Cover not available

In:Linguistic Foundations of Narration in Spoken and Sign Languages:
Edited by Annika Hübl and Markus Steinbach
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 247] 2018
► pp. 275–308

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Between narrator and protagonist in fables of German Sign Language

 | University of Hamburg
 | University of Göttingen
Published online: 25 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.247.12her
Sign languages have the unique property of simultaneously transmitting information in various ways. Within perspective taking and role shift, a signer may use various articulators such as the hands, the body, and the face to simultaneously represent different protagonists and/or the narrator. This paper discusses data from German Sign Language (DGS) with regard to parallel perspectivation in role shift, in particular action role shift found in the DGS data set of the Aesop fables. We categorize the different types of parallel perspectivation and investigate classifiers within action role shift as a phenomenon at the gesture-sign interface.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Role shift in sign languages
    • 2.1Terminology
    • 2.2Quotation role shift
    • 2.3Action role shift
  • 3.Parallel perspectivation within action role shift in fables of German Sign Language
    • 3.1State of the art
      • 3.1.1Upper body parts as linguistic devices for simultaneous perspectivations
      • 3.1.2Classifiers
    • 3.2Methodology and data
    • 3.3Types of parallel perspectivation
    • 3.4Simultaneously layered additions by the narrator within action role shift
  • 4.A unified account for role shift
    • 4.1Action role shift at the gesture-grammar interface
    • 4.2Integrating A-RS in an agreement analysis
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (79)
References
Aarons, D., Bahan, B., Kegl, J. & Neidle C. 1994. Subjects and agreement in American Sign Language. In Perspectives on Sign Language Structure. Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research , Vol. 1, I. Ahlgern, B. Bergman & M. Brennan (eds), 13–27. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aarons, D. & Morgan, R. Z. 2003. Classifier predicates and the creation of multiple perspectives in South African Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 3(2): 125–156.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anand, P. & Nevins, A. 2004. Shifty Operators in Changing Contexts. SALT XIV 20-37, 20–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., Meir, I., Padden, C. & Sandler, W. 2003. Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages. In Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages, K. Emmorey (ed.), 53–84. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedicto, E. & Brentari, D. 2004. Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 743–810.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Gerrig, R. J. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66: 764–805.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cormier, K., Smith S. & Zwets, M. 2011. Show and tell: Framing and narrating constructed action in signed and spoken languages. Paper presented at Complex Sentences and Beyond in Sign and Spoken Languages, Lichtenberg-Kolleg, Georg-August-Universitat Göttingen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cormier, K., Smith, S. & Zwets, M. 2013. Framing constructed action in British Sign Language narratives. Journal of Pragmatics 55: 119–139.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cormier, K., Smith, S. & Sevcikova, Z. 2015. Rethinking constructed action. Sign Language & Linguistics 18(2): 167–204.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, O., Mesch, J., Waters, D., Nonhebel, A., van der Kooij, E., Woll, B. & Bergmann, B. 2007. Sharing sign language data online. Experiences from the ECHO project. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(4): 535–562.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidson, K. 2015. Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity. Linguistics & Philosophy 38(6): 477–520.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dudis, P. G. 2004. Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2): 223–238.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duncan, S. 2003. Gesture in language. Issues for sign language research. In Perspectives on Classifiers constructions in Sign Languages, K. Emmorey (ed.), 259–268. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Earis, H. & Cormier, K. 2013. Point of view in British Sign Language and spoken English narrative discourse: The example of ‘The Tortoise and the Hare’. Language and Cognition 5(4): 313–343.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eccarius, P. & Brentari, D. 2007. Symmetry and dominance: A cross-linguistic study of signs and classifier constructions. Lingua 117: 1169–1201.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckardt, R. 2012. Particles as speaker indexicals in free indirect discourse. In Particles, L. Hogeweg & E. McCready (eds), 99–119. Special issue of Sprache und Datenverarbeitung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. 2003. Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Bellugi, U., Frederici A. & Horn, P. 1995. Effects of age of acquisition in grammatical sensitivity: Evidence from on-line and off-line tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics 16, 1–23.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1995. Point of view expressed through shifters. In Language, Gesture, and Space, K. Emmorey & J. Reilly (eds), 133–154. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, Goldberg, A. (ed.), 113–130, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, R. & Kollien, S. 2010. Gibt es Constructed Action in Deutscher Gebärdensprache und in Deutsch (in der Textsorte Bedeutungserklärung)? Das Zeichen 86: 502–510.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geurts, B. & Maier E. 2005. Quotation in context. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 17(1): 109–128.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graumann, C F. 2002. Explicit and implicit perspectivity. In Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse [Human Cognitive Processing 9], C. F. Graumann & W. Kallmeyer (eds), 25–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graumann, C. F. & Kallmeyer, W. 2002. Perspective and perspectivation in discourse. An introduction. In Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse [Human Cognitive Processing 9], C. F. Graumann & W. Kallmeyer (eds), 1–11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grose, D., Wilbur, R., & Schalber, K. 2007. Events and telicity in classifier predicates: A reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua 117: 1258–1284.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günthner, S. 1999. Polyphony and the ‘layering of voices’ in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 685–708.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Perspectivity in reported dialogues. The contextualization of evaluative stances in reconstructing speech. In Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse [Human Cognitive Processing 9], C. F. Graumann & W. Kallmeyer (eds), 347–374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herrmann, A. & Steinbach, M. 2010. Eine neue Perspektive auf Role Shift in Deutscher Gebärdensprache (DGS). Perspektivwechsel als nichtmanuelles Kongruenzphänomen. Das Zeichen 84: 112–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. Quotation in sign languages. A visible context shift. In Quotatives. Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 15], I. Buchstaller & I. van Alphen (eds), 203–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hübl, A. 2013. Role shift, indexicals and beyond – New evidence from German Sign Language. In Proceedings from the 13th meeting of the Texas Linguistics Society , L. C. Geer (ed.), 1–11.
2014. Context shift (im)possible – Indexicals in German Sign Language. In Proceedings of ConSOLE XXI, M. Kohlberger, B. Kate & E. Dutton (eds), 171–183. Leiden: Sole.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hübl, A. & Steinbach, M. 2012. Quotation across modalities. Shifting contexts in sign and spoken languages. Paper presented at the workshop Quotation: Perspectives from Philosophy and Linguistics, Bochum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janzen, T. 2004. Space rotation, perspective shift, and verb morphology in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2): 149–174.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kegl, J. 1986. Clitics in American Sign Language. In Syntax and Semantics 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, H. Borer (ed.), 285–309. New York. Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keyser R. & Larson-Hall, J. 2005. What does the critical period really mean? In Handbook of Bilingualism. Psycholinguistic Approaches, J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (eds), 88–108. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leeson, L. & Saeed, J. I. 2007. Conceptual blending and the windowing of attention in simultaneous constructions in Irish Sign Language. In Simultaneity in Signed Languages. Form and Function, M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson & O. Crasborn (eds), 55–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 1980. American Sign Language Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1995. Real, surrogate, and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL. In Language, Gesture, and Space, K. Emmorey & J. Reilly (eds), 19–41. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1998. Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual shifts. Cognitive Linguistics 9(3): 283–314.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. & Metzger, M. 1998. Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 657–697.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. 1995. The point of view predicate in American Sign Language. In Language, Gesture, and Space, K. Emmorey & J. Reilly (eds), 155–170. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. Utterance reports and constructed action. In Sign Language. An International Handbook, R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds), 365–387. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. & Klima, E.S. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Theoretical issues in sign language research, S. D. Fischer & P. Siple (eds), 191–210. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maier, E. 2015. Quotation and unquotation in free indirect discourse. Mind & Language 30(3): 345–373.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, I., Padden, C. A., Aronoff, M. & Sandler, W. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43: 531–563.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metzger, M. 1995. Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, C. Lucas (ed.), 255–271. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morford, J. P. 2004. Der Altersfaktor im Gebärdenspracherwerb: Eine Neuinterpretation. Das Zeichen 66: 85–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgan, G. 1999. Event packaging in British Sign Language discourse. In Story Telling and Conversation. Discourse in Deaf Communities, E. A. Winston (ed.), 27–58. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgan, G. & Woll, B. 2002. Directions in Sign Language Acquisition [Trends in Language Acquisition Research 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. The development of reference switching encoded through body classifiers in British Sign Language. In Perspectives on Classifiers Constructions in Sign Languages, K. Emmorey (ed.), 297–310. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Understanding sign language classifiers through a polycomponential approach. Lingua 117: 1159–1168.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, C. 1986. Verbs and role-shifting in American Sign Language. In Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, C. Padden (ed.), 44–57. Silver Spring MD: National Association of the Deaf.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parrill, F. 2010. Viewpoint in speech-gesture integration: Linguistic structure, discourse structure, and event structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(5): 650–668.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perniss, P. 2007a. Achieving spatial coherence in German Sign Language narratives: The use of classifiers and perspective. Lingua 117: 1315–1338.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007b. Locative functions of simultaneous perspective constructions in German Sign Language narratives. In Simultaneity in Signed Languages. Form and Function [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 281], M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson & O. Crasborn (eds), 27–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfau, R. & Quer, J. 2010. Nonmanuals. Their grammatical and prosodic roles. In Sign Languages, D. Brentari (ed.), 381–402. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pyers, J. E. & Senghas, A. 2007. Reported action in Nicaraguan and American Sign Languages. Emerging versus established systems. In Visible Variation. Comparative Studies on Sign Language Structure, P. Perniss, R. Pfau & M. Steinbach (eds), 279–302. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quasthoff, U. M. 2002. Global and local aspects of perspectivity. In Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse [Human Cognitive Processing 9], C. F. Graumann & W. Kallmeyer (eds), 323–346. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quer, J. 2005. Context shift and indexical variables in sign languages. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory 15, E. Georgala & J. Howell (eds), 152–168. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Reporting and quoting in signed discourse. In Understanding Quotation, E. Brendel, J. Meibauer & M. Steinbach (eds), 277–302. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, D. 2007. Can constructed action be considered obligatory? Lingua 117(7): 1285–1314.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, D. & Mehta, S. 2010. Register variation in mimetic gestural complements to signed language. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 557–584.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Randow, S. 2016. Sprachlernerfahrungen erwachsener hörender L2-/M2-Lerner_innen bezüglich Constructed Action in Deutscher Gebärdensprache – Teil I: Ausgangslage und Methode. Das Zeichen 30(102): 116–127.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schick, B. 1990. Classifier predicates in American Sign Language. International Journal of Sign Linguistics 1: 15–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. 2017. Super monsters I. Attitude and Action Role Shift in sign languages. Semantics and Pragmatics. 10(9).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speas, M. & Tenny, C. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in Grammar [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 57], A. M. di Sciullo (ed.), 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stec, K., Huiskes, M. & Redeker, G. 2016. Multimodal quotation: Role shift practices in spoken narratives. Journal of Pragmatics 104: 1–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Supalla, T. 1986. The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Noun Classes and Categorization [Typological Studies in Language 7], C. Craig (ed.), 181–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, R. 2007. Mouthings and simultaneity in British Sign Language. In Simultaneity in Signed Languages. Form and Function [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 281], M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson & O. Crasborn (eds), 147–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 20072. Talking Voices. Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winston, E. A. 1991. Spatial referencing and cohesion in an American Sign Language text. Sign Language Studies 73: 397–410.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zucchi, S. 2004. Monsters in the visual mode? Ms, Università degli Studi di Milano.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, I. 2003. Classifiying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. Classifiers. In Sign Language. An International Handbook, R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds), 158–185. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
2023. Morphology in Sign Languages. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Maier, Emar & Markus Steinbach
2022. Perspective Shift Across Modalities. Annual Review of Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Müller, Anke
2022. Image superimposition in signed language discourse and in motion pictures. In Iconicity in Cognition and across Semiotic Systems [Iconicity in Language and Literature, 18], ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Vandenitte, Sébastien
2022. Making Referents Seen and Heard Across Signed and Spoken Languages: Documenting and Interpreting Cross-Modal Differences in the Use of Enactment. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Vandenitte, Sébastien
2023. When referents are seen and heard. In Reference [Studies in Language Companion Series, 228], ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
Hübl, Annika, Emar Maier & Markus Steinbach
2019. To shift or not to shift. Sign Language & Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Steinbach, Markus
2016. Mouthing and demonstrating in bimodal contexts. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6:6 ► pp. 828 ff. DOI logo
Steinbach, Markus
2023. Angry lions and scared neighbors: Complex demonstrations in sign language role shift at the sign-gesture interface. Linguistics 61:2 ► pp. 391 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue