Volume 23, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Sign languages are frequently described as having three verb classes. One, ‘agreeing’ verbs, indicates the person/number of its subject and object by modification of the beginning and ending locations of the verb. The second, ‘spatial’ verbs, makes a similar appearing modification of verb movement to represent the source and goal locations of the theme of a verb of motion. The third class, ‘plain’ verbs, is characterized as having neither of these types of modulations. A number of researchers have proposed accounts that collapse all of these types, or the person-agreeing and spatial verbs. Here we present evidence from late learners of American Sign Language and from the emergence of new sign languages that person agreement and locative agreement have a different status in these conditions, and we claim their analysis should be kept distinct, at least in certain ways.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler
    2004 Morphological universals and the sign language type. InGeert Booij & Jaap van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2004, 19–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bellugi, Ursula, Karin van Hoek, Diane Lillo-Martin & Lucinda O’Grady
    1988 The acquisition of syntax and space in young deaf signers. InDorothy Bishop & Karen Mogford (Eds.), Language development in exceptional circumstances, 132–149. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berk, Stephanie
    2003Sensitive period effects on the acquisition of language: A study of language development. Storrs, CT: University of ConnecticutPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Berk, Stephanie & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2012 The two-word stage: Motivated by linguistic or cognitive constraints?Cognitive Psychology65(1). 118–140. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boudreault, Patrick & Rachel Mayberry
    2006 Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes21(5). 608–635. 10.1080/01690960500139363
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960500139363 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, Joan L., Östen Dahl, Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Coppola, Marie
    2002The emergence of the grammatical category of Subject in home sign: Evidence from family-based gesture systems in Nicaragua. Rochester, NY: University of RochesterPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coppola, Marie & Ann Senghas
    2010 The emergence of deixis in Nicaraguan signing. InDiane Brentari (Ed.), Sign Languages: A Cambridge Language Survey, 543–569. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.025 [Google Scholar]
  9. Costello, Brendan
    2015Language and modality: Effects of the use of space in the agreement system of Lengua de Signos Española (Spanish Sign Language). PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam & University of the Basque Country. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Emmorey, Karen, Ursula Bellugi, Angela Friederici & Petra Horn
    1995 Effects of age of acquisition on grammatical sensitivity: Evidence from on-line and off-line tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics16(1). 1–23. 10.1017/S0142716400006391
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400006391 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Fischer, Susan & Bonnie Gough
    1978 Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies18. 17–48. 10.1353/sls.1978.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1978.0014 [Google Scholar]
  13. Heine, Bernd
    1993Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2002 On the evolution of grammatical forms. The transition to language. InAlison Wray (Ed.), Studies in the evolution of language, 376–397. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hochgesang, Julie A., Onno Crasborn & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2019ASL Signbank. New Haven, CT: Haskins Lab, Yale University. https://aslsignbank.haskins.yale.edu/
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Jackendoff, Ray
    1990Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Janis, Wynne D
    1995 A crosslinguistic perspective on ASL verb agreement. InKaren Emmorey & Judy Reilly (Eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 195–223. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Keller, Jörg
    1999 Using space in German Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics2. 249–257. 10.1075/sll.2.2.08kel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.2.08kel [Google Scholar]
  19. Liddell, Scott K
    2000 Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away from agreement. InKaren Emmorey & Harlan Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 303–320. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Richard P. Meier
    2011 On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics37. 95–141. 10.1515/thli.2011.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lourenço, Guilherme
    2018Verb agreement in Brazilian Sign Language: Morphophonology, syntax & semantics. Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas GeraisPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lourenço, Guilherme & Ronnie B. Wilbur
    2018 Are plain verbs really plain? Co-localization as the agreement marker in sign languages. FEAST2, 68–81. 10.31009/FEAST.i2.06
    https://doi.org/10.31009/FEAST.i2.06 [Google Scholar]
  23. Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann
    2012 Verb agreement. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (Eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 136–157. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.136
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.136 [Google Scholar]
  24. Meir, Irit
    1998Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of JerusalemPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2002 A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory20. 430–450. 10.1023/A:1015041113514
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015041113514 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2010 The emergence of argument structure in two new sign languages. InMalka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics and event structure, 101–123. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012 The evolution of verb classes and verb agreement in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics38. 145–152. 10.1515/tl‑2012‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2012-0008 [Google Scholar]
  28. Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
    2007 Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics43. 531–563. 10.1017/S0022226707004768
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226707004768 [Google Scholar]
  29. Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2013 Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics24(2). 309–343. 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0010 [Google Scholar]
  30. Nevins, Andrew
    2011 Prospects and challenges for a clitic analysis of (A)SL agreement. Theoretical Linguistics37. 173–187. 10.1515/thli.2011.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2011.013 [Google Scholar]
  31. Newport, Elissa L.
    1990 Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science14. 11–28. 10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2 [Google Scholar]
  32. Newport, Elissa L. & Ted Supalla
    2000 Sign language research at the millennium. InKaren Emmorey & Harlan Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 103–114. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Oomen, Marloes
    2017 Iconicity in argument structure: Psych-verbs in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Sign Language & Linguistics20(1). 55–108. 10.1075/sll.20.1.03oom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20.1.03oom [Google Scholar]
  34. Oomen, Marloes & Vadim Kimmelman
    2019 Body-anchored verbs and argument omission in two sign languages. Glossa4(1):42. 1–36. 10.5334/gjgl.741
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.741 [Google Scholar]
  35. Padden, Carol
    1983 Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego. [Published version 1988, Garland, New York].
  36. 1990 The relation between space and grammar in ASL morphology. InCeil Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: theoretical issues, 118–132. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
    2010 The grammar of space in two new sign languages. InDiane Brentari (Ed.), Cambridge language surveys: Sign languages, 570–592. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.026
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.026 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pfau, Roland
    2011 A point well taken: On the typology and diachrony of pointing. InDonna Jo Napoli & Gaurav Mathur (Eds.), Deaf around the world: The impact of language, 144–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
    2006Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages (Linguistics in Potsdam 24). Potsdam: Universitäts-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Pfau, Roland, Martin Salzmann & Markus Steinbach
    2018 The syntax of sign language agreement: Common ingredients, but unusual recipe. Glossa3(1). 107. 1–46. 10.5334/gjgl.511
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.511 [Google Scholar]
  41. Quadros, Ronice Müller de & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2007 Gesture and the acquisition of verb agreement in sign languages. InHeather Caunt-Nulton, Samantha Kulatilake & I-hao Woo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 520–531. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Quadros, Ronice Müller de & Josep Quer
    2008 Back to back(wards) and moving on: On agreement, auxiliaries and verb classes in sign languages. InRonice Müller de Quadros (Ed.), TISLR9: Sign languages: Spinning and unraveling the past, present and future, 530–551. Petrópolis, Brazil: Editora Arara Azul.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Rathmann, Christian & Gaurav Mathur
    2002 Is verb agreement the same cross-modally?InRichard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.018 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2008 Verb agreement as a linguistic innovation in signed languages. InJosep Quer (Ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004, 191–216. Hamburg: Signum.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sandler, Wendy & Diane C. Lillo-Martin
    2006Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schembri, Adam, Jordan Fenlon & Kearsy Cormier
    2018 Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Glossa3(1). 89. 10.5334/gjgl.468
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.468 [Google Scholar]
  47. Senghas, Ann & Marie Coppola
    2001 Children creating language: How Nicaraguan Sign Language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychological Science12. 323–328. 10.1111/1467‑9280.00359
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00359 [Google Scholar]
  48. Senghas, Ann, Marie Coppola, Elissa L. Newport & Ted Supalla
    1997 Argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language: The emergence of grammatical devices. InElizabeth Hughes, Mary Hughes & Annabel Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 550–561. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Senghas, Ann
    2010 The emergence of two functions for spatial devices in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Human Development53. 287–302. 10.1159/000321455
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000321455 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
    1999 Metrical structure, morphological gaps, and possible grammaticalization in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics2. 217–244. 10.1075/sll.2.2.05wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.2.05wil [Google Scholar]

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