Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton February 25, 2015

Co-forming real space blends in tactile signed language dialogues

Johanna Mesch ORCID logo, Eli Raanes ORCID logo and Lindsay Ferrara ORCID logo
From the journal Cognitive Linguistics

Abstract

This article reports on a linguistic study examining the use of real space blending in the tactile signed languages of Norwegian and Swedish signers who are both deaf and blind. Tactile signed languages are typically produced by interactants in contact with each other’s hands while signing. Of particular interest to this study are utterances which not only consist of the signer producing signs with his or her own hands (or other body parts), but which also recruit the other interactant’s hands (or another body part). These utterances, although perhaps less frequent, are co-constructed, in a very real sense, and they illustrate meaning construction during emerging, embodied discourse. Here, we analyze several examples of these types of utterances from a cognitive linguistic and cognitive semiotic perspective to explore how interactants prompt meaning construction through touch and the involvement of each other’s bodies during a particular type of co-regulation.

Acknowledgements

We would first like to thank Georg L. Bjerkli for the illustrations in Figures 7 and 10 and also for his help in the collection of the Norwegian Sign Language data that was shown in Figure 3. We would also like to thank all of signers who participated in our data collection. And finally, we are especially grateful to Gabrielle Hodge, Laura Janda, and three anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments and feedback helped to strengthen this paper. All errors are our own.

References

Berge, Sigrid Slettebakk & EliRaanes. 2013. Coordinating the chain of utterances: An analysis of communicative flow and turn-taking in an interpreted group dialogue for deaf-blind persons. Sign Language Studies13(3). 350371. Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H & Richard JGerrig. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language66(4). 764805. Search in Google Scholar

Collins, Steven. 2004. Adverbial morphemes in tactile American sign language. Cincinnati, OH: Union Institute and University dissertation. Search in Google Scholar

Cormier, Kearsy, DavidQuinto-Pozos, ZedSevcikova & AdamSchembri. 2012. Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation processes in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language and Communication32(4). 329348. Search in Google Scholar

Cormier, Kearsy, SandraSmith & ZedSevcikova. 2013. Predicate structures, gesture and simultaneity in representation of action in British sign language: Evidence from deaf children and adults. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education18(3). 370390. Search in Google Scholar

Dudis, Paul. 2004. Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics15(2). 223238. Search in Google Scholar

Earis, Helen & KearsyCormier. 2013. Point of view in British sign language and spoken English narrative discourse: The example of ‘the tortoise and the hare’. Language and Cognition5(4). 313343. Search in Google Scholar

Edwards, Terra. 2012. Sensing the rhythms of everyday life: Temporal integration and tactile translation in the Seattle deaf-blind community. Language in Society41(1). 2971. Search in Google Scholar

Edwards, Terra. 2014. From compensation to integration: Effects of the pro-tactile movement on the sublexical structure of tactile American sign language. Journal of Pragmatics69. 2241. Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, Nick J. 2009. The anatomy of meaning: Speech, gesture, and composite utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, Nick J. 2011. Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In TanyaStivers, LorenzaMondada & JakobSteensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 285312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, Nick J & JackSidnell. 2014. Language presupposes an enchronic infrastructure for social interaction. In DanielDor, ChrisKnight & JeromeLewis (eds.), The social origins of language, 92104. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles & MarkTurner. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In AdeleGoldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 113130. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles & MarkTurner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books. Search in Google Scholar

Ferrara, Lindsay. 2012. The grammar of depiction: Exploring gesture and language in Australian sign language (Auslan). Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University dissertation. Search in Google Scholar

Ferrara, Lindsay & TrevorJohnston. 2014. Elaborating who’s what: A study of constructed action and clause structure in Auslan (Australian sign language). Australian Journal of Linguistics34(2). 193215. Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 117137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company. Search in Google Scholar

Fogel, Alan. 1993. Developing through relationships: Origins of communication, self and culture. Chicago, IL: Chicago Press. Search in Google Scholar

Fogel, Alan & AndreaGarvey. 2007. Alive communication. Infant Behavior & Development30. 251257. Search in Google Scholar

Frankel, Mindy A. 2002. Deaf-blind interpreting: Interpreters’ use of negation in tactile American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies2(2). 169181. Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. 2003. Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language84. 115. Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 2005. Context as other minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Goode, David. 1994. A world without words: The social construction of children born deaf and blind. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles. 1995. The negotiation of coherence within conversation. In Morten A.Gernsbacher & TalmyGivón(eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text, 117113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Gullacksen, Anne-Christine, LenaGöransson, Gunilla HRönnblom, AnnyKoppen & Anette RJørgensen. 2011. Life adjustment and combined visual and hearing disability/deafblindness – an internal process over time. Stockholm: Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues. Search in Google Scholar

Heath, Christian. 2002. Demonstrative suffering: The gestural (re)embodiment of symptoms. Journal of Communication52. 597616. Search in Google Scholar

Hodge, Gabrielle. 2014. Patterns from a signed language corpus: Clause-like units in Auslan (Australian sign language). Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University dissertation. Search in Google Scholar

Hodge, Gabrielle & TrevorJohnston. 2014. Points, depictions, gestures and enactment: Partly lexical and non-lexical signs as core elements of single clause-like units in Auslan (Australian sign language). Australian Journal of Linguistics34(2). 262291. Search in Google Scholar

Holt, Elizabeth. 2000. Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction33(4). 425454. Search in Google Scholar

Jacoby, Sally & ElinorOchs. 1995. Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction28(3). 171183. Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, Mark. 2007. The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Search in Google Scholar

Kimmel, Michael. 2012. Intersubjectivity at close quarters: How dancers of Tango Argentino use imagery for interaction and improvisation. Journal of Cognitive SemioticsIV(1). 76124. Search in Google Scholar

LaPolla, Randy. 2006. On grammatical relations as constraints on referent identification. In TasakuTsunoda & TaroKageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: Festschrift for Masoyoshi Shibatani, 139151. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: Chicago Press. Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics12(2). 143188. Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Liddell, Scott K. 1995. Real, surrogate, and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL. In KarenEmmorey & JudyReilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 1941. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Search in Google Scholar

Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American sign language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Liddell, Scott & MelanieMetzger. 1998. Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics30. 657697. Search in Google Scholar

Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1995. The point of view predicate in American Sign Language. In KarenEmmorey & JudyReilly (eds.), Language, gesture and space, 155170. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Search in Google Scholar

Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

MacGregor, David. 2004. Real space blends in spoken language: Evidence from “Mr. Roberts”. Gesture4(1). 7589. Search in Google Scholar

Maturana, Humberto R. & Francisco J.Varela. 1987. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications. Search in Google Scholar

Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, where are you?New York: Dial Press. Search in Google Scholar

Mesch, Johanna. 1998. Teckenspråk i taktil form: turtagning och frågor i dövblindas samtal på teckenspråk [Tactile sign language: Turn taking and questions in signed conversations of deaf-blind people]. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University Dissertation. Search in Google Scholar

Mesch, Johanna. 2004. Viitotaan yhdessä. Tietoa taktiilista viittomakielestä [let us sign together. Research information about tactile sign language]. Suomen kuurosokeat ry. Julkaisuja A3. [The Finnish deafblind association. Publications A3.] Tampere: Cityoffset. Search in Google Scholar

Mesch, Johanna. 2013. Tactile signing with one-handed perception. Sign Language Studies13(2). 238263. Search in Google Scholar

Mesch, Johanna. 2014. Dataset. Project shared signing space in tactile Swedish Sign Language 2013. Sign Language Section, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. Search in Google Scholar

Mesch, Johanna, LarsWallin, Anna-LenaNilsson & BritaBergman. 2012. Dataset. Swedish Sign Language Corpus project 2009–2011 (version 1). Sign Language Section, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. http://www.ling.su.se/teckensprakskorpus Search in Google Scholar

Metzger, Melanie. 1995. Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In CeilLucas (ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities, 255271. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Mulrooney, Kristin. 2009. Extraordinary from the ordinary: Personal experience narratives in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Petronio, Karen & ValerieDively. 2006. Yes, #no, visibility, and variation in ASL and tactile ASL. Sign Language Studies7(1). 5798. Search in Google Scholar

Quinto-Pozos, David. 2002. Deictic points in the visual-gestural and tactile-gestural modalities. In RichardMeier, KearsyCormier & DavidQuinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 442467. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Raanes, Eli. 2006. Å gripe inntrykk og utttrykk: Interaksjon og meningsdanning i døvblindes samtaler: En studie av et utvalg dialoger på taktilt norsk tegnspråk [To catch impressions and expressions: Interaction and meaning construction in deafblind people’s conversation: A study on tactile Norwegian Sign Language dialogues]. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology dissertation. Search in Google Scholar

Raanes, Eli & SigridSlettebakk Berge. 2011. Tolketjenesten: Avgjørende for døvblindes deltagelse [Interpreter services: Decisive for the participation of the deaf-blind]. Fontene Forskning1. 417. Search in Google Scholar

Rayman, Jennifer. 1999. Storytelling in the visual mode: A comparison of ASL and English. In ElizabethWinston (ed.), Storytelling and conversation: Discourse in deaf communities, 5982. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Rommetveit, Ragnar. 1974. On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. London: Wiley. Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey & GailJefferson. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell. Search in Google Scholar

Schembri, Adam. 2003. Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in signed language. In KarenEmmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 334. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, Sandrine. 2009. Stratégies de synchronisation interactionnelle: Alternance conversationnelle et rétroaction en cours de discours chez des locuteurs sourdaveugles pratiquant la Langue des Signes Française tactile. Paris: Paris 8 dissertation. Search in Google Scholar

Sidnell, Jack. 2006. Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language & Social Interaction39(4). 377409. Search in Google Scholar

Streeck, Jürgen. 2003. The body taken for granted: Lingering dualism in research on social interaction. In PhillipGlenn, Curtis D.LeBaron & JennyMandelbaum (eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper, 427440. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Search in Google Scholar

Supalla, Ted. 1978. Morphology of verbs of location and motion in American Sign Language. In C.Caccamise & D.Hicks (eds.), Second national symposium on sign language research and teaching, 2746. Colorado, CA: National Association of the Deaf. Search in Google Scholar

Supalla, Ted. 2003. Revisiting visual analogy in ASL classifier predicates. In KarenEmmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 249257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking voices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Taub, Sarah. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Wilcox, Sherman. 2004. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics15(2). 119147. Search in Google Scholar

Wilcox, Sherman. 2012. Language in motion: A framework for unifying spoken, signed language, and gesture. Anuari de Filologia. Estudis de Linguistica2. 4957. Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2014-9-1
Revised: 2014-12-5
Accepted: 2014-12-19
Published Online: 2015-2-25
Published in Print: 2015-5-1

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton