Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:30:57.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Iconic enrichments: Signs vs. gestures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2017

Philippe Schlenker
Philippe Schlenker*
Affiliation:
Institut Jean-Nicod (CNRS), F-75005, Paris, France; Department of Linguistics, New York University, New York, NY 10003. philippe.schlenker@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Semantic work on sign language iconicity suggests, as do Goldin-Meadow & Brentari (G-M&B) in their target article, that “sign should be compared with speech-plus-gesture, not speech alone” (sect. 7.1). One key question is whether speech-plus-gesture and sign-with-iconicity really display the same expressive resources. This need not be the case, because gestural enrichments are typically not at-issue, whereas iconic enrichments in sign language can often be at-issue. Future research should thus focus on the “projection” properties of different sorts of iconic enrichment in both modalities.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e71
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

Ebert, C. & Ebert, C. (2014) Gestures, demonstratives, and the attributive/referential distinction. Handout of a talk given at Semantics and Philosophy in Europe (SPE 7), Berlin, June 28, 2014.Google Scholar
Kegl, J. (1977/2004) ASL Syntax: Research in progress and proposed research. Sign Language and Linguistics 7(2):173–206. (Original MIT manuscript written in 1977.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (2003) Grammar, gesture and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. & Klima, E. S. (1990) Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In: Theoretical issues in sign language research, vol. 1: Linguistics, ed. Fischer, S. D. & Siple, P., pp. 191–210. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nouwen, R. (2007) On appositives and dynamic binding. Journal of Language and Computation 5(1):87–102.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, or at least give us some criteria to work with. In: Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, ed. Meier, R. P., Quinto-Pozos, D. G. & Cormier, K. A., pp. 175–98. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, C. (2005) The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2015) Gestural presuppositions (squib). Snippets (Issue 30). doi: 10.7358/snip-2015-030-schl.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2016) Iconic Pragmatics. (Unpublished manuscript, Institut Jean-Nicod and NYU)Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (forthcoming) Visible meaning: Sign language and the foundations of semantics. Accepted for publication as a target article in Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (under review) Gesture projections and cosuppositions. (Unpublished manuscript, Institut Jean Nicod and New York University).Google Scholar
Schlenker, P., Lamberton, J. & Santoro, M. (2013) Iconic variables. Linguistics and Philosophy 36(2):91–149.Google Scholar