Clausal Structure and a Tier for Grammatical Marking in American Sign Language

Abstract

Grammatical information in ASL can systematically be marked on the face. Such nonmanual marking extends over the c-command domain of the trigger, and therefore provides information about the hierarchical organization of the language. Consistent with evidence available from the distribution of non-manual markings—as illustrated with respect to wh-marking and negation—a basic clausal structure for ASL is proposed. Furthermore, we suggest, contrary to generally accepted claims about ASL, that both Tense and Agreement are structurally present in all ASL main clauses. This analysis allows for a uniform account of the licensing of null subjects in ASL. Evidence in favor of this analysis, and against a dual licensing mechanism (as proposed in Kegl, 1985, and Lillo-Martin, 1986, 1991b), is presented.

Syntactic Correlates of Brow Raise in ASL

“…These examples also help to demonstrate a fundamental difference between 'br' and other nonmanual markers. Negation and wh-question marking are argued by Aarons et al (1992aAarons et al ( , 1992b to spread over their c-command domain. Under any proposed analysis, the 'br'-marked phrases in (47)-(51) c-command the rest of the sentence, yet 'br' does not spread over the entire sentence, even when there is no other nonmanual to prevent it from doing so (e.g.…”

“…The operator feature in wh-questions is [+wh]. In ASL, this feature is associated with brow lowering, what we call brow furrow 'bf,' and spreads over its c-command domain (Aarons et al 1992a(Aarons et al , 1992bMacLaughlin 1997). We will not be further concerned with [+wh] operators; instead, all of the operators that we will deal with are [−wh].…”

“…There is also clear evidence of nonmanuals associated with specific syntactic structures. Aarons et al (1992aAarons et al ( , 1992b argue that negative headshakes and [+wh]-brow furrows have c(onstituent)-command domains, while Petronio (1992) argues that head nodding and [+wh]-brow furrow require m-command domain. Whatever the correct formulation for them is, here we will lay out the reasons leading to an analysis in which the 'br' is correlated instead with the notions of A′-position and operator feature checking domains.…”

Commentary on Fischer & Gough (1972)

“…His proposal for grammaticization spans the continuum from lexical item (Verb) to grammatical items (AUX), and eventually to phonologically reduced morphological marker (tense affix). We know that ASL has morphological affixes in the form of aspectual markings discussed by Klima, Bellugi et al (1979), and possibly non-manual tense marking (Aarons et al 1992(Aarons et al , 1995. It remains an open question then whether ASL will take the next step and create a morphological marking for tense derived from a form of FINISH.…”

“…FINISH as a free-standing sign is not a tense marker in that regard; instead it is an aspect marker of perfective and completion but not of 'past tense. ' Aarons et al (1992' Aarons et al ( , 1995 argue that ASL does have tense indicated by non-manual marking over the verb. However, the presence or absence of such marking over a verb has no bearing on the status of FINISH. To the extent that FINISH indicates perfective aspect, it is also unlike other means of expressing aspect in ASL.…”