The categorical role of structurally iconic signs (original) (raw)
Goldin-Meadow and Brentari argue that iconic and imagistic forms employed during sign language use are often better characterized as gesture than as a categorical part of sign language itself. This view is undoubtedly correct in some cases. However “structural iconicity,” in which an (abstract) iconic mapping exists between logical structure and superficial form (Schlenker 2015), is somewhat problematic for the theory espoused by Goldin-Meadow and Brentari. We consider two specific cases demonstrating that structurally iconic properties of Italian Sign Language (LIS) would be better analyzed as a categorical part of the linguistic system as opposed to being “mere” gesture: (1) Aspectual marking – in which morphemes denoting logical culmination are necessarily accompanied by salient movement boundaries in the sign itself and (2) Comparative constructions in which locations or handshape aperture changes denotes different degrees along a given dimension (e.g. differing degrees of completeness, size, etc…). Both grammatical devices clearly involve structurally iconic signs, but these signs nevertheless play a key role in determining the grammar of LIS. Thus they are better analyzed as being a categorical part of the language as opposed to being mere gestures. One piece of evidence comes from an analysis of complementary vs. free alternation of lexicalized signs (e.g. independently realized aspectual markers and analytic comparative constructions). We go on to consider, more generally, the types of evidence that should be used to adjudicate whether or not a given iconic sign is part of the categorical structure language. We argue that detailed linguistic analyses of this sort should take priority over empirical evidence demonstrating overlap between co-speech gestures produced by users of spoken language and gestural/signing forms produced by users of sign language (e.g. Duncan, 2005). Thus we claim that even though recent evidence (Strickland et al., 2015) suggests that non-signers would likely produce aspectual gestures similar in form to the aspectual morphemes found in LIS, this should not be interpreted as evidence that the iconic signs in LIS are mere gesture. Instead researchers should be open to the possibility that a single competence (mapping fully structured logical forms to kinematic properties of hand movements) can simultaneously but independently influence signing/speech systems and gestural systems.
This document is currently being converted. Please check back in a few minutes.