Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech
- Part I Phonological structure in signed languages
- Part II Gesture and iconicity in sign and speech
- Part III Syntax in sign: Few or no effects of modality
- 10 Where are all the modality effects?
- 11 Applying morphosyntactic and phonological readjustment rules in natural language negation
- 12 Nominal expressions in Hong Kong Sign Language: Does modality make a difference?
- Part IV Using space and describing space: Pronouns, classifiers, and verb agreement
- Index
- References
10 - Where are all the modality effects?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech
- Part I Phonological structure in signed languages
- Part II Gesture and iconicity in sign and speech
- Part III Syntax in sign: Few or no effects of modality
- 10 Where are all the modality effects?
- 11 Applying morphosyntactic and phonological readjustment rules in natural language negation
- 12 Nominal expressions in Hong Kong Sign Language: Does modality make a difference?
- Part IV Using space and describing space: Pronouns, classifiers, and verb agreement
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Sign languages are produced and perceived in the visual modality, while spoken languages are produced and perceived in the auditory modality. Does this difference in modality have any effect on the structures of these two types of languages? Much of the research on the structure of sign languages has mentioned this issue, but it is far from resolved. To some authors, the differences between sign languages and spoken languages are paramount, because the study of “modality effects” is a contribution which sign language research uniquely can make. To others, the similarities between sign languages and spoken languages are most important, for they can tell us how certain properties of linguistic systems transcend modality and are, therefore, truly universal. Of course, both of these goals are worthy, and this book is testimony to the fruits that such endeavors can yield.
In this chapter I address the question of modality effects by first examining the architecture of the language faculty. By laying out my assumptions about how language works in the general sense, predictions about the locus of modality effects can be made. I then take up an issue that is a strong candidate for a modality effect: the use of space for indicating reference in pronouns and verbs. I review some of the issues that have been discussed with respect to this phenomenon, and offer an analysis that is in keeping with the theoretical framework set up at the beginning.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages , pp. 241 - 262Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2002
References
Ahlgren, Inger. 1990. Deictic pronouns in Swedish and Swedish Sign Language. In Theoretical issues in sign language research, Vol. 1: Linguistics, ed. Susan Fischer and Patricia Siple, 167–174. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, and Wendy Sandler. In submission. Universal and particular aspects of sign language morphology
Bahan, Benjamin. 1996. Non-manual realization of agreement in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston, MA
Bos, Heleen. 1994. An auxiliary in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Perspectives on sign language structure: Papers from the 5thInternational Symposium on sign language research, ed. Inger Ahlgren, Brita Bergman and Mary Brennan, 37–53. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association, University of Durham
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. Essays on form and interpretation. New York: North-Holland
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
DeMateo, Asa. 1977. Visual imagery and visual analogues in American Sign Language. In On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language, ed. Lynn Friedman, 109–136. New York: Academic Press
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language. Hamburg: Signum-Verlag
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1995. Point of view expressed through shifters. In Language, gesture, and space, ed. Karen Emmorey and Judy Reilly, 133–154. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Fischer, Susan D. 1974. Sign language and linguistic universals. Paper presented at Actes du Colloque Franco-Allemand de Grammaire Transformationnelle, Tübingen
Fischer, Susan D. 1996. The role of agreement and auxiliaries in sign language. Lingua 98:103–120
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Janis, Wynne. 1995. A crosslinguistic perspective on ASL verb agreement. In Language, gesture, and space, ed. Karen Emmorey and Judy Reilly, 195–223. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Japan Sign Language Research Institute (Nihon syuwa kerkyuusho), ed. 1997. Japanese Sign Language dictionary (Nihongo-syuwa diten). Tokyo: Japan Federation of the Deaf
Liddell, Scott K. 1990. Four functions of a locus: Reexamining the structure of space in ASL. In Sign language research: Theoretical issues, ed. Ceil Lucas, 176–198. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press
Liddell, Scott K. 1994. Tokens and surrogates. In Perspectives on sign language structure: Papers from the 5thInternational Symposium on Sign Language Research, ed. Inger Ahlgren, Brita Bergman and Mary Brennan, 105–119. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association, University of Durham
Liddell, Scott K. 1995. Real, surrogate, and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL. In Language, gesture, and space, ed. Karen Emmorey and Judy Reilly, 19–41. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Liddell, Scott K. 2000. Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away from agreement. In The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, ed. Karen Emmorey and Harlan Lane, 303–320. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
. 1986. Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:415–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1991. Universal grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the null argument parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1995. The point of view predicate in American Sign Language. In Language, gesture, and space, ed. Karen Emmorey and Judy Reilly, 155–170. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1997. The modular effects of sign language acquisition. In Relations of language and thought: The view from sign language and deaf children, ed. Marc Marschark, Patricia Siple, Diane Lillo-Martin, Ruth Campbell and Victoria Everhart, 62–109. New York: Oxford University Press
Lillo-Martin, Diane, and Edward S. Klima. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Theoretical issues in sign language research, Vol. 1: Linguistics, ed. Susan D. Fischer and Patricia Siple, 191–210. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Loew, Ruth. 1984. Roles and reference in American Sign Language: A developmental perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, MN
Mathur, Gaurav. 2000. Verb agreement as alignment in signed languages. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA
Mathur, Gaurav and Christian Rathmann. 2001. Why not GIVE-US: an articulatory constraint in signed languages. In Signed languages: Discoveries from international research, ed. V. Dively, M. Metzger, S. Taub and A. Baer, 1–26. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press
Meier, Richard P. 1982. Icons, analogues, and morphemes: The acquisition of verb agreement in ASL. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, CA
Meier, Richard P. 1990. Person deixis in American Sign Language. In Theoretical issues in sign language research, ed. Susan D. Fischer and Patricia Siple, 175–190. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Meier, Richard P. 2002. The acquisition of verb agreement: Pointing out arguments for the linguistic status of agreement in signed languages. In Current developments in the study of signed language acquisition, ed. Gary Morgan and Bencie Woll. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Meir, Irit. 1998. Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Benjamin Bahan, and Robert G. Lee. 2000. The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Padden, Carol A. 1983. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, CA
Padden, Carol A. 1990. The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. In Sign language research: Theoretical issues, ed. Ceil Lucas, 118–132. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press
Poizner, Howard, Edward S. Klima, and Ursula Bellugi. 1987. What the hands reveal about the brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Poulin, Christine and Christopher Miller. 1995. On narrative discourse and point of view in Quebec Sign Language. In Language, gesture, and space, ed. Karen Emmorey and Judy Reilly, 117–131. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Quadros, Ronice Müller de. 1999. Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul
Rathmann, Christian. 2000. The optionality of Agreement Phrase: Evidence from signed languages. Masters report, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in ASL phonology. Dordrecht: Foris
Sandler, Wendy. 1993. Sign language and modularity. Lingua 89:315–351
Sandler, Wendy, and Diane Lillo-Martin. 2001. Natural sign languages. In The handbook of linguistics, ed. Mark Aronoff and Jamie Rees-Miller, 533–562. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Senghas, Ann. 2000. The development of early spatial morphology in Nicaraguan Sign Language. In The Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. S. C. Howell, S. A. Fish and T. Keith-Lucas, 696–707. Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press
Senghas, Ann, Marie Coppola, Elissa Newport, and Ted Supalla. 1997. Argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language: The emergence of grammatical devices. In The Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. E. Hughes, M. Hughes and A. Greenhill, 550–561. Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press
Smith, Wayne. 1990. Evidence for auxiliaries in Taiwan Sign Language. In Theoretical issues in sign language research, Volume 1: Linguistics, ed. Susan D. Fischer and Patricia Siple, 211–228. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Supalla, Ted. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, CA
van der Hulst, Harry. 2000. Modularity and modality in phonology. In Phonological knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues, ed. Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr and Gerard Docherty. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 10
- Cited by