The realization of the linguistic metafunctions in a sign language

Johnston, Trevor

doi:10.1016/0388-0001(92)90021-6

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A survey of the interactional meanings, or functions, of finger pointing in face-to-face signed language conversations will be used here as further evidence that the language of conversation is highly indexical and that this indexicality contributes to the coordination of emergent interactions. In this way, the analysis here aligns with previous and current work that considers the "pragmatic" and context-dependent meanings ever present in human interaction as well as the role indexicality plays in language theory (see e.g., Malinowski 1923;Kress 1976;Silverstein 1976;Washabaugh 1981;Halliday 1985;Hanks 1992;Johnston 1992;Clark 1996;Langacker 2001;Hayashi 2005;Ginzburg & Poesio 2016;Keevallik 2018 for a selection of diverse examples of this position).…”

Section: Accommodating the Semiotic Diversity Of Conversation In Langsupporting

confidence: 72%

“…General theories of language have yet to fully integrate the contextual and interactional nature of language, even though these aspects align with cognitive-functional, usage-based linguistics. There is also specific work that directly addresses how such aspects of language use are essential to linguistic theory (e.g., Kress 1976;Silverstein 1976;Washabaugh 1981;Halliday 1985;Johnston 1992;Bavelas 1994;Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 1996;Langacker 2001). Prioritizing one function (propositional, referential) while dismissing others (interactional) is unable to provide a comprehensive account of language and distorts the complexity of language as it is actually used by speakers and signers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this way, visible bodily actions help speakers maintain the orderliness of conversation in spoken language contexts (Mondada 2007;Streeck 2009a;Kamunen 2018) and signed language contexts (e.g., Coates & Sutton-Spence 2001;McCleary & Leite 2013;Girard-Groeber 2015;de Vos et al 2015). In addition, such actions can be polyfunctional, expressing either multiple pragmatic meanings or combined with referential meanings (e.g., Johnston 1992;Jokinen 2009;Streeck 2009a;Healy 2012;Lepeut 2018;submitted;Gabarró-López 2020; see also Goodwin 1986).…”

Section: "Pragmatic" Meanings Of Various Manual and Non-manual Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Some interactional functions of finger pointing in signed language conversations

Ferrara

2020

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interlocutors participating in conversation collaborate with each other to coordinate their actions and talk. Research on spoken language conversations has shown that speakers use bodily gestures, in addition to speech, to regulate their interaction. The current study expands on this research by investigating how signed language users finger point to express interactional meanings. Studies of pointing in signed languages have largely focused on referential functions, as signers frequently point to refer to themselves and others, as well as visible and invisible referents. However, this study demonstrates how signers also finger point to deliver information, cite previous contributions, seek responses, manage turns, and give feedback. These interactional meanings are important, just as identifying discourse referents is important. Language theory should be able to accommodate this complexity of language in conversation, which involves an interplay between different types of semiosis (description, depiction, indexicality) in an inclusive, systematic way.

show abstract

Section: Accommodating the Semiotic Diversity Of Conversation In Langsupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: "Pragmatic" Meanings Of Various Manual and Non-manual Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Some interactional functions of finger pointing in signed language conversations

Ferrara

2020

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…'future' backwards, 'past' forwards). In this case it is indeed this contrastive function which is relevant in the movements: two or more things are placed in opposite, alternative, comparative, or corrective relations to each other (see Johnston 1992;Wilbur & Patschke 1999;van der Kooij & Crasborn 2006;Crasborn & van der Kooij 2013;Puupponen et al 2015;Jantunen 2016;Lackner 2017). I suggest here that when the contrastive function of head movements is not connected to a metaphoric concept of a sagittal time-line, its source of iconicity changes (see section 3.4) and the indexical ground becomes increasingly relevant.…”

Section: Iconic Features In Head Movementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards understanding nonmanuality: A semiotic treatment of signers’ head movements

Puupponen

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses a certain type of nonmanual action, signers' head movements, from a semiotic perspective. It presents a typology of head movements and their iconic, indexical and symbolic features based on Peircean and post-Peircean semiotics. The paper argues for the view that (i) indexical strategies are very prominent in head movements, (ii) iconic features are most evident in enacting, while non-enacting description is less common, (iii) symbolic types for tokens are infrequent, although some movements-such as nodding and shaking the head-may become more conventional or schematized, and (iv) different types of head movements involve different proportions of iconicity, indexicality and symbolicity as well as different degrees of control in their production and interpretation. The treatment of head movements is extended to a discussion of semiotic versatility in the signification of actions of a signer's body, as well as to the treatment of nonmanuals in the theoretical description of sign languages. Finally, the paper presents a perspective on nonmanuals in which different nonmanual cues are examples of how signification, and human cognition in general, are closely connected to the embodied experience of existing and navigating in the physical and social world around us.

show abstract

“…In an early study of Auslan (Johnston, 1992), it was observed that some mouth gestures appear to have a prosodic role. The upper face (eyebrows, eyes) and the lower face (mouth, tongue, cheeks) appeared to make different contributions to visual prosody in Auslan–the former analogous to pitch, the second analogous to stress.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Conventionalization of Mouth Actions in Australian Sign Language

Johnston¹,

Roekel

Schembri

2015

Lang Speech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the conventionalization of mouth actions in Australian Sign Language. Signed languages were once thought of as simply manual languages because the hands produce the signs which individually and in groups are the symbolic units most easily equated with the words, phrases and clauses of spoken languages. However, it has long been acknowledged that non-manual activity, such as movements of the body, head and the face play a very important role. In this context, mouth actions that occur while communicating in signed languages have posed a number of questions for linguists: are the silent mouthings of spoken language words simply borrowings from the respective majority community spoken language(s)? Are those mouth actions that are not silent mouthings of spoken words conventionalized linguistic units proper to each signed language, culturally linked semi-conventional gestural units shared by signers with members of the majority speaking community, or even gestures and expressions common to all humans? We use a corpus-based approach to gather evidence of the extent of the use of mouth actions in naturalistic Australian Sign Language-making comparisons with other signed languages where data is available--and the form/meaning pairings that these mouth actions instantiate.

show abstract

The realization of the linguistic metafunctions in a sign language

Cited by 8 publications

References 16 publications

Some interactional functions of finger pointing in signed language conversations

Some interactional functions of finger pointing in signed language conversations

Towards understanding nonmanuality: A semiotic treatment of signers’ head movements

On the Conventionalization of Mouth Actions in Australian Sign Language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About