Cover not available
Part of
Signs and Structures: Formal Approaches to Sign Language Syntax
Edited by Paweł Rutkowski
[Benjamins Current Topics 71] 2015
► pp. 71–101

PERSON climbing up a tree

(and other adventures in sign language grammaticalization)

| University of Amsterdam
| University of Göttingen
Studies on sign language grammaticalization have demonstrated that most of the attested diachronic changes from lexical to functional elements parallel those previously described for spoken languages. To date, most of these studies are either descriptive in nature or embedded within functional-cognitive theories. In contrast, we take a generative perspective on sign language grammaticalization, adopting ideas by Roberts & Roussou (2003), who suggest that grammaticalization can be characterized as “reanalysis ‘upwards’ along the functional structure”. Following an overview of some of the attested modality-independent pathways, we zoom in on the grammaticalization of two types of agreement auxiliaries, the lexical sources of which are the verb GIVE and the noun PERSON. We argue that the grammaticalization of GIVE-AUX (in Greek Sign Language and Catalan Sign Language) follows directly from Roberts & Roussou’s model because a lexical verb is reanalyzed as an element which is merged in a structurally higher functional position (little v). The same is true for PERSON, but this change has an additional modality-specific flavor. In spoken languages, agreement affixes typically enter the functional domain of V via cliticization. In contrast, in German Sign Language and Catalan Sign Language, PERSON, after having been reanalyzed as a determiner-like element, ‘jumps’ directly from D into AgrO — most probably because it has the relevant spatial properties necessary to express agreement. Thus, grammaticalization in sign languages, while being structurally similar, allows for types of reanalysis that are not attested in spoken languages.
Published online: 17 September 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.71.04pfa
References (88)
Arends, Jacques. 1986. Genesis and development of the equative copula in Sranan. In Pieter Muysken & Norval Smith (eds.), Substrata versus universals in Creole genesis, 103–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir & Wendy Sandler. 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81(2). 301–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barberà, Gemma. 2012. The meaning of space in Catalan Sign Language (LSC): Reference, specificity and structure in signed discourse. PhD dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.
Battison, Robbin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Bertone, Carmela. 2007. La struttura del sintagma determinante nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS). PhD dissertation, University of Venice.
Borer, Hagit. 2005. In name only (Structuring sense, Volume I). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bos, Heleen. 1994. An auxiliary verb in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Inger Ahlgren, Brita Bergman & Mary Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure, 37–53. Durham: ISLA.Google Scholar
Brunelli, Michele. 2011. Antisymmetry and sign languages: A comparison between NGT and LIS. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Östen Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13. 51–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., 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
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honour of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Els van der Kooij, Dafydd Waters, Bencie Woll & Johanna Mesch. 2008. Frequency distribution and spreading behavior of different types of mouth actions in three sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 11(1). 45–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egerland, Verner. 2010. On Old Italian uomo and the classification of indefinite expressions. In Roberta d’Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic variation: The syntax of Italian dialects, 71–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 1999. Do signers gesture? In Lynn S. Messing & Ruth Campbell (eds.), Gesture, speech, and sign, 133–159. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan. 1975. Influences on word order change in ASL. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Word order and word order change, 1–25. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Bonnie Gough. 1972/1999. Some unfinished thoughts on finish. Sign Language & Linguistics 2(1). 67–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51, 696–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. Grammaticalization and generative grammar: A difficult liaison. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 43–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011b. The linguistic cycle. Language change and the language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 2001. The birth of a functional category: from Latin ille to the Romance article and personal pronoun. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Current studies in Italian Syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 157–171. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries. Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002a. On the evolution of grammatical forms. In Alison Wray (ed.), The transition to language. Studies in the evolution of language, 376–397. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2002b. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elisabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 1999. The grammaticization of topics in ASL. Studies in Language 23(2). 271–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 816–841. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janzen, Terry & Barbara Shaffer. 2002. Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy A. Cormier & David G. Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 199–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 2003. Language standardization and signed language dictionaries. Sign Language Studies 3(4). 431–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller, Jörg. 1998. Aspekte der Raumnutzung in der Deutschen Gebärdensprache. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania. 2001. Auxiliation. An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladewig, Silva. 2011. Syntactic and semantic integration of gestures into speech — structural, cognitive, and conceptual aspects. PhD dissertation, Europa-Universität Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder).
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Richard P. Meier. 2011. On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3/4). 95–141.Google Scholar
Loon, Esther van. 2012. What’s in the palm of your hands? Discourse functions of palm-up in Sign Language of the Netherlands. MA thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Loon, Esther van, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach. 2014. The grammaticalization of gestures in sign languages. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha Tessendorf (eds.), Body — language — communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, 2133–2149. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marsaja, I. Gede. 2008. Desa Kolok — A deaf village and its sign language in Bali, Indonesia. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.Google Scholar
Murmann, Christina, Peter Indefrey, Thomas Weskott & Markus Steinbach. 2013. Why forget needs help but help does not. An experimental study on the influence of animacy/agreement on the distribution of pam. Poster presented at TISLR 11, July 10–12, London.
McKee, Rachel L. & Sophia Wallingford. 2011. ‘So, well, whatever’: Discourse functions of palm-up in New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 14(2). 213–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit. 1999. A perfect marker in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2. 43–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20. 413–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Cornelia, Silva Ladewig & Jana Bressem. 2013. Gestures and speech from a linguistic perspective: A new field and its history. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha Teßendorf (eds.), Body — language — communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, 55–81. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine (eds.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Benjamin Bahan & Robert G. Lee. 2000. The syntax of American Sign Language. Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol & Joan Nash. 2012. The noun phrase. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 265–292. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Prospects and challenges for a clitic analysis of (A)SL agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3/4). 173–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, John (ed.). 1998. The linguistics of giving. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2011. Degrammaticalization. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 475–487. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland. 2008. The grammar of headshake: A typological perspective on German Sign Language negation. Linguistics in Amsterdam 2008(1). 37–74.Google Scholar
. 2011. A point well taken: On the typology and diachrony of pointing. In Donna Jo Napoli & Gaurav Mathur (eds.), Deaf around the world, 144–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland, Martin Salzmann & Markus Steinbach. 2010. Sign language agreement is syntactic: The importance of auxiliaries. Paper presented at Taalkunde in Nederland (TIN dag), Utrecht, February 2010.
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2003. Optimal reciprocals in German Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 6(1). 3–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages (Linguistics in Potsdam 24). Potsdam: Universitäts-Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2011. Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 683–695. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365–424.Google Scholar
Quadros, Ronice M. de & Josep Quer. 2010. The proper characterization of agreement in sign languages. Manuscript, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina & ICREA-Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Quer, Josep & Santiago Frigola. 2006. Crosslinguistic research and particular grammars: A case study on auxiliary predicates in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Paper presented at Workshop on Cross-linguistic Sign Language Research, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, January 2006.
Quinto-Pozos, David (ed.). 2007. Sign languages in contact. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo. 1992. Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30. 549–560. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rathmann, Christian. 2000. The optionality of agreement phrase: Evidence from signed languages. Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
Rathmann, Christian & Gaurav Mathur. 2002. Is verb agreement the same crossmodally? In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy A. Cormier & David G. Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Don. 2003. Internal reconstruction. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 244–261. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Current studies in Italian Syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 287–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change. A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapountzaki, Galini. 2005. Free functional elements of tense, aspect, modality and agreement as possible auxiliaries in Greek Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of Bristol.
. 2012. Agreement auxiliaries. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 204–227. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1999. Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. In Tracy A. Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz (eds.), Studies on the phonological word, 223–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schermer, Trude. 2003. From variant to standard: An overview of the standardization process of the lexicon of Sign Language of the Netherlands over two decades. Sign Language Studies 3. 469–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, 2012. Language planning. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 889–908. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sexton, Amy L. 1999. Grammaticalization in American Sign Language. Language Sciences 21. 105–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Andrew. 2005. Classifiers and DP structure in Southeast Asia. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 806–838. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Wayne H. 1990. Evidence for auxiliaries in Taiwan Sign Language. In Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research. Vol. 1: Linguistics, 211–228. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan M. 1978. The category AUX as a language universal. In Joseph J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language. Vol. 3: Word structure, 7–45. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Steinbach, Markus & Roland Pfau. 2007. Grammaticalization of auxiliaries in sign languages. In Pamela M. Perniss, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Visible variation: Cross-linguistic studies on sign language structure, 303–339. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 2001. Making historical sign language materials accessible: A prototype database of early ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 4. 285–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Phyllis. 1998. give: Acts of giving in American Sign Language. In John Newman (ed.), The linguistics of giving, 175–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Routes from gesture to language. In Elena A. Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea & Raffaele Simone (eds.), Verbal and signed languages. Comparing structures, constructs, and methodologies, 107–131. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman, Paolo Rossini & Elena A. Pizzuto. 2010. Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 332–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman & Phyllis Wilcox. 1995. The gestural expression of modality in ASL. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischmann (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 135–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woll, Bencie. 1987. Historical and comparative aspects of British Sign Language. In Jim Kyle (ed.), Sign and school: Using signs in deaf children’s development, 12–34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Wehrmeyer, Ella
2019. Linguistic Interference in Interpreting from English to South African Sign Language. In English in Multilingual South Africa, ► pp. 371 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. 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.