Linearization constraints on sentential negation in Russian Sign Language are prosodic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavel Rudnev ◽  
Anna Kuznetsova
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Phonological Information ◽  
Heavy Object ◽  
Sentential Negation ◽  
Main Strategy

Abstract This squib documents exceptions to the main strategy of expressing sentential negation in Russian Sign Language (RSL). The postverbal sentential negation particle in RSL inverts the basic SVO order characteristic of the language turning it into SOV (Pasalskaya 2018a). We show that this reversal requirement under negation is not absolute and does not apply to prosodically heavy object NPs. The resulting picture accords well with the view of RSL word order laid out by Kimmelman (2012) and supports a model of grammar where syntactic computation has access to phonological information (Kremers 2014; Bruening 2019).

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.

Wh-clefts as evidence of resultatives in ASL

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-114
Author(s):  
Ashley Kentner ◽  
Ronnie B. Wilbur
Keyword(s):  
American Sign Language ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
American Sign ◽  
Resultative Constructions ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Asl Literature ◽  
The Status ◽  
Change State ◽  
Additional Support

Abstract The status of syntactic resultative constructions has been disputed in the American Sign Language (ASL) literature. These are single sentences such as “Mary hammered the metal flat,” where two predicates share the same object and an event (hammered) causes the affected object (the metal) to change state (flat) as a result. While not all languages permit such constructions, this study shows that (several) alternate multi-sentential analyses can be ruled out. WH-clefts are used to provide a test for independent clausal boundaries, providing additional support that American Sign Language (ASL) permits resultative constructions. We also observe possible word order variations and note common features of the result predicates in these constructions.

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.

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.

Issues in the syntax of sentential negation

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Ahmad Alqassas
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Order Restrictions ◽  
Standard Arabic ◽  
Sentential Negation ◽  
Bipartite Negation ◽  
Theoretical Issues

The three major categories of negative markers found in Southern Levantine, Gulf and Standard Arabic are single negation, bipartite negation and enclitic negation. This chapter introduces these three categories in a descriptive manner, making minimal theoretical reference only when necessary. The distinctions made between these categories are relevant to the organization of the book and its discussion of empirical and theoretical issues. Contrasts in the distribution of these negative markers among the three varieties of Arabic under investigation in this book clearly show that negation in Arabic can occupy various syntactic positions, but that there are word order restrictions that regulate these occurrences. The chapter also introduces the Jespersen Cycle of negation in Arabic.

Word order in Croatian Sign Language

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 169-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Milković ◽  
Sandra Bradarić-Jončić ◽  
Ronnie B. Wilbur
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Facial Expressions ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Basic Word ◽  
New Information ◽  
Information Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Head Positions

This paper focuses on the basic word order of Croatian Sign Language (HZJ) and factors that permit alternative word orders to occur in sentences and in context. Although they are unrelated languages, the basic word order in HZJ is the same as in spoken Croatian: SVO. One of the factors allowing alternative word orders in context is information status (old or new), which influences constituent placement, as in other languages. HZJ has a tendency to omit old, previously mentioned information, usually the Subject, and the part that is expressed is the new information (Rheme). When old information is expressed, it appears at the beginning of the sentence, preceding the Rheme. Like other languages, HZJ word order can be influenced by the nature of the arguments (Subject, Object) as well as the type of Verb. Sentences with ‘reversible’ arguments (i.e. both are animate and could be agents) tend to use the basic word order, whereas those with nonreversible arguments allow more variable word order. Basic word order also occurs more often with plain verbs (those that do not agree with their arguments). Agreeing and spatial verbs use other word orders in addition to SVO, including the tendency to position Verbs at the end of sentences. Investigation on the interaction of word order and the grammatical usage of facial expressions and head positions (nonmanual marking) indicates that nonmanual markings have pragmatic roles, and could have syntactic functions which await further research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document