obtaining expressions like “¬ xiang (think) P” or
“¬ xiang (think)-prog P” is nearly impossible.

In summary, “xiang Q” and “xiang P” alternates
with a change in stativity in Mandarin, which sup-
ports the central view of Özyıldız (2021), with
a difference that “xiang P” may not be dynamic.
Because the diagnostics for stativity might be
language-dependent, and the diagnostics for Man-
darin is still understudied. More research is needed
before arriving at a definitive conclusion.

5 Neg-raising?

Another observation of the stativity hypothesis, if
not the core claim, is neg-raising property (Table
1). This connection between stativity and neg-
raising was suggested by Özyıldız (2021); Jeretic
and Özyıldız (2022). In addition, Theiler et al.
(2019) pointed out a link between anti-rogativity
and neg-raising, which also suggested “xiang” as a
potential anti-rogative predicate should allow for
neg-raising. However, a thorny issue that must
be addressed before establishing the connection is
how neg-raising works in Mandarin.

**Negation in Mandrain** There are several ways to do negations in Mandarin including “bu” negation, “mei” negation, and “bie” negation<fnref n="21" />. Roughly, “bu” is more like English not, a pure negation, “mei” is tinted with imperfective meaning, and “bie” is an imperative negation (27).

(27) Bu/Mei/Bie zuo
Neg do
Bu: ‘(I) don’t do (that).’
Mei: ‘(I) haven’t done/didn’t do (that).’
Bie: ‘(you) don’t do (that)!’

Neg-raising usually works with “bu” negator as
shown below (28)<fnref n="22" />.

(28) Bu Neg-raising
Wo bu xiang ta lai
I -NEG want he come
‘I don’t want him to come.’
→ I want him not to come.

If we use different negators to negate “xi-
ang(think) P” in (29), the results are shown in ex-
amples (30a,30b). If neg-raising were possible,
negating (29) would result in an inference such as
“I think he is not sick”. However, neither (30a) nor
(30b) produces this inference even in the ideal sta-
tive and declarative setting, rather, we get a bouletic
interpretation of “xiang”.

(29) Wo xiang ta shengbing-le
I think he sick-LE
‘I **think** he is sick.’

(30) a. “Bu” negation
Wo bu-xiang ta shengbing
I Neg-think he sick
‘I don’t **want** him to be sick.’
b. “Mei” negation
Wo mei-xiang ta shengbing
I Neg-think he sick
‘(you think I wish he is sick, but) I don’t
**want** him to be sick.’

I assume this is because a meaning shift hap-
pened due to negation, from “think” to “want” (29-
30b) or the opposite (31a,31b)<fnref n="23" />. These examples
show that “xiang” meaning “think” prefers a posi-
tive environment but can tolerate a negative one if
the meaning of “want” is not available such as in
an imperative sentence.

(31) a. Ni xiang ta lai bangmang
You think he come help
‘You **want** him to help (you).’
b. “Bie” negation
Ni bie-xiang ta hui lai bangmang
You Neg-think he will come help
‘Don’t **think** that he will help (you).’

The only possible scenario for testing neg-
raising with “xiang”(think) is in an environment as
in (31b) since “bie” does not cause meaning shift to
“want”. Unfortunately, “Bie” seems not to allow for
neg-raising inference. Take “juede”(think) as an ex-
ample since it is a valid neg-raising verb under “bu”

<footnote n="21">²¹Ernst (1995) and Xiao and McEnery (2008) investigated how “bu” and “mei” differ and their interaction. Biq (1989) explored more about pragmatics or paralinguistic usages of negation.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²²According to Xiang (2013), the neg-raising is asymmetrical between “bu” and “mei” as she observed that “xiang”(want) gets a neg-raising inference in “bu” but not in “mei”.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³Examples (31a,31b) are there to show the possibility of the semantic shift in the opposite way. But the meaning change is not always happening. For example, “ni xiang taiduo le” (you think too much) → “ni bie xiang taiduo le” (don’t think too much). Hence, the pattern is: “want” shifts to “think” under imperative negation, while the opposite under the other two types.</footnote>
negation<sup>24</sup>. As (32) shows, the neg-raising inference is not valid with “bie”. Due to this particular sensitivity to negation, it is difficult to determine whether the entry of “think” for “xiang” allows for neg-raising or not<sup>25</sup>.

(32) Imperative negating “xiang”

Ni bie juede zhe hen jiandan
You -NEG think this very easy

'Don't think it is easy.'
‡ Think it is not easy.

**Semantic shift** Figure 3 illustrated the semantic shifts that occur when negation interacts with two meaning entries of the “xiang” (represented by the upper and lower arrows, corresponding to “think” and “want” respectively). Specifically, two meaning shifts are observed: from “want ¬ P” to “think ¬ P” and from “¬ think P” to “¬ want P,” when the negator is “bu”. It is important to mention that this section only provides descriptive information rather than a comprehensive explanation.

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Semantic shift between “want” and “think”; the default negator is “bu” if there is no specification.</figcaption></figure>

Figure 3 also reveals several possibilities of the failure of “¬ think P” (i.e., the neg-raising inference). First and most straightforward, the neg-raising does not happen, the negation is base-generated in the matrix clause. It is due to sensitivity to negation that “think” shifts to “want”.

As a by-product of this meaning shift, the auxiliary “hui” (will) is discarded because “will” and “want” are overlapping in terms of their meaning (i.e., showing future-orientation). However, this explanation faces a problem as it fails to account for why its “want” entry can have neg-raising inference. Second, neg-raising may have happened, but in the meantime, “think” changes its meaning to “want” due to negation. Third, there exists an potential meaning ambiguity between “think ¬ P” and “want ¬ P” under “bu” negation. The potential neg-raising may proceed though the “want” entry instead of the “think” entry. However, the last explanation is also unsatisfactory. For example, why does the ambiguity not work in the opposite way. Apart from that, the last possibility needs an account for the potential negator shift in “want ¬ P” (from “bu” to “bie” and then back to “bu” again).

## 6 Conclusion

“Xiang” shows that the stativity of vP plays a role in clausal complement selection and this is consistent with what is found with the English verb “think”. This, however, is subject to many challenges, for instance, the stativity tests are limited in many ways (e.g., small in number), the existence of certain aspectual markers and modals inside the complement may influence the acceptability (20a,20b)<sup>26</sup>. Due to this, the conclusion that “xiang P” can only be stative may face potential challenges in the future. Given the three possibilities that lead to the failure of neg-raising, it is reasonable to maintain the potential neg-raising assumption, which is just blocked by the meaning shift due to negation. Hence “xiang” does not pose a real problem to Özyıldız (2021). The semantic shift in “xiang” is still insufficiently explained, given the focus of the paper is “xiang(think)” and its CP complement. I leave it to future research to elucidate the underlying factors that give rise to this meaning shift.

## 7 Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Kajsa Djärv for introducing me to the topic and providing valuable guidance. I would also like to extend my thanks to the two anonymous reviewers whose comments were clear and encouraging. Lastly, I thank my informants

<footnote n="24"><sup>24</sup>Here, I avoid using “xiang”(want) as an example because “want” shifts meaning under imperatives. In the meantime, I found out that the negators sometimes may not be the same before and after raising. “I -Bu want him to come.” → “I want him -Bie/*Bu to come.”</footnote>

<footnote n="25"><sup>25</sup>My supervisor, Kajsa Djärv, also suggested that the observations made in non-neg-raising “xiang P” might undermine the applicability of Theiler et al.’s explanation for “*xiang Q” (canonically). However, the data presented by Özyıldız has already demonstrated that Theiler et al.’s account faces issues when applied to “think Q.” Nevertheless, one question that arises is why we observe a pattern in English where the interpretation of the expression “¬ think” is neg-raising with P-complements varies based on whether it is stative or eventive, while in Mandarin, “¬ think” is consistently understood as “want,” irrespective of stativity.</footnote>

<footnote n="26"><sup>26</sup>cf.(20a): *I think-prog how to cook-perf or *I think-prog how to cook-LE, but “-perf” and “LE” seem to be good as in (20b). This can be syntactic constraints on finiteness as well.</footnote>
and the members of the guided research group for
their insightful questions and native knowledge.

References

Dorit Abusch. 2014. Temporal succession and aspec-
tual type in visual narrative. *The Art and Craft of
Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim*, 1:9–29.

Yung-O Biq. 1989. Metalinguistic negation in mandarin.
*Journal of Chinese Linguistics*, 17(1):75–95.

Yung-O Biq. 1991. The multiple uses of the second per-
son singular pronoun ni in conversational mandarin.
*Journal of Pragmatics*, 16(4):307–321.

Tatiana Bondarenko. 2020. Factivity from pre-existence: Evidence from barguzin buryat. *Glossa: a journal of general linguistics*, 5(1).

Hongyuan Dong. 2018. *Semantics of Chinese questions: An interface approach*. Routledge.

David R Dowty. 1979. 5 dative' movement' and thoma-
son's extensions of montague grammar. In *Linguis-
tics, philosophy, and Montague grammar*, pages 153–
222. University of Texas Press.

David R Dowty. 1986. The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse: semantics or pragmatics? *Linguistics and philosophy*, pages 37–61.

Paul Egré. 2008. *Question-embedding and factivity*. *Grazer Philosophische Studien*, 77(1):85–125.

Thomas Ernst. 1995. Negation in mandarin chinese.
*Natural Language & Linguistic Theory*, 13(4):665–707.

Lelia Glass. 2020. The negatively biased mandarin belief verb yïwéi. *Studia Linguisticae*.

Jane Grimshaw. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. *Linguistic inquiry*, 10(2):279–326.

Baozhang He. 1992. *Situation types and aspectual classes of verbs in Mandarin Chinese*. The Ohio State University.

Jaakko Hintikka. 1975. 'different constructions in terms of the basic epistemological verbs: A survey of some problems and proposals.

Paloma Jeretic and Deniz Özyıldız. 2022. Why neg-
raising requires stativity. In *Amsterdam Colloquium*.

Lauri Karttunen. 1977. Syntax and semantics of ques-
tions. *Linguistics and philosophy*, 1:3–44.

Utpal Lahiri et al. 2002. *Questions and answers in
embedded contexts*, volume 2. Oxford University
Press on Demand.

George Lakoff. 1966. Stative adjectives and verbs in english.

Alex Lascarides and Nicholas Asher. 1993. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. *Linguistics and philosophy*, 16(5):437–493.

Shuxiang Lü. 1999. *Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci[800 Words in Modern Chinese]*. The Comercial Press.

Mari Broman Olsen. 1994. The semantics and pragmatics of lexical aspect features. *Studies in the linguistic sciences*.

Deniz Özyıldız. 2021. The event structure of attitudes.

Tom Roberts. 2019. I can't believe it's not lexical: De-
riving distributed veridicality. In *Semantics and Lin-
guistic Theory*, volume 29, pages 665–685.

Benjamin Spector and Paul Egré. 2015. A uniform semantics for embedded interrogatives: An answer, not necessarily the answer. *Synthese*, 192:1729–1784.

Nadine Theiler, Floris Roelofsen, and Maria Aloni. 2018. A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements. *Journal of Semantics*, 35(3):409–466.

Nadine Theiler, Floris Roelofsen, and Maria Aloni. 2019. Picky predicates: Why believe doesn't like interrogative complements, and other puzzles. *Natural Language Semantics*, 27:95–134.

Wataru Uegaki. 2015. *Interpreting questions under attitudes*. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Wataru Uegaki. 2019. The semantics of question-embedding predicates. *Language and Linguistics Compass*, 13(1):e12308.

Yimei Xiang. 2013. Neg-raising and aspect: Evidence from mandarin. *University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics*, 19(1):29.

Richard Xiao and Tony McEnery. 2004. *Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study*, volume 73. John Benjamins Publishing.

Richard Z Xiao and Anthony M McEnery. 2008. Nega-
tion in chinese: a corpus-based study. *Journal of
Chinese linguistics*, 36(2):274–330.

Bangjun Xu, Jingxiang Yin, Yi Qin, and Qiwang Hu. 2013. Semantic-syntactic description of chinese psycho-verb xiang. In *Chinese Lexical Semantics: 14th Workshop, CLSW 2013, Zhengzhou, China, May 10-12, 2013. Revised Selected Papers 14*, pages 10–18. Springer.
# The indefinite-interrogative affinity in sign languages: the case of Catalan Sign Language

Raquel Veiga Busto and Floris Roelofsen
University of Amsterdam

{r.veigabusto,f.roelofsen}@uva.nl

Alexandra Navarrete-González
Universitat Pompeu Fabra

alexandra.navarrete@upf.edu

## Abstract

Prior studies on spoken languages have shown that indefinite and interrogative pronouns may be formally very similar. Our research aims to understand if sign languages exhibit this type of affinity. This paper presents an overview of the phenomenon and reports on the results of two studies: a cross-linguistic survey based on a sample of 30 sign languages and an empirical investigation conducted with three deaf consultants of Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Our research shows that, in sign languages, certain signs have both existential and interrogative readings and it identifies the environments that make existential interpretations available in LSC.

## 1 Introduction

Research on spoken languages has shown that indefinite pronouns are commonly derived from generic nouns such as ‘thing’ or ‘time’ (as in English *something* or *sometime*) and the numeral ‘one’ (e.g., *someone* in English, *qualcuno* in Italian). Furthermore, indefinite pronouns may be morphologically very similar or even identical to interrogative pronouns (Haspelmath, 1997). For example, the Mandarin Chinese form *shenme* (‘something’/‘what’) has both indefinite and interrogative functions and the English indefinite *anywhere* is somehow linked to the interrogative word *where* and the indefiniteness marker *any-*. This formal resemblance is known as the indefinite-interrogative affinity (Bhat, 2004; Gartner, 2009; Onea, 2021).

In his typology of spoken language indefinites, Haspelmath (1997) made the following observation: when indefinite and interrogative pronouns are formally similar but not fully identical, the indefinite is always the element that is more morphologically complex. That is, there is a universal asymmetric markedness relation such that interrogative pronouns are virtually never more marked

than indefinite pronouns nor derived from them.<fnref n="1" /> This is why indefinite pronouns bearing a formal resemblance with interrogative words are commonly referred to as interrogative-based indefinites (Haspelmath, 1997) or as *wh*-indefinites (Bruening, 2007). Depending on their form, *wh*-indefinites may be further broken down into two categories: bare, if their form is identical to that of the interrogative, and complex, if they involve the interrogative along with some additional morphology. Languages differ with respect to the type of affinity they allow: some languages have both bare and complex *wh*-indefinites, some languages have one type only, and yet others do not show this type of affinity (cf. Yun, 2013).

In this paper, we will follow Hengeveld et al. (2022) and adopt the term *quexistentials* to refer to those elements that may be used either as question words or as existential indefinites. Likewise, we will refer to the interrogative interpretation of a quexistential as *qu of quex* and to the existential reading of the quexistential as *ex of quex*. While in its original formulation, the term applies only to those words that allow interrogative and indefinite uses without differences in spell-out, we will extend the definition to cover those cases in which the two uses correspond to similar but not fully identical forms. The main motivation is that interrogative and indefinite signs tend to co-occur with specific sets of non-manual markers (NMMs), but we do not yet know what the exact role of such markers is nor whether fully identical forms can be found in any sign language. Therefore, we will use the term *quexistential* when the manual sign is the same and the NMMs differ, but also when the manual sign is not fully identical in both readings, either because it combines with other signs or because it involves a change on its phonological make-up (e.g., by

<footnote n="1">¹Similar observations are found in Moravcsik (1969) and Ultan (1969).</footnote>
means of reduplication or movement modification). To make these distinctions explicit, we will use the labels *bare* and *complex quexistential*.

Despite claims that in some sign languages certain items may function both as indefinite and as interrogative pronouns, the extent to which the indefinite-interrogative affinity is found in the visual modality has not yet been investigated (Zeshan, 2006a; Cormier, 2012; Zeshan and Palfreyman, 2017). Thus, it is also not clear whether Haspelmath's universal, according to which indefinite pronouns always constitute derived forms, can be taken to hold for sign languages as well. Indeed, this is the main reason for adopting the term *quexistentials*, as it remains neutral with respect to the nature of the interrogative-indefinite affinity (i.e., it does not presume that the indefinite is always derived from the interrogative).

In this paper, we aim to investigate the extent to which the indefinite-interrogative affinity is found in the signed modality. The roadmap of the paper is as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the distribution of quexistentials across spoken and signed languages. In Section 3, we zoom in on the morphology of quexistentials and the distribution of the ex of quex in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Section 4 summarizes our findings and Section 5 suggests directions for future research. The main contribution of this study is that it provides the first description of the morphology and the distribution of the ex of quex in a sign language.

## 2 Cross-linguistic distribution of the indefinite-interrogative affinity

The indefinite-interrogative affinity is a widespread phenomenon among the world's spoken languages. Importantly, this affinity is not restricted to a specific language family or to a particular geographic area. In Ultan's (1969) typology of interrogative systems, it is attested in 77 out a sample of 79 spoken languages. In Haspelmath's typology of indefinite pronouns (1997), 63 out of a sample of 100 spoken languages were found to show this type of affinity.

### 2.1 Distribution of the ex of quex

The distinction between bare and complex quexistentials has been claimed to impact the licensing conditions of the ex of quex. According to Yun (2013), complex forms do not exhibit any syntactic or semantic restriction, thus patterning with non-

quexistential indefinites.

Bare quexistentials, by contrast, are subject to different constraints across languages. While the contexts in which the existential reading of bare quexistentials arises are not uniform, in many languages, the ex of quex occurs in environments that license NPIs. Let's take the case of Mandarin Chinese as an illustration. In Mandarin Chinese, the ex of quex is licensed by modals (1), negation (2), antecedents of conditionals (3) and polar questions (4). Other licensors include imperatives and future markers, non-factive predicates like *renwei* 'think' and the universal quantificational particle *dou* (Lin, 1998; Chen, 2018; Yang et al., 2022). Crucially, the ex of quex may also occur in environments that do not license NPIs, such as positive sentences marked with progressive or perfective aspect (Chen, 2018; Liu and Yang, 2021). When occurring in such contexts, the forms are argued to convey speaker's ignorance about the identity of the individual that satisfies the description of the *wh*-phrase, as in (5) (examples are adapted from Chen, 2018, 142–143).

(1) Ni bixu chi dian **shenme**
You must eat CL **QUEX**
‘You must eat something.’

(2) Zhangsan mei chi **shenme** dongxi
Zhangsan NEG eat **QUEX** thing
‘Zhangsan didn’t eat anything.’

(3) Ruguo ni you **shenme** wenti, jiu lai
If you have **QUEX** question, then come
wen wo
ask me
‘If you have any question, come and ask
me.’

(4) Zhangsan chi-le **shenme** ma?
Zhangsan eat-ASP **QUEX** Q?
Did Zhangsan eat anything?

(5) Zhangsan mai le dian **shenme** song gei Lisi
Zhangsan buy Asp CL **QUEX** give to Lisi
‘Zhangsan bought something for Lisi (the
speaker does not know specifically what he
bought).’

Finally, some languages may restrict the position in which the ex of quex is allowed. For example, in Dutch and German, it must occur inside the verb phrase, and it cannot be scrambled outside the VP without losing its indefinite interpretation (Postma, 1994).
## 2.2 The indefinite-interrogative affinity in sign languages

In order to investigate whether sign languages show the same kind of affinity between question words and existential indefinites, we first conducted a survey based on a convenience sample of 30 different sign languages. The data gathered consisted mainly of articles and book chapters (most about interrogatives, with only a few addressing indefinite pronouns), as well as online dictionaries and grammars. Crucially, the languages in our sample were selected based on the availability of the data only, and no further factors were considered at this point.

## 2.3 Results

We found that the indefinite-interrogative affinity is attested in 11 out of the 30 sign languages considered in our sample. For the remaining 19 languages, either the affinity was claimed not to exist or no information on the topic was available. The list of sign languages and the semantic categories that allow both interrogative and indefinite uses are presented in Table 1. The complete list of languages is presented in Appendix A.

Despite being heavily biased towards European sign languages, our sample show that the indefinite-interrogative affinity is attested in different geographic areas. Note, however, that languages such as BSL, Auslan and NZSL are historically related. Therefore, identification of the same types of quexistentials across this group of languages is not entirely unexpected.

Overall, our survey reveals that the person category quexistential, which covers the existential reading ('someone') and the interrogative interpretation ('who'), is the most common across sign languages. However, since in most cases discussion of the features was rather superficial, no detailed comparison of the distribution of quexistentials in sign languages could be carried out. In fact, from the data available it could not be established whether or not quexistentials referring to semantic categories other than person, thing and location were possible in the sign languages in our sample. In the case of NS and Libras, there is simply no indication about the categories in which quexistentials are allowed. This is why the two languages are marked with a star in Table 1.<fnref n="2" />

With some notable exceptions, such as Barberà et al. (2018) for LSC, the contexts that license existential interpretations are not explicitly identified either. That said, for UgSL it is noted that the use of the ex of quex is not possible across the board (cf. Lutalo-Kiingi, 2014, 232). Taking this into consideration, we decided to conduct fieldwork so as to i) maximize the diversity of our sample; and ii) collect more detailed, comparable data from specific sign languages. The next section describes the case of LSC, which is the first sign language we studied and the one in which we piloted our research methodology.

## 3 Quexistentials in LSC

LSC is a language argued to have a bare quexistential in the person category, which can mean either ‘who’ or ‘someone’, as well as two complex quexistentials, the compounds QUEX:person^QUEX:quantity and QUEX:person^IX₃pl,³ meaning ‘someone’ (Barberà and Quer, 2013; Barberà, 2016; Barberà and Cabredo Hofherr, 2018; Barberà, 2021).⁴ According to (Barberà, 2021), the existential reading of the bare quexistential is licensed by the NMMs used in contexts of indefiniteness, which in LSC include sucking the cheeks in, pulling the corners of the mouth down, and sometimes a shrug (Barberà, 2015).⁵,⁶

### 3.1 Method

In order to investigate if quexistentials are equally productive in other semantic categories and to determine their distribution in the language, we con-

have indefinite uses, a later study by Quadros (2006) states the opposite.

³Following standard conventions, manual signs are glossed in small capitals. The gloss QUEX:‘category’ represents quexistentials and the semantic category they belong to. Multimorphemic signs are glossed using a circumflex accent between the morphemes (SIGN^SIGN). The gloss IX stands for pointing signs, -rep stands for reduplication and number subscripts represent person values. When more than one word is needed to gloss the meaning of a sign, the words are separated by dashes (e.g., HOW_MANY corresponds to a single sign in LSC). Classifiers are glossed as CL:‘meaning of the classifier’.

⁴In these publications, complex quexistentials are glossed as WHO^SOME and WHO^IX₃pl.

⁵The NMMs used in indefinite contexts, just like the ones used in interrogative contexts, are subject to cross-linguistic variation (Barberà and Cormier, 2017). For example, unlike the case of LSC, the NMMs of indefiniteness reported for ASL are wrinkled nose, furrowed brows, and a rapid head shake (Bahan, 1996).

⁶For NZSL, McKee (2006, 80) claims that the quexistential interpretation is differentiated by context, mouthing patterns, and the presence or absence of interrogative NMMs.

<footnote n="2">²In fact, the case of Libras is further complicated by the fact that while Zeshan (2004) claims that question words may</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 1: Quexistentials in sign languages.</caption><thead><tr><th>Language</th><th>Acronym</th><th>QUEX:person</th><th>QUEX:location</th><th>QUEX:thing</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Australian Sign Language</td><td>Auslan</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Brazilian Sign Language</td><td>Libras</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>British Sign Language</td><td>BSL</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Catalan Sign Language</td><td>LSC</td><td>✓</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Finnish Sign Language</td><td>SVK</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Japanese Sign Language</td><td>NS</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>Kenian Sign Language</td><td>KSL</td><td>✓</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>New Zealand Sign Language</td><td>NZSL</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Russian Sign Language</td><td>RSL</td><td>✓</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish Sign Language</td><td>LSE</td><td>✓</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Ugandan Sign Language</td><td>UgSL</td><td>✓</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>

ducted elicitation sessions with three deaf LSC consultants.

Since interrogative signs have already been described in prior LSC studies (Quer et al., 2005; Alba, 2016; Cañas Peña, 2020), no specific task was carried out to elicit the forms. The inventory of question words commonly listed in previous literature is presented in Figures 1 to 10.

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: WHO</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: WHAT</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: REASON</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8: WHY</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: WHEN.past</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: WHEN.fut</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9: WHICH</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10: HOW</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: WHERE</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: HOW_MANY</figcaption></figure>

To establish the inventory of indefinite pronouns and identify the contexts in which the ex of quex is possible in LSC, we develop a questionnaire aimed at eliciting indefinite pronouns referring to the same ontological categories observed in the interrogative paradigm, namely: person, thing, time, location, quantity, cause, determiner and manner. For each semantic category, we elicit indefinite pronouns in environments known to influence the choice of the indefinite form (see Section 2.1). Specifically, we elicited indefinites in the scope of possibility and necessity modals (epistemic and deontic), in polar questions, in the antecedent of conditionals, in affirmative episodic sentences and in the context of negation. The remainder of this section describes our main results.
## 3.2 Results

### The indefinite paradigm

As it has been observed for many other languages, indefinite pronouns in LSC may be formally similar to generic nouns (e.g., SOMETHING^PERSON ‘someone’), the numeral ONE (e.g., ONE^SOMETHING ‘something’) and question words (e.g., QUEX:person^ANY ‘anyone’). However, indefinites that combine two of these strategies are fairly common as well (DAY^ONE ‘sometime’, ONE^PERSON/QUEX:person^PERSON-rep ‘someone’).

### Quexistentials: distribution

* Apart from the person category, which is the only one that has been previously described for LSC, we found that the ex of quex is also possible in the categories time, quantity and cause.

* There are four non-quexistential interrogatives (i.e., question words that do not allow for indefinite uses). These correspond to the signs in Figures 2, 5, 9 and 10, which translate roughly as ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘which’ and ‘how’ in English. Given that sentences containing these signs do not allow for an existential interpretation, they are considered ungrammatical in non-interrogative constructions (see (6) and (7)).

(6) \*DISAPPEAR WHAT, GUILT IX₂
Intended: ‘If something disappears, you will be held responsible.’

(7) \*IX₁ MUST DRUG WHICH MONEY^BUY
Intended: ‘I must buy some medicines.’

* The existential reading of quexistentials is licensed in the same environments for all four semantic categories. That is, it is possible in polar questions, in the antecedent of conditionals, in positive episodic sentences and under modals (see Table 2).<fnref n="7" />,<fnref n="8" /> These environments

are illustrated in sentences (8) to (11) below. Examples (8-a) to (11-a) correspond to the person category quexistential; examples (8-b) to (11-b) correspond to quexistentials of the semantic category quantity.

(8) Polar question:

a. COME **QUEX:person**?
‘Has anyone come?’

b. IX₂ SEE PLANET **QUEX:quantity**?
‘Have you seen any planets?’

(9) Antecedent of a conditional:

a. COME **QUEX:person**, IX₁
**TAKE_CARE**
‘If someone comes, I’ll take care.’

b. IX₂ DISCOVER **QUEX:quantity**,
**LET_KNOW**₁
‘If you discover something, let me know.’

(10) Episodic:

a. YESTERDAY SUBWAY **QUEX:person**
**LOOK**₁-rep
‘Someone kept looking at me yesterday at the subway.’

b. BOY^CHILD SEE **QUEX:quantity**
‘The child saw some.PL.’

(11) Modal:

a. SEEM OUTSIDE **QUEX:person**
‘There appears to be someone outside.’

b. TRAFFIC SIGN-rep IX
**QUEX:quantity** MUST UPGRADE-rep NEW CL: ‘put’-rep
‘Some traffic signs must be replaced.’

* Except for the sign REASON, the ex of quex is not possible under negation. This is shown in (12), where the general negative non-quexistential indefinite NOTHING-o is used instead of QUEX:person. For ease of illustration, the two signs are presented in Figures 11 and 12.

(12) Negation:
COME NOTHING-o
‘Nobody came.’

<footnote n="7">⁷Since judgments were uniform for the different modals considered in this study, Table 2 collapses deontic necessity, deontic possibility, epistemic necessity and epistemic possibility modals into the heading “Modals”.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Results for the category cause correspond to the judgments obtained for the sign REASON only. Judgments for the</footnote>

<footnote>sign WHY were not as robust and they will be tested again in a follow-up study.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 2: Quexistentials in LSC.</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Polar question</th><th>Antecedent of a conditional</th><th>Positive episodic sentence</th><th>Negation</th><th>Modals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Person</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>–</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Thing</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Quantity</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>–</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Location</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Time</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>–</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Manner</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Determiner</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Cause</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11: QUEX:person Figure 12: NOTHING-o</figcaption></figure>

## Quexistentials: morphology

* Depending on the semantic category and the context in which they are used, both bare and complex quexistentials are possible. In the existential reading, the quexistentials corresponding to the categories person, time and quantity may appear either bare or in combination with other signs. Again, the sign REASON differs from the rest in that it always needs to combine with other sign(s) in its existential reading.

* To give an example, while sentences (8-a) to (11-a) contain bare quexistentials only, complex quexistentials could also occur in the same environments. As shown in Table 3, there is only one exception to this: in the person category, deontic possibility modals seem to always require a complex quexistential (e.g., QUEX:person^ANY or QUEX:person^IX-b, as in (13)). Interestingly, a combination of two quexistentials is also possible, as shown in (14) below. Furthermore, the quexistential QUEX:quantity, which covers both the categories of people and things, may also be used in the same context instead of QUEX:person, and generate the same free choice inference, see (15). For ease of comparison, the examples provide video recorded sentences as well.

They can be accessed by clicking on the hands icon next to the example sentence.

(13) IX₂ CAN CONTACT QUEX:person^IX-b
‘You can talk to anyone.’

(14) IX₂ CAN CONTACT QUEX:person^QUEX:quantity
‘You can talk to anyone.’

(15) NO, IX₂ CAN CONTACT ANY^QUEX:
quantity
‘No, you can talk to anyone.’

<table><caption>Table 3: Distribution of bare and complex quex in the person category.</caption><thead><tr><th>Environment</th><th>Bare quex</th><th>Complex quex</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Polar question</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Epistemic necessity</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Epistemic possibility</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Deontic necessity</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Deontic possibility</td><td>–</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Conditional’s antecedent</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Negation</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Episodic</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr></tbody></table>

* Finally, it must be noted that for the quexistential indefinite to be used, the identity of the referent must be unknown to the speaker (see also Barberà (2015) and Barberà et al. (2018)).

## 4 Conclusion

The results of our study show the indefinite-interrogative affinity is a phenomenon attested
across different sign languages. Besides, our in-
vestigation shows that, in LSC, quexistentials are
possible in different semantic categories and that
the distribution of the ex of quex follows a pattern
similar to the one described for spoken languages
such as Mandarin Chinese. In particular, the ex-
istential reading of quexistentials is licensed in,
at least, the following contexts: polar questions,
epistemic and deontic modals, antecedents of con-
ditionals and positive episodic sentences.

5 Future work

Despite having demonstrated that certain contexts
require complex quexistentials for the existential
interpretation to arise, we cannot yet conclude that
Haspelmath’s universal, according to which indef-
inites are always more morphologically complex
than interrogatives, necessarily applies to the case
of LSC. To be able to reach that conclusion, we
would also have to compare the articulation of bare
quexistentials when they are interpreted as question
words vs. when they are interpreted as existential
indefinites. In this respect, prior findings from
some of the sign languages considered in the sur-
vey presented in Section 2.3 may shed some light
on this question. In some sign languages, signs that
have both interrogative and non-interrogative uses
tend to differ in the movement parameter, such
that the interrogative reading commonly takes a
repetitive movement (Zeshan, 2004; Zeshan and
Palfreyman, 2017). Interestingly, similar strategies
have been reported for spoken language indefinites.
For example, indefinite markers might consist of
an affix, a particle or a sequence of particles. Cru-
cially, they might also consist of reduplication and
stem modification (Haspelmath, 1997). This would
entail that the interrogative would be the more mor-
phologically complex member of the pair in some
sign languages, as opposed to what is claimed in
Haspelmath’s universal for spoken languages.

As mentioned earlier, NMMs may, by them-
selves, differentiate the two readings that quex-
istentials may have. However, the possible com-
binations of NMMs and their exact scope in the
sentence have not yet been addressed in detail in
this investigation. Besides, the very nature of our
research questions crucially depends on collecting
and comparing data from other sign languages as
well. These issues will be addressed in future re-
search.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from
the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Re-
search (NWO, grant number VI.C.201.014). We
are grateful to our Catalan Sign Language consul-
tants Delfina Aliaga, Santiago Frigola and David
Falguera, as well as to the two anonymous review-
ers of this paper for their feedback.

References

Enoch Aboh, Roland Pfau, and Ulrike Zeshan. 2005.
*When a wh-word is not a wh-word: the case of Indian
Sign Language*. In Tanmoy Bhattacharya, editor, *The
Yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics*,
pages 11–43. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

P. Akach. 1991. *Kenyan Sign Language Dictionary*. Kenyan National Association of the Deaf, Nairobi.

Cèlia Alba. 2016. *Wh-Questions in Catalan Sign Language*. Ph.D. thesis, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona.

Benjamin J. Bahan. 1996. *Nonmanual realization of agreement in American Sign Language*. Ph.D. thesis, Boston University, Boston, MA.

Charlotte Lee Baker-Shenk. 1983. *A microanalysis of the nonmanual components of questions in American Sign Language*. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

Gemma Barberà. 2015. *The meaning of space in sign language. Reference, specificity and structure in Catalan Sign Language discourse*. Mouton de Gruyter & Ishara Press, Berlin/Boston.

Gemma Barberà. 2016. *Indefiniteness and specificity marking in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Sign Language & Linguistics*, 19(1):1–36.

Gemma Barberà. 2021. *Specificity and definiteness*. In Josep Quer, Roland Pfau, and Annika Herrmann, editors, *The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research*, pages 403–422. Routledge, London.

Gemma Barberà and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr. 2018. *Two indefinite pronouns in Catalan Sign Language (LSC)*. In *Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21*, pages 89–106. University of Edinburgh.

Gemma Barberà, Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, and Josep Quer. 2018. Agent-backgrounding in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). *Sign Language & Linguistics*, 21(2):334–348.

Gemma Barberà and Kearsy Cormier. 2017. Reference. In Josep Quer, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Carlo Geraci, Meltem Kelepir, Roland Pfau, and Markus Steinbach, editors, *SignGram blueprint: A guide to sign language grammar writing*, pages 670–680. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.
Gemma Barberà and Josep Quer. 2013. *Impersonal reference in Catalan Sign Language (LSC)*. In Laurence Meurant, Aurélie Sinte, Mieke Van Herreweghe, and Myriam Vermeerberge, editors, *Sign language research uses and practices: Crossing views on theoretical and applied sign language linguistics*, pages 237–258. Ishara Press and de Gruyter Mouton, Berlin/Boston.

Darbhe Narayana Shankara Bhat. 2004. *The indefinite-interrogative puzzle*. In *Pronouns*, pages 226–249. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Felicia Bisnath. 2021. Wh-questions in the Trinidad and Tobago signing community. In *Proceedings of the Fifty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society*, pages 37–50. Chicago Linguistic Society.

Denis Bouchard and Colette Dubuisson. 1995. *Grammar, order and position of wh-signs in Québec Sign Language*. *Sign Language Studies*, 87:99–139.

Chiara Branchini and Lara Mantovan. 2020. *A grammar of Italian Sign Language (LIS)*. Edizioni Ca' Foscari, Venice.

Benjamin Bruening. 2007. *Wh-in-situ does not correlate with wh-indefinites or question particles*. *Linguistic Inquiry*, 38:139–166.

Sara Cañas Peña. 2020. Syntax: 1.2. Interrogatives. In Josep Quer and Gemma Barberà, editors, *A Grammar of Catalan Sign Language (LSC)*. SIGN-HUB Sign Language Grammar Series.

Pietro Celo. 1996. Linguistic and pragmatic aspects of the interrogative form in Italian Sign Language. In Ceil Lucas, editor, *Multicultural aspects of sociolinguistics in deaf communities*, pages 132–151. Gallaudet University Press, Washington, DC.

Yijun Chen. 2012. *Questioning in Taiwan Sign Language Conversation*. Ph.D. thesis, National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi.

Zhuo Chen. 2018. Wh-indefinites are dependent indefinites: a study on *shenme*. In *Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics*, pages 142–150. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Jane Coerts. 1990. The analysis of interrogatives and negations in Sign Language of the Netherland. In *Current trends in European Sign Language Research: Proceedings of the Third European Congress on Sign Language Research*, pages 265–277. Signum.

Jane Coerts. 1992. *Nonmanual grammatical markers: An analysis of interrogatives, negations and topicalisations in Sign Language of the Netherlands*. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.

Frances Conlin, Paul Hagstrom, and Carol Neidle. 2003. A particle of indefiniteness in American Sign Language. *Linguistic Discovery*, 2:1–21.

Kearsy Cormier. 2012. *Pronouns*. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach, and Bencie Woll, editors, *Sign language: An international handbook*, pages 227–244. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Miroslava Cruz Aldrete. 2008. *Gramática de la Lengua de Señas Mexicana*. Ph.D. thesis, Colegio de México.

Hasan Dikyuva, Bahtiyar Makaroğlu, and Engin Arık. 2017. *Turkish Sign Language grammar*. Ministry of Family and Social Policies Press, Ankara.

Colette Dubuisson, Johanne Boulanger, Jules Desrosiers, and Linda Lelièvre. 1991. Les mouvements de tête dans les interrogatives en langue des signes québécoise. *Revue québécoise de linguistique*, 20(2):93–121.

Jordan Fenlon, Kearsy Cormier, Ramas Rentelis, Adam Schembri, Katherine Rowley, Robert Adam, and Bencie Woll. 2014. *BSL SignBank: A lexical database of British Sign Language*. Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre, University College London, London. 1st Edition.

Ana María Fernández Soneira. 2008. *La cantidad a manos llenas. La expresión de la cuantificación en la lengua de signos española*. Fundación CNSE, Madrid.

Finnish Association of the Deaf. 2003. *Suvi-Suomalaisen Viittomakielen Verkkosanakirja* [*The online dictionary of Finnish Sign Language*].

Susan Fischer. 2006. Questions and Negation in American Sign Language. In Ulrike Zeshan, editor, *Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages*, pages 165–197. Ishara Press, Nijmegen.

Hans-Martin Gartner. 2009. More on the indefinite-interrogative affinity: The view from embedded non-finite interrogatives. *Linguistic Typology*, 13(1):1–37.

Carlo Geraci, Robert Bayley, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto, and Caterina Donati. 2015. Variation in Italian Sign Language (LIS): The case of *wh*-signs. *Linguistics*, 53(1):125–151.

Aslı Göksel and Meltem Kelepir. 2013. The phonological and semantic bifurcation of the functions of an articulator: HEAD in questions in Turkish Sign Language. *Sign Language and Linguistics*, 16(1):1–30.

Martin Haspelmath. 1997. *Indefinite pronouns*. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Kees Hengeveld, Sabine Iatridou, and Floris Roelofsen. 2022. Quexistentials and focus. *Linguistic Inquiry*, pages 1–54.

Ángel Luis Herrero Blanco. 2009. *Gramática didáctica de la lengua de signos española (LSE)*. Ediciones SM, Madrid.
Julie A. Hochgesang, Onno Crasborn, and Diane Lillo-Martin. 2018. *ASL Signbank*. Haskins Lab, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

Trevor Johnston. 2001. *The lexical database of Australian (Australian Sign Language). Sign Language & Linguistics*, 4(1/2):145–169.

Trevor Johnston and Adam Schembri. 2007. *Australian Sign Language: An introduction to sign language linguistics*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Vadim Kimmelman. 2018. *Impersonal reference in Russian Sign Language (RSL). Sign Language and Linguistics*, 21(2):204–231.

Ulrika Klomp. 2021. *A descriptive grammar of Sign Language of the Netherlands*. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.

Andrea Lackner. 2018. *Interrogativity*. In *Functions of head and body movements in Austrian Sign Language*, pages 139–170. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin/Boston.

Hao Lin. 2019. *Interrogative marking in Chinese Sign Language: A preliminary corpus-based investigation*. *Sign language and Linguistics*, 22(2):241–266.

Jo-wang Lin. 1998. *On existential polarity wh-phrases in Chinese*. *Journal of East Asian Linguistics*, 7:219–255.

Mingming Liu and Yu’an Yang. 2021. *Modal wh-indefinites in Mandarin*. In *Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 25*, pages 581–599. University College London and Queen Mary University of London.

Sam Lutalo-Kiingi. 2014. *A descriptive grammar of morphosyntactic constructions in Ugandan Sign Language (UgSL)*. Ph.D. thesis, University of Central Lancashire.

María Ignacia Massone. 1996. *Gramática y léxico de la lengua de señas argentina*. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad de Buenos Aires.

David McKee, Rachel McKee, Sara Pivac Alexander, Linette Pivac, and Mireille Vale. 2011. *Online dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language*. Deaf Studies Research Unit, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington.

Rachel McKee. 2006. Aspects of interrogatives and negation in New Zealand Sign Language. In Ulrike Zeshan, editor, *Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages*, pages 70–90. Ishara Press, Nijmegen.

Irit Meir. 2004. *Question and Negation in Israeli Sign Language*. *Sign Language and Linguistics*, 7(2):97–124.

Edith A. Moravcsik. 1969. Determination. In *Working papers on language universals*, 1, pages 63–98a. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Michael W. Morgan. 2006. Interrogatives and negatives in Japanese Sign Language. In Ulrike Zeshan, editor, *Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages*, pages 91–127. Ishara Press, Nijmegen.

Carol Neidle. 2002. Language across modalities: ASL focus and question constructions. *Linguistic Variation Yearbook*, 2:71–98.

Angela M. Nonaka. 2010. Interrogatives in Ban Khor Sign Language: *A preliminary description*. In Gaurav Mathur and Donna Jo Napoli, editors, *Deaf around the world: The impact of language*, pages 194–220. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Edgar Onea. 2021. *Indefinite-interrogative affinity*. In Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cecile Meier, Hotze Rullmann, and Thomas E. Zimmermann, editors, *The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics*, vol. 5. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex.

Gertjan Postma. 1994. *The indefinite reading of WH*. *Linguistics in the Netherlands*, 11(1):187–198.

Ronice Müller de Quadros. 2006. Questions in Brazilian Sign Language (LSB). In Ulrike Zeshan, editor, *Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages*, pages 270–283. Ishara Press, Nijmegen.

Josep (dir.) Quer, Eva M. Rondoni (dir. tècn.), Gemma Barberà, Santiago Frigola, Delfina Aliaga, Josep Boronat, Joan M. Gil, Pilar Iglesias, and Marina Martínez. 2005. *Gramàtica bàsica LSC*. FESOCA, DOMAD, Barcelona.

Leena Savolainen. 2006. Interrogatives and negatives in Finnish Sign Language: An overview. In Ulrike Zeshan, editor, *Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages*, pages 284–302. Ishara Press, Nijmegen.

Katharina Schalber. 2006. What is the chin doing? An analysis of interrogatives in Austrian Sign Language. *Sign Language and Linguistics*, 9(1/2):133–150.

Hana Strachoňová. 2022. On question words in Czech Sign Language. *Sign Language and Linguistics*, 25(1):58–91.

Rachel Sutton-Spence and Bencie Woll. 1999. *The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Yim-Binh Sze. 2000. *Space and nominals in Hong Kong Sign Language*. Ph.D. thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Gladys Tang. 2006. Questions and Negation in Hong Kong Sign Language. In Ulrike Zeshan, editor, *Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages*, pages 198–224. Ishara Press, Nijmegen.

Tegnspråksutvalget. 1988. *Norsk Tegnordbok [Norwegian Sign Dictionary]*. Bergen, Norway.

The University of Jyväskylä. 2018. Finnish Signbank. Available in the Language Bank of Finland.
Jane Tsay, James H.-Y. Tai, and Yijun Chen. 2015. *Tai-
wan Sign Language Online Dictionary*. Institute of
Linguistics, National Chung Cheng University, Tai-
wan. 3rd Edition.

Russell Ultan. 1969. Some general characteristics of interrogative systems. In *Working papers on language universals*, 1, pages 41–63a. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Mieke Van Herreweghe and Myriam Vermeerbergen. 2006. *Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages*, pages 225–257. Ishara Press, Nijmegen.

Silvana C. Veinberg. 1993. La función lingüística de los rasgos no-manuales en la aseveración, la negación y la interrogación en la Lengua de Señas Argentina. *Signo y Seña*, 2:101–125.

Marit Vogt-Svendsen. 1990. Eye gaze in Norwegian Sign Language interrogatives. In SLR '87: *Papers from The Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research*, pages 153–162, Hamburg. Signum.

Yu'an Yang, Daniel Goodhue, Valentine Hacquard, and Jeffrey Lidz. 2022. *Do children know wh anything? 3-year-olds know the ambiguity of wh-phrases in Mandarin. Language Acquisition*, 29(3):296–326.

Jiwon Yun. 2013. *Wh-indefinites: meaning and prosody*. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University.

Ulrike Zeshan. 2003. *Indo-Pakistani Sign Language grammar: A typological outline*. *Sign Language Studies*, 3:157–212.

Ulrike Zeshan. 2004. *Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives*. *Language*, 80(1):7–39.

Ulrike Zeshan. 2006a. Negative and interrogative con-
structions in sign languages: A case study in sign
language typology. In Ulrike Zeshan, editor, *Interrog-
ative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages*,
pages 28–68. Ishara Press, Nijmegen.

Ulrike Zeshan. 2006b. Negative and interrogatives struc-
tures in Turkish Sign Language. In Ulrike Zeshan,
editor, *Interrogative and Negative Constructions in
Sign Languages*, pages 128–164. Ishara Press, Ni-
megen.

Ulrike Zeshan. 2006c. Regional variation in Indo-Pakistani Sign Language: Evidence from content questions and negatives. In Ulrike Zeshan, editor, *Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages*, pages 303–323. Ishara Press, Nijmegen.

Ulrike Zeshan and Nick Palfreyman. 2017. *Sign lan-
guage typology*. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and
R. M. W. Dixon, editors, *The Cambridge Handbook
of Linguistic Typology*, pages 178–216. Cambridge
University Press, Nijmegen.

Ninoslava Šarac, Katharina Schalber, Tamara Alibašić, and Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2007. Crosslinguistic Comparison of Interrogatives in Croatian, Austrian and American Sign Languages. In Pamela Perniss, Roland Pfau, and Markus Steinbach, editors, *Visible variation: Comparative studies on sign language structure*, pages 207–244. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Ninoslava Šarac and Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2006. *Interroga-
tive structures in Croatian Sign Language: Polar and
content questions. *Sign Language and Linguistics*,
9(1/2):151–167.
A List of sign languages

<table><caption>Table 4: Sign language sample.</caption><thead><tr><td>Sign Language name</td><td>Acronym</td><td>Sources</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>American Sign Language</td><td>ASL</td><td>Baker-Shenk (1983); Neidle (2002); Conlin et al. (2003); Fischer (2006); Hochgesang et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Argentine Sign Language</td><td>LSA</td><td>Veinberg (1993); Massone (1996)</td></tr><tr><td>Australian Sign Language</td><td>Auslan</td><td>Johnston (2001); Zeshan (2004); Johnston and Schembri (2007)</td></tr><tr><td>Austrian Sign Language</td><td>ÖGS</td><td>Schalber (2006); Šarac et al. (2007); Lackner (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Ban Khor Sign Language</td><td>BKSL</td><td>Nonaka (2010)</td></tr><tr><td>Brazilian Sign Language</td><td>Libras</td><td>Zeshan (2004); Quadros (2006)</td></tr><tr><td>British Sign Language</td><td>BSL</td><td>Sutton-Spence and Woll (1999); Cormier (2012); Fenlon et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Catalan Sign Language</td><td>LSC</td><td>Alba (2016); Barberà (2016); Barberà and Cabredo Hofherr (2018); Barberà et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Chinese Sign Language</td><td>CSL</td><td>Lin (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Croatian Sign Language</td><td>HZJ</td><td>Šarac and Wilbur (2006); Šarac et al. (2007)</td></tr><tr><td>Czech Sign Language</td><td>ČZJ</td><td>Strachoňová (2022)</td></tr><tr><td>Finnish Sign Language</td><td>SVK</td><td>Finnish Association of the Deaf (2003); Zeshan (2004); Savolainen (2006); The University of Jyväskylä (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Flemish Sign Language</td><td>VGT</td><td>Van Herreweghe and Vermeerbergen (2006)</td></tr><tr><td>Hong Kong Sign Language</td><td>HKSL</td><td>Sze (2000); Tang (2006)</td></tr><tr><td>Indo-Pakistani Sign Language</td><td>IPSL</td><td>Zeshan (2003); Aboh et al. (2005); Zeshan (2006c)</td></tr><tr><td>Israeli Sign Language</td><td>ISL</td><td>Meir (2004)</td></tr><tr><td>Italian Sign Language</td><td>LIS</td><td>Celo (1996); Geraci et al. (2015); Branchini and Mantovan (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Japanese Sign Language</td><td>NS</td><td>Zeshan (2004); Morgan (2006)</td></tr><tr><td>Kenian Sign Language</td><td>KSL</td><td>Akach (1991)</td></tr><tr><td>Mexican Sign Language</td><td>LSM</td><td>Cruz Aldrete (2008)</td></tr><tr><td>New Zealand Sign Language</td><td>NZSL</td><td>Zeshan (2004); McKee (2006); McKee et al. (2011)</td></tr><tr><td>Norwegian Sign Language</td><td>NTS</td><td>Tegnspråksutvalget (1988); Vogt-Svendsen (1990)</td></tr><tr><td>Quebec Sign Language</td><td>LSQ</td><td>Dubuisson et al. (1991); Bouchard and Dubuisson (1995)</td></tr><tr><td>Russian Sign Language</td><td>RSL</td><td>Kimmelman (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Sign Language of the Netherlands</td><td>NGT</td><td>Coerts (1990); Coerts (1992); Klomp (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish Sign Language</td><td>LSE</td><td>Fernández Soneira (2008); Herrero Blanco (2009)</td></tr><tr><td>Taiwan Sign Language</td><td>TSL</td><td>Chen (2012); Tsay et al. (2015)</td></tr><tr><td>Trinidad and Tobago Sign Language</td><td>TTSL</td><td>Bisnath (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Turkish Sign Language</td><td>TİD</td><td>Zeshan (2006b); Göksel and Kelepir (2013); Dikyuva et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Ugandan Sign Language</td><td>UgSL</td><td>Lutalo-Kiingi (2014)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Author Index

Ginzburg, Jonathan, 11

Lücking, Andy, 11

Mohammadi, Maryam, 31

Navarrete González, Alexandra, 50

Roberts, Tom, 21

Roelofsen, Floris, 50

Veiga Busto, Raquel, 50

Zhang, Linmin, 1

Zheng, Anshun, 40