Syntactic Correlates of Brow Raise in ASL
Previous approaches to explaining brow raise behavior in American Sign Language (ASL) have claimed that it performs a semantic or pragmatic function, such as indicating that information is presupposed, given, or otherwise not asserted. However we show that this explanation cannot be extended to all the data. The commonality among all the structures that have ‘br’ marking is that the ‘br’ shows up in A'-positions associated with [-wh] operator features. These operators are semantically restrictive. Furthermore, the domain of ‘br’ spreading is the checking domain of the [-wh] feature, in contrast with c-command domain associated with [+wh] and [+neg] features. The three distinctive ASL brow positions, raised, furrowed, and neutral, are each associated with a different operator situation, [-wh], [+wh], and none, respectively. In sum, ‘br’-marking is clearly associated with syntactic structures that are related only indirectly with specific semantic, pragmatic, or discourse factors.
Keywords: American Sign Language, nonmanuals, focus constructions, conceptual-interpretation interface
Published online: 01 January 2000
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.1.03wil
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.1.03wil
Cited by
Cited by other publications
Abner, Natasha
2017. What You See Is What You Get.Get: Surface Transparency and Ambiguity of Nominalizing Reduplication in American Sign Language.
Syntax 20:4 ► pp. 317 ff. 
Abner, Natasha & Ronnie B. Wilbur
2017.
In Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language: Volume II [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 97],
► pp. 21 ff.
Antonakos, Epameinondas, Anastasios Roussos & Stefanos Zafeiriou
2015.
In 2015 11th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG),
► pp. 1 ff.
Applebaum, Lauren, Marie Coppola & Susan Goldin-Meadow
2014. Prosody in a communication system developed without a language model.
Sign Language & Linguistics 17:2 ► pp. 181 ff.
Benitez-Quiroz, C. Fabian, Kadir Gökgöz, Ronnie B. Wilbur, Aleix M. Martinez & Emmanuel Andreas Stamatakis
2014. Discriminant Features and Temporal Structure of Nonmanuals in American Sign Language.
PLoS ONE 9:2 ► pp. e86268 ff.
Brentari, Diane
2019.
In Sign Language Phonology,
Bross, Fabian
2020. Encoding different types of topics and foci in German Sign Language. A cartographic approach to sign language syntax.
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1
Cecchetto, Carlo, Carlo Geraci & Sandro Zucchi
2006. Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24:4 ► pp. 945 ff.
Crasborn, O.A.
2006.
In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics,
► pp. 668 ff.
CRASBORN, ONNO & ELS VAN DER KOOIJ
2013. The phonology of focus in Sign Language of the Netherlands.
Journal of Linguistics 49:3 ► pp. 515 ff.
Dachkovsky, Svetlana, Christina Healy & Wendy Sandler
2013. Visual intonation in two sign languages.
Phonology 30:2 ► pp. 211 ff.
Dachkovsky, Svetlana & Wendy Sandler
2009. Visual Intonation in the Prosody of a Sign Language.
Language and Speech 52:2-3 ► pp. 287 ff.
Elliott, Eeva A. & Arthur M. Jacobs
2014. Phonological and morphological faces.
Sign Language & Linguistics 17:2 ► pp. 123 ff.
Elons, A.S., Menna Ahmed & Hwaidaa Shedid
2014.
In 2014 9th International Conference on Computer Engineering & Systems (ICCES),
► pp. 330 ff.
Felipe, Tanya A.
2013. O discurso verbo-visual na língua brasileira de sinais - Libras.
Bakhtiniana: Revista de Estudos do Discurso 8:2 ► pp. 67 ff.
Fischer, Susan D.
2017. Crosslinguistic Variation in Sign Language Syntax.
Annual Review of Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 125 ff.
Janzen, Terry & Barbara Shaffer
2002.
In Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages,
► pp. 199 ff.
Jarque Moyano, Maria Josep
2016.
In The Conversation Frame [Human Cognitive Processing, 55],
► pp. 171 ff.
Johnston, Trevor, Jane van Roekel & Adam Schembri
2016. On the Conventionalization of Mouth Actions in Australian Sign Language.
Language and Speech 59:1 ► pp. 3 ff.
Kremers, Joost
2012. The syntax of simultaneity.
Lingua 122:9 ► pp. 979 ff.
Loos, Cornelia
2018. Detecting clauses and their dependencies in signed utterances: A syntactico-semantic approach.
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 123 ff.
Malaia, Evie & Ronnie Wilbur
2010. Sign languages: Contribution to neurolinguistics from cross-modal research.
Lingua 120:12 ► pp. 2704 ff.
Meier, Richard P., Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos
2002.
In Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages,
► pp. 167 ff.
Napoli, Donna Jo, Jami Fisher & Gene Mirus
2013. Bleached taboo-term predicates in American Sign Language.
Lingua 123 ► pp. 148 ff.
Oomen, Marloes & Vadim Kimmelman
2019. Body-anchored verbs and argument omission in two sign languages.
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 ► pp. 42 ff.
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
2006. Pluralization in sign and in speech: A cross-modal typological study.
Linguistic Typology 10:2
Puupponen, Anna
2019. Towards understanding nonmanuality: A semiotic treatment of signers’ head movements.
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1
Quer, Josep
2012.
In Logic, Language and Meaning [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7218],
► pp. 82 ff.
Sandler, Wendy
2009. Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language.
Semiotica 2009:174
Sandler, Wendy
2010. Prosody and syntax in sign languages.
Transactions of the Philological Society 108:3 ► pp. 298 ff.
Sandler, Wendy
2017. The Challenge of Sign Language Phonology.
Annual Review of Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 43 ff.
Steinbach, Markus
2006. .
Lingua 116:4 ► pp. 506 ff.
Wilbur, Ronnie
2017. Internally-headed relative clauses in sign languages.
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2:1
Wilbur, Ronnie B.
2009. Effects of Varying Rate of Signing on ASL Manual Signs and Nonmanual Markers.
Language and Speech 52:2-3 ► pp. 245 ff.
Wilbur, Ronnie B.
2017.
In The Handbook of Psycholinguistics,
► pp. 111 ff.
Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Cynthia G. Patschke
1998. Body leans and the marking of contrast in American sign language.
Journal of Pragmatics 30:3 ► pp. 275 ff.
Özkul, Asli
2019. Deontic and epistemic necessity in Turkish sign language (TİD).
Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 55:3 ► pp. 543 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 december 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.