Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 99–139 | Cite as

Along the time line

Tense and time adverbs in Italian Sign Language
Article

Abstract

In Italian Sign Language (LIS), when past or future time adverbs are present, the signs for verbs exhibit the same manual configurations whether the sentence reports a past event or a future event. Facts of this kind, also observed for American Sign Language (ASL) and other sign languages, have led some authors (Friedman, among others) to conclude that these languages, on a par with spoken languages like Chinese, lack grammatical tense. Neidle et al. and Jacobowitz and Stokoe have challenged this view for ASL and have argued that ASL sentences contain tense markers. I present some data showing that LIS verbs inflect for tense. I argue, moreover, that the apparent lack of tense inflection when LIS past and future time adverbs are present is due to the fact that these adverbs shift the s-point and that LIS past and future tenses are absolute tenses. I provide a formal account of the LIS tense system based on these assumptions. The account is implemented in Heim’s analysis of tense.

Keywords

Semantics Sign Language Tense Adverbs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bahan, Benjamin. 1996. Non-manual realization of agreement in American Sign Language. PhD diss., Boston University.Google Scholar
  2. Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 1991. Il verbo. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 2, ed. Lorenzo Renzi and Giampaolo Salvi, 13–161, Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  3. Branchini, Chiara. 2007. Relatives and related constructions in Italian Sign Language. PhD diss., Università degli Studi di Urbino.Google Scholar
  4. Branchini, Chiara, and Caterina Donati. 2006. Italian Sign Language relatives: Correlatives, internally headed or free relatives? Manuscript, Università degli Studi di Urbino.Google Scholar
  5. Brennan, Mary. 1983. Marking time in British Sign Language. In Language in sign: International perspectives on sign language (Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of Sign Language Research in Bristol UK, July 1981), ed. Jim Kyle and Bencie Woll, 10–31. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  6. Cecchetto, Carlo, Carlo Geraci, and Sandro Zucchi. 2006. Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(4): 945–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Venneman, 506–569. Berlin: de Gruyter. Reprinted with minor revisions in Chomsky (1995).Google Scholar
  10. Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dayal Veneeta. (1996) Locality in wh-quantifications. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  12. Dowty David. (1982) Tenses, time adverbs and compositional semantic theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. England Nora C. (1983) A grammar of Mam, a Mayan language. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer, Susan D. 1978. Sign language and creoles. In Understanding language through sign language research, ed. Patricia Siple, 309–331, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, Susan D., and Bonnie Gough. 1999. Some unfinished thoughts on FINISH. Sign Language and Linguistics 2(1): 67–78. Manuscript circulating since 1972.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman Lynn A. (1975) Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Language 51(4): 940–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giorgi, Alessandra, and Fabio Pianesi. 1998. Present tense, perfectivity and the anchoring conditions. In Proceedings of IATL-97, ed. Adam Z. Wyner. Israel: Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar
  18. Heim, Irene. 1997. Tense in compositional semantics: Introduction. Handout for the MIT seminar on tense, aspect and events, Spring 1997.Google Scholar
  19. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Hornstein Norbert. (1990) As time goes by. Tense and universal grammar. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Iatridou, Sabine. 1993. On nominative case assignment and a few related things. In MIT working papers in linguistics 19: papers on case and agreement II, ed. Colin Phillips, 175–196.Google Scholar
  22. Jacobowitz E. Lynn, William C. Stokoe. (1988) Signs of tense in ASL Verbs. Sign Language Studies 60: 331–340Google Scholar
  23. Meir, Irit. 1998. Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  24. Meir Irit. (1999) A perfect marker in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics 2(1): 43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meir Irit. (2002) A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 413–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Benjamin Bahan, and Robert G. Lee. 2000. The syntax of American Sign Language. Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Outstanding dissertations in linguistics, New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pizzuto, Elena, Emanuela Cameracanna, Serena Corazza, and Virginia Volterra. 1995. Terms for spatiotemporal relations in Italian Sign Language. In Iconicity in language, ed. Raffaele Simone, 237–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  29. Reichenbach Hans. (1947) Elements of symbolic logic. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Sebba Mark. (1997) Contact languages. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Shimoyama Junko. (1999) Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and e-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 147–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vanelli, Laura. 1991. La concordanza dei tempi. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 2, ed. Lorenzo Renzi and Giampaolo Salvi, 611–632. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  33. von Stechow, Arnim. 1999. The LOT99-lectures at Postdam. Manuscript, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  34. Zucchi, Sandro. 2001. Tense in fiction. In Semantic interfaces: Reference, anaphora, and aspect, ed. Carlo Cecchetto, Gennaro Chierchia, and Maria Teresa Guasti, 320–356. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Zucchi, Sandro. 2005. The present mode. In Reference and quantification: The Partee effect, ed. Gregory N. Carlson and Francis J. Pelletier, 1–28. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di FilosofiaUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations