Article published in:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 19:1 (2016) ► pp. 1–36

Indefiniteness and specificity marking in Catalan Sign Language (LSC)

| CNRS/Paris 8
Bringing together the areas of sign language semantics-pragmatics interface and discourse reference, this article offers a description of how indefiniteness and (non‑)specificity is encoded in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). By using a combined methodology of corpus data and grammatical tests, the present study shows that the encoding of indefiniteness and specificity in LSC is achieved by three main means, namely lexical signs, the use of nonmanuals, and the use of signing space. The basic primitives required to analyze specificity in LSC comprise wide scope, epistemicity, and partitivity. This article proposes an analysis of the use of signing space in contributing meaning and provides insights into the characterization of the abstract import of signing space.
Keywords: Catalan Sign Language (LSC), pronouns, indefiniteness, reference, definiteness, discourse, specificity, signing space
Published online: 15 September 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19.1.01bar
References
Abbott, Barbara
1999 Support for a unique theory of definite descriptions. In Tanya Matthews & Devon Strolovitch (eds.), Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory IX, 1–15. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bahan, Benjamin
1996 Nonmanual realization of agreement in American Sign Language. Boston: Boston University dissertation.Google Scholar
Bahan, Benjamin, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin & Carol Neidle
1995 Convergent evidence for the structure of determiner phrases in American Sign Language. In Leslie Gabriele, Debra Hardison & Robert Westmoreland (eds.), FLSM VI. Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the formal linguistics society of Mid-America, vol. 21, 1–12. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Barberà, Gemma
2012 The meaning of space in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Reference, specificity and structure in signed discourse. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University dissertation [Published as a monograph in 2015, Berlin & Nijmegen: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press].Google Scholar
2014 Use and functions of spatial planes in Catalan Sign Language (LSC) discourse. Sign Language Studies 14(2). 147–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barberà, Gemma & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr
In preparation. Two indefinite pronouns in Catalan Sign Language (LSC).
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bertone, Carmela
2007 La struttura del sintagma determinante nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS). Venice: Università Ca’ Foscari dissertation.Google Scholar
2009 The syntax of noun modification in Italian Sign language (LIS). University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 191[BR1] .Google Scholar
Bhat, Darbhe N.S
2004 Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty & Gregory Ward
1998 Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brentari, Diane
1998 A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & William A. Ladusaw
2004 Restriction and saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Conlin, Frances, Paul Hagstrom & Carol Neidle
2003 A particle of indefiniteness in American Sign Language. Linguistic Discovery 2(1). 1–21.Google Scholar
Consten, Manfred
2003 Towards a unified model of domain-bound reference. In Fredrich Lenz (ed.), Deictic conceptualisation of space, time and person, 223–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy
2012 Pronouns. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 227–244. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dachkovsky, Svetlana & Wendy Sandler
2009 Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech 52(2/3). 287–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Kathryn & Deanna Gagne
2014 Vertical representation of quantifier domains. In Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Falaus, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 181, 110–127. Vitoria-Gasteiz.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet
1991 The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1). 1–25.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
1990 Pragmatics of nonmanual behaviour in Danish Sign Language. In William Edmonson & Fred Karlsson (eds.), SLR’87. Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 121–128. Hamburg: Signum-Press.Google Scholar
1993 Space in Danish Sign Language. The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum-Verlag.Google Scholar
2003 From pointing to reference and predication: Pointing signs, eyegaze, and head and body orientation in Danish Sign Language. In Sotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 269–292. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, Urtzi & Anastasia Giannakidou
2014 Anti-specificity and the role of number: The case of Spanish ‘algún’/’algunos’. Paper presented at RALFe 2014 , Université Paris 81, October 9.
Farkas, Donka
2002 Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 191. 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Robert Johnson
1982 [2012] Nominal markers in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 15(2). 243–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet & Ivan Sag
1982 Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 51. 355–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraurud, Kari
1990 Definiteness and the processing of NPs in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics 71. 395–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1997 Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene
1982 The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Herrmann, Annika
2013 Modal and focus particles in sign languages. A cross-linguistic study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus
2002 Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 191. 245–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Specificity. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 1024-1057. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ionin, Tania
2006 This is definitely specific: Specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics 141. 175–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit
1990 Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 131. 273–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kamp, Hans
1981 A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Jeroen A.G. Groenendijk, Theo M.V. Janssen & Martin B.J. Stokhhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 227–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Ágnes Bende-Farkas
2006 Epistemic specificity from a communication-theoretical perspective. Manuscript, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi
1979 The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Koulidobrova, Elena
2009 SELF: Intensifier and ‘long distance’ effects in ASL. Proceedings of ESSLLI 2009 , Bordeaux.
Kuhn, Jeremy
2014 Scope and domain of indefinites in American Sign Language. Paper presented at the Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory (FEAST) Colloquium , Venice, June 2014.
Liddell, Scott
1990 Four functions of a locus: reexamining the structure of space in ASL. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 176–198. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward Klima
1991 Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Susan Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, Vol. 1: Linguistics, 191–210. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher
1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Machado de Sá, Thaís, Guilherme Lourenço de Souza, Maria Luiza da Cunha Lima & Elidéa Lúcia Almeida Bernardino
2012 Definiteness in Brazilian Sign Language: a study on weak and strong definites. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem 10(19). 21–38.Google Scholar
MacLaughlin, Dawn
1997 The structure of determiner phrases: Evidence from American Sign Language. Boston: Boston University dissertation.Google Scholar
Mathur, Gaurav
1996 A presuppositionality marker in ASL. Manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa
1998 Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
2004 On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 701. 369–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morales-López, Esperanza, Rosa María Boldú-Menasanch, Jesus Amador Alonso-Rodríguez, Victoria Gras-Ferrer & Maria Ángeles Rodríguez-González
2005 The verbal system of Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Sign Language Studies 5(4). 441–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mosella, Marta
2012 Les construccions relatives en llengua de signes catalana (LSC). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona dissertation.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler
1999 Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech 42(2/3). 143–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara
1970 Opacity, co-reference, and pronouns. Synthèse 21(3–4). 359–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Josep Quer
2010 Nonmanuals: Their grammatical and prosodic roles. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge language surveys), 381–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
2006 Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages (Linguistics in Potsdam 24). Potsdam: Universitäts-Verlag [Available at http://​opus​.kobv​.de​/ubp​/volltexte​/2006​/1088/].Google Scholar
Poesio, Massimo & Renata Vieira
1998 A corpus-based investigation of definite description use. Computational Linguistics 24(2). 183–216.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen
1992 The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rinfret, Julie
2009 L’association spatiale du nom en langue des signes québécoise: formes, fonctions et sens. Montréal: UQAM dissertation.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige
1989 Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 121. 683–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 261. 287–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe & Jonathan Lamberton
2012 Formal indices and iconicity in ASL. In Maria Aloni, Floris Roelofsen, Galit Weidman Sassoon, Katrin Schulz, Vadim Kimmelman & Matthijs Westera (eds.), Proceedings of 18th Amsterdam Colloquium 2011, LNCS 7218, 1–11. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe, Jonathan Lamberton & Mirko Santoro
2013 Iconic variables. Linguistics and Philosophy 36(2). 91–149. CrossrefGoogle 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 languages, 296–320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie
1996 Focus and specificity in ASL structures containing self. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) Winter Meeting , San Diego, CA.
2008 Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time. Selected papers from TISLR 81, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
2011 Focus on focus: A feature geometry for focus, definiteness, and specificity. Paper presented at the Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory (FEAST) Colloquium , Venice, June 2011.
Wilkinson, Erin
2013 A functional description of self in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 13(4). 462–490. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winston, Elisabeth
1995 Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. In Karen Emmorey & Judy Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 87–114. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike
2000 Sign language in Indo-Pakistan: A description of a signed language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Language 80(1). 7–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, June & Cynthia Patschke
1990 A class of determiners in ASL. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 201–210. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Barberà, Gemma, Patricia Cabredo Hofherr & Josep Quer
2018. Agent-backgrounding in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Sign Language & Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 334 ff. Crossref logo
Bross, Fabian
2020. Object marking in German Sign Language (<i>Deutsche Gebärdensprache</i>): Differential object marking and object shift in the visual modality. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1 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
Kelepir, Meltem, Aslı Özkul & Elvan Tamyürek Özparlak
2018. Agent-backgrounding in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Sign Language & Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 257 ff. Crossref logo
Sümer, Beyza
2016.  In The Acquisition of Turkish in Childhood [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 20], ► pp. 193 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2022. 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.