Internally-headed relative clauses in sign languages

Abstract

This chapter considers relative clause data from sign languages in light of their variation with respect to basic word order, nonmanual marking, and presence/absence of internally-headed and externally-headed relative clauses. Syntactically, a double merge cartographic model (Cinque 2005a;, following Brunelli (2011), is adopted. The differences across sign languages are suggested to result from differences in raising requirements with respect to the relative clauses themselves and with respect to their heads, rather than basic word order, use of complementizers, relative pronouns, or nominalizers, or (type of) nonmanual marking. Typologically, it is noted that several of the SVO SLs have IHRCs, that at least one SOV SL does not have IHRCs, and that three of the SLs have both internally-headed (IHRCs) and externally-headed (EHRCs) relative clauses.

Asymmetries in relative clause comprehension in three European sign languages

“…In the vast majority of sign languages, relative clauses are signaled through the use of specific manual and/or non-manual markers, the only exception being JSL, where according to Penner et al (2019) there is no marking whatsoever signaling relativization. For example, ASL RCs are signaled through backward head tilt, raised eyebrows, and tensed upper lip (Wilbur, 2017).…”

Türk İşaret Dili’nde İlgi Tümceciklerini Belirleme Sorunsalı

“…The use of both internally headed and externally headed strategies in TİD are not unique to this sign language, ASL has been observed to have both constructions as well (Wilbur, 2017). In this paper we showed that strategy of doubling HN is slightly more preferred over internally and externally headed strategy in TİD.…”

“…Kubus (2016) has already hypothesized that squint has grammaticized from a discourse marking element into a syntactic one. However, squint does not seem to be syntactic marker for RCs in ASL (Wilbur, 2017) and DGS (Pfau & Steinbach, 2005). The competition between squint and brow raise can be explained at the syntactic level, e.g.…”

“…As an example of extreme case, Sign Language of the Netherlands does not have RCs (Brunelli, 2011). Wilbur (2017) has done a comparative study, which includes recent typological comparison of American Sign Language (ASL) (see also the seminal work of Liddell (1978Liddell ( , 1980), LIS, and DGS RCs in terms of the correlation between the basic word order of these languages and the relative clause strategies they employ. Kubus (2016) investigated the RC constructions 5 in TİD, based on a smallscale corpus analysis.…”

Internally-Headed Relative Clauses in Hakha Chin

“…indigenous languages of North America, Tibeto-Burman languages, signed languages), the body of literature informing our understanding of this clause type is still relatively small. Languages which have been reported to have IHRCs include Navajo (Platero 1974), Lakhota (Williamson 1987), Diegueño (Gorbet 1976), Mojave (Munro 1976), Japanese (Hiraiwai 2017), and a variety of signed languages (Wilbur 2017). IHRCs are also quite prevalent in Tibeto-Burman languages (Dryer 2008, Subbarao 2008, such as Tenyidie (Subbarao and Kevichüsa 1999), Sema (Subbarao and Kevichüsa 2005), Qiang (Huang 2008), and Hakha Chin (Kathol and VanBik 1999).…”