Cover not available
Article published In:
Impersonal human reference in Sign Languages
Edited by Gemma Barberà and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr
[Sign Language & Linguistics 21:2] 2018
► pp. 232–256
Special issue articles

R-impersonal interpretation in Italian Sign Language (LIS)

| University of Milan-Bicocca | Ca’ Foscari University Venice
| CNRS, Institut Jean-Nicod | ENS, Département d’Etudes Cognitives, Paris
In this paper, we examine agent backgrounding in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Specifically, we are interested in identifying and describing the strategies used by LIS signers to reduce referentiality. On the basis of low-referential contexts (cf. questionnaire in the Introduction chapter), we recorded target sentences containing potential markers of agent backgrounding and asked three LIS native signers to provide felicity judgments on them using a 7-point scale. We discuss agent-backgrounding strategies of different types: (i) manual, (ii) non-manual, and (iii) syntactic. Overall, our study shows that the combination of raised eyebrows and mouth-corners down associated with the existential quantifier someone and the sign person makes the agent-backgrounding reading more prominent. Other strategies that can be used in LIS to reduce referentiality are free relatives, perspective shift, and null subject. We also investigate in more detail the semantic status of someone, person, and the null subject through well-established tests from the literature.
Keywords: Italian Sign Language, agent backgrounding, referentiality, impersonals, indefinite pronouns
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background information about LIS
  • 3.A note on the methodology
    • 3.1Data elicitation
    • 3.2Context-sentence matching
  • 4.Agent-backgrounding strategies
    • 4.1Manual strategies
      • 4.1.1Lexical markers
      • 4.1.2Manual morphemic markers
    • 4.2Non-manual strategies
    • 4.3Syntactic strategies
  • 5.Impersonal vs. indefinite pronouns
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00019.man
References (26)
References
Barattieri, Chiara. 2006. Il periodo ipotetico in LIS. Siena: Università degli Studi di Siena PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Barberà, Gemma. 2015. The meaning of space in sign language. Reference, specificity and structure in Catalan Sign Language discourse. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton and Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barberà, Gemma & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr. 2017a. Backgrounded agents in Catalan Sign Language (LSC) – passives, middles or impersonals? Language 931. 767–798. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. Two indefinite pronouns in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Sinn und Bedeutung 211. 89–105.Google Scholar
Bertone, Carmela & Anna Cardinaletti. 2011. ll sistema pronominale della lingua dei segni italiana. In Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto & Caterina Donati (eds.), Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS, 145–160. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Branchini, Chiara. 2009. Relative libere e interrogative wh- in LIS. In Alcuni capitoli della grammatica della LIS. Atti dell’incontro di studio ‟La grammatica della Lingua dei Segni Italiana”, 101–115. Venice: Editrice Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Branchini, Chiara & Caterina Donati. 2009. Relatively different: Italian Sign Language relative clauses in a typological perspective. In Anikó Lipták (ed.), Correlatives cross-linguistically, 157–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branchini, Chiara & Carlo Geraci. 2011. L’ordine dei costituenti in LIS: risultati preliminari. In Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto & Caterina Donati (eds.), Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS, 113–126. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia. 2008. Les pronoms impersonnels humains: syntaxe et interprétation. Modèles linguistiques vol. XXIX-1 571. 35–56.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo, Carlo Geraci & Sandro Zucchi. 2006. Strategies of relativization in LIS. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 241. 945–975. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Kathryn & Deanna Gagne. In prep. ‟More is up”, pragmatic intuitions are grammaticalized in ASL as overt contextual domain restrictions. Manuscript.
Eugeni, Carlo. 2008. Una panoramica della situazione dei sordi italiani in generale e della lingua dei segni italiana in particolare. Version updated after amendments by Dino Giglioli president of the National interpreters’ association (ANIMU).
Geraci, Carlo. 2012. Language policy and planning: The case of Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 12(4). 494–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Spatial syntax in your hands. In Jyoti Iyer & Leland Kusmer (eds.), NELS 44: Proceedings of the Forty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 11, 123–134. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo & Valentina Aristodemo. 2016. An in-depth tour into sentential complementation in Italian Sign Language. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Annika Herrmann (eds.), A matter of complexity: Subordination in sign languages, 95–150. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Carlo Cecchetto & Sandro Zucchi. 2008. Sentential complementation in Italian Sign Language. In Michael Grosvald & Dionne Soares (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-eighth Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL), 46–58.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19(3). 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mantovan, Lara. 2017. Nominal modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mantovan, Lara & Carlo Geraci. 2015. The syntax of cardinal numerals in Italian Sign Language (LIS). In Proceedings of the Forty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 21, 155–165.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(1). 29–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Donkey anaphora: the view from sign language (ASL and LSF). Linguistics and Philosophy 34(4). 341–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Iconic pragmatics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36(3). 877–936. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2011. Overlap and complementarity in reference impersonals: Man-constructions vs. third person plural-impersonals in the languages of Europe. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions. A cross-linguistic perspective, 57–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zucchi, Sandro. 2004. Monsters in the visual mode? Manuscript, Università degli Studi di Milano, [URL]
. 2009. Along the time line. Tense and time adverbs in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language Semantics 17(2). 99–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar