Cover not available

Article published In: Impersonal human reference in Sign Languages
Edited by Gemma Barberà and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr
[Sign Language & Linguistics 21:2] 2018
► pp. 349–378

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

Cross-linguistic variation in space-based distance for size depiction in the lexicons of six sign languages

 | University of Leiden
Published online: 22 March 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00024.nys
Abstract
This paper presents a semiotic study of the distribution of a type of size depiction in lexical signs in six sign languages. Recently, a growing number of studies are focusing on the distribution of two representation techniques, i.e. the use of entity handshapes and handling handshapes for the depiction of hand-held tools (e.g. Ortega, Gerardo, Beyza Sümer & Aslı Őzyürek. 2014. Type of iconicity matters: Bias for action-based signs in sign language acquisition. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 36(36). 1114–1119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic, Sharon Seegers & Tory Sampson. 2013. Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture 13(3). 181–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar find that there is cross-linguistic variation in the use of this pair of representation techniques. This study looks at variation in a representation technique that has not been systematically studied before, i.e. the delimitation of a stretch of space to depict the size of a referent, or space-based distance for size depiction. It considers the question whether the cross-linguistic variation in the use of this representation technique is governed by language-specific patterning as well (cf. Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic, Sharon Seegers & Tory Sampson. 2013. Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture 13(3). 181–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).
This study quantifies and compares the occurrence of space-based distance for size depiction in the lexicons of six sign languages, three of Western European origin, and three of West African origin. It finds that sign languages differ significantly from each other in their frequency of use of this depiction type. This result thus corroborates that the selection and distribution of representation techniques does not solely depend on features of the depicted image, but also on language-specific patterning in the distribution of representation techniques, and it adds another dimension of iconic depiction in which sign languages may vary from each other (in addition to the entity/handling handshape distinction). Moreover, the results appear to be areally defined, with the three European languages using this representation technique significantly more often than the three African languages.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Variation in representation techniques
    • 2.2Avoidance of outline depiction in Adamorobe Sign Language
    • 2.3Distance for size depiction
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Methodological challenges
    • 3.2Selection of sign languages
    • 3.3Sampling of lexical items
    • 3.4Coding
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (29)
References
Brentari, Diane, Alessio di Renzo, Jonathan Keane & Virginia Volterra. 2015. Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity. Topics in Cognitive Science 7(1). 95–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2011. The meaning and use of ideophones in Siwu. Nijmegen: Radboud University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hwang, So-One, Nozomi Tomita, Hope Morgan, Rabia Ergin, Deniz Ilkbaşaran, Sharon Seegers, Ryan Lepic & Carol Padden. 2016. Of the body and the hands: patterned iconicity for semantic categories. Language and Cognition 91. 573–602. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kohler, Wolfgang. 1929. Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lepic, Ryan, Carl Börstell, Gal Belsitzman & Wendy Sandler. 2016. Taking meaning in hand. Sign Language & Linguistics 19(1). 37–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandel, Mark. 1977. Iconic devices in ASL. In Lynn Friedman (ed.), On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language, 57–107. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKee, David & Graeme Kennedy. 2000. Lexical comparison of signs from American, Australian, British and New Zealand Sign Languages. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 49–76. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nyst, Victoria. 2007. A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Sign languages in West Africa. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge language surveys), 405–432. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. The sign language situation in Mali. Sign Language Studies 15(2). 126–150. Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1983. Cross-language use of pitch: an ethological view. Phonetica 40(1). 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1984. An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica 41(1). 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, Gerardo, Beyza Sümer & Aslı Őzyürek. 2014. Type of iconicity matters: Bias for action-based signs in sign language acquisition. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 36(36). 1114–1119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler. 2010. The grammar of space in two new sign languages. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge language surveys), 570–592. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic, Sharon Seegers & Tory Sampson. 2013. Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture 13(3). 181–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela. 2007. Achieving spatial coherence in German Sign Language narratives: The use of classifiers and perspective. Lingua 117(7). 1315–1338. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Robin L. Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2010. Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1:227 (December).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinsonneault, Dominique. 1999. Lexique des signes utilisés par les sourds au Mali. Bamako: Editions Donniya.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaw, Emily & Yves Delaporte. 2010. New perspectives on the history of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 11(2). 158–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tano, Angoua. 2014. Un corpus de référence de la Langue des Signes de Bouakako (LaSiBo). Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Etude d’une langue des signes émergente de Côte d’Ivoire: l’exemple de la langue des signes de Bouakako (LaSiBo). Leiden: University of Leiden PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tano, Angoua & Victoria Nyst. 2018. Comparing body-part size and shape constructions in village sign languages with co-speech gesture. Sign Language Studies 18(4). 517–545. 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
Westermann, Diedrich. 1927. Laut, Ton und Sinn in westafrikanischen Sudansprachen. In Sprachwissenschaftliche und andere Studien, Carl Meinhof gewidmet, 315–328. Glückstadt & Hamburg: Augustin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittmann, Henri. 1991. Classification linguistique des langues signées non vocalement. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée 10(1). 215–288.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: University of Utrecht PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.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. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Frederiksen, Anne Therese
2025. Choice of handshape and classifier type in placement verbs in American Sign Language. Open Linguistics 11:1 DOI logo
Sümer, Beyza & Aslı Özyürek
2025. Action bias in describing object locations by signing children. Sign Language & Linguistics 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
DINGEMANSE, MARK, MARCUS PERLMAN & PAMELA PERNISS
2020. Construals of iconicity: experimental approaches to form–meaning resemblances in language. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Safar, Josefina
2020. “When you were that little…”. Gesture 19:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Nyst, Victoria
2019. The impact of cross-linguistic variation in gesture on sign language phonology and morphology. Gesture 18:2-3 ► pp. 343 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