13/05/25 - Torill Ringsø (Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

Abstract

Research on signed languages has shown that signers express different vantage points (e.g., perspective) with certain types of depicting signs. For instance, studies suggest that signs that depict handling align with internal perspectives, while signs that depict entities align with external perspectives (Emmorey et. al., 2000; Perniss, 2007). However, the majority of these studies are based on experimental and/or narrative data. In a study of sequences of spatial language from naturalistic conversations, Ferrara & Ringsø (2019) found that while signers were able to express vantage point on spatial scenes, the proportion of depicting signs was very low, accounting for less than 10% of the signs in the study corpus. These findings align with previous corpus studies that have shown that signers employ fewer depicting signs in conversations compared to narratives (i.e., Morford & MacFarlane, 2003; Fenlon et. al., 2014).

In my PhD-thesis I analyze the same study corpus as in Ferrara & Ringsø’s (2019) study. I add to their study by investigating signers’ use of depicting signs, path-points, and lexical signs that convey spatial relations. The aim of the study is to expand our knowledge of how signers of Norwegian Sign Language talk about space by analyzing what influences signers’ use of the three sign types. To understand these practices more holistically, the study corpus has been investigated with the use of quantitative and qualitative methods. All three studies have been subject to exploratory statistical analyses, using a linear mixed-effects model tree analysis (Fokkema et. al., 2018). Additionally, examples from the data have been described qualitatively through a semiotics lens (Clark, 1996; Ferrara & Hodge, 2018) to holistically show what signers do with their semiotic repertoires (Kusters, Spotti, Swanwick & Tapio, 2017) when they conceptualize spatial scenes.

In my presentation I will present the background for my PhD-research as well as some of the results from the three studies. This will include both statistical analyses as well as the semiotic descriptions. I will also reflect on the need for corpus-based studies using naturalistic language data as well as how this type of research can be useful for pedagogical purposes.

References

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge university press.

Emmorey, K., Tversky, B., & Taylor, H. A. (2000). Using space to describe space: Perspective in speech, sign, and gesture. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 2(3), 157– 180.

Fenlon, J., Schembri, A., Rentelis, R., Vinson, D., & Cormier, K. (2014). Using conversational data to determine lexical frequency in British Sign Language: The influence of text type. Lingua, 143, 187–202.

Ferrara, L., & Hodge, G. (2018). Language as Description, Indication, and Depiction. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(716). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716

Ferrara, L., & Ringsø, T. (2019). Spatial Vantage Points in Norwegian Sign Language. Open Linguistics, 5(1), 583–600.

Kusters, A., Spotti, M., Swanwick, R., & Tapio, E. (2017). Beyond languages, beyond modalities: Transforming the study of semiotic repertoires. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1321651

Morford, J. P., & MacFarlane, J. (2003). Frequency characteristics of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 3(2), 213–225.

Perniss, P. M. (2007). Achieving Spatial Coherence in German Sign Language Narratives: The Use of Classifiers and Perspective. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics, 117(7), 1315–1338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.013