Cover not available

Article published In: Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 20:2 (2017) ► pp.157–182

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

On the notion of metaphor in sign languages

Some observations based on Russian Sign Language

 | University of Amsterdam
 | The University of Melbourne
 | Unaffiliated researcher
 | Higher School of Economics, Moscow
Published online: 26 March 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00001.kim
Abstract
Metaphors in sign languages have been an important research topic in recent years, and Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar model of metaphor formation in signs has been influential in the field. In this paper, we analyze metaphors in signs of cognition and emotions in Russian Sign Language (RSL) and argue for a modification of Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar theory of metaphor. We demonstrate that metaphor formation in RSL uses a number of mechanisms: a concrete sign can acquire metaphorical meaning without change, a part of a sequential compound can acquire a metaphorical meaning, and a morpheme within a productive sign or a simultaneous compound can acquire a metaphorical meaning. All these processes have parallels in spoken languages, so we argue for a modality-independent model of metaphor formation where metaphorical mapping is divorced from iconicity.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Metaphor as mapping
    • 1.2Metaphors and iconicity in sign languages
    • 1.3Current study
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Metaphorical mechanisms
    • 3.1A concrete sign acquires metaphorical meaning without change
    • 3.2A concrete sign acquires metaphorical meaning in a compound
    • 3.3A meaningful morpheme acquires a metaphorical meaning in particular contexts
      • 3.3.1Metaphors in sign language classifiers
      • 3.3.2Metaphors in simultaneous compounds
    • 3.4Unclear cases
      • 3.4.1Lack of the source meaning
      • 3.4.2Different sign forms in the source and the target meanings
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Typology of metaphorical mechanisms
    • 4.2Iconicity and metaphor
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (33)
References
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4). 743–810. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, Mary. 1990. Productive morphology in British Sign Language. In Siegmund Prillwitz & Tomas Vollhaber (eds.), Sign language research and application. Proceedings of the International Congress on Sign Language Research and Application, Hamburg, 205–288. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Conjoining word and image in British Sign Language (BSL): An exploration of metaphorical signs in BSL. Sign Language Studies 5(3). 360–382. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fradkina, R. N. 2001. Govorashije ruki (Talking hands). Moscow: Refl-buk.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51(3). 696–719. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gejlman, Isaak. 1975. Specificheskije sredstva obshenija gluhih. Yazyk zhestov. (Specific means of communication of the deaf. Sign language). 41 vols. Leningrad: VOG.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. The poetics of mind: figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 2008. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grushkin, Donald A. 1998. Linguistic aspects of metaphorical expressions of anger in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 1(2). 143–168. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 1999. On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2(2). 115–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaneko, Michiko & Rachel Sutton-Spence. 2012. Iconicity and metaphor in sign language poetry. Metaphor and Symbol 27(2). 107–130. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim. 2014. Information structure in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor: a practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kyuseva, Maria. 2012. Leksicheskaya tipologia semanticheskih sdvigov nazvanij kachestvennyh priznakov “ostryj” i “tupoj” (Lexical typology of semantic shifts in adjectives meaning “sharp” and “blunt”). Moscow: MSU diploma thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lomakina, Yana. 2015. Pole glagolov emotsyj russkogo zhestovogo jazyka v tipologicheskom osveshenii (The field of emotion verbs of Russian Sign Language from a typological perspective). Moscow: Higher School of Economics BA thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1955. Économie des changements phonétiques: traité de phonologie diachronique. Berne: Francke.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2001. Verb classifiers as noun incorporation in Israeli Sign Language. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1999, 299–319. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Iconicity and metaphor: constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language 86(4). 865–896. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Word classes and word formation. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 77–112. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perova, Daria. 2015. Pole mentlanyh glagolov russkogo zhestovogo jazyka v tipologicheskom osveshenii (The field of mental verbs of Russian Sign Language from a typological perspective). Moscow: Higher School of Economics BA thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pietrandrea, Paola. 2002. Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 2(3). 296–321. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1). 1–39. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rakhilina, Ekaterina. 2000. Kognitivny analiz predmetnykh imen: semantika I sochetaemost’ (A cognitive analysis of common nouns: Semantics and combinability). Moscow: Russkie slovari.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roush, Daniel R. 2016. The expression of the location event-structure metaphor in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 16(3), 389–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2014. The cognitive-linguistic revolution in metaphor studies. In Jeannette Littlemore & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics, 117–142. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Developing, testing and interpreting Deliberate Metaphor Theory. Journal of Pragmatics 901. 67–72. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilcox, Phyllis P. 2000. Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, D.C: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Utrecht: Utrecht University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Classifiers. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 158–186. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Linde-Usiekniewicz, Jadwiga & Sylwia Łozińska
2023. In Quest of Influences of Polish Language Dictionaries on the Oldest Polish Sign Language Dictionary. International Journal of Lexicography 36:4 ► pp. 447 ff. DOI logo
Zwitserlood, Inge, Els van der Kooij & Onno Crasborn
2023. Units of sub-sign meaning in NGT. Sign Language & Linguistics 26:2 ► pp. 276 ff. DOI logo
Börstell, Carl & Ryan Lepic
2020. Spatial metaphors in antonym pairs across sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1-2 ► pp. 112 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 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