Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-p5w8z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-20T02:49:28.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interrogative Constructions in Signed Languages: Crosslinguistic Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Ulrike Zeshan
Ulrike Zeshan*
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Nijmegen
*
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Postbus 310, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands [Ulrike.Zeshan@mpi.nl]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports on results from a broad crosslinguistic study based on data from thirty-five signed languages around the world. The study is the first of its kind, and the typological generalizations presented here cover the domain of interrogative structures as they appear across a wide range of geographically and genetically distinct signed languages. Manual and nonmanual ways of marking basic types of questions in signed languages are investigated. As a result, it becomes clear that the range of crosslinguistic variation is extensive for some subparameters, such as the structure of question-word paradigms, while other parameters, such as the use of nonmanual expressions in questions, show more similarities across signed languages. Finally, it is instructive to compare the findings from signed language typology to relevant data from spoken languages at a more abstract, crossmodality level.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 7 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1993. Linguistic expression and its relation to modality. Phonetics and phonology, vol 3: Current issues in ASL phonology, ed. by Coulter, Geoffrey R., 273–90. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-193270-1.50018-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, David. 1983. Iconicity, arbitrariness, and duality of patterning in signed and spoken language: Perspectives on language evolution. Sign Language Studies 12. 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker-Shenk, Charlotte, and Cokely, Dennis. 1996. American Sign Language: A teacher's resource text on grammar and culture. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Bergman, Brita. 1984. Non-manual components of signed language: Some sentence types in Swedish Sign Language. Recent research on European sign languages (Proceedings of the European meeting of sign language research, Brussels, September 19–25, 1982), ed. by Loncke, Filip, Braem, Penny Boyes, and Lebrun, Ivan, 49–59. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. 2000. The indefinite-interrogative puzzle. Linguistic Typology 4.3.365–400.Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny. 1990. Einführung in die Gebärdensprache und ihre Erforschung. (Internationale Arbeiten zur Gebärdensprache und Kommunikation Gehörloser 11.) Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny, and Sutton-Spence, Rachel (eds.) 2001. The hand is the head of the mouth: The mouth as articulator in sign languages. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Branson, Jan, Miller, Don; and Marsaja, I. Gede. 1999. Sign languages as a natural part of the linguistic mosaic: The impact of deaf people on discourse forms in north Bali, Indonesia. Storytelling and conversation: Discourse in deaf communities, ed. by Winston, Elizabeth, 109–48. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, Mary. 1990. Productive morphology in British Sign Language. Current trends in European sign language research: Proceedings of the 3rd European congress on sign language research, Hamburg, July 26–29, 1989 (International studies on sign language and communication of the deaf 9), ed. by Prillwitz, Siegmund and Vollhaber, Tomas, 205–28. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Celo, Pietro. 1996. Pragmatic aspects of the interrogative form in Italian Sign Language. Multicultural aspects of sociolinguistics in deaf communities, ed. by Lucas, Ceil, 132–51. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Chisholm, William S. Jr. (ed.) 1984. Interrogativity: A colloquium on the grammar, typology and pragmatics of questions in seven diverse languages. (Typological studies in language 4.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coerts, Jane. 1992. Non-manual grammatical markers: An analysis of interrogatives, negations and topicalisations in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Dotter, Franz, and Holzinger, Daniel. 1995. Typologie und Gebärdensprache: Sequentialität und Simultanität. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 48.4.311–49.Google Scholar
Dubuisson, Colette, Miller, Christopher; and Pinsonneault, Dominique. 1994. Question sign position in LSQ (Quebec Sign Language). Perspectives on sign language structure: Papers from the fifth international symposium on sign language research, vol. 1, ed. by Ahlgren, Inger, Bergman, Brita, and Brennan, Mary, 89–104. Durham: International Sign Language Linguistics Association & Deaf Studies Research Unit, University of Durham.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. (International studies on sign language and communication of the deaf 19.) Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan, and Osugi, Yutaka. 1998. Feature movement in wh-questions: Evidence from sign languages. Poster presented at the 6th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Groce, Nora Ellen. 1985. Everyone here spoke sign language: Hereditary deafness on Martha's Vineyard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674037953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 2000. BSL, Auslan, and NZSL: Three signed languages or one? Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, July 23–27, 2000, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Kahrel, Peter, and van, Rene Berg, den (eds.) 1994. Typological studies in negation. (Typological studies in language 29.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 1988. Sign languages of Aboriginal Australia: Cultural, semiotic, and communicative perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 1980. American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Mandel, Mark. 1977. Iconic devices in American Sign Language. On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language, ed. by Friedman, Lynn A., 57–107. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McBurney, Susan. 2002. Pronominal reference in signed and spoken language: Are grammatical categories modality-dependent? Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, ed. by Meier, Richard, Cormier, Kearsy, and Quinto-Pozos, David, 329–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, David (ed.) 2000. Language and gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moody, Bill et al. 1983. La langue des signes, tome 1: Histoire et grammaire. Vincennes: International Visual Theatre-Centre Socio-Culturel des Sourds.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1990. The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. Sign language research: Theoretical issues, ed. by Lucas, Ceil, 118–32. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, John R. 1985. Negation. Language typology and syntactic description, 1: Clause structure, ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Petronio, Karen, and Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1997. Wh-movement and the position of spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language 73.1.18–57.10.2307/416592CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quadros, Ronice Müller de. 1999. Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. Porto Alegre: PUC/RS dissertation.Google Scholar
Radutzky, Elena et al. 1992. Dizionario bilingue elementare della lingua italiana dei segni. Rome: Edizioni Kappa.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1999. The medium and the message: Prosodic interpretation of linguistic content in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics 2.2.187–215.10.1075/sll.2.2.04sanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, Anja, Wotschke, Matthias, Glück, Susanne, Happ, Daniela; and Leuninger, Helen. 1997. DGS-Syntax: Raumnutzung und Satztypen. Frankfurt University: Frankfurter Linguistische Forschungen 20. 49–82.Google Scholar
Schmaling, Constanze. 2001. ASL in northern Nigeria: Will Hausa Sign Language survive? Signed languages: Discoveries from international research, ed. by Dively, Valerie, Metzger, Melanie, Taub, Sarah, and Baer, Anne Marie, 180–93. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University PressGoogle Scholar
Smith, Wayne. 1990. Evidence for auxiliaries in Taiwan Sign Language. Theoretical issues in sign language research, vol. 1: Linguistics, ed. by Fischer, Susan and Siple, Patricia, 211–28. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel, and Woll, Bencie. 1999. The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139167048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veinberg, Silvana. n.d. Interrogation in Argentine Sign Language: Non-manual markers. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Instituto de Lingüística, MS.Google Scholar
Vogt-Svendsen, Marit. 1990a. Eye gaze in Norwegian Sign Language interrogatives. SLR '87: Papers from the fourth international symposium on sign language research, Lappeenranta, Finland, July 15–19, 1987 (International studies on sign language and comunication of the deaf 10), ed. by Edmondson, William and Karlsson, Fred, 153–62. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Vogt-Svendsen, Marit. 1990b. Interrogative strukturer i Norsk tegnspråk. Oslo: UNIPUB.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2000. Sign language in Indopakistan: A description of a signed language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 10.1075/z.101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2002. Towards a notion of ‘word’ in sign languages. Word: A crosslinguistic typology, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenwald, Alexandra, 153–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2003. ‘Classificatory’ constructions in Indo-Pakistani Sign Language—grammaticalization and lexicalization processes. Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, ed. by Emmorey, Karen, 113–41. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2004. Head, hand and face—negative constructions in sign languages. Linguistic Typology 8. 1–57.10.1515/lity.2004.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar