Show simple item record

What You See Is What You Get.Get: Surface Transparency and Ambiguity of Nominalizing Reduplication in American Sign Language

dc.contributor.authorAbner, Natasha
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-13T16:40:56Z
dc.date.available2019-02-01T19:56:26Zen
dc.date.issued2017-12
dc.identifier.citationAbner, Natasha (2017). "What You See Is What You Get.Get: Surface Transparency and Ambiguity of Nominalizing Reduplication in American Sign Language." Syntax 20(4): 317-352.
dc.identifier.issn1368-0005
dc.identifier.issn1467-9612
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/139095
dc.description.abstractNominalizing reduplication in American Sign Language (ASL) is an ambiguous process that can derive both concrete object‐ and result‐denoting nominals. The properties of this nominalization process, including this ambiguity, are accounted for here by appealing to the discrete and surface transparent morphology that the language uses to encode components of event (Wilbur ) and argument (Benedicto & Brentari ) structure. Nominalizing reduplication is shown to be a process that nominalizes (and reduplicates) only the low portion of verbal structure responsible for encoding the event result (VPres). Direct nominalization of this VPres constituent yields nominals with result‐denoting interpretations. Concrete object‐denoting interpretations may arise when the verbal structure contains an argument classifier, which is evident in the handshape of the verbal predicate. In such cases, the nominal argument introduced by the classifier serves as the input to (reduced) relative clause formation, yielding a concrete object‐denoting interpretation. The interpretive ambiguity is thus reduced to ambiguity in the syntactic structure underlying the derived nominal. This approach falls in line with longstanding structural approaches to nominalization and more recent proposals regarding processes of reduplication (Inkelas & Zoll ).
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.publisherJohn Benjamins
dc.titleWhat You See Is What You Get.Get: Surface Transparency and Ambiguity of Nominalizing Reduplication in American Sign Language
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelLinguistics
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHumanities
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139095/1/synt12147-sup-0001-DataS1.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139095/2/synt12147.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139095/3/synt12147_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/synt.12147
dc.identifier.sourceSyntax
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchick, B. 1987. The acquisition of classifier predicates in American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSupalla, T. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSupalla, T. 1996. An implicational hierarchy in verb agreement in American Sign Language. Ms., University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSupalla, T. & E. Newport. 1978. How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In Understanding language through sign language research, ed. P. Siple, 91 – 132. New York: Academic Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSutton‐Spence, R. & B. Woll. 1999. The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVergnaud, J.‐R. 1974. French relative clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilbur, R.B. 1987. American Sign Language: Linguistic and applied dimensions. San Diego, CA: College‐Hill.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilbur, R.B. 1996. Evidence for the function and structure of wh‐clefts in American Sign Language. In International review of sign linguistics, ed. W. Edmondson & R.B. Wilbur, 209 – 256. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilbur, R.B. 2003. Representations of telicity in ASL. In Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. J. Cihlar, A. Franklin, D. Kaiser & I. Kimbara, 354 – 368. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilbur, R.B. 2010. The semantics–phonology interface. In Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, ed. D. Brentari, 355 – 380. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilbur, R.B. & E. Malaia. 2008. Event Visibility Hypothesis: Motion capture evidence for overt marking of telicity in ASL. Paper presented at the 82nd annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago, January 3–6.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilbur, R.B. & C. Patschke. 1999. Syntactic correlates of brow raise in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 2: 3 – 40.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZimmer, J. & C. Patschke. 1990. A class of determiners in ASL. In Sign language research: Theoretical issues, ed. C. Lucas, 201 – 210. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZwitserlood, I. 2003. Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarantaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZwitserlood, I. 2008. Morphology below the level of the sign: “Frozen” forms and classifier predicates. In Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 8, ed. J. Quer, 251 – 272. Hamburg: Signum.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbner, N. 2012. There once was a verb: The predicative core of possessive and nominalization structures in American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbner, N. 2013. Gettin’ together a POSSe: The primacy of predication in ASL possessives. Sign Language & Linguistics 16: 125 – 156.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbner, N., M. Flaherty, K. Stangl, D. Brentari & S. Goldin‐Meadow. 2015. Emergent lexical categories: Nouns and verbs in homesign and Nicaraguan Sign Language. Paper presented at Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory, Universitat Papeu Fabreu, Barcelona, May 4.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlexiadou, A. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBenedicto, E. & D. Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go?: Argument‐changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 743 – 810.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBorer, H. 2005. Structuring sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrennan, M. 1990. Word formation in British Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm, Stockholm.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrentari, D. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChen Pichler, D. & J. Hochgesang. 2008. An overview of possessive and existentials in American Sign Language. In Possessive and existential constructions in sign languages, ed. U. Zeshan & P. Perniss 213 – 233. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Ishara.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum, 184 – 221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEmmorey, K. 2003. Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEngberg‐Pedersen, E. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg, Germany: Signum.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFischer, S. 1973. Two processes of reduplication in the American Sign Language. Foundations of Language 9: 469 – 480.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFukui, N. & M. Speas. 1986. Specifiers and projection. In Papers in theoretical linguistics (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8), ed. N. Fukui, T.R. Rapoport & E. Sagey, 128 – 172. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldin‐Meadow, S., C. Butcher, C. Mylander & M. Dodge. 1994. Nouns and verbs in a self‐styled gesture system: What’s in a name ? Cognitive Psychology 27: 259 – 319.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrimshaw, J. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHiraiwa, K. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHunger, B. 2006. Noun/verb pairs in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language & Linguistics 9: 71 – 94.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceInkelas, S. 2008. The dual theory of reduplication. Linguistics 46: 351 – 401.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceInkelas, S. & C. Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnston, T. 1989. Auslan: The sign language of the Australian deaf community. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnston, T. 2001. Nouns and verbs in Australian Sign Language: An open and shut case ? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 6: 235 – 257.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKatz, J.J. & P. Postal. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKegl, J. & S. Schley. 1986. When is a classifier no longer a classifier? In Proceedings of the 12th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. N. Nikiforidou, M. Van Clay, M. Niepokuj & D. Feder, 425 – 441. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKimmelman, V. 2009. Parts of speech in Russian Sign Language: The role of iconicity and economy. Sign Language & Linguistics 12: 161 – 186.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKlima, E.S. & U. Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKoopman, H. 2005. On the parallelism of DPs and clauses in Kisongo Maasai. In Verb first, ed. A. Carnie, S. Dooley & H. Harley, 281 – 301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKoopman, H. & D. Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85: 211 – 258.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKoptjevskaja‐Tamm, M. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKratzer, A. 1994. On external arguments. In Functional projections (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17), ed. E. Benedicto & J. Runner, 103 – 130. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKuroda, S.‐Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not. Linguisticae Investigationes 12: 1 – 47.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLarson, R. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335 – 392.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLauner, P. 1982. “A plane” is not “to fly”: Acquiring the distinction between related nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York, New York.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLees, R. 1963. The grammar of English nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLiddell, S.K. & R.E. Johnson. 1987. An analysis of spatial‐locative predicates in American Sign Language. Paper presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, Lappeenranta, Finland, July 15–19.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLongobardi, G. 2001. The structure of DPs: Principles, parameters and problems. In Handbook of syntactic theory, ed. M. Baltin & C. Collins s, 562 – 603. Oxford: Blackwell.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMacLaughlin, D. 1997. The structure of determiner phrases: Evidence from American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, Boston.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMalaia, E., R.B. Wilbur & M. Milković. 2013. Kinematic parameters of signed verbs. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 56: 1677 – 1688.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarantz, A. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2: 201 – 225.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMathur, G. 2000. Verb agreement as alignment in signed languages. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcDonald, B. 1982. Aspects of the American Sign Language predicate system. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMeir, I. 2001. Verb classifiers as noun incorporation in Israeli Sign Language. In Yearbook of morphology 1999, ed. G. Booij & J.V. Marle, 299 – 319. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMeir, I. 2002. A cross‐modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20:413–450.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNeidle, C., J. Kegl, D. MacLaughlin, B. Bahan & R.G. Lee. 2000. The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNtelitheos, D. 2012. Deriving nominals: A syntactic account of Malagasy nominalizations. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePadden, C. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePadden, C.A. & D.M. Perlmutter. 1987. American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5: 335 – 375.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePylkkänen, L. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRamchand, G. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first‐phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRathmann, C. 2005. Event structure in American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoodenburg, J. 2006. The role of Number within nominal arguments: The case of French pluralized event nominalizations. Paper presented at the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, New Brunswick, NJ, March 31–April 2.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith, C. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteinbach, M. 2012. Plurality. In Sign language: An international handbook, ed. R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll, 112 – 136. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStrickland, B., C. Geraci, E. Chemla, P. Schlenker, M. Kelepir & R. Pfau. 2015. Event representations constrain the structure of language: Sign language as a window into universally accessible linguistic biases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 5968 – 5973.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.