Theoretical
Issues
in
Sign
Language
Research
(TISLR)
Conference
11
The
Deafness,
Cognition
and
Language
(DCAL)
Research
Centre,
University
College
London
The Realization of Shared Argument(s) in Serial Verb Constructions in Hong Kong Sign
Language (Presented in English)
Statement:
The syntactic dependency of shared argument(s) in Serial Verb Constructions (SVCs) in Hong
Kong Sign Language (HKSL) can be realized in two major ways: 1.) an empty category in the
form of either an NP trace or a free empty category (FEC); 2.) an overt pronominal in the form of
a classifier.
Abstract:
In linguistics, there is a wide range of disparate empirical phenomena in which the abstract
structural properties pose subtle interpretative constraints on how speakers of the language can
use a given form or description to identify the referent (or the object of entity) in a discourse
(Safir 2004). These constraints on acceptable interpretations for sentences thus have raised the
questions of the exact nature of these abstract structural properties as well as the possible rules
that govern these structural properties.
Among these linguistic phenomena, Serial Verb Constructions (SVCs) are of particular interest
because they invoke the important theoretical issues of how the shared argument(s), which is a
salient linguistic feature ascribed to the constructions in the literature, is distributed and
interpreted. In the SVC literature of spoken languages, the shared argument is often discussed as
mediated by a null argument which is realized as an empty category (Collins 1997; Baker &
Stewart 2002; Carstens 2002; among others). Following the previous studies, this paper explores
the possible syntactic interpretation(s) of the shared argument(s) in the analysis of SVCs in Hong
Kong Sign Language (HKSL) under the Minimalist framework (Chomsky 1995, 2000). The
main goal is to show how the syntactic dependency between the ‘missing’ argument and the
referent in the construction is represented, and whether the kind of interpretative strategy that
justifies the existence of the ‘missing’ argument is distinctive from that in spoken languages.
The analysis shows that the syntactic dependency of the shared argument(s) can be realized in
two major ways: 1.) an empty category; 2.) an overt pronominal. In terms of the former, the
empty category can be realized as either an NP trace, or a free empty category (FEC).
Specifically, the shared agent argument and/or the shared theme argument in some types of
SVCs (including Motion-directional SVCs, Take-SVCs (Instrument), Take-SVCs (Theme),
Manner-SVCs and Give-SVCs,) can be realized by an NP trace via A-movement triggered by θrole feature checking suggested by Hornstein (1999, 2001). On the other hand, the shared theme
argument is realized as a FEC which is base-generated in Transitive class-SVCs, and its
interpretation is pragmatically licensed by the antecedent or base-generated topic. In terms of the
latter, in the two types of Resultative-SVCs that the verbs are expressed as classifier predicates,
the shared agent argument or the theme argument can be observed through the use of the
classifier which is realized as an overt pronominal in the syntactic structure, and is licensed by its
antecedent in the discourse/pragmatic context. The claim that HKSL has two ways to show the
Theoretical
Issues
in
Sign
Language
Research
(TISLR)
Conference
11
The
Deafness,
Cognition
and
Language
(DCAL)
Research
Centre,
University
College
London
syntactic dependency of the shared arguments(s) in this paper is significant to the current
research of SVCs, in that it contributes to the linguistic evidence for the concept of shared
argument(s) across languages, not only by the stipulation of explicitly constructed linguistic
principles as agreed in spoken language literature, i.e. by means of an empty category, but also
by the language specific property which is unique in sign languages, i.e. by means of a classifier.
HKSL Data:
The Shared Argument realized as an NP Trace (Selected Examples):
(1)
Motion-directional SVC
GIRL RUN
be_towardsa+CL_SEM: a_human_entity
‘Lit. The girl ran towards (somewhere).’
(2)
Take-SVC (Instrument)
CARROT
be-locateda+CL_SASS: a_cylinderical_object//
BOY
KNIFE
TAKEa
head nod
CUT+++
CL_SASS:
a_cylinderical_object
‘Lit. There was a carrot. The boy took (it) to cut the carrot.’
(3)
Give‐SVC
SISTER EGG-CAKE
BUY
0GIVE3
head nod/blink
MOTHER
‘Lit. The sister bought a birthday cake (and) gave (it) to mother.’
The Shared Argument realized as a free empty category (FEC):
(4)
Transitive-class SVC
DEER
be-located-ata+CL_SEM: an_animate_entity//
HUNTER
SHOOT//
DEER
lie-down-ata+CL_SEM: an_animate_entity //
MALE
walk-toa+CL_SEM: a_human_legged_entity//
pulla+cl_handle: an_animate_entity
CUT+++
CL_SASS: an_animate_entity
//
‘Lit. There was a deer. The hunter shot it, (and) the deer lay down. The hunter walked to
the deer, pulled (it) and cut (it).’
Theoretical
Issues
in
Sign
Language
Research
(TISLR)
Conference
11
The
Deafness,
Cognition
and
Language
(DCAL)
Research
Centre,
University
College
London
The Shared Argument realized as a classifier (Selected Examples):
(5)
Resultative-SVC (Theme)
STREET
BANANA
be-located-ata+CL_SASS: a_long_object
BOY
NOT-KNOW
walk+CL_SEM: a_human_legged_entity//
BOY
step-ona+CL_SEM: a_human_legged_entity
CL_SASS: a_long_objecta
//
head nod
fall+ CL_SEM: a_human_legged_entity//
‘Lit. There was a banana on the ground. The boy did not know it. (He) walked, stepped
on the banana (and) fell down.’
References
Baker, C. Mark & Osamuyimen T. Stewart. 2002. The Serial Verb Construction without
Constructions. Unpublished ms, Rutgers University. Available at
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mabaker/CSVC2.pdf. 1–59.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels
& Juan Uriagereka (eds.). Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard
Lasnik. Cambridge, Mass. The MIT Press. 89–155.
Carstens, Vicki. 2002. Antisymmetry and Word Order in Serial Constructions. Language 78.3–
50.
Collins, Chris. 1997. Argument Sharing in Serial Verb Constructions, Linguistic Inquiry 28,
461–497.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and Control, Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69–96.
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! Oxford: Blackwell.
Safir, Ken. 2004. The Syntax of (In)dependency. University of Rutgers. MIT Press