Space and Iconicity in German Sign Language (DGS) © 2007, Pamela Perniss Cover illustration: Pamela Perniss, inspired by El Lissitzky, Proun 99 Cover design: Ponsen & Looijen bv, Wageningen Printed and bound by Ponsen & Looijen bv, Wageningen Space and Iconicity in German Sign Language (DGS) een wetenschappelijke proeve op het gebied van Letteren Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. mr. S.C.J.J. Kortmann, volgens besluit van het College van Decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 12 november 2007 om 13.30 uur precies door Pamela M. Perniss geboren op 13 mei 1974 te Ludwigsburg (Duitsland) Promotores: Prof. Dr. Stephen C. Levinson Prof. Dr. Ulrike Zeshan Co-promotor: Dr. Asli Özyürek Manuscriptcommissie: Prof. Dr. Pieter C. Muysken Prof. Dr. Karen Emmorey Prof. Dr. Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen The research reported in this thesis was supported by a grant from the Max-Planck- Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, München, Germany. Acknowledgments First and foremost I would like to thank my promotors Stephen Levinson and Ulrike Zeshan, and my co-promotor Asli Özyürek for their academic guidance, scientific expertise, and intellectual counsel throughout the maturation process of this thesis. I am thankful to have had the opportunity to write my thesis in such an outstanding academic institution as the MPI for Psycholinguistics represents. I would like to thank the members of the Language and Cognition group, in particular. Individuals have come and gone over the years, but at the core there remains an atmosphere in which ideas flourish and thrive, fostering an always stimulating and exciting intellectual environment, of which I am fortunate have been a part. In addition to my (co-)promotors, many other people have taken the time to discuss with me the contents of the thesis and the ideas developed in it. I would like to thank especially David Birdsong, Niclas Burenhult, Onno Crasborn, Karen Emmorey, Marianne Gullberg, Theresa Hanske, Sotaro Kita, Paul Kockelman, Scott Liddell, John Lucy, Jill Morford, Victoria Nyst, Roland Pfau, Jennie Pyers, Waldemar Schwager, Gunter Senft, Ann Senghas, Dan Slobin, and Inge Zwitserlood. I am indebted to them for sharing their knowledge and expertise, and I have benefited greatly from it. This thesis would not have been possible without the help and friendship of the many deaf people whom I have had the fortune of meeting since signing up for my first DGS course. I am especially grateful to Volker Maaßen and Peter Rapp from the Loor Ens school for DGS in Cologne, whose pedagogical and didactic skills paved my way into the world of signing, and who facilitated many of my contacts within the deaf community and much of the data collection for this thesis. I am immensely grateful to the deaf individuals who took the time to participate in this project, and give my heartfelt thanks also to Christian Ängenheister, Claudia Hingst, Murat Karabeke, Ulla Krause, Horst Sieprath, Anne Warnking, Isa Werth, Frank Winkens, and Uwe Zelle. The Loor Ens school and the Linguistics Departments at Cologne University and Aachen University kindly made available rooms in which I was able to make video recordings. In addition, I am indebted to Murat Karabeke for many hours of transcription and discussion of the DGS data. The technical, financial, and administrative support offered by the MPI for Psycholinguistics is invaluable and incomparable. I am lucky to have had access to technical equipment of the highest quality and to premium annotation tools from the beginning. Thanks i especially to Ric van Viersen and Ad Verbunt for answering to calls of technical need and distress. My thanks goes also to my fellow PhD students, many of whom have become good friends over the years, and who together build and maintain a network of mutual support and understanding. Good friends here and afar have made the time vastly more enjoyable and have kept things bearable when they threatened not to be. I value and cherish the time spent with all of you − thank you dearly! And an extra big thanks to my paranimfen, Anita Wagner and Federico Rossano. In more practical matters, I owe thanks to Arno Hazekamp, Jan Peter de Ruiter, and Inge Zwitserlood for help with the Dutch summary. Thanks also to Arno for so many other little and not-so-little things along the way. Special thanks and appreciation to Asli Özyürek, who got me through the final months of writing, and with whom I have the pleasure of continuing to work. Finally, my parents and family have encouraged and supported me always, and I thank them for standing by me. ii Table of contents Acknowledgements i Table of contents iii Abbreviations and transcription conventions vii Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Iconicity and sign language structure 3 1.2 The expression of location and motion in spoken and signed language 8 1.3 DGS background and data collection 11 1.3.1 Sociolinguistic and historical information 11 1.3.2 Previous research on DGS 11 1.3.3 Contact with the deaf community and data collection 12 1.3.4 Type of data 12 1.4 Structure of the dissertation 13 Chapter 2. Iconicity and sign language structure 17 2.1 Meaning construction in signed language: Iconicity and beyond 17 2.1.1 Iconicity as a semiotic and linguistic notion 19 2.1.2 Iconicity in spoken and signed language 21 2.2 Sign language structure: Phonology 26 2.3 Sign language structure: The morphology of classifier predicates 32 2.3.1 Encoding size and shape information in spoken languages 34 2.3.2 Analyses of sign language classifier predicates as composed of discrete morphemes 35 2.3.3 Analyses of sign language classifier predicates as composed of discrete and analogue elements 37 2.4 Sign language structure: Simultaneous constructions 39 2.4.1 Simultaneous constructions that reflect perceptual structure 40 2.4.2 Simultaneous constructions that reflect discourse structure 42 2.5 Summary 42 Chapter 3. The spatial domain in spoken and signed language 45 3.1 The spatial domain 45 3.1.1 The encoding of location in language 46 3.1.1.1 Angular specification 47 3.1.1.2 Non-angular specification 49 3.1.2 The encoding of motion in language 50 3.2 Frames of reference in spoken and signed language 52 3.2.1 Frame of reference research in spoken languages 55 iii 3.2.2 Frame of reference research in sign languages 58 3.3 Signing perspective 63 3.4 Viewpoint in spatial descriptions in the visual-spatial modality 64 3.4.1 Signer vs. addressee viewpoint in spatial descriptions 64 3.4.2 Shared space in spatial descriptions 67 3.5 Alignments between perspective, frames of reference, and classifier predicates 68 3.5.1 The relationship between frames of reference and signing perspective 70 3.5.2 The relationship between classifier predicates and signing perspective 75 3.6 Summary 76 Chapter 4. Static scene spatial description in DGS 77 4.1 The structure of locative constructions in sign languages 77 4.2 Methodology 82 4.2.1 Task description 82 4.2.2 Stimulus materials 83 4.2.3 Participants 84 4.2.4 Data collection 84 4.2.5 Data summary 85 4.2.6 Data coding 86 4.3 DGS locative descriptions 88 4.3.1 Convention 1: Identification precedes spatialization 91 4.3.2 Convention 2: Classifiers encode all spatial information 102 4.3.3 Convention 3: Encode ground before figure 119 4.3.4 Convention 4: Use simultaneous classifier constructions 130 4.3.5 Convention 5: Sign from signer's (external) viewpoint 135 4.4 Summary and discussion 137 Chapter 5. Perspective and frames of reference in DGS static scene spatial description 139 5.1 Data 140 5.2 Perspective in DGS static scene descriptions 141 5.3 Frames of reference in DGS static scene descriptions 143 5.4 Perspective and frame of reference alignment 147 5.5 Analysis of addressees' interpretations of static scene spatial descriptions 149 5.5.1 Coding and stimulus categorization 151 5.5.2 Rotation and translation in interpretation 153 5.5.3 Rotation and translation interpretations in the data 154 5.5.3.1 Simple scenes 155 5.5.3.2 Complex scenes 157 5.5.4 When iconicity is not enough: miscommunications of spatial relationships 160 5.5.5 General discussion of interpretation results 163 5.6 Summary and discussion 165 iv Chapter 6. Perspective and frames of reference in DGS event narratives 167 6.1 Methodology 168 6.1.1 Stimulus materials and task description 168 6.1.2 Data collection 169 6.1.3 Data coding 169 6.2 The encoding of location in event narratives 175 6.2.1 The use of signing perspective to encode location 175 6.2.2 The use of frames of reference to encode location 179 6.3 The encoding of location and motion in event narratives 180 6.3.1 The use of signing perspective to encode location and motion 180 6.3.2 The use of frames of reference to encode location and motion 182 6.4 Alignment between perspective and frames of reference in location and motion scenes 183 6.5 Encoding of viewpoint in the relative frame of reference in teller and reteller narratives 187 6.6 Summary and discussion 190 Chapter 7. The relationship between signing perspective and spatial/activity predicates 193 7.1 The relationship between the use of perspective and different spatial/activity predicates in the sign language literature 193 7.2 Methodology 196 7.2.1 Stimulus materials and data collection 197 7.2.2 Coding of spatial/activity predicates and perspective 197 7.2.3 The relationship between perspective and classifier predicates 198 7.2.4 The relationship between signing perspective and lexical predicates 200 7.2.5 The relationship between signing perspective and index signs 200 7.3 Combinations of perspective and spatial/activity predicates in the data: Qualitative analysis 201 7.4 Distribution of perspective and spatial/activity predicates in the data: Quantitative analysis 207 7.5 The relationship between semantic event components and classifier- perspective constructions 210 7.5.1 The motivation for character perspective coding 210 7.5.2 The motivation for observer perspective coding 213 7.6 Summary and discussion 216 Chapter 8.