1887
Volume 36, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676

Abstract

Abstract

In this contribution, we offer a first exploration of stance expressions in Flemish Sign Language (VGT). Biber and Finegan (1989) define stance as the expression of feelings, attitudes, judgments, commitments, and assessments. The few studies focusing on stance in signed languages have shown that stance can be expressed by various structures and mechanisms such as lexical signs, manual gestures (e.g., Palm Up gestures) and embodiment/mental space blends. We will examine if these findings apply to Flemish Sign Language, and we will identify other means of expressing stance in VGT.

In this exploratory study, we focus on the following questions: (1) which articulators and semiotic resources can be used in Flemish Sign Language to express stance?; and (2) How are visible bodily actions through different articulators integrated temporally in stance expressions?

Our study is based on the analysis of about five hours of data from the Corpus Flemish Sign Language. We present examples from our dataset to illustrate that stance can be expressed through a range of structures and mechanisms (such as lexical signs, manual gestures, enactment, and non-manual features), expressed either sequentially or simultaneously by a multitude of articulators. Moreover, we zoom in on the phenomenon of stance-stacking and analyse how multiple stance expressions can be combined in VGT.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00070.and
2023-06-09
2024-05-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/bjl.00070.and.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00070.and&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Adami, Elisabetta
    2016 “Multimodality.” InOxford Handbook of Language and Society, ed. byOfelia Garcia, Nelson Flores, and Massimiliano Spotti, 451–472. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Beukeleers, Inez
    2020 “On the Role of Eye Gaze in Flemish Sign Language: A Multifocal Eye-Tracking Study on the Phenomena of Online Turn Processing and Depicting.” PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.
  3. Beukeleers, Inez, and Myriam Vermeerbergen
    2017 “Raumnutzung in Der Flämischen Gebärdensprache: Eine Vergleichende Studie Zum Einfluss Des Elizitierungsmaterials [The use of space in Flemish Sign Language: A comparative study on the influence of elicitaion material].” Das Zeichen: Zeitschrift Für Sprache Und Kultur Gehörloser1071: 468–478.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2022 “Show Me What You Have B/Seen: A Brief History of Depiction.” Frontiers in Psychology131: 808814. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.808814
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.808814 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
    1989 “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse9 (1): 93–124. 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chindamo, Massimo, Jens Allwood, and Elisabeth Ahlsén
    2012 “Some Suggestions for the Study of Stance in Communication.” In2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 International Conference on Social Computing, 617–622. Amsterdam: IEEE. 10.1109/SocialCom‑PASSAT.2012.89
    https://doi.org/10.1109/SocialCom-PASSAT.2012.89 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cienki, Alan
    2013 “Cognitive Linguistics: Spoken Language and Gesture as Expressions of Conceptualization.” InBody – Language – Communication, 38/1, ed. byCornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewich, David McNeill, and Sedinha Tessendorf, 182–201. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261318.182
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.182 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clift, Rebecca
    2021 “Embodiment in Dissent: The Eye Roll as an Interactional Practice.” Research on Language and Social Interaction54 (3): 261–276. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1936858
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1936858 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cormier, Kearsy, Sandra Smith, and Zed Sevcikova-Sehyr
    2015 “Rethinking Constructed Action.” Sign Language & Linguistics18 (2): 167–204. 10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor [Google Scholar]
  11. Dancygier, Barbara
    2012 “Negation, Stance Verbs, and Intersubjectivity.” InViewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective, ed. byBarbara Dancygier, and Eve Sweetser, 69–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.006 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dancygier, Barbara, Sally Rice, and Terry Janzen
    2019 Stance-Stacking in Language and Multimodal Communication. Paper presented at theInternational Cognitive Linguistics conference, 2019, Nishinomiya, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Debras, Camille, and Alan Cienki
    2012 “Some Uses of Head Tilts and Shoulder Shrugs during Human Interaction, and Their Relation to Stancetaking.” In2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 International Conference on Social Computing, 932–937. Amsterdam: IEEE. 10.1109/SocialCom‑PASSAT.2012.136
    https://doi.org/10.1109/SocialCom-PASSAT.2012.136 [Google Scholar]
  14. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 “The Stance Triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. byRobert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  15. Dudis, Paul
    2004 “Body Partitioning and Real-Space Blends.” Cognitive Linguistics151: 223–238. 10.1515/cogl.2004.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.009 [Google Scholar]
  16. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
    1993Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language. Hamburg: Signum.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Englebretson, Robert
    ed. 2007Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferrara, Lindsay, and Gabrielle Hodge
    2018 “Language as Description, Indication, and Depiction.” Frontiers in Psychology91: 716. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fischer, Renate, and Simon Kollien
    2016 “Pejorative Aspects Attributed to Hearing People in Signed Constructed Dialogue.” InPejoration, ed. byRita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer, and Heike Wiese, 325–354. Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.228.12fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.228.12fis [Google Scholar]
  20. Fischer, Susan, and Wynne Janis
    1990 “Verb Sandwiches in American Sign Language.” InCurrent Trends in European Sign Language Research, ed. bySigmund Prillwitz, and Tomas Vollhaber, 279–293. Hamburg: SIGNUM Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hinnell, Jennifer, and Sally Rice
    2019 The Embodied Marking of Stance in North American English: Stacked and Idiomatic. Paper presented at the15th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Nishinomiya, Japan, August 7. https://iclc2019.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Book20190803.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hodge, Gabrielle, and Lindsay Ferrara
    2014 “Showing the Story : Enactment as Performance in Auslan Narratives.” InSelected Papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society (2014), ed. byLauren Gawne and Jill Vaughan, 372–397.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2022 “Iconicity as Multimodal, Polysemiotic, and Plurifunctional.” Frontiers in Psychology131:808896. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.808896
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.808896 [Google Scholar]
  24. Iwasaki, Shoichi
    2022 “Stancetaking in Motion: Stance Triangle and Double Dialogicality.” Text & Talk32(4): 1–24. 10.1515/text‑2020‑0222
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0222 [Google Scholar]
  25. Janzen, Terry
    2019 “Shared Spaces, Shared Mind: Connecting Past and Present Viewpoints in American Sign Language Narratives.” Cognitive Linguistics30 (2): 253–279. 10.1515/cog‑2018‑0045
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0045 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2022 “Embodied Cognition: ASL Signers’ and English Speakers’ Use of Viewpointed Space” Languages in Contrast22 (2): 227–258. 10.1075/lic.00020.jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00020.jan [Google Scholar]
  27. Janzen, Terry, and Barbara Shaffer
    2013 “The Interpreter’s Stance in Intersubjective Discourse.” InSign Language Research, Uses and Practices, ed. byLaurence Meurant, Aurélie Sinte, Mieke Van Herreweghe and Myriam Vermeerbergen, 63–84. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614511472.63
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511472.63 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    2006 “Stance Taking in Conversation: From Subjectivity to Intersubjectivity.” Text & Talk26 (6): 699–731. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.029 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kaukomaa, Timo, Anssi Peräkylä, and Johanna Ruusuvuori
    2015 “How Listeners Use Facial Expression to Shift the Emotional Stance of the Speaker’s Utterance.” Research on Language and Social Interaction48 (3): 319–341. 10.1080/08351813.2015.1058607
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058607 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kress, Gunther
    2009Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203970034
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203970034 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kusters, Annelies, Massimiliano Spotti, Ruth Swanwick, and Elina Tapio
    2017 “Beyond Languages, beyond Modalities: Transforming the Study of Semiotic Repertoires.” International Journal of Multilingualism14 (3): 219–232. 10.1080/14790718.2017.1321651
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1321651 [Google Scholar]
  32. Louhema, Karoliina
    2018 “From Unisemiotic to Polysemiotic Narratives: Translating across Semiotic Systems.” MA dissertation, Lund University.
  33. Martin, J., and Peter R. R. White
    2007The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Martínez, Rocío, Sara Siyavoshi, and Sherman Wilcox
    2020 “Advances in the Study of Signed Languages within a Cognitive Perspective.” Hesperia: Anuario de Filología Hispánica231: 29–56. 10.35869/hafh.v23i0.1654
    https://doi.org/10.35869/hafh.v23i0.1654 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mondada, Lorenza
    2019 “Contemporary Issues in Conversation Analysis: Embodiment and Materiality, Multimodality and Multisensoriality in Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics1451: 47–62. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.016 [Google Scholar]
  36. Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewig, David McNeill, and Jana Bressem
    eds. 2014Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Berlin/München/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110302028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302028 [Google Scholar]
  37. Palfreyman, Nick
    2020 “Social Meanings of Linguistic Variation in BISINDO (Indonesian Sign Language).” Asia-Pacific Language Variation6 (1): 89–118. 10.1075/aplv.00008.pal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aplv.00008.pal [Google Scholar]
  38. Peräkylä, Anssi, Pentti Henttonen, Liisa Voutilainen, Mikko Kahri, Melisa Stevanovic, Mikko Sams, and Niklas Ravaja
    2015 “Sharing the Emotional Load: Recipient Affiliation Calms Down the Storyteller.” Social Psychology Quarterly781: 301–323. 10.1177/0190272515611054
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272515611054 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sandler, Wendy
    2022 “Redefining Multimodality.” Frontiers in Communication61: 758993. 10.3389/fcomm.2021.758993
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.758993 [Google Scholar]
  40. Shaffer, Barbara
    2004 “Information Ordering and Speaker Subjectivity: Modality in ASL.” Cognitive Linguistics15(2): 175–195. 10.1515/cogl.2004.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.007 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2012 “Reported Speech as an Evidentiality Strategy in American Sign Language.” InViewpoint in Language, ed. byBarbara Dancygier, and Eve Sweetser, 139–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.011 [Google Scholar]
  42. Shaffer, Barbara, Lorraine Leeson, and Terry Janzen
    2017 What I Know Is Here; What I Don’t Know Is Somewhere Else: Deixis and Gesture Spaces in American Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. Paper presented at theInternational Cognitive Linguistics Conference 14, Tartu, Estonia, July 10–14, 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Shaw, Emily
    2019Gesture in Multiparty Interaction. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Stampoulidis, Georgios
    2020 “Polysemiotic Communication vs. Multimodality.” SAUC – Street Art and Urban Creativity5 (2): 26–31. 10.25765/sauc.v5i2.156
    https://doi.org/10.25765/sauc.v5i2.156 [Google Scholar]
  45. Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
    2014 “Three Orders in the Organization of Human Action: On the Interface between Knowledge, Power, and Emotion in Interaction and Social Relations.” Language in Society43 (2): 185–207. 10.1017/S0047404514000037
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000037 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sutton-Spence, Rachel
    2007 “Mouthings and Simultaneity in British Sign Language.” InSimultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function, ed. byMyriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson, and Onno Crasborn, 147–162. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.281.07sut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.281.07sut [Google Scholar]
  47. Tannen, Deborah
    1989Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2011 “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narrative.” InIntroducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narrative, ed. byFlorian Coulmas, 311–360. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110871968.311
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.311 [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Herreweghe, Mieke, Myriam Vermeerbergen, Eline Demey, Hannes De Durpel, Hilde Nyffels, and Sam Verstraete
    2015 Het Corpus VGT. Een digitaal open access corpus van videos and annotaties van Vlaamse Gebarentaal, ontwikkeld aan de Universiteit Gent ism KU Leuven. [The Corpus VGT. An open access corpus of videos and annotations in Flemish Sign Language, developed at the University of Ghent in cooperation with KU Leuven.] www.corpusvgt.be.” hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-6973686
  50. Van Herreweghe, Mieke, and Myriam Vermeerbergen
    2012 “Verbal Predicates in Flemish Sign Language (VGT) and South African Sign Language (SASL).” InLe Verbe En Verve: Réflexions Sur La Syntaxe et La Sémantique Verbale, ed. byMarleen Van Peteghem, Peter Lauwers, Els Tobback, Annemie Demol, and Laurence De Wilde, 401–420. Ghent: Academia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Vermeerbergen, Myriam
    1996 “ROOD KOOL TIEN PERSOON IN. Morfo-Syntactische Aspecten van de Vlaams-Belgische Gebarentaal [RED CABBAGE TEN PERSON IN. Morpho-syntactic aspects of Flemish-Belgian Sign Language].” PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
  52. Vermeerbergen, Myriam, and Eline Demey
    2007 “Sign + Gesture = Speech + Gesture?: Comparing Aspects of Simultaneity in Flemish Sign Language to Instances of Concurrent Speech and Gesture.” InSimultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function, ed. byMyriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson, and Onno A. Crasborn, 257–282. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.281.12ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.281.12ver [Google Scholar]
  53. Vermeerbergen, Myriam, Lorraine Leeson, and Onno A. Crasborn
    Eds. 2007Simultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.281
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.281 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wilkinson, Erin
    2022 Changes in Language Ecology, Discourse and Grammar: A Typological-Functional Analysis of Embodied Intersubjectivity in LIS. Presented at theSign Café 2, Ragusa, October 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Wittenburg, Peter, Henie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann, and Han Sloetjes
    2006 “ELAN: A Professional Framework for Multimodality Research.” InProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006), ed. byNicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Aldo Gangemi, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, and Daniel Tapias, 1556–1559. Genoa: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Zeshan, Ulrike
    2006Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Language. Nijmegen: Ishara Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_453832
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_453832 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00070.and
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00070.and
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): enactment; Flemish Sign Language; multimodality; polysemiotic; stance; stance-stacking
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error