1887
Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper seeks to find empirical evidence for categorical associations between classifier types and argument structure in Sign Language of the Netherlands ( – NGT), based on an influential proposal by Benedicto & Brentari (2004). In the light of (sign) language typology and possible modality effects, it is of interest to investigate whether the morpho-phonological similarities of sign language classifier predicates are associated with the same syntactic-semantic properties cross-linguistically. This paper offers three additions to the quest: data from another sign language, an empirical approach, and a more fine-grained distinction of verb types. In an elicitation study, signers produced classifier descriptions of verbs with different argument structures. Their responses were analyzed for phonological handshape and classifier type. Based on the results, I conclude that (i) NGT classifier constructions show categorical associations between argument structure and classifier type, that (ii) specifically, NGT handling and whole entity classifier predicates may take part in a transitive-intransitive alternation, and that (iii) with respect to NGT classifier constructions, we need to distinguish manner verbs from causative verbs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00011.lin
2018-10-19
2019-09-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2000Classifiers: a typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2003 Classifiers in spoken and in signed languages: how to know more. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 87–90. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aronoff, Mark , Irit Meir , Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler
    2004 Morphological universals and the sign language type. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology, 19–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari
    2004 Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory22(4). 743–810.10.1007/s11049‑003‑4698‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-003-4698-2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Benedicto, Elena , Sandra Cvejanov & Josep Quer
    2007 Valency in classifier predicates: A syntactic analysis. Lingua117. 1202–1215.10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.012 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bogaerde, Beppie van den
    2000Input and interaction in deaf families. Amsterdam: University of AmsterdamPhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowerman, Melissa & Penelope Brown
    2008Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: implications for learnability. New York/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Burzio, Luigi
    1986Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978‑94‑009‑4522‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4522-7 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cogill-Koez, Dorothea
    2000 Signed language classifier predicates: Linguistic structures or schematic visual representations?Sign Language & Linguistics3(2). 153–207.10.1075/sll.3.2.03cog
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.3.2.03cog [Google Scholar]
  10. Comrie, Bernhard
    1993 Argument structure. In Joachim Jacobs , Arnim von Stechow , Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, Volume1, 905–914. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Crasborn, Onno
    2001Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Leiden: Leiden UniversityPhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Crasborn, Onno , Inge Zwitserlood & Johan Ros
    2008Het Corpus NGT. Een digitaal open access corpus van filmpjes en annotaties van de Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Nijmegen: Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University. URL: www.ru.nl/corpusngt/.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dixon, Robert M. W.
    1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611896
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dowty, David R.
    1979Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9473‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 [Google Scholar]
  15. 1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument structure. Language67. 547–619.10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  16. Emmorey, Karen
    2002Language, cognition and the brain: insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
    1993Space in Danish Sign Language. Hamburg: Signum.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gertner, Yael , Cynthia Fisher & Julie Eisengart
    2006 Learning words and rules: Abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science17(8). 684–691.10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2006.01767.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01767.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Glück, Susanne & Roland Pfau
    1997 Eine Klasse für sich: Klassifizierende Verben in Deutscher Gebärdensprache [Classificatory verbs in German Sign Language]. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft16(1/2). 181–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldin-Meadow, Susan
    2003The resilience of language. What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Grinevald, Colette
    1996A typology of classifiers: Issues and perspectives. Paper presented atthe Third Australian Linguistics Institute, Canberra.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2000 Classifiers. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Systems of nominal classification, 50–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Grose, Donovan , Ronnie Wilbur & Katharina Schalber
    2007 Events and telicity in classifier predicates: a reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua117. 1258–1284.10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.014 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hale, Kenneth L. & Samuel J. Keyser
    2002Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Haspelmath, Martin
    1993 More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.23.05has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.23.05has [Google Scholar]
  26. 2012 How to compare major word-classes across the world’s languages. In Thomas Graf , Denis Paperno , Anna Szabolcsi & Jos Tellings (eds.), Theories of everything: in honor of Edward Keenan, UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics17, 109–130. Los Angeles: UCLA.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hoiting, Nini
    2009The myth of simplicity: sign language acquisition by deaf toddlers. Groningen: RUGPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jackendoff, Ray
    1990Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lane, Harlan
    1984When the mind hears: a history of the deaf. New York: Random House.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
    1995Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2005Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  32. Liddell, Scott K.
    2003 Sources of meaning in ASL classifier predicates. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 199–220. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lint, Vanja de
    2010Argument structure in classifier constructions in American Sign Language (ASL): an experimental approach. Utrecht: Utrecht UniversityMA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Marelj, Marijana
    2004Middles and argument structure across languages. Utrecht: Utrecht UniversityPhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann
    2007 The argument structure of classifier predicates in American Sign Language. In Amy R. Deal (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting on Semantics of Underrepresented Languages of the Americas, 141–159. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Meier, Richard P.
    2002 Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. In Richard P. Meier , Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken language, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486777.001
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2012 Language and modality. In Roland Pfau , Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 574–601. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110261325.574
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.574 [Google Scholar]
  38. Meir, Irit
    1999 Verb classifiers and noun incorporation in Israeli Sign Language. Yearbook of Morphology 1999. 299–319.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Naigles, Letitia R.
    1990 Children use syntax to use verb meaning. Journal of Child Language17(2). 357–374.10.1017/S0305000900013817
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900013817 [Google Scholar]
  40. 1996 The use of multiple frames in verb learning via syntactic bootstrapping. Cognition58. 221–251.10.1016/0010‑0277(95)00681‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00681-8 [Google Scholar]
  41. 1998 Developmental changes in the use of structure in verb learning. Advances in Infancy Research12. 298–317.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Newport, Elissa L. & Richard P. Meier
    1985 The acquisition of American Sign Language. In Dan I. Slobin (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, 881–938. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Nyst, Victoria
    2007A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Amsterdam: University of AmsterdamPhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Padden, Carol
    1988 Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland. (Original version: 1983. San Diego, CA: University of California San DiegoPhD dissertation).
  45. 2011From gesture to new sign language. Presentation given atthe MPINijmegen.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Pavlič, Matic
    2016The word order parameter in Slovenian sign language : transitive, ditransitive, classifier and locative constructions. Venice: Università Ca’ Foscari VeneziaPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Perlmutter, David
    1978 Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society4. 157–190.10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198 [Google Scholar]
  48. Perlmutter, David & Carol Rosen
    (eds.) 1984Studies in Relational Grammar2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Perniss, Pamela , Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach
    2007Visible variation: Cross-linguistic studies on sign language structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198850
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198850 [Google Scholar]
  50. Pinker, Steven
    1989Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Ramchand, Gillian
    2013 Argument structure and argument structure alternations. In Marcel den Dikken (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, 265–321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804571.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571.013 [Google Scholar]
  52. Reinhart, Tanya
    2000 The Theta system: syntactic realization of verbal concepts. UiL-OTS Working Papers. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 2002 The Theta system – An overview. Theoretical Linguistics28. 229–290.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2006Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139163910
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
  55. Schembri, Adam
    2001Issues in the analysis of polycomponential verbs in Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Sydney: University of SydneyPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2003 Rethinking “classifiers” in signed languages. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 3–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Scott, Rose M. & Cynthia Fisher
    2007 Combining syntactic frames and semantic roles to acquire verbs. In Heather Caunt-Nulton , Samantha Kulatilake & I-hao Woo (eds.). Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 555–566. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Supalla, Ted
    1982Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. San Diego, CA: University of California San DiegoPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 1986 The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun classes and categorization, 181–214. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.7.13sup
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.7.13sup [Google Scholar]
  60. Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll
    1999The linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139167048
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167048 [Google Scholar]
  61. Woll, Bencie
    2003 Modality, universality, and the similarities among sign languages: a historical perspective. In Anne Baker , Beppie van den Bogaerde & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives in sign language research. Selected papers from TISLR 2000, 17–27. Hamburg: Signum.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Wood, Sandra
    1999Semantic and syntactic aspects of negation in ASL. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue UniversityMA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Zeshan, Ulrika
    2003 Classificatory constructions in Indo-Pakistani Sign Language: grammaticalization and lexicalization processes. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 113–141. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. (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. Zwitserlood, Inge
    2003Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: Utrecht UniversityPhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00011.lin
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00011.lin
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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