Prior to the seminal work of Stokoe (1960), the signed languages of deaf communities were often considered by linguists to be gestural, and thus

Transcription

1 Prior to the seminal work of Stokoe (1960), the signed languages of deaf communities were often considered by linguists to be gestural, and thus non-linguistic forms of communication (Bloomfield, 1933). Since 1960, however, attempts have increasingly been made to describe all aspects of the visual-gestural communication of signed languages as part of a morphosyntactic system. In particular, signed language researchers working within the generative paradigm have proposed analyses of head and eye movements during signing and the meaningful placement and pointing of signs in space as inflectional morphemes marking person agreement (Aronoff, Meir, Padden & Sandler, 2003; Mathur, 2000; Neidle, Kegl, MacLaughlin, Bahan & Lee, 2000). These claims appear not to have taken into account a growing literature that indicates clear parallels in the use of space in signed languages and gesture accompanying speech, and in particular, an increasing recognition of gesture as an integral part of language itself (Emmorey & Herzig, 2003; McNeill, 2000; Okrent, 2002). In Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language, however, we have the product of over a decade of ground-breaking work by Scott Liddell on the structure of American Sign Language (ASL), drawing on developments in mental space theory, cognitive grammar and the study of gesture. The result is not only an enormously significant contribution to the understanding of signed language structure that presents an alternative view to widely-accepted morphemic accounts of spatial and non-manual phenomena, but a book that will be of great interest to gesture researchers and anyone concerned with the relationship between language and other modes of communication. Liddell sets out to explore the grammatical and conceptual role of spatial and gradient phenomena in ASL, and concludes that gestural and symbolic elements are integrated in a way that may be unique to signed languages. This represents a radical shift from more mainstream views of ASL structure that have tended to emphasise what it has in common with spoken languages. An overview will give a sense of the scope of the book. In the first chapter, Liddell provides a brief introduction to ASL as a language for the non-specialist. He discusses a number of myths and misconceptions about signed languages, and takes particular care to distinguish ASL from sign supported English. He also recounts how William Stokoe undertook the first linguistic analysis of ASL, and gives a brief synopsis of the history of signed language linguistics. In the second chapter, a sketch grammar of ASL is presented. There is much that is of interest here, even for the reader familiar with signed language research. For example, Liddell explains that while morphological processes that are clearly derivational exist in ASL, it is not clear whether unambiguous examples of inflection exist in the language. This analysis of ASL stands in stark contrast to earlier claims that signed languages are highly-inflected languages. The chapter closes with a discussion of syntax, reinterpreting some previous work by the author from the perspective of cognitive grammar. In the next two chapters, Liddell introduces his application of cognitive grammar and mental space theory to pronominal pointing and verbal directional signs in ASL. He argues for a model of pronouns and indicating verbs that carefully separates out their linguistic and gestural properties, eliminating a problematic area for researchers, many of whom have assumed that the directional aspects of signing are entirely morphemic. The representation of ASL signs referred to in the discussion also reflects this fusion of

2 language and gesture, since he makes use of English glosses to represent the meaning of the signs combined with superscript arrows to highlight their spatial features (e.g., PRO for the pointing pronoun sign that is directed towards a present referent and SAY-NO- TO x y as an example of an indicating verb directed towards the entities corresponding to the agent and patient arguments). This is (for the most part) an extremely persuasive pair of chapters, and they set the tone for the remainder of the book. Until this point in the book, Liddell focuses on the use of directional signs in relation to present referents. In the following five chapters, he develops his application of mental space theory to take into account the use of signs that are used to refer to referents that are not physically present. These chapters introduce the concept of blended mental spaces and their relevance for understanding a range of phenomena, such as constructed action and dialogue (also known as role-shifting) and the use of locative signs and depicting verbs (previously referred to as classifier predicates). There is also a detailed discussion of what Liddell refers to as buoys. These are signs produced with the subordinate hand that are held stationary in space as the dominant hand continues to produce other signs. This chapter presents an extremely interesting and thorough analysis of a phenomenon that is relatively undescribed in the literature on ASL, showing how buoys guide signed discourse by acting as visible instances of referents being discussed. As elsewhere in the book, the discussion is very clearly argued, and exemplified by many photographic illustrations taken from video recordings of signed narratives. In the second to last chapter of the book, Liddell provides a detailed analysis of a single narrative produced by a deaf native signer. This chapter brings together many of the themes in the book overall, demonstrating how the meanings understood by signers using ASL go beyond what is lexicogrammatically encoded, and include gradient and gestural information. In the final chapter, Liddell explores the possibility that the difference between spoken and signed languages is not as great as it appears. Both speech and sign interact with gesture in meaningful ways, but what is specific to signed language is that the need to gesture toward elements of mental spaces is met in the case by creating classes of lexical units which combine aspects of language and gesture in the same sign. Although I share Liddell s interest in the relationship between grammar, gesture and gradience in the structure of signed languages and find many of his proposals of great appeal, there are some claims that require more explanation than is provided. In the chapter on indicating verbs, for example, he questions current analyses that account for the various spatially modified forms of indicating verbs (such as SAY-NO-TO x y, SAY-NO- TO y and SAY-NO-TO-1) as instances of a single lexical unit. Mainstream approaches do indeed analyse these signs as single verb forms (e.g., SAY-NO-TO) that are moved between different locations in the signing space to indicate different agent and patient roles (Padden, 1988, for example, suggested that these modifications represent inflections of the verb for person agreement). This is because in many cases the types of spatial modifications that occur appear to be predictable (Taub, 2001). Liddell focuses instead on the irregularities associated with this subsystem of verbs (indeed, this discussion is one of most thorough accounts I have ever read of this aspect of ASL structure), and concludes that these different forms are related, but separate lexical units. He makes the same claim about depicting verbs. It is not clear from his discussion, however, if he wishes this proposal to apply to all indicating and depicting verbs, or only a subset. If he is claiming

3 the former, I remain sceptical, and suspect that we may be missing some important generalisations about the productivity in this system. In relation to depicting verbs, Liddell appears to suggest that his claims about depicting verbs as lexical units that are completely specified for handshape and movement (with only aspects of orientation and location as gestural elements) are provisional, pending further investigation. Studies have shown that depicting verbs share many similarities to the nonce gestural representations of motion events by non-signers, particularly in the way they use space and movement (Schembri, 2001; Singleton, Morford & Goldin-Meadow, 1993), so it will be interesting to see how Liddell further develops his account in the future. As suggested by Engberg-Pederesen (2003), it may be that Liddell s analysis has concentrated on the most frequently used depicting verbs that draw on standardised descriptions of common motion events, while downplaying the iconic potential inherent in these signs (the latter is very much the focus of recent work by Cogill-Koez, 2000). This is unfortunate, as the mimetic nature of depciting verbs is actually one of their defining characteristics. Some of Liddell s other claims about ASL may also strike the reader as a little too cautious. He suggests, for example, that there may only be some historical relationship between the V handshape (the middle and index finger extended from the fist) in the sign TWO and the similar K handshape (the middle and index finger extended from the fist, but the finger is bent at the base joint) in other signs such as PRO-DUAL the two of you and PRO-DUAL-1 the two of us, despite presenting numerous examples of how the V and K are in an allophonic relationship in synchronic ASL. Given the same kind of variation occurs in the two signed languages with which I am familiar (British Sign Language and Australian Sign Language), there clearly appears to be some phonetic factor at work here. The book contains few typographical errors and is well-produced overall, but it is not without shortcomings. Although the use of video stills taken from signed texts is an excellent means of providing illustrations of ASL examples, some of the photographs are not clear, making identification of specific signs discussed in the book sometimes difficult (as in Figure 9.6). There is some use of terminology (see, for example, the reference to the use of a B handshape on page 3, or the H handshape on page 99) that is not explained for the reader unfamiliar with signed languages. And despite innovations in the glossing system, the text would have benefited from the inclusion of some references to dictionaries or perhaps to an appendix that listed signs in Stokoe or HamNoSys notation so that more information about the ASL examples could be found (What does the sign referred to as DO-BETTER-THAN look like, for example? I have not been able to find a sign with a similar translation in either of the two ASL dictionaries I own). The author also remarks in the preface that he was encouraged to remove from an earlier draft version of the book some 150 pages of review and criticism of existing analyses of signed language structure in order to help focus the reader on the new material it contains. To find out more about Liddell s critique of current work in sign linguistics, the reader is instead referred to several other published articles in various books and journals. Although some of this work is discussed in the book, the decision not to include much of this critique seems like a missed opportunity to provide a comprehensive and critical overview of the field and would have given those unfamiliar with contemporary approaches to signed language linguistics some context for the book.

4 It may have been preferable instead to provide this literature review as a separate chapter rather than omit it entirely. One final concern. Despite the challenge this book poses to a field dominated theoretically by generative approaches, Liddell sometimes appears to share with generativists a reliance on intuition as a method of gathering data about ASL. This appears to be especially true in his chapters on indicating and depicting verbs, where numerous statements about the acceptability of particular constructions are presented as facts about the language. Despite the shortcomings of this approach (Labov, 1996), it must be acknowledged that sign language linguistics will always draw on elicited judgements. I would have liked, however, more information about Liddell s data collection methodology in these chapters and the social background (region, age, gender, social class etc) of the signers he consulted so that these proposals could be better evaluated. These critical observations do not in any way diminish the value of the book. It is a considerable achievement, representing one of the most significant works ever produced on the grammar of ASL. There is so much here that is new and innovative for the field (new theoretical perspectives, glossing techniques, and terminology, for example) that it is certain to become a much-cited reference point in signed language linguistics. In fact, I would suggest that it is recommended reading for any scholar engaged in the study of language and communication generally. Liddell mentions in his preface that the study of signed languages has potentially far-reaching implications for our understanding of human communication. Here at last is a book that realises some of that potential. Aronoff, M., Meir, I., Padden, C. & Sandler, W. (2003). Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages. In Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Cogill-Koez, D. (2000). Signed language classifier predicates: Linguistic structures or schematic visual representation? Sign language and linguistics 3 (2): Engberg-Pedersen, E. (2003). How composite is a fall? Adults and children s descriptions of different types of falls in Danish Sign Language. In Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Emmorey, K. & Herzig, M. (2003). Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Labov, W. (1996). When intuitions fail. In: McNair, L., Singer, K., Dolbrin, L. & Aucon, M. (Eds.). Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Chicago Linguistic Society 32: Liddell, S.K. (1980). American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton. Mathur, G. (2000). Verb agreement as alignment in signed languages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. McNeill, D. (Ed.). (2000). Language and gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5 Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B. & Lee, R.G. (2000). The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 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 (or at least give us some criteria to work with). In Meier, R. P., Cormier, K. & Quintos-Pozos, D. (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Padden, C. (1988). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland. Schembri, A. (2001). Issues in the analysis of polycomponential verbs in Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney. Singleton, J. L., Morford, J. P., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1993). Once is not enough: Standards of well-formednes in manual communication created over three different timespans. Language, 69(4), Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the communication systems of the American deaf. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo. Taub, S. (2001). Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.