Do deaf signers of different signed languages do reference the same way? Here we compare how signers of five signed languages coordinate fully conventionalised forms (such as lexical manual signs, fingerspelling and/or spoken language mouthings) with more richly improvised semiotics (such as indicating verbs, pointing signs, depicting signs, visible surrogates and/or invisible surrogates) to identify and talk about referents of varying agency. The five languages are Auslan, Norwegian Sign Language, Finnish Sign Language, Swedish Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. Using 10 retellings of Frog, Where Are You? (Mayer, 1969) from each language, we analyse tokens of referring expressions with respect to: (a) activation status (new vs. maintained vs. re-introduced); (b) semiotic strategy (e.g. pointing sign, fingerspelling, enactment, etc); and (c) animacy (human vs. animals vs. inanimate objects), and assess how they are similar or different with regard to these parameters.

Statistical analysis reveals expected similarities across the five languages. For example, signers of each language typically used conventionalised forms to identify new referents, and less conventional strategies to maintain and reintroduce referents. Signers also preferred to enact animate referents, and manually depict or index inanimate referents. These patterns mirror observations from a larger corpus-based investigation of Auslan using the same method (Hodge, Ferrara & Anible, 2019). However, there are also some differences across languages. While Auslan and ISL signers frequently use fingerspelling to identify referents across all activation contexts, signers of Scandinavian signed languages chose to use other semiotic strategies. We also observed that patterns for specific semiotic strategies are more widespread in some languages than others. For example, Auslan signers prefer using depicting signs in maintained contexts; FinSL signers prefer using depicting signs in reintroduced contexts; while ISL, NTS, and STS signers tend to use depicting signs more equally across activation status. We suggest that doing reference in a signed language involves both cross-linguistic and ecology-specific strategies. The latter may be attributed to the different social and historical trajectories of each language, including possible language contact effects.

The idea of transitivity as a scalar phenomenon is well known (e.g., Hopper & Thompson 1980; Tsunoda 1985; Haspelmath 2015). However, as with most areas of linguistic study, it has been almost exclusively studied with a focus on spoken languages. A rare exception to this is Kimmelman (2016), who investigates transitivity in Russian Sign Language (RSL) on the basis of corpus data. Kimmelman attempts to establish a transitivity prominence hierarchy of RSL verbs, and compares this ranking to the verb meanings found in the ValPal database (Hartmann, Haspelmath & Bradley 2013). He arrives at the conclusion that using the frequency of overt objects in corpus data is a successful measure of transitivity prominence, and that the prominence ranking of RSL verbs correlate with that found for spoken languages in Haspelmath (2015). In this paper, we expand on these intra- and cross-modal comparisons of transitivity prominence by introducing four other sign languages to the sample: Finnish Sign Language (FinSL), Swedish Sign Language (SSL), Sign Language to the Netherlands (NGT), and German Sign Language (DGS). FinSL and SSL are known to be historically related (cf. Bergman & Engberg-Pedersen 2010), while the other are not related, which allows us to look at both modality and relatedness effects in our sample. Of the 80 core verb meanings in the ValPal database, Kimmelman (2016) included the 25 most frequent verbs in his corpus. For our study, we have annotated all occurrences of these 25 verb meanings in a subset of the corpora of FinSL (2h 40min; 18,446 tokens), SSL (2h 5min; 16,724 tokens), NGT (≈80,000 tokens), and DGS (≈58,000 tokens). We annotate whether a verb occurs with an overt object as well as the type of object (direct, indirect, clausal, or a locative). Looking at the ValPal verb meanings with ≥5 sign tokens in all four new languages, we arrive at 12 verbs that are found in all five sign languages and the spoken languages (SpL) of the ValPal database – see Table 1. In Table 1, we see that there is a general agreement across languages – both signed and spoken – in how transitivity prominent a verb meaning is. Spearman’s rank correlation shows a significant (p<0.05) correlation between all possible pairs except SSL–SpL (p=0.091) and SSL– RSL (p=0.074), corroborating Kimmelman’s finding that there are patterns of transitivity prominence present across languages and modalities. It is interesting that SSL thus diverges from the other sign languages in this sample: this deserves further investigation. We also wanted to investigate the transitivity prominence as a property of individual languages. In order to do so, we took the individual languages of the ValPal database and measured each verb meaning in each language with regard to its transitivity prominence. This meant calculating how many of the verb forms associated with a specific verb meaning took a P argument. Note that this is quite different from calculating transitivity prominence based on corpus data: with corpora, we calculated the proportion of verbal tokens occurring with an overt object, and with the ValPal database, we calculated the proportion of transitive verb associated with a particular concept. We included the 12 verb meanings found across all languages (the five sign languages and 33 spoken languages). We then calculated mean distances across verb meanings and languages, and plotted this with multidimensional scaling in Figure 1. In the figure, we see that the five sign languages form a part of a cluster, suggesting either modality-based similarities, or similarities that come with the difference in data (corpus data rather than lexical data). On the other hand, sign languages as a group are not clearly opposed to spoken languages as a group, which implies that the corpus-based and lexical calculations of transitivity are comparable. Interestingly, FinSL and SSL are not more strongly associated than the other sign languages, which implies that their historical relatedness is not directly relevant to transitivity. In our presentation, we will present the results and the conclusions in more detail, as well as discuss the possibilities of using corpus data to establish valency patterns for languages in the signed modality.

This paper investigates, with the help of computer-vision technology,the similarities and differences in the rhythm of themovements of the head in sentences in Finnish (FinSL) andSwedish Sign Language (SSL). The results show that themovement of the head in the two languages is often very similar:in both languages, the instances when the movement of thehead changes direction were distributed similarly with regardto clause-boundaries, and the contours of the roll (tilting-like)motion of the head during the sentences were similar. Concerningdifferences, direction changes were found to be usedmore effectively in the marking of clause-boundaries in FinSL,and in SSL the head moved nearly twice as fast as in FinSL. However, the small amount of data means that the results canbe considered to be only preliminary. The paper indicates theroll angle of the head as a domain for further work on head related rhythm.

In this paper we examine the relationship between specifichead movement events – head nods, often treated as prosodicboundary markers – and syntactic units in Finnish (FinSL) andSwedish Sign Language (SSL). In the study we investigatedthe alignment of head nods with syntactic units on the basis ofa total of 20 (10+10) FinSL and SSL narratives. The results ofthe study show that in both languages head nods appeared similarlyon syntactic boundaries and that the tendency was toalign nods sentence-finally. However, not all head nods behavedthis way: for example, a relatively large number of headnods were also found to occur sentence-initially or elsewherein the sentence. Furthermore, head nods occurring on syntacticboundaries also had non-boundary marking functions, and notall syntactic boundaries occurred with head nods.