Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Divjak, Dagmar


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.902
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.297

CiteScore 2018: 2.09

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.075
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 2.063

Online
ISSN
1613-3641
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 26, Issue 2

Issues

Co-forming real space blends in tactile signed language dialogues

Johanna MeschORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0612-6304 / Eli RaanesORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2009-8872 / Lindsay FerraraORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3679-3404
Published Online: 2015-02-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0066

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.

Keywords: tactile signed language; Norwegian Sign Language; Swedish Sign Language; blending; meaning construction

References

  • Berge, Sigrid Slettebakk & Eli Raanes. 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 Studies 13(3). 350–371.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H & Richard J Gerrig. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66(4). 764–805.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

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

  • Cormier, Kearsy, Sandra Smith & Zed Sevcikova. 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 Education 18(3). 370–390.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Dudis, Paul. 2004. Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 223–238.Google Scholar

  • Earis, Helen & Kearsy Cormier. 2013. Point of view in British sign language and spoken English narrative discourse: The example of ‘the tortoise and the hare’. Language and Cognition 5(4). 313–343.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Edwards, Terra. 2012. Sensing the rhythms of everyday life: Temporal integration and tactile translation in the Seattle deaf-blind community. Language in Society 41(1). 29–71.CrossrefGoogle 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 Pragmatics 69. 22–41.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Enfield, Nick J. 2011. Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 285–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Enfield, Nick J & Jack Sidnell. 2014. Language presupposes an enchronic infrastructure for social interaction. In Daniel Dor, Chris Knight & Jerome Lewis (eds.), The social origins of language, 92–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Adele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 113–130. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Ferrara, Lindsay & Trevor Johnston. 2014. Elaborating who’s what: A study of constructed action and clause structure in Auslan (Australian sign language). Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(2). 193–215.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 117–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar

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

  • Fogel, Alan & Andrea Garvey. 2007. Alive communication. Infant Behavior & Development 30. 251–257.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Frankel, Mindy A. 2002. Deaf-blind interpreting: Interpreters’ use of negation in tactile American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 2(2). 169–181.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gibbs, Raymond W. 2003. Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language 84. 1–15.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

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

  • Goodwin, Charles. 1995. The negotiation of coherence within conversation. In Morten A. Gernsbacher & Talmy Givón(eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text, 117–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Gullacksen, Anne-Christine, Lena Göransson, Gunilla H Rönnblom, Anny Koppen & Anette R Jørgensen. 2011. Life adjustment and combined visual and hearing disability/deafblindness – an internal process over time. Stockholm: Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues.Google Scholar

  • Heath, Christian. 2002. Demonstrative suffering: The gestural (re)embodiment of symptoms. Journal of Communication 52. 597–616.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Hodge, Gabrielle & Trevor Johnston. 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 Linguistics 34(2). 262–291.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Holt, Elizabeth. 2000. Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(4). 425–454.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jacoby, Sally & Elinor Ochs. 1995. Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(3). 171–183.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Kimmel, Michael. 2012. Intersubjectivity at close quarters: How dancers of Tango Argentino use imagery for interaction and improvisation. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics IV(1). 76–124.Google Scholar

  • LaPolla, Randy. 2006. On grammatical relations as constraints on referent identification. In Tasaku Tsunoda & Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: Festschrift for Masoyoshi Shibatani, 139–151. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 143–188.Google Scholar

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

  • Liddell, Scott K. 1995. Real, surrogate, and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL. In Karen Emmorey & Judy Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 19–41. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

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

  • Liddell, Scott & Melanie Metzger. 1998. Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30. 657–697.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1995. The point of view predicate in American Sign Language. In Karen Emmorey & Judy Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture and space, 155–170. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

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

  • MacGregor, David. 2004. Real space blends in spoken language: Evidence from “Mr. Roberts”. Gesture 4(1). 75–89.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

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

  • Mesch, Johanna. 2013. Tactile signing with one-handed perception. Sign Language Studies 13(2). 238–263.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Mesch, Johanna, Lars Wallin, Anna-Lena Nilsson & Brita Bergman. 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

  • 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.Google Scholar

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

  • Petronio, Karen & Valerie Dively. 2006. Yes, #no, visibility, and variation in ASL and tactile ASL. Sign Language Studies 7(1). 57–98.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Quinto-Pozos, David. 2002. Deictic points in the visual-gestural and tactile-gestural modalities. In Richard Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 442–467. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Raanes, Eli & Sigrid Slettebakk Berge. 2011. Tolketjenesten: Avgjørende for døvblindes deltagelse [Interpreter services: Decisive for the participation of the deaf-blind]. Fontene Forskning 1. 4–17.Google Scholar

  • Rayman, Jennifer. 1999. Storytelling in the visual mode: A comparison of ASL and English. In Elizabeth Winston (ed.), Storytelling and conversation: Discourse in deaf communities, 59–82. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Sacks, Harvey & Gail Jefferson. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Schembri, Adam. 2003. Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in signed language. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 3–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.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.Google Scholar

  • Sidnell, Jack. 2006. Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language & Social Interaction 39(4). 377–409.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Streeck, Jürgen. 2003. The body taken for granted: Lingering dualism in research on social interaction. In Phillip Glenn, Curtis D. LeBaron & Jenny Mandelbaum (eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper, 427–440. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.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, 27–46. Colorado, CA: National Association of the Deaf.Google Scholar

  • Supalla, Ted. 2003. Revisiting visual analogy in ASL classifier predicates. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 249–257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Wilcox, Sherman. 2004. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 119–147.Google Scholar

  • Wilcox, Sherman. 2012. Language in motion: A framework for unifying spoken, signed language, and gesture. Anuari de Filologia. Estudis de Linguistica 2. 49–57.Google Scholar

About the article

Johanna Mesch

Johanna Mesch, PhD, is deaf, and works as an Associate Professor in sign language linguistics and Head of the Sign Language Section of the Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. Her PhD research focused on conversations of deafblind people in tactile Swedish Sign Language. During 2009-2011, she was the principal investigator for a three-year project to set up a corpus of Swedish Sign Language, financed by a grant from Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. Her research interests include tactile sign language of deafblind people, cross-linguistic comparison of signed languages, signed poetry, and corpus-based studies.

Eli Raanes

Eli Raanes is a signed language linguist who works with interpreting issues, language acquisition and language variation. She is a registered interpreter for the deaf and deafblind in Noway, and her PhD research focused on Norwegian Tactile Sign Language. She has also worked with signed language and interpreter education curriculum development for many years and has been involved the development of the interpreter profession in Norway. She currently is an associate professor at Sør-Trøndelag University College in the program of Sign Language and Interpreter Training.

Lindsay Ferrara

Lindsay Ferrara is a signed language linguist with interests in cognitive grammar, cognitive semiotics, and multi-modal interaction and communication. She has international experience in the field of signed language research, having completed her Masters degree in the USA focusing on the linguistics of American Sign Language, and then continuing on with her PhD in linguistics at Macquarie University looking at the distribution of depicting signs in Auslan (the signed language used in Australia). More recently, she has moved to Norway to join Sør-Trøndelag University College as an associate professor in the program of Sign Language and Interpreter Training.


Received: 2014-09-01

Revised: 2014-12-05

Accepted: 2014-12-19

Published Online: 2015-02-25

Published in Print: 2015-05-01


Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 261–287, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0066.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in