Structure of the SignGram COST Action IS1006

Glossa: a journal of general linguistics

Relativization is a robust subordinating type across languages, displaying important typological variability concerning the position of the nominal head that the relative clause modifies, and sign languages are no exception. It has been widely assumed since Keenan & Comrie (1977) that the subject position is more accessible to relativization than object and oblique positions. The main aim of this paper is to investigate the extension of this famous generalization both across modalities (sign as opposed to spoken languages) and across relativization typologies (internally as opposed to externally headed relatives), and to verify how it interacts with age of first language exposure. We here report the results of a sentence-to-picture matching task assessing the comprehension of subject and object relative clauses (RCs) in three sign languages: French Sign Language (LSF), Catalan Sign Language (LSC), and Italian Sign Language (LIS). The results are that object RCs are never easier to c...

Linguistic Typology, 2017

The expression of standard negation by means of manual and/or non-manual markers has been described for a considerable number of sign languages. Typological comparisons have revealed an intriguing dichotomy: while some sign languages require a manual negative element in negative clauses (manual-dominant sign languages), in others negation can be realized by a non-manual marker alone (in particular a headshake; non-manual-dominant sign languages). We are here adding data from Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) to the picture, and we demonstrate that NGT belongs to the latter group. Still, detailed comparison suggests that NGT patterns differently from other non-manual-dominant sign languages, thereby improving our understanding of the typological variation in this domain. A novel contribution of the present study is that it is based on naturalistic corpus data, showing more variation than often found in elicitation and grammaticality judgment studies of sign languages, but also p...

Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2021

This paper presents a study of French Sign Language (LSF) temporal constructions. While we know from spoken language research that temporal constructions can be expressed through a variety of syntactic strategies such as subordination, juxtaposition, and coordination, finding their equivalent in sign languages is often a challenge due to the absence of overt complementizers and other function words such as coordinators. This study explores temporal constructions in LSF and frames them within a broad typological perspective. We show that LSF temporal clauses are very different from those of Italian Sign language (LIS) studied by Aristodemo (2017). Specifically, LSF temporal constructions are composed of two coordinated clauses and the temporal marker is integrated into the second conjunct. LIS temporal clauses, on the other hand, are composed of a main and a subordinated clause. This finding shows that the typological categories found in spoken language are also relevant for sign lan...

Imperatives in four European sign languages.

2007

Glossa: a journal of general linguistics

Investigating the syntactic structure of utterances with multiple predicates in sign languages requires a clear understanding of how many finite and infinitival clauses they contain and which syntactic dependencies exist between them. Since the sign language literature currently lacks a standardized methodology for identifying clause boundaries, this paper discusses syntactico-semantic diagnostics of clausehood and clause size and analyzes their applicability to American Sign Language (ASL) and German Sign Language (DGS). First, I discuss tests that distinguish coordinated clauses from dependent clause structures; specifically negation, A’-movement, and subject pronoun copy. Limitations of wh- and topic fronting as clausehood diagnostics are identified and a modified subject pronoun copy test is proposed. Determining whether a given utterance contains coordinated or dependent clauses is only half the battle, however; we also want to know the approximate “size” of the constituent an ...

A Matter of Complexity, 2016

Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2018

The sign language phenomenon that some scholars refer to as " agreement " has triggered controversial discussions among sign language linguists. Crucially, it has been argued to display properties that are at odds with the notion of agreement in spoken languages. A thorough theoretical investigation of the phenomenon may thus add to our understanding of the nature and limits of agreement in natural language. Previous analyses of the phenomenon can be divided into three groups: (i) gesture-based non-syntactic analyses, (ii) hybrid solutions combining syntactic and semantic agreement, and (iii) syntactic accounts under which agreement markers are reanalyzed as clitics. As opposed to these accounts, we argue in this paper that sign language agreement does represent an instance of agreement proper, as familiar from spoken language, that is fully governed by syntactic principles. We propose an explicit formal analysis couched within the Minimalist Program that is modality-independent and only involves mechanisms that have been independently proposed for the analysis of agreement in spoken language. Our proposal is able to capture the (apparent) peculiarities of sign language agreement such as the distinction of verb types (only some verbs show agreement), the behavior of backwards verbs (verbs displaying agreement reversal), and the distribution of the agreement auxiliary. However, we suggest that the combination of mechanisms is modality-specific, that is, agreement in sign language, and in German Sign Language in particular, involves modality-independent ingredients , but uses a modality-specific recipe which calls for a (somewhat) unusual combination of independently motivated mechanisms.

Glossa: a journal of general linguistics

The sign language phenomenon that some scholars refer to as "agreement" has triggered controversial discussions among sign language linguists. Crucially, it has been argued to display properties that are at odds with the notion of agreement in spoken languages. A thorough theoretical investigation of the phenomenon may thus add to our understanding of the nature and limits of agreement in natural language. Previous analyses of the phenomenon can be divided into three groups: (i) gesture-based non-syntactic analyses, (ii) hybrid solutions combining syntactic and semantic agreement, and (iii) syntactic accounts under which agreement markers are reanalyzed as clitics. As opposed to these accounts, we argue in this paper that sign language agreement does represent an instance of agreement proper, as familiar from spoken language, that is fully governed by syntactic principles. We propose an explicit formal analysis couched within the Minimalist Program that is modality-independent and only involves mechanisms that have been independently proposed for the analysis of agreement in spoken language. Our proposal is able to capture the (apparent) peculiarities of sign language agreement such as the distinction of verb types (only some verbs show agreement), the behavior of backwards verbs (verbs displaying agreement reversal), and the distribution of the agreement auxiliary. However, we suggest that the combination of mechanisms is modality-specific, that is, agreement in sign language, and in German Sign Language in particular, involves modality-independent ingredients, but uses a modality-specific recipe which calls for a (somewhat) unusual combination of independently motivated mechanisms.

SignGram Blueprint, 2017

The SignGram Blueprint is a tool designed to guide language specialists and linguists as they write a reference grammar of a sign language. This tool consists of two main components: the Checklist and the Manual. The Checklist contains a list of linguistic constructions and phenomena that a sign language grammar should contain. Thus, it can be considered as a suggestion for the table of contents of the reference grammar to be written. The Manual, on the other hand, guides the grammar writer in four ways, by providing: (i) basic, background information on the linguistic constructions and phenomena listed in the Checklist; (ii) guidelines on how to identify and analyze these grammar points; (iii) suggestions for data elicitation techniques and materials; and (iv) relevant bibliographic information that the grammar writer can consult during his/her research. The Manual also contains a separate sub-component, the Glossary, which provides the definitions of certain linguistic terms used in the Manual. In the following, we describe in more detail how the grammar writer can use the components of the Blueprint. However, before we move on to that, we would like to explain the context in which the Blueprint has been created, the reasons that lead us to think it is needed, and the choices we have made while writing it. We start by briefly discussing what grammar writing involves and then continue with describing the structure of the Blueprint in more detail.