ArticlePloS one2026
Polar questions in Dutch Sign Language (NGT): A production experiment.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polar questions play a fundamental role in communication and have been investigated across a wide range of spoken languages, from which we know that polar question forms may vary considerably across varying contexts. Much less is known about polar question forms in different contexts in sign languages. This paper concentrates on one particular sign language, namely Dutch Sign Language (NGT). It investigates (i) which polar question forms exist in NGT, (ii) in which types of context these different forms are used, and (iii) what the semantic contribution is of specific elements that may occur in polar questions. We present a production experiment in which two contextual factors are manipulated through role play between the participant and two confederates: (i) the prior expectations of the person asking the question with respect to the truth of the proposition that the question is about, and (ii) the evidence available in the immediate context of utterance with respect to the truth of this proposition. We identify a broad range of polar question forms, differing in terms of polarity marking (positive, negative, null), the presence or absence of question tags, and use of non-manual markers. We observe that each question form has a distinct distribution across the different contexts of use under consideration. With regard to non-manuals, a notable finding is that, contrary to expectation given the previous literature on polar questions in sign languages, raised eyebrows are not consistently used in the polar questions in our dataset; in fact, brow lowering is also rather common. This leads us to suggest that a head or body forward position - not raised eyebrows - is the main polar question marker in NGT. We suggest that raised and lowered eyebrows mark a broad range of other functions that may be relevant in (non-canonical) polar questions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.