Sign Language & Linguistics

Cross-linguistic research of Flemish Sign Language (VGT) and South African Sign Language (SASL) Constituent order Myriam Vermeerbergen1,2,3, Mieke Van Herreweghe4, Philemon Akach3 and Emily Matabane3 1Research 3Ghent

Foundation-Flanders / 2Vrije Universiteit Brussel / University / 4University of the Free State

This paper reports on a comparison of word order issues, and more specifically on the order of the verb and its arguments, in two unrelated sign languages: South African Sign Language and Flemish Sign Language. The study comprises the first part of a larger project in which a number of grammatical mechanisms and structures are compared across the two sign languages, using a corpus consisting of similar VGT and SASL-data of a various nature. The overall goal of the project is to contribute to a further understanding of the issue of the degree of similarity across unrelated sign languages. However, the different studies also mean a further exploration of the grammars of the two languages involved. In this paper the focus is on the analysis of isolated declarative sentences elicited by means of pictures. The results yield some interesting similarities across all signers but also indicate that — especially with regard to constituent order — there are important differences between the two languages. Keywords: South African Sign Language, Flemish Sign Language, similarity across sign languages, constituent order, cross-linguistic comparison, morpho-syntax

1. Introduction Whereas the first cross-linguistic sign language studies mainly focused on a comparison of the lexicon and showed that there are many differences across sign languages (e.g. Woll 1984), subsequent comparison of aspects of the grammar Sign Language & Linguistics 10:1 (2007), 23–52. issn 1387–9316 / e-issn 1569–996x © John Benjamins Publishing Company

24

Myriam Vermeerbergen, Mieke Van Herreweghe, Philemon Akach and Emily Matabane

seemed to indicate a relatively high degree of similarity (cf. Vermeerbergen 2006). Johnston (1989) notes: Overall, fragmentary studies of parts of the grammar of a number of natural sign languages do nonetheless contribute to an impression of shared syntactic patterning across sign languages. The lexical diversity among sign languages — long established and recognised — remains a valid observation. Only now, as studies such as the present are being made of other sign languages, is the degree of commonality among sign languages on the grammatical level coming to light. (Johnston 1989:312)

The author also discusses several possible reasons for this relatively high degree of similarity. These include: (1) the visual-gestural nature of sign languages, (2) the absence of a written form for sign languages, (3) the unique contact features of sign languages and their host languages, and (4) the patterns of acquisition of sign languages by their speakers. (Johnston 1989: 317)

Similarly, Woll (2003) states: If sign languages are really as similar as has been claimed, we need to enquire why that may be so. Five mutually compatible and probably overlapping reasons suggest themselves: – the relative youth of sign languages (including creolisation) – iconicity – a link between sign languages and gesture – linear syntax intrinsically creates greater differences than spatial syntax – differences are there but researchers haven’t noticed them. (Woll 2003: 25)

There are indeed many indications for a high degree of commonality between the grammars of different sign languages studied so far, but it is also the case that these observations are almost exclusively based on the analysis of American, Western European and Australian sign languages. Some of the recent work on previously un(der)studied sign languages (in Asia and Africa for instance) seems to challenge the assumption of a shared grammatical patterning across sign languages. Nyst’s work on Adamorobe Sign Language (AdaSL), an old sign language used in a village in Ghana, for example, shows that this language lacks a certain type of the so-called “classifier constructions” which is seen as the stereotype classifier construction in most (or even all?) of the sign languages described before (Nyst 2007a). The use of manual simultaneity is also very marginal in this sign language when compared to other sign languages, where manual simultaneity is very common (Nyst 2007b). Such findings show that there is a need for more (cross-linguistic) research on

Cross-linguistic research of Flemish and South African Sign Language

the grammars of less well-known sign languages before more conclusive answers regarding the degree of similarity across sign languages can be given. The study reported on in this paper seeks to offer a contribution to this. It comprises a comparison of aspects of the grammar of two unrelated sign languages from two different continents, i.e. Flemish Sign Language (VGT-Vlaamse Gebarentaal) and South African Sign Language (SASL). Although research on both these languages started relatively early,1 the results of this work are not well-known within the international sign language research community and up till now, Flemish Sign Language and South African Sign Language had not been compared cross-linguistically. The current study focuses on word order issues, and more specifically on the order of the verb and its arguments. It is part of a larger project in which a number of grammatical mechanisms and structures are compared across the two sign languages, using a corpus consisting of similar VGT and SASL-data of a various nature. The overall goal of the project is to contribute to a further understanding of the issue of the degree of similarity across unrelated sign languages but the different studies also mean a further exploration of the grammars of the two languages involved. A very first step in such a project naturally involves the description and comparison of a number of grammatical structures or mechanisms as they appear in the sign languages involved, and as such this word order study is merely descriptive in nature. The expected outcome for each language is the following: 1. a first idea about the relative positions of a verb and its two arguments in declarative sentences of three types: locative, reversible, non-reversible (and in the case of different possibilities also some idea of what influences the choice of a specific ordering); 2. a first indication of certain specific constituent order patterns; 3. a first impression of other mechanisms to indicate the relation between a verb and its arguments (e.g. the use of space, the use of prepositions to indicate a certain semantic or syntactic role). Subsequently, the above outcomes for the two languages involved will be compared.

1. Namely, in the 1980s and 1990s both for VGT (e.g. Loncke 1990; Van Herreweghe 1995; Vermeerbergen 1996; 1997b) and for SASL (e.g. Penn, Lewis & Greenstein 1984; Penn 1992– 1994; Penn & Reagan 1994; Aarons 1995; Aarons & Akach 1998).

25

26 Myriam Vermeerbergen, Mieke Van Herreweghe, Philemon Akach and Emily Matabane

2. Background 2.1 South African Sign Language (SASL) According to the Deaf Federation of South Africa (DeafSA) approximately 600,000 South Africans use a sign language in their daily lives of whom the vast majority are deaf. SASL is not one of the eleven official languages of South Africa. However, the constitution of the Republic of South Africa proclaims “Sign Language” to be one of the languages of South Africa that must be promoted and states that adequate conditions for its ongoing development and use must be created. Furthermore, the South African Schools Act of 1996 states that “A recognised Sign Language has the status of an official language for purposes of learning at a public school”. Nevertheless, South African Sign Language is not always used in schools for the deaf either because there are not enough teachers who are fluent in SASL, or because the schools have policies of total communication or oralism (Aarons & Akach 2002). As in many countries across the world the history of the sign language used in South Africa is closely linked to the development of schools for the deaf. The first schools for the deaf were established by different religious congregations in the Western Cape in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The history of deaf education in South Africa is extremely complex, as the introduction of apartheid split the education not only on the basis of colour of the skin, but — especially in the case of black deaf children — also on ‘mother tongue’ (i.e. the spoken language of the family) and on mode of communication/language of instruction. As a general guideline researchers provide the following ground rule: schools for white deaf pupils insisted on oralism, as ‘speech’ was perceived as the prestigious form of language (i.e. English and Afrikaans), whereas schools for the other races allowed some degree of signing (Aarons & Akach 2002:131). Around the different schools Deaf communities developed. In the past it was claimed that different Deaf communities had their own sign language variant, resulting in eleven main South African Sign Language variants (Penn 1992–1994). Now, the emphasis seems to be more on the similarities between these variants than on the differences, so that in official documents (and e.g. also in DeafSA documents) only one “Sign Language” is mentioned. What is noticeable is that Deaf people seem to manage very well to communicate with one another across racial and geographical boundaries. 2.2 Flemish Sign Language (VGT) Flemish Sign Language is the language used by signers in Flanders, which is the northern part of Belgium, in Western Europe. The Flemish Deaf community is


estimated to include approximately 6,000 sign language users (Loots et al. 2003). When in Flanders the first deaf schools were established the teachers were influenced by the method used at the Paris deaf school (and consequently also French Sign Language), either directly (by having followed training programmes in Paris) or indirectly (by having followed training programmes in Groningen or SintMichiels-Gestel, two deaf schools in the Netherlands which were in turn influenced by the Paris school). However, just like in the neighbouring countries the education of deaf children was and has been strongly influenced by the resolutions taken at the Milan Conference in 1880. From then on deaf pupils were educated orally and signs were banned (Van Herreweghe & Vermeerbergen 1998). By the beginning of the 20th century there was a deaf school in every major town in Flanders, and in some towns there were even two: one for boys and one for girls. Most of the schools were residential schools and pupils only went home during the holidays and later on also during the weekends. As a result, regional sign language varieties started to develop around every school so that now there are five varieties in a state as small as Flanders and on top of that certain differences in the signs of Deaf men and of Deaf women (although the latter differences are diminishing rapidly because all the schools have been open to boys and girls for some decades now). Nowadays there is an on-going process of spontaneous standardisation mostly due to more and more contacts between Deaf people from different regions (De Weerdt et al. 2003). Up until about fifteen years ago, people were usually signing, talking and writing about ‘Belgian Sign Language’. Indeed, intuitively many Deaf people feel that the sign language used in Flanders is very different from the one used in the Netherlands, but that it is closer to the one used in Wallonia. Right now there is not enough linguistic evidence to know whether the differences between Flanders and Wallonia are big enough to be able to talk about two different sign languages. Hence, as a good Belgian compromise the term ‘Flemish Belgian Sign Language’ was used in recent years for the sign language varieties used in Flanders. However, because of the split of the national Deaf federation into two regional ones, the fewer and fewer contacts between both organisations and their members and the separate standardisation processes, most Deaf people in Flanders prefer to talk about ‘Flemish Sign Language’. This is also the term which was adopted by Fevlado (the Flemish Deaf Association) at an Annual General Meeting (AGM) in October 2000. In that meeting the participants were asked to vote for ‘Flemish Sign Language’, ‘Flemish Belgian Sign Language’ or ‘Belgian Sign Language’ and the first option was nearly unanimously elected. Subsequently, in April 2006 Flemish Sign Language was officially recognised by Flemish Parliament as the language of the Deaf community in Flanders.

27

28


3. Methodology 3.1 Research Design In order to develop a first impression about the basic word orders — in this study defined as the word order of simple declarative, active clauses (and preferably consisting of a verb phrase and two noun phrases) — in both languages, and in order to obtain a first idea about certain, specific constituent order patterns and about other mechanisms to indicate the relation between a verb and its arguments, elicited declarative sentences with nominal arguments were analysed. The preliminary research was inspired by the study of word order in Italian Sign Language (LIS) by Volterra et al. (1984). This research design was chosen because it has frequently been used in sign language research so that it will yield results that are easily comparable to results found in other sign languages.2 In addition to the initial study on LIS, it has been used in research in at least six other sign languages: French Swiss Sign Language (Boyes-Braem et al. 1990), Sign Language of the Netherlands (Coerts 1994), Flemish Sign Language (Vermeerbergen 1996; 2004), British Sign Language (Saeed et al. 2000), Irish Sign Language (Leeson 2001) and Australian Sign Language (Johnston et al. 2007). In Sze’s (2003) work on Hong Kong Sign Language a similar method was used. In the Volterra et al. task, eighteen pairs of drawings with only one contrastive element (e.g. ‘a cat is under a chair’ versus ‘a cat is on a chair’) are used to elicit sentences describing three distinct types of states of affairs which can be defined as follows (cf. Johnston et al. 2007): 1. locative states of affairs: presenting the motion and/or location of two entities relative to each other 1. The tree is behind / in front of the house 2. The flowers are next to / in the vase 3. The man is far away from/ right in front of the car 4. The cat is under / on the chair 5. The car goes under / on the bridge 6. The ball is under / on the table 2. non-reversible states of affairs: only one of the entities in the drawing, the animate or human one, is likely to be the agent of the action 7. The boy closes / opens the door 8. The girl / boy eats cake 2. However, a comparison with the results from other sign languages is outside the scope of this paper.


9. The man builds / paints the wall 10. The girl watches T.V. / looks at the painting 11. The woman / man cuts the string 12. The man washes the dog / the car

3.

reversible states of affairs: either entity could possibly be the agent 13. The car is towing the truck / The truck is towing the car 14. The little boy hugs granny / Granny hugs the little boy 15. The boy pushes the girl / The girl pushes the boy 16. Mother brushes the child’s hair / The child brushes mother’s hair 17. The Native American stabs the cowboy in the back / The cowboy stabs the Native American in the back 18. The girl strokes the boy’s cheek / The boy strokes the girl’s cheek.

The person videotaped is the signer who has the drawings before him/her and for each pair one of the drawings is marked with an arrow. The interlocutor, another signer who is not being videotaped, has got the same drawings but in his/her drawings there are no arrows. The signer is asked to sign one sentence describing the drawing marked with the arrow; the interlocutor is asked to indicate which of the two drawings of each pair is being described. 3.2 Subjects For the purpose of this study four adult signers were videotaped for VGT, two male signers from West-Flanders and two female signers from East-Flanders. They ranged in age between 30 and 45, are all native signers and acquired Flemish Sign Language at home from their signing parents. Their interlocutors were always (near-) native signers from their own region. For SASL also, four adults were videotaped, one female black native signer from Bloemfontein, one female Indian native signer from Johannesburg, one male white near-native signer from Bloemfontein, and one male black near-native signer from Johannesburg. For the first signer the interlocutor was a hearing signing colleague from work engaged in SASL research and teaching; for the other signers the interlocutor was the first subject. 3.3 Coding Coding of the sentences was done in two steps. The first step was to label the elements in the sentences. For the non-locative sentences first the subject, object and verb were identified:

29

30


– The notion of ‘subject’ is interpreted as ‘the constituent indicating the referent which performs the described action, or, if no action is described, the constituent indicating the referent to which the condition, the process, the quality, etc. named by the verb is attributed’ (Vermeerbergen 1997a). – The notion of ‘object’ is ‘the constituent naming the referent affected by what is expressed by the verb (the action, condition, etc.)’, bearing in mind that ‘affected’ is used in a broad sense, i.e. not only affected objects are included, but also effected objects, the object of an observation, etc.’ (Vermeerbergen 1997a). – Predicates were labelled either ‘V’ for lexical verbs, or ‘vc’ for ‘verb constructions’, i.e. polycomponential constructions that belong to the productive lexicon and function as verbal predicates (cf. Vermeerbergen 1996; 2006). In the data analysed in this study most of the vc’s are ‘classifier constructions’ but although classifier predicates make up an important part of the class of verb constructions, not all vc’s involve the use of classifiers. For the locative sentences it was decided to follow the approach of Volterra et al. (1984) and not use the notions of subject and object. We decided to focus on the locative relation and use ‘location’ and ‘located element’ instead. When the locative relation was expressed by a fixed preposition sign (on, under, etc.) we labelled it as such, other types of expressions of the locative relation (e.g. the use of two classifiers simultaneously to reflect the actual position of two elements relative to each other) were labelled ‘verb construction’ or ‘vc’ as above. In a second step additional information was added. When elements were produced simultaneously, this was explicitly coded in the analysis. When the form of a verb sign explicitly referred to one of its arguments this was also indicated in the analysis. Examples of the latter are the adaptation of the production of a verb sign in relation to the locus previously established for the object or the replacement of the handshape of the citation form of the verb sign by a classifier handshape referring to the object. Finally explicit non-manual marking (e.g. topic-marking) and explicit pauses and intonation breaks (often indicating clause boundaries) were also coded. 4. Analysis 4.1 Some preliminary remarks 4.1.1 Idiosyncratic tendencies in SASL and VGT The Volterra elicitation task has been used in several studies on word order issues in VGT (Vermeerbergen 1996; 2004; Johnston et al. 2007) and from these studies


we know that there are idiosyncratic tendencies. Some examples of such a personal style observed in the data presented here, are: – The use of ‘split sentences’ (see 4.1.3). – The choice of a specific preposition to introduce the object in reversible sentences (and it can be a different preposition for different signers) (see 4.4.1.2). – Marking the first constituent in the sentence (always the S) as the topic and/ or pausing after the production of the first constituent in the sentence (always the S). – Topic marking of the location (in locative sentences). – The use of ‘dominance reversals’ resulting in one argument being signed with one hand and the other argument with the other hand. ‘Dominance reversals’ are instances where the expected use of the dominant and non-dominant hand in sign language usage are reversed (Frishberg 1985). For VGT different types of dominance reversals have been identified (Vermeerbergen 1996; 1997b), including the use of one hand as the dominant hand for one referent (or ‘argument’) and change to the other hand for another referent (/argument). 4.1.2. The analysis of sit, stand and kneel-down in SASL and VGT It is not always clear how the signs sit, stand and maybe also kneel-down should be analysed. In a sentence like (VGT)

(1) girl sit cake vc: “eat-cake” Movie 1.

it seems possible to analyse sit either as a fully fledged lexical verb (‘the girl sits and eats cake’) or as a semi-auxiliary followed by a verb complement (‘the girl sits eating cake’).3 Moreover, it is possible to analyse sit in a sentence as girl sit watch ‑t‑v‑ as an adjective modifying a noun (the sitting girl) or as an embedded clause (the girl who is sitting) (cf. Johnston et al. 2007). However, in other examples, e.g. example (2), stand — and maybe also sit — seem to be functioning as ‘localising devices (with semantic content)’, not only expressing the fact that the mother is standing (and the boy is sitting), but more 3. At first sight it might be possible to regard sit and stand (but not kneel-down) as borrowings from the Dutch position verbs ‘zitten’ and ‘staan’, which in Dutch can be used to express durative aspect: ‘hij zit te lezen’ (‘he is reading and sits while he is doing so’). Whereas borrowings from Dutch are indeed attested in VGT, we hesitate to analyse sit and stand as related to their Dutch counterparts, mainly because there are similar structures in other sign languages (see the SASL-examples in this study for instance) where the surrounding spoken languages (e.g. English, Afrikaans, etc.) do not feature the structures present in Dutch.

31

32


importantly attributing a locus to mother relative to the locus attributed to boy, i.e. behind the boy.

(2)

boy sita // mother standb comba

Movie 2.

As such, stand as it is used here seems to have more in common with constructions involving the use of a classifier handshape following the production of a noun and used to attribute a locus to the referent, or even simply with a pointing sign, than with other lexical verbs. We intend to address this issue in future research. 4.1.3 Argument – V/vc – Argument – V/vc-constructions In the data elicited in this task there are examples of sentences with two verbs/verb constructions each preceded by one argument, as in (3).

(3) car tow // truck follow Movie 24.

Vermeerbergen (1996) analyses such examples in VGT as ‘split sentences’ (cf. Volterra et al. 1984) containing two clauses, each consisting of a subject and a predicate.4 In split sentences, the subject of the first clause frequently also functions as the object (undergoer or patient) of the verb or verb construction in the second clause, as is the case for example (3) above. But not all argument – verb/vc – argument – verb/vc combinations should be interpreted in this way. In some examples, it is not the subject of the first clause which functions as the object of the second clause, but the subject of the second clause which is also the object of the verb of the first clause. In these latter examples, especially if there is no clear indication of a clause break, the second subject (or object) can be seen as a pivot functioning at the same time as the O of the first verb and the S of the second, as in example (4):

(4)

boy push girl vc: “stumble-forward”

Movie 33.

This is something that is quite common in languages in the world and it is often thought that such pivot constructions are the predecessors of relative clauses (Lehmann 1992).

4. Senghas et al. (1997) discuss similar structures for Nicaraguan Sign Language.


4.2 Locative sentences 4.2.1 Locative sentences in VGT In Table 1, the results for the locative sentences in VGT are given.5 Table 1. Constituent order in locative sentences in VGT location – located element – locative relation (prep or vc) 13

located element – locative relation (prep) – location 5

other 2

In thirteen of the twenty locative sentences analysed for VGT the location was produced first, followed by the located element and the locative relation.

(5)

house tree vc: “tree-behind-house”

Movie 34.

In seven of these sentences the locative relation was expressed by means of a preposition sign and in some cases even as a combination of a preposition and a ‘fragment buoy’ (Liddell 2003), as in (6): (6) Right hand: have house tree behind Left hand: house ---------+----

In this example, the non-dominant (left) hand is held as a fragment buoy after the production of the sign house and engaged in the articulation of the preposition behind so that the referent ‘house’ is kept active in the discourse. In five sentences the located element was produced first, which was followed by the locative relation (always by means of a preposition) and the location (i.e. located element – prep – location, as in the following example). (7) t__ cat on chair Movie 4.

5. Note that the analysis of sentence 3 (The man is far away from the car.) was problematic as one rendering was a ‘split sentence’ (see 4.1.3), one rendering contained stand (see 4.1.2) and in the two other renderings it wasn’t clear whether the signers considered car as located element or as location (and vice versa for man). It was therefore decided not to include this sentence in the analysis.

33

34


In one sentence the locative relation was expressed twice: once by a preposition signed in between the located element and the location and once by a vc signed at the end of the sentence: (8) t__ car // under bridge vc: “car-goes-under-bridge”. Movie 5.

Only in one sentence the ordering located element – location – locative relation was found but in this sentence another location was signed in first position, resulting in location1 – located element – location2 – vc:

(9) highway car bridge vc “car-goes-under-bridge”.

Hence, for all these sentences there were basically two patterns: 1. location – located element – locative relation (locative relation expressed either by means of a prep or a vc). This pattern always occurred when the locative relation was expressed by means of a vc, but there were also some examples with a prep expressing the locative relation. 2. located element – prep – location (possibly followed by a vc at the end of the sentence). Finally, it is also interesting to note that ten of the twenty-four locative sentences involved (a form of) simultaneity. 4.2.2 Locative sentences in SASL In Table 2, we give the results for the locative sentences, as signed by the SASL signers.6 Table 2. Constituent order in locative sentences in SASL location – located element – locative relation (vc) 14

location – vc – located element – locative relation (vc) 6

location – located element – vc – locative relation (vc) 2

other

3

6. One signer produced two different sentences for one pair of drawings, hence a total of 25 instead of 24 sentences.


All 25 locative sentences started with a location (with or without topic marking). There seem to be at least three unmarked constructions (and maybe five, but the two latter only occurred once):7 1. location – located element – vc indicating the locative relation (14 sentences) (10) t____ chair cat vc: “cat-on-chair” Movie 6.

2. location – vc to situate the location in signing space – located element – vc indicating the locative relation (6 sentences) (11) t____ t___ chair vc: “chair-located-at-loca” cat vc: “cat-on-chair”a Movie 32.

3. location – located element – vc to determine the locus/shape of the located element – vc indicating the locative relation (2 sentences) This means that 24 of the 25 sentences have the order location – located element – locative relation.8 In all examples the locative relation is indicated by one or more verb constructions.

7. These two patterns are: 1. Location – vc for the location – vc for the located element 2. Location – located element – locative relation, the latter expressed by means of the combination of a preposition (under) and a verb construction. 8. The one exceptional sentence contained a simultaneous construction involving a sign glossed as next-to (with one A/thumb-up handshape) and a fragment buoy on the non-dominant hand referring to the vase. This sentence had a different order, i.e. location – locative relation – located element:

t----- t--vase next-to psa flower “flowers”a

Movie 8. However, there are clear pauses after both vase and the pointing sign (psa), both these elements are accompanied by prominent topic marking and towards the end of the production of the pointing sign the eye gaze direction shifts from the locus of the pointing sign to the interlocutor.

35

36


In 14 of the 25 sentences the non-dominant hand of the location is held during the production of the rest of the sentence. In 9 other sentences the final vc involves the simultaneous production of two classifier handshapes each referring to one referent. This means that in 23 of the 25 examples there is a form of simultaneity. 4.2.3 Comparison of locative sentences in VGT and SASL VGT has two major patterns, i.e. ‘located element – locative relation (prep) – location’ and ‘location – located element – locative relation (vc/prep)’. In SASL all locative sentences have the location in first position and all except one have the locative relation expressed at the end of the sentence, always by means of a vc implying the use of one or more classifiers, so the pattern basically is: location (+ vc location) – located element (+ vc located element) – locative relation. SASL only has two examples with a preposition: one where the preposition is combined with a vc (location – located element – prep – vc; see note 7) and one with a different order (location – prep – located element), but the non-manual activity suggests that this is a highly marked sentence (see note 8). For both languages simultaneity occurs more frequently in locative states of affairs than in non-locative states of affairs but in SASL there is substantially more simultaneity. This is obviously related to the frequent use of verb constructions to express the locative relation between the location and the located element. In VGT this relation can also be expressed by a preposition only, without using verb constructions which (often) involve simultaneity. 4.3 Non-reversible sentences 4.3.1 Non-reversible sentences in VGT The results for the non-reversible sentences in VGT are given in Table 3. Table 3. Constituent order in non-reversible sentences in VGT SOV/vc 13

SV 3

SVO 4

SVOV/vc 4

For VGT we get a fairly complex picture, but in general it can be said that the most frequently used word order in the non-reversible sentences produced here is SOV, and that an SVO-order is also possible but used less frequently.9 All of these point to a marked construction, rather than an unmarked one, which may account for the different word order. 9. The analysis of similar data produced by 14 VGT signers participating in a previous study, however, showed that both SVO and SOV are equally possible in non-reversible sentences as


Looking at these data it would seem that SOV (or SOvc) is the unmarked order for VGT non-reversible sentences. (12) man dog vc: “wash” Movie 9.

The SV-order was used in sentences 7 and 9 (closing versus opening the door and building versus painting a wall). The absence of an object may be the result of the fact that it is the action which is the contrasting element between the two drawings so that mentioning S and V is enough for the addressee to know which drawing is being referred to. Alternatively, it can be noted that wall in sentence 9 is also an ‘effected object’, i.e. it comes into existence as a result of the action, and that may be the reason for the object not being explicitly mentioned. (13) man lay-bricks/vc: “lay-bricks”10 Movie 10.

In our data four SVO-sentences were found. Two of the sentences showing an SVO-patterning contained plain lexical verbs (about the effect of the type of verb phrase on word order in VGT, see 4.4.1.3.) (14) child see television Movie 11.

The third SVO-sentence involved the production of sit following the first argument (cf. 4.1.2.): (15) girl sit look-at ‑t‑v‑

And the fourth SVO-sentence might be seen as a locative sentence with a preposition: (16) girl see before ‑t‑v‑

in that study 27 sentences out of 84 were based on an SOV pattern and 31 showed an SVOordering. SVO was used most often when there was a lexical verb, whereas the use of a vc often resulted in SOV (see 4.4.1.3.). In 13 out of 84 sentences the order was SV and in only 3 sentences an SVOV/vc pattern was found (Vermeerbergen 2004). 10. lay-bricks in VGT is one of these predicates which move to-and-fro on the continuum between lexical verb and verb construction.

37

38


The spoken component accompanying see actually is ‘zit’ (sit), so the sign is possibly a mistake and should have been zitten (sit) as well, in which case this sentence could be analysed as a locative construction. ‘Verb sandwiches’ (Fischer & Jannis 1990) with the same verb produced twice or a combination of a lexical verb and a related verb construction (i.e. SVOV/vc) are not uncommon in VGT (Vermeerbergen 1996) and occurred four times in our data here. (17) girl eat cake vc: “eat-cake” Movie 12.

This may be related to the fact that plain lexical verbs tend to occur between S and O, whereas verb constructions and lexical verbs in combination with certain other mechanisms (e.g. explicit reference to the object) tend to occur sentence-finally (cf. 4.4.1.3). There were only three sentences with simultaneity and all three are descriptions of the same picture in which a woman is cutting a piece of string. Here string was signed first, and the non-dominant hand was held during the production of the verb construction meaning “cut-with-scissors”. 4.3.2 Non-reversible sentences in SASL The results given in Table 4 indicate that a picture of the relative positions of S, O and V in non-reversible SASL-sentences (for 31 sentences) seems to be quite fragmented. Table 4. Constituent order in non-reversible sentences in SASL SOV/vc 9

OSV/vc 9

SV/vc 5

Ovc 1

SV/vcOV/vc 3

other 4

Nine sentences were based on an SOV-order. (18) girl cake vc: “eat-cake” Movie 13.

Nine sentences were based on OSV. (19) Right hand: door ps-R-hand boy Left hand: + -------------------- open-door/vc: “open-door” Movie 14.


Five sentences had no separate lexical sign or phrase for the object and are analysed as being based on SV or Svc. Four of these were renderings of sentence 9 (building versus painting a wall) with no separate sign for the object, which is very similar to the VGT-sentences (see 4.3.1). (20) ps father vc: “lay-bricks-to-form-wall” Movie 15.

One sentence had no separate lexical sign or phrase for the subject and is analysed as Ovc. (21) t____ door close-door/vc: “close-door” Movie 16.

There were three SV/vcOV/vc-sentences which were all produced by the same signer. In one case, the same verb was produced twice, in the two other examples (two renderings of the same sentence) two different verb constructions were produced: vc: “hold-door” and vc: “close-door”.11 (22) man vc: “hold-door” door vc: “close-door” Movie 17.

Of the remaining four sentences, two started with S and two with O. One of those four sentences was a ‘question sign construction’ (see note 12), and the others contained multiple clauses, so that they cannot be analysed with regard to basic constituent ordering. The description of the non-reversible states of affairs fairly often resulted in complex (often multi-clausal) sentences, involving the use of a ‘verb’ such as stand or kneel-down (cf. 4.1.2.) or (other) ‘localising devices’ such as the production of a classifier (construction) following the articulation of the sign for the object or the subject as can be seen in the following example: (23) Right hand: woman-------------------------------- string vc: “cut-string” Left hand: vc: “woman-located-at-loca” string----------------

11. It is also possible to regard these signs as lexical verbs instead of verb constructions (see also examples (19) and (21)).

39


Movie 18.

This is not a matter of idiosyncrasy. All SASL-signers produced at least one example of this. It may be caused by the specific elicitation task, where signers may feel the need to describe the pictures (or referents depicted) as precisely as possible. What is clear, however, is that although referents are attributed spatial loci, these loci are subsequently not used for the expression of the relation between the arguments and the verb. It may of course be different for reversible states of affairs, where because of the reversibility of the arguments the interpretation of these relations is less obvious. How can this complex picture be summarised? An important observation is that in 30 of the 31 sentences, the V or vc is produced sentence-finally.12 Furthermore, the two patterns occurring most frequently in these data are SOV and OSV. At this moment we don’t see a clear pattern with regard to the choice of either constituent order, but sometimes there may be a certain type of motivation. For sentence 11 (a woman cutting a piece of string) all signers selected an SOV order. This may be related to the simultaneity involved: the non-dominant hand is ‘held’ following the production of the object (the string) and during the production of the V/vc. For sentence 10 (a girl watching TV) four out of the five renderings started with the object (the television). This may be due to the fact that it is possible to treat this as a locative state of affairs where SASL signers always produce the location or the less mobile element first. However, for the other sentences, both ‘S first’ and ‘O first’ occurred and we do not see a clear motivation for either choice. As just mentioned, all four descriptions of the picture about a woman cutting a piece of string involve simultaneity. However, in the SASL-data there are a good many more examples of simultaneous constructions (especially when the constituents are embedded in locative constructions).

12. The one exception involved a ‘question sign construction’ where the answer to the question is the object resulting in the sign for the object being produced sentence-finally: t___ ?_____ Right hand: girl sit eat----------- cake Left hand: +-------- ps-R-hand cake

Movie 19. In ASL literature this is sometimes referred to as ‘pseudo-cleft sentence’ (Wilbur 1994) but we are not sure whether all VGT/SASL examples qualify as such. Pending further research it was decided to follow Vermeerbergen (1997b) who uses the notion ‘vraaggebaarconstructie’, which we have translated here into ‘question sign construction’.


4.3.3 Comparison of non-reversible sentences in VGT and SASL For VGT the most frequently used word order of non-reversible sentences is SOV (13 out of 24 sentences), whereas an SVO-order is relatively rare (but see note 9). For SASL the two patterns occurring most frequently are SOV and OSV, and it seems to be clear that the V or vc is normally produced sentence-finally. The fact that the predicate almost without exception occurs sentence-finally in SASL also means that there does not seem to be a tendency for lexical V’s to occur early in the sentence as opposed to the vc’s being produced sentence-finally as we witnessed in VGT. (This issue is discussed in more detail in 4.4.1.3.). It may of course be possible that all these predicates in SASL qualify as vc rather than as V. This is something that certainly requires more research. In the VGT-data there are some examples of ‘verb sandwiches’ (Fischer & Jannis 1990), i.e. in which the same verb is produced twice or in which there is a combination of a lexical verb and a related verb construction. In the SASL-data there is only one sentence in which the object is preceded and followed by two renderings of the same verb (girl sit look-at ‑t‑v‑ look-at) and two sentences with an SV/vcOV/vc-construction in which the two vc’s (or V’s?) are different (girl vc: “hold-door” door vc: “open-door” and boy vc: “hold-door door vc: “closedoor”). Again, more research will have to bring to light whether this is a significant difference. 4.4 Reversible sentences 4.4.1 Reversible sentences in VGT 4.4.1.1. Relative position of S, V and O in reversible sentences in VGT. With regard to constituent order in reversible sentences in VGT, the results at first sight seemed to reveal an even more scattered picture than for the non-reversible sentences (see Table 5). Table 5. Constituent order in reversible sentences in VGT SVO 9 SVprepO 4

SVO 5

SOV 7 SprepOV 6

SOV 1

SVOV

other

5

5

In total we obtained 26 sentences with the following patterns:

41

42


Nine sentences were based on an SVO-patterning:13 in four of these a preposition (twice on, once against and once of) preceded the object (see 4.4.1.3) and five examples had a ‘simple’ SVO-structure. (24) car tow of truck Movie 20.

Seven sentences were based on SOV: only one of these had a ‘simple’ SOV-order, in five sentences have, give or with was signed preceding the O (see 4.4.1.3): (25) mother have son comba Movie 21.

In five sentences (three of which were produced by one signer) we obtained an SVOV-structure. In one of these sentences the first form of the verb was on the signer’s body and the second instance of the verb was produced in the space before him. Three sentences were based on an O//SV ordering, two of these involving the use of sit and/or stand which function as localising devices following the O (see 4.1.2.): (26) boy sita // mother standb comba (repeated example (2)) Movie 23.

The third one contains a pause following the production of the O. Based on this, we would suggest to analyse these three sentences as O//SV i.e. with a clausal break or an intonation break following the object so as to set it apart. There was one example of a ‘split sentence’ (S1V1+S2V2): (27) car tow // truck follow (repeated example (3)) Movie 24.

Finally, there was one other sentence, i.e. boy push girl (//) fall-down, which could be analysed as SVO(//V), but it is also possible to consider it a pivot con-

13. In the previous VGT study already mentioned (Vermeerbergen 2004), SVO was also the most frequently found pattern for this type of sentences, as 58 out of 84 sentences showed an SVO ordering (compared to 13 SOV-sentences).


struction (S V O/S V) in which girl is both the O of the previous verb and the S of the next verb (see 4.1.3.). (28) Left hand: boy pusha girl Rigth hand: pusha fall-downa Movie 25.

4.4.1.2. Indicating the direction of the action by means of a preposition. In quite a number of the reversible sentences the object was preceded by what at first sight seems to be a preposition (on, of, against, with)14 or a verb (have and give). In previous research on VGT word order, similar examples with on and give were identified and discussed (Vermeerbergen 1996; 2004): on and give almost exclusively appeared in sentences based on a SOV-ordering and they were always produced in between the subject and the object. Previous analysis has also demonstrated that give can be spatially modified in order to show agreement with both arguments and can in this way formally illustrate the direction of the action. However, the movement of give does not need to be modified i.e. give can also be used in its citation form. Van Herreweghe & Vermeerbergen (2004) claim that even though give in these sentences seems to be very similar to the directional verb give, the sign as it is used here appears to have a different function. The semantic meaning of give, although not altogether empty, seems to be less important than the grammatical function: give relates the agent of the action (i.e. the referent named just before give) to the recipient of the action (i.e. the referent named after give) and as such give explicitly indicates the direction of the action. The same function was attributed to on in similar structures. As such both on and give can be regarded as prepositions. As said before, in previous work on VGT, examples with on and give had already been discussed. In the data discussed in the present study, there are also examples with other ‘prepositions’ and with ‘existential’ have. Such examples had not been encountered in previous work. What is striking here, is that in 4 examples (one with against, one with the sign on, one with the spoken word ‘op’ (on) and one with of) the word order is SVO. This is quite different from all the examples which had been studied before, where the ordering was always SOV. There does 14. Comparable examples have been described for a number of other sign languages e.g. the use of on preceding the ‘undergoer’ in sentences with reversible arguments in Australian Sign Language and the production of to after the verb and before the second argument in the same type of sentences in Irish Sign Language (Johnston et al. 2007). Bos (1994) talks about the ‘auxiliary verb’ act-on in Sign Language of the Netherlands.

43


not seem to be an immediate explanation for this and since there are only few examples in this set of data, it will have to await future analysis. 4.4.1.3. The verb phrase and word order in non-locative sentences. From previous studies on word order issues in VGT it seems that (probably more in non-reversible than in reversible sentences) there might be a difference between sentences containing (plain) lexical verbs and sentences with verb constructions. Briefly, verb constructions tend to appear sentence-finally, while (plain) lexical verb signs tend to be produced earlier in the sentence and follow the subject. Some processes adding meaning to a lexical verb (e.g. the simultaneous representation of the object on the non-dominant hand) seem to result in the verb being placed at the end of the sentence as well (Vermeerbergen 1996; 2004). Observations concerning certain types of verbs behaving differently as far as word order is concerned have been made by other researchers for the sign languages they study (e.g. by Sze 2003). Since the VGT-data in this study show that in non-locative sentences both SVO- and SOV-patterns occur, it seemed logical to take a look at whether a different order might be related to a different type of verb. For the non-reversible sentences it seems that indeed verb constructions as well as lexical verbs ‘incorporating’ the object (either because the object is referred to on the non-dominant hand or because the location or orientation of the verb sign is modified so as to refer to the location of the object) are produced sentencefinally, whereas the verb in the SVO-constructions is without exception a plain lexical verb. For reversible sentences the picture is obscured by the fact that so many sentences involve the production of a ‘preposition’ preceding the O and/or the use of sit or stand. When we leave these sentences out, we see that the lexical V does indeed almost always occur in between the two arguments of the verb and the vc most often occurs sentence-finally. We also get some examples of sentences with two renderings of the same verb where the first production involves a spoken component (more likely to occur with lexical verbs) whereas with the rendering at the end of the sentences there is no spoken component (which is in line with what happens with vc’s). There is one major set of exceptions: ‘imitating verbs’ such as hug and push do not seem to occur sentence-finally, and the use of ‘role taking’ in combination with a lexical verb does not result in the V to be placed at the end of the sentence. It may be interesting to note that both with imitating verbs and role taking the imitation and the role taking refers to the subject rather than to the object. This probably blocks placement of the verb at the end of the sentence and is opposed to examples of verbs or verb constructions with object incorporation where the


verb or verb construction can be placed sentence-finally. Further research needs to clarify this. 4.4.2 Reversible sentences in SASL The results for the reversible sentences in SASL are given in Table 6. Table 6. Constituent order in reversible sentences in SASL OSV/vc 16

SV 2

S V O/S vc 1

SOV 2

other 4

What all the reversible sentences in SASL have in common is that V or vc is in final position. It doesn’t seem to matter whether the verb phrase consists of a V or a vc. In sixteen of the twenty-five sentences the order is OSV. Usually the O is produced first, possibly followed by the production of a classifier construction which localises the O, followed by the S (again with or without a localising classifier construction following the sign for the referent) and followed by either a V, a vc or a combination of both (possibly including the O). Examples are: – OSV or OSvc: (29) boy little old^woman hug

– vc15 S vc V: (30) boy vc: “boy-located-at-loca” girl vc: “girl-behind-boy” vc: “comb-hair”a comb-self vc: “comb-hair”a Movie 26.

There are some sentences which have OSV as macrostructure, but with sit and/or stand, i.e. with localisation of one or both of the arguments (see 4.1.2): (31) girl sit // woman stand // girl hair vc: “comb-hair”. Movie 27.

In two cases there was no explicit O (as it can be incorporated in the V or the vc), so that we found the order SV. 15. Since this ‘localising classifier’ is non-verbal rather than verbal, the label vc may not be very accurate here. However, not to complicate things too much, we have decided not to introduce yet another label at this stage but to continue using vc.

45


Furthermore there was the sentence: (32) boy push girl vc: “stumble-forward” (repeated example (4) ) Movie 33.

which can be analysed as a pivot construction since the girl is the object of push and at the same time the subject of the following vc: S V O/S vc (cf. VGT-analysis in 4.4.1.1). One signer used a completely different word order in two of the six reversible sentences.16 The first sentence is a ‘question sign construction’: (33) ?__ “big” truck car vc: one-vehicle-behind-other” // do // tow Movie 30.

and the second sentences is: (34) grandma // small girl hug Movie 31.

both sentences have SOV as (macro)structure. The other four sentences were problematic as some of them were even misunderstood by the interlocutor and others were too complex to analyse with regard to basic constituent ordering. We won’t discuss them any further. 4.4.3 Comparison of reversible sentences in VGT and SASL For VGT the underlying patterns seen most often are SVO (9 sentences out of 26), SOV (7 examples) and SVOV (5 examples). In 11 sentences the O-constituent is introduced by what we have analysed as prepositions. When O is introduced by such a preposition the choice between SVO and SOV seems to be free (at least, that is what we get from these examples here; more research is absolutely necessary). When O is not introduced by a preposition, characteristics of the verb possibly play a role in word order patterning: whereas plain lexical verbs tend to be placed in between S and O, verb constructions or lexical verbs that are modified so that they refer to their object tend to occur sentence-finally. 16. We have absolutely no explanation for this order which completely goes against the intuitions of the SASL-researchers. It might be significant that these sentences were produced by the only white signer. This will definitely have to be cleared out by future research.


For SASL the most important observation regarding the position of S, O and V in the sentence is that the V occurs sentence-finally (and it doesn’t seem to matter whether the verb phrase is a lexical verb or a verb construction). Most often the ordering is OSV. There are no SASL examples with a preposition introducing O in a way comparable to the VGT-sentences. A structure often found in SASL which is almost absent in VGT is one in which the lexical sign for one of the arguments is followed by a classifier which refers to the referent of that argument and which is positioned in signing space. This happens more often with the object, but is also not exceptional for the subject. We have labeled these ‘localising classifiers’ vc although it may very well be that they are non-verbal rather than verbal. In some examples their use clearly shows the semantic relation between the argument and the verb, as in example (30), where the classifier referring to the subject girl is positioned behind the classifier for the object boy, thus clarifying the direction of the action (comb). However, in some cases, the use of one or more of these localising classifiers does not contribute to clarifying the relation between the arguments and the verb, and consequently is syntactically redundant. It may be interesting to note that also in the non-reversible sentences, SASL-signers sometimes produced a classifier referring to the subject. The use of this type of ‘localising classifier’ is extremely rare in the VGT-data. However, VGT signers also sometimes use a ‘localising device’ following the production of the lexical sign for a referent. This is done by means of the ‘verbs’ stand and sit and possibly also kneel-down. SASL-signers also use stand, sit and kneel-down as localising devices, which seems to be very similar to their use of a classifier in such positions. For a comparison of VGT sit and stand, SASL sit and stand and the use of a ‘localising classifier’ in SASL, see examples (26), (31) and (23). Movie 23.

Movie 27.

Movie 18.

Both SASL and VGT signers often seem to introduce S and/or O in a separate clause resulting in complex, multi-clausal sentences. This happens slightly more often in SASL than in VGT. Similar to locative and non-reversible sentences, SASL-signers employ more simultaneity than VGT-signers in reversible sentences (12 sentences out of 25 compared to 4 sentences out of 26). In contrast, ‘dominance reversal’ (see 4.1.1.) occurs in 4 of the VGT reversible sentences (of which 3 are produced by the same signer) while there are no examples of this in the SASL-data. Finally, both reversible and non-reversible SASL-sentences include examples of ‘question sign constructions’. There are no similar examples in the VGT-data an-

47


alysed here, but similar constructions have been encountered in other VGT-data (Vermeerbergen 1997b).

5. Conclusion The analysis and comparison of the data show some striking similarities across all signers, as for instance the use of sit and stand as ‘localising devices’ (rather than as lexical verbs), the use of simultaneity especially with locative sentences, the use of classifiers to visualise locative relations, the use of multi-clausal constructions instead of plain declarative sentences with one verb and two arguments in the form of a simple noun phrase, etc.). However, there are also some important differences between VGT and SASL, mostly concerning constituent order and it also seems that simultaneity is more prevalent in the SASL-data than in the VGT-sentences. Some of the most important results include: – Locative sentences in SASL almost without exception start with the location, followed by the located element and the expression of the locative relation, which is almost exclusively done by means of a verb construction. In VGT, the locative relation is either expressed by a preposition or a verb construction. In case of a preposition two patterns are possible: (1) location – located element – locative relation and (2) located element – locative relation (prep) – location. When the locative relation is expressed by a vc, only the first pattern was found. – In VGT, the most frequently used word order in non-reversible sentences is SOV, whereas an SVO-order is relatively rare. In SASL, the two patterns occurring most frequently are SOV and OSV, so the V or vc is produced sentencefinally. – As for reversible sentences, in VGT the underlying patterns seen most often are SVO, SOV and SVOV. Sometimes the object is introduced by what we have analysed as prepositions (e.g. boy on girl stroke). It is possible that the use of such a preposition has implications for word order in that it becomes less important grammatically. When the object is not introduced by a preposition, characteristics of the verb phrase possibly play a role in word order patterning: whereas plain lexical verbs tend to be placed in between the S and the O, verb constructions or lexical verbs that are modified so that they refer to their object tend to occur sentence-finally. For SASL the most important observation regarding the position of S, O and V in the sentence is that the V occurs sentence-finally usually resulting in an OSV-order. There are no SASL examples with a preposition introducing the O.

Cross-linguistic research of Flemish and South African Sign Language 49

Even though this research involved only a limited number of subjects and sentences, we do believe that we have been able to present some interesting findings with regard to word order issues both for each of the two languages involved as well as with regard to a cross-linguistic comparison. Obviously, it is too soon for conclusive answers. The comparison of constituent order in elicited declarative sentences produced by 4 South African and 4 Flemish signers is only a first step of a more large-scale cross-linguistic project comparing a number of different linguistic features across two unrelated sign languages. The overall aim of this project is to contribute to a further understanding of the degree of similarity across the grammars of different sign languages. As a next step in this study we are currently analysing referent tracking devices in short narratives resulting from a description of picture stories. Obviously this is a completely different set of data when compared to elicited sentences produced in isolation. “Visual imagery” for instance is much more prominent in the narratives yielding more similarity than difference between the two languages. From this we understand that if one wants to investigate the degree of similarity across sign languages, a different choice of data can lead to very different results. For our own project this means that in order to gain a full understanding of the degree of similarity across SASL and VGT, different structures and mechanisms as well as different sets of data need to be taken into account. This means that there is ample opportunity for further research. With regard to word order issues the study presented in this paper also results in a number of areas for further research. These include: the use of sit and stand as localising devices in both sign languages involved, the use of the socalled prepositions in VGT, the status of the subjects in the split sentences (and in comparable constructions) mostly in VGT but also in SASL. Furthermore, we do of course realise that in order to fully address the problem of ‘basic word order’ in a (sign) language one cannot restrict oneself to the analysis of isolated declarative sentences. This complex issue requires a much more elaborate study based on the analysis of naturally produced data.

References Aarons, Debra. 1995. Hands full of meaning. BUA! 10(1). 8–10. Aarons, Debra & Philemon Akach. 1998. South African Sign Language — One language or many? A sociolinguistic question. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 31, 1–28. Aarons, Debra & Philemon Akach. 2002. South African Sign Language: One language or many? In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Language in South Africa, 127–147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

50

Myriam Vermeerbergen, Mieke Van Herreweghe, Philemon Akach and Emily Matabane Bos, Heleen. 1994. An auxiliary verb in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In I. Ahlgren, B. Bergman & M. Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure. Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research. Volume 1, 37–53. Durham: ISLA. Boyes-Braem, Penny, Marie-Louise Fournier, Françoise Rickli, Serena Corazza, Maria-Louisa Franchi & Virginia Volterra. 1990. A comparison of techniques for expressing semantic roles and locative relations in two different sign languages. In W.H. Edmondson & F. Karlsson (eds.), SLR ‘87 Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 114–120. Hamburg: Signum. Coerts, Jane. 1994. Constitutent order in Sign Language of The Netherlands. In M. Brennan & G. Turner (eds.), Word order issues in sign language. Working papers, 47–72. Durham: ISLA. De Weerdt, Kristof, Eline Vanhecke, Mieke Van Herreweghe & Myriam Vermeerbergen. 2003. Op (onder)zoek naar de Vlaamse gebaren-schat. Gent: Cultuur voor Doven. Fischer, Susan & Wynne Jannis. 1990. Verb sandwiches in American Sign Language. In S. Prillwitz & T. Vollhaber (eds.), Current trends in European sign language research: Proceedings of the Third European Congres on Sign Language Research, 279–293. Hamburg: Signum. Frishberg, Nancy. 1985. Dominance relations & discourse structures. In W. Stokoe & V. Volterra (eds.), SLR ‘83. Proceedings of the III. International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 79–90. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Johnston, Trevor A. 1989. Auslan: The sign language of the Australian Deaf community. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney. Johnston, Trevor, Myriam Vermeerbergen, Adam Schembri & Lorraine Leeson. 2007. “Real data are messy”: Considering cross-linguistic analysis of constituent ordering in Auslan, VGT, and ISL. In P. Perniss, R. Pfau & M. Steinbach (eds.), Visible variation: Comparative studies on sign language structure, 163–205. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Leeson, Lorraine. 2001. Aspects of verbal valency in ISL. Ph.D. dissertation, Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Dublin. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1992. Historical linguistics (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loncke, Filip. 1990. Modaliteitsinvloed op taalstructuur en taalverwerving in gebarencommunicatie. Ph.D. dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel. Loots, Gerrit, Isabel Devisé, Guido Lichtert, Nathalie Hoebrechts, Carine Van de Ginste & Ingrid De Bruyne. 2003. De gemeenschap van doven en slechthorenden in Vlaanderen. Communicatie, taal en verwachtingen omtrent maatschappelijke toegankelijkheid. Gent: Cultuur voor Doven. Nyst, Victoria. 2007a. A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Utrecht: LOT. Nyst, Victoria. 2007b. Simultaneous constructions in Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). In M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson & O. Crasborn (eds) Simulteneity in signed languages: Form and function, 127–146. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Penn, Claire, Robyn Lewis & Andrea Greenstein. 1984. Sign language in South Africa: Some research and clinical issues. South African Journal of Communication Disorders 31, 6–11. Penn, Claire. 1992–1994. Dictionary of Southern African signs, vol. 1–5. Pretoria: Human Science Research Council and the South African National Council for the Deaf. Penn, Claire & Timothy Reagan. 1994. The properties of South African Sign Language: Lexical diversity and syntactic unity, Sign Language Studies 85, 319–327.


Saeed, John I., Rachel Sutton-Spence & Lorraine Leeson. 2000. Constituent order in Irish Sign Language and British Sign Language: a preliminary examination. Poster presented at the 7th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR7), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Senghas, Ann, Marie Coppola, Elissa Newport & Ted Supalla. 1997. Argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language: The emergence of grammatical devices. In E. Hughes, M. Hughes & A. Greenhill (eds.), Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 21, 550–561. Boston: Cascadilla Press. Sze, Felix Y.B. 2003. Word order of Hong Kong Sign Language. In A. Baker, B. van den Bogaerde & O. Crasborn (eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives in sign language research. Selected papers from TISLR 2000, 163–192. Hamburg: Signum. Van Herreweghe, Mieke. 1995. De Vlaams-Belgische Gebarentaal: Een eerste verkenning. Gent: Academia Press. Van Herreweghe, Mieke & Myriam Vermeerbergen. 1998. Thuishoren in een wereld van gebaren. Gent: Academia Press. Van Herreweghe, Mieke & Myriam Vermeerbergen. 2004. The semantics and grammatical status of three different realizations of geven (give): directional verb, polymorphemic construction, and auxiliary/preposition/light verb. Poster presented at the 8th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR 8), Barcelona, Spain. Vermeerbergen, Myriam. 1996. rood kool tien persoon in. Morfosyntactische aspecten van gebarentaal, Ph.D. dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel. Vermeerbergen, Myriam. 1997a. Some remarks on the use of the notions ‘subject’, ‘object’ and ‘topic’ in sign language research. Leuvense Bijdragen 86(4), 505–512. Vermeerbergen, Myriam. 1997b. Grammaticale aspecten van de Vlaams-Belgische Gebarentaal. Gentbrugge: Cultuur voor Doven. Vermeerbergen, Myriam. 2004. The quest for basic word order in Flemish Sign Language. In A.M. Bertonneau & G. Dal (eds.), La linguistique de la LSF: recherches actuelles, 257–267. Silexicales 4. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Université de Lille 3. Vermeerbergen, Myriam. 2006. Past and current trends in sign language research. Language & Communication 26(2), 168–192. Volterra, Virginia, Alessandro Laudanna, Serena Corazza, Elena Radutsky & Francesco Natale. 1984. Italian Sign Language: the order of elements in the declarative sentence. In F. Loncke, P. Boyes-Braem & Y. Lebrun (eds.), Recent research on European sign languages, 19–48. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V. Wilbur, R. 1994. Arguments for sentential subjects in ASL. In I. Ahlgren, B. Bergman & M. Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure. Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research. Volume 1, 215–235. Durham: ISLA. Woll, Bencie. 1984. The comparative study of different sign languages: Preliminary analysis In F. Loncke, P. Boyes-Braem & Y. Lebrun (eds.), Recent research on European sign languages, 79–92. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V. Woll, Bencie. 2003. Modality, universality, and the similarities among sign languages: An historical perspective. In A. Baker, B. van den Bogaerde & O. Crasborn (eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives in sign language research. Selected papers from TISLR 2000, 17–27. Hamburg: Signum.

51

52


Appendix: Transcription Conventions Since clips/movies are available for most examples, only minimal transcription and glossing is provided for the signed language examples in the text. Most often, only one line is used to represent the example. In those cases where the production of the dominant and the non-dominant hand are separated, the top line in a transcription represents the production of the dominant hand; the second line refers to the non-dominant hand. Other conventions used include: girl door-open door------grand^mother ps

vc: “walk”

walk/ vc: “walk” … // ?---t----Right hand: house Left hand: house Right hand: house Left hand: +

English gloss for a manual sign. A gloss consisting of more than one word, but representing one sign only. Lengthened production of a sign, e.g. when the sign is held in a stationary configuration. ^ is used to link the glosses for the different parts in a compound. Pointing sign, sometimes the referent or locus pointed at is included in the transcription: ps-addresssee; psa The abbreviation ‘vc’ stands for ‘verb construction’. A verb construction is a predicate that is part of the productive lexicon. In the data discussed in this paper most of the vc’s belong to the group of so-called ‘classifier constructions’. Verb constructions are transcribed here only in terms of their meaning. When the status of a predicate is not clear, both interpretations (lexical verb sign / verb construction) are provided. A pause, hesitation in the production, e.g. when a signer stops to think. ‘Intonation break’ often indicating a clause boundary. Nonmanual marking for polar question, the line following ? indicates its scope. Nonmanual marking for topic, the line indicates its scope. When the dominant and non-dominant hand are equally active in the production of a sign, the gloss for that sign is written in both lines. For bi-manual signs with only one active hand the gloss is written in the line for the active hand only, the + in the other line indicates the supporting role of the other hand.