Coexpressivity, Gesture, and Language Emergence: Modality, Composition, and Creation

A special issue of Languages (ISSN 2226-471X).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 December 2023) | Viewed by 4529

Special Issue Editors


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
The Anthropology Department, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
Interests: anthropological linguistics; Mayan; Paman; gesture; language and law

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, Tlalpan Centro, CDMX, Mexico City C.P.14000, Mexico
Interests: anthropological linguistics; Mayan culture; gesture; emerging sign language

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The notion that human communication, including virtually all signed and spoken languages, routinely involves multiple simultaneous channels or modalities, some vocal and some not, is an ancient idea. Nonetheless, it has only recently received serious systematic attention from scholars of language and social interaction. Scientific advances in the study of what we will refer to as “coexpressivity,” which often involve research by native and non-native researchers alike on endangered or little studied indigenous and community languages, pay careful attention to what Enfield (2009) called “composite utterances”, in which speech (or sign), gesture, bodily configuration, gaze, and/or touch coalesce to constitute and enable communicative action. Existing literature variously addresses such issues: in addition to Enfield’s (2009) foundational study on Lao or Goodwin’s recent (2017) monograph on cooperative action, there are numerous publications on what Kendon (2004) called “speakers’ gestures”, studies on emerging “community” or “natural” sign languages (Kegl et al. 1999, Polich 2005, Zeshan & de Vos 2012., Meir et al. 2010,, Green 2017, Hou 2018, Horton 2021, Edwards & Brentari 2021, Le Guen et al., 2021, Sandler et al., 2022, Le Guen 2022, Haviland 2015, 2022), as well as work on the translanguaging practices of deaf, deaf–blind, and hearing individuals who employ a fluid repertoire of signed and spoken languages, gesture, and other semiotic modalities such as touch, drawing, and the incorporation of objects from the physical surround into their utterances. We invite articles from scholars whose research and field experience address co-expressive aspects of linguistic interaction, especially those grounded in naturally occurring communicative action.

References

Edwards, T., and D. Brentari. 2021. The grammatical incorporation of demonstratives in an emerging tactile language. Frontiers in Communication: Language Sciences. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.579992.

Enfield, N. (2009). The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances (Language Culture and Cognition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511576737.

Goodwin, C. (2017). Co-Operative Action (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781139016735.

Green, E. M. (2017). Performing Gesture: The Pragmatic Functions of Pantomimic and Lexical Repertoires in a Natural Sign Narrative. Gesture 16, no. 2: 328–362.

Haviland, J. B. (2015). Where do nouns come from? Edited by John B. Haviland. Benjamins Current Topics #70. John Benjamins Publishing Co.: Amsterdam/Philadelphia. DOI:10.1075/bct.70, ISBN 9789027242587.

Haviland, J. B. (2022). How and When to Sign “Hey!” Socialization into Grammar in Z, a 1st Generation Family Sign Language from Mexico. Languages7(2), 80. MDPI AG. Doi:10.3390/languages7020080.

Horton, L., (2022) “Lexical overlap in young sign languages from Guatemala”, Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 7(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5829.

Hou, L. (2018). Patterned iconicity in San Juan Quiahije Chatino Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 18(4): 570–611. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2018.0017.

Kegl, J., Senghas, A., and Coppola, M. (1999). Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In M. DeGraff (Ed.), Language creation and language change, 179–238. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture, Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Le Guen, O., Safar, J. & Coppola, M. (2021). Emerging Sign Languages of the Americas. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504884.

Le Guen, O. (2022). Early Emergence of Agreement in Yucatec Maya Sign Language. Languages7(3), 233. MDPI AG. Doi:10.3390/languages7030233.

Meir, I., Sandler, W., Padden C., & Aronoff, M. (2010) Emerging Sign Languages. In Marc Marschark, and Patricia Elizabeth Spencer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education, Vol. 2, Oxford Library of Psychology doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195390032.013.0018, accessed 24 Feb. 2023.

Polich, L. (2005). The Emergence of the Deaf Community in Nicaragua: With Sign Language You Can.

Sandler, W., Padden, C., & Aronoff, M. (2022). Emerging Sign Languages. Languages7(4), 284. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/languages7040284.

Zeshan, U. & de Vos, C. (2012). Sign Languages in Village Communities: Anthropological and Linguistic Insights. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511496.

Prof. Dr. John Haviland
Dr. Olivier Le Guen
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Languages is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • coexpressivity
  • gesture
  • sign language
  • emerging languages
  • composite utterance
  • multimodality

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (4 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

17 pages, 2039 KiB  
Article
Becoming Protactile: Interactional Foundations of Protactile Language Development and Language Emergence
by Jenny C. Lu, Jelica Nuccio, Halene Anderson and Terra Edwards
Languages 2024, 9(9), 282; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9090282 - 23 Aug 2024
Viewed by 863
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many DeafBlind children were left without access to educational services when schools went remote. This article presents findings from a project that brought DeafBlind adults into the homes of DeafBlind children during a historically unprecedented time, when a new [...] Read more.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many DeafBlind children were left without access to educational services when schools went remote. This article presents findings from a project that brought DeafBlind adults into the homes of DeafBlind children during a historically unprecedented time, when a new language was emerging among DeafBlind people who call themselves “Protactile”. In analyzing interactions between the DeafBlind adults and children, we have gained new insights into how novel communication channels are forged intersubjectively. We focus our analysis on Jelica, a DeafBlind member of the research team and experienced Protactile educator, and her interactions with two DeafBlind children. Grounding her extensive field notes in an anthropological theory on intersubjectivity, her insights show how they gradually became attuned to each other and their environment, thereby laying the foundation for intention attribution and joint attention. Jelica does this, in part, via frequent use of “Protactile taps”, which have attention-modulating and demonstrative functions among adults. Jelica’s taps perform a “meta-channel” function to direct the child to use particular parts of their bodies for communication and exploration. This study shows how Jelica establishes an operable environment, within which the vocabulary and grammar she exposes them to will take on situated meaning. This research builds on previous work on language emergence by showing that both children and adults contribute to language emergence as they adjust to one another in the unfolding of interaction. Finally, this research calls attention to the need for DeafBlind adults to have institutional authority to shape communication practices for DeafBlind children. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

26 pages, 9899 KiB  
Article
Spatial Cognition, Modality and Language Emergence: Cognitive Representation of Space in Yucatec Maya Sign Language (Mexico)
by Olivier Le Guen and José Alfredo Tuz Baas
Languages 2024, 9(8), 278; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9080278 - 16 Aug 2024
Viewed by 802
Abstract
This paper analyzes spatial gestures and cognition in a new, or so-called “emerging”, visual language, the Yucatec Maya Sign Language (YSML). This sign language was created by deaf and hearing signers in various Yucatec Maya villages on the Yucatec Peninsula (Mexico). Although the [...] Read more.
This paper analyzes spatial gestures and cognition in a new, or so-called “emerging”, visual language, the Yucatec Maya Sign Language (YSML). This sign language was created by deaf and hearing signers in various Yucatec Maya villages on the Yucatec Peninsula (Mexico). Although the sign language is not a signed version of spoken Yucatec Maya, both languages evolve in a similar cultural setting. Studies have shown that cultures around the world seem to rely on one preferred spatial Frame of Reference (FoR), shaping in many ways how people orient themselves and think about the world around them. Prior research indicated that Yucatec Maya speakers rely on the use of the geocentric FoR. However, contrary to other cultures, it is mainly observable through the production of gestures and not speech only. In the case of space, gestures in spoken Yucatec Maya exhibit linguistic features, having the status of a lexicon. Our research question is the following: if the preferred spatial FoR among the Yucatec Mayas is based on co-expressivity and spatial linguistic content visually transmitted via multimodal interactions, will deaf signers of an emerging language created in the same cultural setting share the same cognitive preference? In order to answer this question, we conducted three experimental tasks in three different villages where YMSL is in use: a non-verbal rotation task, a Director-Matcher task and a localization task. Results indicate that YMSL signers share the same preference for the geocentric FoR. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

31 pages, 26139 KiB  
Article
Metalinguistic Discourse in an Emerging Sign Language
by Austin German
Languages 2024, 9(7), 240; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9070240 - 3 Jul 2024
Viewed by 997
Abstract
In this paper, I explore metalinguistic discourse in Zinacantec Family Homesign (‘Z sign’), an emergent sign language developed by three deaf siblings and their hearing family members. In particular, I examine how metalinguistic discourse unfolds between a hearing Z signer and various members [...] Read more.
In this paper, I explore metalinguistic discourse in Zinacantec Family Homesign (‘Z sign’), an emergent sign language developed by three deaf siblings and their hearing family members. In particular, I examine how metalinguistic discourse unfolds between a hearing Z signer and various members of her family—including her deaf siblings, her elderly hearing father, and her young hearing son. I do so via a close examination of several snippets of conversation in which the Z signers talk about the “right” way to sign, paying close attention to how they mobilize various semiotic devices, including manual signs, eye gaze, facial expressions, and speech. I aim to understand not only the formal components of metalinguistic discourse in Z sign but also how it functions as a form of social action in this small linguistic community. How do members of this family position themselves and others as (in)competent, (non-)authoritative signers in light of existing social divisions among them? How do they reinforce or challenge those social divisions through metalinguistic discourse? How might metalinguistic discourse contribute to the propagation of emergent linguistic norms throughout the family? I find that a recurrent device for enacting metalinguistic critique among the Z signers is the partial re-production and transformation of others’ utterances and other visible actions, manifested in a way that exploits the availability of multiple, semi-independent manual and non-manual articulators in the visual modality. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

25 pages, 5282 KiB  
Article
The Pragmatics of Gaze Patterns in a Local Family Sign Language from Guatemala
by Laura Horton and James Waller
Languages 2024, 9(6), 223; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9060223 - 19 Jun 2024
Viewed by 996
Abstract
In this study, we document the coordination of eye gaze and manual signing in a local sign language from Nebaj, Guatemala. We analyze gaze patterns in two conversations in which signers described the book Frog Where Are You to an interlocutor. The signers [...] Read more.
In this study, we document the coordination of eye gaze and manual signing in a local sign language from Nebaj, Guatemala. We analyze gaze patterns in two conversations in which signers described the book Frog Where Are You to an interlocutor. The signers include a deaf child who narrated the book to a hearing interlocutor and her grandfather, who is also deaf, as he described the same book to his hearing grandson during a separate conversation. We code the two narratives for gaze target and sign type, analyzing the relationship between eye gaze and sign type as well as describing patterns in the sequencing of eye gaze targets. Both signers show a strong correlation between sign type and the direction of their eye gaze. As in previous literature, signers looked to a specialized medial space while producing signs that enact the action of characters in discourse in contrast to eye gaze patterns for non-enacting signs. Our analysis highlights both pragmatic–interactional and discursive–narrative functions of gaze. The pragmatic–interactional use of gaze primarily relates to the management of visual attention and turn-taking, while the discursive–narrative use of gaze marks the distinction between narrator and character perspective within stretches of narration. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop