Question-Answer Pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands

Kimmelman, Vadim; Vink, Lianne

doi:10.1353/sls.2017.0013

Cited by 13 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have described the relation existing between questions, QAP, LSF QAP and pseudoclefts in terms of a grammaticalization path, extending a similar proposal by Kimmelman and Vink (2017) on QAP in NGT but we still believe that this topic needs much further investigation. Indeed, the literature on pseudoclefts is rich in remarks associating questions, free-relatives and various types of cleft-sentences.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 53%

“…Hauser, C. (2018) Question-answer pairs: the help of LSF. FEAST 2: 44-55. https://doi.org/10.31009/FEAST.i2.04 http://www.raco.cat/index.php/FEAST License: CC BY-NC 3.0 In their corpus study on Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT), Kimmelman and Vink (2017) highlight the coexistence of different forms of question-answer pairs (QAP), some surfacing as two clauses and others as one single clause. This finding leads the authors to postulate the existence of a grammaticalization process actually at play in NGT and in ASL by which two separate clauses eventually get merged into one undergoing morphophonological and semantic transformations (see Figure 1).…”

Section: Short State Of the Artmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given this state of affairs, it is only natural to suggest that there is a grammaticalization path leading from a purely rhetorical strategy to a proper (pseudo)clefting strategy, and that LSF is on the path between ASL, NGT and LIS. Kimmelman and Vink (2017) have made a very similar proposal on the base of the coexistence of different types of QAP in NGT. We extend their account to the cross-linguistic dimension.…”

Section: The Grammaticalization Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rationale of the proposal roots in Kimmelman and Vink (2017) and is schematized in Figure 3. Concretely, a rhetorical question and its answer start to be more and more used by signers as a focus strategy (step 1).…”

Section: The Grammaticalization Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concretely, a rhetorical question and its answer start to be more and more used by signers as a focus strategy (step 1). The two clauses get linked at the discourse level (step 2) and start to be used as a new construction, being linked under a single clause (step 3) following Kimmelman and Vink (2017). 5 Hoza et al (1997) based on a possible interpretation of Iatridou and Varlokosta (1995) claim that, typologically, languages either display both predicational and specificational pseudoclefts or only predicational pseudocleft but never specificational pseudoclefts only.…”

Section: The Grammaticalization Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Question-answer pairs: the help of LSF

Hauser¹

2018

FEAST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing literature has emerged on sign languages describing a particular construction which looks like a question followed by its fragment answer, but which crucially is not interpreted as such. In sign language litterature, it has successively been referred to as pseudoclefts (Wilbur 1996, Branchini 2014), rhetorical questions (Hoza et al. 1997), question-answer constituents (Davidson, Caponigro, and Mayberry 2008), or, more recently, Question Answer Pairs (QAP) in Kimmelman and Vink (2017). This last work proposes the existence of a grammaticalization process starting with information seeking questions and ending with question-answer constituent, creating a bridge between two of the main analyses proposed. In our article, we extend the bridge to Wilbur's analysis and beyond. We demonstrate, based on an extensive depiction of French Sign Language's (LSF) QAP properties, that the grammaticalization scale proposed in Kimmelman and Vink (2017) has to be further developed to integrate pseudoclefts as its ending point. Through morpho-phonetic, syntactic and semantic evidences, we will show that LSF instantiates a construction which is syntactically closer to pseudoclefts than American Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands but not yet at the point of Italian Sign Language (Branchini 2014), advocating in favor of an intermediate analysis.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 53%

Section: Short State Of the Artmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Grammaticalization Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Grammaticalization Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Grammaticalization Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Question-answer pairs: the help of LSF

Hauser¹

2018

FEAST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Syntactic functions of nonmanuals in Russian Sign Language

Burkova

Khristoforova

Kimmelman

2023

Studies in Corpus Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter presents the Russian Sign Language (RSL) Corpus and demonstrates its capabilities as a research tool by summarizing three corpus-based studies primarily focused on syntactic functions of nonmanual markers. The first study considers question marking in regular wh-questions and in question-answer pairs. It shows that the two constructions have very different nonmanual markers. The second study analyzes marking of topics in RSL, and shows that nonmanual markers of topics are typologically common, but are infrequent in naturalistic corpus data. The third study investigates conditional and concessive constructions in RSL. It demonstrates that these constructions make extensive and frequent use of nonmanual markers, but that no single marker is specialized for the function of expressing conditional or concessive meaning. Instead, complex combinations of multiple markers are employed in these constructions. All three studies also contribute to sign language typology by providing novel descriptions of syntactic and discourse phenomena in RSL.

show abstract

Review of Kimmelman (2019): Information structure in sign languages: Evidence from Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of Netherlands

Nuhbalaoglu

2020

SL&L

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Question-Answer Pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands

Cited by 13 publications

References 15 publications

Question-answer pairs: the help of LSF

Question-answer pairs: the help of LSF

Syntactic functions of nonmanuals in Russian Sign Language

Review of Kimmelman (2019): Information structure in sign languages: Evidence from Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of Netherlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About