Article published in:
Impersonal human reference in Sign Languages
Edited by Gemma Barberà and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr
[Sign Language & Linguistics 21:2] 2018
► pp. 350–379

Cross-linguistic variation in space-based distance for size depiction in the lexicons of six sign languages

| University of Leiden
This paper presents a semiotic study of the distribution of a type of size depiction in lexical signs in six sign languages. Recently, a growing number of studies are focusing on the distribution of two representation techniques, i.e. the use of entity handshapes and handling handshapes for the depiction of hand-held tools (e.g. Ortega et al. 2014). Padden et al. (2013) find that there is cross-linguistic variation in the use of this pair of representation techniques. This study looks at variation in a representation technique that has not been systematically studied before, i.e. the delimitation of a stretch of space to depict the size of a referent, or space-based distance for size depiction. It considers the question whether the cross-linguistic variation in the use of this representation technique is governed by language-specific patterning as well (cf. Padden et al. 2013).This study quantifies and compares the occurrence of space-based distance for size depiction in the lexicons of six sign languages, three of Western European origin, and three of West African origin. It finds that sign languages differ significantly from each other in their frequency of use of this depiction type. This result thus corroborates that the selection and distribution of representation techniques does not solely depend on features of the depicted image, but also on language-specific patterning in the distribution of representation techniques, and it adds another dimension of iconic depiction in which sign languages may vary from each other (in addition to the entity/handling handshape distinction). Moreover, the results appear to be areally defined, with the three European languages using this representation technique significantly more often than the three African languages.
Keywords: typology of iconicity, African sign languages, iconic patterning in the lexicon, areal features in sign languages
Published online: 22 March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00024.nys
References

References

Brentari, Diane, Alessio di Renzo, Jonathan Keane & Virginia Volterra
2015 Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity. Topics in Cognitive Science 7(1). 95–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark
2011 The meaning and use of ideophones in Siwu. Nijmegen: Radboud University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Hwang, So-One, Nozomi Tomita, Hope Morgan, Rabia Ergin, Deniz Ilkbaşaran, Sharon Seegers, Ryan Lepic & Carol Padden
2016 Of the body and the hands: patterned iconicity for semantic categories. Language and Cognition 9. 573–602. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Wolfgang
1929 Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
Lepic, Ryan, Carl Börstell, Gal Belsitzman & Wendy Sandler
2016 Taking meaning in hand. Sign Language & Linguistics 19(1). 37–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mandel, Mark
1977 Iconic devices in ASL. In Lynn Friedman (ed.), On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language, 57–107. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McKee, David & Graeme Kennedy
2000 Lexical comparison of signs from American, Australian, British and New Zealand Sign Languages. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 49–76. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nyst, Victoria
2007 A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
2010 Sign languages in West Africa. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge language surveys), 405–432. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2015 The sign language situation in Mali. Sign Language Studies 15(2). 126–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016a Size and shape depictions in the manual modality: a taxonomy of iconic devices in Adamorobe Sign Language. Semiotica 210. 75–104.Google Scholar
2016b The depiction of size and shape in gestures accompanying object descriptions in Anyi (Côte d’Ivoire) and in Dutch (The Netherlands). Gesture 15(2). 156–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J.
1983 Cross-language use of pitch: an ethological view. Phonetica 40(1). 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1984 An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica 41(1). 1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, Gerardo, Beyza Sümer & Aslı Őzyürek
2014 Type of iconicity matters: Bias for action-based signs in sign language acquisition. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 36(36). 1114–1119.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
2010 The grammar of space in two new sign languages. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge language surveys), 570–592. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic, Sharon Seegers & Tory Sampson
2013 Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture 13(3). 181–202.Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela
2007 Achieving spatial coherence in German Sign Language narratives: The use of classifiers and perspective. Lingua 117(7). 1315–1338. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Robin L. Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco
2010 Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1:227 (December).Google Scholar
Pinsonneault, Dominique
1999 Lexique des signes utilisés par les sourds au Mali. Bamako: Editions Donniya.Google Scholar
Shaw, Emily & Yves Delaporte
2010 New perspectives on the history of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 11(2). 158–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tano, Angoua
2014 Un corpus de référence de la Langue des Signes de Bouakako (LaSiBo). Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
2016 Etude d’une langue des signes émergente de Côte d’Ivoire: l’exemple de la langue des signes de Bouakako (LaSiBo). Leiden: University of Leiden PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Tano, Angoua & Victoria Nyst
In press. Comparing body-part size and shape constructions in village sign languages with co-speech gesture. Sign Language Studies.
Taub, Sarah F.
2001 Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, Diedrich
1927 Laut, Ton und Sinn in westafrikanischen Sudansprachen. In Sprach-wissenschaftliche und andere Studien, Carl Meinhof gewidmet, 315–328. Glückstadt & Hamburg: Augustin.Google Scholar
Wittmann, Henri
1991 Classification linguistique des langues signées non vocalement. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée 10(1). 215–288.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge
2003 Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: University of Utrecht PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
2012 Classifiers. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.). Sign language: An international handbook, 158–186. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

DINGEMANSE, MARK, MARCUS PERLMAN & PAMELA PERNISS
2020. Construals of iconicity: experimental approaches to form–meaning resemblances in language. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Nyst, Victoria
2020. The impact of cross-linguistic variation in gesture on sign language phonology and morphology. Gesture 18:2-3 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 december 2020. 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.