Cover not available
Part of
Iconicity in Cognition and across Semiotic Systems
Edited by Sara Lenninger, Olga Fischer, Christina Ljungberg and Elżbieta Tabakowska
[Iconicity in Language and Literature 18] 2022
► pp. 289–328

Recurring iconic mapping patterns within and across verb types in German Sign Language

ORCID logo | University of Amsterdam
Many sign languages around the world have the same tripartite verb classification system based on agreement properties, and it has previously been observed that this system is at least partially semantically grounded. In this article, the extent to which iconicity plays a mediating role in this relationship between verb type and verb semantics is investigated through the identification of recurring iconic mappings across verb forms in German Sign Language (DGS). The aim is to establish which event properties are commonly iconically represented in DGS verb forms, and which of those can additionally be associated with verbs of a specific type. The results indicate that across types, handshape is associated with semantic transitivity, while the location and movement specifications of a verb form are associated with verb type. The results thus contribute toward our understanding of the role of iconicity in the relation between verb semantics and verb type in DGS and, by extension, other sign languages with similar verb type systems.
Keywords: German Sign Language, iconic mapping, verb classification, transitivity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Sign language verb types
    • 1.2Iconic mappings
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Data set
    • 2.2Data analysis and categorization
      • 2.2.1Establishing iconic mappings
  • 3.Iconic mappings
    • 3.1Body-anchored verb forms
      • 3.1.1Category I: No body-to-body mapping
      • 3.1.2Category II: Hand(s) = instrument
      • 3.1.3Category III: Hand(s) = hand(s) holding
      • 3.1.4Category IV: Hand(s) = hand(s): Moving
      • 3.1.5Category V: Hand(s) = body part: External expression
      • 3.1.6Category VI: Hand(s) = body part: Perception
      • 3.1.7Category VII: Hand(s) = body part: Internal event
    • 3.2Neutral verb forms
      • 3.2.1Category I: Instrument
      • 3.2.2Category II: Hand(s): Holding
      • 3.2.3Category III: Body-part/whole entity (human)
      • 3.2.4Category IV: Whole entity (object)
      • 3.2.5Category V: Iconic movement
    • 3.3Agreement verbs and spatial verbs
      • 3.3.1Category I: Hand(s): Holding
      • 3.3.2Category II: Hand(s): Moving
      • 3.3.3Category III: Body part: Perception
      • 3.3.4Category IV: Whole entity (human)
      • 3.3.5Category V: Iconic movement
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 10 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.18.14oom
References (42)
References
Aronoff, M., Meir, I., Padden, C. and Sandler, W. 2004. Morphological universals and the sign language type. In Yearbook of Morphology 2004, G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds), 19–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Benedicto, E. and Brentari, D. 2004. Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4): 743–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börstell, C., Hörberg, T. and Östling, R. 2016. Distribution and duration of signs and parts of speech in Swedish Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 19(2): 143–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bos, H. F. 1993. Agreement and prodrop in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Linguistics in the Netherlands 10(1): 37–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Pronoun copy in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Sign Language Research 1994. Proceedings of the Fourth European Congress on Sign Language Research, H. F. Bos and T. Schermer (eds.), 201–216. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. 1998. A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. and Goldsmith, J. 1993. Secondary licensing and the non-dominant hand in ASL phonology. In Current Issues in ASL Phonology, G. R. Coulter (ed.), 19–41. New York, NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cormier, K. 2012. Pronouns. In Sign Language: An International Handbook, R. Pfau, M. Steinbach and B. Woll (eds.), 227–244. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costello, B. 2015. Language and Modality. Effects on the Use of Space in the Agreement System of Lengua de Signos Española (Spanish Sign Language). (Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam).
Demey, E., Van Herreweghe, M. and Vermeerbergen, M. 2008. Iconicity in sign language. In Naturalness and Iconicity in Language, K. Willems and L. De Cuypere (eds.), 189–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, S. D. and Gough, B. 1978. Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 18: 17–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, L. A. 1975. Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Language 51: 940–961. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, I., Haspelmath, M. and Taylor, B. (eds.). 2013. Valency Patterns Leipzig. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved from [URL]
Hillenmeyer, M. and Tilmann, S. 2012. Variation in der DGS [Variation in DGS]. In Handbuch Deutsche Gebärdensprache, H. Eichmann, M. Hansen and J. Hessmann (eds.), 245–270. Seedorf: Signum.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Thompson, S. A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janis, W. D. 1992. Morphosyntax of the ASL Verb Phrase (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo).
Keller, J. 1998. Aspekte der Raumnutzung in der Deutschen Gebärdensprache [Aspects of the use of space in German Sign Language]. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, V., de Lint, V., de Vos, C., Oomen, M., Pfau, R., Vink, L. and Aboh, E. O. 2019. Argument structure of classifier predicates: Canonical and non-canonical mappings in four sign languages. Open Linguistics 5: 332–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, V., Pfau, R. and Aboh, E. O. 2019. Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistics Theory 38(2): 539–579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 2003. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1980) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 2000. Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away from agreement. In The Signs of Language Revisited: An Anthology to Honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, K. Emmorey and H. Lane (eds.), 202–320. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. and Meier, R. P. 2011. On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3/4): 95–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, A. 2005. Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case, M. Amberber and H. de Hoop (eds.), 73–117. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, I. 1998. Thematic Structure and Verb Agreement in Israeli Sign Language (Doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem).
2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistics Theory 20(2): 413–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. The evolution of verb classes and verb agreement in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics 38(1/2): 145–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, I., Padden, C., Aronoff, M. and Sandler, W. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43(3): 531–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oomen, M. 2017. Iconicity in argument structure: Psych-verbs in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Sign Language & Linguistics 20(1): 55–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Verb types and semantic maps. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory 2: 116–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. Iconicity as a Mediator between Verb Semantics and Morphosyntactic Structure. A Corpus-Based Study on Verbs in German Sign Language. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam).
Padden, C. 1988. Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Pfau, R., Salzmann, M. and Steinbach, M. 2018. The syntax of sign language agreement: Common ingredients, but unusual recipe. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quadros, R. M. de. 1999. Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language (Doctoral dissertation, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul).
Quadros, R. M. de and Quer, J. 2008. Back to back(wards) and moving on: On agreement, auxiliaries and verb classes in sign languages. In Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 9, R. M. de Quadros (ed.), 530–551. Petrópolis: Arara Azul.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. J. 1979. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Metaphor and Thought, A. Ortoni (ed.), 284–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. and Lillo-Martin, D. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schembri, A., Cormier, K. and Fenlon, J. 2018. Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, W. C. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. In Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Papers. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Taub, S. F. 2000. Iconicity in American Sign Language: Concrete and metaphorical applications. Spatial Cognition and Computation 2(1): 31–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. 2003. Representations of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistics Society 39(1): 354–368.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, I. 2012. Classifiers. In Sign Language: An International Handbook, R. Pfau, M. Steinbach and B. Woll (eds.), 158–186. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar