“…We shall, see that in Yucatec Maya gesture production, no such deictic metaphorical timeline is present and that speakers only contrast a “now” vs. a “remote time” where past and future are gestured in the same way. Such absence of opposition between past and future for time reference has been reported for non-western sign languages in Australia (Kendon, 1993 ) and Bali (de Vos, 2012 ) 1 .…”
In numerous languages, space provides a productive domain for the expression of time. This paper examines how time-to-space mapping is realized in Yucatec Maya. At the linguistic level, Yucatec Maya has numerous resources to express deictic time, whereas expression of sequential time is highly constrained. Specifically, in gesture, we do not find any metaphorical oriented timeline, but only an opposition between “current time” (mapped on the “here” space) and “remote time” (mapped on the “remote/distant space”). Additionally, past and future are not contrasted. Sequential or deictic time in language and gesture are not conceived as unfolding along a metaphorical oriented line (e.g., left-right or front-back) but as a succession of completed events not spatially organized. Interestingly, although Yucatec Maya speakers preferentially use a geocentric spatial frame of reference (FoR), especially visible in their use of gesture, time is not mapped onto a geocentric axis (e.g., east-west). We argue that, instead of providing a source for time mapping, the use of a spatial geocentric FoR in Yucatec Maya seems to inhibit it. The Yucatec Maya expression of time in language and gesture fits the more general cultural conception of time as cyclic. Experimental results confirmed, to some extent, this non-linear, non-directional conception of time in Yucatec Maya.
“…We shall, see that in Yucatec Maya gesture production, no such deictic metaphorical timeline is present and that speakers only contrast a “now” vs. a “remote time” where past and future are gestured in the same way. Such absence of opposition between past and future for time reference has been reported for non-western sign languages in Australia (Kendon, 1993 ) and Bali (de Vos, 2012 ) 1 .…”
In numerous languages, space provides a productive domain for the expression of time. This paper examines how time-to-space mapping is realized in Yucatec Maya. At the linguistic level, Yucatec Maya has numerous resources to express deictic time, whereas expression of sequential time is highly constrained. Specifically, in gesture, we do not find any metaphorical oriented timeline, but only an opposition between “current time” (mapped on the “here” space) and “remote time” (mapped on the “remote/distant space”). Additionally, past and future are not contrasted. Sequential or deictic time in language and gesture are not conceived as unfolding along a metaphorical oriented line (e.g., left-right or front-back) but as a succession of completed events not spatially organized. Interestingly, although Yucatec Maya speakers preferentially use a geocentric spatial frame of reference (FoR), especially visible in their use of gesture, time is not mapped onto a geocentric axis (e.g., east-west). We argue that, instead of providing a source for time mapping, the use of a spatial geocentric FoR in Yucatec Maya seems to inhibit it. The Yucatec Maya expression of time in language and gesture fits the more general cultural conception of time as cyclic. Experimental results confirmed, to some extent, this non-linear, non-directional conception of time in Yucatec Maya.
“…Instead, these signers show a preference for pointing to real-world objects or locations that can be associated with the referent using information shared between the signer and the addressee. This strategy, which we refer to as metonymic pointing, has been documented in diverse micro-community sign languages to both establish reference (e.g., Washabaugh et al 1978;Padden et al 2010;Schuit 2014) and to anaphorically refer back to an established referent (Bauer 2014;de Vos 2012;. Because members of the language community share a baseline understanding of geographical distribution of community members, they rely on this contextual knowledge to streamline referencing.…”
Section: Displaced Reference In Sign Languagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, when contextual information is not readily available to ground referring, signers of micro-community sign languages appear to draw upon more conventionalised strategies and use them in ways similar to those used by signers of macro-community sign language. Given this observation, de Vos (2012) hypothesises that when placed in situations where rich context is available, macro-community sign language users may also capitalise on this by using more context-dependent strategies.…”
Section: Sources Of Shared Knowledgementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most research on this phenomenon has focused on the use of one specific semiotic strategy: pointing. This work has investigated how these signers point to real-world locations to index referents associated with those locations, and in doing so incorporate shared spatial context to communicate (e.g., de Vos 2012;Bauer 2014). While pointing and spatial knowledge are important domains where shared knowledge can influence reference, there are likely many more domains of context that can feed into formulating referring expressions in small communities.…”
When referring to non-present entities, speakers and signers can select from a range of different strategies to create expressions that range from extremely concise to highly elaborate. This design of referring expressions is based partly on the availability of contextual information that can aid addressee understanding. In the small signing community of Providence Island, signers’ heavy reliance on extra-linguistic information has led to their language being labelled as context-dependent (Washabaugh, de Santis & Woodward 1978). This study investigates the semiotic strategies that deaf signers in Providence Island use to introduce non-present third person referents, and examines how signers optimise specificity and minimise ambiguity by drawing on shared context. We examined first introductions to non-present people in spontaneous dyadic conversations between deaf signers and analysed the semiotic strategies used. We found that signers built referring expressions using the same strategies found in other sign languages, yet designed expressions that made use of contextual knowledge shared through community membership, such as geography, local spoken languages and traits of fellow islanders. Our signers also used strategies described as unusual or unattested in other sign languages, such as unframed constructed action sequences and stand-alone mouthings. This study deepens our understanding of context dependence by providing examples of how context is drawn upon by communities with high degrees of shared knowledge. Our results call into question the classification of sign languages as context-dependent or context-independent and highlights the differences in data collection across communities and the resulting limitations of cross-linguistic comparisons.
“…1). This area of Bali is of particular value for understanding how homesign may jumpstart the grammars of emergent signing varieties, because it is also home to Kata Kolok, a rural sign language that has been acquired naturally by at least six subsequent generations (de Vos, 2012; Lutzenberger, 2022). Figure 1.Social interaction patterns of all 14 homesigners recorded for the Balinese Homesign Corpus, including data from the villages of Bebetin, Bulian, Suwug, and Tajun as well as their relation to the Kata Kolok signing community in Bengkala.…”
Homesign is a visual–gestural form of communication that emerges between deaf individuals and their hearing interlocutors in the absence of a conventional sign language. I argue here that homesign conversations form a perfect testcase to study the extent to which pragmatic competence is foundational rather than derived from our linguistic abilities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
