Cover not available
Article published In:
Anthropology of Gesture
Edited by Heather Brookes and Olivier Le Guen
[Gesture 18:2/3] 2019
► pp. 343–369

The impact of cross-linguistic variation in gesture on sign language phonology and morphology

The case of size and shape specifiers

 | Leiden University
A considerable body of literature points at parallels between gestural elements and sign language structures. This raises the question to what extent variation in gesture environment may lead to related variation across sign languages, or, mutatis mutandis, to what extent similarities in gesture environment may lead to similarities across (otherwise unrelated) sign languages.
This article will address that question by reviewing a series of studies relating to size and shape specifying (SASS) signs and gestures in signed and spoken languages in West Africa. The review finds that the use of body-based SASS gestures coincides with the use of body-based SASS signs in the sign languages studied, which in turn aligns with (a) restrictions on the number and types of handshapes used in space-based SASS signs, (b) limited use of space-based size depiction in lexical items (Nyst, 2018), and (c) a gap in the repertoire of phonemic handshapes.
I conclude that culture-specific patterning in gesture environment may impact on cross-linguistic variation in SASS morphology and handshape phonology. As such, the gestural environment presents an explanation why SLs may be alike or different, in addition to shared ancestry, language contact, and iconicity.
Keywords: gesture-sign language interface, GestureBund, impact of iconicity on SL structure, impact of gesture variation on SL typology, West African sign languages
Article outline
  • Cross-linguistic variation in gesture and signing
  • Types of size and shape depiction
  • Body-based size and shape depiction in gesture and signing
    • Size and shape depiction in Anyi and Dutch co-speech gestures
    • Integration into the linguistic system of size and shape gestures: Body-based size and shape depiction in an emerging and an established SL
  • Space-based size and shape depiction
    • Space-based size and shape depiction in Anyi and Dutch SASS gestures
    • Space-based size depiction in three African and three European SLs
  • Hand-internal size depiction or open handshapes with thumb opposition
    • Marginality of open handshapes with thumb opposition in phonetic handshapes
    • Absence of open handshapes with thumb opposition in phonemic handshapes
  • Discussion
    • Cross-cultural variation in gesture as a blueprint for cross-linguistic variation in SLs
    • Documenting and describing gestural environments
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.19009.nys
References (37)
References
Barreteau, D. (1988a). Description du Mofu-Gudur, Vol. 1: Phonologie. Paris: ORSTOM.Google Scholar
(1988b). Description du Mofu-Gudur, Vol. 2: Lexique. Paris: ORSTOM.Google Scholar
Barreteau, D., Sorin-Barreteau, L., & Bayo Mana, A. (1988). La poterie chez les Mofu-Gudur: des gestes, des formes et des mots. In Daniel Barreteau (Ed.), Le milieu et les hommes: Recherches comparatives et historiques dans le bassin du Lac Tchad (pp. 287–339). Paris: ORSTOM.Google Scholar
Byun, K.-S., C. de Vos, & Zwitserlood, I. (2015). Classifiers and gender in sign language – the case of Korean Sign Language. Paper presented at the workshop “Gender and classifiers: Areal and genealogical perspectives”, Nijmegen, January 26th, 2015.
Cormier, K., Quinto-Pozos, D., Sevcikova, Z., & Schembri, A. (2012). Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation processes in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language & Communication, 32 (4), 329–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cormier, K., Schembri, A., & Woll, B. (2013). Pronouns and pointing in sign languages. Lingua, 1371, 230–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 511, 696–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, B. (2007). Negation in Jordanian Sign Language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In P. M. Perniss, R. Pfau, & M. Steinbach (Eds.) Visible variation: Comparative studies on sign language structure (pp. 103–128). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Herlofsky, W. J. (2007). Iconic thumbs, pinkies and pointers. The grammaticalization of animate-entity handshapes in Japan Sign Language. In E. Tabakowska, C. Ljungberg, & O. Fischer (Eds.), Insistent images (pp. 37–53). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T. & Shaffer, B. (2002). Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. In R. Meier, K. Cormier, & D. Quinto-Pozos (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages (pp. 199–223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kooij, E. van der. (2002). Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Le Guen, O. (2012). An exploration in the domain of time: From Yucatec Maya time gestures to Yucatec Maya Sign Language time signs. In: U. Zeshan & C. de Vos (Eds), Sign languages in village communities: Anthropological and linguistic insights (pp. 209–250). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Le Guen, O., Petatillo, R., & Kinil Canché, Rita (Rossy). (in press). Yucatec Maya multimodal interaction as basis for Yucatec Maya Sign Language. In O. Le Guen, J. Safar, & M. Coppola (Eds.), Emerging sign languages of the Americas. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Liddell, S. K. (2000). Blended spaces and deixis in sign language. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture:Window into thought and action (pp. 331–357). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Modality effects and conflicting agendas. In W. C. Stokoe, D. F. Armstrong, M. A. Karchmer, & J. V. Van Cleve (Eds.), The study of signed languages: Essays in honor of William C. Stokoe (pp. 53–81). Washington: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, D. & Hwang, H. C. (2013). Cultural similarities and differences in emblematic gestures. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 37 (1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, I., Aronoff, M., Sandler, W., & Padden, C. (2010). Sign languages and compounding. In: S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-Disciplinary Issues in Compounding (pp. 301–322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nyst, V. (2007a). A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2007b). Simultaneous constructions in Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). In M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson, & O. A. Crasborn (Eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages (pp. 127–145). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Pointing out possession in Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). In U. Zeshan & P. Perniss (Eds.), Possessive constructions in sign languages. (235–251). Nijmegen: Ishara Press.Google Scholar
(2012). A reference corpus of Adamorobe Sign Language. A digital, annotated video corpus of the sign language used in the village of Adamorobe, Ghana. Leiden University.Google Scholar
(2016a). Size and shape depictions in the manual modality: a taxonomy of iconic devices in Adamorobe Sign Language. Semiotica, 2101, 75–104.Google Scholar
Nyst, V. & Baker, A. E. (2003). The phonology of name signs: a comparison between the Sign Languages of Uganda, Mali, Adamorobe and The Netherlands. In A. E. Baker, B. van den Bogaerde, & O. A. Crasborn (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives in sign language research. Selected papers from TISLR 2000 (pp. 71–80). Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Nyst, V. & Tano, A. (2012). Size and Shape Specifiers – Areal features of iconicity in West African sign languages. Unpublished paper presented at the Sign Language Colloquium, Radboud University, Nijmegen, November 21, 2012.
Padden, C. A., Meir, I., Hwang, S. O., Lepic, R., Seegers, S., & Sampson, T. (2013). Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture, 13 (3), 287–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R. & Steinbach, M. (2006). Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages. Linguistics in Potsdam, 241, 5–98.Google Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, D. & 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Safar, J. & Petatillo, R. (in press). Strategies of noun-verb distinction in Yucatec Maya Sign Languages. In O. Le Guen, J. Safar, & M. Coppola (Eds.), Emerging sign languages of the Americas. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Schembri, A., Jones, C., & Burnham, D. (2005). Comparing action gestures and classifier verbs of motion: Evidence from Australian Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, and nonsigners’ gestures without speech. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10 (3), 272–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senghas, A., Kita, S. & Özyürek, A. (2004). Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science, 305 (5691), 1779–1782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorin-Barreteau, L. (1996). Le langage gestuel des Mofu-Gudur. Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris.Google Scholar
Stec, K., Huiskes, M., & Redeker, G. (2016). Multimodal quotation: Role shift practices in spoken narratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 1041, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tano, A. J-J. (2013). Un corpus de référence de la Langue des Signes de Côte d’Ivoire (LSCI). ELDP-SOAS London: [URL]
(2016). Etude d’une langue des signes émergente de Côte d’Ivoire: L’exemple de la Langue des Signes de Bouakako (LaSiBo). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Tano, A. J-J. & Nyst, V. (2018). Comparing body-part size and shape constructions in Village sign languages with co-speech gesture. Sign Language Studies, 18 (4), 517–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

de Vos, Connie
2023. Cognitive pragmatics: Insights from homesign conversations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 46 DOI logo
Nyst, Victoria, Marta Morgado, Timothy Mac Hadjah, Marco Nyarko, Mariana Martins, Lisa van der Mark, Evans Burichani, Tano Angoua, Moustapha Magassouba, Dieydi Sylla, Kidane Admasu & Anique Schüller
2022. Object and handling handshapes in 11 sign languages: towards a typology of the iconic use of the hands. Linguistic Typology 26:3 ► pp. 573 ff. DOI logo
Stoianov, Diane, Diná Souza da Silva, Jó Carlos Neves Freitas, Anderson Almeida-Silva & Andrew Nevins
2022. Comparing Iconicity Trade-Offs in Cena and Libras during a Sign Language Production Task. Languages 7:2 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.