Iconicity in Sign Language : A Theoretical and

Methodological Point of View

Marie-Anne Sallandre and Christian Cuxac

Department of Linguistics, Paris VIII University

2 rue de la Liberté, F-93526 saint-Denis Cedex 02 - France
sallandre@yahoo.com, ccuxac@univ-paris8.fr

Abstract. This research comes within the framework of the linguistic theory of
iconicity and cognitive grammar for French Sign Language (FSL). In this paper
we briefly recall some crucial elements used to analyse any Sign Language
(SL), especially transfers operations which appear to be the core of spatial
grammar. Then we present examples from our video database with deaf native
speakers engaged in narrative activities. Finally we try to discuss the difficulty
but the importance of studying high iconic occurrences in natural continuous
FSL discourse.

1 Introduction

Sign Languages (SL) are made up of a standard lexicon, a group of discrete and
stabilised units which can be found in FSL dictionaries [1]. This standard lexicon is
widely studied by linguistic and computer researchers. But the originality of SL is the
possibility of having recourse to other structures, endowed with high iconic value and
which function more or less independently of the standard lexicon. These structures
are quite similar from one sign language to another, as Fusellier-Souza [2] showed for
Brazilian Sign Language for example.

We made the hypothesis of the distinction between two different approaches [3, 4]:
the primary iconisation split into two sub-branches, according to whether or not the
process of iconisation serves the express aim of representing experience iconically :
we shall term this "iconic intent". This process of iconisation represents the perceptual
world ; the strong iconic resemblance of the forms.
On the one hand, the categorization without iconic intent concerning the standard
signs formation, spreads out through the meaning of general value, furthermore the
iconicity established in the discrete units are preserved.
On the other hand, the iconic intent, characterised by the meaning of specific value,
allows a range of meaningful choice in the iconic large structure activated by the
transfer operations. These structures are now called "Highly Iconic Structures".

In order to analyse this iconicity in FSL discourse, a video database was elaborated
with deaf native speakers. Linguistic primitives were then established to identify the
different transfers of person occurrences. But these types of data are difficult to
handle, as we will see.

2 A Linguistic Model Based on Iconicity

2.1 Imagistic Iconicity : a Relevant Framework for Sign Languages

The most common form of iconicity in Sign Language is Imagistic, because of the
visual perception, that is, when there is a formal resemblance between the sign and
what is being referred to in the extra-linguistic world of experience. Ex: [HOUSE] in
FSL is signed by describing a roof (a part of the object).
But imagistic iconicity can be completed by diagrammatic iconicity, according to
Haiman's conception [5] : a type of syntactical iconicity (ex : word order, etc.) which
has to be deeply investigated for Sign Language.

2.2 Highly Iconic Structures

Highly Iconic Structures are a relevant part of a dynamic continuum [3]. These are not
discrete units and their signifying form can be hardly transcribed into a written
protocol. Their function is rather to represent the monstrative mode of ‘like this’
combined with ‘as if’, showing and acting out while telling (personal transfers and
double transfers).
It is an imagistic reconstitution of experience. The monstrative dimension "like
this" can be activated at any moment through showing and imitating (as if I were the
person of whom I speak, whatever his actions might be).
For many years, SL researchers did not consider Highly Iconic Structures as
linguistic structures and affirmed that it belonged to pantomime [6]. Today, thanks to
French researchers such as Cuxac or Jouison, who studied natural SL, our conception
has rather changed.

2.3 Transfer Operations

The entirety of Highly Iconic Structures is obvious in transfer operations : transfers

of form and size (showing and describing the form or size of an object), transfers of
situation (showing a situation, as if we see the scene in the distance) and transfers of
person. These cognitive operations consist of transferring the real world into the four
dimensionality (three dimensions of space plus dimension of time) of signed
discourse.

In transfers of person, the signer "disappears" and "becomes" a protagonist in the

narrative (human, animal or thing). His gestures correspond to the gestures effected
by the character he refers to, and whose place he has taken [3, 4]. Thus, the signer-
narrator can embody a little boy, a dog, a tree, … These types of extremely iconic
structures can be divided into :
• personal transfer (complete role playing),
• half-transfer (role playing with brief standard signs),
• double transfer (combining a personal transfer for acting and a situational transfer
for locative information or for a second character, simultaneously),
• aparte (that is an aside, as in theatrical convention),
• stereotype of personal transfer (borrowing gestures from hearing culture),
• pseudo-transfer (describing a character with his acts, almost like a personal
transfer but with less corporal energy/investment).

Transfers of person are the most complex form of Highly Iconic Structures,
compared with transfers of form, which express no process, and transfers of situation,
which can only express motion and locative processes. This is why we decided to
describe and analyse it [7].
In the literature of SL, transfers of person are considered as "role playing" [8] and
as "point of view" or "referential shifter" [9].

Process of iconisation
(semiotic intentionality)

Highly Iconic Structures Iconicity of standard signs - Lexicon

(with iconic intent) (without iconic intent)

Transfers of size & form Transfers of situation Transfers of person

Molecular character of signs

Compositionality

Standard generic items

Personal T. Stereotype of PT. Double T. Pseudo-T. Half-Transfer Aparte

Fig. 1. Model of iconic grammar for Sign Language

3 Video Examples of Transfers in French Sign Language

Our study is based on a series of alternations involving transfers observed in a

videotaped corpus of narrative by three deaf native speakers, and supplemented by
elicitations from consultants [7]. We ourselves filmed signers engaged in different
narrative activities : three narratives used in language acquisition, based on simple
pictures of a complete story, and personal narratives with a free theme and way of
being told. A new video corpus will help us to complete our present results.
3.1 Methodology

We would like to insist on professional ethics when one is involved in SL researches

[10] : first, signers must have confidence in the researcher to be able to produce
natural signs. They must be born deaf and belong to the deaf community. Especially if
they are aware of this cultural context, their Sign Language could be a very imagistic
one, far from written and spoken dominant language structures. Finally, given these
conditions, a "natural" SL can emerge (versus an artefact of language or a " laboratory
SL ", composed only of lexical units) with many occurrences of High Iconicity
structures.

3.2 Some examples of transfers

Fig. 2. The same occurrence "to climb on a rock " with a situational transfer by two different
signers (dominant hand : process of climbing ; immobile hand : locative, the rock)

Fig. 3. A double transfer (two transfers, most complex operation) : the horse falls and hurts
himself (body, mimicry and left hand : personal transfer) and the cow puts a bandage around its
foreleg (right hand : situational transfer)

4 The Question of Linguistic Primitives to Discriminate Transfers

We would like to discuss the methodological and technical problems we had to fix the
iconicity degree and nature of units and how to discriminate one transfer from
another.

Table 1. First try to discriminate transfers with low level and high level primitives

Primitives Transfers

Transfer Transfer Transfer of person

of form of
& size situation Personal Double Transfer Pseudo- Aparte Half-
transfer transfer stereotype transfer transfer
Towards Towards Everywhere except towards Towards Everywhere
Gaze hands hands interlocutor interlocutor
(form)
To To Of the character Of the Of the The signer's
Facial express express being embodied character being character
form and form, embodied being
expression (with reference embodied
size size and
to hearing (less
process culture) dramatic)
Highly HIS HIS
Iconic HIS (+ standard HIS HIS HIS + standard units
Iconicity
Structures units in
of signs dialogues)
(HIS)
No Yes Yes
Process
Process
embodied No No Yes

Fig. 4. Video of problematic example : « to climb a tree » with a situational transfer (left)
followed by a personal transfer (right). Which elements (primitives) allow us to discriminate
these two different structures? We know that only the second one, the personal transfer,
completely embodies the process; but it is a semantic (or high level) primitive.
 Which primitives are useful for linguists : high level or low level primitives ?
Actually, to determine if semantic or articulator criteria are the most relevant or if we
have to combine both is a crucial question.
Moreover, we observe that these criteria are problematic because different types of
iconic structure appear alternatively (syntagmatic axis) and they can be superimposed
(paradigmatic axis) [11]. These narrative practices, which are difficult to conceive in
oral language, are frequently met in sign language and figure even as a truly cultural
behaviour [3].

Conclusion

We showed that transfers appear to be the core of spatial grammar and High Iconicity,
due to their highly economic structures.
But there are still many unsolved problems with respect to the iconicity continuum
between variety of transfers and standard lexicon. In particular, when are these means
of expressing a specific point of view preferred to a more neutral description? And
when can they co-occur?
Furthermore, the mode of communication depends on the capabilities of each
person. When signing, the signer can always choose between highly iconic structures
or a standard discourse, depending on what he/she wishes to express.
In this research we also would like to prove that Highly Iconic Structures are
genuine syntactic structures as structures which deal with standard lexicon. We
cannot understand properly a SL discourse without High Iconicity units. But this type
of extreme iconicity is particularly difficult to handle, because its units are
simultaneous and not discrete items.
The main contribution of this work is to develop a hierarchy between linguistic
structures and to organise the iconic grammar theory for French Sign Language. We
need consequently to find strong scientific primitives.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Deirdre Madden and Harry Clifton for corrections and comments on
previous version of this manuscript, and also to Frédéric, Jean-Yves and Simon for
their confidence and time.

References

1. Moody, B.: La Langue des Signes. Dictionnaire bilingue LSF/Français. Volume

2 & 3, Editions IVT, Paris (1997)
2. Fusellier-Souza, I. : Quand les gestes deviennent une proto-langue. DEA report
(post graduate), Linguistics department, Paris VIII, Saint Denis. (1999)
3. Cuxac, C.: La LSF, les voies de l'iconicité. Faits de Langues, Ophrys, Paris
(2000)
4. Cuxac, C.: French Sign Language : Proposition of a Structural Explanation by
Iconicity. In Braffort, A. et al. (eds.) : Gesture-Based Communication in Human-
Computer Interaction, International Gesture Workshop, GW'99, LNAI 1739,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1999) 165-184
5. Haiman, J. (ed.): Iconicity in Syntax. J. Benjamins, Amsterdam (1985)
6. Klima, E., Bellugi, U. (eds.) : The Signs of Language. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge London (1979)
7. Sallandre, M.A.: La dynamique des transferts de personne en Langue des Signes
Française. DEA report (post graduate), Linguistics department, Paris VIII, Saint-
Denis (1999)
8. Liddell, S.K. : Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual shifts. Cognitive
Linguistics 9-3. Walter de Gruyter, New York (1998) 283-314
9. Emmorey, K., Reilly, J. (eds.) : Language, Gesture, and Space. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey (1995)
10. Braffort, A. : Research on Computer Science and Sign Language : Ethical
Aspects. In Roy, D. and Panayi, M. (eds.) : LNAI, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Heidelberg New York (2001). To be published in this volume.
11. Cuxac, C., Fusellier-Souza, I., Sallandre, M.A. : Iconicité et catégorisations dans
les langues des signes. Sémiotiques 16. Didier Erudition, Paris (1999) 143-166