{"title":"普通动词真的简单吗?共同定位作为手语的协议标记","authors":"Guilherme Lourenço, R. Wilbur","doi":"10.31009/feast.i2.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In contrast to previous discussions on agreement, this paper argues that matching of location is the single morphological exponent of verb agreement in sign languages, using data from Brazilian Sign Language (Libras). Therefore, we reject the analysis of path and/or directionality as agreement markers. We argue that “plain” verbs are actually capable of showing agreement, as long as there is no phonological restriction, if we consider the sharing of location features (co-localization) as the sole agreement mechanism. Agreement is not restricted to a subset of verbs and is actually more pervasive and pro-ductive than has been argued, thus challenging one argument against calling it agreement.","PeriodicalId":164096,"journal":{"name":"FEAST. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign language Theory","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are plain verbs really plain?: Co-localization as the agreement marker in sign languages\",\"authors\":\"Guilherme Lourenço, R. Wilbur\",\"doi\":\"10.31009/feast.i2.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In contrast to previous discussions on agreement, this paper argues that matching of location is the single morphological exponent of verb agreement in sign languages, using data from Brazilian Sign Language (Libras). Therefore, we reject the analysis of path and/or directionality as agreement markers. We argue that “plain” verbs are actually capable of showing agreement, as long as there is no phonological restriction, if we consider the sharing of location features (co-localization) as the sole agreement mechanism. Agreement is not restricted to a subset of verbs and is actually more pervasive and pro-ductive than has been argued, thus challenging one argument against calling it agreement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":164096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"FEAST. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign language Theory\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"FEAST. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign language Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31009/feast.i2.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FEAST. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign language Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31009/feast.i2.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Are plain verbs really plain?: Co-localization as the agreement marker in sign languages
In contrast to previous discussions on agreement, this paper argues that matching of location is the single morphological exponent of verb agreement in sign languages, using data from Brazilian Sign Language (Libras). Therefore, we reject the analysis of path and/or directionality as agreement markers. We argue that “plain” verbs are actually capable of showing agreement, as long as there is no phonological restriction, if we consider the sharing of location features (co-localization) as the sole agreement mechanism. Agreement is not restricted to a subset of verbs and is actually more pervasive and pro-ductive than has been argued, thus challenging one argument against calling it agreement.