IV. Semantics and pragmatics412
Wilcox, Phyllis Perrin
2000 Metaphors in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Sarah F. Taub, Washington, DC (USA)
19. Use of sign space
1. Introduction
2. Use of sign space for referent localization
3. Discourse-level structuring of sign space
4. Structuring sign space for event representation: Signing perspective and classifier predicates
5. Structuring sign space with multiple articulators: Simultaneous constructions
6. Typological perspective: Use of sign space across sign languages
7. Summary and outlook
8. Literature
Abstract
This chapter focuses on the semantic and pragmatic uses of space. The questions addressed
concern how sign space (i.e. the area of space in front of the signer’s body) is
used for meaning construction, how locations in sign space are associated with discourse
referents, and how signers choose to structure sign space for their communicative intents.
The chapter gives an overview of linguistic analyses of the use of space, starting with the
distinction between syntactic and topographic uses of space and the different types of
signs that function to establish referent-location associations, and moving to analyses
based on mental spaces and conceptual blending theories. Semantic-pragmatic conventions
for organizing sign space are discussed, as well as spatial devices notable in the
visual-spatial modality (particularly, classifier predicates and signing perspective), which
influence and determine the way meaning is created in sign space. Finally, the special
role of simultaneity in sign languages is discussed, focusing on the semantic and discourse-pragmatic
functions of simultaneous constructions.
1. Introduction
As many of the chapters in this volume demonstrate, signed and spoken languages
share fundamental properties on all levels of linguistic structure. However, they differ
radically in the modality of production Ϫ spoken languages use the vocal-auditory
modality, while sign languages use the visual-spatial modality. The most obvious modality-related
difference lies in the size and visibility of the articulators used for language
production. Through their movements, the hands (as the primary articulators) produce
19. Use of sign space 413
meaningful utterances in what is known as sign space, i.e. the space in front of the
signer’s body. By virtue of being produced in the visual-spatial modality, essentially all
of linguistic expression in sign languages depends on the use of space. On the phonological
level, space is used contrastively in the place of articulation parameter of signs.
On the morphosyntactic level, signs are modulated in space for grammatical purposes,
including aspectual marking, person and number marking, to distinguish between the
arguments of a predicate, and to identify referents at certain locations in space (see
Engberg-Pedersen 1993; Klima/Bellugi 1979; Meir 2002; Padden 1990; Sandler/LilloMartin
2006; also see chapters 7, 8, and 11).
The focus of the present chapter is on the semantic and pragmatic uses of space. The
questions addressed concern how locations in sign space are associated with discourse
referents and how signers choose to structure sign space for their communicative intents.
This chapter will have little to say, therefore, about the functional/structural
analysis of morphosyntactic devices as such (e.g. pronouns, agreement or directional
verbs, and classifier predicates). They will be relevant, but only insofar as they bear
on the semantic and pragmatic structuring of sign space.
The chapter gives an overview of how sign space is used for the purpose of meaning
construction in signed utterances. Section 2 introduces and critically discusses the two
main types of use of sign space, i.e. syntactic and topographic, that have been traditionally
proposed. Section 3 presents semantic and pragmatic conventions for choosing
referent locations, and discusses the use of sign space on the higher level of discourse
structuring. Section 4 deals with signing perspective, as a way of structuring space for
event space projection, and the closely related use of classifier predicates. Section 5
focuses on the use of simultaneous constructions, as a special way of structuring sign
space given the availability of multiple, independent articulators in the visual-spatial
modality. Section 6 provides a look at sign language typology and the possible typological
variation in the use of sign space for meaning construction. Finally, section 7 gives
a summary and offers an outlook on future research.
2. Use of sign space for referent localization
The main principle guiding the use of sign space to express meaning in sign languages
is the association of referents with locations in space. Traditionally, the use of space to
achieve referent-location associations has been analyzed as taking two main forms:
syntactic and topographic (Klima/Bellugi 1979; Poizner/Klima/Bellugi 1987).
2.1. Syntactic use of sign space
In the syntactic (or referential) system, locations in sign space are chosen arbitrarily
to represent referents. The locations themselves are not considered to have semantic
import of any kind. Rather, they represent relations purely on an abstract, syntactic
level, e.g. to identify a verb’s arguments (e.g. Padden 1990; cf. chapter 7, Verb Agreement)
or for pronominal reference (e.g. Lillo-Martin/Klima 1990; cf. chapter 11, Pronouns).
For example, a signer may associate a location X1 in sign space to a referent
IV. Semantics and pragmatics414
Fig. 19.1: Example of the syntactic use of sign space. In the semi-circle representing sign space,
X1 and X2 are locations associated with the discourse referents ‘girl’ and ‘boy’, respectively.
In (a), the directional verb sign ask moves from X1 to X2 to express ‘The girl
asks the boy’. In (b), ask moves from X2 to X1 to express ‘The boy asks the girl’.
‘girl’ and a location X2 to a referent ‘boy’. By moving a directional (or agreement) verb
between these two locations, or sign space loci, the signer can express either the meaning
The girl asks the boy (by moving the verb sign from X1 to X2, as in Figure 19.1a) or the
meaning The boy asks the girl (by moving the verb sign from X2 to X1, as in Figure
19.1b).
Liddell (1990) describes the syntactic use of sign space in terms of referential equality.
In assigning entities to certain locations in sign space, those locations become standins
for the entities themselves. Reference to the locations, e.g. by directing verb signs
or points to them, is equal to reference to the entities. Liddell (1990, 304) likens the
relationship of referential equality to the terminology of a legal contract. If Mr. Jones
is identified as “the borrower” in a contract, then all subsequent mentions of “the
borrower” within that contract refer to Mr. Jones, since the use of the phrase “the
borrower” is referentially equivalent to the man called Mr. Jones.
2.2. Topographic use of sign space
In Figure 19.1, the choice of locations in sign space gives no information about the
actual locations of the boy and girl in the event being described. Such locative information
is conveyed, however, when sign space is used topographically. In the topographic
use of space, the referent-location associations in sign space are in themselves meaningful.
They are chosen not arbitrarily, but rather to express spatial relationships between
referents. Thus, the locations X1 and X2 shown in Figure 19.1 would represent the
locations of the girl and the boy with respect to each other. The topographic use of
sign space exploits the iconic properties of the visual-spatial modality, as the spatial
relationships between locations in sign space match those between the referents in the
real or imagined event space being described (cf. chapter 18, Iconicity and Metaphor).
In contrast to referential equality, when sign space is used topographically, Liddell
(1990, 304) describes the relationship between a location in sign space and a referent
as location fixing. The referent is conceived of as being located at the particular sign
space location, which corresponds to a particular location in the real (or imagined)
world. Liddell uses the example of an actor who is told to stand at a particular location
19. Use of sign space 415
Fig. 19.2: Example of the topographic use of sign space. In the semi-circle representing sign space,
the dashed squares represent the placement of the hand in three different sign space
locations associated with the locations of three books in the real (or imagined) world.
The meaning expressed is ‘There are three books lying next to each other’.
on a stage. The actor’s location is thereby fixed within a spatial setting, and is topographically
meaningful within that setting.
The topographic use of sign space is often associated with the use of classifier predicates
(cf. chapter 8). In these morphologically complex predicates, the handshape represents
referents by classifying them according to certain semantic, often visual-spatial,
properties (e.g. a flat hand to represent the flat, rectangular shape of a book, or an
extended index finger to represent the long, thin shape of a pen). Furthermore, the
location and movement of the hands in sign space corresponds topographically to the
location and motion of referents. For example, to represent three books lying next to
each other on a table, a signer may place a flat hand successively in three different,
proximate locations in sign space, as shown in Figure 19.2.
Signers can use the topographic function of sign space to create very complex spatial
representations. Emmorey and Tversky (2002), for example, discuss signers’ use of
space to describe the topographic layout of a convention center or a town. To do so,
signers can use different styles of topographic mapping, depending on how the space
is conceptually viewed. As described by Emmorey and Tversky (2002), a signer can
either adopt a survey perspective, giving a bird’s eye view of the layout, or present the
spatial layout as if taking a tour through the space itself, adopting a route perspective
(cf. the discussion of signing perspective in section 4 below).
2.3. Processing evidence for the different function of syntactic
and topographic loci
Emmorey, Corina, and Bellugi (1995) provide evidence from language processing for
the differential function of topographic versus syntactic (or purely referential) uses of
space. In a memory task, signers were better at remembering spatial locations that
encoded locative information (i.e. exhibiting a topographic function) than those that
encoded only grammatical information (i.e. exhibiting a syntactic function). Similarly,
performance in a task that required deciding whether a probe sign had appeared in an
immediately preceding American Sign Language (ASL) sentence revealed a dissociation
between the syntactic and topographic functions of space. The ASL sentences used
locations either syntactically or topographically and the probe signs were presented in
locations that were either congruent or incongruent with locations used in the senten-
IV. Semantics and pragmatics416
ces. The results showed that signers were most impaired in speed and accuracy when
the probe sign appeared in an incongruent location within a topographic context. This
suggests that semantically relevant topographic locations are processed differently
from arbitrarily chosen syntactic locations. The authors argue that topographic locations
may be more explicitly encoded, e.g. including other spatial information like
orientation and the relative positions of other referents. In addition, MacSweeney et al.
(2002) and Emmorey et al. (2002) provide evidence, in comprehension and production
respectively, for the involvement of brain areas specialized for spatial processing in
sign language constructions that make use of topographic functions of space.
2.4. Integrated function of syntactic and topographic loci
Emmorey et al. (1995), however, also emphasize that the two functions of sign space
are not mutually exclusive, noting that it is an issue of how a location functions within
sign space, and not of two distinct types of sign space (as is suggested by Poizner et al.
1987). Depending on how it is used, the same location can function both syntactically
(or referentially) and topographically. For example, a signer could use a classifier predicate
to establish a referent, e.g. a colleague, at a certain (topographic) location in sign
space, e.g. seated at her desk. Subsequently, the signer could direct a verb sign, e.g.
ask, to the same location, specifying the colleague as the grammatical object of the
predicate (see Liddell (1990, 318) for a similar example). In this example, the location
associated with the colleague is functioning syntactically (or referentially) and topographically
at the same time. The colleague is still conceived of as seated at her desk
at the time she is asked a question. Although they recognize this double function of
loci in sign space, Emmorey et al. (1995) nevertheless maintain a clear distinction
between the two functions, arguing that loci do not necessarily convey topographic, or
spatially relevant, information. They note that “when space operates in the service of
grammatical functions, the spatial relation between the loci themselves is irrelevant”
(1995, 43).
Other researchers, in particular Liddell (1990, 1995, 1998, 2003) and van Hoek
(1992, 1996), propose a more strongly integrated view of the double function of spatial
loci, and have argued against maintaining a distinction between them. Van Hoek argues
that the use of space to create relationships between referents and loci is never truly
abstract (or arbitrary). Loci in sign space do not necessarily refer to the physical location
of referents (although van Hoek suggests this may be the prototype of spatial
reference), but reflect a more broadly defined conceptual location, in which referents
are conceived of within particular contexts, situations, or settings. Van Hoek’s analysis
draws on the theory of mental spaces (Fauconnier 1985, 1994), which are conceptual
structures containing all elements relevant to meaning construction in a particular context,
including background and world knowledge about referents. In this sense, a location
in sign space is associated not simply with a referent, but with a mental space, and
thus the location “may invoke not only the conception of a referent, but the conception
of the situation in which the referent is involved” (van Hoek 1992, 185). Furthermore,
it is not only the particular situation that is relevant, but also other factors like the
perceptual and conceptual saliency of the referent, the current location of the referent,
and the discourse focus (van Hoek 1992).
19. Use of sign space 417
Similarly, Liddell argues that the use of space to indicate non-present referents
functions fundamentally in the same way as for present referents. The association of a
location in sign space with an entity is in fact an indication of that entity’s conceptual
location. Liddell maintains that all signs which refer to locations in sign space, i.e.
directional predicates, pronouns, and classifier predicates, use space in the same way,
and questions any notion of separability of the two functions of spatial loci. Liddell
(1995 and subsequent) develops mental spaces and conceptual blending theories (Fauconnier
1985; Fauconnier/Turner 1996) as the basis for meaning construction in sign
space (see also Dudis 2004). Conceptual blending is a process that operates over mental
spaces, in which selected properties from two input mental spaces get projected
onto a new, blended mental space. In a blend analysis of sign, the input spaces are
(i) real space (i.e. the immediate environment, including sign space) and (ii) the conceptual
representation of the event or situation to be described. In the blends that are
created in sign space, elements from conceptual space are projected onto the real space
(as sign space), and get mapped onto the signer’s hands and body (visible) and onto
locations in sign space (non-visible). Loci in sign space that are associated with particular
referents are thus blended elements, and as such are interpreted as existing within
a certain spatio-temporal context.
3. Discourse-level structuring of sign space
This section focuses not on the functions of individual spatial loci in sign space, but
rather on the conventions by which signers decide how to structure sign space. In
creating arrays of referent-location associations in sign space, the expression of locative
relations between referents is only one of many relevant issues. Signers are guided in
the meaningful structuring of sign space by semantic and pragmatic considerations
(Engberg-Pedersen 1993) as well as by principles of discourse cohesion (Winston 1991,
1995). Thus, even beyond an interpretation of loci as representing actual physical or
more broadly conceived contextual locations of referents, the choice of spatial loci in
sign space is hardly ever arbitrary.
Engberg-Pedersen (1993) recognizes that a signer’s choice of loci is motivated by a
variety of factors, including semantic and spatial relationships between referents, as
well as a signer’s attitude toward referents. In addition to what she calls the iconic
convention, in which the locative relationships between referents are reflected in the
choice of spatial loci, she proposes several further semantic-pragmatic conventions for
structuring sign space. According to the convention of semantic affinity, referents that
are semantically related to each other, e.g. through a possessive relationship, are represented
at the same locus in sign space. Semantic affinity overlaps with the convention
of canonical location. A referent can be associated with a location typically associated
with that referent, e.g. the city in which a person lives, even if he or she is not in that
city at the time of utterance.
Other conventions have less to do with the relationships between referents themselves
and are instead more reflective of the signer’s attitude towards or assessment of
referents being talked about. Engberg-Pedersen observes that signers can express point
of view in their choice of loci for different referents by using locations proximal and
IV. Semantics and pragmatics418
distal to the body on a diagonal axis. Signers tend to locate disliked referents at a
location further from the body, and place referents with which they empathize close
to the body. For example, in discussing two movies, one liked and one disliked, a signer
might underscore her adverse opinion by placing the disliked movie at a distal location,
while choosing a location close to the body for the favored movie. Were the signer
comparing two movies she was equally fond of, she would tend instead to use the leftright
lateral axis, giving equal, but contrastive, status to the two movies. The use of the
lateral axis for juxtaposing two referents (or two sets of related referents) falls under
the convention of comparison. Finally, Engberg-Pedersen notes that the choice of loci
is influenced by the authority convention. A signer may locate referents to whom she
attributes authority, e.g. a boss or government official, higher up in space than other
referents with less authority.
Winston (1991, 1995) and Mather and Winston (1998) discuss the contrastive use of
sign space on a discourse level in terms of spatial mapping. Here, sign space structuring
achieves discourse cohesion by mapping different discourse themes onto different
areas of sign space. Morphosyntactically, this is accomplished with devices associated
with the creation of spatial loci: directional verbs, classifier predicates, pointing signs,
as well as the spatial displacement of citation form signs. The visual-spatial modality
allows signers to create a visual representation of discourse structure. This, in turn,
provides addressees with powerful cues to the structure of discourse, aiding meaning
comprehension through visual information chunking. For example, in their analysis of
spatial mapping in an ASL narrative, Mather and Winston (1998) observe that the
narrator creates two main discourse spaces in sign space, one for inside a house and
one for outside it. These main spaces are further subdivided to elaborate subtopics
related to either of the main spaces, e.g. to describe events that take place inside or
outside the house, respectively. It is important to note that spatial mapping refers not
only to the mapping of concrete entities, but also of abstract ideas and notions. In this
way, discourse cohesion is visually reinforced for events in which referents engage, but
also for reporting their inner monologues or thoughts.
4. Structuring sign space for event representation:
Signing perspective and classifier predicates
In the sections above, referent location has been discussed in connection with the
topographic use of sign space. The depiction of referent location is often coupled with
the depiction of referent motion and action in signed discourse Ϫ particularly in event
narratives. In describing complex events, narrators convey information about referents
acting and interacting within a spatial setting, thereby constructing a representation of
the event space in which an event takes place. To achieve this, signed narratives rely
to a large extent on the use of signing perspective together with the use of classifier
predicates, which encode spatial and action information about referents by representing
the referent as a whole (with entity classifiers) or by representing the manipulation of a
referent (with handling classifiers). This section will focus on the relationship between
perspective and classifier predicates in structuring sign space for event representation.
19. Use of sign space 419
4.1. Signing perspective
Signing perspective refers to the way in which an event space (real or imagined) is
mapped or projected onto sign space, and is thus significant in determining how sign
space is structured for spatial representation. There are two ways in which this projection
can take place, depending on the signer’s conceptual location, or vantage point,
in relation to the event space. In one case, the signer is construed as external to the
event space. In this observer perspective, the whole event space is projected onto the
area of sign space in front of the body, providing a global view of the event space. In
the other case, the signer is internal to the event space, in the role of a character within
the event. This gives the signer a character perspective on the event space, which is
conceived of as life-sized, encompassing and surrounding the signer. Entities in the
event space are mapped onto sign space as seen by the character mapped onto the
signer’s body (Perniss 2007a; Perniss/Özyürek 2008; Özyürek/Perniss 2011). Figure 19.3
gives a schematic depiction of the event space as projected onto sign space from (a)
an observer’s perspective and (b) a character’s perspective (see Fridman-Mintz/Liddell
(1998) for the use of similar schematic depictions, where a wavy line area surrounding
the signer indicates surrogate space and a semi-circle area in front of the signer indicates
token space).
Fig. 19.3: Example of event space projection from (a) observer perspective, where the whole of
event space is mapped onto the area of space in front of the signer’s body, and from
(b) character perspective, where the signer is within the event space, in the role of a
character in the event.
The two types of signing perspective Ϫ observer and character Ϫ have been described
along similar lines, with different names, by numerous researchers: model and
real-world space (Schick 1990); diagrammatic and viewer spatial format (Emmorey/
Falgier 1999); fixed and shifted referential framework (Poizner et al. 1987; Morgan
1999); token and surrogate space (Liddell 1995, 1998); depictive and surrogate space
(Liddell 2003); narrator and protagonist perspective (Slobin et al. 2003); global and
participant viewpoint (Dudis 2004); diagrammatic and viewer space (Pyers/Senghas
2007). Moreover, a similar distinction has been made in gesture research for iconic
gestures made from either an observer or character viewpoint (McNeill 1992).
IV. Semantics and pragmatics420
4.2. The relationship between signing perspective
and classifier predicates
The relationship between signing perspective and classifier predicates, stated implicitly
or explicitly, can be framed in various ways. In terms of argument structure and verb
semantics, there is a systematic correspondence between entity classifiers and intransitive
verbs, on the one hand, and between handling classifiers and transitive verbs, on
the other hand (cf. Engberg-Pedersen 1993; McDonald 1982; Supalla 1986; Zwitserlood
2003). In each case, the handshape (or classifier) of the predicate encodes the theme
argument of the verb. With entity classifiers, the position/movement of the hands in
sign space directly encodes the intransitive location/motion of entities in the event
space, corresponding to the event-external vantage point of observer perspective. With
handling classifiers, the transitive motion of entities is represented on the hands
through a depiction of agentive manipulation, corresponding to the event-internal vantage
point of character perspective (see chapter 8, Classifiers, for details).
The relationship between perspective and classifiers can also be characterized in
terms of the interplay of articulatory and semantic constraints, that is, constraints on
the type of information that certain forms are able to felicitously represent. For example,
the so-called 2-legged entity classifier (index and middle finger extended, fingers
pointing downward) has properties that correspond to features (or facets) of the human
body: the extended fingers correspond to the legs, the tips of the fingers correspond
to the feet, and the back side of the fingers corresponds to the front of the body
(as shown in still 1 of Figure 19.4a). In addition to simple location and motion, these
properties allow signers to represent postural information (e.g. lying vs. standing), direction
of movement (e.g. forward vs. backward), as well as manner of locomotion
(e.g. walking vs. jumping). Similarly, the so-called upright entity classifier (index finger
extended, pointing upward) is used to represent human beings, as the long, upright
shape of the finger corresponds to the upright form of the human figure (as shown in
still 1 of Figure 19.4b). By convention, this handshape can also encode orientation, by
mapping the front of the body onto the front (inside surface) side of the finger.
However, neither of these two entity classifiers includes features that correspond to
the human figure’s arms or head, and they are thus not suited for the expression of
manual activity. To depict the manual manipulation, or manner of handling, of a referent,
the signer’s hands have to function as hands, imitating the actual manual activity.
Expressions of this type of information appropriately involve the use of handling classifiers
and imply a character perspective representation (Perniss 2007c; Perniss/Özyürek
2008; Özyürek/Perniss 2011). Figure 19.4 shows the use of entity classifiers to depict
the location (in (a), still 1) and motion (in (b), still 1) of referents, and the subsequent
use of handling classifiers to depict the respective manual activity of the referent (in
still 2 of (a) and (b)) in its location or along its path. While the use of the entity
classifiers in the examples occurs in an event space projected from an external observer’s
perspective, the handling classifiers occur in a character perspective space in
which the signer embodies the referent. In (a), the signer is depicting an animate referent
standing at a stove, holding a pan. In still 1, the signer uses a 2-legged entity
classifier to represent the referent’s location and orientation. In still 2, the signer uses
a grasping handshape to represent the referent holding the pan. In (b), the signer
represents an animate referent walking while dribbling a ball. In still 1, the signer
19. Use of sign space 421
Fig. 19.4 Examples of prototypically aligned classifier-perspective constructions: Entity classifier
predicate in an observer perspective event space projection (still 1 of (a) and (b)); Handling
classifier predicate in a character perspective event space projection (still 2 of (a)
and (b)). The examples are from German Sign Language (DGS).
represents the path motion of the referent, and then represents the referent dribbling
the ball in still 2.
The correspondence between the use of entity classifiers and observer perspective,
on the one hand, and handling classifiers and character perspective, on the other hand,
can also be motivated by a principle of scale iconicity, whereby different parts of a
representation should have the same size, insuring an internal consistency in scale
within the event space projection (Perniss 2007c). In observer perspective, the event
space is reduced in size, and the scale of referent representation within the event space
is correspondingly small. In contrast, the event space in character perspective is lifesized,
and referents within the event are equally represented on a life-sized scale. Based
on the notion of scale iconicity, specifically the match between the size of referent
projection and the size of event projection, the correspondences between perspective
and classifiers can be formulated in terms of prototypical alignments (Perniss 2007a,
2007b; Perniss/Özyürek 2008; Özyürek/Perniss 2011). The predicates in Figure 19.4 are
all examples of prototypically aligned classifier-perspective constructions.
4.3. Choice of signing perspective
As described above, the choice of perspective within a narrative depends to a considerable
degree on the type of information to be expressed. The perspective from which
an event space is projected also bears on the localization of referents in sign space.
That is, the way in which sign space is structured depends on whether referents are
‘seen’ from the perspective of an external observer or from the perspective of an event
protagonist. Let us take the example of two animate referents standing opposite each
other in a particular spatial setting. In observer perspective, where the signer is not
part of the event, the canonical locations (assuming equal discourse status) for the two
referents are opposite each other on the lateral axis, on the left and right sides of
the signer’s body (cf. the discussion of Engberg-Pedersen’s (1993) semantic-pragmatic
conventions for structuring sign space in section 3 above). In character perspective,
however, the signer is a character within the event, taking on the role of one of the
animate referents. The location of one referent thus coincides with the location of the
IV. Semantics and pragmatics422
signer’s body. The other referent, located opposite conceptually, must thus be mapped
onto sign space at a location opposite the signer’s body. Figure 19.5 gives a schematic
representation of canonical referent locations in observer and character perspective
event space projections. These correspondences are evident, for example, in the predicates
in Figure 19.4b. The movement of the entity classifier (in still 1) is along the
lateral axis (corresponding to the direction of motion observed). The handling classifier,
in contrast, is directed forward, along the sagittal axis.
Fig. 19.5: Schematic representation of canonical referent locations in an event space projected
from (A) character perspective and (B) observer perspective.
This means that depending on the use of perspective, the same referent can be
associated with different locations in sign space. This affects how sign space is structured
and may have implications for discourse coherence. The combinations of perspective
and classifier predicates found in extended discourse are much more varied
than the prototypical alignments described above. The co-occurrence of different classifier
forms with different perspectives thus motivates the existence of aligned and nonaligned
classifier-perspective construction types. As described, there are two kinds of
the aligned classifier-perspective construction type: entity classifiers in observer perspective,
on the one hand, and handling classifiers in character perspective, on the
other hand. There are also two kinds of the non-aligned classifier-perspective construction
type, which are the converse combinations: entity classifiers in character perspective,
on the one hand, and handling classifiers in observer perspective, on the other
hand. These are summarized in Table 19.1.
Examples of non-aligned construction types are shown in Figure 19.6. In (a), the
signer uses an entity classifier (on the right hand) to place an animate referent, in a
prone posture, in a location along the sagittal axis, opposite the body. The event space
is projected from Ϫ and thus the entity classifier referent is depicted within Ϫ the
character perspective of the referent mapped onto the signer’s body. This referent is
holding a ball (on the left hand; see section 5 on simultaneous constructions) and is
19. Use of sign space 423
Tab. 19.1: Classifier predicate and signing perspective correspondences in aligned and non-aligned
classifier-perspective construction types.
Construction type Classifier predicate Signing perspective
Entity classifier Observer perspective
Aligned Handling classifier Character perspective
Entity classifier Character perspective
Non-aligned
Handling classifier Observer perspective
Fig. 19.6: Examples of non-aligned classifier-perspective constructions: (a) Entity classifier predicate
in a character perspective event space projection (German Sign Language, DGS);
(b) Handling classifier predicates in an observer perspective event space projection
(Turkish Sign Language, TİD).
facing the referent lying down. In (b), the signer depicts two animate referents standing
across from each other, holding pans and flipping a pancake back and forth between
them. The referent locations correspond to an observer perspective representation of
the event space, but the signer uses handling classifiers, prototypically associated with
character perspective, to represent the referents’ activity. The hands are oriented in
order to depict the flipping along the lateral axis. In an aligned character perspective
representation, only one referent (character) would be depicted at a time, and the
hand would be directed forward, as in the actual activity. Classifier predicates and
signing perspective are used as spatial devices in almost all sign languages that have
been studied to date (an exception is Adamorobe Sign Language (AdaSL), a village
sign language used in Ghana, in which the use of entity classifiers is not attested (Nyst
2007a); also see chapter 24, Shared Sign Languages). Thus, different classifier-perspective
construction types Ϫ i.e. aligned and non-aligned, as well as more complex combinations
and fusions of perspective (see section 5 on the simultaneous use of perspectives)
Ϫ should theoretically exist in all sign languages. However, the frequency of use,
or distribution of occurrence, of different construction types may differ significantly
between sign languages (see section 6 on typological differences between sign lan-
guages).
IV. Semantics and pragmatics424
5. Structuring sign space with multiple articulators:
Simultaneous constructions
The availability of multiple, independent articulators is a further factor that impacts
on the use of space, specifically, on how sign space is structured to refer to and represent
referents. Simultaneous constructions have been defined as representations that
are produced with more than one articulator, whereby each articulator bears distinct
and independent meaning units, which stand in some semanto-syntactic relationship to
each other (Engberg-Pedersen 1994; Leeson/Saeed 2007; Miller 1994; Vermeerbergen
2001; Vermeerbergen/Leeson/Crasborn 2007).
Much of the research on simultaneous constructions focuses on the use of the two
manual articulators, and numerous different functions of bimanual simultaneous constructions
have been identified. Their functions can be categorized into two main
groups, based on whether they reflect perceptual structure or discourse structure. Simultaneous
constructions can also involve articulators other than the hands, for example,
the eyes, face, or torso (Aarons/Morgan 2003; Dudis 2004; Liddell 1998, 2000;
Perniss 2007b). The simultaneous use of manual and non-manual articulators often
occurs to express elements associated with different perspectives, and has likewise been
associated with different functions.
Simultaneous constructions that reflect discourse structure are used primarily to
guide the procession of discourse. In this sense, they lie outside the focus of this chapter.
For example, signers can use simultaneous constructions in listing contexts, where
one hand is used to enumerate while the other hand identifies the list items (cf. Liddell’s
(2003) pointer buoy). Signers can also exploit the affordance of simultaneity to
create topic-comment structures, visually maintaining a discourse topic in sign space
on one hand, while the other hand ‘comments’ on it.
In simultaneous constructions that reflect perceptual structure, the two hands express
information about the spatial and/or temporal organization of an event. Sign
space is structured to represent the simultaneity of spatial and temporal relationships
between referents, both static and moving, and using both entity and handling classifiers.
For example, two entity classifiers used within a simultaneous construction can
depict the spatial relationship between a person and a table (e.g. a person standing at
a table) (as shown in Figure 19.7). Similarly, two handling classifiers can depict the
temporal simultaneity of two events, e.g. holding open a cupboard door while retrieving
a cup from the cupboard. These constructions contain what Engberg-Pedersen (1993,
1994) analyzes as a hold-morpheme. The hold-morpheme is typically associated with
the ground referent or the backgrounded event (and is typically signed with the nondominant
hand). In addition, the hold-morpheme is neutral with respect to the semantic
distinction between location and motion, such that when the interaction between
two moving referents (e.g. two basketball players) is depicted in sign space, only the
foregrounded referent is associated with a movement morpheme (Engberg-Pedersen
1993, 284).
The simultaneous representation of aspects of events associated with different perspectives,
and involving both manual and non-manual articulators, has not been widely
discussed in the literature to date, yet it is recognized as a frequent phenomenon in
19. Use of sign space 425
Fig. 19.7: Example of a simultaneous classifier construction. Two entity classifier predicates are
used simultaneously to depict the spatial relationship of a person standing at a table
(German Sign Language, DGS).
narratives by those researchers who have studied it (e.g. Aarons/Morgan 2003; Dudis
2004; Engberg-Pedersen 1993; Hendriks 2008; Liddell 1998, 2000, 2003; Morgan 2002;
Perniss 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). Different functions have been attributed to such representations,
and they have been labeled in different ways. Aarons and Morgan (2003)
describe the use of ‘multiple perspective representations’, while Dudis and Liddell
characterize the creation of ‘simultaneous blends’. For these authors, the depiction of
different aspects of an event in different perspectives functions mainly to give a richer,
more detailed representation of the event. For example, both Dudis (2004) and Liddell
(2000) give an example from ASL in which a signer simultaneously represents a vehicle
on one hand and the driver of the vehicle on the body. A ‘zoomed out’, or observer
perspective, view of the scene is exhibited in the use of an entity classifier to depict,
in Liddell’s example, a car stopped at an intersection, and in Dudis’ example, a motorcycle
going up a hill. By mapping the drivers of the vehicles onto the body, the signer
can simultaneously depict their facial expressions and behaviors (e.g. the driver of the
car looking both ways before crossing the intersection) through a ‘zoomed in’ or character
perspective view of the scene. Aarons and Morgan (2003) describe a similar
construction from South African Sign Language (SASL) in which a signer maps a
parachutist floating through the air simultaneously onto his hand and onto his body.
Perniss uses the terms “simultaneous perspective constructions” (2007a,b) and ‘doubleperspective
constructions’ (2007c). She attributes to these constructions two separate
functions: (i) achieving a full, semantic specification of an event, and (ii) creating a
mapping between two event space projections (one from observer and one from character
perspective). Hendriks (2008) discusses the use of ‘multiple perspectives’ in Jordanian
Sign Language (LIU), mentioning their function of clarifying a positional relationship.
She gives the example of a signer using two entity classifiers to depict one
animal jumping onto the neck of another animal. The signer does this by moving one
entity classifier (2-legged entity classifier) onto the other entity classifier, specifically
onto the back of the other hand. She then additionally represents the jumping movement
by moving the entity classifier onto her own neck and head. In doing so, she
clarifies the nature of the spatial relationship between the two referents.
IV. Semantics and pragmatics426
6. Typological perspective: Use of sign space across
sign languages
The use of spatial devices for structuring sign space Ϫ including the use of classifier
predicates, directional verbs, and pointing signs Ϫ has been assumed to be similar
across sign languages, due to the assumption that the iconic potential of the visualspatial
modality creates a homogenizing effect on spatial structure (Aronoff/Meir/
Sandler 2005; Meier 2002; Talmy 2003). To date, however, very little cross-sign-linguistic
research on the use of sign space for referent representation has actually been
conducted. Moreover, there is comparatively little research on less well-known and
unrelated sign languages, as well as a lack of research on sign language usage in actual
discourse situations.
However, these gaps in research are beginning to be filled. More, as well as more
geographically diverse, sign languages are being studied, enriching the field of sign
linguistics through an accumulation of data and knowledge about sign language lexica
and grammars. Cross-linguistic and typological investigations are also growing in popularity,
with researchers embarking on long-term and large-scale projects aimed at uncovering
the range of structural variation possible within the visual-spatial language
modality (e.g. Perniss/Pfau/Steinbach 2007; Zeshan 2006; Zeshan/Perniss 2008; Wilbur
2006).
Investigations into the use of space, the domain of interest in the current chapter,
in different sign languages have also begun to surface recently (Aronoff et al. 2003,
2005; Liddell/Vogt-Svendsen/Bergman 2007; Nyst 2007a,b; Perniss/Özyürek 2008; Pyers/Senghas
2007; Özyürek/Perniss 2011). It is this domain, in particular, where modality
effects are widely considered to create similarities across sign languages (see also
Cuxac 1999; Sallandre/Cuxac 2002). In fact, some research on the use of classifier
predicates has found striking similarities in the representation of spatial information
across different sign languages (e.g. Aronoff et al. 2003, 2005). However, other comparative
research has shown that significant differences exist between sign languages in
the use of space (e.g. Arik 2009; Perniss/Özyürek 2008; Pyers/Senghas 2007). Such
results suggest that language-specific constraints are involved in shaping the influence
of the modality’s iconic properties, and that this domain may exhibit more variation
than previously thought.
For example, Perniss and Özyürek (2008) and Özyürek and Perniss (2011) found
differences in the use of classifier-perspective constructions, specifically, in the distribution
of use of non-aligned construction types, between German Sign Language (DGS)
and Turkish Sign Language (TİD), as well as differences in the way the two perspectives
were combined into single constructions. While TİD signers used handling classifiers
quite frequently in an observer perspective event space projection (as shown in Figure
19.6b), this non-aligned construction type was not used at all by DGS signers in the
data set compared. Conversely, the use of entity classifiers in a character perspective
event space was used abundantly by DGS signers (as shown in Figure 19.6a), but
comparatively rarely by TİD signers. Nyst (2007a) found that AdaSL, in contrast to
other TİD sign languages studied to date, does not make use of entity classifiers to
express location and motion events. Instead, AdaSL signers use character perspective
representations together with generic directionals and intransitive motion markers. For
example, to represent the upward climbing motion of an animate referent, AdaSL
19. Use of sign space 427
signers combine a predicate guan (meaning ‘run’) with a generic directional up. In
combination with a directional, the predicate guan functions to mark an intransitive
motion event (Nyst 2007a). Finally, Pyers and Senghas (2007) found differences in the
devices used to mark referential shift between ASL and Nicaraguan Sign Language,
including differences in the use of the body to indicate role-taking and in the use of
pointing signs to indicate referents.
7. Summary and outlook
This chapter has described the semantic and pragmatic uses of sign space, explaining
the different ways in which locations in sign space are given meaning, and the use of
different spatial devices in structuring sign space. The chapter first provided an overview
of the syntactic and topographic uses of space, showing that referent-location
associations in sign space can either reflect the real-world locations of referents (providing
information about spatial configuration), or be chosen independently of actual
locations, simply in order to mark syntactic relations. While there is evidence that these
two uses of space are treated differently in processing, many researchers have shown
that the choice of locations in sign space is never really arbitrary, but rather motivated
by semantic-pragmatic conventions and principles of discourse cohesion.
The chapter then described the use of signing perspective and classifier predicates,
two primary spatial devices used for structuring sign space for event representation,
especially of referent location, motion, and action. It described the relationship between
classifier predicates and signing perspective and motivated the existence of different
classifier-perspective construction types, including the use of simultaneous constructions
and, in particular, the simultaneous use of different perspectives. Finally, the
issue of sign language typology was discussed, focusing on the possibilities of variation
between sign languages in the use of sign space.
Future research will continue to uncover similarities and differences between sign
languages in the use of sign space, leading us to a better understanding of the influence
of modality on language structure, as well of the potential for language-specific variation
given similar mophosyntactic structures and resources.
8. Literature
Aarons, Debra/Morgan, Ruth
2003 Classifier Predicates and the Creation of Multiple Perspectives in South African Sign
Language. In: Sign Language Studies 3(2), 125Ϫ156.
Arik, Engin
2009 Spatial Language: Insights from Sign and Spoken Languages. PhD Dissertation, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN.
Aronoff, Mark/Meir, Irit/Padden, Carol A./Sandler, Wendy
2003 Classifier Constructions and Morphology in Two Sign Languages. In: Emmorey, Karen
(ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 53Ϫ84.
IV. Semantics and pragmatics428
Aronoff, Mark/Meir, Irit/Sandler, Wendy
2005 The Paradox of Sign Language Morphology. In: Language 81(2), 301Ϫ344.
Cuxac, Christian
1999 French Sign Language: Proposition of a Structural Explanation by Iconicity. In: Braffort,
Annelies/Gherbi, Rachid/Gibet, Sylvie/Richardson, James/Teil, Daniel (eds.), Lecture
Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of the 3rd
Gesture Workshop ’99 on
Gesture and Sign Language in Human-Computer Interaction. Berlin: Springer, 165Ϫ184.
Dudis, Paul
2004 Body Partitioning and Real-space Blends. In: Cognitive Linguistics 15(2), 223Ϫ238.
Emmorey, Karen/Corina, David/Bellugi, Ursula
1995 Differential Processing of Topographic and Referential Functions of Space. In: Emmorey,
Karen/Reilly, Judy S. (eds.), Language, Gesture, and Space. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 43Ϫ62.
Emmorey, Karen/Falgier, Brenda
1999 Talking About Space with Space. In: Winston, Elizabeth A. (ed.), Story Telling and
Conversation: Discourse in Deaf Communities. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press, 3Ϫ26.
Emmorey, Karen/Damasio, Hanna/McCullough, Stephen/Grabowski, Thomas/Ponto, Laura L.B./
Hichwa, Richard D./Bellugi, Ursula
2002 Neural Systems Underlying Spatial Language in American Sign Language. In: NeuroImage
17, 812Ϫ824.
Emmorey, Karen/Tversky, Barbara
2002 Spatial Perspective Choice in ASL. In: Sign Language & Linguistics 5(1), 3Ϫ25.
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
1993 Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space
in a Visual Language. Hamburg: Signum.
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
1994 Some Simultaneous Constructions in Danish Sign Language. In: Brennan, Mary/Turner,
Graham H. (eds.), Word-order Issues in Sign Language. Durham: ISLA, 73Ϫ87.
Fauconnier, Gilles
1985 Mental Spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles
1994 Mental Spaces. Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles/Turner, Mark
1996 Blending as a Central Process of Grammar. In: Goldberg, Adele E. (ed.), Conceptual
Structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 113Ϫ130.
Fridman-Mintz, Boris/Liddell, Scott K.
1998 Sequencing Mental Spaces in an ASL Narrative. In: Koenig, Jean-Pierre (ed.), Discourse
and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
255Ϫ268.
Hendriks, Bernadet
2008 Jordanian Sign Language: Aspects of Grammar from a Cross-linguistic Perspective. PhD
Dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT.
Hoek, Karen van
1992 Conceptual Spaces and Pronominal Reference in American Sign Language. In: Nordic
Journal of Linguistics 15, 183Ϫ199.
Hoek, Karen van
1996 Conceptual Locations for Reference in American Sign Language. In: Fauconnier,
Gilles/Sweetser, Eve (eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, 334Ϫ350.
19. Use of sign space 429
Klima, Edward S./Bellugi, Ursula
1979 The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Leeson, Lorraine/Saeed, John
2007 Conceptual Blending and the Windowing of Attention in Simultaneous Constructions
in Irish Sign Language. In: Vermeerbergen, Myriam/Leeson, Lorraine/Crasborn, Onno
(eds.), Simultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins,
55Ϫ72.
Liddell, Scott K.
1990 Four Functions of a Locus: Reexamining the Structure of Space in ASL. In: Lucas, Ceil
(ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press, 176Ϫ198.
Liddell, Scott K.
1995 Real, Surrogate and Token Space: Grammatical Consequences in ASL. In: Emmorey,
Karen/Reilly, Judy S. (eds.), Language, Gesture, and Space. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 19Ϫ41.
Liddell, Scott K.
1998 Grounded Blends, Gestures, and Conceptual Shifts. In: Cognitive Linguistics 9(3),
283Ϫ314.
Liddell, Scott K.
2000 Blended Spaces and Deixis in Sign Language Discourse. In: McNeill, David (ed.), Language
and Gesture: Window Into Thought and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 331Ϫ357.
Liddell, Scott K.
2003 Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Liddell, Scott K./Vogt-Svendsen, Marit/Bergman, Brita
2007 A Cross-linguistic Comparison of Buoys. Evidence from American, Norwegian, and
Swedish Sign Language. In: Vermeerbergen, Myriam/Leeson, Lorraine/Crasborn, Onno
(eds.), Simultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins,
187Ϫ215.
Lillo-Martin, Diane/Klima, Edward S.
1990 Pointing out Differences: ASL Pronouns in Syntactic Theory. In: Fischer, Susan D./
Siple, Patricia (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research. Vol. 1: Linguistics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 191Ϫ210.
MacSweeney, Mairead/Woll, Bencie/Campbell, Ruth/Calvert, Gemma A./McGuire, Philip K./David,
Anthony S./Simmons, Andrew/Brammer, Michael J.
2002 Neural Correlates of British Sign Language Processing: Specific Regions for Topographic
Language? In: Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 14(7), 1064Ϫ1075.
Mather, Susan/Winston, Elizabeth A.
1998 Spatial Mapping and Involvement in ASL Storytelling. In: Lucas, Ceil (ed.), Pinky
Extension and Eye Gaze: Language Use in Deaf Communities. Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press, 183Ϫ210.
McDonald, Betsy
1982 Aspects of the American Sign Language Predicate System. PhD Dissertation, State University
of New York, Buffalo.
McNeill, David
1992 Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Meier, Richard P.
2002 Why Different, Why the Same? Explaining Effects and Non-effects of Modality Upon
Linguistic Structure in Sign and Speech. In: Meier, Richard P./Cormier, Kearsy/QuintoPozos,
David (eds.), Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1Ϫ25.
IV. Semantics and pragmatics430
Meir, Irit
2002 A Cross-modality Perspective on Verb Agreement. In: Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 20(2), 413Ϫ450.
Miller, Chris
1994 Simultaneous Constructions in Quebec Sign Language. In: Brennan, Mary/Turner, Graham
H. (eds.), Word-order Issues in Sign Language. Durham: ISLA, 89Ϫ112.
Morgan, Gary
1999 Event Packaging in British Sign Language Discourse. In: Winston, Elizabeth (ed.),
Story Telling and Conversation: Discourse in Deaf Communities. Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press, 27Ϫ58.
Morgan, Gary
2002 Children’s Encoding of Simultaneity in BSL Narratives. In: Sign Language & Linguistics
5(2), 131Ϫ165.
Nyst, Victoria
2007a A Descriptive Analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). PhD Dissertation, University
of Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT.
Nyst, Victoria
2007b Simultaneous Constructions in Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). In: Vermeerbergen,
Myriam/Leeson, Lorraine/Crasborn, Onno (eds.), Simultaneity in Signed Languages:
Form and Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 127Ϫ145.
Özyürek, Aslı/Perniss, Pamela
2011 Event Representations in Signed Languages. In: Bohnemeyer, Jürgen/Pederson, Eric
(eds.), Event Representation in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 84Ϫ107.
Padden, Carol
1990 The Relation Between Space and Grammar in ASL Verb Morphology. In Lucas, Ceil
(ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press, 118Ϫ132.
Perniss, Pamela
2007a Achieving Spatial Coherence in German Sign Language Narratives: The Use of Classifiers
and Perspective. In: Lingua 117(7), 1315Ϫ1338.
Perniss, Pamela
2007b Locative Functions of Simultaneous Perspective Constructions in German Sign Language
Narratives. In: Vermeerbergen, Myriam/Leeson, Lorraine/Crasborn, Onno (eds.),
Simultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 27Ϫ54.
Perniss, Pamela
2007c Space and Iconicity in German Sign Language (DGS). PhD Dissertation, MPI Series
in Psycholinguistics 45, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Perniss, Pamela/Pfau, Roland/Steinbach, Markus (eds.)
2007 Visible Variation: Cross-linguistic Studies on Sign Language Structure. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Perniss, Pamela/Özyürek, Aslı
2008 Constructing Action and Locating Referents: A Comparison of German and Turkish
Sign Language Narratives. In: Quer, Josep (ed.), Signs of the Time. Selected Papers from
TISLR 8. Hamburg: Signum, 353Ϫ376.
Poizner, Howard/Klima, Edward S./Bellugi, Ursula
1987 What the Hands Reveal About the Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pyers, Jennie/Senghas, Ann
2007 Referential Shift in Nicaraguan Sign Language: A Comparison with American Sign
Language. In: Perniss, Pamela/Pfau, Roland/Steinbach, Markus (eds.), Visible Variation:
Cross-linguistic Studies on Sign Language Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 279Ϫ
302.
19. Use of sign space 431
Sallandre, Marie-Anne/Cuxac, Christian
2002 Iconicity in Sign Language: A Theoretical and Methodological Point of View. In:
Wachsmuth, Ipke/Sowa, Timo (eds.), Gesture-based Communication in Human-computer
Interaction. Proceedings of the International Gesture Workshop (GW 2001). Berlin:
Springer, 171Ϫ180.
Sandler, Wendy/Lillo-Martin, Diane
2006 Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schick, Brenda
1990 Classifier Predicates in American Sign Language. In: International Journal of Sign Linguistics
1, 15Ϫ40.
Slobin, Dan I./Hoiting, Nini/Kuntze, Marlon/Lindert, Reyna/Weinberg, Amy/Pyers, Jennie/Anthony,
Michelle/Biederman, Yael/Thumann, Helen
2003 A Cognitive/Functional Perspective on the Acquisition of “Classifiers”. In: Emmorey,
Karen (ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 271Ϫ298.
Supalla, Ted R.
1986 The Classifier System in American Sign Language. In: Craig, Colette (ed.), Noun
Classes and Categorization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 181Ϫ214.
Talmy, Leonard
2003 The Representation of Spatial Structure in Spoken and Signed Language. In: Emmorey,
Karen (ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 169Ϫ196.
Vermeerbergen, Myriam
2001 Simultane Constructies in de Vlaamse Gebarentaal. In: Beyers, R. (ed.), Handelingen
(Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis).
Brussels: LIV, 69Ϫ81.
Vermeerbergen, Myriam/Leeson, Lorraine/Crasborn, Onno (eds.)
2007 Simultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Wilbur, Ronnie B. (ed.)
2006 Investigating Understudied Sign Languages Ϫ Croatian SL and Austrian SL, with comparison
to American SL. Special Issue of Sign Language & Linguistics 9(1/2).
Winston, Elizabeth A.
1991 Spatial Referencing and Cohesion in an American Sign Language Text. In: Sign Language
Studies 73, 397Ϫ410.
Winston, Elizabeth A.
1995 Spatial Mapping in Comparative Discourse Frames. In: Emmorey, Karen/Reilly, Judy
S. (eds.), Language, Gesture, and Space. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 87Ϫ114.
Zeshan, Ulrike (ed.)
2006 Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
Zeshan, Ulrike/Perniss, Pamela (eds.)
2008 Possessive and Existential Constructions in Sign Languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
Zwitserlood, Inge
2003 Classifying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the
Netherlands). PhD Dissertation, University of Utrecht. Utrecht: LOT.
Pamela Perniss, London (United Kingdom)