Three important considerations for sign language agreement: location,
location, location.
Language of presentation: English
In the on-going debate regarding the status of agreement in signed languages, much discussion has
focused on how much a part of the linguistic system agreement is, and what, if any, role is played by a
gestural component. In this presentation, I tackle a different (albeit related) topic concerning the domain
of agreement. Specifically, should agreement be limited to the class of agreement (or directional) verbs?
Most authors discuss agreement in the context of two-place verbs which move from a to b to mark
their arguments. If the linguist phenomenon of agreement involves the sharing of features between a
controller and a target (Corbett 2006), then in sign language the verb’s arguments (the controller) share
features (their location in signing space) with the verb (the target) in order to attain verbal agreement. And
yet, many other structures in signed languages involve a similar sharing of (spatial) features but they are
not considered to be agreement. Such structures include localized verbs which “agree” with a single
argument – as shown in (1) – or nouns and adjectives which are articulated at the location of an associated
referent.
The exclusion of such structures can be traced back to Padden’s (1988) seminal work on agreement
in ASL, and her dismissal of single-argument agreement as ambiguous structures with no clear syntactic
underpinnings (2). This uncertainty was cleared up by Engberg-Pedersen’s (1993) identification of
discursive contexts involving contrast (in which referential ambiguity may arise but is resolved by the
context) and Meir’s (1998) subsequent observation that discourse-neutral localization invariably (and
unambiguously) involves the verb’s internal argument: the subject of intransitive verbs and the object of
transitive verbs (see example 1).
By the same token, other localization structures, involving nouns, adjectives or pronouns, seem to
be equally free of any ambiguity that might send a syntactician running. Why, then, this obsession with
directionality? Why the need for two-place structures? One possible motivation may be the strength of
traditional agreeing verbs to show linguistic and phrase-driven behaviour: they show clear signs of
interacting with syntax by affecting word order (Quadros 1999) and licensing null arguments (LilloMartin 1986).
This presentation looks at what mileage is to be had from expanding the notion of agreement to any
structure which involves sharing spatial features, namely localization. Possible advantages include a
consistent model of spatial agreement and a more uniform account of verbal behaviour in sign languages.
The finding that from a set of nearly 650 common verbs in Spanish Sign Language, over a third are
classified as localizable (whereas less than 20% are directional) draws attention to a category which does
not fit well in the standard plain-spatial-agreeing verbal tripartite. Possible pitfalls may be an
incommensurable distancing of sign language agreement from spoken language agreement, especially
when it comes to the thorny issue of what features are being shared in the agreement process. Crucially,
evidence of interaction between localization and the grammar will support this broader conceptualization
of agreement in sign language and strengthen the case for the linguistic status of agreement.
References
Corbett, Greville. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: the semantics and morphosyntax of
the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum.
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1986. Two types of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 4:415-444.
Meir, Irit. 1998. Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. PhD dissertation,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. Garland, New
York.
Quadros, Ronice Müller de. 1999. Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. PhD dissertation,
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul.
Examples
(1) LSE (Spanish Sign Language): single argument agreement
a) DIEx
‘(the sheep)i died’
b) DEVOURx
‘[the wolf] devoured (the sheep)i’
The argument (in this example a herd of sheep) is previously associated in the discourse with locus x and
the verbs are articulated at this point to identify the argument.
(2) ASL (Padden 1990: 121)
WOMAN WANTx WANTy WANTz.
‘The womeni,j,k are each wanting.’
‘The woman wants thisi, and thisj, and thisk.’