Cover not available
Part of
Perception Metaphors
Edited by Laura J. Speed, Carolyn O'Meara, Lila San Roque and Asifa Majid
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 19] 2019
► pp. 275–302

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.
Keywords: sign languages, Sign Language Typology, sublexical iconicity, sense prefixes, grammaticalisation, re-metaphorisation
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
Published online: 21 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.14zes
References (34)
References
Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Sandler, W. (2005). The paradox of sign language morphology. Language, 81(2), 301–344.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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
Cuxac, C. (2000). La langue des Signes Française (LSF), Les voies de l’iconicité. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
(2004). Phonétique de la LSF: une formalisation problématique. Silexicales, Actes du Colloque, Linguistique de la LSF: recherches actuelles, 93–113.Google Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51, 696–719.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. (1997). Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Kisch, S. (2008). “Deaf discourse”: The social construction of deafness in a Bedouin community. Medical Anthropology, 27(3), 283–313.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Palfreyman, N. (2017). Variation in Indonesian Sign Language: A typological and sociolinguistic analysis. Lancaster: Ishara Press and Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
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
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanhove, M. (2008). Semantic associations between sensory modalities, prehension and mental perceptions. In M. Vanhove (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations (pp. 341–370). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
(2006). Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages. Sign Language Typology Series No. 1. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, U. & Perniss, P. (2008). Possessive and existential constructions in sign languages. Sign Language Typology Series No. 2. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.Google Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
Cited by (3)

Cited by three 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
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
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 september 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.