Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2015) ► pp.1–40

Researching linguistic features of text genres in a DGS corpus

The case of finger loci

| Humboldt University Berlin
| University of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-Stendal
In this article, we investigate the referential and textual functions of finger loci, that is, the pointing towards one or more fingers of the weak hand in signed discourse. The first part of the article deals with the theoretical discussion about referentiality and the related notions of definiteness and specificity in the literature on spoken languages. The second empirical part of the article shows that the use of finger loci in German Sign Language (DGS) varies according to the genre of signed discourse, fulfilling not only referential but also textual functions. Furthermore, formal variations within the use of finger loci reflect referential gradation and specificity.
Keywords: referentiality, definiteness, specificity, sign language, text genre, pointing
Published online: 29 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18.1.01han
References (36)
Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: a cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2011. Indefinite articles. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 38. Available online at [URL] (last accessed on 25-09-2013).Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, Horst & Jens Heßmann. 1996. Signs and words: Accounting for spoken language elements in German Sign Language. In Ronnie Wilbur & William Edmondson (eds.), International Review of Sign Linguistics. Vol. 11, 23–56. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language. The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1982. Logic vs. pragmatics, with human language as the referee: Towards an empirically viable epistemology. Journal of Pragmatics 61. 35–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, 47–82. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Martje. 2008a. Raum- und Körpernutzung in Texten der Deutschen Gebärdensprache (DGS): Teil I: Textkohäsion und Referenzstrukturen. Das Zeichen 22(79). 274–284.Google Scholar
. 2008b. Raum- und Körpernutzung in Texten der Deutschen Gebärdensprache (DGS): Teil II: Thematische Entfaltung und graduelle Referenzialität. Das Zeichen 22(80). 442–456.Google Scholar
Hansen, Martje & Jens Heßmann. 2013. Register und Textsorten in der Deutschen Gebärdensprache: Eine korpusbasierte Annäherung. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 571. 133–156.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
. 1991. On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27(2). 405–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, Bernadet. 2007. Simultaneous use of the two hands in Jordanian Sign Language. In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages. Form and Function, 237–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heßmann, Jens. 2001. Gehörlos so!: Materialien zur Gebärdensprache. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Heusinger, Klaus von & Udo Klein. 2013. The distribution of two indefinite articles: The case of Uzbek. In Cornelia Ebert & Stefan Hinterwimmer (eds.), Different kinds of specificity across languages, 155–176. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 205–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Articles. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien. Ein internationales Handbuch, 836–841. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson. 1993. Language universals, discourse pragmatics, and semantics. Language Sciences 15(4). 357–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 2007. Australian Sign Language. An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 1990. Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in ASL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott, Marit Vogt-Svendsen & Brita Bergman. 2007. A crosslinguistic comparison of buoys: Evidence from American, Norwegian, and Swedish Sign Language. In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages. Form and function, 187–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Christopher. 1994. Simultaneous constructions in Quebec Sign Language. In Mary Brennan & Graham H. Turner (eds.), Word-order issues in sign language, 89–112. Durham: ISLA.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 1986. The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun classification and categorization, 181–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vater, Heinz. 2005. Referenzlinguistik. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Vermeerbergen, Myriam & Eline Demey. 2007. Sign + gesture = speech + gesture? Comparing aspects of simultaneity in Flemish Sign Language to instances of concurrent speech and gesture. In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages. Form and Function, 257–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Information text/Glob I: Vibelle TV “Globalisierung I” – URL: [URL] (last accessed: February 16, 2015).
Information text/Glob II: Vibelle TV “Globalisierung II” – URL: [URL] (last accessed: February 16, 2015).
Information text/Glob III: Vibelle TV “Globalisierung III” – URL: [URL] (last accessed: February 16, 2015).
BMAS/Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs: “Jobs ohne Barrieren [Jobs without barriers Initiative]”, Part 4.
URL: [URL] (last accessed: September 7, 2014; in February 2015 not available anymore).
BMAS/Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs: “Teilzeit – Grundsatz der Gleichbehandlung [Part-time – Principle of non-discrimination]”, Part 17.
URL: [URL] (last accessed: February 16, 2015).
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Wilcox, Sherman, André Nogueira Xavier & Satu Siltaloppi
2024. List constructions in two signed languages. Language and Cognition 16:1 ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo
Cohen-Koka, Shirit, Bracha Nir & Irit Meir
2023. Variation of sign parameters in narrative and expository discourse. Sign Language & Linguistics 26:2 ► pp. 218 ff. DOI logo
Gabarró-López, Sílvia
2019. Describing buoys from the perspective of discourse markers. Sign Language & Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.