Body-Verb Agreement Signs Are Modified To Show Which Of The Following

Janis, Wynne. 1995. A cross-linguistic perspective on ASL surreality. In Karen Emmorey & Judy Reilly (eds.), Language, Gesture, and space, 195-223. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thus, we argue that advertising verbs constitute a structured construction of co-sign characters and gestures, much like multimodal constructions of language and multi-gestures proposed by gesture researchers as part of Construction Grammar (Andrén 2010; Zima 2014). Indicator verbs exist both in schematic form (illustrated in Figure 8 by four types of advertisement: regular dual display, double upside-down display obediences, regular references of individual advertisements and upside-down references) and in substantial atomic constructions, i.e. individual characters with idiosyncratic properties (illustrated in Figure 8 by PAY, TAKE, THANK and LEARN). The concept of multimodal constructions in English provides a basis for understanding the indication of verbs as constructs combining morphemic and gestural elements. The frequent combination of gestures and diktic signs certainly seems to reflect the anchoring in the minds of individual signatories and the conventionalization of these combinations into character communities, and the fact that these special combinations vary from sign language to sign language and have certain special properties also corresponds to what would be provided for in a Construction Grammar account. The essential difference for sign languages is that our indication of verbs is unimodal (not multimodal) constructions of morphemes and diktic gestures.

For example, in an indicator verb such as BSL/Auslan [PAYx>y], the monomorphemic trunk PAY is indicated lexical for hand shape, orientation, and movement, but the initial and final positions may contain dictic gestures and are therefore variable. 5Cysouw (2011) refers to the notion of Corbett covariance as concordance/concordance, in order to distinguish it from conformity/flexion in which the latter is limited to subject-verb covariance. As is often the case in languages with „rich“ matching systems, ASL (and other sign languages; see Quadros 1999 for similar libras data) allows the arguments of verbs with diractuality to be zero. Examples from Lillo-Martin (1986: 421) are cited in (7) – (8). Liddell (2003) discusses plural forms of verbs, but refuses to characterize the process as an over-conformity of numbers. On the contrary, he sees the marking of multiple speakers on a verb as part of the same gesture display process that marks individual speakers. Others, however, have supported the idea that forms such as those described here constitute a numerical marker (cf. Rathmann and Mathur 2002). McBurney (2002), who discusses pronouns, argues in particular that the distinction between singular, double, and plural shows grammatical notation. . .

.