Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 40:1 (2016) ► pp.204–234

Clausal coordination in Finnish Sign Language

| University of Jyväskylä
This paper deals with the coordination of clauses in Finnish Sign Language (FinSL). Building on conversational data, the paper first shows that linking in conjunctive coordination in FinSL is primarily asyndetic, whereas in adversative and disjunctive coordination FinSL prefers syndetic linking. Secondly, the paper investigates the nonmanual prosody of coordination: nonmanual activity is shown both to mark the juncture of the coordinand clauses and to draw their contours. Finally, the paper addresses certain forms of clausal coordination in FinSL that are sign language-specific. It is suggested that the sign language-specific properties of coordination are caused both by the fact that signers can use two manual articulators in the production of sentences and by the pervasive iconicity of sign language structure.
Keywords: coordination, modality-difference, Finnish Sign Language, clause, prosody, nonmanual element
Published online: 29 April 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.1.07jan
References (48)
Ala-Sippola, Sanna. 2012. Agentin ilmaiseminen suomalaisella viittomakielellä tuotetussa asiatekstissa [Expressing agent in a formal FinSL narrative]. Helsinki: MA thesis in General Linguistics, Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics, 51–101. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bril, Isabelle. 2010. The syntax and pragmatics of clause linkage and clause hierarchy: Some new perspectives (Editor’s introduction). In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics, 1–23. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Sloetjes Han. 2008. Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora. In the Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Construction and Exploitation of Sign Language Corpora , 39–43. Paris: ELRA.
Davidson, Kathryn. 2013. ‘And’ or ‘or’: General use coordination in ASL. Semantics & Pragmatics 6(4). 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker & Holger Diessel2012. The typology of clause linkage: Status quo, challenges, prospects. In Volker Gast & Diessel Holger (eds.), Clause linkage in cross-linguistic perspective: Data-driven approaches to cross-clausal syntax, 1–36. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In R.M.W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (eds.), Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Vol. 1, Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. & Aikhenvald Alexandra Y.. 2000. Introduction. In Robert M.W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, 1–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Mathew S. 2001. What is basic linguistic theory? [URL]. (14 April 2014).
. 2006. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory. In Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: Issues in grammar writing, 207–234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 2010. Clause linkage and nexus in Papuan languages. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics, 27–50. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho (2004). ISO suomen kielioppi [BIG Finnish grammar]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Coordinating constructions: An overview. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 3–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Coordination. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Complex constructions. Volume 2, 2nd edn, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodge, Gabrielle & Trevor Johnston. 2013. Patterns from a signed language corpus: Clause-level units in Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Paper presented at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference 11 . University College London, 13 July 2013.
Hoyer, Karin. 2012. Dokumentation och beskrivning som språkplanering: perspektiv från arbete med tre tecknade minoritetsspråk [Language documentation and description as language planning – Working with three signed minority languages]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Doctoral dissertation in General Linguistics, Department of Modern Languages.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A cross-linguistic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jantunen, Tommi. 2007. The equative sentence in Finnish Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 10(2). 113–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Fixed and free: order of the verbal predicate and its core arguments in declarative transitive clauses in Finnish Sign Language. SKY Journal of Linguistics 21(2008). 83–123.Google Scholar
. 2009. Tavu ja lause: tutkimuksia kahden sekventiaalisen perusyksikön olemuksesta suomalaisessa viittomakielessä [Syllable and sentence: Studies on the nature of two sequential basic units in FinSL] (Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 117). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
. 2010. Suomalaisen viittomakielen pääsanaluokat [The main parts of speech in FinSL]. In Tommi Jantunen (ed.), Näkökulmia viittomaan ja viittomistoon [Perspectives on sign and lexicon], 57–78. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
. 2013. Ellipsis in Finnish Sign Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36(3). 303–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jantunen, Tommi, Birgitta Burger, Danny De Weerdt, Irja Seilola & Tuija Wainio. 2012. Experiences collecting motion capture data on continuous signing. In the Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions Between Corpus and Lexicon , 75–82. Paris: ELRA.
Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 2007. Australian Sign Language. An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karppa, Matti, Ville Viitaniemi, Marcos Luzardo, Jorma Laaksonen & Tommi Jantunen. 2014. SLMotion - An extensible sign language oriented video analysis tool. In the Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2014) , 1886–1891. Paris: ELRA.
Liddell, Scott K. 1980. American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luzardo, Marcos, Matti Karppa, Jorma Laaksonen & Tommi Jantunen. 2013. Head pose estimation for Sign Language video. In J.-K. Kamarainen & M. Koskela (eds.), Image analysis, 349–360. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McShane, Marjorie J. 2005. Theory of ellipsis. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Josep Quer. 2010. Nonmanuals: Their grammatical and prosodic roles. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, 381–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puupponen, Anna, Tommi Jantunen, Ritva Takkinen, Outi Pippuri & Tuija Wainio. 2014. Taking non-manuality into account in collecting and analyzing Finnish Sign Language video data. In the Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Beyond the Manual Channel [organized as a part of LREC 2014 at Reykjavik, Iceland, 31 May, 2014], 143–148. Paris: ELRA.
Puupponen, Anna, Tuija Wainio, Birgitta Burger & Tommi Jantunen. 2015. Head movements in Finnish Sign Language on the basis of Motion Capture data: a study of the form and function of nods, nodding, head thrusts, and head pulls. Sign Language & Linguistics 18(1). 41–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reintges, Chris H. 2010. Coordination, converts and clause chaining in Coptic Egyptian: Typology and structural analysis. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics, 203–265. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Terhi. 1985. Viittomakielen perusrakenne [The basic structure of sign language]. Publications of the Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki No. 12. Helsinki.Google Scholar
. 1998. The categories of nominals and verbals and their morphology in Finnish Sign Language. Turku: University of Turku Licentiate Thesis in General Linguistics, Department of Finnish and General Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 2012. Visual prosody. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 55–76. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Savolainen, LeenaIshara Press. 2006. Interrogatives and negatives in Finnish Sign Language: An overview. In Ulrike Zeshan. (ed.), Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages, 284–302. Nijmegen: Google Scholar
Suvi = Suvi, the Online Dictionary of FinSL. [URL]. (14 April 2014).
Takkinen, Ritva, Tommi Jantunen & Outi Ahonen. 2015. Finnish Sign Language. In Julie Bakken Jepsen, Goedele De Clerck, Sam Lutalo Kiingi & William B. McGregor (eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook, pp. 253–272. De Gruyter Handbook Series. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, Gladys & Prudence Lau. 2012. Coordination and subordination. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 340–365. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2000. Phonological and prosodic layering of nonmanuals in ASL. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 215–244. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2004. Hand, head, and face: Negative constructions in sign languages. Linguistic Typology 81. 1–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Napoli, Donna Jo & Rachel Sutton-Spence
2024. Torso articulation in sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 27:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Puupponen, Anna, Gabrielle Hodge, Benjamin Anible, Juhana Salonen, Tuija Wainio, Jarkko Keränen, Doris Hernández & Tommi Jantunen
2024. Opening up Corpus FinSL: enriching corpus analysis with linguistic ethnography in a study of constructed action. Linguistics DOI logo
Puupponen, Anna, Laura Kanto, Tuija Wainio & Tommi Jantunen
2022. Variation in the use of constructed action according to discourse type and age in Finnish Sign Language. Language & Communication 83 ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
ASADA, Yuko
2019. Properties of Coordination in Japanese Sign Language. Japanese Journal of Sign Language Studies 28:1 ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo
Puupponen, Anna
2019. Towards understanding nonmanuality: A semiotic treatment of signers’ head movements. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 DOI logo
Jantunen, Tommi
2017. Constructed Action, the Clause and the Nature of Syntax in Finnish Sign Language. Open Linguistics 3:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 september 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.