Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Over the past few decades, a rich tapestry of theoretical perspectives has emerged to analyze the morphosyntactic structure of sign languages (SLs) ranging from generative grammar to cognitive-functional approaches. These frameworks have each offered unique insights into the organization, use, and cognitive underpinnings of SL morphosyntax. By exploring the different theoretical lenses through which SL structure has been examined, this review aims to provide a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the current state of the art in this dynamic field of enquiry. The methodology for this review outlines a systematic approach to conducting a comprehensive review of the theoretical issues in SL research, covering the literature search, critical analysis, and the presentation of the findings. The goal is to provide a thorough and balanced assessment of the theoretical landscape, which can inform future research directions and practical applications in the field of SL studies.

Keywords

Integrated functional theory morphosyntax structuralism generative grammar cognitive linguistics universal grammar

Introduction

The examination of sign language (SL) morphology and syntax, in particular, has been instrumental in pushing the boundaries of linguistic theory and shaping our understanding of the diversity and complexity of human language. The division of functions between morphology and syntax is, therefore, such that morphology only operates below the word level, whereas syntax operates above the word level (Marit, 2002). In this study, morphosyntax refers to the internal structure of signs and their formation, arrangement, and relationship in the discourses where they are used. The field of SL linguistics has been greatly informed by a range of theoretical frameworks, each offering unique insights and analytical tools for the study of SL morphosyntax. This research provides an overview of the key theoretical approaches that have shaped our understanding of the dimensions of SLs and constructs that come out from an integration of insights provided by the approaches in the study of morphosyntax. At the foundational level, structuralism, generative grammar, and cognitive linguistics, which provided the overarching perspectives that have guided much of the research in the domain of SL in general and morphosyntax in particular, and other complementing frameworks, such as functional typologies, speech act theory, theta theory, and multimodality, are explored. Through this review, the study elucidates how these various theoretical frameworks have informed and enriched the study on morphosyntax in general and the current study in particular.

According to Johnston and Schembri (2013), SLs are natural languages used by deaf communities around the world and have long captivated the attention of linguists, cognitive scientists, and language researchers. As visually based, three-dimensional languages, SLs challenge many of the assumption and theoretical frameworks that were primarily developed based on the study of spoken languages. The examination of SL morphology and syntax in particular has been instrumental in pushing the boundaries of linguistic theory and shaping our understanding of the diversity and complexity of human language.

SL morphosyntactic research

SL morphology is not purely universal in practice; there are some unexpected paradoxes in SL. Linguistic research in the 1970s and 1980s has shown that SLs have complex morphology. According to Aronoff, Meir and Sandler (2005), SLs exhibit complex morphological structures, which include verb agreement, classifier constructions, and verbal aspects, to name a few. Emmorey (2003) writes that SL’s morphology is non-concatenative in structure, that is, it is a word formation in which the root is modified, other than by stringing morphemes together. Holloway (2017), Aronoff et al. (2005), and Liddell and Johnston (1986) also concur that SLs have linear structures, and they are not confined only to simultaneous structures. Some observations have been made, which show that SLs’ morphology happen simultaneously, that is, the different morphemes of a word are simultaneously superimposed on each other, rather than being strung together, as those of spoken languages usually are (Aronoff et al. 2005). Simultaneity is defined as the co-occurrence of linguistic material at any level. Holloway (2017) notes that simultaneity is widely recognized as a fundamental property of the grammar of SLs, a natural consequence of their visual–spatial modality. These are some debates in literature that require the contribution of empirical data to prove or dispute the arguments above.

It is, therefore, appropriate to conclude that SL morphology comes in two types, which are the complex simultaneous and the seemingly less exotic type of sequential affixation. Aronoff, Meir and Sandler (2005) explore other differences between the two types of SL morphology explaining how they differ with respect to the phonological means they employ, the grammatical categories they encode, their productivity, and their diachronic development. Aronoff, Meir and Sandler (2005) further observe how in simultaneous type of SL morphology, grammatical features are realized by altering the direction, rhythm, or path shape of the base sign, and not by sequentially adding new phonological segments to the word. The scholars also note how simultaneous morphology is inflectional, productive, and pervasive within and across SLs. On the other hand, the sequential type of morphology is concatenative attaching an affix (prefix or suffix) to a base word. All sequential processes found in American Sign Language (ASL) and Israeli Sign Language are derivational and do not involve morphosyntactic categories. They are of limited productivity and are very rare in both languages. The specific processes also differ (Aronoff, Meir and Sandler, 2005).

Statement of the problem

Despite the proliferation of theoretical perspectives in SL research, there remains a need for a comprehensive review and critical evaluation of the various frameworks that have been applied to the study of SL morphosyntax. The field of SL morphosyntactic research faces several significant challenges that necessitate a comprehensive review of existing theoretical frameworks. SLs exhibit a wide range of morphosyntactic structures that differ markedly from those found in spoken languages. This diversity complicates the application of existing linguistic theories, which are often based on spoken language data. SL researchers must grapple with how to adapt or develop theoretical frameworks that adequately account for the unique features of SL, such as simultaneous morphology and the use of non-manual signals (Aronoff et al., 2005). Theories that apply to mature languages may not be suitable for understanding the morphosyntactic properties of SLs, which may still be in a state of evolution. This situation presents a “young language puzzle,” where the characteristics of SLs challenge traditional linguistic typologies. While there has been some research on individual SLs, there is a lack of comprehensive cross-linguistic studies that compare morphosyntactic features across different SLs. This gap limits the ability to generalize findings and develop robust theoretical frameworks that can encompass the diversity of SLs (Schonstrom, 2021).

Methodology

The methodology for this review outlines a systematic approach to conducting a comprehensive review of the theoretical issues in SL research, covering the literature search, critical analysis, and the presentation of the findings. The researchers conduct a comprehensive search of published literature on theoretical frameworks in SL studies and identify the key theoretical perspectives, models, and approaches. The researchers reviewed seminal works, empirical studies, and critical discussions within each theoretical approach. Literature was organized into coherent thematic categories based on the major theoretical orientations such as structural linguistic theories, generative grammar, and cognitive functional approaches inter alia. The researchers synthesize the core assumptions, key concepts, and empirical findings within each theoretical perspective and highlight the strength, limitations, and areas of convergence and divergence between the different theoretical approaches.

Theoretical frameworks in SL study

SL is established in linguistics, and it is a full and complete human language that meets every criterion that one can apply to describe a language (Fromkin, Rodman and Hyam, 2003). In the same vein, Johnston and Shembri (2007) confirm that SLs are real and natural languages of deaf communities having many of the same characteristics as spoken languages. Thus, SLs are natural human languages that utilize the visual–spatial modality for communication. As distinct linguistic systems, SLs have been the subject of extensive academic study over the past several decades. Researchers have applied a variety of theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches to better understand the structural properties, social functions, and cognitive underpinnings of these languages, each offering unique insights into the linguistic, cognitive, and social dimensions of these visual–spatial communicative systems. Barker (2003: 434) defines a theory as a set of interrelated hypotheses, concepts, constructs, definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena, based on facts and observations, with the purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena. This section examines some of the key theoretical perspectives that have shaped SL research.

Structuralist perspectives on SL morphosyntax

Rooted in the work of pioneers like Ferdinand de Saussure, the structuralist paradigm emphasizes the systematic and rule-governed nature of language, focusing on the internal organization of linguistic structures and the relationships between linguistic units. Literature shows that the study of SL morphosyntax has been significantly influenced by structuralist linguistic theory. The structuralist approach pioneered by scholars like William Stokoe, for example, was groundbreaking in establishing SLs as genuine linguistic systems with rule-governed internal structures (Stokoe, 1960). By identifying the phoneme-like building blocks and systematic combining principles of ASL, structuralism challenged the prevailing view that SLs were merely gestural systems lacking the complexity of spoken languages. William Stokoe demonstrated how SLs, like spoken languages, can be broken down into distinctive sublexical elements, such as handshape, location, movement, and orientation. This foundational work laid the groundwork for understanding the compositional structure of SL morphemes and the systematic patterning of these formational parameters. Building on this structural understanding of the internal composition of signs, researchers have also explored the morphological processes that operate in SLs. Studies have examined phenomena such as sign compounding, affixation, and the productive use of classifiers—all of which contribute to the rich morphological complexity observed in various SLs (Meir et al., 2012; Sandler and Lillo-Martin, 2006). By identifying the morphological rules and patterns that govern the formation and transformation of SL lexical items, structuralist-inspired analyses have enhanced our knowledge of the morphosyntactic organization of SLs. Furthermore, research shows that structuralist approaches have been instrumental in uncovering the syntactic structures and grammatical categories that characterize SL morphosyntax. Researchers have, for example, investigated the ordering of sentential constituents, the expression of grammatical functions (such as subject, object, and verb agreement), and the morphosyntactic encoding of semantic roles and discourse-pragmatic functions (Liddell, 1980; Neidle et al., 2000; Quadros and Lillo-Martin, 2010). These studies have revealed the systematic and rule-governed nature of SL syntax, challenging the misconception that SLs are merely pantomimic or unsystematic forms of communication. According to Wilcox and Occhino (2017), SLs are often thought to be recent inventions, ad hoc systems of communication, and designed as an auxiliary method of pantomic communication. They are, in fact, none of these things. SLs are natural human languages that arise through normal historical processes in deaf communities around the world.

In other words, the structuralist perspective has been instrumental in establishing the linguistic status of SLs and providing the foundational knowledge necessary for more in-depth explorations of their morphosyntactic properties. By emphasizing the systematic patterning of linguistic elements and the internal organization of SL structures, structuralist-influenced research has laid the groundwork for subsequent theoretical developments in the field of SL morphosyntax. Thus, the merits of this approach include the rigorous linguistic analysis and description of SL phonology, morphology, and syntax. However, critiques suggest that structuralism was overly formalistic, with a narrow focus on structural properties that overlooked the social, cognitive, and multimodal aspects of SL use (Wilbur, 1987). These shortcomings warrant integration of structuralism with other perspectives.

Generative approaches to SL morphosyntax

The generative grammar framework, pioneered by Noam Chomsky and his colleagues, has been another influential theoretical approach in the study of SL morphosyntax. Generative linguistics is centered on the notion of an innate universal grammar that underlies the acquisition and structure of all natural languages, including SLs. Generative linguists have examined the extent to which SLs conform to universal grammatical principles, as well as how the visual–spatial modality shapes their structural properties. Scholars like Wendy Sandler and Diane Lillo-Martin have demonstrated how SLs exhibit both similarities and differences compared to spoken languages in terms of syntactic structures and morphological processes (Sandler and Lillo-Martin, 2006). Generative linguists have also delved into the morphological aspects of SLs, examining processes such as compounding, affixation, and the use of classifier constructions. By analyzing these morphological patterns through the lens of generative theory, researchers have gained insights into the underlying principles and representations that govern the formation and transformation of SL lexical items (Eccarius and Brentari, 2007; Sandler and Lillo-Martin, 2006). Furthermore, the generative approach has been instrumental in addressing the historical debate surrounding the linguistic status of SLs. By demonstrating the systematic and rule-governed nature of SL morphosyntax, and by identifying the parallels between the structural properties of signed and spoken languages, generative linguists have contributed to the recognition of SLs as full-fledged natural languages, on par with their oral counterparts (Klima and Bellugi, 1979; Johnston and Schembri, 2013).

Additionally, generative linguistics, pioneered by Noam Chomsky, has been a dominant framework for analyzing the morphosyntactic structures of SLs. Scholars working within this paradigm, such as Diane Lillo-Martin and Susan Fischer, have investigated the extent to which SLs exhibit universal grammatical principles and modality-specific properties (Fischer and Gough, 1978; Sandler and Lillo-Martin, 2006). A central focus of generative analyses has been the syntactic structures of SLs, including word order patterns, agreement mechanisms, and the distribution of functional categories like pronouns and determiners. Researchers have also explored how the visual–spatial modality shapes the manifestation of these structures, such as the use of spatial verb agreement and classifier constructions (Meier, 1990). Generative approaches have also contributed to theories of language acquisition, examining how children acquire the morphosyntactic rules of their native SL. However, while generative grammar has provided a rigorous analytical toolkit for describing SL morphosyntax, it has also been critiqued for its difficulty in fully capturing the iconic and embodied nature of these visual–spatial languages. Scholars have argued that a strict adherence to formal universals may overlook important modality-specific properties and the motivated relationships between form and meaning (Wilcox and Wilcox, 1995).

One of the key contributions of the generative approach to SL research has been the exploration of the universal principles and parameters that govern the morphosyntactic organization of SLs. Research has investigated syntactic processes, such as the expression of semantic roles and the realization of grammatical functions. Drawing on the theoretical tools of Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, scholars have examined how the visual–spatial modality of SLs shapes the mapping between thematic roles and syntactic positions. For example, studies have explored the morphosyntactic encoding of the argument structure of verbs, including the phenomenon of verb agreement, which allows signers to directly map semantic roles into the syntactic structure (Benedicto and Brentari, 2004; Meir, 2002). Researchers working within this paradigm have also investigated the extent to which the structural properties of SLs, such as word order, agreement systems, and clause structure, adhere to or depart from the universal principles proposed within the generative framework (Lillo-Martin, 1991; Neidle et al., 2000; Quadros and Lillo-Martin, 2010).

In short, the generative grammar framework provides a robust theoretical foundation for the analysis of SL morphosyntax, which enables researchers to uncover the universal principles and language-specific characteristics that shape the structural organization of SLs. This approach is crucial in establishing the linguistic legitimacy of SLs and advancing the understanding of the cognitive and representational underpinnings of morphosyntactic phenomena in the visual–spatial modality.

Cognitive linguistic perspectives on SL morphosyntax

In contrast to the structuralist and generative approaches, cognitive linguistics has offered a unique perspective on the study of SL morphosyntax. Rooted in the foundational work of scholars like Ronald Langacker and George Lakoff, the cognitive linguistic paradigm emphasizes the embodied, conceptual, and functional aspects of language, with a particular focus on the role of meaning, metaphor, and iconicity in linguistic structure. Cognitive linguistic perspectives have offered an alternative lens for examining the morphosyntactic structures of SLs. Scholars in this tradition, such as Sherman Wilcox and Phyllis Perrin Wilcox, have argued that the visual–spatial modality allows signers to map linguistic forms directly into embodied experiences and conceptual representations (Wilcox and Wilcox, 1997). From a cognitive linguistic standpoint, the iconic and metaphorical nature of SL morphemes, as well as their grounding in sensory-motor schemas, plays a crucial role in shaping grammatical structures. Researchers working within this framework have analyzed how the spatial mapping of verb agreement in SLs is motivated by conceptual notions of agency, perspective, and event structure and demonstrated how the visual–spatial modality of SLs facilitates the iconic representation of semantic and pragmatic concepts, as well as the metaphorical mapping of abstract notions onto concrete bodily and spatial experiences (Roush, 2016; Taub, 2001; Wilcox, 2004).

Schembri (2003) observes that cognitive linguistics has also informed the study of classifier constructions, which are morphologically and semantically complex structures that allow signers to depict objects, actions, and spatial relationships in iconic ways and shown how these constructions are grounded in embodied, gestural representations of the world. Other scholars have analyzed how the use of classifier constructions in SLs allows signers to iconically encode information about the size, shape, and movement of referents, as well as to metaphorically represent abstract ideas through spatial relationships and embodied representations (Emmorey, 2003; Meir et al., 2010). By recognizing the role of iconicity and metaphor in shaping the morphosyntactic structures of SLs, cognitive linguistics has provided a powerful analytical tool for understanding the embodied and conceptual underpinnings of SL grammar. Furthermore, cognitive linguistic approaches have highlighted the ways in which the visual–spatial modality of SLs influences the conceptualization and representation of semantic roles, grammatical relations, and discourse-pragmatic functions. Studies have shown how the spatialization of linguistic elements, such as the use of signing space to encode argument structure and agreement, reflects the embodied nature of SL and the iconic mapping between form and meaning (Janzen, 2012; Ferrara and Halvorsen, 2017).

In addition, cognitive linguists have explored the cognitive and experiential motivations behind the morphological structures and processes observed in SLs. Researchers have investigated how the productive use of classifiers, compound signs, and other morphological devices are grounded in signers’ embodied conceptualizations and perceptual experiences, revealing the intimate connection between form, meaning, and the visual–spatial affordances of the signing modality (Aronoff et al., 2003; Taub, 2001). By emphasizing the role of embodied cognition, iconicity, and metaphor in shaping the morphosyntactic structures of SLs, the cognitive linguistic approach has provided a complementary theoretical framework to the structuralist and generative perspectives. This approach has enriched the understanding of the intricate relationship between linguistic form, meaning, and the visual–spatial modality, offering valuable insights into the cognitive and experiential foundations of SL morphosyntax.

Cognitive linguistic perspectives have highlighted the embodied and iconic nature of SLs, emphasizing the motivated relationship between linguistic forms and conceptual/perceptual domains (Armstrong et al., 1995). By emphasizing the motivated nature of SL morphosyntax, cognitive linguistics provides a valuable counterpoint to the more formalistic approaches of generative grammar. However, scholars lament the fact that the field still faces challenges in developing rigorous analytical frameworks capable of capturing the dynamic, contextualized nature of SL use (Armstrong et al., 1995).

Functional-typological perspectives on SL morphosyntax

In addition to the structuralist, generative, and cognitive linguistic frameworks, the functional-typological approach has also made significant contributions to the study of SL morphosyntax. This approach, which emphasizes the role of language use and cross-linguistic variation in shaping linguistic structures, has provided valuable insights into the functional and typological characteristics of SLs. Scholars in this tradition, such as Ulrike Zeshan and Christian Rathmann, have examined how the specific communicative functions and visual–spatial modality of SLs shape their grammatical structures in cross-linguistic comparative contexts (Rathmann and Mathur, 2002; Zeshan, 2006). Scholars working within this paradigm have examined the ways in which SLs leverage spatial and iconic resources to convey semantic and pragmatic functions, such as the encoding of argument structure, the marking of grammatical relations, and the organization of discourse (Engberg-Pedersen, 1993; Ferrara and Halvorsen, 2017; Meir, 2002). For instance, studies have investigated the morphosyntactic strategies employed by SLs to express concepts like agency, patient, and information structure, revealing how the spatial and embodied nature of SLs influences the mapping between semantic roles and syntactic configurations (Ferrara, 2012; Janzen, 2012). By analyzing these functional and typological patterns, researchers have gained a deeper understanding of the interaction between the visual–spatial modality and the expression of grammatical meaning in SLs.

Furthermore, the functional-typological approach has been instrumental in highlighting the diversity and cross-linguistic variation observed in the morphosyntactic structures of different SLs. Scholars have examined how SLs from various geographical and cultural contexts exhibit both universal and language-specific patterns in their morphological and syntactic organization, shedding light on the role of socio-cultural and linguistic factors in shaping the structural characteristics of SLs (Pfau et al., 2012; Zeshan, 2006). In addition, functional-typological research on SL morphosyntax has explored the diachronic and developmental aspects of linguistic structures. Studies have investigated how SLs emerge and evolve over time, as well as how morphosyntactic features are acquired and transmitted across generations of signers (Aronoff et al., 2008; Kiingi, 2014). By adopting a cross-linguistic and dynamic perspective, this approach has contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence the emergence, transmission, and transformation of morphosyntactic patterns in SLs.

As demonstrated by the reviewed literature in this subsection, the functional-typological approach has provided a valuable complement to the structuralist, generative, and cognitive linguistic perspectives on SL morphosyntax. By emphasizing the role of language use, cross-linguistic variation, and the interaction between linguistic form and function, this approach has shed light on the complex and multifaceted nature of SL grammar, further enriching the field of SL research. Functional-typological perspectives have also made significant contributions to the study of SL morphosyntax. However, this approach like other frameworks already discussed also faces challenges in developing comprehensive theoretical models that can fully capture the multimodal and context-dependent nature of SL use.

Pragmatic and discourse-functional analyses of SL morphosyntax

The study of SL morphosyntax has benefited greatly from the application of pragmatic and discourse-functional analytical approaches in recent decades. Researchers in this area have moved beyond a sole focus on the structural properties of SLs and have instead examined how signers strategically employ morphosyntactic resources to achieve various communicative and interactive goals. One of the pioneering works in this domain is Coerts’ (1992) doctoral dissertation on the use of nonmanual markers in SL of the Netherlands. Coerts demonstrated how signers utilize facial expressions, head movements, and other nonmanual features to encode pragmatic functions such as interrogatives, negation, and topicalization. This groundbreaking study highlighted the essential role of the body in SL grammar, going beyond a narrow conception of syntax.

Building on this foundation, Engberg-Pedersen’s (1993) seminal book on the semantics and morphosyntax of spatial expression in Danish SL revealed the profound ways in which the visual–spatial modality shapes the organization of information and the tracking of referents in discourse. By examining how signers strategically map and manipulate the signing space, Engberg-Pedersen uncovered the pragmatic and discourse-level functions served by these spatial language structures. Further expanding this line of inquiry, Wallin’s (1994) work on polysynthetic signs in Swedish SL showed how signers employ morphologically complex lexical forms to efficiently encode a variety of pragmatic and information-structural meanings. This research highlighted the communicative versatility of SL morphology and its role in managing discourse cohesion and coherence. More recently, studies by Meurant (2008) on the use of eye gaze in Belgian French SL and de Vos and Zeshan (2012) on spatial mapping strategies in the village SL Kata Kolok have continued to elucidate the intricate connections between SL morphosyntax and the pragmatic and discourse functions it serves. These works have expanded the theoretical and empirical scope of the field, demonstrating the universal importance of considering the interactive and communicative dimensions of SL use.

Complementing these analyses, Jantunen’s (2013) exploration of the phonetic properties of sign transitions in Finnish SL has further revealed the ways in which the formal structures of SL are employed to mark discourse and pragmatic information. By examining the prosodic and articulatory features of signing, this research has uncovered additional layers of the complex interplay between form, meaning, and use in SLs. Collectively, these studies have made invaluable contributions to our understanding of SL morphosyntax. By adopting a pragmatic and discourse-functional perspective, the researchers have illuminated the sophisticated ways in which signers leverage the visual–spatial modality to accomplish a wide range of communicative objectives. This body of work has significantly advanced the field, challenging traditional structural perspectives and paving the way for more holistic and interdisciplinary approaches to the study of SLs.

Multimodality and the study of SL morphosyntax

The exploration of multimodality as a framework for studying SL morphosyntax has been a critical and thriving area of research in linguistics. SLs, with their rich gestural, spatial, and visual components, have proven to be a particularly fruitful domain for the application of multimodal analysis, as it allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between the various meaning-making resources employed by SL users. One of the pioneering scholars in this field is the renowned linguist, Carol Padden, whose seminal work “The Relation between Space and Grammar in ASL Morphology” (1988) laid the foundation for the multimodal study of SL morphosyntax. Padden’s groundbreaking research highlighted the crucial role that spatial and gestural elements play in the formation and grammatical functions of ASL morphemes, paving the way for a more holistic understanding of SL structure. Building upon Padden’s work, scholars such as Diane Brentari, in her book “A Prosodic Model of SL Phonology” (Brentari, 1998), have delved deeper into the multimodal nature of SL morphology, exploring the interplay between the manual and non-manual features that contribute to the formation and meaning of SL morphemes. Brentari’s research has been instrumental in expanding the multimodal perspective beyond the realm of syntax and into the realm of phonology and prosody.

Furthermore, researchers like Tang (2003), in her article “Verbs of Motion and the Development of Spatial Grammatical Categories in Hong Kong SL,” have examined the ways in which multimodal resources, such as spatial mapping and iconic representation, are employed in the morphosyntactic structures of different SLs, highlighting the diversity and complexity of SL grammars. More recently, scholars like Ronnie Wilbur, in her work “Nonmanuals, Semantic Operators, Domain Marking, and the Solution to Two Outstanding Puzzles in ASL” (2003), have explored the critical role of non-manual features, such as facial expressions and body movements, in the expression of grammatical and semantic information in SL morphosyntax. Wilbur’s (2003) research has been instrumental in further integrating the multimodal perspective into the analysis of SL structure.

The multimodal approach to the study of SL morphosyntax does not only deepened our understanding of the unique linguistic properties of SLs, but it also contributes to the broader field of linguistics by challenging traditional, unimodal conceptions of language. By recognizing the crucial role of visual, spatial, and gestural elements in the construction of meaning, the multimodal framework has expanded the boundaries of linguistic inquiry, paving the way for more inclusive and holistic models of language structure and use.

The multimodal approach to the study of morphosyntax has not only enriched our understanding of linguistic phenomena but has also opened up new avenues for interdisciplinary collaboration and the development of innovative research methodologies. As the field continues to evolve, with scholars actively exploring the intersections between multimodality, cognitive processing, and sociocultural factors, the study of morphosyntax is poised to yield even deeper insights into the complex and multifaceted nature of human communication. More recently, multimodal approaches have recognized SLs as holistic communicative systems that integrate linguistic, gestural, and other semiotic resources. Schembri’s (2003) research has demonstrated how signers utilize their bodies, the surrounding environment, and various visual–spatial strategies to construct meaning. This perspective challenges the traditional view of SLs as purely manual–visual linguistic systems, situating them within a broader spectrum of human multimodal communication. The merits of this approach include a more comprehensive understanding of SL use, but demerits involve the challenges in developing research methodologies capable of capturing the dynamic, embodied nature of these communicative practices.

The theta theory and SL morphosyntactic analysis

The application of theta theory to the analysis of SL morphosyntax is firmly rooted in the traditions of generative linguistics, particularly the work of Noam Chomsky and his collaborators. Chomsky’s (1981, 1986) development of the Principles and Parameters framework, which emerged from his earlier work on transformational grammar, laid the foundation for theta theory and its subsequent application to the study of SLs. Within the Principles and Parameters approach, Chomsky proposed that the human language faculty is governed by a set of universal principles, while individual languages are characterized by specific parameter settings. Theta theory, as a component of this broader framework, focused on the semantic-syntactic interface, addressing the relationship between thematic roles (such as agent, theme, and experiencer) and their realization in syntactic structures. Building on Chomsky’s groundbreaking work, scholars in the field of generative linguistics, such as Richard Kayne (1984, 1994), further refined and expanded the principles of theta theory. Kayne’s exploration of the mapping between argument structure and syntactic positions contributed to a more sophisticated understanding of the syntax-semantics interface in the field of SL linguistics; Bellugi (1980, 1998) and Klima (1979) were among the first to apply theta theory to the study of SLs. Recognizing the unique properties of the visual–spatial modality, these scholars demonstrated how the encoding of thematic roles in SLs diverged from the patterns observed in spoken languages, while still adhering to the underlying principles of theta theory.

Building on this foundation, scholars like Lillo-Martin (1986, 1991) delved deeper into the syntax-semantics interface in various SL contexts. Their work highlighted the intricate ways in which SLs map thematic roles onto their morphosyntactic representations, often challenging and expanding the assumptions of theta theory derived from the analysis of spoken languages. The integration of theta theory with other theoretical frameworks, such as speech act theory and information structure, has further enriched the understanding of SL morphosyntax. Researchers like Schick (1990), Schick et al. (1999), Mayberry (1993), and Mayberry, Lock and Kazmi (2002), and Emmorey (1995, 2002) have explored the interplay between the encoding of semantic roles and the pragmatic functions of SL structures, offering a more comprehensive account of the form–meaning–use relationship. Moreover, the comparative perspective afforded by the application of theta theory has facilitated cross-linguistic and cross-modal investigations, as exemplified by the work of scholars like Perlmutter (1992), Postal (1969) and Senghas (1995, 2003). These researchers have examined the universals and variations in the mapping between thematic roles and syntactic structures across different SL communities, contributing to a deeper understanding of the diversity and commonalities in SLs.

The rich tradition of applying theta theory to the study of SL morphosyntax, grounded in the generative linguistic framework, has yielded valuable insights into the unique properties of SLs. By examining the intricate relationships between semantic roles and syntactic configurations, scholars have advanced our understanding of the complex interplay between form, meaning, and use in SL structures, paving the way for further investigations in this vibrant field of linguistic inquiry.

Moghaddasi (2007) defines theta theory as a module of grammar dealing with the assignment of semantic roles such as agent, patient and goal to arguments in a sentence. This theory enables linking of semantic roles and syntactic positions when analyzing morphosyntactic constructions. Linking refers to the relationship between thematic roles and grammatical relations (Emmorey, 2002). It accounts for the relationship between predicates and the number of arguments each predicate requires. It also points out which constituents are optional and which are obligatory. According to Saidat and Alenazy (2015), the theta theory has two main universal principles: First, each noun phrase argument must be assigned one and only one theta role. Second, each theta role can be assigned once and only once. The two principles above create for each lexical predicate a theta grid, which identifies the number of arguments it requires and the thematic relationships holding between these arguments.

The notion of semantic roles (also called participant roles or deep cases or thematic roles or theta roles) is important in many approaches to linguistic description, particularly in those approaches which embrace functionalism (Trask, 2007). The idea is that a given entity that is involved in some event must play some identifiable part in that event. For example, in the sentence: 2.7) Susie tightened the nut with a spanner.

Susie is an Agent (she is the instigator of the action), the nut is a Patient (something is happening to it), and the spanner is an Instrument (it is being used to accomplish some purpose). In contrast, when Susie received a letter, Susie is a Recipient (something is arriving at her), while a letter is a theme (nothing is happening to it except that it is being moved). Theta theory, therefore, focuses on the assignment of roles to arguments in a sentence.

Speech act theory and morphosyntactic analysis

The foundations of speech act theory can be traced back to the work of the philosopher Austin in the mid-20th century. In his seminal book “How to Do Things with Words” (1962), Austin proposed that language is not merely used to describe the world, but also to perform actions. He introduced the concept of “illocutionary acts,” in which the utterance itself constitutes a performative action, such as promising, ordering, or apologizing. Building upon Austin’s insights, the philosopher John Searle further developed and refined the theory of Speech Acts in his works “Speech Acts” (1969) and “Expression and Meaning” (1979). Searle expanded on the taxonomy of speech acts, distinguishing between different types, such as assertives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declaratives. He also explored the underlying rules and conditions that govern the successful performance of these speech acts. The application of speech act theory to SL research was pioneered by scholars like Susan Fischer. In her work “Influences on Word Order Change in American SL” (1974) and “SL and Theoretical Practice” (1978), Fischer analyzed how SL users employ various linguistic resources, including non-manual features, to accomplish diverse communicative functions. Similarly, Diane Lillo-Martin, in her studies “The Point of View Predicate in American SL” (1986) and “Universal Grammar and American SL” (1991), examined how signers use linguistic structures to perform pragmatic functions, such as reporting speech, expressing attitudes, and managing discourse. Other influential scholars, such as Ceil Lucas in her studies “The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community” (1989) and “Sociolinguistic Variation in American SL” (1995), and Carol Padden in her work “Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American SL” (1988) and “The Relation between Space and Grammar in ASL Morphology” (1990), have also contributed to the understanding of how SL users employ linguistic resources to accomplish various communicative goals.

The incorporation of speech act theory into the analysis of SL morphosyntax has enabled researchers to gain a deeper appreciation for the pragmatic dimensions of signed communication. By exploring how signers use linguistic structures to perform illocutionary acts and convey communicative intentions, scholars have expanded our understanding of the complex and multifaceted nature of SL use. A speech act refers to the action performed by produced utterances and so the theory is primarily concerned with the pragmatic issues of languages, that is, people’s use of language rather than its form. It is premised on the belief that there are certain aims beyond the words or phrases when a speaker says something. Indigenous users of SLs, like speakers of any other language, use language to perform acts such as asking, requesting, offering, threatening, advising, etc. According to Engberg-Pedersen (2002), speech act theory considers language as a tool for conveying actions and suggests that in most situations, words actually perform actions just by being uttered. It expands from spoken languages to SLs.

Morphosyntactic structures can be studied from deaf community discourses, extracted within pragmatic contexts such as in formal or informal conversation. Yule (1996: 3) states that pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning and contextual meaning. The context represents the relevant knowledge about the environment in which communicating participants operate. In other words, the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage are believed to shed light on its meaning. Searle (1969) cited in Hickey (2014) argues that a theory of language is part of a theory of action, simply because speaking is a rule governed form of behavior. The speech act/pragmatic approach delineates the relationship among morphosyntactic forms, the communicative functions which these forms are capable of serving, and the contexts in which the morphological and syntactic elements can have communicative functions. Thus, the speech act theory as an utterance analysis tool can be used in order to portray the connection between grammatical forms and language functions, in different social contexts.

Outcomes of review of theoretical approaches

Based on the insights gleaned from the various theoretical perspectives discussed earlier, a study of morphosyntax can do well to integrate the frameworks as they apply to the study of morphosyntax despite the varied traditions from which they originate to form what can be regarded as “an Integrated Cognitive-Functional Theory (ICFT) of SL morphosyntax.” Such a theory can have the following tenets:

Tenet 1: Modality-specific conceptualization and representation

SLs, as visual–spatial languages, conceptualize and represent grammatical meaning in ways that are fundamentally shaped by the affordances and constraints of the manual–visual modality. The ICFT posits that the iconic and metaphorical mapping principles inherent in the visual–spatial modality are crucial in understanding the morphosyntactic structures and patterns observed in SLs.

Tenet 2: Functional and communicative motivations

The morphosyntactic features of SLs are not merely structural phenomena but are deeply rooted in the functional and communicative needs of the language users. The ICFT emphasizes the role of language use, cross-linguistic variation, and the interactive nature of form and function in shaping the grammatical structures of SLs.

Tenet 3: Encoding of semantic roles and thematic relations

SLs leverage their visual–spatial resources to encode semantic roles (e.g., agent, patient, and theme) and thematic relations in their morphosyntactic structures. The ICFT explores how the conceptualization and representation of event structures and participant roles are manifested in the morphological and syntactic organization of SLs.

Tenet 4: Pragmatic and discourse-functional motivations

The ICFT recognizes that SL morphosyntax is not only shaped by semantic and cognitive factors but also by pragmatic and discourse-functional considerations. It examines how signers employ morphosyntactic structures to perform various communicative acts and to organize information within the discourse.

Tenet 5: Multimodal integration

SL grammar is inherently multimodal, integrating manual, facial, and bodily articulators to create complex, multifaceted linguistic structures.

Tenet 6: Usage-based approach

The ICFT adopts a usage-based approach, recognizing that the patterns and structures of SL emerge from the situated use of language in real-world communicative contexts.

Tenet 5: Integrative and interdisciplinary approach

The ICFT can embrace an integrative and interdisciplinary approach, drawing upon the complementary insights from structuralist, generative, cognitive linguistic, functional-typological, speech act, and theta theory frameworks. By synthesizing these diverse perspectives, a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of SL morphosyntax can be obtained. Complex interplay between the visual–spatial modality, conceptual representation, functional and communicative factors, semantic and pragmatic considerations, and the dynamic nature of SL grammar can be revealed. This holistic approach can contribute to a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the morphosyntactic structures and patterns, with potential applications in other areas such as language acquisition, language pedagogy, and the development of SL technologies.

The ICFT of SL morphosyntax proposed here is a novel theoretical framework that synthesizes and builds upon existing theoretical perspectives in the field of SL linguistics which have been reviewed here. While the individual components of the theory have been explored to some extent in previous research, the specific integration and articulation of this comprehensive summary is a new contribution to the field. In summary, some key antecedents and related work that inform the ICFT for use include:

Cognitive linguistic approaches

Numerous studies have examined the iconic and metaphorical underpinnings of SL grammar from a cognitive linguistic perspective (e.g., Taub 2001; Wilcox 2004).

These works have highlighted the importance of the visual–spatial modality in shaping the conceptualization and representation of meaning in SLs.

Functional-typological perspectives

Researchers have investigated the functional and communicative factors that influence the morphosyntactic structures of SLs from a cross-linguistic and typological standpoint (e.g., Vermeerbergen, 2006; Zeshan, 2006).

These studies have explored how SLs employ different grammatical strategies to encode semantic roles, information structure, and discourse-pragmatic functions.

Pragmatic and discourse-functional analyses

Some scholars have examined the relationship between SL morphosyntax and the pragmatic and discourse-level functions it serves (e.g., Coerts, 1992; Engberg-Pedersen, 1993).

These works have shed light on how signers utilize morphosyntactic structures to perform various communicative acts and organize information in the discourse.

Theta-role encoding in SLs

Researchers have investigated how SLs encode and express semantic roles and thematic relations through their morphological and syntactic structures (e.g., Meir, 1998; Shepard-Kegl, 1985).

These studies have explored the interplay between the visual–spatial modality and the representation of event structures and participant roles in SLs.

While these previous works lay important groundwork, the ICFT proposed from the reviewed literature is a novel, comprehensive, and integrated theoretical framework that brings together these diverse perspectives in a cohesive and systematic manner. By synthesizing insights from structuralist, generative, cognitive linguistic, functional-typological, speech act, and theta theory approaches, the ICFT offers a more holistic and interdisciplinary understanding of SL morphosyntax. This integrated approach can provide a unified theoretical foundation which can account for the complex interplay between form, meaning, and use in SLs. The articulation of the ICFT’s key tenets and its emphasis on the modality-specific, functional, and dynamic aspects of SL grammar represented an innovative advancement in the theoretical modeling of this domain catering for the shortcomings observed with each theoretical approach that was discussed.

The merits of integrating diverse theoretical frameworks in the ICFT

The ICFT of SL morphosyntax is strengthened by its ability to synthesize insights from a diverse array of theoretical frameworks, including structuralism, functionalism, typology, multimodality, cognitive linguistics, generative grammar, speech act theory, theta theory, and pragmatic-discourse analysis. This integration has yielded numerous advantages, allowing for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the rich complexity of SL. From a structuralist perspective, the ICFT benefits from the detailed examination of the formal properties of SL, such as phonological, morphological, and syntactic structures (Battison, 1978; Stokoe, 1960). This foundational understanding of the structural organization of SLs serves as a crucial starting point for the ICFT’s theorization. Functionalist and typological approaches further enrich the ICFT by illuminating the communicative and interactive motivations underlying the emergence and diversity of SL morphosyntax (Dik, 1997; Croft, 2003). Scholars such as Engberg-Pedersen (1993) and Jantunen (2013) have demonstrated how signers strategically employ linguistic resources to achieve various pragmatic and discourse-level functions, reflecting the inherent functional motivation of SL structure. The integration of multimodal perspectives is instrumental in the ICFT, recognizing that SL grammar is inherently multimodal, integrating manual, facial, and bodily articulators to create complex, multifaceted linguistic structures (Crasborn, 2012; Vermeerbergen et al., 2007). This holistic view of SL enables researchers to better understand the nuanced ways in which signers leverage the visual–spatial modality to convey meaning. Cognitive linguistic approaches, with their emphasis on conceptualization, categorization, and perspectivization, provides the ICFT with a powerful theoretical lens for examining the cognitive grounding of SL structure (Taub, 2001; Wilcox, 2004). This facilitates a deeper understanding of the embodied and conceptual foundations of SL expression.

The incorporation of insights from generative grammar, speech act theory, and theta theory further enhances the ICFT by illuminating the syntactic and semantic underpinnings of SL morphosyntax (Chomsky, 1981; Jackendoff, 1990; Searle, 1969). These frameworks enable researchers to investigate the formal properties of SL structure and the ways in which signers map conceptual meaning onto linguistic form. Finally, the integration of pragmatic-discourse analysis is crucial within the ICFT as it allows scholars to examine the communicative and interactive dimensions of SL use (Coerts, 1992; Meurant, 2008). This expands the understanding of how signers strategically employ linguistic resources to achieve various pragmatic functions and organize information in discourse.

By drawing upon this diverse array of theoretical perspectives, the ICFT will be able to provide a comprehensive and integrated framework for understanding the rich complexity of SL morphosyntax. The synergistic integration of these approaches will enable researchers to examine the cognitive, functional, typological, multimodal, and pragmatic-discourse aspects of SL, resulting in a more holistic and nuanced understanding of human language and communication.

Potential weaknesses and limitations of the ICFT

While the ICFT can make significant advancements in the understanding of SL morphosyntax by integrating various theoretical perspectives, it is important to also consider the potential weaknesses and limitations of this framework. One potential weakness of the ICFT can be the challenge of fully reconciling the sometimes conflicting or divergent assumptions and methodologies of the different theoretical approaches it seeks to integrate. Structuralist, functionalist, cognitive, and generative frameworks, for instance, may have fundamental differences in their underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions, which can complicate the integration process and lead to tensions or tradeoffs (Croft, 2001; Newmeyer, 1997).

Furthermore, attempting to synthesize such a broad range of theoretical perspectives may result in a framework that is overly complex and unwieldy, making it difficult to apply in a coherent and consistent manner. The sheer number of analytical lenses and concepts incorporated into the ICFT may pose challenges for researchers in terms of operationalizing the theory and generating testable hypotheses (Dixon, 1997). Another potential limitation of the ICFT could be the risk of losing analytical precision and depth by trying to accommodate too many perspectives simultaneously. Also, while the integration of diverse frameworks can lead to a more comprehensive understanding, there is a potential danger of sacrificing the nuanced, in-depth analyses that individual theories can provide when applied in isolation (Haspelmath, 1997).

Additionally, the ICFT’s emphasis on the visual–spatial modality of SL may limit its applicability to other modalities of human language, such as spoken languages. While the ICFT’s insights may be applicable to some extent, the theory’s core assumptions and analytical tools may not seamlessly transfer to other linguistic domains (Emmorey, 2002). Thus, the generalizability of findings may be a problem. This is because the diversity of SLs worldwide is vast, and the ICFT’s conclusions may not necessarily hold true for all SLs, particularly those that have been less extensively studied (Sandler and Lillo-Martin, 2006). Finally, the ICFT’s integration of various theoretical frameworks may lead to challenges in terms of scholarly consensus with the coexistence of multiple analytical perspectives within the ICFT making it difficult to achieve a unified, widely accepted understanding of SL morphosyntax, as researchers may prioritize different aspects of the theory or interpret the findings differently (Newmeyer, 1997).

Thus, rather than attempting to apply the entirety of the ICFT in a single analysis, researchers could explore more modular and flexible applications of the theory. This may involve selectively drawing upon the most relevant aspects of the integrated frameworks based on the specific research question or language phenomenon being investigated. The other approach can be to limit the number of frameworks integrated and utilize guidelines from the rest of the frameworks. In the ever-evolving field of linguistics, researchers are constantly seeking new theoretical frameworks that can shed light on the intricate mechanisms underlying language structure and use.

Conclusion

The article’s culmination in the presentation of an integrated framework for the study of morphosyntax represents a significant advancement in the field. By synthesizing insights from a range of research approaches, including structuralism, functional typologies, cognitive linguistics, multimodality, speech act theory, and theta theory, this framework offers a comprehensive and versatile platform for investigating the complex interplay between linguistic, visual, and gestural modes of communication. The integration of these diverse analytical lenses acknowledges the inherent dynamism and multifaceted nature of language, recognizing that morphosyntactic structures are shaped not only by systematic structural properties but also by cognitive, semantic, and pragmatic factors, as well as the rich multimodal resources employed by language users. This holistic approach promises to yield deeper insights into the ways in which meaning is constructed and negotiated, enabling scholars to explore the nuances of human communication from multiple, complementary perspectives and drive forward the boundaries of morphosyntactic research.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tawanda Matende

Author biographies

Tawanda Matende is a Canon Collins Trust Scholarship Alumni and a lecturer in the Department of Languages Literature and Culture at the University of Zimbabwe. He is completing his PhD at the University of Venda, South Africa. His research interests are in Sign Language, Language Policy and Planning, Language and Sustainable development, Linguistic human rights advocacy, Interpretation and Translating studies, language editing and transcription, Audiology and Speech Therapy. He teaches a wide range of linguistics courses covering structural aspects of Sign Language in Zimbabwe. He has presented at International conferences, symposiums and workshops. He has published peer-reviewed articles and chapters in regional and international journals, such as SAJAL, SALALS, Journal of Translation Studies in Africa, Journal of Language, Culture and Communication, Journal of African Languages and Literary Studies, Journal of Linguistics and Language in Education and Journal of Language and Communication. One of his research project won the 2022 Change maker award for an outstanding research project with Canon Collins Trust. He also won a 3^rd prize in a research with the University of Zimbabwe in 2021.

Prof. Crous Hlungwani is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of African Languages. He has worked for over 24 years in the higher education sector. He is a member of Ethics Research committee in the Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education, University of Venda. He specialises in African Linguistics, specifically Morphosyntax. He has supervised honours, master’s and PhD students. He has published extensively in peer-reviewed and accredited journals. He has also written books and book chapters.

References

Armstrong

Stokoe

Wilcox

(1995) Gesture and the Nature of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aronoff

Meir

Padden

, et al (2003) Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages. In Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Israel: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. University of Haifa, pp. 52–83. DOI: 10.4324/9781410607447.

Aronoff

Meir

Padden

, et al (2008) The roots of linguistic organization in a new language. Interaction Studies 9(1): 133–153.

Aronoff

Meir

Sandler

(2005) The paradox of sign language morphology. Language (Baltim) 81(2): 301–344. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2005.0043.

Austin

(1962) How to do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Austin

(1975) How to do Things With Words. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barker

(ed.) (2003) The Social Work Dictionary. 5th ed. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Battison

Markowicz

Woodward

(1975) A good rule of thumb: variable phonology in American Sign Language. In: Fasold

Shuy

(eds.) Analyzing Variation in Language. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 291–302.

Bellugi

(1980) The structuring of language: Clues from the similarities between signed and spoken language. In: Signed and Spoken Language: Biological Constrants on Linguistic Form, pp. 115–140.

10.

Bellugi

(1998) Links between cognition, brain and gene. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10: 9–20.

11.

Benedicto

Brentari

(2004) Where did all the arguments go?: argument-changing properties of classifiers in American Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(4): 743–810.

12.

Brentari

(1998) A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

13.

Chomsky

(1981) Lectures on Governing and Binding. Berlin: Mouton.

14.

Chomsky

(1986) Barriers (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 13). Cambridge, Mass & amp London: MIT Press Pp viii+102. Journal of Linguistics 1(24): 255–256.

15.

Coerts

(1992) Nonmanual grammatical markers: An analysis of interrogatives, negation and topicalisations in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam.

16.

Crasborn

(2012) Phonetics. In: Pfau R, Steinbach M and Bencie Woll B (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 4–20. DOI: 10.1515/9783110261325.4.

17.

Croft

(2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

18.

Croftt

(2003) Typology and Universals. New York: Cambridge University Press.

19.

De Vos

Zeshan

(2012) Introduction: demographic, sociocultural and linguistic variation across rural signing communities. In: Zeshan

De Vos

(eds.) Sign Languages in Village Communities: Antropological and Linguistic Insights. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 2–23.

20.

Dik

(1997) The Theory of Functional Grammar. Vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–18.

21.

Dixon

RMW

(1997) The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge, New York. Cambridge University Press.

22.

Eccarius

Brentari

(2007) Symmetry and dominance: a cross-linguistic study of signs and classifier constructions. Linguistics 117: 1169–1201.

23.

Emmorey

(2003) Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Signed Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

24.

Emmorey

(2002). Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. United Kingdom: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Cambridge University Press.

25.

Emmorey

Reilly

(eds.) (1995) Language, Gesture and Space. 1st ed. New York: Psychology Press. DOI: 10.4324/9780203773413.

26.

Engberg-Pedersen

(1993) Space in Danish Sign Language. The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. In: International Studies on Sign Language Research of Communication of the Deaf. Vol 19. Hamburg: Signum, Verlag 406. Cambridge University Press.

27.

Engberg-Pedersen

(2002) Gestures in signing: the presentation of gesture in Danish Sign Language. Hamburg: Signum. vol. 40, pp. 143–162.

28.

Ferrara

(2012) The grammar of depiction: exploring gesture and language in Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia). Available at: https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/handle/11250/218845.

29.

Ferrara

Halvorsen

(2017) Depicting and describing meanings with iconic signs in Norwegian Sign Language.

30.

Fischer

(1978) Understanding Language through Sign Language Research. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 309–331.

31.

Fischer

Gough

(1978) Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies. Vol. 18. USA: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 17–48.

32.

Fromkin

Rodman

Hyams

(2003) An Introduction to Language, 7th ed. Boston: Wadsworth.

33.

Hickey

(2014) Speech act theory. Language and Society. United Kingdom: John Willey and Sons ltd publication.

34.

Holloway

(2017) Simultaneity as a unique property of visual-spartial language: the simultaneous structure of two handed classifier predicates in bimodal ASL/English narratives ebooks for Deaf children. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts In Linguistics. Swarthmore College. Available at: https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams

35.

Jackendoff

(1990) Concepts, Generative Grammar, Comparative and General. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

36.

Jantunen

(2013) Ellipsis in Finnish Sign Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36: 303–332. Act Theory (Jarasch-Jamai-Guemuesch.pdf) 4(11): 234–60.

37.

Janzen

(2012) 34. Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In: Pfau

Steinbach

Bencie Woll

(eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 816–841. DOI: 10.1515/9783110261325.816.

38.

Johnston

Schembri

(2013) Corpus analysis of sign languages. In Chapelle

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 479–501. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0252/full

39.

Johnston

Shembri

(2007) Australian Sign Language: An introduction to Sign Language. UK: Cambridge University Press.

40.

Kayne

(1984) Connectedness and Binary Branching. Volume 16 of Studies in Generative grammar series. USA: De Gruyter. Foris Publications.

41.

Kayne

(1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Volume 25 of Linguistic inquiry monographs. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

42.

Kiingi

(2014) A descriptive grammar of morphosyntactic constructions in ugandan sign language (UgSL). PhD Thesis. University of Central Lancashire. School of Language Literature and International Studies (SOLLIS).

43.

Liddell

Johnston

(1986). American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 445–513.

44.

Liddell

(1980) American Sign Language Syntax. Issue 52 of Approaches to Semiotics. ISSN0066-5576.

45.

Klima

ES.

Bellugi

(1979) Sign Language-Manual Communication. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Duke University Libraries.

46.

Lillo-Martin

(1986) Two kinds of null arguments in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4(4): 415–444.

47.

Lillo-Martin

(1991) Universal Grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the Null Argument Parameters. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 1–48.

48.

Lucas

(1995) Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. X, 341, Language in Society.

49.

Marit

(2002) Syntactic heads and word formation. New York: Oxford University Press.

50.

Mayberry

(1993) First-language acquisition after childhood differs from second-language acquisition: The case of American Sign Language. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research 36(6): 1258–1270.

51.

Mayberry

Lock

Kazmi

(2002) Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature 417(6884): 38.

52.

Meier

(1990) Person deixis in ASL. In Fischer S and Siple (eds.) Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 1: Linguistics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

53.

Meir

(1998) Syntactic-semantic interaction in Israeli Sign Language verbs: The case of backwards verbs. Sign Language and Linguistics 2(2): 263–270.

54.

Meir

(2002) A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 413–450.

55.

Meir

Aronoff

Sandler

, et al (2010) The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81: 301–344.

56.

Meir

Israel

Sandler

, et al (2012) The Influence of community on language structures: evidence from two young Sign Languages. Linguistic Variation 12(2): 247–291.

57.

Meurant

(2008) Role shift, anaphora and discourse polyphony in Sign Language of Southern Belgium. In: Signs of the Time. Selected papers from TISLR 2004. Belgium: Signum Verlag, University of Namur.

58.

Moghaddasi

(2007) Structures in Government and binding Model. Azad University Tehran Central Branch. In slideshare. Published in Education.

59.

Neidle

Kegl

MacLaughlin

, et al (2000) The Syntax of ASL: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

60.

Newmeyer

(1997) Genetic dysphasia and linguistic theory. Journal of Neurolinguistics 10: 47–73.

61.

Occhino

Wilcox

(2017) Gesture or Sign? A categorization problem. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp. 99–117.

62.

Padden

(1998) Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in ASL. London: Routledge Press.

63.

Perlmutter

(1992) Sonority and syllable structure in ASL. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 407–442. Retrieved in Coulter, Geoffrey (ed) 227–262.

64.

Pfau

Steinbach

Woll

(2012) Sign Language: An International Handbook. Vol 37 Handbook of Linguistics and Communication Science [HSK]. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

65.

Postal

(1969) Review of ‘Patterns of Language’ by Angus Macintosh and MAK Halliday. Foundations of Language 5: 409–426.

66.

Quadros

RMd

Lillo-Martin

(2010) Sign language acquisition and verbal morphology in Brazilian and American sign languages. In: Scliar-Cabral

Leonor

(ed.), Psycholinguistics: Scientific and Technological Challenges (Selected papers of the 8th International Congress of the International Society of Applied Psycholinguistics). Porto Alegre, Brazil: EdiPUCRS, pp. 252–262.

67.

Rathmann

Mathur

(2002) Is verb agreement the same cross-modally? In Meier

Cormier

Quinto-Pozos

(eds) Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 370–404.

68.

Roush

(2016) Learning benefits of a translation Corpus for Novice ASL-English Interpreters [Poster presentation] In: 2016 Biennial conference of interpreter trainers, Lexington KY.

69.

Saidat

Alenazy

(2015) Thematic roles in Somali: A principles and parameters approach. Advances in Language and Literary Studies 6(5): 104–110.

70.

Sandler

Lillo-Martin

(2006) Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

71.

Searle

(1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

72.

Searle

(1979) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511609213.

73.

Senghas

(1995) The development of nicaraguan sign language via the language acquisition process. In: Conference Proceedings of the 19th Boston University, Conference on Child Language Development, vol. 19.

74.

Senghas

(2003) Cybernetic system’s approaches and language change: the Nicaraguan sign language case and principles of evolution. proceedings of the eleventh annual symposium about language and society. Texas Linguistic Forum 47: 173–182.

75.

Schembri

(2003) Rethinking “classifiers” in signed languages. In: Emmorey

(ed.) Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 3–34.

76.

Schick

(1990) Classifier predicates in American Sign Language. Sign Linguistics 1(1): 15–40.

77.

Schick

Williams

Bolster

(1999) Skill levels of educational interpreters working in public schools. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 4(2): 144–155.

78.

Schönström

(2021) Sign languages and second language acquisition research: An introduction. Journal of the European Second Language Association 5(1): 30–43. DOI: 10.22599/jesla.7.

79.

Shepard-Kegl

(1985) Locative Relations in ASL Word Formation; Syntax and Discourse. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics. MIT, Cambridge, MA.

80.

Stokoe

(1960) SL Structure: Outline of the Visual Communication System of the American Deaf. New York: University of Buffalo Press.

81.

Taub

(2001) Language From the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

82.

Tang

(2003) Verbs of Motion and Location in Hong Kong Sign Language: Conflation and lexicalization. In: Emmorey K (ed.) Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, pp. 143–165.

83.

Trask

(2007) Language and Linguistics: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge.

84.

Vermeerbergen

(2006) Past and current trends in sign language research. Language and Communication 26(2): 168–192.

85.

Vermeerbergen

Leeson

Crasborn

(2007) Simultaneity in Sign Languages: A string of Sequential Organised Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

86.

Wallin

(1994) Polysynthetic Signs in Swedish Sign Language. Stockholm. Cambridge University Press.

87.

Wilbur

(1987) American Sign Language: Linguistic and Applied Dimensions. 2nd ed. Amsterdam, Philadelphia USA: Little, Brown and Co.

88.

Wilbur

(2003) Representations of telicity in American sign language. In: Proceedings from the annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, p. 39. USA.

89.

Wilcox

(1995) The gestural expression of modality in American Sign Language. In: Bybee

Fleischman

(eds.) Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 135–162.

90.

Wilcox

(1997) Learning to See: Teaching American Sign Language as a second language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Sign Language Studies.

91.

Wilcox

(2004) Cognitive iconicity: conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2): 11147.

92.

Yule

(1996) Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

93.

Zeshan

(2006) Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Language. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.

Toward a Theory for Understanding Morphosyntactic Structures in Sign Language: A Proposal of the Integrative Cognitive Functional Theory

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

SL morphosyntactic research

Statement of the problem

Methodology

Theoretical frameworks in SL study

Structuralist perspectives on SL morphosyntax

Generative approaches to SL morphosyntax

Cognitive linguistic perspectives on SL morphosyntax

Functional-typological perspectives on SL morphosyntax

Pragmatic and discourse-functional analyses of SL morphosyntax

Multimodality and the study of SL morphosyntax

The theta theory and SL morphosyntactic analysis

Speech act theory and morphosyntactic analysis

Outcomes of review of theoretical approaches

Tenet 1: Modality-specific conceptualization and representation

Tenet 2: Functional and communicative motivations

Tenet 3: Encoding of semantic roles and thematic relations

Tenet 4: Pragmatic and discourse-functional motivations

Tenet 5: Multimodal integration

Tenet 6: Usage-based approach

Tenet 5: Integrative and interdisciplinary approach

Cognitive linguistic approaches

Functional-typological perspectives

Pragmatic and discourse-functional analyses

Theta-role encoding in SLs

The merits of integrating diverse theoretical frameworks in the ICFT

Potential weaknesses and limitations of the ICFT

Conclusion

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biographies

References