Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bahan, Benjamin
    1996Non-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
    2015Language 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
    2013The 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
    2011Grammatik der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache. Zusammengestellt für den ÖGSDV. Unpublished manuscript, University of Graz.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Janis, Wynne D.
    1992Morphosyntax 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
    2003Grammar, 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
    1998Thematic 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
    2012The 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
    2000The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Onea, Edgar
    2011OnExp. Software for online questionnaires. CRC Text Structures, University of Göttingen.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Padden, Carol
    1983Interaction 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
    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]
  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
    1999Phrase 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
    2006Sign 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
    2002Grammatik 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
    2012Sign-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
    2000Sign 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]

Data & Media loading...

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