A cross-linguistic comparison of reference across five signed languages

• Do signers of different signed languages establish and maintain referencethe same way? Here we compare how signers of five Western deaf signedlanguages coordinate fully conventionalized forms with more richly improvisedsemiotics to identify and talk about referents of varying agency. The five languages(based on a convenience sample) are Auslan, Irish Sign Language, Finnish SignLanguage, Norwegian Sign Language, and Swedish Sign Language. Using tenretellings of Frog, Where Are You? from each language, we analyze tokens ofreferring expressions with respect to: (a) activation status (new vs. maintained vs.re-introduced); (b) semiotic strategy (e.g., pointing sign, fingerspelling, enactment);and (c) animacy (human vs. animal vs. inanimate object). Statisticalanalysis reveals many similarities and some differences across the languages. Forexample, signers of each language typically used conventionalized forms toidentify new referents, and less conventional strategies to maintain and reintroducereferents. Differences were mainly observed in relation to the patterning across animacy and activation categories and in the use of fingerspelled wordsfrom ambient spoken/written languages. We suggest that doing reference in thesesigned languages involves both signed language-specific and ecology-specificstrategies. The latter may be attributed to the different social and historical trajectoriesof each language.

Ämnesord

HUMANIORA  -- Språk och litteratur -- Jämförande språkvetenskap och allmän lingvistik (hsv//swe)

HUMANITIES  -- Languages and Literature -- General Language Studies and Linguistics (hsv//eng)

Nyckelord

animacy

Frog story

referential expression

semiotic strategies

signed language typology

signed languages

Sign Language

teckenspråk

Publikations- och innehållstyp

ref (ämneskategori)

art (ämneskategori)