|
Debra Aarons (1994)
Aspects of the Syntax of American Sign
Language
Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston, MA.
Dissertation supervisor: Carol Neidle
This dissertation offers an analysis of the
syntactic structure of American Sign Language, within the
context of X'-theory. The internal structure of the
sentence is examined. Despite the difference in modality
between signed and spoken languages, one important
consequence of this analysis is the conclusion that the
basic syntactic structure of American Sign Language
conforms to the same fundamental pattern as other natural
languages that have been more thoroughly studied by
syntacticians.
The first chapter provides background information
about the context for linguistic research on American
Sign Language, and the methodology involved in the
elicitation of native judgments. Chapter 2 discusses
previous linguistic research relevant to word order,
non-manual marking, wh- questions, and topic
constructions in ASL
Chapter 3 is devoted to non-manual grammatical
marking: the use of facial expression and movement of the
head and upper torso, simultaneously with manual signing,
for expression of syntactic information. Since such
marking is characteristically manifested over the
c-command domain of the node (specifically, the
functional head) with which it is associated, the domain
of spread provides crucial information about the
hierarchical structure of the language. The internal
structure of the ASL clause is examined, using evidence
from the distribution of non-manual marking.
Chapter 4 presents arguments in support of the claim
that wh-words move rightward (and to the canonical
structural position for wh-words, namely Specifier of
CP). An alternative proposal that the Specifier of CP is
to the left and that wh-words move leftward in ASL is
shown to be incorrect. In addition, despite claims to the
contrary, extraction of wh-words out of embedded clauses
does occur.
Topics, occurring in a position left-adjoined to CP,
are discussed in Chapter 5. A distinction among several
types of topics is demonstrated; these topics differ in
their syntactic characteristics and their non-manual
marking (distinctions not previously recognized in the
literature).
Debra Aarons, Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
See also ASLLRP
publications and :
Aarons, D. (1995) Hands Full of Meaning. In
BUA! Volume 10, No. 1. Salt River, Cape Town: National
Language Project.
Aarons, D. (1996) Topics and Topicalization in
American Sign Language. In Stellenbosch Papers
in Linguistics 30, 65-106. University of
Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Aarons, D. (1996) Signed Languages and Professional
Responsibility. In Stellenbosch Papers in
Linguistics 29, 285-311. University of Stellenbosch,
Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Lawrence, P. and D. Aarons (1997) Undefended
Accused and the Language of the Magistrates'
Court. University of Cape Town, Law, Race
and Gender Unit. Volume 4. Cape Town: UCT.
Aarons, D. and P. Akach (1998) South African Sign
Language -- a sociolinguistic question. In
Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 31, 1-28.
Aarons, D., R. Morgan and P. Akach (1998) Sign
Language Interpreting -- Linguistic Issues. In
Kruger, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the Forum for Language
Workers. South African Translators' Institute and
Fédération internationale des
traducteurs.
Aarons, D., and P. Akach. (1999) Inclusion and the
Deaf Child in South African Education. UNESCO
Consultation. Pretoria: UNESCO.
Aarons, D. and P. Akach (1998) The Situation of the
Deaf in Tertiary Education in South Africa. Report to
the Pan South African Language Board, DEAFSA,
Johannesburg.
Aarons, D. and L. Reynolds (1999) South African
Sign Language: Changing Policies and Practices. In
Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 30,
111-144.
Aarons, D., and P. Akach. (in press). South African
Sign Language -- one language or many? In Mesthrie,
R. (ed.), Language and Social History. Second
edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aarons, D and R. Morgan. (in press). How many
South African Sign Languages are there? In
Proceedings of the 13th World Congress of the World
federation of the Deaf.
Aarons, D. and L. Reynolds (in press) South African
Sign Language: Changing Policies and Practices. In
Monaghan, L. (ed.), Many ways to be Deaf.
Washington, DC and Hamburg: Gallaudet University
Press and Signum Press.
Aarons, D. and R. Morgan (to appear). Polymorphemic
Classifier Constructions and their effect on Sign
Language syntax. In Emmorey K., Classifiers in
Sign Languages, to be published by Lawrence Erlbaum,
New Jersey.
Benjamin Bahan (1996)
Non-Manual Realization of Agreement in
American Sign Language
Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston, MA.
Dissertation supervisor: Carol Neidle
This dissertation explores the use of head tilt
and eye gaze as non-manual grammatical correlates of
syntactic agreement in American Sign Language (ASL).
While the non-manual grammatical markings characteristic
of questions, negative clauses, topics, etc., have been
studied, the syntactic functions of head tilt and eye
gaze have received little attention in the literature.
In ASL, one important and systematic use of specific
locations in the signing space is expression of person
features (phi-features). This is evident, for example, in
the determiner system, pronominal reference, and manual
marking of morphological subject and object
verb-agreement. Non-manually, these locations in space
can be signaled by the head tilting or eyes gazing to
these points in space. We argue here that one major
function of head tilt and eye gaze is non-manual
expression of syntactic agreement.
In transitive constructions, head tilt is normally
used to signal subject agreement, while eye gaze marks
object agreement. In intransitive constructions, either
device can be used to mark subject agreement. In both
transitive and intransitive constructions, the non-manual
agreement marking normally begins immediately before the
VP is articulated and extends over the VP. The
interactions of different realizations of syntactic
agreement are also examined.
The basic conclusion with respect to non-manual
expression of agreement in ASL is that head tilt and eye
gaze are associated with phi-features postulated to occur
in the heads of agreement projections, in the same way
that other non-manual grammatical correlates have been
analyzed to be associated with syntactic features, such
as +neg and +wh, occurring in the heads of functional
projections. The generalizations proposed by Aarons,
Bahan, Kegl, and Neidle (1992) about the distribution of
non-manual grammatical markings in ASL then provide a
straightforward account for the distribution of head tilt
and eye gaze within the clause. Furthermore, striking
parallels in the use of head tilt and eye gaze to mark
agreement within DP and IP suggest important similarities
between the agreement projections internal to DP and IP.
We explore the consequences of these findings for an
understanding of agreement in ASL and for general
theoretical questions about syntactic agreement.
Benjamin Bahan, Professor or ASL and Deaf Studies
Gallaudet University
800 Florida Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Dawn MacLaughlin (1997)
The Structure of Determiner Phrases:
Evidence from American Sign Language
Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston, MA.
Dissertation supervisor: Carol Neidle
This dissertation explores the structure of the
Determiner Phrase (DP) in American Sign Language (ASL),
with particular emphasis on determiners, adjectives,
possessives, and agreement. The analysis reveals the
existence of multiple agreement projections. Agreement
features can be expressed manually and non-manually,
through head tilt and eye gaze. The non-manual
expressions of agreement behave like other non-manual
syntactic markings in ASL, spreading over the c-command
domain of the marking's source. The distribution of
non-manual correlates of agreement provides important
evidence for the structure of DP.
DPs in ASL may be associated with a location in space.
A definite DP is associated with a point in space while
an indefinite DP is associated with an area. The type of
spatial location, whether point vs. area, has
consequences for the determiner and agreement systems.
For example, this distinction accounts for systematic
differences in the articulation of definite and
indefinite determiners in ASL.
It is argued that determiners and agreement features
occur in the same syntactic position. Lexical determiners
express agreement features by pointing manually to the
location in space associated with the referent.
Non-manual expressions of agreement involve head tilt
and/or eye gaze pointing to those same locations in
space.
Adjectives in ASL may occur either before or after the
noun. Prenominal adjectives are analyzed as adjective
phrases occurring in the specifier position of a
functional projection, while postnominal adjectives are
predicate phrases right-adjoined within DP. Evidence from
the distribution of non- manual correlates of agreement
shows that postnominal adjectives lie within the
c-command domain of the functional head containing
agreement features.
The possessive construction takes the form of
[PossessorDP Possessive-Marker Possessee]. The
possessive marker is generated in D, while the possessor
DP raises from its base position within NP to the
specifier of DP. Predicative possessive constructions are
also addressed. There are significant parallels in the
expression of agreement within DP and within the clause
in ASL. Agreement patterns in possessive and
non-possessive DPs parallel those in transitive and
intransitive clauses, respectively.
The dissertation explores the consequences of these
findings for our understanding of determiner phrases and
agreement, both within ASL and crosslinguistically.
Dawn
MacLaughlin
|
