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

A long tradition of psych-verb research in spoken languages has demonstrated that they constitute a class of their own, both semantically and syntactically. This study presents a description and analysis of psych-verbs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) in order to investigate whether this verb type displays comparable peculiarities in sign languages. The study is primarily based on data from the Corpus NGT ( Crasborn et al. 2008 ). Firstly, the data indicate that all psych-verbs in NGT select a subject Experiencer. Secondly, it is shown that there is an iconic property of psych-verbs in NGT that lays bare a conceptual link between psychological states and locative relations: body-anchoring. The location singled out by the place of articulation of a psych-verb is associated with the metaphoric location of an emotion, or a type of behavior associated with the expression of an emotion. It is furthermore argued that the body as a whole iconically represents the container of a psychological state. The body is analyzed as a possessive determiner that may receive a first person specification as a consequence of body-anchoring. The data support such an analysis, as they suggest that sentences without an overt Experiencer yield a default first person interpretation. Thus, it is claimed that iconicity affects sentence structure and as such should be incorporated into the formal grammar system. Given that body-anchoring is the source of the effects mentioned above, it may be hypothesized that psych-verbs in NGT do not constitute a class of its own, but rather belong to a larger class of iconically motivated body-anchored verbs that share the properties mentioned above.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20.1.03oom
2017-11-06
2024-12-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sll.20.1.03oom
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis & Gianina Iordăchioaia
    2014 The psych causative alternation. Lingua148:53–79. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arad, Maya
    2002 Universal features and language-particular morphemes. In Artemis Alexiadou (ed.), Theoretical approaches to universals. Vol.49, 15–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.49.03ara
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.49.03ara [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Charlotte & Carol A. Padden
    1978 Focusing on the non-manual components of ASL. In Patricia Siple (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 27–57. New York, NY: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi
    1988 Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory6. 291–352. doi: 10.1007/BF00133902
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902 [Google Scholar]
  5. Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari
    2004 Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory22. 743–810. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑003‑4698‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-003-4698-2 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bennis, Hans
    2004 Unergative adjectives and psych verbs. In Artemis Alexiadou & Martin Everaert (eds.), Studies in unaccusativity: The syntax-lexicon interface, 84–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergman, Brita
    1980 On localization in the Swedish Sign Language. In Inger Ahlgren & Brita Bergman (eds.), Papers from the First International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 81–92. Stockholm: Swedish Deaf Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bos, Heleen F.
    1994 An auxiliary verb in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Inger Ahlgren , Brita Bergman & Mary Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure: Papers from the fifth international symposium on sign language research, 37–53. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 1995 Pronoun copy in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Heleen F. Bos & Trude Schermer (eds.), Research 1994: Proceedings of the Fourth European Congress on Sign Language Research, 121–147. Hamburg: Signum
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chomsky, Noam
    1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Coerts, Jane
    1994 Constituent order in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Mary Brennan & Graham H. Turner (eds.), Word-order issues in sign language, 47–70. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Crasborn, Onno , Ellen van der Kooij & Johan Ros
    2012 On the weight of phrase-final prosodic words in a sign language. Sign Language & Linguistics15(1):. 11–38. doi: 10.1075/sll.15.1.02cra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.15.1.02cra [Google Scholar]
  14. Crasborn, Onno , Inge Zwitserlood & Johan Ros
    2008 Het Corpus NGT. Een digitaal open access corpus van filmpjes en annotaties van de Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen. URL: ru.nl/corpusngt/.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
    1993 Space in Danish Sign Language. Hamburg: Signum.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fillmore, Charles
    1968 The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fischer, Susan & Bonnie Gough
    1978 Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies18. 17–48. doi: 10.1353/sls.1978.0014
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1978.0014 [Google Scholar]
  18. Friedman, Lynn
    1975 Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Language51. 940–061. doi: 10.2307/412702
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412702 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gijn, Ingeborg van
    2004 The quest for syntactic dependency. Sentential complementation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of AmsterdamPhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Grimshaw, Jane
    1990 Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Grose, Donovan
    2008 The geometry of events: Evidence from English and ASL. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue UniversityPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Grose, Donovan , Ronnie B. Wilbur , & Katharina Schalber
    2007 Events and telicity in classifier predicates: A reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua17. 1258–1284. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.014 [Google Scholar]
  23. Grushkin, Donald A.
    1998 Linguistic aspects of metaphorical expressions of anger in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics1(2). 143–168. doi: 10.1075/sll.1.2.04gru
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.1.2.04gru [Google Scholar]
  24. Healy, Christina
    2015 Construing affective events in ASL. Washington, DC: Gallaudet UniversityPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Iwata, Seizi
    1995 The distinctive character of psych-verbs as causatives. Linguistic Analysis25. 95–120.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Jackendoff, Ray
    1972 Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 1990 Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kegl, Judy
    1990 Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL lexicon. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Theoretical issues in ASL linguistics, 149–175. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Kratzer, Angelika
    1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kuhn, Jeremy & Valentina Aristodemo
    2015 Iconicity in the grammar: Pluractionality in French Sign Language. Paper presented atSinn und Bedeutung 20. University of Tübingen, Tübingen.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, George & Zoltán Kövecses
    1987 The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In Dorothy Holland & Naomi Quinn (eds.), Cultural models in language and thought, 195–221. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511607660.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660.009 [Google Scholar]
  33. Landau, Idan
    2010 The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Levin, Beth
    1993 English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
    2005 Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lillo-Martin, Diane
    1995 The point of view predicate in American Sign Language. In Karen Emmorey & Judy S. Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 155–170. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 2012 Utterance reports and constructed action. In Roland Pfau , Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 365–387. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110261325.365
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.365 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward S. Klima
    1990 Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, volume 1: Linguistics, 175–190. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Richard P. Meier
    2011 On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics37(3/4). 95–141.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Lucas, Ceil , Robert Bayley & Clayton Valli
    2001 Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, Vol. 7: Sociolinguistic variation in ASL. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Matsuki, Keiko
    1995 A cognitive model of anger in Japanese language. In John R. Taylor & Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world, 137–152. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Meier, Richard P.
    1990 Person deixis in American Sign Language. In Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, volume 1: Linguistics, 191–210. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Meir, Irit
    1998 Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of JerusalemPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Meir, Irit , Carol Padden , Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
    2007 Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics43. 531–563. doi: 10.1017/S0022226707004768
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226707004768 [Google Scholar]
  45. Meir, Irit , Wendy Sandler , Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2013 Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics24(2). 309–343. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0010 [Google Scholar]
  46. Oomen, Marloes
    2016 The marking of two aspectual distinctions in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Linguistics in Amsterdam9(2), 30–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Padden, Carol
    1986 Verbs and role-shifting in American Sign Language. In Carol Padden (ed.), Proceedings of the fourth national symposium on sign language research and teaching, 44–57. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 1988 Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York, NY: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Pesetsky, David
    1995 Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Pfau, Roland & Heleen Bos
    2008 Enkelvoudige zinnen. In Anne Baker , Beppie van den Bogaerde , Roland Pfau & Trude Schermer (eds.), Gebarentaalwetenschap – een inleiding, 100–124. Deventer: Van Tricht.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Pfau, Roland & Josep Quer
    2010 Nonmanuals: Their prosodic and grammatical roles. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge Language Surveys), 381–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.018 [Google Scholar]
  52. Quer, Josep
    2005 Context shift and indexical variables in sign languages. In Effi Georgala & Jonathan Howell (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory15, 152–168. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 2009 Agreement and argument structure in SLs: A case study in LSC psychological predications. Paper presented atthe 21st European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information. Bordeaux, July 2009.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 2011 Reporting and quoting in signed discourse. In Elke Brendel , Jörg Meibauer & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Understanding quotation, 277–302. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110240085.277
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240085.277 [Google Scholar]
  55. Rathmann, Christian G.
    2005 Event structure in American Sign Language. Austin, TX: University of Texas at AustinPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Reinhart, Tanya
    2001 Experiencing derivations. In Rachel Hastings , Brandan Jackson & Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 11, 365–387. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 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]
  58. 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]
  59. Schalber, Katharina
    2004 Phonological visibility of event structure in Austrian Sign Language: A comparison of ASL and ÖGS. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue UniversityMA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Schlenker, Philippe
    2014 Iconic features. Natural Language Semantics22. 299–356. doi: 10.1007/s11050‑014‑9106‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-014-9106-4 [Google Scholar]
  61. Schlenker, Philippe , Jonathan Lamberton & Mirko Santoro
    2013 Iconic variables. Linguistic and Philosophy36. 91–149. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑013‑9129‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9129-1 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sloetjes, Han & Peter Wittenburg
    2008 Annotation by category – ELAN and ISO DCR. InProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008).
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Steinbach, Markus & Roland Pfau
    2007 Grammaticalization of auxiliaries in sign language. In Pamela Perniss , Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Visible variation. Comparative studies on sign language structure, 303–339. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll
    1999 The linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139167048
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167048 [Google Scholar]
  65. Taub, Sarah F.
    2001 Language from the body. Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
  66. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr.
    1990 Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language66. 221–260. doi: 10.2307/414886
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414886 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
    2003 Representations of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistics Society39. 354–368.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 2010 The semantics-phonology interface. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 355–380. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.017
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.017 [Google Scholar]
  69. Williams, Alexander
    2015 Arguments in syntax and semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139042864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139042864 [Google Scholar]
  70. Winston, Charlotte
    2013 Psychological verb constructions in American Sign Language. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue UniversityMA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20.1.03oom
Loading
Iconicity in argument structure
Sign Language & Linguistics 20, 55 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20.1.03oom
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20.1.03oom
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20.1.03oom
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): body-anchoring; corpus; Experiencer; iconicity; psych-verbs; Sign Language of the Netherlands

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