Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French By Ian G. Roberts (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS571 b.Edward Klima and Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [A classic] c.Tom Humphries and Carol Padden. 1992. Learning American Sign Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [A basic textbook; combination ofgood illustrations and vocabulary index provides a good basic dictionary.] d.Clayton Valli and Ceil Lucas. 1992. Linguistics of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. [Linguistically oriented discussion of key phenomena in ASL; relies on Liddell & Johnson's 1989 Movement Hold model.] II. Background on the major current models of ASL phonology: a.Movement Hold model: Scott Liddell and Robert Johnson. 1989. American Sign Language : The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64.195-277. b.Hand Tier model: Wendy Sandler. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. c.Moraic model: David Perlmutter. 1991. Prosodie vs. segmental structure: A moraic theory of American Sign Language syllable structure. La JoIIa: University of California, San Diego, ms. [See also Perlmutter's article in this volume.] d.Harmonic model: Diane Brentari. 1990. Theoretical foundations of American Sign Language phonology. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation. REFERENCES Fischer Susan D., and Patricia Siple (eds.) 1990. Theoretical issues in sign language research, vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Liddell, Scott, and Robert Johnson. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64.195-277. Lucas, Ceil (ed.) 1990. Sign language research: Theoretical issues. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Perlmutter, David M. 1989. A moraic theory of American Sign Language syllable structure. La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, ms. Stack, Kelly M. 1988. Tiers and syllable structure in American Sign Language: Evidence from phonotactics. Los Angeles: University of California M.A. thesis. Stokoe, William. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. (Studies in linguistics, occasional papers 8.) Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press. [Republished 1993, Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.] Valli, Clayton, and Ceil Lucas. 1992. Linguistics of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Department of Linguistics[Received 7 February 1994.] Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-2150 [uyechi(r non-subj + verb 8481374132511341018 546 % of main clauses 53% 64%61% 54% 51% 28% Table 1. Loss of null subjects and verb second. REVIEWS575 i.e. an inflectional paradigm of category X. R argues that modern English has neither Agr ' nor T ' , and therefore neither Agr nor T may host selected incorporation. The loss of these elements is related to the loss of inflectional paradigms of the categories Agr and T (244). A negative setting of 4 for T and Agr entails that (a) theta-assigning verbs may not raise to T or Agr, (b) lexical insertion of free morphemes into T and Agr becomes possible, and, more curiously and untestably, (c) given the treatment of incorporation types, one expects the emergence of 'a second specifier position for Agr (or Agr/T) after Agr-1 is lost' (245; this permits preverbal adverbs). As is now standard, R attributes inverted verbs (5a), verbs to the left of negatives (5b), and verbs separated from their complement (5c) to the movement of the verb to a distinct functional position associated with features of finiteness, which he takes to be Agr. (5)a. Wilt thow ony thinge with hym? 'Do you want anything with him?' b.My wyfe rose nott. 'My wife didn't get up.' c./ wende wel thys nyght to have deyed. 'Tonight I almost managed to die.' He dates the loss of V-io-Agr and the obsolescence of 5 as mid- 16th century, attributing the many examples of inverted verbs, etc., in the 17th century to archaic 'high style'; this is not implausible. However, he takes Agr ' to be a manifestation of 'rich' agreement, the same element which helps to license null subjects (entailing that if a language has null subjects, then it has V-ío-Agr movement, but not vice versa; 271). Departing from the tradition of bandying about terms like rich/poor and strong/weak with abandon, he seeks to quantify the notion in a falsifiable fashion (6), examining relevant data from several languages. (6)Agr ~ ' is postulated only ifthere is overt, distinct morphological plural...