[Slling-l] Numerical Incorporation for Age signs in ASL

[Adam Frost]

Before I answer my thoughts on the original post, I must reply to the blanket comment made. As a Deaf linguist myself, I find it rather distasteful to generalize in such a fashion, but it is also very harmful to the Deaf population as a whole. While it is true that any empirical research should be questioned, it should be questioned for its work rather than discarded because a person is or isn’t apart of a social grouping. I have found work done by Deaf individuals that contributed absolutely nothing of worth because it was unsupported data of pure personal conjecture. I have also found a whole collection of work done by hearing individuals who collaborated greatly with the Deaf population as subjects as well as research assistants. Stokoe is one that comes to mind who had a profound impact. Does that mean that I assume that his work is perfect and infallible? Not at all, but discounting his work because he was hearing and couldn’t sign very well doesn’t help the Deaf or ling
 uists in the least.

Now that I have gotten that out of my system, on to the original post. I often get those questions from my students. My response is that it truly depends on the form that you are using. Signing AGE followed by the number wouldn’t be considered numeral incorporation by anyone, but rather a compound. Signing PREFIX-AGE followed by another number, which was brought up by Adam Schembri in another email, would also not be considered numeral incorporation just as Scott Liddell explained (also referred to in Adam’s email). This is also why I do not consider NUMBER-OF-YEARS like 1-YEAR, 2-YEAR, 3-YEAR, etc to be numeral incorporation because the final handshape is never the number but an S handshape. Now, there is another form of AGE-(Number) that does not have any handshape change for the entire duration of the sign while making the same motion form the chin and outward. This is the form that I would say is numeral incorporation. If others disagree with me, by all means explain. Now
  onto the argument that it is just an assimilation, so it can’t be numeral incorporation. This type of blanket assumption is dangerous because if one were to really look at all of the numeral incorporation, they are all a result of assimilation.

Adam

On Dec 2, 2015, at 2:17 AM, Elton, Frances <f.elton at UCL.AC.UK> wrote:

> Please don't take in research by hearing people, only take in by Deaf people.
> Thanks 
> Frances 
> 
> Frances Elton MA, DCAL, UCL
> 
> 
>> On 2 Dec 2015, at 08:27, Sarah Hafer <sarah.hafer at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I understand that some publishings say the age signs in ASL where the numbers are 
>> blended with the OLD sign for ASL are part of the numerical incorporation category. For 
>> some reason, it just does not feel right to me that these should be classified as numberical 
>> incorporation. I want to say it is because of some kind of phonological process such as 
>> phonological reduction. Then i saw one website says these AGE signs in ASL are rather 
>> 'assimilation,' and that felt quite more right to me. 
>> 
>> I am wondering what are your take on this? Any scientific publishing on how the AGE signs 
>> in ASL are perhaps not numerical incorporation but rather something else?
>> 
>> Sarah
>> 
>