Seeing sentence boundaries

Fenlon, Jordan; Denmark, Tanya; Campbell, Ruth; Woll, Bencie

doi:10.1075/sll.10.2.06fen

Article published In: Identifying sentences in signed languages
Edited by Onno A. Crasborn
[Sign Language & Linguistics 10:2] 2007
► pp. 177–200

Get fulltext from our e-platform

Download PDF

Seeing sentence boundaries

Jordan Fenlon | University College London

Tanya Denmark

Ruth Campbell

Bencie Woll

Published online: 1 October 2008

https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.10.2.06fen

Linguists have suggested that non-manual and manual markers are used in sign languages to indicate prosodic and syntactic boundaries. However, little is known about how native signers interpret non-manual and manual cues with respect to sentence boundaries. Six native signers of British Sign Language (BSL) were asked to mark sentence boundaries in two narratives: one presented in BSL and one in Swedish Sign Language (SSL). For comparative analysis, non-signers undertook the same tasks. Results indicated that both native signers and non-signers were able to use visual cues effectively in segmentation and that their decisions were not dependent on knowledge of the signed language. Signed narratives contain visible cues to their prosodic structure which are available to signers and non-signers alike.

Keywords: sentence boundaries, segmentation

Cited by (34)

Cited by 34 other publications

Order by:

Georgieva, Diyana

2025. Signmatics: An Interactive Digital Based System for Multimodal Learning of Hearing Students in Bulgarian Sign Language. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE) 13:1 ► pp. 117 ff.

He, Low Jian, Harry Walsh, Ozge Mercanoglu Sincan & Richard Bowden

2025. 2025 IEEE 19th International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), ► pp. 1 ff.

Krebs, Julia, Ronnie B. Wilbur, Dietmar Roehm & Evie A. Malaia

2025. The interaction of syntax, non-manuals, and prosodic cues as potential topic markers in Austrian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 28:1 ► pp. 1 ff.

Dachkovsky, Svetlana, Rose Stamp & Wendy Sandler

2023. Mapping the body to the discourse hierarchy in sign language emergence. Language and Cognition 15:1 ► pp. 53 ff.

Endress, Ansgar D.

2023. In defense of epicycles: Embracing complexity in psychological explanations. Mind & Language 38:5 ► pp. 1208 ff.

Kocab, Annemarie, Ann Senghas, Marie Coppola & Jesse Snedeker

2023. Potentially recursive structures emerge quickly when a new language community forms. Cognition 232 ► pp. 105261 ff.

Araujo Neto, Humberto Meira de & Miguel Oliveira Jr.

2022. papel das mudanças na segmentação de eventos narrados . Domínios de Lingugem 16:1 ► pp. 255 ff.

Cooperrider, Kensy, Jordan Fenlon, Jonathan Keane, Diane Brentari & Susan Goldin-Meadow

2021. How Pointing is Integrated into Language: Evidence From Speakers and Signers. Frontiers in Communication 6

Raičević Bajić, Dragana, Myriam Vermeerbergen, Adam Schembri & Mieke Van Herreweghe

2021. Constituent order in Serbian Sign Language declarative clauses. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1

Bull, Hannah, Michèle Gouiffès & Annelies Braffort

2020. Automatic Segmentation of Sign Language into Subtitle-Units. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2020 Workshops [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12536], ► pp. 186 ff.

Endress, Ansgar D., Lauren K. Slone & Scott P. Johnson

2020. Statistical learning and memory. Cognition 204 ► pp. 104346 ff.

Börstell, Carl, Tommi Jantunen, Vadim Kimmelman, Vanja de Lint, Johanna Mesch & Marloes Oomen

2019. Transitivity prominence within and across modalities. Open Linguistics 5:1 ► pp. 666 ff.

Frederiksen, Anne Therese & Rachel I. Mayberry

2019. Reference tracking in early stages of different modality L2 acquisition: Limited over-explicitness in novice ASL signers’ referring expressions. Second Language Research 35:2 ► pp. 253 ff.

Borneman, Joshua D., Malaia, Evie & Wilbur, Ronnie B.

2018. Motion characterization using optical flow and fractal complexity. Journal of Electronic Imaging 27:05 ► pp. 1 ff.

Loos, Cornelia

2018. Detecting clauses and their dependencies in signed utterances: A syntactico-semantic approach. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1

Mesh, Kate & Lynn Hou

2018. Negation in San Juan Quiahije Chatino Sign Language. Gesture 17:3 ► pp. 330 ff.

Brentari, Diane & Susan Goldin-Meadow

2017. Language Emergence. Annual Review of Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 363 ff.

Endress, Ansgar D. & Alan Langus

2017. Transitional probabilities count more than frequency, but might not be used for memorization. Cognitive Psychology 92 ► pp. 37 ff.

Malaia, Evie, Joshua D. Borneman & Ronnie B. Wilbur

2016. Assessment of information content in visual signal: analysis of optical flow fractal complexity. Visual Cognition 24:3 ► pp. 246 ff.

de Vos, Connie, Francisco Torreira & Stephen C. Levinson

2015. Turn-timing in signed conversations: coordinating stroke-to-stroke turn boundaries. Frontiers in Psychology 6

Sze, Felix

2015. Is Hong Kong Sign Language a topic-prominent language?. Linguistics 53:4

Winston, Elizabeth A. & Cynthia Roy

2015. Discourse analysis and sign languages. In Sociolinguistics and Deaf Communities, ► pp. 95 ff.

Applebaum, Lauren, Marie Coppola & Susan Goldin-Meadow

2014. Prosody in a communication system developed without a language model. Sign Language & Linguistics 17:2 ► pp. 181 ff.

Hodge, Gabrielle & Trevor Johnston

2014. Points, Depictions, Gestures and Enactment: Partly Lexical and Non-Lexical Signs as Core Elements of Single Clause-Like Units in Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Australian Journal of Linguistics 34:2 ► pp. 262 ff.

Kastner, Itamar, Irit Meir, Wendy Sandler & Svetlana Dachkovsky

2014. The emergence of embedded structure: insights from Kafr Qasem Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology 5

Dachkovsky, Svetlana, Christina Healy & Wendy Sandler

2013. Visual intonation in two sign languages. Phonology 30:2 ► pp. 211 ff.

Jola, Corinne, Phil McAleer, Marie-Hélène Grosbras, Scott A. Love, Gordon Morison & Frank E. Pollick

2013. Uni- and Multisensory Brain Areas are Synchronised across Spectators When Watching Unedited Dance Recordings. i-Perception 4:4 ► pp. 265 ff.

Napoli, Donna Jo, Jami Fisher & Gene Mirus

2013. Bleached taboo-term predicates in American Sign Language. Lingua 123 ► pp. 148 ff.

Napoli, Donna Jo, Jami Fisher & Gene Mirus

2023. Taboo in Sign Languages,

BRENTARI, DIANE, MARIE A. NADOLSKE & GEORGE WOLFORD

2012. Can experience with co-speech gesture influence the prosody of a sign language? Sign language prosodic cues in bimodal bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15:2 ► pp. 402 ff.

Brentari, Diane, Carolina González, Amanda Seidl & Ronnie Wilbur

2011. Sensitivity to Visual Prosodic Cues in Signers and Nonsigners. Language and Speech 54:1 ► pp. 49 ff.

Endress, Ansgar D. & Justin N. Wood

2011. From movements to actions: Two mechanisms for learning action sequences. Cognitive Psychology 63:3 ► pp. 141 ff.

Endress, Ansgar D. & Marc D. Hauser

2010. Word segmentation with universal prosodic cues. Cognitive Psychology 61:2 ► pp. 177 ff.

[no author supplied]

2011. References. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, ► pp. 779 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.