Philippe Schlenker is a global Distinguished Professor of Linguistics at New York University.
Recent semantic studies of sign language have led to three salient claims. First, in some cases sign languages make visible some crucial aspects of the Logical Form of sentences, ones that are only inferred indirectly in spoken languages. Second, along one dimension sign languages appear to be more expressive than spoken languages because rich iconic phenomena can be found at their logical core (e.g. Schlenker, 'Visible Meaning', to appear). Third, in order to understand the role of iconicity in language in general, signs with iconicity should be compared to ‘speech-plus-gesture’ rather than to speech alone (Goldin-Meadow and Brentari, 'Gesture, sign and language', to appear) – hence the interest of a formal comparison between the iconic properties of signs and of gestures.
We will critically examine two common beliefs pertaining to this comparison. The first is that gestures differ from signs in not being subject to morphosyntactic rules. The second is that when speech is enriched with co-speech gestures, it can ‘match’ the iconic semantics of signs. We will argue that both claims are incorrect. First, we will suggest that some ‘gestural verbs’ display non-trivial grammatical properties of sign language agreement verbs, including under ellipsis. Second, we will argue that semantically co-speech gestures differ from most iconic modulations in sign language in that the latter typically have an at-issue contribution, whereas the former are usually presuppositional in nature. As a result, signs with iconicity afford different expressive resources from ‘speech-plus-gesture’.
Related readings:
Morpho-syntactic properties of gestural verbs
http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003120
Semantic properties of co-speech gestures:
http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002645
Background on sign language semantics:
http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002447
Recent semantic studies of sign language have led to three salient claims. First, in some cases sign languages make visible some crucial aspects of the Logical Form of sentences, ones that are only inferred indirectly in spoken languages. Second, along one dimension sign languages appear to be more expressive than spoken languages because rich iconic phenomena can be found at their logical core (e.g. Schlenker, 'Visible Meaning', to appear). Third, in order to understand the role of iconicity in language in general, signs with iconicity should be compared to ‘speech-plus-gesture’ rather than to speech alone (Goldin-Meadow and Brentari, 'Gesture, sign and language', to appear) – hence the interest of a formal comparison between the iconic properties of signs and of gestures.
We will critically examine two common beliefs pertaining to this comparison. The first is that gestures differ from signs in not being subject to morphosyntactic rules. The second is that when speech is enriched with co-speech gestures, it can ‘match’ the iconic semantics of signs. We will argue that both claims are incorrect. First, we will suggest that some ‘gestural verbs’ display non-trivial grammatical properties of sign language agreement verbs, including under ellipsis. Second, we will argue that semantically co-speech gestures differ from most iconic modulations in sign language in that the latter typically have an at-issue contribution, whereas the former are usually presuppositional in nature. As a result, signs with iconicity afford different expressive resources from ‘speech-plus-gesture’.
Related readings:
Morpho-syntactic properties of gestural verbs
http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003120
Semantic properties of co-speech gestures:
http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002645
Background on sign language semantics:
http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002447
| Building: | Hutchins Hall |
|---|---|
| Event Type: | Lecture / Discussion |
| Tags: | AEM Featured, colloquium, Discussion, Language |
| Source: | Happening @ Michigan from Department of Linguistics |
