1887
Volume 24, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Sign languages have been reported to have manual signs that function as perfective morphemes (Fischer & Gough 1999Meir 1999Rathmann 2005Duffy 2007Zucchi et al. 2010). Turkish Sign Language (TİD) has also been claimed to have such morphemes (Zeshan 2003Kubuş & Rathmann 2009Dikyuva 2011Gökgöz 2011Karabüklü 2016) as well as a nonmanual 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 (‘finish’) that is indeed the completive marker but with possibly unusual restrictions on its use. Based on their distribution, the current study distinguishes 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 () with different selectional properties than the manual signs reported for other sign languages.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20006.kar
2021-07-16
2021-10-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abusch, Dorit
    1997 Sequence of tense and temporal ‘de re’. Linguistics and Philosophy20(1). 1–50. 10.1023/A:1005331423820
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005331423820 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arslan-Kechriotis, Ceyda
    2006 “Perfect” in Turkish. Turkic Languages10. 246–270.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beavers, John
    2012 Lexical aspect and multiple incremental themes. InVioleta Demonte & Louise McNally (eds.), Telicity, change and state, 23–59. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693498.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693498.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bertinetto, Pier M.
    2001 On a frequent misunderstanding in the temporal aspectual domain: The ‘perfective=telic confusion’. InCarlo Cecchetto, Gennaro Chierchia & Maria T. Guasti (eds.), Semantic interfaces (Reference, anaphora, aspect), 177–211. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhatt, Rajesh & Roumyana Pancheva
    2005The syntax and semantics of aspect. Class notes, LSA 130. Retrieved fromweb.mit.edu/rbhatt/www/lsa130/
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Comrie, Bernard
    1985Tense. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165815
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165815 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dahl, Östen
    1985Tense and aspect systems. New York, NY: B. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dikyuva, Hasan
    2011Grammatical nonmanual expressions in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Lancashire: The University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dikyuva, Hasan, Bahtiyar Makaroğlu & Engin Arık
    2017Turkish Sign Language grammar. Ankara: Fersa Ofset.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Duffy, Quinn
    2007 The ASL perfect formed by preverbal finish. Project Report, Boston University, Boston, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fischer, Susan & Bonnie Gough
    1999 Some unfinished thoughts on finish. Sign Language & Linguistics2(1). 672–677. 10.1075/sll.2.1.08fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.1.08fis [Google Scholar]
  12. Gökgöz, Kadir
    2011 Negation in Turkish Sign Language: The syntax of nonmanual markers. Sign Language & Linguistics14(1). 49–75. 10.1075/sll.14.1.04gok
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.14.1.04gok [Google Scholar]
  13. Karabüklü, Serpil
    2016Time and aspect in Turkish Sign Language (TİD): Manual and nonmanual marker of ‘finish’. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University: MA Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2018 Strategies to express time in a tenseless language: Turkish Sign Language. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi (Journal of Linguistics Research) 29(1). 87–118. 10.18492/dad.373461
    https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.373461 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kayabaşı, Demet
    2020The causative-inchoative in Turkish Sign Language and the age-of-acquisition effects on complex clauses. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kelepir, Meltem & Aslı Özkul
    2015 Passive-like constructions with inanimate themes in Turkish Sign Language. Talk presented atWorkshop on Impersonals and Passive in Sign Languages, University of Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. (15–16 June, 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kelepir, Meltem, Aslı Özkul & Elvan Tamyürek Özparlak
    2019 Agent-backgrounding in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Sign Language & Linguistics21(2). 257–283. 10.1075/sll.00020.kel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00020.kel [Google Scholar]
  18. Kratzer, Angelika
    1998 More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Proceedings of SALT VIII. 92–110. 10.3765/salt.v8i0.2808
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v8i0.2808 [Google Scholar]
  19. Krifka, Manfred
    1987 Nominal reference and temporal constitution: Towards a semantics of quantity. Paper presented at thesixth Amsterdam colloquium on formal methods in the study of the language, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kubuş, Okan & Christian Rathmann
    2009 Past and telic meaning contributed by non-manual marker (pt) in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Paper presented atWorkshop on Non-manuals in Sign Languages, Johann-Wolfgang Universitat, Frankfurt.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Levin, Beth
    1993English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Littell, Patrick
    2010 Thank-you notes. Totem Field Storyboards. Retrieved fromtotemfieldstoryboards.org/stories/thank_you_notes/
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Meir, Irit
    1999 A perfect marker in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics2(1). 43–62. 10.1075/sll.2.1.04mei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.1.04mei [Google Scholar]
  24. Meir, Irit & Wendy Sandler
    2008A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Palmer, Frank. R.
    2001Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  26. Partee, Barbara H.
    1973 Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy70. 601–609. 10.2307/2025024
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2025024 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ramchand, Gillian
    2008Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  28. Rathmann, Christian
    2005Event structure in American Sign Language (ASL). Austin, TX: The University of TexasPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Reichenbach, Hans
    1947Elements of symbolic logic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sevinç, Ayça. M.
    2006Grammatical relations and word order in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Ankara: METU MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Smith, Carlotta
    1997The parameter of aspect. Boston, MA: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5606‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5606-6 [Google Scholar]
  32. TFS Working Group
    TFS Working Group 2012 Chameleon story. Totem Field Storyboards. Retrieved fromtotemfieldstoryboards.org/stories/chameleon_story/
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Vander Klok, Jozina
    2013 Bill vs. the weather. Totem Field Storyboards. Retrieved fromwww.totemfieldstoryboards.org
    [Google Scholar]
  34. von Stechow, Arnim
    1995 On the proper treatment of tense. Proceedings of SALT V. 362–386. 10.3765/salt.v5i0.2700
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v5i0.2700 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2009 Tenses in compositional semantics. InWolfgang Klein & Ping Li (eds.), The expression of time, 129–166. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Zeshan, Ulrike
    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]
  37. Zucchi, Sandro, Carol Neidle, Carlo Geraci, Quinn Duffy & Carlo Cecchetto
    2010 Functional markers in sign languages. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 197–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.011 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20006.kar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20006.kar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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