Cover not available
Article published In:
Special Issue in Memory of Irit Meir
Edited by Diane Lillo-Martin, Wendy Sandler, Marie Coppola and Rose Stamp
[Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1/2] 2020
► pp. 171–207

Structural cues for symmetry, asymmetry, and non-symmetry in Central Taurus Sign Language

| Boğaziçi University
| Barnard College
| Tufts University
| University of Pennsylvania
We investigate how predicates expressing symmetry, asymmetry and non-symmetry are encoded in a newly emerging sign language, Central Taurus Sign Language (CTSL). We find that predicates involving symmetry (i.e., reciprocal and symmetrical actions) differ from those involving asymmetry (i.e., transitive) in their use of the morphological devices investigated here: body segmentation, mirror-image articulators and double perspective. Symmetrical predicates also differ from non-symmetrical ones (i.e., intransitive) in their use of mirror-image configuration. Furthermore, reciprocal actions are temporally sequenced within a linear structure, whereas symmetrical actions are not. Thus, our data reveal that CTSL expresses each type of action with a particular combination of linguistic devices to encode symmetry, asymmetry, and non-symmetry. Furthermore, differences in the use of these devices across age cohorts of CTSL suggest that some have become more conventionalized over time. The same semantic distinctions have been observed – though with different realization – in another emerging sign language, Nicaraguan Sign Language (NSL). This converging suggests that natural human language learning capacities include an expectation to distinguish symmetry, asymmetry and non-symmetry.
Keywords: symmetry, asymmetry, non-symmetry, emerging sign language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The language of symmetry
      • 1.1.1Mono-clausal strategies
      • 1.1.2Multi-clausal strategies
      • 1.1.3Morphological strategies
    • 1.2Syntactic realization of symmetry in sign languages
    • 1.3The focus of the current study
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials
    • 2.3Task
    • 2.4Coding procedure
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Temporal sequencing
    • 3.2Body segmentation
    • 3.3Mirroring
    • 3.4Single vs. double perspective
  • 4.Summary and discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00048.erg
References (45)
References
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(4). 743–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börstell, Carl, Ryan Lepic & Gal Belsitzman. 2016. Articulatory plurality is a property of lexical plurals in sign language. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 39(2). 391–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimitriadis, Alexis. 2008. Irreducible symmetry in reciprocal constructions. In Ekkehard Konig & Volker Gast (Eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations, 5–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: the semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTO. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dudis, Paul. 2004. Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 223–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ergin, Rabia. 2017. Central Taurus Sign Language: a unique vantage point into language emergence. Medford: Tufts University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Ergin, Rabia & Diane Brentari. 2017. Hand shape preferences for nouns and verbs in Central Taurus Sign Language. In Maria LaMendola & Jennifer Scott (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 222–235. Medford, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Ergin, Rabia, Irit Meir, Deniz Ilkbaşaran, Carol Padden & Ray Jackendoff. 2018. The development of argument structure in Central Taurus Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 18(4). 612–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ergin, Rabia, Ann Senghas, Ray Jackendoff & Lila Gleitman. 2018. Structural cues for symmetry, asymmetry, and non-symmetry in Central Taurus Sign Language. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (EVOLANG XII).Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2008. Reciprocal constructions: towards a structural typology. In Ekkehard Konig & Volker Gast (Eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: theoretical and typological explorations, 33–103. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1972. Subjects, speakers, and roles. In Donald Davidson & Gilbert Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language, 1–24. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flaherty, Molly, Susan Goldin-Meadow, Ann Senghas, Marie Coppola & Lila Gleitman. 2013. Animacy and verb classes in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
Gleitman, Lila. 2017. Takes two to tango. Paper presented at the the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, London, UK.
Gleitman, Lila, Henry Gleitman, Carol Miller & Ruth Ostrin. 1996. Similar, and similar concepts. Cognition 58(3). 321–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, Lila. 1965. Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language 41(2). 260–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions, 2087–2115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo & Brenda Laca. 2012. Verbal plurality and distributivity. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 2007. Basic patterns in a typology of reciprocity. Journées d’études sur la pluralité nominale et verbale. Retrieved from [URL]
König, Ekkehard & Shigehiro Kokutani. 2006. Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: Focus on German and Japanese. Linguistics 44(2). 271–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Jeremy & Valentina Aristodemo. 2017. Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French Sign Language. Semantics and Pragmatics 101. 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 11). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Marchese, Lynell. 1986. The pronominal system of Godié. In Ursula Wieseman (Ed.), Pronominal systems, 217–256. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2010. The emergence of argument structure in two new sign languages. In Malka R. Hovav & Edit Doron (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax and event structure, 101–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Mark Aronoff, Carl Börstell, So-One Hwang, Deniz Ilkbasaran, Itamar Kastner, Ryan Lepic, Adi Lifshitz, Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler. 2017. The effect of being human and the basis of grammatical word order: Insights from novel communication systems and young sign languages. Cognition 1581. 189–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Assaf Israel, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff. 2012. The influence of community on language structure: evidence from two young sign languages. Linguistic Variation 12(2). 247–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler. 2013. Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 309–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43(3). 531–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff. 2010. Emerging sign languages. In Marc Marschark & Patricia Elizabeth Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, Vol. 21, 267–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Gary, Rosalind Herman & Bencie Woll. 2002. The development of complex verb constructions in British Sign Language. Journal of Child Language 29(3). 655–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 2007. Encoding of the reciprocal meaning. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions, 147–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P., Emma Geniusiene & Zlatka Guentchéva. 2007. Reciprocal constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordlund, Sanna. 2019. Agent defocusing in two-participant clauses in Finnish Sign Language. Glossa 4(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oomen, Marloes. 2017. Iconicity in argument structure: Psych-verbs in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Sign Language & Linguistics 20(1). 55–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2003. Optimal reciprocals in German Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 6(1). 3–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Modality and meaning: Plurality of relations in German Sign Language. Lingua 1701. 69–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 1996. Situation perspective: on the relations of thematic roles, discourse categories, and grammatical relations to figure and ground. In Adele Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 401–419. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. 2018. Language change across the lifespan. Annual Review of Linguistics 4(1). 297–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senghas, Ann, Sotaro Kita & Asli Özyürek. 2004. Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science 305(5691). 1779–1782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senghas, Ann, Marie Coppola, Elissa Newport & Ted Supalla. 1997. Argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language: the emergence of grammatical devices. In Elizabeth Hughes, Mary Hughes & Annabel Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Medford, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos & Itamar Gati. 2004. Studies of similarity. In Eldar Shafir (Ed.), Preference, belief, and similarity. Selected writings of Amos Tversky, 75–95. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike & Sibaji Panda. 2011. Reciprocal constructions in Indo-Pakistani Sign Language. In Nicholas Evans, Alice Gaby, Stephen Levinson & Asifa Majid (Eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology, 91–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Kita, Sotaro & Karen Emmorey
2023. Gesture links language and cognition for spoken and signed languages. Nature Reviews Psychology 2:7 ► pp. 407 ff. DOI logo
Ergin, Rabia
2022. Emerging Lexicon for Objects in Central Taurus Sign Language. Languages 7:2 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.