Linearization of Sign Language Structure

37 - Linearization of Sign Language Structure

from Part VI - Toward the Interfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2026

Carlo Cecchetto and

Josep Quer

Edited by

Kleanthes K. Grohmann and

Evelina Leivada

Show author details

Kleanthes K. Grohmann: Affiliation:
University of Cyprus
Evelina Leivada: Affiliation:
Arctic University of Norway

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The general perspective on linearization in generative grammar, which is based on spoken languages, is confronted in this vignette with the fact that sign languages simultaneously use multiple articulators, such as the two hands and facial and body movement, and, importantly, these articulators work with a degree of independence unknown in spoken languages. The vignette asks whether (or to what extent) the articulatory constraints that force hierarchical structure to flatten extend to sign languages. It tackles three different themes in this connection: classical topics in the debate on linearization, such as the Head Parameter, the linearization of specifiers, and linear order in the nominal domain; (ii) integration of the nonmanual dimension into the manual one, such as multidominance approaches that assume that the hierarchical structure to be conflated is initially three-dimensional; and (iii) code blending and linearization, code blending being defined as the simultaneous production of a phrase (or even of a sentence) in a sign and in a spoken language.

Keywords

linearization head parameter multidominance code blending sign languages

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program , pp. 727 - 738
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108864152 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2026

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abels, K., & Neeleman, A. (2012). Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax, 15(1), 25–74.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00163.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Aboh, E. O., & Pfau, R. (2011). What’s a wh-word got to do with it? In Benincà, P. & Munaro, N. (eds.), Mapping the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (pp. 91–124). Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740376.003.0004CrossRef Google Scholar

Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A. (2002). Effects of short-term storage in processing rightward movement. In Nooteboom, S., Weerman, F., & Wijnen, F. (eds.), Storage and Computation in the Language Faculty (pp. 219–256). Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-010-0355-1_8CrossRef Google Scholar

Akinlabi, A. (1996). Featural affixation. Journal of Linguistics, 32, 239–289.10.1017/S0022226700015899CrossRef Google Scholar

Branchini, C., & Donati, C. (2016). Assessing lexicalism through bimodal eyes. Glossa, 1, 1–30.Google Scholar

Brunelli, M. (2011). Antisymmetry and sign languages: A comparison between NGT and LIS. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam].Google Scholar

Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., & Zucchi, S. (2009). Another way to mark syntactic dependencies. The case for right peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language, 85(2), 278–320.10.1353/lan.0.0114CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Churng, S. (2011). Syntax and prosodic consequences in ASL: Evidence from multiple WH questions. Sign Language and Linguistics, 14(1), 9–48.10.1075/sll.14.1.03chuCrossRef Google Scholar

Cinque, G. (2005). Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 315–332.10.1162/0024389054396917CrossRef Google Scholar

De Vries, M. (2008). Asymmetric merge and parataxis. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/La revue canadienne de linguistique, 53(2–3), 355–385.10.1353/cjl.0.0017CrossRef Google Scholar

De Vries, M. (2009). On multidominance and linearization. Biolinguistics, 3(4), 344–403.10.5964/bioling.8735CrossRef Google Scholar

Donati, C. (2021). Bimodal bilingual grammars. In Quer, J., Herrmann, A., & Pfau, R. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research (pp. 614–635). Routledge.10.4324/9781315754499-27CrossRef Google Scholar

Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H. B., Thompson, R., & Gollan, T. H. (2008). Bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(1), 43–61.Google Scholar

Fox, D., & Pesetsky, D. (2005). Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics, 31(1–2), 1–45.10.1515/thli.2005.31.1-2.1CrossRef Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of Language (pp. 73–113). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-Bar-Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kelepir, M. (2021). Content interrogatives – theoretical and experimental perspectives. In Quer, J., Pfau, R., & Herrmann, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research (pp. 232–265). Routledge.10.4324/9781315754499-11CrossRef Google Scholar

Kimmelman, V. (2015). Multiple tiers, multiple trees: Weak hand holds in Russian Sign Language. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society, 49, 225–238.Google Scholar

Kimmelman, V. (2017). Linearization of weak hand holds in Russian Sign Language. Linguistics in Amsterdam, 10(1), 28–59.Google Scholar

Kremers, J. (2012). The syntax of simultaneity. Lingua, 122, 979–1003.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.03.008CrossRef Google Scholar

Leeson, L., & Saeed, J. (2012). Word order. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B. (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook (pp. 245–264). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110261325.245CrossRef Google Scholar

Lillo-Martin, D., Müller de Quadros, R., & Chen Pichler, D. (2016). The development of bimodal bilingualism: Implications for linguistic theory. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6(6), 719–755.10.1075/lab.6.6.01lilCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mantovan, L., & Geraci, C. (2017). The syntax of nominal modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sign Language & Linguistics, 20, 183–220.10.1075/sll.00002.manCrossRef Google Scholar

Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B., & Lee, R. (2000). The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nunes, J. (2004). Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4241.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Nunes, J., & Quadros, R. (2008). Phonetically realized traces in American Sign Language and Brazilian Sign Language. In Quer, J. (ed.), Signs of the Time: Selected Papers from TISLR 2004 (pp. 177–190). Signum.Google Scholar

Petronio, K., & Lillo-Martin, D. (1997). Wh-movement and the position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language, 73(1), 18–57.10.2307/416592CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pfau, R., & Quer, J. (2005). V-to-Neg raising and negative concord in three sign languages. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 27, 73–86.Google Scholar

Pfau, R., & Quer, J. (2010). Nonmanuals: Their grammatical and prosodic roles. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Cambridge Language Surveys: Sign Languages (pp. 381–402). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511712203.018CrossRef Google Scholar

Quadros, R. M., Lillo-Martin, D., & Chen Pichler, D. (2020). Blending languages: Bimodal bilinguals and language synthesis. In Zeshan, U., Webster, J., & Bradford, A. (eds.), Sign Multilingualism (pp. 201–226). De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press.Google Scholar

Richards, N. (2010). Uttering Trees. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262013765.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Sandler, W. (1999). The medium and the message: Prosodic interpretation of linguistic content in sign language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2(2), 187–216.10.1075/sll.2.2.04sanCrossRef Google Scholar

Sandler, W. (2010). Prosody and syntax in sign languages. Transactions of the Philological Society, 108(3), 298–328.10.1111/j.1467-968X.2010.01242.xCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Tieu, L., Pasternak, R., Schlenker, P., & Chemla, E. (2018). Co-speech gesture projection: Evidence from inferential judgments. Glossa, 3(1), 109.Google Scholar

Wilbur, R. B. (2011). Nonmanuals, semantic operators, domain marking, and the solution to two outstanding puzzles in ASL. Sign Language and Linguistics, 14, 148–178.10.1075/sll.14.1.08wilCrossRef Google Scholar

Wilbur, R. B. (2021). Non-manual markers: Theoretical and experimental perspectives. In Quer, J., Herrmann, A., & Pfau, R. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research (pp. 530–565). Routledge.10.4324/9781315754499-24CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilbur, R. B., & Patschke, C. (1999). Syntactic correlates of brow raise in ASL. Sign Language and Linguistics, 2, 3–40.10.1075/sll.2.1.03wilCrossRef Google Scholar

Zeshan, U. (ed.) (2006). Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages. Ishara Press.10.26530/OAPEN_453832CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.