Does Space Structure Spatial Language? Linguistic Encoding of Space in Sign Languages

Does Space Structure Spatial Language? Linguistic Encoding of Space in Sign Languages Pamela Perniss (pamela.perniss@mpi.nl) Inge Zwitserlood (inge.zwitserlood@mpi.nl) Asli Ozyurek (asli.ozyurek@mpi.nl) Radboud University Nijmegen & Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics PO Box 310, 6500 AH Nijmegen, Netherlands space. The spatial relationship between the signer’s hands represents the spatial relationship between the referents, whereby the handshapes are iconic with certain features of the referents (e.g. the inverted cupped hand to represent the bulk of a house). In contrast, there is no resemblance, or iconicity, between the actual scene and the linguistic form of a spoken language locative expression, as e.g. the English expression There is a bicycle next to the house. Abstract Spatial language in signed language is assumed to be shaped by affordances of the visual-spatial modality – where the use of the hands and space allow the mapping of spatial relationships in an iconic, analogue way – and thus to be similar across sign languages. In this study, we test assumptions regarding the modality-driven similarity of spatial language by comparing locative expressions (e.g., cup is on the table) in two unrelated sign languages, TID (Turk Isaret Dili, Turkish Sign Language) and DGS (Deutsche Gebardensprache, German Sign Language) in a communicative, discourse context. Our results show that each sign language conventionalizes the structure of locative expressions in different ways, going beyond iconic and analogue representations, suggesting that the use of space to represent space does not uniformly and predictably drive spatial language in the visual-spatial modality. These results are important for our understanding of how language modality shapes the structure of language. HOUSE loc here BICYCLE loc next-to-house Figure 1. Example of an ASL (American Sign Language) locative expression depicting the spatial relationship of a bicycle next to a house (Emmorey, 2002). The expression contains the lexical signs for house (still 1) and bicycle (still 3), each followed by a locative predicate localizing the referent in space. Keywords: iconicity; language modality; spatial language; locative expression; sign language Introduction Despite the difference in modality of expression, signed (visual-spatial) and spoken (vocal-aural) languages similarly conform to principles of grammatical structure and linguistic form (Klima & Bellugi, 1979; Liddell, 1980; Padden, 1983; Stokoe, 1960; Supalla, 1986). However, in signed language, the use of the hands as primary articulators within a visible spatial medium for expression (i.e. the space around the body) has special consequences for the expression of visual-spatial information (e.g. of referent size/shape, location, or motion). Spatial language, such as locative expressions, is a primary domain in which modality affects the structure of representation. Locative expressions in both signed and spoken language are characterized by linguistic encoding of entities and the spatial relationship between them (cf. Talmy, 1985). However, sign language locative expressions differ radically from those in spoken language in affording a visual similarity (or iconicity) with the real-world scenes being represented. For example, a signed expression of the spatial relationship between a house and a bicycle is clearly iconic of the scene itself. In the example from American Sign Language (ASL) in Figure 1, the signer depicts a bicycle as being located beside a house by placing her hands (her left hand representing the house in still 2; her right hand representing the bicycle in still 4) next to each other in sign In general, spoken languages exhibit a wide range of cross- linguistic variation in the encoding of spatial relationships in locative expressions, both in the devices used and in their morphosyntactic arrangement (Grinevald, 2006; Levinson & Wilkins, 2006). For example, spoken language locative expressions exhibit the use of adpositions, like the spatial prepositions used in English or the case-marking postpositions used in Turkish, or different types of locative or postural verbs (as in Ewe (Ghana) or Tzeltal (Mexico)). Such variation is not expected in signed languages, however. Instead, signed languages are assumed to be structurally homogenous in the expression of spatial relationships. The affordances of the visual-spatial modality for iconic, analogue spatial representation are assumed to be the primary force in shaping spatial expression, thus creating fundamental similarities in spatial language across different sign languages (e.g. Aronoff, Meir, Padden & Sandler, 2003; Emmorey, 2002). A consequence of this assumption of similarity, rooted in the notion that signers will exploit the iconic affordances of the modality where possible, has been a dearth of empirical investigation in this domain. Where the encoding of spatial relationships is mentioned in the literature, its iconic character is stated as fact, and conforms to the underlying assumption that spatial relationships will be represented in an iconic, analogue way,