Volume 21, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper presents a semiotic study of the distribution of a type of size depiction in lexical signs in six sign languages. Recently, a growing number of studies are focusing on the distribution of two representation techniques, i.e. the use of entity handshapes and handling handshapes for the depiction of hand-held tools (e.g. Ortega et al. 2014). Padden et al. (2013) find that there is cross-linguistic variation in the use of this pair of representation techniques. This study looks at variation in a representation technique that has not been systematically studied before, i.e. the delimitation of a stretch of space to depict the size of a referent, or . It considers the question whether the cross-linguistic variation in the use of this representation technique is governed by language-specific patterning as well (cf. Padden et al. 2013).

This study quantifies and compares the occurrence of in the lexicons of six sign languages, three of Western European origin, and three of West African origin. It finds that sign languages differ significantly from each other in their frequency of use of this depiction type. This result thus corroborates that the selection and distribution of representation techniques does not solely depend on features of the depicted image, but also on language-specific patterning in the distribution of representation techniques, and it adds another dimension of iconic depiction in which sign languages may vary from each other (in addition to the entity/handling handshape distinction). Moreover, the results appear to be areally defined, with the three European languages using this representation technique significantly more often than the three African languages.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Brentari, Diane , Alessio di Renzo , Jonathan Keane & Virginia Volterra
    2015 Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity. Topics in Cognitive Science7(1). 95–123. 10.1111/tops.12123
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12123 [Google Scholar]
  2. Dingemanse, Mark
    2011The meaning and use of ideophones in Siwu. Nijmegen: Radboud UniversityPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Hwang, So-One , Nozomi Tomita , Hope Morgan , Rabia Ergin , Deniz Ilkbaşaran , Sharon Seegers , Ryan Lepic & Carol Padden
    2016 Of the body and the hands: patterned iconicity for semantic categories. Language and Cognition9. 573–602. 10.1017/langcog.2016.28
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.28 [Google Scholar]
  4. Kohler, Wolfgang
    1929Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Lepic, Ryan , Carl Börstell , Gal Belsitzman & Wendy Sandler
    2016 Taking meaning in hand. Sign Language & Linguistics19(1). 37–81. 10.1075/sll.19.1.02lep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19.1.02lep [Google Scholar]
  6. Mandel, Mark
    1977 Iconic devices in ASL. In Lynn Friedman (ed.), On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language, 57–107. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. McKee, David & Graeme Kennedy
    2000 Lexical comparison of signs from American, Australian, British and New Zealand Sign Languages. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 49–76. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Nyst, Victoria
    2007A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Amsterdam: University of AmsterdamPhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2010 Sign languages in West Africa. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge language surveys), 405–432. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2015 The sign language situation in Mali. Sign Language Studies15(2). 126–150. 10.1353/sls.2015.0000
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2015.0000 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2016a Size and shape depictions in the manual modality: a taxonomy of iconic devices in Adamorobe Sign Language. Semiotica210. 75–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2016b The depiction of size and shape in gestures accompanying object descriptions in Anyi (Côte d’Ivoire) and in Dutch (The Netherlands). Gesture15(2). 156–191. 10.1075/gest.15.2.02nys
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.15.2.02nys [Google Scholar]
  13. Ohala, John J.
    1983 Cross-language use of pitch: an ethological view. Phonetica40(1). 1–18. 10.1159/000261678
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000261678 [Google Scholar]
  14. 1984 An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica41(1). 1–16. 10.1159/000261706
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000261706 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ortega, Gerardo , Beyza Sümer & Aslı Őzyürek
    2014 Type of iconicity matters: Bias for action-based signs in sign language acquisition. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society36(36). 1114–1119.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Padden, Carol , Irit Meir , Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
    2010 The grammar of space in two new sign languages. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge language surveys), 570–592. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Padden, Carol , Irit Meir , So-One Hwang , Ryan Lepic , Sharon Seegers & Tory Sampson
    2013 Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture13(3). 181–202. 10.1075/gest.13.3.03pad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.3.03pad [Google Scholar]
  18. Perniss, Pamela
    2007 Achieving spatial coherence in German Sign Language narratives: The use of classifiers and perspective. Lingua117(7). 1315–1338. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  19. Perniss, Pamela , Robin L. Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2010 Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology1:227 (December).
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Pinsonneault, Dominique
    1999Lexique des signes utilisés par les sourds au Mali. Bamako: Editions Donniya.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Shaw, Emily & Yves Delaporte
    2010 New perspectives on the history of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies11(2). 158–204. 10.1353/sls.2010.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2010.0006 [Google Scholar]
  22. Tano, Angoua
    2014Un corpus de référence de la Langue des Signes de Bouakako (LaSiBo). Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Universiteit Leiden.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2016Etude d’une langue des signes émergente de Côte d’Ivoire: l’exemple de la langue des signes de Bouakako (LaSiBo). Leiden: University of LeidenPhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Tano, Angoua & Victoria Nyst
    2018 Comparing body-part size and shape constructions in village sign languages with co-speech gesture. Sign Language Studies18(4). 517–545. 10.1353/sls.2018.0015
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2018.0015 [Google Scholar]
  25. Taub, Sarah F.
    2001Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
  26. Westermann, Diedrich
    1927 Laut, Ton und Sinn in westafrikanischen Sudansprachen. InSprachwissenschaftliche und andere Studien, Carl Meinhof gewidmet, 315–328. Glückstadt & Hamburg: Augustin.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Wittmann, Henri
    1991 Classification linguistique des langues signées non vocalement. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée10(1). 215–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Zwitserlood, Inge
    2003Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: University of UtrechtPhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2012 Classifiers. In Roland Pfau , Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.). Sign language: An international handbook, 158–186. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.158
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.158 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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