普通动词真的简单吗?共同定位作为手语的协议标记

Guilherme Lourenço, R. Wilbur
{"title":"普通动词真的简单吗?共同定位作为手语的协议标记","authors":"Guilherme Lourenço, R. Wilbur","doi":"10.31009/feast.i2.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In contrast to previous discussions on agreement, this paper argues that matching of location is the single morphological exponent of verb agreement in sign languages, using data from Brazilian Sign Language (Libras). Therefore, we reject the analysis of path and/or directionality as agreement markers. We argue that “plain” verbs are actually capable of showing agreement, as long as there is no phonological restriction, if we consider the sharing of location features (co-localization) as the sole agreement mechanism. Agreement is not restricted to a subset of verbs and is actually more pervasive and pro-ductive than has been argued, thus challenging one argument against calling it agreement.","PeriodicalId":164096,"journal":{"name":"FEAST. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign language Theory","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are plain verbs really plain?: Co-localization as the agreement marker in sign languages\",\"authors\":\"Guilherme Lourenço, R. Wilbur\",\"doi\":\"10.31009/feast.i2.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In contrast to previous discussions on agreement, this paper argues that matching of location is the single morphological exponent of verb agreement in sign languages, using data from Brazilian Sign Language (Libras). Therefore, we reject the analysis of path and/or directionality as agreement markers. We argue that “plain” verbs are actually capable of showing agreement, as long as there is no phonological restriction, if we consider the sharing of location features (co-localization) as the sole agreement mechanism. Agreement is not restricted to a subset of verbs and is actually more pervasive and pro-ductive than has been argued, thus challenging one argument against calling it agreement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":164096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"FEAST. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign language Theory\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"FEAST. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign language Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31009/feast.i2.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FEAST. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign language Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31009/feast.i2.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

本文以巴西手语(Libras)的数据为研究对象,对比以往对手语动词一致性的讨论,认为位置匹配是手语动词一致性的单一形态指数。因此,我们拒绝分析路径和/或方向性作为协议标记。我们认为,如果我们把共享位置特征(共定位)作为唯一的一致机制,那么只要没有语音限制,“普通”动词实际上能够表现出一致。Agreement并不局限于动词的一个子集,实际上它比人们所争论的更普遍、更有成效,从而挑战了反对称其为Agreement的一个论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are plain verbs really plain?: Co-localization as the agreement marker in sign languages
In contrast to previous discussions on agreement, this paper argues that matching of location is the single morphological exponent of verb agreement in sign languages, using data from Brazilian Sign Language (Libras). Therefore, we reject the analysis of path and/or directionality as agreement markers. We argue that “plain” verbs are actually capable of showing agreement, as long as there is no phonological restriction, if we consider the sharing of location features (co-localization) as the sole agreement mechanism. Agreement is not restricted to a subset of verbs and is actually more pervasive and pro-ductive than has been argued, thus challenging one argument against calling it agreement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Indexicals under role shift in Sign Language of the Netherlands Inherently reciprocal verbs in Brazilian Sign Language The relationship between place of articulation and semantic features in a corpus of astronomical neologisms in Quebec Sign Language Some properties of neg-raising in three sign languages Manual and nonmanual cues used for the prosodic encoding of contrastive focus in LSFB (French Belgian Sign Language)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1