SLLING-L Digest - 5 Mar 2011 to 6 Mar 2011 (#2011-15)

[Albert Bickford]

Right.  The claim has always been that the restriction only applies to 
noun subjects, because (unstressed) pronouns 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").

Albert Bickford
SIL International (Mexico program and Signed Language Leadership Team)
albert_bickford at sil.org


On 2011/03/06 10:20 PM, Valerie Sultan wrote:
> 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.
>
> Valerie
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 9:00 PM, SLLING-L automatic digest system 
> <LISTSERV at listserv.valenciacc.edu 
> <mailto:LISTSERV at listserv.valenciacc.edu>> wrote:
>
>     There are 2 messages totalling 65 lines in this issue.
>
>     Topics of the day:
>
>      1. a Linguistics of ASL question -- grammar (2)
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Date:    Sun, 6 Mar 2011 06:22:28 -0500
>     From:    Dan Parvaz <dparvaz at GMAIL.COM <mailto:dparvaz at GMAIL.COM>>
>     Subject: Re: a Linguistics of ASL question -- grammar
>
>     >     topic_____
>     >     RECENTLY, EAT-FINISH DADDY.
>
>     I have no "instincts", but years of observation have me thinking
>     that if the above
>     is an example of a VS structure, then it is infelicitious. It is
>     possible to construe
>     it as such, to find a context in which it can be so, but I'll bet
>     the temptation
>     would be to interpret that as "Not that long ago, I ate my
>     father." That this
>     sentence might be as likely, or more so, than the VS
>     interpretation should say
>     something about the former interpretation's likelihood. Or about
>     me, but that's a
>     little more disturbing.
>
>     <soapbox>
>     This is one more reason why we need a good ASL corpus, preferably
>     including
>     spontaneous dialogue and not simply those utterances we wheedle
>     out of our
>     consultants. Then we may have some idea of the distribution of these
>     constructions.
>     </soapbox>
>
>     -Dan.
>
>     ------------------------------
>
>     Date:    Sun, 6 Mar 2011 23:18:53 -0500
>     From:    Adam Frost <adam at FROSTVILLAGE.COM
>     <mailto:adam at FROSTVILLAGE.COM>>
>     Subject: Re: a Linguistics of ASL question -- grammar
>
>     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.
>
>     Adam
>
>     On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:22 AM, "Dan Parvaz" <dparvaz at GMAIL.COM
>     <mailto:dparvaz at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>
>     >>    topic_____
>     >>    RECENTLY, EAT-FINISH DADDY.
>     >
>     > I have no "instincts", but years of observation have me thinking
>     that if the above
>     > is an example of a VS structure, then it is infelicitious. It is
>     possible to construe
>     > it as such, to find a context in which it can be so, but I'll
>     bet the temptation
>     > would be to interpret that as "Not that long ago, I ate my
>     father." That this
>     > sentence might be as likely, or more so, than the VS
>     interpretation should say
>     > something about the former interpretation's likelihood. Or about
>     me, but that's a
>     > little more disturbing.
>     >
>     > <soapbox>
>     > This is one more reason why we need a good ASL corpus,
>     preferably including
>     > spontaneous dialogue and not simply those utterances we wheedle
>     out of our
>     > consultants. Then we may have some idea of the distribution of these
>     > constructions.
>     > </soapbox>
>     >
>     > -Dan.
>     >
>
>     ------------------------------
>
>     End of SLLING-L Digest - 5 Mar 2011 to 6 Mar 2011 (#2011-15)
>     ************************************************************
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20110307/f8cbfee6/attachment.htm>