Matching propositional content and formal markers: Sentence boundaries in a DGS text

Sign Language and Linguistics (Online)

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 145-175

  Hansen, Martje ^a   Heßmann, Jens ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES MAGDEBURG STENDAL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Formal marking of sentence boundaries (manual signs and gestures, head nods, transitions, holds, blinks, gaze direction); Functional sentence units; Propositional content; Segmentation of signed texts; Temporal sentence contours

Indexed keywords

EID: 61249249733     PISSN: 13879316     EISSN: 1569996X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/sll.10.2.05han     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Baddeley, Alan. 2000. Short-term and working memory. In E. Tulving & F.I.M. Craik (eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory, 77-92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Bahan, Benjamin B. & Samuel J. Supalla. 1995. Line segmentation and narrative structure: A study in eyegaze behavior in American Sign Language. In K. Emmorey & J. Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture and space, 171-191. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Baker, Charlotte & Carol Padden. 1978. Focusing on the nonmanual components of ASL. In P. Siple (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 27-57. New York: Academic Press.
4. Beattie, Geoffrey W. 1981. Sequential temporal patterns of speech and gaze in dialogue. In A. Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction and gesture (Approaches to Semiotics 41), 297-320. The Hague: Mouton.
5. Becker, Claudia. 2003. Verfahren der Lexikonerweiterung in der Deutschen Gebärdensprache. Hamburg: Signum.
6. Bellugi, Ursula & Susan Fischer. 1972. A comparison of sign language and spoken language. Cognition 1, 173-200.
7. Bock, Kathryn. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence processing. Psychological Review 89(1), 1-47.
8. Boyes Braem, Penny. 1999. Rhythmic temporal patterns in the signing of deaf early and late learners of Swiss German Sign Language. Language and Speech 42(2-3), 177-208.
9. Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R.S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21-51. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
10. Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
11. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1977. The movement nature of left dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2), 397-412.
12. Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4), 805-55.
13. Ehlich, Konrad. 1999. Der Satz. Beiträge zu einer pragmatischen Rekonstruktion. In A. Redder & J. Rehbein (eds.), Grammatik und mentale Prozesse, 51-68. Tübingen: Stauffenberg-Verlag.
14. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 2002a. Gestures in signing: The presentation gesture in Danish Sign Language. In R. Schulmeister & H. Reinitzer (eds.), Progress in sign language research. In honor of Siegmund Prillwitzz, 143-162. Hamburg: Signum.
15. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 2002b. Grammatical relations in Danish Sign Language: topic and subject. In A. Pajunen (ed.), Mimesis, sign, and the evolution of language, 5-40. Turku, Finland: University of Turku.
16. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 2003. From pointing to reference and predication: pointing signs, eyegaze, and head and body orientation in Danish Sign Language. In S. Kita (ed.), Pointing: where language, culture, and cognition meet, 269-292. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Givón, Talmy. 1979. From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax, 81-112. New York: University of Texas Press.
18. Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 2001. Familiarity, information flow, and linguistic form. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 431-449. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
19. Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud & August Fenk. 1995. Selbstorganisation und natürliche Typologie. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 48, 223-238.
20. Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud & August Fenk. 1999. Cognition, quantitative linguistics, and systemic typology. Linguistic Typology 3, 151-177.
21. Foley, William A. & Van Valin, Robert D. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Friedman, Lynn A. 1976. The manifestation of subject, object and topic in American Sign Language. In C.N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 125-148. New York: Academic Press.
23. Grosjean, Francois & Harlan Lane. 1977. Pauses and syntax in American Sign Language. Cognition 5, 101-117.
24. Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik & j. Wirth (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology (Typological Studies in Language 17), 209-239. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
25. Hansen, Martje. 2007. Warum braucht die Deutsche Gebärdensprache kein Passiv? Verfahren der Markierung semantischer Rollen in der DGS (Arbeiten zur Sprachanalyse, Bd. 48). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang Verlag.
26. Happ, Daniela. 2005. Manuelle und nicht manuelle Module der Deutschen Gebärdensprache (DGS): Linguistische Aspekte. In H. Leuninger & d. Happ (eds.), Gebärdensprachen: Struktur, Erwerb, Verwendung, 9-28. Hamburg: Buske.
27. Heßmann, Jens. 2001. Gehörlos so! Materialien zur Gebärdensprache (Internationale Arbeiten zur Gebärdensprache und Kommunikation Gehörloser, Bd. 32). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
28. Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 2007. Australian Sign Language. An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Kendon, Adam. 1967. Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 26(1), 1-47.
30. Li, Charles N. & Sandra Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C.N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457-489. New York: Academic Press.
31. Liddell, Scott K. 1980. American Sign Language syntax (Approaches to Semiotics 52). The Hague: Mouton.
32. Martinez, Liza B. 1993. Eye-gaze as an element in Filipino Sign Language discourse. In E.A. Winston (ed.), Communication forum, Vol. 2, 99-112. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
33. Metzger, Melanie. 1995. Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In C. Lucas (ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities, 255-271. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
34. Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler. 1999. Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech 42(2-3), 143-176.
35. Nicodemus, Brenda. 2005. Prosody and utterance boundaries in ASL interpretation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS), 23-24 February, Bielefeld, Germany.
36. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25, 511-580.
37. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1995. Prominence typology. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow & T. Vennemann, (eds.), Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Bd. 9.2), 1065-1075. Berlin: de Gruyter.
38. Schlobinski, Peter. 1992. Funktionale Grammatik und Sprachbeschreibung: eine Untersuchung zum gesprochenen Deutsch sowie zum Chinesischen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
39. Seidel, Eugen. 1935. Geschichte und Kritik der wichtigsten Satzdefinitionen. Jena: Frommann.
40. Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll. 1999. The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Sze, Felix. 2004. Blinks and intonational phrases in Hong Kong Sign Language. Paper presented at the Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR 8), September 30-October 2. Barcelona.
42. Thompson, Sandra. 1997. Discourse motivations for the core-oblique distinction as a language universal. In A. Kamio (ed.), Directions in functional linguistics, 59-82. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
43. Thompson, Robin, Karen Emmorey & Robert Kluender. 2006. The relationship between eye gaze and verb agreement in American Sign Language: An eye-tracking study. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24, 571-604.
44. Wilbur, Ronnie. 1994. Eyeblinks and ASL phrase structure. Sign Language Studies 84, 221-240.
45. Winston, Elisabeth & Christine Monikowski. 2003. Marking topic boundaries in signed interpretation and transliteration. In M. Metzger, S. Collins, V. Dively & R. Shaw (eds.), From topic boundaries to omission. New research on interpretation, 187-227. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.