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

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Constructed Action, the Clause and the Nature of Syntax in Finnish Sign Language

Tommi Jantunen
  • Sign Language Center, Department of Language and Communication Studies, P.O. Box 35 (F), FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä, Finland
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-03-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0004

Abstract

This paper investigates the interplay of constructed action and the clause in Finnish Sign Language (FinSL). Constructed action is a form of gestural enactment in which the signers use their hands, face and other parts of the body to represent the actions, thoughts or feelings of someone they are referring to in the discourse. With the help of frequencies calculated from corpus data, this article shows firstly that when FinSL signers are narrating a story, there are differences in how they use constructed action. Then the paper argues that there are differences also in the prototypical structure, linkage type and non-manual activity of clauses, depending on the presence or non-presence of constructed action. Finally, taking the view that gesturality is an integral part of language, the paper discusses the nature of syntax in sign languages and proposes a conceptualization in which syntax is seen as a set of norms distributed on a continuum between a categorial-conventional end and a gradient-unconventional end.

Keywords: constructed action; gesturality; clause; syntax; Finnish Sign Language

References

  • Cormier, Kearsy, Sandra Smith, Martine Zwets. 2013. Framing constructed action in British Sign Language narratives. Journal of Pragmatics 55. 119-139.Google Scholar

  • Cormier, Kearsy, Sandra Smith, Zed Sevcikova Sehyr. 2015a. Rethinking constructed action. Sign Language & Linguistics 18. 167-204.Google Scholar

  • Cormier, Kearsy, Jordan Fenlon, Adam Schembri. 2015b. Indicating verbs in British Sign Language favour motivated use of space. Open Linguistics 1. 684-707.Google Scholar

  • Crasborn, Onno, Han Sloetjes, Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora. In: Crasborn, Onno, Eleni Efthimiou, Thomas Hanke, Ernst D. Thoutenhoofd, Inge Zwitserlood (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Construction and Exploitation of Sign Language Corpora, 1 June, Marrakech, Marocco. Paris: ELRA 2008. 39-43.Google Scholar

  • Cuxac, Christian. 2000. La Langue des Signes Française. Les Voies de l’Iconicité. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, R. M. W., A. Y. Aikhenvald. 2000. Introduction. In: Dixon, R. M. W., A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, 1-29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 2006. Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In: Dixon, R. M. W., A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology, 1-48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory, vol. 1: Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dryer, Matthew. S. 2006. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and Basic Linguistic Theory. In: Ameka, F. K. Ameka, A. Dench, N. Evans (eds.), Catching Language: Issues in Grammar Writing, 207-234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Emmorey, Karen. 1999. Do signers gesture? In: Messing, Lynn S., Ruth Campbell (eds.), Gesture, speech and sign, 133-159. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Enfield, Nick. 2009. The anatomy of meaning: Speech, gesture, and composite utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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. 193-215.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gil, David. 2008 How complex are isolating languages? In: Miestamo, Matti, Kaius Sinnemäki, Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 109-131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2007a. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11. 119-132.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2007b. Coordination. In: Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Complex constructions, 1-51. Volume 2. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86. 663-687.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hodge, Gabrielle. 2013. Patterns from a signed language corpus: Clause-like units in Auslan (Australian sign language). PhD thesis. Sydney: Macquarie University, Australia.Google Scholar

  • Hodge, Gabrielle, Lindsay Ferrara. Showing the story: Enactment as performance in Auslan narratives. In: Gawne, L., J. Vaughan (eds.), Selected Papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Melbourne: University of Melbourne 2013. 372-397.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). Pre-publication manuscript.Google Scholar

  • Jantunen, Tommi. 2008. Fixed and free: Order of the verbal predicate and its core arguments in declarative transitive clauses in Finnish Sign Language. SKY Journal of Linguistics 21. 83-123.Google Scholar

  • Jantunen, Tommi. 2009. Tavu ja lause: tutkimuksia kahden sekventiaalisen perusyksikön olemuksesta suomalaisessa viittomakielessä (Syllable and sentence: Studies on the nature of two sequential basic units in FinSL). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar

  • Jantunen, Tommi. 2010. Suomalaisen viittomakielen pääsanaluokat (The main parts of speech in FinSL). In: Jantunen, Tommi (ed.), Näkökulmia viittomaan ja viittomistoon (Perspectives on sign and lexicon), 57-78. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar

  • Jantunen, Tommi. 2013. Ellipsis in Finnish Sign Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36. 303-332.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jantunen, Tommi. 2015a. Gesture in (Finnish) Sign Language. Paper presented at the Language-gesture connection -seminar in the University of Oulu, Finland, October 22, 2015.Google Scholar

  • Jantunen, Tommi. 2015b. How long is the sign? Linguistics 53. 93-124.Google Scholar

  • Jantunen, Tommi. 2016. Clausal coordination in Finnish Sign Language. Studies in Language 40. 204-234.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jantunen, Tommi. 2017. Elliptical phenomena in Finnish Sign Language. In: van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, Tanja Temmerman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis, in preparation for publication with Oxford University Press, to appear in summer 2017.Google Scholar

  • Jantunen, Tommi, Outi Pippuri, Tuija Wainio, Anna Puupponen, Jorma Laaksonen. Annotated video corpus of FinSL with Kinect and computer-vision data. In: Efthimiou, Eleni, Fotinea Stavroula-Evita, Thomas Hanke, Julie Hochgesang, Jette Kristoffersen, Johanna Mesch (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpus Mining, 28 May, Portoroz, Slovenia. Paris: ELRA 2016. 93-100.Google Scholar

  • Johnston, Trevor. 2016. Auslan Corpus annotation guidelines. Macquarie University (Sydney) & La Trobe University (Melbourne). February 2016 version.Google Scholar

  • Karppa, Matti, Ville Viitaniemi, Marcos Luzardo, Jorma Laaksonen, Tommi Jantunen. SLMotion: An extensible sign language oriented video analysis tool. In: Calzolari, Nicoletta, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis. (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), 28-30 May, Reykjavik, Iceland. Paris: ELRA 2014. 1886-1891.Google Scholar

  • Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kendon, Adam. 2008. Some reflections on the relationship between ‘gesture’ and ‘sign’. Gesture 8. 348-366.Google Scholar

  • Ladewig, Silwa. 2014. Creating multimodal utterances: The linear integration of gestures into speech. In Müller, Cienki, Fricke, Ladewig, McNeill, Bressem (eds.), Body-Language-Communication, 1662-1677. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discource referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lukasczyk, Ulrika. 2008. SANOTTUA, AJATELTUA JA TEHTYA. Referointi kolmessa suomalaisella viittomakielella tuotetussa fiktiivisessa kertomuksessa (Said, thought, and done: Referencing in three fictive FinSL narratives). MA thesis. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland.Google Scholar

  • Luzardo, Marcos, Ville Viitaniemi, Matti Karppa, Jorma Laaksonen, Tommi Jantunen. Estimating head pose and state of facial elements for sign language video. In: Crasborn, Onno, Eleni Efthimiou, Stavroula-Evita Fotinea, Thomas Hanke, Julie Hochgesang, Jette Kristoffersen, Johanna Mesch (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Beyond the Manual Channel, 31 May, Reykjavik, Iceland. Paris: ELRA 2014. 105-112.Google Scholar

  • Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, Where Are You? New York: Dial Press.Google Scholar

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

  • McNeil, David. 2000. Language and gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62. 56-119.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Okrent, Arinka. 2002. A modality-free notion of gesture and how it can help us with the morpheme vs. gesture question in sign language linguistics (or at least give us some criteria to work with). In: Meier, Richar P., Kearsy Cormier, David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 175-198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Padden, Carol. 1990. The Relation Between Space and Grammar in ASL Verb Morphology. In Lucas, Ceil (ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues, 118-132. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet Press.Google Scholar

  • Puupponen, Anna. 2018. The relationship between the movements and positions of the head and the torso in Finnish Sign Language. To appear in Sign Language Studies 18.Google Scholar

  • Puupponen, Anna, Tommi Jantunen, Ritva Takkinen, Tuija Wainio, Outi Pippuri. Taking non-manuality into account in collecting and analyzing Finnish Sign Language video data. In: Crasborn, Onno, Eleni Efthimiou, Stavroula-Evita Fotinea, Thomas Hanke, Julie Hochgesang, Jette Kristoffersen, Johanna Mesch (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Beyond the Manual Channel, 31 May, Reykjavik, Iceland. Paris: ELRA 2014. 143-148.Google Scholar

  • Puupponen, Anna, Tuija Wainio, Birgitta Burger, Tommi Jantunen. 2015. Head movements in Finnish Sign Language on the basis of Motion Capture data: A study of the form and function of nods, nodding, head thrusts, and head pulls. Sign Language & Linguistics 18. 41-89.Google Scholar

  • Puupponen, Anna, Tommi Jantunen, Johanna Mesch. The alignment of head nods with syntactic units in Finnish Sign Language and Swedish Sign Language. In: Proc. Speech Prosody 2016, 31 May-3 June, Boston, USA. 168-172.Google Scholar

  • Salonen, Juhana, Ritva Takkinen, Anna Puupponen, Outi Pippuri, Henri Nieminen. Creating the corpus of Finland’s sign languages. In: Efthimiou, Eleni, Fotinea Stavroula-Evita, Thomas Hanke, Julie Hochgesang, Jette Kristoffersen, Johanna Mesch (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpus Mining, 28 May, Portoroz, Slovenia. Paris: ELRA 2016. 179-184.Google Scholar

  • Sandler, Wendy, Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Suomalaisen viittomakielen perussanakirja [The basic dictionary of FinSL]. 1998. Helsinki: KL Support Oy.Google Scholar

  • Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Van Valin, Robert D., Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Vermeerbergen, Myriam. 2006. Past and current trends in sign language research. Language & Communication 26. 168-192.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-11-17

Accepted: 2017-02-22

Published Online: 2017-03-25

Published in Print: 2017-01-26


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 65–85, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0004.

Export Citation

© 2017. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in