Cover not available
Part of
From Verbal Periphrases to Complex Predicates
Edited by Mar Garachana Camarero, Sandra Montserrat Buendia and Claus Dieter Pusch
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 31] 2022
► pp. 13–40

The coding of aspectual values in periphrastic constructions across signed languages

ORCID logo | University of Barcelona
The research conducted over the last forty years shows that aspect in signed languages has formal, semantic and functional properties comparable to other languages of the world and that most of the aspectual categories already identified are expressed lexically/periphrastically and derivationally, rather than inflectionally as is generally assumed (Cf. Klima and Bellugi, 1979; Sexton, 1999). The purpose of this chapter is two-fold. First, we will review patterns of periphrastic expression of aspectual categories in the signed languages studied until present. Second, we will report our research on the periphrastic expression of aspectual values in Catalan Sign Language (LSC).
Keywords: aspect, Catalan Sign Language, grammaticalization, periphrastic expression, sign language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Imperfective point of view
    • 3.1Inceptive aspect
    • 3.2Ingressive aspect
    • 3.3Iterative aspect
    • 3.4Continuative/progressive
    • 3.5Habitual/frequentative aspect
  • 4.Perfective point of view
    • 4.1Perfective
    • 4.2Completive aspect
  • 5.Anterior/perfect
  • 6.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.31.02jar
References (55)
References
Bergman, Brita, and Östen Dahl. 1994. Ideophones in sign language? The place of reduplication in tense-aspect system of Swedish Sign Language. In Tense, aspect and action: Empirical and theoretical contributions to language typology, ed. by Georg Bossong, and Bernard Comrie, 397–422. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Östen Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13: 51–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, William (ed.). 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: an introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruz Aldrete, M. 2008. Gramática de la lengua de señas mexicana. México, DF: Centro de Estudios Lingüísticos y Literarios del Colegio de México, México, DF (PhD thesis).
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen, and Viveka Velupillai. 2008. Perfective/Imperfective aspect. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, ed. by Martin Haspelmath et al. Ch. 65. München: Max Planck Digital Library. Available at <[URL]>.
Deuchar, Margaret. 1984. British Sign Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dikyuva, Hasan, Bahtiyar Makaroğlu, and Engin Arık (2017). Turkish Sign Language Grammar. Akara: Ministry of Family and Social Policies Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. 1973. Two processes of reduplication in the American Sign Language. Foundations of language, 9(4), 469–480.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D., and Bonnie Gough. 1999 [1972]. Some Unfinished Thoughts on finish . Sign Language and Linguistics 2–1: 67–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genoble, Lenore. 1992. An Overview of Russian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 77: 321–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1982. Tense-Aspect-Modality: the creole proto-type and beyond. In Tense-Aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, ed. by Paul Hopper. 115–163. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Martin. 1982. The ‘past simple’ and the ‘present perfect’ in Romance. In Studies in the Romance verb, ed. by Martin Harris and Nigel Vicent. 42–70. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herrero-Blanco, Ángel. (2009). Gramática didáctica de la lengua de signos española (LSE). Madrid: Ediciones SM.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. (ed.). 1982. Tense-Aspect: between Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janzen, Terry D. 1995. The polygrammaticization of finish in ASL. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba (MA Thesis).
Johnston, Trevor, Donovan Cresdee, Adam Schembri and Bencie Woll. 2015. FINISH variation and grammaticalization in a signed language: How far down this well-trodden pathway is Auslan (Australian Sign Language)? Language Variation and Change 27(1), 117–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klima, Eduard, and Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1984. Research methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics, ed. by John Baugh and Joel Sherzer. 28–53. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Lee, W. F. 2002. Aspect in Hong Kong Sign Language. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong (unpublished Master Dissertation).
Liddell, Scott K. 1984. Unrealized-inceptive aspect in American Sign Language: Feature insertion in syllabic frames. Chicago Linguistic Society 20: 257–270.Google Scholar
2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maroney, Elisa M. 2004. Aspect in American Sign Language. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico (unpublished PhD dissertation).
Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, Where Are You? New York: Dial Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1971. Time and tense reference in English. In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, ed. by Charles l. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen. 97–114. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 1999. A Perfect Marker in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2–1: 43–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morales-López, Esperanza, Cristina Pérez, César Reigosa, Emma Blanco, Nancy Bobillo, Cristina Freire, Begoña Mallo, and Gabriela Prego. 2000. Aspectos gramaticales de la Lengua de Signos Española. In Apuntes de Lingüística de la Lengua de Signos Española, 69–131. Madrid: Fundación CNSE.Google Scholar
Ocampo, Francisco. 2006. Movement towards discourse is not grammaticalization: the evolution of claro from adjective to discourse particle in spoken Spanish. In Selected proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed. by Nuria Sagarra and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio. 308–319. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland, and Markus Steinbach. 2006. Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages. Linguistics in Potsdam 24: 3–98.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland and Markus Steinbach. 2011. Grammaticalization in sign languages. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, ed. by Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine. 683–695. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll. 2013. Tense, aspect and modality. In Sign language. An International Handbook, ed. by Roldand Pfau, Markus Steinbach and Bencie Woll. 186–204. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rafferty, Ellen. 1982. Aspect in Conversational Indonesian. In Tense-Aspect: between Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. by Paul J. Hopper. 65–87. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rathmann, Christian. 2005. Event Structure in American Sign Language. Austin: University of Texas (unpublished PhD dissertation).
Rodríguez González, M. Ángeles. 1992. Lenguaje de Signos. Madrid: Confederación Nacional de Sordos de España y Fundación ONCE.Google Scholar
Sapountzaki, Galini. 2005. Free Functional Elements of Tense, Aspect, Modality and Agreement as Possible Auxiliaries in Greek Sign Language. Bristol: Centre of Deaf Studies, University of Bristol (PhD dissertation).
Sapountzaki, Gallini. 2010. Handy and Functional: Tense, Aspect, Modality and Agreement Markers as Auxiliaries in Greek Sign Language. Saarbrücken: VDM Publishing To House.Google Scholar
Sexton, Amy L. 1999. Grammaticalization in American Sign Language. Language Sciences 22: 105–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I., and Nini Hoiting. 2001. Typological and Modality Constraints on Borrowing: Examples from the Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Foreign Vocabulary in Sign Languages. A Crosslinguistic Investigation of Word Formation, ed. by Diane Brentari. 121–137. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Wayne H. 1990. Evidence for auxiliaries in Taiwanese Sign Language. In Theoretical issues in sign language research, Vol. 1: Linguistics, ed. by Susan D. Fischer and Patricia Siple. 211–228. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel, and Bencie Woll. 1999. The Linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, Gladys. 2009. Acquiring finish in Hong Kong Sign Language. In Taiwan Sign Language and Beyond, ed. by James H-Y. Tai & Jane Tsay. 21–47. Chia-Yi: The Taiwan Institute for the Humanities, National Chung Cheng University.Google Scholar
van Herreweghe, Mieke. 2010. Grammaticalisation processes in Flemish Sign Language. Poster presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 10 Conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and Times. The Philosophical Review 66: 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallace, Stephen. 1982. Figure and Ground: the Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories. In Tense-Aspect: between Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. by Paul J. Hopper. 201–223. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2000. Sign language in Indo-Pakistan: A description of a signed language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Aspects of Türk İşaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). Sign Language & Linguistics 6–1: 43–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zucchi, Sandro, Carol Neidle, Carlo Geraci, Quinn Duffy, and Carlo Cecchetto. 2010. Functional markers in sign languages. In Sign Languages, ed. by Diane Brentari. 197–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar