Sign Language & Linguistics - Volume 10, Issue 2, 2007

This introduction outlines the general theme of this issue of Sign Language & Linguistics: the identification of sentences and sentence boundaries in signed languages. First, several definitions of and perspectives on the unit ‘sentence’ stemming from the linguistic literature are discussed. Secondly, some of the problems with applying these ideas to signed languages will be discussed, as well as different methodological means of establishing a sentence unit in signed language data. Finally, the contributions in this volume are introduced in the light of this linguistic context.

It is argued in this paper that equative sentences in Finnish Sign Language (FinSL) conform to the general schema of (NP) NP+(PI+)NP, parenthesis marking optionality of elements. With respect to this schema, it is further argued, (a) that the function of the first NP in equative sentences is always topic; (b) that topics are marked syntactically, prosodically, and morphologically in FinSL; (c) that the preferred organisation of equative sentences in general is topic-comment; (d) that there are two structurally distinct topic-comment structures in FinSL, one having the topic at the beginning of the clause and the other having the topic in the left-detached clause-external position; (e) that the double-indexing phenomenon (cf. pronoun copy) is functionally a means to increase textual cohesion; and (f) that the sign PI in equative sentences is a certainty expressing modal device, although it may be in the process of grammaticalising into a copula.

The question of sentence boundaries in sign language texts is approached by way of a case study in this paper. A short sample German Sign Language (DGS) text is segmented into elementary units and subjected to a functional analysis that identifies topics, predications, adjuncts and conjuncts as the constituents of textual units of a sentence or clause type, i.e. units with propositional content. Results largely agree with and partly refine the results of an earlier more intuitively based analysis. We then turn to a consideration of formal markings of sentence boundaries, reviewing a number of candidates for ‘boundary markers,’ i.e. specific manual signs, gestures, head nods, eye blinks, and dynamic features such as gaze direction, pauses, and transitions, inspecting if these co-occur with any consistency with the boundaries established on the basis of our consideration of propositional content. Results indicate that, while there is a certain correlation between sentence boundaries and the occurrence of these form elements, neither of these functions consistently or exclusively as boundary marker. Formal markings can be predicted to enter but not dominate the larger interpretative process of making sense of a signed text and recognizing its constituent sentences.

Linguists have suggested that non-manual and manual markers are used in sign languages to indicate prosodic and syntactic boundaries. However, little is known about how native signers interpret non-manual and manual cues with respect to sentence boundaries. Six native signers of British Sign Language (BSL) were asked to mark sentence boundaries in two narratives: one presented in BSL and one in Swedish Sign Language (SSL). For comparative analysis, non-signers undertook the same tasks. Results indicated that both native signers and non-signers were able to use visual cues effectively in segmentation and that their decisions were not dependent on knowledge of the signed language. Signed narratives contain visible cues to their prosodic structure which are available to signers and non-signers alike.