A Grammar of Turkish Sign Language (TİD)

2.4.6. Referential properties of null arguments

The identification of the referents of null arguments depends on a number of factors. If the antecedent is localized in the sentence preceding the one which contains the null arguments, the referent of the null argument can be identified unambiguously. However, if there was no localization, there may be ambiguity. That is, the null argument may refer to any of the appropriate entities salient in the discourse. In the following example, both of the arguments of the agreement verb ASK are null. In the absence of localization or other clues in the discourse, their referents are potentially ambiguous.

 

ø a/b    øb/a           a/baskb/a

‘She/he asked him/her.’ 

                                                           (adapted from Kayabaşı, et.al. in press, 25)

 

In the following question-answer pair, either of the noun phrases in the question, man or woman, can be interpreted to function as the antecedent of the null arguments in the answer. 

 

            ____________________________________y/n

        A:  mana [womanb letter a/bgıveb/a] remember

            ‘Did the man remember that he gave the letter to the woman?’

 

       B:   yes    øa/b   a/b  letter a/bgıveb/a]  remember

            ‘Yes, s/he remembered that s/he gave the letter to her.’

                                                           (adapted from Kayabaşı, et.al. in press, example 27)

 

In the absence of any further clues, the ambiguity in antecedent assignment is a consequence of the ambiguity in the identification of the topic of the discourse.

            In addition to localization and context, world knowledge may also be operative in referent assignment to null arguments. In the following example, the subjects of both the matrix verb of saying, say, and that of the embedded plain verb clean are null.

 

 [brother ıx(poss)1]a  [mothershout] get_tıred øb [øa  room clean] say

‘My brother is tired of mother shouting. She told him to clean the room.’

                                                           (adapted from Kayabaşı, et.al. in press, example 28)

 

Here the null subject of say is interpreted to refer to the mother and the null subject of clean is interpreted to refer to the brother since according to our world knowledge, it is usually mothers who tell their children to clean their rooms.

     

The following is another example.

 

manwomanlook_for              øb   pleased

‘The man looked for the woman. He was pleased.’

                                                            (adapted from Kayabaşı, et.al. in press, example 26)

 

In contexts in which the arguments in a topic construction are not localized [Morphology – 4.2.][Pragmatics – 8.1.], the semantic roles and the grammatical functions of the null arguments of the double agreement predicates are assigned in accordance with the predictions based on world knowledge.

                                                                      

boya motherb call               øb   øa  water  bgıvea

‘The boy called the mother. She gave him water.’

                                                (adapted from Kayabaşı, et.al. in press, example 24)

 

In contexts where world knowledge does not seem to yield a salient pattern with respect to antecedent assignment to the null arguments of a double agreement verb, the null arguments are interpreted to refer ambiguously to either of the arguments in the preceding context. One such context is where the referents of the arguments are both animate and are not localized in the first sentence.  

 

mana womanb meet.  øa/b øb/a present a/bgıveb/a

‘The man met the woman. S/he gave him/her a present.’

           

womana  manb  seeb.   øa/b    øb/a   a/baskb/a

 ‘The woman saw the man. S/he asked him/her a question.’

                                                                 (adapted from Kayabaşı, et.al. in press, 23 & 25)

    

Null arguments may also be definite or indefinite. In the following two examples, the null subjects refer to the signer and the addressee, respectively, hence, they are definite.

 

ø1 know not

‘I don’t know.’

                                                           (adapted from Kayabaşı, et.al. in press, 30a)

 

                                    y/n

go do ø   ø2 waıt what

‘Go do it, what are you waiting for?

                                                           (adapted from Kayabaşı, et.al. in press, 30b)

 

However, a null subject can also have an indefinite/impersonal interpretation, as in the following example.  Here, the subject does not refer to a definite individual but has an indefinite and impersonal interpretation [Pragmatics – 1.5.]. This interpretation is translated as ‘one’ in the example.

 

ø car well take_care++ better

ø  take_care^not++ car quıck break_down

One has to take good care of a car.  Otherwise, the car will break down quickly.’

                                                                                  (http://tidsozluk.net/tr/Bakmak?d=0013)

List of editors

Meltem Kelepir

Copyright info

© 2020 Kadir Gökgöz, Aslı Göksel, Demet Kayabaşı, Meltem Kelepir, Onur Keleş, Okan Kubus, Aslı Özkul, A. Sumru Özsoy, Burcu Saral, Hande Sevgi, Süleyman S. Taşçı

Bibliographical reference for citation

The entire grammar:
Kelepir, Meltem (ed.). 2020. A Grammar of Turkish Sign Language (TİD). 1st ed. (SIGN-HUB Sign Language Grammar Series). (https://thesignhub.eu/grammar/tid) (Accessed 31-10-2021)

A Chapter:
LastName, FirstName. 2020. Syntax: 3. Coordination and Subordination. In Kelepir, Meltem (ed.). 2020. A Grammar of Turkish Sign Language (TİD). 1st ed. (SIGN-HUB Sign Language Grammar Series), 230-237. (https://thesignhub.eu/grammar/tid) (Accessed 31-10-2021)

A Section:
LastName, FirstName. 2020. Phonology: 1.1.1.2. Finger configuration. In Kelepir, Meltem (ed.). 2020. A Grammar of Turkish Sign Language (TİD). 1st ed. (SIGN-HUB Sign Language Grammar Series), 230-237. (https://thesignhub.eu/grammar/tid) (Accessed 31-10-2021)

LastName, FirstName. 2020. Syntax: 3.1.2.1.3. Manual markers in disjunctive coordination. In Kelepir, Meltem (ed.). 2020. A Grammar of Turkish Sign Language (TİD). 1st ed. (SIGN-HUB Sign Language Grammar Series), 230-237. (https://thesignhub.eu/grammar/tid) (Accessed 31-10-2021)