Antw: Re: O-only agreement
uzeshan at UCLAN.AC.UK
Mon Sep 21 08:45:51 UTC 2009
Hi, since I seem to have sparked this debate, let me clarify that my initial response was shorthand for something like "if we looked at phenomena of coding for roles in clauses with transitive predicates in a number of sign languages and wanted to express this phenomenologically parallel information in the terms of the original query about S, A and O, then we would say that ....."
As Franz Dotter wrote, "From a phenomenological view, we have "coding for roles" in sign languages. Which formal status this coding may have (...), is a secondary question". So I am not at all wedded to S, A and O for sign languages, but I think it is sometimes useful for our spoken language colleagues to get a "near equivalent", after which they can decide if they need to know more for their particular survey or not - as is indeed happening off-list in this case.
BTW, there is at least one sign language that has no "directional verbs" and where "coding for roles" through linguistic means is marginal.
Prof. Ulrike Zeshan
Director, International Centre for Sign Languages and Deaf Studies
Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
Livesey House, LH212
University of Central Lancashire
Preston PR12HE, UK
uzeshan at uclan.ac.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lingtyp