A Grammar of Italian Sign Language (LIS)

In LIS, morphological manual agreement of the verb with its arguments takes place only with agreement verbs and spatial verbs. As previously illustrated (SYNTAX 2.1.1), these verb classes surface in transitive, ditransitive and intransitive constructions.

In transitive constructions displaying an agreement verb, subject agreement encodes the agent argument and object agreement encodes the theme argument. Depending on the physical articulation of agreement verbs, morphological manual agreement is subject to variation.

         Agreement verbs with two points of articulation in the neutral space show overt morphological agreement with both the subject and object. The sign for the verb starts in the location of the signing space associated with the subject to move toward the location associated with the object, as in the following example.

 

 

 

         today ix_a horse_a ix_b SASS: ‘small’ horse_b ix_3a agive_birth_b

         ‘Today the horse gave birth to the pony.’

 

Agreement verbs with one point of articulation in the neutral space, like break, and agreement verbs articulated on the body of the signer moving towards the neutral space, like see, overtly agree only with the theme argument, as shown in (a) and (b) respectively.

 

 

 

         a.            child computer_a break_a

         ‘The child breaks the computer.’

 

 

 

         b.            l-u-c-a television_a see_a

         ‘Luca watches television.’

        

When a verb like see selects for a first person singular subject, however, agreement is with both the subject and the object, as the movement path starts from the signer’s body.

         In ditransitive constructions displaying an agreement verb with two points of articulation in the neutral space, morphological manual agreement is with the subject argument, encoding the agent/source, and the indirect object, encoding the goal/recipient argument. The theme argument is not expressed through agreement morphology on the verb.

 

 

 

         p-a-o-l-o_a g-i-a-n-n-i_b car _adonate_b

         ‘Paolo donates the car to Gianni.’                    

 

An exception to morphological agreement in ditransitives is represented by classifier predicates encoding the features of the theme through hand configuration, thus showing overt manual agreement with the three arguments (SYNTAX 2.1.2.4).

 

 

 

         a.            l-u-c-a_a g-i-a-n-n-i_b drinking_glass _aCL(unspread curved open 5): ‘give_drinking_glass’_b

         ‘Luca gives the glass to Gianni.’          

 

 

 

         b.            l-u-c-a_a g-i-a-n-n-i_b car _aCL(closed 5): ‘lend_car’_b

         ‘Luca lends the car to Gianni.’ 

 

As shown in the examples above, morphological agreement of classifier predicates with the direct object through hand configuration does not imply omission of the object argument.

         In ditransitive constructions displaying an agreement verb articulated on the body of the signer moving towards the neutral space, overt morphological manual agreement is only with the indirect object, as shown in the following example.

 

 

 

         l-u-c-a p-a-o-l-o_a lie say_a

         ‘Luca tells a lie to Paolo.’

 

In intransitive unergative constructions displaying an agreement verb produced in the neutral space without movement displacement, the verb may (a) or may not (b) show overt morphological spatial agreement with the agentive subject.

 

 

 

         a.            child_a play_a

         ‘The child is playing.’  

 

 

 

         b.            child play

         ‘The child is playing.’  

 

On the other hand, in intransitive unaccusative predicates, agreement verbs obligatorily show overt spatial agreement with the theme argument encoding the subject.

 

 

 

         lift_a break_a    

         ‘The lift broke down.’

 

Spatial verbs are the other class of verbs showing manual agreement by means of path movement (with motion verbs) or localization at a point (with locative verbs). With motion verbs, the initial and final points of the path agree with the locations of the source and goal arguments that define the path, as in the following examples.

 

 

 

         a.            l-u-c-a_a bank_{b a}run_b

         ‘Luca runs to the bank.’

 

 

 

         b.            bologna_a rome_{b a}bring_b

         ‘(He) brought (it) from Bologna to Rome.’

 

As previously seen for the agreement verb give, the spatial verb put is often produced through a classifier predicate encoding the features of the theme through hand configuration, thus showing overt manual agreement with the agent, theme, and locative argument, as shown in the example below.

 

 

 

         l-u-c-a_a book shelf_b aCL(flat open 5): ‘move_book’_b

         ‘Luca puts the book on the shelf.’        

 

Non-movement spatial verbs that have a location argument simply agree with it by localizing the verbal sign in the same position of the location argument, as shown by the verb stay in the following example.

 

 

 

         s-a-r-a three^year rome_a stay_a

         ‘Sara stayed in Rome for three years.’ 

 

Intransitive non-movement spatial verbs with a location argument may also be produced through a classifier predicate whose hand configuration encodes agreement with the subject, as shown below.

 

 

 

         child_a CL(G): ‘be_at’_a

         ‘The child stands.’        

 

In general, agreement and spatial transitive predicates must show overt morphological agreement with the direct object. Agreement and spatial ditransitive predicates must show overt morphological agreement with the indirect object. For both types of predicates, agreement with the subject is optional. Intransitive unergative predicates optionally show morphological agreement with the subject, while intransitive unaccusative predicates obligatorily show agreement with the subject.

         Lack of overt morphological agreement in LIS is allowed for quantified arguments, such as negative quantifiers (nothing, nobody), or non-specific and generic quantifiers (something, someone). The following example shows a negative quantifier and the lack of verb agreement.

 

         l-u-c-a buy nothing

         ‘Luca didn’t buy anything.’                  

 

With causative psychological predicates, the causative auxiliary give_aux shows overt morphological agreement with the subjectand the experiencer object, as in the following example where the experiencer is a first person.

 

 

 

         earthquake_{a a}give₁_aux fear

         ‘Earthquakes scare me.’                       

 

In predicates displaying argument structure alternation, the verb only shows overt morphological manual agreement with the theme argument (computer in the examples below), that is the sentence object in (a), and the subject in (b).

 

 

 

         a.            child computer_a break_a

         ‘The child breaks the computer.’

 

 

 

         b.            computer_a break_a               

         ‘The computer breaks down.’

 

Finally, it is important to point out that covert arguments are possible in LIS, if contextually understood. An illustration of the possibility to have covert arguments is provided by the following examples exemplifying a transitive (a) and a ditransitive predicate (b).

 

 

 

              a.            _ascold_b

         ‘(S)he scolds him/her.’             

 

 

 

         b.            book _aCL(flat open 5): ‘give_book’_b 

         ‘(S)he gives the book to him/her.’

 

Plain verbs do not display overt morphological agreement with their arguments in LIS. However, an exception to this generalization is represented by plain verbs produced through a classifier predicate in transitive constructions whereby the hand configuration is determined by the theme argument, thus showing overt agreement with the object. An example is provided below.

 

 

 

         l-u-c-a sandwich CL(flat open 5): ‘eat_sandwich’

         ‘Luca eats a sandwich.’