modifiability of indicating verbs

[Gaurav Mathur]

Christian Rathmann and I have been following the recent discussion  
with interest, because we have been interested in finding out under  
which conditions a verb can be modulated for person and number. In  
our work, we suggest that semantic factors (i.e. argument structure)  
predict which verbs are candidates for being modulated for agreement  
(i.e. selecting for two animate arguments), and that a number of  
further factors, including phonological phonetic, discourse-related  
and historical, determine whether this agreement is realized.

So, instead of asking whether a verb is plain or agreeing, it may  
make better sense to ask whether they are *candidates* for being  
modulated for agreement (or for indicating entities) or not. This  
would be one way to get around saying that verb agreement is not  
obligatory (as has been suggested here) and therefore not directly  
comparable to agreement systems in spoken languages like Spanish or  
German.

The ASL sign PITY that was given earlier as an example is a case in  
point. It is a candidate for agreement, because it selects for two  
animate arguments (a person who is doing the pitying and the person  
who is being pitied). It can be modulated for person and number by  
changing the orientation of the hands. In this case, the modulation  
does not necessarily mean that the hands move from one location to  
another.

For more details, see our paper "Is verb agreement the same cross- 
modally" in Meier, Cormier and Quinto-Pozos
(2002) as well as "Verb agreement as a linguistic innovation in  
signed languages" in Quer's volume based on TISLR8 (in press).

Best,
Gaurav

_______________________________________________
SLLING-L mailing list
SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l