Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 24:2 (2021) ► pp.182–225

Marking various aspects in Turkish Sign Language

bı̇t (‘finish’) and ‘bn’

| Purdue University
| Purdue University
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
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous studies on bı̇t and ‘bn’
  • 3.Data sources
    • 3.1Existing data / corpus data
    • 3.2Elicited data: Production and judgment tasks
      • 3.2.1Participants
      • 3.2.2Materials
      • 3.3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Summary
  • 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
    • 6.2‘ap’
    • 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’?
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20006.kar
References (37)
References
Abusch, Dorit. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal ‘de re’. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(1). 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arslan-Kechriotis, Ceyda. 2006. “Perfect” in Turkish. Turkic Languages 101. 246–270.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2012. Lexical aspect and multiple incremental themes. In Violeta Demonte & Louise McNally (eds.), Telicity, change and state, 23–59. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier M. 2001. On a frequent misunderstanding in the temporal aspectual domain: The ‘perfective=telic confusion’. In Carlo Cecchetto, Gennaro Chierchia & Maria T. Guasti (eds.), Semantic interfaces (Reference, anaphora, aspect), 177–211. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Roumyana Pancheva. 2005. The syntax and semantics of aspect. Class notes, LSA 130. Retrieved from [URL]
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. New York, NY: B. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dikyuva, Hasan. 2011. Grammatical nonmanual expressions in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Lancashire: The University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) MA thesis.Google Scholar
Dikyuva, Hasan, Bahtiyar Makaroğlu & Engin Arık. 2017. Turkish Sign Language grammar. Ankara: Fersa Ofset.Google Scholar
Duffy, Quinn. 2007. The ASL perfect formed by preverbal finish . Project Report, Boston University, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Bonnie Gough. 1999. Some unfinished thoughts on finish . Sign Language & Linguistics 2(1). 672–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gökgöz, Kadir. 2011. Negation in Turkish Sign Language: The syntax of nonmanual markers. Sign Language & Linguistics 14(1). 49–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karabüklü, Serpil. 2016. Time and aspect in Turkish Sign Language (TİD): Manual and nonmanual marker of ‘finish’. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University: MA Thesis.Google Scholar
. 2018. Strategies to express time in a tenseless language: Turkish Sign Language. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi (Journal of Linguistics Research) 29(1). 87–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayabaşı, Demet. 2020. The causative-inchoative in Turkish Sign Language and the age-of-acquisition effects on complex clauses. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University MA thesis.Google Scholar
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. 2019. Agent-backgrounding in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Sign Language & Linguistics 21(2). 257–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Proceedings of SALT VIII. 92–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 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.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littell, Patrick. 2010. Thank-you notes. Totem Field Storyboards. Retrieved from [URL]
Meir, Irit. 1999. A perfect marker in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2(1). 43–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit & Wendy Sandler. 2008. A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank. R. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy 701. 601–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rathmann, Christian. 2005. Event structure in American Sign Language (ASL). Austin, TX: The University of Texas PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sevinç, Ayça. M. 2006. Grammatical relations and word order in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Ankara: METU MA thesis.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlotta. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Boston, MA: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
TFS Working Group. 2012. Chameleon story. Totem Field Storyboards. Retrieved from [URL]
Vander Klok, Jozina. 2013. Bill vs. the weather. Totem Field Storyboards. Retrieved from [URL]
von Stechow, Arnim. 1995. On the proper treatment of tense. Proceedings of SALT V. 362–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Tenses in compositional semantics. In Wolfgang Klein & Ping Li (eds.), The expression of time, 129–166. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2003. Aspects of Türk İşaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). Sign Language & Linguistics 6(1). 43–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zucchi, Sandro, Carol Neidle, Carlo Geraci, Quinn Duffy & Carlo Cecchetto. 2010. Functional markers in sign languages. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 197–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Makaroğlu, Bahtiyar
2024. The grammaticalization of the existential sign var in Turkish Sign Language: a Construction Grammar approach. Folia Linguistica 0:0 DOI logo
van Boven, Cindy
2024. Aspectual reduplication in Sign Language of the Netherlands: reconsidering phonological constraints and aspectual distinctions. Linguistics 0:0 DOI logo
Kuhn, Jeremy & Lena Pasalskaya
2023. Negative concord in Russian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 41:1 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.