Abstract
There is a considerable number of sign language linguists who accept as proven that essential parts of sequential-simultaneous constructions in sign languages (henceforth: SL) are “gestural” and therefore do not have language status, i.e. are “non-linguistic”. This judgement applies to all elements of SL where spatial parameters are used to code indexical and iconic meanings or spatial relations. The respective argumentations contain many methodologically questionable steps and are particularly led by a strong bias towards a spoken language (henceforth: SpL) perspective. This bias includes an uncritical adoption of the results of research on gestures to SL (“uncritical” means that the inconsistencies in gesture research itself were not considered); despite the fact that gesture research was performed exclusively on SpL. Therefore, a discussion of the assumptions and analysis processes concerning SL is urgent. In order to overcome the SpL bias in SL linguistics we need a typological model which takes both SpL and SL as instances of “language” in different modalities. By abstracting from both types of language, a new extended model of “language” can be developed. I will perform my analysis from the perspective of a typological language model which comprises both SL and SpL in equal measure. A comprehensive typology assumes that every language shows those categories which its users select as the best suited for the chosen modality or modalities. It cannot devaluate visually appropriate ones against acoustically appropriate ones. By this I want to prove that the assumption of an enormous number of gestural components in SL texts, intricately combined with language elements – concerning essential areas of SL grammar – is untenable. The methodological shortcomings of the “Gesture School” to be indicated are: The authors neither apply a modality-independent model of language, nor transfer “gradience” and “conventionalisation” to SL conformly to typology and semiotics. Additionally, we find no consideration of: * the coding conditions and possibilities of SL, especially related to indexical and iconic (in contrast to symbolic) morphemes * the relation between gradient production and categorical cognitive processing in all languages * the contrast between listability and the application of rules (by inadequate application of the listability criterion against SL morphemes like classifiers, ignoring the existing grammatical rules for them).
Highlights
There is a considerable number of sign language linguists who accept as proven that essential parts of sequential-simultaneous constructions in sign languages (: SL) are “gestural” and do not have language status, i.e. are “non-linguistic”
– localisation of referents for anaphoric identification (“loci”) – role change. Taking this extent of allegedly “gestural”/”non-linguistic” elements for true, there would hardly exist any longer SL text which did not show complex sequential and simultaneous combinations of linguistic and gestural/non-linguistic elements: We find that one-third of the core elements in the single clause-like units in these Auslan narratives are expressed via pointing signs, depicting signs, gestures, and enactments, in various orders. (Hodge and Johnston 2014, 262)
Kendon (2014, 1–3) refers to the history of sign language linguistics. He repeats what we can call a topos of newer SL research, namely that the early SL linguistics attempts to show that sign languages can be analysed, at least grammatically, in the same way as spoken languages can be, and efforts have been made to argue that even the iconic or expressive devices that Hockett mentions and which, as he says, lack cenematic structuring, after all somehow do show this
Summary
1. Phenomena of sequentially and/or simultaneously produced, detailed visual codings in verb phrases. Ferrara (2012, 26f) gives the following list of terms used for SL codings involving spatial and/or iconic parameters, therefore containing “non-linguistic” elements: “(multi)directional verbs”, “verbs of motion and location”, “spatial-locative predicates”, “spatially descriptive signs”, “classifier (predicates/constructions)”, “polymorphemic verbs/predicates”, “polycomponential/ polysynthetic signs”, “productive signs/lexicon”, “depicting verbs/signs”.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
