Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T09:05:58.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Constructional Approaches to Signed Language

from Part IV - Multimodality and Construction Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

By
Sherman Wilcox  and
Rocío Martínez
Edited by
Mirjam Fried  and
Kiki Nikiforidou
Mirjam Fried
Affiliation:
Univerzita Karlova
Kiki Nikiforidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access

Summary

We present an overview of constructional approaches to signed languages, beginning with a brief history and the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe. We then discuss construction morphology as an alternative to prior analyses of sign structure that posited a set of non-compositional lexical signs and a distinct set of classifier signs. Instead, signs are seen as composed of morphological schemas containing both specific and schematic aspects of form and meaning. Grammatical construction approaches are reviewed next, including the marking of argument structure on verbs in American Sign Language (ASL). Constructional approaches have been applied to the issue of the relation between sign and gesture across a variety of expressions. This work often concludes that signs and gesture interact in complex ways. In the final section, we present an extended discussion of several grammatical and discourse phenomena using a constructional analysis based on Cognitive Grammar. The data come from Argentine Sign Language (LSA) and includes pointing constructions, agreement constructions, antecedent-anaphor relations, and constructions presenting point of view in reported narrative.

Keywords

sign languageAmerican Sign LanguageArgentine Sign LanguageCognitive Grammarconstruction morphologygesturereported narrativediscourse

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 405 - 436
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Brentari, D. & Padden, D. (2001). Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A lexicon with multiple origins. In Brentari, D., ed., Foreign Vocabulary in Sign Language: A Crosslinguistic Investigation of Word Formation. Norwood: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 87–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Tannen, D., ed., Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 35–53.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (2003). Pointing and placing. In Kita, S., ed., Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet. Mahwah: Psychology Press, pp. 243–268.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2009). The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2013). A ‘composite utterances’ approach to meaning. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D., & Tessendorf, S., eds., Handbook of Body-Language-Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 689–707.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E. (1993). Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language. Hamburg: SIGNUM-Verlag.Google Scholar
Fenlon, J., Schembri, A., & Cormier, K. (2018). Modification of indicating verbs in British Sign Language: A corpus-based study. Language, 94(1), 84–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51, 676–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frishberg, N. & Gough, B. (2000). Morphology in American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 3(1), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hou, L. (2022a). A usage-based proposal for argument structure of directional verbs in American Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.808493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hou, L. (2022b). LOOKing for multi-word expressions in American Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(2), 291–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T. (1999). The grammaticization of topics in American Sign Language. Studies in Language, 23(2), 271–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T. (2012). Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In Steinbach, M., Pfau, R., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 816–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T. (2017). Composite utterances in a signed language: Topic constructions and perspective-taking in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(3), 511–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T., O’Dea, B., & Shaffer, B. (2001). The construal of events: Passives in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 1(3), 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T. & Shaffer, B. (2002). Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. In Meier, R., Quinto, D., & Cormier, K., eds., Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarque, M. J. & Pascual, E. (2015). Direct discourse expressing evidential values in Catalan Sign Language. eHumanista/IVITRA, 8, 421–445.Google Scholar
Jarque, M. J. & Pascual, E. (2016). Mixed viewpoints in factive and fictive discourse in Catalan Sign Language narratives. In Dancygier, B., Lu, W., & Verhagen, A., eds., Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, A. A. (2019). Rethinking agreement: Cognition-to-form mapping. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(1), 37–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, H. (1984). When the Mind Hears: A History of the Deaf. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Lane, H. & Grosjean, F. (1980). Recent Perspectives on American Sign Language. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2003). Constructions in Cognitive Grammar. English Linguistics, 20(1), 41–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. Ruiz & Cervel, M. S. Peña, eds., Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 101–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2016). Nominal Structure in Cognitive Grammar. Lublin: Marie-Curie Skłodowska University Press.Google Scholar
Lepic, R. & Occhino, C. (2018). A construction morphology approach to sign language analysis. In Booij, G., ed., The Construction of Words: Advances in Construction Morphology. Cham: Springer, pp. 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (1990). Four functions of a locus: Reexamining the structure of space in ASL. In Lucas, C., ed., Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 176–198.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (2000). Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away from agreement. In Emmorey, K. & Lane, H., eds., The Signs of Language Revisited: An Anthology to Honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 303–320.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (2011). Agreement disagreements. Theoretical Linguistics, 37(3–4), 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez, R. & Wilcox, S. (2019). Pointing and placing: Nominal grounding in Argentine Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(1), 85–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padden, C. A. (1986). Verbs and role-shifting in American Sign Language. In Padden, C., ed., Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching. Silver Spring: National Association of the Deaf, pp. 44–57.Google Scholar
Pfau, R. & Steinbach, M. (2011). Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 683–695.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, E. G. (1987). Duality of patterning: Responding to Armstrong & Stokoe. Sign Language Studies, 55, 175-181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2007). Can constructed action be considered obligatory. Lingua, 117(7), 1285–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schembri, A., Cormier, K., & Fenlon, J. (2018). Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Glossa, 3(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1981). Tense variation in narrative. Language, 57(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, B. (2012). Reported speech as an evidentiality strategy in American Sign Language. In Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E., eds., Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, W. C. (2005). Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(1), 3–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supalla, T. (1986). The classifier system in American sign language. In Craig, C. G., ed., Noun Classes and Categorization: Proceedings of a Symposium on Categorization and Noun Classification, Eugene, Oregon, October 1983. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 181–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1986). Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative. In Coulmas, F., ed., Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 11–32.Google Scholar
Van Hoek, K. (1997). Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. (2013). The point of agreement: Changing how we think about sign language, gesture, and agreement. Sign Language and Linguistics, 16(2), 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. (2004). Gesture and language: Cross-linguistic and historical data from signed languages. Gesture, 4(1), 43–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. (2005). Routes from gesture to language. Revista da ABRALIN – Associação Brasileira de Lingüística, 4, 11–45.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. & Martínez, R. (2020). The conceptualization of space: Places in signed language discourse. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1406. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilcox, S, Martínez, R., & Morales, D. (2022). The conceptualization of space in signed languages: Placing the signer in narratives. In Jucker, A. & Hausendorf, H., eds., Pragmatics of Space. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 63–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. & Occhino, C. (2016). Constructing signs: Place as a symbolic structure in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(3), 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. & Shaffer, B. (2017). Evidentiality and information source in signed languages. In Aikhenvald, A. Y., ed., Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 741–754.Google Scholar
Winston, B. (1995). Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. In Emmorey, K. & Reilly, J., eds., Language, Gesture, and Space. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 87–114.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×