10 Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to say that this paper on the noun phrase in Estonian Sign Language reports work in progress rather than facts implying a closure. The preliminary findings show that the most common grammatical categories of the noun phrase that are expressed in spoken languages are also expressed in the ESL noun phrase. The findings also demonstrate that despite the completely different medium employed, the ways by which the grammatical categories are indicated in ESL are in many ways similar to those found across different spoken languages.

Firstly, having observed how many and varied are the formal means which spoken languages use cross-linguistically to signal number distinctions (4.2.1), we noted that in ESL at least four mechanisms for the formation of plural forms of nouns are utilised: the reduplication of movement, the reduplication of handshape, the addition of a quantity marker, and the mouth picture (6.1.1); it was suggested that the latter occurs due to the influence of spoken Estonian. We also noted that as a means of pluralization, reduplication is not only typical of (Estonian) sign language, but also of some spoken languages (4.2.1, 6.1.1). In addition to signalling singular/plural contrast, other degrees of numerosity, such as dual and trial are indicated on the nouns in ESL. As for the locus of number marking, we found that in ESL the principal signal of number may appear either in the noun phrase or be encoded in the verb (6.1.2). We also saw that ESL does not show agreement in number in the noun phrase nor sometimes at a sentence level: if the verb is already carrying the specification for number, an unmarked singular form of the noun may be used optionally with plural reference (6.1.2).

Secondly, with regard to the grammatical category of noun class, we found that ESL noun phrase utilises nominal categorisation realised by a set of signs which covers a variety of semantic domains (e.g. shape, size); these signs were referred to as noun classifiers (6.2). We noticed that noun classifiers in ESL reveal a tendency to occur when a new discourse referent is introduced, and appear to operate as explanatory features of the (new, or supposedly unknown) noun/sign. The indications are that research on discourse analysis of noun classifiers in ESL would provide interesting results which might be in line with what has already been found in other sign languages and spoken languages with noun classifiers.

Thirdly, the present data show that in the ESL noun phrase the grammatical category of definiteness is marked by independent lexical elements, by pointing signs made by pointing with the index finger (glossed as INDEX). We saw that when indexes appear with nouns in a noun phrase (in the pre-nominal position), they serve to mark a specific entity in a discourse (6.3).

Fourthly, we saw (6.4) that ESL does not use the case system to mark relational properties of noun phrases. Instead, similarly to many spoken languages, word/sign order and inflected verb forms (verb agreement) are utilised for indicating relationships between noun phrase participants and the predicate. Relationships such as place, for example, are marked by pointing signs or some other specific sign.

The statement that in a sign language one should sign the base sign (head) first and then the modifiers, is refuted in Chapter 7. In Chapter 7 we see that ESL exploits pre-nominal modification to express syntactic relationships in possessive constructions in noun phrases.

Chapter 8 serves to show that in addition to adjectival modification which involves the incorporation of the modifier into the articulation of the sign itself, and in addition to the modification where the adjectival modifier both precedes and follows the base sign (head noun), either pre- or post-modification also occurs. In the case of the latter we noticed that the general tendency which revealed from the examples of premodifying adjectives is to create generic reference, whereas post-modifying adjectives appear to establish a specific or a unique reference. This tendency was associated with the information processing principle analogous to the information structure contrast between “given” and “new” information.

To discern whether the ESL noun phrase yields some constraints pertaining to the ordering of multiple elements (signs) was the aim of Chapter 9. We had to conclude that at the present stage of study on ESL, the only claim we can make is that the governing noun and its dependent genitive appear to form a nexus which cannot be interrupted by the adjectival modifier.

Altogether, in this paper we have seen that the noun phrase in Estonian Sign Language exhibits features which are common not only to some other sign languages, but also to some spoken languages. The results of the research will help us to provide the users of ESL with a description of the rules they have been using intuitively until now and facilitate language teaching.

Further research on ESL is needed to verify the preliminary findings of the present study on a much wider empirical basis than was possible within the limits of this paper. The findings of the further study on ESL would help to establish Estonian Sign Language along with other better studied sign languages and will contribute to the primary concern of linguistics: ‘what is a possible human language?’