1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 3, 2017
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 3, 2017

Crosslinguistic Variation in Sign Language Syntax

Abstract

This review introduces and compares syntactic structures in a variety of sign languages. I first examine ways in which sign languages function like spoken languages, and ways in which they differ. I then briefly discuss what sign languages have in common in the syntactic realm; the rest of the article focuses on how they can differ. Because the level of the simple sentence has been documented extensively, this review emphasizes complex sentences, such as sentential complementation, relative clauses, adverbial clauses, embedded questions, and conditionals.

Keyword(s): classifiers, complex sentences, constituents, grammatical relations, nonmanuals
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034150
2017-01-14
2025-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/3/1/annurev-linguistics-011516-034150.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034150&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abney SP. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect PhD thesis Dep. Linguist. Philos., MIT Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker C, Cokely D. 1980. American Sign Language: A Teacher's Resource Text on Grammar and Culture Silver Spring, MD: TJ Publ. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker C, Padden C. 1978. Focusing on the nonmanual components of American Sign Language. See Siple 1978 27–57
  4. Battison R. 1978. Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language Silver Spring, MD: Linstok [Google Scholar]
  5. Bellugi U, Fischer S. 1972. A comparison of sign language and spoken language: rate and grammatical mechanisms. Cognition 1:173–200 [Google Scholar]
  6. Birdwhistell R. 1970. Kinesics and Context Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press [Google Scholar]
  7. Brentari D. 1998. A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology Cambridge, MA: MIT PressPresents an in-depth discussions of different levels of grammatical analysis in a variety of sign languages. [Google Scholar]
  8. Branchini C. 2015. On Relativization and Clefting: An Analysis of Italian Sign Language Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  9. Cecchetto C, Donati C. 2016. Relativization in Italian Sign Language: the missing link of relativization. See Pfau et al. 2016 182–203
  10. Chomsky N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English Transformational Grammar R Jacobs, P Rosenbaum 184–221 Waltham, MA: Ginn [Google Scholar]
  11. Chomsky N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris [Google Scholar]
  12. Davidson K, Caponigro I. 2011. Ask, and tell as well: question–answer pairs in ASL. Nat. Lang. Semant. 19:323–71 [Google Scholar]
  13. Davidson K, Lillo-Martin D, Pichler DC. 2013. Spoken English language development in native signing children with cochlear implants. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 10:238–50 [Google Scholar]
  14. de Vos C, Pfau R. 2015. Sign language typology: the contribution of rural sign languages. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 1:265–88 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fischer S. 1974. Sign language and linguistic universals. Actes du colloque franco-allemand de grammaire transformationelle, band II: Études de sémantique et autres C Rohrer, N Ruwet 187–204 Tübingen, Ger.: Niemeyer [Google Scholar]
  16. Fischer S. 1975. Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. Word Order and Word Order Change C Li 1–25 Austin: Univ. Tex. Press [Google Scholar]
  17. Fischer S. 1978. Sign languages and creoles. See Siple 1978 309–31
  18. Fischer S. 1979. Many a slip 'twixt the hand and the lip: applying linguistic theory to non-oral language. Metatheory III: Application of Linguistics in the Human Sciences R Herbert 45–75 East Lansing: Mich. State Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  19. Fischer S. 1990. The head parameter in ASL. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research W Edmondson, F Karlsson 75–85 Hamburg, Ger.: Signum [Google Scholar]
  20. Fischer S. 1996. The role of auxiliaries in sign language. Lingua 98:103–19 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fischer S. 2008. Sign language and linguistic universals. Sign Lang. Linguist. 11:245–62 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fischer S. 2010. Sign languages: Prosody meets syntax. Lectures on Universal Grammar and Individual Languages: Proceedings of the Seoul International Conference on Linguistics (SICOL-2010) Y-S Kang, J-S Wu, D-H Choi, J-Y Yoon, S Rhee et al.85–103 Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa [Google Scholar]
  23. Fischer S, Gong Q. 2010. Variation in East Asian sign language structures. Sign Languages D Brentari 502–21 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  24. Fischer S, Johnson R. 2012 (1982). Nominal markers in ASL. Sign Lang. Linguist 15:243–50 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fischer S, Lillo-Martin D. 1990. understanding conjunctions. Int. J. Sign Linguist. 1:71–81 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fischer S, Osugi Y. 1998. Feature movement in wh-questions: evidence from sign language Presented at Theor. Issues Sign Lang. Res., , 6th., Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
  27. Frishberg N. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51:696–719 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fuji C. 2007. Two types of causatives in Japanese and Japanese sign language: a study in syntax and acquisition. Nanzan Linguist. Spec. 1:33–65 [Google Scholar]
  29. Galloway T. 2012. Distinguishing correlatives from internally headed relative clauses in ASL Presented at Conf. Semant. Under-Represent. Lang. Am., 7th (SULA 7) Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY: [Google Scholar]
  30. Geraci C, Aristodemo V. 2016. An in-depth tour into sentential complementation in Italian Sign Language. See Pfau et al. 2016 95–150
  31. van Gijn I. 2004. The Quest for Syntactic Dependency: Sentential Complementation in Sign Language of the Netherlands Utrecht, Neth: LOT Publ. [Google Scholar]
  32. Göksel A, Kelepir M. 2016. Observations on clausal complementation in Turkish Sign Language. See Pfau et al. 2016 65–94
  33. Greenberg JH. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of Human Language JH Greenberg 73–113 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Ichida Y. 2005. Bunkouzou-to atama-no ugoki: Nihon shuwa-no bunpoo (6) gojun, hobun, kankeisetsu [Sentence structure and head movement: grammar of Japanese Sign Language 6: word order, complement structure, relative clause]. Gengo 34:91–99 [Google Scholar]
  35. Jackendoff R. 1977. X-Bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure Linguist. Inq. Monogr. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Jepsen J, de Clerck G, Lutalo-Klingli S, McGregor W. 2015. Sign Languages of the World Berlin: de GruyterContains grammatical sketches of a wide variety of sign languages, including less-studied ones. [Google Scholar]
  37. Johnston T, Schembri A. 2007. Australian Sign Language: An Introduction to Sign Language Linguistics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  38. Keep J. 1871. The sign language. Am. Ann. Deaf 16:221–34 [Google Scholar]
  39. Leeson L, Saeed J. 2012. Word order. See Pfau et al. 2012 245–65
  40. Li C, Thompson S. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. Subject and Topic C Li 457–89 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  41. Li J. 2013. Relative constructions in Hong Kong Sign Language MA thesis: Dep. Linguist., Chin. Univ. Hong Kong [Google Scholar]
  42. Liddell SK. 1978. Nonmanual signals and relative clauses in American Sign Language. See Siple 1978 59–90
  43. Liddell SK. 1980. American Sign Language Syntax The Hague: Mouton [Google Scholar]
  44. Liddell SK. 1984. Think and believe: sequentiality in American Sign Language. Language 60:371–92 [Google Scholar]
  45. Liddell SK. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  46. Lillo-Martin D. 1986. Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 4:415–44 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lillo-Martin D. 1991. Universal Grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the Null Argument Parameters Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  48. Lillo-Martin D. 1995. The point-of-view predicate. Language, Gesture, and Space K Emmorey, J. Reilly 155–70 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  49. Marsaja G. 2008. Desa Kolok: A Deaf Village and Its Sign Language Nijmegen, Neth: Ishara [Google Scholar]
  50. Mathur G. 2000. Verb agreement as alignment in sign languages PhD thesis Dep. Linguist., MIT Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  51. McIntire M. 1980. Locatives in American Sign Language PhD thesis Dep. Linguist., Univ. Calif. Los Angeles: [Google Scholar]
  52. Meir I. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 20:413–50 [Google Scholar]
  53. Neidle C, Kegl J, MacLaughlin D, Bahan B, Lee R. 2000. The Syntax of American Sign Language Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  54. Padden C. 1988. Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in ASL New York: GarlandPresents an insightful analysis of American Sign Language structure by one of the first native signer linguists. [Google Scholar]
  55. Petronio C. 1993. Clause structure in American Sign Language PhD thesis Dep. Linguist., Univ. Wash. [Google Scholar]
  56. Petronio K, Lillo-Martin D. 1997. Wh-movement and the position of Spec-CP: evidence from American Sign Language. Language 72:18–57 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pfau R, Steinbach M. 2005. Relative clauses in German Sign Language: extraposition and reconstruction. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35) L Bateman, C Ussery 2507–21 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  58. Pfau R, Steinbach M. 2016. Complex sentences in sign language: modality, typology, discourse. See Pfau et al. 2016 1–35
  59. Pfau R, Steinbach M, Hermann A. 2016. A Matter of Complexity: Subordination in Sign Languages Berlin: de GruyterIncludes papers on subordination in different sign languages. [Google Scholar]
  60. Pfau R, Steinbach M, Woll B. 2012. Sign Language: An International Handbook Berlin: de GruyterPresents detailed discussions of sign language grammar, variation, nonstandard signing, psycholinguistics, and data analysis issues. [Google Scholar]
  61. Pollock J-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguist. Inq. 20:365–424 [Google Scholar]
  62. Quadros R. 2006. Questions in Brazilian Sign Language (LSB). See Zeshan 2006 270–83
  63. Ross JR. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax PhD thesis Dep. Linguist., MIT Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  64. Sandler W. 1989. Phonological Representation of the Sign: Linearity and Non-Linearity in American Sign Language Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris [Google Scholar]
  65. Sandler W, Lillo-Martin D. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressPresents a comprehensive introduction to sign language linguistics from a theoretical perspective. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sandler W, Meir I, Padden C, Aronoff M. 2005. The emergence of grammar: systematic structure in a new language. PNAS 102:2661–65 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sapountzaki G. 2012. Agreement auxiliaries. See Pfau et al. 2012 204–27
  68. Schein J, Delk M. 1974. Deaf Population of the United States Silver Spring, MD: Natl. Assoc. Deaf [Google Scholar]
  69. Shepard-Kegl J. 1985. Locative relations in ASL word formation, syntax, and discourse PhD thesis Dep. Linguist., MIT Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  70. Siple P. 1978. Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  71. Smith W. 1990. Evidence for auxiliaries in Taiwan Sign Language. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, vol. 1: Linguistics S Fischer, P Siple 211–28 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  72. Tang G. 2006. Questions and negation in Hong Kong Sign Language. See Zeshan 2006 198–224
  73. Tang G, Lau P. 2012. Coordination and subordination. See Pfau et al. 2012 340–65
  74. Veditz GW. 1913. The Preservation of Sign Language YouTube video, 14:40, from the National Association of the Deaf Washington, DC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caYF7GpMX6s [Google Scholar]
  75. Wilbur R. 1995. Why so-called “rhetorical questions” are neither rhetorical nor questions. Sign Language Research 1994: Proceedings of the 4th European Congress on Sign Language Research T Schermer, H Bos 149–69 Hamburg, Ger.: Signum [Google Scholar]
  76. Wilbur R. 1996. Evidence for the function and structure of wh-clefts in American Sign Language. International Review of Sign Linguistics W Edmondson, R Wilbur 1209–56 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  77. Wilbur R. 2016. Complex sentences and adverbial clauses in sign languages. See Pfau et al. 2016 36–64
  78. Wilbur R, Patschke C. 1999. Syntactic correlates of brow raise in ASL. Sign Lang. Linguist. 2:3–41 [Google Scholar]
  79. Yang J, Fischer S. 2002. The expression of negation in Chinese Sign Language. Sign Lang. Linguist. 5:167–202 [Google Scholar]
  80. Zeshan U. 2006. Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages Nijmegen, Neth.: Ishara [Google Scholar]
  81. Zeshan U, de Vos C. 2012. Sign Language in Village Communities: Anthropological and Linguistic Insights Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034150
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error