Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 21:1 (2021) ► pp.58–81

Coherence relations across speech and sign language

A comparable corpus study of additive connectives

ORCID logo | University of EdinburghUnited Kingdom
ORCID logo | Stockholm UniversitySweden
This paper provides the first contrastive analysis of a coherence relation (viz. addition) and its connectives across a sign language (French Belgian Sign Language) and a spoken language (French), both used in the same geographical area. The analysis examines the frequency and types of connectives that can express an additive relation, in order to contrast its “markedness” in the two languages, that is, whether addition is marked by dedicated connectives or by ambiguous, polyfunctional ones. Furthermore, we investigate the functions of the most frequent additive connective in each language (namely et and the sign SAME), starting from the observation that most connectives are highly polyfunctional. This analysis intends to show which functions are compatible with the meaning of addition in spoken and signed discourse. Despite a common core of shared discourse functions, the equivalence between et and SAME is only partial and relates to a difference in their semantics.
Keywords: additive connectives, polyfunctionality, corpus annotation, cross-modal analysis, French/French Belgian Sign Language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1A brief history of sign language linguistics and LSFB
    • 2.2Coherence relations and connectives
    • 2.3Contrastive and cross-modal studies of connectives
    • 2.4Objectives of the study
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Annotation
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Additive connectives in spoken French and LSFB
    • 4.2Functions of et and SAME beyond addition
      • 4.2.1Functions
      • 4.2.2Domains
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19010.cri
References (62)
References
Asr, F. and Demberg, V. 2012. Measuring the Strength of Linguistic Cues for Discousre Relations. In Proceedings of the COLING Workshop on Advances in Discourse Analysis and its Computational Aspects (ADACA), E. Hajičová, L. Poláková and J. Mírovský (eds), 33–42. Mumbai: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
Bejček, E., Hajičová, E., Hajič, J., Jínová, P., Kettnerová, V., Kolářová, V., Mikulová, M., Mírovský, J., Nedoluzhko, A., Panevová, J., Poláková, L., Ševčíková, M., Štěpánek, J. and Zikánová, Š. 2013. Prague Dependency Treebank 3.0. LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL), Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, [URL]
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. Weak and Strong Discourse Markers in Speech, Chat and Writing: How Signals Compensate for Ambiguity in Explicit Relations. Discourse Processes.
Crible, L. and Degand, L. 2019. Domains and Functions: A Two-Dimensional Account of Discourse Markers. Discours 241.Google Scholar
Crible, L., Degand, L. and Gilquin, G. 2017. The Clustering of Discourse Markers and Filled Pauses: A Corpus-based French-English Study of (Dis)fluency. Languages in Contrast 17(1): 69–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, M. J. 2003. Two Ways to Reformulate: A Contrastive Analysis of Reformulation Markers. Journal of Pragmatics 351: 1069–1093. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. The Fuzzy Boundaries between Discourse Marking and Modal Marking. In Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description, L. Degand, B. Cornillie and P. Pietrandrea (eds), 191–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danlos, L., Colinet, M. and Steinlin, J. 2015. FDTB1, Première Étape du Projet +++« French Discourse Treebank »: Repérage des Connecteurs de Discours en Corpus. Discours 171.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries. Available online at [URL]
Degand, L., Broisson, Z., Crible, L. and Grzech, K. Forthcoming. Cross-linguistic Variation in Spoken Discourse Markers: Distribution, Functions and Domains.
Dister, A., Francard, M., Hambye, P., and Simon, A.-C. 2009. Du Corpus à la Banque de Données. Du Son, des Textes et des Métadonnées. L’Évolution de la Banque de Données Textuelles Orales VALIBEL (1989–2009). Cahiers de Linguistique 33(2):113–129.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. (2014). Discourse markers in writing. Discourse Studies 17(1): 64–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gabarró-López, S. 2017. Discourse Markers in French Belgian Sign Language and Catalan Sign Language: BUOYS, PALM-UP and SAME. PhD thesis, Université de Namur.Google Scholar
2019a. The uses of PALM-UP in interpreted French and LSFB productions. Poster presented at the 13th Conference of Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Hamburg, 26th – 28th September 2019.
2019b. When the Meaning of SAME is not Restricted to Likeness: A Preliminary Study from the Perspective of Discourse Relational Devices in Two Sign Languages. Discours 241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. Are Discourse Markers Related to Age and Educational Background? A Comparative Account between Two Sign Languages. Journal of Pragmatics 201: 68–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gadet, F., Ludwig, R., Mondada, L., Pfänder, S. and Simon, A.-C. 2012. Un Grand Corpus de Français Parlé: Le CIEL-F. Choix Épistémologiques et Réalisations Empiriques. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée XVII(1):39–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. and Goutsos, D. 1998. Conjunctions versus Discourse Markers in Greek: The Interaction of Frequency, Position, and Functions in Context. Linguistics 36(5):887–917. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González, M. 2005. Pragmatic Markers and Discourse Coherence Relations in English and Catalan Oral Narrative. Discourse Studies 77(1):53–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodge, G., Sekine, K., Schembri, A. and Johnston, T. 2019. Comparing Signers and Speakers: Building a Directly Comparable Corpus of Auslan and Australian English. Corpora (14)11.Google Scholar
Hoza, J. 2011. The Discourse and Politeness Functions of HEY and WELL in American Sign Language. In Discourse in Signed Languages, C. B. Roy (ed), 70–95. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. 2010. From Archive to Corpus: Transcription and Annotation in the Creation of Signed Language Corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(1):106–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Auslan Corpus Annotation Guidelines. Sydney: Macquarie University; Melbourne: La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. and Schembri, A. 2010. Corpus Analysis of Sign Languages. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, C. A. Chapelle (ed). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Johnston, T., Vermeerbergen, M., Schembri, A. and Leeson, L. 2007. ‘Real data are messy’: Considering cross-linguistic analysis of constituent ordering in Auslan, VGT and ISL. In Visible variation: Cross-linguistic studies in sign language structure, P. Perniss, R. Pfau and M. Steinbach (eds), 163–206. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kitis, E. 2000. Connectives and Frame Theory: The Case of Hypotextual Antinomial ‘And’. Pragmatics & Cognition 8(2):357–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunz, K. and Laphinova-Koltunski, E. 2015. Cross-linguistic Analysis of Discourse Variation across Registers. Nordic Journal of English Studies 14(1):258–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luscher, J.-M. and Moeschler, J. 1990. Approches Dérivationnelles et Procédurales des Opérateurs et Connecteurs Temporels: Les Exemples de Et et de Enfin . Cahiers de Linguistique Française 111:77–104.Google Scholar
Mann, W. and Thompson, S. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization. Text 8(3):243–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C. 2008. Coordination Relations in the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKee, R. 1992. Footing Shifts in American Sign Language Lectures. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Meurant, L. 2015. Corpus LSFB. Un Corpus Informatisé en Libre Accès de Vidéos et d’Annotations de la Langue des Signes de Belgique Francophone (LSFB). Laboratoire de Langue des signes de Belgique francophone (LSFB-Lab), FRS-F.N.R.S et Université de Namur. [URL]
Meurant, L., Bernagou, E., Sánchez, S., De Clerck, C., Raes, G., Fonzé, S., Notarrigo, I., Gabarró-López, S., Paligot, A. and Sinte, A. 2015. Lex-LSFB. Base de donnée lexicale de la langue des signes de Belgique francophone (LSFB). Université de Namur. [URL]
Meurant, L., Lepeut, A., Tavier, A., Gabarró-López, S. and Sinte, A. Ongoing. The Multimodal FRAPé Corpus: Towards Building a Comparable LSFB and Belgian French Corpus. LSFB-Lab, University of Namur, Belgium.
Metzger, M. and Bahan, B. 2001. Discourse Analysis. In The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages, C. Lucas (ed), 112–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Millis, K. K. and Just, M. A. 1994. The Influence of Connectives on Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 331:128–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murillo, S. 2016. Reformulation Markers and Polyphony. A Contrastive English-Spanish Analysis. Languages in Contrast 16(1):1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pander Maat, H. 1999. The Differential Linguistic Realization of Comparative and Additive Coherence Relations. Cognitive Linguistics 10(2):147–184.Google Scholar
Pérez, Y. 2006. Marcadores Manuales en el Discurso Narrativo en la Lengua de Señas Venezolana. Letras 48(72):157–208.Google Scholar
Perniss, P., Pfau, R. and Steinbach, M. 2007. Can’t You See the Difference? Sources of Variation in Sign Language Structure. In Visible variation: Cross-linguistic studies in sign language structure, P. Perniss, R. Pfau and M. Steinbach (eds), 1–34. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R. and Quer, J. 2007. On the syntax of negation and modals in Catalan Sign Language and German Sign Language. In Visible variation: Cross-linguistic studies in sign language structure, P. Perniss, R. Pfau and M. Steinbach (eds), 129–162. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Petukhova, V. and Bunt, H. 2009. Towards a Multidimensional Semantics of Discourse Markers in Spoken Dialogue. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Semantics, 157–168.Google Scholar
Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A. and Webber, B. 2008. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. Proceedings of the Sixth International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference LREC ’08. Marrakech, Morocco, 28–30 May 2008. European Language Resources Association. 2961–2968.Google Scholar
Redeker, G. 1990. Ideational and Pragmatic Markers of Discourse Structure. Journal of Pragmatics 14(3):367–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, C. B. 1989. Features of Discourse in an American Sign Language Lecture. In The Sociolinguistics of Deaf Communities, C. Lucas (ed), 231–251. San Diego: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. and Noordman, L. 1992. Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 151:1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Coherence Relations in a Cognitive Theory of Discourse Representation. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2):93–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sonnemans, B. 2016. LSFB Asbl. Un Dictionnaire en Ligne et Journal en LSFB en Libre Accès de Vidéos. [URL]
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spooren, W. 1997. The Processing of Underspecified Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 241:149–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, W. C. 1960. Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers 81.Google Scholar
Taboada, M. and Gómez-Gónzalez, M. 2012. Discourse Markers and Coherence Relations: Comparison across Markers, Languages and Modalities. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 61:17–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeerbergen, M. 2006. Past and Current Trends in Sign Language Research. Language & Communication 261:168–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeerbergen, M. and Nilsson, A. L. 2018. Introduction. In A Bibliography of Sign Languages, 2008–2017, A. Aarssen, R. Genis and E. van der Veken, (eds). Leiden: Brill. [URL]
Villameriel, S. 2008. Marcadores del Discurso en la Lengua de Signos Española y en el Español Oral: Un Estudio Comparativo. Actas completas del VIII Congreso de Lingüística General. 1990–2009.Google Scholar
2010. EN-CAMBIO y ES-DECIR: Origen de los Marcadores Discursivos de la Lengua de Signos en el Español Oral. Actas del IX Congreso de Lingüística General.Google Scholar
Webber, B., Prasad, R. and Lee, A. 2019. Ambiguity in Explicit Discourse Connectives. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2019) – Long papers, S. Dobnik, S. Chatzikyriakidis and V. Demberg (eds), 134–141. Gothenburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. and Cartoni, B. 2012. English and French Causal Connectives in Contrast. Languages in Contrast 12(2):232–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, S. and Degand, L. 2017. Annotating the Meaning of Discourse Connectives in Multilingual Corpora. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13(2):1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gabarró-López, Sílvia & Laurence Meurant
2022. Contrasting signed and spoken languages. Languages in Contrast 22:2 ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.