Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 22:1 (2019) ► pp.1–43

The noun-verb distinction in Catalan Sign Language

An exo-skeletal approach

 | Institut d’Estudis Catalans, Barcelona
 | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
 | ICREA | Universitat Pompeu Fabra
This paper investigates the morpho-phonological differences between the members of related noun-verb pairs in Catalan Sign Language. Like parallel investigations in other sign languages, our experimental work provides evidence that the major differentiating factors between related nouns and verbs materialize in the movement component of signs and non-manual markers, thus providing empirical support to the hypothesis that most noun-verb pairs have different morpho-phonological properties. We distinguish different types of movements, which we categorize into four regular morphological subgroups. We also take into account a fifth group that shows no apparent movement distinction. Concerning non-manual markers, we provide empirical evidence that nouns are mostly produced simultaneously with mouthing, in contrast to verbs, which in a smaller proportion are produced mainly with mouth gestures. Crucially, the fifth group presents the largest ratio of mouthing for nouns and even for verbs. We address these findings within an exo-skeletal theoretical syntactic approach (Borer 2005a,b, 2013, 2014).
Keywords: noun-verb categorization, morpho-phonology of lexical categories, Catalan Sign Language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Studies on noun-verb pairs in sign languages
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials
    • 3.3Procedure
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Differences related to movement
      • 4.1.1Group 1: Roots without path movement
      • 4.1.2Group 2: Roots with a simple movement
      • 4.1.3Group 3: Roots with repeated hand-internal movement
      • 4.1.4Group 4: Roots with path movement
      • 4.1.5Group 5: Pairs with no apparent distinction
    • 4.2Differences related to the duration of the articulation
    • 4.3Differences related to the non-manual markers (NMMs)
    • 4.4Differences related to the encyclopedic content of the root
    • 4.5Interim conclusions
  • 5.An exo-skeletal account of the N-V distinction in LSC
    • 5.1Theoretical background: The syntactic approach of Borer
    • 5.2The role of movement from an exo-skeletal perspective
    • 5.3The role of non-manual markers
      • 5.3.1Mouthings
      • 5.3.2Mouth gestures
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives (CC BY-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 9 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00027.rib
References (38)
References
Abner, Natasha. 2017. What You See Is What You Get.Get: Surface transparency and ambiguity of nominalizing reduplication in American Sign Language. Syntax 20(4). 317–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2010. Argument structure and the syntax-morphology interface. A case study in Latin and other languages. Barcelona: University of Barcelona PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Bank, Richard, Onno Crasborn & Roeland van Hout. 2011. Variation in mouth actions with manual signs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Sign Language & Linguistics 14(2). 248–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bank, Richard. 2014. The ubiquity of mouthings in NGT. A corpus study. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring sense, Volume I: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. Structuring sense, Volume II: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Structuring sense, Volume III: Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The category of roots. In Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer & Florian Schäfer (eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, 112–148. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis, Colette Dubuisson & Anne-Marie Parisot. 2005. Categories in Quebec Sign Language: Reflections on categorization across modalities. In Henri Cohen & Claire Lefebvre (eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science, 381–398. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins-Ahlgren, Marianne. 1990. Word formation processes in New Zealand Sign Language. In Susan D. Fisher & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research: Linguistics, volume 11, 179–212. Chicago: University of Chicago 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
Crasborn, Onno & Els van der Kooij. 2013. The phonology of focus in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Journal of Linguistics 491. 515–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebbinghaus, Horst & Jens Hessmann. 2001. Sign language as multidimensional communication: Why manual signs, mouthings, and mouth gestures are three different things. In Penny Boyes-Braem & Rachel Sutton-Spence (eds.), The hands are the head of the mouth: The mouth as articulator in sign languages, 133–152. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Morris Halle. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken & Haike Jacobs (eds.), Proceedings of Going Romance 2003, 59–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gras Ferrer, Victòria. 2006. La Comunidad Sorda como comunidad lingüística: panorama sociolingüístico de las lenguas de signos en España. Barcelona: University of Barcelona PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hunger, Barbara. 2006. Noun/verb pairs in Austrian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 9(1/2). 71–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der. 1993. Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology 10(2). 209–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 2001. Nouns and verbs in Australian Sign Language: An open and shut case? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 6(4). 235–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim. 2009. Parts of speech in Russian Sign Language. The role of iconicity and economy. Sign Language & Linguistics 12(2). 161–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewin, Dona & Adam Schembri. 2011. Mouth gestures in British Sign Language: A case study of tongue protrusion in BSL narratives. Sign Language & Linguistics 14(1). 94–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moody, Bill. 1983. La langue des signes. Paris: Ellipses.Google Scholar
Navarrete-González, Alexandra. 2016. Focus constructions in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Pizzuto, Elena & Serena Corazza. 1996. Noun morphology in Italian Sign Language. Lingua 981. 169–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rainò, Päivi. 2001. Mouthings and mouth gestures in Finnish Sign Language (FinSL). In Penny Boyes-Braem & Rachel Sutton-Spence (eds.), The hands are the head of the mouth: The mouth as articulator in sign languages, 41–50. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ribera-Llonc, Eulàlia. 2015. La categoria verb en la llengua de signes catalana (LSC). Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and non-linearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schreurs, Linda. 2006. The distinction between formally and semantically related noun-verb pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands/NGT. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam MA thesis.Google Scholar
Schwager, Waldemar & Ulrike Zeshan. 2008. Word classes in sign languages: criteria and classifications. Studies in Language 32(3). 509–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Supalla, Ted & Elissa L. Newport. 1978. How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In Patricia Siple (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 91–131. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Penny Boyes Braem. 2001. Introduction. In Penny Boyes-Braem & Rachel Sutton-Spence (eds.), The hands are the head of the mouth: The mouth as articulator in sign languages, 1–7. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Benice Woll. 1999. The linguistics of British Sign Language. An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinson, David P., Robin L. Thompson, Robert Skinner, Neil Fox & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2010. The hands and mouth do not always slip together in British Sign Language. Psychological Science 21(8). 1158–1167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voghel, Amélie. 2005. Phonologically identical noun-verb pairs in Quebec Sign Language (LSQ): form and context. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 251. 68–75.Google Scholar
Vogt-Svendsen, Marit. 1983. Positions and movements of the mouth in Norwegian Sign Language. In Jim Kyle & Bencie Woll (eds.), Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language, 85–96. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
. 2001. A comparison of mouth gestures and mouthings in Norwegian Sign Language (NSL). In Penny Boyes-Braem & Rachel Sutton-Spence (eds.), The hands are the head of the mouth: The mouth as articulator in sign languages, 9–40. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar