1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Sign Language & Linguistics
  4. Volume 20, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

For many of the sign languages studied to date, different types of agreement markers have been described which express agreement in transitive constructions involving non-inflecting (plain) verbs and sometimes even inflected agreement verbs. Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS) belongs to the group of sign languages employing two different agreement markers (/), which will be described in this paper. In an online questionnaire, we focused on two questions: (i) whether both forms of agreement markers are rated as equally acceptable by Deaf ÖGS-signers and hearing native signers, and (ii) whether there is a preferred syntactic position (pre- vs. postverbal) for these markers. Data analysis confirmed that both agreement markers are accepted by ÖGS-signers and that both agreement markers are slightly preferred in preverbal position. Further, possible origins of both agreement markers are discussed.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20.1.02kre
2017-11-06
2024-12-02

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sll.20.1.02kre
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bahan, Benjamin
    1996 Non-manual realization of agreement in ASL. Boston, MA: Boston UniversityPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bos, Heleen
    1994 An auxiliary verb in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Inger Ahlgren , Brita Bergman & Mary Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure, 37–53. Durham: ISLA.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Brentari, Diane
    1989 Backwards verbs in ASL: Agreement re-opened. In Lynn MacLeod (ed.), Parasession on agreement in grammatical theory (CLS 24, Vol. 2), 16–27. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen Pichler, Deborah , Katharina Schalber , Julie Hochgesang , Marina Milković , Ronnie B. Wilbur , Martina Vulje & Ljubica Pribanić
    2008 Possession and existence in three sign languages. In Ronice M. de Quadros (ed.), Sign languages: Spinning and unraveling the past, present and future. Forty-five papers and three posters from the 9th Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference, Florianopolis, Brazil, December 2006, 440–458. Petrópolis/RJ: Editora Arara Azul. [Available at: www.editora-arara-azul.com.br/EstudosSurdos.php].
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Costello, Brendan
    2015 Language and modality: Effects of the use of space in the agreement system of lengua de signos española (Spanish Sign Language). Amsterdam: University of AmsterdamPhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Fischer, Susan D.
    1975 Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. In Charles Li (ed.), Word order and word order change, 1–25. Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Friedman, Lynn A.
    1976 The manifestation of subject, object, and topic in the American Sign Language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 125–148. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Gökgöz, Kadir
    2013 The nature of object marking in American Sign Language. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue UniversityPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Greenhouse, Samuel W. & Seymour Geisser
    1959 On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika24(2). 95–112. doi: 10.1007/BF02289823
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289823 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hofstätter, Karin & Christian Stalzer
    2011 Grammatik der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache. Zusammengestellt für den ÖGSDV. Unpublished manuscript, University of Graz.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Janis, Wynne D.
    1992 Morphosyntax of the ASL verb phrase. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at BuffaloPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Krammer, Klaudia , Elisabeth Bergmeister , Franz Dotter , Marlene Hilzensauer , Ingeborg Okorn , Reinhold Orter & Andrea Skant
    2001 The Klagenfurt database for sign language lexicons. Sign Language & Linguistics4(1/2). 191–201. doi: 10.1075/sll.4.1‑2.13kra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.4.1-2.13kra [Google Scholar]
  13. Krebs, Julia , Ronnie B. Wilbur & Dietmar Roehm
    2016 Kongruenzmarker in der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache (ÖGS) – Präferierte Satzposition und Distribution. Das Zeichen. Zeitschrift für Sprache und Kultur Gehörloser30(102). 128–138.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Liddell, Scott
    2003 Grammar, gesture and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lillo-Martin, Diane
    1986 Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory4(4). 415–444. doi: 10.1007/BF00134469
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134469 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Richard P. Meier
    2011 On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics37. 95–141. doi: 10.1515/thli.2011.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann
    2012 Verb agreement. In Roland Pfau , Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 136–157. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110261325.136
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.136 [Google Scholar]
  18. Meir, Irit
    1998 Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of JerusalemPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2002 A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory20. 413–450. doi: 10.1023/A:1015041113514
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015041113514 [Google Scholar]
  20. Murmann, Christina
    2012 The agreement auxiliary pam in German Sign Language – An empirical investigation. Düsseldorf: University of DüsseldorfMaster’s thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Neidle, Carol , Judy Kegl , Dawn MacLaughlin , Benjamin Bahan & Robert G. Lee
    2000 The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Onea, Edgar
    2011 OnExp. Software for online questionnaires. CRC Text Structures, University of Göttingen.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Padden, Carol
    1983 Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. San Diego, CA: University of CaliforniaPhD dissertation [published 1988, New York: Garland Press].
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Padden, Carol , Irit Meir , Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
    2010 The grammar of space in two new sign languages. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge survey, 573–595. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.026
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.026 [Google Scholar]
  25. Pfau, Roland
    2011 A point well taken: On the typology and diachrony of pointing. In Donna J. Napoli & Gaurav Mathur (eds.), Deaf around the world. The impact of language, 144–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
    2006 Modality-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]
  27. 2013  person climbing up a tree (and other adventures in sign language grammaticalization). Sign Language & Linguistics16(2). 189–220. doi: 10.1075/sll.16.2.04pfa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.16.2.04pfa [Google Scholar]
  28. Quadros, Ronice M. de
    1999 Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. Porto Alegre: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do SulPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Quadros, Ronice M. de & Josep Quer
    2008 Back to back(wards) and moving on: on agreement, auxiliaries and verb classes in sign languages. In Ronice M. de Quadros (ed.), Sign languages: Spinning and unraveling the past, present and future. Forty-five papers and three posters from the 9th Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference , Florianopolis, Brazil , December 2006, 530–551. Petrópolis/RJ: Editora Arara Azul. [Available at: www.editora-arara-azul.com.br/EstudosSurdos.php].
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Quer, Josep & Santiago Frigola
    2006 Cross-linguistic research and particular grammars: A case study on auxiliary predicates in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Paper presented at Workshop on Cross-linguistic Sign Language Research , Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands, January 2006.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Quer, Josep
    2011 When agreeing to disagree is not enough: Further arguments for the linguistic status of sign language agreement. Theoretical Linguistics37(3/4). 189–196.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Rathmann, Christian & Mathur Gaurav
    2002 Is verb agreement the same cross-modally?In Richard P. Meier , Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.018 [Google Scholar]
  33. Rathmann, Christian
    2003 The optionality of agreement phrase: Evidence from German Sign Language (DGS). Texas Linguistics Forum53. 181–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2006 Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sapountzaki, Galini
    2012 Agreement auxiliaries. In Roland Pfau , Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 204–227. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110261325.204
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.204 [Google Scholar]
  36. Senghas, Ann & Marie Coppola
    2001 Children creating language: How Nicaraguan Sign Language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychological Science12(4). 323–328. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9280.00359
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00359 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2011 Getting to the point: How a simple gesture became a linguistic element in Nicaraguan signing. In Donna J. Napoli & Gaurav Mathur (eds.), Deaf around the world: The impact of language, 127–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Skant, Andrea , Franz Dotter , Elisabeth Bergmeister , Marlene Hilzensauer , Manuela Hobel , Klaudia Krammer , Ingeborg Okorn , Christian Orasche , Reinhold Orter & Natalie Unterberger
    2002 Grammatik der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache, Vol.4. Klagenfurt: Veröffentlichungen des Forschungszentrums für Gebärdensprache und Hörgeschädigtenkommunikation.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Smith, Wayne H.
    1990 Evidence for auxiliaries in Taiwan Sign Language. In Susan Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, Vol. 1: Linguistics, 211–228. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Steinbach, Markus & Roland Pfau
    2007 Grammaticalization of auxiliaries in sign languages. In Pamela Perniss , Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Visible variation: Comparative studies on sign language structure, 303–339. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Steinbach, Markus
    2011 What do agreement auxiliaries reveal about the grammar of sign language agreement?Theoretical Linguistics37(3/4). 209–221.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Thompson, Robin , Karen Emmorey & Robert Kluender
    2006 The relationship between eye gaze and verb agreement in American Sign Language: an eye-tracking study. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory24(2). 571–604. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑005‑1829‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-005-1829-y [Google Scholar]
  43. Vos, Connie de
    2012 Sign-spatiality in Kata Kolok: How a village sign language of Bali inscribes its signing space. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for PsycholinguisticsPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
    1999 Metrical structure, morphological gaps, and possible grammaticalization in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics2(2). 217–244. doi: 10.1075/sll.2.2.05wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.2.05wil [Google Scholar]
  45. 2002 Phrase structure in ASL and ÖGS. In Rolf Schulmeister & Heimo Reinitzer (eds.), Progress in sign language research. In honor of Siegmund Prillwitz, 235–247. Hamburg: Signum.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 2005 Evidence from American Sign Language and Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS) for asymmetries in Universal Grammar. In Anna Maria Di Sciullo & Rodolfo Delmonte (eds.), Universal Grammar and external systems, 191–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 2013 The point of agreement: Changing how we think about sign language, gesture, and agreement. Sign Language & Linguistics16(2). 221–258. doi: 10.1075/sll.16.2.05wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.16.2.05wil [Google Scholar]
  48. Zeshan, Ulrike
    2000 Sign Language in Indo-Pakistan: A description of a signed language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.101
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.101 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20.1.02kre
Loading
Two agreement markers in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS)
Sign Language & Linguistics 20, 27 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20.1.02kre
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20.1.02kre
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20.1.02kre
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): agreement; agreement markers; Austrian Sign Language; questionnaire; word order

Most Cited

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