Beyond languages, beyond modalities: transforming the study of semiotic repertoires

Abstract

This paper presents a critical examination of key concepts in the study of (signed and spoken) language and multimodality. It shows how shifts in conceptual understandings of language use, moving from (individual and societal) bilingualism to multilingualism and (trans)languaging, have resulted in the revitalization of the concept of language repertoires. We discuss key assumptions and analytical developments that have shaped the sociolinguistic study of signed and spoken language multilingualism as separate from different strands of multimodality studies. In most multimodality studies, researchers focus on participants using one named spoken language within broader embodied human action. Thus while attending to multimodal communication, they do not attend to multilingual communication. In translanguaging studies the opposite has happened: scholars have attended to multilingual communication without really paying attention to multimodality and simultaneity, and hierarchies within the simultaneous combination of resources. The (socio)linguistics of sign language has paid attention to multimodality but only very recently have started to focus on multilingual contexts where multiple sign and/or multiple spoken languages are used in overlap with one another. There is currently little transaction between these areas of research. We argue that the lens of semiotic repertoires enables synergies to be identified and provides a holistic focus (addressing ideologies, histories, potentialities, constraints) on action that is both multilingual and multimodal.

Language as Description, Indication, and Depiction

“…These reciprocal, dynamic interactions give rise to ‘structural couplings’ (Maturana and Varela, 1987) between individuals and their environment, which manifest as varied communication practices. These practices evolve as signers and speakers draw on all meaningful resources available to them into a complete, heteroglossic package, i.e., the “semiotic repertoire” (Kusters et al, 2017). Within this cognitive/biosemiotics approach, a key principle is that the meanings which emerge within ecologies are largely inferential – more so than symbolic – so that tokens of expression stand in relation to each other with respect to their specific indexical properties (Peirce, 1955; see Kravchenko, 2006).…”

“…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.…”

Reimagining English‐Medium Instructional Settings as Sites of Multilingual and Multimodal Meaning Making

“…In so doing, we aim to contribute to the growing literature in TESOL and related fields that challenges the monoglossic language ideologies that appear to persist in many mainstream classrooms (e.g., Blackledge & Creese, ; Flores & Schissel, ; García, ; García & Wei, ). Aligning ourselves with the multilingual turn in applied linguistics that seeks to overcome the monolingual bias (May, ), we argue for the importance of shifting from monoglossic to heteroglossic language ideologies and of creating heteroglossic “implementational spaces” (Hornberger, , p. 605), in which emergent bi/multilinguals are encouraged to draw on the full range of their “semiotic repertoires” (Kusters, Spotti, Swanwick, & Tapio, , p. 219) in order to participate, learn, and contribute as full members of the classroom community.…”

Reported speech as enactment

“…We agree this definition is sufficiently narrow to capture the range of reported speech strategies documented by Spronck and Nikitina, and general enough to be effectively operationalised across data from both signed and spoken languages (even though they only address the latter). However, it also captures much more than just highly grammaticalised and conventionalised morphosyntactic strategies for reporting speech, and as such cannot constitute a dedicated syntactic domain as defined by the authorsat least not without excluding important aspects of semiotic diversity for signalling description, indication and depiction across signed and spoken languages (Clark 1996;Kendon 2014;Kusters et al 2017;Ferrara & Hodge 2018).…”

“…the category 'reported speech' as a dedicated syntactic domain. Our main concern is that this claim downplays important evidence regarding the unified and multimodal 'semiotic repertoire' (Kendon 2014;Kusters et al 2017) available for reporting utterances, thoughts, feelings, attitudes and actions across diverse languagesincluding deaf signed languagesof which the highly grammaticalised and conventional encoding of reported speech utterances is just one part.…”