1887
Volume 43, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates clause constructions in Auslan. It looks at the alignment of constituent semantic role with constituent position and order in clauses, changes in the morphology of signs according to position and/or role, and the interpretation of omitted arguments. The aim is to determine if there are grammatical relations in Auslan. The most frequent constituent order parallels English, thus Auslan might be said to also instantiate a basic SVO word order. However, every possible constituent order pattern is also attested without there being other coding and behavioural properties associated with grammatical relations that could explain this flexibility. I conclude that constituent order in Auslan is the result of the interaction of pragmatic and semantic factors, visual representation, and language contact with English, rather than autochthonous grammatical relations. Auslan grammar draws on both so-called gestural and so-called linguistic resources at the clause level, not just at the word (sign) level.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18035.joh
2020-01-23
2020-05-31
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer
    (eds.) 2000Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford, California: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari
    2004 Where Did All the Arguments Go? Argument-Changing Properties of Classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory22(4). 743–810. 10.1007/s11049‑003‑4698‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-003-4698-2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bhat, D. N. S.
    1991Grammatical Relations: The evidence against their necessity and universality. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203413654
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203413654 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolinger, Dwight L.
    1983 Intonation and gesture. American Speech58. 156–74. 10.2307/455326
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455326 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bos, Heleen
    1995 Pronoun copy in Sign Language of the Netherlands. InH. Bos & T. Schermer (eds.), Sign Language Research 1994: Proceedings of the Fourth European Congress on Sign Language Research, Munich, September 1–3, 1994, 121–47. Hamburg: Signum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bouchard, Denis
    1997 Sign languages & language universals: the status of order and position in grammar. Sign Language Studies91. 101–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bouchard, Denis & Collette Dubuisson
    1995 Grammar, order and position of Wh- signs in Quebec Sign Language. Sign Language Studies87. 99–139. 10.1353/sls.1995.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1995.0007 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boyes Braem, Penny
    1999 Rhythmic temporal patterns in the singing of deaf early and late learners of Swiss German Sign Language. Language and Speech42(2–3). 177–208. 10.1177/00238309990420020301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020301 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, Joan
    2007Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  11. Boyes Braem, P., Fournier, M.-L., Rickli, F., Corazza, S., Franchi, M.-L., & Volterra, V.
    (1990) A Comparison of Techniques for Expressing Semantic Roles and Locative Relations in Two Different Sign Languages. InW. H. Edmondson & F. Karlsson (Eds.), SLR ’87 Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, Lappeenranta, FinlandJuly 15-19, 1987 (pp.114–120). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
  12. Bybee, Joan & Paul J. Hopper
    (eds.) 2001Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  13. de Beuzeville, Louise, Trevor Johnston & Adam Schembri
    2009 The Use of Space with Indicating Verbs in Auslan: A corpus based investigation. Sign Language & Linguistics12(1). 53–82. 10.1075/sll.12.1.03deb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.12.1.03deb [Google Scholar]
  14. Cecchetto, Carlo
    2012 Sentence types. InR. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook, 292–315. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.292
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.292 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen Pichler, Deborah
    2011 Using early ASL word order to shed light on word order variability in sign language. InM. Andersen, K. Bentzen & M. Westergaard (eds.), Variation in the Input: Studies in The Acquisition of Word Order (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics), 157–77. The Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9207‑6_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9207-6_7 [Google Scholar]
  16. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N.
    (2016) Creating Language: Integrating Evolution, Acquisition, and Processing. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/10406.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10406.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Coerts, Jane
    1994 Constituent Order in Sign Language of The Netherlands. InM. Brennan & G. H. Turner (eds.), Word Order Issues in Sign Language. Working papers, 47–72. Durham, UK: International Sign Linguistics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cogill-Koez, Dorothea
    2000a Signed language classifier predicates: linguistic structures or schematic visual representation?Sign Language and Linguistics3(2). 153–207. 10.1075/sll.3.2.03cog
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.3.2.03cog [Google Scholar]
  19. 2000b A model of signed language ‘classifier predicates’ as templated visual representation. Sign Language and Linguistics3(2). 209–36. 10.1075/sll.3.2.04cog
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.3.2.04cog [Google Scholar]
  20. Comrie, Bernard
    1978 Ergativity. InW. P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1981Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1988 Coreference and conjunction reduction in grammar and discourse. InJ. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals: Basil Blackwell.
  23. Cormier, Kearsy, Jordan Fenlon & Adam Schembri
    2015a Indicating verbs in British Sign Language favour motivated use of space. Open Linguistics1. 684–707. 10.1515/opli‑2015‑0025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0025 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cormier, Kearsy, Sandra Smith & Sehyr Sevcikova
    2015b Rethinking constructed action. Sign Language & Linguistics18(2). 10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor [Google Scholar]
  25. Crasborn, Onno, Els van der Kooij & Johan Ros
    2012 On the weight of phrase-final prosodic words in a single language. Sign Language & Linguistics2(1). 1–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Croft, William
    1990Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2001Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse
    2004Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  29. Cuxac, Christian
    2000La Langue des Signes Française (LSF): Les voies de l’iconicité. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Danes, Frantisek
    (ed.) 1974Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague: Academia. 10.1515/9783111676524
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111676524 [Google Scholar]
  31. Deuchar, Margaret
    1978 Sign Language Diglossia in a British Deaf Community. Sign Language Studies17. 347–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1983 Is British Sign Language an SVO Language?InJ. G. Kyle & B. Woll (eds.), Language in Sign: an international perspective on sign language, 69–76. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1979 Ergativity. Language55(59–138). 10.2307/412519
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2010Basic Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Dryer, Matthew S.
    1997a Are grammatical relations universal?InJ. L. Bybee, J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language Function and Language Type, 115–44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.82.09dry
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.82.09dry [Google Scholar]
  36. 1997b On the Six-Way Word Order Typology. Studies in Language (21). 69–103. 10.1075/sl.21.1.04dry
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21.1.04dry [Google Scholar]
  37. 2013 Order of Subject, Object and Verb. InM. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds.), World atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, http'//wals.info/chapter/81
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Enfield, Nick J.
    2009The Anatomy of Meaning: Sign, gesture, and composite utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511576737
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576737 [Google Scholar]
  39. Engberg-Pedersen, Elizabeth
    2002 Grammatical relations in Danish Sign Language: topic and subject. InA. Pajunen (ed.), Mimesis, Sign, and the Evolution of Language (Publications in General Linguistics 3), 5–40. Turku, Finland: University of Turku.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Fenlon, Jordan, Adam Schembri & Kearsy Cormier
    2018 Modification of indicating verbs in British Sign Language: A corpus-based study. Language94(1). 84–118. 10.1353/lan.2018.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0002 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ferrara, Lindsay
    2012 The grammar of depiction: Exploring gesture and language in Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Sydney: Macquarie University Department of Linguistics thesis.
  42. Ferrara, Lindsay and Gabrielle Hodge
    2018 Language as Description, Indication, and Depiction. Frontiers in Psychology9 (Article 716). doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716 [Google Scholar]
  43. Ferrara, Lindsay & Trevor Johnston
    2014 Elaborating who’s what: A study of depiction and grammar in Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Australian Journal of Linguistics34(2). 193–215. 10.1080/07268602.2014.887405
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2014.887405 [Google Scholar]
  44. Fischer, Susan D.
    1975 Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. InC. Li (ed.), Word order and word order change, 1–25. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Fischer, Susan D. & Wynne Janis
    1990 Verb Sandwiches in ASL. InS. Prillwitz & T. Vollhaber (eds.), Current Trends in European Sign Language Research: Proceedings of the 3rd European Congress on Sign Language Research Hamburg July 26–29, 1989, 279–94. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Friedman, L. A.
    1976 The Manifestation of Subject, Object, and Topic in American Sign Language. InC. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 125–48. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Givón, Talmy
    1995Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.74
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.74 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2009The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.146
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.146 [Google Scholar]
  49. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2006Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1974 The place of ‘Functional Sentence Perspective’ in the system of linguistic description. InF. Danes (ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, 43–53. Prague: Academia.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Haspelmath, Martin
    2007 Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology11(1). 119–32. 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  53. Hodge, Gabrielle
    2013 Patterns from a signed language corpus: Clause-like units in Auslan (Australian sign language). Sydney: Macquarie University, Department of Linguistics doctoral dissertation.
  54. Hodge, Gabrielle & Trevor Johnston
    2014 Points, depictions, gestures and enactment: Partly lexical and non-lexical signs as core elements of single clause-like units in Auslan (Australian sign language). Australian Journal of Linguistics34(2). 262–91. 10.1080/07268602.2014.887408
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2014.887408 [Google Scholar]
  55. Hopper, P. J.
    (1998) Emergent grammar. InM. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp.155–175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  56. Jantunen, Tommi
    2008 Fixed and Free: Order of the Verbal Predicate and Its Core Arguments in Declarative Transitive Clauses in Finish Sign Language. SKY Journal of Linguistics21. 83–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2013 Ellipsis in Finnish Sign Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics36(03). 303–32. 10.1017/S0332586513000292
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586513000292 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2017 Constructed Action, the Clause and the Nature of Syntax in Finnish Sign Language. Open Linguistics3. 65–85. 10.1515/opli‑2017‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0004 [Google Scholar]
  59. Janzen, Terry
    2017 Composite utterances in a signed language: Topic constructions and perspective-taking in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics28(3). 511–38. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0121
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0121 [Google Scholar]
  60. Janzen, Terry, Barbara O’Dea & Barbara Shaffer
    2001 The construal of events: passives in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies1(3). 281–310. 10.1353/sls.2001.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2001.0009 [Google Scholar]
  61. Johnston, Trevor
    1989 Auslan: The sign language of the Australian deaf community. Sydney: University of Sydney doctoral dissertation.
  62. 1991 Spatial syntax and spatial semantics in the inflection of signs for the marking of person and location in Auslan. International Journal of Sign Linguistics2(1). 29–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 1996 Function and medium in the forms of linguistic expression found in a sign language. InW. H. Edmondson & R. B. Wilbur (eds.), International Review of Sign Linguistics, 57–94. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2008 The Auslan Archive and Corpus. InD. Nathan (ed.), The Endangered Languages Archive – elar.soas.ac.uk/languages, London: Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Documentation Project, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 2010 From archive to corpus: transcription and annotation in the creation of signed language corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15(1). 104–29. doi:  10.1075/ijcl.15.1.05joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.05joh [Google Scholar]
  66. 2013a Towards a comparative semiotics of pointing actions in signed and spoken languages. Gesture13(2). 109–42. 10.1075/gest.13.2.01joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.2.01joh [Google Scholar]
  67. 2013b Formational and functional characteristics of pointing signs in a corpus of Auslan (Australian sign language): are the data sufficient to posit a grammatical class of ‘pronouns’ in Auslan?Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory9(1). 109–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 2017 The Auslan Corpus Annotation Guidelines, downloadablefromwww.auslan.org.au/about/annotations/ [Last updated, November 2017].
  69. 2018 The role of headshake in negation in Auslan (Australian Sign Language): implications for signed language typology. Linguistic Typology22(2). 185–231. doi:  10.1515/lingty‑2018‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2018-0008 [Google Scholar]
  70. Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri
    2010 Variation, lexicalization and grammaticalization in signed languages. InB. Garcia & M. Derycke (eds.), Sourds et langue des signs: Normes et variation. Langage et société, 5–15. Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Johnston, Trevor, Myriam Vermeerbergen, Adam Schembri & Lorraine Leeson
    2007 “Real data are messy”: Considering cross-linguistic analysis of constituent ordering in Auslan, VGT, and ISL. InP. Perniss, R. Pfau & M. Steinbach (eds.), Visible Variation: Comparative Studies on Sign Language Structure, 163–205. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Keenan, Edward L.
    1976 Towards a universal definition of “subject”. InC. N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 1985 Relative clauses. InT. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume II: Complex Constructions, 141–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Kendon, Adam
    2014 Semiotic diversity in utterance production and the concept of ‘language’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal SocietySeries B, 369 (1651): 20139203. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0293
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0293 [Google Scholar]
  75. Kimmelman, Vadim
    2011 Doubling in RSL and NGT: towards a unified explanation. Workshop “Information Structure: Empirical Perspectives on Theory”, Potsdam, December 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi
    1979The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Kockelman, Paul
    2005 The semiotic stance. Semiotica157(1–4). 233–304.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  79. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1998 Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. InM. Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 1–39. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 2005 Construction Grammars: cognitive, radical, and less so. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & S. Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics & interdisciplinary interaction, 101–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 2008aCognitive grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  82. 2008b Metaphoric gesture and cognitive linguistics. InA. Cienki & C. Müller (eds.), Metaphor and gesture, 249–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/gs.3.14lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.3.14lan [Google Scholar]
  83. LaPolla, Randy J.
    2006 On Grammatical Relations as Constraints on Referent Identification. InT. Tsunoda & T. Kageyam (eds.), Voice and Grammatical Relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani (Typological Studies in Language), 139–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.65.09lap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.65.09lap [Google Scholar]
  84. LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa
    2006 On Describing Word Order. InF. Ameka, A. Dench & N. Evans (eds.), Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, 269–95. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Leeson, Lorraine & J. I. Saeed
    2012 Word Order. InR. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook, 245–64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110261325.245
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.245 [Google Scholar]
  86. Liddell, Scott K.
    1980American Sign Language Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 2000 Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away from agreement. InK. Emmorey & H. Lane (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 303–20. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Massone, Maria Ignacia & Monica Curiel
    2004 Sign order in Argentine Sign Language. Sign Language Studies5(1). 63–93. 10.1353/sls.2004.0023
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2004.0023 [Google Scholar]
  89. Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann
    2010 Verb agreement in sign language morphology. InD. Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 173–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.010 [Google Scholar]
  90. 2012 Verb Agreement. InR. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 136–57. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110261325.136
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.136 [Google Scholar]
  91. McKee, Rachel, Adam Schembri, David McKee & Trevor Johnston
    2011 Variable “subject” expression in Australian Sign Language and New Zealand Sign Language. Language Variation and Change23(1). 1375–398.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Meir, Irit, Mark Aronoff, Carl Börstell, So-One Hwang, Deniz Ilkabasaran, Itamar Kastner, Ryan Lepic, Adi Lifshitz Ben-Basat, Carol A. Padden & Wendy Sandler
    2017 The effect of being human and the basis of grammatical word order: Insights from novel communication systems and young sign languages. Cognition158. 189–207. 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.011 [Google Scholar]
  93. Nadeau, Marie & Louis Desouvrey
    1994 Word Order in Sentences with Directional Verbs in Quebec Sign Language. InI. Ahlgren, B. Bergman & M. Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on Sign Language Structure: Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, vol.1, 149–58. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Napoli, D. J. & Rachel Sutton-Spence
    2014 Order of the major constituents in sign languages: implications for all language. Frontiers in Psychology5. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00376
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00376 [Google Scholar]
  95. Neidle, Carol, Judy Anne Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Ben Bahan & Robert Lee
    2000The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Oomen, Marloes & Roland Pfau
    2017 Signing NOT (or not): A typological perspective on standard negation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Linguistic Typology21(1). 1–51. 10.1515/lingty‑2017‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2017-0001 [Google Scholar]
  97. Padden, Carol
    1988The Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Parmentier, Richard
    1994Sign in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Payne, Thomas E.
    1997Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805066
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805066 [Google Scholar]
  100. Peirce, Charles Sanders
    1955Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Petronio, Karen & Diane Lillo-Martin
    1997 WH-Movement and the Position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language73. 18–57. 10.2307/416592
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416592 [Google Scholar]
  102. Pinsonneault, Dominique
    1994 Verb echoes in LSQ. InM. Brennan & G. Turner (eds.), Word order issues in sign language: Working papers (presented at a workshop held in Durham 18–22 September 1991), 113–31. Durham: ISLA.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Puupponen, Anna
    2019 Towards understanding nonmanuality: a semiotic treatment of signers’ head movements. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 4(1), 39. 31–39. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.709
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.709 [Google Scholar]
  104. Quinto-Pozos, David & Sarika Mehta
    2010 Register variation in mimetic gestural complements to signed language. Journal of Pragmatics42(3). 557–84. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  105. de Quandros, Ronice Muller & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2010 Clause Structure. InD. Brentari (ed.), Sign Languages, 225–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.012 [Google Scholar]
  106. Rankin, Miako
    2013Form, Meaning, and Focus in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Schembri, A., K. Cormier & J. Fenlon
    2018 Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics3(1), 89. 81–40. 10.5334/gjgl.468
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.468 [Google Scholar]
  108. Schembri, Adam, Kearsy Cormier, Jordan Fenlon & Trevor Johnston
    2018 Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages. Frontiers in Psychology9. 200. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00200
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00200 [Google Scholar]
  109. Taub, Sarah
    2001Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
  110. Thompson, Sandra A. & Paul J. Hopper
    2001 Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. InJ. Bybee & P. J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 27–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.03tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.03tho [Google Scholar]
  111. Valli, Clayton, Ceil Lucas & Kirstin J. Mulrooney
    2005Linguistics of American Sign Language: A resource text for ASL users. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla
    1997Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  113. Vermeerbergen, M., Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn
    2007Simultaneity in signed languages: form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.281
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.281 [Google Scholar]
  114. Volterra, Virginia, A. Laudanna, Serena Corazza, E. Radutsky & F. Natale
    1984 Italian Sign Language: the order of elements in the declarative sentence. InF. Loncke, P. Boyes-Braem & Y. Lebrun (eds.), Recent Research on European Sign Languages, 19–48. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
    1994 Foregrounding structures in American Sign Language. Journal of Pragmatics22. 647–72. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90034‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90034-5 [Google Scholar]
  116. Wilcox, Sherman & Corrine Occhino
    2016 Constructing signs: Place as a symbolic structure in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics27(3). 371–404. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0003 [Google Scholar]
  117. Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, A. Klassmann & Han Sloetjes
    2006 ELAN: a Professional Framework for Multimodality Research. Proceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 1556–59. Paris: ELAR.
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Zeshan, Ulrike
    2004 Hand, head, and face: Negative constructions in sign languages. Linguistic Typology8. 1–58. 10.1515/lity.2004.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2004.003 [Google Scholar]
  119. (ed.) 2006Sign Language Typology 1: Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_453832
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_453832 [Google Scholar]
  120. Zima, Elisabeth & Alexander Bergs
    2017 Multimodality and construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard3(s1 (Jun 2017) 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑1006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-1006 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18035.joh
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18035.joh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Auslan , corpus , gesture , grammar , grammatical relations , grammatical roles , semiotics , sign language , syntacticization and syntax
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error