Grammar, Order & Position of Wh-Signs in Quebec Sign Language

Abstract

In the quest for language universals, one of the properties that linguists generally take to be universal is that a substantial portion of the lexical items are produced sequentially by speakers; i.e. are ordered in time. There are three aspects to word order: (1) a functional aspect; order conveys information about functional grouping of words and provides some indication of how to interpret sentences; (2) an articulatory aspect; some order is required because more than one sound cannot usually be produced at a time; (3) an order aspect; linguistic theories postulate either that a language has a basic order determined by universal principles, or that there is a single universal order for all languages. On the basis of data from sign languages we argue that this third property is not universal in either of its formulations. There are other means that a language can use to indicate what elements combine functionally and in that case the language has no specific order imposing these combinations. We therefore consider that not all languages have a basic order and that only languages in which word order has an important functional role will exhibit a basic order.

When a Wh-word is not a Wh-word: The Case of Indian Sign Language

“…doubling of whsign). It is common for a SL to make use of more than one of these options → See Dubuisson et al (1994) and Bouchard & Dubuisson (1995) for Quebec SL, Coerts (1992) and Van Gijn (2004) for SL of the Netherlands, Cecchetto & Zucchi (2004) for Italian SL, and Šarac et al (in press) for Austrian and Croatian SL. → For some SLs, it has been reported that the wh-sign may also remain in situ (e.g.…”

Universal 20 and Taiwan Sign Language

“…Specifically, TSL shows both the same constraints on merger that have been found in oral languages and the same constraints on movement direction that have been found in oral languages. We thus conclude that Bouchard & Dubuisson's (1995) claim that sign languages do not exhibit any hierarchical structure cannot be maintained. Along with many other studies on sign language structure (e.g., Padden 1988;Neidle et al 2000;Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2006;Pfau 2002), we find that sign languages have similar structural properties and fit into typological generalizations based on spoken languages.…”

“…Does this flexibility mean that sign languages do not have any structural hierarchy, or that they do have syntactic structure but are less constrained in linearization? The flexible word order within the verbal domain of Quebec Sign Language (LSQ) has led Bouchard (1996) and Bouchard and Dubuisson (1995) to conclude that sign languages in general do not have any hierarchical structure. This conclusion is argued against in Neidle et al (2000:60-61) and Sandler & Lillo-Martin (2006:305), based on their studies of American Sign Language (ASL).…”

“…It reveals that syntactic structure is hierarchical. The manifestation of Universal 20 in TSL indicates that like oral languages, sign languages have hierarchical structures (contra Bouchard and Dubuisson 1995).…”

Realizations of syntactic agreement in American sign language: Similarities between the clause and the noun phrase

“…The hypothesis of a basic underlying word order in signed languages was challenged by Tervoort (1968), but his arguments were soundly refuted in subsequent literature. The claim that signed languages generally, and ASL specifically, are governed by very different organizational principles has recently resurfaced, however, in Bouchard and Dubuisson 1995;see KNMHB's (1996) reply.…”