Simultaneity in Signed Languages.

Vermeerbergen, Myriam; Leeson, Lorraine; Crasborn, Onno

doi:10.1075/cilt.281.01ver

Cited by 50 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, we tested whether there are differences in terms of form and semantic specificity of spatial devices used to encode spatial expressions, as is the case in spoken languages, and described the nature of the differences found. The affordances of the visual modality are assumed to drive a high degree of similarity in the spatial domain across sign languages (Emmorey 2002, Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2006, Vermeerbergen et al 2007), but crosslinguistic comparison using the same stimulus materials in similar communicative contexts to test this assumption has been lacking.…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does space structure spatial language?: A comparison of spatial expression across sign languages

Perniss¹,

Zwitserlood²,

Özyürek³

2015

lan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spatial affordances of the visual modality give rise to a high degree of similarity between sign languages in the spatial domain. This stands in contrast to the vast structural and semantic diversity in linguistic encoding of space found in spoken languages. However, the possibility and nature of linguistic diversity in spatial encoding in sign languages has not been rigorously investigated by systematic crosslinguistic comparison. Here, we compare locative expression in two unrelated sign languages, Turkish Sign Language (Türk İşaret Dili, TİD) and German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache, DGS), focusing on the expression of figure-ground (e.g. cup on table) and figure-figure (e.g. cup next to cup) relationships in a discourse context. In addition to similarities, we report qualitative and quantitative differences between the sign languages in the formal devices used (i.e. unimanual vs. bimanual; simultaneous vs. sequential) and in the degree of iconicity of the spatial devices. Our results suggest that sign languages may display more diversity in the spatial domain than has been previously assumed, and in a way more comparable with the diversity found in spoken languages. The study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how space gets encoded in language.*

show abstract

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does space structure spatial language?: A comparison of spatial expression across sign languages

Perniss¹,

Zwitserlood²,

Özyürek³

2015

lan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a third area for possible modality effects in sign languages: their greater potential for simultaneous expression of multiple linguistic components . In particular, sign languages make use of multiple articulators—two hands, face, and body.…”

Section: Simultaneitymentioning

confidence: 99%

One grammar or two? Sign Languages and the Nature of Human Language

Lillo‐Martin

Gajewski

2014

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linguistic research has identified abstract properties that seem to be shared by all languages—such properties may be considered defining characteristics. In recent decades, the recognition that human language is found not only in the spoken modality but also in the form of sign languages has led to a reconsideration of some of these potential linguistic universals. In large part, the linguistic analysis of sign languages has led to the conclusion that universal characteristics of language can be stated at an abstract enough level to include languages in both spoken and signed modalities. For example, languages in both modalities display hierarchical structure at sub-lexical and phrasal level, and recursive rule application. However, this does not mean that modality-based differences between signed and spoken languages are trivial. In this article, we consider several candidate domains for modality effects, in light of the overarching question: are signed and spoken languages subject to the same abstract grammatical constraints, or is a substantially different conception of grammar needed for the sign language case? We look at differences between language types based on the use of space, iconicity, and the possibility for simultaneity in linguistic expression. The inclusion of sign languages does support some broadening of the conception of human language—in ways that are applicable for spoken languages as well. Still, the overall conclusion is that one grammar applies for human language, no matter the modality of expression.

show abstract

“…The fact that such constructions exist obviously raises many questions, some of which are being addressed in the literature (see especially Vermeerbergen et al, 2007). Some authors have made proposals for representing non-manual elements syntactically (e.g., Neidle et al, 1998;Wilbur and Patschke, 1999;Cecchetto et al, 2009) but no unified proposal exists that attempts to handle the phenomenon of simultaneity in general.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

The syntax of simultaneity

Kremers

2012

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simultaneity in Signed Languages.

Cited by 50 publications

References 0 publications

Does space structure spatial language?: A comparison of spatial expression across sign languages

Does space structure spatial language?: A comparison of spatial expression across sign languages

One grammar or two? Sign Languages and the Nature of Human Language

The syntax of simultaneity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About