Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 20:1 (2017) ► pp.55–108

Iconicity in argument structure

Psych-verbs in Sign Language of the Netherlands

 | University of Amsterdam
A long tradition of psych-verb research in spoken languages has demonstrated that they constitute a class of their own, both semantically and syntactically. This study presents a description and analysis of psych-verbs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) in order to investigate whether this verb type displays comparable peculiarities in sign languages. The study is primarily based on data from the Corpus NGT (Crasborn et al. 2008). Firstly, the data indicate that all psych-verbs in NGT select a subject Experiencer. Secondly, it is shown that there is an iconic property of psych-verbs in NGT that lays bare a conceptual link between psychological states and locative relations: body-anchoring. The location singled out by the place of articulation of a psych-verb is associated with the metaphoric location of an emotion, or a type of behavior associated with the expression of an emotion. It is furthermore argued that the body as a whole iconically represents the container of a psychological state. The body is analyzed as a possessive determiner that may receive a first person specification as a consequence of body-anchoring. The data support such an analysis, as they suggest that sentences without an overt Experiencer yield a default first person interpretation. Thus, it is claimed that iconicity affects sentence structure and as such should be incorporated into the formal grammar system. Given that body-anchoring is the source of the effects mentioned above, it may be hypothesized that psych-verbs in NGT do not constitute a class of its own, but rather belong to a larger class of iconically motivated body-anchored verbs that share the properties mentioned above.
Keywords: psych-verbs, Experiencer, iconicity, body-anchoring, Sign Language of the Netherlands, corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Psych-verbs in spoken languages
    • 1.2Psych-verbs in sign languages
    • 1.3Some terminology and definitions
    • 1.4Aims of the study
  • 2.Methodology of the corpus study
    • 2.1Methodology
    • 2.2Challenges and limitations
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Lexical form of NGT psych-verbs
    • 3.2Examples with an Experiencer argument
      • 3.2.1Third person Experiencer arguments
      • 3.2.2First person Experiencer arguments
    • 3.3Examples with an Experiencer and a Theme argument
      • 3.3.1 love, hate, and miss
      • 3.3.2Other psych-verbs
      • 3.3.3Final remarks and summary
    • 3.4Psych-verbs in combination with aux-op
  • 4.Grammaticality judgment task
    • 4.1Methodology
    • 4.2Results
  • 5.Theoretical analysis
    • 5.1Two subclasses of psych-verbs
    • 5.2The body as an argument of the verb
      • 5.2.1‘Body as subject’
      • 5.2.2‘Experiencer as location’
      • 5.2.3Does the body represent the Experiencer?
    • 5.3The body as part of a locative adjunct
    • 5.4The role of the body
      • 5.4.1The paradigm
      • 5.4.2Full representation of psych-verb constructions in NGT
      • 5.4.3An iconically motivated variable
  • 6.Conclusions and discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 6 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20.1.03oom
References (70)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Gianina Iordăchioaia. 2014. The psych causative alternation. Lingua 1481:53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arad, Maya. 2002. Universal features and language-particular morphemes. In Artemis Alexiadou (ed.), Theoretical approaches to universals. Vol. 491, 15–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Charlotte & Carol A. Padden. 1978. Focusing on the non-manual components of ASL. In Patricia Siple (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 27–57. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 61. 291–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 221. 743–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennis, Hans. 2004. Unergative adjectives and psych verbs. In Artemis Alexiadou & Martin Everaert (eds.), Studies in unaccusativity: The syntax-lexicon interface, 84–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergman, Brita. 1980. On localization in the Swedish Sign Language. In Inger Ahlgren & Brita Bergman (eds.), Papers from the First International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 81–92. Stockholm: Swedish Deaf Association.Google Scholar
Bos, Heleen F. 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, 37–53. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
1995. Pronoun copy in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Heleen F. Bos & Trude Schermer (eds.), Research 1994: Proceedings of the Fourth European Congress on Sign Language Research, 121–147. Hamburg: SignumGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coerts, Jane. 1994. Constituent order in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Mary Brennan & Graham H. Turner (eds.), Word-order issues in sign language, 47–70. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Costello, Brendan. 2015. Language and modality. Effects of the use of space in the agreement system of lengua de signos Española (Spanish Sign Language). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Ellen van der Kooij & Johan Ros. 2012. On the weight of phrase-final prosodic words in a sign language. Sign Language & Linguistics 15(1):. 11–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Inge Zwitserlood & Johan Ros. 2008. Het Corpus NGT. Een digitaal open access corpus van filmpjes en annotaties van de Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen. URL: [URL].
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Bonnie Gough. 1978. Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 181. 17–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Lynn. 1975. Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Language 511. 940–061. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gijn, Ingeborg van. 2004. The quest for syntactic dependency. Sentential complementation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grose, Donovan. 2008. The geometry of events: Evidence from English and ASL. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Grose, Donovan, Ronnie B. Wilbur, & Katharina Schalber. 2007. Events and telicity in classifier predicates: A reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua 171. 1258–1284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grushkin, Donald A. 1998. Linguistic aspects of metaphorical expressions of anger in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 1(2). 143–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Healy, Christina. 2015. Construing affective events in ASL. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Iwata, Seizi. 1995. The distinctive character of psych-verbs as causatives. Linguistic Analysis 251. 95–120.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy. 1990. Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL lexicon. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Theoretical issues in ASL linguistics, 149–175. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Jeremy & Valentina Aristodemo. 2015. Iconicity in the grammar: Pluractionality in French Sign Language. Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 20. University of Tübingen, Tübingen.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Zoltán Kövecses. 1987. The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In Dorothy Holland & Naomi Quinn (eds.), Cultural models in language and thought, 195–221. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1995. The point of view predicate in American Sign Language. In Karen Emmorey & Judy S. Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 155–170. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2012. Utterance reports and constructed action. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 365–387. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward S. Klima. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, volume 1: Linguistics, 175–190. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.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
Lucas, Ceil, Robert Bayley & Clayton Valli. 2001. Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, Vol. 7: Sociolinguistic variation in ASL. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Matsuki, Keiko. 1995. A cognitive model of anger in Japanese language. In John R. Taylor & Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world, 137–152. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Meier, Richard P. 1990. Person deixis in American Sign Language. In Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, volume 1: Linguistics, 191–210. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 1998. Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 431. 531–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff. 2013. Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 309–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oomen, Marloes. 2016. The marking of two aspectual distinctions in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Linguistics in Amsterdam 9(2), 30–55.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1986. Verbs and role-shifting in American Sign Language. In Carol Padden (ed.), Proceedings of the fourth national symposium on sign language research and teaching, 44–57. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.Google Scholar
. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Heleen Bos. 2008. Enkelvoudige zinnen. In Anne Baker, Beppie van den Bogaerde, Roland Pfau & Trude Schermer (eds.), Gebarentaalwetenschap – een inleiding, 100–124. Deventer: Van Tricht.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Josep Quer. 2010. Nonmanuals: Their prosodic and grammatical roles. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge Language Surveys), 381–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2005. Context shift and indexical variables in sign languages. In Effi Georgala & Jonathan Howell (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 151, 152–168. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
. 2009. Agreement and argument structure in SLs: A case study in LSC psychological predications. Paper presented at the 21st European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information. Bordeaux, July 2009.
. 2011. Reporting and quoting in signed discourse. In Elke Brendel, Jörg Meibauer & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Understanding quotation, 277–302. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rathmann, Christian G. 2005. Event structure in American Sign Language. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2001. Experiencing derivations. In Rachel Hastings, Brandan Jackson & Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 11, 365–387. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapountzaki, Galini. 2012. Agreement auxiliaries. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 204–227. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schalber, Katharina. 2004. Phonological visibility of event structure in Austrian Sign Language: A comparison of ASL and ÖGS. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2014. Iconic features. Natural Language Semantics 221. 299–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe, Jonathan Lamberton & Mirko Santoro. 2013. Iconic variables. Linguistic and Philosophy 361. 91–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sloetjes, Han & Peter Wittenburg. 2008. Annotation by category – ELAN and ISO DCR. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008).Google Scholar
Steinbach, Markus & Roland Pfau. 2007. Grammaticalization of auxiliaries in sign language. In Pamela Perniss, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Visible variation. Comparative studies on sign language structure, 303–339. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll. 1999. The linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body. Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 661. 221–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2003. Representations of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistics Society 391. 354–368.Google Scholar
2010. The semantics-phonology interface. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 355–380. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Alexander. 2015. Arguments in syntax and semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winston, Charlotte. 2013. Psychological verb constructions in American Sign Language. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Cited by (23)

Cited by 23 other publications

Bradley, Chuck & Ronnie Wilbur
2023. Visual Form and Event Semantics Predict Transitivity in Silent Gestures: Evidence for Compositionality. Cognitive Science 47:8 DOI logo
Khristoforova, Evgeniia
2023. Subject agreement in control and modal constructions in Russian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 26:1 ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Martín-Gascón, Beatriz, Reyes Llopis-García & Irene Alonso-Aparicio
2023. Does L2 assessment make a difference? Testing the empirical validity of applied cognitive linguistics in the acquisition of the Spanish/L2 psych-verb construction. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
van Boven, Cindy, Silke Hamann & Roland Pfau
2023. Nominal plurals in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Accounting for allomorphy and variation. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 8:1 DOI logo
Wehrmeyer, Ella
2023. Chapter 6. Verb classes in South African Sign Language. In Advances in Sign Language Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 108], ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
Bradley, Chuck, Evie A. Malaia, Jeffrey Mark Siskind, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Marcus Perlman
2022. Visual form of ASL verb signs predicts non-signer judgment of transitivity. PLOS ONE 17:2 ► pp. e0262098 ff. DOI logo
García-Miguel, José M. & María del Carmen Cabeza-Pereiro
2022. Argument and Verb Meaning Clustering From Expression Forms in LSE. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Jaber, Angélique, Caterina Donati & Carlo Geraci
2022. On the properties of null subjects in sign languages: the case of French Sign Language (LSF). The Linguistic Review 39:4 ► pp. 655 ff. DOI logo
Motamedi, Yasamin, Lucie Wolters, Danielle Naegeli, Simon Kirby & Marieke Schouwstra
2022. From improvisation to learning: How naturalness and systematicity shape language evolution. Cognition 228 ► pp. 105206 ff. DOI logo
Frederiksen, Anne Therese & Rachel I. Mayberry
2021. Implicit causality biases and thematic roles in American Sign Language. Behavior Research Methods 53:5 ► pp. 2172 ff. DOI logo
Oomen, Marloes
2021. Iconicity as a mediator between verb semantics and morphosyntactic structure. Sign Language & Linguistics 24:1 ► pp. 132 ff. DOI logo
Oomen, Marloes
2022. Recurring iconic mapping patterns within and across verb types in German Sign Language. In Iconicity in Cognition and across Semiotic Systems [Iconicity in Language and Literature, 18], ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
Stamp, Rose, Rama Novogrodsky & Sabrin Shaban-Rabah
2021. Argument omissions by deaf students in three languages and three modalities. First Language 41:5 ► pp. 646 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
Ergin, Rabia, Ann Senghas, Ray Jackendoff & Lila Gleitman
2020. Structural cues for symmetry, asymmetry, and non-symmetry in Central Taurus Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1-2 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Kimmelman, Vadim, Roland Pfau & Enoch O. Aboh
2020. Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38:2 ► pp. 539 ff. DOI logo
Kwok, Lily, Stephanie Berk & Diane Lillo-Martin
2020. Person vs. locative agreement. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1-2 ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Börstell, Carl, Tommi Jantunen, Vadim Kimmelman, Vanja de Lint, Johanna Mesch & Marloes Oomen
2019. Transitivity prominence within and across modalities. Open Linguistics 5:1 ► pp. 666 ff. DOI logo
Oomen, Marloes & Vadim Kimmelman
2019. Body-anchored verbs and argument omission in two sign languages. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 DOI logo
van Gelderen, Elly
2019. Stability and Change in Intransitive Argument Structure. Open Linguistics 5:1 ► pp. 217 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
Kimmelman, Vadim
2018. Basic argument structure in Russian Sign Language. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1 DOI logo
Kimmelman, Vadim
2022. Argument Structure in Sign Languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 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.