COMPLEX PREDICATES INVOLVING EVENTS, TIME AND ASPECT: IS THIS WHY SIGN LANGUAGES LOOK SO SIMILAR?

This paper presents a novel perspective on the complex structure of predicate signs, addressing the mapping between semantic components of events and their overt morphophonological representations in ASL (the Event Visibility Hypothesis), and suggests that fundamental similarities across SLs may be related to these structural pieces. Predicate sign structure is compositional in ways that have not been previously identified, and their components are grammaticalized from universally available physics of motion and geometry of space. The semantic concepts involved here are individual, event (states and processes), location, duration, termination, and completion. The relevant characteristics from geometry are point, line, plane and from physics distance, duration, velocity, and acceleration/deceleration. With the principled exception of classifier predicates (CLP) and spatial ‘tracing’ movements, phonological path movement of predicate signs maps to semantic Extent (duration) of an event and movement which stops at points in space maps semantically to the final State of telic events and its individual argument. Thus, like CLP, agreeing verbs are multimorphemic. These resources provide an explanation for the apparent visual similarity of SLs to each other, even while they remain mutually unintelligible.

[1]  Pier Marco Bertinetto On a frequent misunderstanding in the temporal-aspectual domain: The ‘Perfective = Telic Confusion’ , 2006 .

[2]  Ted Suppalla,et al.  The Classifier System in American Sign Language , 1986 .

[3]  Karen Emmorey,et al.  Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages , 2003 .

[4]  Ronnie B. Wilbur,et al.  Representations of Telicity in ASL , 2003 .

[5]  Ronnie B. Wilbur,et al.  Physical correlates of prosodic structure in American Sign Language , 2002 .

[6]  G. Mathur,et al.  Verb Agreement as a Linguistic Innovation in Signed Languages , 2007 .

[7]  Christian Rathmann Event structure in American Sign Language , 2005 .

[8]  Judy Anne Shepard-Kegl,et al.  Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation, syntax and discourse , 1985 .

[9]  Evguenia Malaia,et al.  Contributions of Sign Language Research to Gesture Understanding: What Can Multimodal Computational Systems Learn from Sign Language Research , 2008, Int. J. Semantic Comput..

[10]  E. Klima The signs of language , 1979 .

[11]  Elissa L. Newport,et al.  Sign Language Research at the Millennium , 2000 .

[12]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Word Meaning and Montague Grammar , 1979 .

[13]  Scott K. Liddell Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language , 2003 .

[14]  H. H. Clark SPACE, TIME, SEMANTICS, AND THE CHILD , 1973 .

[15]  Roland Pfau,et al.  Backward and sideward reduplication in German Sign Language , 2005 .

[16]  David Barner,et al.  Events and the ontology of individuals: Verbs as a source of individuating nouns , 2008 .

[17]  Anna Maria Henrica van Hout,et al.  Projection Based on Event Structure , 2000 .

[18]  Penny Kaye Boyes-Braem Features of the handshape in American sign language , 1981 .

[19]  Norine Berenz Insights into person deixis , 2002 .

[20]  Z. Vendler Linguistics in Philosophy , 1967 .

[21]  Diane Brentari,et al.  Where did all the arguments go?: argument-changing properties of classifiers in asl , 2004 .

[22]  Sarah Florence Taub,et al.  Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language , 2001 .

[23]  Carol Neidle,et al.  The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure , 1999 .

[24]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[25]  Ronnie B. Wilbur,et al.  Pronominal system in Croatian Sign Language , 2006 .

[26]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The syntax of event structure , 1991, Cognition.

[27]  R. Wilbur,et al.  A reanalysis of reduplication in American Sign Language , 2005 .

[28]  Diane Brentari,et al.  A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology , 1999 .

[29]  Nancy Strow Sheley Taking Up the Gauntlet , 2005, American Art.

[30]  Donovan R. Grose The geometry of events: Evidence from English and American Sign Language , 2008 .

[31]  Brenda Schick,et al.  The acquisition of classifier predicates in American Sign Language , 1987 .

[32]  Miriam Butt,et al.  Complex aspectual structure in Hindi/Urdu , 2001 .

[33]  Ronnie B. Wilbur,et al.  Events and telicity in classifier predicates: A reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL , 2007 .

[34]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[35]  G. Segal,et al.  Knowledge of Meaning , 2000 .

[36]  B. Heine,et al.  From cognition to grammar: Evidence from African languages , 1991 .

[37]  J. Kegl Review article:Pronominalization in American Sign Language , 2003 .

[38]  A. Senghas,et al.  Children Creating Language: How Nicaraguan Sign Language Acquired a Spatial Grammar , 2001, Psychological science.

[39]  Ronnie B. Wilbur,et al.  American sign language: Linguistic and applied dimensions , 1987 .

[40]  Friederike Moltmann Parts and Wholes in Semantics , 1997 .

[41]  A. Sciullo Asymmetry in Morphology , 2005 .

[42]  G. Segal,et al.  Knowledge of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Theory , 1995 .

[43]  Artemis Alexiadou,et al.  Adverbs across frameworks , 2004 .

[44]  J. Kegl Creation through contact : Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua , 1999 .