1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Sign Language & Linguistics
  4. Volume 26, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 26, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

The present research combines three fields of inquiry in sign language linguistics: verbal agreement, person features, and syntactic complexity. These topics have previously been addressed in isolation, but little is known about their interaction. This study attempts to fill this gap by investigating subject agreement in complement clauses in Russian Sign Language. By means of corpus investigation and grammaticality judgments, I found that subject agreement in clausal complements of the control predicates , and modal may be deficient – in particular, it can be reduced to the forms identical to first-person marking even in the case of a third-person subject controller. Deficient subject agreement in complement clauses is thus reminiscent of non-finite verbal forms in spoken languages. I further argue that the choice of first-person forms in deficient agreement reveals a default status of first person in sign languages, which is consistent with proposals regarding the modality-specific properties of first-person reference in these languages.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.21005.khr
2023-06-06
2025-04-28

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sll.21005.khr
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/sll.21005.khr.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/sll.21005.khr&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman
    2018 Features of person: From the inventory of persons to their morphological realization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/11145.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11145.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Mark C.
    2013 Agreement and Case. InMarcel den Dikken (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Generative syntax, 607–654. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511804571.022
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571.022 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barberà, Gemma & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr
    2018 Impersonal human reference in sign languages: Introduction and questionnaire. Sign Language & Linguistics21(2). 183–203. 10.1075/sll.00017.bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00017.bar [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1). 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  5. Benveniste, Emile
    1966 La nature des pronoms. InProblemes de linguistique generale, 251–257. Paris: Gallimard.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Boeckx, Cedric & Norbert Hornstein
    2004 Movement under control. Linguistic Inquiry35(3). 431–452. 10.1162/0024389041402625
     https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389041402625 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein & Jairo Nunes
    2010 Control as movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511761997
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761997 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bos, Heleen F.
    2017[1998] An analysis of main verb agreement and auxiliary agreement in NGT within the theory of Conceptual Semantics (Jackendoff 1990). Sign Language & Linguistics20(2). 228–252. 10.1075/sll.00003.bos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00003.bos [Google Scholar]
  9. Bošković, Željko
    2013 Principles and Parameters theory and Minimalism. InMarcel den Dikken (ed.), Cambridge handbook of Generative syntax, 95–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511804571.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brentari, Diane
    1998 A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bross, Fabian
    2020 The clausal syntax of German Sign Language. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Brunelli, Michele
    2011 Antisymmetry and sign languages: A comparison between NGT and LIS. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Burkova, Svetlana
    2012 Russian Sign Language Corpus [Electronic Resource] 2015 2012 rsl.nstu.ru/
  14. Chomsky, Noam
    1981 Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. InRoger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), Step by step. Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2001 Derivation by phase. InMichael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1999 Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. CLARIN-NL, TDS Curator
    CLARIN-NL, TDS Curator 2012 Free personal pronoun system. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). 10.17026/DANS‑Z5K‑UB4Q
     https://doi.org/10.17026/DANS-Z5K-UB4Q [Google Scholar]
  20. Corbett, Greville G.
    2006 Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 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 Amsterdam PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Cristofaro, Sonia
    2003 Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. De Beuzeville, Louise, Trevor Johnston & Adam C. Schembri
    2009 The use of space with indicating verbs in Auslan: A corpus-based investigation. Sign Language & Linguistics12(1). 53–82. 10.1075/sll.12.1.03deb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.12.1.03deb [Google Scholar]
  24. De Leeuw, Joshua R.
    2015 jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser. Behavior research methods47(1). 1–12. 10.3758/s13428‑014‑0458‑y
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y [Google Scholar]
  25. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
    1993 Space in Danish Sign Language. The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Fedden, Sebastian
    2019 To agree or not to agree? – A typology of sporadic agreement. InMatthew Baerman, Oliver Bond & Andrew Hippisley (eds.), Morphological perspectives: Papers in honour of Greville G. Corbett, 303–326. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474446020‑015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474446020-015 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fenger, Paula
    2018 How impersonal does one get?The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics21(3). 291–325. 10.1007/s10828‑018‑9101‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-018-9101-0 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fenlon, Jordan, Kensy Cooperrider, Jon Keane, Diane Brentari & Susan Goldin-Meadow
    2019 Comparing sign language and gesture: Insights from pointing. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics4(1). 10.5334/gjgl.499
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.499 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fenlon, Jordan, Adam Schembri & Kearsy Cormier
    2018 Modification of indicating verbs in British Sign Language: A corpus-based study. Language (1). 84–118. 10.1353/lan.2018.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0002 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ferreira Brito, Lucinda
    1990 Epistemic, alethic, and deontic modalities in a Brazilian Sign Language. InSusan Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research. Vol.1: Linguistics, 229–260. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Ferreira, Marcelo
    2000 Argumentos nulos em português brasileiro. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas MA thesis. 10.47749/T/UNICAMP.2000.225937
     https://doi.org/10.47749/T/UNICAMP.2000.225937 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2004 Hyperraising and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 47: Collected Papers on Romance Syntax, 57–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2009 Null subjects and finite control in Brazilian Portuguese. InJairo Nunes (ed.), Minimalist essays on Brazilian Portuguese syntax, 17–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.142.04fer
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.142.04fer [Google Scholar]
  34. Friedman, Lynn A.
    1975 Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Language51(4). 940–961. 10.2307/412702
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412702 [Google Scholar]
  35. Geraci Carlo, Carlo Cecchetto & Sandro Zucchi
    2008 Sentential complementation in Italian Sign Language. InMichael Grosvald & Dionne Soares (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Western Conference on Linguistics, 46–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Geraci, Carlo & Valentina Aristodemo
    2016 An in-depth tour into sentential complementation in Italian Sign Language. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Annika Herrmann (eds.), A matter of complexity: Subordination in sign languages, 95–150. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Göksel, Aslı & Meltem Kelepir
    2016 Observations on clausal complementation in Turkish Sign Language. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Annika Herrmann (eds.), A matter of complexity: Subordination in sign languages, 65–95. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz
    1993 Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. InKenneth Hale & Samuel Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter
    2002 Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language781. 482–526. 10.1353/lan.2002.0158
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0158 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hauser, Charlotte
    2020 Subordination in LSF: Nominal and sentential embedding. Paris: Université de Paris PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Hornstein, Norbert & Maria Polinsky
    (eds.) 2010 Movement theory of control. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.154
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.154 [Google Scholar]
  42. Joseph, Brian
    1983 The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kaplan, David
    1989 Demonstratives. InJoseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Keenan, Edward L.
    1976 Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Khristoforova, Evgeniia
    2020 Complement clauses in Russian Sign Languages. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam MA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Khristoforova, Evgeniia & Vadim Kimmelman
    2021 Question-answer pairs in Russian Sign Language: a corpus study. FEAST. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory41. 101–112. 10.31009/FEAST.i4.08
     https://doi.org/10.31009/FEAST.i4.08 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kimmelman, Vadim
    2012 Word order in Russian Sign Language: An extended report. Linguistics in Amsterdam5(1). 1–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 2018 Impersonal reference in Russian Sign Language (RSL). Sign Language & Linguistics21(2). 204–231. 10.1075/sll.00018.kim
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00018.kim [Google Scholar]
  49. 2021 Acceptability judgments in sign languages. InGrant Goodall (ed.), Cambridge handbook of experimental syntax, 561–584. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108569620.022
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569620.022 [Google Scholar]
  50. Klomp, Ulrika
    2021 A descriptive grammar of Sign Language of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of AmsterdamPhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Kwok, Lily, Stephanie Berk & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2020 Person vs. locative agreement: Evidence from late learners and language emergence. Sign Language & Linguistics23(1–2). 17–37. 10.1075/sll.00042.kwo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00042.kwo [Google Scholar]
  52. Landau, Idan
    2004 The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory22(4). 811–877. 10.1007/s11049‑004‑4265‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-4265-5 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2013 Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139061858
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139061858 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lehmann, Christian
    1988 On the function of agreement. InMichael Barlow & Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in natural language, 55–65. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Legeland, Iris
    2016 Agree or not? Congruentie in de Nederlandse Gebarentaal: Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek [Agree or not? Agreement in Sign Language of the Netherlands: A corpus-based study]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam BA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Liddell, Scott K.
    2003 Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Richard P. Meier
    2011 On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics37(3/4). 95–141. 10.1515/thli.2011.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  58. Lourenço, Guilherme & Ronnie B. Wilbur
    2018 Are plain verbs really plain?: Co-localization as the agreement marker in sign languages. FEAST. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory21. 68–81. 10.31009/FEAST.i2.06
     https://doi.org/10.31009/FEAST.i2.06 [Google Scholar]
  59. Lüdecke, Daniel
    2021 sjPlot: Data visualization for statistics in social science. R package version 2.8.10, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 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]
  61. Meier, Richard P.
    1990 Person deixis in American Sign Language. InSusan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research. Vol.1: Linguistics, 175–190. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Meier, Richard P. & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2010 Does spatial make it special? On the grammar of pointing signs in American Sign Language. InDonna B. Gerdts, John C. Moore & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Hypothesis A/hypothesis B: Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, 345–360. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Meir, Irit
    1998 Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 2002 A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory20(2). 413–450. 10.1023/A:1015041113514
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015041113514 [Google Scholar]
  65. 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]
  66. Miyagawa, Shigeru
    2011 Optionality. InCedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 354–376. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Moltmann, Friederike
    2006 Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. Natural Language Semantics141. 257–281. 10.1007/s11050‑006‑9002‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-006-9002-7 [Google Scholar]
  68. Napoli, Donna J. & Rachel Sutton-Spence
    2014 Order of the major constituents in sign languages: Implications for all language. Frontiers in Psychology51. 376. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00376
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00376 [Google Scholar]
  69. Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Benjamin Bahan, Dawn MacLaughlin & Robert G. Lee
    2000 The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Nevins, Andrew
    2011 Prospects and challenges for a clitic analysis of (A)SL agreement. Theoretical Linguistics371. 173–187. 10.1515/thli.2011.013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2011.013 [Google Scholar]
  71. Noonan, Michael
    1985 Complementation. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 2: Complex constructions, 42–140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 2007 Complementation. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol.2: Complex constructions (2nd edition), 52–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619434.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619434.002 [Google Scholar]
  73. Nunes, Jairo
    2008 Inherent case as a licensing condition for A-movement: The case of hyper-raising constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics7(2). 83–108. 10.5334/jpl.129
     https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.129 [Google Scholar]
  74. 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]
  75. 2020 Iconicity as a mediator between verb semantics and morphosyntactic structure: A corpus-based study on verbs in German Sign Language. Amsterdam: University of AmsterdamPhD Dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Oomen, Marloes & Vadim Kimmelman
    2019 Body-anchored verbs and argument omission in two sign languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics4(1). 42. 10.5334/gjgl.741
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.741 [Google Scholar]
  77. Padden, Carol
    1988 Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York, NY: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Pfau, Roland & Josep Quer
    2007 On the syntax of negation and modals in Catalan Sign Language and German Sign Language. InPamela Perniss, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Visible variation. Comparative studies on sign language structure, 129–161. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198850.129
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198850.129 [Google Scholar]
  79. Pfau, Roland, Martin Salzmann & Markus Steinbach
    2018 The syntax of sign language agreement: Common ingredients, but unusual recipe. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics3(1). 107. 10.5334/gjgl.511
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.511 [Google Scholar]
  80. Pfau, Roland, Markus Steinbach & Annika Herrmann
    (eds.) 2016 A matter of complexity: Subordination in sign languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501503238
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501503238 [Google Scholar]
  81. Polinsky, Maria
    2017 When person agreement and binding go their separate ways: Generic second person pronoun in Russian. Ms., University of Maryland.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou
    2003 Syntactic change: A Minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486326
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486326 [Google Scholar]
  83. Rodrigues, Cilene
    2002 Morphology and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. InDavid Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 160–178. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0009
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  84. 2004 Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of Case domains. College Park, MD: University of Maryland PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2006 Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
  86. Sauerland, Uli
    2008 On the semantic markedness of phi-features. InDaniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, 57–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Schembri, Adam, Kearsy Cormier & Jordan Fenlon
    2018 Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics3(1). 89. 10.5334/gjgl.468
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.468 [Google Scholar]
  88. Schütze, Carson T. & Jon Sprouse
    2014 Judgment data. InDevyani Sharma & Robert J. Podesva (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 27–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139013734.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013734.004 [Google Scholar]
  89. Shlonsky, Ur
    2009 Hebrew as a partial null-subject language. Studia Linguistica63(1). 133–157. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2008.01156.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2008.01156.x [Google Scholar]
  90. Smith, Wayne Henry
    1989 The morphological characteristics of verbs in Taiwan Sign Language. Indiana University PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Terzi, Arhonto
    1997 PRO and null case in finite clauses. The Linguistic Review141. 335–360. 10.1515/tlir.1997.14.4.335
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1997.14.4.335 [Google Scholar]
  92. Tvica, Seid
    2017 Agreement and verb movement: The Rich Agreement Hypothesis from a typological perspective. Amsterdam: University of AmsterdamPhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Van Bedem, Neeltje
    2006 Modale werkwoorden in de Nederlandse Gebarentaal: De semantiek en syntactische distributie van moeten, kunnen en willen [Modal verbs in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The semantics and syntactic distribution of must, can and want]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam BA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Van Gijn, Ingeborg C.
    2004 The quest for syntactic dependency. Sentential complementation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
    1996 Evidence for the function and structure of wh-clefts in American Sign Language. International Review of Sign Linguistics11. 209–256.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Wilcox, Sherman & Phyllis Wilcox
    1995 The gestural expression of modality in ASL. InJoan L. Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 135–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.32.07wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32.07wil [Google Scholar]
  97. Wurmbrand, Susi
    1999 Modal verbs must be raising verbs. InSonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen & Peter Norquest (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics18(1). 599–612. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Zeijlstra, Hedde
    2015 Let’s talk about you and me. Journal of Linguistics51(2). 465–500. 10.1017/S0022226714000474
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226714000474 [Google Scholar]
  99. Zwitserlood, Inge
    2012 Classifiers. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 158–186. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.158
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.158 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.21005.khr
Loading
Subject agreement in control and modal constructions in Russian Sign Language
Sign Language & Linguistics 26, 64 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.21005.khr
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.21005.khr
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.21005.khr
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): complement clause; control clause; finiteness; person feature; Russian Sign Language; sign language; verbal agreement

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