Cover not available

Article published In: Special Issue in Memory of Irit Meir
Edited by Diane Lillo-Martin, Wendy Sandler, Marie Coppola and Rose Stamp
[Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1/2] 2020
► pp. 17–37

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

Person vs. locative agreement

Evidence from late learners and language emergence

 | University of Connecticut
 | University of Connecticut
 | University of Connecticut
Published online: 30 October 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00042.kwo
Abstract
Sign languages are frequently described as having three verb classes. One, ‘agreeing’ verbs, indicates the person/number of its subject and object by modification of the beginning and ending locations of the verb. The second, ‘spatial’ verbs, makes a similar appearing modification of verb movement to represent the source and goal locations of the theme of a verb of motion. The third class, ‘plain’ verbs, is characterized as having neither of these types of modulations. A number of researchers have proposed accounts that collapse all of these types, or the person-agreeing and spatial verbs. Here we present evidence from late learners of American Sign Language and from the emergence of new sign languages that person agreement and locative agreement have a different status in these conditions, and we claim their analysis should be kept distinct, at least in certain ways.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Verb classes in sign languages
  • 2.Late learners
  • 3.Language emergence
    • 3.1Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL)
    • 3.2Israeli Sign Language (ISL)
    • 3.3Nicaraguan Sign Language (NSL)
  • 4.Implications
    • 4.1Why locative before person agreement?
    • 4.2Grammaticalization path
    • 4.3Implications for current theories of verb agreement
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (50)
References
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler. 2004. Morphological universals and the sign language type. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2004, 19–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bellugi, Ursula, Karin van Hoek, Diane Lillo-Martin & Lucinda O’Grady. 1988. The acquisition of syntax and space in young deaf signers. In Dorothy Bishop & Karen Mogford (Eds.), Language development in exceptional circumstances, 132–149. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk, Stephanie. 2003. Sensitive period effects on the acquisition of language: A study of language development. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk, Stephanie & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2012. The two-word stage: Motivated by linguistic or cognitive constraints? Cognitive Psychology 65(1). 118–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boudreault, Patrick & Rachel Mayberry. 2006. Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 21(5). 608–635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Östen Dahl, Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coppola, Marie. 2002. The emergence of the grammatical category of Subject in home sign: Evidence from family-based gesture systems in Nicaragua. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coppola, Marie & Ann Senghas. 2010. The emergence of deixis in Nicaraguan signing. In Diane Brentari (Ed.), Sign Languages: A Cambridge Language Survey, 543–569. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Costello, Brendan. 2015. Language and modality: Effects of the use of space in the agreement system of Lengua de Signos Española (Spanish Sign Language). PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam & University of the Basque Country. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen, Ursula Bellugi, Angela Friederici & Petra Horn. 1995. Effects of age of acquisition on grammatical sensitivity: Evidence from on-line and off-line tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics 16(1). 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fenlon, Jordan, Adam Schembri & Kearsy Cormier. 2018. Modification of indicating verbs in British Sign Language: A corpus-based study. Language 94(1). 84–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Bonnie Gough. 1978. Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 181. 17–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. On the evolution of grammatical forms. The transition to language. In Alison Wray (Ed.), Studies in the evolution of language, 376–397. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hochgesang, Julie A., Onno Crasborn & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2019. ASL Signbank. New Haven, CT: Haskins Lab, Yale University. [URL]
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janis, Wynne D. 1995. A crosslinguistic perspective on ASL verb agreement. In Karen Emmorey & Judy Reilly (Eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 195–223. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keller, Jörg. 1999. Using space in German Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 21. 249–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2000. Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away from agreement. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 303–320. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Richard P. Meier. 2011. On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics 371. 95–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lourenço, Guilherme. 2018. Verb agreement in Brazilian Sign Language: Morphophonology, syntax & semantics. Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lourenço, Guilherme & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2018. Are plain verbs really plain? Co-localization as the agreement marker in sign languages. FEAST 21, 68–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann. 2012. Verb agreement. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (Eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 136–157. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 1998. Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 201. 430–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. The emergence of argument structure in two new sign languages. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics and event structure, 101–123. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. The evolution of verb classes and verb agreement in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics 381. 145–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 431. 531–563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff. 2013. Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 309–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Prospects and challenges for a clitic analysis of (A)SL agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 371. 173–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newport, Elissa L. 1990. Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science 141. 11–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newport, Elissa L. & Ted Supalla. 2000. Sign language research at the millennium. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 103–114. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oomen, Marloes & Vadim Kimmelman. 2019. Body-anchored verbs and argument omission in two sign languages. Glossa 4(1):421. 1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1983. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego. [Published version 1988, Garland, New York].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. The relation between space and grammar in ASL morphology. In Ceil Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: theoretical issues, 118–132. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler. 2010. The grammar of space in two new sign languages. In Diane Brentari (Ed.), Cambridge language surveys: Sign languages, 570–592. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland. 2011. A point well taken: On the typology and diachrony of pointing. In Donna Jo Napoli & Gaurav Mathur (Eds.), Deaf around the world: The impact of language, 144–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2006. Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages (Linguistics in Potsdam 24). Potsdam: Universitäts-Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland, Martin Salzmann & Markus Steinbach. 2018. The syntax of sign language agreement: Common ingredients, but unusual recipe. Glossa 3(1). 1071. 1–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quadros, Ronice Müller de & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2007. Gesture and the acquisition of verb agreement in sign languages. In Heather Caunt-Nulton, Samantha Kulatilake & I-hao Woo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 520–531. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quadros, Ronice Müller de & Josep Quer. 2008. Back to back(wards) and moving on: On agreement, auxiliaries and verb classes in sign languages. In Ronice Müller de Quadros (Ed.), TISLR9: Sign languages: Spinning and unraveling the past, present and future, 530–551. Petrópolis, Brazil: Editora Arara Azul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rathmann, Christian & Gaurav Mathur. 2002. Is verb agreement the same cross-modally? In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Verb agreement as a linguistic innovation in signed languages. In Josep Quer (Ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004, 191–216. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane C. Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam, Jordan Fenlon & Kearsy Cormier. 2018. Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Glossa 3(1). 89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Senghas, Ann & Marie Coppola. 2001. Children creating language: How Nicaraguan Sign Language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychological Science 121. 323–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Senghas, Ann, Marie Coppola, Elissa L. Newport & Ted Supalla. 1997. Argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language: The emergence of grammatical devices. In Elizabeth Hughes, Mary Hughes & Annabel Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 550–561. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Senghas, Ann. 2010. The emergence of two functions for spatial devices in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Human Development 531. 287–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Bisnath, Felicia, Hannah Lutzenberger, Marah Jaraisy, Rehana Omardeen & Adam Schembri
2025. Deconstructing notions of morphological ‘complexity’: Lessons from creoles and sign languages. Journal of Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Khristoforova, Evgeniia
2023. Subject agreement in control and modal constructions in Russian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 26:1 ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Lutzenberger, Hannah, Roland Pfau & Connie de Vos
2022. Emergence or Grammaticalization? The Case of Negation in Kata Kolok. Languages 7:1 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Jonathan Henner
2021. Acquisition of Sign Languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 7:1 ► pp. 395 ff. DOI logo
Sandler, Wendy
2021. Signs and words. In All Things Morphology [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 353], ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 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