Transcript Current issues in sign language linguistics Day 1

Current issues
in sign language
linguistics
Day 3
LOT Summer School 2006
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Josep Quer (ICREA & UB)
Agreement
• A process whereby “a
grammatical element X matches
a grammatical element Y in
property Z within some
grammatical configuration”
(Barlow & Ferguson 1988: 1)
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
SL Verb Typology
• Plain verbs
‘think’ (BSL)
‘like’ (BSL)
SL Verb Typology
• Spatial verbs
BSL
ASL
SL Verb Typology
• Spatial verbs: CUT, PUTBANDAGE-ON
SL Verb Typology
• Spatial verbs: STAY, MOVE-TO
SL Verb Typology
• Spatial verbs: BE-AT
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...)
SL Verb Typology
• Agreeing verbs (path): GIVE
SL Verb Typology
• Agreeing verbs (facing):
TAKE-CARE-OF
SL Verb Typology
• Backwards agreeing verbs
BSL
SL Verb Typology
• Backwards verbs: UNDERSTAND
SL Verb Agreement
• Agreeing verbs display
agreement with the
referential loci associated
with their arguments.
• Subject agreement is
optional, object agreement is
obligatory.
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).
SL Nonmanual Agreement
• Head tilt: subject agreement
• Eye gaze: object agreement
Neidle et al. (2000)
SL Nonmanual Agreement
ftp://csr.bu.edu/asl/sequences/compressed/master/ch5-523_273_small_0.mov
SL Nonmanual Agreement
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.
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.
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
Alliterative Agreement
• Common alliterative agreement (e.g. Swahili):
wa-tu
wa-zuri
Cl2-person
Cl2-good
wa-wili
Cl2-two
wa-le
wa-meanguka
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
river-DEF
this-CV
‘this river’
vs.
dapon-no
in-da
grass-DEF
this-CV
‘this grass’
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 articulatoryperceptual 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.
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)
Auxiliaries
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
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)
Type 1
TSL
Type 2
DGS
Type 3
TSL
NGT
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
LSB Auxiliary
Aixiliary with
backward verbs
Null arguments
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.
Acquisition of
agreement
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.
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