1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Sign Language & Linguistics
  4. Volume 28, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 28, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Topic is often marked only by prosody across languages. In sign languages, prosody is expressed by features similar to those in speech: i.e., sign duration, velocity and amplitude of movement (cf. slope and range of pitch). Topicalized signs usually occur sentence-initially, are followed by a pause, and may show longer duration than nontopics. We used pausing and duration characteristics to resolve a puzzle concerning the status of OSV sentences in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS): are they a nonmanually unmarked variant of non-manually marked topic sentences (O,SV), or are they a within-clause variant of the basic SOV order serving an as-yet-unknown discourse function? We investigated the temporal parameters of prosodic cues of 160 sentences produced by a fluent ÖGS signer: 40 in each of four conditions — SOV, OSV, S,OV, and O,SV. Overt topic marking effects on signing dynamics consisted of (1) lengthening of the sentence-initial topic phrases, causing a delay of the onset of the argument following the topic-marked item, and (2) a shortened duration of the noun phrase following the topic-marked item. Critically, the initial argument of OSV sentences did not show these prosodic cues, indicating that the initial argument O is not treated as being the same kind of topic as in the non-manually marked O,SV sentences. In accordance with the previous literature on pausing and lack thereof, we suggest that OSV might be akin to spoken German scrambling (within-clause movement), although the function performed remains to be investigated. The findings characterize parameters of temporal structure in the physical markers of topic in ÖGS and point to cross-linguistic variability in prosodic marking for topicalized structures.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.23003.kre
2024-11-18
2026-05-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sll.23003.kre
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aarons, Debra
    1994 Aspects of syntax of American Sign Language. Boston: Boston University PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 1996 Topics and topicalization in American Sign Language. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics30(1). 65–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aboh, Enoch O.
    2007a Focused versus non-focused wh-phrases. InKatharina Hartmann & Malte Zimmermann (eds.), Focus strategies in African languages: The interaction of focus and grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic, 287–314. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110199093.5.287
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199093.5.287 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2007b Leftward focus versus rightward focus: The Kwa-Bantu conspiracy. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics151. 81–104.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 2010 Information structure begins with the numeration. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics21. 12–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 2016 Information structure: A cartographic perspective. InCaroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 147–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Aldridge, Edith
    2018 C-T inheritance and the left periphery in Old Japanese. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics3(1). 26.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Baayen, R. Harald, Douglas J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates
    2008 Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language59(4). 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bade, Nadine & Konstantin Sachs
    2019 EXH passes on alternatives: A comment on Fox and Spector (2018). Natural Language Semantics271. 19–45. 10.1007/s11050‑019‑9149‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-9149-7 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baker-Shenk, Charlotte L.
    1983 A microanalysis of the nonmanual components of questions in American Sign Language. Berkeley: University of California PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Baker, Charlotte & Dennis Cokely
    1980 American Sign Language: a teacher’s resource text on grammar and culture. Silver Spring, MD: TJ Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Benjamin M. Bolker & Steven C. Walker
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software671. 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  13. Beckman, Mary E. & Janet B. Pierrehumbert
    1986 Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook31. 255–309. 10.1017/S095267570000066X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S095267570000066X [Google Scholar]
  14. Bianchi, Valentina, Giuliano Bocci & Silvio Cruschina
    2016 Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and evaluative implicatures. Semantics & Pragmatics9(3). 1–54. 10.3765/sp.9.3
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bogliotti, Caroline & Frederic Isel
    2021 Manual and spoken cues in French Sign Language’s lexical access: Evidence from mouthing in a sign-picture priming paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology121. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655168
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655168 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bolinger, Dwight
    1985 Intonation and its parts: melody in spoken English. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9781503622906
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503622906 [Google Scholar]
  17. Boyes Braem, Penny
    1999 Rhythmic temporal patterns in the signing of deaf early and later learners of Swiss German Sign Language. Language & Speech42(2–3). 177–208. 10.1177/00238309990420020301
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020301 [Google Scholar]
  18. Braun, Bettina
    2006 Phonetics and phonology of thematic contrast in German. Language and Speech49(4). 451–493. 10.1177/00238309060490040201
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309060490040201 [Google Scholar]
  19. Brentari, Diane
    1998 A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Brentari, Diane & Laurinda Crossley
    2002 Prosody on the hands and face: Evidence from American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics5(2). 105–130. 10.1075/sll.5.2.03bre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.5.2.03bre [Google Scholar]
  21. Brentari, Diane, Carolina González, Amanda Seidl & Ronnie B. Wilbur
    2011 Sensitivity to visual prosodic cues in signers and nonsigners. Language & Speech54(1). 49–72. 10.1177/0023830910388011
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910388011 [Google Scholar]
  22. Brozdowski, Chris & Emmorey, Karen
    2023 Using transitional information in sign and gesture perception. Acta Psychologica2361. 103923. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103923
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103923 [Google Scholar]
  23. Büring, Daniel
    1997 The meaning of topic and focus: The 59th street bridge accent. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 2016a (Contrastive) Topic. InCaroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 64–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.002 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2016b Intonation and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226269.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226269.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Calderone, Chiara
    2020 Can you retrieve it? Pragmatic, morpho-syntactic and prosodic features in sentence topic types in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Venice: Università Ca’Foscari PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Capek, Cheryl M., Dafydd Waters, Bencie Woll, Mairéad MacSweeney, Michael J. Brammer, Philip K. McGuire, Anthony S. David & Ruth Campbell
    2008 Hand and mouth: Cortical correlates of lexical processing in British Sign Language and speechreading English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience20(7). 1220–1234. 10.1162/jocn.2008.20084
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20084 [Google Scholar]
  28. Churng, Sarah
    2011 Syntax and prosodic consequences in ASL: Evidence from multiple WH-questions. Sign Language & Linguistics14(1). 9–48. 10.1075/sll.14.1.03chu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.14.1.03chu [Google Scholar]
  29. Coerts, Jane
    1992 Nonmanual grammatical markers: An analysis of interrogatives, negations and topicalizations in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Constant, Noah
    2012 Topic abstraction as the source for nested alternatives. A conservative semantics for contrastive topic. InNathan Arnett & Ryan Bennett (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL)301, 120–130. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 2014 Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Coulter, Geoffrey R.
    1993 Phrase-level prosody in ASL: Final lengthening and phrasal contours. InGeoffrey R. Coulter (ed.), Phonetics and phonology: Current issues in ASL phonology, 263–272. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑193270‑1.50017‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-193270-1.50017-0 [Google Scholar]
  33. Crasborn, Onno, Els van der Kooij, Johan Ros & Helen de Hoop
    2009 Topic agreement in NGT (Sign Language of the Netherlands). The Linguistic Review26(2–3). 355–370. 10.1515/tlir.2009.013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2009.013 [Google Scholar]
  34. Dachkovsky, Svetlana & Wendy Sandler
    2009 Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language & Speech52(2–3). 287–314. 10.1177/0023830909103175
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909103175 [Google Scholar]
  35. Dachkovsky, Svetlana, Christina Healy & Wendy Sandler
    2013 Visual intonation in two sign languages. Phonology30(2). 211–252. 10.1017/S0952675713000122
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675713000122 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ebbinghaus, Horst & Jens Heβmann
    2001 Sign language as multidimensional communication: Why manual signs, mouthings, and mouth gestures are three different things. InPenny Boyes Braem & Rachel Sutton-Spence (eds.), The hands are the head of the mouth. The mouth as articulator in sign languages, 133–151. Hamburg: Signum Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Esposito, Anna & Maria Marinaro
    2007 What pauses can tell us about speech and gesture partnership. InAnna Esposito, Maja Bratanić, Eric Keller & Maria Marinaro (eds.), Fundamentals of verbal and nonverbal communication and the biometric issue, NATO Publishing Series, Sub-Series E: Human and Societal Dynamics — Vol. 18., 45–57. The Netherlands: IOS Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Fenlon, Jordan, Tanya Denmark, Ruth Campbell & Bencie Woll
    2007 Seeing sentence boundaries. Sign Language & Linguistics10(2). 177–200. 10.1075/sll.10.2.06fen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.10.2.06fen [Google Scholar]
  39. Fenlon, Jordan & Diane Brentari
    2021 Prosody: Theoretical and experimental perspectives. InJosep Quer, Roland Pfau & Annika Herrmann (eds.), Routledge handbook of theoretical and experimental sign language research, 70–94. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315754499‑4
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315754499-4 [Google Scholar]
  40. Féry, Caroline
    2006 The prosody of topicalization. On information structure, meaning and form: Generalizations across languages. InKerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 69–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.100.06fer
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.06fer [Google Scholar]
  41. Féry, Caroline & Vieri Samek-Lodovici
    2006 Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language821. 131–150. 10.1353/lan.2006.0031
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0031 [Google Scholar]
  42. Fischer, Susan A.
    1975 Influences on word-order change in American Sign Language. InCharles Li (ed.), Word order and word order change, 1–25. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Fox, Danny & Benjamin Spector
    2018 Economy and embedded exhaustification. Natural Language Semantics261. 1–50. 10.1007/s11050‑017‑9139‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9139-6 [Google Scholar]
  44. Friedman, Lynn
    1976a Phonology of a soundless language: Phonological structure of American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 1976b The manifestation of subject, object, and topic in American Sign Language. InCharles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 127–148. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Fry, Dennis B.
    1955 Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America27(4). 765–768. 10.1121/1.1908022
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1908022 [Google Scholar]
  47. 1958 Experiments in the perception of stress. Language & Speech1(2). 126–152. 10.1177/002383095800100207
     https://doi.org/10.1177/002383095800100207 [Google Scholar]
  48. Greenberg, Joseph H.
    (ed.) 1963 Universals of language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Grosjean, François
    1979 A study of timing in a manual and a spoken language: American Sign Language and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research8(4). 379–405. 10.1007/BF01067141
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067141 [Google Scholar]
  50. Grosjean, François & Harlan Lane
    1977 Pauses and syntax in American Sign Language. Cognition5(2). 101–117. 10.1016/0010‑0277(77)90006‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(77)90006-3 [Google Scholar]
  51. Grosjean, François & Maryann Collins
    1979 Breathing, pausing and reading. Phonetica36(2). 98–114. 10.1159/000259950
     https://doi.org/10.1159/000259950 [Google Scholar]
  52. Gussenhoven, Carlos
    2004 “The phonology of tone and intonation. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511616983
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616983 [Google Scholar]
  53. Hausch, Christian
    2008 Topickonstruktionen und Satzstrukturen in der ÖGS [Topic constructions and sentence structures in ÖGS]. InGebärdensprachlinguistik und Gebärdensprachkommunikation. Referate der VERBAL-Sektion “Gebärdensprachlinguistik und -kommunikation” innerhalb der 34. Österreichischen Linguistiktagung an der Universität Klagenfurt [Sign language linguistics and sign language communication], 85–94. Klagenfurt: Veröffentlichungen des Zentrums für Gebärdensprache und Hörbehindertenkommunikation der Universität Klagenfurt.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Heim, Johannes
    2019 Commitment and engagement: The role of intonation in deriving speech acts. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Heim, Johannes & Martina Wiltschko
    2020 Interaction at the prosody–syntax interface. InGerrit Kentner & Joost Kremers (eds.), Prosody in syntactic coding, 189–218. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110650532‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110650532-007 [Google Scholar]
  56. Ichida, Yasuhiro
    2010 Introduction to Japanese Sign Language: iconicity in language. Studies in Language Sciences91. 3–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Hunger, Barbara, Katharina Schalber & Ronnie B. Wilbur
    2000 Bub wollen lernen, wollen? Further investigations into the modals in the Styrian dialect of Austrian Sign Language with a particular focus on repetition and pauses. Poster presented at theTheoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 7 conference, Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Hunger, Barbara & Katharina Schalber
    2001 bub fussballspielen kÖnnen — Untersuchungen zur Stellung der Modalverben in der steirischen Variante der österreichischen Gebärdensprache. Grazer Linguistische Studien561. 37–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Jacobs, Joachim
    1997 I-Topikalisierung [I-topicalization]. Linguistische Berichte1681. 91–133.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Janzen, Terry
    1995 Differentiating topic from subjects in ASL. InMarie Christine Aubin (ed.), Perspectives d’avenir en traduction [Future prospects in translation], 57–74. Winnipeg: Presses Universitaires de Saint-Boniface.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 1997 Pragmatic and syntactic features of topics in American Sign Language. Meta. Numéro special: L’interprétation en langues des signes [Special issue: Interpretation in sign languages] 42(3). 502–514. 10.7202/003254ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/003254ar [Google Scholar]
  62. 1999 The grammaticization of topics in American Sign Language. Studies in Language23(2). 271–306. 10.1075/sl.23.2.03jan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23.2.03jan [Google Scholar]
  63. Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri
    2007 Australian Sign Language: an introduction to sign language linguistics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607479
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607479 [Google Scholar]
  64. Johnston, Trevor, Jane Van Roekel & Adam Schembri
    2016 On the conventionalization of mouth actions in Australian Sign Language. Language and Speech59(1). 3–42. 10.1177/0023830915569334
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830915569334 [Google Scholar]
  65. Katz, Jonah & Elisabeth Selkirk
    2011 Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language87(4). 771–816. 10.1353/lan.2011.0076
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0076 [Google Scholar]
  66. Kegl, Judy
    1976 Relational grammar and American Sign Language. Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge, MA: MIT [Published 2004 inSign Language & Linguistics7(2). 131–170].
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 1977 ASL syntax: Research in progress and proposed research. Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge, MA: MIT [Published 2004 inSign Language & Linguistics7(2). 173–206].
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Keleş, Onur & Kadir Gökgöz
    2022 Expression of aboutness subject topic Constructions in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) narratives. Hrvatska revija za rehabilitacijska istraživanja [The Croatian Review of Rehabilitation Research], special issue: Sign Language, Deaf Culture, and Bilingual Education, Vol 58. 194–205. 10.31299/hrri.58.si.10
     https://doi.org/10.31299/hrri.58.si.10 [Google Scholar]
  69. Kimmelman, Vadim
    2015 Topics and topic prominence in two sign languages. Journal of Pragmatics871. 156–170. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  70. Kimmelman, Vadim & Roland Pfau
    2016 Information structure in sign languages. InCaroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 814–833. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.001 [Google Scholar]
  71. Kishimoto, Hideki
    2018 Sinhala focus concord constructions from a discourse-syntactic perspective. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics3(1). 9.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Kratzer, Angelika & Elisabeth Selkirk
    2020 Deconstructing information structure. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics5(1). 113.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Krebs, Julia
    2017 The syntax and the processing of argument relations in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Salzburg: University of Salzburg PhD dissertation. 10.1075/sll.00006.kre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00006.kre [Google Scholar]
  74. Krebs, Julia & Lydia Fenkart
    2024 Einführung in die Grammatik der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache. Das Handbuch [Introduction to the grammar of Austrian Sign Language. The handbook]. Guntramsdorf: Verlag Fenkart.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Krebs, Julia, Evie Malaia, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Dietmar Roehm
    2018 Subject preference emerges as cross-modal strategy for linguistic processing. Brain Research16911. 105–117. 10.1016/j.brainres.2018.03.029
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2018.03.029 [Google Scholar]
  76. 2020 Interaction between topic marking and subject preference strategy in sign language processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience351. 466–484. 10.1080/23273798.2019.1667001
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1667001 [Google Scholar]
  77. Krebs, Julia & Ronnie B. Wilbur
    . in prep. a. Word order in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS).
     [Google Scholar]
  78. . in prep. b. Word order in the context of extensional and intensional events in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS).
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Krebs, Julia, Ronnie B. Wilbur, Phillip M. Alday & Dietmar Roehm
    2019 The impact of transitional movements and non-manual markings on the disambiguation of locally ambiguous argument structures in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Language and Speech62(4). 652–680. 10.1177/0023830918801399
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830918801399 [Google Scholar]
  80. Krebs, Julia, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Dietmar Roehm
    2017 Two agreement markers in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language & Linguistics20(1). 27–54. 10.1075/sll.20.1.02kre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20.1.02kre [Google Scholar]
  81. 2020 Distributional properties of an agreement marker in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Linguistics58(4). 1151–1194. 10.1515/ling‑2020‑0159
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0159 [Google Scholar]
  82. Lackner, Andrea
    2013 Linguistic functions of head and body movements in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). A corpus-based analysis. Graz: University of Graz PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Ladd, Robert D.
    1988 Declination ‘Reset’ and the hierarchical organization of utterances. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America84(2). 530–544. 10.1121/1.396830
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.396830 [Google Scholar]
  84. Ladefoged, Peter
    1982 Syllables and suprasegmental features. InA course in phonetics, 243–257. Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994 Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  86. Liddell, Scott K.
    1977 An investigation into the syntax of American Sign Language. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 1978 Nonmanual signals and relative clauses in American Sign Language. InPatricia Siple (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 59–90. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 1980 American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112418260
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112418260 [Google Scholar]
  89. Liddell, Scott K. & Robert E. Johnson
    1989 American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies64(1).195–277. 10.1353/sls.1989.0027
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1989.0027 [Google Scholar]
  90. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Richard P. Meier
    2011 On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theoretical linguistics37(3–4). 95–141. 10.1515/thli.2011.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  91. Malaia, Evie
    2014 It still isn’t over: Event boundaries in language and perception. Language and Linguistics Compass8(3). 89–98. 10.1111/lnc3.12071
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12071 [Google Scholar]
  92. 2017 Current and future methodologies for quantitative analysis of information transfer in sign language and gesture data. Behavioral and Brain Sciences401. 10.1017/S0140525X15002988
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15002988 [Google Scholar]
  93. Malaia, Evie & Ronnie B. Wilbur
    2012 Kinematic signatures of telic and atelic events in ASL predicates. Language and Speech55(3). 407–421. 10.1177/0023830911422201
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911422201 [Google Scholar]
  94. Malaia, Evie, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Marina Milković
    2013 Kinematic parameters of signed verbs. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research56(5). 1677–1688. 10.1044/1092‑4388(2013/12‑0257)
     https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0257) [Google Scholar]
  95. Malaia, Evie, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Christine Weber-Fox
    2013 Event end-point primes the undergoer argument: Neurobiological bases of event structure processing. InBoban Arsenijević, Berit Gehrke & Rafael Marín (eds.), Studies in the composition and decomposition of event predicates, 231–248. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑5983‑1_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5983-1_9 [Google Scholar]
  96. Malaia, Evie, Joshua D. Borneman & Ronnie B. Wilbur
    2016 Assessment of information content in visual signal: Analysis of optical flow fractal complexity. Visual Cognition24(3). 246–251. 10.1080/13506285.2016.1225142
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2016.1225142 [Google Scholar]
  97. McDonald, John, Rosalee Wolfe, Ronnie B. Wilbur, Robyn Moncrief, Evie Malaia, Sayuri Fujimoto, Souad Baowidan & Jessika Stec
    2016 A new tool to facilitate prosodic analysis of motion capture data and a data-driven technique for the improvement of avatar motion. Proceedings of Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC). 153–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. McIntire, Marina LaRay
    1980 Locatives in American Sign Language. Los Angeles: University of California PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Mohr, Susanne
    2012 The visual-gestural modality and beyond: Mouthings as a language contact phenomenon in Irish Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics15(2). 185–211. 10.1075/sll.15.2.01moh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.15.2.01moh [Google Scholar]
  100. Molnár, Valéria & Susanne Winkler
    2010 Edges and gaps: Contrast at the interfaces. Lingua1201. 1329–1415. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.010 [Google Scholar]
  101. Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler
    1999 Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech42(2–3). 143–176. 10.1177/00238309990420020201
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020201 [Google Scholar]
  102. Ni, Dawei
    2014 Topikkonstruktionen in der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache [Topic constructions in Austrian Sign Language]. Hamburg: University of Hamburg Master’s thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Nicodemus, Brenda
    2010 Prosodic markers and utterance boundaries in American Sign Language interpretation. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Padden, Carol
    1983 Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. San Diego: University of California PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 1988 Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Perlmutter, David M.
    1993 Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. InGeoffrey R. Coulter (ed.), Current issues in ASL phonology, 227–261. London: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑193270‑1.50016‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-193270-1.50016-9 [Google Scholar]
  107. Perniss, Pamela, David Vinson & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2020 Making sense of the hands and mouth: The role of “secondary” cues to meaning in British Sign Language and English. Cognitive Science44(7). e12868. 10.1111/cogs.12868
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12868 [Google Scholar]
  108. Pfau, Roland & Josep Quer
    2010 Nonmanuals: their grammatical and prosodic roles. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge language surveys), 381–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.018 [Google Scholar]
  109. Quinto-Pozos, David & Robert Adam
    2015 Sign languages in contact. InAdam Schembri & Ceil Lucas (eds.), Sociolinguistics and deaf communities, 29–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107280298.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107280298.003 [Google Scholar]
  110. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2018 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. [Computer software]. Retrieved fromhttps://cran.r-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Rizzi, Luigi
    1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. InLiliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  112. Rosenstein, Ofra
    2001 Israeli Sign Language — a topic prominent language. Haifa: University of Haifa Master’s thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Sandler, Wendy
    1999 Prosody in two natural language modalities. Language and Speech42(2–3). 127–142. 10.1177/00238309990420020101
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020101 [Google Scholar]
  114. 2012 Visual prosody. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook (HSK — Handbooks of linguistics and communication science), 55–76. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2006 Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
  116. Schalber, Katharina
    2006a What is the chin doing? An analysis of interrogatives in Austrian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics9(1/2). 133–150. 10.1075/sll.9.1‑2.08sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.9.1-2.08sch [Google Scholar]
  117. 2006b The phonological visibility of event structure in Austrian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics91. 207–231. 10.1075/sll.9.1.11sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.9.1.11sch [Google Scholar]
  118. 2015 Austrian Sign Language. InJulie Bakken Jepsen, Goedele De Clerck, Sam Lutalo-Kiingi & William B. McGregor (eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook, 105–128. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614518174‑009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614518174-009 [Google Scholar]
  119. Schalber, Katharina & Barbara Hunger
    2001 bub fussballspielen kÖnnen — Untersuchungen zur Stellung von Modalverben in der Steirischen Variante der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache [boy soccer play can — Studies on the sentence position of modal verbs in the Styrian variant of Austrian Sign Language]. Grazer Linguistische Studien561. 37–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. 2008 Possession in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS) — with existentials on the side. InPamela Perniss & Ulrike Zeshan (eds.), Possessive and existential constructions in sign languages, 151–180. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Skant, Andrea, Franz Dotter, Elisabeth Bergmeister, Marlene Hilzensauer, Manuela Hobel, Klaudia Krammer, Ingeborg Okorn, Christian Orasche, Reinhold Orter & Natalie Unterberger
    2002 Grammatik der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache [Grammar of Austrian Sign Language], Vol.41. Klagenfurt: Veröffentlichungen des Forschungszentrums für Gebärdensprache und Hörgeschädigtenkommunikation.
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Slade, Benjamin
    2018 History of focus-concord constructions and focus-associated particles in Sinhala, with comparison to Dravidian and Japanese. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics3(1). 2.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll
    1999 The linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167048
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167048 [Google Scholar]
  124. Szabolcsi, Anna
    1981 Compositionality in focus. Folia Linguistica151. 141–161. 10.1515/flin.1981.15.1‑2.141
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1981.15.1-2.141 [Google Scholar]
  125. Sze, Felix
    2011 Nonmanual markings for topic constructions in Hong Kong Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics14(1). 115–147. 10.1075/sll.14.1.07sze
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.14.1.07sze [Google Scholar]
  126. Tang, Gladys, Diane Brentari, Carolina González & Felix Sze
    2010 Cross-linguistic variation in prosodic cues. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge language surveys), 519–542. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Torrence, Harold
    2013 A promotion analysis of Wolof clefts. Syntax161. 176–215. 10.1111/synt.12000
     https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12000 [Google Scholar]
  128. Tyrone, Martha E., Hosung Nam, Elliot Saltzman, Gaurav Mathur & Louis Goldstein
    2010 Prosody and movement in American Sign Language: A task-dynamics approach. Speech Prosody 2010 Conference Proceedings. 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2010‑144
     https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2010-144 [Google Scholar]
  129. Valli, Clayton & Ceil Lucas
    2000 Linguistics of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Van der Kooij, Els, Onno Crasborn & Wim Emmerik
    2006 Explaining prosodic body leans in Sign Language of the Netherlands: pragmatics required. Journal of Pragmatics38(10). 1598–1614. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.07.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.07.006 [Google Scholar]
  131. Vinson, David P., Robin L. Thompson, Robert Skinner, Neil Fox & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2010 The hands and mouth do not always slip together in British Sign Language: Dissociating articulatory channels in the lexicon. Psychological Science21(8). 1158–1167. 10.1177/0956797610377340
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377340 [Google Scholar]
  132. Weast, Traci
    2008 Questions in American Sign Language: A quantitative analysis of raised and lowered eyebrows. Arlington, TX: University of Texas PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Whitman, John
    1997 Kakarimusubi from a comparative perspective. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 6. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
    1987 American Sign Language: linguistic and applied dimensions. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  135. 1994 Eyeblinks and ASL phrase structure. Sign Language Studies84(1). 221–240. 10.1353/sls.1994.0019
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1994.0019 [Google Scholar]
  136. 1999 Stress in ASL: Empirical evidence and linguistic issues. Language & Speech42(2–3). 229–250. 10.1177/00238309990420020501
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020501 [Google Scholar]
  137. 2000 Phonological and prosodic layering of non-manuals in American Sign Language. InHarlan Lane & Karen Emmorey (eds.), The signs of language revisited: Festschrift for Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 213–241. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. 2002 Phrase structure in ASL and ÖGS. InRolf Schulmeister & Heimo Reinitzer (eds.), Progress in sign language research. In honor of Siegmund Prillwitz, 235–247. Hamburg: Signum.
     [Google Scholar]
  139. 2005 Evidence from ASL and ÖGS for asymmetries in UG. InAnna Maria DiScuillo (ed.), UG and external systems: Language, brain and computation, 193–210Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.75.13wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.75.13wil [Google Scholar]
  140. 2009 Effects of varying rate of signing on ASL manual signs and non-manual markers. Language & Speech52(2–3). 245–285. 10.1177/0023830909103174
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909103174 [Google Scholar]
  141. 2012 Information structure. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook (HSK — Handbooks of linguistics and communication science), 462–489. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  142. 2021 Non-manual markers — theoretical and experimental perspectives. InJosep Quer, Roland Pfau & Annika Herrmann (eds.), Routledge handbook of theoretical and experimental sign language research, 530–565. London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  143. 2022 Prosody of sign languages. The Croatian Review of Rehabilitation Research581. 143–174. 10.31299/hrri.58.si.8
     https://doi.org/10.31299/hrri.58.si.8 [Google Scholar]
  144. Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Evie Malaia
    2008 Contributions of sign language research to gesture understanding: What can multimodal computational systems learn from sign language research. International Journal of Semantic Computing2(1). 5–19. 10.1142/S1793351X08000324
     https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793351X08000324 [Google Scholar]
  145. 2018 A new technique for analyzing narrative prosodic effects in sign languages using motion capture technology. InAnnika Hübl & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Linguistic foundations of narration in spoken and sign languages, 15–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.247.02wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.247.02wil [Google Scholar]
  146. Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Aleix M. Martínez
    2002 Physical correlates of prosodic structure in American Sign Language. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS)381. 693–704.
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Susan B. Nolen
    1986 The duration of syllables in ASL. Language & Speech29(3). 263–280. 10.1177/002383098602900306
     https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098602900306 [Google Scholar]
  148. Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Cynthia G. Patschke
    1998 Body leans and the marking of contrast in ASL. Journal of Pragmatics30(3). 275–303. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00003‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00003-4 [Google Scholar]
  149. Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Brenda S. Schick
    1987 The effects of linguistic stress on ASL signs. Language & Speech30(4). 301–323. 10.1177/002383098703000402
     https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098703000402 [Google Scholar]
  150. Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Howard N. Zelaznik
    1997 Kinematic correlates of stress and position in ASL. Paper presented atThe Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago, IL.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.23003.kre
Loading
The interaction of syntax, non-manuals, and prosodic cues as potential topic markers in Austrian Sign Language
Sign Language & Linguistics 28, 1 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.23003.kre
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.23003.kre
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.23003.kre
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Austrian Sign Language; language modality; layering; prosody; sign language; topic marking

Most Cited

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