1887
Volume 21, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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, . 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00020.kel
2019-03-22
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aloni, Maria & Angelika Port
    2015 Epistemic indefinites and methods of identifications. InLuis Alonso-Ovalle & Paula Menéndez-Benito (eds.), Epistemic indefinites, 117–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665297.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665297.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Paula Menéndez-Benito
    2013 Two views on epistemic indefinites. Language and Linguistic Compass7(2). 105–122. 10.1111/lnc3.12009
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12009 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bahan, Benjamin, Judy Kegl, Robert Lee, Dawn MacLaughlin & Carol Neidle
    2000 The licensing of null arguments in ASL. Linguistic Inquiry31(1). 1–27. 10.1162/002438900554271
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554271 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barberà, Gemma
    2012 A unified account of specificity in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). InRick Nouwen, Anna Chernilovskaya & Ana Aguilar-Guevara (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung16(1), 43–55. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2015The meaning of space in sign language. Reference, specificity and structure in Catalan Sign Language discourse. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press. 10.1515/9781614518815
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614518815 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2016 Indefiniteness and specificity marking in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Sign Language & Linguistics19(1). 1–36. 10.1075/sll.19.1.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19.1.01bar [Google Scholar]
  7. Barberà, Gemma & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr
    2017 Backgrounded agents in sign language: passives, middles or impersonals?Language93(4). 767–798. 10.1353/lan.2017.0057
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0057 [Google Scholar]
  8. . This volume. R-Impersonals in sign languages: Introduction & questionnaire.
  9. Barberà, Gemma & Kearsy Cormier
    2017 Reference. InJosep 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]
  10. Barberà, Gemma & Josep Quer
    2013 Impersonal reference in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). InLaurence 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. 10.1515/9781614511472.237
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511472.237 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cormier, Kearsy
    2012 Pronouns. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.) Sign language: An international handbook, 227–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110261325.227
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.227 [Google Scholar]
  12. Costello, Brendan
    2015aLanguage and modality: Effects of the use of space in the agreement system of lengua de signos española (Spanish Sign Language). Amsterdam: University of AmsterdamPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2015bGetting (more) impersonal in LSE. Talk atWorkshop on Impersonals and Passive in Sign Languages, June 2015, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Davidson, Kathryn & Deanna Gagne
    2014 Vertical representation of quantifier domains. Sinn und Bedeutung18. 110–127. Basque Country, Spain.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Diesing, Molly
    1992Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dikyuva, Hasan, Bahtiyar Makaroğlu & Engin Arık
    2015Türk İşaret Dili dilbilgisi kitabı [Turkish Sign Language grammar book]. Ankara: TC Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Enç, Mürvet
    1991 The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry22. 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Farkas, Donka
    2002 Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics19. 1–31. 10.1093/jos/19.3.213
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.213 [Google Scholar]
  19. Filimonova, Elena
    (ed.) 2005Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.63
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.63 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fodor, Janet Dean & Ivan Sag
    1982 Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy5. 355–398. 10.1007/BF00351459
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351459 [Google Scholar]
  21. Heusinger, Klaus von
    2002 Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics19. 245–274. 10.1093/jos/19.3.245
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.245 [Google Scholar]
  22. Isenhath, John O.
    1990The linguistics of American Sign Language. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Janzen, Terry, Barbara O’Dea & Barbara Shaffer
    2001 The construal of events: Passives in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies1(3). 281–310. 10.1353/sls.2001.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2001.0009 [Google Scholar]
  24. Karabüklü, Serpil
    2016Time and aspect in Turkish Sign Language (TİD): Manual and nonmanual realization of ‘finish’. Istanbul: Boğaziçi UniversityMA Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kegl, Judy
    1990 Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL lexicon. InCeil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: theoretical issues, 149–175. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kelepir, Meltem
    2018Embracing the other: clusivity distinctions in indefinite arguments in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Invited talk atFEAST 2018. Università Ca’ Foscari, Venice.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kelepir, Meltem & Aslı Özkul
    2015Passive-like constructions with inanimate themes in Turkish Sign Language. Talk atWorkshop on Impersonals and Passive in Sign Languages, June 2015, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. . In preparation. Passive-like constructions in Turkish Sign Language.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kemaloğlu, Yusuf & Pınar Yaprak Kemaloğlu
    2012 The history of sign language and deaf education in Turkey. Kulak Burun Boğaz İhtisas Dergisi22(2). 65–76. 10.5606/kbbihtisas.2012.013
    https://doi.org/10.5606/kbbihtisas.2012.013 [Google Scholar]
  31. Koulidobrova, Elena
    2017 Elide me bare. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory35(2). 397–446. 10.1007/s11049‑016‑9349‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-016-9349-5 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kubus, Okan
    2008An analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TID) phonology and morphology. Ankara: Middle East Technical UniversityMA Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. L’Huillier, Marie-Thérèse, Marie-Anne Sallandre & Brigitte Garcia
    2015Impersonal reference to humans in LSF: a first glance. Talk presented at theWorkshop on Sign Languages and R-impersonal Pronouns, February 2015, Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Paris.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mantovan, Lara
    2017 Determiners. InJosep 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]
  35. Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann
    2012 Verb agreement. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 136–157. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.136
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.136 [Google Scholar]
  36. Miles, Mike
    2000 Signing in the Seraglio: Mutes, dwarfs and gestures at the Ottoman court 1500–1700. Disability & Society15(1). 115–134. 10.1080/09687590025801
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590025801 [Google Scholar]
  37. Özsoy, Sumru & Chiara Branchini
    2017 Clause structure. InJosep 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]
  38. Padden, Carol A.
    1988 [1983]Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Saeed, John I. & Lorraine Leeson
    1999Detransitivisation in Irish Sign Language. Paper presented at theEuropean Science Foundation Intersign Meeting on Morphosyntax (corpora and tagging). Siena, Italy, March 1999. [Published on the Intersign website: www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/Intersign/Workshop3/].
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Schlenker, Philippe & Jonathan Lamberton
    2013 Iconic variables. Linguistics and Philosophy36(2). 91–149. 10.1007/s10988‑013‑9129‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9129-1 [Google Scholar]
  41. Steinbach, Markus & Edgar Onea
    2016 A DRT-analysis of discourse referents and anaphora resolution in sign language. Journal of Semantics33. 409–448. 10.1093/jos/ffv002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv002 [Google Scholar]
  42. Stokoe, William C., Dorothy Casterline & Carl Croneberg
    1965A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Washington DC: Gallaudet College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sze, Felix
    2010Is there passive in Hong Kong Sign Language?Poster presentation atTISLR 10. Purdue University.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 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]
  45. Wilbur, Ronnie
    1987American Sign Language: Linguistic and applied dimensions. Boston: College-Hill Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zeshan, Ulrike
    2002 Sign language in Turkey: The story of a hidden language. Turkic Languages6(2). 229–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 2003 Aspects of Türk İşaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). Sign Language & Linguistics6(1). 43–75. 10.1075/sll.6.1.04zes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.6.1.04zes [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00020.kel
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00020.kel
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): agent-backgrounding , clusivity , high R-locus , impersonal agents , indefinites and non-specificity
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error