Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:47:14.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the cardinal system in Italian Sign Language (LIS)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2019

LARA MANTOVAN Open the ORCID record for LARA MANTOVAN [Opens in a new window] ,
CARLO GERACI Open the ORCID record for CARLO GERACI [Opens in a new window]  and
ANNA CARDINALETTI Open the ORCID record for ANNA CARDINALETTI [Opens in a new window]
LARA MANTOVAN*
Affiliation:
Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia
CARLO GERACI*
Affiliation:
Institut Jean-Nicod, Département d’études cognitives, ENS, EHESS, CNRS, PSL, Paris
ANNA CARDINALETTI*
Affiliation:
Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia
*
Author’s address: Ca’Bembo, Fondamenta Tofetti, Dorsoduro 1075, 30123 Venezia, Italylaramantovan@unive.it
Author’s address: Institut Jean Nicod, Pavillon Jardin, Ecole Normale Supérieure 29, rue d’Ulm, F-75005 Paris, Francecarlo.geraci76@gmail.com
Author’s address: Ca’Bembo, Fondamenta Tofetti, Dorsoduro 1075, 30123 Venezia, Italycardin@unive.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper offers a comprehensive discussion of the cardinal numeral system of Italian Sign Language. At the lexical level, we present the different formational strategies used to generate cardinal numerals and we provide evidence that in the younger generations of signers, the sign one has lost the function of indefinite determiner and is now used as a cardinal only. At the syntactic level, we show that the attested variation in the ordering between the cardinal and the noun is in part due to definiteness and contrastive focus. We account for this variation within the cartographic approach to syntax. Finally, we offer a principled explanation for the reason why cardinals inside Measure Phrases are not subject to word order variation, but always precede the measure noun.

Keywords

cardinal numerals(in)definitenessItalian Sign LanguageMeasure Phrases
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , 01 November 2019 , pp. 795 - 829
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank the three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees, whose comments helped to improve and clarify this manuscript. Many thanks are due to Rosella Ottolini, Mirko Santoro, and Gabriele Caia for their contribution as informants. We wish to express a sincere thank you to Jeremy Kuhn for his diligent proofreading of the manuscript. Parts of this work were presented at FEAST 2014 in Venice, at the workshop SignNonmanuals held in Klagenfurt in 2014, and at the workshop Numerals at the 48th Annual Meeting of SLE, held in Leiden in 2015. We thank the audiences of these conferences for their comments. The research received support from the SIGN-HUB project (European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, Grant Agreement N° 693349).

References

Barberà, Gemma. 2012. The meaning of space in Catalan Sign Language (LSC): Reference, specificity and structure in signed discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Barberà, Gemma & Quer, Josep. 2018. Nominal referential values of semantic classifiers and role shift in signed narratives. In Hübl, Annika & Steinbach, Markus (eds.), Linguistic foundations of narration in spoken and sign languages, 251–274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barrett, Rusty. 2008. Linguistic differentiation and Mayan language revitalization in Guatemala. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12.3, 275–305.Google Scholar
Bertone, Carmela. 2007. La struttura del sintagma determinante nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS)[The structure of the Determiner Phrase in Italian Sign Language (LIS)]. Ph.D. dissertation, Ca’ Foscari University.Google Scholar
Bertone, Carmela. 2009. The syntax of noun modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS). University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 7–28.Google Scholar
Bertone, Carmela. 2011. Fondamenti di grammatica della lingua dei segni italiana [Fundamentals of the grammar of Italian Sign Language]. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, Tanmoy. 1999. Specificity in the Bangla DP. In Singh, Rajendra (ed.), Yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics 2, 71–99. New Delhi & London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, vol. 1: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Branchini, Chiara. 2007. On relativization and clefting in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Urbino.Google Scholar
Branchini, Chiara, Cardinaletti, Anna, Cecchetto, Carlo, Donati, Caterina & Geraci, Carlo. 2013. Wh- duplication in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 16(2), 157–188.Google Scholar
Branchini, Chiara & Geraci, Carlo. 2011. L’ordine dei costituenti in LIS: risultati preliminari [Constituent ordering in LIS: Preliminary results]. In Cardinaletti et al. (eds.), 113–126.Google Scholar
Brunelli, Michele. 2011. Antisymmetry and sign languages: A comparison between NGT and LIS. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2009. Towards a typology of focus realization. In Zimmermann, Malte & Féry, Caroline (eds.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological and experimental perspectives, 177–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, Cecchetto, Carlo & Donati, Caterina (eds.). 2011. Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS [Grammar, lexicon, and dimensions of variation in LIS]. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giusti, Giuliana. 2006. The syntax of quantified phrases and quantitative clitics. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. V, 23–93. Oxford: Blackwell. [2nd edition, 2017].Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo, Geraci, Carlo & Zucchi, Sandro. 2006. Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24.4, 945–975.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo, Geraci, Carlo & Zucchi, Sandro. 2009. Another way to mark syntactic dependencies: The case for right-peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language 85.2, 278–320.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistics Inquiry 36, 315–332.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The syntax of adjectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2012. A partial map of extended functional projection of the NP. Class lecture in advanced syntax, a.y. 2011/2012, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1989. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Corazza, Serena. 1990. The morphology of classifier handshapes in Italian Sign Language (LIS). In Lucas, Ceil (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 71–82. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1978. Universals in the syntax of cardinal numbers. Lingua 46, 355–368.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 2009. Getting the (syntactic) measure of Measure Phrases. The Linguistic Review 26.1, 67–134.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Indefinite articles. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/38 (accessed 16 June 2017).Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. 1996. By the numbers: Language-internal evidence for creolization. In Edmondson, William H. & Wilbur, Ronnie B. (eds.), International review of sign linguistics, vol. 1, 1–22. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12.4, 597–674.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo. 2012. Language policy and planning: The case of Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 12.4, 494–518.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Battaglia, Katia, Cardinaletti, Anna, Cecchetto, Carlo, Donati, Caterina, Giudice, Serena & Mereghetti, Emiliano. 2011. The LIS Corpus project: A discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon. Sign Language Studies 11.4, 528–574.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Bayley, Robert, Branchini, Chiara, Cardinaletti, Anna, Cecchetto, Carlo, Donati, Caterina, Giudice, Serena, Mereghetti, Emiliano, Poletti, Fabio, Santoro, Mirko & Zucchi, Sandro. 2010. Building a corpus for Italian Sign Language: Methodological issues and some preliminary results. In Calzolari, Nicoletta, Choukri, Khalid, Maegaard, Bente, Mariani, Joseph, Odijk, Jan, Piperidis, Stelios, Rosner, Mike & Tapias, Daniel (eds.), Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2010), Valetta, Malta, 98–101.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of human language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [2nd edition, 1966].Google Scholar
Hanke, Thomas. 2010. Additional rarities in the typology of numerals. In Wohlgemuth, Jan & Cysouw, Michael (eds.), Rethinking universals: How rarities affect linguistic theory, 61–89. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hurford, James R. 2003. The interaction between numerals and nouns. In Plank, Frans (ed.), Noun Phrase structure in the languages of Europe: Typology of languages in Europe, 561–620. The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ionin, Tania & Matushansky, Ora. 2006. The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23.4, 315–360.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Crasborn, Onno. 2006. The use of ELAN annotation software in the creation of sign language corpora. Proceedings of the EMELD’06 Workshop on Digital Language Documentation. Tools and Standards: The State of the Art, Lansing, MI. http://emeld.org/workshop/2006/papers/johnston-crasborn.pdf (accessed 1 June 2018).Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Movement and silence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S.2016. Some thoughts on one and two and other numerals. Ms., New York University.Google Scholar
Koulidobrova, Elena & Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2016. Point of inquiry: The case of the (non-)pronominal ix in ASL. In Grosz, Patrick & Patel, Pritty (eds.), Impact of pronominal form on interpretation, 221–250. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mantovan, Lara & Geraci, Carlo. 2017. The syntax of nominal modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sign Language & Linguistics 20.2, 183–220.Google Scholar
Mantovan, Lara, Duarte, Kyle, Geraci, Carlo & Cardinaletti, Anna. 2016. Access to knowledge: The issue of deaf students and more. Annali di Ca’ Foscari, Serie Occidentale 50, 149–164.Google Scholar
Mantovan, Lara & Geraci, Carlo. 2018. R-impersonal interpretation in Italian Sign Language (LIS). In Barberà, Gemma & Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo (eds.), Reference impersonals in sign languages: Special issue of Sign Language & Linguistics 21.2, 232–257.Google Scholar
Mazzoni, Laura. 2008. Classificatori e impersonamento nella lingua dei segni italiana [Classifiers and role-shift in Italian Sign Language]. Pisa: PLUS-Pisa University Press.Google Scholar
Ohser, Erich. 2000. Politische Karikaturen, Zeichnungen, Illustrationen und alle Bildgeschichten Vater und Sohn. Konstanz: Sudverlag GmbH.Google Scholar
Radutzky, Elena. 2001. Dizionario bilingue elementare della lingua italiana dei segni [Elementary bilingual dictionary of Italian Sign Language]. Roma: Edizioni Kappa.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Tang, Gladys & Sze, Felix. 2002. Nominal expressions in Hong Kong Sign Language: Does modality make a difference? In Meier, Richard P., Cormier, Kearsy A. & Quinto-Pozos, David G. (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 296–321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vázquez-Rojas, Violeta. 2011. Definite and indefinite numeral phrases in Shupamem. In Myler, Neil & Wood, Jim (eds.), New York University Working Papers in Linguistics (NYUWPL), vol. 3, 231–244.Google Scholar
Yadroff, Michael & Billings, Loren. 1998. The syntax of approximative inversion in Russian (and the general architecture of nominal expressions). In Bošković, Željko, Franks, Steven & Snyder, William (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Connecticut Meeting 1997, 319–338. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike, Delgado, Cesar Ernesto Escobedo, Dikyuva, Hasan, Panda, Sibaji & de Vos, Connie. 2013. Cardinal numerals in rural sign languages: Approaching cross-modal typology. Linguistic Typology 17.3, 357–396.Google Scholar
Zweig, Eytan. 2006. Nouns and adjectives in numeral NPs. In Bateman, Leah & Ussery, Cherlon (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35), vol. 2, 663–679. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar