realizations of syntactic agreement in american sign language: similarities between the clause and...

c:/2studling/52-3/neidle.3d ^ 5/11/98 ^ 13:25 ^ sh

REALIZATIONS OF SYNTACTICAGREEMENT IN AMERICAN SIGN

LANGUAGE: SIMILARITIES BETWEENTHE CLAUSE AND THE NOUN PHRASE*

Carol Neidle, Benjamin Bahan, Dawn MacLaughlin,Robert G. Lee, and Judy Kegl

Abstract. ASL syntax makes essential use of specific non-manual expressions ofsyntactic features (e.g., +neg, +wh) that co-occur with manual signs. Thesemarkings occur obligatorily with manual material contained in the node oforigin and optionally extend over the c-command domain of that node, thusproviding important evidence for hierarchical structure. In this article, we showthat agreement features, both within the clause and the noun phrase, also havenon-manual correlates that exhibit the predicted distribution. Interestingly,transitive IPs and possessive DPs pattern together in their manifestation ofagreement marking, while intransitive IPs pattern with non-possessive DPs.

1. Introduction

American Sign Language, a language in the visual-gestural modality, isarticulated not only through manual signs but also through co-occurringnon-manual expressions, which play an essential role in the grammar ofthe language. Data from signed languages are of particular interest, sincesyntactic features, such as +wh and +neg, may be expressed non-manually by specific combinations of facial expressions and movementsof the head and upper body. Furthermore, these non-manual expressionsspread over syntactic domains that can be characterized precisely. Wehave argued that such expressions may spread over the c-commanddomain of the head containing the corresponding syntactic feature,thus providing direct overt evidence of hierarchical relations. The exist-ence and distribution of non-manual correlates of syntactic features canprovide important information about the nature of these features.

Studia Linguistica 52(3) 1998, pp. 191±226. # The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 1998.Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK, and350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

* This article reports on results of the ongoing American Sign Language LinguisticResearch Project (see <http://www.bu.edu/asllrp/index.html>), funded in part by grants#SBR-9410562, #SBR-9729010, #SBR-9729065, and #IRI-9528985 from the NationalScience Foundation to Boston University, Dartmouth College, and Rutgers University.Other articles from this project are cited here by authors' initials; e.g., Aarons, Bahan, Kegl,and Neidle are cited as ABKN. For related ASLLRP publications on the syntactic structureof ASL, see Aarons (1994) and ABKN (1992, 1994, 1995); for discussion of questions, seeNKBAM (1997) and NMLBK (1998); for topics, see Aarons (1994, 1996); for clausalagreement, see Bahan (1996); for DP structure and agreement within DP, see BKMN (1995),MacLaughlin (1997). The major results of this research are presented in NKMBL (forth-coming).

We are grateful for useful discussions with Norma Bowers, Jimmy Challis, Ken Hale,Marco Haverkort, Jack Hoza, Seth Minkoff, Marie Philip, Tarald Taraldsen, HoÈskuldurThraÂinsson, and Patricia Trowbridge, and comments from two anonymous reviewers.


In this paper, we show that in ASL, agreement features behave likeother syntactic features in having non-manual correlates, thus providingevidence in favor of a feature-based analysis of agreement. Specifically,head tilt and eye gaze may be used to express syntactic agreement.Moreover, the distribution of these non-manual correlates of agreementsupports the view that agreement features are heads of functionalprojections (consistent with Chomsky 1994: chapters 2±3, contrarecent suggestions by Chomsky 1995: chapter 4 and M. Baker 1996).Recognition of these non-manual markings as expressions of agreementmakes it possible to account, in a uniform way, for the licensing of nullsubjects and objects by agreement. Finally, we show that the non-manual expressions of agreement within DP parallel what is foundwithin IP. Specifically, possessive DPs pattern with transitive clauses,while non-possessive DPs pattern with intransitive clauses. These par-allel expressions of syntactic agreement thus provide support for theexistence of agreement projections within DP as well. Section 2 providesan overview of the syntactic structure of ASL. Specifically, we discussthe non-manual correlates of syntactic features and their distribution. InSection 3, the spatial representation of phi-features in the language isaddressed. We propose that referential person features are systematicallyassociated with unique points in space and show that these locations areaccessed by the grammar in a variety of ways. Section 4 addresses ingreater detail the expression of subject and object agreement within theclause. First, the manual morphological realization of verb agreement isdescribed. We then suggest that agreement features, like other syntacticfeatures, also have non-manual correlates. The distribution of these non-manual realizations of agreement is governed by the same general-izations as other non-manual markings of syntactic features (describedin Section 2), given the assumption that these features are located in theheads of agreement projections. Once both the manual and non-manualexpressions of syntactic agreement are recognized, it becomes apparentthat null arguments in ASL are uniformly licensed by an overt ex-pression of syntactic agreement. Section 5 shows that agreement featureswithin DP are expressed in the same way as agreement features withinthe clause. They have the same realization and exhibit similar distribu-tion. In Section 6, we highlight the parallels between IP and DP withrespect to the expression of agreement. We show that possessor DPconstructions pattern like transitive clauses with respect to their non-manual correlates of agreement, while possessor-less DPs pattern likeintransitive clauses.

2. Syntactic organization of ASL

Despite the difference in modality, ASL has been shown to have the samefundamental hierarchical structure that has been attributed to spoken

192 Carol Neidle et al.

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 1998.


languages.1 However, the fact that ASL permits null arguments, left

dislocation, right dislocation, wh-movement, and both moved and base-

generated topics results in a variety of surface word orders. There is

evidence for a basic underlying SVO word order, from which other

surface orders are derived. Deviations from the basic word order aregenerally marked by prosody as well as by certain specific syntactic facial

expressions. In this section we first introduce some basic properties of

ASL clause structure. Next, we illustrate how non-manual markings are

used in ASL to express abstract syntactic features, focusing on features

associated with negation and wh-questions. Generalizations about the

distribution of non-manual syntactic markings are presented. Addition-

ally, we show how the distribution of non-manual markings providesimportant evidence about structure, evidence of a kind that is not

available in spoken languages.

2.1 Note about conventions for presentation of data

In this article, ASL examples are presented using a standard glossing

convention. Manual signs are glossed using a capitalized English word (or

a group of hyphenated words if more than one English word is required)representing an approximation of the meaning of the ASL sign. All names

in the examples were actually fingerspelled (i.e., signed letter by letter

using the manual alphabet), although this is not explicitly notated in the

glosses. Non-manual facial expressions are indicated by a labeled line

extending over the signs with which the marking co-occurs. Coindexation

is used to indicate related items, for example a trace and its antecedent or

two elements in an agreement relation.This notation is, unfortunately, inadequate for conveying the complex-

ities of the manual and non-manual components of the language.

Moreover, these representations are only partial. In general, they only

show details relevant to the discussion at hand. Digitized movies in

QuickTime format illustrating the grammatical constructions presented

in this paper are available at our Web site <http://www.bu.edu/asllrp/

publications.html>. Furthermore, we are developing a tool, called Sign-Stream2, to aid in the analysis of video data. For information, see

NMBLK 1997, MNL 1996, and MGN 1997, as well as <http://

www.bu.edu/asllrp/SignStream>.

Realizations of syntactic agreement in American Sign Language 193


1 There is essentially a consensus in the recent literature as to the existence of a basicunderlying hierarchically-based word order, from which other surface orders are derived,although certain details of the structure remain a subject of some controversy. Thehypothesis of a basic underlying word order in signed languages was challenged by Tervoort(1968), but his arguments were soundly refuted in subsequent literature. The claim thatsigned languages generally, and ASL specifically, are governed by very different organ-izational principles has recently resurfaced, however, in Bouchard and Dubuisson 1995; seeKNMHB's (1996) reply.


2.2 ASL clause structure

The essential syntactic structure for which we have presented argumentselsewhere is shown in the tree in Figure 1.2

Specifically, ABKN (1995) have argued for the existence of gramma-tical tense in ASL (counter to previous claims that ASL does not expresstense grammatically).3 ABKN (1992, 1994) and Bahan (1996) haveargued that syntactic agreement is present systematically in main clauses(counter to Lillo-Martin 1986, 1991). ABKN (1992), Aarons (1994),NKBAM (1997), and NMLBK (1998) have argued that wh-movement,which occurs optionally, results in movement of the wh-phrase to a



2 This tree is consistent with the findings of Bahan 1996 and differs from the tree proposedearlier in ABKN 1992 in two respects. First, the agreement nodes have replaced the earlierrole prominence marker (following Kegl 1986) in light of the reinterpretation of head tilt andeye gaze contained in Bahan 1996. Second, Aspect is positioned slightly higher in the tree(see Bahan 1996:32 for explanation).

3 While it had previously been believed that time information is expressed in ASL solelyby adverbials, ABKN (1995) argue for the existence of lexical tense markers and demon-strate that these have the predicted syntactic distribution. They show that, although many ofthese tense markers are morphologically related to adverbials, they are nonetheless distin-guishable in terms of their articulation.

Figure 1: ASL clause structure


clause-final [Spec, CP] position. Wh-movement is discussed further inSection 2.3.3.1.

2.3 Overt realization of syntactic features in ASL

While manual signs constitute an essential component of signed lan-guages, crucial information is also expressed non-manually (that is,through facial expressions and movements of the head and upperbody). Facial expressions can convey a variety of kinds of linguistic,affective, and paralinguistic information. In this section, we first justifythe distinction between the affective and linguistic functions associatedwith certain kinds of facial expressions. Then, focusing on strictly lin-guistic uses of non-manual expressions, we further distinguish betweenlexical functions and syntactic functions, the latter being the focus of thisarticle. We consider examples involving negation and wh-questions toillustrate the characteristics of non-manual syntactic markings.

2.3.1 Linguistic vs. affective expressions. Facial expressions can conveyaffective information in ASL, just as they can in spoken languages.However, affective expressions are significantly different from linguisticfacial expressions. Baker-Shenk (1983) has shown that the articulation oflinguistic markings differs from the articulation of affective markingswith respect to shape, contour, timing, and specific facial musclesemployed. Neurolinguistic research on sign language processing hasshown that affective expressions are processed in the right hemispherewhile linguistic expressions are processed in the left hemisphere (Bellugi,et al. 1989, Corina 1989). Additional evidence for the dissociationbetween the use of the face and upper body for linguistic purposes andfor affective purposes comes from the kind of breakdown that occurs inaphasic patients. Damage to specific regions of the left hemisphere mayselectively impair non-manual linguistic markings (as well as other lin-guistic processes), leaving affective facial expressions intact, while impair-ment of affective expressions, resulting from right hemisphere damage,typically leaves sentence-level non-manual expressions (and other syn-tactic processes) unimpaired (Kegl & Poizner 1991, 1997; Poizner & Kegl1992).4 Finally, acquisition studies have revealed a dissociation betweenaffective and linguistic facial expressions (see, for example, Reilly,McIntire, & Bellugi 1990).

2.3.2 Lexically associated markings. Certain signs may have particularnon-manual expressions associated with them (Baker 1979, Baker-Shenk1985, Liddell 1980). For example, the sign glossed as NOT-YET is



4 Kegl & Poizner (1997) additionally provide neurolinguistic evidence for distinguishinglexically associated non-manual facial expressions from syntactic non-manual markings, thedistinction discussed in the next two subsections.


accompanied by a slack protruding tongue. This non-manual marking, a

required part of the articulation of this lexical item, is coextensive with the

manual sign and does not spread over other manual signs.In addition, there are non-manual markings that occur as optional

modifiers or intensifiers. For example, there is an adverbial facial ex-

pression, commonly glossed as `th', that involves placement of the tongue

between the teeth. This expression essentially functions as a manner

adverbial modifier, adding the meaning of `carelessly'.

This expression, when co-occurring with a verb such as WRITE, conveysthat the verb is performed carelessly or lazily. Again, this facial expressionis coextensive with the sign that it modifies.

2.3.3 Non-manual syntactic markings. Non-manual syntactic markingsare distinct from both affective and lexical markings. These non-manualmarkings frequently express abstract syntactic features located in theheads of functional projections.5 These markings can spread over a well-defined syntactic domain, that is, over the c-command domain of thehead with which the marking is associated. If this analysis is correct, thenthe distribution of non-manual syntactic markings provides direct, visibleevidence for hierarchical relations of a kind not found in spokenlanguages. The following generalizations concerning the distribution ofnon-manual syntactic markings have emerged from our prior work.



Figure 2: Adverbial facialexpression `th'[# Bahan 1998]

5 It should be noted, however, that lexical items that are invariably associated withspecific syntactic features will also be associated with the corresponding non-manualsyntactic markings. For example, a negative sign such as NOT, when signed in isolation,would be accompanied by the standard non-manual correlate of +neg. Similarly a wh-sign,such as WHO, would be accompanied by the non-manual marking characteristic of wh-questions, the non-manual marking which, we have argued, is associated with the +whfeature. (This is in contrast with Petronio and Lillo-Martin's 1997 claim that such marking isnot directly associated with +wh, but rather is the result of the cooccurrence of the +whfeature and their +F focus feature.)


. Non-manual syntactic markings are frequently associated with syntactic

features residing in the heads of functional projections. For example, thefeature +neg is associated with a non-manual expression that includes aside-to-side head shake (see Figure 3). Likewise, the feature +wh isassociated with a different non-manual expression that includes fur-rowed eyebrows (see Figure 4), in contradistinction to yes/no questions,which involve raised eyebrows (see Figure 5).6

An example involving negation is shown in (1).7



6 The text describes the most salient characteristic of each marking. However, themarkings actually are comprised of a cluster of non-manual behaviors. For detaileddescriptions of several of the non-manual expressions mentioned here, see Baker-Shenk(1983).

7 With respect to the head shake, note that there is some anticipatory movementimmediately prior to the signing of NOT; the head turns to its maximal sideward position,

Figure 3: Negative non-manual marking[from Bahan 1996]

Figure 5: Yes-no non-manual marking[from Bahan 1996]

Figure 4: Wh non-manualmarking[from Bahan 1996]


neg

(1) JOHN [NOT]Neg BUY HOUSE`John is not buying a house.'

. If manual material is available locally (e.g., in head position), then the

non-manual syntactic marking may optionally spread over the c-com-

mand domain of the node with which it is associated. The spread of thenon-manual marking over the c-command domain associated with thecorresponding syntactic feature occurs optionally for sentence (1),because there is a manual negation sign present in the head of NegP.Note that even when the spread does not occur, as shown in (2), there isstill manual material, the sign NOT, with which the non-manualexpression of +neg can be articulated.

neg

(2) JOHN [NOT]Neg BUY HOUSE`John is not buying a house.'

. There is a strong preference for non-manual material to co-occur with

manual signs. If manual material is not available locally, then the

marking spreads obligatorily over the c-command domain of the node

with which it is associated. As shown in (5), a negative sentence need notcontain a manual sign of negation. When there is no manual sign, thenon-manual marking must spread over the entire c-commanded VP,since otherwise there would be no manual material with which thenegative marking could be articulated.

neg

(3) *JOHN [+neg]Neg BUY HOUSE

neg

(4) *JOHN [+neg]Neg BUY HOUSE

neg

(5) JOHN [+neg]Neg BUY HOUSE`John is not buying a house.'



the starting point of the actual head shake, so that the shake can begin simultaneously withthe manual signing of NOT. This behaviour is characteristic of head shakes and nods inASL; see Bahan (1996) and MacLaughlin (1997).

This anticipatory movement may have been misinterpreted as an extension of Negmarking beyond the VP by Petronio (1993:60), who claims that these non-manual markingsonly occur over clausal domains (and thus cannot occur over a portion of the clause thatexcludes the subject). Thus, Petronio disputes the grammaticality of sentences like (1), (2),and (5). As shown in NMLBK (1998), however, this anticipatory effect can be readilyconfirmed by insertion of additional lexical material before the negative sign or by testingexamples in which the subject noun phrase consists of more than one sign.


. The intensity of the non-manual marking is greatest at the node of origin,

and decreases gradually as distance from the source increases. For asentence like (1) or (5), the non-manual expression of negation isgreatest over the Neg node, whether or not that node containsmanual material. Thus, for the head shake component of the negativemarking, the degree (or angle) of head turn is greatest over Neg, andthe angle of head turn diminishes gradually as the rest of the VP issigned (in the cases where the marking spreads). See Figure 6. Thus, incases where the non-manual marking has spread, it decreases progres-sively in intensity. The intensity of the non-manual negative markingprovides evidence for a structural analysis involving a negative featurecontained in a functional head that occurs hierarchically above and tothe left of VP. See Bahan (1996) for further discussion of the signific-ance of the intensity of non-manual syntactic markings.

These generalizations have been illustrated with respect to the non-

manual marking of negation. We now show that the same generalizations

also hold for the distribution of the non-manual correlate of +wh.

2.3.3.1 Non-manual marking in wh-questions. In previous work, we have

argued that [Spec, CP] occurs to the right of IP in ASL.8 In ASL, wh-

movement to [Spec, CP] is optional. When a sentence contains a single

wh-phrase corresponding to the questioned argument,9 this phrase may

occur in situ, or it may move to the end of the clause. Following standard

analyses, wh-questions are analyzed as involving a +wh feature in C, and

the wh-phrase, when it moves, moves to the specifier position of CP. We

have argued elsewhere for this analysis, based on the simple word order



8 A detailed analysis of wh-movement in ASL is provided in Aarons (1994), NKBAM(1997), and NMLBK (1998). It should be noted that other ASL researchers have proposedsignificantly different accounts of wh-movement in ASL (see Lillo-Martin 1990, 1991, 1992;Petronio 1993; Petronio & Lillo-Martin 1995, 1997).

9 There are sentences that contain both a clause-initial wh-phrase, which we argue is intopic position, and a second wh-phrase (either in situ or in [Spec, CP] ). These sentences arediscussed in ABKN (1992), Aarons (1994), and, in greater detail, in NKBAM (1997) andNMLBK (1998).

Figure 6: Change in intensity of negative head shake [from Bahan 1996]


facts of ASL (see NKBAM 1997 and NMLBK 1998). Given this analysis,the generalizations about non-manual marking correctly predict thedistribution of non-manual marking in wh-constructions.

We argued that the +wh feature located in C is expressed non-manuallyin ASL by a specific facial expression, which includes lowered eyebrowsand a slight head shake (illustrated earlier in Figure 4). The distributionof this facial expression provides crucial information about the structureof wh-questions in ASL. When a wh-phrase moves to [Spec, CP] position,the wh-marking spreads optionally over the c-command domain of C,namely over IP. The spread is optional because the wh-phrase in[Spec, CP] provides local manual material with which the wh-markingcan be expressed.10 However, if the wh-phrase remains in situ, then thewh-marking must spread obligatorily over IP. This is illustrated in theexamples that follow.

Consider first the case of a wh-question in which the subject isquestioned. In (6) and (7), where the subject wh-phrase occurs at theend of the sentence, the manual material over which the wh-markingoccurs may include either the wh-phrase in [Spec, CP], as in (6), or theentire clause, as in (7). Notice, however, that it is also possible to find thewh-phrase in its base position, initially within IP, shown in (8). When thewh-phrase appears initially, that is, in situ, the wh-marking must occurover the entire sentence, as in (8). If the wh-marking occurs only over thewh-phrase, as in (9), or only over the +wh feature, as in (10), the result isungrammatical.

wh

(6) [ [ ti LOVE MARY ]IP [+wh]C WHOi ]CP

`Who loves Mary?'

wh

(7) [ [ ti LOVE MARY ]IP [+wh]C WHOi ]CP

`Who loves Mary?'

wh

(8) [ WHO LOVE MARY ]IP [+wh]C`Who loves Mary?'

wh

(9) *WHO LOVE MARY



10 Notice that in the case where the wh-phrase has moved to [Spec, CP], while the wh-feature actually resides in C, the availability of manual material in the specifier appears to besufficient for purposes of expression of the non-manual grammatical marking; spread overthe c-command domain of C is not obligatory in this case.


wh

(10) *[WHO LOVE MARY ]IP [+wh]C

The same point can be illustrated with a wh-phrase corresponding to

the direct object argument. Note that it is possible to distinguish a moved

object from an in situ object by examining the position of the object with

respect to a sentence final adverbial, like YESTERDAY.11 Again, when

the object wh-phrase occurs at the end of the sentence, the wh-marking

spreads optionally over IP (compare (11) and (12) ). However, when the

object wh-phrase remains in situ, the wh-marking must spread over IP

(see (13)±(15) ).12

wh

(11) [ [ JOHN FIND ti YESTERDAY ]IP [+wh]C ``WHAT''i ]CP

`What did John find yesterday?'

wh

(12) [ [ JOHN FIND ti YESTERDAY ]IP [+wh]C ``WHAT''i ]CP

`What did John find yesterday?'

wh

(13) [JOHN FIND ``WHAT'' YESTERDAY]IP [+wh]C`What did John find yesterday?'

wh

(14) *[JOHN FIND ``WHAT'' YESTERDAY]IP [+wh]C

wh

(15) *[JOHN FIND ``WHAT'' YESTERDAY]IP [+wh]C

When spread occurs, the intensity of the non-manual marking is

greatest near the node containing the +wh feature. Thus, in sentences

like (7) and (12), the non-manual marking progressively increases in

intensity until the wh-phrase is articulated.13



11 This kind of test for wh-movement in ASL was first used by Perlmutter (1991).12 In these examples, the sign glossed as ``WHAT'' is normally produced with two hands,

palms facing up, shaking slightly. This sign is distinguished from another sign WHAT(glossed without quotes), produced with the index finger of the dominant hand sweepingdownward across the open stationary non-dominant hand. For a brief discussion of thesyntactic differences between these two signs, see NKBAM (1997).

13 However, in a sentence like (13), where there is a +wh feature associated not only withthe Complementizer node, but also with the lexical wh-phrase in situ in object position, themaximum intensity of the wh-marking is attained with the articulation of ``WHAT'', andthis marking then perseverates throughout the rest of the sentence until the C node isreached. See NKBAM (1997) and NMLBK (1998) for further discussion of perseveration,and Bahan (1996) for further discussion of perseveration in relation to the intensity of non-manual markings specifically.


In sum, then, the same generalizations about the distribution of non-manual syntactic markings that were demonstrated with respect tonegation also provide an explanation of the patterns of distribution ofnon-manual wh-marking (under the assumption of rightward wh-move-ment). In addition, these generalizations have been shown to explain thedistribution of non-manual syntactic markings in other constructions,including yes-no questions and rhetorical questions (see NKBAM 1997,NMLBK 1998, and HNMKB 1997).

2.3.3.2 Spread of non-manual markings in relation to syntactic movement.It is important to note that the c-command relations that are reflected bythe spread of non-manual syntactic markings are those that hold follow-ing overt syntactic movement operations. That is, non-manual spread isdetermined by the structure at Spell-Out (i.e., s-structure relations).14

Consider, for example, the situation in which a wh-phrase has moved to[Spec, CP] from within a negative sentence. In such a case, the wh-phraseis no longer within the c-command domain of Neg. Spread of the negativemarking does not extend over the moved wh-phrase. Other examplesillustrating this point are contained in NKBAM (1997).

neg wh

(16) MARY NOT [ FIND ti YESTERDAY]VP ``WHAT''i`What didn't Mary find yesterday?'

neg

wh

(17) *MARY NOT [ FIND t YESTERDAY]VP ``WHAT''

2.3.3.3 Summary. The generalizations proposed earlier in this sectioncorrectly account for the distribution of non-manual syntactic markingsassociated with a variety of different syntactic features. This has beenillustrated here with respect to +neg and +wh. These same generalizationswill be shown to hold for the distribution of non-manual correlates ofabstract syntactic agreement features.

3. Manifestation of phi-features in ASL

In this section, we propose that person features are represented spatiallyin ASL.15 ASL systematically uses locations in space to represent



14 Covert (LF) movements (if such movements are assumed) do not affect the spread ofnon-manual markings. For example, the obligatory spread of wh-marking that is found within situ wh-questions is the result of the lack, at Spell-Out, of manual material with which themarking could be articulated in the event that the spread does not occur; covert raising of thein situ wh-phrase does not obviate the need for the wh-marking to spread.

15 While ASL does not grammatically encode gender features, number may be expressedin the nominal, adjectival, and verbal systems. Throughout, we focus specifically on personfeatures.


referential entities.16 Subsequent reference to those entities can be accom-plished by pointing (in one of a number of ways) to the correspondinglocations. The availability of space for this purpose allows for finerperson distinctions than are traditionally made in languages that distin-guish grammatically only among first, second, and third person. In fact,any number of `persons' can be associated with distinct points in space inASL. Because these points in space systematically participate in the samelinguistic phenomena that involve phi-features crosslinguistically, wehave interpreted these points as expressions of `person' features inASL.17 Specifically, accessing a point in space manually can accomplisha variety of linguistic functions, including expression of:

. pronominalsArticulation of a pronoun is accomplished by the index finger18

pointing to the location in space associated with the intended referent.



16 Much has been written about the use of space in ASL to represent discourse entities.See, for example, Bahan & Petitto (1980), Friedman (1975), Johnson & Liddell (1987), Kegl(1976, 1985), Loew (1984), and Winston (1991). There has been some controversy as towhether such use of space is or is not strictly linguistic. For an alternative view to the onepresented in this article, see Liddell (1995).

17 There have been different views about person distinctions in ASL. Friedman (1975) hassuggested that there are grammatical distinctions among first, second, and third personreference. Lillo-Martin & Klima (1990), who limit their focus to singular pronoun forms,have claimed (p. 198): `There are no contrasts for person in ASL.' Meier (1990), however,who examines the full system (including, for example, plural and possessive forms), makes astrong case for a grammatical distinction between first person and non-first person. (Lillo-Martin 1995 rejects Lillo-Martin & Klima 1990 in favor of Meier's view.) What we areproposing here is that, while (consistent with Meier) there is a primary distinction betweenfirst and non-first persons, non-first person can be further subclassified into many distinctperson values.

With respect to interpreting these features as person features in ASL, Lillo-Martin(1991:121 fn 27) says: `In ASL, the features marked by agreement are actually features ofthe referent, not person features. However, I will continue to use the term ``person andnumber features'' for convenience.'

18 Pointing may sometimes be performed instead by the thumb, or ± in the case ofhonorifics ± by an open B-handshape, palm upward.

Figure 7: Articulation ofpronoun[from BKMN 1995]


. possessives

Articulation of a possessive involves the open palm pointing to (and facing)

the location in space associated with the intended possessor.

. reflexives and emphatics

Articulation of a reflexive or emphatic is accomplished with a closed fist,

thumb oriented upward, with the knuckles facing and pointing to the

location in space associated with the intended referent.

. determiners19

Articulation of a definite determiner involves the index finger pointing to

the location in space associated with the intended referent. Note that this is

the same as the articulation of the pronoun form illustrated in Figure 7.. verb agreement

Verbs that overtly express morphological subject and object agreement

mark agreement by a change in articulation such that the verb starts at

(or is oriented towards) the location in space associated with the subject and



19 While it has been claimed that sign languages in general lack determiners, we haveargued that ASL does indeed have determiners. See BKMN (1995) for a discussion of priorclaims in this regard and arguments in favor of the existence of determiners. SeeMacLaughlin (1997) for a detailed analysis of determiner phrases in ASL.

Figure 8: Articulation ofpossessive[from NMKB 1995]

Figure 9: Articulation ofreflexive[# Bahan 1998]


ends at (or is oriented towards) the location in space associated with the

object. Thus, there are two affixes, a subject agreement prefix and an object

agreement suffix, that constitute the manual expression of the person

features of the relevant argument.20

In sum, manual signing makes systematic use of locations in space toexpress person features. In the next section, we show that there is alsosystematicity with regard to non-manual access of these same points inspace. There are non-manual correlates of agreement associated withpronominals, possessives, determiners, and subject and object agreement,among others, which involve `pointing' non-manually to these samespatial locations.

4. Agreement in the clause

This section focuses on subject and object agreement marking in theclause. We first discuss manual realizations of morphological subject andobject person agreement marking on verbs. We then show that abstractperson agreement features, associated with subject and object agreementand postulated to occur in the heads of functional agreement projections,have non-manual correlates. These markings display the same distribu-tion as the non-manual markings associated with other syntactic features.

4.1 Morphological realization of verb agreement

ASL verbs differ in their ability to express subject and object agreementmorphologically. Several distinct classes of verbs have been identified.Padden (1983, 1988) categorized verbs into the following three classes:agreeing, spatial, and plain.

Agreeing verbs, such as HIT, KISS, SHOOT, and GIVE, use spatial



20 With a few verbs, the so-called `backwards verbs' like INVITE (see Padden 1988),subject agreement is a suffix and object agreement is a prefix. Some transitive verbs expressonly object agreement.

Figure 10: GIVE: beginning and end of articulation[from Bahan 1996]


locations to mark subject and/or object agreement in the way just

described (see Figure 10). Spatial verbs, such as PUT, use space to

express locative relations. (These verbs will not be discussed further in

this article.) Plain verbs are not marked morphologically for subject or

object agreement. Example sentences containing agreeing and plain verbs

are given below.

(18) JOHNi iSHOOTj FRANKj [agreeing]`John shoots Frank.'

(19) JOHN LOVE MARY [plain]`John loves Mary.'

There are two ways in which subject agreement may be marked

morphologically (for verbs that do overtly mark subject agreement).

The verb's articulation may begin at the specific location associated

with the subject (as already described). Alternatively, the verb may

have an unmarked form of subject agreement, beginning in a neutral

location, close to the signer's body, similar to first person agreement

marking (Bahan 1996).21 This is illustrated in (20) and Figure 11.

(20) JOHN neutralSHOOTj FRANKj

`John shoots Frank.'

Bahan (1996) argues that, in such examples, subject agreement is not

lacking; rather, agreement takes the form of an unmarked subject

agreement prefix. Although many languages use third person, ASL uses

first person systematically as the unmarked form.In contrast to subject agreement, object agreement does not have a

comparable alternative unmarked form. However, object agreement does



21 This alternative articulation of subject agreement has also been observed by Kegl(1985:106), Meier (1981, 1982), Padden (1983, 1988), Supalla (1995), and Janis (1995).

Figure 11: Start point ofSHOOT with neutralsubject agreement[# Bahan 1998]


exhibit its own distinctions. In particular, there are two distinct forms thatobject agreement may take, depending on whether or not the object isdefinite.22 With definite objects, object agreement references a specificpoint in space. However, indefinite objects are not associated with a singlepoint; instead, they are associated with a broader area. Object agreementis marked by a movement toward this area, as in sentence (21).23

tm1

(21) BOOK JOHN neutralGIVEindef. SOMEONE`The book, John gave to someone.

With indefinite objects, object agreement may entail a change in the final

handshape of the verb. For example, the sign GIVE normally begins and

ends with the fingers and thumb together. In contrast, with an indefinite

object, the end of the articulation of the sign GIVE may have the fingers

and thumb spread out slightly, as illustrated in Figure 12.24

In sum, manual expressions of subject agreement and object agreement

both show distinct forms. Subject agreement can take either a fully

specified form or an unmarked form. The two forms of object agreement

correspond to definite or indefinite referents.Until recently, discussions of agreement had focused on such manual

instantiations. However, as shown in Bahan (1996), there are also non-

manual instantiations of agreement, and, interestingly, the same kinds of



22 This formulation differs from that found in Bahan (1996). It has been updated in lightof the results of MacLaughlin (1997). As shown by MacLaughlin, the size of the areaassociated with an indefinite referent is a function of its (un)identifiability (in the sense ofLambrecht 1994). With highly identifiable indefinite referents, the area associated with thereferent is very small (and in many cases indistinguishable from a point), while for moreunidentifiable referents, a larger region of space is used.

23 The marking `tm1' is associated with moved topics; see note 34.24 There are other similar articulations of GIVE that may represent imperfective aspect,

distributional inflection, or dialectal variants of the standard form (see, e.g., Kegl 1985).

Figure 12: End point ofGIVE with indefiniteobject agreement[# Bahan 1998]


distinctions are relevant for both the manual and non-manual expressions

of subject and object agreement.

4.2 Realization of abstract agreement features

Agreement features may be expressed non-manually, by either head tilt or

eye gaze (Bahan 1996). Although such expressions are not necessarily

required for grammaticality, they occur with great frequency. We claim

that these non-manual devices represent expressions of abstract agree-

ment features located in the heads of functional projections. Like other

non-manual expressions of abstract syntactic features, non-manual agree-

ment marking spreads over the c-command domain of the functional

head with which it is associated. The non-manual realization of agree-

ment differs in transitive and intransitive constructions. This section

addresses the two constructions in turn.

4.2.1 Transitive constructions. In transitive constructions, head tilt is

associated with the agreement features of the subject, and eye gaze is

associated with the agreement features of the object.25 Examples illus-

trating non-manual expressions of subject and object agreement are

shown in (22), which contains the agreeing verb SHOOT, and (23),

containing the plain verb LOVE.26

head tilti

gazej

(22) JOHNi [ ]AGR-Si[ ]AGR-Oj iSHOOTj FRANKj




25 See Bahan (1996) for discussion of the exceptional non-manual marking of first personobjects. Since the signer's body is associated with first person, eye gaze to mark a first personobject would involve a gaze back to the signer, which would be difficult to realize physically.In such cases, the use of head tilt and eye gaze are reversed. Eye gaze is used to mark subjectagreement, while head tilt is used to mark object agreement, exceptionally, in constructionsinvolving a first person object.

26 When the labels for non-manual markings include subscripts, these extend beyond theline; in such cases it is the line that designates the extent of the marking.

Figure 13: Head tilt andeye gaze with SHOOT[# Bahan 1998]


head tilt i

gaze j

(23) JOHNi [ ]AGR-Si[ ]AGR-Oj

LOVE MARYj

`John loves Mary.'

When these sentences are produced, the head tilts toward the positionassociated with the subject and the eyes gaze to the position associatedwith the object after the subject is articulated and prior to the articulationof the verb.27 Because of the rapidity of eye movements, the gaze generallyis fully manifested much more quickly than the tilting motion of the head.The head tilt and the eye gaze are maintained while the verb phrase isarticulated, although the markings may diminish in intensity.28

The fact that these markings occur before the verb is articulatedsuggests that the nodes with which these markings are associated precedethe VP. In fact, the non-manual markings begin after the articulation ofany tense marker, modal, aspect marker, and negation sign, as shown in(24) with respect to tense and negation.29



27 When both manual and non-manual subject agreement are expressed overtly, as in (22),there may be a reduction in the articulation of the manual form (although the verb stillclearly exhibits overt agreement). While the starting point of the verb is still determined bythe spatial location associated with the phi-features of the subject, the verb begins in aposition a bit closer to the body than it otherwise would. This interaction, discussed inBahan (1996), provides further support for the idea that both the head tilt and the manualproduction of the verb involve expressions of agreement; the reduction in articulation maybe attributed to the redundancy of information that is being expressed simultaneously in themanual and non-manual channels.

28 As with other non-manual syntactic markings, the markings diminish in intensity asdistance from the source of the marking increases. In other words, it is possible to see thehead and eyes begin to return to neutral position toward the end of the VP. The return toneutral head and eye position may also be related to other discourse functions of headposition and eye gaze (see Bahan 1996).

29 For a discussion of apparent exceptions to this generalization, see Bahan (1996), whoprovides an account for cases where the agreement markings begin earlier (which Bahansuggests may be comparable to clitic climbing in spoken languages).

Figure 14: Head tilt andeye gaze with LOVE[from NMKB 1995]


neghead tilt i

gaze j

(24) JOHNi WILL NOT [ ]AGR-Si[ ]AGR-Oi

VISITj MOTHERj

`John will not visit mother.'

Thus, the source of the markings, that is, the location of the agreement

features, must be below the negation projection but above the verb

phrase. We claim that these non-manual markings are associated with

agreement features in the heads of agreement projections.These non-manual agreement markings spread over the verb phrase.

This spread is obligatory, as would be expected under the assumption that

there is no manual material in the heads of the agreement projections. It is

clear that the verb does not raise past negation (as can be seen in previous

examples). The obligatory spread of the non-manual agreement markings

suggests that the verb does not even raise to the positions that house the

agreement features. This contrasts with the situation within DP, where

there is an Agr node that can contain manual material, and where the

spread of non-manual agreement marking is optional only in that case, as

will be discussed in Section 5.

4.2.1.1 Head tilt as an expression of subject agreement. Like manual

agreement, non-manual expressions of subject agreement, in the form of

head tilt, can take on two different forms. Examples (22) through (24)

illustrated an overt head tilt toward the spatial location associated with

the subject. In addition to tilting overtly, the head may also assume a

neutral, unmarked, first-person-like position to express subject agree-

ment. This possibility is illustrated in (25).

head tiltneutral

gaze j

(25) JOHNi [ ]AGR-Sneutral[ ]AGR-Oj neutralSHOOTj FRANKj




Figure 15: Neutral non-manual subject agree-ment [# Bahan 1998]


The neutral form of non-manual subject agreement interacts with a body

lean, which makes it possible to distinguish the presence of this neutral

subject agreement marking from the complete lack of marking (see Bahan

1996 for details). We interpret this neutral head position as the non-

manual analog of the unmarked form of manual morphological subject

agreement.The use of both forms of non-manual expression of subject agreement

occurs not only with agreeing verbs, such as SHOOT (as seen previously

in (22) and (25) ), but also with plain verbs such as LOVE, as demon-

strated in (26) and (27) below.

head tilt neutral

gazej

(26) JOHNi [ ]AGR-Sneutral[ ]AGR-Oj

LOVE MARYj

`John loves Mary.'

head tilti

gazej


LOVE MARYj

`John loves Mary.'

4.2.1.2 Eye gaze as an expression of object agreement. Eye gaze as a

non-manual expression of agreement shows the same distinction in form

that was previously described with respect to manual expressions of

object agreement. The form of the eye gaze differs, depending on whether

the referent is definite or indefinite. With a definite object, the eyes gaze to

the same location that is referenced by manual object agreement. How-

ever, for an indefinite object, the eyes may gaze to multiple points within

the area in space associated with the person features of the referent, or

else they may take on an unfocused stare; thus, in either case, not focusing

on any one specific point.

tm1 gazeindef.

(28) BOOK JOHN [ ]AGR-Sneutral[ ]AGR-Oindef. neutralGIVEindef. SOMEONE

`The book, John gave to someone.'

Rather than having a precise location upon which to fixate, the eyes gaze

upward and wander as the VP in (28) is signed.30

4.2.2 Licensing of null arguments. Further support for interpreting the

manual and non-manual `pointing' to locations in space as expressions of

agreement comes from the ability of both to license null arguments.



30 Just as with subject agreement, when object agreement is expressed both manually andnon-manually, there is a reduction in the articulation of one of the two forms, as described inBahan (1996). With object agreement, it is the eye gaze that may be reduced in duration.Again, this interaction provides support for the notion that both the eye gaze and manualverbal affixes express the same agreement information.


It has long been observed that in ASL null subjects may appear notonly with verbs that overtly display morphological agreement, but alsowith plain verbs. Lillo-Martin (1986) ± assuming that the lack of overtmorphological agreement marking on the verb necessarily implies theabsence of syntactic agreement in sentences with plain verbs ± wastherefore led to propose a hybrid strategy for the licensing of nullsubjects in ASL.31 Lillo-Martin (1986, 1991) claims that, while nullsubjects in sentences containing agreeing verbs are pro, licensed, as inItalian, by agreement, null subjects in sentences with plain verbs arevariables, licensed, as in Chinese (Huang 1982, 1984), by a coreferentialphrase in topic position.32 ABKN (1992, 1994) argued against Lillo-Martin's hybrid account, providing evidence that the predictions madeby the topic-licensing account of null subjects of plain verbs failed tohold, and that null subjects of plain verbs in ASL differ in essential waysfrom null subjects in Chinese. ABKN (1992, 1994) instead argued thatnull subjects are uniformly licensed by syntactic agreement, even in thecases where such agreement is not overtly manifested morphologically onthe verb.

Support for ABKN's claim comes from careful consideration of theoccurrence of non-manual markings in sentences containing plain verbswith null subjects. Once the non-manual expressions of syntactic agree-ment are recognized as such,33 it becomes apparent that some overtrealization of agreement ± whether manual morphological marking ofagreement on the verb or non-manual expression of abstract agreementfeatures ± is required for the licensing of null subjects in ASL. Comparethe following three sentences. In (29) and (30), which contain overt andneutral non-manual marking of subject agreement, respectively, a nullsubject is permitted.



31 Following an idea previously presented by Kegl, for which Kegl (1985) presentedcounterexamples. Although Lillo-Martin cites Kegl (1985) (albeit erroneously, as Kegl1986), Lillo-Martin offers no discussion or account of Kegl's counterexamples.

32 With respect to the status of null subjects of plain verbs as variables, Lillo-Martin(1986:416) states: `when there is no inflectional marker, then the appearance of nullarguments is much more limited, and the empty category will be analyzed as a non-pronominal (Wh-trace) empty topic.'

It should be noted, however, that Lillo-Martin fails to distinguish between moved andbase-generated topics. This distinction is crucial in the language and the two types of topicsbear distinct non-manual markings (see note 34). Her analysis of the relation between topicsand null arguments is somewhat confusing, since much of it relies on the assumption thatmovement is involved, and yet, she says about these constructions (Lillo-Martin 1991:55):`Thus, the name ``left dislocation'' would be more appropriate for these structures. I will,however, continue to refer to them as topicalization structures, and discuss them using theterminology of extraction, without implying a movement analysis. To indicate the non-movement nature of this relationship, I will use the term ``extraction'' in single quotes.'However, her analysis of the licensing of null subjects of plain verbs necessarily relies onactual syntactic movement (see, e.g., Lillo-Martin 1991:115).

33 The analysis presented in ABKN 1992, 1994, in which head tilt was interpreted torepresent role prominence marking (following Kegl 1986), is superseded by Bahan's (1996)reinterpretation of this non-manual as a syntactic agreement marker.


head tilti

gazej

(29) proi [ ]AGR-Si[ ]AGR-Oj

LOVE MARYj

`(He/she) loves Mary.'

head tiltneutral

gazej

(30) pro [ ]AGR-Sneutral[ ]AGR-Oj

LOVE MARYj

`(He/she) loves Mary.'

However, in (31), where there is neither manual marking of agreement

(because LOVE is a plain verb) nor non-manual expression of agreement,

a null subject may not occur.

(31) *pro LOVE MARY`(He/she) loves Mary.'

In the absence of a non-manual expression of agreement, the sentence is

ungrammatical. Crucially, the presence of a topic coreferential with the

null subject cannot save such sentences, as would be predicted by Lillo-

Martin's account.34

It is important to note that a non-manual expression of agreement is

not, in general, required for grammaticality, as previously stated. It is

only required in this case for the licensing of the null subject, as is

illustrated by the contrast in grammaticality between (31) and (32).



34 The distinction between moved and base-generated topics, which are characterized bydifferent non-manual markings (see Aarons 1994, 1996), is crucial to consideration of therequirements for licensing the null subject. While a null subject is necessarily licensed byagreement (on our analysis), a trace resulting from movement does not require suchlicensing. The need for a null subject to be licensed by agreement is independent of thepresence or absence of a base-generated topic, as illustrated by the following two examples(which contain base-generated topics, as evidenced by the presence of tm2) from Bahan(1996:143):

tm2 tilti

ii(i) JOHN IXj=addressee SAY proi [ ]AGR-SiLOVE MARY

`As for John, you say he loves Mary.'

tm2

i(ii) ?? JOHN IXj=addressee SAY proi [ ]AGR-SiLOVE MARY

Notice that in an example like (iii), a signer would have a strong preference to use the non-manual marking associated with a moved topic (tm1), rather than that associated with abase-generated topic (tm2), consistent with the predictions of our analysis that only theformer would be grammatical in the absence of agreement to license a null subject.

tm1

(iii) JOHNi ti LOVE MARYj

`John loves Mary.'

(Examples similar to (i) appear in ABKN 1992 and 1994, as well as in Aarons 1994 (part ofwhich was reprinted as Aarons 1996), although such examples did not include marking ofnon-manual expressions of agreement, as the grammatical significance of head tilt and eyegaze as markers of agreement had not been recognized prior to Bahan 1996.)


(32) JOHN LOVE MARY`John loves Mary.'

When agreement is marked morphologically on the verb, no additionalnon-manual marking of agreement is required in order for the null subjectto be properly licensed, as demonstrated by the following two examples.Note also that either the overt or neutral form of manual morphologicalagreement marking is sufficient for licensing of the null subject (as wasillustrated for the non-manual realizations of agreement in (29) and (30) ).

(33) proi iSHOOTj FRANKj

`(He/she) shoots Frank.'

(34) pro neutralSHOOTj FRANKj

`(He/she) shoots Frank.'

Thus, these contrasts in grammaticality provide further support forinterpreting head tilt as the non-manual correlate of subject agreement.Recognition of head tilt as a non-manual expression of subject agreementin such sentences allows for a simple explanation of the licensing of nullsubjects: null subjects may be licensed by any overt expression of subjectagreement.

Similarly, once eye gaze is recognized as the non-manual correlate ofobject agreement, a simple explanation of the licensing of null objects byan overt expression of object agreement becomes available. If objectagreement is marked manually on the verb, then this marking suffices tolicense a null object.

(35) JOHNi iSHOOTj proj

`John shoots (him/her).'

However, a null object of a plain verb requires a non-manual expressionof object agreement. This is illustrated by the contrast in grammaticalitybetween (36), with no non-manual expression of object agreement, and(37) or (38), where eye gaze marks object agreement.35

(36) *JOHN LOVE proj

`John loves (him/her).'

head tilti

gazej


LOVE proj




35 See Bahan (1996) for discussion of the use of body lean as another non-manualexpression of object agreement, which may also license null objects.


head tiltneutral

gazej

(38) JOHN [ ]AGR-Sneutral[ ]AGR-Oj

LOVE proj


In conclusion, head tilt and eye gaze, non-manual correlates of subjectand object agreement, have been shown to license null arguments in ASL.Null subjects and objects are thus uniformly licensed by an overt ex-pression of agreement.36

4.2.3 Intransitive constructions. The previous discussion has shownthat, in transitive constructions, head tilt and eye gaze express subjectand object agreement, respectively. Interestingly, in intransitive clauses,either non-manual device may be used to express agreement with thesingle argument. That is, it is possible to find head tilt, or eye gaze, orboth head tilt and eye gaze, as non-manual expressions of agreement inintransitive constructions.

head tilti

(39) JOHNi [ ]AGRiBATHE

`John is bathing.'

gazei


`John is bathing.'

head tilti

gazei


`John is bathing.'

As with transitive constructions, the non-manual markings begin afterthe subject and prior to the articulation of the verb. When both head tiltand eye gaze are used, as in (41), the markings occur simultaneously. Thiscontrasts with what happens with transitives, where eye gaze begins afterhead tilt. The simultaneity of head tilt and eye gaze in intransitiveconstructions supports the idea that these non-manual markings areexpressing the same features, located in the same structural position.



36 This formulation of the generalization concerning the licensing of null subjects (andnull arguments in general) in ASL goes beyond that contained in ABKN (1994), where it wasargued that all null subjects are licensed by agreement, whether this is overtly realized on theverb or not. The discovery of overt non-manual realization of agreement (Bahan 1996)confirms the claims put forth earlier in ABKN (1994), while also providing concrete evidencefor the existence of syntactic agreement in those cases where its existence had beenpostulated by ABKN. Thus, we have been able to find overt realization of syntacticagreement in all cases where null subjects are licensed.


5. Agreement in DP

As in the clause, agreement features may be expressed both manually and

non-manually within the DP in ASL (MacLaughlin 1997). This section firstaddresses the manual expression of agreement, as a realization of morpho-

logical agreement features that are part of a manual sign. Next, it is shown

that agreement features may be expressed non-manually within DP, inparallel to what was previously described as occurring in the clause.

5.1 Morphological realization of agreement in DP

We have argued elsewhere (BKMN 1995, MacLaughlin 1997) that ASLhas a definite determiner, which occurs in the head position of the

determiner phrase, as in (42).

(42) [IXdetiBOY] HAVE CANDY

`The boy has candy.'

This sign, glossed as IXdet, is articulated by pointing the index fingertoward the location that is associated with the referent. Thus, IXdet

manually expresses the person agreement features associated with the

DP. For the purposes of this article, we assume that the structure of a

definite DP is as shown in Figure 16.37

Possessive constructions may contain a possessive marker, glossed as

POSS (illustrated earlier in Figure 8).

(43) [JOHNi POSSi FRIEND] HAVE CANDY`John's friend has candy.'

Thus, the possessive marker manually expresses the agreement features

associated with the possessor. For present purposes, we assume that this



37 In this article, we focus on definite DPs. See MacLaughlin (1997) for discussion ofindefinites, and for refinements to these structures. Although the figures illustrate a singledeterminer/agreement node, it is possible that these features may be located in separateprojections at some level of representation.

Figure 16: Structure of a definite DP


sign also occurs in D (which correctly predicts that the determiner and thepossessive marker do not co-occur in this language). The structure of apossessive DP is as shown in Figure 17.

In sum, in both definite DPs and possessive DPs, there may be amanual sign that expresses agreement features. In definite DPs, thedeterminer expresses the agreement features of the DP. In possessiveDPs, the possessive marker expresses the agreement features associatedwith the possessor.38

5.2 Realization of abstract agreement features in DP

Within DP, abstract agreement features may be expressed non-manually.Interestingly, possessive DPs pattern with transitive clauses in that theagreement features associated with the two referential entities (thepossessor DP and the possessee) can be expressed non-manually in thesame way that agreement is expressed non-manually in transitive con-structions. Non-possessive DPs pattern with intransitive clauses in thateither non-manual device can be used to express the sole set of agreementfeatures. However, there are important differences between clauses andnoun phrases with respect to the distribution of these non-manualmarkings; such differences are attributed to the possibility, in the nounphrase, of having manual material in the same position where theagreement features are located.

5.2.1 Possessive constructions. In possessive constructions, head tilt andeye gaze may express the agreement features associated with the possessorand the possessee, respectively. This is illustrated in (44).



38 It is also possible for nouns and adjectives to express manual agreement by beingarticulated in, or oriented toward, the spatial location associated with the referent (seeMacLaughlin 1997).

Figure 17: Structure of a possessive DP


head tilti

gazej

(44) [JOHNi [POSSi]D/AGRi[ ]AGRj

FRIENDj] HAVE CANDY`John's friend has candy.'

In such examples, the head tilt reaches its maximum tilted position

simultaneously with the articulation of POSS. That is, the head achieves

its maximum tilt at the same time that the manual POSS sign achieves its

maximum extension. Eye gaze toward the location associated with the

possessee begins after the possessive marker has been signed.In (44), both the head tilt and the eye gaze are maintained during the

remainder of the DP. However, the head tilt need not extend beyond the

manual possessive sign. It is possible to find the head tilt occurring only

over the possessive marker, as shown in (45).39

hti

egj

(45) [JOHNi POSSi FRIENDj] HAVE CANDY`John's friend has candy.'

If we assume that the head tilt is expressing agreement features located

in the same position as the possessive marker ± the same agreement



39 For reasons of space, we will henceforth abbreviate head tilt as `ht' and eye gaze as `eg'in the glosses.

Figure 18: Non-manual agreement in possessive con-structions [from NMKB 1995]

Figure 19: Head tilt occurring only over the possessivemarker [from NMKB 1995]


features, in fact, that the possessive marker expresses manually ± then it is

possible to account for the distribution of head tilt in possessive DPs.

Because the source of the agreement features is the syntactic node in

which POSS occurs, the non-manual expression of these features is

expected to occur simultaneously with POSS. Additionally, because the

possessive marker provides manual material with which the non-manual

head tilt can co-occur, the spread of this head tilt is optional.The distribution of eye gaze (starting after POSS but prior to NP)

indicates that the agreement features associated with the possessee must

be located in a different functional projection, below DP but above the

NP. We identify this projection as an agreement projection. The eye gaze

spreads obligatorily over the c-command domain of the functional head

containing the agreement features. This is as expected, as there is no

manual material contained in this agreement projection.40

5.2.2 Non-possessive definite DPs. Either head tilt or eye gaze or both

may express agreement features in a non-possessive definite DP. This is

similar to what was reported in Section 4.2.3 for intransitive clauses.

However, in a definite DP containing a manual determiner, the non-

manual markings occur simultaneously with the definite determiner and

optionally spread over their c-command domain. Thus there are six

possible combinations of expressions of non-manual agreement in non-

possessive, definite DPs containing an overt determiner.

egi

(46) a. IXprolpKNOW [IXdeti

OLD MAN]DP

hti

b. IXprolpKNOW [IXdeti

OLD MAN]DP

hti

egi

c. IXprolpKNOW [IXdeti

OLD MAN]DP

egi

d. IXprolpKNOW [IXdeti

OLD MAN]DP

hti

e. IXprolpKNOW [IXdeti

OLD MAN]DP

hti

egi

f. IXprolpKNOW [IXdeti

OLD MAN]DP

`I know the/that old man.'

The non-manual agreement markings occur simultaneously with the



40 Note that this c-command domain includes both prenominal attributive adjectives andpostnominal predicative adjectives. See MacLaughlin (1997).


definite determiner IXdet; the markings achieve their maximum intensityat the same time that the pointing sign achieves its maximum extension(analogous to what happens with the possessive marker). This suggeststhat the agreement features expressed by the non-manual markings arelocated in the same position as the determiner (at least by Spell-Out).Thus, the determiner position contains both agreement features andsemantic features related to definiteness, as suggested by Abney (1987).When a determiner is present, spread of the non-manual agreementmarkings is optional, because manual material is available locally tobear the marking. However, it is possible to omit the manual determiner;in this case, the non-manual agreement marking, if present, must spreadobligatorily, as shown by the contrast in (47).41

hti

egi

(47) a. *IXprolpKNOW [ OLD MAN]DPi

hti

egi

b. IXprolpKNOW [ OLD MAN]DPi

`I know the/that old man.'

Notice that when the non-manual markings spread, they must bemaintained over the remainder of the DP. The markings cannot endearly, for example, after an adjective, as shown by the ungrammaticalityof (48).

hti

egi

(48) *IXprolpKNOW [ IXdeti

OLD MAN]DP

In sum, in definite noun phrases, non-manual agreement markings canexpress the agreement features located in the determiner position. Theseare the same features that are expressed manually by the definitedeterminer sign. The non-manual markings spread according to thegeneralizations that govern non-manual syntactic markings generally.When a determiner is present, the spread of the non-manual markings isoptional; in the absence of a manual determiner, the markings spreadobligatorily over the c-command domain of D, that is, over the remainderof the noun phrase.42



41 Example (47a) is acceptable in a special `whisper' register, which is characterized by ageneral reduction, lowering, and sideward displacement of signing in order to reduce thepossibility of being `overheard.' In the whisper register, it is possible to express a definitedeterminer or a pronominal reference solely through non-manual agreement markings.

42 For further discussion and analysis of non-manual expressions of agreement (ininteraction with other non-manual markings) within DP, see MacLaughlin (1997).


6. Parallels between IP and DP

Non-manual agreement marking in the clause and in the noun phrase isstrikingly similar. When there are two distinct sets of agreement featuresrepresented in the syntactic structure, as is the case in transitive clausesand possessive noun phrases, head tilt can be used to express one set ofagreement features, while eye gaze expresses the other. In fact, if oneviews the possessor as a subject and the possessee as an object, then headtilt is associated with subject agreement and eye gaze is associated withobject agreement in both transitive clauses and possessive noun phrases.When there is only a single set of agreement features, as with intransitiveclauses and non-possessive definite noun phrases, the single set ofagreement features may be expressed by either or both of the twoavailable non-manual devices.

Several differences between the noun phrase and the clause have beendescribed. These differences were attributed to the possibility, in the nounphrase but not in the clause, of finding manual material in the same nodein which agreement features are located. In non-possessive definite DPs,the definite determiner occurs in the same node as the agreement features,while in possessive DPs, the possessive marker occurs in the node thatcontains the agreement features associated with the possessor. Theavailability of this manual material affects the spreading possibilities ofthe related non-manual markings. When manual material is present, thenon-manual markings optionally spread over their c-command domain.In the absence of such material, however, spread of the markings isobligatory. In the clause, there is never manual material available in theprojections containing the agreement features; thus, spread of non-manual agreement markings in the clause is always obligatory. Notethat in possessive DPs, there is never manual material in the agreementprojection associated with the possessee; consequently, eye gaze spreadsobligatorily in possessive DPs.

In sum, with minor but predictable differences, non-manual expres-sions of agreement in clauses and noun phrases are parallel. Transitiveclauses and possessive noun phrases pattern alike, as do intransitiveclauses with non-possessive noun phrases.43 These parallels are summar-ized in Table 1.



43 Similar correspondences, with respect to case and agreement marking in transitiveclauses and possessive DPs, on the one hand, and intransitive clauses and possessor-lessDPs, on the other, have been observed crosslinguistically. For example, Abney (1987:chapter 2) notes that in Yup'ik, possessive noun phrases pattern like transitive clauses andnon-possessives with intransitives, with respect to agreement morphology. In Aleut, thenumber agreement marking on nouns with possessors is identical to the object agreementmarking on verbs; for nouns without possessors, it is like the subject agreement marking onverbs (Bergsland & Dirks 1981). Bittner and Hale (1996:60) also report: `Many languageswhich employ the ergative Case use it both for the subject of a transitive VP and the subjectof a possessed NP, i.e., the possessor. This holds not only for classical ergative languages,like Inuit, but also for languages with three-way or split Case systems.'


7. Conclusion

The results presented in this paper are significant in a number of respects.We have argued that syntactic agreement features can be expressed non-manually in ASL by head tilt and eye gaze. Once these non-manualcorrelates of agreement are recognized, a simple account of the licensingof null subjects and objects becomes available: they are licensed by anovert expression of agreement, whether manual or non-manual. Signific-antly, these non-manual markings are found with verbs of all morpho-logical classes, providing evidence for ABKN's (1992, 1994) claim thatsyntactic agreement is present regardless of the morphological class towhich the main verb belongs (counter to Lillo-Martin 1986, 1991).

The distribution of the non-manual correlates of agreement in relationto the manual expression of morphological agreement provides evidencefor the dual representation of agreement features, in that morphologicalagreement features are represented on individual lexical items, whileabstract agreement features are present in the heads of functionalprojections. In ASL, both sets of agreement features can be overtlyexpressed.

The same non-manual correlates of agreement are found in both theclause and the noun phrase, providing support for the notion thatagreement features play a central role in both types of phrases. Withrespect to the manifestations of agreement in ASL, intransitive clausespattern with possessor-less DPs, while transitive clauses pattern withpossessive DPs.

Non-manual expressions of agreement have been shown to behave likenon-manual expressions of other abstract syntactic features (such as +whand +neg), thus providing evidence that agreement features have the samestatus as other syntactic features. Moreover, the distribution of these non-manual correlates supports the existence of syntactic agreement projec-tions distinct from tense and aspect.



Table 1: Parallel expressions of agreement in the clause and the nounphrase

Transitive Intransitive

head tilti head tilti

Clause eye gaze j eye gazei

DPi [ ]AGRi[ ]AGRj

V DPj DPi [ ]AGRiV

head tilti head tilti

Noun Phrase eye gazej eye gazei

DPi [POSS]AGRi[ ]AGRj

NPj [IXdet]AGRiNPi

[from MacLaughlin 1997]


References

Aarons, D. 1994. Aspects of the syntax of American Sign Language. Ph.D. diss.,Boston U.

Aarons, D. 1996. Topics and topicalization in American Sign Language. Stel-lenbosch Papers in Linguistics 30, 65±106.

Aarons, D., Bahan, B., Kegl, J., & Neidle, C. [ABKN] 1992. Clausal structureand a tier for grammatical marking in American Sign Language. Nordic Journalof Linguistics 15, 103±142.

Aarons, D., Bahan, B., Kegl, J., & Neidle, C. [ABKN] 1994. Subjects andAgreement in American Sign Language. Perspectives on Sign Language Struc-ture: Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research,ed. I. Ahlgren, B. Bergman & M. Brennan, 13±28. Durham: International SignLanguage Linguistics Association.

Aarons, D., Bahan, B., Kegl, J., & Neidle, C. [ABKN] 1995. Lexical tensemarkers in American Sign Language. Language, gesture, and space, ed.K. Emmorey & J. Reilly, 225±253. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Abney, S. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. diss., MIT.Bahan, B. 1996. Non-manual realization of Agreement in American Sign Language.

Ph.D. diss., Boston U.Bahan, B., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., & Neidle, C. [BKMN] 1995. Convergent

evidence for the structure of Determiner Phrases in American Sign Language.FLSM VI: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Formal LinguisticsSociety of Mid-America, Volume Two, ed. L. Gabriele, D. Hardison, &R. Westmoreland, 1±12. Bloomington, Indiana U. Linguistics Club.

Bahan, B. & Pettito, L. 1980. Aspects of rules for character establishment andreference in ASL storytelling. Unpublished manuscript. Salk Institute, La Jolla,CA.

Baker, C. 1979. Nonmanual components of the sign language signal. Paperpresented at the NATO Advanced Study Institute, Copenhagen.

Baker, M. C. 1996. The Polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford U. Press.Baker-Shenk, C. 1983. A micro-analysis of the nonmanual components of questions

in American Sign Language. Ph.D. diss., U. of California, Berkeley.Baker-Shenk, C. 1985. Nonmanual behaviors in sign languages: Methodological

concerns and recent findings. SLR `83: Proceedings of the Third InternationalSymposium on Sign Language and Research, ed. W. Stokoe & V. Volterra, 175±184. Silver Springs, MD: Linstok Press.

Bellugi, U., Corina, D., Norma, F., Klima, E., & Reilly, J. 1989. Differentialspecialization for linguistic facial expression in left and right lesioned deafsigners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Aphasia,Santa Fe, NM.

Bergsland, K. & Dirks, M. 1981. Atkan Aleut school grammar. U. of Alaska:National Bilingual Materials Center.

Bittner, M. & Hale, K. 1996. The structural determination of Case andAgreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 1±68.

Bouchard, D. & Dubuisson, C. 1995. Grammar, order and position of wh-signsin Quebec Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 87, 99±139.

Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Corina, D. 1989. Recognition of affective and non-canonical linguistic facial

expressions in deaf and hearing subjects. Brain and Cognition 9, 227±237.Friedman, L. 1975. Space, time and person reference in ASL. Language 51, 940±

961.Hoza, J., Neidle, C., MacLaughlin, D., Kegl, J., & Bahan, B. [HNMKB] 1997.




A unified syntactic account of rhetorical questions in American Sign Language.Syntactic structure and discourse function: An examination of two constructionsin American Sign Language, ed. C. Neidle, D. MacLaughlin, & R. Lee, 1±23.Report No. 4, American Sign Language Linguistic Research Project, Boston U.

Huang, C. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D.diss., MIT.

Huang, C. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. LinguisticInquiry 15, 531±574.

Janis, W. 1995. A crosslinguistic perspective on ASL verb agreement. Language,gesture, and space, ed. K. Emmorey & J. Reilly, 195±223. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Johnson, R. & Liddell, S. 1987. Agreement predicates in American SignLanguage. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on SignLanguage Linguistics, Lapeenranta, Finland.

Kegl, J. 1976. Pronominalization in ASL. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Unpublishedmanuscript.

Kegl, J. 1985. Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation,syntax, and discourse. Ph.D. diss., MIT.

Kegl, J. 1986. Clitics in American Sign Language. Syntax and semantics: Thesyntax of pronominal clitics, Vol. 19, ed. H. Borer, 285±309. New York:Academic Press.

Kegl, J., Neidle, C., MacLaughlin, D., Hoza, J., & Bahan, B. [KNMHB] 1996.The case for grammar, order and position in ASL: A reply to Bouchard andDubuisson. Sign Language Studies 90, 1±23.

Kegl, J. & Poizner, H. 1991. The interplay between linguistic and spatialprocessing in a right lesioned signer. Journal of Clinical and ExperimentalNeuropsychology 13, 38±39.

Kegl, J. & Poizner, H. 1997. Crosslinguistic/crossmodal syntactic consequencesof left-hemisphere damage: Evidence from an aphasic signer and his identicaltwin. Aphasiology 11, 1-37.

Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, andthe mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge U.Press.

Liddell, S. 1980. American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Liddell, S. 1995. Real, surrogate, and token space: Grammatical consequences in

ASL. Language, gesture, and space, ed. K. Emmorey & J. Reilly, 19±41.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lillo-Martin, D. 1986. Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Lan-guage. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4, 415±444.

Lillo-Martin, D. 1990. Parameters for questions: Evidence from wh-movementin ASL. Sign language research: Theoretical issues, ed. C. Lucas, 211±222.Washington, DC: Gallaudet U. Press.

Lillo-Martin, D. 1991. Universal Grammar and American Sign Language.Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Lillo-Martin, D. 1992. Sentences as islands: On the boundedness of A'-move-ment in American Sign Language. Island constraints, ed. H. Goodluck &M. Rochemont, 259±274. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Lillo-Martin, D. 1995. The point of view predicate in American Sign Language.Language, gesture, and space, ed. K. Emmorey & J. Reilly, 155±170. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lillo-Martin, D. & Klima, E. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns insyntactic theory. Theoretical issues in Sign Language Research, Volume 1:




Linguistics, ed. S. Fischer & P. Siple, 191±210. Chicago: The U. of ChicagoPress.

Loew, R. 1984. Roles and reference in American Sign Language: A developmentalperspective. Ph.D. diss., U. of Minnesota.

MacLaughlin, D. 1997. The structure of Determiner Phrases: Evidence fromAmerican Sign Language. Ph.D. diss., Boston U.

MacLaughlin, D., Greenfield, D., & Neidle, C. [MGN] 1997. Addendum I tothe SignStream2 Design Specifications. Supplement to Report No. 3, AmericanSign Language Linguistic Research Project, Boston U.

MacLaughlin, D., Neidle, C., & Lee, R. [MNL] 1996. Design Specifications forSignStream2, a multimedia database tool for language research. Report No. 3,American Sign Language Linguistic Research Project, Boston U.

Meier, R. 1981. Icons and morphemes: Models of the acquisition of verb agree-ment in ASL. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 20, 92±99.

Meier, R. 1982. Icons, analogues, and morphemes: The acquisition of verb agree-ment in ASL. Ph.D. diss., U. of California, San Diego.

Meier, R. 1990. Person deixis in American Sign Language. Theoretical issues inSign Language research Volume 1: Linguistics, ed. S. Fischer & P. Siple, 175±190. Chicago: The U. of Chicago Press.

Neidle, C., Kegl, J., Bahan, B., Aarons, D., & MacLaughlin, D. [NKBAM]1997. Rightward Wh-movement in American Sign Language. Rightward move-ment, ed. D. Beerman (sic), D. Le Blanc, & H. Van Riemsdijk. Philadelphia,Pennsylvania: John Benjamins, 247±278.

Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B. & Lee, R. [NKMBL]forthcoming. The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categoriesand hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Neidle, C., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B., & Kegl, J. [NMBK] 1996. Non-manual correlates of syntactic Agreement in American Sign Language. ReportNo. 2, American Sign Language Linguistic Research Project, Boston U.

Neidle, C., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B., Lee, R., & Kegl, J. [NMBLK] 1997.The SignStream2 project. Report No. 5, American Sign Language LinguisticResearch Project, Boston U.

Neidle, C., MacLaughlin, D., Kegl, J., & Bahan, B. [NMKB] 1995. Overtrealization of syntactic features in American Sign Language. Syntax seminar,Trondheim, Norway.

Neidle, C., MacLaughlin, D., Lee, R., Bahan, B., & Kegl, J. [NMLBK] 1998.Wh-questions in ASL: A case for rightward movement. Report No. 6, AmericanSign Language Linguistic Research Project, Boston U.

Padden, C. 1983. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American SignLanguage. Ph.D. diss., U. of California, San Diego.

Padden, C. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American SignLanguage. New York: Garland Publishing.

Perlmutter, D. 1991 [March 28]. The language of the deaf. In New York Reviewof Books, 63±72.

Petronio, K. 1993. Clause structure in American Sign Language. Ph.D. diss., U. ofWashington.

Petronio, K. & Lillo-Martin, D. 1995. On the direction of wh-movement inASL. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society ofAmerica, New Orleans.

Petronio, K. & Lillo-Martin, D. 1997. WH-movement and the position of spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language 73, 18±57.

Poizner, H. & Kegl, J. 1992. The neural basis of language and motor behavior:Perspectives from American Sign Language. Aphasiology 6, 219±256.




Reilly, J., McIntire, M., & Bellugi, U. 1990. Faces: The relationship betweenlanguage and affect. From gesture to language in hearing and deaf children, ed.V. Volterra & C. Erting, 128±141. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Supalla, T. 1995. An implicational hierarchy in verb Agreement in AmericanSign Language. Unpublished manuscript. U. of Rochester.

Tervoort, B. 1968. You me downtown movie fun? Lingua 21, 455±465.Winston, E. 1991. Spatial referencing and cohesion in an American Sign

Language text. Sign Language Studies 73, 397±409.

Carol NeidleBoston UniversityMFLL/Linguistics

718 Commonwealth AvenueBoston, MA 02215

[email protected]

Received May 9, 1997Accepted March 3, 1998



realizations of syntactic agreement in american sign language: similarities between the clause and...

Documents