Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 18:2 (2015) ► pp.205–237

Weak hand holds in two sign languages and two genres

| Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen
| University of Amsterdam
In this paper, we provide a quantitative analysis of weak hand holds based on corpus data. We include both a cross-linguistic analysis of these holds in narrative data from Russian Sign Language (RSL) and Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT), and a language-internal, cross-genre analysis comparing NGT narrative and conversational data. We classified the functions of all holds found in two corpora of RSL and NGT, and analyzed their formal characteristics. We found that holds in RSL and NGT have similar functions. However, holds are significantly more frequent in RSL than in NGT. In addition, we found that the distribution of holds across different functions varies between different genres in NGT. The similarities between RSL and NGT in the domain of holds may be attributed to modality effects. The differences in frequency of holds ask for a language-specific explanation, and we discuss several possible scenarios.
Keywords: corpus data, cross-linguistic comparison, weak hand holds, Sign Language of the Netherlands, Russian Sign Language, cross-genre comparison
Published online: 4 February 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18.2.02saf
References (33)
Battison, Robin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Bickford, J. Albert. 2005. The signed languages of Eastern Europe. SIL International.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane & Laurinda Crossley. 2002. Prosody on the hands and face. Evidence from American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 51. 105–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burkova, Svetlana Igorevna & Olga Aleksandrovna Varinova. 2012. K voprosu os territorialnom i sotsialnom var’irovanii russkogo zhestovogo jazyka [On the problem of regional and social variation in Russian Sign Language]. In Olga Viktorovna Fedorova (ed.), Russkij Zhestovyj Jazyk: Pervaja Lingvisticheskaja Konferentsija [Russian Sign Language: The first linguistic conference], 127–143. Moscow: Center of Cognitive Studies.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno. 2001. Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Leiden: University of Leiden dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
. 2006. A linguistic analysis of the use of the two hands in sign language poetry. In Jeroen van de Weijer & Bettelou Los (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 20061, 65–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Anna Sáfár. In press. An annotation scheme to investigate the form and function of hand dominance in the Corpus NGT. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Annika Herrmann (eds.), A matter of complexity: Subordination in sign languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logo
Crasborn, Onno, Inge Zwitserlood & Johan Ros. 2008. Corpus NGT. An open access digital corpus of movies with annotations of Sign Language of the Netherlands. Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen. URL: [URL].
Crasborn, Onno & Inge Zwitserlood. 2008. The Corpus NGT: an online corpus for professionals and laymen. In Onno Crasborn, Thomas Hanke, Eleni Efthimiou, Inge Zwitserlood & Ernst Thoutenhoofd (eds.), Construction and exploitation of sign language corpora. Proceedings of the 3 rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages , 44–49. Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar
Dudis, Paul G. 2004. Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics 1521. 223–238.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen, Barbara Tversky & Holly A. Taylor. 2000. Using space to describe space: Perspective in speech, sign, and gesture. Spatial Cognition and Computation 231. 157–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1994. Some simultaneous constructions in Danish Sign Language. In Mary Brennan & Graham H. Turner (eds.), Word-order issues in sign language, 73–88. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Freleng, Friz. 1950. Canary row [film, animated cartoon]. New York: Time Warner.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim. 2014. Information structure in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation. [[URL]]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, Anna Sáfár & Onno Crasborn. Under revision. Towards a classification of weak hand holds. DOI logo
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K., Marit Vogt-Svendsen & Brita Bergman. 2007. A crosslinguistic comparison of buoys. Evidence from American, Norwegian, and Swedish Sign Language. In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in sign languages: Form and function, 187–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKee, Rachel Locker & Sophia Wallingford. 2011. ‘So, well, whatever’: Discourse functions of palm-up in New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 14(2). 213–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Christopher. 1994a. Simultaneous constructions in Quebec Sign Language. In Mary Brennan & Graham H. Turner (eds.), Word-order issues in sign language, 89–112. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
. 1994b. Simultaneous constructions and complex signs in Quebec Sign Language. In Inger Ahlgren, Brita Bergman & Mary Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure. Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research , 131–148. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association.
Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler. 1999. Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech 421. 143–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, Anna-Lena. 2007. The non-dominant hand in a Swedish Sign Language discourse. In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in sign languages: Form and function, 163–185. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nyst, Victoria. 2007. Simultaneous constructions in Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in sign languages: Form and function, 128–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1983. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. San Diego, CA: University of California dissertation. [Published 1988, Garland Press, New York.]Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2011. Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 683–695. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sáfár, Anna & Onno Crasborn. 2013. A corpus-based approach to manual simultaneity. 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, 179–203. Berlin & Nijmegen: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sáfár, Anna, Laurence Meurant, Thierry Haesenne, Ellen Nauta, Danny De Weerdt & Ellen Ormel. 2015. Mutual intelligibility among the sign languages of Belgium and the Netherlands. Linguistics 531. 353–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schermer, Trude. 2004. Lexical variation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Mieke van Herreweghe & Myriam Vermeerbergen (eds.), To the lexicon and beyond: Sociolinguistics in European Deaf communities, 94–110. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeerbergen, Myriam & Eline Demey. 2007. Sign + gesture = speech + gesture. Comparing aspects of simultaneity in Flemish Sign Language to instances of concurrent speech and gesture. In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in sign languages: Form and function, 257–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeerbergen, Myriam, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn. 2007. Simultaneity in signed languages: A string of sequentially organised issues. In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in sign languages: Form and function, 1–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogt-Svendsen, Marit & Brita Bergman. 2007. Point buoys: The weak hand as a point of reference for time and space. In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in sign languages: Form and function, 217–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, June & Cynthia G. Patschke. 1990. Determiners in ASL. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 201–210. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Brentari, Diane
2019. Sign Language Phonology, DOI logo
Papadatou-Pastou, Marietta & Anna Sáfár
2016. Handedness prevalence in the deaf: Meta-analyses. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 60 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. 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.