This paper examines backgrounding strategies for human agents in Catalan Sign Language, that is, constructions featuring human agents that are non-referential. We identify and analyze four types of agent-backgrounding strategies: subjectless constructions, indefinite pronouns, the impersonal axis, and general nouns. Extending on previous work, we offer a description and a semantico-pragmatic analysis of each construction.
{"title":"Agent-backgrounding in Catalan Sign Language (LSC)","authors":"Gemma Barberà, P. C. Hofherr, J. Quer","doi":"10.1075/SLL.00023.BAR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/SLL.00023.BAR","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper examines backgrounding strategies for human agents in Catalan Sign Language, that is, constructions\u0000 featuring human agents that are non-referential. We identify and analyze four types of agent-backgrounding strategies: subjectless\u0000 constructions, indefinite pronouns, the impersonal axis, and general nouns. Extending on previous work, we offer a description and\u0000 a semantico-pragmatic analysis of each construction.","PeriodicalId":43398,"journal":{"name":"Sign Language & Linguistics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44314523","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Meltem Kelepir, Asli Özkul, Elvan Tamyürek Özparlak
This paper investigates agent-backgrounding constructions in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). TİD displays many of the agent-backgrounding strategies reported in the literature that signed (and spoken) languages employ (Barberà & Cabredo Hofherr, this volume). Use of non-specific indefinite pronominals is a major strategy, and this paper is the first study that identifies these forms in TİD. Moreover, we show that TİD has ways of marking clusivity distinctions of indefinite arguments, and has a special sign that derives exclusive indefinite pronominals, other. We argue that (i) whereas lateral-high R-locus is unambiguously associated with non-specificity, non-high (lateral and central) loci are underspecified in terms of specificity; (ii) the R-locus of indefinite arguments observed in agent-backgrounding contexts in TİD consists of two spatial features [+high] and [+lateral] which express non-specificity and exclusivity. This study further shows that clusivity, usually associated with personal pronouns, must be extended to indefinite pronouns.
{"title":"Agent-backgrounding in Turkish Sign Language (TİD)","authors":"Meltem Kelepir, Asli Özkul, Elvan Tamyürek Özparlak","doi":"10.1075/SLL.00020.KEL","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/SLL.00020.KEL","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper investigates agent-backgrounding constructions in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). TİD displays many of the\u0000 agent-backgrounding strategies reported in the literature that signed (and spoken) languages employ (Barberà & Cabredo Hofherr, this volume). Use of non-specific indefinite pronominals is a major\u0000 strategy, and this paper is the first study that identifies these forms in TİD. Moreover, we show that TİD has ways of marking\u0000 clusivity distinctions of indefinite arguments, and has a special sign that derives exclusive indefinite pronominals,\u0000 other. We argue that (i) whereas lateral-high R-locus is unambiguously associated with non-specificity, non-high\u0000 (lateral and central) loci are underspecified in terms of specificity; (ii) the R-locus of indefinite arguments observed in\u0000 agent-backgrounding contexts in TİD consists of two spatial features [+high] and [+lateral] which express non-specificity and\u0000 exclusivity. This study further shows that clusivity, usually associated with personal pronouns, must be extended to indefinite\u0000 pronouns.","PeriodicalId":43398,"journal":{"name":"Sign Language & Linguistics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41701633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper presents a semiotic study of the distribution of a type of size depiction in lexical signs in six sign languages. Recently, a growing number of studies are focusing on the distribution of two representation techniques, i.e. the use of entity handshapes and handling handshapes for the depiction of hand-held tools (e.g. Ortega et al. 2014). Padden et al. (2013) find that there is cross-linguistic variation in the use of this pair of representation techniques. This study looks at variation in a representation technique that has not been systematically studied before, i.e. the delimitation of a stretch of space to depict the size of a referent, or space-based distance for size depiction. It considers the question whether the cross-linguistic variation in the use of this representation technique is governed by language-specific patterning as well (cf. Padden et al. 2013). This study quantifies and compares the occurrence of space-based distance for size depiction in the lexicons of six sign languages, three of Western European origin, and three of West African origin. It finds that sign languages differ significantly from each other in their frequency of use of this depiction type. This result thus corroborates that the selection and distribution of representation techniques does not solely depend on features of the depicted image, but also on language-specific patterning in the distribution of representation techniques, and it adds another dimension of iconic depiction in which sign languages may vary from each other (in addition to the entity/handling handshape distinction). Moreover, the results appear to be areally defined, with the three European languages using this representation technique significantly more often than the three African languages.
本文从符号学的角度研究了六种手语词汇符号中一种尺寸描述的分布。最近,越来越多的研究集中在两种表示技术的分布上,即使用实体手型和处理手型来描述手持工具(例如Ortega et al. 2014)。Padden et al.(2013)发现在使用这对表示技术时存在跨语言差异。这项研究着眼于以前没有系统研究过的表示技术的变化,即划分一段空间来描绘一个参考物的大小,或者基于空间的距离来描述大小。它考虑的问题是,使用这种表示技术的跨语言差异是否也受特定语言模式的支配(参见Padden et al. 2013)。本研究量化并比较了六种手语词汇中基于空间距离的大小描述,三种来自西欧,三种来自西非。研究发现,手语在使用这种描述类型的频率上存在显著差异。因此,这一结果证实了表征技术的选择和分布不仅取决于所描绘图像的特征,还取决于表征技术分布中的语言特定模式,并且它增加了符号描述的另一个维度,其中手语可能彼此不同(除了实体/处理手形的区别)。此外,结果似乎是真正明确的,三种欧洲语言使用这种表示技术的频率明显高于三种非洲语言。
{"title":"Cross-linguistic variation in space-based distance for size depiction in the lexicons of six sign\u0000 languages","authors":"Victoria Nyst","doi":"10.1075/SLL.00024.NYS","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/SLL.00024.NYS","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper presents a semiotic study of the distribution of a type of size depiction in lexical signs in six sign\u0000 languages. Recently, a growing number of studies are focusing on the distribution of two representation techniques, i.e. the use\u0000 of entity handshapes and handling handshapes for the depiction of hand-held tools (e.g. Ortega\u0000 et al. 2014). Padden et al. (2013) find that there is cross-linguistic\u0000 variation in the use of this pair of representation techniques. This study looks at variation in a representation technique that\u0000 has not been systematically studied before, i.e. the delimitation of a stretch of space to depict the size of a referent, or\u0000 space-based distance for size depiction. It considers the question whether the cross-linguistic variation in\u0000 the use of this representation technique is governed by language-specific patterning as well (cf. Padden et al. 2013).\u0000 This study quantifies and compares the occurrence of space-based distance for size depiction in\u0000 the lexicons of six sign languages, three of Western European origin, and three of West African origin. It finds that sign\u0000 languages differ significantly from each other in their frequency of use of this depiction type. This result thus corroborates\u0000 that the selection and distribution of representation techniques does not solely depend on features of the depicted image, but\u0000 also on language-specific patterning in the distribution of representation techniques, and it adds another dimension of iconic\u0000 depiction in which sign languages may vary from each other (in addition to the entity/handling handshape distinction). Moreover,\u0000 the results appear to be areally defined, with the three European languages using this representation technique significantly more\u0000 often than the three African languages.","PeriodicalId":43398,"journal":{"name":"Sign Language & Linguistics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46775568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}