The interface between grammar and bodily enactment in ASL and English
Users of signed and spoken languages regularly engage bodily enactment (commonly referred to as
constructed action [CA] for signers and
character viewpoint gestures [CVPT] for speakers)
for the creation of meaning, but comparatively few studies have addressed how linguistic grammar interfaces with such gestural
depictive devices across language modalities. CVPT gestures have been shown to co-occur with spoken language transitive verbs, and
when a reference is definite or more accessible in the discourse. In sign, CA often alternates sequentially with fully
conventionalized signs. In both CVPT and CA demonstrations, syntactic and pragmatic factors appear to be important. In this work,
we consider these patterns by examining short retellings of video-based elicitation stimuli (silent-movie segments) from 10 deaf
users of ASL (American Sign Language) and 20 hearing speakers of English. We describe examples of signs and words that co-occur
with or precede specific instances of CA and CVPT. We also examine distributions and degrees of enactment across participants in
order to consider the question of gesture threshold (
Hostetter and Alibali, 2008,
2019). We provide various examples of how gestural material interfaces with linguistic grammar, which has implications for syntactic theory and possible grammatical constraints on such communicative devices.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Enactment in signed language and co-speech gesture
- 1.1.1Constructed Action
- 1.1.2Character viewpoint gesture
- 1.2The gestures as simulated action model
- 1.3Summary
- 2.Methods
- 2.1Materials and participants
- 2.2English + gesture coding
- 2.3ASL coding
- 3.Results
- 3.1Quantity and degree of enactment across co-speech gesturers and signers
- 3.2English + gesture patterns
- 3.3ASL patterns
- 4.Summary and discussion
- 4.1Comparison of where enactment occurs across modalities
- 4.2Implications of the data for the GSA
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (52)
References
Aarons, D. and Morgan, R. 2003. Classifier
Predicates and the Creation of Multiple Perspectives in South African Sign Language. Sign
Language
Studies 3(2): 125–156. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aarons, D. and Morgan, R. 2000. The
Interaction of Classifiers and Syntax in South African Sign Language. Stellenbosch Papers in
Linguistics 331: 1–20.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Casey, S., Emmorey, K. and Larrabee, H. 2012. The
Effects of Learning American Sign Language on Co-Speech Gesture. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition 15(4): 677–686. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, H. H. and Gerrig, R. J. 1990. Quotations
as
Demonstrations. Language 66(4): 764–805. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cormier, K., Quinto-Pozos, D., Sevcikova, Z. and Schembri, A. 2012. Lexicalization
and De-Lexicalization Processes in Sign Languages: Comparing Depicting Constructions and Viewpoint
Gestures. Language and
Communication 32(4): 329–348. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cormier, K., Smith, S. and Zwets, M. 2013. Framing
Constructed Action in BSL Narratives. Journal of
Pragmatics 551: 119–139. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davidson, K. 2015. Quotation,
Demonstration, and Iconicity. Linguistics and
Philosophy 38(6): 477–520. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Debreslioska, S. and Gullberg, M. 2019. Discourse
Reference is Bimodal: How Information Status in Speech Interacts with Presence and Viewpoint of
Gestures. Discourse
Processes 56(1): 41–60. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Debreslioska, S., Özyürek, A., Gullberg, M. and Perniss, P. 2013. Gestural
Viewpoint Signals Referent Accessibility. Discourse
Processes 50(7): 431–456. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Diefenbach, C., Rieger, M., Massen, C. and Prinz, W. 2013. Action-Sentence
Compatibility: The Role of Action Effects and Timing. Frontiers in
Psychology 4(272): 1664–1078. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deliema, D. and Sweetser, E. 2016. Rethinking
Gestural Viewpoint as Multidimensional rather than a Dichotomy. Paper presented at
the Eighth International Society for Gesture Studies Conference
(ISGS), Paris, France, 18–22 July
2016.
Earis, H. and Cormier, K. (2013). Point
of View in British Sign Language and Spoken English Narrative Discourse: The Example of “The Tortoise and the
Hare”. Language and
Cognition
5
(4): 313–343. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
ELAN (Version 6.2). 2021. Nijmegen:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Language Archive. Available
at [URL]
Ferrara, L. and Hodge, G. 2018. Language
as Description, Indication, and Depiction. Frontiers in
Psychology 9(716): 1–15. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ferrara, L. and Johnston, T. 2014. Elaborating
who’s what: A Study of Enactment and Clause Structure in Auslan (Australian Sign
Language). Australian Journal of
Linguistics 34(2): 193–215. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frederiksen, A. and Mayberry, R. 2016. Who’s
on First? Investigating the Referential Hierarchy in Simple Native ASL
Narratives. Lingua 1801: 49–68. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hodge, G. and Cormier, K. 2018. Reported
Speech as Enactment. Linguistic
Typology 29(1): 185–196. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hodge, G., Ferrara, L. and Anible, D. 2019. The
Semiotic Diversity of Doing Reference in a Deaf Signed Language. Journal of
Pragmatics 1431: 33–53. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hostetter, A. and Alibali, M. W. 2008. Visible
Embodiment: Gesture as Simulated Action. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review 15(3): 495–514. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hostetter, A. and Alibali, M. W. 2019. Gesture
as Simulated Action: Revisiting the Framework. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review 261: 721–752. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jantunen, T. 2017. Constructed
Action, the Clause and the Nature of Syntax in Finnish Sign Language. Open
Linguistics 31: 65–85. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ladewig, S. H. 2020. Integrating
Gestures: The Dimension of Multimodality in Cognitive
Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Liddell, S. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Liddell, S. and Metzger, M. 1998. Gesture
in Sign Language Discourse. Journal of
Pragmatics 30(6): 657–697. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lillo-Martin, D. 1995. The
Point of View Predicate in American Sign Language. In Language,
Gesture, and Space, K. Emmorey and J. Reilly (eds), 155–170. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lillo-Martin, D. 2012. 17.
Utterance Reports and Constructed Action. In Sign language: An
International Handbook, R. Pfau, M. Steinbach and B. Woll (eds), 365–387. Berlin: de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McKee, R., Schembri, A., McKee, D. and Johnston, T. 2011. Variable
Subject Expression in Australian Sign Language and New Zealand Sign Language. Language
Variation and
Change 23(3): 1–24. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McNeill, D. 1992. Hand
and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about
Though. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Metzger, M. 1995. Constructed
Dialogue and Constructed Action in American Sign
Language. In Sociolinguistics in Deaf
Communities, C. Lucas (ed.), 255–271. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Parrill, F. 2010. Viewpoint
in Speech-Gesture Integration: Linguistic Structure, Discourse Structure, and Event
Structure. Language and Cognitive
Processes 25(5): 650–668. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Parrill, F. 2012. Interactions
between the Discourse Status and Viewpoint in Co-Speech
Gesture. In Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal
Perspective, B. Dancygier and E. E. Sweetser (eds), 97–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Parrill, F., Stec, K. and Quinto-Pozos, D. 2016. Linguistic,
Gestural, and Cinematographic Viewpoint: An Analysis of ASL and English Narrative. Cognitive
Linguistics 27(3): 345–369. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Perniss, P. 2007. Achieving
Spatial Coherence in German Sign Language Narratives: The Use of Classifiers and
Perspective. Lingua 117(7): 1315–1338. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Perniss, P. and Özyürek, A. 2015. Visible
Cohesion: A Comparison of Reference Tracking in Sign, Speech, and Co-Speech Gesture. Topics in
Cognitive Science
Society 71: 36–60. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quer, J. 2011. Reporting
and Quoting in Signed Discourse. In Understanding
Quotation, E. Brendel, J. Meibauer and M. Steinbach (eds), 277–302. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quinto-Pozos, D. 2007a. Can
Constructed Action be Considered
Obligatory? Lingua 1171:1285–1314. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quinto-Pozos, D. 2007b. Why
does Constructed Action seem Obligatory? An Analysis of Classifiers and the Lack of Articulator-Referent
Correspondence. Sign Language
Studies 7(4): 458–506. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quinto-Pozos, D. and Mehta, S. 2010. Register
Variation in Mimetic Gestural Complements to Signed Language. Journal of
Pragmatics 421: 557–584. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quinto-Pozos, D. and Parrill, F. 2015. Signers
and Co-Speech Gesturers Adopt Similar Strategies for Portraying Viewpoint in Narratives. Topics
in Cognitive
Science 7(1): 12–35. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rekittke, L.-M. 2017. Viewpoint
and Stance in Gesture: How a Potential Taboo Topic may Influence Gestural Viewpoint in Recounting
Films. Journal of
Pragmatics
122
1, 50–64. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sandler, W. and Lillo-Martin, D. 2006. Sign
Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schlenker, P. 2017. Super
Monsters I: Attitude and Action Role Shift in Sign Language. Semantics and
Pragmatics 10(9): 1–65. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stites, L. J. and Özçalışkan, Ş. 2017. Who
Did what to whom? Children Track Story Referents First in Gesture. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research 46(4): 1019–1032. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Steinbach, M. 2021. Role
Shift: Theoretical Perspectives. In The Routledge Handbook of
Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research. J. Quep, R. Pfau and A. Herrmann (eds), 351–377. Abingdon: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wulf, A., Dudis, P., Bayley, R. and Lucas, C. 2002. Variable
Subject Presence in ASL Narratives. Sign Language
Studies 3(1): 54–76. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
German, Austin
2024.
Metalinguistic Discourse in an Emerging Sign Language.
Languages 9:7
► pp. 240 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.