Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:15:08.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variable “subject” presence in Australian Sign Language and New Zealand Sign Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2011

Rachel McKee ,
Adam Schembri ,
David McKee  and
Trevor Johnston
Rachel McKee
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington
Adam Schembri
Affiliation:
La Trobe University
David McKee
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington
Trevor Johnston
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports the findings of parallel studies of variable subject presence in two closely related sign language varieties, Australian Sign Language (Auslan) and New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL). The studies expand upon research in American Sign Language (ASL) (Wulf, Dudis, Bayley, & Lucas, 2002) that found subject pronouns with noninflecting verbs to be more frequently unexpressed than expressed. The ASL study reported that null subject use correlates with both social and linguistic factors, the strongest of which is referential congruence with an antecedent in a preceding clause. Findings from the Auslan and NZSL studies also indicated that chains of reference play a stronger role in subject presence than either morphological factors (e.g., verb type), or social factors of age, gender, ethnicity, and language background. Overall results are consistent with the view that this feature of syntactic variation may be better accounted for in terms of information structure than sociolinguistic effects.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , October 2011 , pp. 375 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aarons, Debra, Bahan, Ben, Kegl, Judy, & Neidle, Carol. (1994). Subjects and agreement in American Sign Language. In Ahlgren, I., Bergman, B., & Brennan, M. (eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure: Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research Volume 1. Durham, UK: International Sign Language Association. 13–28.Google Scholar
Bahan, Ben. (1996). Non-manual realization of agreement in American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University.Google Scholar
Bailey, Guy. (2002). Real and apparent time. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 312–332). Oxford: Blackwell. 312–322.Google Scholar
Bayley, Robert, & Pease-Alvarez, Linda. (1997). Null pronoun variation in Mexican-descent children's narrative discourse. Language Variation and Change 9:349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn, & Griffin, Zenzi M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology 1292:177–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, Holly. (2007). Syntactic priming. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(1–2):1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Richard. (1992). Pronominal and null subject variation in Spanish: Constraints, dialects, and functional compensation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. (2002). Sex and gender in variationist research. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell. 423–443.Google Scholar
de Beuzeville, Louise, Johnston, Trevor & Schembri, Adam. (2009). The use of space with indicating verbs in Auslan: A corpus based investigation. Sign Language & Linguistics 12(1):53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. (2001). Repetition priming with aspect and agreement morphology in American Sign Language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20(5):365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. (2002). Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. (1993). Space in Danish Sign Language. The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. (2002). Grammatical relations in Danish Sign Language: Topic and subject. In Pajunen, A. (ed.), Mimesis, sign, and the evolution of language. Publications in general linguistics 3. Turku, Finland: University of Turku. 13–28.Google Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, Nydia. (2002). A sociolinguistic perspective on the use of subject personal pronouns in Spanish Narratives of Puerto Ricans in New York City. Munich: Lincom-Europa.Google Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, Nydia. (2007). A bend in the road: Subject personal pronoun expression in Spanish after 30 years of sociolinguistic research. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(6):624–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fought, Carmen. (2002). Ethnicity. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 444–472.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. (2007). Pre-established categories don't exist—Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1):119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet. (1997). Māori and Pakeha English: Some New Zealand social dialect data. Language in Society 26(1):65–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jia, Li, & Bayley, Robert. (2002). Null pronoun variation in Mandarin Chinese. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 8(3):103–116.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor, & Schembri, Adam. (2007). Australian Sign Language: An introduction to the linguistics of sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. (1989). Auslan: The sign language of the Australian deaf community. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. (1993). Arguments against “subject” and “direct object” as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 63(4):759–813.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. (2000). Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away from agreement. In Emmorey, K. & Lane, H. (eds.), The Signs of Language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. 303–320.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K., & Metzger, Melanie. (1998). Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30:657–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane. (1986). Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Ceil, & Valli, Clayton. (1992). Language contact in the American deaf community. San Diego: Academic PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Ceil, Bayley, Robert, & Valli, Clayton. (2001). Sociolinguistic variation in American Sign Language. Washington DC, Gallaudet University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Ceil, McCaskill, Carolyn, Hill, Joseph, & Bayley, Robert. (2010). Black ASL as a separate variety. Paper presented at the Tenth International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.Google Scholar
McKee, Rachel, McKee, David, Smiler, Kirsten & Pointon, Karen. (2007). ‘Maori Signs’: The construction of indigenous Deaf identity in New Zealand Sign Language. In Signed Languages in Contact, (ed.), Quinto-Pozos, David. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. 31–84.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Padden, Carol A., Aronoff, Mark, & Sandler, Wendy. (2007). Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43:531–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, Melanie. (1995). Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In Lucas, C. (ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 255–271.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Myriam. (2000). Constraints on null subjects in Bislama (Vanuatu): Social and linguistic factors. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics Publications.Google Scholar
Milroy, James, & Milroy, Lesley. (1997). Varieties and variation. In Coulmas, F. (ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 48–64.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Ross E., & Karchmer, Michael A. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies 2(4):138–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina. (2006). Comparing language contact phenomena between Auslan-English interpreters and Deaf Australians: A preliminary study. In Lucas, C. (ed.), Multilingualism and sign languages: From the Great Plains to Australia. Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities Series 12. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. 39–78.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Kegl, Judy, McLaughlin, Dawn, Bahan, Ben, & Lee, Robert G. (2000). The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A. (1988). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Paredes Silva, Vera L. (1993). Subject omission and functional compensation: Evidence from written Brazilian Portuguese. Language Variation and Change 5:35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quadros, Ronice M. de., & Lillo-Martin, Diane. (2010). Clause structure. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rand, David & Sankoff, David. (2004) GoldVarb: A variable rule application for the Macintosh. http://albuquerque.bioinformatics.uottawa.ca/goldVarb/goldVarb.htmlGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, & Lillo-Martin, Diane. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schembri, Adam. (2009). No agreement on agreement: Are we missing the point? Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam, & Johnston, Trevor. (2007). Sociolinguistic variation in the use of fingerspelling in Australian Sign Language (Auslan): A pilot study. Sign Language Studies 7(3):319–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schembri, Adam, McKee, Rachel, McKee, David, Johnston, Trevor, Goswell, Della, Pivac, Sara (2009). Phonological Variation And Change In Australian And New Zealand Sign Languages: The Location Variable. Language Variation and Change 21 (2009), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smiler, Kirsten. (2004). Maori Deaf: Perceptions of cultural and linguistic identity of maori members of the New Zealand Deaf community. Masters thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella, Serratrice, L., Filiaci, Francesca, & Baldo, Michela. (2009). Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: Testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. Lingua 119:460–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics New Zealand. (2001). New Zealand Disability Survey Snapshot 6: Sensory Disabilities. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel, & Woll, Bencie. (1999). The linguistics of British Sign Language; an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel, Woll, Bencie, & Allsop, Lorna. (1990). Variation and recent change in fingerspelling in British Sign Language. Language Variation and Change, 2, 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Catherine E. (2007). Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change 19(2):101–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., & LaPolla, Randy J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulf, Alyssa, Dudis, Paul, Bayley, Robert, & Lucas, Ceil. (2002). Variable subject presence in ASL narratives. Sign Language Studies 3(1):54–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar