Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This study describes how temporal discourse content is expressed in signing space in Swedish Sign Language (SSL) and identifies and describes the differences between L1- and L2-interpreters’ signed target language output. The study found that L1-interpreters systematically use complex simultaneous combinations of lexical signs and various hand, arm and body movements on and along time lines. The L2-interpreters stand more still, and their use of body movements differs from that of the L1-interpreters. Though the L2-interpreters in the study often succeed in showing that two or more entities/events are separate, they are less successful in showing the more specific, temporal and/or other, relationship(s) between them. This crucial aspect of idiomatic signed language production, therefore, should be included in interpreter training to improve the quality of interpreted target language output.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Brennan, Mary
    1983 “Marking time in British Sign Language.” InLanguage in Sign: An International Perspective on Sign Language, ed. by James G. Kyle and Bencie Woll , 10–31. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Börstell, Carl , and Robert Östling
    2017 “Iconic locations in Swedish Sign Language: Mapping form to meaning with lexical databases.” InProceedings from The 21st Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics, Gothenburg, Sweden, 221–225. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Casasanto, Daniel , and Kyle Jasmin
    2012 “The hands of time: Temporal gestures in English speakers.” Cognitive Linguistics23 (4): 643–674. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0020 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cooperrider, Kensy , Dedre Gentner , and Susan Goldin-Meadow
    2016 “Gesture reveals spatial analogies during complex relation reasoning.” InProceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. by Anna Papafragou , Daniel Grodner , Dan Mirman and John C. Trueswell , 692–697. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Crasborn, Onno , and Han Sloetjes
    2008 “Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora.” InProceedings of 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages, Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 26 May – 1 June 2008, 39–43. Paris: European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Emmorey, Karen
    2001 “Space on hand: The exploitation of signing space to illustrate abstract thought.” InSpatial Schemas and Abstract Thought, ed. by Meredith Gattis , 147–174. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
    1993Space in Danish Sign Language. The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language. Vol. 19, International Studies on Sign Language and Communication of the Deaf, ed. by Siegmund Prillwitz . Hamburg: SIGNUM-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ferrara, Lindsay , and Anna-Lena Nilsson
    2017 “Describing spatial layouts as an M2 signed language learner.” Sign Language & Linguistics20 (1): 1–26. doi: 10.1075/sll.20.1.01fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20.1.01fer [Google Scholar]
  9. Friedman, Lynn A.
    1975 “Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language.” Language51 (4): 940–961. doi: 10.2307/412702
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412702 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gile, Daniel
    2009 “The effort models of interpreting.” InBasic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training, 157–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  11. Johnston, Trevor , and Adam Schembri
    2007Australian Sign Language (Auslan). An Introduction to Sign Language Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511607479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607479 [Google Scholar]
  12. Lakoff, George
    1993 “The contemporary theory of metaphor.” InMetaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony , 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  13. Lakoff, George , and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Liddell, Scott K.
    2003Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  15. Malmquist, Ann Kristin , and Nora Edwardsen Mosand
    1996Se mitt språk! Språkbok – en innføring i nosk tegnspråk. [See my language! Language book – an introduction to Norwegian Sign Language.] Oslo: Døves Forlag AS.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Meir, Irit
    2010 “Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms.” Language86 (4): 865–896. doi: 10.1353/lan.2010.0044
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0044 [Google Scholar]
  17. Nicodemus, Brenda
    2009Prosodic Markers and Utterance Boundaries in American Sign Language Interpretation, Studies in Interpretation, Vol. 5, ed. by Melanie Metzger and Earl Fleetwood . Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Nilsson, Anna-Lena
    2016 “Embodying metaphors: Signed language interpreters at work.” Cognitive Linguistics27 (1): 35–65. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2015‑0029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0029 [Google Scholar]
  19. Núñez, Rafael , and Kensy Cooperrider
    2013 “The tangle of space and time in human cognition.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences17 (5): 220–229. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  20. Padden, Carol , Irit Meir , So-One Hwang , Ryan Lepic , Sharon Seegers , and Tory Sampson
    2013 “Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons.” Gesture13 (3): 287–308. doi: 10.1075/gest.13.3.03pad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.3.03pad [Google Scholar]
  21. Radden, Günter
    2003 “The metaphor TIME AS SPACE across languages.” Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht8 (2/3): 226–239.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Russell, Debra
    2005 “Consecutive and simultaneous interpreting.” InTopics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice, ed. by Terry Janzen , 135–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.63.10rus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.10rus [Google Scholar]
  23. Selvik, Kari-Anne
    2006Spatial Paths Representing Time. A Cognitive Analysis of Temporal Expressions in Norwegian Sign Language. Acta Humaniora 247. Oslo: Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Taub, Sarah F.
    2001Language from the Body. Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
  25. Winston, Elizabeth A.
    1991 “Spatial referencing and cohesion in an American Sign Language text.” Sign Language Studies73 (1): 397–410. doi: 10.1353/sls.1991.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1991.0003 [Google Scholar]
  26. 1995 “Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames.” InLanguage, Gesture, and Space, ed. by Karen Emmorey and Judy S. Reilly , 87–112. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [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