Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:39:32.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Point of view in British Sign Language and spoken English narrative discourse: the example of “The Tortoise and the Hare”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Helen Earis  and
Kearsy Cormier
Helen Earis
Affiliation:
Deafness, Cognition & Language Research Centre, University College London. E-mail: [email protected]
Kearsy Cormier
Affiliation:
Deafness, Cognition & Language Research Centre, University College London
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper discusses how point of view (POV) is expressed in British Sign Language (BSL) and spoken English narrative discourse. Spoken languages can mark changes in POV using strategies such as direct/indirect discourse, whereas signed languages can mark changes in POV in a unique way using “role shift”. Role shift is where the signer “becomes” a referent by taking on attributes of that referent, e.g. facial expression. In this study, two native BSL users and two native British English speakers were asked to tell the story “The Tortoise and the Hare”. The data were then compared to see how point of view is expressed and maintained in both languages. The results indicated that the spoken English users preferred the narrator's perspective, whereas the BSL users preferred a character's perspective. This suggests that spoken and signed language users may structure stories in different ways. However, some co-speech gestures and facial expressions used in the spoken English stories to denote characters' thoughts and feelings bear resemblance to the hand movements and facial expressions used by the BSL storytellers. This suggests that while approaches to storytelling may differ, both languages share some gestural resources which manifest themselves in different ways across different modalities.

Keywords

point of viewnarrative discourseBritish Sign LanguageEnglishrole shiftgesture
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 313 - 343
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution licence
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2013.

References

Bahan, B. & Supalla, S.. 1995. Line Segmentation and Narrative Structure: A Study of Eyegaze Behavior in American Sign Language. In Emmorey, K. & Reilly, J. (eds.), Language, Gesture and Space, 171–191. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Banfield, A. 1982. Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and representation in the language of fiction. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
Cassell, J. & McNeill, D.. 1991. Gesture and the Poetics of Prose. Poetics Today 12(3). 375–404.Google Scholar
Cormier, K. 2012. Pronouns. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M. & Woll, B. (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 227–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cormier, K., Smith, S. & Zwets, M.. 2013. Framing constructed action in British Sign Language narratives. Journal of Pragmatics 55. 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. 1986. Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dudis, P. G. 2004. Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 223–238.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V.. 1969. The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotica 1. 49–98.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. 1999. Do signers gesture? In Campbell, R. & Messing, L. (eds.), Gesture, Speech, and Sign, 133–159. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. & Reilly, J. S.. 1995. Theoretical Issues Relating Language, Gesture and Space: An Overview. In Emmorey, K. and Reilly, J. (eds.), Language, Gesture and Space, 1–16. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language (Vol. 19). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E. 2003. From pointing to reference and predication: pointing signs, eyegaze, and head and body orientation in Danish Sign Language. In Kita, S. (ed.), Pointing: where language, culture, and cognition meet, 269–292. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Holler, J. & Wilkin, K.. 2009. Communicating common ground: How mutually shared knowledge influences speech and gesture in a narrative task. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(2). 267–289.Google Scholar
Janzen, T. 2004. Space rotation, perspective shift and verb morphology in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 149–174.Google Scholar
Kegl, J. 1985. Locative Relations in American Sign Language Word Formation, Syntax, and Discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Kegl, J. 1995. The Manifestation and Grammatical Analysis of Clitics in American Sign Language. Chicago Linguistic Society 31(2). 140–167.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. 1980. Gesticulation and speech: two aspects of the process of utterance. In Key, M. R. (ed.), The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication, 207–227. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, P. 2003. Understanding deaf culture: in search of deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. 2003. Grammar, Gesture and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. 1995. The Point of View Predicate in American Sign Language. In Emmorey, K. & Reilly, J. (eds.), Language, Gesture and Space, 155–170. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Loew, R. C. 1984. Roles and Reference in American Sign Language: A Developmental Perspective. Minnesota: University of Minnesota doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Meir, I., Padden, C., Aronoff, M. & Sandler, W.. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43. 531–563.Google Scholar
Marentette, P. & Nicoladis, E.. 2008. Iconicity and simultaneity in the gesture-language link: A comparison of ASL signers and English speakers. Paper presented at the 30. Jahrestagung der deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, University of Bamberg, 26–2902.Google Scholar
Marentette, P., Tuck, N., Nicoladis, E. & Pika, S.. 2004. The Effects of Language, Culture and Embodiment on Signed Stories. Paper presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 8, University of Barcelona, 30 09 – 2 October.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Metzger, M. 1995. Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In Lucas, C. (ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, 255–271. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Metzger, M. 1998. Eye gaze and pronominal reference in American Sign Language. In Lucas, C. (ed.), Pinky Extension and Eye Gaze: Language Use in Deaf Communities, 170–182. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. 2002. Children's Encoding of Simultaneity in British Sign Language Narratives. Sign Language & Linguistics 5(2). 131–165.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. 2006. The development of narrative skills in British Sign Language. In Schick, B. S., Marschark, M. & Spencer, P. (eds.), Advances in the Development of Sign language by Deaf Children, 314–343. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nonhebel, A., Crasborn, O. & van der Kooij, E.. 2004. Sign language transcription conventions for the ECHO Project. Version 9, 20 January 2004. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Okrent, A. 2002. A modality-free notion of gesture and how it can help us with the morpheme vs. gesture question in sign language linguistics. In Meier, R. P., Cormier, K. & Quinto-Pozos, D. (eds.), Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Language, 175–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, C. A. 1986. Verbs and role shifting in American Sign Language. In Padden, C. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, 44–57. Silver Spring, MD: NAD.Google Scholar
Parrill, F. 2009. Dual viewpoint gestures. Gesture 9(3). 271–289.Google Scholar
Parrill, F. 2010. Viewpoint in speech-gesture integration: Linguistic structure, discourse structure, and event structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(5). 650–668.Google Scholar
Perniss, P. 2007. Achieving spatial coherence in German Sign Language narratives: The use of classifiers and perspective. Lingua 117. 1315–1338.Google Scholar
Peters, C. 2000. Deaf American Literature: From Carnival to the Canon. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Poulin, C. & Miller, C.. 1995. On narrative discourse and point of view in Quebec Sign Language. In Emmorey, K. & Reilly, J. (eds.), Language, Gesture and Space, 117–131. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Quer, J. 2005. Context shift and indexical variables in sign languages. In Georgala, E. & Howell, J. (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory 15, 152–168. Ithaca, NY: CLC.Google Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, D. 2007a. Can constructed action be considered obligatory? Lingua 117(7). 1285–1314.Google Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, D. 2007b. Why does Constructed Action Seem Obligatory? An Analysis of Classifiers and the Lack of Articulator-Referent Correspondence. Sign Language Studies 7(4). 458–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayman, J. 1999. Storytelling in the Visual Mode: A Comparison of ASL and English. In Winston, E. A. (ed.), Storytelling and Conversation: Discourse in Deaf Communities, 59–82. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Reilly, J. 2000. Bringing affective expression into the service of language: Acquiring perspective marking in narratives. In Emmorey, K. & Lane, H. (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 415–433. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D.. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schleef, E. 2003. Prosody and Narrative Structure in Varieties of Low German and Alemannic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15. 325–257.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. 1996. From “thought to language” to “thinking for speaking”. In Gumperz, J. & Levinson, S. (eds.), Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language: Vol. 17. Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
So, W. C., Kita, S. & Goldin-Meadow, S.. 2009. Using the Hands to Identify Who Does What to Whom: Gesture and Speech Go Hand-in-Hand. Cognitive Science 33(1). 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. 2007. Looking at space to study mental spaces: Co-speech gesture as a crucial data source in cognitive linguistics. In Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S. & Spivey, M. J. (eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, 201–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wennerstrom, A. 2001. The Music of Everyday Speech: Prosody and Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. 1996. The tobacco story: Narrative structure in an American Sign Language story. In Lucas, C. (ed.), Multicultural aspects of sociolinguistics in deaf communities, 152–180. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Woll, B., Sutton-Spence, R., R., & Waters, D.. 2004. ECHO data set for British Sign Language (BSL). London: Department of Language and Communication Science, City University.Google Scholar
Woolf, V. 2000. Mrs. Dalloway. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1925).Google Scholar
Zimmer, J. & Patschke, C.. 1990. A Class of Determiners in ASL. In Lucas, C. (ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues, 201–210. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar