*2.1. Emergence*

As languages emerge, structure emerges (Kocab and Senghas 2021). Given the time depth of spoken languages, it is notoriously difficult to make claims about the emergence of structure at their early stages, but various types of experimental data have been taken to provide evidence, e.g., iterated learning experiments involving non-linguistic structures (Kirby et al. 2008) and gestural descriptions produced by hearing non-signers (Goldin-Meadow 2014; Meir et al. 2017; Motamedi et al. 2019). The sign languages which are still in use are assumed to be much younger, with the oldest ones being approximately 250– 300 years old (McBurney 2012). This time depth is reminiscent of some creole languages, with which sign languages have been argued to share certain (socio)linguistic properties (see Adone 2012 for an overview). Still, with respect to availability of data, the situation for sign languages is not much different from spoken languages. As sign languages do not have a written form, the oldest informative documents available date back only 100 years (Supalla 2001) and extensive corpus data are much more recent.

While the opportunities to study the emergence of new sign languages remain few and far between (cf. Meir et al. 2010; de Vos and Nyst 2018), linguists have been able to study this phenomenon by comparing sign language use by older and younger signers in a handful of cases. For example, they were able to capture, among other things, the emergence of word order and spatial grammar (for Nicaraguan Sign Language, see Kegl et al. 1999; Senghas and Coppola 2001; for Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language, see Sandler et al. 2005; Meir and Sandler 2020), the gradual development of phonology (Sandler et al. 2011), and the use of reference tracking devices (Stamp and Sandler 2021). While it is impossible to present a comprehensive overview within the context of this paper, it is important to note that these studies have shown mixed results across grammatical domains and across language communities. For example, while Dachkovsky et al. (2018) report a reduction in the simultaneous use of manual and non-manual markers in personal life stories in Israeli Sign Language, Stamp and Sandler (2021) report an increase in simultaneity in the use of referential shift devices. Moreover, while Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language did not develop spatial verb morphology over the course of three generations, Israeli Sign Language—about the same age as ABSL—did develop spatial verbal morphology in the same three-generation time period (Padden et al. 2010). In Nicaraguan Sign Language, spatial morphology emerged even more rapidly (Senghas 2005). All in all, these comparisons sugges<sup>t</sup> that who learns the sign language and how signers interact may well lead to very different patterns of grammaticalization. In order to arrive at a unified understanding of the earliest stages of language formation, we therefore require more intergenerational analyses focused on particular grammatical domains.

As for negation—the focus of the present chapter—we are not aware of any other work on emerging sign languages, perhaps with the exception of a case study reported by Franklin et al. (2011). Franklin and colleagues report that David, the American homesigner whose productions they analyzed, systematically employed non-manual and/or manual markers of negation, namely a side-to-side-headshake and a 'flip' gesture, the former being the most frequent marker (84% of the negative sentences). Furthermore, they observed that 79% of the headshakes appeared sentence-initially. The authors conclude "that side-to-side headshakes crystallize early as the expression of logical (i.e., sentential) negation in David's

homesign system, and that the form for this meaning has a fixed position at the beginning of the sentence" (Franklin et al. 2011, p. 404).

#### *2.2. Grammaticalization: A Special Case of Language Change in Sign Languages*

Sign languages, just like spoken languages, are subject to synchronic and diachronic variation. As for the former type of variation, it has been demonstrated that sociolinguistic variables like region, age, gender, ethnicity, and family background (deaf relatives) may be responsible for variation at all levels of linguistic structure (see Lucas et al. 2001; Schembri and Johnston 2012; Bayley et al. 2015 for overviews). As for the latter type of variation, it can be due to language-external and language-internal factors. In the following, we will only be concerned with age-related variation and its relation to language change, focusing, for the most part, on the role of language-internal factors, because variation across generations allows us to investigate the unfolding process of grammaticalization.<sup>1</sup> That is to say, by comparing signers from different age groups, we are able to see how learning biases may shape language structure from one generation to the next.

Age-related changes have already been reported for American Sign Language (ASL) by Frishberg (1975), who documents systematic changes in the place of articulation and handshape of signs (Frishberg 1975; for BSL, see Woll 1987). While these changes were not explicitly linked to sociolinguistic factors, but were taken to be triggered by ease of production and/or perception, Schembri et al. (2009) demonstrate that phonological variation, with respect to place of articulation in Australian Sign Language (Auslan), is driven by age; lowering (of a particular class) of signs occurs as a result of age, among other (socio)linguistic factors, such that younger signers drive the change towards lowered locations. As with the other sociolinguistic factors, reports on (morpho)syntactic variation related to age are scarce in the literature.

Finally, an important language-internal process leading to changes in the lexicon is grammaticalization, whereby lexical elements take on a grammatical function. It has been shown that grammaticalization works pretty much the same way in sign languages as it does in spoken languages. For instance, in both modalities, auxiliaries (e.g., future tense markers) commonly develop from verbs and complementizers from nouns (Pfau and Steinbach 2011). Yet, there is also an interesting modality-specific side to grammaticalization, as in sign languages, manual and non-manual gestures may grammaticalize, such as pointing gestures (see Coppola and Senghas 2010 for Nicaraguan Sign Language; de Vos 2015 for Kata Kolok; Dachkovsky 2020 for Israeli Sign Language), the 'palm up' gesture (which belongs to the same gesture family as the before-mentioned 'flip' gesture; cf. Cooperrider et al. 2018; Mesh and Hou 2018), and headshakes (cf. Pfau 2015). In a sense, grammaticalization of a gesture displays properties of language-external and language-internal change. In a first step, the gesture enters the language system, and this, of course, involves contact with the community in which the gesture is used. Subsequently, the gesture may take on further, increasingly grammatical functions, as has been argued, for instance, for pointing (Pfau 2011; Kwok et al. 2020) and 'palm up' (van Loon et al. 2014)—and this is fully in line with traditional conceptions of grammaticalization for spoken languages. This modality-specific potential to grammaticalize gestures will turn out to be relevant in the context of our study.

#### **3. Negation: A Typological Overview**

Our study is concerned exclusively with the encoding of standard negation. Standard negation describes the most basic strategy to convert a sentence (S1) into a semantically opposite sentence (S2) so that S1 is true whenever S2 is false and vice versa, or, put differently, the most neutral strategy for changing the polarity of a sentence from affirmative to negative. Standard negation is by definition sentential (e.g., English *He is not happy*). Consequently, constituent negation (e.g., by means of affixation: *He is unhappy*) and other specialized forms of negation, such as negative adverbials (*He is never happy*), neg-words (*Nobody is happy*), negative existentials (*There is no happiness*), and negative imperatives (*Don't be happy!*) go beyond the scope of the present study. Deviating from some of the

definitions offered in the literature (e.g., Miestamo 2005; Dahl 2011), but in line with the procedure applied by Oomen and Pfau (2017) in their study on standard negation in Sign Language of The Netherlands (NGT), we will include in our data set sentences with (apparent) nominal and adjectival predicates, for the simple reason that determining word class is notoriously difficult in Kata Kolok (Schwager and Zeshan 2008).

Some variation in the theoretical approach notwithstanding, classifications of negation are often based on the nature of the basic clause negator (Payne 1985; Dahl 2011)—and this is the strategy we adopt in the next subsection on spoken languages. We then turn to sign languages and show how sign language negation has been classified, and how this compares to spoken languages.

#### *3.1. Spoken Languages*

Typological studies on a large number of typologically diverse spoken languages have revealed that by far the most common strategies for expressing negation are negative particles and negative affixes (Dahl 2011, 1979; Payne 1985; Dryer 2005; Miestamo 2005).<sup>2</sup> The use of a negative particle, i.e., an uninflected and free-standing (in this case, pre-verbal) morpheme, is illustrated in the Indonesian example in (1), while example (2) shows that Turkish employs a morphological strategy, viz. the negative suffix *-mV*, which attaches to the verbal root and is subject to vowel harmony.


Beyond these two very common options, we wish to introduce two further strategies, as they will become relevant in our discussion of sign language negation in the next subsection. First, some languages require the combination of two (or more) elements for the expression of standard negation; this is commonly referred to as split negation or Negative Concord. French is probably the most famous example, but in (3), we provide an example from Cuiba, a Guahiban language of Venezuela. In this language, a pre-verbal particle combines with a verbal suffix, thus, in a sense, combining the Indonesian and the Turkish strategy.


[Cuiba; Mosonyi et al. 2000, in Miestamo (2005, p. 156)]

Second, in a few tone languages, the morphological change that realizes negation may be suprasegmental in nature. In Mbembe, a Niger-Congo language from Nigeria, for instance, it is only the tone change (from high to low) on the tense prefix that signals negation, as is shown in (4).


 [Mbembe; Dahl (2011, p. 17)]

#### *3.2. Sign Languages*

For sign languages, too, efforts have been made to classify their negation systems. However, the most common typological classification is different from that suggested for spoken languages in that it focuses on the use and combination of manual and non-manual negative markers.

All sign languages studied to date employ manual negative signs and specific nonmanual markers—mostly a headshake3—for the expression of standard negation. The way in which these two types of markers combine, however, may differ from one sign language to the next. Consider the two examples in (5) from Catalan Sign Language (LSC) and Italian Sign Language (LIS), respectively.<sup>4</sup> At first sight, the two negated clauses look very similar: both sign languages have SOV order, and the negative particle (NOT/NON) follows the verb. In fact, even the form of the negative particle is similar: a handshape with extended index finger (fingertip pointing upward) performing a repeated side-to-side movement in front of the signer's body. Additionally, in both examples, a headshake (hs) accompanies the manual negator. However, in LSC, the headshake is not confined to co-occurring with the negative particle; it may optionally spread onto the verb or the verb phrase, as indicated by the broken line in (5a). In contrast, in LIS, the headshake cannot spread beyond the negative particle.

$$\begin{array}{llll} \text{(5)} & \text{a.} & \text{SANTI} & \overset{-}{\text{MEAT}} & \overset{-}{\text{EAT}} & \text{NAD}^{-} \\ & & \text{\text{(Santi doesn't eat meat.'}} & & \text{I} \\ & & \text{\text{(S::})} & & \text{\text{(I:SC; Quer (2012, p. 318))}} \\ \text{b.} & \text{PAOLO} & \text{CONTRAAT} & \text{SIGN} & \text{NON} \\ & & \text{\text{Palo doidn't sign the contract.'} & & \text{[LIS; Gead (2005, p. 221)]} \\ & & & \text{The  $\alpha$ -manifolds of a cross-linear and a common state that in ICG, the bandwidth is less than } \end{array}$$

The possibility of spreading already suggests that in LSC, the headshake is less tightly associated with the manual negator than in LIS. That this is indeed the case is further evidenced by the observation that using the manual particle is optional in LSC, that is, sentences are commonly negated by a headshake only in this language. In this case, the headshake minimally accompanies the verb, but it may optionally spread onto the object (6a). As opposed to LSC, headshake-only negation is impossible in LIS, irrespective of the scope of the headshake, as indicated by the brackets in (6b).


Despite syntactic commonalities, LSC and LIS thus belong to different typological groups: LSC is a so-called non-manual dominant sign language, while LIS is a manual dominant sign language (Zeshan 2004, 2006). In the former type, the use of a manual negative sign is optional, and the headshake is capable of spreading. In contrast, in the latter type, the use of a manual negator is obligatory, and the headshake is (generally) confined to accompanying the manual negator. Beyond this broad distinction, it is worth noting that within-group variation with respect to certain grammatical characteristics is also attested, for instance, when it comes to the availability of Negative Concord involving two manual negative signs (van Boven et al. Forthcoming). Additionally, research has claimed that within the group of non-manual dominant sign languages, there are differences in spreading options for the headshake (see Pfau and Quer 2002 for a comparison of LSC, ASL, and German Sign Language, three non-manual dominant sign languages; also see our discussion in Section 7). If confirmed by the analysis of naturalistic corpus data, these combinatorial restrictions would strongly sugges<sup>t</sup> that the headshake is not just a co-speech gesture (cf. Kendon 2002), but rather a grammatical marker, the use of which is languagespecific and tightly linked to the syntactic structure of the respective sign language. In

other words, and as already alluded to above, the non-manual gesture has grammaticalized (van Loon et al. 2014; Pfau 2015).

Some recent studies, however, sugges<sup>t</sup> that not all sign languages fit neatly into this two-way classification, that is, the classification may be too simplistic. First of all, it has been argued that in Russian Sign Language, a manual dominant sign language, the headshake is capable of spreading, thus presenting us with a hybrid system (Rudnev and Kuznetsova 2021). Secondly, Kuder (2020) observes for Polish Sign Language that headshake-only negation is attested, but that the headshake almost never spreads beyond a single sign. Finally, a corpus-based study on Auslan (Johnston 2018) suggests that this sign language employs a headshake in negative contexts, but that the headshake is not (yet) grammaticalized. In particular, (i) a headshake is only observed in half of the negative clauses extracted from the corpus; (ii) the headshake hardly ever negates a clause by itself; and (iii) the position and spreading behavior of headshakes, when present, do not appear to be linguistically constrained in this sign language. Johnston (2018) further draws attention to non-manuals surfacing in negative contexts in addition to or instead of headshaking (nodding and negative facial expressions, incl. mouth gestures) and points out the impact these may have on the interpretation of headshaking and other non-manuals as formal markers of negation.

With this in mind, we return to the typological classification of negation in spoken languages (i.e., use of negative particles vs. negative affixes). Pfau (2015) and Oomen and Pfau (2017) argue that the spoken language classification can be applied to at least some sign languages. As for prototypical manual dominant sign languages, they sugges<sup>t</sup> that these sign languages employ a negative particle that is lexically specified for a headshake, that is, the headshake is part of the lexical entry of the manual negator. In contrast, in nonmanual dominant sign languages, the negative particle and the headshake are independent negative elements, which implies that these sign languages involve split negation, whereby the manual negator is optional. Pfau and Oomen further argue, adopting a proposal made in Pfau (2008), that the headshake is a suprasegmental affix that attaches to the verb, comparable to tonal affixes in spoken languages. Given this line of reasoning, negation in LSC (and, for instance, German Sign Language) combines characteristics of Cuiba and Mbembe: just as in Cuiba (3), split negation involves a free particle and a verbal affix; just as in Mbembe (4b), the verbal affix is suprasegmental in nature (and just as in, e.g., Colloquial French, one of the two elements is optional).

#### **4. Kata Kolok**

#### *4.1. Community Characteristics*

Kata Kolok (KK) is a sign language isolate that emerged in a rural Balinese village community (Marsaja 2008; de Vos 2012; Lutzenberger, forthcoming). It thus belongs to the group of so-called rural (or village/shared) sign languages (Nyst 2012; Zeshan and de Vos 2012). Rural signing varieties represent a special sociolinguistic case, as they emerge rapidly in mostly isolated, rural enclaves, often as a result of an exceptionally high incidence of hereditary deafness. Sign languages arising in such contexts are relatively young. As for Kata Kolok, genetic and genealogical evidence indicates the first instance of a deaf cohort approximately six generations ago, and Kata Kolok has been used and acquired by deaf children ever since (Winata et al. 1995; Friedman et al. 1995). Moreover, Kata Kolok, just like other rural sign languages, represents a communicative tool that is shared by the deaf and a large proportion of the hearing community members. Deafness is not stigmatized, and the community has adapted culturally and linguistically to deafness in various ways (Marsaja 2008). Kata Kolok thus serves as means of communication in social, political, and religious contexts. Deaf children receive language input in Kata Kolok from birth, and Kata Kolok has been used at a local primary school as a medium of instruction since 2007 (Marsaja 2008; de Vos 2012).

There is a growing body of research investigating the diversity, as well as the similarities, among rural signing varieties, comparing them with sign languages used in urban

settings (de Vos and Pfau 2015; Meir and Sandler 2020). Until recently, Kata Kolok has developed under virtually no influence from any other sign languages. Yet, nowadays, deaf youngsters may pursue further education in other parts of Bali where Indonesian signing varieties are used, and contact with and influence from other sign languages will thus likely increase (Moriarty 2020; Lutzenberger, forthcoming).

## *4.2. Typological Sketch*

According to Marsaja (2008), the basic word order in Kata Kolok is SVO; ye<sup>t</sup> de Vos (2012) shows that Kata Kolok signers do not primarily rely on word order to mark argumen<sup>t</sup> structure, as subject and object are frequently omitted in spontaneous interaction. de Vos (2012) has studied the use of space in Kata Kolok, and reports that the use of an enlarged signing space and an absolute frame of reference are common. Another typologically unusual pattern is the absence of mouthings, i.e., silent articulations of spoken words accompanying signs (Marsaja 2008; de Vos 2012).

#### *4.3. Previous Work on Negation in Kata Kolok*

Compared to other signed languages, the range of manual signs considered to be negative in Kata Kolok is rather small. Marsaja (2008) discusses the basic clause negator NEG (glossed as SING in his study) and the negative completive marker NOT.YET (which he glosses as KONDEN), and Perniss and Zeshan (2008) add the sign FINISH, which expresses a negative existential meaning and can be used interchangeably with NEG in most contexts of negative existence and possession. These negative signs occur predominantly in postpredicative or clause-final position, with the exception of NOT.YET, which occurs clauseinitially (Marsaja 2008; de Vos 2012). Since the focus of the present study is on standard negation, we will concentrate on the basic clause negator NEG, which is articulated with a 5-handshape performing a side-to-side handwave (Figure 1).

**Figure 1.** Basic manual clause negator in Kata Kolok including a negative facial expression with furrowed brows and pulled-down corners of the mouth, as described by Marsaja (2008). Adapted with permission from de Vos (2012); copyright 2012 Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

Marsaja (2008, p. 194) claims that NEG is mandatory in all negative utterances, and provides one example involving doubling of NEG within a clause (but does not further discuss this phenomenon). He further suggests that the use of a headshake is optional in standard negation. In those instances in which a headshake does occur, "it is generally small and quick; it never exceeds the scope of SING's manual component, and never extends to previous or subsequent signs in a sentence" (Marsaja 2008, p. 197). As all sign languages described to date make use of both kinds of markers, this pattern would be typologically highly marked (Zeshan 2006, 2004). In the present study, we add to the picture another non-manual marker—a protruded tongue—addressing also its potential role as a negative existential marker in Section 6.2.2.

#### *4.4. Focus of the Present Study*

The current study offers a revised and more thorough account of negation in Kata Kolok. Using naturalistic corpus data, we address the following questions: (i) Is NEG indeed the main negator in Kata Kolok, while the headshake plays a minor role? (ii) What is the role of non-manual markers in Kata Kolok negation? (iii) Is there evidence for language change in the expression of standard negation across generations of Kata Kolok signers? Based on examples previously elicited by Marsaja (2008), we expect to find few instances where NEG co-occurs with a negative headshake. Based on observations from fieldwork and corpus data, however, there is reason to expect that NEG frequently co-occurs with (a) non-manual element(s), specifically a headshake and/or tongue protrusion, and that negation is occasionally expressed without the use of the manual negator. We hypothesize that non-manual negators may still be grammaticalizing within the three generations of Kata Kolok signers studied in this paper. For this reason, we opted for an intergenerational sample of naturalistic corpus data for the current study of standard negation in Kata Kolok.
