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 30, Issue 1

Issues

Pointing and placing: Nominal grounding in Argentine Sign Language

Rocío Martínez
  • Instituto de Lingüística, Universidad de Buenos Aires and Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Sherman Wilcox
Published Online: 2018-11-28 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0010

Abstract

Grounding refers to expressions that establish a connection between the ground and the content evoked by a nominal or finite clause. In this paper we report on two grammatical implementations of nominal grounding in Argentine Sign Language: pointing and placing. For pointing constructions, we also examine distal-proximal pointing and directive force. We introduce the concept of placing, in which a sign is produced at a specific meaningful location in space. Two types of placing are discussed: Placing-for-Creating, in which a new meaningful location is created, and Placing-by-Recruiting, which recruits an existing meaningful location. We suggest that our analysis of pointing and placing provides an account of nominal grounding unified by general cognitive principles as described within the theory of Cognitive Grammar. Pointing is known to occur in all signed languages studied to date. Although previously undocumented, we suggest that placing is also common to many, perhaps all, signed languages.

Keywords: sign language; nominal grounding; pointing; placing; reference point

References

  • Barberà, Gemma. 2014. Use and functions of spatial planes in Catalan sign language (LSC) discourse. Sign Language Studies 14. 147–174.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Barberà, Gemma & Martine Zwets. 2013. Pointing and reference in sign language and spoken language: Anchoring vs. identifying. Sign Language Studies 13(4). 491–515.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H. 2003. Pointing and placing. In Satoro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 243–268. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

  • Cormier, Kearsy, Adam Schembri & Bencie Woll. 2013. Pronouns and pointing in sign languages. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics 137. 230–247.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Curiel, Mónica & María Ignacia Massone. 1993. Categorías gramaticales en la Lengua de Señas Argentina. Revista De Lingüística Teórica Y Aplicada 31. 27–53.Google Scholar

  • de Vos, Connie. 2015. The Kata Kolok pointing system: Morphemization and syntactic integration. Topics in Cognitive Science 7(1). 150–168.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 2006. Adjective classes in typological perspective. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Adjective class: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Druetta, M. R., Pablo Lemmo, Rocío A. Martínez & María I. Massone. 2010. Los destinatarios del discurso político Sordo en la Lengua de Señas Argentina (LSA). Lengua de Señas e Interpretación 1. 5–28.Google Scholar

  • Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish sign language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: SIGNUM-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Gernsbacher, Morton Ann & Suzanne Shroyer. 1989. The cataphoric use of the indefinite this in spoken narratives. Memory & Cognition 17(5). 536–540.CrossrefGoogle 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. 262–291.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Janzen, Terry. 2012. Two ways of conceptualizing space: Motivating the use of static and rotated vantage point space in ASL discourse. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 156–174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Janzen, Terry, Barbara O’Dea & Barbara Shaffer. 2001. The construal of events: Passives in American sign language. Sign Language Studies 1. 281–310.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jarque, Maria Josep & Esther Pascual. 2015. Direct discourse expressing evidential values in Catalan sign language. eHumanista/IVITRA 8. 421–445.Google Scholar

  • Johnston, Trevor. 2013. Towards a comparative semiotics of pointing actions in signed and spoken languages. Gesture 13. 109–142.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kendon, Adam. 2010. Pointing and the problem of ‘gesture’: Some reflections. Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata 10. 19–30.Google Scholar

  • Kita, Sotaro. 2003. Pointing: A foundational building block of human communication. In Sotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, pp. 1–8. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

  • Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I, Theoretical foundations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4. 1–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2001a. Topic, subject, and possessor. In Hanne Gram Simonsen & Rolf Theil Endresen (eds.), A cognitive approach to the verb: Morphological and constructional perspectives, 11–48. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2016. Nominal structure in cognitive grammar. Lubin, Poland: Marie-Curie Skłodowska University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2017. Evidentiality in cognitive grammar. In Juana Isabel Marín-Arrese, Gerda Haßler & Marta Carretero (eds.), Evidentiality revisited, 13–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Liddell, Scott K. 2000. Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away from agreement. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 303–320. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

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

  • Martínez, Rocío A. 2016. Reconsideración, desde un Enfoque Cognitivo-Prototípico, del adjetivo como clase de palabras en la Lengua de Señas Argentina. PhD. Dissertation, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar

  • Martínez, Rocío Anabel. 2013a. Algunos problemas de la atribución en la Lengua de Señas Argentina. Barcelona: Asociación de lingüistas e investigadores de la Lengua de Signos en Catalunya (LingSiC).Google Scholar

  • Martínez, Rocío Anabel. 2013b. Primer análisis de morfemas atributivos en sustantivos concretos de la Lengua de Señas Argentina. Santa Fe: Universidad del Litoral. V Simposio de la Asociación Argentina de Lingüística Cognitiva (AALiCo).Google Scholar

  • Martínez, Rocío Anabel. 2014. Primeras evidencias de metáforas conceptuales en la Lengua de Señas Argentina. Análisis de expresiones lingüísticas metafóricas relativas al tiempo 3. Buenos Aires: Actas del V Congreso Internacional Transformaciones culturales: Debates de la Teoría, la Crítica y la Lingüística.Google Scholar

  • Martínez, Rocío Anabel. 2015. Algunos aportes del enfoque cognitivo al estudio de clases de palabras en la Lengua de Señas Argentina. La Plata: II Congreso de la Delegación Argentina de la Asociación de Lingüística y Filología de América Latina (ALFAL) and VII Jornadas Internacionales de Investigación en Filología y Lingüística. Universidad Nacional de La Plata.Google Scholar

  • Martínez, Rocío Anabel, María Rosa Druetta & Pablo Lemmo. 2017. Historización y Análisis de Disputas Ideológicas En Torno Al Reconocimiento Legal de La Lengua de Señas Argentina. In Romana Castro Zambrano & Cleide Emilia Faye Pedrosa (eds.), Comunidades Sordas En América Latina. Lengua, Cultura, Educación e Identidad, 254–273. Florianópolis: Bookess.Google Scholar

  • Martínez, Rocío Anabel & Mariana Morón Usandivaras. 2013a. El doble mapeo en la Lengua de Señas Argentina: Análisis de señas de la comunicación y la cognición. Lengua de Señas e Interpretación 4. 37–63.Google Scholar

  • Martínez, Rocío Anabel & Mariana Morón Usandivaras. 2013b. Metonimia e iconicidad cognitiva en señas sustantivas concretas de la Lengua de Señas Argentina. Signo & Seña 23. 213–237.Google Scholar

  • Martínez, Rocío Anabel & Mariana Morón Usandivaras. 2016. El orden del adjetivo en la Lengua de Señas Argentina. Un estudio preliminar. RLA. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 54(1). 79–99.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Massone, María Ignacia. 1993. Diccionario Bilingüe Lengua de Señas Argentina- Español-Inglés. Buenos Aires: Sopena Argentina.Google Scholar

  • Massone, María Ignacia, Mónica Curiel, Virginia Buscaglia, Rosana Famularo, Marina Simón & Ignacio Carboni. 2000. La conversación en la Lengua de Señas Argentina. Buenos Aires: Edicial-Libros en Red.Google Scholar

  • Massone, María Ignacia & Emilia M. Machado. 1994. Lengua de Señas Argentina. Análisis y Vocabulario Bilingüe. Buenos Aires: Edicial.Google Scholar

  • Massone, María Ignacia & Rocío Anabel Martínez. 2013. Estudios del discurso en América Latina. Homenaje a Anamaría Harvey. In N. G. Pardo, D. García, T. Oteiza & M. C. Asqueta (eds.), La metáfora conceptual en el Discurso Político Sordo, 211–237. Bogotá: Asociación Latinoamericana de Estudios del Discurso (ALED).Google Scholar

  • Meier, Richard P. & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2013. The points of language. Humana Mente Journal Philosophy Studies 24. 151–176.Google Scholar

  • Mithun, Marianne. 1987. The grammatical nature and discourse power of demonstratives. In Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds.), Annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society, vol. 13, 184–194. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

  • Nilsson, Anna-Lena. 2016. Embodying metaphors: Signed language interpreters at work. Cognitive Linguistics 27. 35–65.Google Scholar

  • Pfau, Roland. 2011. A point well taken: On the typology and diachrony of pointing. In Gaurav Mathur & Donna Jo Napoli (eds.), Deaf around the world: The impact of language, 144–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Piwek, Paul, Robbert-Jan Beun & Anita Cremers. 2008. ‘Proximal’ and ‘distal’ in language and cognition: Evidence from deictic demonstratives in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 40(4). 694–718.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shaffer, Barbara. 2012. Reported speech as an evidentiality strategy in American sign language. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in language, 139–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Shaffer, Barbara & Terry Janzen. 2016. Modality and mood in American sign language. In Jan Nuyts & Johann van der Auwera (eds.), The Oxford handbook of mood and modality, 448–469. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Slobin, Dan I. 2006. Issues of linguistic typology in the study of sign language development of deaf children. In Brenda Schick, Marc Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children, 20–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Slobin, Dan I. 2008. Breaking the molds: Signed languages and the nature of human language. Sign Language Studies 8(2). 1–18.Google Scholar

  • Stokoe, William C. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf (8 Studies in Linguistics Occasional Papers). Buffalo: University of Buffalo.Google Scholar

  • Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2013. The point of agreement: Changing how we think about sign language, gesture, and agreement. Sign Language and Linguistics 16. 221–258.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wilcox, Sherman. 2006. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15. 119–147.Google Scholar

  • Wilcox, Sherman & Corrine Occhino. 2016. Constructing signs: Place as a symbolic structure in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 27. 371–404.Google Scholar

  • Wilcox, Sherman & Barbara Shaffer. 2006. Modality in American sign language. In William Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality, 207–237. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Xavier, André Nogueira & Sherman Wilcox. 2014. Necessity and possibility modals in Brazilian sign language (Libras). Linguistic Typology 18. 449–488.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-01-25

Accepted: 2018-07-27

Revised: 2018-07-26

Published Online: 2018-11-28

Published in Print: 2019-02-25


Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 85–121, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0010.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in