Article published in:
The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 171–192

What about?

Fictive question-answer pairs for non-information-seeking functions across signed languages

| University of Barcelona, Spain

This chapter deals with the multifunctional use of the question-answer sequence, which constitutes a prototypical conversational and intersubjective structure, across signed languages. Specifically, I examine the use of polar and content questions, and their subsequent answers, for the expression of non-­information-seeking functions, namely topicality, conditionality, focus, connection, and relativization. The study is based on a qualitative analysis of Catalan Sign Language and published data on 30 signed languages. The analysis shows that the question-answer sequence has been grammaticalized and constitutes the unmarked or by-default option to encode these linguistic functions. I argue that the pattern forms a highly schematic symbolic unit and that the specific linguistic constructions, which are instances of fictive interaction, form a complex network.

Keywords: Catalan Sign Language, conditionality, connectives, focus, relativization, topicality
Published online: 01 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.09jar
References
Báez, I., & Cabeza, C
(2002) Construcciones interrogativas en LSE [Interrogative constructions in LSE]. In M. Veyrat Rigat & B. Gallardo Paúls (Eds.), Estudios Lingüísticos sobre la lengua de signos española (pp. 55–83). Valencia: Universidad de Valencia.Google Scholar
Baker-Shenk, C
(1983) A microanalysis of the non-manual components of questions in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M
[1975] (1981) The dialogic imagination (M. Holquist, ed., trans. C. Emerson, & M. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blyther, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M.H., Croft, W., Ellism, N., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T
(2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59 (Suppl. 1), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergman, B
(1984) Non-manual components of signed language: Some sentence types in Swedish Sign Language. In F. Loncke, P. Boyes-Braem, & Y. Lebrun (Eds.), Recent research on European sign languages (pp. 49–59). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.Google Scholar
(1994) The study of sign language in society: Part one. In C. Erting, R.C. Johnson, D. Smith, & B. Snider (Eds.), The deaf way: Perspectives from the international conference on deaf culture (pp. 309–317). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D., & Dubuisson, C
(1995) Grammar, order & position of wh-signs in Quebec Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 87, 99–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branchini, C., & Donati, C
(2009) Relatively Different: Italian Sign Language relative clauses in a typological perspective. In A. Liptak (Ed.), Correlatives: Crosslinguistically (pp. 157–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., & Zucchi, S
(2006) Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24(4), 945–957. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chovil, N
(1991) Discourse-oriented facial displays in conversational signals. In M. von Cranach, K. Foppa, W. Lepenies, & D. Ploog (Eds.), Human ethology: Claims and limits of a new discipline (pp. 169–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crasborn, O., & van der Kooij, E
(2013) The phonology of focus in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Journal of Linguistics, 49(3), 515–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuxac, Ch
(2000) La langue des signes française. Les voies de l’iconicité [French Sign Language: The voices of iconicity]. Paris: Gap, Ophrys.Google Scholar
Dachkovsky, S., & Sandler, W
(2009) Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech, 52(2/3), 287–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bin, E., Massone, M.I., & Druetta, J.C
(2011) Evidencias de subordinación en Lengua de Señas Argentina [Pieces of evidence for subordination in Argentinian Sign Language]. Lengua de Señas e Interpretación, 2, 5–19.Google Scholar
Deuchar, M
(1984) British Sign Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ekman, P
(1979) About brows: Emotional and conversational signals. In M. von Cranach, K. Foppa, W. Lepenies, & D. Ploog (Eds.), Human ethology: Claims and limits of a new discipline (pp. 169–202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N.J
(2008) Language as shaped by social interaction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(5), 519–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E
(2002) Grammatical relations in Danish Sign Language: Topic and subject. In A. Pajunen (Ed.), Mimesis, sign, and the evolution of language (pp. 5–40). Turku, Finland: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Flecha-García, M
(2006) Eyebrow raising, discourse structure, and utterance function in face-to-face dialogue. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1311–1316). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Geluykens, R
(1992) From discourse process to grammatical construction: on left-dislocation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A., & Kelepir, M
(2013) The phonological and semantic bifurcation of the functions of an articulator HEAD in questions in Turkish Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 16(1), 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grossman, R.B., & Kegl, J
(2006) Moving faces: Categorization of dynamic facial expressions in American Sign Language by deaf and hearing participants. Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 31(1), 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guaïtella, I., Santi, S., Lagrue, B., & Cavé, C
(2009) Are Eyebrow Movements Linked to Voice Variations and Turn-taking in Dialogue? An Experimental Investigation. Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology, 52(2–3), 207–222.Google Scholar
Haiman, J
(1978) Conditionals are topics. Language, 54, 564–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994) Ritualization and the development of language. In W. Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization (pp. 3–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, H.B
(2008) Jordanian Sign Language: Aspects of grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective. Utrecht: LOT Press.Google Scholar
Herrero, Á
(2010) Gramática didáctica de la lengua de signos española (LSE). Madrid: Ediciones SM.Google Scholar
Herring, S.C
(1991) The grammaticalization of rhetorical questions in Tamil. In E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 253–284). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, A
(2013) Modal and Focus Particles in Sign Languages: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J., & Traugott, E.C
(1993) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jantunen, T
(2007) On topic in Finnish Sign Language. Ms, June 2007 Online at: http://​users​.jyu​.fi​/~tojantun​/articles​/JAN​_topic​_ms​.pdf
Janzen, T
(1999) The grammaticization of topics in American Sign Language. Studies in Language, 23, 271–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O
(1940) A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part V: Syntax. Copenhagen: Eijnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Johnston, T., & Schembri, A
(2007) Australian sign language: An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, V., & Pfau, R
(2014) Information structure in Sign Languages. In C. Féry & S. Ishihara (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kocab, A., Pyers, J.E., & Senghas, A
(2013, July). From gesture to language: The emergence of nonmanual markers in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Poster presented at 11th Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research , London, UK.
Kubus, O
(2010) Relatives clauses constructions in Turkish Sign Language. Poster presentation at TISLR’10 , Purdue University, West Lafayette (USA).
Langacker, R.W
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1 Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Interactive cognition: Toward a unified account of structure, processing, and discourse. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(2), 95–125.Google Scholar
Li, C.N., & Thompson, S.A
(1976) Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 457–490). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, S.K
(1978) Nonmanual signals and relative clauses in ASL. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 59–90). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1980) American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D., & de Quadros, R.M
(2008) Focus constructions in American Sign Language and Língua de Sinais Brasileira. In J. Quer (Ed.), Signs of the time (pp. 161–176). Seedorf, Germany: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Linell, P
(2009) Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
(2012) On the nature of language: Formal written-language-biased linguistics vs. dialogical language sciences. In A. Kravchenko (Ed.), Cognitive dynamics in linguistic interactions (pp. 107–124). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J
(1998) From affect to grammar: Ritualization of facial affect in signed languages. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research , Washington, DC.
McIntire, M
(1982) Constituent order and location in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 37, 345–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milković, M., Bradarić-Jončić, S., & Wilbur, R.B
(2007) Information status and word order in Croatian Sign Language. Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics, 21, 1007–1017. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morales-López, E., Reigosa-Varela, C., & Bobillo-García, N
(2012) Word order and informative functions (topic and focus) in declarative utterances of Spanish Sign Language. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 474–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosella, M
(2012) Les construccions relatives en LSC. PhD Dissertation. University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Ormel, E., & Crasborn, O
(2012) Prosodic correlates of sentences in signed languages: A literature review and suggestions for new types of studies. Sign Language Studies, 12(2), 279–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oviedo, A
(2011) Apuntes para una gramática de la lengua de señas colombiana. Cali: Universidad del Valle, Instituto Nacional para SordosGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E
(2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M
(2005) Relative clauses in German Sign Language: extraposition and reconstruction. In L. Bateman & Ch. Ussery (Eds.), Proceeding of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35) (Vol. 2, pp. 507–521). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Rankin, M.N.P
(2013) Form, meaning, and focus in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Sandler, W
(2010) Prosody and syntax in sign languages. Transactions of the Philological Society, 108(3), 298–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W., Meir, I., Dachkovsky, S., Padden, C., & Aronoff, M
(2011) The emergence of complexity in prosody and syntax. Lingua, 121(13), 2014–2033. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.I
(2013) Typology and channel of communication: Where do signed languages fit in? In B. Bickel, L. Grenoble, D.A. Peterson, & A. Timberlake (Eds.), Language typology and historical contingency: In honor of Johanna Nichols (pp. 47–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, W.H
(2005) Taiwan Sign Language research: An historical overview. Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 187–215.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, R.J., & Massaro, D.W
(2003) Perceiving from the face and voice: distinguishing statements from echoic questions in English. Language and Speech, 46(1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steffensen, S.V
(2009) Language, languaging, and the extended mind. Pragmatics and cognition, 17(3), 677–698. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sutton-Spence, R., & Woll, B
(1999) The linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sze, F
(2011) Nonmanual markings for topic constructions in Hong Kong Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 14(1), 115–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L
[1996] (2000) Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems (Vol. 1, pp. 99–175). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tang, G., Lau, P., & Lee, J
(2010) Strategies for relativization in Hong Kong Sign Language. Paper presented at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 10 , Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Tomasello, M
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C
(1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 57, 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Kooij, E., Crasborn, O.A., & Emmerik, W
(2006) Explaining prosodic body leans in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Pragmatics required. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1598–1614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veinberg, S., & Massone, M.I
(1992) Lengua de Señas Argentina: los rasgos nomanuales. Fonoaudiológica, 38(1), 74–93.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A
(2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeerbergen, M., Van Herreweghe, M., Akach, P., & Matabane, E
(2007) Constituent order in Flemish Sign Language (VGT) and South African Sign Language (SASL). A cross-linguistic study. Sign Language & Linguistics, 10(1), 23–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S
[1934] (1962) Thought and language. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Waleschkowski, E
(2009) Focus in German Sign Language. Poster presented at the Workshop on Non-manuals in Sign Languages (NISL) . Goethe-University Frankfurt, April the 5th, 2009.
Wilbur, R
(2012) Information structure. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign languages (pp. 462–489). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R.B., & Patschke, C.G
(1998) Body leans and marking contrast in ASL. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 275–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) Syntactic correlates of brow raise in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2, 3–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S
(2014) Moving Beyond Structuralism: Usage-based Signed Language Linguistics. Lingua de Señas e Interpretación, 5, 97–126.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S.
, Rossini, P., & Pizzuto, E.A. (2010) Grammaticalization in sign languages. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages (pp. 332–354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, U
(2000) Sign language in Indo-Pakistan: A description of a signed language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Language, 80, 7–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J., Racine, T., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E
(Eds.) (2008) The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Aubrey, Rachel & Michael Aubrey
2022. Bibliography of Conditionals. Journal of Translation 18:2 ► pp. 135 ff. Crossref logo
Jarque, Maria Josep & Esther Pascual
2021. From gesture- and sign-in-interaction to grammar: Fictive questions for relative clauses in signed languages. Languages and Modalities 1 ► pp. 81 ff. Crossref logo
Spronck, Stef & Daniela Casartelli
2021. In a Manner of Speaking: How Reported Speech May Have Shaped Grammar. Frontiers in Communication 6 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 january 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.