Types of Depiction in ASL
Paul Dudis
1. Introduction
The body and the surrounding space are often brought into ASL discourse to represent
entities of the scene being depicted. Close examination of depiction using cognitive linguistic
frameworks suggests that additional components figure in these iconic representations, namely
the subject (or the self), vantage point, and temporal progression. Identification of these
components contributes towards greater precision with which to describe various types of
depiction observed to occur in ASL discourse. This in turn lends to a greater appreciation of
issues involving depiction. One issue of particular interest is the relationship between the
depiction of an event involving a subject and signs produced during the depiction. The following
analysis discusses one pattern in which, when an action of a subject is being depicted, any sign
or gesture produced is necessarily associated with the representation of temporal progression
through which the depicted subject exists.
2. Depicting vs. non-depicting signs
Many words in signed languages exhibit iconic mappings, but only one set of these words
have the ability to visually represent semantic components. Following Liddell (2003), I use the
term depiction to describe this ability. The distinction between signs that depict and those that
do not are discussed below, followed by a description of an informal test with which to
determine the status of an ASL sign as an event-depicting verb.
The ASL noun BIRD (Figure 1) exemplifies an iconic but non-depicting sign. The iconic
correspondences it exhibits are likely to be discerned without great difficulty by anyone who
knows what birds are and what the sign means. The manual articulator corresponds to the beak,
its location to the location on the bird’s head, and so forth. However, the sign does not function
to describe what a bird looks like, nor does it function to describe the actions of a bird. To use a
somewhat popular term, it is “frozen.” Moreover, the iconicity of many signs like BIRD belies
the schematicity of the concept that the sign symbolizes. As noted by Taub (2001), such signs
designate a general category of diverse but related things—any bird with beak morphology
different from the prototype can still be called a BIRD.
Figure 1
1
Many verbs in ASL are also iconic but non-depicting. Two such verbs are the indicating
verbs GIVEy and EXPLAINy, partly illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. When we consider the
handshape of GIVEy and what the sign symbolizes, it becomes clear that there is a “hand-forhand” iconicity. In contrast, it is not readily apparent what the articulators of EXPLAINy are
iconic for. Directionality is iconic in both verbs. Taub (2001) describes how conceptual paths—
the action-chain path, the literal path or the metaphorical path—motivate directionality in these
verbs. Yet, given these and other iconic elements that can be discerned, indicating verbs do not
depict events. GIVEy encodes the transfer of any of a large range of objects, e.g. a paper
document or a kitchen appliance, e.g. a kitchen blender. These objects are held differently, some
requiring the use of two hands, and many of these objects cannot be held with the hand
configuration similar to that in GIVEy. Moreover, the wrist-only movement in GIVEy
typically produced during informal signing does not resemble any of the usual ways of
physically handing an object to someone.
Figure 2
Figure 3
Depiction is a type of iconicity different from that exhibited by nouns and indicating verbs.
As described in Liddell (2003), some verbs have, in addition to their usual function as verbs, the
2
ability to depict the event they encode. HAND-TO is an example of an event-depicting verb. It
is not a derivative of GIVEy but a verb in its own right. (The two verbs are also contrasted in
Padden 1986 and P. Wilcox 1998.) HAND-TO can be used to describe only the transfer of
objects that can be held between the thumb and the four fingers of the handshape—a paper
document or credit card, but certainly not a kitchen blender. This is one way that the verb’s
iconicity constrains its usage. Additionally, the palm’s continuously upward orientation and the
path of the hand created via the elbow emulate the physical motion of the transfer event.
However, the high degree to which the verb’s form maps onto the scene it encodes does not
necessarily make the sign a depicting verb. Rather, it is the verb’s ability to portray a dynamic
and visual representation of a transfer, which is a demonstration rather than “plain” description.
One way the verb can be used is akin to a re-enactment by an actor, but with just the signer’s
upper body used to create the only visible part of the depiction, the “giver.” Instead of a visible
object, the transferred entity is represented by a small portion of space occupied in part by the
signer’s hand, and instead of another actor, the recipient is represented by a larger portion of
space in front of the signer.
The ability of a verb to depict an event can be determined by an informal test involving a
depiction of an event sequence performed by the signer who is representing an animate event
participant throughout the sequence. If the verb in question can be signed while the event
participant is continually being represented, then it is likely a depicting verb. For example, TAPSHOULDER depicts a prototypical way of getting someone’s attention within the U.S. Deaf
community. Since the giver typically has the recipient’s attention prior to the act of transfer, it is
an ideal verb to be used in the first part of the event sequence depiction. The scene being
depicted then, has someone getting another individual’s attention and giving that person an
object. Partly illustrated in Figure 4a is the depiction of the attention-getting portion of the
scene. Here the signer is conceptualized to be the attention-getter and the location towards
which the hand is directing is imagined to be someone’s shoulder. GIVEy would not be able
immediately follow this if the signer intends to depict a transfer. Since HAND-TO can (Figure
4b), its depicting verb status is confirmed. This test’s utility is evident in that it also confirms the
non-depicting status of EXPLAINy as well as other indicating verbs such as SHOWy and
TELLy.
Figure 4a
Figure 4b
3
With GIVEy and HAND-TO, we see that a certain scene may be encoded into either a
non-depicting or depicting verb. Other scenes are similarly encoded into these two types of
verbs, including one in which an object is shown to someone. SHOWy (Figure 5) is a verb of
showing in ASL.
Figure 5
From the semantics of the verb and related cultural knowledge, its handshapes can be seen to be
iconic for a flat object and a finger pointing to something on that object, e.g. information on a
document. To determine whether this verb can depict an act of showing, a event sequence
depiction test similar to the one above can be used. The first part of the test depicts an individual
being approached by someone, e.g. a police officer (Figure 6a). SHOWy cannot follow this
depiction if the signer wishes to continue to represent the individual. The extended eye contact
that would be made between the participants in the event sequence cannot be depicted during the
production of SHOWy in this case, demonstrating that the signer is not representing any event
participant. Should the signer wish to represent this person while depicting the showing of the
object, a different verb would be used. If the object were a document, the verb’s handshape
would be similar to that of HAND-TO (Figure 6b).
Figure 6a
Figure 6b
4
If the document is understood to be already in hand, this verb can immediately follow the verb
that depicts the approach of an individual and be directed towards the imagined presence of that
individual (otherwise a depiction of how the document came to be held would likely to intervene
between the two verbs). Throughout this depiction the signer’s eye gaze is continually directed
towards the individual, even during the production of the signs. Moreover, after being directed
towards the individual, the hand can remain in place, with eye gaze remaining fixed towards this
individual, depicting the length of the presentation. This is typically not possible with SHOWy.
Also, the indicating verb is directed with the fingertips of the non-dominant hand (the
“document”) more or less pointing towards the person being shown the object. A closely related
verb has the palm facing this person, and can remain in place with eye gaze towards the same
location. This is a different verb—one that passes the event sequence depiction test—in which
the hands do not just represent but depict a document and a finger pointing to something on it.
There are some scenes that are encoded into indicating verbs that are absent from depicting
verbs. Some examples are scenes that are encoded in TELLy and EXPLAINy. Both verbs fail
exhibit a hand-for-hand iconicity in the way that other indicating verbs do. TELLy has an index
finger moving from the chin towards the person getting the information. This finger does not
seem to represent any finger that is part of the event. EXPLAINy has F-handshapes moving
bidirectionally towards an event participant, and these handshapes are also not iconic for any
component within the encoded event.
While both TELLy and EXPLAINy appear to lack depicting verb counterparts, there
does seem to be a way to depict an event in which an individual is explaining something to
someone that does not make use of constructed dialogue. In the event sequence test,
EXPLAINy cannot follow TAP-SHOULDER or another sign depicting getting someone’s
attention by a quick waving of the hand (Figure 7a). However, what appears to be an aspectual
form of the sign can. In Figure 7b, the signer, representing the explainer, demonstrates how eye
contact is made, which facial expression is used, and so on. During this demonstration, the
signer also produces a sign related to EXPLAINy. This sign can be produced in a span of time
similar to the time it takes to produce the citation form of the indicating verb, but it can be
produced for a longer time span. This suggests that the sign is an aspectual form of the
indicating verb.
Figure 7a
Figure 7b
5
The ability of the aspectual form of EXPLAINy to be produced as part of a event
sequence depiction in which the signer represents an event participant would seem to invalidate
the test as a way to identify depicting verbs. As it turns out, it rather demonstrates the greater
applicability of the test. The test can be used to determine not only whether a given verb may be
produced within a depiction of an event, but also whether other linguistic units or conventions
may be produced within event depictions. In the rest of this paper I attempt to explicate
circumstances that allow for different types of depictions to be performed in ASL. Section 3
reviews the blending model (Fauconnier & Turner 1996, 2002) that is used here to analyze the
conceptual process underlying depiction. Section 4 describes the variety of depictions observed
to occur in ASL discourse. Section 5 examines the restrictions on the use of linguistic items
when an animate event participant is being represented by the signer, a product of conceptual
integration that is labeled here as |subject|.
3. The depiction of dialogue in ASL
The theory of conceptual blending (Fauconnier & Turner 1996, 2002) provides an elegant
way to describe depictions in ASL. In this section, the basic blending analysis is applied to
depiction of dialogue in ASL (see Liddell and Metzger 1998 for a comparable blending
analysis); other types of depictions are analyzed in the next section. The depiction of dialogue is
popularly known as a type of “roleshifting” and is also known as “constructed dialogue” (see
Tannen 1989 for discussion of constructed dialogue in spoken languages; see Roy 1989, Winston
1991, and Metzger 1995 for discussion of constructed dialogue in ASL).
Constructed dialogue in ASL is often more than just the representation of an utterance; as
can be seen in exemplars of constructed dialogue in ASL, the interlocutor producing the
utterance is also being represented. In Figure 8, the signer is producing a second-person singular
pronoun and the non-manual yes-no question signal. The signer is also attending to an area
above the location towards which the pronoun is being directed. The signer’s apparent change of
attention away from the addressee while continuing to sign is one of the cues signaling that
constructed dialogue is in effect. Throughout the constructed dialogue the signer is understood
to represent an interlocutor and his signing represents what was said in the dialogue being
depicted. A portion of the space to the signer’s right is in this depiction understood to represent
the second interlocutor.
Figure 8
6
Constructed dialogue is not simply a one-to-one representation. It is a creative act in which
both the signer and addressee imagine the interlocutors of the dialogue being depicted as present.
That this imagination is involved is clear when one sees that where the addressee would identify
the “signer-as-interlocutor,” individuals without access to the discourse would identify the signer
as just the signer. One way to illustrate how there can be two different conceptualizations
associated with the signer is by using the conceptual blending model, which I now describe.
The concepts that are blended during constructed dialogue are counterparts of two distinct
mental spaces. One mental space is built up through discourse, where linguistic items introduce
elements and establish relations between them. As the signer is describing a conversation
between two individuals, this mental space has two elements, interlocutor 1 and interlocutor 2.
If these interlocutors were introduced by name, then these elements can be labeled in the model
accordingly, e.g. Tracy and Dana. This mental space is labeled Event Space in the diagrams to
follow.
The other mental space is different in that it is not created via linguistic means but is a
conceptualization of the surrounding environment. This is Real Space (Liddell 1995). As a
quick demonstration of the nature of some of the elements within this mental space, suppose
someone shows you a writing instrument. You would have a Real-Space element that is a
conceptualization of the instrument, but it is not the actual instrument itself. You are aware of its
presence in front of you because your perceptual system takes in the external environment and
creates a cognitive representation of it. Since the signer’s and the addressee’s respective Real
Spaces of course differ, they have different Real-Space elements. The former has a
conceptualization of the addressee, and the latter a conceptualization of the signer. Another
Real-Space element is the empty space surrounding the two. In recent investigations of
depiction in ASL (e.g. Liddell 2003), the Real-Space signer and surrounding space were virtually
the only elements described as contributing to the depiction of dialogue (or other actions
depicted to occur on a human scale). Liddell (2003:151) does not seem to make a distinction
between the signer and the body, but as we will see in the next section there is good reason to do
so. Moreover, other Real-Space elements described below also come into play in the depiction
of dialogue and other events, and in the next section it will be clear how identification of these
other elements have descriptive benefits.
Part of the process in depicting the dialogue involves the creation of counterpart
connections between elements within Event Space on one hand and Real Space on the other. In
order to facilitate these connections, a schematization process is needed as well as a Generic
Space that contains what relevant elements the inputs have in common. The Real-Space signer
and the Event-Space interlocutor 1 are different concepts. The differences between the two
could be that of age, gender, race, physical characteristics, and so on. Additionally, only the
Real-Space signer is visible and has specific dimensions. It is possible to abstract these
differences away so that the two elements are seen to be counterparts of one another. What the
signer and interlocutor 1 have in common is that they are conceptualizers who are capable of
experiencing thoughts, physical sensations, and so forth. There are several candidate terms with
which to describe both counterparts, including “self” (see Cutrer 1994 for discussion of strong
and weak versions of V-POINT). In describing the relationship between a speech act participant
and the meaning of expressions produced during discourse, Langacker (2000) labels the former
as subject of conception. I will use subject here to describe the Real-Space signer and potential
counterparts in the other input space (and this is not to be confused with the grammatical relation
with the same name). In his discussion of the viewing effects exhibited in various expressions,
7
Langacker observes how notions associated with perception have analogues to those of
conception, and uses “viewer” to describe both the individual who perceives entities and the
individual who apprehends the meaning of expressions. “Viewer” is as good a candidate term as
“subject” is, but the latter appears to require less disambiguation.
Interlocutor 2 is also a subject, but since the Real-Space subject is already mapped with
interlocutor 1, there is no Real-Space subject available to integrate with it. Instead, what is
recruited is a portion of empty space near the signer, labeled for convenience “spatial portion 2.”
The physical space surrounding the signer is a Real-Space element that is partitionable into many
different portions. The counterpart mapping between interlocutor 2 and “spatial portion 2” is in
part motivated by how both can be seen to be occupy an area of space within a larger space. The
particular Real-Space location that is selected is often motivated by the knowledge about the
locative relationships not only between the interlocutors but within the more general setting from
the perspective of interlocutor 1. Here we can see that another counterpart mapping takes place,
which involves the setting elements within the input spaces. The Event-Space setting and the
Real-Space setting, while distinct, are obviously ideal counterparts.
Sometimes the specifics of the setting are not relevant in the depiction of dialogue, but as
any dialogue, and in fact all events, must take place within a setting, the blend network
underlying constructed dialogue will invariably have setting counterpart mappings. Moreover,
the interaction between interlocutors is both spatial and energetic. Thus, while the signer can
elect to not include details about circumstances of the event being depicted, such as the distance
between the interlocutors, the signer will still need to depict a spatial relationship between the
interlocutors, no matter how schematic its construal is. The side towards which the canonical
“body shift” moves then can be seen here to be less motivated but not completely arbitrary. In
order for the Real-Space subject to take part in depiction, a temporary (but of course not
complete) disengagement with the addressee is necessary. Equally necessary is establishing a
spatial relationship distinct from that between the Real-Space interlocutors, or at the very least,
the relationship of the individual to a setting. For example, the signer can report to a co-host of a
summer party at a home about how one of the guests is reacting to the strength of the new air
conditioner: FUNNY DANA [COLD COLD] “Funny -- Dana is going, ‘It’s cold, it’s cold!’”
Here at the very least, the co-host must be aware of certain circumstances existing prior to the
depicted utterance, e.g. the air conditioner is currently on at full blast, but they do not need to
include the specific location in which the utterance was made--Dana could be anywhere in the
house (but not the yard) where the cold air is known to likely exist.
Depiction does not arise simply through counterpart connections between inputs. In
neither input space is there anything being represented by the signer. It is in a fourth mental
space, the blend, where the dialogue and the interlocutors are represented. The counterpart
elements are integrated into the blend, creating new elements. Since the signer is visible, this
property is inherited by |interlocutor 1|, the only visible element in the blend. For as long as this
blend is activated and is functioning to depict dialogue, the actions performed by the signer, i.e.
his signing, is understood to be enacted by |interlocutor 1|. |Interlocutor 2| is the result of
integrating interlocutor 2 and “spatial portion 2”, so this element is not visible. However, it does
have a conceptual presence within the blend. Other than the attention given by the |interlocutor
1| to |interlocutor 2|, evidence for its presence is in the ability for the signer to direct signs
towards the location where the |interlocutor 2| is conceptualized to be, whether during
constructed dialogue or not. The blend also has an element, the |setting|, existing via integration
of the setting elements in Event Space and Real Space, both serving as inputs to the blend.
8
Figure 9 illustrates the four-space network model of constructed dialogue in ASL. (Lines
connecting counterpart elements not included for diagrammatic clarity.)
Figure 9
As described above, there is more to the ASL depiction of face-to-face dialogue than just
the representation of a set of utterances. At the minimum, the signer will direct his face and eye
gaze to a selected portion of physical space to depict the attention given by one interlocutor to
another. An example of a minimal depiction of dialogue occurs as part of a larger chunk of
discourse. Here the only depiction is of someone asking “why,” followed by continued discourse
which lacks any depiction: PRO-1 [WHY], PRO DON’T-KNOW “I asked ‘Why?’, and she said
she didn’t know.” This is contrasted with other instances of constructed dialogue, typically with
longer duration, where the signer also simultaneously depicts facial expression, body posture,
and even mannerisms. These, along with the depiction of attention, complement the depiction of
the dialogue itself and are actions rather than dialogue. The production of signs is also an action,
but we understand the event as a whole to be one of communicating something to someone else
through language. A depiction of action other than dialogue using facial expression, body
posture, mannerisms, and nonlinguistic manual action might be identified as constructed action
(Winston 1991, Metzger 1995). Anticipating the discussion of multiple visible blended elements
in the next section, it is worth noting that the same type of blend network underlies both minimal
9
and elaborate depictions. The depictions of dialogue discussed here have only one visible
element in the blend, the |interlocutor|. Any manual actions, facial expressions, and body posture
that are intended as visual demonstrations are understood to be actions made by the |interlocutor|.
4. Selective Projection of Real-Space Components
In the last section, constructed dialogue was described as one type of depiction in ASL, and
the process of creating the depiction was explicated using the conceptual blending model. Two
Real-Space elements were also introduced: the subject and the setting. What follows are
descriptions of other types of depiction. As will be demonstrated, the existence of different types
of depiction is a consequence of the availability of other Real-Space elements taking part in
depiction as well as the selective projection (Fauconnier & Turner 1998) of these elements into
the blend.
It is worth detailing further what is meant by “Real-Space element.” Relevant here is the
ground, which is used “to indicate the speech event, its participants, and its setting” (Langacker
1987:126). Liddell (1995:22) describes Real Space as a “grounded mental space.” In this way,
Real Space is contrasted with the other input space which, in Liddell’s terms, is a non-grounded
mental space containing elements of its own. As mentioned above, one useful distinction
between the two input spaces is whether or not the mental space is established and structured via
linguistic means. Real Space is not, as it is an individual’s mental space that is continually active
within or without discourse. This mental space arises from continuously taking in of external
information through the visual and the auditory systems (Langacker 1987:112). One’s
conceptualization of any object perceived to be present is a Real-Space element, and this
includes other individuals with whom one is interacting face-to-face. The stream of linguistic
signals is also a Real-Space entity, but the resulting meaning constructions the signals prompt
require an array of mental spaces containing elements that are not (at least not strictly) RealSpace elements.
Other components of the ground are also Real-Space components. The signer’s selfawareness is certainly part of the ground. The signer isn’t always fully aware of the self, as is
often the case during episodes of daydreaming, but when returning to the present circumstances,
the signer becomes more aware of the self. This difference in awareness is a difference in how
the subject of conception is construed. At one extreme the signer is fully aware of the self—and
thus construed as fully objective—and at the other extreme the signer is least aware of the self—
and thus construed as fully subjective (Langacker 2000). In any case, the signer always has
some awareness of the self that exists as part of the ground, being the “locus of experience”
(Lakoff 1996:93). This subject/self is part of one’s Real Space, unique to that individual. Also
unique to the conceptualizer is the vantage point, “the position from which a scene is viewed”
(Langacker 1987:123). An object within a room may be a Real-Space element to individuals,
but from unique vantage points. The notion of subject necessarily subsumes a unique vantage
point, as one always finds oneself at a particular location within a larger setting. We now turn to
the descriptive advantage of distinguishing between the subject and vantage point where
depiction is concerned.
10
Figure 10
First, it will be convenient to use simple illustrations like Figure 10 to represent blended
components existing within different types of depiction. Figure 10 represents the blended
components in just about any constructed dialogue involving two interlocutors. Representing the
|setting| is a box-like container, and within it are two figures. One of them is the |subject|, and its
visibility is indicated by the figure with a shaded fill. The second figure is the other
|interlocutor|, and its lack of a fill indicates the non-visibility of the blended element. (The arrow
below the diagram will be explained later below.) It should be recognized that this diagram and
others below do not do much more than indicate the blended components and their schematic
relation to one another, e.g. the |subject| exists within a |setting| with an |interlocutor| in front.
The figure representing the |subject| is a stick figure that is standing, but signers can of course
produce utterances sitting down or lying down, even during depiction. They typically also do
not move away from their position when signing, even when a path movement of the |subject| is
being described. In fact, someone running can be depicted by a signer who is comfortably
seated. This means that often only a portion of the signer’s body takes part in the mapping
creating the |subject|. Pattern completion, another cognitive process involved in blending
(Fauconnier & Turner 1998), supplies whatever is necessary to successfully interpret the blend
despite minimal visual information.
Evidence that the Real-Space subject and vantage point are distinct components comes
from a type of depiction that makes use of a setting blend. Such blends are created when
signers wish to talk about objects within an environment other than their current one. One would
be created when, for example, the signer is talking with an addressee about a new light fixture in
a mutual friend’s kitchen. In this situation, a mental space would have been previously
established, containing certain elements associated with the kitchen being described. Elements
in this Kitchen Space would include the kitchen and the light fixture. Since the kitchen is an
element in this mental space, signers also have access to general knowledge, or frame, pertaining
to kitchens, e.g. it is a type of room with the usual walls, ceiling, floor, entrances, and so forth.
Should the signer wish to describe the location of this light fixture, the ASL grammatical
convention is to not produce a periphrastic construction akin to the English “on the ceiling.”
Rather, the convention is to direct a single depicting verb (often with a glance) towards the
imagined ceiling above the signer, as illustrated in Figure 11.
11
Figure 11
The verb in Figure 11 is used here to simultaneously depict several features of the light
fixture. The handshape depicts its general bowl-like shape. The orientation of the sign depicts
the direction towards which certain sides of the light fixture are facing. In this case, since the
palm of the hand is facing upward, the light fixture is depicted as being convex-shaped. If it is
possible for the downward-facing palm to be used in a similar depiction, we would understand
the light fixture as being concave-shaped. The location of the light fixture is depicted via the
directionality of the verb: the verb is directed upwards and slightly away from the signer. To be
able to direct this sign, typically a Real-Space blend needs to have been previously created (see
Liddell 2003:154 for a similar observation). Once the signer imagines the presence of a |kitchen
ceiling|, the verb can then be directed towards the blended element. Otherwise it is not possible
to use the verb (except in cases where the signer is talking about an actual ceiling directly
accessible to the interlocutors). The use of this type of depicting verb is often an indicator of a
Real-Space blend, and in this case it is clear that the signer has created a Kitchen blend.
The Kitchen blend is an instance of a setting blend. It is created by integrating the kitchen
from the Kitchen Space input with a portion of the Real-Space setting into a blend, creating a
|kitchen|. The |ceiling| in this blend is the result of integrating the ceiling (accessible via the
kitchen frame) in the Kitchen Space input with a portion of space above the signer. The set-up
of the |kitchen| and |ceiling| is not possible without the signer’s selection of a location within the
kitchen from which to locate the light fixture. There are many possible locations within the
kitchen that can be selected for this purpose. Once a location is selected, it integrates not with
the Real-Space subject, but with the Real-Space vantage point alone. The signer does happen to
be standing in what is understood to be the |kitchen| and is also glancing at the |kitchen ceiling|
while directing a verb towards it. However, this does not mean that the Kitchen blend contains a
|subject|. There is no animate being in the Kitchen Space input that is a candidate counterpart to
the Real-Space subject. Moreover, the blend is created to depict a setting rather than an event,
and as discussed below, setting blends appear to preclude the existence of a |subject|. Since the
Real-Space vantage point is a type of location, virtually any location within the kitchen is a
suitable counterpart. The vantage point is not merely a location on the floor, but a threedimensional concept. To quickly illustrate, consider the differences in the articulation of a verb
produced by a very young child and a tall adult to depict the location of a painting on the kitchen
wall. The child would produce the sign above eye level referencing the actual painting’s location
in space whereas the adult would produce the sign at eye level. This is obviously a consequence
of the different, three-dimensional vantage points that the two have, which is integrated with a
12
location in the kitchen to create the respective |vantage points|. Should the child or adult depict
the other’s experience of the kitchen, their articulations would change accordingly—the adult
would raise both arms to depict the location of the |painting|, but the child wouldn’t need to.
Figure 12
Figure 12 represents setting blends that have life-sized dimensions. As with the
constructed dialogue representation in Figure 10, the |setting| is represented by a box. Instead of
the figure with a shaded fill used to represent a |subject|, a dotted figure icon is used here to
represent the |vantage point|. These distinct representations should not be taken to mean that the
|subject| lacks a |vantage point|, but as mentioned above, the former actually subsumes the latter.
It is not possible for a subject to lack a vantage point because the conceptualization of one’s
location within a larger setting is an essential component of self-awareness. However, as we
have seen, it is possible to project the Real-Space vantage point independently of the Real-Space
subject. This is an example of selective projection: in certain types of depiction, only a number
of Real-Space components are selected to integrate with its counterparts. Constructed dialogue
has a |subject| with a concomitant |vantage point|, but life-sized setting blends only have the
latter. Since both types of depiction have |settings| with life-sized dimensions, they are examples
of what Emmorey and Falgier (1999) call viewer space. Surrogate space is the term used by
Liddell (1995), although in my assessment, it has been used to describe only similarly-scaled
blends that depict dialogue or action.
Setting blends can also be created with a smaller portion of space in front of the signer. In
this blend, the dimensions of the |setting| and entities within it are scaled down. This is the result
of the cognitive process of compression (Fauconnier and Turner 2002). The depicted setting is
compressed with the smaller portion of space into the blend. Because this physical space does
not include the area where the signer is located, the Real-Space vantage point is not available to
take part in the mappings that create this blend, so the blend lacks a |vantage point|. The signer’s
Real-Space vantage point remains in effect. In contrast to viewer space, this is a diagrammatic
space (Emmorey and Falgier ibid.), represented by the small box in Figure 13. The benefit (and
necessity) of compression can be seen in the depiction of the spatial relations of planets or
galaxies. Components of the entity being depicted are compressed with its smaller Real-Space
counterparts into the blend, allowing for a human-scale conceptualization that would otherwise
not be possible.
13
Figure 13
It appears that the blended element |setting| is a constant among the various types of
depiction explicated in this paper. Since dialogue necessarily takes place within a setting, the
depiction of dialogue requires a |setting| element. This is also true not just for constructed action
but also for any event depiction. In addition to |setting|, what is also constant among the various
types of event blends to be described shortly is a |temporal progression| element (and this also
appears to be what basically distinguishes setting and event blends). As described in Dudis
(2004b), this element is the result of integrating temporal progression elements from two inputs.
The temporal element in Real Space is the currently experienced progression of time. Similar to
the varying degrees of awareness we have of our selves in any given moment, we are also not
continuously aware of the progression of time. There are certain experiences where it does come
to the forefront, as when one wishes to adjust the blinking rate of the cursor on a computer
monitor. The counterpart to this Real-Space temporal component is Event Time, i.e. the
temporal progression associated with the event being described. |Temporal progression| is
represented in the diagrams in this section by an arrow below the box, as in Figure 10 above.
Events are often depicted from the viewpoint of a |subject agent|, the result of integrating
the Real-Space subject with the participant with the status of agent in the Event-Space input.
Since other animate event participants are also subjects, they are potential counterparts to the
Real-Space subject. In fact, we do see depictions from the viewpoint of, say, the |patient|. What
is interesting in these non-|agentive| viewpoint depictions is that there is typically another visible
blended component (where in, say, constructed dialogue there is only one visible blended
element). For example, in a depiction of a punch, the signer could direct a fist towards his chin.
Considered in isolation, there are two ways to interpret this depiction. One is that the signer is
depicting someone punching himself. In this case, there is only one visible blended element, the
|self-puncher|. Another interpretation is that the signer is understood to be the |victim|, and that
the |fist| is thrown by an |attacker|. This interpretation requires partitioning (Dudis 2004a) of the
signer’s fist from the rest of the signer’s body. The fist then becomes available to integrate with
the attacker’s fist, while the Real-Space subject is integrated with the victim. One of the
|victim’s| hands is not visible, but through pattern completion, it remains conceptually present in
the blend. With partitioning and pattern completion, the signer has the ability to create distinct
visible components in event blends while allowing a single viewpoint to be maintained
throughout the depiction. It is also possible to partition the portion of the face that is used to
create facial expressions as well as the lower region of the face that includes the mouth and
cheeks. The whole face (excepting the eyes) can take part in the creation of a visible |facial
expression| that is distinct from the |subject’s| (which would not be visible, at least not fully), as
14
can be seen in the depiction of someone noticing that a glare is being directed towards him. The
partitioned-off mouth can be used to produce what appear to be onomatopoeic units depicting
aural/vibratory-related phenomena within events, e.g. one produced when two objects collide.
Other types of event depiction are possible through the selection of fewer Real-Space
components. Events that do not have an animate participant, e.g. a lightning striking a tree in a
woods during a storm, can be depicted with the Real-Space setting, vantage point, and temporal
progression. It is not necessary for the signer to witness the event firsthand to depict it; a
reconstruction of the event in the aftermath of the storm or even imagination alone is sufficient.
The Event-Space tree and woods would be integrated with its spatial counterparts in Real Space
to create |tree| and |woods|. A location v (this is just a label for a selected location within the
setting) would be integrated with the Real-Space vantage point, resulting in a |vantage point|
from which the lightning strike is described. The lightning bolt’s action is depicted by a verb in
which at the |lightning bolt’s| path is visible. This blend parallels the viewer kitchen blend in the
following ways: both have a |setting| and a |vantage point|, and both depict a relationship
between a |figure| and a |ground| (|light fixture & |ceiling|; |lightning bolt| & |tree|). A key
difference between the event blend and the setting blend is the existence of a blended temporal
component in the former. The extent to which the lightning strike blend, represented in Figure
14, and the kitchen blend parallel can be seen in the comparison of the diagrams. Both Figure 14
and Figure 11 are basically identical save for the arrow in the former, which represents an
integrated temporal component.
Figure 14
There is an association between the Real-Space temporal progression and subject
comparable to that between the Real-Space setting and vantage point. The Real-Space vantage
point is a particular location within a larger Real-Space setting, and the former clearly cannot
exist outside of the latter. The adoption of an imagined vantage point is not possible without an
imagined setting. Thus, if the signer creates a viewer space blend, we know that the signer has
integrated not only setting components but also the Real-Space vantage point with a location
within the depicted setting. Such attendant integrations do not occur in diagrammatic setting
blends (Figure 13), in which a setting is depicted without integration of the signer’s vantage
point into the blend. The Real-Space subject is characterized above as having self-awareness,
and being self-aware is an activity that takes place over time. More generally, a span of time is
needed to entertain any concept. Langacker 1987 distinguishes this processing time from
conceived time. For example, one can visualize leaves on a tree changing from green to red and
orange. The rate of change can be adjusted, resulting in visualizing colors as bursting out all at
15
once or gradually emanating leaf by leaf. These different rates of change involve different
conceived times, extending through the conceptualizer’s processing time. Processing time is
required for the signer to imagine setting blends, but since no event occurs within these blends,
conceived time would not have a role within them. A conceived time, |temporal progression|, is
necessarily a component in event blends containing a |subject|, who is aware of the self and other
entities. This awareness or any activity cannot be depicted independently of a |temporal
progression|. Thus, when it is clear that a blend has a |subject|, we know that there is attendant
integration of temporal progression components. |Temporal progression|, as illustrated with the
depiction of the lightning strike above, can be created independently of a |subject|.
Three other types of event blends observed in ASL involve compression. Figure 15 is an
example of a diagrammatic event blend used to depict a car passing another car.
Figure 15
Here the two manual articulators are linguistic units and in this instance are used to depict the
action of the cars. While there are |drivers| in this blend, conceptualized to be inside the |cars|,
there is no |subject|. In fact, it does not appear possible for any diagrammatic event blend to have
a |subject|. The only Real-Space elements that take part in this depiction are the depicting units
(the manual articulators), the setting, and temporal progression. Because the depiction makes
use of only a portion of the space in front of the signer, there is no evidence suggesting that the
signer’s vantage point is integrated with a particular location in the setting of the event. As seen
in Figure 15, the signer’s eye gaze is on the interaction of the two cars, making it clear that the
signer is not representing the driver of either car. Had the eye gaze instead been consistently
directed straight ahead instead, this would likely to be interpreted as the actions of a driver and
thus constitute evidence suggesting the existence of a |subject|. The manual articulators do not
have the capacity for self-awareness, so they are not regarded as subjects and their integration
with the cars in the Event-Space input result in blended elements that are not subjects. This is
true even if the manual articulator that is conventionally used to depict an upright human (the
index finger) integrates with an Event-Space subject. Only when the Real-Space subject
integrates with an Event-Space counterpart will there be a |subject|, and this is possible only
within a viewer space.
Apparently, that only one |subject| can exist within any instance of depiction is also true
even when a viewer event blend and a diagrammatic event blend exist concurrently. The present
analysis suggests that this involves the partitioning off of the manual articulators to create visible
16
blended elements existing only within the diagrammatic space. To illustrate, the signer in Figure
16a is depicting someone riding uphill on a motorcycle.
Figure 16a
Figure 16b
Only one blend is used to depict this scene, and it contains a |motorcyclist subject| who is
understood to be steering a non-visible |motorcycle|. Then to add further details to the ongoing
depiction, the signer creates a diagrammatic blend. The diagrammatic blend is visually
manifested when the signer partitions off the manual articulators to depict a motorcycle moving
up on a hill. The 3-handshape in Figure 16b is similar to those in Figure 15, but is here used to
represent the motorcycle. The flat-B handshape is used to represent a portion of the hill. Based
in part on the placement of the 3-handshape, which is close and perpendicular to the signer’s
chest, the |motorcycle| is understood to be the visual blended counterpart to the non-visible
|motorcycle| in the viewer blend. This relationship would not be possible had the |motorcycle|
been placed even a few inches further away from the signer or to either side of the signer. The
visible |motorcycle| in the diagrammatic blend would then be another motorcycle different from
the one that the |motorcyclist subject| is on. This blend serves as a global perspective counterpart
to the participant perspective within the viewer blend. The actions of the visible |motorcycle| in
this blend provides direct information whereas related information in the viewer blend can be
obtained only indirectly. Figure 17 diagrams the co-existence of the viewer and diagrammatic
spaces and the blended components within them. Since both spaces are event blends, an arrow
representing |temporal progression| is included in both blend representations.
Figure 17
17
The other two event blends are viewer and diagrammatic blends in which the Event Time is
compressed with a shorter span of the Real-Space temporal progression. It is probably the case
that many event blends exhibit temporal compression, but determining whether there is temporal
compression is not as easy as it is with setting compression. However, the use of temporal
aspectual constructions or certain head movements accompanied by facial non-manual signals
(e.g. quick nodding of the head with eyes squinting and mouth slightly open) are good candidates
for indicators of temporal compression as described here. Dudis (2004b) describes how some
conventional head movements in ASL accompany gradual change-of-state depictions. Soon
after depicting the causing event, the signer makes a slow, backward head movement, and then
produces a quick return of the head to at or near its neutral position while simultaneously
producing a sign describing the change. In the ASL expression more or less equivalent to the
English expression “I practiced until I became good at it” (Figure 18), an aspectual form of
PRACTICE is produced with non-manual signals suggesting the existence of a |subject|. During
the production of the aspectual form, the head moves slowly back, a gesture suggesting the
recognition that a change is underway. In the last part of the expression, the production of the
sign SKILL and the head’s return to neutral position or near it occur simultaneously. An actual
building of a skill requires more than a few seconds, but this span of time is exactly how long it
takes to produce the expression. This is clear evidence of a compression of temporal
progression. As this construction can be used to depict other changes-of-state, we can take the
head non-manual signal just described as an indicator of this type of compression.
Figure 18
The last Real-Space element to be described in this paper is the body itself. Liddell
2003:141-142 describes how a signer makes use of a Real-Space blend, replicated in Figure 19,
to describe the preparation of a fish before cooking it. The signer places the tip of a B-hand on
the top of her chest near her throat and moves it down to her waist. Since the signer is
specifically talking about slicing the fish, we understand that the B-hand is used to depict
something related to the slicing, either a part of the knife and its slicing motion or the path of the
slice and perhaps its depth. We also interpret that the signer’s chest is used to depict the
underside of the fish. The underbelly of the fish in the Fish Space is mapped onto the Real-Space
signer’s chest, and their integration results in the second visible blended element, |fish
underbelly|. What about the signer’s looking downwards? Aside from those in cartoons, fish
can’t watch themselves being sliced, so it is safe to say that there is no |subject| in this blend. So
18
here the signer’s head is just the signer’s head. Because fish take up space and events take place
in settings, a |setting| is posited, albeit an abstract one (it seems highly doubtful that signers
would imagine a surface of, say, a table on one of the signer’s sides). Since the blend created is
not a diagrammatic space, but appears to be a larger-than-life-scale viewer space, it is clear that
there exists a |vantage point| in this blend. Similar examples of viewer space blends containing
blended |bodies| but not |subjects| are often found in descriptions of how people have been
injured, received scars, and so forth.
In this section, I have demonstrated that the various types of depiction observed to occur in
ASL discourse are the result of the selective projection of Real-Space elements, namely the
setting, vantage point, temporal progression, the subject, and the body, along with cognitive
abilities including the ability to partition the body into several meaningful zones, to compress the
setting and time of the scene being depicted, and to create simultaneous blends. The different
types of depiction are listed in Table 1 below. Since any event blend can have a compressed
|temporal progression|, no separate item indicating temporal compression is necessary. Also, the
|subject| is not listed with diagrammatic blends because this blended element can only be part of
a viewer event blend.
Types of Real-Space blend used in depiction
Viewer event blend with |subject|
Viewer event blend without |subject|
Viewer setting blend
Diagrammatic setting blend
Diagrammatic event blend
Table 1
5. Restrictions on the use of linguistic items when a |subject| is active
Conceptual blending analyses of ASL expressions also have shed further light on the
relationship of ASL linguistic units to event blends. Of interest here is the set of restrictions that
is typically in effect when a |subject| is active. As described below, these restrictions are related
to the activation of a |temporal progression| and the type of event blend created. These
demonstrate why the informal event sequence depiction test described in Section 2 is useful in
identifying whether a linguistic unit is one that actually depicts an event: if the sign is associated
with |temporal progression|, then the sign further contributes to the overall depiction of the event.
Fauconnier (1997) describes discourse as comprising several mental spaces within a single
lattice. The discourse participants are described as navigators through this lattice, the producer
of the discourse building spaces and guiding addressees through the lattice via a variety of cues,
both linguistic and non-linguistic. Discourse begins with a base space (Fauconnier ibid.), a
“privileged set of mental-space structures which [the speaker] understands as corresponding to
her actual experience and/or to situations which she believes actually prevail or took place in the
past” (Dancygier and Sweetser 2005:31). (Real Space could be regarded as part of the
conceptualizer’s base space.) Distinct mental spaces are created relative to not just other mental
spaces but to this base space as well. Where constructed dialogue is concerned, the Event Space
19
that consists of elements related to the dialogue is established relative to the base space (the term
“Event Space” used in this paper is used as a label for input spaces that are parents of event
blends and is not the “discourse primitive” discussed in Cutrer 1994 and Fauconnier 1997). Thus
(at least) three mental spaces have roles in the depiction of dialogue.
Among the different roles mental spaces have in discourse is one in which a mental space
is being structured. This is the focus space, “the current, most active space; the space which an
utterance is ‘about’” (Cutrer 1994:71). An expression in which dialogue is depicted appears
have both the Event Space and the event blend as active mental spaces. I will leave in-depth
examination of focus spaces in dialogue involving depiction to future investigation. It is
sufficient to note the following: when an event blend is created, it becomes part of the lattice of
mental spaces created within a discourse; having been created, it remains accessible throughout
the discourse in question; and the moment the signer ceases depicting an event, the event blend is
deactivated. This event blend can be reactivated (or perhaps becomes a focus space once again),
allowing the signer to continue the discourse with further depiction. It is also possible to have
two different event blends in one stretch of discourse (Liddell and Metzger 1998; Liddell 2003).
Figure 19 is a diagram of a discourse that I analyze as having two event blends created to depict
a dialogue between Dana and Tracy.
Figure 19
20
There is an Event Space set up relative to a Base Space. Because the interlocutors are known to
the signer, they are elements of the Base Space. The “same” interlocutors are being talked about
in a context different from the Base Space, one that is contained within the past Event Space.
Once one of these interlocutors are identified, perhaps via a noun phrase, the signer can change
posture from one facing the addressee to the posture in the video still near the blend labeled
Event Blend 1 (EB1). For as long as the |subject interlocutor| is understood to be active and
producing dialogue, EB1 (or perhaps more precisely, the |temporal progression| element) remains
active. A variety of cues signal the deactivation of the |temporal progression| element. The eyegaze with the addressee is re-established and, simultaneously, the signer’s posture is no longer
aligned with the |subject interlocutor|. If the posture now assumed is one previously held by the
signer prior to the creation of EB1, then it is clear that depiction has ceased. A new posture, as
seen in the video still near Event Blend 2 (EB2), would signal the creation of a new blend, and
this blend may be preceded by linguistic units identifying interlocutor 2 as the dialogue
participant being depicted. These three postures and associated cues assist the signer in moving
between mental spaces. Often the signer alternates between the postures associated with the
event blends without returning to the neutral signer posture, a deactivation-reactivation process
between EB1 and EB2.
When an event blend created to depict dialogue is active, virtually any portion of the
expression the signer makes is understood to be the dialogue of the |interlocutor|. As discussed
previously, since a portion of the Real-Space body, especially from the head to the lower torso, is
integrated with the Event-Space interlocutor, any action of the Real-Space signer is understood
to be the action of the |interlocutor|. Whether the signs being produced are depicting is irrelevant
in this case. What is being depicted is the act of dialogue making, which includes both depicting
and non-depicting signs. This is one way that signs are associated with |temporal progression|.
This does not require more than one event blend, and so compared to the other types of event
blends discussed below, the depiction of dialogue is a relatively straightforward process. Also
exhibiting a straightforward blending process is the type of event blend in which a manual action
is performed by a |subject|. The manual action depicted may or may not be considered to be an
instance of a depicting verb. Figure 20 illustrates a verb that depicts the action of opening a
capped bottle.
Figure 20
21
The manual articulators appear to be the |hand holding opener| and the |hand holding (neck of)
bottle|, respectively. The |bottle| and |opener| are blended elements that are not visible but are
nevertheless conceptually present. Note that the two |hands| contact each other. This contact
doesn’t typically happen in actual opening of bottles. This does not make the verb a nondepicting verb, but it can be taken to indicate the verb’s unit status rather than simply a nonlinguistic gesture.
The opening-bottlecap depicting verb just described is an example of what is known as a
handling classifier construction. “Handling” is used to label this type of verb because these
verbs have a visible |hand| that is understood to be holding or handling |something|. The latter
blended element is non-visible, but the configuration of the |hand| indicates part of the |held
object’s| shape. Figure 21 is another verb of this type, one that depicts a gun being held. A
different depicting verb is illustrated in Figure 22.
Figure 21
Figure 22
The verb in Figure 22 is similar in many ways to its counterpart except that it depicts the object
held rather than the hand that holds it: here we have two visible elements, the |subject shooter|
and the |gun|. This type of verb is known as an instrument classifier construction, and using it
within an event blend with a |subject| requires the partitioning of the signer’s hand. The blend
described in Section 4 in which a |subject victim| receives a |punch| also involves the partitioning
of the hand, but the partitioning is only required if the punch is made by someone other than the
|subject|; this is also true for “hand-depicting” verbs. “Instrument-depicting” verbs necessitates
partitioning when produced with a |subject| active, regardless of whether the |subject| is
understood to be holding the object or not. The differences between these two types of depicting
verbs notwithstanding, only a single event blend is necessary for either of these two verbs to be
used. In the case of “hand-depicting” verbs, the |hand| is part of the |body| that the |subject| has,
and any |held object| is not visible but is present as an element within the blend. In the case of
“instrument-depicting” verbs, the |instrument| is visible, but the |hand| holding it is not.
We are already beginning to see the differences between expressions depicting dialogue
and expressions depicting manual or instrument actions. While it is not obvious how different
the event blends within these expressions are from each other, it is clear that they differ in the
type of linguistic unit used. Again, any sign produced within a blend created to depict dialogue
will be understood to be part of a |subject’s| dialogue. This includes nouns like GUN (which is a
fingerspelled loan sign) and relations like SILVER (as it is not absolutely clear that this sign is
22
an adjective, I instead use “relation,” a Cognitive Grammar term that describes the class of verbs,
adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions). Since both GUN and SILVER do not depict anything,
they would not be able to be produced in a blend created to depict events other than dialogue.
The two signs can be produced in the event sequence test only as constructed dialogue. The
verbs in Figures 21 and 22 can be used in event blends, not just because they are depicting verbs.
The verb illustrated in Figure 11 (repeated below as Figure 23) is produced to depict the shape
and location of the light fixture, but not any action. Hand- and instrument-depicting verbs are
event-depicting verbs. Since they depict events, they have a |temporal progression| element. In
the same way that the verb in Figure 23 requires a setting blend to be active for it to be produced,
these verbs require an event blend to be active for them to be produced. The event blend need
not be made manifest to the addressee prior to the use of event-depicting verbs. The appearance
of such verbs, with concomitant non-linguistic cues, is sufficient for the addressee to create or
activate an event blend within the mental space lattice.
Figure 23
It is possible to produce the non-depicting sign SILVER with the hand representing a gun
or a hand holding a gun remains in place. Whether an event blend is still active depends on what
the signer is doing with SILVER. If the signer is depicting how the person with the gun is
describing the gun, e.g. “Here’s the gun, it’s silver all over,” then SILVER is produced as part of
constructed dialogue, and this requires activation of an event blend. Only one event blend is
needed to depict both the dialogue and the gun in hand. If the signer and not the |subject| is
describing the gun, then |temporal progression| has been deactivated. Deactivation of |temporal
progression| does not necessarily deactivate other elements in the blend. While the |subject|
would be deactivated, the visible |hand| or the visible |gun| can remain active because they are the
result of integrating an Event-Space component with the Real-Space body, which is conceptually
independent from temporal progression. The signer can then talk about the gun using signs like
SILVER and directing signs towards the |gun|. This is an example of a discourse strategy in
which |temporal progression| is deactivated while keeping not the event-depicting verbs active,
but the visible blended elements associated with them.
The relationship between the event-depicting verb that signers know and the actual use of
the verb within an event blend can be described in Cognitive Grammar terms (Langacker 1987,
1991) as a schema-instance relation. In the view of usage-based models of grammar, of which
Cognitive Grammar is one, linguistic units are obtained in part through recurrence of actual
23
usages of these units. Non-recurrent features are abstracted away during the process in which
expressions gain unit status. In the manual- and instrument-depicting verbs described above, it
appears that the unit(s) which they instantiate do not specify where the hands should be directed.
Rather, directionality is schematic, even though it is an essential feature of the event-depicting
verb schema. The actual use of these verbs are instances of the verb schema, and their
directionality is for the most part motivated by the signer’s knowledge of the event being
depicted (e.g. whether the gun is aimed to a side, towards the side, etc.). It appears that the
schematic features of these verbs are what Liddell (2003) is referring to in his discussion of
gradience in depicting verbs.
Since instances of manual- and instrument-depicting verbs consistently activate |temporal
progression|, this is evidence that when it comes to these verb types, this activation is not
optional. This means that |temporal progression| is a component in the event-depicting verb: to
use an event-depicting verb is to create or maintain an event blend with at least one visible
blended element. In the case of manual-depicting verbs, at the very least the |agent’s hand| is
visible. The |subject agent| can be visible, but through partitioning the signer’s Real-Space hand
can be the only visible part of the |agent| acting on the |subject patient|, as in the depiction of
someone receiving a punch (Figure 24). In the case of instrument-depicting verbs, the
|instrument| is the only visible element, but a |subject| can be, and often is, visible, for a total of
two visible blended elements in the actual depiction.
Figure 24
Figure 25
24
These two types of event-depicting verbs are also known as classifier constructions, and for
those classifier constructions that are used to depict events, a similar analysis would apply. The
expression partly illustrated in Figure 15 (repeated here as Figure 25) has been labeled as
“whole-entity” classifier constructions. Since their use involves the activation of a blend with a
|temporal progression| element, the schematic unit that sanctions the use of these constructions
has this element as a component. As these constructions activate a diagrammatic blend, they do
not have a |subject| component. These verbs could be regarded as “previously partitioned.” If an
animate participant is also part of the scene being depicted, this allows the creation of a blend
with a |subject|, resulting in multiple visible blended elements.
Figure 26
ASL also appears to have event-depicting verbs that would not traditionally be regarded as
classifier constructions. BE-TAKEN-ABACK and DO-THINGS (Figure 26) are two such verbs.
When either sign is produced, the various non-manual cues (eye-gaze shift, posture shift, change
in facial expression, etc.) are exhibited, signaling the existence of a |subject|. BE-TAKENABACK seems to be iconic for an individual experiencing something so intense that she throws
up her arms in order to regain her balance. In contrast, it is not immediately obvious what the
manual articulators of DO-THINGS are iconic for, much less what they depict. It is not
sufficient to just consider these articulators as partitioned off from the |subject|. This would not
reconcile the manual sign with the |subject| in accordance to the claim put forth in this section.
My preliminary analysis of DO-THINGS is that it is a verb that depicts someone doing a number
of things (some if not all involving the use of the hands). There are some features of the manual
sign that, upon closer examination, do appear to exhibit iconic mappings. The palms of the
manual articulators are facing away from the signer, suggesting contact or interaction with some
entity. The sign’s movement to one side and then towards the other suggests interaction with
more than one entity. The wiggling of the fingers in this sign is also found in a sign that has the
meaning “some time later.” The length of the sign is relatively protracted compared to nondepicting signs, and is itself one indicator of |temporal progression|. If this analysis were borne
out, this sign would then be evidence that—in addition to body partitioning and compression of
setting—temporal progression plays a role in the creation of signs. Interestingly, DO-THINGS
would also be a candidate sign that exhibits the compression of setting into a viewer blend: the
schematic activity being depicted is not necessarily limited to the space in front of the |subject|,
but may be understood to encompass a whole room or a variety of settings.
25
Aside from those expressions that create diagrammatic blends with distinct, visible
elements (e.g. Figure 25), most of the signs described thus far are likely to be viewed as
monomorphemic if one follows Liddell’s 2003 approach to the analysis of depicting verbs.
Again, such linguistic units have schematic components that prompt the mapping of semantic
components onto Real-Space elements. Given the Cognitive Grammar view, we can then say
that depiction has a role in the lexicon of ASL, where concepts such as |setting| and |subject| are
essential components of certain units. Symbolic units are viewed as comprising a network in
which units at the lowest level have the greatest semantic and phonological specifications and
those at the higher levels are successively more schematic with respect to semantic and
phonological information. Does the role of depiction extend into the grammar of ASL?
Cognitive Grammar and constructional approaches to grammar (e.g. Goldberg 1995) do not
assume a strict division between lexicon and grammar, maintaining that phrasal and clausal units
are to be treated as form-meaning pairings as well. This means that if we find depiction to have
a role in multi-morphemic or multi-word expressions, this would suggest that depiction has a
role in grammar as well.
Figure 27
Figure 7b, repeated here as Figure 26, partly illustrates the aspectual form of EXPLAINy.
As discussed in Section 2, it is not readily apparent as to what the manual articulators of
EXPLAINy are iconic for, and this is still true with this form. However, there is a visible
|subject explainer|, the result of integrating the Real-Space signer and the explainer, one of the
event participants encoded in the verb EXPLAINy. This |subject| and other features, including
the protracted length, suggest that the aspectual form is comparable to DO-THINGS, except that
the aspectual form is analyzable as being multi-morphemic. As mentioned earlier, it is not
possible to produce EXPLAINy in an event blend aside from instances of constructed dialogue,
so this sign would not be analyzed as having a |subject| or a |temporal progression| component.
The aspectual form can, and the obvious source is the aspectual constructional schema that the
form instantiates. This constructional schema is a productive one, as there are several instances
of this schema, e.g. the durational forms of WAIT and USE-KEYBOARD, all exhibiting cues
associated with either the |subject| or |temporal progression|. (Klima and Bellugi 1979 and
Liddell 2003 use “durational aspect” to label one type of aspectual construction, which seems
appropriate for the aspectual form being described here.) Other aspectual constructional
schemas, including the unrealized inceptive constructional schema (Liddell 1984), also are
analyzed as having at the very least a |temporal progression| component. As this is where
26
morphological processes come in, this suggests that depicting components are found not only in
the lexicon but grammar as well.
Returning to the claim being developed in this section, the non-iconicity of the manual
articulators of EXPLAINy or other component sign involved in the creation of aspectual forms
does not prevent an event blend from being active. This is because the articulators are now part
of a depicting expression produced via integration of a verb with the aspectual constructional
schema. Thus this is a case of the schema-instance relation which satisfies the provision that
linguistic units or gestures produced with a |subject| active be associated with |temporal
progression|. The non-depicting nature of the articulators does not mean that they by themselves
contribute nothing to the blend. Rather, they can be seen as temporal markers whose extended
presence maps iconically onto the duration of the event being depicted.
Further evidence that depiction has a role in the grammar of ASL is found in ASL changeof-state constructions (Dudis 2004b). Figure 18, repeated here as Figure 28, partly illustrates a
depiction of an event in which an individual practices some skill, e.g. shooting baskets or
fingerspelling, until a higher level of competency is achieved. I analyze this expression as being
an instance of a gradual change-of-state construction.
Figure 28
The first part of the construction has an aspectual form, here a durational form of
PRACTICE. While continuing to produce the aspectual form, the signer slowly moves his head
backward, which depicts not the actual moving of a head, but a recognition that a change is
beginning to take place. Near the end of the expression the signer produces BE-SKILLED with
the head returning to neutral position. Since neither PRACTICE nor BE-SKILLED are depicting
units, the depiction in Figure 27 is attributed to the complex constructional schema. The
association the articulators of PRACTICE have to |temporal progression| is similar to the one the
articulators of EXPLAINy have in the aspectual form. This suggests that an aspectual
construction is part of this change-of-state construction. BE-SKILLED describes the resulting
change and comprises the final part of the manual portion of the construction. Its production can
be seen to mark the point in the |temporal progression| when the anticipated change is complete.
The set of non-manual signals is a component of the change-of-state constructional schema. It
appears that the phonological information for the non-manual signal during the initial phase is
schematic, at least where the head movement is concerned, but is specified for the following
phases (the head moves back slowly, etc.). Again, the head movement is associated with the
27
appearance of the anticipated change. In all, there is ample evidence that this constructional
schema is a depicting unit in the grammar of ASL. That this construction depicts a schematic
change-of-state explains why its instances can be produced with a |subject| active.
Thus far we have seen that non-depicting items can be produced when a |subject| is active
as long as they are associated with |temporal progression|, either as part of constructed dialogue
or as an instance of a linguistic unit that has a |temporal progression| component. A third
possibility has already been hinted in the description of the non-manual component of the
change-of-state construction, which is associated with the recognition of the appearance of a
change and the tracking of its progress. In addition to depicting dialogue and external events, it
is also possible to depict psychological events. Figure 29 partly illustrates an expression
depicting someone noticing, upon arriving at a shopping plaza, that two stores are unexpectedly
closed.
Figure 29
Here a |subject| clearly is present. The sign BE-CLOSED is directed first towards the
signer’s left and then towards his right, both accompanied by eye gaze towards the same
respective direction. It is also clear that the signs are directed where the two |stores| are
conceptualized to be. Following Liddell (2003:179), the BE-CLOSED sign is analyzed here as
not an instance of indicating verb or a depicting verb, but a plain verb that the signer simply
points towards a blended element. Here the |subject| is not signing to anyone in particular. If
this is instead a depiction of inner speech, intuitively it is a sparse depiction compared to other
instances of inner speech depictions. There is an alternative analysis. BE-CLOSED is produced
to represent the |subject’s| perception of the scene. Since the sign BE-CLOSED is not part of
constructed dialogue (or an event-depicting verb), the manual articulators are understood to be
partitioned off from the |subject|. The mental space it is part of is separate from the viewer space
in a way similar to the diagrammatic blended space’s independence from the viewer space in the
depiction of a motorcyclist riding uphill. The difference is that BE-CLOSED is not a
diagrammatic space, but a perceptual space associated with the |subject|. BE-CLOSED is then
associated with |temporal progression|, in spite of its being a non-depicting unit.
A perceptual space relative to an event blend is also created to depict the |subject’s|
focusing on an |object| within a |setting|. Figure 30 partly illustrates an expression depicting
someone seeing newly-installed light fixtures on a ceiling. Here it is clearer that dialogue is not
being depicted. A manual articulator is partitioned off from the |subject| to produce an instance
of the same verb described in Section 4, one that does not depict an event, but the shape and
28
location of an object, in this case a light fixture. As this verb does not depict an event, it lacks a
|temporal progression| component. However, as it is understood to depict what the |subject| is
seeing, it then has an association with |temporal progression|.
Figure 30
The event blend here has elements similar to those found the setting blend created to depict the
location of the light fixture (described in Section 4). Without access to previous information, it
would not be possible to determine whether an event or a setting alone is being depicted. A
related ambiguity is whether the viewer blend contains a |subject| or simply a |vantage point|.
This demonstrates not only how context is an essential part of the expression, but also the utility
of identifying the distinct conceptual components involved in the depiction of setting and events.
I hope to have demonstrated in the above that when a |subject| is active, specific restrictions
on the use of signs are in effect. Table 2 lists these restrictions.
Signs produced when a |subject| is active
Sign is part of dialogue (or gesture) being depicted
Sign depicts psychological event experienced by |subject|
Sign is an instance of a schematic unit containing a
|temporal progression| component
Table 2
6.0 Conclusion
The depiction of settings, objects, and events explicated in this paper are clearly staples of
ASL discourse. When ASL verbs and constructions are shown to have components that depict
semantic features, depiction becomes a focus of grammatical analysis from the cognitive
linguistic perspective discussed here. The specific approach being established here, begun by
other cognitive linguists investigating signed languages, demonstrates the significant potential
through further analysis for elucidating of the role depiction has in ASL grammar. This
approach lends support to the view that while there are some facets of ASL grammar that
“submerge” iconicity (Klima and Bellugi 1979), other facets exist where iconicity “emerges” (S.
Wilcox 2004).
29
Notes
This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant number
SBE-0541953. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Paul G. Dudis
Department of Linguistics
Gallaudet University
800 Florida Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20002
paul.dudis@gallaudet.edu
30
References
Cutrer, Michele. 1994. Time and Tense in Narratives and Everyday Language. Doctoral
dissertation, University of California at San Diego.
Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser. 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional
Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dudis, Paul G. 2004a. Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics 15:2, 223238.
Dudis, Paul G. 2004b. Depiction of Events in ASL: Conceptual Integration of Temporal
Components. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
Emmorey, Karen and Falgier, Brenda. 1999. Talking about Space with Space: Describing
Environments in ASL. In E.A. Winston (ed.), Story Telling and Conversations: Discourse
in Deaf Communities. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 3-26.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Adele
Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications, 113-130.
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science
22:2, 133-188.
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and The
Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Klima, Edward and Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Lakoff, George. 1996. Sorry, I’m not myself today. In Gilles Fauconnier and Eve Sweetser
(eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 91-123.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I, Theoretical
Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II, Descriptive
Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Liddell, Scott K. 1984. Unrealized-inceptive aspect in American Sign Language: Feature
insertion in syllabic frames. In J. Drogo, V. Mishra, and D. Teston (eds.), Papers from the
31
20th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 257-270.
Liddell, Scott K. 1995. Real, surrogate, and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL. In
Karen Emmorey and Judy Reilly (eds.), Language, Gesture, and Space. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 19-41.
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture and meaning in American Sign Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liddell, Scott K. and Melanie Metzger. 1998. Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of
Pragmatics 30, 657-697.
Metzger, Melanie. 1995. Constructed Dialogue and Constructed Action in American Sign
Language. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press, 255-271.
Padden, Carol. 1986. Verbs and role-shifting in ASL. in C. Padden (ed.), Proceedings of the
Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching. National
Association of the Deaf: Silver Spring, MD, 44-56.
Roy, Cynthia. 1989. Features of Discourse in an American Sign Language Lecture. In Ceil Lucas
(ed.), The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community. San Diego: Academic Press. 231-251.
Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking voices: repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational
discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: iconicity and metaphor in American Sign
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilcox, Phyllis P. 1998. GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language. In John Newman
(ed.), The Linguistics of Giving. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 175-207.
Wilcox, Sherman. 2004. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed
languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15:2, 119-147.
Winston, Elizabeth. 1991. Spatial referencing and cohesion in an American Sign Language text.
Sign Language Studies 73:397-410.
32