop on Sign Languages and R-impersonal Pronouns , February 2015, Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Paris.
Mantovan, Lara. 2017. Determiners. In Josep Quer, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Carlo Geraci, Meltem Kelepir, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), SignGram Blueprint: A guide to sign language grammar writing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann. 2012. Verb agreement. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 136–157. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miles, Mike. 2000. Signing in the Seraglio: Mutes, dwarfs and gestures at the Ottoman court 1500–1700. Disability & Society 15(1). 115–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özsoy, Sumru & Chiara Branchini. 2017. Clause structure. In Josep Quer, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Carlo Geraci, Meltem Kelepir, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), SignGram Blueprint: A guide to sign language grammar writing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A. 1988 [1983]. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Saeed, John I. & Lorraine Leeson. 1999. Detransitivisation in Irish Sign Language. Paper presented at the European Science Foundation Intersign Meeting on Morphosyntax (corpora and tagging). Siena, Italy, March 1999. [Published on the Intersign website: [URL]].
Schlenker, Philippe & Jonathan Lamberton. 2013. Iconic variables. Linguistics and Philosophy 36(2). 91–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinbach, Markus & Edgar Onea. 2016. A DRT-analysis of discourse referents and anaphora resolution in sign language. Journal of Semantics 331. 409–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, William C., Dorothy Casterline & Carl Croneberg. 1965. A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Washington DC: Gallaudet College Press.Google Scholar
Sze, Felix. 2010. Is there passive in Hong Kong Sign Language? Poster presentation at TISLR 10. Purdue University.
Taşçı, Süleyman & Aslı Göksel. 2014. The morphological categorization of polymorphemic lexemes: A study based on lexicalized fingerspelled forms in TİD. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Special Issue in Honor of Prof. A. Sumru Özsoy, 165–180.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie. 1987. American Sign Language: Linguistic and applied dimensions. Boston: College-Hill Press.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2002. Sign language in Turkey: The story of a hidden language. Turkic Languages 6(2). 229–274.Google Scholar
. 2003. Aspects of Türk İşaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). Sign Language & Linguistics 6(1). 43–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Karabüklü, Serpil & Ronnie B. Wilbur
2021. Marking various aspects in Turkish Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 24:2 ► pp. 182 ff. DOI logo
Saral, Burcu & Meltem Kelepir
2020. The universal quantifier ‘all’ in Turkish Sign Language. In Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries [Studies in Language Companion Series, 215], ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.