Meier (2002) states that the mastery of the direction of verb indication for current stakeholders is not achieved until the age of 3 years and that control of this system is even later for absent stakeholders. Meier points out that this is similar to the acquisition of complex morphological systems (Slobin 1985) and takes advantage of this longer development of these aspects of ASL grammar to advocate for the morphological status of direction in the indication of verbs. The study of the evolution of the verb agreement in ISL, to which I will refer here, is based on the fact that 31 ISL signatories are entrusted to three age groups: group 1 – thirteen signatories aged 65 and over; Group 2 – ten signatories between the ages of 45 and 65; and Group 3 – eight signatories aged 25 to 44.2 The bait tool consists of 30 short video clips designed to produce simple decontextualized series (Aronoff et al., 2004; Sandler et al., 2005). Each clip shows a unique action performed either by a human being, by an inanimate being himself, or by a different being. The events depicted in the clips vary according to the number of arguments (nontransted, transitive and di-transitive) and animacy. For our purposes here, relevant clips are those that refer to transmission events (GIVE, TAKE, THROW, FEED, SHOW) and verbs with two animated arguments (LOOK-AT, PULL, PUSH, TAP) that behave as contractual verbs in certain sign languages. Signatories are invited to view the clips and describe the event in each clip to another signatory. To verify understanding, the recipient is asked to identify one of the three images most appropriate to the action described above. In order to follow the evolution of the verbal agreement, the answers were analysed according to the question of whether the verb marks an agreement with an argument (single argument agreement), two arguments (agreement of two arguments) or not at all with an agreement. This analysis is entirely consistent with recent studies of body modification in sign languages. As noted above, Fenlon et al. (2018) in an analysis of the verbs of the BSL Corpus indicate whether verbs have been altered in space, significantly favoring all measurements constructed according to the criteria of Cormier et al. (2015b).

Similarly, from Beuzeville et al. (2009) also pointed out that the modification of indicative words greatly favoured the existence of an act built in Auslan, one or more engberg-Pedersens (1993) conceptions of a deferred inscription of expressive, deferred reference and/or movement of the body, head or gaze, using the characteristics of the speakers in the speech. Although de Beuzeville et al. (2009) did not limit the notion of constructed action to changes of gaze for the purposes of constructed action, the gaze was not included in this study as a possible marker of constructed action. Given the linguistic similarities in the use of actions constructed in sign language (from Beuzeville et al. 2009; Lillo-Martin 2012), it seems plausible that the use of moments described by Neidle et al. and Thompson et al. can be explained by the use of an action built at the time.

However, Neidle et al. do not view the constructed actions as a possible explanation of the motives they describe for the verbs of concordance, and as noted above, and Thompson et al. (2006) seem to treat the gaze as unprocessed with constructed action. Similarly, Herrmann and Steinbach (2012) do not consider any correlation (in terms of resources) between the modification and displacement of roles. It is therefore very difficult to know whether these studies on FSA and DGS describe the same phenomena or different phenomena as those of BSL and Auslan.11 Note: Just because a verb is not normally modified to show the subject/verb chord does not mean that the verb cannot be changed in another way.

Share →