Cover not available

In:Structuring the Argument: Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure
Edited by Asaf Bachrach, Isabelle Roy and Linnaea Stockall
[Language Faculty and Beyond 10] 2014
► pp. 45–60

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Determining argument structure in sign languages

 | CNRS
ORCiD logo with link | ICREA-Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Published online: 24 July 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.10.03ger
In this paper we offer an overview of existing analyses of argument structure that sets the stage for further inquiry into this domain. The particular structure of the lexicon in sign languages (SLs) is introduced, with special attention to the agreement patterns found in lexical predicates, as overt agreement marking in the set of verbs that can realize it offers a window into verb meaning and overt argument realization. Classifier predicates, on the other hand, have proven to be a very rich domain for research on argument structure: unaccusative/unergative and unaccusative/transitive alternations have been identified in American Sign Language (ASL) classifier constructions, and replicated in other SLs. As expected, the validity of valency tests is sometimes limited to one language, but the alternations are attested crosslinguistically and can be applied to lexical verbs as well. Specially interesting is the traditional divide between agreement marking in lexical predicates and spatial agreement marking in classifier constructions, often seen as having a different nature. Given the fact that the morphological exponence of agreement is superficially the same (i.e. the path or trajectory that the verbal sign crosses in signing space), the divide must be motivated on empirical arguments, which are not always compatible or consistent with a broad empirical coverage. We identify a number of areas where research should be carried out in order to advance our ounderstanding of argument structure in languages in the visual-gestural modality, in order to determine which of the observed properties is really modality-specific.
References (36)
References
Baker, M.C. 1988. Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedicto, E., and Brentari, D. 2004. Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 743–810. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedicto, E., Cvejanov, S., and Quer, J. 2007. Valency in classifier predicates: A syntactic Analysis. Lingua 117: 1202–1215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedicto, E., Cvejanov, S. and J. Quer. 2008. The morphosyntax of verbs of motion in serial constructions: a crosslinguistic study in three signed languages. In J. Quer (Ed.), Signs of the Time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004 , 111–132. Seedorf: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring Sense (2 vol.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brentari, D. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brentari, D., and Padden, C. 2001. A Language with Multiple Origins: Native and Foreign Vocabulary in American Sign Language. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Foreign Vocabulary in Sign Language: A Cross-linguistic Investigation of Word Formation , 87–119. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Embick, D., and Rolf, N. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/morphology Interface. In G. Catriona Ramchand (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces , 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language . Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glück, S., and Pfau, R. 1999. A Distributed Morphology account of verbal inflection in German Sign Language. In T. Cambier-Langeveld, A. Lipták, M. Redford, and E.J. v.d. Torre (Eds.), Proceedings of Console VI , 65–80.
Grose, D., Wilbur, R.B. and K. Schalber. 2007. Events and telicity in classifier predicates: A reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua 117: 1258–1284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (Eds.)., The View from Building 20 , 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harley, H. and Noyer, R. 1999. Distributed Morphology. Glot International 4(4): 3-9.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Communication . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Construction After Construction and Its Theoretical Challenges. Language 84 (1): 8–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janis, W.D. 1995. A crosslinguistic perspective on ASL verb agreement. In Language, Gesture, and Space . Karen Emmorey and Judy S. Reilly (Eds.), 255–286. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kegl, J. 1990. Predicate Argument Structure and Verb-Class Organization in the ASL Lexicon. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues , 149–175. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lint, V. de. 2010. Argument Structure in Classifier Constructions in ASL: an Experimental approach. MA dissertation , Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mathur, G. and Rathmann, C. 2007. The argument structure of classifier predicates in American Sign Language. In A. Rose Deal (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of Semantics of Underrepresented Languages of Americas . Amherst, MA: GLSA (Graduate Linguistic Students Association).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meier, R.P. 1981. Icons and morphemes: Models of the acquisition of verb agreement in ASL. Papers and reports on child language development 20: 92–99.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Verb classifiers as noun incorporation in Israeli Sign Language. Yearbook of Morphology 1999: 295–315.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. A Cross-Modality Perspective on Verb Agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 413–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neidle, C et al.. . 2000. The Syntax of American Sign Language. Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, C.A. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics, series IV). New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A. 1990. The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign Language Research. Theoretical Issues, 118–132. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quadros, R.M. de, and Quer, J. 2008. Back to backwards and moving on: on agreement, auxiliaries and verb classes in sign languages. In Sign Languages: spinning and unraveling the past, present and future. TISLR9, forty five papers and three posters from the 9th. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference, Florianópolis, Brazil, December 2006, 530–551. Petrópolis, RJ: Editora Arara Azul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramchand, G.C. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon. A first phase syntax . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 2002. The Theta System: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 229–290.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, W., and Lillo-Martin, D. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univerisity Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schalber, K. 2006. Event visibility in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language & Linguistics 1/2: 207–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Supalla, T. 1990. Serial verbs of motion in American Sign Language. In S. Fischer (Ed.), Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, 129–152. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tang, G., and Yang. 2007. Events of motion and causation in Hong Kong Sign Language. Lingua 117(7): 1216–1257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilbur. R. 2008. Complex Predicates involving Events, Time and Aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In J. Quer (Ed.), Signs of the time , 217–250. Seedorf: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, I. 2003a. Word formation below and above little x: Evidence from Sign Language of the Netherlands. In A. Dahl, K. Bentzen and P. Svenonius (Eds.), Nordlyd Tromsø University Working Papers on Language and Linguistics , Vol. 31, 488–502.
. 2003b. Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel
2023. Argument Structure in Peruvian Sign Language. In Formal Approaches to Languages of South America, ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
García-Miguel, José M. & María del Carmen Cabeza-Pereiro
2022. Argument and Verb Meaning Clustering From Expression Forms in LSE. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Kimmelman, Vadim
2022. Argument Structure in Sign Languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue