What is “showing” in language?

This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails. Au ho (s): Ti le: Yea : Ve sion: Copy igh : Righ s: Righ s u l: Please ci e he o iginal e sion: CC BY 4.0 h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/ Wha is “showing” in language? © Jan unen 2022 Published e sion Jan unen, Tommi Jan unen, T. (2022). Wha is “showing” in language?. Finnish Jou nal o Linguis ics, 35, 169-184. h ps://jou nal. i/ injol/a icle/ iew/112142 2022 Finnish Jou nal o Linguis ics 35 (2022), 169–184 Wha is “showing” in language? Tommi Jan unen Uni e si y o Jy äskylä Abs ac In his squib, I discuss he issue o showing meaning in language. I conside showing o o m a con inuum wi h elling ( adi ional language use wi h lexico-g amma ical uni s and p ocesses) and de ine showing in i s pu es o m as a way o signaling meaning h ough depic ion. Fo his pu pose, showing makes use o ela i ely g adien and non-con en ional means which a e no ypically conside ed o belong o language p ope . I si ua e showing oge he wi h elling in on ology in which language is concei ed as being simul aneously a physical, cogni i e and social ac i i y on a pa wi h o he such ypes o ac i i ies. In mains eam linguis ics, showing has been ma ginalized and se aside om he ocus o esea ch. Howe e , I sugges ha accep ing showing as an inhe en pa o language and i s use has, a e close empi ical sc u iny, no only heo e ical bu also p ac ical implica ions. Keywo ds: language, meaning, showing, elling, on ology, sign language 1 In oduc ion Ludwig Wi gens ein published his T ac a us logico-philosophicus one hund ed yea s ago, in 1921. In he T ac a us, Wi gens ein aimed o cla i y he ela ionship be ween language and he wo ld and o explica e he bounda ies o language. As he se en h and las sec ion o he T ac a us, Wi gens ein (1961) w o e: Whe eo one canno speak, he eo one mus be silen . In e e yday in e p e a ions, his sen ence has e en been unde s ood as a mo al ins uc ion, which is misleading. Wha he sen ence ac ually e e s o a e he limi s o language, which Wi gens ein unde s ands in he logical-posi i is sense, and he ange o i s capabili ies in delimi ing and de ining he phenomena ound in he wo ld. In p ac ice, Wi gens ein concludes ha he e a e mys ical hings in he wo ld which canno be eached meaning ully by means o speaking-based p oposi ions de ined by u h alues (pe haps mos impo an ly he p oposi ions hemsel es bu also, o ins ance, he s uc u e o 170 Tommi Jan unen Figu e 1. Examples o depic ing signs (a, b) and ins ances o cons uc ed ac ion o enac men (c, d) ex ac ed om he Co pus o Finnish Sign Language (h p://u n. i/u n: nbn: i:lb-2019012321). F ame a) has a sign depic ing he size and shape o an objec (‘ball’); b) depic s he au onomous mo ion o a single en i y (‘a ou -legged anima e objec ’); in c) he signe enac s he ‘handling a small, la objec ’ wi h his hands as pa o a la ge bodily cons uc ed ac ion; and in d) he signe enac s he meaning ‘ he cha ac e is asleep unde he blanke ’. In he ames a–c, he whi e lines and a ows indica e he shape and di ec ion o he mo emen (s) o he hand(s). In he ame d), he e is no mo ion. hinking, he meaning o emo ions e c.). In he philosophy o he T ac a us, hese hings can only be “shown”, which mean o Wi gens ein ha hey a e no p ope o sui able ma e s o philosophical deba e (Glock 1996: 330). Abou se en y yea s a e he T ac a us was published, om heo e ical unde pinnings comple ely di e en om Wi gens ein’s, se e al signed language esea che s began o in es iga e showing – conc e ely, he use o poin ing signs, depic i e signs and cons uc ed ac ion (see Figu e 1) – in se e al di e en signed languages (e.g. Ve mee be gen 2006). Fo example, in F ance, Ch is ian Cuxac made a dis inc ion be ween “signing wi h and wi hou showing” in he analysis o F ench Sign Language discou se (in English, see Cuxac 1999). In he Uni ed S a es, Sco Liddell and Melanie Me zge (1998) d ew pe haps he i s pa allels be ween showing in signed and spoken language communica ion in e ms o cons uc ed ac ion. And in Aus alia, Do o hea Cogill-Koe z (2000) aised discussion abou he na u e o depic ing signs in Auslan ( he signed language used in Aus alia) as isual empla es ins ead o highly g amma icalized wo d-like s uc u es. Finally, abou nine y yea s a e T ac a us’ i s publica ion, Aus alian-based signed language esea che s T e o Johns on, Lindsay Fe a a and Gab ielle Hodge began o use ideo co po a o in es iga e he use o a ious semio ic esou ces in Auslan, and di ec ly encapsula ed as hei main inding ha in language – Wha is “showing” in language? 171 including spoken language – meanings a e con eyed no only by elling bu also by showing (e.g. Fe a a & Johns on 2014; Hodge & Johns on 2014). Thei iew was and s ill is g ounded s ongly on he idea ha linguis ic u e ances a e mul imodal composi es (En ield 2009) – agg ega es whose o al meaning is he sum o semio ic signals p oduced wi h di e en a icula o s. Because o how he no ion o composi e u e ance has been applied o signed language u e ances con aining cons uc ed ac ion, he idea o showing wi h language (as opposed o elling wi h language) has subsequen ly sp ead widely in he ield o signed language esea ch (e.g. Co mie e al. 2015; Jan unen 2017; Hodge & Co mie 2019; Puupponen 2019; Beukelee s 2020).1 In his squib, I discuss showing as one means o con eying linguis ic meaning: Wha does showing en ail om he poin o iew o an u e ance (mos ly esembling a wo d o clause-like uni in i s du a ion) and in o wha kinds o in e nal cha ac e is ics can i be u he analyzed? Fu he , how is showing si ua ed wi hin language om an on ological pe spec i e? My ul ima e mo i a ion o his discussion may be signed language-speci ic bu I ne e heless e lec upon he opic on a gene al le el, also aking in o accoun spoken languages. Dealing wi h he opic o showing equally in bo h signed and spoken languages is impo an no only om he poin o iew o de i ing, on he basis o da a, a uni ied linguis ic heo y (including bo h ypes o languages) bu also om he poin o iew o u u e applica ions o he heo y. Examples o he la e a e, in e alia, language eaching and lea ning: om my pe sonal expe ience I ha e no ed ha he p ac ices o spoken language eaching and lea ning ha e adi ionally igno ed showing. In addi ion, a uni ied heo y o language ully acknowledging and including aspec s o showing could also con ibu e o he p ac ices o ansla ion and in e p e ing: o ins ance, i could be a gued ha u e ances ha show a e bes ansla ed and in e p e ed be ween signed and spoken languages by means o u e ances ha show, no by means o hose ha ell. 1In he all o 2021, a mul ime hodological esea ch p ojec ocusing on Finnish Sign Language has been launched on he opic o cons uc ed ac ion and showing a he Uni e si y o Jy äskylä (see h ps://jyu. i/show ell). This squib is mo i a ed by his p ojec . 172 Tommi Jan unen Figu e 2. The Finnish Sign Language (le ) and Finnish ( igh ) u e ance ‘The snowman and he boy a e si ing in a ca [in he manne shown].’ The example in Finnish Sign Language comes om P oG am da a (h p://u n. i/u n:nbn: i: lb-2016031101), and he Finnish example comes om Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Sign Language Cen e (h ps:// k-oppima e iaali.jyu. i). 2 Showing as a pa o linguis ic u e ances Wha does he linguis ic ac i i y cha ac e ized he e as showing mean mos conc e ely and pe haps also a i s simples ? The answe o his ques ion is demons a ed in Figu e 2, which p esen s one ideo ame om an u e ance p oduced in bo h Finnish Sign Language and Finnish. The meaning o he u e ance in bo h languages is ‘The snowman and he boy a e si ing in a ca [in he manne shown]’. In bo h languages, he language use a icula es a lexico-g amma ical uni meaning ‘si ’: in Finnish Sign Language his is he lexical sign SIT (ben index and middle inge o he dominan hand placed wi h sho single mo emen upon s aigh index and middle inge o he nondominan hand), in Finnish his is he dic iona y wo d is ua. Howe e , he language use s do no use lexico-g amma ical means o ell he manne o si ing. Ins ead, hey exp ess his wi h non-con en ionalized bodily ac ions, including pa icula acial exp essions and uppe - o so pos u es. In o he wo ds, while bo h language use s exploi lexico-g amma ical uni s o ell o epo he cha ac e ’s ac ion, hey also a he same ime engage in physical ac ions o show o he dimensions o he si ing ac i i y, in pa icula , he manne in which he si ing is done, in hei opinion. Conce ning he examples in Figu e 2, i mus be emphasized ha , in his squib, all elling and showing ac i i ies in he wo u e ances a e conside ed o be language. This does no co espond o he app oach in mains eam linguis ics, in which he e is a clea dema ca ion be ween Wha is “showing” in language? 173 linguis ic communica ion and non-linguis ic (pseudo- o pa alinguis ic) communica ion. The exis ing dis inc ion (acco ding o which only he sign SIT and he wo d is ua a e pa o language in Figu e 2) has i s his o y in esea ch on spoken languages, whe e i has been easily jus i ied by e e ence, o example, o he di e ence be ween he o al-audi o y channel and he ges u al- isual channel: linguis ic communica ion has been p ima ily associa ed wi h he oice, and non-linguis ic communica ion wi h o he bodily beha io s. Howe e , signed language (and ges u e) esea ch has shown ha bodily beha io s (o he han hose p oducing oice) can also be linguis ic (bu pe haps no always a e, c . idge ing as an example), and i is he e o e no easible o ely on channel in o de o make linguis ic/non-linguis ic dis inc ions (c ., Liddell 2003; see e.g. Johns on & Fe a a 2012; Fe a a & Hodge 2018). The same esea ch has u he shown ha e en wi hin he ges u al- isual channel i is impossible o d aw a sha p line be ween linguis ic and non-linguis ic beha io s. All ypes o in en ional, communica i e ac ion can be assigned linguis ic meanings (see below), which a e all necessa y o unde s and he o al meaning o he u e ance. The ques ion hen becomes he ollowing: I a clea dis inc ion be ween linguis ic and non-linguis ic communica ion canno be made in signed language, why should such a di e ence be made in spoken language, whe e he s a egies used in bodily showing a e he same as in signed language? E go: I is possible o in e p e bodily showing as meaning ul language in jus he same way as is done wi h elling p oduced wi h he hands o he oice. O cou se, his line o hinking is no new in spoken language esea ch ei he ; i has been well de eloped especially wi hin sub ields ha ocus on he in e play be ween speech and ges u e (McNeil 1992; Kendon 2004; En ield 2009; S eeck e al. 2011; Floyd 2016; Dingemanse 2018; Ladewig 2020).2 Based pa ly on he semio ic heo y o Cha les S. Pei ce (1955), Cla k (1996) p esen s a heo y o language use in which he dis inguishes h ee ways o a linguis ic u e ance o signal meaning. These a e desc ip ion (obeying a “ ule” o connec he o m wi h a e e en ), indica ion (loca ing he o m 2Rela ed o he discussion he e, one e iewe asked i all manual and nonmanual beha io accompanying speech—o en e med co-speech ges u e – should be conside ed language (e en i i occu s wi hou speech)? The answe ha his whole ex is pu ing o h is ‘yes’ in many cases. No able excep ions, men ioned b ie ly in he body ex oo, a e pe haps many in olun a y mo emen s no occu ing clea ly wi h communica i e in en s o any kinds. The o he a gumen his ex is pu suing is ha language canno be ully dema ca ed om o he ypes o phenomena and ac i i ies (including no only communica i e bu also e.g. ea ing dinne , dancing – i.e. all). This a gumen will be elabo a ed in la e sec ions. 174 Tommi Jan unen Desc ip ion Indica ion Depic ion Figu e 3. Linguis ic u e ance as a h ee old combina ion o desc ip ion, indica ion and depic ion o he e e en spa io- empo ally) and depic ion (o demons a ion; showing he e e en h ough pa ial esemblance wi h he o m). Following Pei cean language philosophy, i can be concei ed ha hese h ee ways o signi y meaning a e no ca ego ically dis inc bu in e wined and ha , om he poin o iew o con eying meaning, he linguis ic u e ance is always buil o include desc ip ion, indica ion and depic ion (see also En ield 2009; Fe a a & Hodge 2018). This h ee old na u e o he linguis ic u e ance is p esen ed schema ically in Figu e 3. F om he pe spec i e o signaling meaning, desc ip ion is mos pu ely ep esen ed wi h lexico-g amma ical uni s such as signs and wo ds ha ypically ha e ep esen a ions as lexemes in dic iona ies. Bo h signed and spoken language also desc ibe wi h emblems, ha is, wi h con en ionalized cul u al ges u es (McNeil 1992; Kendon 2004). Bu no all lexemes only desc ibe. Fo example, in spoken language, ce ain deic ic elemen s such as p onouns ha e dic iona y o ms, bu hey a e s ill bes seen as uni s mos ly exempli ying indica ion. In spoken language, indica ion is also associa ed wi h he use o manual poin ings (wi h o wi hou ocaliza ion), and his is also he mos common way o signal indica ion in signed language (di ec equi alen s o spoken language- ype p onoun sys ems ha e no been ound in signed language, see Johns on 2013a; 2013b). In signed language, indica ion is also s ongly p esen in mul idi ec ional con en signs (i.e., indica ing signs o he han poin ings), in which pa o he meaning eme ges con ex ually ia di ec ing hese signs owa d abs ac o conc e e e e en s (e.g. Liddell 2003; Jan unen 2018). Use s o signed and spoken languages also indica e wi h di e en body mo emen s and pos u es, such as wi h head nods and o so leans (e.g. En ield 2009; Fe a a & Hodge 2018; Puupponen 2019). Wha is “showing” in language? 175 Signaling meaning wi h indica ion is one dimension o showing. Howe e , con en -wise, signaling meaning wi h depic ion is o en a mo e e ec i e, and i is a leas a mo e ypical, way o showing. Many s a egies and elemen s which emphasize depic ion a e channel-dependen : onoma opoe ic wo ds (e.g. Dingemanse 2018) o p osodic al e na ions o wo ds (e.g. Cla k 1996; Ok en 2002) a e examples o uni s and ways in which depic ion can be done wi h he oice. S ongly iconic depic ing signs o iconic modi ica ions in he mo emen s o signs a e, in u n, examples o he same in signed language (e.g., Fe a a & Hal o sen 2017; see Figu e 1). Bu mo e gene ally, when meaning is signaled wi h depic ion, he e a e ewe di e ences be ween signed and spoken languages: in bo h channels depic i e u e ances a e p oduced equen ly and wi h mo emen s and pos u es o he body and he ace. This is p ecisely wha is shown in Figu e 2. Desc ip ion, indica ion and depic ion a e p esen in all u e ances in one way o ano he (e.g. Beukelee s 2020) bu , as has been hin ed abo e, some u e ances gi e p io i y o and emphasize one o he h ee ways o signal meaning. These p io i iza ions and emphases o m u e ance (wo d/sign, clause; p ocess) p o o ypes which, in acco dance wi h Pei ce’s o iginal heo y, can be classi ied in o symbols (u e ances emphasizing desc ip ion), indices (u e ances emphasizing indica ion) and icons (u e ances emphasizing depic ion) (see Cla k 1996). Some (e.g., Beukelee s 2020) ha e a gued ha hinking o u e ances as such p o o ypes is an o e simpli ica ion o he complex p ocess o signaling meaning. Howe e , on he o he hand, we migh ind ha i has i s bene i s, o example, in demons a ing he simila i ies and di e ences be ween signed and spoken language on he le el o bo h uni s and p ocesses, some o which a e illus a ed in Figu e 4. In addi ion, Figu e 4 also unde sco es he con inuum-like ela ionship be ween showing and elling, whe e he showing end o he con inuum emphasizes depic ion as he main means o signaling meaning. Figu e 4 also shows ha he di e ences be ween signed and spoken languages a his showing end o he con inuum a e educed o a minimum – o e en i ually disappea in some espec s. The idea behind his can be easily cap u ed by conside ing he Finnish Sign Language examples in Figu e 1 om he poin o iew o spoken language: in an app op ia e con ex , each o he ou examples (a–d) could be mani es ed also in he language use o a non-signing pe son. 176 Tommi Jan unen TELLING SHOWING •Ges icula ion… •Enac men •Depic i e ges u es •Depic i e signs; wi h modi ied mo emen •O he poin ing signs (incl. e bs) •Pe son and loca ion deno ing poin ings •Signed lexemes (e.g. DOG, SIGN); emblems Signed language (icons) Depic ions (indices) Indica ions (symbols) Desc ip ions •Ges icula ion… •Enac men •Depic i e ges u es •Onoma opoe ic wo ds; iconically modi ied p osody •Manual poin ings •P onoun wo ds •Spoken lexemes (e.g. dog, alk; emblems) Spoken language Figu e 4. Di e ences and simila i ies be ween signed and spoken language se on a con inuum be ween elling and showing. Each ow p esen s compa able uni s o p ocesses. No e ha all uni s and p ocesses a e bes analysed as composi es o all h ee signaling me hods. In he igu e, “enac men ” co esponds o he phenomenon o “cons uc ed ac ion”. I should be no ed ha he bo de be ween depic ing signs and depic ing ges u es is ex emely uzzy, pe haps e en a i icial (see Liddell & Me zge 1998; Johns on & Fe a a 2012). 3 Towa d he place o showing in on ology Rega dless o how he meaning is signaled in an u e ance, he u e ance is always a combina ion o o m and meaning. Howe e , he connec ion be ween he o m and he meaning can a y in se e al ways, wo o he mos impo an o which om he poin o iew o showing a e, i has been claimed, ca ego iali y and con en ionali y (see Cla k 1996; McNeil 2000; Wilcox & Xa ie 2013; Jan unen 2017). To use gene al linguis ic e minology (e.g. Ka lsson 1994), a ca ego ical o m–meaning ela ionship e e s o he one o m, one meaning ela ionship in a linguis ic sign. Mo e p ecisely, ca ego iali y means ha bo h he o m and he meaning a e disc e e and de e mined in hei pa s. A simpli ied example o he ca ego ical o m–meaning ela ionship is he ac ha he in a ian wo d- o m ca and he sign CAT always deno e he e e en ‘ca ’. Ca ego iali y is a e y p ominen cha ac e is ic o elling in gene al and o desc ip ion in pa icula (c . Pei cean symbols). The opposi e o ca ego iali y is g adience. Again, in gene al e minology, a g adien o m–meaning ela ionship can be cha ac e ized as a ela ionship o many o ms, many meanings. Mo e p ecisely, g adience is abou uzziness and he inde e minacy o bo h he o m and he meaning (c . Liddell 2003). In p ac ice his means ad hoc a iabili y o he o m and he meaning, cap u ed by he example ha he Wha is “showing” in language? 183 Ka lsson, F ed. 1994. Yleinen kieli iede [Gene al linguis ics]. Helsinki: Yliopis opaino. Kelle , Rudi. 1994. On language change: The in isible hand in language. London: Rou ledge. Kendon, Adam. 2004. Ges u e: Visible ac ion as u e ance. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Ladewig, Silwa. 2020. In eg a ing ges u es: The dimension o mul imodali y in Cogni i e G amma . Be lin: De G uy e Mou on. Liddell, Sco . 2003. G amma , ges u e, and meaning in Ame ican Sign Language. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Liddell, Sco & Me zge , Melanie. 1998. Ges u e in sign language discou se. Jou nal o P agma ics 30. 657–697. McNeil, Da id. 1992. Hand and mind: Wha ges u es e eal abou hough . Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess. — 2000. Language and ges u e. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Nyman, Ma i. 1995. Saussu e, langue ja kieli odellisuuden kaaos [Saussu e, langue and he chaos o linguis ic eali y]. Tiede & Edis ys 20(4). DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.51809/ e.104417. Ok en ,A inka. 2002.Amodali y- ee no ion o ges u e and how i can help us wi h he mo pheme s. ges u e ques ion in sign language linguis ics (o a leas gi e us some c i e ia o wo k wi h). In Meie , Richa d P. & Co mie , Kea sy & Quin o-Pozos, Da id (eds.), 175–198. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Pei ce, Cha les Sande s. 1955. Philosophical w i ings o Pei ce. New Yo k: Do e Publica ions. Poppe , Ka l & Eccles, John. 1977. The sel and i s b ain. Be lin: Sp inge -Ve lag. Puupponen, Anna. 2019. Towa ds unde s anding nonmanuali y: A semio ic ea men o signe s’ head mo emen s. Glossa: A jou nal o gene al linguis ics 4(39). DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.709. Saussu e, Fe dinand de. 1959. Cou se in gene al linguis ics. New Yo k: McG aw-Hill. S eeck, Jü gen & Goodwin, Cha les & LeBa on, Cu is (eds.). 2011. Embodied in e ac ion: Language and body in he ma e ial wo ld. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Ve mee be gen, My iam. 2006. Pas and cu en ends in sign language esea ch. Language and Communica ion 26(2). 168–192. Wilcox, She man & Xa ie , And é Noguei a. 2013. A amewo k o uni ying spoken language, signed language and ges u e. Re is a Todas as Le as 15. 88–110. Wi gens ein, Ludwig. 1961. T ac a us logico-philosophicus. Rou ledge & Kegan Paul. — 1967. Philosophical in es iga ions. Ox o d: Blackwell. 184 Tommi Jan unen Con ac in o ma ion: Tommi Jan unen Sign Language Cen e Depa men o Language and Communica ion S udies P.O. Box 35 (A) 40014 Uni e si y o Jy äskylä Finland E-mail: ommi(do )j(do )jan unen(a )jyu(do ) i