Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access December 31, 2019

Spatial Vantage Points in Norwegian Sign Language

  • Lindsay Ferrara EMAIL logo and Torill Ringsø
From the journal Open Linguistics


Previous studies on perspective in spatial signed language descriptions suggest a basic dichotomy between either a route or a survey perspective, which entails either the signer being conceptualized as a mobile agent within a life-sized scene or the signer in a fixed position as an external observer of a scaled-down scene. We challenge this dichotomy by investigating the particular couplings of vantage point position and mobility engaged during various types of spatial language produced across eight naturalistic conversations in Norwegian Sign Language. Spatial language was annotated for the purpose of the segment, the size of the environment described, the signs produced, and the location and mobility of vantage points. Analysis revealed that survey and route perspectives, as characterized in the literature, do not adequately account for the range of vantage point combinations observed in conversations (e.g., external, but mobile, vantage points). There is also some preliminary evidence that the purpose of the spatial language and the size of the environments described may also play a role in how signers engage vantage points. Finally, the study underscores the importance of investigating spatial language within naturalistic conversational contexts.


Bowerman, Melissa. 1996. Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Paul Bloom, Mary A Peterson, Llynn Nadel & Merrill F Garrett (eds.), Language and space, 385-436. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cormier, Kearsy, Quinto-Pozos, David, Sevcikova, Zed, & Schembri, Adam. 2012. Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation processes in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language and Communication 32(4), 329-348. doi: in Google Scholar

Coventry, Kenny R, Tenbrink, Thora, & Bateman, John A. 2009. Introduction-Spatial language and dialogue: Navigating the domain. In Kenny R Coventry, Thora Tenbrink & John A Bateman (eds.), Spatial language and dialogue, 1-7. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199554201.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Erich, Veronika & Koster, Charlotte. 1983. Discourse organization and sentence form: The structure of room descriptions in Dutch. Discourse Processes 6(2), 169-195. doi: in Google Scholar

Emmorey, Karen, & Falgier, Brenda. 1999. Talking about space with space: Describing environments in ASL. In Elizabeth Winston (ed.), Storytelling and conversation: Discourse in deaf communities, 3-26. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Emmorey, Karen, Tversky, Barbara, & Taylor, Holly. 2000. Using space to describe space: Perspective in speech, sign, and gesture. Spatial Cognition and Computation 2(3), 157-180. doi: in Google Scholar

Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 2015. Perspective in signed discourse: The privileged status of the signer’s locus and gaze. Open Linguistics 1, 411-431. doi: in Google Scholar

Ferrara, Lindsay, & Halvorsen, Rolf Piene. 2017. Depicting and describing meanings with iconic signs in Norwegian Sign Language. Gesture 16(3), 371-395. doi: in Google Scholar

Ferrara, Lindsay, & Hodge, Gabrielle. 2018. Language as description, indication, and depiction. Frontiers in Psychology 9, 716. doi: in Google Scholar

Forker, Diana. 2012. Spatial relations in Hinuq and Bezhta. In Luna Filipović & Kasia M Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures: Linguistic diversity, 15-34. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.36.03forSearch in Google Scholar

Haualand, Hilde and Holmström, Ingela 2019. When language recognition and language shaming go hand in hand–sign language ideologies in Sweden and Norway. Deafness & Education International 21(2-3), 99-115. doi: in Google Scholar

Hartigan, John A., & Kleiner, Beat. 1984. A mosaic of television ratings. The American Statistician 38(1), 32-35. doi: in Google Scholar

Johnston, Trevor. 2012. Lexical frequency in sign languages. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 17(2), 163-193. doi: in Google Scholar

Johnston, Trevor. 2016. Auslan corpus annotation guidelines. Manuscript. Macquarie University. Sydney. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Johnston, Trevor, & Schembri, Adam. 1999. On defining Lexeme in a Signed Language. Sign Language and Linguistics 2(2), 115-185. doi: in Google Scholar

Johnston, Trevor, & Schembri, Adam. 2010. Variation, lexicalization and grammaticalization in signed languages. Langage et société 131(March), 19-35.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1996. Language and space. Annual Review of Anthropology 2, 353-382. doi: in Google Scholar

Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615054Search in Google Scholar

Linde, Charlotte, & Labov, William. 1975. Spatial networks as a site for the study of language and thought. Language 51(4), 924-939. doi: in Google Scholar

McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Metzger, Melanie. 1995. Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities, 255-271. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Meyer, David, Zeileis, Achim, & Hornik, Kurt. 2006. The strucplot framework: Visualizing multi-way contingency tables with vcd. Journal of Statistical Software 17(3), 1-48. doi: in Google Scholar

Morgan, Gary. (1999). Event packaging in British Sign Language discourse. In Elizabeth Winston (ed.), Storytelling and conversation, discourse in deaf communities, 27-58. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Parrill, Fey, Stec, Kashmiri, Quinto-Pozos, David, & Rimehaug, Sebastian. 2016. Linguistic, gestural, and cinematographic viewpoint: An analysis of ASL and English narrative. Cognitive Linguistics 27(3), 345-369. doi: in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1955. Philosophical writings of Peirce. New York, NY: Dover Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Perniss, Pamela. 2007. Achieving spatial coherence in German Sign Language narratives: The use of classifiers and perspective. Lingua 117(7), 1315-1338. doi: in Google Scholar

Perniss, Pamela. 2012. Use of sign space. In Roland Pfau, M Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 412-431. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110261325.412Search in Google Scholar

Puupponen, Anna. 2019. Towards understanding nonmanuality: A semiotic treatment of signers’ head movements. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 4(1), 39. doi: in Google Scholar

Quinto-Pozos, David, & Parrill, Fey. 2015. Signers and co-speech gesturers adopt similar strategies for portraying viewpoint in narratives. Topics in Cognitive Science 7, 12-35. doi: in Google Scholar

Schober, Michael. 1993. Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition 47, 1-24. doi: in Google Scholar

Stec, Kashmiri. 2012. Meaningful shifts: A review of the viewpoint markers in co-speech gesture and sign language. Gesture 12(3), 327-360. doi: in Google Scholar

Taylor, Holly, & Tversky, Barbara. 1996. Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 35(3), 371-391. doi: in Google Scholar

Watson, Matthew E, Pickering, Martin J, & Branigan, Holly P. 2009. Why dialogue methods are important for investigating spatial language. In Kenny R Coventry, Thora Tenbrink & John A Bateman (eds.), Spatial language and dialogue, 8-22. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199554201.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Wittenburg, Peter, Brugman, Hennie, Russel, Albert, Klassmann, Alex, & Sloetjes, Han, ELAN: a professional framework for multimodality research. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006), 1556-1559. doi: in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-05-13
Accepted: 2019-10-25
Published Online: 2019-12-31

© 2019 Lindsay Ferrara et al., published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.

Downloaded on 6.12.2023 from
Scroll to top button