Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper provides the first contrastive analysis of a coherence relation (viz. addition) and its connectives across a sign language (French Belgian Sign Language) and a spoken language (French), both used in the same geographical area. The analysis examines the frequency and types of connectives that can express an additive relation, in order to contrast its “markedness” in the two languages, that is, whether addition is marked by dedicated connectives or by ambiguous, polyfunctional ones. Furthermore, we investigate the functions of the most frequent additive connective in each language (namely and the sign SAME), starting from the observation that most connectives are highly polyfunctional. This analysis intends to show which functions are compatible with the meaning of addition in spoken and signed discourse. Despite a common core of shared discourse functions, the equivalence between and SAME is only partial and relates to a difference in their semantics.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Asr, F. and Demberg, V.
    2012 Measuring the Strength of Linguistic Cues for Discousre Relations. InProceedings of the COLING Workshop on Advances in Discourse Analysis and its Computational Aspects (ADACA), E. Hajičová , L. Poláková and J. Mírovský (eds), 33–42. Mumbai: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bejček, E. , Hajičová, E. , Hajič, J. , Jínová, P. , Kettnerová, V. , Kolářová, V. , Mikulová, M. , Mírovský, J. , Nedoluzhko, A. , Panevová, J. , Poláková, L. , Ševčíková, M. , Štěpánek, J. and Zikánová, Š.
    2013Prague Dependency Treebank 3.0. LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL), Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, hdl.handle.net/11858/00-097C-0000-0023-1AAF-3
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. and Finegan, E.
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blakemore, D.
    1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. London: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Crible, L.
    2018Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency. Forms and Functions across Languages and Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.286
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.286 [Google Scholar]
  6. Forthcoming. Weak and Strong Discourse Markers in Speech, Chat and Writing: How Signals Compensate for Ambiguity in Explicit Relations. Discourse Processes.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Crible, L. and Degand, L.
    2019 Domains and Functions: A Two-Dimensional Account of Discourse Markers. Discours24.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Crible, L. , Degand, L. and Gilquin, G.
    2017 The Clustering of Discourse Markers and Filled Pauses: A Corpus-based French-English Study of (Dis)fluency. Languages in Contrast17(1): 69–95. 10.1075/lic.17.1.04cri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.1.04cri [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuenca, M. J.
    2003 Two Ways to Reformulate: A Contrastive Analysis of Reformulation Markers. Journal of Pragmatics35: 1069–1093. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00004‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00004-3 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2013 The Fuzzy Boundaries between Discourse Marking and Modal Marking. InDiscourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description, L. Degand , B. Cornillie and P. Pietrandrea (eds), 191–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.234.08cue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.234.08cue [Google Scholar]
  11. Danlos, L. , Colinet, M. and Steinlin, J.
    2015 FDTB1, Première Étape du Projet +++« French Discourse Treebank »: Repérage des Connecteurs de Discours en Corpus. Discours17.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Davies, M.
    2013Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries. Available online atcorpus2.byu.edu/glowbe/
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Degand, L. , Broisson, Z. , Crible, L. and Grzech, K.
    Forthcoming. Cross-linguistic Variation in Spoken Discourse Markers: Distribution, Functions and Domains.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dister, A. , Francard, M. , Hambye, P. , and Simon, A.-C.
    2009 Du Corpus à la Banque de Données. Du Son, des Textes et des Métadonnées. L’Évolution de la Banque de Données Textuelles Orales VALIBEL (1989–2009). Cahiers de Linguistique33(2):113–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fox Tree, J. E.
    (2014) Discourse markers in writing. Discourse Studies17(1): 64–82. 10.1177/1461445614557758
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614557758 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gabarró-López, S.
    2017 Discourse Markers in French Belgian Sign Language and Catalan Sign Language: BUOYS, PALM-UP and SAME. PhD thesis, Université de Namur.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2019a The uses of PALM-UP in interpreted French and LSFB productions. Poster presented at the13th Conference of Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Hamburg, 26th – 28th September 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2019b When the Meaning of SAME is not Restricted to Likeness: A Preliminary Study from the Perspective of Discourse Relational Devices in Two Sign Languages. Discours24. doi:  10.4000/discours.10053
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.10053 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2020 Are Discourse Markers Related to Age and Educational Background? A Comparative Account between Two Sign Languages. Journal of Pragmatics20: 68–82. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.019 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gadet, F. , Ludwig, R. , Mondada, L. , Pfänder, S. and Simon, A.-C.
    2012 Un Grand Corpus de Français Parlé: Le CIEL-F. Choix Épistémologiques et Réalisations Empiriques. Revue Française de Linguistique AppliquéeXVII(1):39–54. 10.3917/rfla.171.0039
    https://doi.org/10.3917/rfla.171.0039 [Google Scholar]
  21. Georgakopoulou, A. and Goutsos, D.
    1998 Conjunctions versus Discourse Markers in Greek: The Interaction of Frequency, Position, and Functions in Context. Linguistics36(5):887–917. 10.1515/ling.1998.36.5.887
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.5.887 [Google Scholar]
  22. González, M.
    2005 Pragmatic Markers and Discourse Coherence Relations in English and Catalan Oral Narrative. Discourse Studies77(1):53–86. 10.1177/1461445605048767
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605048767 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hodge, G. , Sekine, K. , Schembri, A. and Johnston, T.
    2019 Comparing Signers and Speakers: Building a Directly Comparable Corpus of Auslan and Australian English. Corpora (14)1.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hoza, J.
    2011 The Discourse and Politeness Functions of HEY and WELL in American Sign Language. InDiscourse in Signed Languages, C. B. Roy (ed), 70–95. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnston, T.
    2010 From Archive to Corpus: Transcription and Annotation in the Creation of Signed Language Corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15(1):106–131. 10.1075/ijcl.15.1.05joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.05joh [Google Scholar]
  26. 2015Auslan Corpus Annotation Guidelines. Sydney: Macquarie University; Melbourne: La Trobe University.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Johnston, T. and Schembri, A.
    2010 Corpus Analysis of Sign Languages. InThe Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, C. A. Chapelle (ed). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Johnston, T. , Vermeerbergen, M. , Schembri, A. and Leeson, L.
    2007 ‘Real data are messy’: Considering cross-linguistic analysis of constituent ordering in Auslan, VGT and ISL. InVisible variation: Cross-linguistic studies in sign language structure, P. Perniss , R. Pfau and M. Steinbach (eds), 163–206. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kitis, E.
    2000 Connectives and Frame Theory: The Case of Hypotextual Antinomial ‘And’. Pragmatics & Cognition8(2):357–409. 10.1075/pc.8.2.04kit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.8.2.04kit [Google Scholar]
  30. Kunz, K. and Laphinova-Koltunski, E.
    2015 Cross-linguistic Analysis of Discourse Variation across Registers. Nordic Journal of English Studies14(1):258–288. 10.35360/njes.347
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.347 [Google Scholar]
  31. Luscher, J.-M. and Moeschler, J.
    1990 Approches Dérivationnelles et Procédurales des Opérateurs et Connecteurs Temporels: Les Exemples de Et et de Enfin. Cahiers de Linguistique Française11:77–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mann, W. and Thompson, S.
    1988 Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization. Text8(3):243–281. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
  33. Mauri, C.
    2008Coordination Relations in the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110211498
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211498 [Google Scholar]
  34. McKee, R.
    1992 Footing Shifts in American Sign Language Lectures. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Meurant, L.
    2015Corpus LSFB. Un Corpus Informatisé en Libre Accès de Vidéos et d’Annotations de la Langue des Signes de Belgique Francophone (LSFB). Laboratoire de Langue des signes de Belgique francophone (LSFB-Lab), FRS-F.N.R.S et Université de Namur. www.corpus-lsfb.be
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Meurant, L. , Bernagou, E. , Sánchez, S. , De Clerck, C. , Raes, G. , Fonzé, S. , Notarrigo, I. , Gabarró-López, S. , Paligot, A. and Sinte, A.
    2015Lex-LSFB. Base de donnée lexicale de la langue des signes de Belgique francophone (LSFB). Université de Namur. www.corpus-lsfb.be
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Meurant, L. , Lepeut, A. , Tavier, A. , Gabarró-López, S. and Sinte, A.
    Ongoing. The Multimodal FRAPé Corpus: Towards Building a Comparable LSFB and Belgian French Corpus. LSFB-Lab, University of Namur, Belgium.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Metzger, M. and Bahan, B.
    2001 Discourse Analysis. InThe Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages, C. Lucas (ed), 112–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612824.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612824.007 [Google Scholar]
  39. Millis, K. K. and Just, M. A.
    1994 The Influence of Connectives on Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language33:128–147. 10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1007 [Google Scholar]
  40. Murillo, S.
    2016 Reformulation Markers and Polyphony. A Contrastive English-Spanish Analysis. Languages in Contrast16(1):1–30. 10.1075/lic.16.1.01mur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.1.01mur [Google Scholar]
  41. Pander Maat, H.
    1999 The Differential Linguistic Realization of Comparative and Additive Coherence Relations. Cognitive Linguistics10(2):147–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Pérez, Y.
    2006 Marcadores Manuales en el Discurso Narrativo en la Lengua de Señas Venezolana. Letras48(72):157–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Perniss, P. , Pfau, R. and Steinbach, M.
    2007 Can’t You See the Difference? Sources of Variation in Sign Language Structure. InVisible variation: Cross-linguistic studies in sign language structure, P. Perniss , R. Pfau and M. Steinbach (eds), 1–34. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110198850.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198850.1 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pfau, R. and Quer, J.
    2007 On the syntax of negation and modals in Catalan Sign Language and German Sign Language. InVisible variation: Cross-linguistic studies in sign language structure, P. Perniss , R. Pfau and M. Steinbach (eds), 129–162. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Petukhova, V. and Bunt, H.
    2009 Towards a Multidimensional Semantics of Discourse Markers in Spoken Dialogue. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Semantics, 157–168.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Prasad, R. , Dinesh, N. , Lee, A. , Miltsakaki, E. , Robaldo, L. , Joshi, A. and Webber, B.
    2008 The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. Proceedings of the Sixth International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference LREC ’08. Marrakech, Morocco, 28–30May 2008 European Language Resources Association. 2961–2968.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Redeker, G.
    1990 Ideational and Pragmatic Markers of Discourse Structure. Journal of Pragmatics14(3):367–381. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90095‑U
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90095-U [Google Scholar]
  48. Roy, C. B.
    1989 Features of Discourse in an American Sign Language Lecture. InThe Sociolinguistics of Deaf Communities, C. Lucas (ed), 231–251. San Diego: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑458045‑9.50017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-458045-9.50017-3 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sanders, T. J. M. , Spooren, W. and Noordman, L.
    1992 Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes15:1–35. 10.1080/01638539209544800
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800 [Google Scholar]
  50. 1993 Coherence Relations in a Cognitive Theory of Discourse Representation. Cognitive Linguistics4(2):93–133. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sonnemans, B.
    2016LSFB Asbl. Un Dictionnaire en Ligne et Journal en LSFB en Libre Accès de Vidéos. dicto.lsfb.be/
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Schiffrin, D.
    1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  53. Spooren, W.
    1997 The Processing of Underspecified Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes24:149–168. 10.1080/01638539709545010
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545010 [Google Scholar]
  54. Stokoe, W. C.
    1960 Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers8.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Taboada, M. and Gómez-Gónzalez, M.
    2012 Discourse Markers and Coherence Relations: Comparison across Markers, Languages and Modalities. Linguistics and the Human Sciences6:17–41. 10.1558/lhs.v6i1‑3.17
    https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v6i1-3.17 [Google Scholar]
  56. Vermeerbergen, M.
    2006 Past and Current Trends in Sign Language Research. Language & Communication26:168–192. 10.1016/j.langcom.2005.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2005.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  57. Vermeerbergen, M. and Nilsson, A. L.
    2018 Introduction. InA Bibliography of Sign Languages, 2008–2017, A. Aarssen , R. Genis and E. van der Veken , (eds). Leiden: Brill. https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004376632/front-5.xml
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Villameriel, S.
    2008 Marcadores del Discurso en la Lengua de Signos Española y en el Español Oral: Un Estudio Comparativo. Actas completas del VIII Congreso de Lingüística General 1990–2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 2010 EN-CAMBIO y ES-DECIR: Origen de los Marcadores Discursivos de la Lengua de Signos en el Español Oral. Actas del IX Congreso de Lingüística General.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Webber, B. , Prasad, R. and Lee, A.
    2019 Ambiguity in Explicit Discourse Connectives. InProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2019) – Long papers, S. Dobnik , S. Chatzikyriakidis and V. Demberg (eds), 134–141. Gothenburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Zufferey, S. and Cartoni, B.
    2012 English and French Causal Connectives in Contrast. Languages in Contrast12(2):232–250. 10.1075/lic.12.2.06zuf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.12.2.06zuf [Google Scholar]
  62. Zufferey, S. and Degand, L.
    2017 Annotating the Meaning of Discourse Connectives in Multilingual Corpora. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory13(2):1–24. 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0022 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error