Cover not available
Article published In:
Impersonal human reference in Sign Languages
Edited by Gemma Barberà and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr
[Sign Language & Linguistics 21:2] 2018
► pp. 307–333
Special issue articles

Impersonal human reference in French Sign Language (LSF)

| UMR 7023 Structures Formelles du Langage
| Université Paris-Lumières
| Université Paris 8 | CNRS

The present paper offers a first systematic approach to the expression of impersonal human reference in French Sign Language (LSF). It extends and deepens a prior study carried out by the authors on the basis of a large scale discourse corpus. The description proposed here is based primarily on data elicited through a specialised questionnaire on impersonal human reference (Barberà & Cabredo Hofherr, this volume), initially developed for spoken languages and adapted for sign languages. The strategies revealed are compared with those discussed in our prior study. We begin with a brief review of the literature on impersonal human reference in spoken and sign languages, and a presentation of our theoretical framework for the analysis of LSF. We then elaborate on our methodology and the issues raised by the elicitation protocol adopted, from initial stages of its preparation to the representation of our data. We finally present and discuss the main strategies we highlighted for the expression of impersonal reference in LSF.

Keywords: French Sign Language (LSF), linguistics, impersonal human reference, elicited data, corpus linguistics, semiological model, null subjects
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Impersonal human reference in spoken and sign languages
    • 2.1Impersonal human reference: Definition and issues
    • 2.2Theoretical choices and research questions
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Questioning the methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Existential contexts
      • 4.1.1Singular referent
      • 4.1.2Plurality of referents (vague plurality)
    • 4.2Existential with generalizing/habitual predication and locative universals
    • 4.3Unrestricted universal
      • 4.3.1Second person pronoun
      • 4.3.2Instructional personal transfer
      • 4.3.3Null subject without spatial anchoring
    • 4.4Others
      • 4.4.1Verbs of saying
      • 4.4.2Conditionals
    • 4.5Review table
  • 5.Summary and discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00022.gar
References
Barberà, Gemma
2012 The meaning of space in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Reference, specificity and structure in signed discourse. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Barberà, Gemma & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr
2016 Une stratégie de mise en arrière-plan de l’agent en Langue de Signes Catalane – passif ou impersonnel? L’information grammaticale 1491. 55–60.Google Scholar
eds. This volume R-impersonal strategies in sign languages: Introduction & questionnaire
2017 Agent-backgrounding in Catalan Sign Language (LSC) – passives, middles or impersonals? Language 931. 767–798. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 & Nijmegen: de Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brentari, Diane & Carol A. Padden
2001 Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A lexicon with multiple origins. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary: A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation, 87–119. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia
2003 Arbitrary readings of third person pronominals. In Matthias Weisgerber (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference SuB7 – Sinn und Bedeutung, Vol. 1141, 81–94. Konstanz: Konstanz University, FB Linguistik.Google Scholar
2006 ‘Arbitrary’ pro and the theory of pro-drop. In Peter Ackema, Patrick Brandt, Maaike Schoorlemmer & Fred Weerman (eds.), Agreement and arguments, 230–258. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 Les pronoms impersonnels humains – syntaxe et interpretation. Modèles linguistiques XXIX-1(57). 35–56.Google Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy A., Sandra Smith & Zed Sevcikova-Sehyr
2015 Rethinking constructed action. Sign Language & Linguistics 18(2). 167–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costello, Brendan
2015 How do you/we/they get impersonal in Spanish Sign Language (LSE)? A first look. Paper presented at the Workshop on sign languages and R-impersonal pronouns . 6 February 2018, Paris.
Creissels, Denis
2015 R-impersonals in Atlantic and Mande languages. Paper presented at the Workshop on R-impersonal pronouns . 4 February 2015, Paris.
To appear. Impersonal pronouns and coreference: the case of French on . Unpublished ms. [URL]
Creissels, Denis, Sokhna Bao-Diop, Alain-Christian Bassène, Mame-Thierno Bassène, Alexander Cobbinah, et al.
2015 L’impersonnalité dans les langues de la région sénégambienne. Africana Linguistica 211. 29–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuxac, Christian
1996 Fonctions et structures de l’iconicité des langues des signes. Paris: University Paris V doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
2000 La langue des signes française. Les voies de l’iconicité. Faits de langue vol. 15–161. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Cuxac, Christian & Elena Antinoro Pizzuto
2010 Emergence, norme et variation dans les langues des signes: vers une redéfinition notionnelle. Langage et Société 1311. 37–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuxac, Christian, Annelies Braffort, Annick Choisier, Christophe Collet, Patrice Dalle, Ivani Fusellier, Gwenaëlle Jirou, Fanch Lejeune, Boris Lenseigne, Nathalie Monteillard, Annie Risler & Marie-Anne Sallandre
2002 Corpus LS-Colin sur plusieurs genres discursifs. Programme Cognitique 2000, Langage et Cognition, Université Paris 8, IRIT, LIMSI-CNRS, Université Paris Sorbonne. [URL]
Cuxac, Christian & Marie-Anne Sallandre
2007 Iconicity and arbitrariness in French Sign Language: Highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity. In Elena Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea & Raffaele Simone (eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies, 13–33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen
(ed.) 2003 Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnie & Linda R. Waugh
2003 On the radical difference between the subject personal pronouns in written and spoken European French. In Pepi Leistyna & Charles F. Meyer (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 225–240. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, Brigitte
2016 Scripturisation, grammatisation et modélisation linguistique à la lumière du cas des langues des signes. Dossiers d’HEL, SHESL, Écriture(s) et représentations du langage et des langues 91. 238–253.Google Scholar
Garcia, Brigitte, Marie-Thérèse L’Huillier & Coralie Vincent
2016 Corpus Creagest, dialogues en LSF d’adultes sourds. Projet ANR. [URL]
Garcia, Brigitte & Marie-Anne Sallandre
2014 Reference resolution in French Sign Language (LSF). In Patricia Cabredo Hofherr & Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.), Crosslinguistic studies on noun phrase structure and reference, 316–364. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volkert, & Johan van der Auwera
2013 Towards a distributional typology of human impersonal pronouns, based on data from European languages. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries. Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 31–56. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Andrea Sansò
2007 The spread and decline of indefinite man-constructions in European languages. An areal perspective. In Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Europe and the Mediterranean as linguistic areas. Convergences from a historical and typological perspective, 95–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1997 Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor
2012 Lexical frequency in sign languages. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 17(2). 163–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelepir, Meltem, Aslı Özkul & Elvan Tamyürek Özparlak
This volume. Agent-backgrounding in Turkish Sign Language.
Kimmelman, Vadim
2015 R-impersonals in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Paper presented at the Workshop on sign languages and R-impersonal pronouns . 6 February 2015, Paris.
This volume. Impersonal reference in Russian Sign Language.
Liddell, Scott K.
2003 Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
L’Huillier, Marie-Thérèse, Marie-Anne Sallandre & Brigitte Garcia
2016 Impersonal reference to human agents in French Sign Language (LSF). Poster presented at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference 12. 6 January 2016, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Malchukov, Andrej & Akio Ogawa
2011 Towards a typology of impersonal constructions: A semantic map approach. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: a cross-linguistic perspective, 19–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Millet, Agnès
1997 Réflexions sur le statut du mouvement en LSF – aspects lexicaux et syntaxiques. LIDIL 151. 11–30.Google Scholar
Sallandre, Marie-Anne
2003 Les unités du discours en Langue des Signes Française. Tentative de catégorisation dans le cadre d’une grammaire de l’iconicité. Paris: Université Paris 8 PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Sallandre, Marie-Anne, Brigitte Garcia
2013 Epistemological issues in the semiological model for the annotation of sign language. In Laurence Meurant, Aurélie Sinte, Mieke Van Herreweghe and Myriam Vermeerbergen (eds.), Sign Language research, uses and practices. Crossing views on theoretical and applied sign language linguistics, 159–177. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sallandre, Marie-Anne, Alessio Di Renzo & Robert Gavrilescu
2016 Various types of personal transfers (constructed actions) in seven sign languages. Poster presented at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference 12. 4 January 2016, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Siewierska, Anna
2008 Ways of impersonalizing: pronominal vs. verbal strategies. In Angeles Gómez González, J. Lachlan Mackenzie & Elsa M. González Álvarez (eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics, 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Overlap and complementarity in reference impersonals: Man-constructions vs. third person plural impersonals in the languages of Europe. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: A crosslinguistic perspective, 57–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Maria Papastathi
2011 Third person plurals in the languages of Europe: Typological and methodological issues. Linguistics 43(2). 575–610.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Breed, Adri, Jo-Ann Chan & Daniël van Olmen
2021. Developing and validating a visual questionnaire for the study of impersonalisation strategies: A design thinking approach. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 39:2 ► pp. 152 ff. DOI logo
Garcia, Brigitte & Marie-Anne Sallandre
2020. Contribution of the Semiological Approach to Deixis–Anaphora in Sign Language: The Key Role of Eye-Gaze. Frontiers in Psychology 11 DOI logo
Jaber, Angélique, Caterina Donati & Carlo Geraci
2022. On the properties of null subjects in sign languages: the case of French Sign Language (LSF). The Linguistic Review 39:4 ► pp. 655 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 march 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.