Argument structure and the role of the body and space in Kenyan Sign Language

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 38-72
Author(s):  
Hope E. Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Argument Structure ◽  
The Body ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Verb Agreement

Abstract This paper investigates how systematically a young macro-community sign language, Kenyan Sign Language, uses two different means to communicate about events: (i) word order, and (ii) verb agreement using spatial co-reference. The study finds that KSL signers rely primarily on word order and using the body as a referent, rather than verb agreement, when representing transitive events. Yet, by looking separately at how KSL signers use the sub-components of verb agreement, a pattern emerges that indicates a possible path toward ‘canonical verb agreement’. These sub-components are evaluated using Meir’s stages/types of grammaticalization of verb agreement (Meir 2011, 2016), and compared with other young and emerging sign languages.

Language is shaped by the body

2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 509-511
Author(s):  
Mark Aronoff ◽  
Irit Meir ◽  
Carol Padden ◽  
Wendy Sandler
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
The Body ◽  
Sign Languages

AbstractSign languages provide direct evidence for the relation between human languages and the body that engenders them. We discuss the use of the hands to create symbols and the role of the body in sign language verb systems, especially in two quite recently developed sign languages, Israeli Sign Language and Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language.

Niuean

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Massam
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Argument Structure ◽  
Word Formation ◽  
Left Periphery ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Noun Incorporation ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Theta Role ◽  
Predicate Argument Structure

This book presents a detailed descriptive and theoretical examination of predicate-argument structure in Niuean, a Polynesian language within the Oceanic branch of the Austronesian family, spoken mainly on the Pacific island of Niue and in New Zealand. Niuean has VSO word order and an ergative case-marking system, both of which raise questions for a subject-predicate view of sentence structure. Working within a broadly Minimalist framework, this volume develops an analysis in which syntactic arguments are not merged locally to their thematic sources, but instead are merged high, above an inverted extended predicate which serves syntactically as the Niuean verb, later undergoing movement into the left periphery of the clause. The thematically lowest argument merges as an absolutive inner subject, with higher arguments merging as applicatives. The proposal relates Niuean word order and ergativity to its isolating morphology, by equating the absence of inflection with the absence of IP in Niuean, which impacts many aspects of its grammar. As well as developing a novel analysis of clause and argument structure, word order, ergative case, and theta role assignment, the volume argues for an expanded understanding of subjecthood. Throughout the volume, many other topics are also treated, such as noun incorporation, word formation, the parallel internal structure of predicates and arguments, null arguments, displacement typology, the role of determiners, and the structure of the left periphery.

scholarly journals Constructed Action, the Clause and the Nature of Syntax in Finnish Sign Language

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tommi Jantunen
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
The Body ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Corpus Data ◽  
Manual Activity

AbstractThis paper investigates the interplay of constructed action and the clause in Finnish Sign Language (FinSL). Constructed action is a form of gestural enactment in which the signers use their hands, face and other parts of the body to represent the actions, thoughts or feelings of someone they are referring to in the discourse. With the help of frequencies calculated from corpus data, this article shows firstly that when FinSL signers are narrating a story, there are differences in how they use constructed action. Then the paper argues that there are differences also in the prototypical structure, linkage type and non-manual activity of clauses, depending on the presence or non-presence of constructed action. Finally, taking the view that gesturality is an integral part of language, the paper discusses the nature of syntax in sign languages and proposes a conceptualization in which syntax is seen as a set of norms distributed on a continuum between a categorial-conventional end and a gradient-unconventional end.

Differentiating ‘dialect’ and ‘language’ in sign languages

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Sze ◽  
Silva Isma ◽  
Adhika Irlang Suwiryo ◽  
Laura Lesmana Wijaya ◽  
Adhi Kusumo Bharato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Language Varieties ◽  
The Past ◽  
Linguistic Evidence ◽  
The World ◽  
Language Promotion

The distinction between languages and dialects has remained a controversial issue in literature. When such a distinction is made, it often has far-reaching implications in top-down language promotion and preservation policies that tend to favor only those varieties that are labelled as ‘languages’. This issue is of critical importance for the survival of most sign language varieties in the world from a socio-political point of view. Against this background, this paper discusses how the notions of ‘dialect’ and ‘language’ have been applied in classifying sign languages in the past few decades. In particular, the paper reports on two recent studies which provide linguistic evidence that the signing varieties used by Deaf signers in Jakarta and Yogyakarta in Indonesia should be regarded as distinct sign languages rather than mutually intelligible dialects of Indonesian Sign Language. The evidence comes from significant differences in the lexicon, preferred word order for encoding transitive events, and use of mouth actions. Our result suggests that signing varieties within a country can be significantly different from each other, thus calling for more concerted efforts in documenting and recognizing these differences if the linguistic needs of the signing communities are to be met.

Constituent order in Flemish Sign Language (VGT) and South African Sign Language (SASL)

2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myriam Vermeerbergen ◽  
Mieke Van Herreweghe ◽  
Philemon Akach ◽  
Emily Matabane
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
South African ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Constituent Order ◽  
Degree Of Similarity

This paper reports on a comparison of word order issues, and more specifically on the order of the verb and its arguments, in two unrelated sign languages: South African Sign Language and Flemish Sign Language. The study comprises the first part of a larger project in which a number of grammatical mechanisms and structures are compared across the two sign languages, using a corpus consisting of similar VGT and SASL-data of a various nature. The overall goal of the project is to contribute to a further understanding of the issue of the degree of similarity across unrelated sign languages. However, the different studies also mean a further exploration of the grammars of the two languages involved. In this paper the focus is on the analysis of isolated declarative sentences elicited by means of pictures. The results yield some interesting similarities across all signers but also indicate that — especially with regard to constituent order — there are important differences between the two languages.

Interrogative structures in Croatian Sign Language: Polar and content questions

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 151-167
Author(s):  
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn ◽  
Ronnie B. Wilbur
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
General Question ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Syntactic Structures ◽  
Eyes Closed ◽  
Peak Intensity ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
Chin Down

In this study, we investigate the interrogative structures in Croatian Sign Language (HZJ) with respect to the word order, manual question words, and nonmanual markers and their scope. Both polar and content questions mainly use specific nonmanual markers to indicate interrogative function. Polar questions use chin down and content questions use chin up as their prominent nonmanual markers. In addition to these markers, brows up occurs in both constructions leading to the suggestion that brows up may be a general question marker in HZJ. Brows down can also occur, particularly in content questions. Other nonmanual markers that appear in polar questions are head forward, and eyes wide open and those in content questions are head forward, headshake, shoulders up, and eyes closed.Both interrogative constructions use manual question words. Polar questions can use an optional manual sign je-li that was probably introduced to HZJ through Signed Croatian. je-li is not connected to the peak intensity of the nonmanual markers and we consider it to be an adjunct to the question structure. Content words are used in most HZJ content interrogatives. Question words can be represented by specific signs or can be formed by the content sign ‘5’ (i.e. handshape 5 or b-th moving side-to-side). This ‘5’ sign is further specified by mouthing the particular question word from spoken Croatian. Content words can appear in sentence initial, sentence final or both positions. In content questions, question words bear the highest peak of nonmanual intensity, thus we consider them to be operating as operators.Recent research shows that HZJ shares some features with Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS) because in the 19th century, Croatian deaf students attended Vienna’s Institute for the Deaf (Schalber this volume; Šarac 2003; Šarac et al in press). Upon finishing their education, they would return back to Croatia. Similarities between HZJ and ÖGS are found in their interrogative nonmanual markings but not in their syntactic structures. This can be seen by the fact that these two sign languages do not have the same canonical word order.

Invisible no more

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-129
Author(s):  
Ruth Anna Spooner ◽  
Rachel Sutton-Spence ◽  
Miriam Nathan Lerner ◽  
Kenny Lerner
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Translation ◽  
The Body ◽  
The Self ◽  
Literary Translation ◽  
Asl Literature

Abstract We report here on strategies used in the art of literary translation between ASL and English through the self-reflections of three ASL-English “translators” as they grapple with the varying degrees of translator visibility that push them beyond the traditional expectations of faceless translators into becoming performers of the translated texts. During translation, their faces, hands, and/or voices embody the text, becoming an integral part of the piece, which adds layers of complexity to the ways we think about the translator’s role and the process of translation. We hope that our reflections will challenge prevailing notions about creating, performing, and translating ASL literature, as well as raise questions about recasting the role of the translator and the body in sign language translation.

Grammaticalization and modality: the emergence of a case-marked pronoun in Israeli Sign Language

2003 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
IRIT MEIR
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Spatial Relations ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Case Markers ◽  
Pronominal System

This paper focuses on the role of modality in determining certain properties of grammaticalization processes in signed vs. spoken languages. The process examined here is the evolution of a case-marked pronoun in the pronominal system of Israeli Sign Language. This pronoun is shown to have evolved from the homophonous noun PERSON. The grammaticalization path leading to the evolution of a case distinction is compared to the evolution of case markers in spoken languages. This comparison reveals that languages in different modalities target different words as sources for grammaticalization. Case markers in spoken languages usually evolve from certain nouns or verbs denoting spatial relations, while in sign languages this is not the case. It is suggested that this difference might be attributed to the scarcity of prepositions in sign languages, and to the iconicity of spatial predicates, which may restrict the possible grammaticalization processes in which they may participate.

scholarly journals Age of sign language acquisition has lifelong effect on syntactic preferences in sign language users

2020 ◽  
pp. 016502542095819
Author(s):  
Julia Krebs ◽  
Dietmar Roehm ◽  
Ronnie B. Wilbur ◽  
Evie A. Malaia
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
First Language ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Simple Sentences ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Effect Of Age ◽  
Deaf Signers

Acquisition of natural language has been shown to fundamentally impact both one’s ability to use the first language and the ability to learn subsequent languages later in life. Sign languages offer a unique perspective on this issue because Deaf signers receive access to signed input at varying ages. The majority acquires sign language in (early) childhood, but some learn sign language later—a situation that is drastically different from that of spoken language acquisition. To investigate the effect of age of sign language acquisition and its potential interplay with age in signers, we examined grammatical acceptability ratings and reaction time measures in a group of Deaf signers (age range = 28–58 years) with early (0–3 years) or later (4–7 years) acquisition of sign language in childhood. Behavioral responses to grammatical word order variations (subject–object–verb [SOV] vs. object–subject–verb [OSV]) were examined in sentences that included (1) simple sentences, (2) topicalized sentences, and (3) sentences involving manual classifier constructions, uniquely characteristic of sign languages. Overall, older participants responded more slowly. Age of acquisition had subtle effects on acceptability ratings, whereby the direction of the effect depended on the specific linguistic structure.

Interrogative structures in Croatian Sign Language

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 151-167
Author(s):  
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn ◽  
Ronnie B. Wilbur
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
General Question ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Syntactic Structures ◽  
Eyes Closed ◽  
Peak Intensity ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
Chin Down

In this study, we investigate the interrogative structures in Croatian Sign Language (HZJ) with respect to the word order, manual question words, and nonmanual markers and their scope. Both polar and content questions mainly use specific nonmanual markers to indicate interrogative function. Polar questions use chin down and content questions use chin up as their prominent nonmanual markers. In addition to these markers, brows up occurs in both constructions leading to the suggestion that brows up may be a general question marker in HZJ. Brows down can also occur, particularly in content questions. Other nonmanual markers that appear in polar questions are head forward, and eyes wide open and those in content questions are head forward, headshake, shoulders up, and eyes closed. Both interrogative constructions use manual question words. Polar questions can use an optional manual sign je-li that was probably introduced to HZJ through Signed Croatian. je-li is not connected to the peak intensity of the nonmanual markers and we consider it to be an adjunct to the question structure. Content words are used in most HZJ content interrogatives. Question words can be represented by specific signs or can be formed by the content sign ‘5’ (i.e. handshape 5 or b-th moving side-to-side). This ‘5’ sign is further specified by mouthing the particular question word from spoken Croatian. Content words can appear in sentence initial, sentence final or both positions. In content questions, question words bear the highest peak of nonmanual intensity, thus we consider them to be operating as operators. Recent research shows that HZJ shares some features with Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS) because in the 19th century, Croatian deaf students attended Vienna’s Institute for the Deaf (Schalber this volume; Šarac 2003; Šarac et al in press). Upon finishing their education, they would return back to Croatia. Similarities between HZJ and ÖGS are found in their interrogative nonmanual markings but not in their syntactic structures. This can be seen by the fact that these two sign languages do not have the same canonical word order.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document