The study of signed languages provides an opportunity to identify those characteristics of language that are universal and to investigate the effect of production modality (signed vs. spoken) on the grammar. Over time, American Sign Language (ASL) has accommodated itself to the production and perception requirements of the manual/visual modality, resulting in a prosodic system that is comparable in function to spoken languages but different in means of expression. The present focus is on phrasal prominence in ASL. I review the marking of stress and phrase boundaries in ASL, and discuss prominence assignment at the phrasal level, with brief mention of lexical stress. At the kinematic level, there is a modality effect in marking of linguistic prominence but no modality effect with respect to marking phrase position. Of significance is the fact that ASL lacks phrasal prominence plasticity, that is the ability to move prominence to mark focus in a sentence location other than phrase final. I review the typological implications of how ASL handles prominence as compared to other languages.
Aarons, D., Bahan, B., Kegl, J., & Neidle, C. (1992). Clausal structure and a tier for grammatical marking in American Sign Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 15, 103-142.
2.
Aissen, J. (1992). Topic and focus in Mayan. Language , 68, 43-80.
3.
Allen, G.D., Wilbur, R.B., & Schick, B.S. (1991). Aspects of rhythm in ASL. Sign Language Studies, 72, 297-320.
4.
Auger, J.( 1993). More evidence for verbalagreement-marking in Colloquial French. In W. Ashby, M. Mithun, G. Perissinotto , & E. Rapossa (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on the romance languages (pp. 177-198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5.
Baker, C., & Padden, C.( 1978). Focusing on the nonmanual components of ASL. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp.27-57). New York: Academic Press.
6.
Battison, R., Markowicz, H., & Woodward, J. (1975). A good rule of thumb: Variable phonology in ASL . In R. Shuy & R. Fasold (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (pp. 291-302). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
7.
Beckman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J.(1986). Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology, 3, 255-309.
8.
Bolinger, D.( 1985).Two views of accent. Journal of Linguistics , 21, 79-123.
9.
Bos, H. (1995). Pronoun copy in sign language of The Netherlands .In H. Bos & T. Schermer (Eds.), Sign language research 1994: Proceedings of the Fourth European Congress on Sign Language Research (pp.121-147). Hamburg: SIGNUM.
10.
Brentari, D. (1998).A prosodicmodel of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
Burzio, L. (1994). Principles of English stress. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Collins, P.C. (1991a). Cleft and pseudocleft constructions in English . New York: Routledge.
Costa, J. (1999). Review of Flez, F.(1997). Word order and clausal structure in Spanish and other Romance languages. Glot International , 4,19-23.
15.
Coulter, G.( 1982).On the nature of ASL as a monosyllabic language. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, CA.
16.
Coulter, G. (1990). Emphatic stress in ASL. In S. D. Fischer & P. Siple (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research: Vol.1. Linguistics (pp.109 -126). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Covington, V.( 1973). Features of stress in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 2, 39-58.
18.
Flez, F. (1997). Word order and clausal structure in Spanish and other Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, City University , New York.
19.
Friedman, L.( 1976). Phonology of a soundless language: Phonological structure of American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
20.
Fry, D.( 1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27,765-768.
21.
Fry, D. (1958). Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech, 1, 125-152.
22.
Gerken, L. (1996). Prosodic structure on young children's language production. Language, 72, 683-712.
23.
Grosjean, F. (1979).A study of timing in a manual and a spoken language: American Sign Language and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8,379-405.
24.
Grosjean, F., & Collins, M. (1978). Breathing, pausing, and reading. Phonetica, 36, 98-114.
25.
Grosjean, F., & Deschamps, A. (1975). Analyze contrastive des variables temporelles de l'anglais et de francais: vitesse de parole et variables composantes, phenomenes d'hesitation [Contrastive analysis of temporal variables in English and French: Speech rate and related variables, hesitation phenomena]. Phonetica, 31, 144-184.
26.
Grosjean, F., & Lane, H.( 1977). Pauses and syntax in American Sign Language. Cognition, 5, 101-117.
27.
Hale, K., & Selkirk, E. (1987). Government and tonal phrasing in Papago. Phonology Yearbook, 4,151-183.
28.
Halle, M., & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1987).An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
Hayes, B. (1981).A metrical theory of stress rules. Doctoral dissertation , MIT.
30.
Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical stress theory. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
31.
Heggie, L. (1988). The syntax of copular structures. Doctoral dissertation , University of Southern California.
32.
Heycock, C. (1991). Layers of predication: The nonlexical syntax of clauses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania .
33.
Heycock, C. (19 92). Extraction and the syntax of copular constructions . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Philadelphia, PA.
34.
Janis, W. (1992). Morphosyntax of the ASL verb phrase. Doctoral dissertation, SUNY at Buffalo.
35.
Jiménez, M.-L. (1995). Semantic and pragmatic conditions on the position of the subject in Spanish. In L. Gabriele , D. Hardison,& R. Westmoreland (Eds.), FLSMVI: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America: Vol. 2. Syntax II and semantics/pragmatics (pp.25-34). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
36.
Johnson, J.K.( 1997). Morphological and syntactic grammaticalization in the history of French. Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University .
37.
Kegl, J. (1990). Predicate argument structure and verb class in the ASL lexicon. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues (pp.149-175). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
38.
King,T.( 1993). Configuring topicand focus in Russian. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford.
39.
Kiparsky, P., & Halle, M. (1977). Towards a reconstruction of the Indo-European accent. In L. Hyman (Ed.), Southern California occasional papers in linguistics: Vol. 4. Studies in stress and accent (pp.209-238). Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
40.
Kiss, K. (Ed.). (1995). Discourse configurational languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
Ladd, D.R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Ladefoged, P.( 1982). A course in phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
44.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University.
45.
Liddell, S.K. (1978). Nonmanual signals and relative clauses in American Sign Language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp.59-90). New York: Academic Press.
46.
Meir, I. (1998). Syntactic-semantic interaction in Israeli Sign Language verbs. Sign Language and Linguistics1, pp.3-33.
47.
Nespor, M., & Sandler, W. (1999) (this issue). Prosody in Israeli Sign Language . Language and Speech, 42(2&3), 143-176.
48.
Newkirk, D. (1977). Surface level handshape assimilation in ASL. Unpublished manuscript, Salk Institute for Biological Studies.
49.
Petronio, K. (1993). Clause structure in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
50.
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Cohen & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intention in communication (pp. 271-311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51.
Sandler, W. (1986). The spreading hand autosegment of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 50, 1-28.
52.
Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris.
53.
Sandler, W.( 1999). Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language.In T. Hall & U. Kleinhenz (Eds.), Studies on the phonological word (pp.223-254). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
54.
Selkirk, E.O. (1986). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55.
Selkirk, E.O. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing .In J. Goldsmith(Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp.550-569). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
56.
Selkirk, E.O. (1996). The prosodic structure of function words. In J. Morgan & K. Demuth (Eds.), Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 187-214). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
Stern, J., & Dunham, D. (1990). The ocular system. In J. T. Cacioppo & L. G. Tassinary (Eds.), Principles of psychophysiology: Physical, social, and inferential elements (pp.513-553). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
58.
Supalla, T., & Newport, E. (1978). How many seats in a chair? In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 91-132). New York: Academic Press.
59.
Vallduví, E. (1991). The role of plasticity in the association of focus and prominence. In Y. No & M. Libuch (Eds.), ESCOL, '90: Proceedings of the Seventh Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 295-306). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
60.
Vallduví, E. (1992). The informational component. New York: Garland.
61.
Wilbur, R.B. (1990a).An experimental investigation of stressed sign production. International Journal of Sign Linguistics, 1, 41-60.
62.
Wilbur, R.B. (1990b). Why syllables? What the notion means for ASL research. In S. D. Fischer & P. Siple (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research: Vol. 1. Linguistics (pp. 81-108). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
63.
Wilbur, R.B. (1991). Intonation and focus in American Sign Language .In Y. No & M. Libucha (Eds.), ESCOL'90: Proceedings of the Seventh Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 320 -331). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
64.
Wilbur, R.B. (1993). Syllables and segments: Hold the movements and movetheholds.In G. Coulter (Ed.), Current issues in ASL phonology: Vol.3. Phonetics and phonology (pp. 135 -168). New York: Academic Press.
65.
Wilbur, R.B. (1994a). Eyeblinks and ASL phrase structure. Sign Language Studies, 84, 221-240.
66.
Wilbur, R.B. (1994b). Foregrounding structures in ASL. Journal of Pragmatics, 22,647- 672.
67.
Wilbur, R.B.( 1994c).Stress, focus, and extrametricality in ASL. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Boston, MA.
68.
Wilbur, R.B. (1995a). What the morphology of operators looks like: A formal analysis of ASL brow-raise. In L. Gabriele, D. Hardison, & R. Westmoreland (Eds.), FLSM VI: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America: Vol. 2. Syntax II and semantics/pragmatics (pp.67-78). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
69.
Wilbur, R.B. (1995b). Why so-called "rhetorical questions" (RHQs) are neither rhetorical nor questions.In H. Bos & T. Schermer (Eds.), Sign language research1994: Proceedings of the Fourth European Congress on Sign Language Research (pp.149-169). Hamburg: SIGNUM.
70.
Wilbur, R.B.( 1996a). Evidence for the function and structure of wh-clefts in ASL.In W. H. Edmondson & R.B. Wilbur (Eds.),International Review of Sign Linguistics (Vol.1 ) (pp. 209 -256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
71.
Wilbur, R.B. (1996b). Prosodic structure of American Sign Language. Ms. Purdue University.
72.
Wilbur, R.B. (1997). A prosodic/pragmatic explanation for word order variation in ASL with typological implications. In K. Lee, E. Sweetser, & M. Verspoor (Eds.), Lexical and syntactic constructions and the construction of meaning. Philadelphia : John Benjamins.
73.
Wilbur, R.B. (1999). Typological similarities between American Sign Language and Spanish. Centro de Linguistica Aplicada Actas , 1, 438-443.
74.
Wilbur, R.B., & Allen, G.D. (1991). Perceptual evidence against internal structure in American Sign Language syllables. Language and Speech, 34,27-46.
75.
Wilbur, R.B., Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1983). Roots: On the search for the origins of signs in ASL. Chicago Linguistic Society, 19, 314-336.
76.
Wilbur, R.B., & Lynch, M.P. (in prep). Effects of rate of production on prosodic characteristics of ASL. Manuscript in preparation.
77.
Wilbur, R.B., & Nolen, S. (1986). The duration of syllables in American Sign Language . Language and Speech, 29, 263-280.
78.
Wilbur, R.B., & Patschke, C. (1998). Body leans and marking contrast in ASL. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 275-303.
79.
Wilbur, R.B., & Petersen, L. (1997). Backwards signing and ASL syllable structure. Language andSpeech, 40,63 - 90.
80.
Wilbur, R.B., & Schick, B.S. (1987). The effects of linguistic stress on sign movementin ASL. Language and Speech, 30, 301-323.
81.
Wilbur, R.B., & Zelaznik, H.N. (1997). Kinematic correlates of stress and position in ASL. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago, IL.
