Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:26:10.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Point of View in Danish Sign Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Eliabeth Engberg-Pedersen
Eliabeth Engberg-Pedersen
Affiliation:
Institute of General and Applied Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. e-mark. e-mail: eep@asp.iaas.ku.dk.
Get access

Abstract

One way of expressing a particular point of view depends on deixis; the sender ‘lends’ his means of expressing his own point of view to another referent. In Danish Sign Language there are three such basically deictic means of expressing a particular point of view, namely shifted reference, shifted attribution of expressive elements, and shifted locus. Eveathough especially the last two phenomena may seem special to sign languages, they have clear functional parallels in spoken languages.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , December 1992 , pp. 201 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahlgren, I. 1990. Deictic Pronouns in Swedish and Swedish Sign Language. In Fischer, S. D. & Siple, P. (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Volume 1:Linguistics. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 167–174.Google Scholar
Banfield, A. 1973. Narrative Style and the Grammar of Direct and Indirect Speech. Foundations of Language 10, 1–39.Google Scholar
Ebert, K. 1986. Reported Speech in Some Languages of Nepal. In Coulmas, F. (ed.): Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 145–159.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E. 1990. Pragmatics of Nonmanual Behaviour in Danish Sign Language. In Edmondson, W. H. & Karlsson, F. (eds.), SLR '87: Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research. Hamburg: Signum-Press, 121–128.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E. Forthcoming a. Space in Danish Sign Language. Hamburg: SignumPress.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E. Forthcoming b. Reported Speech in Danish Sign Language. In Schousboe, S. (ed.), Embedding in Functional Grammar.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1972. How to Know Whether You're Coming or Going. In Hyldgaard-Jensen, K. (ed.), Linguistik 1971. Frankfurt: Athenaum, 369–379.Google Scholar
Gragg, G. B. 1972. Semi-indirect Discourse and Related Nightmares. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N. and Phares, G. C. (eds.), Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 75–82.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. & Klima, E. S. 1990. Pointing Out Differences; ASL Pronouns in Syntactic Theory. In Fischer, S. D. & Siple, P. (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Volume 1: Linguistics. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 191–210.Google Scholar
Meier, R. P. 1990. Person Deixis in American Sign Language. In Fischer, S. D. & Siple, P. (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Volume 1: Linguistics. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 175–190.Google Scholar
Padden, C. A. 1986. Verbs and Role-Shifting in American Sign Language. In Padden, C. A. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf, 44–57.Google Scholar
Smith, C., Lentz, E. M. & Mikos, K. 1988. Signing Naturally: Teacher's Curriculum Guide: Level 1. Berkeley, Calif.: DawnSignPress.Google Scholar