Topics in Turkish syntax : clausal structure and scope

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, 2001.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 216-227).This dissertation asks two main questions for Turkish: (i) what is the interaction between verbal morphology and the structure?, and (ii) what is the interaction between word order and interpretation? Following Kornfilt (1996) I argue that there are two verbal forms in finite structures: one consists of a participle and a copula, which is inflected for tense and agreement, and the other is a fully inflected verbal form. I propose that the former is formed by a derivation in which the verb moves as far as a functional head such Aspect or Modal, creating a participle. A verbal feature (copula) is inserted at T⁰ satisfying its verbal requirement. In the latter case the verb moves all the way up to T⁰. No copula is inserted. The rest of the dissertation focuses on the interaction between structure and quantificational elements. One question addressed is why indefinites marked overtly for accusative case violate scope rigidity, and are interpreted as having wide scope over quantificational elements c-commanding them. It is argued that they do not violate scope rigidity, but rather the unexpected wide scope interpretation is the result of a special interpretative mechanism.(cont.) Accusative-marked indefinites are interpreted as choice functions. Structures with various quantifiers, indefinites and negative polarity items are discussed, and it is argued that the interpretation of both choice function variables and negative polarity items are subject to intervention effects. Finally, structures with clausal possessives are analyzed. The discussion focuses on one type of clausal possessive in which the possessor is in the genitive case and the possessee agrees with the possessor. It is shown that this construction is subject to a constraint similar to the there-sentences in English in that the possessee cannot be presuppositional. It is argued that the possessor is generated in a constituent within VP with the possessee, but raises to the [Spec, TP]. The possessee remains within VP, and is interpreted non-presuppositionally.by Meltem Kelepir.Ph.D

Properties of Command Constructions in TİD

This paper focuses on the properties of command constructions in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). The nature and function of manual signs and nonmanual markers in command constructions in TİD are investigated to determine their prosodic, morphological, morphophonological, and syntactic properties. We show that TİD does not utilize any of the properties reported in the literature as an obligatory marker of commands in some spoken and sign languages. The only salient marker of commands we have identified is a nonmanual marker: (forward/sideward) head tilt

Relative clauses

A relative clause is a clause that modifies a noun, and thus, it has an adjectival function. The noun that is modified is called “the head” (or “head noun”). Depending on the language, any constituent of the relative clause can be relativized, i.e. can be the head. In the following example, the object of the verb of the relative clause, admire, is relativized. The blank line in the example indicates where the head, artist, is interpreted. The noun phrase containing the relative clause can have any grammatical function. In this example, it is the subject of the main clause. (For reasons of simplification, in the examples provided in this chapter, the relative clause is in italics and, where marked, the head is in bold. Where present, the underscore illustrates the clausal gap where the head is interpreted but not pronounced.) [The artist that Laura admires __ ] makes beautiful pottery. Languages form relative clauses in a variety of ways. If the sign language that is studied does not mark a relative clause with a special manual sign, identifying relative clauses may be a challenging task. It has been observed in sign languages for which a description of relative clauses is available, that non-manual markers are often the only linguistic means distinguishing relative clause constructions from coordinate clauses / coordinate clauses [Syntax – Section 3.1]. We will illustrate some properties of relativization that may help in identifying the presence of a relative clause in the language under investigation

Coordination of clauses

In addition to a classification in sentence types [Syntax – Chapter 1] (declaratives, imperatives, interrogatives, and exclamatives), sentences can be classified according to their internal complexity. A sentence is simple when it consists of a single independent clause (‘Mohammed arrived on time’) while it is complex when it consists of a main and a subordinate clause or of two (or more) coordinate clauses. In principle, the level of subordination is unlimited (‘John said that I think that Mohammed claimed that Kazuko is convinced that you arrived on time’) although in practice there are limitations of the sentence length due to cognitive limitations (for example, working memory). The main difference between subordination and coordination is that coordinated clauses have the same status while the main clause and the subordinated one do not. For example, the two clauses that form the coordinated sentence ‘Mohammed arrived on time and Sarah arrived late’ might be used as independent sentences. In contrast, subordination is a syntactic mechanism by which a clause becomes dependent on another one. Therefore, in the complex sentence ‘If Mohammed arrives on time, Miriam will be surprised’, the subordinate clause ‘if Mohammed arrives on time’ could never be used as an independent sentence while the main clause ‘Miriam will be surprised’ might. By coordination we mean the combination of at least two constituents / [Syntax – Section 2.0.1], often belonging to the same syntactic category such as phrases [Syntax – Chapter 4], verb phrases, or clauses, either through conjunction or constituents noun juxtaposition. Conjunction refers to combining at least two constituents through the use of conjunctions / conjunctions [Lexicon – Section 3.9] such as and, but, and or. Juxtaposition, on the other hand, refers to the coordination of constituents without such conjunctions. This section focuses on properties of coordinated clauses. The reader is referred to sections on other types of phrases for a discussion of coordination of those constituents

Subordination

By subordination, we mean a syntactic mechanism by which clauses are combined. As opposed to coordination / coordination [Syntax – Section 3.1], where clauses share an equal status in the sentence, a core property of subordination is the asymmetric status of the two (or more) clauses being in a hierarchical relation. The main clause, also called the independent clause, is syntactically and semantically autonomous, while the subordinate clause, also called dependent, is syntactically and semantically dependent on the main clause. In this section, we will use the term “main clause” to refer to the independent clause and the term “subordinate clause” to refer to the dependent clause. In this section, the grammar writer will be guided into the obersevation of a number of properties that can be associated with subordination, and is advised to use them to introduce subordinate clauses and distinguish them from coordinate clauses. Languages however vary a lot with respect to the properties that can to define subordinate clauses. The grammar writer is, therefore, advised to verify their validity in the target sign language. The grammar writer is then referred to various sections in the Syntax part, namely the sections on [Syntax – Section 3.3], [Syntax – Section 3.4], [Syntax – Section 3.5], [Syntax – Section 3.6], and [Syntax – Section 3.7], where specific subordinate constructions are discussed, and for a detailed and specific description of the manual and non-manual markers of subordination that may be employed in each construction

Decomposing the Non-Manual Tier: Cross-Modality Generalisations

n/

SignGram Blueprint: A Guide to Sign Language Grammar Writing

International audienc

Event representations constrain the structure of language: Sign language as a window into universally accessible linguistic biases

According to a theoretical tradition dating back to Aristotle, verbs can be classified into two broad categories. Telic verbs (e.g., "decide," "sell," "die") encode a logical endpoint, whereas atelic verbs (e.g., "think," "negotiate," "run") do not, and the denoted event could therefore logically continue indefinitely. Here we show that sign languages encode telicity in a seemingly universal way and moreover that even nonsigners lacking any prior experience with sign language understand these encodings. In experiments 1-5, nonsigning English speakers accurately distinguished between telic (e.g., "decide") and atelic (e.g., "think") signs from (the historically unrelated) Italian Sign Language, Sign Language of the Netherlands, and Turkish Sign Language. These results were not due to participants’ inferring that the sign merely imitated the action in question. In experiment 6, we used pseudosigns to show that the presence of a salient visual boundary at the end of a gesture was sufficient to elicit telic interpretations, whereas repeated movement without salient boundaries elicited atelic interpretations. Experiments 7-10 confirmed that these visual cues were used by all of the sign languages studied here. Together, these results suggest that signers and nonsigners share universally accessible notions of telicity as well as universally accessible "mapping biases" between telicity and visual form