Marking various aspects in Turkish Sign Language
bı̇t (‘finish’) and ‘bn’
Sign languages have been reported to have manual signs that function as perfective morphemes (Fischer & Gough 1999; Meir 1999; Rathmann 2005; Duffy 2007; Zucchi et al. 2010). Turkish Sign Language (TİD) has also been claimed to have such morphemes (Zeshan 2003; Kubuş & Rathmann 2009; Dikyuva 2011; Gökgöz 2011; Karabüklü 2016) as well as a nonmanual completive marker (‘bn’) (Dikyuva 2011). This study shows that the nonmanual ‘bn’ is in fact a perfective morpheme. We examine its compatibility with different event types and furthermore show that TİD has a manual sign bı̇t (‘finish’) that is indeed the completive marker but with possibly unusual restrictions on its use. Based on their distribution, the current study distinguishes bı̇t and ‘bn’ as different morphemes even though they can co-occur. TİD is argued to be typologically different from other sign languages since it has both a nonmanual marker (‘bn’) for a perfective morpheme and a manual sign (bı̇t) with different selectional properties than the manual signs reported for other sign languages.
Keywords: Turkish Sign Language (TİD), aspect morphemes, perfectivity, event types, nonmanual markers
- 2.Previous studies on bı̇t and ‘bn’
- 3.Data sources
- 3.1Existing data / corpus data
- 3.2Elicited data: Production and judgment tasks
- 4.General overview of bı̇t and ‘bn’
- 4.1Different functions of bı̇t
- 4.2Various structures in which ‘bn’ occurs
- 5.Temporal features of bı̇t and ‘bn’
- 5.1Reichenbach’s definition of tense
- 5.2Testing bı̇t and ‘bn’
- 6.Negating bı̇t and ‘bn’
- 6.1Negative hı̇ç
- 6.3Summary of analyses of hı̇ç and ‘ap’
- 7.Aspectual features of bı̇t and ‘bn’
- 7.1Perfectivity and telicity
- 7.2Aspectual properties of bı̇t
- 7.2.1 bı̇t introducing [res] to the event
- 7.3Aspectual properties of ‘bn’
- 7.4Does ‘subject’ play a role in the acceptability of bı̇t and ‘bn’?
Published online: 16 July 2021
Bertinetto, Pier M.
Bhatt, Rajesh & Roumyana Pancheva
2005 The syntax and semantics of aspect. Class notes, LSA 130. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/rbhatt/www/lsa130/
Dikyuva, Hasan, Bahtiyar Makaroğlu & Engin Arık
Fischer, Susan & Bonnie Gough
Kelepir, Meltem & Aslı Özkul
2015 Passive-like constructions with inanimate themes in Turkish Sign Language. Talk presented at Workshop on Impersonals and Passive in Sign Languages, University of Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. (15–16 June, 2015).
Kelepir, Meltem, Aslı Özkul & Elvan Tamyürek Özparlak
1987 Nominal reference and temporal constitution: Towards a semantics of quantity. Paper presented at the sixth Amsterdam colloquium on formal methods in the study of the language, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Kubuş, Okan & Christian Rathmann
2009 Past and telic meaning contributed by non-manual marker (pt) in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Paper presented at Workshop on Non-manuals in Sign Languages, Johann-Wolfgang Universitat, Frankfurt.
2010 Thank-you notes. Totem Field Storyboards. Retrieved from http://totemfieldstoryboards.org/stories/thank_you_notes/
Meir, Irit & Wendy Sandler
Partee, Barbara H.
Sevinç, Ayça. M.
TFS Working Group
2012 Chameleon story. Totem Field Storyboards. Retrieved from http://totemfieldstoryboards.org/stories/chameleon_story/
Vander Klok, Jozina
2013 Bill vs. the weather. Totem Field Storyboards. Retrieved from http://www.totemfieldstoryboards.org