194
194
9
ASPECT
Theoretical and experimental perspectives
Evie A. Malaia & Marina Milković
9.1  Theoretical foundations of aspect
The variety of the world’s languages, including sign languages, has resulted in the need
for multiple ways to describe the temporal structure of sentences: tense and aspect. Tense
is the easier one to understand: it describes the temporal location of an eventuality in
relation to some other point in time (often, another eventuality, which might both be
referenced in one sentence). Aspect, on the other hand, refers to the way in which the
eventuality itself unfolds in time –​how long it takes, whether it is dynamic or static, etc. –​
from the point of view of the speaker. Linguistic means to encode aspect can vary across
languages –​the same abstract concept might be denoted by grammatical means in one
language, and lexical in another; sign languages use both manual and non-​manual means
to express aspect. This chapter is concerned with a variety of means of encoding aspect
across sign languages, and the ways to precisely express aspectual meaning in relation to
the verb’s event structure using spatial means. We will start with lexical aspect –​i.e., temporal
properties of an event that are implied as part of the verb’s lexical entry. We will
then consider systems for denoting grammatical aspect in the languages where these exist,
and the relationships between event structure and potential means of aspectual modification,
as revealed by empirical research across a variety of sign languages.
9.1.1  Lexical aspect (Aktionsart/​event structure)
Lexical aspect (also known as Aktionsart, or event structure) describes inherent temporal
properties of an eventuality denoted by the verb. Several systems of describing
these temporal properties exist. For example, Vendler (1969) identified four types of
lexical aspect according to an event’s durativity (necessary occurrence over a period of
time), and presence of identifiable temporal reference (start-​or end-​state). The verbs
containing a temporal reference to change of state (inchoative verbs) were subdivided
into accomplishments (those which included a durative component, e.g., develop) and
achievements (verbs of instantaneous change, e.g., break). Verbs without a temporal reference
were subdivided into durative actions (e.g., walk) and states (e.g., know), which
do not require duration. Analyses of event structure also often include semelfactives
195
Aspect
195
(punctual events that often occur in sets of multiples, e.g., knock or blink); for conflicting
analyses, see Smith (1997) and Rothstein (2004). The structure of an inchoative event, as
introduced above, is typically assumed to have a temporal reference to the time of change
(onset, an end-​point, or a punctual change). The events that do have such a time-​point
as part of their semantics are termed telic (from Greek telos ‘goal’); those that do not are
called atelic.
The term event structure has also been applied to the analysis of full predicates,
including arguments, rather than single lexical verbs (cf. English ‘to eat fish’ –​an atelic
predicate with a non-​delimited argument, vs. ‘eat the fish’ and ‘eat up’ –​telic predicates
with a delimited argument). The problem of limitation (the fact that the semantics of
limitation can be conveyed both by the verb itself, as well as by the verb’s arguments)
resulted in introduction of the notion of ‘measuring out’ of events, by way of using an
additional argument and/​or action quantification, and in using compositional semantics
(Krifka 1992; Jackendoff 1996) to analyze argument-​or adjective-​based event modifiers.
Temporal and measure-​based approaches to defining event structure are not mutually
contradictory; the difference lies in viewing the event as defined by the lexical verb only,
or by the entire verb phrase.
In feature-​based descriptions of event structure, verbs of different event types have
been analyzed for presence of the features [+/​−​dynamic], [+/​−​durative], and [+/​−telic]
(resultative) (Smith 1997). Using this system, Rathmann (2005) provides the following
classification of American Sign Language (ASL) verb signs: states are [-​dynamic, +durative,
−​telic], activities are [+dynamic, +durative, −​telic], semelfactives are [+dynamic,
−​durative, −​telic], accomplishments are [+dynamic, −​durative, +telic], and achievements
are [+dynamic, +durative, +telic].
Finally, Ramchand’s (2008) nano-​syntax model for cross-​linguistic analysis of event
(and argument) structure must be mentioned, which subsumes both feature-​based and
syntactic accounts. Figure 9.1 presents an extended version of this formal model. The
three phrases (assumed to be merged within the lexical entry for the verb, but inferable
from the verb’s semantic and syntactic behavior) represent all features used by previous
models of event structure with regard to temporal and argument-​related properties of
verbs. Presence of Initiation Phrase in the verbal entry allows for the representation of
[+dynamicity] and an Agent argument; Undergoer Phrase can represent the [+duration]
feature of the verb, as well as an Undergoer or a Theme argument; presence of the
Result Phrase renders the verb [+telic], and allows for the third argument (a recipient/​
location) in ditransitive verbs (e.g., Bob gave Mary the book). Since the Merge operation
is verb-​internal, the same argument can occupy multiple positions in the structure
(e.g., in verbs that describe psychological states, such as amuse, appeal, which conflate
the Undergoer and the Recipient); the model provides maximal explanatory power for
cases such as multiple classes of verbs of psychological state, or systemic combinability
of noun Case with verbal event structure. The model also allows to predict the behavior
of verb classes that are not well-​described by feature-​based accounts1
or taxonomies,
such as verbs of psychological state (know, decide, amuse, marvel), verbs of gradual
change (e.g., melt), or predicates in sign language (see Wilbur & Malaia 2008b; Malaia
& Wilbur 2010; Malaia & Wilbur 2012). For example, Grose at al. (2007) demonstrate
that this system can capture the difference in syntactic behaviors between handling and
instrument classifiers in ASL, which are a challenge for other accounts (Grose et al.
2007: 1282).
196
Evie A. Malaia & Marina Milković
196
Figure 9.1  Full representational model of possible event structure according to
Ramchand (2008)
Components of event structure are identifiable by means of semantico-​syntactic tests.
Because event structure interacts with the syntax of each language, there can be variations
as to the implementation of the tests, and some might not work in a given language. Here,
we present parallel examples from English and ASL (from Rathmann 2005) to illustrate
the process of adapting the tests to sign languages.
	1.	Combinability with verbs of perception. This test is used to distinguish permanent
states (individual-​level predicates) from temporary, or stage-​level states, as the former
do not combine with perception verbs:
(1) a. # I SEE JOHN KNOW HISTORY
(Intended: ‘I see John knowing history.’)    (ASL, Rathmann 2005: 67)
b. I SEE JOHN BE-​SICK
‘I saw John sick.’    (ASL, Rathmann 2005: 72)
	2.	Combinability with modifiers of duration (either temporal adverbials, or continuative
morphemes), or manner/​intensity adverbials and/​or non-​manuals (CAREFULLY,
SLOWLY). This test is used to check for the [+durative] feature (absent in states).
(2) a. #HISTORY I KNOW+continuative
(Intended: ‘History, I knew continuously.’)    (ASL, Rathmann 2005: 68)
b. JOHN BE-​SICK+continuative
‘John was sick continuously.’    (ASL, Rathmann 2005: 72)
	3.	 Combinability with imperatives as test for agentivity. This test distinguishes between
states and activities, as states do not combine with imperatives (for ASL, Rathmann
(2005) uses imperatives such as GO-​AHEAD, DO YOU MIND, I ORDER YOU):
197
Aspect
197
(3) a. *GO-​AHEAD BE-​SICK
‘Go-​ahead and be sick!’    (ASL, Rathmann 2005: 72)
b. GO-​AHEAD EXPLAIN HISTORY IXi [MY SON]
‘Go ahead, explain history to my son.’    (ASL, Rathmann 2005: 75)
	4.	 Combinability with verbs of termination vs. verbs of completion. Achievements [-​durative,
+telic] are incompatible with verbs of termination, such as ‘stop’ (cf. (4a) vs. (4b)); states
and (some) [-​telic] activities are incompatible with verbs of completion (cf. (4c) vs. (4d)).
(4) a. *I stopped arriving.
b. I stopped driving.
c. *I finished knowing.
d. I finished writing.
In some languages, such as English, the interpretation of the test is made more difficult
by coercion (Smith 1997), or typecasting. As a result of this operation, activities can
combine with ‘finish’, but only when they are typecast as achievements (e.g., ‘I finished
running’ assumes a pre-​determined time or distance for the event of running). Rathmann
(2005) provides ASL examples of coercion of activities into achievements, where the addition
of a measure to the activity (e.g., drinking water out of a glass until the glass is
empty) effectively turns an activity, which cannot combine with temporal adverbials (5a),
into a resultative accomplishment, which can (5b). In (5b), adding a [+hold] morpheme
provides the measuring-​out feature to the verbal phrase:
(5) a. #DRINK WATER NEED 5 MINUTE
(Intended: ‘Drinking water takes 5 minutes.’)    (ASL, Rathmann 2005: 110)
b. DRINK WATER EXTENT+hold NEED 5 MINUTE
‘Drinking this much water requires 5 minutes.’    (ASL, Rathmann 2005: 110)
	5.	Combinability with durative ‘for an hour’-​type vs. delimiting ‘in an hour’-​type
adverbials (no ASL equivalent is available, as the temporal adverbials do not differ
consistently along the delimiting/​durative dimension).
(6) a. NORA SLEPT FOR AN HOUR
b. #NORA SLEPT IN AN HOUR
As with the previous test, [+durative] verbs (in (6a) the state verb ‘sleep’) combine with
‘for an hour’, but are somewhat infelicitous, though not strictly ungrammatical, with ‘in
an hour’ (sentence (6b) could mean ‘It took an hour for Nora to fall asleep’, interpreting
the adverbial as measuring-​out time to the onset of state). On the other hand [-​durative]
verbs, such as achievement ‘fall’, are infelicitous (pragmatically unlikely) with ‘for an
hour’-​type adverbials, although some informants can interpret the sentence as coerced
(in Alice in Wonderland, Alice kept falling for a long time!).
	6.	 Entailment test for temporal reference (either telicity or initiation time-​reference). The
original version of the test (Dowty 1979) relied on different entailments licensed for
past tense by atelic (cf. (7a)) and telic verbs and verb phrases (cf. (7b)) used in the continuous/​progressive
(viewpoint aspect):
198
Evie A. Malaia & Marina Milković
198
(7) a. SEAN WAS DRIVING THE CAR → SEAN DROVE THE CAR
b. SEAN WAS RUNNING A MILE →​/​→ SEAN RAN A MILE
In languages where continuous/​progressive and past are not clearly marked, entailments
resulting from predicate combinability with temporal adverbials such as ALMOST (Smith
2004), or STILL (Rathmann 2005) can be used:
(8) a. #JOHN WIN GAME. STILL WIN
(Intended: ‘John won the game. He is still winning it.’)
b. JOHN COUGH-​ONCE. STILL COUGH-​REPEATED
‘John coughed. He is still coughing.’    (ASL, Rathmann 2005: 85)
While the semantic entailment’s combinability with ALMOST can distinguish between
reference time at the beginning or end-​point of the event, STILL only allows for a distinction
between inchoative (accomplishments, achievements) and non-​inchoative
(states, activities, semelfactives) event types. Example (8a) demonstrates that STILL
does not combine with inchoative verbs such as WIN (as the entailment of durativity
would be impossible); in (8b), combinability of STILL with semelfactive COUGH-​ONCE
yields a reasonable entailment of repeated semelfactive, and durative scope over multiple
events.
Lexical aspect is an inherent property of a verb. While a single lexical entry may, in a
specific language, denote several types of eventualities with different intrinsic temporal
properties (e.g., to blink can refer to either to a singular event, or to a process with multiple
singularities in English), those meanings are distinguishable based on semantic tests.
9.1.2  Grammatical aspect
Grammatical (viewpoint) aspect is a regularized way by which languages can describe the
range of time in which the eventuality (event) is viewed. For example, a durative event
with an inherent end-​point (e.g., an accomplishment) might be viewed as not having been
completed within the time range of a continuous viewpoint. The term grammatical aspect
is also somewhat of a misnomer: the notion of temporal viewpoint in the description of
an event does not necessarily have to be regularized in a language as a grammatical category,
or be represented by a morpheme. However, the grammatical, or viewpoint, aspect
is secondary to Aktionsart: the internal temporal structure of an event affects the inventory
of possible viewpoint aspect representations of the event. In other words, not every
Aktionsart is expected to combine with all viewpoint aspects.
It is important to note that both the type inventory and the encoding of event and
aspect typology (e.g., lexical vs. morphological vs. phonological implementation for either
viewpoint aspect or Aktionsart) can vary across languages. For example, ASL employs a
phonotactic method in expressing verbal telicity: telic signs have a syllabic structure that
is different from that of atelic ones (Malaia & Wilbur 2010a, 2010b; Malaia & Wilbur
2012a, 2012b, 2012c; Malaia, González-​Castillo, et al. 2015), and are processed as having
a phonological distinction (Malaia et al. 2012). Some languages allow for substantial
modification of the verb’s inherent temporal semantics by what appear to be productive
affixes or arguments, such that the semantics of the event structure is not restricted to
the single lexical entry of the verb. For example, the verb systems of Russian and Bengali
199
Aspect
199
make use of event-​onset time, which is denoted by a morpheme (examples (9) and (10));
the use of the morpheme is, however, restricted by the semantics of the root verb (lexical
prefix and suffix, respectively; see Malaia (2004) and Basu & Wilbur (2010)).
(9) Cherez  pyat’  minut Artem za-​pel.
after five minutes  Artem  PERF.ONSET-​sing.PAST.MASC.3SG
‘After five minutes, Artem began to sing.’      (Russian, Malaia & Basu 2010: 5)
(10) Ram du minit-​er moddhe  kotha-​ta bol-​e uth-​lo.
Ram  two  minute-​GEN within word-​CL  say-​PERF  rise-​PAST.3.3SG
‘Ram said those words within two minutes.’     (Bengali, Malaia & Basu 2010: 5)
Similarly, ASL can have ‘delayed onset’ (hold at the beginning) in verbs that contain
onset semantics (Brentari 1998).
The inventory of both lexical and grammatical aspects is also language-​specific.
Across sign languages, both viewpoint aspect and Aktionsart have been shown to use free
and bound morphemes, as well as non-​manual markers. The marking for the two types
of aspect –​viewpoint and Aktionsart –​can co-​occur in one sign, or even be conflated
(e.g., velocity-​based aspect marking in Croatian Sign Language (HZJ); see Milković
(2011)). Aspect-​denoting morphemes can develop from verbs with full semantics (such as
‘finish’, or ‘continue’), or adverbs; the distribution of the verb when it has full semantics
is different from the distribution of the related form when it is used as an aspect marker.
In general, the analysis of the role of a morpheme in the aspectual system of a (sign) language
requires use of the following criteria:
	1.	Distributional properties: Can the morpheme of aspectual modification occur with
any verb? Are there phonological, phonotactic, syntactic, or semantic restrictions in
its distribution? Can it co-​occur with markers for tense and event structure? Is it in
complementary distribution with another aspectual marker (either free, bound, or
non-​manual)? If the language has several markers for a specific aspect (e.g., perfective)
in its inventory, they are typically found in complementary distribution due to phonological
or event structure-​based restrictions.
	2.	Consistency of correspondence between form and meaning in the specific language/​
interpretation across signers. In sign languages that are continuously changing, grammaticalization
of a morpheme can occur over the course of 20–​40 years (cf. the analysis
of Al-​Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL); Sandler et al. (2005)).
9.2  Viewpoint aspect in sign languages
Viewpoint aspect describes the speaker’s perspective, or her/his intent as to how to view
the event. Comrie (1976: 4) has formulated the two aspectual options available simply
as:  “the perfective looks at the situation from outside […], the imperfective looks at
the situation from the inside”. The important component here is the optionality, or the
speaker’s choice –​i.e., the same event can be presented either from outside (using perfective
aspect), or from the inside (using imperfective/​continuous aspect). These options
are, however, constrained by the lexical aspect: e.g., the internal quantification of the
event determines the possibilities of the external viewpoint.
200
Evie A. Malaia & Marina Milković
200
The relationship between tense and aspect can be difficult to describe outside the
tense-​aspectual system of a specific language. Reichenbach (1947) developed an abstract
system that could characterize the relationship between the time of event occurrence
and the time of speech (making the utterance), and characterized aspectual relationships
using the concept of reference time –​the time the speaker intends to refer to as an ‘anchor’
in the utterance. Reference time of an event is subjectively determined, in contrast with
speech time and event time (both of which are objective). The use of this system allows
us to distinguish, for example, between simple past and present perfect in English, as in I
saw the cat vs. I have seen the cat. In both sentences, event time is in the past, in relation
to speech time. However, in the simple past the event is considered from some moment
in the past; in the present perfect, however, the event (of seeing) is considered in its reference
to the present –​the speech time. We will need to use this system as we consider use
of markers of viewpoint aspect in sign languages.
9.2.1  Free aspectual markers
Free aspectual markers of perfective and continuous aspect are the two most often noted
across sign languages. This does not necessarily mean that viewpoint (grammatical)
aspect is restricted to these two meanings. It is more likely that this inventory is a reflection
of the most typical paths of grammaticalization for aspectual morphemes with these
meanings: from a verb such as FINISH, or from an adverb like ALREADY for perfective
aspect, and from verbs such as TRY, CONTINUE, or from an adverb such as NOT-​YET for
continuative. The exact aspectual meaning of the marker is, however, language-​specific,
and cannot be inferred from the (prior) lexical meaning of the morpheme (cf. use of
NOT-​YET as a negative perfective marker in Greek Sign Language (GSL)). Use of such
markers has been described in Italian Sign Language (LIS, Zucchi et al. 2010), Hong
Kong Sign Language (HKSL, Tang 2009), Israeli Sign Language (ISL, Meir 1999),
ASL (Fischer & Gough 1978), Croatian Sign Language (HZJ, Milković 2011), Greek
Sign Language (GSL, Sapountzaki 2005), Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT,
Hoiting & Slobin 2001), Turkish Sign Language (TİD, Zeshan 2003a; Dikyuva 2011;
Karabüklü 2016), British Sign Language (BSL, Brennan 1983), Swedish Sign Language
(SSL, Bergman & Dahl 1994), German Sign Language (DGS, Rathmann 2005), and
Indo-​Pakistani Sign Language (IPSL, Zeshan 2003b). In the following, examples are
presented of the use and distribution of these morphemes for several unrelated sign
languages.
LIS. Zucchi et al. (2010) report aspectual use of the verb DONE. Note that in example
(11a), the position of DONE as full lexical verb is before the main verb EAT, whereas in its
aspectual use in (11b) it follows the main verb.
(11) a. GIANNI CAKE DONE EAT
‘Gianni has finished eating the cake.’
b. GIANNI HOUSE BUY DONE
‘Gianni has bought a house.’    (LIS, Zucchi et al. 2010: 200)
HKSL. Tang (2009) shows that aspectual FINISH, which encodes termination or completion
of an action, is constrained in its use by event type of the main verb: specifically,
it occurs with event types that have dynamic or durational components (activities,
201
Aspect
201
achievements, accomplishments, semelfactives), as in (12a), but notably not with states,
as the ungrammaticality of (12b) shows.
(12) a. IX-​DET BOY CRY FINISH, GO HOME
‘After the boy had cried, he went home.’
b. *IX WOMAN DISLIKE DOG FINISH
‘The woman has disliked dogs.’    (HKSL, Tang 2009: 26)
ISL. Meir (1999) analyzed the use of ALREADY as a perfective marker in ISL, as opposed
to that of tense, because of the co-​occurrence of ALREADY with adverbials denoting
past, present, and future time. The aspectual meaning of ALREADY is that of viewing an
event as fully completed, as illustrated in (13).
(13) a. BOOK INDEXa INDEX1 ALREADY READ THREE-​DAY
‘It took me three days to read this book.’
b. INDEX1 ALREADY WRITE LETTER SISTER POSS1
‘I have written a letter to my sister.’    (ISL, Meir 1999: 52, 49)
ASL uses the lexical verb FINISH, a head nod, or their combination to mark perfective
aspect (Fischer & Gough 1999[1972]).
(14) a. INDEX1 PAST WALK SCHOOL
‘I used to walk to school’
b. YOU EAT FINISH, WE GO SHOPPING
‘After you have eaten, we’ll go shopping.’
                              (ASL, Fischer & Gough 1999[1972]: 68)
HZJ. Milković (2011) describes a rich system of verb pairs differentiated by aspect, such
that one has telic/​perfective, and the other atelic/​imperfective meaning. The morphemes
that distinguish verbs in the pair depend on the morpho-​phonological and syntactico-​
semantic properties of the root. The most typical way to create the telic and perfective
form from the atelic and imperfective form of the same verb is by speeding up the root
movement. This, however, is a bound morpheme, and as such it is described in Section
9.2.2. For the verbs that do not allow morphemic change by motion acceleration, either
compositional formation (use of a combination of morphemes that is not productive outside
of a short list of verbs), or suppletive formation (different lexical roots in semantic/​
aspectual pairing –​also detailed in the following section) are possible.
As an example of compositional formation of perfective aspect, in (15a), FINISH
(GOTOVO), comes after the atelic/​imperfective verb HAVE-​BREAKFAST, as a marker
of perfectivity, indicating the completion of an action. Similarly, in (15b), the adverb
ALREADY (VEć), comes before the same imperfective verb, rendering the verb phrase
telic/​perfective.
(15) a. NEVER HAVE BREAKFASTipfv … TODAY HAVE-​BREAKFASTipfv FINISH
‘I almost never have breakfast. Today I had breakfast.’
b. … TODAY ALREADY HAVE-​BREAKFASTipfv
‘Today I had breakfast.’        (HZJ, Milković 2011: 59, 60)
202
Evie A. Malaia & Marina Milković
202
GSL. For GSL, Sapountzaki (2005) describes the inventory of perfective markers as
consisting of aspectually used BEEN, and two negative markers, namely, verbal NOT-​
BEEN, and adverbial NOT-​YET.
NGT. Hoiting & Slobin (2001) describe a system in which a free aspectual marker occurs
in complementary distribution with a bound inflection for continuous/​habitual aspect.
The complementary distribution of the free vs. bound aspectual morpheme is determined
by phonological constraints: signs that contain internal lexical motion or include body
contact cannot undergo aspectual inflection, and therefore occur with the free sign
THROUGH, as illustrated in (16).
(16) INDEX3 TRY THROUGH++++
‘He tried continuously /​tried and tried and tried.’  (NGT, Hoiting & Slobin 2001: 129)
TİD. Dikyuva (2011) and Karabüklü (2016) identified a rich system of manual and non-​
manual aspectual markers in TİD. Manual markers include the signs GO (GITMEK), which
can be modified to reflect the continuative aspect and the completive aspect (Dikyuva
2011: 53), and completive aspect marker Bi̇ T ‘finish’. In their use, both manual and non-​
manual markers of aspect in TİD interact with the internal event structure of verb signs
(see Section 9.2.2 on bound markers for details).
9.2.2  Bound markers of aspect
The use of dynamic and spatial means for the expression of grammatical aspect has
attracted substantial interest at least since Fischer (1973). Klima & Bellugi (1979) describe
15 different productive (morphemic) modulations in ‘dynamic qualities and manners of
movement’ in ASL, including reduplication, rate of signing, tension, pauses in cycles,
etc. The difficulty, however, arose in identifying purely aspectual vs. non-​aspectual inflectional
morphemes on the verbs. Further analyses focused on identifying overlaps in form
and meaning, separating dynamic expression of event structure/​Aktionsart expressed
by dynamic means, from viewpoint aspect, and identifying phonological and syntactic
restrictions on the distribution of these markers (Warren 1978; Anderson 1982; Wilbur
1987; Rathmann 2005; Wilbur 2005; Wilbur 2009). Owing to the richness of inflectional
possibilities in sign languages (Emmorey 1996; Malaia & Wilbur 2014) there is a debate
as to the inventory of bound aspectual markers. The inflectional markers that have been
attested across multiple sign languages include continuous, iterative2
, and perfective
marking. Like the free markers, bound aspectual morphemes (inflections) have been noted
to combine with non-​manuals, and their distribution is typically restricted by phonological
properties of verb signs. A number of them in different sign languages are presented next.
ASL. In ASL, reduplication is frequently used as a bound marker of aspect. The base
of reduplication (the part of the sign that is then copied), and the copy (or reduplicant,
in speech), are typically similar in the overall form, although particular spatial/​temporal
features of the copy (e.g., its shape and stress, as compared to the base sign) can differ.
Both the form and the meaning of potential reduplication in ASL verbs are determined
by the interaction of verbal event structure (i.e., telic vs. atelic), and the phonological
form of the base. Wilbur (2009) provides the following classification based on the interaction
between the prosodic prominence of base and copy and (a)telicity of the root in
aspectual reduplication in ASL:
203
Aspect
203
	1.	If the prosodic prominence of the copy is equal to that of the base, the aspectual
inflection is interpreted as habitual for telic roots, and durative for atelic ones.
	2.	If the prosodic prominence of the copy is less than that of the base, the aspectual
inflection is interpreted as incessant for telic roots; there is no evidence for use of atelic
roots with a less-​prominent copy.
	3.	 If the prosodic prominence of the copy is greater than that of the base, the aspectual
inflection is interpreted as iterative for telic roots, and continuative for atelic ones.
BSL. Sutton-​Spence & Woll (1999) note the use of an extended hold to express continuative
aspect in signs that do not have path movement in BSL, such as LOOK and HOLD.
Iterative aspect is expressed by reduplication of path movement.
NGT. Hoiting & Slobin (2001) note that the elliptical modulation functioning as inflection
marker of continuative aspect is combined with non-​manual markers in NGT, namely,
puffed cheeks and/​or pursed lips, with a slight blowing gesture.
SSL. Bergman (1983) notes that continuous (‘durative’) aspect can be denoted with cyclical
arc movement of the head, while the hands do not move. Iterative aspect is described
by Bergman & Dahl (1994) as marked by repeated short movements (fast reduplication).
Similar inflectional markers of aspect have also been noted in Spanish Sign Language
(LSE, Cabeza Pereiro & Fernández Soneira 2004), IPSL (Zeshan 2003), Nicaraguan Sign
Language (Senghas 1995), and HZJ (Milković 2011).
HZJ. The most productive way to create a telic and perfective form from the atelic and
imperfective form of the verb is by speeding up of the root movement; verb pairs such as
čITATI/​PROčITATI ‘to read/​to have read’ or BRISATI/​OBRISATI ‘to erase/​to have erased’
differ in the speed of hand motion (see Figure 9.2; details for quantitative motion-​capture
analysis in Malaia et al. (2013)).
(a) BRISATI ‘erase’
(b) OBRISATI ‘to have erased’
Figure 9.2  HZJ aspectual verb pair: (a) BRISATIipfv; (b) OBRISATIpfv
204
Evie A. Malaia & Marina Milković
204
Atelic/​imperfective can be also formed from a telic/​perfective form of the verb by
using reduplication, such as in KUPITI/​KUPOVATI ‘to have bought/​to buy’, or DAROVATI/​
DARIVATI ‘to have given, to donate/​to be giving’ (Milković 2011) –​for illustration of this
process, see Figure 9.3.
[extension]
[extension]
(a) DAROVATI ‘to have given, to donate’
(b) DARIVATI ‘to be giving, to give’
repeat: [extension]
Figure 9.3  HZJ aspectual verb pair: (a) DAROVATIipfv; (b) DARIVATIpfv
A small group of verbs use different root morphemes (i.e., signs differing in handshape,
location, orientation, and kinematics) to convey contrasting telic-​aspectual meanings with
similar semantics, such as TRAžITI/​NAćI ‘to seek/​to find’ (cf. Figure 9.4), and PUTOVATI/​
STIćI ‘to travel/​to arrive’.
(a) TRAŽITI ‘to seek’
(b) NAĆI ‘to find’
Figure 9.4  HZJ aspectual verb pair: (a) TRAžITI; (b) NAćI
205
Aspect
205
In the general context of HZJ, where telicity is denoted by a productive morpheme,
these pairs can be considered suppletive versions of telic-​atelic verb pairs. In other sign
languages, where telicity marking is not a productive morpheme (e.g., ASL), these are
considered independent lexical items.
TİD. TİD has a well-​described system of bound non-​manual markers of aspect, which
have complex interactions both with the internal event structure of verb and manual (free)
markers of aspect (cf. Dikyuva 2011; Karabüklü 2016). Non-​manuals include markers of
completive aspect (‘bn’, performed by sticking the tongue out slightly through the center
of the mouth), the continuative aspect (‘lele’, which consists of protruding the tongue
slightly between the teeth, and flicking it up and down repeatedly and quite rapidly) and
inceptive aspect (‘ee’, performed by gritting the teeth and pulling back the corners of
the mouth). For example, the non-​manual marker of continuative aspect ‘lele’ does not
appear to be used with telic verbs (Dikyuva 2011: 52). The manual aspect marker BİT
‘finish’, on the other hand, cannot be used with achievement verbs such as WASH, SLICE,
READ (Karabüklü 2016:  129). Interestingly, in this case the manual and non-​manual
completive markers in TİD differ in scope, such that non-​manual ‘bn’ is compatible with
the meaning of termination of an activity (cf. (17b,d)), while BİT requires an event to be
completed (cf. (17a) and (impossible) (17c)).
(17) a. IX1 BABY WASH BİT
‘I (have) washed the baby.’
  bn
b. IX1 BABY WASH
‘I (have) washed the baby.’
c. *IX1 BABY SWING BİT
(Intended: ‘I (have) swung the baby.’)
  bn
d. IX1 BABY SWING
‘I (have) swung the baby.’        (TİD, Karabüklü 2016: 129)
9.3  Event structure and reference time representation in sign languages
Segmentation of continuous reality into separate events is the basis of everyday cognition.
The use of dynamic (object velocity) and scene-​changing cues in visual event segmentation
and memory retrieval is well-​described in perceptual and cognitive psychology (Zacks et al.
2009; Malaia, González-​Castillo, et al. 2015; Malaia, Wilbur, et al. 2015). However, the
link between perceptual event segmentation and linguistic events has only recently come
into the main arena of linguistic research. Linguistically, presence or absence of temporal
reference in the event description (verb’s Aktionsart or event structure) is the primary determinant
as to how an event can be further described using viewpoint aspect. Experimental
evidence suggests that the processing of visual segmentation of events and determination
of linguistic event structure/​Aktionsart are rooted in similar psychological mechanisms
(Malaia, Wilbur, et al. 2008; Malaia et al. 2009; Strickland et al. 2015). The connection
between predicate semantics and kinematics (dynamics of hand motion) in sign languages
was first formulated as the Event Visibility Hypothesis (Wilbur 2008: 229):
in the verbal domain, the path movement of the predicate signs indicates elapsed
time (t) of an event (e), […] and […] phonological end-​marking of the movement
206
Evie A. Malaia & Marina Milković
206
reflects the final state of telic events (ea). Furthermore, the predicate stops at
points (p) in space to indicate individual semantic variables (x).3
Most of the earlier analyses of predicates in sign languages did not make a distinction
between temporal structure of the eventuality and viewpoint aspect. This partially
accounts for the high number of aspectual distinctions in ASL noted in the earlier literature,
which deemed as ‘aspectual’ all spatial-​dynamic means of modifying the basic
temporal makeup of eventualities.
9.3.1  Markers of event structure
As proposed in the Event Visibility Hypothesis, the event and argument structure of the
verbs in sign languages can be modified by means of changes in movement path, duration,
pauses, and parameters of reduplication (speed, path, etc.), as well as changes in velocity
and acceleration to portions of motion in the sign. Modifications of the verb sign that affect
its event structure would lead to changes of how the sign can be used in syntactic structures
(application of viewpoint aspect and agreement markers). The difficulty in identifying a
cross-​linguistically applicable physical inventory of event structure modifiers is that the
same physical marker can be recruited to fulfill different roles in the phonological-​semantic
systems of different sign languages. For example, ASL and HZJ differ in the ways that
Aktionsart is expressed in the structure of the language. In ASL, telic events are marked at
the semantics-​phonology interface. Atelic and telic verb signs in ASL differ in whether the
two timing slots in sign-​syllables contain the same (atelic) or different (telic) setting, orientation,
aperture, and directionality of the movement path, as shown in Figure 9.5, based
on Brentari’s (1998) prosodic model. The change in velocity –​i.e., acceleration-​deceleration
pattern within the sign –​results in a bipartite structure of the sign. In ASL, the change in
motion profile is part of the lexical root and is not productive. HZJ, on the other hand,
has grammaticalized expression of verbal telicity in a productive (suffix-​like) acceleration
of dominant hand motion, which is generally productive (with a few exceptions). In HZJ
telicity is also merged (although not for all verb signs) with aspect, in the manner typical of
the surrounding Slavic languages (Milković & Malaia 2010; Milković 2011).
Atelic verb signs Telic verb signs
Figure 9.5  Representation of atelic and telic verb signs in ASL (based on Brentari’s (1998)
prosodic model)
207
Aspect
207
ASL. Rathmann (2005) suggested that multiple sign-​internal inflections, which had been
typically viewed as grammatical aspect due to their productivity in sign language (e.g., Klima
& Bellugi 1979), should be considered event structure-​internal modifiers. Those include
‘unrealized inceptive’ (Liddell 1984), ‘delayed completive’ (Brentari 1998), and ‘resultative’
(Wilbur 2003). Grose (2008) further developed a feature-​based taxonomy of event and
argument structure in ASL verbs, which includes an account of syntactic and phonological
behaviors in classifier, agreeing, and plain predicates (see Grose (2008) for details).
Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Schalber (2006) shows that ÖGS, like ASL, uses
morphemes to mark telic and atelic event structures, but phonological realizations of these
morphemes are language dependent. In ÖGS, mouth non-​manuals are sensitive to the
event structure. These non-​manuals divide into two types: (i) continuous non-​manuals
(NMs), composed of a single facial posture which functions as an adverbial modifier of
the event (positional NMs), and (ii) discontinuous transition, composed of a single abrupt
change in the position of the articulator, which appears to emphasize the initial or final
portion of the event structure (transitional NMs). While transitional NM use in ÖGS is
restricted to telic events (example (18), Figure 9.6), positional-​mouth NMs may occur
with both telic and atelic events (example (19), Figure 9.7, with an atelic event).
          pf
(18) KATHARINA IX AMERIKA FLY:[direction]
‘Katharina flew to the USA.’       (ÖGS, Schalber 2006: 225)
Figure 9.6  Transitional NM (discontinuous mouth gesture of abrupt exhaling, ‘pf’) with telic
event structure (© John Benjamins, reprinted with permission)
                ph
(19) WOMAN IX PLANE  GO-​BY-​PLANE:[tracing]
‘The woman is going by plane.’  (ÖGS, Schalber 2006: 225)
Figure 9.7  Positional NM (continous mouth gesture, ‘ph’) with atelic event structure (© John
Benjamins, reprinted with permission)
208
Evie A. Malaia & Marina Milković
208
Similar use of non-​manuals has been identified in both ASL and HZJ (Dukić
et al. 2010).
TİD. Zeshan (2003) describes a single accentuated movement, sometimes accompanied
by a head nod or forward movement of the torso, which appears to be a morpheme that
can occur simultaneously with free perfective aspect markers in TİD. The morpheme has
a phonological restriction: it does not occur with verb signs that have no path movement,
and is possibly an equivalent of a telicity marker in TİD.
9.3.2  Experimental investigations of aspect and event structure
in sign languages
There is a dearth of research in acquisition of reference time and aspect in sign languages,
although in spoken languages the ability to infer telicity from visual and linguistic data has
been identified as crucial for normal language acquisition (Leonard 2015). An account of
two children learning HKSL indicates that they appear to first acquire a conflated notion
of telic-​perfective-​past (Tang 2009), before learning the full sign-​language specific system
of event structure and viewpoint aspect.
Motion-​capture investigations of dynamic representation of event structure and aspect
in sign languages indicate that signers do recruit physical properties of visual motion to
convey verbal telicity (Wilbur & Malaia 2008a; Malaia & Wilbur 2012a, 2012b). Analysis
of motion-​capture data for verbal predicates in two unrelated sign languages, ASL and
HZJ, has shown that signers of both languages systematically use velocity of hand
motion, as well as the derivative of velocity –​deceleration of the dominant hand –​for
distinguishing telic vs. atelic verb classes during sign production (Malaia, Borneman,
et al. 2008; Malaia & Wilbur 2008a, 2008b; Malaia et al. 2013). Signers in both ASL and
HZJ appear to rely on the perceptual ability inherent to the psychological mechanism of
event segmentation, i.e., evaluation of comparative speed and acceleration of biological
motion. Strickland et al. (2015) further demonstrated that non-​signers are also capable
of inferring the basic temporal makeup of events from visual observation of individual
signs. Since sign languages do recruit physical properties of events for linguistic purposes,
they can regularize (or grammaticalize) and incorporate those features in different language
modules, as illustrated by comparisons of event structure markers in ASL, HZJ,
and ÖGS. Moreover, while it is clear that some physical properties of overt events are
recruited by signers of different sign languages, the full inventory of dynamic properties
(so far including sign duration, velocity, and acceleration of the dominant hand) requires
further investigation. Mathematically, the complexity of motion in ASL has been shown
to contain more information than everyday human motion across the full range of
recorded speeds of motion (from 0.1 to 15 Hz; Malaia 2014; Malaia et al. 2016; Malaia
et al. 2017; Borneman et al. 2018). Thus, analyses of motion in sign languages in general,
and application of event visibility to both Aktionsart and aspect, are far from complete.
9.4  Conclusion
In this chapter, we have reviewed existing research on the means of expressing various
types of aspect across a variety of unrelated sign languages. The temporal properties of an
event in sign languages (lexical aspect) tend to be represented as visually overt (Strickland
et al. 2015; Malaia 2017; Blumenthal-​Dramé & Malaia 2019), and are implied as part of
209
Aspect
209
the verb’s lexical entry. The systems for denoting grammatical aspect, and the relationship
between utterance time, reference time, and event time are less researched, and present
a fascinating ground for further investigations. While empirical research on the relationship
between types of aspect is complicated by the variability of representations among
sign languages, the spatial means of representing aspectual-​temporal relationships in sign
languages provide rich ground for cross-​linguistic research into human capacity for conceptualizing
time and space.
Acknowledgments
Preparation of this chapter was partially funded by Grant #1734938 from the U.S.
National Science Foundation and European Union Marie S. Curie FRIAS COFUND
Fellowship Programme (FCFP) award to Evie A. Malaia.
Notes
	1	The difficulty for feature-​based approaches lies in the taxonomic representation of multiple
conflated and non-​conflated argument roles that can be occupied by the argument in the same
syntactic position.
	2	 Iterative aspect can be considered a sub-​category of continuous aspect, or an aspect by itself –​the
relative taxonomy often depends on whether iterativity is represented grammatically or semantically
in the language under consideration. In turn, iterative aspect is sometimes viewed as
subsuming a distinct subcategory of habitual aspect, although the semantics of the two are dis-
tinct: the habitual aspect “describes a situation which is characteristic of an extended period of
time” (Comrie 1976: 27–​28), while the iterative aspect’s meaning conveys ‘repeated occurrences
of the same situation’ (Declerck 1991: 277). Habitual aspect, in its turn, might include ‘frequentative’
and ‘incessant’.
	3	 See Wilbur (2005) for the analysis of the complex predicate (distributive embedded in the iterative),
illustrating the use of spatial/​dynamic means to express the components of event-​internal
structure, such as reference time and argument roles.
References
Anderson, Lloyd. 1982. Universals of aspect and parts of speech: Parallels between signed and
spoken languages. Typological Studies in Language 1. 91–​114.
Basu, Debarchana & Ronnie Wilbur. 2010. Complex predicates in Bangla: An event-​based analysis.
Rice Working Papers in Linguistics 2.
Bellugi, Ursula & Edward S. Klima. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA:  Harvard
University Press.
Bergman, Brita. 1983. Verbs and adjectives: Morphological processes in Swedish Sign Language. In
Jim Kyle & Bencie Woll (eds.), Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language,
3–​9. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Bergman, Brita & Östen Dahl. 1994. Ideophones in sign language? The place of reduplication in
the tense-​aspect system of Swedish Sign Language. In Carl Bache, Hans Basbøll, & Carl-​Erik
Lindberg (eds.), Tense, aspect and action: Empirical and theoretical contributions to language typology,
397–​422. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blumenthal-​Dramé, Alice & Evie A. Malaia. 2019. Shared neural and cognitive mechanisms in
action and language: The multiscale information transfer framework. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Cognitive Science 10(2). e1484.
Borneman, Joshua D., Evie A. Malaia, & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2018. Motion characterization using
optical flow and fractal complexity. Journal of Electronic Imaging 27(05). 1.
Brennan, Mary. 1983. Marking time in British Sign Language. In Jim Kyle & Bencie Woll (eds.),
Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language, 10–​31. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
210
Evie A. Malaia & Marina Milković
210
Cabeza Pereiro, Carmen & Ana Fernández Soneira. 2004. The expression of time in Spanish Sign
Language (LSE). Sign Language & Linguistics 7(1). 63–​82.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect:  An introduction to verbal aspect and related problems.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. Tense in English: Its structure and use in discourse. London: Routledge.
Dikyuva, Hasan. 2011. Grammatical non-​manual expressions in Turkish Sign Language.
Preston: University of Central Lancashire MA thesis.
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Dukić, Lea, Marina Milković, & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2010. Evidence of telicity marking by nonmanuals
in HZJ. Poster presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR 10), Purdue
University.
Emmorey, Karen. 1996. The confluence of space and language in signed languages. In Paul
Bloom, Mary Peterson, Lynn Nadel, & Merrill F. Garrett (eds). Language and space, 171–​220.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fischer, Susan D. 1973. Two processes of reduplication in the American Sign Language. Foundations
of Language 9(4). 469–​480.
Fischer, Susan & Bonnie Gough. 1978. Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies
18(1).  17–​48.
Fischer, Susan & Bonnie Gough. 1999[1972]. Some unfinished thoughts on FINISH. Sign Language
& Linguistics 2(1). 67–​77.
Grose, Donovan. 2008. The geometry of events:  Evidence from English and American Sign
Language. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University PhD dissertation.
Grose, Donovan, Ronnie B. Wilbur, & Katharina Schalber. 2007. Events and telicity in classifier
predicates: A reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua 117(7). 1258–​1284.
Hoiting, Nini & Dan I. Slobin. 2001. Typological and modality constraints on borrowing: Examples
from the Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign
languages, 121–​137. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 14. 305–​354.
Karabüklü, Serpil. 2016. Time and aspect in Turkish Sign Language (TİD): Manual and nonmanual
realization of ‘finish’. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University MA Thesis.
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution.
In Ivan Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–​54. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Leonard, Laurence B. 2015. Time-​related grammatical use by children with SLI across
languages: Beyond tense. International Journal of Speech-​Language Pathology 17(6). 545–​555.
Liddell, Scott. 1984. Unrealized inceptive aspect in American Sign Language: Feature insertion
in syllabic frames. In Joseph Drogo, Veena Mishra, & David Testen (eds.), Papers from the
Twentieth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 257–​270. Chicago, IL: Chicago
Linguistic Society.
Malaia, Evie A. 2004. Event structure and telicity in Russian: An event-​based analysis for the telicity
puzzle in Slavonic languages. Ohio State University Working Papers in Slavic Studies 4.87–​98.
Malaia, Evie A. 2014. It still isn’t over: Event boundaries in language and perception. Language and
Linguistics Compass 8(3). 89–​98.
Malaia, Evie A. 2017. Current and future methodologies for quantitative analysis of information
transfer in sign language and gesture data. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 40. e63.
Malaia, Evie A. & Debarchana Basu. 2010. Comparative analysis of event structure in verbal morphosyntax
of Russian and Bangla. Manuscript, Purdue University.
Malaia, Evie A., John D. Borneman, & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2008. Analysis of ASL motion capture
data towards identification of verb type. In Johan Bos & Rodolfo Delmonte (eds.), Semantics in
text processing, 155–​164. London: College Publications.
Malaia, Evie A., Joshua D. Borneman, & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2016. Assessment of information content
in visual signal: Analysis of optical flow fractal complexity. Visual Cognition 24(3). 246–​251.
Malaia, Evie A., Joshua D. Borneman, & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2017. Information transfer capacity of
articulators in American Sign Language. Language and Speech 61(1). 97–​112.
Malaia, Evie A., Javier González-​Castillo, Cristine Weber, Thomas M. Talavage, & Ronnie B.
Wilbur. 2015. Neural processing of verbal event structure: Temporal and functional dissociation
211
Aspect
211
between telic and atelic verbs. In Roberto de Almeida & Christina Manouilidou (eds.), Cognitive
science perspectives on verb representation and processing, 131–​140. New York: Springer.
Malaia, Evie A., Ruwan Ranaweera, Ronnie B. Wilbur, & Thomas M. Talavage. 2012. Event segmentation
in a visual language: Neural bases of processing American Sign Language predicates.
NeuroImage 59(4). 4094–​4101.
Malaia, Evie A. & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2008a. The biological bases of syntax-​semantics interface
in natural languages: Cognitive modeling and empirical evidence. In Alexei Samonovich (ed.),
Biologically inspired cognitive architectures:  Papers from the Association for Advancement of
Artificial Intelligence Symposium, 113–​116. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Malaia, Evie A. & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2008b. Event Visibility Hypothesis: Motion capture evidence for
overt marking of telicity in ASL. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Meeting,
Chicago.
Malaia, Evie A. & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2010a. Experimental evidence from sign language for a
phonology-​syntax-​semantic interface. Paper presented at Language Design: Second Meeting of
the Biolinguistics Network, Université du Québec à Montréal.
Malaia, Evie A. & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2010b. Representation of verbal event structure in sign
languages. In Pier Marco Bertinetto, Anna Korhonen, Alessandro Lenci, Alissa Melinger,
Sabine Schulte im Walde, & Aline Villavicencio (eds.), Proceedings of Verb 2010: The identification
and representation of verb features, 165170. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore and Università
di Pisa.
Malaia, Evie A. & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2012a. Telicity expression in the visual modality. In Violeta
Demonte & Louise McNally (eds.), Telicity, change, and state: A cross-​categorial view of event
structure, 122–​136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malaia, Evie A. & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2012b. Kinematic signatures of telic and atelic events in ASL
predicates. Language and Speech 55(3). 407–​421.
Malaia, Evie A. & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2012c. What sign languages show: neurobiological bases
of visual phonology. In Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), Towards a biolinguistic understanding of
grammar: Essays on interfaces, 265–​275. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Malaia, Evie A., Ronnie B. Wilbur, & Marina Milković. 2013. Kinematic parameters of signed
verbs. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 56(5). 1677–​1688.
Malaia, Evie A., Ronnie B. Wilbur, & Thomas Talavage. 2008. Experimental evidence of event
structure effects on American Sign Language predicate production and neural processing.
Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 44(2), 203–​211.
Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Malaia, Evie A., Ronnie B. Wilbur, & Christine Weber. 2015. Event end-​point primes the undergoer
argument:  Neurobiological bases of event structure processing. In Boban Arsenijević, Berit
Gehrke, & Rafael Marín (eds.), Studies in the composition and decomposition of event predicates,
231–​248. New York: Springer.
Malaia, Evie A., Ronnie B. Wilbur, & Christine Weber-​Fox. 2009. ERP evidence for telicity effects
on syntactic processing in garden-​path sentences. Brain and Language 108(3). 145–​158.
Meir, Irit. 1999. A perfect marker in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2(1).
43–​62.
Milković, Marina. 2011. Verb classes in Croatian Sign Language (HZJ): Syntactic and semantic
properties. Zagreb: University of Zagreb PhD dissertation.
Milković, Marina & Evie A. Malaia. 2010. Event visibility in Croatian Sign Language: Separating
aspect and Aktionsart. Poster presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR
10), Purdue University.
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rathmann, Christian. 2005. Temporal aspect in American Sign Language. Austin, TX: University
of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation.
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Free Press.
Rothstein, Susan. 2004. The syntactic forms of predication. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Predicates
and their subjects, 100–​129. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Carol Padden, & Mark Aronoff. 2005. The emergence of
grammar:  Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 102(7). 2661–​2665.
212
Evie A. Malaia & Marina Milković
212
Sapountzaki, Galini. 2007. Free functional elements of tense, aspect, modality and agreement as
possible auxiliaries in Greek Sign Language. Bristol: University of Bristol, Centre for Deaf
Studies, PhD dissertation.
Schalber, Katharina. 2006. Event visibility in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language &
Linguistics 9(1). 207–​231.
Senghas, Ann. 1995. Children’s contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cambridge,
MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Berlin: Springer.
Strickland, Brent, Carlo Geraci, Emmanuel Chemla, Philippe Schlenker, Meltem Kelepir, &
Roland Pfau. 2015. Event representations constrain the structure of language: Sign language as
a window into universally accessible linguistic biases. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 112(19). 5968–​5973.
Sutton-​Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll. 1999. The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tang, Gladys. 2009. Acquiring FINISH in Hong Kong Sign Language. In James H-​Y. Tai & Jane
Tsay (eds.), Taiwan Sign Language and beyond, 21–​47. Chia-​Yi, Taiwan: The Taiwan Institute for
the Humanities, National Chung Cheng University
Vendler, Zeno. 1969. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Warren,KatherineNorton.1978.AspectmarkinginAmericanSignLanguage.InPatriciaSiple(ed.),
Understanding language through sign language research, 133–​159. New York: Academic Press.
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1987. American Sign Language:  Linguistic and applied dimensions. Boston:
College Hill.
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2005. A reanalysis of reduplication in American Sign Language. In Bernhard
Hurch (ed.), Studies in reduplication, 593–​620. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2008. Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign
languages look so similar? In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time. Selected papers from TISLR
2004, 217–​250. Hamburg: Signum Press
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2009. Productive reduplication in a fundamentally monosyllabic language.
Language Sciences 31(2). 325–​342.
Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Evie A. Malaia. 2008a. Contributions of sign language research to gesture
understanding: What can multimodal computational systems learn from sign language research.
International Journal of Semantic Computing 2(1). 5–​19.
Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Evie A. Malaia. 2008b. From encyclopedic semantics to grammatical
aspects:  Converging evidence from ASL and co-​speech gestures. Paper presented at the 30th
Annual Meeting of the German Linguistics Society, Bamberg.
Zacks, Jeffrey M., Nicole K. Speer, & Jeremy R. Reynolds. 2009. Segmentation in reading and film
comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 138(2). 307–​327.
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2003a. Aspects of Türk İsaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). Sign Language &
Linguistics 6(1). 43–​75.
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2003b. Indo-​Pakistani Sign Language grammar:  a typological outline. Sign
Language Studies 3(2). 157–​212.
Zucchi, Sandro, Carol Neidle, Carlo Geraci, Quinn Duffy, & Carlo Cecchetto. 2010. Functional
markers in sign languages. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 197–​224. New  York:
Cambridge University Press.