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

[Adam Schembri]

Hi Sarah
Are you aware of Liddell’s (2003) analysis which claims that numeral
incorporation is not the appropriate analysis for AGE signs in ASL, and
that the initial contact at the chin is best analysed as a prefix because
the contact at the chin is “…followed by a numeral stem capable of
standing on its own without the prefix” (Liddell, 2003: 35).
The same could be said in Auslan and BSL where the initial contact
‘prefix’ is at the nose, with a numeral stem following this contact.
Thanks,
Adam

-- 

Assoc. Prof. Adam Schembri, PhD https://latrobe.academia.edu/AdamSchembri
Department of Languages & Linguistics  | La Trobe University | Melbourne
(Bundoora) | Victoria |  3086 |  Australia |Tel : +61 3 9479 2887 |
Twitter: @AdamCSchembri






On 2/12/2015, 19:25, "linguists interested in signed languages on behalf
of Sarah Hafer" <SLLING-L at LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU on behalf of
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
>