Iconicity in Sign Language : A Theoretical and Methodological Point of View Marie-Anne Sallandre and Christian Cuxac Department of Linguistics, Paris VIII University 2 rue de la Liberté, F-93526 saint-Denis Cedex 02 - France
[email protected],
[email protected]
Abstract. This research comes within the framework of the linguistic theory of iconicity and cognitive grammar for French Sign Language (FSL). In this paper we briefly recall some crucial elements used to analyse any Sign Language (SL), especially transfers operations which appear to be the core of spatial grammar. Then we present examples from our video database with deaf native speakers engaged in narrative activities. Finally we try to discuss the difficulty but the importance of studying high iconic occurrences in natural continuous FSL discourse.
1
Introduction
Sign Languages (SL) are made up of a standard lexicon, a group of discrete and stabilised units which can be found in FSL dictionaries [1]. This standard lexicon is widely studied by linguistic and computer researchers. But the originality of SL is the possibility of having recourse to other structures, endowed with high iconic value and which function more or less independently of the standard lexicon. These structures are quite similar from one sign language to another, as Fusellier-Souza [2] showed for Brazilian Sign Language for example.
We made the hypothesis of the distinction between two different approaches [3, 4]: the primary iconisation split into two sub-branches, according to whether or not the process of iconisation serves the express aim of representing experience iconically : we shall term this "iconic intent". This process of iconisation represents the perceptual world ; the strong iconic resemblance of the forms. On the one hand, the categorization without iconic intent concerning the standard signs formation, spreads out through the meaning of general value, furthermore the iconicity established in the discrete units are preserved. On the other hand, the iconic intent, characterised by the meaning of specific value, allows a range of meaningful choice in the iconic large structure activated by the transfer operations. These structures are now called "Highly Iconic Structures". In order to analyse this iconicity in FSL discourse, a video database was elaborated with deaf native speakers. Linguistic primitives were then established to identify the
different transfers of person occurrences. But these types of data are difficult to handle, as we will see.
2
A Linguistic Model Based on Iconicity
2.1 Imagistic Iconicity : a Relevant Framework for Sign Languages The most common form of iconicity in Sign Language is Imagistic, because of the visual perception, that is, when there is a formal resemblance between the sign and what is being referred to in the extra-linguistic world of experience. Ex: [HOUSE] in FSL is signed by describing a roof (a part of the object). But imagistic iconicity can be completed by diagrammatic iconicity, according to Haiman's conception [5] : a type of syntactical iconicity (ex : word order, etc.) which has to be deeply investigated for Sign Language. 2.2 Highly Iconic Structures Highly Iconic Structures are a relevant part of a dynamic continuum [3]. These are not discrete units and their signifying form can be hardly transcribed into a written protocol. Their function is rather to represent the monstrative mode of ‘like this’ combined with ‘as if’, showing and acting out while telling (personal transfers and double transfers). It is an imagistic reconstitution of experience. The monstrative dimension "like this" can be activated at any moment through showing and imitating (as if I were the person of whom I speak, whatever his actions might be). For many years, SL researchers did not consider Highly Iconic Structures as linguistic structures and affirmed that it belonged to pantomime [6]. Today, thanks to French researchers such as Cuxac or Jouison, who studied natural SL, our conception has rather changed. 2.3 Transfer Operations The entirety of Highly Iconic Structures is obvious in transfer operations : transfers of form and size (showing and describing the form or size of an object), transfers of situation (showing a situation, as if we see the scene in the distance) and transfers of person. These cognitive operations consist of transferring the real world into the four dimensionality (three dimensions of space plus dimension of time) of signed discourse. In transfers of person, the signer "disappears" and "becomes" a protagonist in the narrative (human, animal or thing). His gestures correspond to the gestures effected by the character he refers to, and whose place he has taken [3, 4]. Thus, the signernarrator can embody a little boy, a dog, a tree, … These types of extremely iconic structures can be divided into :
• • •
personal transfer (complete role playing), half-transfer (role playing with brief standard signs), double transfer (combining a personal transfer for acting and a situational transfer for locative information or for a second character, simultaneously), aparte (that is an aside, as in theatrical convention), stereotype of personal transfer (borrowing gestures from hearing culture), pseudo-transfer (describing a character with his acts, almost like a personal transfer but with less corporal energy/investment).
• • •
Transfers of person are the most complex form of Highly Iconic Structures, compared with transfers of form, which express no process, and transfers of situation, which can only express motion and locative processes. This is why we decided to describe and analyse it [7]. In the literature of SL, transfers of person are considered as "role playing" [8] and as "point of view" or "referential shifter" [9].
Process of iconisation (semiotic intentionality) Highly Iconic Structures (with iconic intent)
Iconicity of standard signs - Lexicon (without iconic intent)
Transfers of size & form Transfers of situation Transfers of person Molecular character of signs
Compositionality
Standard generic items
Personal T. Stereotype of PT. Double T. Pseudo-T. Half-Transfer Aparte Fig. 1. Model of iconic grammar for Sign Language
3
Video Examples of Transfers in French Sign Language
Our study is based on a series of alternations involving transfers observed in a videotaped corpus of narrative by three deaf native speakers, and supplemented by elicitations from consultants [7]. We ourselves filmed signers engaged in different narrative activities : three narratives used in language acquisition, based on simple pictures of a complete story, and personal narratives with a free theme and way of being told. A new video corpus will help us to complete our present results.
3.1 Methodology We would like to insist on professional ethics when one is involved in SL researches [10] : first, signers must have confidence in the researcher to be able to produce natural signs. They must be born deaf and belong to the deaf community. Especially if they are aware of this cultural context, their Sign Language could be a very imagistic one, far from written and spoken dominant language structures. Finally, given these conditions, a "natural" SL can emerge (versus an artefact of language or a " laboratory SL ", composed only of lexical units) with many occurrences of High Iconicity structures.
3.2 Some examples of transfers
Fig. 2. The same occurrence "to climb on a rock " with a situational transfer by two different signers (dominant hand : process of climbing ; immobile hand : locative, the rock)
Fig. 3. A double transfer (two transfers, most complex operation) : the horse falls and hurts himself (body, mimicry and left hand : personal transfer) and the cow puts a bandage around its foreleg (right hand : situational transfer)
4
The Question of Linguistic Primitives to Discriminate Transfers
We would like to discuss the methodological and technical problems we had to fix the iconicity degree and nature of units and how to discriminate one transfer from another. Table 1. First try to discriminate transfers with low level and high level primitives Primitives
Transfers Transfer Transfer of form of & size situation
Gaze
Facial expression
Iconicity of signs
Towards hands (form) To express form and size Highly Iconic Structures
Towards hands To express form, size and process HIS
Transfer of person Personal transfer
Double transfer
Transfer stereotype
Pseudotransfer
Everywhere except towards interlocutor Of the character being embodied
HIS (+ standard units in dialogues)
HIS
Aparte
Everywhere
Towards interlocutor
Of the character being embodied (with reference to hearing culture)
Of the character being embodied (less dramatic)
HIS
HIS
(HIS) No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
The signer's
HIS + standard units
Process Process embodied
Halftransfer
Fig. 4. Video of problematic example : « to climb a tree » with a situational transfer (left) followed by a personal transfer (right). Which elements (primitives) allow us to discriminate these two different structures? We know that only the second one, the personal transfer, completely embodies the process; but it is a semantic (or high level) primitive.
Which primitives are useful for linguists : high level or low level primitives ? Actually, to determine if semantic or articulator criteria are the most relevant or if we have to combine both is a crucial question. Moreover, we observe that these criteria are problematic because different types of iconic structure appear alternatively (syntagmatic axis) and they can be superimposed (paradigmatic axis) [11]. These narrative practices, which are difficult to conceive in oral language, are frequently met in sign language and figure even as a truly cultural behaviour [3].
Conclusion We showed that transfers appear to be the core of spatial grammar and High Iconicity, due to their highly economic structures. But there are still many unsolved problems with respect to the iconicity continuum between variety of transfers and standard lexicon. In particular, when are these means of expressing a specific point of view preferred to a more neutral description? And when can they co-occur? Furthermore, the mode of communication depends on the capabilities of each person. When signing, the signer can always choose between highly iconic structures or a standard discourse, depending on what he/she wishes to express. In this research we also would like to prove that Highly Iconic Structures are genuine syntactic structures as structures which deal with standard lexicon. We cannot understand properly a SL discourse without High Iconicity units. But this type of extreme iconicity is particularly difficult to handle, because its units are simultaneous and not discrete items. The main contribution of this work is to develop a hierarchy between linguistic structures and to organise the iconic grammar theory for French Sign Language. We need consequently to find strong scientific primitives. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Deirdre Madden and Harry Clifton for corrections and comments on previous version of this manuscript, and also to Frédéric, Jean-Yves and Simon for their confidence and time.
References 1. 2. 3.
Moody, B.: La Langue des Signes. Dictionnaire bilingue LSF/Français. Volume 2 & 3, Editions IVT, Paris (1997) Fusellier-Souza, I. : Quand les gestes deviennent une proto-langue. DEA report (post graduate), Linguistics department, Paris VIII, Saint Denis. (1999) Cuxac, C.: La LSF, les voies de l'iconicité. Faits de Langues, Ophrys, Paris (2000)
4.
Cuxac, C.: French Sign Language : Proposition of a Structural Explanation by Iconicity. In Braffort, A. et al. (eds.) : Gesture-Based Communication in HumanComputer Interaction, International Gesture Workshop, GW'99, LNAI 1739, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1999) 165-184 5. Haiman, J. (ed.): Iconicity in Syntax. J. Benjamins, Amsterdam (1985) 6. Klima, E., Bellugi, U. (eds.) : The Signs of Language. Harvard University Press, Cambridge London (1979) 7. Sallandre, M.A.: La dynamique des transferts de personne en Langue des Signes Française. DEA report (post graduate), Linguistics department, Paris VIII, SaintDenis (1999) 8. Liddell, S.K. : Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual shifts. Cognitive Linguistics 9-3. Walter de Gruyter, New York (1998) 283-314 9. Emmorey, K., Reilly, J. (eds.) : Language, Gesture, and Space. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey (1995) 10. Braffort, A. : Research on Computer Science and Sign Language : Ethical Aspects. In Roy, D. and Panayi, M. (eds.) : LNAI, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2001). To be published in this volume. 11. Cuxac, C., Fusellier-Souza, I., Sallandre, M.A. : Iconicité et catégorisations dans les langues des signes. Sémiotiques 16. Didier Erudition, Paris (1999) 143-166
