Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 27:2 (2024) ► pp.137–167

Doubling in Hong Kong Sign Language

ORCID logo | The Chinese University of Hong Kong
The present paper provides a copy-movement analysis for doubling in Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL). HKSL allows for the doubling of heads and phrases in an XYX pattern with the doubled element occurring clause-finally. I argue that doubled elements undergo A’-movement into Spec,FocP, attracted by a focus-feature on Foc0. The moved element then fuses with the abstract focus feature head of FocP and becomes morphologically distinct from the lower element. This research provides a uniform account of two related phenomena, namely doubling and right dislocation, by considering head-to-spec movement. Finally, doubling in HKSL has not been previously described, and therefore my account adds to the typological picture of doubling in sign and spoken languages. This is especially important because HKSL allows for the doubling of both heads and phrases, which sets it apart from earlier accounts on doubling in other sign languages.
Keywords: doubling, focus-prominence, head-to-spec movement, Hong Kong Sign Language, right dislocation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Descriptive data analysis
    • 2.1Clause-internal doubling
    • 2.2 index doubling
    • 2.3Clause doubling vs. clause repetition
    • 2.4Doubled elements
    • 2.5Phonetic and morphological modifications
    • 2.6Interim discussion
  • 3.Formal analysis
    • 3.1Island constraints
    • 3.2Head-to-spec movement
    • 3.3Mood phrase
    • 3.4Index doubling
    • 3.5Interim discussion
    • 3.6A uniform account of doubling and right dislocation
    • 3.7A comparison with Petronio & Lillo-Martin (1997)
  • 4.HKSL as a focus-prominent language and other topics for future research
    • 4.1EPP in FocP
    • 4.2The semantic and pragmatic differences between doubling and RD
    • 4.3HKSL doubling is neither identificational focus nor emphatic focus
    • 4.4Is HKSL Spec,FocP always filled?
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.23004.koe
References (63)
References
Aarons, Debra, Ben Bahan, Judy Kegl & Carol Neidle. 1992. Clause structure and a tier for grammatical marking in American Sign Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 15(2). 103–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, Olaf Koeneman & Marika Lekakou. 2010. Syntactic doubling and the structure of wh-chains. Linguistics 461. 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bos, Heleen. 1995. Pronoun copy in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Heleen Bos & Trude Schermer (eds.), Sign language research 1994: Proceedings of the Fourth European Congress on Sign Language Research, 121–147. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5(3). 167–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branchini, Chiara, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati & Carlo Geraci. 2013. Wh-duplication in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sign Language & Linguistics 16(2). 157–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bross, Fabian. 2020. The clausal syntax of German Sign Language: a cartographic approach (Open Generative Syntax 5). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo, Carlo Geraci & Sandro Zucchi. 2009. Another way to mark syntactic dependencies: the case for right-peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language 85(2). 278–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Luis Vicente. 2013. Verb doubling in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 221. 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheung, Lawrence Yam-Leung. 2015. Bi-clausal sluicing approach to dislocation copying in Cantonese. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2(2). 227–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1992. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory (= MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Els van der Kooij, Johan Ros & Helen de Hoop. 2009. Topic agreement in NGT (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Linguistic Review 261. 355–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É Kiss, Katalin. 2001. Discourse configurationality. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raibler (eds.), Language typology and language universals: an international handbook, vol. 2, 1442–1455. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan. 1996. The role of agreement and auxiliaries in sign language. Lingua 981. 103–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Wynne Janis. 1992. License to derive: resolving conflicts between syntax and morphology in ASL. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Yuji Takano. 1998. Symmetry in syntax: merge and emerge. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 71. 27–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes K., John Drury & Juan Carlos Castillo. 2000. No more EPP. In Roger Billerey & Brook Danielle Lillehaugen (eds.), WCCFL 19 Proceedings, 153–166. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor, & Adam Schembri. 2007. Australian Sign Language: an introduction to sign language linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kandybowicz, Jason. 2007. On fusion and multiple copy spell-out: the case of verbal repetition. In Norbert Corver & Jairo Nunes (eds.), Copy theory of movement, 119–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kandybowicz, Jason & Mark Baker. 2003. On directionality and the structure of the verb phrase: evidence from Nupe. Syntax 6(2). 115–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim. 2012. Doubling in RSL and NGT: towards a unified explanation. In Evan Cohen (ed.), Proceedings of IATL 2011 ( MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 65), 57–81. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
. 2014. Information structure in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.
. 2015. Topics and topic prominence in two sign languages. Journal of Pragmatics 871. 156–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Information structure in sign languages: evidence from Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 251. 209–257.Google Scholar
Lee, Tsz Ming. 2017. Defocalization in Cantonese right dislocation. Gengo Kenkyu 1521. 59–87.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In Charles N. Li & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Subject and topic, 456–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott. 1980. American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1990. Parameters for questions: evidence from wh-movement in ASL. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: theoretical issues, 211–222. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Ronice Müller de Quadros. 2004. Focus constructions in American Sign Language and Lingua de Sinais Brasileira. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: selected papers from TISLR 2004, 161–176. Seedorf: Signum.Google Scholar
Martins, Ana Maria. 2007. Double realisation of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation. In Norbert Corver & Jairo Nunes (eds.), Copy theory of movement, 78–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsuoka, Kazuki. 1997. Verb raising in American Sign Language. Lingua 1031. 127–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 371. 69–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 321. 303–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo & Ronice Müller de Quadros. 2006. Duplication of wh-elements in Brazilian Sign Language. In Leah Batemen & Cherlon Ussery (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the North East Linguistic Society, 463–478. Amherst, MA: GLSA UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
. 2008. Phonetically realized traces in American Sign Language and Brazilian Sign Language. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: selected papers from TISLR 2004, 177–190. Seedorf: Signum.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language ( Outstanding dissertations in Linguistics ). Garland: New York.
Pan, Victor Junnan. 2022. Deriving head-final order in the peripheral domain of Chinese. Linguistic Inquiry 53(1). 121–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: causes and consequences. In Michael J. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petronio, Karen. 1991. A focus position in ASL. In Jonathan Bobaljik & T. Bures (eds.), Papers from the 3rd Student Conference in Linguistics 1991 ( MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 14), 211–225. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
. 1993. Clause structure in American Sign Language. Seattle, WA: University of Washington PhD dissertation.
Petronio, Karen & Diane Lillo-Martin. 1997. WH-movement and the position of Spec-CP: evidence from American Sign Language. Language 73(1). 18–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quadros, Ronice Müller de. 1999. Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. Rio Grande do Sul: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul PhD dissertation.
Richards, Norvin. 2003. Why there is an EPP. Gengo Kenkyu 1231. 221–256.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luizi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2011. Head movement and the minimalist program. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 195–219. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stickles, Elise. 2013. Focus constructions in ASL: evidence from pseudoclefting and doubling. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19(1), Article 24. 207–216.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 1994. C-selection as feature checking. Studia Linguistica 481. 133–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sze, Felix. 2004. Blinks and intonational phrasing in Hong Kong Sign Language. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: selected papers from TISLR 2004, 83–107. Seedorf: Signum.Google Scholar
. 2012. Right dislocated pronominal in Hong Kong Sign Language. Journal of Pragmatics 441. 1949–1965. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Is Hong Kong Sign Language a topic-prominent language? Linguistics 53(4). 809–876. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, Gladys & Felix Sze. 2002. Nominal expressions in Hong Kong Sign Language: does modality make a difference? In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 296–320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torigoe, Takashi. 1994. Resumptive X structure in Japanese Sign Language. In Inger Ahlgren, Brita Bergman & Mary Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure ( Papers from the 5th International Symposium on Sign Language Research, Vol. 1 ), 187–198. Durham: ISLA.Google Scholar
Toyoshima, Takashi. 2001a. Head-to-spec movement and dynamic economy. Cornell University PhD dissertation.
. 2001b. Head-to-spec movement. In Galina M. Alexandrova & Olga Arnaudova (eds.), Minimalist parameter: Selected papers from the open linguistics forum, Ottawa 21–23 March 1997, 115–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa deMena. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
Van Gijn, Ingeborg. 2004. The quest for syntactic dependency: Sentential complementation in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation (LOT Dissertation Series, No. 89).
Vicente, Luis. 2009. An alternative to remnant movement for partial predicate fronting. Syntax 12(2). 158–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie. 1994. Stress, focus and extrametricality in ASL. In Papers presented at the Linguistic Society of America, Boston.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Koenders, Emily
2024. The count-mass distinction in Hong Kong Sign Language: an intra- and cross-modal comparison. Linguistics 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.