1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Gesture
  4. Volume 16, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1568-1475
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9773
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

There is growing momentum towards a theory of languaging that acknowledges the diverse semiotic repertoires people use with each other. This paper contributes to this goal by providing further evidence from signed language discourse. In particular, we examine iconic signs from Norwegian Sign Language, which can be interpreted as both “regular” lexical signs and token depictions. This dual potential is manipulated by signers in context. We analyze these signs as and , two different modes of representation. Then we compare these signs to some of the description and depiction that occurs in spoken language discourse. In this way we aim to present some of the advantages of using description and depiction in analyses of communication and interaction. By doing this, we also forge links between the languaging of speakers and the languaging of signers.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/gest.00001.fer
2018-02-01
2024-10-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/gest.00001.fer
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aronoff, Mark , Irit Meir , Carol Padden , & Wendy Sandler
    (2003) Classifier complexes and morphology in two sign languages. In Karen Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp.53–84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergman, Brita & Östen Dahl
    (1994) Ideophones in sign language? The place of reduplication in the tense-aspect system of Swedish Sign Language. In Carl Bache , Hans Basbøll , & Carl-Erik Lindberg (Eds.), Tense, aspect and action: Empirical and theoretical contributions to language typology (pp.397–422). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110883077.397
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883077.397 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blyth, Carl , Sigrid Recktenwald , & Jenny Wang
    (1990) I’m like, “Say what?!”: A new quotative in American oral narrative. American Speech, 65 (3), 215–227. doi: 10.2307/455910
     https://doi.org/10.2307/455910 [Google Scholar]
  4. Calbris, Geneviève
    (2011) Elements of meaning in gesture. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/gs.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.5 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cameron, Richard
    (1998) A variable syntax of speech, gesture, and sound effect: Direct quotations in Spanish. Language Variation and Change, 10 (1), 43–83. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500001216
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001216 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, Herbert H.
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (2016) Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review, 123 (3), 324–347. doi: 10.1037/rev0000026
     https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000026 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, Herbert H. & Richard J. Gerrig
    (1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66 (4), 764–805. doi: 10.2307/414729
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cormier, Kearsy , David Quinto-Pozos , Zed Sevcikova , & Adam Schembri
    (2012) Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation processes in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language and Communication, 32 (4), 329–348. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cormier, Kearsy , Sandra Smith , & Martine Zwets
    (2013) Framing constructed action in British Sign Language narratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 119–139. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cormier, Kearsy , Sandra Smith , & Zed Sevcikova-Sehyr
    (2015) Rethinking constructed action. Sign Language and Linguistics, 18 (2), 167–204. doi: 10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor [Google Scholar]
  12. Cuxac, Christian
    (1999) The expression of spatial relations and the spatialization of semantic representations in French Sign Language. In Catherine Fuchs & Stéphane Robert (Eds.), Language diversity and cognitive representations (pp.123–142). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.3.11cux
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.3.11cux [Google Scholar]
  13. Dingemanse, Mark
    (2011) Ideophones and the aesthetics of everyday language in a west-African society. Senses & Society, 6 (1), 77–85. doi: 10.2752/174589311X12893982233830
     https://doi.org/10.2752/174589311X12893982233830 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2013) Ideophones and gesture in everyday speech. Gesture, 13 (2), 143–165. doi: 10.1075/gest.13.2.02din
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.2.02din [Google Scholar]
  15. (2015) Ideophones and reduplication: Depiction, description, and the interpretation of repeated talk in discourse. Studies in Language, 39 (4), 946–970. doi: 10.1075/sl.39.4.05din
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.4.05din [Google Scholar]
  16. (2017) Expressiveness and system integration: On the typology of ideophones, with special reference to Siwu. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 70 (2), 119–141.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dingemanse, Mark & Kimi Akita
    (2016) An inverse relation between expressiveness and grammatical integration: On the morphosyntactic typology of ideophones, with special reference to Japanese. Journal of Linguistics, First view, 1–32. doi: 10.1017/S002222671600030X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222671600030X [Google Scholar]
  18. Dudis, Paul
    (2011) The body in scene depictions. In Cynthia Roy (Ed.), Discourse in signed languages (pp.3–45). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Emmorey, Karen
    (2002) Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Emmorey, Karen & Brenda Falgier
    (1999) Talking about space with space: Describing environments in ASL. In Elizabeth Winston (Ed.), Storytelling and conversation: Discourse in deaf communities (pp.3–26). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Enfield, Nick J.
    (2009) The anatomy of meaning: Speech, gesture, and composite utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511576737
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576737 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ferrara, Lindsay
    (2012) The grammar of depiction: Exploring gesture and language in Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Ph.D. Dissertation, Macquarie University, Sydney.
  23. Ferrara, Lindsay & Trevor Johnston
    (2014) Elaborating who’s what: A study of constructed action and clause structure in Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34 (2), 193–215. doi: 10.1080/07268602.2014.887405
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2014.887405 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferrara, Kathleen & Barbara Bell
    (1995) Sociolinguistic variation and discourse function of constructed dialogue introducers: The case of BE+LIKE. American Speech, 70 (3), 265–290. doi: 10.2307/455900
     https://doi.org/10.2307/455900 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fox, Barbara A. & Jessica Robles
    (2010) It’s like mmm: Enactments with it’s like . Discourse Studies, 12 (6), 715–738. doi: 10.1177/1461445610381862
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610381862 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fuks, Orit
    (2014) Gradient and categorically: Handshape’s two semiotic dimensions in Israeli Sign Language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 207–225. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.023
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.023 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2016) Intensifier actions in Israeli Sign Language. Gesture, 15 (2), 192–223. doi: 10.1075/gest.15.2.03fuk
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.15.2.03fuk [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodman, Nelson
    (1968) Languages of art: An approach to the theory of symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Goodwin, Charles
    (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  30. Halvorsen, Rolf
    (2012) Tre diskursmarkører i norsk tegnspråk: en studie av blunk, blikkendring og nikk i åtte fortellinger [Three discourse markers in Norwegian Sign Language: A study of blinking, eyegaze, and nodding in eight narratives]. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oslo, Norway.
  31. Heath, Christian
    (2002) Demonstrative suffering: The gestural (re)embodiment of symptoms. Journal of Communication, 52, 597–616. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02564.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02564.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Hodge, Gabrielle & Lindsay Ferrara
    (2014) Showing the story: Enactment as performance in Auslan narratives. In Lauren Gawne & Jill Vaughan (Eds.), Selected papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society 2013 (pp.372–397). Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne. Retrieved fromhdl.handle.net/11343/40973
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Holt, Elizabeth
    (2000) Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 33 (4), 425–454. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_04
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_04 [Google Scholar]
  34. Janzen, Terry
    (2012) Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In Roland Pfau , Markus Steinbach , & Bencie Woll (Eds.), Sign Languages: An international handbook (pp.816–481). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110261325.816
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.816 [Google Scholar]
  35. Johnston, Trevor
    (1992) The realization of the linguistic metafunctions in a sign language. Language Sciences, 14 (4), 317–353. doi: 10.1016/0388‑0001(92)90021‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(92)90021-6 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2013) Towards a comparative semiotics of pointing actions in signed and spoken languages. Gesture, 13 (2), 109–142. doi: 10.1075/gest.13.2.01joh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.2.01joh [Google Scholar]
  37. Johnston, Trevor & Lindsay Ferrara
    (2012) Lexicalization in signed languages: When an idiom is not an idiom. Selected papers from UK-CLA meetings, 1, 229–248. www.uk-cla.org.uk/proceedings/volume_1/21-17
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri
    (1999) On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language and Linguistics, 2 (2), 115–185. doi: 10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh [Google Scholar]
  39. (2007) Australian Sign Language: An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511607479
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607479 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2010) Variation, lexicalization and grammaticalization in signed languages. Langage et societé, 131 (March), 19–35. doi: 10.3917/ls.131.0019
     https://doi.org/10.3917/ls.131.0019 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kendon, Adam
    (1972) Some relationships between body motion and speech: An analysis of an example. In Aron Wolfe Siegman & Benjamin Pope (Eds.), Studies in dyadic communication (pp.177–210). New York: Pergamon Press. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑015867‑9.50013‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-015867-9.50013-7 [Google Scholar]
  42. (1980) Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In Mary Ritchie Key (Ed.), The relationship of verbal and nonverbal communication (pp.207–227). The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. (2004) Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2008) Some reflections on the relationship between ‘gesture’ and ‘sign’. Gesture, 8 (3), 348–366. doi: 10.1075/gest.8.3.05ken
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.8.3.05ken [Google Scholar]
  45. (2012) Language and kinesic complexity: Reflections on “Dedicated gestures and the emergence of sign language” by Wendy Sandler. Gesture, 12 (3), 308–326. doi: 10.1075/gest.12.3.02ken
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.12.3.02ken [Google Scholar]
  46. (2013) Exploring the utterance roles of visible bodily action: A personal account. In Cornelia Müller , Alan Cienki , Ellen Fricke , Silva H. Ladewig , David McNeill , & Sedinha Tessendorf (Eds.), Body – Language – Communication (Vol.1, pp.7–28). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (2014) Semiotic diversity in utterance production and the concept of ‘language’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369, 20130293. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0293
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0293 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2015) Gesture and sign: Utterance uses of visible bodily action. In Keith Allan (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics (pp.33–46). London & New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Kilian-Hatz, Christa
    (2001) Universality and diversity: Ideophones from Baka and Kxoe. In Erhard Friedrich Karl Voeltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz (Eds.), Ideophones (pp.155–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.44.13kil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.44.13kil [Google Scholar]
  50. Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi
    (1979) The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Kosslyn, Stephen M.
    (1980) Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Kunene, Daniel P.
    (2001) Speaking the act: The ideophone as a linguistic rebel. In Erhard Friedrich Karl Voeltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz (Eds.), Ideophones (pp.183–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.44.15kun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.44.15kun [Google Scholar]
  53. Langacker, Ronald W.
    (2001) Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12 (2), 143–188. doi: 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  54. Liddell, Scott K.
    (2003) Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  55. Liddell, Scott K. & Melanie Metzger
    (1998) Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 657–697. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00061‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00061-7 [Google Scholar]
  56. Mather, Sue & Elizabeth Winston
    (1998) Spatial mapping and involvement in ASL storytelling. In Ceil Lucas (Ed.), Pinky extension and eye gaze: Language use in deaf communities (pp.183–210). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Mathis, Terrie & George Yule
    (1994) Zero quotatives. Discourse Processes, 18 (1), 63–76. doi: 10.1080/01638539409544884
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544884 [Google Scholar]
  58. Mayer, Mercer
    (1969) Frog, where are you?New York: Dial Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. McNeill, David
    (1992) Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Metzger, Melanie
    (1995) Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In Ceil Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities (pp.255–271). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Perniss, Pamela
    (2007) Achieving spatial coherence in German Sign Language narratives: The use of classifiers and perspective. Lingua, 117 (7), 1315–1338. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  62. Quinto-Pozos, David
    (2007) Can constructed action be considered obligatory. Lingua, 117 (7), 1285–1314. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  63. Quinto-Pozos, David & Sarika Mehta
    (2010) Register variation in mimetic gestural complements to signed language. Journal of Pragmatics, 42 (3), 557–584. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sams, Jessie
    (2010) Quoting the unspoken: An analysis of quotations in spoken discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3147–3160. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.024
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.024 [Google Scholar]
  65. Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin
    (2006) Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
  66. Schembri, Adam , Caroline Jones , & Denis Burnham
    (2005) Comparing action gestures and classifier verbs of motion: Evidence from Australian Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, and nonsigners’ gestures without speech. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10 (3), 272–290. doi: 10.1093/deafed/eni029
     https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eni029 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sidnell, Jack
    (2006) Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 39 (4), 377–409. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2 [Google Scholar]
  68. Supalla, Ted
    (2003) Revisiting visual analogy in ASL classifier predicates. In Karen Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp.249–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Taub, Sarah
    (2001) Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
  70. Tervoort, Bernard Th
    (1973) Could there be a human sign language?Semiotica, 9, 347–382.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Washabaugh, William
    (1981) Sign language in its social context. Annual Review of Anthropology, 10, 237–252. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.10.100181.001321
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.10.100181.001321 [Google Scholar]
  72. Wilcox, Sherman
    (2004a) Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (2), 119–147. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2004.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.005 [Google Scholar]
  73. (2004b) Gesture and language: cross-linguistic and historical data from signed languages. Gesture, 4 (1), 43–73. doi: 10.1075/gest.4.1.04wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.4.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  74. (2007) Routes from gesture to language. In Elena Pizzuto , Paola Pietrandrea , & Raffaele Simone (Eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies (pp.107–131). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Zeshan, Ulrike
    (2003) ‘Classificatory’ constructions in Indo-Pakistani Sign Language: Grammaticalization and lexicalization processes. In Karen Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp.113–141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/gest.00001.fer
Loading
Depicting and describing meanings with iconic signs in Norwegian Sign Language
Gesture 16, 371 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.00001.fer
/content/journals/10.1075/gest.00001.fer
/content/journals/10.1075/gest.00001.fer
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): gesture; iconicity; languaging; Norwegian Sign Language; semiotic

Most Cited

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