Current issues in sign language linguistics Day 3

1. Current issues in sign language linguisticsDay 3 LOT Summer School 2006 Universiteit van Amsterdam Josep Quer (ICREA & UB)

2. Agreement • A process whereby “a grammatical element X matches a grammatical element Y in property Z within some grammatical configuration” (Barlow & Ferguson 1988: 1)

3. SL Verb Typology • SL verbs seem to fall into three morphosyntactic classes (Padden 1988/1983): • Plain verbs: no agreement • Spatial verbs: agreement with locative arguments • Agreeing verbs: agreement with subject and object

4. SL Verb Typology • Plain verbs ‘think’ (BSL) ‘like’ (BSL)

5. SL Verb Typology • Spatial verbs BSL ASL

6. SL Verb Typology • Spatial verbs: CUT, PUT-BANDAGE-ON

7. SL Verb Typology • Spatial verbs: STAY, MOVE-TO

8. SL Verb Typology • Spatial verbs: BE-AT

9. SL Verb Typology • Agreeing verbs: they show agreement with subject and object loci by means of the movement path and the facing (orientation of palm and/or fingertips) • Subtype of agreeing verbs: backwards agreeing verbs (TAKE, STEAL...) vs. regular agreeing verbs (GIVE, HELP...)

10. SL Verb Typology • Agreeing verbs (path): GIVE

11. SL Verb Typology • Agreeing verbs (facing): TAKE-CARE-OF

12. SL Verb Typology • Backwards agreeing verbs BSL

13. SL Verb Typology • Backwards verbs: UNDERSTAND

14. SL Verb Agreement • Agreeing verbs display agreement with the referential loci associated with their arguments. • Subject agreement is optional, object agreement is obligatory.

15. SL Nonmanual Agreement • For ASL, another type of syntactic agreement has been described: nonmanual agreement with subject and object agreement features, irrespective of the morphological verb type (Neidle et al. 2000, Bahan 1996).

16. SL Nonmanual Agreement • Head tilt: subject agreement • Eye gaze: object agreement Neidle et al. (2000)

17. SL Nonmanual Agreement ftp://csr.bu.edu/asl/sequences/compressed/master/ch5-523_273_small_0.mov

18. SL Nonmanual Agreement

19. SL Nonmanual Agreement • Sandler & Lillo-Martin (2006): • Neutral form of subject agreement: body lean, but not always. Untestable. • Timing of eyegaze and headtilt • Other semantic or pragmatic functions of eyegaze and headtilt.

20. SL Nonmanual Agreement • Thompson, Emmorey & Kluender (2006) question the characterization of eye gaze as a grammatical marker of agreement on an experimental basis. • Eg with agreeing Vs towards object; with plain Vs rarely towards object. • Eg with spatial Vs towards locative argument • Plain verbs with null objects not marked by eyegaze.

21. Referential Indices • In sign languages, referential indices are expressed directly • Realization of referential indices by R(eferential) loci (pointing or gazing) • In agreement verbs, location specifications of R-loci are copied into location slots (2) • Each referent is paired with a unique location in space

22. Alliterative Agreement • Common alliterative agreement (e.g. Swahili): wa-tu wa-zuri wa-wili wa-le wa-meangukaCl2-person Cl2-good Cl2-two Cl2-that Cl2-fell.down ‘Those two good persons fell down.’ • Literal alliterative agreement: part of the controller is copied onto the target (e.g. Bainouk): kata:ma-no in-ka vs. dapon-no in-dariver-DEF this-CV grass-DEF this-CV‘this river’ ‘this grass’

23. Rathmann & Mathur (2002) • No need to provide a phonological specification for a locus: syntax operates with indices, but it’s not until they reach the articulatory-perceptual interface that they have to be matched against some conceptual structure that represents spatial relations among the loci. • Mediated by a “gestural space as medium” component/module that makes the conceptualization of referents visible.

24. Verb Agreement • Meir (1998, 2002): verb class is determined by thematic structure. • Path movement is from source to goal (thematically determined) while facing of the hands is towards the object (syntactically determined). • DIR morpheme in agreeing and spatial verbs denotes a path a referent traverses. • Some candidate agreement verbs may not show agreement overtly for phonological reasons (orientation or location segments underlyingly specified)

25. Auxiliaries

26. Properties of SL Auxiliaries • Express agreement morphology (subject/object) • Do not realize tense or mood categories • May realize aspect morphology in some languages • Mainly cooccur with plain verbs

27. Cross-linguistic Variation: Form • Pfau & Steinbach (2005) identify three basic types of auxiliary crosslinguitically in SLs, based on their origin: • Concatenated pronouns • PERSON • Verb (GIVE, MEET, GO-TO)

28. Type 1 TSL

29. Type 2 DGS

30. Type 3 TSL NGT

31. Auxiliaries: more variation • LSB AUX-IX: • Never co-occurs with an inflected agreeing verb • Restricted syntactic position • Cannot inflect for aspect • Pure agreement auxiliary • LSC AUX-IX: • Can co-occur with an inflected agreeing verb • Freer syntactic distribution • Can inflect for aspect • Closer to a light verb

32. LSB Auxiliary

33. Aixiliary with backward verbs

34. Null arguments

35. Acquisition of agreement • Action gestures + Agreement verbs in neutral forms • 2-3 years: Countericonic forms: GIVE-2 instead of GIVE-1 • 3;0-3;6: start of correct inflection wrt present referents. Overgeneralizations.

36. Acquisition of agreement

37. Acquisition of agreement • Agreement with non-present referents: second half of 4th year. • Stacking of loci still in year 5. • In place year 6. • Reason: Limitations of spatial memory? Inflections already learned at year 3.

38. Agreement and negation in LSB • Manual negation can intervene between subject and agreeing verb, but not between subject and plain verb: • IX JOHNa NO aGIVEb BOOK • *IX JOHNa NO DESIRE CAR • IX JOHNa DESIRE CAR NO