1887
image of Character perspective shift sequences and embodiment markers in signed and spoken discourse
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The aim of this study is to present a distributional portrait of forms of character-perspective sequences as produced by LSQ () signers and Quebec French speakers, in relation to corporal and grammatical marking in a set of recorded discourses. Among the forms we examine are grammatical, corporal and rhythm markers. As for the types of character perspective shift examined, we focus on the nature of the event that is being enacted: speech, thought, action or gesture. The dataset employed in the study consists of short, elicited narratives using video sketches as stimuli. Both Deaf signers and French speakers were asked to describe short scenarios that were displayed without any signing or speech. Half of the stimuli were constructed from a series of factual events containing no emphatic reactions or actions, while the other half included emphatic elements. Twenty-four narratives produced by these two groups were transcribed and coded using ELAN to determine the distribution of character perspective shift sequences (CPS) used in terms of presence (duration) and frequency (occurrences). Further markers were also identified in terms of frequency, which was then analyzed with a factorial ANOVA statistical model. The overall finding of this study is that CPS is used in both language groups, despite their varying results in terms of the distribution of frequency and markers.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00022.par
2022-06-20
2022-08-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Blondel, M., Miller, C. and Parisot, A.-M.
    2007 Tortoise, Hare, Children: Evaluation and Narrative Genre in LSQ. InMultilingualism and Sign Languages from the Great Plains to Australia, C. Lucas (ed.), 188–251. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cassell, J. and McNeill, D.
    1991 Gesture and the Poetics of Prose. Poetics Today12(3): 375–404. 10.2307/1772644
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1772644 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cormier, K., Smith, S. and Sevcikova, Z.
    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]
  4. Coulmas, F.
    2011 Reported Speech: Some General Issues. InDirect and Indirect Speech, F. Coulmas (ed.), 1–28. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    1999 Coherent Voicing. On Prosody in Conversational Reported Speech. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series11–34. 10.1075/pbns.63.05cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.05cou [Google Scholar]
  6. Crasborn, O. and Sloetjes, H.
    2008 Enhanced ELAN Functionality for Sign Language Corpora. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC ’08)/Third Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Construction and Exploitation of Sign Language Corpora. Marrakech, Morocco, 28–30 May 2008. 39–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Debreslioska, S., Özyürek, A., Gullberg, M. and Perniss, P.
    2013 Gestural Viewpoint Signals Referent Accessibility. Discourse Processes50(7): 431–456. 10.1080/0163853X.2013.824286
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.824286 [Google Scholar]
  8. Earis, H. and Cormier, K.
    2013 Point of View in British Sign Language and Spoken English Narrative Discourse: The Example of ‘The Toirtoise and the Hare’. Language and Cognition5(4): 313–343. 10.1515/langcog‑2013‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog-2013-0021 [Google Scholar]
  9. Emmorey, K., Tversky, B. and Taylor, H. A.
    2000 Using Space to Describe Space: Perspective in Speech, Sign, and Gesture. Spatial Cognition and Computation2(3): 157–180. 10.1023/A:1013118114571
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013118114571 [Google Scholar]
  10. Engberg-Pedersen, E.
    1995 Point of View Expressed through Shifters. InLanguage, Gesture, and Space, K. Emmorey and J. Reilly (eds), 133–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ferrara, L. and Johnston, T.
    2014 Elaborating who’s what: A Study of Constructed Action and Clause Structure in Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Australian Journal of Linguistics34(2):193–215. 10.1080/07268602.2014.887405
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2014.887405 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fischer, R.
    1998Lexical Change in Present-Day English: A Corpus-Based Study of the Motivation, Institutionalization, and Productivity of Creative Neologisms. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoiting, N. and Slobin, D. I.
    2007 From Gestures to Signs in the Acquisition of Sign Language. InGesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language: Essays in Honor of David McNeill, S. D. Duncan, J. Cassell and E. T. Levy (eds), 51–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/gs.1.06hoi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.1.06hoi [Google Scholar]
  14. Janzen, T.
    2008 Perspective Shifts in ASL Narratives: The Problem of Clause Structure. InLanguage in the Context of Use: Discourse and Cognitive Approaches to Language, A. Tyler, Y. Kim and M. Takada (eds), 121–144. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kendon, A.
    1988 How Gestures can Become like Words. InCross-Cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication, F. Poyatos (ed.), 131–141. Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2004Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  17. Labov, W. and Waletzky, J.
    1967 Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience. InEssays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, J. Helm (ed.), 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Langacker, R. W.
    2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Levey, S., Groulx, K. and Roy, J.
    2013 A Variationist Perspective on Discourse-Pragmatic Change in a Contact Setting. Language Variation and Change25(2): 225–251. 10.1017/S0954394513000100
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394513000100 [Google Scholar]
  20. Liddell, S. K. and Metzger, M.
    1998 Gesture in Sign Language Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics30(6): 657–697. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00061‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00061-7 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lillo-Martin, D.
    1995 The Point of View Predicate in American Sign Language. InLanguage, Gesture, and Space, K. Emmorey and J. Reilly (eds), 155–170. Hillsdalle: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2012 17. Utterance Reports and Constructed Action. InSign language: An International Handbook, R. Pfau, M. Steinbach and B. Woll (eds), 365–387. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110261325.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.365 [Google Scholar]
  23. Loew, R. C.
    1984 Roles and Reference in American Sign Language: A Developmental Perspective. PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mandel, M.
    1977 lconic Devices in American Sign Language. InOn the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language, L. Friedman (ed.), 57–107. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. McNeill, D.
    1992Hand and mind: What Gesture Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2005Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226514642.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226514642.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Metzger, M.
    1995 Constructed Dialogue and Constructed Action in American Sign Language. InSociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, C. Lucas (ed.), 255–271. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Occhino, C. and Wilcox, S.
    2017 Gesture or Sign? A Categorization Problem. Behavioral and Brain Sciences40: 36–37. 10.1017/S0140525X15003015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15003015 [Google Scholar]
  29. Oliveira, M. and Cunha, D.
    2004 Prosody as Marker of Direct Reported Speech Boundary. Paper presented atSecond International Conference on Speech Prosody, Nara, Japan, 23–26 March 2004.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Padden, C.
    1986 Verbs and Role-Shifting in American Sign Language. InProceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, C. Padden (ed.), 44–57. Silver Spring: National Association of the Deaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Parisot, A.-M., Pilarski, A., Richer-Lemay, L., Rinfret, J. and Voghel, A.
    2008 Description de la Variation du Marquage Spatial en Langue des Signes Québécoise (LSQ). Paper presented at the76e Congrès de l’Acfas. Québec, Canada, 5–9 May 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Parrill, F.
    2010 Viewpoint in Speech–Gesture Integration: Linguistic Structure, Discourse Structure, and Event Structure. Language and Cognitive Processes25(5): 650–668. 10.1080/01690960903424248
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903424248 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2012 Interactions between Discourse Status and Viewpoint in Co-Speech Gesture. InViewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective, B. Dancygier and E. Sweetser (eds), 97–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.008 [Google Scholar]
  34. Poisson-Quinton, S., Mimran, R. and Mahéo-Le Coadic, M.
    2007Grammaire Expliquée du Français: Niveau Intermédiaire. Paris: CLE International.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Parisot, A.-M. and Saunders, D.
    2019 La Représentation Corporelle dans le Discours Signé. LIDIL: Revue de linguistique et de didactique des langues60 : 1–19. 10.4000/lidil.6893
    https://doi.org/10.4000/lidil.6893 [Google Scholar]
  36. Poulin, C. and Miller, C.
    1995 On Narrative Discourse and Point of View in Quebec Sign Language. InLanguage, Gesture, and Space, K. Emmorey and J. S. Reilly (eds), 117–131. Hillsdalle: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Quer, J.
    2005 Context Shift and Indexical Variables in Sign Languages. Semantics and Linguistic Theory15: 152–168. 10.3765/salt.v15i0.2923
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v15i0.2923 [Google Scholar]
  38. Quinto-Pozos, D.
    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]
  39. Saunders, D.
    2016 Description des Structures de Représentation Corporelle en Langue des Signes Québécoise chez des Locuteurs Sourds Langue Première et Mangue Seconde. Master’s Dissertation, Université du Québec à Montréal.
  40. Slobin, D., Hoiting, N., Kuntze, M., Lindert, R., Weinberg, A., Pyers, J., Anthony, M., Biederman, Y. and Thumann, H.
    2003 A Cognitive/Functional Perspective on the Acquisition of ‘Classifiers’. InPerspectives on Classifiers in Sign Languages, K. Emmorey (ed.), 281–306. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Streeck, J.
    2002 Grammars, Words, and Embodied Meanings: On the Uses and Evolution of So and Like. Journal of Communication52(3): 581–596. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02563.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02563.x [Google Scholar]
  42. Tannen, D.
    2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618987 [Google Scholar]
  43. Winston, E.
    1991 Spatial Referencing and Cohesion in An American Sign Language Text. Sign Language Studies73: 397–410. 10.1353/sls.1991.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1991.0003 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00022.par
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00022.par
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: French/Quebec Sign Language ; discourse type ; gestuality ; perspective shift ; multi-modality
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