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

Abstract

Abstract

Demonstratives provide an important link between gesture, discourse and grammar due to their communicative function to coordinate the interlocutor’s focus of attention. This underlies their frequent cross-linguistic development into a wide range of function words and morphemes (Diessel 1999). The present study provides evidence for a link between gesture and grammar by tracking diachronic development of a relative clause marker in Israeli Sign Language (ISL) restrictive relative clauses, which starts as a gestural locative pointing sign, and grammaticalizes into a relative pronoun connecting relative and main clauses and agreeing with referent loci, and then into an invariant relativizer. Diachronic changes are inferred from the data collected from three generations of signers. The results reveal that the behavior of demonstratives in the data varied with the signers’ ages according to four diagnostic criteria of grammaticalization (e.g., Hopper & Traugott 2003): increased systematicity, distributional and morphological changes, and phonetic reduction.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00047.dac
2020-10-30
2020-11-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aarons, Debra
    1996 Topics and topicalization in American sign language. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics30. 65–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bahan, Benjamin, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin & Carol Neidle
    1995 Convergent evidence for the structure of determiner phrases in American Sign Language. InLeslie Gabriele, Debra Hardison & Robert Hoffmeister (Eds.), FLSM VI: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America: Vol. 2: Syntax II & Semantics/Pragmatics, 1–12. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bellugi, Ursula & Edward Klima
    1982 From gesture to sign: Deixis in a visuo-gestural language. InRobert Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: studies in deixis and related topics, 279–313. Chichester, NY: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Branchini, Chiara
    2007Relatives and related constructions in LIS. Urbino: Università di UrbinoPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2014On relativization and clefting: an analysis of Italian Sign Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501500008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501500008 [Google Scholar]
  6. Branchini, Chiara & Caterina Donati
    2009 Italian Sign Language relatives: a contribution to the typology of relativization strategies. InAnikó Liptak (Ed.), Correlatives: theory and typology, 157–191. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brunelli, Michele
    2011Antisymmetry and sign languages: a comparison between NGT and LIS. Amsterdam: University of AmsterdamPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brugmann, Karl
    1904Demonstrativpronomina der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Teubner.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bühler, Karl
    1934Sprachtheorie (Vol.2). Jena: Fischer.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Butterworth, George Esmond
    1998 What is special about pointing in babies?InFrancesca Simion & George Esmond Butterworth (Eds.), The development of sensory, motor and cognitive capacities in early infancy. From perception to cognition, 171–190. Hove: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cecchetto, Carlo, Carlo Geraci & Alessandro Zucchi
    2006 Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory24(4). 945–975. 10.1007/s11049‑006‑9001‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9001-x [Google Scholar]
  12. Cecchetto, Carlo & Caterina Donati
    2016 Relativization in Italian Sign Language: the missing link of relativization. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Annika Herrmann (Eds.), A matter of complexity: Subordination in sign languages, 182–203. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501503238‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501503238-008 [Google Scholar]
  13. Clark, Eve
    1978 From gesture to word: On the natural history of deixis in language acquisition. InJerome Bruner & Alison Garton (Eds.), Human growth and development, 85–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Coppola, Marie & Ann Senghas
    2010 Deixis in an emerging sign language. 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]
  16. Coppola, Marie & Wing Chee So
    2006 The seeds of spatial grammar: Spatial modulation and coreference in homesigning and hearing adults. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston Conference on Language Development30, 119–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Crasborn, Onno & Han Sloetjes
    2008 Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Construction and Exploitation of Sign Language Corpora, 39–43. Paris: ELRA.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dachkovsky, Svetlana
    2016The development of a RC marker from a deictic gesture in Israeli Sign Language. Talk presented at theWorkshop Sign Language Agreement Revisited: New Theoretical and Experimental Perspectives, University of Konstanz, February, 24–26
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2018Grammaticalization of intonation in Israeli Sign Language: From information structure to relative clause relations. Haifa: University of HaifaPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dachkovsky, Svetlana, Christina Healy & Wendy Sandler
    2013 Visual intonation in two sign languages. Phonology30(2). 211–252. 10.1017/S0952675713000122
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675713000122 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dachkovsky, Svetlana & Wendy Sandler
    2009 Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech52(2–3). 287–314. 10.1177/0023830909103175
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909103175 [Google Scholar]
  22. Diessel, Holger
    1999Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2005 Distance contrasts in demonstratives.‏InMartin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 170–173. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2006 Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics17(4), 463–489. 10.1515/COG.2006.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2012Deixis and demonstratives. An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2013 Where does language come from? Some reflections on the role of deictic gesture and demonstratives in the evolution of language. Language and Cognition5(2–3). 239–249. 10.1515/langcog‑2013‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog-2013-0017 [Google Scholar]
  27. Eckardt, Regine
    2006Meaning change in grammaticalization: an enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262601.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262601.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Emmorey, Karen
    2002Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Engberg-Pedersen, Elizabeth
    1993Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman & Wim van der Wurff
    2000The syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Fusellier-Souza, Ivani
    2006 Emergence and development of signed languages: From a semiogenetic point of view. Sign Language Studies7(1). 30–56. 10.1353/sls.2006.0030
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2006.0030 [Google Scholar]
  32. Givón, Talmy
    2009The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.146
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.146 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    2003Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  34. Iverson, Jana M. & Susan Goldin-Meadow
    2005 Gesture paves the way for language development. Psychological Science16(5). 367–371. 10.1111/j.0956‑7976.2005.01542.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01542.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Kendon, Adam
    2004Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kita, Sotaro
    2003 Pointing. A foundational building block of human communication. InSotaro Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meeet, 1–8. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410607744
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607744 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kita, Sotaro & Aslı Özyürek
    2003 What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal?: Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language48(1). 16–32. 10.1016/S0749‑596X(02)00505‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00505-3 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kubus, Okan
    2014Relative clause constructions in Turkish Sign Language. Hamburg: University of HamburgPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Labov, William
    1963 The social motivation of a sound change. Word19(3). 273–309. 10.1080/00437956.1963.11659799
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1963.11659799 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lehmann, Christian
    1985 Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e stile20(3). 303–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2008 Information structure and grammaticalization. InElena Seoane & María José López-Couso (Eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 207–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.77.12leh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.77.12leh [Google Scholar]
  42. Levinson, Stephen
    2004 Deixis. InLaurence Horn & Gregory Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Liddell, Scott K.
    1978 Non-manual signals and relative clauses in American Sign Language. InPatricia Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 59–90. New York: Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 1980American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 1996 Spatial representations in discourse: Comparing spoken and signed language. Lingua98(1). 145–167. 10.1016/0024‑3841(95)00036‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(95)00036-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2003Grammar, gesture and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward Klima
    1990 Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. InSusan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, 191–210. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Liszkowski, Ulf, Malinda Carpenter, Ann Henning, Tricia Striano & Michael Tomasello
    2004 Twelve-month-olds point to share attention and interest. Developmental Science7(3). 297–307. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2004.00349.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00349.x [Google Scholar]
  49. McBurney, Susan Lloyd
    2002 Pronominal reference in signed and spoken language. InRichard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 329–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.017 [Google Scholar]
  50. McNeill, David
    1992Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Meier, Richard P.
    1990 Person deixis in American Sign Language. InSusan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, 175–190. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2002 The acquisition of verb agreement: pointing out arguments for the linguistic status of agreement in sign languages. InGary Morgan & Bencie Woll (Eds.), Current developments in the study of signed language acquisition, 115–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Meir, Irit
    1998 Syntactic-semantic interaction in Israeli Sign Language verbs: The case of backwards verbs. Sign Language & Linguistics, 1(1). 3–37. 10.1075/sll.1.1.03mei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.1.1.03mei [Google Scholar]
  54. 2016 Grammaticalization is not the full story: a non-grammaticalization account of the emergence of sign language agreement morphemes. InMediterranean Morphology Meeting10. 112–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Meir, Irit, Carol A. Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
    2007 Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics43(3). 531–563. 10.1017/S0022226707004768
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226707004768 [Google Scholar]
  56. Meir, Irit & Wendy Sandler
    2008A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler
    1999 Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech42(2–3). 143–176. 10.1177/00238309990420020201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020201 [Google Scholar]
  58. Padden, Carol
    1988Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
    2005 Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extraposition and reconstruction. InLeah Bateman & Cherlon Ussery (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35), Vol.2, 507–521. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2006Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages (Linguistics in Potsdam 24). Potsdam: Universitäts-Verlag. Available atopus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2006/1088/
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Sandler, Wendy
    1999 Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. InTraci Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz (Eds.), Studies on the phonological word, 223–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.174.09san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.174.09san [Google Scholar]
  62. 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]
  63. Sankoff, Gillian & Penelope Brown
    1976 The origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok Pisin relatives. Language52(3). 631–666. 10.2307/412723
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412723 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sheldon, Amy
    1974 The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior13(3). 272–281. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(74)80064‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80064-2 [Google Scholar]
  65. Shepard-Kegl, Judy
    1985Locative relations in ASL word formation, syntax, and discourse. Cambridge, MA: MITPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Supalla, Ted
    1982Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. San Diego, CA: University of CaliforniaPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Tang, Gladys, Prudence Lau & Jafi Lee
    2010Strategies for relativization in HKSL. Paper presented atTheoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR 10), Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Tomasello, Michael
    1999The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    1992 Syntax. InRichard Hogg (Ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, volI, 168–229. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005 [Google Scholar]
  70. Wilbur, Ronnie
    2017 Internally-headed relative clauses in sign languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics2(1): 25. 1–34. 10.5334/gjgl.183
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.183 [Google Scholar]
  71. Zimmer, June & Cynthia G. Patschke
    1990 A class of determiners in ASL. InCeil Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 201–210. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Zukowski, Andrea
    2009 Elicited production of relative clauses in children with Williams syndrome. Language and Cognitive Processes24(1). 1–43. 10.1080/01690960801966118
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960801966118 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00047.dac
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00047.dac
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): demonstratives , grammaticalization , Israeli Sign Language , non-manuals , pointing and relative clauses
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