Sign Language & Linguistics - Volume 27, Issue 1, 2024

Torso articulation in sign languages is mentioned variably in the linguistic analysis of sign languages but is often ignored. The prevailing idea seems to be that detailed study of movement of the parts of the torso will yield little insight into linguistic matters – so mentions can be general and brief. The result is that torso articulations are an unmined area – perhaps one that holds treasures, particularly regarding the appreciation of creative sign language. We draw together the findings of other research regarding torso articulation, then give an inventory of possible torso articulations, exemplified with signs from dozens of the world’s named sign languages, and a brief overview of how annotation systems have approached torso movement in signs. We end with suggestions for how the study of torso articulation can open new avenues of sign language research.

As most other sign languages, Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL) makes use of verbal classifiers for the purpose of spatial predication. However, a thorough study of the Asian SignBank shows that these same classifier handshapes occur in 76% of all HKSL nouns. In this paper, I argue that these classifier handshapes embedded in nouns are in fact noun classifiers. Under the framework of Distributed Morphology, classifier handshapes are underspecified roots in root compounds which can be assigned the nominal category when merged with a nominal functional head in syntax. The function of these classifiers is to identify, and categorize a discourse referent, and they are full-fledged classifiers according to standards set by the general linguistic literature on classifiers. In addition to verbal and noun classifiers, I also briefly show how HKSL uses mensural numeral classifiers to intervene between mass nouns and numerals within the NP. Taken together, this means that HKSL employs three different types of classifiers: verbal, noun, and numeral classifiers.

Iconicity has been defined in three majors ways in the sign language literature. Some authors describe iconicity as a similarity mapping between a signifier (the mental representation of the form side of a linguistic sign) and its referent, while others state that iconicity is to be understood as a similarity mapping between a signifier and its meaning. Other scholars have defined iconicity as a similarity mapping between a signifier and some other mental representation. The goal of this paper is to give an overview of the consequences entailed by defining iconicity as a mapping between a signifier and its referent, a signifier and its meaning, or a signifier and some mental concept. These consequences will be discussed from different theoretical perspectives. It will be argued that definitions viewing iconicity as a mapping between a signifier and some associated mental concept work best, while definitions based on reference and meaning run into several theoretical problems or are, at least, rather theory-specific.