Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T20:27:11.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - The effects of modality on spatial language: How signers and speakers talk about space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Karen Emmorey
Affiliation:
Senior Staff Scientist Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA
Richard P. Meier
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Kearsy Cormier
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
David Quinto-Pozos
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Most spoken languages encode spatial relations with prepositions or locative affixes. Often there is a single grammatical element that denotes the spatial relation between a figure and ground object; for example, the English spatial preposition on indicates support and contact, as in The cup is on the table. The prepositional phrase on the table defines a spatial region in terms of a ground object (the table), and the figure (the cut) is located in that region (Talmy 2000). Spatial relations can also be expressed by compound phrases such as to the left or in back of. Both simple and compound prepositions constitute a closed class set of grammatical forms for English. In contrast, signed languages convey spatial information using so-called classifier constructions in which spatial relations are expressed by where the hands are placed in the signing space or in relationship to the body (e.g. Supalla 1982; Engberg-Pedersen 1993). For example, to indicate ‘The cup is on the table,’ an American Sign Language (ASL) signer would place a C classifier handshape (referring to the cup) on top of a B classifier handshape (referring to the table). There is no grammatical element specifying the figure–ground relation; rather, there is a schematic and isomorphic mapping between the location of the hands in signing space and the location of the objects described (Emmorey and Herzig in press). This chapter explores some of the ramifications of this spatialized form for how signers talk about spatial environments in conversations.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2002

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

Emmorey, Karen. 1998. Some consequences of using signing space to represent physical space. Keynote address at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research meeting, November, Washington, DC
Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, cognition, and brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Emmorey, Karen. In press. Perspectives on classifier constructions in signed languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Emmorey, Karen, and Brenda Falgier. 1999. Talking about space with space: Describing environments in ASL. In Storytelling and conversations: Discourse in Deaf communities, ed. Elizabeth A. Winston, 3–26. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press
Emmorey, Karen, and Melissa Herzig. In press. Categorical versus analogue properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, ed. Karen Emmorey. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Emmorey, Karen, Edward, S. Klima, and Gregory, Hickok. 1998. Mental rotation within linguistic and nonlinguistic domains in users of American Sign Language. Cognition 68:221–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, Karen and Barbara Tversky. In press. Spatial perspective in ASL. Sign Language and Linguistics.
Emmorey, Karen, Barbara, Tversky, and Holly, A. Taylor. 2000. Using space to describe space: Perspective in speech, sign, and gesture. Spatial Cognition and Computation 2:157–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. International studies on sign language research and communication of the deaf, Vol. 19. Hamburg: Signum-Verlag
Furuyama, Nobuhiro. 2000. Gestural interaction between the instructor and the learner in origami instruction. In Language and gesture, ed. David McNeill, 99–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Liddell, Scott. 1994. Tokens and surrogates. In Perspectives on sign language structure: Papers from the 5thInternational Symposium on Sign Language Research, Vol. 1, ed. Inger Ahlgren, Brita Bergman, and Mary Brennan, 105–19. Durham: The International Sign Language Association, University of Durham
Liddell, Scott. 1995. Real, surrogate, and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL. In Language, gesture, and space, ed. Karen Emmorey and Judy Reilly, 19–41. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Linde, Charlotte, and William, Labov. 1975. Spatial networks as a site for the study of language and thought. Language 51:924–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, Barbara Tversky, and Diane J. Schiano. 1996. Perspective choice in spatial descriptions. IRC Technical Report, 1996–06. Palo Alto, CA: Interval Research Corporation
Masataka, Nobuo. 1995. Absence of mirror-reversal tendency in cutaneous pattern perception and acquisition of a signed language in deaf children. Journal of Developmental Psychology 13:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Benjamin Bahan, and Robert G. Lee. 2000. The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Özyürek, Asli. 2000. The influence of addressee location on speaker's spatial language and representational gestures of direction. In Language and gesture, ed. David McNeill, 64–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Schick, Brenda. 1990. Classifier predicates in American Sign Language. International Journal of Sign Linguistics 1:15–40Google Scholar
Schober, Michael F. 1993. Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition 47: 1–24
Supalla, Ted. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, CA
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. How language structures space. Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Taylor, Holly A., and Barbara, Tversky. 1992. Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 31:261–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Holly A., and Barbara, Tversky. 1996. Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 35:371–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×