Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T21:50:37.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The categorical role of structurally iconic signs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2017

Brent Strickland ,
Valentina Aristodemo ,
Jeremy Kuhn  and
Carlo Geraci
Brent Strickland
Affiliation:
Departement d'Etudes Cognitives, Ecole Normale Superieure – PSL Research University, Institut Jean Nicod (ENS, EHESS, CNRS), 75005 Paris, [email protected]@[email protected]@gmail.com
Valentina Aristodemo
Affiliation:
Departement d'Etudes Cognitives, Ecole Normale Superieure – PSL Research University, Institut Jean Nicod (ENS, EHESS, CNRS), 75005 Paris, [email protected]@[email protected]@gmail.com
Jeremy Kuhn
Affiliation:
Departement d'Etudes Cognitives, Ecole Normale Superieure – PSL Research University, Institut Jean Nicod (ENS, EHESS, CNRS), 75005 Paris, [email protected]@[email protected]@gmail.com
Carlo Geraci
Affiliation:
Departement d'Etudes Cognitives, Ecole Normale Superieure – PSL Research University, Institut Jean Nicod (ENS, EHESS, CNRS), 75005 Paris, [email protected]@[email protected]@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Goldin-Meadow & Brentari (G-M&B) argue that, for sign language users, gesture – in contrast to linguistic sign – is iconic, highly variable, and similar to spoken language co-speech gesture. We discuss two examples (telicity and absolute gradable adjectives) that challenge the use of these criteria for distinguishing sign from gesture.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e72
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aristodemo, V. & Geraci, C. (2015) Comparative constructions and visible degrees in LIS. Talk given at FEAST 2015, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Strickland, B., Geraci, C., Chemla, E., Schlenker, P., Kelepir, M. & Pfau, R. (2015) Event representations constrain the structure of language: Sign language as a window into universally accessible linguistic biases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112(19):5968–73.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. (2003) Representation of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistic Society 39:354–68.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. (2008) Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In: Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004, ed. Quer, J., pp. 219–50. Signum.Google Scholar