1887
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Bringing together the areas of sign language semantics-pragmatics interface and discourse reference, this article offers a description of how indefiniteness and (non‑)specificity is encoded in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). By using a combined methodology of corpus data and grammatical tests, the present study shows that the encoding of indefiniteness and specificity in LSC is achieved by three main means, namely lexical signs, the use of nonmanuals, and the use of signing space. The basic primitives required to analyze specificity in LSC comprise wide scope, epistemicity, and partitivity. This article proposes an analysis of the use of signing space in contributing meaning and provides insights into the characterization of the abstract import of signing space.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.19.1.01bar
2016-08-29
2019-09-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abbott, Barbara
    1999 Support for a unique theory of definite descriptions. In Tanya Matthews & Devon Strolovitch (eds.), Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory IX, 1–15. Ithaca: Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bahan, Benjamin
    1996Nonmanual realization of agreement in American Sign Language. Boston: Boston University dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bahan, Benjamin , Judy Kegl , Dawn MacLaughlin & Carol Neidle
    1995 Convergent evidence for the structure of determiner phrases in American Sign Language. In Leslie Gabriele , Debra Hardison & Robert Westmoreland (eds.), FLSM VI. Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the formal linguistics society of Mid-America, vol. 2, 1–12. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barberà, Gemma
    2012The meaning of space in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Reference, specificity and structure in signed discourse. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University dissertation [Published as a monograph in 2015, Berlin & Nijmegen: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press].
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2014 Use and functions of spatial planes in Catalan Sign Language (LSC) discourse. Sign Language Studies14(2). 147–174. doi: 10.1353/sls.2014.0000
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2014.0000 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barberà, Gemma & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr
    . In preparation. Two indefinite pronouns in Catalan Sign Language (LSC).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barberà, Gemma & Josep Quer
    2013 Impersonal reference in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). In Laurence Meurant , Aurélie Sinte , Mieke van Herreweghe & Myriam Vermeerbergen (eds.), Sign language research, uses and practices: Crossing views on theoretical and applied sign language linguistics, 237–258. Berlin & Nijmegen: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bertone, Carmela
    2007La struttura del sintagma determinante nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS). Venice: Università Ca’ Foscari dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2009 The syntax of noun modification in Italian Sign language (LIS). University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics19[BR1] .
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bhat, Darbhe N.S
    2004Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Birner, Betty & Gregory Ward
    1998Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.40
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.40 [Google Scholar]
  12. Brentari, Diane
    1998A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chung, Sandra & William A. Ladusaw
    2004Restriction and saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Conlin, Frances , Paul Hagstrom & Carol Neidle
    2003 A particle of indefiniteness in American Sign Language. Linguistic Discovery2(1). 1–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Consten, Manfred
    2003 Towards a unified model of domain-bound reference. In Fredrich Lenz (ed.), Deictic conceptualisation of space, time and person, 223–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.112.12con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.112.12con [Google Scholar]
  16. Cormier, Kearsy
    2012 Pronouns. In Roland Pfau , Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 227–244. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dachkovsky, Svetlana & Wendy Sandler
    2009 Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech52(2/3). 287–314. doi: 10.1177/0023830909103175
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909103175 [Google Scholar]
  18. Davidson, Kathryn & Deanna Gagne
    2014 Vertical representation of quantifier domains. In Urtzi Etxeberria , Anamaria Falaus , Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung18, 110–127. Vitoria-Gasteiz.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Enç, Mürvet
    1991 The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry22(1). 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
    1990 Pragmatics of nonmanual behaviour in Danish Sign Language. In William Edmonson & Fred Karlsson (eds.), SLR’87. Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 121–128. Hamburg: Signum-Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1993Space in Danish Sign Language. The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2003 From pointing to reference and predication: Pointing signs, eyegaze, and head and body orientation in Danish Sign Language. In Sotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 269–292. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Etxeberria, Urtzi & Anastasia Giannakidou
    2014 Anti-specificity and the role of number: The case of Spanish ‘algún’/’algunos’. Paper presented at RALFe 2014 , Université Paris8, October 9.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Farkas, Donka
    2002 Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics19. 1–31. doi: 10.1093/jos/19.3.213
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.213 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fischer, Susan & Robert Johnson
    1982 [2012] Nominal markers in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics15(2). 243–250. doi: 10.1075/sll.15.2.04fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.15.2.04fis [Google Scholar]
  26. Fodor, Janet & Ivan Sag
    1982 Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy5. 355–398. doi: 10.1007/BF00351459
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351459 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fraurud, Kari
    1990 Definiteness and the processing of NPs in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics7. 395–433. doi: 10.1093/jos/7.4.395
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/7.4.395 [Google Scholar]
  28. Haspelmath, Martin
    1997Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Heim, Irene
    1982The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Herrmann, Annika
    2013Modal and focus particles in sign languages. A cross-linguistic study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9781614511816
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511816 [Google Scholar]
  31. von Heusinger, Klaus
    2002 Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics19. 245–274. doi: 10.1093/jos/19.3.245
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.245 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2011 Specificity. In Klaus von Heusinger , Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 1024-1057. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ionin, Tania
    2006 This is definitely specific: Specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics14. 175–234. doi: 10.1007/s11050‑005‑5255‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-5255-9 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kadmon, Nirit
    1990 Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy13. 273–324. doi: 10.1007/BF00627710
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627710 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kamp, Hans
    1981 A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Jeroen A.G. Groenendijk , Theo M.V. Janssen & Martin B.J. Stokhhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 227–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kamp, Hans & Ágnes Bende-Farkas
    2006Epistemic specificity from a communication-theoretical perspective. Manuscript, Universität Stuttgart.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi
    1979The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Koulidobrova, Elena
    2009 SELF: Intensifier and ‘long distance’ effects in ASL. Proceedings of ESSLLI 2009 , Bordeaux.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kuhn, Jeremy
    2014 Scope and domain of indefinites in American Sign Language. Paper presented at the Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory (FEAST) Colloquium , Venice, June 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Liddell, Scott
    1990 Four functions of a locus: reexamining the structure of space in ASL. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 176–198. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward Klima
    1991 Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Susan Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, Vol. 1: Linguistics, 191–210. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lyons, Christopher
    1999Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  43. Machado de Sá, Thaís , Guilherme Lourenço de Souza , Maria Luiza da Cunha Lima & Elidéa Lúcia Almeida Bernardino
    2012 Definiteness in Brazilian Sign Language: a study on weak and strong definites. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem10(19). 21–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. MacLaughlin, Dawn
    1997The structure of determiner phrases: Evidence from American Sign Language. Boston: Boston University dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Mathur, Gaurav
    1996A presuppositionality marker in ASL. Manuscript, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Matthewson, Lisa
    1998Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 2004 On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics70. 369–415. doi: 10.1086/429207
    https://doi.org/10.1086/429207 [Google Scholar]
  48. Morales-López, Esperanza , Rosa María Boldú-Menasanch , Jesus Amador Alonso-Rodríguez , Victoria Gras-Ferrer & Maria Ángeles Rodríguez-González
    2005 The verbal system of Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Sign Language Studies5(4). 441–496. doi: 10.1353/sls.2005.0018
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2005.0018 [Google Scholar]
  49. Mosella, Marta
    2012Les construccions relatives en llengua de signes catalana (LSC). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler
    1999 Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech42(2/3). 143–176. doi: 10.1177/00238309990420020201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020201 [Google Scholar]
  51. Partee, Barbara
    1970 Opacity, co-reference, and pronouns. Synthèse21(3–4). 359–385. doi: 10.1007/BF00484805
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00484805 [Google Scholar]
  52. Pfau, Roland & Josep Quer
    2010 Nonmanuals: Their grammatical and prosodic roles. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge language surveys), 381–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.018 [Google Scholar]
  53. Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
    2006Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages (Linguistics in Potsdam 24). Potsdam: Universitäts-Verlag [Available atopus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2006/1088/].
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Poesio, Massimo & Renata Vieira
    1998 A corpus-based investigation of definite description use. Computational Linguistics24(2). 183–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Prince, Ellen
    1992 The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.16.12pri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.12pri [Google Scholar]
  56. Rinfret, Julie
    2009L’association spatiale du nom en langue des signes québécoise: formes, fonctions et sens. Montréal: UQAM dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Roberts, Craige
    1989 Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy12. 683–721. doi: 10.1007/BF00632602
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00632602 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2003 Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy26. 287–350. doi: 10.1023/A:1024157132393
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393 [Google Scholar]
  59. Schlenker, Philippe & Jonathan Lamberton
    2012 Formal indices and iconicity in ASL. In Maria Aloni , Floris Roelofsen , Galit Weidman Sassoon , Katrin Schulz , Vadim Kimmelman & Matthijs Westera (eds.), Proceedings of 18th Amsterdam Colloquium 2011, LNCS 7218, 1–11. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Schlenker, Philippe , Jonathan Lamberton & Mirko Santoro
    2013 Iconic variables. Linguistics and Philosophy36(2). 91–149. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑013‑9129‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9129-1 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tang, Gladys & Felix Sze
    2002 Nominal expressions in Hong Kong Sign Language: Does modality make a difference?In Richard Meier , Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 296–320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.015 [Google Scholar]
  62. Wilbur, Ronnie
    1996 Focus and specificity in ASL structures containing self. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) Winter Meeting , San Diego, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 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 TISLR8, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2011 Focus on focus: A feature geometry for focus, definiteness, and specificity. Paper presented at the Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory (FEAST) Colloquium , Venice, June 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wilkinson, Erin
    2013 A functional description of self in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies13(4). 462–490. doi: 10.1353/sls.2013.0015
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2013.0015 [Google Scholar]
  66. Winston, Elisabeth
    1995 Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. In Karen Emmorey & Judy Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 87–114. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Zeshan, Ulrike
    2000Sign language in Indo-Pakistan: A description of a signed language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.101
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.101 [Google Scholar]
  68. 2004 Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Language80(1). 7–39. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0050
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0050 [Google Scholar]
  69. Zimmer, June & Cynthia Patschke
    1990 A class of determiners in ASL. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 201–210. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.19.1.01bar
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