Chapter 14
Sensory perception metaphors in sign languages
In this chapter, we explore perceptual metaphors across a convenience sample of data from 24 sign languages. To do this, the chapter uses the framework of Sign Language Typology, the systematic comparative study of grammatical/semantic domains across sign languages (Zeshan & Palfreyman, 2017). Sign languages differ from spoken languages due to iconic mapping, that is, the tendency for signs of perception to be articulated at or near the sense organs. This is the basis for two types of signs: those with double-stage metaphors have literal and metaphorical lexical meanings, while those with single-stage metaphors lack literal lexical meanings of perception and instead rely on sublexical iconicity. We cover cross-linguistic patterns of metaphorical extensions of meaning in these signs, and the grammaticalisation of a class of prefixes that are associated with sensory perception.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Talking about sensory perception in sign languages
- 3.Data on perceptual metaphors in sign languages
- 4.Properties of sensory perception metaphors in sign languages
- 4.1The semantics of sensory perception metaphors in sign languages
- 4.2Grammaticalisation of sense prefixes
- 4.3Cross-linguistic patterns in perception metaphors in sign languages
- 5.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References
Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Sandler, W.
(
2005)
The paradox of sign language morphology.
Language, 81(2), 301–344.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aronoff, M., Meir, I., Padden, C., & Sandler, W.
(
2005)
Morphological universals and the sign language type. In
G. Booij &
J. van Marle (Eds.),
Yearbook of Morphology 2004 (pp. 19–39). The Netherlands: Springer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bottari, D., Caclin, A., Giard, M-H., & Pavani, F.
(
2011)
Changes in early cortical visual processing predict enhanced reactivity in deaf individuals.
PLoS ONE, 6(9), 1–10.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brentari, D.
(
1998)
A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cormier, K.
(
2007)
Do all pronouns point? Indexicality of first person plural pronouns in BSL and ASL. In
P. Perniss,
R. Pfau &
M. Steinbach (Eds.),
Visible variation: Comparative studies on sign language structure (pp. 63–101). Berlin: De Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cuxac, C.
(
2000)
La langue des Signes Française (LSF), Les voies de l’iconicité. Paris: Ophrys.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cuxac, C.
(
2004)
Phonétique de la LSF: une formalisation problématique.
Silexicales, Actes du Colloque, Linguistique de la LSF: recherches actuelles, 93–113.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, N., & Wilkins, D.
(
1998)
The knowing ear. An Australian test of universal claims about the semantic structure of sensory verbs and their extension into the domain of cognition. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fischer, S. D., & Gong, Q.
(
2010)
Variation in East Asian sign language structures. In
D. Brentari (Ed.),
Sign languages (pp. 499–518). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frishberg, N.
(
1975)
Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language.
Language, 51, 696–719.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, B.
(
1997)
Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
(
2002)
World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, B. & Narrog, H.
(
2010)
Grammaticalization and linguistic analysis. In:
Heine, B. &
Narrog, H. (Eds.)
The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 407-428.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C.
(
1993)
Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnston, T.
(
2008)
Corpus linguistics and signed languages: no lemmata, no corpus. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Construction and Exploitation of Sign Language Corpora. Marrakech, Morocco, June 2018.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kisch, S.
(
2008)
“Deaf discourse”: The social construction of deafness in a Bedouin community.
Medical Anthropology, 27(3), 283–313.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(
2003)
Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
MacSweeney, M., Woll, B., Campbell, R., McGuire, P. K., & David, A. S.
(
2002)
Neural systems underlying British Sign Language and audio-visual English processing in native users.
Brain, 125(7), 1583–1593.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Palfreyman, N.
(
2017)
Variation in Indonesian Sign Language: A typological and sociolinguistic analysis. Lancaster: Ishara Press and Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Palfreyman, N., Sagara, K., & U. Zeshan
(
2015)
Methods in carrying out language typological research. In
E. Orfanidou,
B. Woll, &
G. Morgan (Eds.),
Research methods in sign language studies (pp. 173–192). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M.
(
2011)
Grammaticalization in sign languages. In
H. Narrog, &
B. Heine (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 681–693). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sandler, W., Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Padden, C. A.
(
2011)
The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29(2), 503–543.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schembri, A., & Johnston, T.
(
2012)
Sociolinguistic aspects of variation and change. In
R. Pfau,
M. Steinbach, &
B. Woll (Eds.),
Sign language: An international handbook, (pp. 788–816). Berlin: De Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Steinbach, M., & Pfau, R.
(
2007)
Grammaticalization of auxiliaries in sign languages. In
P. Perniss,
R. Pfau, &
M. Steinbach (Eds.),
Visible variation: Comparative studies on sign language structure (pp. 303–339). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sweetser, E. E.
(
1990)
From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilbur, R. B.
(
2000)
Phonological and prosodic layering of nonmanuals in American Sign Language. In
K. Emmorey &
H. Lane (Eds.),
The signs of language revisited: Festschrift for Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 213–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zeshan, U.
(
2003)
Towards a notion of ‘word’ in sign languages. In
R. M. Dixon, &
A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.),
Word: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 153–179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zeshan, U.
(
2006)
Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages.
Sign Language Typology Series No. 1. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zeshan, U. & Perniss, P.
(
2008)
Possessive and existential constructions in sign languages.
Sign Language Typology Series No. 2. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zeshan, U. & Palfreyman, N.
(
2017)
Sign language typology. In
A. Y. Aikhenvald, &
R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of linguistic typology (pp. 178–216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zeshan, U., & Sagara, K.
(Eds.) (
2016)
Semantic Fields in Sign Languages: Colour, Kinship and Quantification.
Sign Language Typology Series No. 6. Berlin: De Gruyter and Lancaster: Ishara Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zeshan, U. & De Vos, C.
(
2012)
Sign languages in village communities: Anthropological and linguistic insights. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton & Lancaster: Ishara Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zeshan U., Escobedo Delgado, C.E., Dikyuva, H., Panda, S. & De Vos, C.
(
2013)
Cardinal numerals in village sign languages: Approaching cross-modal typology,
Linguistic Typology 17(3): 357-396.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by
Cited by 3 other publications
Keränen, Jarkko
2023.
Cross-modal iconicity and indexicality in the production of lexical sensory and emotional signs in Finnish Sign Language.
Cognitive Linguistics 34:3-4
► pp. 333 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Phillips, Jacob B., Lenore A. Grenoble & Peggy Mason
2023.
The unembodied metaphor: comprehension and production of tactile metaphors without somatosensation.
Frontiers in Communication 8
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Zeshan, Ulrike & Nick Palfreyman
2020.
Comparability of signed and spoken languages: Absolute and relative modality effects in cross-modal typology.
Linguistic Typology 24:3
► pp. 527 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.