Looking at Sign Language as a Visual and Gestural Shorthand (original) (raw)
Related papers
Sign languages are visual-gestural communication systems with a great potential for iconic structures and indeed, in sign languages iconicity is pervasive, both on the lexical and the grammical levels. However, in early sign language research the role of iconicity was downplayed in order to stress the similarities in structure between sign languages and spoken languages. For some authors, on the other hand, iconicity has been a reason for claiming that sign lan guages are organised in a fundamentally different way from spoken languages. Looking at sign languages from a phonological perspec tive, important questions remain unanswered in both these approa ches. In this paper we try to provide answers to two questions. First, does iconicity play a part in the linguistic structure of sign languages and are sign language users aware of it? Second, what is the status of the sublexical elements in sign languages, and more specifically, should they be considered as phonemes or as morphemes? In the first section of the paper we shall explore the various forms of iconi city in sign languages, using the framework of Taub's Analogue Buil ding Model (2001). In the second and third sections we shall con front two approaches of sign language phonology, Cuxac's sign lan guage differential view with a focus on iconicity as the fundamental organising principle (1996, 2000) and the more spoken language compatible concepts of phonetic and semantic implementation by . These two accounts are the point of departure for the fourth section in which we shall put forward a proposal of an iconic superstructure which addresses iconicity in both the spoken and signed modalities and which offers an answer to both above-mentioned questions.
1976
This 24-item annotated bibliography is intended to facilitate introduction to the field of sign language studies. /t lists selected published works in English in which sign language is viewed from several different aspects, including: theoretical studies (nos. 1, 5, 6, 19, 20 and 21); works relating Sign to other visual communication systems (nos. 4, 7 and 13); historical studies (nos. 9 and 18); textbooks of American Sign Language (nos. 8 and 16): psycholinguistic studies including Sign acquisition (nos. 2, 3, 10, 12, 14, 17, 22 and 23); and sociolinguistic studies (nos. 15 and 24). Works on topics related or peripheral to Sign, such as kinesics and gestural system, where Sign is not mentioned, are not included, but are referenced in the bibliographies of the items listed and in Hayes (no. 11). The orientation of he listed works is toward consideration of what criteria a language must satisfy, and whether these are met by Sign. The annotations summarize the contents and often include an evaluation of the possible significance of the works. (Author/RH) * *
Beyond Orality: The Case of Sign Languages
Rethinking Orality I: Codification, Transcodification and Transmission of 'Cultural Messages', 2022
The present paper reviews the main approaches developed for the linguistic analysis of sign languages, discussingt he different theoretical assumptions and methodological implications applied along with the history of sign languages tudies. Sign languager esearch demanded ar evolution in some core beliefs of language, namely the linearity of speech, discreteness, and arbitrariness, providing an ew wayt ol ook at the nature of language.
Sign Language and Linguistic Universals
2006
Sign languages are of great interest to linguists, because while they are the product of the same brain, their physical transmission differs greatly from that of spoken languages. In this 2006 study, Wendy Sandler and Diane Lillo-Martin compare sign languages with spoken languages, in order to seek the universal properties they share. Drawing on general linguistic theory, they describe and analyze sign language structure, showing linguistic universals in the phonology, morphology, and syntax of sign language, while also revealing non-universal aspects of its structure that must be attributed to its physical transmission system. No prior background in sign language linguistics is assumed, and numerous pictures are provided to make descriptions of signs and facial expressions accessible to readers. Engaging and informative, Sign Language and Linguistic Universals will be invaluable to linguists, psychologists, and all those interested in sign languages, linguistic theory and the unive...
The word in sign language: empirical evidence and theoretical controversies
Linguistics, 2008
This article is concerned with the ''word'' in sign language, the ''grammatical'' and especially the ''prosodic word''. Both notions of the ''word'' are central in sign language linguistics and psycholinguistic. Converging evidence for the size and complexity of the prosodic word is reviewed, stemming from morphological processes such as compounding, derivation, and classification as well as from phonological processes such as coalescence, epenthesis, and deletion. Additional evidence from slips of the hand and their repairs is presented showing that (i) in slips, grammatical as well as prosodic words are involved and that (ii) slip-repair sequences may keep within the limit of the prosodic word. The distinctive morphological typology and the canonical word shape pattern in sign language is explained by modality di¤erences which act on the Phonetic Form (PF) interface. Sign languages are processed more on the vertical axis-simultaneously-whereas spoken languages are processed more on the horizontal axis-sequentially. As a corollary, the information packaging in both language modalities is di¤erent while processing is basically the same. Controversial theoretic topics around the notion of the ''word'' in sign language such as iconicity and notoriously recalcitrant constructions such as classifier predicates are discussed.
THE NULLIFICATION OF THE LINGUISTIC DIADEM OF SIGN LANGUAGE
The study is a systematic reversal of the widely held view that language, in a generic sense is broadly divided into three namely: human language, animal language and sign language. The researcher rather recognizes the existence of two instead of three. The third does not exist based on its failure to meet up with the precepts of the developed universal structure of human language. Five stages were adopted in carrying out the research work. It starts gradually from the known and perhaps , the simple aspect of language study as was conceived by early language scholars to the recent view of systemic functional scholars on language. Based on it, the universal structure of human language emerged. Following it is the crude diagram showing the universal structure of human language, the diagram of sign language, the imposition of sign language on the structure of the universal structure of human language, the diagram showing communication network and the place of sign in communication before conclusion was drawn.
What's in a sign? Theoretical lessons from practical sign language lexicography
Signs of the time. Selected papers from TISLR, 2004
This paper provides insight into the lexicographic practice at the Institute of German Sign Language and Communication of the Deaf at the University of Hamburg. For more than a decade corpus-based dictionaries of technical terms have been developed. Elicited answers may consist of non-lexicalized sign strings including productive signs and occasional sign-mouthing combinations. Transcription and analysis are the most important steps in our approach. Different kinds of sign use have to be distinguished, i.e. productive and conventional signs (lexemes), and conventional and productive uses of conventional signs. Although in lexemes there is a conventional link between form(s) and meaning(s), it is also important to consider the underlying image and the image-producing techniques involved. The underlying image connects phonological variants and modified sign forms as well as productive uses of conventional signs through dynamic combinations of signs and mouthings. Criteria for token-type matching and the identification of lexemes are exemplified and discussed. These criteria are based on theoretical assumptions and lead to a better understanding of sign language structure and use.