Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 19:1 (2016) ► pp.1–36

Indefiniteness and specificity marking in Catalan Sign Language (LSC)

| CNRS/Paris 8
Bringing together the areas of sign language semantics-pragmatics interface and discourse reference, this article offers a description of how indefiniteness and (non‑)specificity is encoded in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). By using a combined methodology of corpus data and grammatical tests, the present study shows that the encoding of indefiniteness and specificity in LSC is achieved by three main means, namely lexical signs, the use of nonmanuals, and the use of signing space. The basic primitives required to analyze specificity in LSC comprise wide scope, epistemicity, and partitivity. This article proposes an analysis of the use of signing space in contributing meaning and provides insights into the characterization of the abstract import of signing space.
Keywords: Catalan Sign Language (LSC), pronouns, indefiniteness, reference, definiteness, discourse, specificity, signing space
Published online: 15 September 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19.1.01bar
References (69)
Abbott, Barbara. 1999. Support for a unique theory of definite descriptions. In Tanya Matthews & Devon Strolovitch (eds.), Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory IX, 1–15. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bahan, Benjamin. 1996. Nonmanual realization of agreement in American Sign Language. Boston: Boston University dissertation.Google Scholar
Bahan, Benjamin, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin & Carol Neidle. 1995. Convergent evidence for the structure of determiner phrases in American Sign Language. In Leslie Gabriele, Debra Hardison & Robert Westmoreland (eds.), FLSM VI. Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the formal linguistics society of Mid-America, vol. 21, 1–12. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Barberà, Gemma. 2012. The meaning of space in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Reference, specificity and structure in signed discourse. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University dissertation [Published as a monograph in 2015, Berlin & Nijmegen: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press].Google Scholar
. 2014. Use and functions of spatial planes in Catalan Sign Language (LSC) discourse. Sign Language Studies 14(2). 147–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barberà, Gemma & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr. In preparation. Two indefinite pronouns in Catalan Sign Language (LSC).
Barberà, Gemma & Josep Quer. 2013. Impersonal reference in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). In Laurence Meurant, Aurélie Sinte, Mieke van Herreweghe & Myriam Vermeerbergen (eds.), Sign language research, uses and practices: Crossing views on theoretical and applied sign language linguistics, 237–258. Berlin & Nijmegen: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertone, Carmela. 2007. La struttura del sintagma determinante nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS). Venice: Università Ca’ Foscari dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2009. The syntax of noun modification in Italian Sign language (LIS). University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 191[BR1] .Google Scholar
Bhat, Darbhe N.S. 2004. Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty & Gregory Ward. 1998. Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & William A. Ladusaw. 2004. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Conlin, Frances, Paul Hagstrom & Carol Neidle. 2003. A particle of indefiniteness in American Sign Language. Linguistic Discovery 2(1). 1–21.Google Scholar
Consten, Manfred. 2003. Towards a unified model of domain-bound reference. In Fredrich Lenz (ed.), Deictic conceptualisation of space, time and person, 223–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy. 2012. Pronouns. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 227–244. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dachkovsky, Svetlana & Wendy Sandler. 2009. Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech 52(2/3). 287–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Kathryn & Deanna Gagne. 2014. Vertical representation of quantifier domains. In Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Falaus, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 181, 110–127. Vitoria-Gasteiz.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1). 1–25.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1990. Pragmatics of nonmanual behaviour in Danish Sign Language. In William Edmonson & Fred Karlsson (eds.), SLR’87. Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 121–128. Hamburg: Signum-Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language. The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum-Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2003. From pointing to reference and predication: Pointing signs, eyegaze, and head and body orientation in Danish Sign Language. In Sotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 269–292. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, Urtzi & Anastasia Giannakidou. 2014. Anti-specificity and the role of number: The case of Spanish ‘algún’/’algunos’. Paper presented at RALFe 2014 , Université Paris 81, October 9.
Farkas, Donka. 2002. Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 191. 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Robert Johnson. 1982 [2012]. Nominal markers in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 15(2). 243–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet & Ivan Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 51. 355–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraurud, Kari. 1990. Definiteness and the processing of NPs in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics 71. 395–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Herrmann, Annika. 2013. Modal and focus particles in sign languages. A cross-linguistic study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 191. 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Specificity. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 1024-1057. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ionin, Tania. 2006. This is definitely specific: Specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics 141. 175–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit. 1990. Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 131. 273–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Jeroen A.G. Groenendijk, Theo M.V. Janssen & Martin B.J. Stokhhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 227–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Ágnes Bende-Farkas. 2006. Epistemic specificity from a communication-theoretical perspective. Manuscript, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Koulidobrova, Elena. 2009. SELF: Intensifier and ‘long distance’ effects in ASL. Proceedings of ESSLLI 2009 , Bordeaux.
Kuhn, Jeremy. 2014. Scope and domain of indefinites in American Sign Language. Paper presented at the Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory (FEAST) Colloquium , Venice, June 2014.
Liddell, Scott. 1990. Four functions of a locus: reexamining the structure of space in ASL. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 176–198. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward Klima. 1991. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Susan Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, Vol. 1: Linguistics, 191–210. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Machado de Sá, Thaís, Guilherme Lourenço de Souza, Maria Luiza da Cunha Lima & Elidéa Lúcia Almeida Bernardino. 2012. Definiteness in Brazilian Sign Language: a study on weak and strong definites. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem 10(19). 21–38.Google Scholar
MacLaughlin, Dawn. 1997. The structure of determiner phrases: Evidence from American Sign Language. Boston: Boston University dissertation.Google Scholar
Mathur, Gaurav. 1996. A presuppositionality marker in ASL. Manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 701. 369–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morales-López, Esperanza, Rosa María Boldú-Menasanch, Jesus Amador Alonso-Rodríguez, Victoria Gras-Ferrer & Maria Ángeles Rodríguez-González. 2005. The verbal system of Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Sign Language Studies 5(4). 441–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosella, Marta. 2012. Les construccions relatives en llengua de signes catalana (LSC). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona dissertation.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler. 1999. Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech 42(2/3). 143–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1970. Opacity, co-reference, and pronouns. Synthèse 21(3–4). 359–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Josep Quer. 2010. Nonmanuals: Their grammatical and prosodic roles. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge language surveys), 381–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2006. Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages (Linguistics in Potsdam 24). Potsdam: Universitäts-Verlag [Available at [URL]].Google Scholar
Poesio, Massimo & Renata Vieira. 1998. A corpus-based investigation of definite description use. Computational Linguistics 24(2). 183–216.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rinfret, Julie. 2009. L’association spatiale du nom en langue des signes québécoise: formes, fonctions et sens. Montréal: UQAM dissertation.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1989. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 121. 683–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 261. 287–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe & Jonathan Lamberton. 2012. Formal indices and iconicity in ASL. In Maria Aloni, Floris Roelofsen, Galit Weidman Sassoon, Katrin Schulz, Vadim Kimmelman & Matthijs Westera (eds.), Proceedings of 18th Amsterdam Colloquium 2011, LNCS 7218, 1–11. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe, Jonathan Lamberton & Mirko Santoro. 2013. Iconic variables. Linguistics and Philosophy 36(2). 91–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, Gladys & Felix Sze. 2002. Nominal expressions in Hong Kong Sign Language: Does modality make a difference? In Richard Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 296–320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie. 1996. Focus and specificity in ASL structures containing self. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) Winter Meeting , San Diego, CA.
. 2008. Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time. Selected papers from TISLR 81, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2011. Focus on focus: A feature geometry for focus, definiteness, and specificity. Paper presented at the Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory (FEAST) Colloquium , Venice, June 2011.
Wilkinson, Erin. 2013. A functional description of self in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 13(4). 462–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winston, Elisabeth. 1995. Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. In Karen Emmorey & Judy Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 87–114. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2000. Sign language in Indo-Pakistan: A description of a signed language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Language 80(1). 7–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, June & Cynthia Patschke. 1990. A class of determiners in ASL. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 201–210. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Moya-Avilés, Berta, Gemma Barberà & Carme Bach
2023. Chapter 3. Politeness in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). In Multimodal Im/politeness [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 333], ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Barberà, Gemma, Patricia Cabredo Hofherr & Josep Quer
2022. Agent-backgrounding in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Sign Language & Linguistics ► pp. 334 ff. DOI logo
McWhorter, John
2022. Spoken and Sign Language Emergence: A Comparison. Languages 7:3 ► pp. 184 ff. DOI logo
Jarque, Maria Josep & Esther Pascual
2021. From gesture- and sign-in-interaction to grammar: Fictive questions for relative clauses in signed languages. Languages and Modalities 1 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Bross, Fabian
2020. Object marking in German Sign Language (<i>Deutsche Gebärdensprache</i>): Differential object marking and object shift in the visual modality. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1 DOI logo
Kelepir, Meltem, Aslı Özkul & Elvan Tamyürek Özparlak
2018. Agent-backgrounding in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Sign Language & Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 257 ff. DOI logo
Sümer, Beyza
2016. Scene-setting and referent introduction in sign and spoken languages. In The Acquisition of Turkish in Childhood [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 20], ► pp. 193 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.