Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 20:2 (2017) ► pp.183–220

The syntax of nominal modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS)

| Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
| Institut Jean Nicod, Département d’études cognitives, ENS, EHESS, CNRS | PSL Research University
In this paper, we investigate structural aspects of nominal modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS), a language with a relatively flexible word order. In order to tackle the issue, this study combines different approaches, including generalizations from typological universals on word order, their formal counterparts, and a variationist approach to language facts. Data come from the largest corpus of LIS currently available. Despite the absence of categorical rules, our mixed approach shows that LIS data are consistent with the general tenets of nominal modification. Results from the statistical analysis indicate that the attested language-internal variability is constrained both by linguistic and social factors. Specifically, a fine-grained structure of nominal modification is able to capture the internal variability of LIS. Processing effects, age, gender, and early exposure to the language also play a relevant role in determining order preferences.
Keywords: nominal modification, word order variation, Italian Sign Language, Universal 20
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background on nominal modification
    • 2.1Theoretical framework
    • 2.2Language universals and the sample problem
    • 2.3Sign language, language universals, and nominal modification
  • 3.The structure of DP in LIS: Early studies
  • 4.Nominal modification in LIS: A corpus-based approach
    • 4.1The LIS Corpus
    • 4.2Data annotation
  • 5.Results and analysis
    • 5.1Linguistic factors
    • 5.2Sociolinguistic factors
    • 5.3Interaction: Modifier type * Gender
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Making sense of the linguistic factors
    • 6.2Making sense of the sociolinguistic factors
    • 6.3Making sense of the of Modifier type * Gender interaction
    • 6.4The big picture
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00002.man
References (67)
References
Abels, Klaus & Ad Neeleman. 2009. Universal 20 without the LCA. In José M. Brucart, Anna Gavarró & Jaume Solà (eds.), Merging features: computation, interpretation, and acquisition, 60–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax 15(1). 25–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abner, Natasha. 2012. There once was a verb: the predicative core of possessive and nominalization structures in American Sign Language. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou. 2007. Noun Phrase in the Generative perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald R. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald R., Doug J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 591. 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Rusty. 2008. Linguistic differentiation and Mayan language revitalization in Guatemala. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(3). 275–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertone, Carmela. 2007. La struttura del sintagma determinante nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS). Venice: Ca’ Foscari University PhDl dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2009. The syntax of noun modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS). University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 191. 7–28.Google Scholar
Branchini, Chiara. 2007. On relativization and clefting in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Urbino: University of Urbino PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Branchini, Chiara, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati & Carlo Geraci. 2013. Wh-duplication in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sign Language & Linguistics 16(2). 157–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branchini, Chiara & Caterina Donati. 2009. Relatively different: Italian Sign Language relative clauses in a typological perspective. In Anikó Lipták (ed.), Correlatives crosslinguistically, 157–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branchini, Chiara & Carlo Geraci. 2011. L’ordine dei costituenti in LIS: risultati preliminari. In Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto & Caterina Donati (eds.), Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS, 113–126. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Brunelli, Michele. 2011. Antisymmetry and sign languages: a comparison between NGT and LIS. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, Carlo Cecchetto & Caterina Donati (eds.). 2011. Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo, Carlo Geraci & Sandro Zucchi. 2006. Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24(4). 945–975. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Another way to mark syntactic dependencies: The case for right-peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language 85(2). 278–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Rint Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4). 509–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1994. On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.), Paths towards universal grammar: Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne, 85–110. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. Greenberg’s Universal 20 and the Semitic DP. In Lars Olof Delsing, Cecilia Falk, Gunlög Josefsson & Halldór Á. Sigursson (eds.), Grammatik in fokus/Grammar in Focus. Festschrift for Christer Platzack 18 November 2003, vol. 21, 243–251. Lund: Wallin & Dalholm.Google Scholar
. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistics Inquiry 361. 315–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The syntax of adjectives. A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. A partial map of extended functional projection of the NP. Advanced Syntax, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. A.Y. 2011/2012. Class lecture.Google Scholar
Conte, Genny, Mirko Santoro, Carlo Geraci & Anna Cardinaletti. 2010. Why are you raising your eyebrows? Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), conference proceedings, 53–56.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Han Sloetjes. 2008. Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora. Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), conference proceedings, 39–43.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2010. Dealing with diversity: Towards an explanation of NP-internal word order frequencies. Linguistic Typology 14(2–3). 253–286.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.). 2004. Adjectives: a cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Word order. In Shopen Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 11, 61–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. On the order of demonstrative, numeral, adjective, and noun: an alternative to Cinque. Handout of a paper presented at the University of Pavia in June. <[URL]> Acc. on 2014/12/12.
Fukui, Naoki. 1993. Parameters and optionality. Linguistic Inquiry 24(3). 399–420.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Katia Battaglia, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Serena Giudice & Emiliano Mereghetti. 2011. The LIS corpus project. A discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon. Sign Language Studies 11(4). 528–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Robert Bayley, Chiara Branchini, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Serena Giudice, Emiliano Mereghetti, Fabio Poletti, Mirko Santoro & Sandro Zucchi. 2010. Building a corpus for Italian Sign Language: Methodological issues and some preliminary results. Proceedings of Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 98–101.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Robert Bayley, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto & Caterina Donati. 2015. Variation in Italian Sign Language (LIS): The case of Wh-signs. Linguistics 53(1). 125–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Carlo Cecchetto & Sandro Zucchi. 2008. Sentential complementation in Italian Sign Language. In Michael Grosvald & Dionne Soares (eds.), Western Conference On Linguistics (WECOL), conference proceedings, 46–58.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Marta Gozzi, Costanza Papagno & Carlo Cecchetto. 2008. How grammar can cope with limited short-term memory: Simultaneity and seriality in sign languages. Cognition 1061. 780–804. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givon, Thomas. 2001. Syntax: an introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 1988. Advanced Varbrul analysis. In Kathleen Ferrara, Becky Brown, Keith Walters & John Baugh (eds.), Linguistic change and contact, 124–136. Austin, TX: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Haddican, Bill. 2002. Aspects of DP word order across creoles. Paper presented at the CUNY/SUNY/NYU, Linguistics Mini-Conference , April 20.
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy. 2008. The case of Signed Languages in the context of pidgin and creole studies. In Silvia Kouwenberg & John Victor Singler (eds.), The handbook of pidgin and creoles studies, 491–511. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy, Ann Senghas & Marie Coppola. 1999. Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In Michael DeGraff, (ed.), Language creation and language change: creolization, diachrony, and development, 179–237. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change (social factors). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Laudanna, Alessandro & Virginia Volterra. 1991. Order of words, signs and gestures: A first comparison. Applied Psycholinguistics 121. 135–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlewood, William. 1984. Foreign and second language learning: language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2000. The structure of DPs: Principles, parameters and problems. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of syntactic theory, 562–603. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
MacLaughlin, Dawn. 1997. The structure of Determiner Phrases: Evidence from American Sign Language. Boston, MA: Boston University, doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Martin, Randi & Cristina Romani. 1994. Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension: A multiple-components view. Neuropsychology 81. 506–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nardozzi, Giangiacomo. 2003. The Italian “Economic Miracle”. Rivista di Storia Economica 19(2). 139–180.Google 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 Press.Google 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: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newport, Elissa L. 1999. Reduced input in the acquisition of signed languages: contributions to the study of creolization. In Michel DeGraff (ed.), Language creation and language change: creolization, diachrony, and development, 162–178. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven T. & Edward Gibson. 2013. Quantitative standards for absolute linguistic universals. Cognitive Science 38(4). 736–756. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutkowski, Paweł, Małgorzata Czajkowska-Kisil, Joanna Łacheta & Anna Kuder. 2014. The syntax of adjectival modification in Polish Sign Language (PJM). Presentation at Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium (OLINCO). Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, Olomouc. June 5.
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, Gladys & Felix Sze. 2002. Nominal expressions in Hong Kong Sign Language: Does modality make a difference? In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy A. Cormier & David G. Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 296–321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tily, Harry J. & T. Florian Jaeger. 2011. Complementing quantitative typology with behavioral approaches: Evidence for typological universals. Linguistic Typology 15(2). 497–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Margaret & Karen Emmorey. 2006. Comparing sign language and speech reveals a universal limit on short-term memory capacity. Psychological Science 17(8). 682–683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zatini, Franco. 2014. Storia dei Sordi. <[URL]> Acc. on 2014/12/20.
Zeshan, Ulrike (ed.). 2006. Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Sign languages. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL]; accessed on 2016/11/16.
Zeshan, Ulrike & Pamela Perniss (eds.). 2008. Possessive and existential constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Niina Ning. 2007. Universal 20 and Taiwan Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 101. 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Saral, Burcu & Meltem Kelepir
2020. The universal quantifier ‘all’ in Turkish Sign Language. In Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries [Studies in Language Companion Series, 215], ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo
MANTOVAN, LARA, CARLO GERACI & ANNA CARDINALETTI
2019. On the cardinal system in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Journal of Linguistics 55:4 ► pp. 795 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.