1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Sign Language & Linguistics
  4. Volume 26, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 26, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates differences in language production of native, early-learner, and late-learner Turkish Sign Language (Türk İşaret Dili – TİD) signers in the domain of classifiers. For this study, we conducted a picture-signing task to elicit clauses with classifier constructions from adult Deaf signers of these three groups. The results indicate that there is no significant difference among these three groups with respect to the morphological encoding of thematic roles on verbal roots in classifier constructions. Nonetheless, a difference surfaces in the argument expression patterns among these groups. The data show that the age of exposure to a first linguistic input impacts the argument expression rates as well as which arguments are expressed or left unexpressed. Native signers drop the agent argument more frequently than early-learner and late-learner signers. Early-learner signers, in turn, drop the agent argument more frequently than late-learners. The data further indicate that perspective taking interacts with argument expression and age of acquisition. Overall, signers drop the agent more frequently under a character perspective than an observer perspective, with native and early-learner signers employing this strategy more than late-learner signers.

© 2023 John Benjamins
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.21006.sev
2023-04-04
2024-12-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sll.21006.sev
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Açan, Zeynep
    2001 A study on sign languages and Turkish Sign Language. Ankara: Hacettepe University, MA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Allan, Keith
    1977 Classifiers. Language53(2). 285–311. 10.1353/lan.1977.0043
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0043 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arık, Engin
    2003 Spatial representations in Turkish Sign Language. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam MA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 2013 Introduction: Previous and current research on Turkish Sign Language. InEngin Arık (ed.), Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research, 1–17. UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler
    2003 Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages. InKaren Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 52–84. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1). 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bel, Aurora, Marta Ortells & Gary Morgan
    2015 Reference control in the narratives of adult sign language learners. International Journal of Bilingualism19(5). 608–624. 10.1177/1367006914527186
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006914527186 [Google Scholar]
  8. Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari
    2004 Where did all the arguments go?: Argument- changing properties of classifiers in asl. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory22(4). 743–810. 10.1007/s11049‑003‑4698‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-003-4698-2 [Google Scholar]
  9. Berman, Ruth. A., Dan. I. Slobin, Ayhan A. Aksu-Koç, Michael Bamberg, Lisa Dasinger, Virginia Marchman, Yonni Neeman, Philip C. Rodkin & Eugina Sebastián
    1994 Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Boudreault, Patrick & Rachel I. Mayberry
    2006 Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes21(5). 608–635. 10.1080/01690960500139363
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960500139363 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brentari, Diane, Marie Coppola, Ashley Jung & Susan Goldin-Meadow
    2013 Acquiring word class distinctions in American Sign Language: Evidence from handshape. Language Learning and Development9(2). 130–150. 10.1080/15475441.2012.679540
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2012.679540 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bürkner, Paul-Christian
    2017 brms: An r package for Bayesian multilevel models using stan. Journal of Statistical Software80(1). 1–28. 10.18637/jss.v080.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cormier, Kearsy, Sandra Smith & Zed Sevcikova-Sehyr
    2015 Rethinking constructed action. Sign Language & Linguistics18(2). 167–204. 10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor [Google Scholar]
  14. Crasborn, Onno
    2007 How to recognize a sentence when you see one. Sign Language & Linguistics10(2). 103–111. 10.1075/sll.10.2.03cra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.10.2.03cra [Google Scholar]
  15. Crasborn, Onno, Richard Bank, Inge Zwitserlood, Else van der Kooij, Anne de Meijer & Anna Sáfár
    2015 Annotation conventions for the corpus NGT, Version 3.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Crasborn, Onno & Han Sloetjes
    2008 Enhanced elan functionality for sign language corpora. InProceedings of LREC 2008, Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Marrakech, Morocco.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. de Lint, Vanja
    2018 NGT classifier constructions: An inventory of arguments. Sign Language & Linguistics21(1). 3–39. 10.1075/sll.00011.lin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00011.lin [Google Scholar]
  18. Drapeau, Lynn & Renée Lambert-Brétière
    2011 Verbal classifiers in Innu. Anthropological Linguistics53(4). 293–322. 10.1353/anl.2011.0025
     https://doi.org/10.1353/anl.2011.0025 [Google Scholar]
  19. Emmorey, Karen
    2001 Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410603982
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603982 [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Glück, Susanne & Roland Pfau
    1998 On classifying classification as a class of inflection in German Sign Language. InTina Cambier-Langeveld, Aniko Lipták & Michael Redford (eds.), Proceedings of ConSole61, 59–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gökgöz, Kadir
    . Under review. Verbal classifiers from a crosslinguistic and cross-modal point of view.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gökgöz, Kadir & Hande Sevgi
    2020 Aspects of clause structure and morphology in Turkish Sign Language. InAslı Gürer, Dilek Uygun-Gökmen & Balkız Öztürk (eds.), Morphological complexity within and across boundaries: In Honour of Aslı Göksel, 315–351. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.215.12gok
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.215.12gok [Google Scholar]
  24. Grose, Donovan, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Katharina Schalber
    2007 Events and telicity in classifier predicates: A reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua117(7). 1258–1284. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.014 [Google Scholar]
  25. Grosjean, Francois & Harlan Lane
    1977 Pauses and syntax in American Sign Language. Cognition51. 101–117. 10.1016/0010‑0277(77)90006‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(77)90006-3 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gür, Cansu
    2018 The effects of late language acquisition on the development of narrative skills: Insights from Turkish Sign Language (Türk İşaret Dili). Erzurum, Türkiye: Atatürk University PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hakgüder, Emre & Diane Brentari
    2020 Predictive typology of sign language instrumentals. Paper presented atFormal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory, Paris, France.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Humphries, Tom, Poorna Kushalnagar, Gaurav Mathur, Donna Jo Napoli, Carol Padden, Christian Rathmann & Scott Smith
    2016 Avoiding linguistic neglect of deaf children. Social Service Review90(4). 589–619. 10.1086/689543
     https://doi.org/10.1086/689543 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2017 Discourses of prejudice in the professions: The case of sign languages. Journal of Medical Ethics43(9). 648–652. 10.1136/medethics‑2015‑103242
     https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-103242 [Google Scholar]
  30. İlkbaşaran, Deniz
    2015 Literacies, mobilities and agencies of deaf youth in Turkey: Constraints and opportunities in the 21st century. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Kantor, Rebecca
    1980 The acquisition of classifiers in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies281. 193–208. 10.1353/sls.1980.0000
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1980.0000 [Google Scholar]
  32. Karadöller, Dilay Z., Beyza Sümer & Aslı Özyürek
    2017 Effects of delayed language exposure on spatial language acquisition by signing children and adults. InGlenn Gunzelmann, Andrew Howes, Thora Tenbrink & Eddy Davelaar (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2372–2376. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2021 Effects and non-effects of late language exposure on spatial language development: Evidence from deaf adults and children. Language Learning and Development17(1). 1–25. 10.1080/15475441.2020.1823846
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2020.1823846 [Google Scholar]
  34. Karadöller, Dilay Z., Beyza Sümer, Ecrenur Ünal & Aslı Özyürek
    2022 Late sign language exposure does not modulate the relation between spatial language and spatial memory in deaf children and adults. Memory & Cognition. 10.3758/s13421‑022‑01281‑7
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-022-01281-7 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kayabaşı, Demet
    2020 The causative-inchoative alternation in Turkish Sign Language and the age-of-acquisition effects on complex clauses. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University MA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kayabaşı, Demet & Kadir Gökgöz
    2022 The causative-inchoative alternation and age-of-acquisition effects on multi-predicate constructions in Turkish Sign Language. Language Learning and Development, 1–26. 10.1080/15475441.2022.2047690
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2022.2047690 [Google Scholar]
  37. Keleş, Onur, Furkan Atmaca & Kadir Gökgöz
    2022 Effects of age of acquisition and category size on signed verbal fluency. Language Acquisition361–383. 10.1080/10489223.2021.2023814
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2021.2023814 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kimmelman, Vadim, Vanja de Lint, Connie de Vos, Marloes Oomen, Roland Pfau, Lianne Vink & Enoch O. Aboh
    2019 Argument structure of classifier predicates: Canonical and non-canonical mappings in four sign languages. Open Linguistics5(1). 332–353. 10.1515/opli‑2019‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2019-0018 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kimmelman, Vadim, Roland Pfau & Enoch O. Aboh
    2020 Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory38(2). 539–579. 10.1007/s11049‑019‑09448‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-019-09448-9 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kubus, Okan
    2008 An analysis of Turkish Sign Language: Phonology and morphology. Ankara: Middle East Technical University MA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lenneberg, Eric H.
    1967 The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice2(12). 59–67. 10.1080/21548331.1967.11707799
     https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.1967.11707799 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Ronice M. de Quadros
    2011 Acquisition of the syntax-discourse interface: The expression of point of view. Lingua121(4). 623–636. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Jonathan Henner
    2021 Acquisition of sign languages. Annual Review of Linguistics7(1). 395–419. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑043020‑092357
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-043020-092357 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mayberry, Rachel I.
    1998 The critical period for language acquisition and the deaf child’s language comprehension: A psycholinguistic approach. Bulletin d’audiophonologie, Université de Franche-Comte.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Mayberry, Rachel I., Tristan Davenport, Austin Roth & Eric Halgren
    2018 Neurolinguistic processing when the brain matures without language. Cortex991. 390–403. 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.12.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.12.011 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mayberry, Rachel I. & Ellen B. Eichen
    1991 The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language30(4). 486–512. 10.1016/0749‑596X(91)90018‑F
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90018-F [Google Scholar]
  47. Mayberry, Rachel I. & Robert Kluender
    2018 Rethinking the critical period for language: New insights into an old question from American Sign Language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition21(5). 938–944. 10.1017/S1366728918000585
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000585 [Google Scholar]
  48. Mitchell, Rose & Michael Karchmer
    2004 Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies41. 138–168. 10.1353/sls.2004.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2004.0005 [Google Scholar]
  49. Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler
    1999 Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech421. 143–176. 10.1177/00238309990420020201
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020201 [Google Scholar]
  50. Newport, Elissa L.
    1990 Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science14(1). 11–28. 10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2 [Google Scholar]
  51. Newport, Elissa. L. & Richard P. Meier
    1985 The acquisition of American Sign Language. InDan I. Slobin (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, Vol.11, 881–938. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Nyst, Victoria
    2007 A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Özdemir, Semra
    2021 Expression of arguments and age of acquisition effects in Turkish Sign Language. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University MA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Özkul, Aslı
    2013 A phonological and morphological analysis of noun-verb pairs in Turkish Sign Language. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University MA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Özyürek, Aslı & Pamela Perniss
    2011 Event representations in signed languages. InJürgen Bohnemeyer & Eric Pederson (eds.), Event representations in language and cognition, 84–107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511782039.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511782039.005 [Google Scholar]
  56. Penfield, Wilder & Lamar Roberts
    1959 Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Perniss, Pamela & Aslı Özyürek
    2008 Representations of action, motion, and location in sign space: A comparison of German and Turkish Sign Language narratives. InJosep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR81, 352–378. Hamburg: Signum.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2020 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/
  59. Reynolds, Wanette
    2018 Young bimodal bilingual development of referent tracking in signed narratives: Further justification of heritage signer status. Sign Language Studies18(3). 328–354. 10.1353/sls.2018.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2018.0006 [Google Scholar]
  60. Rose, Françoise
    2019 From classifiers to applicatives in Mojeño Trinitario: A new source for applicative markers. Linguistic Typology23(3). 435–466. 10.1515/lingty‑2019‑0024
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0024 [Google Scholar]
  61. Santiesteban, Idalmis, Sarah White, Jennifer Cook, Sam Gilbert, Cecilia Heyes & Geoffrey Bird
    2012 Training social cognition: from imitation to theory of mind. Cognition122(2). 228–235. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  62. Schick, Brenda S.
    1990 The effects of morphological complexity on phonological simplification in ASL. Sign Language Studies66(1). 25–41. 10.1353/sls.1990.0014
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1990.0014 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schick, Brenda S., Marc Marschark & Patricia Elizabeth Spencer
    2006 Advances in the sign language development of deaf children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Sevgi, Hande
    2019 The impact of age of acquisition on structure: A study on alignment in Turkish Sign Language. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University MA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Singleton, Jenny L. & Elissa L. Newport
    2004 When learners surpass their models: The acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive Psychology49(4). 370–407. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  66. Slobin, Dan. I., Nini Hoiting, Marlon Kuntze, Reyna Lindert, Amy Weinberg, Jennie Pyers, Michelle Anthony, Yael Biederman & Helen Thumann
    2003 A cognitive/functional perspective on the acquisition of ‘classifiers’. InKaren Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 271–298. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Supalla, Ted
    1982 Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 1986 The classifier system in American Sign Language. InColette Craig (ed.), Noun classes and categorization, 181–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.7.13sup
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.7.13sup [Google Scholar]
  69. Tomasello, Michael
    2003 The key is social cognition. InDedre Gentner & Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 47–57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Trovato, Sara
    2013 A stronger reason for the right to sign languages. Sign Language Studies13(3). 401–422. 10.1353/sls.2013.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2013.0006 [Google Scholar]
  71. Wilbur, Ronnie
    1987 American Sign Language: Linguistic and applied dimensions. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 1994 Eyeblinks and ASL phrase structure. Sign Language Studies841. 221–240. 10.1353/sls.1994.0019
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1994.0019 [Google Scholar]
  73. Zwitserlood, Inge
    2003 Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Leiden: University of Leiden PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 2012 Classifiers. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 158–186. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.158
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.158 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.21006.sev
Loading
Classifiers, argument expression, and age of acquisition effects in Turkish Sign Language (TİD)
Sign Language & Linguistics 26, 1 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.21006.sev
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.21006.sev
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.21006.sev
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argument expression; classifiers; effects of delayed first language acquisition; first language acquisition; morphosyntax; Turkish Sign Language

Most Cited

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