While visual signals that accompany spoken language serve to augment the communicative message, the same visual ingredients form the substance of the linguistic system in sign languages. This article provides an analysis of visual signals that comprise part of the intonational system of a sign language. The system is conveyed mainly by particular actions of the upper face, and is shown to pattern linguistically and predictably in Israeli Sign Language. Its components, aligned with prosodic constituents, are associated with particular but general meanings and may be combined to derive complex meanings. The Brow Raise component is functionally comparable to H tones, signaling continuation and dependency, and characterizing yes/no questions and the if-clause of conditionals, for example. The component Squint instructs the addressee to retrieve information that is not readily accessible, and characterizes relative clauses, topics, and other structures. The details of the componential analysis proposed here explain why the two components together co-occur on such seemingly diverse structures as yes/no questions about mutually retrievable information and counterfactual conditionals. Like auditorily perceived intonational melodies, the visual intonational arrays in sign language provide a subtle, intricately structured, and meaningful accompaniment to the words and sentences of language.
Aarons, D., Bahan, B., Neidle, C., & Kegl, J. (1992). Clausal structure and a tier for grammatical marking in American Sign Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 15, 103-142.
2.
Andersen, G., & Fretheim, T. (2000). Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3.
Anderson, D.E., & Reilly, J.S. (1998). Pah! The acquisition of adverbials in ASL. Sign Language and Linguistics, 1-2, 117-142.
4.
Ariel, M. (1985a). Givenness marking. PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
5.
Ariel, M. (1985b). The discourse functions of given information . Theoretical Linguistics, 12, 99-113.
6.
Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24, 65-87.
7.
Ariel, M. (1991). The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar . Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 443-463.
8.
Baker, C. & Cokely, D. (1980). American Sign Language: A teacher's resource text on grammar and culture. Silver Spring, MD: T. J. Publishers.
9.
Baker, C., & Padden, C. (1978). Focusing on the nonmanual components of American Sign Language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp.27-57). New York: Academic Press.
10.
Baker-Shenk, C. (1983). A micro analysis of the nonmanual components of American Sign Language. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.
11.
Bartels, C. (1999). The intonation of English statements and questions: A compositional interpretation. New York/ London: Garland Publishing.
12.
Beckman, M.E., & Pierrehumbert, J.B. (1986). Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255-310.
13.
Bergman, B. (1984). Non-manual components of signed languages: Some sentence types in Swedish Sign Language. In F. Loncke, P. Boyes-Braem & I. Lebrun (Eds.), Recent research on European sign languages (pp.49-59). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger B. V.
14.
Bolinger, D. (1978). Intonation across languages. In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson , & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language, Vol. 2: Phonology (pp.471-524). Standford, CA: Stanford University Press .
15.
Cerrato L., & Imperio, M.D. (2003). Duration of tonal characteristics of short expressions in Italian. In M. J. Solé, D. Recasens, & J. Romero (Eds.). Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp.1213-631). Barcelona: Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.
16.
Coerts, J. (1992). Non-manual grammatical markers: An analysis of interrogatives, negations, and topicalizations in Sign Language of the Netherlands. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
17.
Coulter, G. (1978). Raised brows and wrinkled noses: The grammatical function of facial expression in relative clauses and related constructions . In F. Caccamise & D. Hicks (Eds.), ASL as a bilingual, bicultural context. Proceedings of the second National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching (pp.65-74). Coronado, CA: NAD.
18.
Coulter, G. (1979). American Sign Language typology. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego, U.S.A.
19.
Dachkovsky, S. (2005). Facial expression as intonation in ISL: The case of conditionals. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Haifa, Israel.
20.
Dachkovsky, S. (2008). Facial expression as intonation in ISL: The case of conditionals. In J. Quer (Ed.), Leading research in Sign Language (pp.61-82). Hamburg : Signum Press.
21.
Dainora, A. (2002). Does intonational meaning come from tones or arrays? Evidence against a compositional approach. In Speech prosody-2002 (pp.235-238). Aix-en-Provence: ProSig and Université de Provence Laboratoire Parole et Language.
22.
Dancygier, B. (1998). Conditionals and prediction: Time, knowledge, and causation in conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Darwin, C. (1998[1872]). The expressions of emotions in man and animals. New York: Philosophical Library.
24.
Deuchar, M. (1984). British Sign Language. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Engberg-Pedersen, E. (1990). Pragmatics of nonmanual behavior in Danish Sign Language. In W. H. Edmondson & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research (pp.121-128). Hamburg : Signum-Press.
27.
Ford, C.E. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Grosz, B.J. & Sidner, C.L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse . Computational Linguistics, 12, 175-204.
29.
Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents . Dordrecht: Foris.
30.
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Hayes, B., & Lahiri, A. (1991). Bengali intonational phonology. Natural language & Linguistic Theory, 9, 47-96.
32.
Hedberg, N. & Sosa, J.M. (2003). Pitch contours in negative sentences. In M. J. Solé, D. Recasens & J. Romero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp.1213-1217). Barcelona: Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.
33.
Hirschberg, J. (2000). A corpus-based approach to the study of speaking style. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment (pp.335-350). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
34.
Janzen, T.D. (1998). Topicality in ASL: Information ordering, constituent structure, and the function of topic marking. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, the University of New Mexico.
35.
Kendon, A. (1988). How gestures become like words. In F. Poyatos (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives in nonverbal communication (pp.131-141). New York: C. J. Hogrefe.
36.
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Ladd, D.R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
38.
Langacker, R.W. (1997). Generics and habituals. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (Eds.), On conditionals again (pp.191-222). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
39.
Liddell, S.K. (1978). Nonmanual signals and relative clauses in American Sign Language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp.59-90). New York: Academic Press.
40.
Liddell, S.K. (1980). American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
41.
Liddell, S.K. (1986). Head thrust in ASL conditional marking. Sign Language Studies, 15, 243-262.
42.
Mathesius, V. (1975). Functional sentence analysis. In J. Vachef (Ed.), A functional analysis of present day English on a general linguistic basis (pp.81-86). Mouton, The Hague, Paris: Academia.
43.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
Meir, I., & Sandler, W. (2008). A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45.
Mithun, M. (1991). The role of motivation in the emergence of grammatical categories: The grammaticalization of subjects. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. II (pp.159-84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
46.
Nespor, M., & Sandler, W. (1999). Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech, 42, 143-176.
47.
Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht : Foris.
48.
Ochs-Keenan, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1976). Foregrounding referents: A reconsideration of left-dislocation in discourse. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 2, 240-257.
49.
Padden, C.A. (1990). The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues (pp.118-132). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
50.
Petronio, K., & Lillo-Martin, D. (1997). Wh-movement and the position of spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 407-442.
51.
Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2005). Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extraposition and reconstruction. In L. Bateman & C, Ussery (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35) (pp.507-521). Amherst, MA: GLSA .
52.
Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2006). Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages. In H. Drenhaus, R. van de Vijver, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Linguistics in Potsdam24 (pp.5-98).
53.
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation . Ph.D. thesis, MIT, U.S.A.
54.
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp.271-311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55.
Reilly, J.S., McIntire, M., & Bellugi, U. (1990a). The acquisition of conditionals in American Sign Language: Grammaticized facial expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics , 11, 369-392.
56.
Reilly, J.S., McIntire, M., & Bellugi, U. (1990b). Faces: The relationship between language and affect. In V. Volterra & C. J. Erting (Eds.), From gesture to language in hearing and deaf children (pp.128-141). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
57.
Rosenstein, O. (2001). ISL as a topic prominent language. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Haifa, Israel.
58.
Sandler, W. (1999a). Prosody in two natural language modalities. Language and Speech, 42, 127-142.
59.
Sandler, W. (1999b). Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language . In T. Hall & U. Kleinhenz (Eds.), Studies on the phonological word (pp.223-254). Amsterdam: Benjamins .
60.
Sandler, W. (1999c). The medium and the message: Prosodic interpretation of linguistic content in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics, 2, 187-216.
61.
Sandler, W. (2003). On the complementarity of signed and spoken languages . In Y. Levi & J. Schaeffer (Eds.), Language competence across populations: Towards a definition of SLI (pp.383-409). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
62.
Sandler, W. (2005). Prosodic onstituency and intonation in a sign language. Linguistische Berichte, 13, 59-86.
63.
Sandler, W. (2006). Iconic mouth gestures in Israeli Sign Language . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A.
64.
Sandler, W. (2009). Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica, 174(1/4), 241-275.
65.
Sandler, W. (in press). The visual prosody of sign language. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach , & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter.
66.
Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
68.
van der Kooij, E., Crasborn, O., & Emmerik, W. (2006). Explaining prosodic body leans in sign language of the Netherlands: Pragmatics required. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1598-1614.
69.
Vermeerbergen, M., Leeson, L., & Crasborn, O. (2007). Simultaneity in signed languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Bejamnins.
70.
Vogt-Svendsen, M. (1990). Interrogative strukturer i Norsk Tengspråk. Oslo: UNIPUB.
71.
Wilbur, R.B. (1991). Intonation and focus in American Sign Language . In Y. No & M. Libucha (Eds.), ESCOL '90: Proceedings of the Seventh Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp.320-331). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
72.
Wilbur, R.B. (1999). A functional journey with a formal ending: What do brow raises do in American Sign Language? In E. Moravcsik , F. Newmeyer, M. Noonan & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, Vol. 2: Case studies (pp.295-313). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
73.
Wilbur, R.B. (2000). Phonological and prosodic layering of non-manuals in American Sign Language. In K. Emmorey & H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited (pp.215-247). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
74.
Wilbur, R.B., & Patchke, C. (1999). Syntactic correlates of Brow Raise in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2: 3-30.
75.
Woll, B. (1981). Question structure in British Sign Language. In B. Woll, J. Kyle, & M. Deuchar (Eds.), Perspectives on British Sign Language and deafness (pp.136-149). London : Croom Helm.
76.
Ziv, Y. ( 1997). Conditionals and restrictives on generics. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (Eds.), On conditionals again (pp.223-239). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
