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


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 06 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20.1.03oom

Full-text

Iconicity in argument structure
References

References

Alexiadou, Artemis & Gianina Iordăchioaia
2014 The psych causative alternation. Lingua 148:53–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arad, Maya
2002 Universal features and language-particular morphemes. In Artemis Alexiadou (ed.), Theoretical approaches to universals. Vol. 49, 15–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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
[ p. 104 ]
Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi
1988 Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 291–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari
2004 Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22. 743–810. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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: http://​ru​.nl​/corpusngt/.
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 18. 17–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Lynn
1975 Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Language 51. 940–061. CrossrefGoogle 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 17. 1258–1284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 105 ]
Grushkin, Donald A.
1998 Linguistic aspects of metaphorical expressions of anger in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 1(2). 143–168. CrossrefGoogle 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 25. 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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
[ p. 106 ]
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 43. 531–563. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
2013 Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 309–343. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quer, Josep
2005 Context shift and indexical variables in sign languages. In Effi Georgala & Jonathan Howell (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 15, 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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 22. 299–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe, Jonathan Lamberton & Mirko Santoro
2013 Iconic variables. Linguistic and Philosophy 36. 91–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 107 ]
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taub, Sarah F.
2001 Language from the body. Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr.
1990 Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B.
2003 Representations of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistics Society 39. 354–368.Google Scholar
2010 The semantics-phonology interface. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 355–380. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Alexander
2015 Arguments in syntax and semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winston, Charlotte
2013 Psychological verb constructions in American Sign Language. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

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. Crossref 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. Crossref 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 Crossref 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. Crossref 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. Crossref logo
Kimmelman, Vadim
2018. Basic argument structure in Russian Sign Language. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1 Crossref 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. Crossref logo
Kwok, Lily, Stephanie Berk & Diane Lillo-Martin
2020. Person vs. locative agreement. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1-2 ► pp. 17 ff. Crossref logo
Oomen, Marloes
2021. Iconicity as a mediator between verb semantics and morphosyntactic structure. Sign Language & Linguistics 24:1 ► pp. 132 ff. Crossref logo
Oomen, Marloes & Vadim Kimmelman
2019. Body-anchored verbs and argument omission in two sign languages. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 Crossref 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. Crossref logo
van Gelderen, Elly
2019. Stability and Change in Intransitive Argument Structure. Open Linguistics 5:1 ► pp. 217 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 november 2021. 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.