Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-lqrcg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T19:52:06.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Space Structure Spatial Language? A Comparison of Spatial Expression Across Sign Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Inge Zwitserlood ,
Pamela Perniss  and
Asli Özyürek
Inge Zwitserlood*
Affiliation:
University of Brighton
Pamela Perniss*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
Asli Özyürek*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
*
[i.zwitserlood@let.ru.nl] (Zwitserlood)
Perniss, School of Humanities, Checkland Building D331, University of Brighton, Brighton, BN1 9PH, United Kingdom, [p.perniss@brighton.ac.uk]
[asli.ozyurek@mpi.nl] (Özyürek)
Get access

Abstract

The spatial affordances of the visual modality give rise to a high degree of similarity between sign languages in the spatial domain. This stands in contrast to the vast structural and semantic diversity in linguistic encoding of space found in spoken languages. However, the possibility and nature of linguistic diversity in spatial encoding in sign languages has not been rigorously investigated by systematic crosslinguistic comparison. Here, we compare locative expression in two unrelated sign languages, Turkish Sign Language (Türk İşaret Dili, TİD) and German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache, DGS), focusing on the expression of FIGURE-GROUND (e.g. cup on table) and FIGURE-FIGURE (e.g. cup next to cup) relationships in a discourse context. In addition to similarities, we report qualitative and quantitative differences between the sign languages in the formal devices used (i.e. unimanual vs. bimanual; simultaneous vs. sequential) and in the degree of iconicity of the spatial devices. Our results suggest that sign languages may display more diversity in the spatial domain than has been previously assumed, and in a way more comparable with the diversity found in spoken languages. The study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how space gets encoded in language.

Keywords

spatial languagelinguistic diversitysign languageGerman Sign Language (DGS)Turkish Sign Language (TİD)semantic specificitycross-modal diversity

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 91 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 611 - 641
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ameka, Felix K. 1995. The linguistic construction of space in Ewe. Cognitive Linguistics 6. 2. 3.139-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameka, Felix K., and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2007. Introduction: The typology and semantics of locative predicates: Posturals, positionals and other beasts. Linguistics 45. 5. 6.847-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arik, Engin. 2013. Expressions of space in Turkish Sign Language. Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research, ed. by Arık, Engin, 219–42. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Meir, Irit, Padden, Carol A.; and Sandler, Wendy. 2003. Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages. In Emmorey 2003, 53–84.Google Scholar
Benedicto, Elena, and Brentari, Diane. 2004. Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 4. 743–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A., and Slobin, Daniel I.. 1994. Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bloom, Paul, Garrett, Merrill F., Nadel, Lynn; and Peterson, Mary a. (eds.) 1996. Language and space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, and Brown, Penelope. 2007. Standing divided: Dispositional predicates and locative predications in two Mayan languages. Linguistics 45. 5. 6.1105- 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa. 1996. Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. In Bloom et al., 385–436.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa. 2003. Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. Language in mind, ed. by Gentner, Dedre and Goldin-Meadow, Susan, 387–427. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4117.003.0021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa, and Choi, Soonja. 2001. Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In Bowerman & Levinson, 475–511.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2001. Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Coppola, Marie, Jung, Ashley; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2013. Acquiring word class distinctions in American Sign Language: Evidence from handshape. Language Learning and Development 9. 130–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, Penelope. 1994. The INs and ONs of Tzeltal locative expressions: The semantics of static descriptions of location. Linguistics 32. 4. 5.743-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 2008. Verb specificity and argument realization in Tzeltal child language. Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability, ed. by Bowerman, Melissa and Brown, Penelope, 167–89. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chang, Jung-hsing, Su, Shiou-fen; and Tai, James H.-Y.. 2005. Classifier predicates reanalyzed, with special reference to Taiwan Sign Language. Language and Linguistics 6. 2. 247–78.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Beuzeville, Louise, Johnston, Trevor; and Schembri, Adam. 2009. The use of space with indicating verbs in Australian Sign Language: A corpus-based investigation. Sign Language & Linguistics 12. 53–82.10.1075/sll.12.1.03debCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deringil, Selim. 2002. İktidarın Sembolleri ve Ideologi, II: Abdülhamid Dönemi (18761909). İstanbul: YKY.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, Horst. 1998. Warum deutsche Wörter wesentliche Bestandteile der Deutschen Gebärdensprache sind: Teil I. Das Zeichen 45. 12.443-51; Teil II. Das Zeichen 46.12.594-611.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, Horst, and HEßMANN, Jens. 1996. Signs and words—Accounting for spoken language elements in German Sign Language. International review of sign linguistics, vol. 1, ed. by Edmondson, William and Wilbur, Ronnie, 23–56. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 1996. The confluence of space and language in signed language. In Bloom et al., 171–209.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, cognition and the brain. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen (ed.) 2003. Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 5. 429–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feist, Michelle I. 2008. Space between languages. Cognitive Science 32. 1177–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grinevald, Collette. 2007. The linguistic characterization of spatial entities: Classifiers and other nominal classification systems. The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition, ed. by Aurnague, Michel, Hickmann, Maya, and Vieu, Laure, 10153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Birgit. 2011. A grammar of Goemai. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110238297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1992. Languages of the mind: Essays on mental representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4129.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor, Vermeerbergen, Myriam, Schembri, Adam; and Leeson, Lorraine. 2007. ‘Real data are messy’: Considering the cross-linguistic analysis of constituent ordering in Australian Sign Language (Auslan), Vlaamse Gebarentaal (VGT), and Irish Sign Language (ISL). In Perniss et al., 163–206.Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro, and Özyürek, Asli. 2003. What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic co-ordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language 48. 16–32.10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00505-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta. 2006. The semantic structure of motion verbs in French: Typological perspectives. Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, ed. by Hickmann, Maya and Robert, Stéphane, 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.66.06kopCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Barbara, and Jackendoff, Ray. 1993. ‘What’ and ‘where’ in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16. 2. 217–38.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen c., and Meira, Sergio. 2003. ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain—adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in cognitive typology. Language 79. 3. 485–516.10.1353/lan.2003.0174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen c., and Wilkins, David P. (eds.) 2006. Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majid, Asifa, Bowerman, Melissa, Kita, Sotaro, Haun, Daniel B.; and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2004. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8. 3. 108–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meier, Richard P. 2002. Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, ed. by Meier, Richard P., Cormier, Kearsy, and Quinto-Pozos, David, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2003. Grammaticalization and modality: The emergence of a case-marked pronoun in Israeli Sign Language. Journal of Linguistics 39. 109–40.10.1017/S0022226702001664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Gary, Herman, Rosalind, Barriere, Isabelle; and Woll, Bencie. 2008. The onset and mastery of spatial language in children acquiring British Sign Language. Cognitive Development 23. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nijhof, Sibylla, and Zwitserlood, Inge. 1999. Pluralization in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). OTS Yearbook 1998- 1999, ed. by Don, Jan and Sanders, Ted, 5878. Utrecht: UiL OTS.Google Scholar
Norbury, Heather M., Waxman, Sandra R.; and Song, Hyun-Joo. 2009. Tight and loose are not created equal: An asymmetry underlying the representation of fit in English- and Korean-speakers. Cognition 109. 316–25.Google Scholar
Nyst, V. 2007. Simultaneous constructions in Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). In Vermeerbergen et al., 127–45.Google Scholar
Özyürek, Asli, Zwitserlood, Inge; and Perniss, Pamela. 2010. Locative expressions in signed language: A view from Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Linguistics 48. 5. 1111–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pederson, Eric, Danzinger, Eve, Wilkins, David P., Levinson, Stephen C., Kita, Sotaro; and Senft, Gunter. 1998. Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74. 3. 557–89.10.1353/lan.1998.0074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perniss, Pamela. 2007a. Space and iconicity in German Sign Language (DGS). Nijmegen: MPI Series in Psycholinguistics dissertation.Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela. 2007b. Locative functions of simultaneous perspective constructions in German Sign Language narratives. In Vermeerbergen et al., 27–54.Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Pfau, Roland; and Steinbach, Markus (eds.) 2007. Visible variation: Comparative studies on sign language structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland, and Aboh, Enoch. 2012. On the syntax of spatial adpositions in sign languages. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of IATL 2011) 65. 83–104.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, and Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139163910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauter, Megan, Uttal, David h., Alman, Amanda Schaal, Goldin-Meadow, Susan; and Levine, Susan C.. 2012. Learning what children know about space from looking at their hands: The added value of gesture in spatial communication. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 111. 4. 587–606.10.1016/j.jecp.2011.11.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schembri, Adam. 2003. Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in signed languages. In Emmorey 2003, 3–34.Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam, Jones, Caroline; and Burnham, Denis. 2005. Comparing action gestures and classifier verbs of motion: Evidence from Australian Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, and nonsigners’ gestures without speech. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10. 3. 272–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schick, Brenda S. 1990. Classifier predicates in American Sign Language. International Journal of Sign Linguistics 1. 15–40.Google Scholar
Schmaling, Constanze. 2000. Maganar Hannu: Language of the hands: A descriptive analysis of Hausa Sign Language. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2006. Sketch of a Jaminjung grammar of space. In Levinson & Wilkins, 63–114.Google Scholar
Serra Berneto, Carlo. 1996. ‘Liegen’ and ‘stehen’ in German: A study in horizontality and verticality. Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (Cognitive linguistics research 6), ed. by Casad, Eugene H., 458505. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Slobin, Daniel I. 1996. From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. Rethinking linguistic relativity, ed. by Gumperz, John J. and Levinson, Stephen C., 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strömqvist, Sven, and Verhoeven, Ludo. 2004. Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410609694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sümer, Beyza, Zwitserlood, Inge, Perniss, Pamela; and Özyürek, Asli. 2012. Development of locative expressions by Turkish deaf and hearing children: Are there modality effects? Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 36. 568–80.Google Scholar
Sümer, Beyza, Zwitserlood, Inge, Perniss, Pamela; and Özyürek, Asli. 2013. Acquisition of locative expressions in children learning Turkish Sign Language (TİD) and Turkish. Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research, ed. by Arık, Engin, 243–72. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted R. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. San Diego: University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted R. 1986. The classifier system in American Sign Language. Noun classes and categorization, ed. by Craig, Colette, 181–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Len. 1983. How language structures space. Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application, ed. by Pick, Herbert L. and Acredolo, Linda P., 225–82. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Talmy, Len. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Len. 2003. The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In Emmorey 2003, 169–96.Google Scholar
Tang, Gladys, Sze, Felix; and Lam, Scholastica. 2007. Acquisition of simultaneous constructions by deaf children of Hong Kong Sign Language. In Vermeerbergen et al., 283–316.Google Scholar
van Staden, Miriam, Bowerman, Melissa; and Verhelst, Mariet. 2006. Some properties of spatial description in Dutch. In Levinson & Wilkins, 475–511.Google Scholar
Vermeerbergen, Myriam, Leeson, Lorraine; and Crasborn, Onno. 2007. Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function. (Current issues in linguistic theory 281.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Helmut. 1999. Geschichte der Gehörlosenbildung. Grundkurs Deutsche Gebärdensprache, Stufe I: Arbeitsbuch, ed. by Beecken, Anne, Keller, Jörg, Prillwitz, Sigmund, and Zienert, Heiko, 46–49. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Wallin, Lars. 1996. Polysynthetic signs in Swedish Sign Language. Stockholm: University of Stockholm dissertation.Google Scholar
Winston, Elizabeth A. 1995. Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. Language, gesture, and space, ed. by Emmorey, Karen and Reilly, Judy S., 87–114. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wittenburg, Peter, Brugman, Hennie, Russel, Albert, Klassmann, Alex; and Sloetjes, Han. 2006. ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006), 1556–59. Online: http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2006/.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2004. Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Language 80. 1. 7–39.10.1353/lan.2004.0050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike (ed.) 2006. Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen: Ishara.10.26530/OAPEN_453832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike, and Perniss, Pamela. 2008. Possessive and existential constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen: Ishara.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: University of Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2012. Classifiers. Sign language: An international handbook, ed. by Pfau, Roland, Steinbach, Markus, and Woll, Bencie, 158–86. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge, Perniss, Pamela; and Özyürek, Asli. 2012. An empirical investigation of expression of multiple entities in Turkish Sign Language (TİD): Considering the effects of modality. Lingua 122. 1636–67.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar