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. 171–207

Structural cues for symmetry, asymmetry, and non-symmetry in Central Taurus Sign Language

| Boğaziçi University
| Barnard College
| Tufts University
| University of Pennsylvania
We investigate how predicates expressing symmetry, asymmetry and non-symmetry are encoded in a newly emerging sign language, Central Taurus Sign Language (CTSL). We find that predicates involving symmetry (i.e., reciprocal and symmetrical actions) differ from those involving asymmetry (i.e., transitive) in their use of the morphological devices investigated here: body segmentation, mirror-image articulators and double perspective. Symmetrical predicates also differ from non-symmetrical ones (i.e., intransitive) in their use of mirror-image configuration. Furthermore, reciprocal actions are temporally sequenced within a linear structure, whereas symmetrical actions are not. Thus, our data reveal that CTSL expresses each type of action with a particular combination of linguistic devices to encode symmetry, asymmetry, and non-symmetry. Furthermore, differences in the use of these devices across age cohorts of CTSL suggest that some have become more conventionalized over time. The same semantic distinctions have been observed – though with different realization – in another emerging sign language, Nicaraguan Sign Language (NSL). This converging suggests that natural human language learning capacities include an expectation to distinguish symmetry, asymmetry and non-symmetry.
Keywords: symmetry, asymmetry, non-symmetry, emerging sign language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The language of symmetry
      • 1.1.1Mono-clausal strategies
      • 1.1.2Multi-clausal strategies
      • 1.1.3Morphological strategies
    • 1.2Syntactic realization of symmetry in sign languages
    • 1.3The focus of the current study
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials
    • 2.3Task
    • 2.4Coding procedure
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Temporal sequencing
    • 3.2Body segmentation
    • 3.3Mirroring
    • 3.4Single vs. double perspective
  • 4.Summary and discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00048.erg
References
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari
2004 Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(4). 743–810. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Börstell, Carl
2017 Object marking in the signed modality: verbal and nominal strategies in Swedish Sign Language and other sign languages. Stockholm: Stockholm University PhD dissertation. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Börstell, Carl, Ryan Lepic & Gal Belsitzman
2016 Articulatory plurality is a property of lexical plurals in sign language. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 39(2). 391–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dimitriadis, Alexis
2008 Irreducible symmetry in reciprocal constructions. In Ekkehard Konig & Volker Gast (Eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations, 5–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1979 Word meaning and Montague grammar: the semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTO. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dudis, Paul
2004 Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 223–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ergin, Rabia
2017 Central Taurus Sign Language: a unique vantage point into language emergence. Medford: Tufts University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Ergin, Rabia & Diane Brentari
2017 Hand shape preferences for nouns and verbs in Central Taurus Sign Language. In Maria LaMendola & Jennifer Scott (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 222–235. Medford, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Ergin, Rabia, Irit Meir, Deniz Ilkbaşaran, Carol Padden & Ray Jackendoff
2018 The development of argument structure in Central Taurus Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 18(4). 612–639. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ergin, Rabia, Ann Senghas, Ray Jackendoff & Lila Gleitman
2018 Structural cues for symmetry, asymmetry, and non-symmetry in Central Taurus Sign Language. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (EVOLANG XII).Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2008 Reciprocal constructions: towards a structural typology. In Ekkehard Konig & Volker Gast (Eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: theoretical and typological explorations, 33–103. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1972 Subjects, speakers, and roles. In Donald Davidson & Gilbert Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language, 1–24. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flaherty, Molly, Susan Goldin-Meadow, Ann Senghas, Marie Coppola & Lila Gleitman
2013 Animacy and verb classes in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
Gleitman, Lila
2017 Takes two to tango. Paper presented at the the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, London, UK.
Gleitman, Lila, Henry Gleitman, Carol Miller & Ruth Ostrin
1996 Similar, and similar concepts. Cognition 58(3). 321–376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, Lila
1965 Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language 41(2). 260–293. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2007 Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions, 2087–2115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo & Brenda Laca
2012 Verbal plurality and distributivity. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
2007 Basic patterns in a typology of reciprocity. Journées d’études sur la pluralité nominale et verbale. Retrieved from http://​archive​.sfl​.cnrs​.fr​/sites​/sfl​/IMG​/pdf​/KoenigWSpl07​.pdf
König, Ekkehard & Shigehiro Kokutani
2006 Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: Focus on German and Japanese. Linguistics 44(2). 271–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Jeremy & Valentina Aristodemo
2017 Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French Sign Language. Semantics and Pragmatics 101. 1–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1972 Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 11). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Loos, Cornelia
2017 The syntax and semantics of resultative constructions in Deutsche Gebärdensprache (DGS) and American Sign Language (ASL). Austin: University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marchese, Lynell
1986 The pronominal system of Godié. In Ursula Wieseman (Ed.), Pronominal systems, 217–256. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit
2010 The emergence of argument structure in two new sign languages. In Malka R. Hovav & Edit Doron (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax and event structure, 101–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Mark Aronoff, Carl Börstell, So-One Hwang, Deniz Ilkbasaran, Itamar Kastner, Ryan Lepic, Adi Lifshitz, Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler
2017 The effect of being human and the basis of grammatical word order: Insights from novel communication systems and young sign languages. Cognition 1581. 189–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Assaf Israel, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
2012 The influence of community on language structure: evidence from two young sign languages. Linguistic Variation 12(2). 247–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
2013 Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 309–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43(3). 531–563. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
2010 Emerging sign languages. In Marc Marschark & Patricia Elizabeth Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, Vol. 21, 267–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Gary, Rosalind Herman & Bencie Woll
2002 The development of complex verb constructions in British Sign Language. Journal of Child Language 29(3). 655–675. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.
2007 Encoding of the reciprocal meaning. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions, 147–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P., Emma Geniusiene & Zlatka Guentchéva
2007 Reciprocal constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nordlund, Sanna
2019 Agent defocusing in two-participant clauses in Finnish Sign Language. Glossa 4(1). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oomen, Marloes
2017 Iconicity in argument structure: Psych-verbs in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Sign Language & Linguistics 20(1). 55–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
2003 Optimal reciprocals in German Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 6(1). 3–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 Modality and meaning: Plurality of relations in German Sign Language. Lingua 1701. 69–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria
1996 Situation perspective: on the relations of thematic roles, discourse categories, and grammatical relations to figure and ground. In Adele Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 401–419. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian
2018 Language change across the lifespan. Annual Review of Linguistics 4(1). 297–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Senghas, Ann, Sotaro Kita & Asli Özyürek
2004 Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science 305(5691). 1779–1782. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Senghas, Ann, Marie Coppola, Elissa 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. Medford, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
2000 Towards a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos & Itamar Gati
2004 Studies of similarity. In Eldar Shafir (Ed.), Preference, belief, and similarity. Selected writings of Amos Tversky, 75–95. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike & Sibaji Panda
2011 Reciprocal constructions in Indo-Pakistani Sign Language. In Nicholas Evans, Alice Gaby, Stephen Levinson & Asifa Majid (Eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology, 91–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar