Cover not available

In: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. 315–352

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Aspects of clause structure and morphology in Turkish Sign Language

 | Boğaziçi University
 | Harvard University
Published online: 15 July 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.215.12gok
Abstract
We highlight some aspects of the clause structure of Turkish Sign Language (TİD). There are zero to three-argument predicates in TİD. We divide the paper into chapters according to the number of arguments, but morphological categorization of predicates is instrumental in understanding different members of these groups. Zero-place weather predicates, unaccusatives, unergatives, and transitives can belong to the morphologically plain predicates group. However, there are no plain ditransitive predicates. On the other hand, except for weather predicates which lack an argument to start with, locus and classifier agreement apply to some members of all the predicate groups. Lastly, we show that there is no one-to-one relation between a classifier type and a transitive argument structure.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Morphological categorization of predicates, referential loci, and classifiers
  • 3.Weather Predicates
  • 4.Intransitive predicates
    • 4.1Unaccusative predicates
    • 4.2Unergative predicates
    • 4.3Intransitive predicates and argument realization
    • 4.4Intransitive predicates and nonmanual morphology
  • 5.Transitive predicates
    • 5.1Transitive sentences with plain predicates
    • 5.2Transitive sentences with locus agreement predicates
      • 5.2.1Transitive sentences with single locus agreement predicates
      • 5.2.2Transitive sentences with double locus agreement predicates
      • 5.2.3Transitive sentences with backwards locus agreement predicates
    • 5.3Transitive sentences with classifiers
  • 6.Ditransitives predicates
    • 6.1Ditransitives predicates which agree with the referential locus of the subject and the indirect object
    • 6.2Ditransitives predicates which agree with the referential locus of the source and goal
    • 6.3Ditransitives predicates with an incorporated theme
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Glossing conventions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (56)
References
Alibašić Ciciliani, Tamara A. & Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2006. Pronominal system in Croatian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 9(1): 95–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker-Shenk, Charlotte Lee & Cokely, Dennis. 1991. American Sign Language: A Teacher's Resource Text on Grammar and Culture. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bellugi, Ursula & Fischer, Susan. 1972. A comparison of sign language and spoken language. Cognition 1(2–3): 173–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Brentari, Diane. 2004. Where did all the arguments go? Argument changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4): 743–810. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berenz, Norine. 2002. Insights into person deixis. Sign Language & Linguistics 5(2): 203–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berenz, Norine & Ferreira-Brito, Lucinda. 1990. Pronouns in BCSL and ASL. In Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, William H. Edmondson & Fred Karlson (eds), 26–36. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane & Crossley, Laurinda. 2002. Prosody on the hands and face: Evidence from American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 5(2): 105–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy, Wechsler, Stephen & Meier, Richard P. 1999. Locus agreement in American Sign Language. In Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, Gert Webelhuth, Jean-Pierre Koenig & Andreas Kathol (eds), 215–229. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno A., van der Kooij, Els, Waters, Dafydd, Woll, Bencie & Mesch, Johanna. 2008. Frequency distribution and spreading behavior of different types of mouth actions in three sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 11(1): 45–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Quadros, Ronice Müller & Quer, Josep. 2008. Back to back (wards) and moving on: On agreement, auxiliaries and verb classes in sign languages. In Proceedings of the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference 9, Florianopolis, Brazil 2006, Ronice Müller de Quadros (ed.), 530–551. Petropolis: Editora Arara Azul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Quadros, Ronice Müller & Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2010. Clause structure. In Sign languages, Diane Brentari (ed.), 225–251. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2011. Phi-feature inflection and agreement: An introduction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4): 857–874. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1988. Preferred argument structure in an active language: Arguments against the category ‘intransitive subject’. Lingua 74(1): 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gökgöz, Kadir. In preparation. A syntactic typology of verbal classifiers across two modalities.
. 2017. Commentary on Bos (1998). Sign Language & Linguistics 20(2): 270–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. The Nature of Object Marking in American Sign Language, PhD dissertation, Purdue University, Indiana.
Göksel, Aslı & Kelepir, Meltem. 2016. Observations on clausal complementation in Turkish Sign Language. In A Matter of Complexity: Subordination in Sign Languages, Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Annika Hermann (eds), 65–94. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grose, Donovan & Schalber, Katharina. 2008. The semantics, syntax, and phonology of event-related nonmanuals in ÖGS and ASL. In Proceedings of the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference 9, Florianopolis, Brazil, 2006, Ronice Müller de Quadros (ed.). Petropolis: Editora Arara Azul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hakgüder, Emre. 2015. Complex Clauses with Embedded Constituent Interrogatives in Turkish Sign Language. MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
He, Jia & Tang, Gladys. 2018. Causativity and transitivity in classifier predicates in Tianjin Sign Language. Presented at Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory, FEAST 2018, June 18–20, Ca’ Foscari University, Venice.
Janis, Wynne. 1992. Morphosyntax of the ASL Verb Phrase. PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Kayabaşı, Demet. 2019. Türk İşaret Dili’nde Alt-Yüz El-Dışı İşaretlerinin Üretiminde Edinim Yaşının Etkileri (Effects of age of acquisition on the production of lower face non-manuals). Presented at 33. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı, 9–10 May 2019, Mersin, Turkey.
Kayabaşı, Demet & Gökgöz, Kadir. 2019. Causative-inchoative alternation in Turkish Sign Language. Poster presented at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research – TISLR 13, 26–28 September, Hamburg University.
Kimmelman, Vadim. 2018. Basic argument structure in Russian Sign Language. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, Pfau, Roland & Aboh, Enoch O. 2019a. Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Online First, 3 April 2019. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, de Lint, Vanja, de Vos, Connie, Oomen, Marloes, Pfau, Roland, Vink, Lianne, & Aboh, Enoch O. 2019b. Argument structure of classifier predicates: Canonical and non-canonical mappings in four sign languages. Open Linguistics 5(1): 332–353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul R. 2005. Analysing Grammar: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kubus, Okan. 2008. An Analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TİD) Phonology and Morphology. MA thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Liddell, Scott K. 1980. American Sign Language Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Klima, Edward. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Vol. 1: Linguistics, Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds), 191–210. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lourenço, Guilherme & Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2018. Are plain verbs really plain? Co-localization as the agreement marker in sign languages. FEAST. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign language Theory 2: 68–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Makaroğlu, Bahtiyar & Dikyuva, Hasan (eds). 2017. The Contemporary Turkish Sign Language Dictionary. Ankara: The Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policy. <[URL]> (4 January 2020).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Makaroğlu, Bahtiyar & İşsever, Selçuk. 2018. Agreement verbs in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) from the perspective of templatic morphology. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 29(1): 51–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meier, Richard Paul. 1982. Icons, Analogues, and Morphemes: The Acquisition of Verb Agreement in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Meir, Irit. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20(2): 413–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998b. Thematic Structure and Verb Agreement in Israeli Sign Language. PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol J., Kegl, Judy, MacLaughlin, Dawn, Bahan, Benjamin & Lee, Robert G. 2000. The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A. 1983. Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Jeri J. Jaeger (ed.), 157–189. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland, 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sevgi, Hande. 2019. Effects of Age of Acquisition on Morphosyntactic Structures in Turkish Sign Language: Evidence from Classifiers. MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
Sevinç, Ayça Müge. 2006. Grammatical Relations and Word Order in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). MA thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76(4): 859–890. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steinbach, Markus & Onea, Edgar. 2015. A DRT analysis of discourse referents and anaphora resolution in sign language. Journal of Semantics 33(3): 409–448. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted R. 1982. Structures and Acquisition of the Verbs of Motion and Location in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Zaenen, Annie. 1988. Unaccusative verbs in Dutch and the syntax-semantics interface. CSLI Reports 88–123.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge E. P. 2003. Classifying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Sevgi, Hande & Kadir Gökgöz
2023. Classifiers, argument expression, and age of acquisition effects in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Sign Language & Linguistics 26:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue