Article published in:
Impersonal human reference in Sign Languages
Edited by Gemma Barberà and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr
[Sign Language & Linguistics 21:2] 2018
► pp. 284–306

R-impersonals in Hong Kong Sign Language

| The Chinese University of Hong Kong
| The Chinese University of Hong Kong
This paper discusses R-impersonals in Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL). As evidenced in our questionnaire and conversation data, R-impersonals in HKSL typically make use of null forms, the non-specific indefinite determiner (i.e., onedet-path (someone)/onedet-path (anyone)), distinguished by non-manual markers), and, occasionally, the Chinese character sign human/person. HKSL does not show impersonal uses of personal pronouns (e.g., they, you) which are commonly found in spoken languages. The nominal strategies are determined by the contexts and the referential properties of the impersonal referents, and they differ in the use of space in representing the impersonal referents in subsequent discourse. R-impersonal referents encoded by onedet-path (someone)/onedet-path (anyone) are associated with an area of the upper part of the ipsilateral side of the signing space, but they can still be assigned to a specific locus if the subsequent discourse requires locative information. Impersonal referents introduced by null forms or the Chinese character sign human/person are typically not spatially anchored.
Keywords: Hong Kong Sign Language, R-impersonals, indefinite determiners, null arguments
Published online: 22 March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00021.sze
References

References

Barberà, Gemma & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr
This volume. R-impersonals in sign languages: Introduction & Questionnaire.
Barberà, Gemma & Josep Quer
2013 Impersonal reference in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). In Laurence Meurant, Aurélie Sinte, Mieke van Herreweghe & Myriam Vermeerbergen (eds.), Sign language Research, uses and practices: Crossing views on theoretical and applied sign language linguistics, 237–258. Berlin: Ishara Press & de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia
2003 Arbitrary readings of third person pronominals. In Matthias Weisgerber (ed.), Proceedings of the conference Sinn und Bedeutung 7 (Sub7) (Arbeitspapiere des Fachbereichs Sprachwissenschaften 114), 81–94.Google Scholar
2006 “Arbitrary” pro and the theory of pro-drop. In Peter Ackema, Patrick Brandt, Maaike Schoorlemmer & Fred Weermann (eds.), Agreement and arguments, 230–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1988 On si constructions and the Theory of ARB. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 521–581.Google Scholar
Costello, Brendan
2015 Getting (more) impersonal in LSE (Lengua de signos española). Talk at Workshop on Impersonals and Passive in Sign Languages , February 2015, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.
Kelepir, Meltem, Asli Özkul & Elvan Tamyürek Özparlak
This volume. Agent-backgrounding in Turkish Sign Language.
Kimmelman, Vadim
This volume. Impersonal reference in Russian Sign Language.
Siewierska, Anna & Maria Papastathi
2011 Towards a typology of third person plural impersonals. Linguistics 49(3). 575–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sze, Felix
2003 Word order of Hong Kong Sign Language. In Anne Baker, Beppie van den Bogaerde & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives in sign language research. Selected papers from TISLR 2000, 163–192. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Tang, Gladys & Felix Sze
2002 Nominal expressions in Hong Kong Sign Language: does modality make a difference? In Richard Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken language, 296–319. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yan, Yi & Anna Siewierska
2011 Referential impersonal constructions in Mandarin. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: a cross-linguistic perspective, 547–580. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Rissman, Lilia, Laura Horton, Molly Flaherty, Ann Senghas, Marie Coppola, Diane Brentari & Susan Goldin-Meadow
2020. The communicative importance of agent-backgrounding: Evidence from homesign and Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cognition 203 ► pp. 104332 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 october 2020. 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.

video