Peircean Sign and its Potential for Linguistic Analysis of Signed Languages
Classifiers and Diagrams
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.32.2.425-448Keywords:
classifiers, Peirce, arbitrariness, iconicity, sign language, diagramAbstract
The term classifier is widely used in Sign Language Linguistics to address some signs that seem to be unarbitrarily linked to the objects and processes they refer to. However, there are almost no texts in spanish that depict in detail how this term enters the subfield of sign language linguistics and what it implies. This paper aims to compensate this gap, by discussing several of the problems that are inherent to the use of this term to the description of those elements and mechanisms we find in sign languages. In the end, based on some specific examples gathered from video recorded narrations in Uruguayan signed language, I show how Peircean semiotics could solve several problems linked to the concept of classifier and its use for linguistic analysis of signed languages.
References
ALLAN, K. Classifiers. Language, Washington D. C. v. 53, n. 2, p. 285-311, 1977.
ÁREA DE ESTUDIOS SORDOS. Léxico TRELSU, © 2015-2018. Disponible en: www.tuilsu.edu.uy/trelsu Acceso en: 15 oct. 2023.
BATEMAN, J. A. Peircean Semiotics and Multimodality: Towards a New Synthesis. Multimodal communication, Berlin/Boston, v. 7, n. 1, p. 1-24, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2017-0021.
BRANDT, P. A. Cognitive semiotics. Signs, mind and meaning. Londres: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020.
COGILL-KOEZ, D. Signed language classifier predicates. Linguistic structures or schematic visual representation? Sign Language & Linguistics, Amsterdam, v. 3, n. 2, p. 153-207, 2000a. DOI: 10.1075/sll.3.2.03cog
COGILL-KOEZ, D. A model of signed language ‘classfier predicates’ as templated visual representation. Sign Language & Linguistics, Amsterdam-, v. 3, n. 2, p. 209-236, 2000b. DOI: 10.1075/sll.3.2.04cog
CUXAC, C. La langue des Signes Française. Les voies de l’iconicité. París: Ophrys, 2000.
DEMATTEO, A. Analogue grammar in the American Sign Language. THE 2ND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BERKELEY LINGUISTICS SOCIETY. Proceedings… Berkeley: University of California, 1976. p. 149-157.
DINGEMANSE, M. Ideophones and reduplication. Depiction, description, and the interpretation of repeated talk in discourse. Studies in Language, Amsterdam-, v. 39, n. 4, p. 946-970, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.4.05din
DINGEMANSE, M. Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, Amsterdam, v. 3, n. 1, p. 1-30, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.444
FERRARA, L.; HODGE, G. Language as Description, Indication, and Depiction. Frontiers in Psychology, Lausanne, v.9, n. 716, 2018. DOI: http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716
ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, E. Space in Danish sign language. Hamburgo: Signum, 1993.
FRISHBERG, N. Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language. Language, Washington D.C., v. 51, n. 3, p. 696-719, 1975. DOI: 10.2307/412894
FUSELLIER-SOUZA, I. Sémiogenèse des langues des signes. Étude de langues des signes émergentes (LS ÉMG) pratiquées par des sourds brésiliens. 2004. 415f. Tese (Docteur de l’Université Paris 8) – U.F.R: S.A.T Sciences du Langage, Université Paris 8, 2004.
GIVÓN, T. Iconicity, isomorphism, and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In: HAIMAN, J. (ed.) Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1985. p. 197-220.
GIVÓN, T. Isomorphism in the grammatical code. Studies in language, Amsterdam, v. 15, n. 1, p. 85-114, 1991. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.110.07giv
GIVÓN, T. Syntax. An introduction. Volume I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 2001.
HAIMAN, J. The iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation. Language, Washington D.C., v. 56, n. 3, p. 515-540, 1980. DOI: 10.2307/414448
HAIMAN, J. Iconic and Economic Motivation. Language, Washington D.C., v. 59, n. 4, p. 781-819, 1983. DOI: 10.2307/413373
HAIMAN, J. Symmetry. In: HAIMAN, J. (ed.). Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1985. p. 73-96.
HAIMAN, J. Ideophones and the evolution of language. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
IBARRETXE-ANTUÑANO, I.; VALENZUELA, J. Lenguaje y cognición. Madrid: Síntesis, 2021.
JAKOBSON, R. Quest for the essence of language. In: JAKOBSON, R. Selected writings II. Word and language. La Haya: Mouton, 1971. p. 345-359.
JAKOBSON, R. A few remarks on Peirce, pathfinder in the science of language. MLN, Baltimore, v. 92, n. 5, p. 1026-1032, 1977. DOI: 10.2307/2906890
KENDON, A. Gesture: visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
LIDDELL, S. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
PEIRCE, C. S. Sundry logical conceptions. In: PEIRCE EDITION PROJECT (ed.). The Essential Peirce. Volume 2 (1893-1913), 1998a. p. 267-288.
PEIRCE, C. S. Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations as Far as They Are Determined. In: PEIRCE EDITION PROJECT (Ed.). The Essential Peirce. Volume 2 (1893-1913), 1998b. p. 289-299.
PUUPPONEN, A. Towards understanding nonmanuality: a semiotic treatment of signers’ head movements. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, Londres, v. 4, n. 1, p. 1-39, 2019. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.709
QUADROS, R. LIBRAS. San Pablo: Parábola, 2019.
QUER, J. et al. Signgram blueprint. Leck:CPI books GmbH, 2020.
SALLANDRE, M.-A. Les unités du discours en Langue des Signes Français. Tentative de catégorisation dans le cadre d’une grammaire de l’iconicité. 2003. 307f. Tese (Docteur de l’Université Paris 8. Discipline: Sciences du Langage) – S.A.T. Sciences du langage, Université Paris VIII, París, 2003.
SAUSSURE, F. de. Curso de lingüística general. Buenos Aires: Losada, 1945.
SCHEMBRI, A. Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in signed languages. In: EMMOREY, K. (ed.). Perspectives on Classfier Constructions in Sign Languages. Nueva Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003. p. 3-35.
SHORT, T. L. Peirce’s theory of signs. Nueva York: Cambridge Univesrity Press, 2007.
STJERNFELT, F. Diagrammatology. An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology, and semiotics. Dordrecth: Springer, 2007.
STJERNFELT, F. Natural propositions. The actuality of Peirce’s Doctrine of Dicisigns. Boston: Docent Press, 2014.
SUPALLA, T. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. 1982. 154f. Tese (Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology) – University of California, San Diego, 1982.
SUPALLA, T. The Classifier System in American Sign Language. In: CRAIG, C. (ed.). Noun classes and categorization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1986. p. 181-214.
STOKOE, W. Sign language structure. Nueva York: University of Buffalo, 1960.
TAUB, S. Language from the body. Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
WALLIN, L. Polysynthetic signs in Swedish Sign Language. Estocolmo: Stockholms Universitet, 1996.
WAUGH, L. Degrees of iconicity in the lexicon. Journal of Pragmatics, Amsterdam, v 22, p. 55-70, 1994. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90056-6
VAL, S. Iconicidad y discurso. Análisis de narraciones en lengua de señas uruguaya desde una perspectiva cinematográfica. Montevideo: Área de Estudios Sordos, 2018.
Esta obra está licenciada com uma Licença 