Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In this paper, we investigate structural aspects of nominal modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS), a language with a relatively flexible word order. In order to tackle the issue, this study combines different approaches, including generalizations from typological universals on word order, their formal counterparts, and a variationist approach to language facts. Data come from the largest corpus of LIS currently available. Despite the absence of categorical rules, our mixed approach shows that LIS data are consistent with the general tenets of nominal modification. Results from the statistical analysis indicate that the attested language-internal variability is constrained both by linguistic and social factors. Specifically, a fine-grained structure of nominal modification is able to capture the internal variability of LIS. Processing effects, age, gender, and early exposure to the language also play a relevant role in determining order preferences.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abels, Klaus & Ad Neeleman
    2009 Universal 20 without the LCA. In José M. Brucart , Anna Gavarró & Jaume Solà (eds.), Merging features: computation, interpretation, and acquisition, 60–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199553266.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199553266.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2012 Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax15(1). 25–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2011.00163.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00163.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Abner, Natasha
    2012There once was a verb: the predicative core of possessive and nominalization structures in American Sign Language. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexiadou, Artemis , Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou
    2007Noun Phrase in the Generative perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110207491
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207491 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baayen, Harald R.
    2008Analyzing linguistic data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baayen, Harald R. , Doug J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates
    2008 Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language59. 390–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Barrett, Rusty
    2008 Linguistic differentiation and Mayan language revitalization in Guatemala. Journal of Sociolinguistics12(3). 275–305. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2008.00368.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00368.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Bertone, Carmela
    2007La struttura del sintagma determinante nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS). Venice: Ca’ Foscari University PhDl dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2009 The syntax of noun modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS). University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics19. 7–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Branchini, Chiara
    2007On relativization and clefting in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Urbino: University of Urbino PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Branchini, Chiara , Anna Cardinaletti , Carlo Cecchetto , Caterina Donati & Carlo Geraci
    2013 Wh-duplication in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sign Language & Linguistics16(2). 157–188. doi: 10.1075/sll.16.2.03bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.16.2.03bra [Google Scholar]
  12. Branchini, Chiara & Caterina Donati
    2009 Relatively different: Italian Sign Language relative clauses in a typological perspective. In Anikó Lipták (ed.), Correlatives crosslinguistically, 157–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lfab.1.07bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.1.07bra [Google Scholar]
  13. Branchini, Chiara & Carlo Geraci
    2011 L’ordine dei costituenti in LIS: risultati preliminari. In Anna Cardinaletti , Carlo Cecchetto & Caterina Donati (eds.), Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS, 113–126. Milano: Franco Angeli.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Brunelli, Michele
    2011Antisymmetry and sign languages: a comparison between NGT and LIS. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cardinaletti, Anna , Carlo Cecchetto & Caterina Donati
    (eds.) 2011Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS. Milano: Franco Angeli.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cecchetto, Carlo , Carlo Geraci & Sandro Zucchi
    2006 Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory24(4). 945–975. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑006‑9001‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9001-x [Google Scholar]
  17. 2009 Another way to mark syntactic dependencies: The case for right-peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language85(2). 278–320. doi: 10.1353/lan.0.0114
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0114 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Rint Sybesma
    1999 Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry30(4). 509–542. doi: 10.1162/002438999554192
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554192 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chomsky, Noam
    1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1994 On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In Guglielmo Cinque , Jan Koster , Jean-Yves Pollock , Luigi Rizzi & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.), Paths towards universal grammar: Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne, 85–110. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2003 Greenberg’s Universal 20 and the Semitic DP. In Lars Olof Delsing , Cecilia Falk , Gunlög Josefsson & Halldór Á. Sigursson (eds.), Grammatik in fokus/Grammar in Focus. Festschrift for Christer Platzack 18 November 2003, vol.2, 243–251. Lund: Wallin & Dalholm.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2005 Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistics Inquiry36. 315–332. doi: 10.1162/0024389054396917
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396917 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2010The syntax of adjectives. A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014168.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014168.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2012A partial map of extended functional projection of the NP. Advanced Syntax, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. A.Y. 2011/2012 Class lecture.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Conte, Genny , Mirko Santoro , Carlo Geraci & Anna Cardinaletti
    2010 Why are you raising your eyebrows?Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), conference proceedings, 53–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Crasborn, Onno & Han Sloetjes
    2008 Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora. Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), conference proceedings, 39–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cysouw, Michael
    2010 Dealing with diversity: Towards an explanation of NP-internal word order frequencies. Linguistic Typology14(2–3). 253–286.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Dixon, Robert M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
    (eds.) 2004Adjectives: a cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Dryer, Matthew S.
    2007 Word order. In Shopen Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol.1, 61–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2011On the order of demonstrative, numeral, adjective, and noun: an alternative to Cinque. Handout of a paper presented at theUniversity of Pavia in June. exadmin.matita.net/uploads/pagine/1898313034_cinqueH09.pdf Acc. on2014/12/12.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Fukui, Naoki
    1993 Parameters and optionality. Linguistic Inquiry24(3). 399–420.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Geraci, Carlo , Katia Battaglia , Anna Cardinaletti , Carlo Cecchetto , Caterina Donati , Serena Giudice & Emiliano Mereghetti
    2011 The LIS corpus project. A discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon. Sign Language Studies11(4). 528–574. doi: 10.1353/sls.2011.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2011.0011 [Google Scholar]
  33. Geraci, Carlo , Robert Bayley , Chiara Branchini , Anna Cardinaletti , Carlo Cecchetto , Caterina Donati , Serena Giudice , Emiliano Mereghetti , Fabio Poletti , Mirko Santoro & Sandro Zucchi
    2010 Building a corpus for Italian Sign Language: Methodological issues and some preliminary results. Proceedings ofConference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 98–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Geraci, Carlo , Robert Bayley , Anna Cardinaletti , Carlo Cecchetto & Caterina Donati
    2015 Variation in Italian Sign Language (LIS): The case of Wh-signs. Linguistics53(1). 125–151. doi: 10.1515/ling‑2014‑0031
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0031 [Google Scholar]
  35. Geraci, Carlo , Carlo Cecchetto & Sandro Zucchi
    2008 Sentential complementation in Italian Sign Language. In Michael Grosvald & Dionne Soares (eds.), Western Conference On Linguistics (WECOL), conference proceedings, 46–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Geraci, Carlo , Marta Gozzi , Costanza Papagno & Carlo Cecchetto
    2008 How grammar can cope with limited short-term memory: Simultaneity and seriality in sign languages. Cognition106. 780–804. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.014 [Google Scholar]
  37. Givon, Thomas
    2001Syntax: an introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Greenberg, Joseph H.
    1963 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Guy, Gregory R.
    1988 Advanced Varbrul analysis. In Kathleen Ferrara , Becky Brown , Keith Walters & John Baugh (eds.), Linguistic change and contact, 124–136. Austin, TX: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Haddican, Bill
    2002 Aspects of DP word order across creoles. Paper presented at the CUNY/SUNY/NYU, Linguistics Mini-Conference , April 20.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hawkins, John A.
    1983Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2004Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kayne, Richard
    1994The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kegl, Judy
    2008 The case of Signed Languages in the context of pidgin and creole studies. In Silvia Kouwenberg & John Victor Singler (eds.), The handbook of pidgin and creoles studies, 491–511. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kegl, Judy , Ann Senghas & Marie Coppola
    1999 Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In Michael DeGraff , (ed.), Language creation and language change: creolization, diachrony, and development, 179–237. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Labov, William
    2001Principles of linguistic change (social factors). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Laka, Itziar
    1990Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Laudanna, Alessandro & Virginia Volterra
    1991 Order of words, signs and gestures: A first comparison. Applied Psycholinguistics12. 135–150. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400009115
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400009115 [Google Scholar]
  49. Littlewood, William
    1984Foreign and second language learning: language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Longobardi, Giuseppe
    2000 The structure of DPs: Principles, parameters and problems. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of syntactic theory, 562–603. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. MacLaughlin, Dawn
    1997The structure of Determiner Phrases: Evidence from American Sign Language. Boston, MA: Boston University, doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Martin, Randi & Cristina Romani
    1994 Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension: A multiple-components view. Neuropsychology8. 506–523. doi: 10.1037/0894‑4105.8.4.506
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.8.4.506 [Google Scholar]
  53. Nardozzi, Giangiacomo
    2003 The Italian “Economic Miracle”. Rivista di Storia Economica19(2). 139–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Neidle, Carol , Judy Kegl , Dawn MacLaughlin , Benjamin Bahan & Robert G. Lee
    2000The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Neidle, Carol & Joan Nash
    2012 The noun phrase. In Roland Pfau , Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 265–292. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110261325.265
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.265 [Google Scholar]
  56. Newport, Elissa L.
    1999 Reduced input in the acquisition of signed languages: contributions to the study of creolization. In Michel DeGraff (ed.), Language creation and language change: creolization, diachrony, and development, 162–178. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Piantadosi, Steven T. & Edward Gibson
    2013 Quantitative standards for absolute linguistic universals. Cognitive Science38(4). 736–756. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12088
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12088 [Google Scholar]
  58. Rutkowski, Paweł , Małgorzata Czajkowska-Kisil , Joanna Łacheta & Anna Kuder
    2014 The syntax of adjectival modification in Polish Sign Language (PJM). Presentation at Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium (OLINCO). Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, Olomouc. June 5.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Tagliamonte, Sali A.
    2006Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801624
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801624 [Google Scholar]
  60. Tang, Gladys & Felix Sze
    2002 Nominal expressions in Hong Kong Sign Language: Does modality make a difference?In Richard P. Meier , Kearsy A. Cormier & David G. Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 296–321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.015 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tily, Harry J. & T. Florian Jaeger
    2011 Complementing quantitative typology with behavioral approaches: Evidence for typological universals. Linguistic Typology15(2). 497–508. doi: 10.1515/lity.2011.033
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2011.033 [Google Scholar]
  62. Wilson, Margaret & Karen Emmorey
    2006 Comparing sign language and speech reveals a universal limit on short-term memory capacity. Psychological Science17(8). 682–683. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2006.01766.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01766.x [Google Scholar]
  63. Zatini, Franco
    2014 Storia dei Sordi. www.storiadeisordi.it/ Acc. on2014/12/20.
  64. Zeshan, Ulrike
    (ed.) 2006Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.10.26530/OAPEN_453832
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_453832 [Google Scholar]
  65. 2013 Sign languages. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. wals.info/chapter/s9; accessed on2016/11/16.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Zeshan, Ulrike & Pamela Perniss
    (eds.) 2008Possessive and existential constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Zhang, Niina Ning
    2007 Universal 20 and Taiwan Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics10. 55–81. doi: 10.1075/sll.10.1.05zha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.10.1.05zha [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Italian Sign Language; nominal modification; Universal 20; word order variation
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