<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Right. The claim has
always been that the restriction only applies to noun subjects,
because (unstressed) pronouns </font>can occur much more freely
at the ends of sentences in ASL. In some theoretical frameworks,
such as Role and Reference Grammar, these end-of-sentence pronouns
would be considered outside of the core clause in the same way as
topics are. So, the claim could then be expressed as "In the core
clause, VS order is impossible" (with possible further
qualifications such as "in intransitive clauses" or "with plain
verbs").<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Albert Bickford
SIL International (Mexico program and Signed Language Leadership Team)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:albert_bickford@sil.org">albert_bickford@sil.org</a>
</pre>
<br>
On 2011/03/06 10:20 PM, Valerie Sultan wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=5rGe6BKxiQt4Rx3BzXOMxgV7Nt5uNQbjOTTar@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">One thing that needs to be considered is that these
intransitive VS structures seem to be possible with pronouns but
not lexical nouns. EAT-FINISH ME/YOU/US/etc. seems fine to me as
a native signer whereas EAT-FINISH DOG/DAD/MAN/etc. don't. Unless
these pronouns are to be labeled as some other linguistic
structure, then ruling out intransitive VS structures completely
is not accurate.
<div>
<br>
<div>Valerie<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 9:00 PM,
SLLING-L automatic digest system <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:LISTSERV@listserv.valenciacc.edu">LISTSERV@listserv.valenciacc.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">There are 2 messages totalling 65
lines in this issue.<br>
<br>
Topics of the day:<br>
<br>
1. a Linguistics of ASL question -- grammar (2)<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 06:22:28 -0500<br>
From: Dan Parvaz <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dparvaz@GMAIL.COM">dparvaz@GMAIL.COM</a>><br>
Subject: Re: a Linguistics of ASL question -- grammar<br>
<br>
> topic_____<br>
> RECENTLY, EAT-FINISH DADDY.<br>
<br>
I have no "instincts", but years of observation have me
thinking that if the above<br>
is an example of a VS structure, then it is infelicitious.
It is possible to construe<br>
it as such, to find a context in which it can be so, but
I'll bet the temptation<br>
would be to interpret that as "Not that long ago, I ate my
father." That this<br>
sentence might be as likely, or more so, than the VS
interpretation should say<br>
something about the former interpretation's likelihood. Or
about me, but that's a<br>
little more disturbing.<br>
<br>
<soapbox><br>
This is one more reason why we need a good ASL corpus,
preferably including<br>
spontaneous dialogue and not simply those utterances we
wheedle out of our<br>
consultants. Then we may have some idea of the
distribution of these<br>
constructions.<br>
</soapbox><br>
<br>
-Dan.<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 23:18:53 -0500<br>
From: Adam Frost <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:adam@FROSTVILLAGE.COM">adam@FROSTVILLAGE.COM</a>><br>
Subject: Re: a Linguistics of ASL question -- grammar<br>
<br>
I wasn't planning on saying anything on the matter, but as
a native signer the sentence RECENTLY, EAT-FINISH DADDY to
follow a VS structure feels wrong. The only way I can see
DADDY being a subject in this sentence is if it were a
rhetorical statement. I don't know if that would mean it's
still a VS structure with that way of signing, but I don't
think it would be.<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<br>
On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:22 AM, "Dan Parvaz" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dparvaz@GMAIL.COM">dparvaz@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
>> topic_____<br>
>> RECENTLY, EAT-FINISH DADDY.<br>
><br>
> I have no "instincts", but years of observation have
me thinking that if the above<br>
> is an example of a VS structure, then it is
infelicitious. It is possible to construe<br>
> it as such, to find a context in which it can be so,
but I'll bet the temptation<br>
> would be to interpret that as "Not that long ago, I
ate my father." That this<br>
> sentence might be as likely, or more so, than the VS
interpretation should say<br>
> something about the former interpretation's
likelihood. Or about me, but that's a<br>
> little more disturbing.<br>
><br>
> <soapbox><br>
> This is one more reason why we need a good ASL
corpus, preferably including<br>
> spontaneous dialogue and not simply those utterances
we wheedle out of our<br>
> consultants. Then we may have some idea of the
distribution of these<br>
> constructions.<br>
> </soapbox><br>
><br>
> -Dan.<br>
><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of SLLING-L Digest - 5 Mar 2011 to 6 Mar 2011
(#2011-15)<br>
************************************************************<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>