Abstract
Previous studies on perspective in spatial signed language descriptions suggest a basic dichotomy between either a route or a survey perspective, which entails either the signer being conceptualized as a mobile agent within a life-sized scene or the signer in a fixed position as an external observer of a scaled-down scene. We challenge this dichotomy by investigating the particular couplings of vantage point position and mobility engaged during various types of spatial language produced across eight naturalistic conversations in Norwegian Sign Language. Spatial language was annotated for the purpose of the segment, the size of the environment described, the signs produced, and the location and mobility of vantage points. Analysis revealed that survey and route perspectives, as characterized in the literature, do not adequately account for the range of vantage point combinations observed in conversations (e.g., external, but mobile, vantage points). There is also some preliminary evidence that the purpose of the spatial language and the size of the environments described may also play a role in how signers engage vantage points. Finally, the study underscores the importance of investigating spatial language within naturalistic conversational contexts.
References
Bowerman, Melissa. 1996. Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Paul Bloom, Mary A Peterson, Llynn Nadel & Merrill F Garrett (eds.), Language and space, 385-436. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy, Quinto-Pozos, David, Sevcikova, Zed, & Schembri, Adam. 2012. Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation processes in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language and Communication 32(4), 329-348. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.00410.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.004Search in Google Scholar
Coventry, Kenny R, Tenbrink, Thora, & Bateman, John A. 2009. Introduction-Spatial language and dialogue: Navigating the domain. In Kenny R Coventry, Thora Tenbrink & John A Bateman (eds.), Spatial language and dialogue, 1-7. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199554201.003.0001Search in Google Scholar
Erich, Veronika & Koster, Charlotte. 1983. Discourse organization and sentence form: The structure of room descriptions in Dutch. Discourse Processes 6(2), 169-195. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853830954456110.1080/01638538309544561Search in Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen, & Falgier, Brenda. 1999. Talking about space with space: Describing environments in ASL. In Elizabeth Winston (ed.), Storytelling and conversation: Discourse in deaf communities, 3-26. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen, Tversky, Barbara, & Taylor, Holly. 2000. Using space to describe space: Perspective in speech, sign, and gesture. Spatial Cognition and Computation 2(3), 157-180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101311811457110.1023/A:1013118114571Search in Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 2015. Perspective in signed discourse: The privileged status of the signer’s locus and gaze. Open Linguistics 1, 411-431. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-001010.1515/opli-2015-0010Search in Google Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay, & Halvorsen, Rolf Piene. 2017. Depicting and describing meanings with iconic signs in Norwegian Sign Language. Gesture 16(3), 371-395. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.00001.fer10.1075/gest.00001.ferSearch in Google Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay, & Hodge, Gabrielle. 2018. Language as description, indication, and depiction. Frontiers in Psychology 9, 716. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.0071610.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716Search in Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2012. Spatial relations in Hinuq and Bezhta. In Luna Filipović & Kasia M Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures: Linguistic diversity, 15-34. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.36.03forSearch in Google Scholar
Haualand, Hilde and Holmström, Ingela 2019. When language recognition and language shaming go hand in hand–sign language ideologies in Sweden and Norway. Deafness & Education International 21(2-3), 99-115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14643154.2018.156263610.1080/14643154.2018.1562636Search in Google Scholar
Hartigan, John A., & Kleiner, Beat. 1984. A mosaic of television ratings. The American Statistician 38(1), 32-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1984.1048286910.1080/00031305.1984.10482869Search in Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 2012. Lexical frequency in sign languages. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 17(2), 163-193. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enr03610.1093/deafed/enr036Search in Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 2016. Auslan corpus annotation guidelines. Manuscript. Macquarie University. Sydney. Retrieved from http://www.auslan.org.au/about/corpus/Search in Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor, & Schembri, Adam. 1999. On defining Lexeme in a Signed Language. Sign Language and Linguistics 2(2), 115-185. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh10.1075/sll.2.2.03johSearch in Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor, & Schembri, Adam. 2010. Variation, lexicalization and grammaticalization in signed languages. Langage et société 131(March), 19-35.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1996. Language and space. Annual Review of Anthropology 2, 353-382. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.35310.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.353Search in Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615054Search in Google Scholar
Linde, Charlotte, & Labov, William. 1975. Spatial networks as a site for the study of language and thought. Language 51(4), 924-939. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/41270110.2307/412701Search in Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Metzger, Melanie. 1995. Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities, 255-271. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Meyer, David, Zeileis, Achim, & Hornik, Kurt. 2006. The strucplot framework: Visualizing multi-way contingency tables with vcd. Journal of Statistical Software 17(3), 1-48. doi: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v017.i0310.18637/jss.v017.i03Search in Google Scholar
Morgan, Gary. (1999). Event packaging in British Sign Language discourse. In Elizabeth Winston (ed.), Storytelling and conversation, discourse in deaf communities, 27-58. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Parrill, Fey, Stec, Kashmiri, Quinto-Pozos, David, & Rimehaug, Sebastian. 2016. Linguistic, gestural, and cinematographic viewpoint: An analysis of ASL and English narrative. Cognitive Linguistics 27(3), 345-369. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-008110.1515/cog-2015-0081Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1955. Philosophical writings of Peirce. New York, NY: Dover Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela. 2007. Achieving spatial coherence in German Sign Language narratives: The use of classifiers and perspective. Lingua 117(7), 1315-1338. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.01310.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.013Search in Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela. 2012. Use of sign space. In Roland Pfau, M Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 412-431. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110261325.412Search in Google Scholar
Puupponen, Anna. 2019. Towards understanding nonmanuality: A semiotic treatment of signers’ head movements. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 4(1), 39. doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.70910.5334/gjgl.709Search in Google Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, David, & Parrill, Fey. 2015. Signers and co-speech gesturers adopt similar strategies for portraying viewpoint in narratives. Topics in Cognitive Science 7, 12-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.1212010.1111/tops.12120Search in Google Scholar
Schober, Michael. 1993. Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition 47, 1-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90060-910.1016/0010-0277(93)90060-9Search in Google Scholar
Stec, Kashmiri. 2012. Meaningful shifts: A review of the viewpoint markers in co-speech gesture and sign language. Gesture 12(3), 327-360. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.12.3.03ste10.1075/gest.12.3.03steSearch in Google Scholar
Taylor, Holly, & Tversky, Barbara. 1996. Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 35(3), 371-391. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.002110.1006/jmla.1996.0021Search in Google Scholar
Watson, Matthew E, Pickering, Martin J, & Branigan, Holly P. 2009. Why dialogue methods are important for investigating spatial language. In Kenny R Coventry, Thora Tenbrink & John A Bateman (eds.), Spatial language and dialogue, 8-22. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199554201.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Wittenburg, Peter, Brugman, Hennie, Russel, Albert, Klassmann, Alex, & Sloetjes, Han, ELAN: a professional framework for multimodality research. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006), 1556-1559. doi: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-1E7E-4Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Lindsay Ferrara et al., published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.
