Volume 25, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper investigates content questions and the paradigm of question words in Czech Sign Language (český znakový jazyk – ČZJ). While this topic has been investigated for a fair number of other sign languages, a comprehensive study for ČZJ is still missing. Our aim is to fill this gap. In the absence of a representative corpus for ČZJ, we use data from the most extensive electronic dictionary database (Dictio), developed at the Masaryk University in Brno. We offer a basic description of the ČZJ interrogative strategies for content questions. In doing so, we also situate the language within the typology of sign language interrogatives: we classify ČZJ as a language with a rich paradigm of question words, and we identify the basic syntactic position of question words as sentence-final. Furthermore, we outline three morphological types of ČZJ question words: simple, complex, and derived.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abner, Natasha
    2011 Wh-words that go bump in the right. InMary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer & Barbara Tomaszewicz (eds.), Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics28, 24–32. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aboh, Enoch, Roland Pfau & Ulrike Zeshan
    2005 When a wh-word is not a wh-word: The case of Indian Sign Language. InTanmoy Bhattacharya (ed.), The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, 11–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110186185.11
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110186185.11 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir & Wendy Sandler
    2005 The paradox of sign language morphology. Language81(2). 301–344. 10.1353/lan.2005.0043
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0043 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler
    2004 Morphological universals and the sign language type. InGeert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology, 19–39. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Battison, Robin
    1978Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring: Linstok Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brennan, Mary
    1990Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brentari, Diane & Carol Padden
    2001 Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A language with multiple origins. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages: A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation, 87–119. Mehwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410601513‑10
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601513-10 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brentari, Diane & Petra Eccarius
    2010 Handshape contrasts in sign language phonology. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 284–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.014 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cecchetto, Carlo
    2012 Sentence types. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 292–315. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110261325.292
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.292 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dryer, Matthew S.
    2013 Position of interrogative phrases in content questions. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online atwals.info/chapter/93, accessed on2021-08-10.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Feist, Timothy Richard
    2011A grammar of Skolt Saami. Manchester: University of Manchester PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fischer, Susan & Yutaka Osugi
    1998Feature movement in wh-questions: Evidence from sign languages. Paper presented at the6th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Washington, DC.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fischer, Susan
    2006 Questions and negation in American Sign Language. InUlrike Zeshan (ed.), Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages, 70–90. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Galloway, Teresa
    2012Distinguishing correlatives from internally headed relative clauses in ASL. Paper presented atSemantics of Under-represented Languages 7, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hronová, Anna
    2002 Poznáváme český znakový jazyk 3 (tázací věty). Specialní pedagogika12(2). 113–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Karlík, Petr & Roland Meyer
    2017 Tázací zájmeno. InPetr Karlík, Marek Nekula & Jana Pleskalová (eds.), CzechEncy – Nový encyklopedický slovník češtiny. Brno: Masaryk University. Available athttps://www.czechency.org/slovnik/TÁZACÍ/ZÁJMENO, accessed on2021-8-27.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi
    1979The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kubuş, Okan
    2010Relative clause constructions in Turkish Sign Language. Poster presented atTheoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lepic, Ryan
    2015Motivation in morphology: Lexical patterns in ASL and English. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Liddell, Scott & Robert Johnson
    1986 American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory4(4). 445–513. 10.1007/BF00134470
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134470 [Google Scholar]
  21. Mandel, Mark
    1981Phonotactics and morphophonology in American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Masaryk University
    Masaryk University 2020Dictio: Multilingual online dictionary. Available athttps://www.dictio.info/
    [Google Scholar]
  23. McKee, Rachel
    2006 Aspects of interrogatives and negation in New Zealand Sign Language. InUlrike Zeshan (ed.), Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages, 70–90. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Meir, Irit, Mark Aronoff, Wendy Sandler & Carol Padden
    2010 Sign languages and compounding. InSergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, 301–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.311.23mei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.311.23mei [Google Scholar]
  25. Morgan, Michael
    2006 Interrogatives and negatives in Japanese Sign Language (JSL). InUlrike Zeshan (ed.), Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages, 91–127. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Padden, Carol
    1998 The ASL lexicon. Sign Language & Linguistics, 1(1). 39–60. 10.1075/sll.1.1.04pad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.1.1.04pad [Google Scholar]
  27. Petronio, Karen & Diane Lillo-Martin
    1997 Wh-movement and the position of Spec CP: evidence from American Sign Language. Language73. 18–57. 10.2307/416592
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416592 [Google Scholar]
  28. Pfau, Roland, & Josep Quer
    2010 Nonmanuals: their grammatical and prosodic roles. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 381–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.018 [Google Scholar]
  29. Pfau, Roland
    2016 Morphology. InAnne Baker, Beppie van den Bogaerde, Roland Pfau & Trude Schermer (eds.), The linguistics of sign languages. An introduction, 197–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.199.09pfa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.199.09pfa [Google Scholar]
  30. Pospíšilová, Marie
    2012 Tázací výrazy v českém znakovém jazyce. Prague: Charles University BA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Quadros, Ronice Müller de
    2003 Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. InAnne Baker, Beppie van den Bogaerde & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives in sign language research. Selected papers from TISLR 2000, 141–162. Hamburg: Signum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2006 Questions in Brazilian Sign Language (LSB). InUlrike Zeshan (ed.), Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages, 270–283. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Quer, Josep, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Carlo Geraci, Meltem Kelepir, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach
    (eds.) 2017SignGram blueprint: A guide to sign language grammar writing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501511806
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501511806 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2006Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sandler, Wendy
    1989Phonological representation of the sign: linearity and non-linearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110250473
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110250473 [Google Scholar]
  36. Santoro, Mirko
    2018Compounds in sign languages: The case of Italian and French Sign Language. Paris: School of Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Spencer, Andrew
    2016 Two morphologies or one?: Inflection versus word-formation. InAndrew Hippisley & Gregory Stump (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology, 27–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139814720.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.002 [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Herreweghe, Mieke & Myriam Vermeerbergen
    2006 Interrogatives and negatives in Flemish Sign Language. InUlrike Zeshan (ed.), Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages, 70–90. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Vlášková, Lucia & Hana Strachoňová
    2021 Sign language lexicography: a case study of an online dictionary. Slovenščina 2.0: Empirical, Applied and Interdisciplinary Research9(1). 90–122. 10.4312/slo2.0.2021.1.90‑122
    https://doi.org/10.4312/slo2.0.2021.1.90-122 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
    1996 Evidence for the function and structure of wh-clefts in American Sign Language. InWilliam H. Edmondson & Ronnie B. Wilbur (eds.), International review of sign linguistics, 209–256. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Zeshan, Ulrike
    2002 Towards a notion of ‘word’ in sign languages. InRobert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 153–179. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2004 Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Language80(1). 7–39. 10.1353/lan.2004.0050
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0050 [Google Scholar]
  43. (ed.) 2006aInterrogative and negative constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_453832
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_453832 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2006b Negative and interrogative structures in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). InUlrike Zeshan (ed.), Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages, 128–164. Nijmegen: Ishara Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_453832
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_453832 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): compounds; content questions; Czech Sign Language; non-manuals; question words
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