**6. Results**

With a total of 162 instances in the final data set, standard negation occurred on average 1.6 times per minute (1.1/min in generation III, 2.7/min in generation IV, 1.8/min in generation V).<sup>6</sup> Table 2 provides an overview of the negation strategies employed by the six signers. Use of the manual negator NEG is most frequent: it is attested in 86% (139/162) of the examples—also note that NEG mostly appears in clause-final position (75%; 104/139). Yet, non-manual markers are also frequently observed: a headshake occurs in 80% (130/162) and tongue protrusion in 19% (30/162) of the data. Hence, the headshake is almost as frequent as the manual negator, while tongue protrusion is used notably less often. Below we will sugges<sup>t</sup> that tongue protrusion functions as a specialized negation marker for non-existence and negative evaluation. Video clips of all our examples can be viewed as Supplementary Materials on the Open Science Framework.


**Table 2.** Absolute and relative frequency of manual and non-manual markers used in standard negation.7.

## *6.1. Manual Marking*

In line with Marsaja's (2008) observation, NEG is the only manual negator attested for negating a clause in Kata Kolok; this suggests that NEG is used for various kinds

of negative meanings, including 'not', 'never', 'nobody', etc. The distribution of how manual and non-manual markers combine in our dataset is illustrated in Figure 2 for each generation separately, i.e., combinations of NEG with a negative headshake and/or tongue protrusion. Note that the figure also contains the cases in which negation is only expressed non-manually.

**Figure 2.** Combinatorial patterns of relevant manual and non-manual markers shown per generation.

As for the examples featuring NEG (139 instances), the pattern in example (7a) is the most common one: the (clause-final) manual negator is accompanied by a headshake in 57% (92/162) of all tokens, which amounts to half of the data from generations III and IV and almost two thirds of the data from generation V. Considerably less frequently, the manual negator combines with tongue protrusion (4%; 7/162), illustrated in (7b), or with both non-manual markers (11%; 18/162). Note that example (7b) contains two negative particles as a result of full repetition; that is, this is not a case of negator doubling, as the verb is also repeated, and the prosody suggests that we are dealing with two separate clauses. In 14% of cases (22/162), and at similar rates across generations, the manual negator is not accompanied by any negative non-manual markers (7c). Remember that this is the pattern which Marsaja (2008) claimed to be the most common.

hs

(7) a. BI1 IX'locative' IX'locative' COFFEE NEG 'I don't take my coffee over here.'<sup>8</sup>

[GD3jan7 00:27:55.880]

Although examples (7a) and (7c) are semantically and syntactically similar, only (7a) contains a headshake. Based on the variety of topics covered, the topic of conversation does not appear to have an impact on the use of headshake.

As for the different types of negation systems, Pfau (2015) refers to Jespersen's Cycle and hypothesizes that sign languages start out as purely manual systems, go through a stage with a combined pattern, before developing into a non-manual dominant system (see Section 7.2). If this hypothesis is true, we would expect intergenerational differences with older generations using the manual negator more often than the non-manual one. However, Figure 2 paints a more complex picture. First, we note a slight decrease in the use of negation with NEG only in younger generations. Second, more diverse combinations are observed in the two younger generations as compared to the older generation. Third, this, in turn, is paired with less instances of non-manual only negation. This suggests that, if anything, there might be a slight trend towards using the manual negator more frequently in younger generations (see Figure 2). However, these numerical differences across generations remain rather small.<sup>9</sup>

## *6.2. Non-Manual Marking*

#### 6.2.1. Scope of the Headshake

In 67.9% of cases (110/162), both the manual negator and a headshake are involved. The high frequency of headshakes identifies it as the canonical non-manual negation marker. Note that whenever the manual negator and the headshake co-occur in a negated clause, the headshake can either accompany only NEG (8a) or extend over NEG and one or more adjacent signs (headshake spreading)—the latter pattern contradicting claims made by Marsaja (2008). Although headshake spreading is clearly an option, it is attested in only 26% (28/110) of the examples. Nevertheless, in six examples, the spreading can be considered a harmony phenomenon as a result of negator doubling or repetition of the entire negative clause; in two cases, a manual sign cliticizes to NEG, which makes it impossible to distinguish true headshake spreading from a lexical headshake bound to NEG; and three cases include co-articulatory, thus phonetic, headshake spreading, e.g., a locative point includes a sidewards head movement that fuses with the headshake. This leaves us with 17 instances (15.5%; 17/110) of the data that include clear spreading of the negative headshake across adjacent sign(s), (8b) and (8c) being examples. Example (8b) shows the most common form of headshake spreading; the headshake precedes the manual negator NEG and is co-articulated with (part of) the preceding sign. Example (8c) shows an example in which spreading occurs over multiple signs, a pattern which is only rarely attested.

hs

(8) a. THINK IX2 MONEY GIVE NEG 'You know, he does not give me money.'

141

[SuJu16jan7 00:04:06.600]

hs b. TIME NINE NEG TIME EIGHT BI1 TALK 'Iwastoldtocomeateighto'clockinthemorning,notatnine.'

[PiKe4jan7 00:04:20.000]

hs ANGRY BI1 NEG 'Me, I am not angry.'

c.  [GD3jan7 00:12:39.360]

At this point, it is unclear whether headshake spreading is indeed highly restricted to the preceding constituent, or whether the fact that we observed only minimal spreading can be attributed to the fact that Kata Kolok utterances prototypically are short, often consisting of a single sign. From an articulatory point of view, the headshake can precede the manual negator because the hands produce signs in sequence—one after the other.

Figure 3 exemplifies how headshake spreading is distributed across the different generations, and more specifically across the different signers. Clearly, headshake spreading very rarely occurs among signers from generation III and generation IV and is considerably more frequent in generation V signers. The observation of an inter-generational difference in the occurrence of headshake spreading is enhanced by the fact that individual variation among the signers from each generation is generally low. For signer 1 from generation III, no instances of headshake spreading are attested at all, and it occurs few times in signer 2 from generation III (12.5%; 4/32). Among both signers of generation IV, headshake spreading is extremely uncommon, in 6% (1/17) in signer 3 of generation IV and in 10% (1/10) signer 4 of generation IV. Headshake spreading is much more common in both signers of generation V; it is attested in 57% (4/7) in signer 5 of generation V and in in 35% (7/20) of signer 6 of generation V. In sum, while headshake spreading occurs at 6–12% among signers from generation III and generation IV, it is at least three times as common among signers of generation V.<sup>10</sup> While those numbers sugges<sup>t</sup> inter-generational differences—with generation III and IV displaying more similar patterns and generation V showing a strikingly different pattern—it needs to be noted that the phenomenon remains relatively low overall. Crucially, however, the pattern observed does not seem to be driven by individual variation: Although there are, of course, small differences as to how frequent spreading is across different signers, the overall pattern is similar across signers from the same generation.

**Figure 3.** Distribution of headshake spreading across the three generations.

## 6.2.2. Tongue Protrusion

Tongue protrusion is observed in a total of 30/162 instances of negation (18.5%). Four different patterns are attested: tongue protrusion may combine with NEG, as in example (7b), repeated here as (9a) (N = 7); it may be co-articulated with NEG and headshake (N = 18), as shown in (9b); it may be the sole negator (N = 3), illustrated in (9c); and it may be co-articulated with a headshake (N = 2) in the absence of the manual negator (9d).

tp tp (9) a. SPRAY RAIN NEG RAIN NEG 'Noraincameafter thepesticideshadbeensprayed.'

[SuJu16jan7 00:16:21.209]

 [GD3jan7

hs+tpb. SIGN-NAMEA SIGN-NAMEB NEG '*A* and *B* are not coming to the event.'

00:08:54.100]

 c. SIGN-NAMEA FISHING GOOD '*A* did not catch anything.'

143

hs+tp

DRUNK

 IX'locative'

d. BI1

As the examples in (9) illustrate, tongue protrusion is commonly observed in examples which may be interpreted as negative existentials—in fact, this is true for 83% of the 30 examples including tongue protrusion. The non-existential meaning in (9a) is obvious: the absence of rainfall. Example (9b) deals with the fact that two villagers are not coming, which entails that they will not be present during a specific social event. The villager in (9c) returns home with empty hands—FISHING is negated with a protruded tongue to express that villager *A* did not catch any fish when going on a fishing trip with other villagers. Similarly, tongue protrusion is co-produced with a negative headshake in (9d) in order to express that a particular signer did not gather with peers to consume alcohol. Besides non-existence, it is also possible that tongue protrusion relates to another, previously identified function: negative evaluation. This interpretation is compatible with all examples provided above. The lack of rain after the spreading of pesticides, as described in example (9a), prevents the chemicals from diffusing in the soil, and thus minimizes its effects. In (9b), villagers may be expected to attend this particular meeting due to ceremonial responsibilities. The negative evaluation of (9c) is straightforward: the lack of prey means that the family will not have food to eat. Lastly, the negative judgment in example (9d) may arise from the events that occurred as a consequence of drinking, since drinking itself is not necessarily always regarded negatively.

Testing whether tongue protrusion expresses negative evaluation reveals the following pattern: although 60% of all instances of tongue protrusion are compatible with an interpretation of negative evaluation, all of them are also examples of negated phrases. Essentially, both negative evaluation and non-existence are inferential and therefore more implicit than explicit, i.e., they require contextual knowledge that allows the interlocutor to judge that something is considered negatively. Nevertheless, the use of tongue protrusion as a pragmatic marker for negative evaluation and as a specified negative element may have co-evolved alongside the general negation markers, now co-existing in Kata Kolok. This idea is further supported by the examples that do not contain any non-manual elements (*manual-only*). The *manual-only* examples in our dataset do not allow (inferential) negative evaluation as a reading, i.e., they do not require contextual knowledge to evaluate whether something is good or bad but simply (and exclusively) negate phrases. Similarly, a maximum of five instances of *manual-only* negation may be compatible with (inferential) non-existence. This suggests that tongue protrusion may be treated as a pragmatic marker of negative evaluation and potentially as a negation marker that is used for a specific type of negation, namely, non-existence.

This interpretation is corroborated by the fact that the examples provided above are strikingly different from examples that feature tongue protrusion but no negation. While tongue protrusion may feature in lexical signs such as DIE or SALT, tongue protrusion in Kata Kolok has also been observed in contexts that are clearly evaluated negatively, such as examples (10a) and (10b). In example (10a), the signer expresses his despair over the fact that everything is expensive, marked by the protruded tongue accompanying the sign HIGH-PRICE. In example (10b), the signer's (and possibly the community's) attitude towards appropriate behavior is evident; it is expected that one cleans their hand after consuming food (which is commonly done with the right hand). Clearly, both examples express a negative judgment towards a state or event rather than negating it.

14:31.500]

b. RUB-CLEAN FINISH GOOD 'Itisgoodwhenyourhandsarecompletelyclean(fromtheleftoverfood).'

 [GD3jan7 00:15:22]

These examples, combined with the examples provided before, corroborate the interpretation that tongue protrusion is linked to negative evaluation. This is in line with a general property of tongue protrusion being associated with a negative stance; tongue protrusion serves as a gestural reflex expressing mood, specifically disgust, among all humans (Fridlund 1994; Rozin and Fallon 1987; Givens 2002), and has been observed to cover a range of semantic meanings, including disgust and rejection, in some sign languages (e.g., Johnston et al. 2016 for Auslan). As such, the use of tongue protrusion in Kata Kolok appears to be another instance of grammaticalization, not from a gesture from the ambient culture but of a more basic human trait.

#### 6.2.3. Choice of Non-Manual Marker

tp

MONEY ALL

HIGH-PRICE

(10) a.

The non-manual elements that we focus on in this study are headshake and tongue protrusion. Both these markers are most commonly co-articulated with NEG (72.2%; 117/162). Yet, in a substantial number of examples (14%; 23/162), non-manual elements occur independently, i.e., without the accompanying manual negator—be it in combination or on their own; thirteen examples occur in generation III, seven are attested in generation IV, and three in generation V (see Figure 2). Among these examples of non-manual elements occurring in the absence of NEG, the headshake occurs more frequently (86.9%; 20/23) than tongue protrusion (21.7%; 5/23)—see also examples (9c) and (9d). Generally, what we observe in these cases is that the headshake is co-articulated with the clause-final constituent (11a). Nevertheless, in some cases, the headshake and the non-negative sign it is co-articulated with are not fully synchronized, i.e., articulation of the manual sign precedes the onset of the headshake or vice versa. As a result, in (11b) the headshake starts only while the manual sign RICE is already being articulated. This example highlights the challenge of analyzing maximally reduced instances of negation, as is common in Kata Kolok. In addition, four cases are attested in generation III-signers in which the headshake is produced completely independently of manual signs, i.e., it is articulated by itself following a manual sign (11c). This pattern has also been reported for a few other sign languages (e.g., Hendriks 2008 for Jordanian Sign Language; Johnston 2018 for Auslan).

## **7. Discussion**

In an effort to elucidate standard negation in Kata Kolok, we conducted a study of 1.73 h of intergenerational data drawn from the Kata Kolok Corpus. In line with what Marsaja (2008) described previously, we found examples that are negated by using only the manual negator NEG (13.6% of the dataset). Most commonly, however, the manual negator is combined with a clearly articulated headshake, a pattern which does not align with Marsaja's observations. Importantly, we identified an additional non-manual marker, namely, tongue protrusion, which functions as a specialized marker for negative evaluation and non-existence. Furthermore, and again contradicting Marsaja, the data reveal that a clause can be negated only by a non-manual marker (14.2% of the dataset), and this is more likely to happen in generation III—the oldest generation in our sample. Finally, while it is true that the headshake does not usually spread onto adjacent signs, headshake spreading seems to emerge in generation V. In short, the Kata Kolok pattern does not neatly fit into the existing classifications of manual dominant and non-manual dominant sign languages. This does not necessarily mean that this classification is wrong—there may well be sign languages that fit neatly into the proposed dichotomy. However, as already pointed out in Section 3.2, the classification may well be insufficient, as a sign language may display characteristics of both systems, or may employ a non-manual marker in a more gesture-like, i.e., less grammaticalized fashion.

It is likely that Kata Kolok and other recently studied sign languages challenge the proposed dichotomy because this dichotomy has been mostly based on elicited data, and corpus data may not always fully support such a clear-cut distinction. Alternatively, the patterns attested here could be the result of diachronic language change across three generations of signers. In the following, we first review the general pattern and tendencies

identified in this study from a typological perspective. Then, we contextualize the results from the perspective of diachronic language change by drawing comparisons between generations.

#### *7.1. Kata Kolok Negation in Typological Perspective*

As described in the introduction, sign language negation systems are differentiated by (i) the presence of an obligatory manual marker and (ii) the scope of the headshake (Zeshan 2004, 2006). Systems in which the manual negator functions as the main negator require this negative sign at all times, and the headshake does not usually spread beyond this sign. In contrast, in systems where the headshake is the main negator, the manual negator is optional and the headshake may have scope over adjacent signs. In Table 3, we reproduce, with some adaptations, a comparative chart from Oomen and Pfau (2017), which details selected characteristics of negation systems in seven sign languages; these characteristics relate to the presence of NEG and the scope of the headshake. We added Kata Kolok, the only rural sign language in the table.

**Table 3.** Typological comparison of negation patterns across seven sign languages (adapted from Oomen and Pfau 2017; Kata Kolok added).


The patterns reported in this study reveal that (i) as in the other sign languages included in Table 3, negative particles occur predominantly in clause-final position in Kata Kolok;<sup>11</sup> (ii) Kata Kolok negation is incompatible with either system, that is to say neither the manual nor the non-manual element appears obligatory; and (iii) Kata Kolok exhibits a language-specific pattern when it comes to the use of the headshake—headshake spreading is uncommon, and when present, it is very restricted in scope.

Interestingly, Kata Kolok is the only attested sign language where the headshake can accompany the negative particle, spread onto the subject or the object when the manual negator is present, *and* over the (verbal or non-verbal) predicate when the manual negator is absent. This observation may be related to the fact that many utterances comprise very few signs, irrespective of the type of constituent. Thus, it is possible that headshake spreading is associated with the clause-final position regardless of a specific word class. In line with Marsaja (2008), the manual negator represents the most frequent marker, which might sugges<sup>t</sup> it as the main negator. This is supported by the rare and highly restricted nature of headshake spreading in Kata Kolok, which is typical for this pattern. Nevertheless, one must not forget that, despite the optionality of the manual negator in systems in which the headshake is the main negator, it still is commonly used; it was attested in 86% of cases in this sample (cf. Oomen and Pfau 2017 for NGT). Crucially, the manual negator is absent in 14% of all instances. The present results are thus also compatible with a system where the headshake functions as the main negator. In both classificatory scenarios, 14% of the data is negated by the use of the manual negator or the headshake only. In other words, it is impossible to categorize Kata Kolok as either a manual dominant or a non-manual dominant system. Growing evidence from studies investigating negation based on corpus data, much like the present study, shows that such naturalistic data may present us with characteristics from both extremes (Oomen and Pfau 2017; Johnston 2018; Kuder 2020).

Hence, they present a challenge to the established dichotomy, suggesting that the balance between manual and non-manual elements involved in sign language negation entails a continuum rather than binary categories. The present study contributes to sign language typology by adding a sign language of the lesser-studied type to the picture. Our results also sugges<sup>t</sup> that prior classifications based on elicited data may have to be re-evaluated.

#### *7.2. Emergence of Structure in the Domain of Negation*

It is possible that Kata Kolok negation is currently in a transitional stage where different systems co-exist. The sampling method used in this study provides us with intergenerational data, which enables us to adopt the perspective of diachronic language change across three generations of signers. Five key observations can be made:


Although the effect appears small, we note a tendency towards more combined forms and greater presence of the manual negator in generation V compared to generations III and IV. In contrast, the difference in the use of headshake spreading in younger (generation V) versus older signers (III–IV) is striking, and we interpret this difference as evidence of language change. Nonetheless, there are at least four alternative explanations for this development. First, headshake spreading might be characteristic of a sociolinguistic youthvariant. Potentially, this feature is used only at a certain age, while it is abandoned again when growing older (Labov 1965, 1994; Sankoff 2006). Second, headshake spreading in generation V may be caused by a single lexical item: the verb GIVE precedes the manual negator in six out of eleven instances of headshake spreading in generation V, while GIVE accompanied by headshake is not attested in any other generation. Nevertheless, possible interactions of signer and predicate would have to be studied in detail in a separate study. Third, in spite of the striking pattern across generations (the significant result in the linear mixed effects model), the possible influence of idiosyncratic inter-signer variation cannot be excluded. Increasing the sample size could ameliorate the effect. Fourth, one may hypothesize that the emerging headshake spreading in generation V represents a language contact phenomenon. This is, however, unlikely, since the headshake plays a minor role in negation in signing varieties across Indonesia (Palfreyman 2019), including the variety used in Singaraja, a nearby city (p.c. with Nick Palfreyman).

We now offer some hypotheses on possible diachronic scenarios in the expression of negation. Pfau (2015) proposes that sign language negation conforms to the key principles of Jespersen's Cycle (Jespersen 1917). According to this theory, negative elements are reinforced through the use of a second negative particle and then weakened again by losing one of the two, as has been observed, for instance, in the history of French negation (van der Auwera 2011). Pfau (2015) hypothesizes that sign languages may have emerged as systems where the manual negator (derived from a manual gesture) dominates, and a headshake is only associated with the manual negator in a second step. In a subsequent step, the headshake may become more flexible and may eventually become an independent marker of negation, i.e., it may increasingly detach from the manual element and may then take over the status of the obligatory element. In this scenario, headshake spreading can only occur in the second step, where both markers are used, and the ability of spreading necessarily can only occur with the disassociation of the headshake and the manual particle. Ultimately, this can result in a system in which the headshake assumes the role of the main negator. Due to the shared modality of gesture and sign, the grammaticalization of manual gestures is common in sign languages (Wilcox 2004; Pfau and Steinbach 2011; van Loon et al.

2014), and especially prominent in negation (Zeshan 2004). For Kata Kolok, it is likely that the manual negator originates in a manual gesture used by (hearing) members within the community (Marsaja 2008). Notwithstanding these findings, non-manual elements function as fundamental elements in sign languages (Sandler and Lillo-Martin 2006; Pfau and Quer 2010). Thus, the visuo-gestural modality also favors the integration of non-manual gestures into sign language grammar (Pfau and Steinbach 2011). However, what motivates the assumption that manual gestures precede non-manual ones? Pfau (2015) argues with the aid of linguistic typology: cross-linguistically, the existence of particles is universal. Given that manual negators are used as particles, it seems likely that they arise before non-manual markers do. It is plausible that manual (handwave) and non-manual (headshake and protruded tongue) gestures entered the linguistic system of Kata Kolok around the same time after the language's emergence. What is unclear, however, is what the distribution of these forms may have looked like at these early stages. One way of gaining more insight into this issue would be a study of homesign data from the region to bridge the empirical gap between the data of generation III–V signers analyzed in this study and the very initial stages of the language. Such a study would allow us to extrapolate whether Kata Kolok is indeed likely to have started out as a manual dominant/only system, as suggested in the scenario created by Pfau (2015).

In this scenario, Kata Kolok initially made use of a range of diverse variants based on manual (NEG) and non-manual (headshake, tongue protrusion) elements, all of which originated in culture-specific gestures (Spitz 1957; Meltzoff and Moore 1989, 1977; Rozin and Fallon 1987; Fridlund 1994; Kendon 2002; Marsaja 2008; Kettner and Carpendale 2013; Pfau 2015). Later, signers start to converge on different, ye<sup>t</sup> functionally redundant markers. Sign languages strive for simultaneity where possible in order to increase language efficiency (Pfau 2015). The Kata Kolok data set endorses this: the use of independent non-manuals decreases alongside an increase in combinations. In favor of enhancing language efficiency, and to reduce redundancy, individual markers begin to specialize, as in the case of tongue protrusion, for which a negative existential meaning is crystallizing.<sup>12</sup> It is possible that Kata Kolok negation has reached the stage of a manual dominant system: the use of only non-manual markers to negate decreases whilst the proportions of the manual negator remain stable. Although the increase in headshake spreading in generation V may even delineate a first step towards freeing the negative particle from its non-manual counterpart, a reduction in the use of the *manual-only* pattern would be expected if Kata Kolok were to move towards a *non-manual dominant* system.

One can envisage at least three scenarios for future generations: (i) Headshake spreading occurs as an artefact of a system in transition towards a system where the manual negator dominates. As the manual negator becomes dominant, the headshake will stabilize in its dedicated position, and headshake spreading may eventually decrease or fully disappear. Thus, the scope of the headshake is reduced to a single sign, namely, the manual negator, which functions as the obligatory marker. (ii) Headshake spreading remains, and becomes more systematic and productive. At the same time, instances that are negated exclusively by non-manuals steadily decrease until they have disappeared completely, and the manual negator stabilizes as an obligatory element. (iii) The systematicity of headshake spreading increases, and manual negators are progressively dropped. As a result, the headshake becomes obligatory. The different scenarios are visualized in Figure 4.

If the grammaticalization patterns attested here were to represent the initial stages of the emergence of negative structures in the language, one may have expected either gradual differences between each generation, or, alternatively, larger differences between generations III and IV, than between IV and V. Although the findings from this study do not necessarily sugges<sup>t</sup> that Kata Kolok negation primarily used the manual negator in its initial stages, it is possible that this pattern precedes the analyzed data. Thus, such a system may have been characteristic of the language use of signers from generations I and II. In that case, however, it remains unclear what motivated the use of independent non-manual markers and why this is considerably more frequent in generation III than in younger signers. While the earlier generations of Kata Kolok signers are no longer alive, our proposed way forward is to study the distribution and functional diversification of negative gestures alongside speech (cf. Mesh and Hou 2018), in addition to various homesign languages that have been identified in the region.

**Figure 4.** Sketch of possible grammaticalization scenarios of the main two negation markers in Kata Kolok. Note that the pathway for tongue protrusion is not integrated into the main pathway of negation given the low numbers attested in this study. Instead, tongue protrusion is kept as a somewhat separate pathway with more specialized, i.e., restricted, negative meanings.
