1932

Abstract

Although sign languages are crucial for research on the human linguistic capacity, argument structure in these languages is rarely addressed in theoretical and typological studies. This article provides an overview of existing research on argument structure and argument structure alternations in sign languages. It demonstrates that there are many fundamental similarities between the two modalities in the domain of argument structure, such as the basic valency patterns and the semantic basis of argument structure. At the same time, modality effects, such as iconicity, simultaneity, and the use of space, play an important role in argument structure realization. Finally, the article discusses how emerging sign languages present an opportunity to observe and study the emergence of argument structure.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-122519
2022-01-14
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/8/1/annurev-linguistics-031220-122519.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-122519&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abner N, Flaherty M, Stangl K, Coppola M, Brentari D, Goldin-Meadow S. 2019. The noun-verb distinction in established and emergent sign systems. Language 95:2230–67
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alibašić Ciciliani T, Wilbur RB 2006. Pronominal system in Croatian Sign Language. Sign Lang. Linguist. 9:1/295–132
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aronoff M, Meir I, Sandler W 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81:2301–44
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barberà G, Cabredo Hofherr P 2017. Backgrounded agents in Catalan Sign Language (LSC): passives, middles, or impersonals?. Language 93:4767–98
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barberà G, Cabredo Hofherr P 2018. Sign Lang. Linguist. 21:2)A collection of papers on impersonal reference/agent backgrounding in several sign languages.
  6. Barberà G, Quer J 2013. Impersonal reference in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Sign Language Research, Uses and Practices: Crossing Views on Theoretical and Applied Sign Language Linguistics L Meurant, A Sinte, M Van Herreweghe, M Vermeerbergen 237–58 Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Benedicto E, Brentari D 2004. Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 22:4743–810A seminal paper on argument structure in classifier predicates.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Benedicto E, Cvejanov S, Quer J. 2007. Valency in classifier predicates: a syntactic analysis. Lingua 117:71202–15
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Borer H. 2005. The Normal Course of Events Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  10. Börstell C. 2017. Object marking in the signed modality: verbal and nominal strategies in Swedish Sign Language and other sign languages. PhD Thesis Stockholm Univ. Stockholm:
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Burkova S, Filimonova E, Kimmelman V, Pashkov A, Varinova O, Borodulina D. 2015. Russian Sign Language Corpus Novosibirsk State Tech. Univ. Novosibirsk, Russ: http://rsl.nstu.ru
  12. Chomsky N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
  13. Coppola M, Newport E 2005. Grammatical subjects in home sign: abstract linguistic structure in adult primary gesture systems without linguistic input. PNAS 102:5219249–53
    [Google Scholar]
  14. de Lint V. 2018. NGT classifier constructions: an inventory of arguments. Sign Lang. Linguist. 21:13–39
    [Google Scholar]
  15. de Vos C, Pfau R. 2015. Sign language typology: the contribution of rural sign languages. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 1:265–88
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ergin R, Brentari D 2017. Handshape preferences for objects and predicates in Central Taurus Sign Language. BUCLD 41: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development M LaMendola, J Scott 222–35 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ergin R, Meir I, Ilkbaşaran D, Padden C, Jackendoff RS 2018. The development of argument structure in Central Taurus Sign Language. Sign Lang. Stud. 18:4612–39
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Flaherty M. 2014. The emergence of argument structural devices in Nicaraguan Sign Language. PhD Thesis Univ. Chicago, Chicago:
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gast V, van der Auwera J 2013. Towards a distributional typology of human impersonal pronouns, based on data from European languages. Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska D Bakker, M Haspelmath 119–58 Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Geraci C, Quer J 2014. Determining argument structure in sign languages. Structuring the Argument: Multidisciplinary Research on Verb Argument Structure A Bachrach, I Roy, L Stockall 45–60 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Glück S, Pfau R 1998. On classifying classification as a class of inflection in German Sign Language. Proceedings of ConSOLE VI: Sixth Annual Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe T Cambier-Langeveld, A Lipták, M Redford 59–74 Leiden, Neth: SOLE
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldin-Meadow S, Brentari D, Coppola M, Horton L, Senghas A. 2015. Watching language grow in the manual modality: nominals, predicates, and handshapes. Cognition 136:381–95
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldin-Meadow S, So WC, Özyürek A, Mylander C 2008. The natural order of events: how speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. PNAS 105:279163–68
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Grose D, Wilbur RB, Schalber K. 2007. Events and telicity in classifier predicates: a reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua 117:71258–84
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hale K, Keyser SJ 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger K Hale, SJ Keyser 53–109 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hartmann I, Haspelmath M, Taylor B 2013. Valency Patterns Leipzig Leipzig, Ger.: Max Planck Inst. Evol. Anthr.
  27. Haspelmath M 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative alternations. Causatives and Transitivity B Comrie, M Polinsky 87–120 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Haspelmath M 2015. Transitivity prominence. Valency Classes in the World's Languages A Malchukov, B Comrie 131–47 Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Haspelmath M. 2016. The serial verb construction: comparative concept and cross-linguistic generalizations. Lang. Linguist. 17:3291–319
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Horton L, Goldin-Meadow S, Coppola M, Senghas A, Brentari D. 2015. Forging a morphological system out of two dimensions: agentivity and number. Open Linguist. 1:1596–613
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Janzen T, O'Dea B, Shaffer B 2001. The construal of events: passives in American Sign Language. Sign Lang. Stud. 1:3281–310
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kegl J 1990. Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL lexicon. Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues C Lucas 149–75 Washington, DC: Gallaudet Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kimmelman V. 2009. Reflexive pronouns in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands. MA Thesis Univ. Amsterdam Amsterdam:
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kimmelman V. 2018a. Basic argument structure in Russian Sign Language. Glossa 3:1116
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kimmelman V. 2018b. Impersonal reference in Russian Sign Language. Sign Lang. Linguist. 21:2204–31
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kimmelman V. 2018c. Null arguments in Russian Sign Language. FEAST 1:27–38
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kimmelman V. 2019. Information Structure in Sign Languages: Evidence from Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands Boston: de Gruyter Mouton
  38. Kimmelman V, de Lint V, de Vos C, Oomen M, Pfau R et al. 2019a. Argument structure of classifier predicates: canonical and non-canonical mappings in four sign languages. Open Linguist. 5:1332–53
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kimmelman V, Pfau R, Aboh EO. 2019b. Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign Language. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 38:539–79
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Klomp U. 2021. A descriptive grammar of Sign Language of the Netherlands. PhD Thesis Univ. Amsterdam, Amsterdam:
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kocab A, Lam H, Snedeker J. 2018. When cars hit trucks and girls hug boys: the effect of animacy on word order in gestural language creation. Cogn. Sci. 42:3918–38
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kocab A, Senghas A 2021. Language emergence. The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research J Quer, R Pfau, A Herrmann 636–63 London/New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Konrad R, Hanke T, Langer G, Blanck D, Bleicken J et al. 2020. MY DGS—annotated Public Corpus of German Sign Language, , 3rd release.. https://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/meinedgs/ling/start_en.html
  44. Koulidobrova E. 2009. SELF: intensifier and ‘long distance’ effects in ASL. Paper presented at the 21st European Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information (ESSLLI) Bordeaux, Fr.: July 20–31
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Koulidobrova E. 2017. Elide me bare: null arguments in American Sign Language. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 35:2397–446
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lau SYP. 2012. Serial verb constructions in Hong Kong Sign Language. PhD Thesis Chin. Univ. Hong Kong Hong Kong:
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Levin B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  48. Levin B, Rappaport Hovav M 2005. Argument Realization Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press
  49. Liddell SK. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  50. Lillo-Martin D. 1986. Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 4:4415–44
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Lillo-Martin D 2012. Utterance reports and constructed action. Sign Language: An International Handbook R Pfau, M Steinbach, B Woll 365–87 Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lillo-Martin D, Klima ES. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Vol. 1: Linguistics S Fischer, P Siple 191–210 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lillo-Martin D, Meier RP. 2011. On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theor. Linguist. 37:3–495–142
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Loos C. 2017. The syntax and semantics of resultative constructions in Deutsche Gebärdensprache (DGS) and American Sign Language (ASL). PhD Thesis Univ. Texas, Austin:
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Malchukov A, Comrie B 2015. Valency Classes in the World's Languages Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton
  56. Marantz A. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Univ. Pa. Work. Pap. Linguist. 4:2201–25
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Matushansky O 2013. Gender confusion. Diagnosing Syntax L Cheng, N Corver 271–94 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Meier RP. 1990. Person deixis in American Sign Language. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Vol. 1: Linguistics S Fischer, P Siple 175–90 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Meier RP 2012. Language and modality. Sign Language: An International Handbook R Pfau, M Steinbach, B Woll 77–112 Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Müller S, Wechsler S. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theor. Linguist. 40:1–21–76
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Napoli DJ, Sutton-Spence R. 2014. Order of the major constituents in sign languages: implications for all language. Front. Psychol. 5:376
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Oomen M. 2017. Iconicity in argument structure: psych-verbs in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Sign Lang. Linguist. 20:155–108
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Oomen M. 2020a. Iconicity as a mediator between verb semantics and morphosyntactic structure—a corpus-based study on verbs in German Sign Language. PhD Thesis Univ. Amsterdam Amsterdam:A dissertation on interaction between argument structure, morphology, and iconicity in German Sign Language.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Oomen M. 2020b. Spatial verbs are demonstration verbs. Rev. Linguíʃtica 16:3227–49
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Oomen M, Kimmelman V 2019. Body-anchored verbs and argument omission in two sign languages. Glossa 4:142
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Padden CA. 1988. Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language New York: Garland
  67. Pavlič M. 2016. The word order parameter in Slovenian Sign Language: transitive, ditransitive, classifier and locative constructions. PhD Thesis Univ. Ca’ Foscari Venice, Italy:
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Pfau R, Quer J 2010. Nonmanuals: their prosodic and grammatical roles. Sign Languages D Brentari 381–402 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Pfau R, Salzmann M, Steinbach M 2018. The syntax of sign language agreement: common ingredients, but unusual recipe. Glossa 3:1107
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Pfau R, Steinbach M. 2003. Optimal reciprocals in German Sign Language. Sign Lang. Linguist. 6:13–42
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Pfau R, Steinbach M, Herrmann A. 2016. A Matter of Complexity: Subordination in Sign Languages Boston: de Gruyter Mouton
  72. Ramchand G. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press
  73. Rankin MNP. 2013. Form, Meaning, and Focus in American Sign Language Washington, DC: Gallaudet Univ. Press
  74. Rissman L, Horton L, Flaherty M, Senghas A, Coppola M et al. 2020. The communicative importance of agent-backgrounding: evidence from homesign and Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cognition 203:104332An impressive study of emergence of argument structure in sign languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Sandler W, Lillo-Martin DC. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  76. Schembri AC 2003. Rethinking “classifiers” in sign languages. Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages K Emmorey 3–34 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Senghas A, Coppola M. 2001. Children creating language: how Nicaraguan Sign Language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychol. Sci. 12:4323–28
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Senghas A, Kita S, Özyürek A. 2004. Children creating core properties of language: evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science 305:56911779–82
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Taub SF. 2001. Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  80. Taub SF 2012. Iconicity and metaphor. Sign Language: An International Handbook R Pfau, M Steinbach, B Woll 388–412 Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Veiga Busto R 2020. Person marking in Catalan Sign Language (LSC) personal pronouns. FEAST 3:68–79
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Vermeerbergen M, Leeson L, Crasborn O 2007. Simultaneity in Sign Language: Form and Function Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  83. Zwitserlood I. 2003. Classifying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands) Utrecht, Neth: LOT
  84. Zwitserlood I 2012. Classifiers. Sign Language: An International Handbook R Pfau, M Steinbach, B Woll 158–86 Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-122519
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-122519
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
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