The point of agreement

Abstract

This paper reconsiders arguments suggesting that sign language analyses must proceed differently to take into account their gestural, iconic origins. Lillo-Martin & Meier (2011) argue that agreement is ‘person marking’, shown by directionality. Liddell (2003, 2011) argues that directional verbs move between locations associated with referents; given an infinite number of points, the forms of these verbs are unlistable, and therefore just gestural indicating; he claims that this makes sign languages different from spoken languages, a position that I will argue against. In their response, Lillo-Martin & Meier then agree that real-world referent locations are not part of grammar, so language must interface closely with the gestural system. In contrast, Quer (2011) argues that Liddell’s reasoning is flawed. I will present evidence to agree with Quer and argue that the linguistic discussion was prematurely derailed by noting the recent alternate analysis offered by Gökgöz (2013). There may well be a role for visual iconicity in relation to sign language structure, as demonstrated by Schlenker (2013a,b), but unless we pursue linguistic analysis further, we will never get a clear understanding of what that role is.

Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages

“…There appears to be no a priori reason to assume, however, that the agreement analysis is the only account able to explain this, as Meier (2002), Lillo-Martin and Meier (2011) and Wilbur (2013) claim. After all, it is only the patterns in the use of directionality in indicating verbs that are influenced by the real-world location of present referents or imagined locations of absent referents, and not other linguistic properties of these verbs.…”

“…Meier (2002), Sandler and Lillo-Martin (2006), Wilbur (2013) point out in various ways that the use of indicating verbs appears to have syntactic consequences, and thus must be represented in the syntax of individual sign languages. They claim this would not be predicted by a model which incorporated deictic gesture.…”

“…This kind of assumption is what Cooperrider (2011) considers an example of Fauconnier's illusion of simplicity. Similarly, Wilbur (2013) details many examples of the use of pointing in sign languages, without exploring in detail how many similar uses have been documented in co-speech gesture. Based on all the evidence noted above, there is no reason to necessarily expect indicating verb constructions (as fusions of morphemes and gestural elements) to emerge quickly (or at all) in all sign languages, given that the development/emergence of pointing gestures with or without speech certainly does not "come for free" in non-signers, and the fact that a small number of communities (e.g., Barai in Papua New Guinea, see Wilkins, 2003) are reported to not use index finger pointing at all.…”

“…These observations may also apply to the sign languages discussed here (although see Padden 1983, for arguments in favor of a category of subject in ASL). agreement analysis has grown, though many alternative accounts (e.g., Wilbur 2013;Wilcox & Occhino 2016) do not accept the pointing gesture analysis in Liddell's proposal. In this paper, we build on Liddell's (2003) cognitive grammar analysis of indicating verbs by introducing to his account some key concepts from Construction Grammar, and by specifically suggesting that these represent a sign language equivalent to 'multimodal constructions' found in spoken languages (as proposed by Andrén 2010;Harrison 2010;Zima 2017a;Blackwell et al 2015 amongst others).…”

Internally-headed relative clauses in sign languages

“…For nominal reference, the introduction of a referent that will be subsequently referred to in a narrative (specific or definite reference) is usually accompanied by the identification of that referent at an index point (locus) in space. This can be accomplished by a variety of means, all of which make clear to the viewer that the locus is being identified: (1) sign the noun at the locus (not always possible, given the place of articulation (POA) of signs), (2) accompany the noun sign with a pointing sign (glossed ix for index), which may follow, precede, or occur simultaneous to the noun sign (for discussion of pointing and agreement, see Wilbur 2013), and/or (3) accompany the noun sign with an eyegaze or head/ shoulder/body shift towards the locus, again either before, during, or after the noun sign. Subsequent reference to that referent is made by using that locus, which can be done with pronominal/classifier signs, index signs (pointing), eyegaze, and so on, just as long as it is clear to the viewer which referent is intended.…”