Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 20:2 (2017) ► pp.228–252
Papers from the Sign Linguistics Underground

An analysis of main verb agreement and auxiliary agreement in NGT within the theory of Conceptual Semantics (Jackendoff 1990)

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Jackendoff’s (1990) theory of meaning representation: Conceptual Semantics
  • 3.Earlier analyses of agreement in sign languages
    • 3.1Source and Goal
    • 3.2Subject and Object
  • 4.Comparison of the agreement pattern of main directional verbs and that of the directional auxiliary act-on
    • i.Same arguments agreed with but opposite movements
    • ii.Different arguments selected for agreement
    • iii.The directional auxiliary can be used together with locational verbs as well
  • 5.An analysis of arguments agreed with in NGT in terms of the thematic roles on Jackendoff’s Thematic Tier
    • 5.1General pattern
      • 5.1.1Verbs that have a Theme, Source, and Goal argument on the Thematic Tier (Class I)
        • Gain I
        • Gain II
      • 5.1.2Verbs that have a Source and Goal argument on the Thematic Tier and an Incorporated Theme (Class II)
      • 5.1.3Verbs that have a Theme and Goal argument on the Thematic Tier (Class III)
      • 5.1.4Verbs that have an Agent, Theme, and Goal argument on the Thematic Tier (Class IV)
      • 5.1.5Verbs that have no Goal argument on the Thematic Tier
        • Gain III
    • 5.2Exceptions
      • 5.2.1Directional agreement with Source adjuncts
      • 5.2.2Directional agreement with Location adjuncts
  • 6.Mapping
  • 7.Summary, conclusions, and questions
    • Adjunct agreement
    • Cross-linguistic implications
    • Grammaticisation
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00003.bos
References (36)
References
Aarons, Debra, Benjamin Bahan, Judy Kegl & Carol Neidle. 1994. Subjects and agreement in American Sign Language. In Inger Ahlgren, Brita Bergman & Mary Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure. Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, Vol. 1, 13–28. Durham: ISLA.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20(4). 513–553.Google Scholar
Bos, Heleen. 1990. Person and location marking in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Some implications of a spatially expressed syntactic system. In Siegmund Prillwitz & Thomas Vollhaber (eds), Current trends in European sign language research. Papers of the Third European Congress on Sign Language Research, 231–246. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
Bos, Heleen F. 1993. Agreement and prodrop in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Frank Drijkoningen & Kees Hengeveld (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1993, 37–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1994. An auxiliary verb in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Inger Ahlgren, Brita Bergman & Mary Brennan (eds), Perspectives on sign language structure. Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, Vol. I1, 37–53. Durham: ISLA.Google Scholar
1995. Pronoun copy in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Heleen F. Bos & Trude Schermer (eds.), Current trends in sign language research. Proceedings of the Fifth European Congress on Sign Language Research, 121–147. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1988. Backward verbs in ASL: Agreement re-opened. Chicago Linguistic Society 24(2). 16–27.Google Scholar
Coerts, Jane A. 1992. Nonmanual grammatical markers. An analysis of interrogatives, negations and topicalisations in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language. The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan. 1992. Agreement in Japanese Sign Language. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America , Los Angeles, January 8, 1992.
. 1996. The role of agreement and auxiliaries in sign language. Lingua 981. 103–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Bonnie Gough. 1978. Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 181. 17–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Lynn A. 1975. Space, time and person reference in American Sign Language. Language 511. 940–961. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1976. The manifestation of subject, object, and topic in American Sign Language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 127–148. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gee, James P. & Wendy Goodhart. 1988. American Sign Language and the human biological capacity for language. In Michael Strong (ed.), Language learning and deafness, 49–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gee, James P. & Judy A. Kegl. 1982. Semantic perspicuity and the locative hypothesis: implications for acquisition. Journal of Education 1641. 185–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 149–188. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1965[1976]. Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation. [Published 1976 as Lexical structures in syntax and semantics . Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company].Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1976. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janis, Wynn D. 1995. A crosslinguistic perspective on ASL verb agreement. In Karen Emmorey & Judy S. Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 195–223. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 1991. Spatial syntax and spatial semantics in the inflection of signs for the marking of person and location in Auslan. International Journal of Sign Linguistics 2(1), 29–62.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 1995. Real, surrogate and token space: grammatical consequences in ASL. In Karen Emmorey & Judy S. Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 19–41. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. & Robert E. Johnson. 1989. ASL – The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 641. 195–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1986. Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 41. 415–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Universal Grammar and American Sign Language. Setting the null argument parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward S. Klima. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Susan Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, Vol 1: Linguistics, 191–210. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 1995. Explaining backwards verbs in ISL: Syntactic-semantic interaction. In Heleen Bos & Trude Schermer (eds.), Current trends in sign language research. Proceedings of the Fifth European Congress on Sign Language Research, 105–119. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
. 1998. Syntactic-semantic interaction in Israeli Sign Language verbs. Sign Language & Linguistics 11. 3–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol A. 1981. Some arguments for syntactic patterning. Sign Language Studies 321. 239–259.Google Scholar
1983[1988]. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation. [Published 1988 in Outstanding dissertations in linguistics , New York: Garland Publishing].Google Scholar
1990. The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research. Theoretical issues, 118–132. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Pizzuto, Elena. 1986. The verb system of Italian Sign Language. In Bernard T. Tervoort (ed.), Signs of life. Proceedings of the Second European Congress on Sign Language Research, 17–31. Amsterdam: NSDSK.Google Scholar
Shepard-Kegl, Judy. 1985. Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation, syntax, and discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Khristoforova, Evgeniia
2023. Subject agreement in control and modal constructions in Russian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 26:1 ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Lourenço, Guilherme
2023. The Grammar of Agreement in Libras. In Formal Approaches to Languages of South America, ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo
BOERS–VISKER, EVELINE & ROLAND PFAU
2020. Space Oddities: The Acquisition of Agreement Verbs by L2 Learners of Sign Language of the Netherlands. The Modern Language Journal 104:4 ► pp. 757 ff. DOI logo
Gökgöz, Kadir & Hande Sevgi
2020. Aspects of clause structure and morphology in Turkish Sign Language. In Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries [Studies in Language Companion Series, 215], ► pp. 316 ff. DOI logo
Krebs, Julia, Evie Malaia, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Dietmar Roehm
2020. Interaction between topic marking and subject preference strategy in sign language processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35:4 ► pp. 466 ff. DOI logo
Krebs, Julia, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Dietmar Roehm
2020. Distributional properties of an agreement marker in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Linguistics 58:4 ► pp. 1151 ff. DOI logo
Couvee, Sascha & Roland Pfau
2018. Structure and Grammaticalization of Serial Verb Constructions in Sign Language of the Netherlands—A Corpus-Based Study. Frontiers in Psychology 9 DOI logo
Pfau, Roland, Martin Salzmann & Markus Steinbach
2018. The syntax of sign language agreement: Common ingredients, but unusual recipe. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1 DOI logo
Bos, Heleen F.
2017. Author’s preface. Sign Language & Linguistics 20:2 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Bos, Heleen F.
2017. Author’s afterword. Sign Language & Linguistics 20:2 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Gökgöz, Kadir
2017. Commentary on Bos (1998). Sign Language & Linguistics 20:2 ► pp. 270 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 september 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.

video

Example 5

Example 6

Video clips