Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Relationship between Eye Gaze and Verb Agreement in American Sign Language: An Eye-tracking Study

  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The representation of agreement is a crucial aspect of current syntactic theory, and therefore should apply in both signed and spoken languages. Neidle et al. (2000) claim that all verb types in American Sign Language (agreeing, spatial, and plain) can occur with abstract syntactic agreement for subject and object. On this view, abstract agreement can be marked with either manual agreement morphology (verb directed toward locations associated with the subject/object) or non-manual agreement (eye gaze toward the object/head tilt toward the subject). Non-manual agreement is claimed to function independently as a feature-checking mechanism since it can occur with plain verbs not marked with overt morphological agreement. We conducted a language production experiment using head-mounted eye-tracking to directly measure signers’ eye gaze. The results were inconsistent with Neidle et al.’s claims. While eye gaze accompanying (manually/morphologically) agreeing verbs was most frequently directed toward the location of the syntactic object, eye gaze accompanying plain verbs was rarely directed toward the object. Further, eye gaze accompanying spatial verbs was toward the locative argument, rather than toward the object of transitive verbs or the subject of intransitive verbs as predicted by Neidle et.al. Additionally, we found a consistent difference in the height of directed eye gaze between spatial and agreeing verbs. Gaze was directed lower in signing space for locative marking than for object marking, thus clearly distinguishing these two argument types. Plain verbs occurring with null object pronouns were not marked by gaze toward the location of the object and always occurred with an overt object topic. Thus, Neidle et.al.’s analysis of null objects as licensed by agreement (manual or non-manual) was not supported. Rather, the data substantiated Lillo-Martin’s (1986) claim that null arguments for plain verbs are licensed by topics. To account for the observed patterns of eye gaze, we propose an analysis of eye gaze agreement for agreeing and spatial verbs as marking the ‘lowest’ available argument on a noun phrase accessibility hierarchy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Judith L. Aissen (1983) ‘Indirect Object Advancement in Tzotzil’ D. Perlmutter (Eds) Studies in Relational Grammar, Vol. 1 University of Chicago Press Chicago 272–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbara Allen Frantz. Donald (1983) ‘Advancements and Verb Agreement in Southern Tiwa’ D. Perlmutter (Eds) Studies in Relational Grammar, Vol. 1 University of Chicago Press Chicago 303–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigel. Armstrong (2002) ArticleTitle‘Variable Deletion of French ne: A Cross-stylistic Perspective’ Language Sciences 24 153–173 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0388-0001(01)00015-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askins, David and David Perlmutter. 1995. Allomorphy Explained Through Phonological Representation: Person and Number Inflection of American Sign Language Verbs, ms., University of California, San Diego and University of Rochester.

  • Benjamin Bahan Kegl Judy Lee Robert MacLaughlin Dawn Neidle. Carol (2000) ArticleTitle‘The Licensing of Null Arguments in American Sign Language’ Linguistic Inquiry 31 1–27 Occurrence Handle10.1162/002438900554271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahan, Benjamin. 1996. Non-Manual Realization of Agreement in American Sign Language, Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University.

  • Baker-Shenk, Charlotte. 1983. A Micro-analysis of the Nonmanual Components of Questions in American Sign Language, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Baker-Shenk, Charlotte. 1985. ‘Nonmanual Behaviors in Sign Languages: Methodological Concerns and Recent Findings’, in W. Stokoe, Volterra V. (eds.), SLR ‘83: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Sign Language Research, Linstok Press, Silver Spring, pp. 175–184.

  • Charlotte. Baker (1977) ‘Regulators and Turn-Taking in ASL Discourse’ L. Friedman (Eds) On The Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language Academic Press New York 215–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlotte Baker Padden. Carol (1978) ‘Focusing on the nonmanual components of American Sign Language’ P. Siple (Eds) Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research Academic Press New York 27–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlotte Baker Cokely. Dennis (1980) American Sign Language: A Teacher’s Resource Text on Grammar and Culture T.J. Publishers Silver Spring, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark C. Baker (1988) Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing University of Chicago Press Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, Mark C. (1996). The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford University Press, New York

  • Joan. Bresnan (1994) ArticleTitle‘Locative Inversion and the Architecture of Universal Grammar’ Language 70 72–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, Shannon. 2003. “Agreement” in Gestures and Signed Languages: The Use of Directionality to Indicate Referents Involved in Actions, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.

  • Noam. Chomsky (1993) ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’ K. Hale S.J. Keyser (Eds) The view from Building 20 MIT Press Cambridge, MA 1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Noam. Chomsky (1995) The Minimalist Program MIT Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandra. Chung (1976) ArticleTitle‘An Object-creating Rule in Bahasa Indonesia’ Linguistic Inquiry 7 41–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard. Comrie (1976) ‘The Syntax of Causative Constructions: Cross-linguistic Similarities and Differences’ M. Shibatani (Eds) The syntax of Causative Constructions Academic Press Syntax and Semantics Vol. 6 261–312

    Google Scholar 

  • William. Croft (1988) ‘Agreement vs. Case Marking and Direct Objects’ Marking Case M. Barlow C. Ferguson (Eds) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions CSLI Stanford 159–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Karen. Emmorey (2002) Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Elizabeth. Engberg-Pedersen (1993) Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language Signum Verlag Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Susan. Fischer (1996) ArticleTitle‘The Role of Agreement and Auxiliaries in Sign Language’ Lingua 98 103–119 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0024-3841(95)00034-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn. Friedman (1975) ArticleTitle‘Space, Time and Person Reference in ASL’ Language 51 940–961

    Google Scholar 

  • Brian G. Hewitt (1979) ArticleTitle‘The Relative Clause in Abkhaz (Abzui dialect)’ Lingua 47 151–188 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0024-3841(79)90034-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C.T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Wynne D. Janis (1995) ‘A Crosslinguistic Perspective on ASL Verb Agreement’ K. Emmorey J. Reilly (Eds) Language, Gesture, and Space Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates Hillsdale, NJ 195–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Edward Keenan Comrie. Bernard (1977) ArticleTitle‘Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar’ Linguistic Inquiry 8 63–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1983. A Grammar of Manam, Oceanic Linguistics special publication 18, University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.

  • Liddell, Scott K. 1980. American Sign Language Syntax, Mouton, The Hague.

  • Scott K. Liddell (1990) ‘Four Functions of a Locus: Re-examining the structure of space in ASL’ C. Lucas (Eds) Sign Language Research: Theoretical issues Gallaudet University Press Washington DC 176–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott K. Liddell (2003) Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Diane. Lillo-Martin (1986) ArticleTitle‘Two Kinds of Null Arguments in American Sign Language’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4 415–444 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00134469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diane. Lillo-Martin (1995) ‘The Point of View Predicate in American Sign Language’ K. Emmorey J. Reilly (Eds) Language, Gesture, and Space Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale, NJ 155–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Diane. Lillo Martin (2002) ‘Where are all the Modality Effects?’ R. Meier D. Quinto-Pozos K. Cormier (Eds) Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages Cambridge University Press Cambridge 241–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Diane Lillo-Martin Klima. Edward S. (1990) ‘Pointing out Differences: ASL Pronouns in Syntactic Theory’ S. Fischer P. Siple (Eds) Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 1 University of Chicago Press Chicago 191–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathur, Gaurav. 2000. The Morphology–Phonology Interface in Signed Languages, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Meir, Irit. 1998a. Thematic Structure and Verb Agreement in Israeli Sign Language, Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

  • Irit. Meir (1998b) ArticleTitle‘Syntactic–semantic Interaction in Israeli Sign Language Verbs: The Case of Backwards Verbs’ Sign Language and Linguistics 1 3–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Carol Neidle Bahan Benjamin MacLaughlin Dawn Lee Robert Kegl. Judy (1998) ArticleTitle‘Realizations of syntactic agreement in American Sign Language: Similarities Between the Clause and the Noun Phrase’ Studia Linguistica 52 191–226 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-9582.00034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carol Neidle Kegl Judy MacLaughlin Dawn Bahan Benjamin Lee. Robert (2000) The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure MIT Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Marina Nespor Sandler. Wendy (1999) ArticleTitle‘Prosodic Phonology in Israeli Sign Language’ Language and Speech 42 143–176 Occurrence Handle10.1177/00238309990420020201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padden, Carol A. 1983. Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.

  • Carol A. Padden (1986) ‘Verbs and Role Shifting in ASL’ C. Padden (Eds) Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching National Association of the Deaf Silver Spring, MD 45–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Carol A. Padden (1988) Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language Garland Publishing New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carol A. Padden (1990) ‘The relation between Space and Grammar in ASL Verb Morphology’ C. Lucas (Eds) Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues Gallaudet University Press Washington, DC 118–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, David A. 1999. Discourse-functional, Historical, and Typological Aspects of Applicative Constructions, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Christian Rathmann Mathur. Gaurav (2002) ‘Is Verb Agreement the Same Cross-modally?’ R. Meier D. Quinto-Pozos K. Cormier (Eds) Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages Cambridge University Press Cambridge 370–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendy Sandler Lillo-Martin. Diane (2006) Sign Language and Linguistic Universals Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard-Kegl, Judy. 1985. Locative Relations in American Sign Language Word Formation, Syntax, and Discourse, Ph.D dissertation, MIT.

  • Patricia. Siple (1978) ArticleTitle‘Visual Constraints for Sign Language Communication’ Sign Language Studies 19 97–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachel Sutton-Spence Woll. Bencie (1999) The Linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarah. Taub (2001) Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Robin. Argument structure in American Sign Language, University of California at San Diego, in preparation.

  • Thompson, Robin and Karen Emmorey. 2004. ‘Learning to Look: Eye Gaze during ASL Verb Production by Native & Nonnative Signers’, paper presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Boston, MA.

  • Thompson, Robin and Karen Emmorey. 2005. ‘Eye Gaze and Verb Agreement in ASL’, paper presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, 8, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

  • Ronnie. Wilbur (2000) ‘Phonological and Prosodic Layering of Non-manuals in American Sign Language’ H. Lane K. Emmorey (Eds) The Signs of Language Revisited: Festschrift for Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima Lawrence Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ 213–241

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, Laboratory for Cognitive Neuroscience, 10010 North Torrey Pines Rd., La Jolla, CA, 920037

    Robin Thompson

  2. Laboratory for Language and Cognitive Neuroscience, San Diego State University, 6495 Alvarado Court, Suite 200, San Diego, CA, 92182, USA

    Karen Emmorey

  3. Department of Linguistics, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA

    Robin Thompson & Robert Kluender

Authors
  1. Robin Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen Emmorey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Kluender
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robin Thompson.

Additional information

This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation awarded to Karen Emmorey and the Salk Institute (Linguistics program: BCS-0216791). We would like to thank Shannon Casey, Diane Lillo-Martin, John Moore, Maria Polinsky, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. This paper also benefited from discussions with Grant Goodall, Irit Meir and Adam Shembri. Additionally, thanks go to Shannon Casey for sharing her data on classifying verb types. We are grateful to Samuel Hawk, Helsa Borinstein, and Stephen McCullough for valuable help conducting the experiment. Finally, we are especially grateful to all of the Deaf participants who made this research possible.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thompson, R., Emmorey, K. & Kluender, R. The Relationship between Eye Gaze and Verb Agreement in American Sign Language: An Eye-tracking Study. Nat Language Linguistic Theory 24, 571–604 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-005-1829-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-005-1829-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation