Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS


CiteScore 2018: 0.70

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.288
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.544

ICV 2018: 100.00

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Transitivity prominence within and across modalities

Carl Börstell / Tommi Jantunen / Vadim Kimmelman / Vanja de Lint / Johanna Mesch / Marloes Oomen
Published Online: 2019-12-31 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2019-0037

Abstract

We investigate transitivity prominence of verbs across signed and spoken languages, based on data from both valency dictionaries and corpora. Our methodology relies on the assumption that dictionary data and corpus-based measures of transitivity are comparable, and we find evidence in support of this through the direct comparison of these two types of data across several spoken languages. For the signed modality, we measure the transitivity prominence of verbs in five sign languages based on corpus data and compare the results to the transitivity prominence hierarchy for spoken languages reported in Haspelmath (2015). For each sign language, we create a hierarchy for 12 verb meanings based on the proportion of overt direct objects per verb meaning. We use these hierarchies to calculate correlations between languages – both signed and spoken – and find positive correlations between transitivity hierarchies. Additional findings of this study include the observation that locative arguments seem to behave differently than direct objects judging by our measures of transitivity, and that relatedness among sign languages does not straightforwardly imply similarity in transitivity hierarchies. We conclude that our findings provide support for a modality-independent, semantic basis of transitivity.

Keywords: transitivity; corpus linguistics; sign languages; valency; typology

References

  • Aldai, Gontzal, and Wichmann, Søren 2018. Statistical observations on hierarchies of transitivity. Folia Linguistica, 52 2 249–281.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Arka, I Wayan 2014. Locative-related Roles and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction in Balinese. Linguistic Discovery, 12 2 56–84.Google Scholar

  • Benedicto, Elena, and Brentari, Diane 2004. Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22 743–810.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bergman, Brita, and Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth 2010. Transmission of sign languages in the Nordic countries. In: Brentari, Diane (ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, 74–94. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bickford, J. Albert 2005. The Signed Languages of Eastern Europe. Tech. rep., SIL International.Google Scholar

  • Börstell, Carl 2017. Object marking in the signed modality: Verbal and nominal strategies in Swedish Sign Language and other sign languages. Ph.D. thesis, Stockholm University.Google Scholar

  • Börstell, Carl 2019. Differential object marking in sign languages. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 4 1 3.Google Scholar

  • Börstell, Carl, Hörberg, Thomas, and Östling, Robert 2016. Distribution and duration of signs and parts of speech in Swedish Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 19 2 143–196.Google Scholar

  • Börstell, Carl, Mesch, Johanna, and Wallin, Lars 2014. Segmenting the Swedish Sign Language Corpus: On the possibilities of using visual cues as a basis for syntactic segmentation. In: Crasborn, Onno, Efthimiou, Eleni, Fotinea, Evita, Hanke, Thomas, Kristoffersen, Jette, and Mesch, Johanna (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Beyond the Manual Channel, 7–10, Paris. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar

  • Bossong, Georg 1985. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den Neuiranischen Sprache. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Burkova, Svetlana 2015. Russian Sign Language Corpus 2012–2015. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State Technical University.Google Scholar

  • Cennamo, Michela, and Fabrizio, Claudia 2013. Italian Valency Patterns. In: Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin, and Taylor, Bradley (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar

  • Cooperrider, Kensy, Abner, Natasha, and Goldin-Meadow, Susan 2018. The Palm-Up Puzzle: Meanings and Origins of a Widespread Form in Gesture and Sign. Frontiers in Communication, 3.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Crasborn, Onno, and Zwitserlood, Inge 2008. The Corpus NGT: an online corpus for professionals and laymen. In: Crasborn, Onno, Efthemiou, Eleni, Hanke, Thomas, Thoutenhoofd, Ernst D., and Zwitserlood, Inge (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages. [6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008)], 44–49, Paris. ELRA.Google Scholar

  • Crasborn, Onno, Zwitserlood, Inge, and Ros, Johan 2008. The Corpus NGT. An open access digital corpus of movies with annotations of Sign Language of the Netherlands. Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen. ISLRN: 175-346-174-413-3.Google Scholar

  • Crasborn, Onno A. 2007. How to recognise a sentence when you see one. Sign Language & Linguistics, 102 103–111.Google Scholar

  • De Lint, Vanja 2018. NGT classifier constructions: an inventory of arguments. Sign Language & Linguistics, 211.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language, 55 59–138.Google Scholar

  • Dowty, David R. 1982. Grammatical relations and Montague grammar. In: Jacobson, Pauline, and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), The Nature of Syntactic Representation, 79–130. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Fenlon, Jordan, Denmark, Tanya, Campbell, Ruth, and Woll, Bencie 2007. Seeing sentence boundaries. Sign Language & Linguistics, 10 2 177–200.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gil, David 2014. Sign languages, creoles, and the development of predication. In: Newmeyer, Frederick J., and Preston, Laurel B. (eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity, 37–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Goddard, Cliff 2013. English Valency Patterns. In: Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin, and Taylor, Bradley (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar

  • Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin, and Taylor, Bradley (eds.) 2013. Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin 2014. Arguments and Adjuncts as Language-Particular Syntactic Categories and as Comparative Concepts. Linguistic Discovery, 12 2.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin 2015. Transitivity prominence. In: Malchukov, Andrej, and Comrie, Bernard (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook, Vol. 1, 131–147. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin, and Baumann, Luisa 2013. German Valency Patterns. In: Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin, and Taylor, Bradley (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar

  • Hawkins, John A. 1986. A comparative typology of English and German: Unifying the contrasts. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul, and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56 251–299.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hou, Lynn, and Meier, Richard P. 2018. The morphology of first-person object forms of directional verbs in ASL. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 31 114.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jantunen, Tommi, Pippuri, Outi, Wainio, Tuija, Puupponen, Anna, and Laaksonen, Jorma 2016. Annotated Video Corpus of FinSL with Kinect and Computer-Vision Data. In: Efthimiou, Eleni, Fotinea, Stavroula-Evita, Hanke, Thomas, Hochgesang, Julie, Kristoffersen, Jette, and Mesch, Johanna (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpus mining [10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016)], 93–100. Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar

  • Kimmelman, Vadim 2016. Transitivity in RSL: A corpus-based account. In: Efthimiou, Eleni, Fotinea, Stavroula-Evita, Hanke, Thomas, Hochgesang, Julie, Kristoffersen, Jette, and Mesch, Johanna (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpus mining [10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016)], 117–120. Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar

  • Kimmelman, Vadim, de Lint, Vanja, de Vos, Connie, Oomen, Marloes, Pfau, Roland, Vink, Lianne, and Aboh, Enoch O. 2019. Argument Structure of Classifier Predicates: Canonical and Non-canonical Mappings in Four Sign Languages. Open Linguistics, 5 1 332–353.Google Scholar

  • Kishimoto, Hideki, and Kageyama, Taro 2013. Japanese (standard) Valency Patterns. In: Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin, and Taylor, Bradley (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar

  • Kittilä, Seppo 2010. Transitivity Typology. In: Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langer, Gabriele 2012. A Colorful First Glance at Data on Regional Variation Extracted from the DGS-Corpus: With a Focus on Procedures. In: Crasborn, Onno, Efthimiou, Eleni, Fotinea, Evita, Hanke, Thomas, Kristoffersen, Jette, and Mesch, Johanna (eds.), Proceedings of the 5rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between Corpus and Lexicon. [8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008)], 101–108, Paris. ELRA.Google Scholar

  • Malchukov, Andrej 2005. Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In: Amberber, Mengistu, and de Hoop, Helen (eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages. The case for case, 73–117. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Malchukov, Andrej, and Jahraus, Alexander 2013. Russian Valency Patterns. In: Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin, and Taylor, Bradley (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar

  • Meir, Irit 2003. Grammaticalization and modality: The emergence of a case-marked pronoun in Israeli Sign Language. Journal of Linguistics, 39 1 109–140.Google Scholar

  • Meir, Irit, Padden, Carol, Aronoff, Mark, and Sandler, Wendy 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics, 43 531–563.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mesch, Johanna 2006. Påminner nationella teckenspråk om varandra? In: Hoyer, Karin, Londen, Monica, and Östman, Jan-Ola (eds.), Teckenspråk: Sociala och historiska perspektiv, Nr. 6 in Nordica Helsingiensia – Teckenspråksstudier TS, 71–95. Nordica: Institutionen för nordiska språk och nordisk litteratur, Helsingfors universitet.Google Scholar

  • Mesch, Johanna 2018. Annotated files for the Swedish Sign Language Corpus. Version 6. Sign Language Section, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar

  • Mesch, Johanna, Wallin, Lars, Nilsson, Anna-Lena, and Bergman, Brita 2012. Dataset: Swedish Sign Language Corpus Project (2009–2011). Version 1. Sign Language Section, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar

  • Nivre, Joakim, et al. 2017. Universal Dependencies 2.1. LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL), Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University.Google Scholar

  • Næss, Åshild 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Oomen, Marloes 2017. Iconicity in argument structure: Psych-verbs in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Sign Language & Linguistics, 201 55–108.Google Scholar

  • Oomen, Marloes, and Kimmelman, Vadim 2019. Body-anchored verbs and argument omission in two sign languages. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 41 42.Google Scholar

  • Pfau, Roland, Salzmann, Martin, and Steinbach, Markus 2018. The syntax of sign language agreement: Common ingredients, but unusual recipe. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 31 107.Google Scholar

  • R Core Team 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar

  • Salonen, Juhana, Puupponen, Anna, Takkinen, Ritva, and Jantunen, Tommi 2019. Suomen viittomakielten korpusta rakentamassa [Building Corpus FinSL]. In: Jantunen, Jarmo Harri, Brunni, Sisko, Kunnas, Niina, Palviainen, Santeri, and Västi, Katja (eds.), Proceedings of the Research Data and Humanities (RDHum) Conference 2019: Data, Methods and Tools, Vol. 17 of Studia Humaniora Ouluensia, 81–96. Oulu: University of Oulu.Google Scholar

  • Salonen, Juhana, Takkinen, Ritva, Puupponen, Anna, Pippuri, Outi, and Nieminen, Henri 2016. Creating the corpus of Finland’s sign languages. In: Efthimiou, Eleni, Fotinea, Stavroula-Evita, Hanke, Thomas, Hochgesang, Julie, Kristoffersen, Jette, and Mesch, Johanna (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpus mining [10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016)], 179–184. Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar

  • Seržant, Ilja A., and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena (eds.) 2018. Diachrony of differential argument marking. Nr. 19 in Studies in Diversity Linguistics. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

  • Sinnemäki, Kaius 2014. A typological perspective on Differential Object Marking. Linguistics, 52 2 281–313.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Slowikowski, Kamil 2017. ggrepel: Repulsive Text and Label Geoms for ‘ggplot2’. R package version 0.7.0.Google Scholar

  • Tsunoda, Tasaku 1981. Split case-marking in verb types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics, 19 389–438.Google Scholar

  • Tsunoda, Tasaku 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 21 2 385–396.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wichmann, Søren 2014. Arguments and Adjuncts Cross-Linguistically: A Brief Introduction. Linguistic Discovery, 12 2.Google Scholar

  • Wichmann, Søren 2015. Statistical observations on implicational (verb) hierarchies. In: Malchukov, Andrej, and Comrie, Bernard (eds.), Valency Classes in the World’s Languages: Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia, Vol. 1, 155–181. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Wichmann, Søren 2016. Quantitative tests of implicational verb hierarchies. In: Kageyama, Taro, and Jacobsen, Wesley M. (eds.), Transitivity and Valency Alternations: Studies on Japanese and Beyond, 423–444. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Wickham, Hadley 2009. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Wittenburg, Peter, Brugman, Hennie, Russel, Albert, Klassmann, Alex, and Sloetjes, Han 2006. ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006), 1556–1559.Google Scholar

  • Zhang, Guohua 2013. Mandarin Chinese Valency Patterns. In: Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin, and Taylor, Bradley (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-05-23

Accepted: 2019-12-23

Published Online: 2019-12-31


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 666–689, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2019-0037.

Export Citation

© 2019 Carl Börstell et al., published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License. BY 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in