Cover not available

Article In: Sign Language & Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Discourse genres in French Sign Language

A qualitative and quantitative corpus study

ORCiD logo with link | Université Paris 8 and CNRS — UMR 7023 Structures Formelles du Langage
 | Université de Lille and CNRS — UMR 8163 Savoirs, Textes, Langage
 | Université Paris 8 and CNRS — UMR 7023 Structures Formelles du Langage
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of four discourse genres in French Sign Language (LSF): narrative, explanatory, argumentative and dialogical. We examine the association between the frequency and type of linguistic categories with regard to the discourse genres considered. The linguistic categories used are based on the Semiological Approach (. 2000. La Langue des Signes Française. Les voies de l’iconicité. Faits de langue 15–16, Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), which suggests the existence of two main types of units: units stemming from an illustrative intent, grouped under the name ‘Transfer Units’, in contrast with units without any illustrative intent, i.e., Lexical Units, Pointing Units, and Fingerspelling Units. The data for this study were taken from two corpora and annotations were performed using the ELAN (Version 7.0) [Computer software]. 2025. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Language Archive. Retrieved from [URL] software. A range of descriptive statistics were used to complement the overall qualitative view of the data. One of the main outcomes of the quantitative approach is the identification, through Principal Component Analysis and Specificity Analysis, of an association between the two main types of units and different discourse genres. These findings deepen our understanding of genre-based variation in sign language, and hold potential for practical applications in areas such as bilingual education and automatic sign language processing.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical perspective
    • 2.1Discourse genres and heterogeneity
    • 2.2Theoretical framework and linguistic categories
    • 2.3Discourse genres in sign languages
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Data selection
    • 3.2The signers
    • 3.3Annotations
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Corpus exploration
    • 4.2Breakdown of linguistic categories by genre
    • 4.3Statistical exploration: Linguistic categories x discourse genres
      • 4.3.1Independence tests: χ2
      • 4.3.2Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
      • 4.3.3Correspondence analysis
      • 4.3.4Specificities
  • 5.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (39)
References
Adam, Jean-Michel. 2001. Les textes: types et prototypes. Paris: Nathan Université.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belissen, Valentin, Annelies Braffort & Michèle Gouiffès. 2020. Experimenting the automatic recognition of non-conventionalized units in sign language. Algorithms 131. 310–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1989. A typology of English texts, Linguistics 27(1). 3–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2019. Register, genre, and style (2nd edition) New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouvet, Danielle. 1996. Approche polyphonique d’un récit produit en Langue des Signes Française. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Capirci, Olga, Chiara Bonsignori & Alessio Di Renzo. 2022. Signed languages: A triangular semiotic dimension. Frontiers in Psychology 121: 802911. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuxac, Christian. 1985. Esquisse d’une typologie des langues des signes. In Christian Cuxac (ed.), Proceedings of the workshop ‘Autour de la Langue des Signes’, 35–60. Paris: Université Paris 5.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. The expression of spatial relations and the spatialization of semantic relations in French Sign Language. In Catherine Fuchs & Stéphane Robert (eds.), Language diversity and cognitive representations, 123–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. La Langue des Signes Française. Les voies de l’iconicité. Faits de langue 15–16, Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuxac, Christian, Annelies Braffort, Annick Choisier, Christophe Collet, Patrice Dalle, Ivani Fusellier, Gwenaëlle Jirou, Fanch Lejeune, Boris Lenseigne, Nathalie Monteillard, Annie Risler & Marie-Anne Sallandre. 2015. Corpus LS-Colin sur plusieurs genres discursifs. [URL]
Cuxac, Christian & Marie-Anne Sallandre. 2007. Iconicity and arbitrariness in French Sign Language: Highly Iconic Structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity. In Elena Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea & Raffaele Simone (eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies, 13–33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ELAN (Version 7.0) [Computer software]. 2025. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Language Archive. Retrieved from [URL]
Garcia, Brigitte, Marie-Thérèse L’Huillier & Coralie Vincent. 2022. Corpus Creagest, dialogues en LSF d’adultes sourds. Projet ANR. [URL]
Garcia, Brigitte & Marie-Anne Sallandre. 2014. Reference resolution in French Sign Language (LSF). In Patricia Cabredo Hofherr & Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.), Crosslinguistic studies on noun phrase structure and reference, 316–364. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Contribution of the semiological approach to deixis–anaphora in sign language: The key role of eye-gaze. Frontiers in Psychology 111: 583763. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gonzalez, Stéphane, Frédéric Amauger, Fabrice Bertin, Paul Tsopgni & Anne Vanbrugghe. 2013. Langue des signes française. Niveau A1. Paris: Editions Belin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heiden, Serge. 2010. The TXM platform: Building open-source textual analysis software compatible with the TEI encoding scheme. In 24th Pacific Asia conference on language, information and computation 2(3). 389–398. Institute for Digital Enhancement of Cognitive Development, Waseda University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hickmann, Maya. 2003. Children’s discourse: Person, space and time across languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodge, Gabrielle & Kearsy Cormier. 2019. Reported speech as enactment. Linguistic Typology 23(1). 185–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaczmarek, Marion. 2022. Spécification d’un logiciel de traduction assistée par ordinateur à destination des langues signées. Saclay: Université Paris-Saclay PhD dissertation.
Lafon, Pierre. 1980. Sur la variabilité de la fréquence des formes dans un corpus. Sociétés 11. 127–165.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinod, Emmanuella, Brigitte Garcia & Ivani Fusellier. 2018. A typological perspective on the meaningful handshapes in the emerging sign languages on Marajó Island (Brazil). In Olivier Le Guen, Josefina Safar & Marie Coppola (eds.), Emerging sign languages in South America, 203–250. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metzger, Melanie. 1995. Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities, 255–271. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meurant, Laurence & Aurélie Sinte. 2016. La reformulation en langue des signes de Belgique francophone (LSFB). Analyse dans un corpus de trois types de discours: narration, explication et conversation. L’Information grammaticale 1491. 32–44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Millet, Agnès. 2019. Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes française. Dynamiques iconiques et linguistique générale. Grenoble: UGA Editions. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rastier, François & Bénédicte Pincemin. 1999. Des genres à l’intertexte. Cahiers de praxématique 331. 83–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Risler, Annie. 2016. Parler de soi, parler des autres en langue des signes française. Autopointage et prise de rôle. L’Information grammaticale 1491. 45–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russo, Tomasso. 2004. Iconicity and productivity in sign language discourse: An analysis of three LIS discourse registers. Sign Language Studies 41. 164–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sallandre, Marie-Anne. 2003. Les unités du discours en Langue des Signes Française. Tentative de catégorisation dans le cadre d’une grammaire de l’iconicité. Saint-Denis: Université Paris 8 PhD dissertation.
. 2014. Compositionnalité des unités sémantiques en langues des signes. Perspectives typologique et développementale. Saint-Denis: Université Paris 8 Habilitation dissertation.
Sallandre, Marie-Anne, Antonio Balvet, Geoffrey Besnard & Brigitte Garcia. 2019. Etude exploratoire de la fréquence des catégories linguistiques dans quatre genres discursifs en LSF. LIDIL 601. 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sallandre, Marie-Anne & Brigitte Garcia. 2023. Overview of and epistemological conditions for building and using LSF corpora. In Ella Wehrmeyer (ed.), Advances in sign language corpus linguistics, 262–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takkinen, Ritva, Jarkko Keränen & Juhana Salonen. 2018. Depicting signs and different text genres: Preliminary observations in the corpus of Finnish Sign Language. In Bono Mayumi, Eleni Efthimiou, Stavroula-Evita Fotinea, Thomas Hanke, Julie A. Hochgesang, Jette Kristoffersen, Johanna Mesch & Osugi Yutaka (eds.), Proceedings of the LREC2018 8th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages, 189–194. Miyazaki, Japan. [URL]
Vermeerbergen, Myriam. 2006. Past and current trends in sign language research. Language & Communication 26(2). 168–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Volterra, Virginia, Maria Roccaforte, Alessio Di Renzo & Sabina Fontana. 2022. Italian Sign Language from a cognitive and socio-semiotic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue