An Embodied View of Pragmatic Inferencing in Signed Language Discourse
Keywords: Embodiment; pragmatic inferencing; signed language; grammaticalization; iconicity
While a number of studies have appeared on grammaticalization in signed languages (e.g.,
Author4 1995, 1998, 1999; Author4,3 2002; Pfau and Steinbach 2006; Author3 2000, 2004;
Wilcox 2007) and others have looked at the role of iconicity either in terms of lexicalization (e.g.,
Frishberg 1975) or with respect to evolving structures (Wilcox 2004), none has examined the role
of pragmatic inferencing (Traugott and Dasher 2002)in diachronic change in any detail. However,
pragmatic inferencing is key to understanding how grammaticalizing constructions take on new
meanings and more grammatical-like functions in language. Discourse participants make
inferences as constructions are used in novel ways, and when the novel usage begins to occur
with some regularity and thus when inferencing in a certain direction increases in frequency, the
new grammatical role of the item strengthens or becomes entrenched. Further, we take the view
that language is embodied, following Landau, O’Hearn and Hoffmann (2010), in that our bodily
make-up and orientation, including our view on the space that surrounds us, determines how we
come to have spatial representations of the world and subsequently how linguistic expression has
evolved.
In this talk, based on corpus data from both ISL and ASL, we investigate the roles that
pragmatic inferencing, embodiment, and iconicity play in grammaticalization in both Irish Sign
Language (ISL) and American Sign Language (ASL). We see pragmatic inferencing as a critical
mechanism for grammaticalization in several areas of discourse. For example, in the
grammaticalization of pronouns in both languages from gestural points, and as pronouns become
able to reference not only entities present in the space surrounding the signer, but also to
reference non-present conceptualized entities, pronominal referencing increases in complexity
because of elements such as perspective-taking. That is, the identity of the referent may be
completely dependent of inferencing made as a result of understanding which perspective is being
taken, given that perspectives may shift during the discourse. Second, we look at the area of
clause combining, noting that overt coordinators, subordinators, and other connectives are
somewhat rare in ISL and ASL. Instead we find numerous instances where clauses are not linked
by an overt marker, but instead the relationship between clauses is made through pragmatic
inferencing, and how this mechanism has led to eventual entrenchment in the grammar through
frequency of use. Embodiment also plays a key role, because how the signer interacts with her
environment, and in particular how the signer uses aspects of her articulation space, mirror a
conceptualized, embodied expression of language. Finally, we also consider the role that
diagrammatic iconicity (Haiman 1985) plays in embodiment and in and embodied view of
pragmatic inferencing, and show that it is key cognitive aspect in promoting inferencing in
complex clausal constructions.
References:
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign
Language. Language 51, 696-719.
Haiman, John. 1985. Symmetry. In John Haimain
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 73-95.
(Ed.),
Iconicity
in
Syntax.
Landau, Barbara, Kirsten O’Hearn, and James E. Hoffman. 2010. Tethering to the world, Coming
undone. In Kelly S. Mix, Linda B. Smith, and Michael Gasser (Eds.), The Spatial
Foundations of Language and Cognition. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
132-156.
Author4. 1995. The Polygrammaticalization of FINISH in ASL. MA thesis, University of
Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Author4. 1998. Topicality in ASL: Information Ordering, Constituent Structure, and the Function
of Topic Marking. Doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Author4. 1999. The grammaticization of topics in American Sign Language. Studies in Language,
23:2, 271-306.
Author4,3. 2002. Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. In Richard
Meier, Kearsy Cormier, and David Quinto-Pozos (Eds.), Modality and Structure in
Signed and Spoken Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 199-223.
Pfau, Roland, and Markus Steinbach. 2006. Modality-Independent and Modality-Specific Aspects
of Grammaticalization in Sign Languages. Linguistics in Potsdam 24, Potsdam: Univ.Verl.
Author3. 2000. A Syntactic, Pragmatic Analysis of the Expression of Necessity and Possibility in
American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,
NM.
Author3. 2004. Information ordering and speaker subjectivity: Modality in ASL. Cognitive
Linguistics 15(2), 175-195.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilcox, Sherman. 2004. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed
language. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2), 119-147.
Wilcox, Sherman. 2007. Routes from gesture to language. In Elena Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea,
and Raffaele Simone (Eds.), Verbal and Signed Languages: Comparing Structures,
Constructs and Methodologies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 107-131.