Negation

Research on Topics and Focus in TİD is yet forthcoming; however, Section 2.2.4.4 does provide an outline of the use of topicalizations in the signed language.

(13)

ht

a. INDEX1 ÖĞRETMEN DEĞİL INDEX1 TEACHER NOT I am not a teacher.

(Gökgöz 2009, p. 20, Turkish Glosses are added) ht

b. OLMAZ CANNOT

That’s impossible / No way.

(Zeshan 2003, p. 57, head back is coded as ht) hs

c. IND1 EŞ/EVLENMEK KAVGA YO IND1 PARTNER/MARRY FIGHT NO I do not fight with my partner.

(Zeshan ibid., head shake is coded as hs)

ht d. SİNAN EV YOK

SİNAN HOUSE NOT-EXIST Sinan is not at home.

hs e. IND1 YAPMAK SIFIR IND1 DO NULL I did not do / I did nothing.

hs ht f. SİNAN HİÇ YEMEK^DEĞİL SİNAN NONE EAT^NOT Sinan ate nothing.

Among the negation particles in TİD, DEĞİL is used most frequently, often following nouns, adjectives, or verbs. When DEĞİL is used with a noun or adjective phrase, the phrase does not undergo any phonological change, as in (14a). However, DEĞİL cannot precede certain phrases (14b), and it is generally supported by a nonmanual element, namely a backward head tilt and raised eyebrows (Zeshan 2003). Such markings are completely different from those used in sign languages in Western countries, like ASL and DGS, both of which use the headshake as their primary marker of nonmanual negation. However, the backward head tilt is observed in Greek Sign Language (GSL; Antzakas & Woll 2002), Lebanese Sign Language (Lughat al-Isharat al-Lubnaniya - LIL) (Zeshan 2003; 2004), as well as Jordanian Sign Language (Lughat al-Ishara al-Urdinia - LIU) (Hendriks 2008). Hearing people in many Mediterranean and Arab regions, such as Greece, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey frequently use this (emblematic) gesture (McNeill 1992, 2005) as well. Over time, the backwards head tilt may have become grammaticized, which eventually led to its current usage: signaling negation. However, in her data, Hendriks (2008, p. 89) indicates that no manual element in LIU, with the exception of LIKE^NOT, accompanies this facial gesture.

(14)

ht a. ARABA KIRMIZI DEĞİL.

CAR RED NOT The car is not red.

b. * ARABA DEĞİL KIRMIZI CAR NOT RED The car is not red.

Unlike nouns and adjectives, verbs that are combined with DEĞİL can undergo phonological alteration. For example, in (15) when the sign SEV ‘love’ is

negated, the movement of the verb stem is slightly reduced, and the location of DEĞİL is assimilated into the area where the verb is articulated (see Figure 2.6).

However, some verbs cannot be negated with DEĞİL (i.e. irregular forms), such as, İSTE ‘to want’ –İSTEME ‘not to want’. The stem and the reasons for such irregularities are still unknown, and further research is required.

(15)

ht SİNAN YAŞAM SEV^DEGİL SİNAN YAŞAM LOVE^NOT Sinan does not love Yaşam.

Figure 2.9 - Negated form of the verb SEV ‘love’

Kubus (2008) points out that verbs are negated with such suffixes, whereas Zeshan (2003) and Gökgöz (2009) label these changes as the cliticized form of DEĞİL. Zeshan (2004, p. 46-47) refers to three separate points of evidence in order to explain why this kind of negation is considered clitic: (i) the ability to separately sign the full form of DEĞİL (ii) the high flexibility of the clitic form, with no full reduction in the movement of verb (i.e. the verb to which DEĞİL attaches is not fully reduced), and (iii) consistency in the handshape structure of both signs. For detailed information on phonological changes in such formations, readers are referred to Zeshan’s (2003) article on negative clitics, as well as Gökgöz’s (2009) thesis on TİD syntax. The behavior of DEĞİL with regard to the verbs it negates, however, does not necessarily meet basic assumptions about the

distinction between clitics and affixes, as defined by Zwicky & Pullum (1983, pp.

503-504)¹⁰:

(i) Clitics can exhibit a low degree of selection with respect to their hosts, while affixes exhibit a high degree of selection with respect to their stems.

(ii) Arbitrary gaps in the set of combinations are more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic groups.

(iii) Morphophonological idiosyncrasies are more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic groups.

Although the phonological changes to DEĞİL depend on the host (or stem), i.e., verbs, and do not appear to have a low degree of selection, DEĞİL can be attached as a suffix to almost all verbs. DEĞİL cannot, however, be used with İSTE ‘to want’ (see Dikyuva & Zeshan 2008). Additionally, DEĞİL can influence its host verbs (or stems), resulting in a drop of repetitive movement in certain verbs, such as BİL ‘to know’. Although these claims are not sufficient to provide strong counterevidence against the analysis of DEĞİL as a clitic, this does not rule out the use of this negation form as a suffix, either.

Yet another way to indicate negation in TİD is through a process known as

‘zero morpheme’ (for ASL, see Aronoff et al. 2005; Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2006).

Zero morpheme, which resembles the sign HİÇ, can be applied to both adjectives and nouns. This morpheme adds the meaning ‘without (something)’ to the stem (Kubus 2008). Figure 2.7 illustrates the example ŞEKER^SİZ ‘sugar-free’. The negation process for adjectives and nouns seems to be limited to zero morpheme.

10 Zwicky & Pullum (1983) list six characteristics of the distinction between affixes and clitics.

Here, only three of them are listed.

Figure 2.10 - ŞEKER^SİZ ‘sugar-free’

As mentioned earlier, a declarative sentence with negative, nonmanual marking, generally taking the form of a headshake, is another possible negation marker in ASL and DGS. For instance, negation with NICHT ‘not’ is an option in DGS, as demonstrated in (16a) (Pfau 2002). In this example, the use of the headshake occurs in conjunction with the verb, making the need for a negative, manual element moot. Similarly, in ASL a headshake is enough to signify negation, as in (16b) (Neidle et al. 2000). Such occurrences have also been observed in TİD, with a headshake (16c), a head-tilt (16d), and a combination of brow raise and head tilt (16e) (Zeshan 2004; Gökgöz 2009; 2011).

(16)

hs hs a. MOTHER FLOWER BUY (NOT) Mother does not buy a flower.

(DGS, Pfau 2002, p. 273) hs

b. JOHN[+neg] BUY HOUSE She does not buy a flower.

(ASL, Neidle et al. 2000, p. 45)

hs c. INDEX1 KONUŞ

INDEX1 SPEAK I do not speak.

(Gökgöz 2009, p. 58) ht

d. KONUŞ SPEAK I do not speak.

(ibid.) ht

br e. IX1 MUZ (ÖNE) ATMAK DEĞİL¹¹ I BANANA (FRONT) THROW NOT I did not throw the banana to the front.

(Gökgöz 2011, p. 60)

In our discussion thus far, nonmanual negation in TİD has been limited to separate occurrences of the headshake and head tilt. I would like to point out, however, that Gökgöz (2009) realized that, due to some phonetic and physical restrictions, the two nonmanual signals could not occur simultaneously. Further investigation of this phenomenon is necessary. Arık (2006), investigated both the headshake and head tilt (known in his terminology as head back) in TİD, through data collected from 15 native signers. According to his results, head tilt is most often associated with negation, and generally occurs at the end of the sentence. In contrast, headshakes occur in both interrogative and negative sentences. As a result, we can conclude that head tilt is the underlying nonmanual negation gesture in TİD, while the headshake does not necessarily mark negation. The nonmanual signals in interrogative sentences will be discussed in Section 2.2.4.3.

11 In Gökgöz’s (2009) original text, nonmanual markers were backward head tilt (‘bht’) and non-neutral brow position (‘nbp’). Both are replaced with head tilt ‘ht’ and brow raise ‘br’ to mark them specifically.

Additionally, Gökgöz (2009) analyzed the use of the eyebrow raise in negative sentences in TİD, which is often observed in combination with the headshake and head tilt. The eyebrow raise also occurs together with certain negation signs, such as YOK and HİÇ. Gökgöz indicates that the head tilt is linked to ^DEĞİL and has a morpho-syntactic function, whereas the eyebrow raise, whose function is syntactic, can spread over its clausal domain. Head tilt is strictly connected to the verb and does not show spreading properties. However, brow raising is spread over the preverbal constituents, with the exception of subject, as illustrated in sentence (17). In other words, while the brow raise can spread over the entire sentence, for phonetic reasons, the head tilt appears to only spread over a single word, or the end of the sentence.

(17)

ht br INDEX1 KELİME BİL^NEG INDEX1 WORD KNOW^NEG I don’t know the word.

(Gökgöz 2009, p. 67)

Gökgöz (2011) further provides a detailed investigation of negations in TİD, looking at different nonmanual markers, including head tilt (‘ht’)¹², headshake (‘hs’), single head turn (‘sht’) and non-neutral brow position (‘nbp’)¹³. He states that headshake has two functions: lexical and grammatical. Table 2.5 provides a summary of the percentage of occurrences of nonmanual elements in 56 sentences.

12 Gökgöz (2011) prefers to use the term ‘backward head tilt’ with the abbreviation ‘bht.’ In order to maintain consistency, ht (‘head tilt’) it has been replaced by ‘ht’ (‘head tilt’).

On predicate + DEĞİL

On a single negative marker only

Total number of occurrences

Head tilt 8 / 27 (30

%)

19 / 27 (70%) 27 /56 (48%) Local &

Lexical Over a single

sign

Spreading over at least one adjacent

sign

Total number of occurrences

Headshake 8 / 16 (50%) 8 / 16 (50%) 16 / 56 (29%) hs 1: Local &

Lexical hs 2: Spreading

& Grammatical Single

head-turn over HİÇ (‘at all’)

Single head-turn over a sign other

than HİÇ

Total number of occurrences

Single head turn

4 / 6 (67%) 2 / 6 (33%) 6 / 56 (11%) Local &

Lexical

‘nbp’ over a negative sign

only

‘nbp’ over the entire sentence

Total number of occurrences

Non-neutral brow position

8 / 40 (67%) 32 / 40 (67%) 40 / 56 (71%) Spreading &

Grammatical Table 2.5 - Functions of nonmanuals observed in negation in TİD (Gökgöz 2011,

pp. 60-66)

According to the table, head tilt and single head turn are realized and specified lexically. Gökgöz observed that head tilt commonly accompanies DEĞİL and other negative markers, such as YOK ‘not exist’ and İSTE-DEĞİL ‘not want.’

Single head-turn, however, has been shown to most often accompany HİÇ ‘at all.’

As indicated, headshake may have two different functions, i.e. lexical and grammatical. As a lexical function, headshake often accompanies HAYIR ‘no’ and HAYIR-HAYIR ‘no-no.’

As Table 2.5 specifies, besides negation nonmanual markers that are realized lexically, headshake and non-neutral brow position are the most common nonmanual markers that can spread over sentences. Further down this line of reasoning, Gökgöz observed both eyebrow raise and eyebrow lowering in negated sentences.

Since the head tilt is a short movement, it is not suitable for spreading (this can be compared to the headshake, which can be prolonged through repetition).

Even the freezing of the head in the end position of the head tilt would probably not be enough to indicate that the negation is still ongoing. Therefore, non-neutral brow position may be needed, which has a salient end configuration that – even though the raising movement has been terminated – may still be able to convey the continuation of the marking.

To conclude, the basic verbal negation form in TİD is the cliticization (or suffixation) with DEĞİL, together with the nonmanual head tilt and eyebrow raise.

The nonmanual signals of the head tilt are realized with the verb as host, while the non-neutral brow position can spread over material preceding the verb, with the exception of the subject. In addition, not every verb is required to cliticize with DEĞİL, and a head tilt after the verb, or marking the verb with a headshake, are sufficient to mark negotiation.

Im Dokument Relative Clause Constructions in Turkish Sign Language (Seite 56-65)