Article contents
Why space is not one-dimensional: Location may be categorical and imagistic
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 April 2017
Abstract
In our commentary, we raise concerns with the idea that location should be considered a gestural component of sign languages. We argue that psycholinguistic studies provide evidence for location as a “categorical” element of signs. More generally, we propose that the use of space in sign languages comes in many flavours and may be both categorical and imagistic.
In their target article, Goldin-Meadow & Brentari (G-M&B) discuss several observations suggesting that the use of space is imagistic and may not form part of the categorical properties of sign languages. Specifically, they point out that (1) the number of locations toward which agreeing verbs can be directed is not part of a discrete set, (2) event descriptions by users of different sign languages and hearing nonsigners exhibit marked similarities in the use of space, and (3) location as a phonological parameter is not categorically perceived by native signers. It should be noted that G-M&B acknowledge that categorical properties of location and movement may simply not have been captured yet because the proper investigative tools are not yet readily available.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017
References
- 1
- Cited by
Target article
Gesture, sign, and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies
Related commentaries (27)
An evolutionary approach to sign language emergence: From state to process
Are gesture and speech mismatches produced by an integrated gesture-speech system? A more dynamically embodied perspective is needed for understanding gesture-related learning
Building a single proposition from imagistic and categorical components
Current and future methodologies for quantitative analysis of information transfer in sign language and gesture data
Emoticons in text may function like gestures in spoken or signed communication
Gesture or sign? A categorization problem
Gestures can create diagrams (that are neither imagistic nor analog)
Good things come in threes: Communicative acts comprise linguistic, imagistic, and modifying components
How to distinguish gesture from sign: New technology is not the answer
Iconic enrichments: Signs vs. gestures
Is it language (yet)? The allure of the gesture-language binary
Language readiness and learning among deaf children
Languages as semiotically heterogenous systems
Perspectives on gesture from autism spectrum disorder: Alterations in timing and function
Pros and cons of blurring gesture-language lines: An evolutionary linguistic perspective
Same or different: Common pathways of behavioral biomarkers in infants and children with neurodevelopmental disorders?
Sign, language, and gesture in the brain: Some comments
The categorical role of structurally iconic signs
The influence of communication mode on written language processing and beyond
The physiognomic unity of sign, word, and gesture
Toward true integration
Understanding gesture in sign and speech: Perspectives from theory of mind, bilingualism, and acting
Vocal laughter punctuates speech and manual signing: Novel evidence for similar linguistic and neurological mechanisms
What is a gesture? A lesson from comparative gesture research
Where does (sign) language begin?
Why space is not one-dimensional: Location may be categorical and imagistic
Why would the discovery of gestures produced by signers jeopardize the experimental finding of gesture-speech mismatch?
Author response
Gesture and language: Distinct subsystem of an integrated whole