Abstract
Composite utterances are utterances that are built from multiple signs of multiple types, meaning that in any conversational “move” speech, gestures, eye-gaze, intonation patterns, physical stance, etc. all participate in the utterance, and the meaning derived from it is constructed by the composite of these participant types. likewise considers utterances as multimodal ensembles. The present study investigates how the notion of composite utterance plays out in a signed language such as ASL. Articulated in the same modality as are gestures, the distinction between language and gesture has seemed less clear, leading some to ask whether signers even gesture at all and some to suggest that gestures and formal signed language are substantively different systems. On the other hand, others have posited a continuity approach to gesture and signed language especially in light of grammaticalization studies. Here I examine topic-comment constructions and perspectivized clauses in ASL through the lens of Enfield’s composite utterances proposal, looking at component parts and how they function to ground elements in the discourse and guide the interlocutor through the textual structure. I use Enfield’s conventional versus non-conventional type categories in examining lexical and prosodic elements in topic and perspective-taking constructions.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Nick Enfield for his critical discussion of issues, and to the participants at the 2013 meeting on gesture and spoken and signed language in Nijmegen, to those at ICLC 11 (2015), to Barbara Shaffer, Lorraine Leeson, and to the two anonymous reviewers. As always, I owe much appreciation to the Winnipeg Deaf community for their openness in sharing their language with me.
References
Armstrong, David F., William C. Stokoe & Sherman E. Wilcox. 1995. Gesture and the nature of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620911Search in Google Scholar
Armstrong, David F. & Sherman E. Wilcox. 2007. The gestural origin of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195163483.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615962Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, Volume 2: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 145–167. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel. 2009. Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 138(3). 351–367.10.1037/a0015854Search in Google Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel & Evangelia G. Chrysikou. 2011. When left is “right”: Motor fluency shapes abstract concepts. Psychological Science 22(4). 419–422.10.1177/0956797611401755Search in Google Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel & Kyle Jasmin. 2010. Good and bad in the hands of politicians: Spontaneous gestures during positive and negative speech. PLoS ONE 5(7). e11805. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011805Search in Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan. 2013. Cognitive linguistics: Spoken language and gesture as expressions of conceptualization. 2013. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silvia Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha Tessendorf (eds.), Body – Language – Communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 1 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.1), 182–201. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110261318.182Search in Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan J. 2012. Usage events of spoken language and the symbolic units we (may) abstract from them. In Janusz Badio & Krzysztof Kosecki (eds.), Cognitive processes in language, 149–158. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 2016. Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review 123(3). 324–347.10.1037/rev0000026Search in Google Scholar
Cooperrider, Kensy, Dedre Gentner & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2016. Gesture reveals spatial analogies during complex relational reasoning. In D. Grodner, A. Mirman, A. Papafragou, J. Trueswell, J. Novick, S. Arunachalam, S. Christie & C. Norris (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 692–697. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Search in Google Scholar
Critchley, MacDonald. 1939. The language of gesture. London: Edward Arnold & Co.Search in Google Scholar
Dudis, Paul G. 2011. Some observations on form-meaning correspondences in two types of verbs in ASL. In Gaurav Mathur & Donna Jo Napoli (eds.), Deaf around the world: The impact of language, 83–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732548.003.0004Search in Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 1999. Do signers gesture? In Lynn S. Messing & Ruth Campbell (eds.), Gesture, speech, and sign, 133–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524519.003.0008Search in Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen & Judy S. Reilly (eds.). 1995. Language, gesture, and space. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2009. The anatomy of meaning: Speech, gesture, and composite utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511576737Search in Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2013. A ‘composite utterances’ approach to meaning. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silvia Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha Tessendorf (eds.), Body – Language – Communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 1 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.1), 689–707. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Fenlon, Jordan, Jonathan Keane, Kensy Cooperrider, Susan Goldin-Meadow & Diane Brentari. 2016. Comparing pronominal signs and pointing gestures. Symposium on Understanding the Gesture-Sign Interface, International Society for Gesture Studies (ISGS) 7, Sorbonne Paris 3, Paris, France, July 18–22, 2016.Search in Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan. 1975. Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Word order and word order change, 1–25. Austin & London: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan. 1990. The head parameter in ASL. In W. H. Edmondson & F. Karlsson (eds.), SLR ’87: Papers from The Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 75–85. Hamburg: Signum-Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Friedman, Lynn. 1975. Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Language 51. 940–961.10.2307/412702Search in Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy. 1973. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Paper presented at the 1973 Winter Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, CA, December 28–30.10.2307/412894Search in Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51. 696–719.10.2307/412894Search in Google Scholar
Groce, Nora. 1985. Everyone here spoke sign language: Hereditary deafness on Martha’s Vineyard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2007. The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hinnell, Jennifer & Sally Rice. 2016. “On the one hand…”: Opposition and optionality in the embodied marking of stance in North American English. Symposium on Multimodal Stance-marking in Signed and Spoken Languages, International Society for Gesture Studies (ISGS) 7, Sorbonne Paris 3, Paris, France, July 18–22, 2016.Search in Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203 (September). 89–96.10.1038/scientificamerican0960-88Search in Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1978. In search of Jove’s brow. American Speech 53. 243–315.10.2307/455140Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 139–157.10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1998. Emergent grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781315085678-6Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elisabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525Search in Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 1995. The polygrammaticalization of FINISH in ASL. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 1998. Topicality in ASL: Information ordering, constituent structure, and the function of topic marking. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 1999. The grammaticization of topics in American Sign Language. Studies in Language 23(2). 271–306.10.1075/sl.23.2.03janSearch in Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 2004. Space rotation, perspective shift, and verb morphology in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 149–174.10.1515/cogl.2004.006Search in Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 2006. Visual communication: Signed language and cognition. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, René Dirven & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives, 359–377. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 2007. The expression of grammatical categories in signed languages. In Elena Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea & Raffaele Simone (eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies, 171–197. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 2008. Perspective shifts in ASL narratives: The problem of clause structure. In Andrea Tyler, Yiyoung Kim & Mari Takada (eds.), Language in the context of use: Usage-based approaches to language and language learning, 129–154. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 2012a. Two ways of conceptualizing space: Motivating the use of static and rotated vantage point space in ASL discourse. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 156–174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139084727.012Search in Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 2012b. Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In Markus Steinbach, Roland Pfau & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Sciences [HSK] series), 816–841. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. Forthcoming. KNOW and UNDERSTAND in ASL: A usage-based study of grammaticalized topic constructions. In K. Aaron Smith & Dawn Nordquist (eds.), Functionalist and usage-based approaches to the study of language: In honor of Joan L. Bybee. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry & Barbara Shaffer. 2002. Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 199–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486777.010Search in Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry, Barbara Shaffer & Lorraine Leeson. 2016. The proximity of gesture to grammar: Stance-taking in American Sign Language and Irish Sign Language constructions. Symposium on Multimodal Stance-marking in Signed and Spoken Languages, International Society for Gesture Studies (ISGS) 7, Sorbonne Paris 3, Paris, France, July 18–22, 2016.Search in Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry, Barbara Shaffer & Sherman Wilcox. 1999. Signed language pragmatics. In Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, installment 1999, 1–20. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hop.5.sig2Search in Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 2013. Toward a comparative semiotics of pointing actions in signed and spoken languages. Gesture 13(2). 109–142.10.1075/gest.13.2.01johSearch in Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy. 2008. The case of signed languages in the context of pidgin and creole studies. In Silvia Kouwenberg & John Victor Singler (eds.), The handbook of pidgin and creole studies, 491–511. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.10.1002/9781444305982.ch20Search in Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511807572Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lane, Harlan. 1984. When the mind hears: A history of the deaf. New York: Random House.Search in Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 1996. Spatial representations in discourse: Comparing spoken and signed language. Lingua 98. 145–167.10.1016/0024-3841(95)00036-4Search in Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2000. Blended spaces and deixis in sign language discourse. In David McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 331–357. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620850.021Search in Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615054Search in Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1990. Studies of American Sign Language syntax and the principles and parameters of universal grammar. In W. H. Edmondson & F. Karlsson (eds.), SLR ’87: Papers from The Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 86–93. Hamburg: Signum-Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward Klima. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, Vol. 1: Linguistics, 191–210. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Meier, Richard P. 1990. Person deixis in ASL. In Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, Volume 1: Linguistics, 175–190. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Jana Bressem (eds.). 2014. Body – Language – Communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 2. (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.2). Berlin & Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silvia Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha Tessendorf (eds.). 2013. Body – Language – Communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 1. (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.1). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Parrill, Fey. 2012. Interactions between discourse status and viewpoint in co-speech gesture. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 97–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139084727.008Search in Google Scholar
Russell, Kevin, Erin Wilkinson & Terry Janzen. 2011. ASL sign lowering as undershoot: A corpus study. Laboratory Phonology 2(2). 403–422.10.1515/labphon.2011.015Search in Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam. 2003. Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in signed languages. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 3–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Shaffer, Barbara. 2000. A syntactic, pragmatic analysis of the expression of necessity and possibility in American Sign Language. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Shaffer, Barbara. 2002. CAN’T: The negation of modal notions in ASL. Sign Language Studies 3(1). 34–53.10.1353/sls.2002.0026Search in Google Scholar
Shaffer, Barbara. 2004. Information ordering and speaker subjectivity: Modality in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 175–195.10.1515/cogl.2004.007Search in Google Scholar
Shaffer, Barbara & Terry Janzen. 2016. Modality and mood in American Sign Language. In Jan Nuyts & Johan Van Der Auwera (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 448–469. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199591435.013.17Search in Google Scholar
Singleton, Jenny L., Susan Goldin-Meadow & David McNeill. 1995. The cataclysmic break between gesticulation and sign: Evidence against a unified continuum of gestural communication. In Karen Emmorey & Judy Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 287–311. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2006. Issues of linguistic typology in the study of sign language development of deaf children. In Brenda Schick, Marc Marschark & Patricia Elizabeth Spencer (eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children, 20–45. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195180947.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers 8. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo Department of Anthropology and Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C., Dorothy C. Casterline & Carl G. Croneberg. 1965. A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.Search in Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 1986. The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Collette Craig (ed.), Noun classification and categorization, 181–214. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.7.13supSearch in Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511509629Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Paul J. Hopper. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.03thoSearch in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486500Search in Google Scholar
Vermeerbergen, Myriam, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.). 2007. Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.281Search in Google Scholar
Washabaugh, William. 1986. Five fingers for survival. Ann Arbour: Karoma.Search in Google Scholar
Wilcox, Phyllis. 1998. GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language. In John Newman (ed.), The linguistics of giving, 175–207. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.36.07wilSearch in Google Scholar
Wilcox, Phyllis Perrin. 2000. Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman. 1996. Not from Jove’s brow. Language and Communication 16(2). 179–192.10.1016/0271-5309(96)00006-7Search in Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman. 2004. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed language. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 119–147.10.1515/cogl.2004.005Search in Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman. 2014. Gestures in sign language. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Jana Bressem (eds.), Body – Language – Communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 2. (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.2), 2170–2176. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman & Phyllis Wilcox. 1995. The gestural expression of modality in ASL. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 135–162. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.32.07wilSearch in Google Scholar
Winston, Elizabeth A. 1995. Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. In Karen Emmorey & Judy S. Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 87–114. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Viewpoint phenomena in multimodal communication
- Experiencing and construing spatial artifacts from within: Simulated artifact immersion as a multimodal viewpoint strategy
- How politicians express different viewpoints in gesture and speech simultaneously
- Eye gaze and viewpoint in multimodal interaction management
- Alignment and empathy as viewpoint phenomena: The case of amplifiers and comical hypotheticals
- Composite utterances in a signed language: Topic constructions and perspective-taking in ASL
- Mediated characters: Multimodal viewpoint construction in comics
- Internet memes as multimodal constructions
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Viewpoint phenomena in multimodal communication
- Experiencing and construing spatial artifacts from within: Simulated artifact immersion as a multimodal viewpoint strategy
- How politicians express different viewpoints in gesture and speech simultaneously
- Eye gaze and viewpoint in multimodal interaction management
- Alignment and empathy as viewpoint phenomena: The case of amplifiers and comical hypotheticals
- Composite utterances in a signed language: Topic constructions and perspective-taking in ASL
- Mediated characters: Multimodal viewpoint construction in comics
- Internet memes as multimodal constructions