1887
Volume 23, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00042.kwo
2020-10-30
2020-11-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00042.kwo
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00042.kwo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): delayed first language , language development , language emergence , sign languages and verb agreement
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