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
| 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
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20006.kar
References
Abusch, Dorit
1997 Sequence of tense and temporal ‘de re’. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(1). 1–50. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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 http://​web​.mit​.edu​/rbhatt​/www​/lsa130/
Comrie, Bernard
1985 Tense. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gökgöz, Kadir
2011 Negation in Turkish Sign Language: The syntax of nonmanual markers. Sign Language & Linguistics 14(1). 49–75. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1998 More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Proceedings of SALT VIII. 92–110. CrossrefGoogle 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 http://​totemfieldstoryboards​.org​/stories​/thank​_you​_notes/
Meir, Irit
1999 A perfect marker in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2(1). 43–62. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H.
1973 Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy 701. 601–609. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2008 Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
von Stechow, Arnim
1995 On the proper treatment of tense. Proceedings of SALT V. 362–386. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar