Crosslinguistic similarity and variation in the simultaneous morphology of sign languages
-
Diane Brentari
,
Laura Horton
Abstract
Two differences between signed and spoken languages that have been widely discussed in the literature are: the degree to which morphology is expressed simultaneously (rather than sequentially), and the degree to which iconicity is used, particularly in predicates of motion and location, often referred to as classifier predicates. In this paper we analyze a set of properties marking agency and number in four sign languages for their crosslinguistic similarities and differences regarding simultaneity and iconicity. Data from American Sign Language (ASL), Italian Sign Language (LIS), British Sign Language (BSL), and Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL) are analyzed. We find that iconic, cognitive, phonological, and morphological factors contribute to the distribution of these properties. We conduct two analyses—one of verbs and one of verb phrases. The analysis of classifier verbs shows that, as expected, all four languages exhibit many common formal and iconic properties in the expression of agency and number. The analysis of classifier verb phrases (VPs)—particularly, multiple-verb predicates—reveals (a) that it is grammatical in all four languages to express agency and number within a single verb, but also (b) that there is crosslinguistic variation in expressing agency and number across the four languages. We argue that this variation is motivated by how each language prioritizes, or ranks, several constraints. The rankings can be captured in Optimality Theory. Some constraints in this account, such as a constraint to be redundant, are found in all information systems and might be considered non-linguistic; however, the variation in constraint ranking in verb phrases reveals the grammatical and arbitrary nature of linguistic systems.
References
Allan, Keith. 1977. Classifiers. Language 53(2). 285–311. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0043.Suche in Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir & Wendy Sandler. 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81. 301–344. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0043.Suche in Google Scholar
Ashby, W. Ross. 1965. An introduction to cybernetics. New York: John Wiley.Suche in Google Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(4). 743–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-003-4698-2.Suche in Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Bruce Hayes. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 45–86. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901554586.Suche in Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 2019. Sign language phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316286401Suche in Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5644.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1988. Backwards verbs in ASL: Agreement re-opened. In Diane Brentari, Gary Larson & Lynn MacLeod (eds.), Papers from the 24th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 16–26. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Suche in Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Marie Coppola, Pyeong-Whan Cho & Ann Senghas. 2016. Handshape complexity as a pre-cursor to phonology: Variation, emergence, and acquisition. Language Acquisition 24(4). 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2016.1187614.Suche in Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Alessio Di Renzo, Jonathan Keane & Virginia Volterra. 2015a. Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity. Topics 7. 95–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12123.Suche in Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Chiara Branchini, Fenlon Jordan, Laura Horton & Gladys Tang. 2015b. Typology in sign languages: Can it be predictive? In Ksenia Ershova, Joshua Falk & Jeffrey Geiger (eds.), Proceedings from the 51st annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 47–65. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Suche in Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Marie Coppola, Ashley Jung & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2013. Acquiring word class distinctions in American Sign Language: Evidence from handshape. Language Learning and Development 9(2). 130–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2012.679540.Suche in Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Marie Coppola, Laura Mazzoni & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2012. When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(1). 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9145-1.Suche in Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane & Carol Padden. 2001. A language with multiple origins: Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign language: A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation, 87–119. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781410601513-10Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Robert. 1981. Semantic aspects of some Waris predications. In Karl James Franklin (ed.), Syntax and semantics in Papua New Guinea Languages, 93–123. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Suche in Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giuliana Giusti. 2001. Semi-lexical motion verbs in Romance and Germanic. In Norbert Corver & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Semi-lexical categories: The function of content words and the content of function words, 371–414. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110874006.371Suche in Google Scholar
Colby, Benjamin. 1958. Behavioral redundancy. Behavioral Science 3. 317–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830030129.Suche in Google Scholar
Coppola, Marie, Elizabeth Spaepen & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2013. Communicating about quantity without a language model: Number devices in homesign grammar. Cognitive Psychology 67. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.05.003.Suche in Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Han Sloetjes. 2008. Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora. In Proceedings of LREC 2008, sixth international conference on language resources and evaluation.Suche in Google Scholar
de Jong, Kenneth. 1998. Stress-related variation in the articulation of coda alveolar stops: Flapping revisited. Journal of Phonetics 26(3). 283–310. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1998.0077.Suche in Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, cognition and the brain. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2003. Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781410607447Suche in Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum.Suche in Google Scholar
Ergin, Rabia & Diane Brentari. 2017. Handshape preferences for objects and predicates in central Taurus sign language. In M. LaMendola & J. Scott (eds.), Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD), 222–235. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan. 1973. Two processes of reduplication in the American Sign Language. Foundations of Language 9. 469–480.Suche in Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Bonnie Gough. 1978. Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 18. 17–48. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1978.0014.Suche in Google Scholar
Flaherty, Molly. 2014. The emergence of argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago.Suche in Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo. 2018. Good question, right method, reasonable answer.vKeynote presentation at the Conference on Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Language. Venice, Italy.Suche in Google Scholar
Gaminde, Iñaki. 2000. Zamudio berbarik berba. Bilbo: Labayru Ikastegi.Suche in Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Diane Brentari, Marie Coppola, Laura Horton & Ann Senghas. 2015. Watching language grow in the manual modality: Nominals, predicates and handshapes. Cognition 136. 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.029.Suche in Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan & Diane Brentari. 2017. [Target article] Gesture, sign and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 40. 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15001247,e0.10.1017/S0140525X15001247Suche in Google Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon & Mark Johnson. 2003. Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model. In Proceedings of the workshop on variation within optimality theory, 111–120.Suche in Google Scholar
Hakgüder, Emre & Diane Brentari. 2018. The interplay between the PreVP and the classifier predicate in instrumental constructions. In Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, Salt Lake City, January 4–7.Suche in Google Scholar
Hamanna, Silke, Diana Apoussidoub & Boersma Paul. 2012. Modelling the formation of phonotactic restrictions across the mental lexicon. In Proceedings from the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 45, 193–206. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Suche in Google Scholar
Horton, Laura, Susan Goldin-Meadow, Marie Coppola, Ann Senghas & Diane Brentari. 2015. Forging a morphological system out of two dimensions: Agentivity and number. Open Linguistics 1. 596–613. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0021.Suche in Google Scholar
Hsia, H. J. 1977. Is it the lost key to better communication? AV Communication Review 25. 63–85.10.1007/BF02799311Suche in Google Scholar
Jantunen, Tommi. 2007. Tavu suomalaisessa viittomakielessa. [The syllable in Finnish Sign Language; with English abstract]. Puhe ja kieli 27. 109–126.Suche in Google Scholar
Jantunen, Tommi & Ritva Takkinen. 2010. Syllable structure in sign language phonology. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 312–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511712203.015Suche in Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 2007. Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511607479Suche in Google Scholar
Jones, William & Truman Michelson. 1911. Fox. In Franz Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages 1, 735–873. New York: J. J. Augustin.Suche in Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vladim. 2018. Reduplication and repetition in Russian Sign Language. In Rita Finkbeiner & Ulrike Freywald (eds.), Exact repetition in grammar and discourse, 91–109. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110592498-004Suche in Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vladim, Pfau Roland & Enoch Aboh. 2020. Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38. 539–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-019-09448-9.Suche in Google Scholar
Kleiber, Judit, Gábor Alberti & Veronika Szabó. 2016. The intensional profiles of five Hungarian imperative sentence types. Linguistica 56(1). 161–172. https://doi.org/10.4312/linguistica.56.1.161-172.Suche in Google Scholar
Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Kyle, James & Bencie Woll. 1983. Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language. London: Croom Helm.Suche in Google Scholar
Laks, Bernard, Basilio Calderone & Chiara Celata. 2018. French liaison in the light of corpus phonology: From lexical information to patterns of usage variation. In Diane Brentari & Jackson Lee (eds.), Shaping phonology, 278–308. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lane, Harlan. 1984. When the mind hears. New York: Random House.Suche in Google Scholar
Lau, Prudence. 2012. Serial verb constructions in Hong Kong Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation. Chinese University of Hong Kong.Suche in Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 2018. Toward progress in theories of language sound structure. In Diane Brentari & Jackson, Lee (eds.), Shaping phonology, 201–222. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Loos, Cornelia. 2017. The syntax and semantics of resultative constructions in Deutsche Gebärdensprache (DGS) and American Sign Language (ASL). Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas-Austin.10.1075/sll.00007.looSuche in Google Scholar
Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann. 2010. Two types of nonconcatenative morphology in sign languages. In Gaurav Mathur & Donna Jo Napoli (eds.), Deaf around the world: The impact of language. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732548.003.0003Suche in Google Scholar
Matthews Peter. 1991. Morphology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Mazzoni, Laura. 2008. Classificatori e Impersonamento nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana. Pisa: Plus, IT.Suche in Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 413–450. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015041113514.10.1023/A:1015041113514Suche in Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 1998. Syntactic–semantic interaction in Israeli sign language verbs: The case of backwards verbs. Sign Language and Linguistics 1(1). 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.1.1.03mei.Suche in Google Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.Suche in Google Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1998. The ASL lexicon. Sign Language and Linguistics 1: 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.1.1.04pad.Suche in Google Scholar
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 language survey, 570–592. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511712203.026Suche in Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Inge Zwitserlood & Asli Ӧzyürek. 2015. Does space structure spatial language? A comparison of spatial expression across sign languages. Language 91. 611–641. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0041.Suche in Google Scholar
Pinna, Paola, Laura Pagliari Rampelli, Paolo Rossini & Virginia Volterra. 1993. Written and unwritten records from a residential school for the Deaf in Rome. In Renate Fischer & Harlan Lane (eds.), Looking back, 349–368. Hamburg, Germany: Signum Press.10.1353/sls.1990.0011Suche in Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2005. Backward and sideward reduplication in German Sign Language. In Bossong Georg, Comrie Bernard & Yaron Matras (eds.), Studies on reduplication, 569–594. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110911466.569Suche in Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2006. Pluralization in sign and speech: a cross-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology 10. 135–182. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty.2006.006.Suche in Google Scholar
Pizzuto, Elena. 1987. Aspetti Morfo-syntattici. In Virginia Volterra (ed.), La lingua italiana dei segni, 179–209. Bologna: Il Mulino.Suche in Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Technical report TR-2, New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University.Suche in Google Scholar
Reza, Fazlollah. 1991. [1961]. An introduction to information theory. New York: Dover [McGraw-Hill].Suche in Google Scholar
Santoro, Mirko. 2018. Compounds in sign languages: The case of Italian and French Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation. Paris: l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.Suche in Google Scholar
Schick, Brenda. 1990. The effects of morphosyntactic structure on the acquisition of classifier predicates in ASL. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 358–374. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation. San Diego: UC-San Diego.Suche in Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 1990. Serial verbs of motion in ASL. In Susan Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research: Linguistics, Vol. 1, 127–154. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Sze, Felix, Connie Lo, Lisa Lo & Kenny Chu. 2013. Historical development of Hong Kong Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 13(2). 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2013.0002.Suche in Google Scholar
Wallin, Lars. 1994. Polysynthetic signs in Swedish Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation. Stockholm, Sweden: University of Stockholm.Suche in Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie. 2009. Productive reduplication in a fundamentally monosyllabic language. Language Sciences 31. 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.12.017.Suche in Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie, Edward Klima & Ursula Bellugi. 1983. Roots: The search for origins of signs in ASL. In Proceedings from the 19th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 314–336.Suche in Google Scholar
Woodward, James. 1993. Intuitive Judgments of Hong Kong Signers about the Relationship of Sign Language Varieties in Hong Kong and Shanghai. CUHK Papers in Linguistics 4. 88–96.Suche in Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Leiden: The University of Leiden, The Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics (LOT).Suche in Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2012. Classifiers. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 158–186. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.4324/9781315754499-8Suche in Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge & Sibylla Nijhoff. 1999. Pluralization in sign language of the Netherlands. In Don Jan & Ted Sanders (eds.), OTS yearbook, 1998–1999, 58–78. Utrecht: Utrechts Instituut voor Linguistick OTS.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- On necessary conditional marking and proposition suspension: The meaning of the Spanish construction si es que
- General location across languages: On the division of labour between functional and lexical items in spatial categories
- Prominence conditioned transformation in metrical analysis
- Crosslinguistic similarity and variation in the simultaneous morphology of sign languages
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- On necessary conditional marking and proposition suspension: The meaning of the Spanish construction si es que
- General location across languages: On the division of labour between functional and lexical items in spatial categories
- Prominence conditioned transformation in metrical analysis
- Crosslinguistic similarity and variation in the simultaneous morphology of sign languages
