Signers and speakers coordinate a broad range of intentionally expressive actions within the spatiotemporal context of their face-to-face interactions (Parmentier, 1994; Clark, 1996; Johnston, 1996; Kendon, 2004). Varied semiotic repertoires combine in different ways, the details of which are rooted in the interactions occurring in a specific time and place (Goodwin, 2000; Kusters et al., 2017). However, intense focus in linguistics on conventionalized symbolic form/meaning pairings (especially those which are arbitrary) has obscured the importance of other semiotics in face-to-face communication. A consequence is that the communicative practices resulting from diverse ways of being (e.g., deaf, hearing) are not easily united into a global theoretical framework. Here we promote a theory of language that accounts for how diverse humans coordinate their semiotic repertoires in face-to-face communication, bringing together evidence from anthropology, semiotics, gesture studies and linguistics. Our aim is to facilitate direct comparison of different communicative ecologies. We build on Clark’s (1996) theory of language use as ‘actioned’ via three methods of signaling: describing, indicating, and depicting. Each method is fundamentally different to the other, and they can be used alone or in combination with others during the joint creation of multimodal ‘composite utterances’ (Enfield, 2009). We argue that a theory of language must be able to account for all three methods of signaling as they manifest within and across composite utterances. From this perspective, language—and not only language use—can be viewed as intentionally communicative action involving the specific range of semiotic resources available in situated human interactions.

No abstract

This study explores the L2M2 acquisition of Norwegian Sign Language by hearing adults, with a focus on the production and use of depicting signs. A group of students and their instructors were asked to respond to prompt questions about directions and locations in Norwegian Sign Language, and their responses were then compared. An examination of the students’ depicting signs shows that they struggled more with the phonological parameters orientation and movement, rather than with handshape. In addition, they used fewer depicting signs than their instructors, and instead relied more on lexical signs. Finally, students were found to struggle with the coordination of depicting signs within the signing space and in relation to their own bodies. It is hoped that the findings from this study can be used to inform future research as well as curricula development and pedagogy.

There is growing momentum towards a theory of languaging that acknowledges the diverse semiotic repertoires people use with each other. This paper contributes to this goal by providing further evidence from signed language discourse. In particular, we examine iconic signs from Norwegian Sign Language, which can be interpreted as both “regular” lexical signs and token depictions. This dual potential is manipulated by signers in context. We analyze these signs as descriptions and depictions, two different modes of representation. Then we compare these signs to some of the description and depiction that occurs in spoken language discourse. In this way we aim to present some of the advantages of using description and depiction in analyses of communication and interaction. By doing this, we also forge links between the languaging of speakers and the languaging of signers.

No abstract