1887
Volume 36, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Enactment is a frequent depictive strategy used to denote referents. Its referential functions are increasingly well-documented cross-linguistically, notably in sign languages. A lesser-known function of enactment is that of stance expression. By enacting a referent, language users can also convey their own perspective and comment on the enacted individual. In this article, it is argued that the depictive manipulation of the French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB) lexical sign , which refers to the action of signing, is a fruitful area of investigation for the study of social meanings conveyed by means of enactment. The observation of elicited dyadic conversations about language attitudes shows that LSFB signers can mold several formational aspects of the sign in a variety of ways by means of enactment, providing a near first-hand experience of – and commenting on – diverse signers and their signing styles.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00071.van
2023-06-09
2024-06-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agha, Asif
    2005 “Voice, Footing, Enregisterment.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology15 (1): 38–59. 10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.38
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.38 [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, Lucien, and Pilar Prieto
    2021 “Gesture and Prosody in Multimodal Communication.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ed. byMichael Haugh, Dániel Z. Kádár, and Marina Terkourafi, 430–453. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108954105.023
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954105.023 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, Joan
    2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  4. Clark, Herbert H.
    2016 “Depicting as a Method of Communication.” Psychological Review123 (3): 324–347. 10.1037/rev0000026
    https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000026 [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig
    1990 “Quotations as Demonstrations.” Language66 (4): 764–805. 10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cormier, Kearsy, David Quinto-Pozos, Zed Sevcikova, and Adam Schembri
    2012 “Lexicalisation and De-Lexicalisation Processes in Sign Languages: Comparing Depicting Constructions and Viewpoint Gestures.” Language & Communication32 (4): 329–348. 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. Dancygier, Barbara, and Lieven Vandelanotte
    2017 “Viewpoint Phenomena in Multimodal Communication.” Cognitive Linguistics28 (3): 371–380. 10.1515/cog‑2017‑0075
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0075 [Google Scholar]
  9. Debras, Camille
    2015 “Stance-taking Functions of Multimodal Constructed Dialogue during Spoken Interaction.” InProceedings of GESPIN4 (Gesture and Speech in Interaction), ed. byGaëlle Ferré, and Mark Tutton, 95–100. Nantes: University of Nantes.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. De Meulder, Maartje
    2018 ““So, Why Do You Sign?” Deaf and Hearing New Signers, Their Motivation, and Revitalisation Policies for Sign Languages.” Applied Linguistics Review10 (4): 705–724. 10.1515/applirev‑2017‑0100
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0100 [Google Scholar]
  12. D’Errico, Francesca, and Isabella Poggi
    2016 ““The Bitter Laughter”. When Parody Is a Moral and Affective Priming in Political Persuasion.” Frontiers in Psychology71: 1144. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01144
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01144 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dingemanse, Mark
    2015 “Ideophones and Reduplication: Depiction, Description, and the Interpretation of Repeated Talk in Discourse.” Studies in Language39 (4): 946–970. 10.1075/sl.39.4.05din
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.4.05din [Google Scholar]
  14. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 “The Stance Triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. byRobert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  15. Dudis, Paul
    2011 “The Body in Scene Depictions.” InDiscourse in signed languages, ed. byCynthia Roy, 3–45. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh28s4.7
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh28s4.7 [Google Scholar]
  16. Eckert, Penelope
    2012 “Three Waves of Variation Study: The Emergence of Meaning in the Study of Sociolinguistic Variation.” Annual Review of Anthropology41 (1): 87–100. 10.1146/annurev‑anthro‑092611‑145828
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145828 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ferrara, Lindsay
    2020 “Some Interactional Functions of Finger Pointing in Signed Language Conversations.” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics5 (1): 88. 10.5334/gjgl.993
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.993 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferrara, Lindsay, and Rolf Piene Halvorsen
    2017 “Depicting and Describing Meanings with Iconic Signs in Norwegian Sign Language.” Gesture16 (3): 371–395. 10.1075/gest.00001.fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.00001.fer [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Fine, Julia C.
    2019 ““They Just Had Such a Sweet Way of Speaking”: Constructed Voices and Prosodic Styles in Kodiak Alutiiq.” Language & Communication671: 1–15. 10.1016/j.langcom.2018.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/la.228.14fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.228.14fis [Google Scholar]
  22. Fuks, Orit
    2014 “Gradient and Categorically: Handshape’s Two Semiotic Dimensions in Israeli Sign Language Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics601: 207–225. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.023 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ghesquière, Magaly, and Laurence Meurant
    2018École et surdité: une expérience d’enseignement bilingue et inclusif [School and Deafness: A Bilingual and Inclusive Teaching Experience]. Namur: Presses universitaires de Namur.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Goodwin, Charles
    2007 “Participation, Stance and Affect in the Organization of Activities.” Discourse & Society18 (1): 53–73. 10.1177/0957926507069457
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069457 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gray, Bethany, and Douglas Biber
    2014 “Stance Markers.” InCorpus Pragmatics, ed. byKarin Aijmer, and Christoph Rühlemann, 219–248. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012 [Google Scholar]
  26. Günthner, Susanne
    1999 “Polyphony and the “Layering of Voices” in Reported Dialogues: An Analysis of the Use of Prosodic Devices in Everyday Reported Speech.” Journal of Pragmatics31 (5): 685–708. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00093‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00093-9 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2007 “The Construction of Otherness in Reported Dialogues as a Resource for Identity Work.” InStyle and Social Identities: Alternative Approaches to Linguistic Heterogeneity, ed. byPeter Auer, 419–444. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110198508.3.419
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198508.3.419 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hall, Kira, Donna M. Goldstein, and Matthew Bruce Ingram
    2016 “The Hands of Donald Trump: Entertainment, Gesture, Spectacle.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory6 (2): 71–100. 10.14318/hau6.2.009
    https://doi.org/10.14318/hau6.2.009 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hodge, Gabrielle and Kearsy Cormier
    2019 “Reported Speech as Enactment.” Linguistic Typology23(1): 185–196. 10.1515/lingty‑2019‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0008 [Google Scholar]
  30. 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, 2013, ed. byLauren Gawne and Jill Vaughan, 372–397. Melbourne: University of Melbourne. hdl.handle.net/11343/40973
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 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]
  32. Hodge, Gabrielle, and Sara A. Goico
    2022 “Natural and Elicited: Sign Language Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Ethnography as Complementary Methodologies.” Journal of Sociolinguistics26 (1): 126–136. 10.1111/josl.12523
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12523 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hodge, Gabrielle, and Trevor Johnston
    2014 “Points, Depictions, Gestures and Enactment: Partly Lexical and Non-Lexical Signs as Core Elements of Single Clause-Like Units in Auslan (Australian Sign Language).” Australian Journal of Linguistics34 (2): 262–291. 10.1080/07268602.2014.887408
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2014.887408 [Google Scholar]
  34. Holt, Elizabeth
    2000 “Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech.” Research on Language & Social Interaction33 (4): 425–454. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_04
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_04 [Google Scholar]
  35. Jantunen, Tommi
    2017 “Constructed Action, the Clause and the Nature of Syntax in Finnish Sign Language.” Open Linguistics3 (1): 65–85. 10.1515/opli‑2017‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0004 [Google Scholar]
  36. Janzen, Terry
    2004 “Space Rotation, Perspective Shift, and Verb Morphology in ASL.” Cognitive Linguistics15 (2): 149–174. 10.1515/cogl.2004.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.006 [Google Scholar]
  37. 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]
  38. 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]
  39. Jehoul, Annelies, Geert Brône, and Kurt Feyaerts
    2017 “The Shrug as Marker of Obviousness: Corpus Evidence from Dutch Face-to-Face Conversations.” Linguistics Vanguard3 (s1): 20160082. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0082
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0082 [Google Scholar]
  40. Johnstone, Barbara
    2011 “Dialect Enregisterment in Performance.” Journal of Sociolinguistics15 (5): 657–679. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2011.00512.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00512.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Kuo, Sai-Hua
    2001 “Reported Speech in Chinese Political Discourse.” Discourse Studies3 (2): 181–202. 10.1177/1461445601003002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003002002 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kusters, Annelies, and Michele Ilana Friedner
    2015 “Introduction: Deaf-same and Difference in International Deaf Spaces and Encounters.” InIt’s a Small World: International Deaf Spaces and Encounters, ed. byMichele Ilana Friedner, and Annelies Kusters, 9–29. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rcnnjs.3
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rcnnjs.3 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kusters, Annelies, Mara Green, Erin Moriarty, and Kristin Snoddon
    2020 “Sign Language Ideologies: Practices and Politics.” InSign Language Ideologies in Practice, ed. byAnnelies Kusters, Mara Green, Erin Moriarty, and Kristin Snoddon, 3–22. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501510090‑001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501510090-001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kusters, Annelies, and Lynn Hou
    2020 “Linguistic Ethnography and Sign Language Studies.” Sign Language Studies20(4): 561–571. 10.1353/sls.2020.0018
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2020.0018 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kusters, Annelies, and Ceil Lucas
    2022 “Emergence and Evolutions: Introducing Sign Language Sociolinguistics.” Journal of Sociolinguistics26 (1): 84–98. 10.1111/josl.12522
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12522 [Google Scholar]
  46. Leidensdorf, Alice
    2019Identité sourde et implant cochléaire: vers une identité sourde plurielle [Deaf Identity and Cochlear Implant: Towards a Plural Deaf Identity]. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lepeut, Alysson, and Emily Shaw
    2022 “Time Is Ripe to Make Interactional Moves: Bringing Evidence From Four Languages Across Modalities.” Frontiers in Communication71: 780124. 10.3389/fcomm.2022.780124
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.780124 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lepic, Ryan
    2019 “A Usage-Based Alternative to “Lexicalization” in Sign Language Linguistics.” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics4 (1): 23. 10.5334/gjgl.840
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.840 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lepic, Ryan, and Corrine Occhino
    2018 “A Construction Morphology Approach to Sign Language Analysis.” InThe Constructions of Words, ed. byGeert Booij, 141–172. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑74394‑3_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_6 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lewin, Donna, and Adam C. Schembri
    2011 “Mouth Gestures in British Sign Language: A Case Study of Tongue Protrusion in BSL Narratives.” Sign Language & Linguistics14 (1): 94–114. 10.1075/sll.14.1.06lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.14.1.06lew [Google Scholar]
  51. McNeill, David
    1992Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Mesch, Johanna, Eli Raanes, and Lindsay Ferrara
    2015 “Co-Forming Real Space Blends in Tactile Signed Language Dialogues.” Cognitive Linguistics26 (2): 261–287. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0066
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0066 [Google Scholar]
  53. Metzger, Melanie
    1995 “Constructed Dialogue and Constructed Action in ASL.” InSociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, ed. byCeil Lucas, 255–271. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Meurant, Laurence
    2015Corpus LSFB. First Digital Open Access Corpus of Movies and Annotations of French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB). LSFB-Lab, University of Namur. Corpus LSFB. www.corpus-lsfb.be
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Mohammad, Abeer, and Camilla Vásquez
    2015 ““Rachel’s Not Here”: Constructed Dialogue in Gossip.” Journal of Sociolinguistics19 (3): 351–371. 10.1111/josl.12125
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12125 [Google Scholar]
  56. 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]
  57. Quinto-Pozos, David
    2007 “Can Constructed Action Be Considered Obligatory?.” Lingua117 (7): 1285–1314. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  58. Shaffer, Barbara
    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]
  59. Shaw, Emily
    2019Gesture in Multiparty Interaction. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Slonimska, Anita, Asli Özyürek, and Olga Capirci
    2021 “Using Depiction for Efficient Communication in LIS (Italian Sign Language).” Language and Cognition13 (3): 367–396. 10.1017/langcog.2021.7
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2021.7 [Google Scholar]
  61. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When Nodding Is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language & Social Interaction41 (1): 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  62. Tannen, Deborah
    1986 “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narrative.” InDirect and Indirect Speech, ed. byFlorian Coulmas, 311–332. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110871968.311
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.311 [Google Scholar]
  63. 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618987 [Google Scholar]
  64. Zuckerman, Charles H. P.
    2021 “Figure Composition.” Signs and Society9 (3): 263–299. 10.1086/715515
    https://doi.org/10.1086/715515 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00071.van
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00071.van
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): enactment; iconicity; sign language; sociolinguistics; stance
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