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/
Va ia ion in he use o cons uc ed ac ion acco ding o discou se ype and age in Finnish
Sign Language
© 2021 The Au ho s. Published by Else ie L d.
Published e sion
Puupponen, Anna; Kan o, Lau a; Wainio, Tuija; Jan unen, Tommi
Puupponen, A., Kan o, L., Wainio, T., & Jan unen, T. (2022). Va ia ion in he use o cons uc ed
ac ion acco ding o discou se ype and age in Finnish Sign Language. Language and
Communica ion, 83, 16-35. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.11.006
2022
Va ia ion in he use o cons uc ed ac ion acco ding o
discou se ype and age in Finnish Sign Language
Anna Puupponen
*
, Lau a Kan o, Tuija Wainio, Tommi Jan unen
Sign Language Cen e, Depa men o Language and Communica ion S udies, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Finland
a icle in o
A icle his o y:
Keywo ds:
Cons uc ed ac ion
Sign languages
Va ia ion
Age
Discou se ype
abs ac
This pape p esen s a s udy o he use o cons uc ed ac ion (CA) in he s o ies and con e -
sa ions o adul Finnish Sign Language (FinSL) signe s o di e en ages. CA is defined he e as a
ype o depic ion in which a signe enac s he ac ions, eelings, hough s and u e ances o
discou se e e en s wi h di e en pa s o hei body. Mos s udies on CA in sign languages
ha e been done on he basis o signed s o y elling, and li le is known abou how he use o
CA a ies in di e en discou se ypes. The use o CA has also been no ed o a y be ween
indi idual signe s, bu we do no ye know much abou he socio-indi idual phenomena ha
may be linked o his a ia ion. In he p esen s udy, we in es iga e whe he he use o CA is
di e en in he s o ies and he con e sa ions o adul FinSL signe s, and whe he younge
(18–39) and olde (50–79) adul signe s use CA di e en ly in s o ies and con e sa ions. The
s udy is based on he manual anno a ion o ideo da a eco ded o he Co pus o Finnish Sign
Language (Co pus FinSL) and he analysis includes equency desc ip ions and s a is ical
analysis. The da a show ha he e is a s a is ically significan di e ence in he use o CA in
s o ies and con e sa ions, and ha in s o y elling, olde adul s use significan ly mo e CA
han younge adul s. This di e ence be ween he wo age g oups is pa icula ly e iden in
he o e uses o CA. The wo k p esen ed he e poin s owa d he need o mo e in es iga ion
o CA in non-na a i e discou se con ex s and in he language use o signe s o di e en ages.
Ó2021 The Au ho s. Published by Else ie L d. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY
license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/).
1. In oduc ion
The opic o his pape is he depic i e discou se s a egy e e ed o as cons uc ed ac ion (CA) and how i is used in Finnish
Sign Language (FinSL). CA is defined he e as a ype o depic ion in which a signe enac s he ac ions, eelings, hough s and
u e ances o discou se e e en s wi h di e en pa s o hei body (see e.g. Liddell and Me zge , 1998;Co mie e al., 2013,
2015;Jan unen e al., 2020b). In sign language linguis ics, he enac men o e e en s has been app oached om a ying
heo e ical s a ing poin s. This can be seen in he di e se e minology wi h which his ype o enac men has been e e ed o
in he esea ch li e a u e (e.g. ole shi , e e ence shi , poin o iew p edica e, ans e pe sonnel, su oga e blending; see e.g. Padden,
1990;Lillo-Ma in,1995;Sandle and Lillo-Ma in, 2006;Cuxac 2000;Liddell, 2003). We see CA as a ype o enac men ha is
mul imodal linguis ic ac ion (e.g. Co mie e al., 2013;Hodge and Co mie , 2019) wi h a ying deg ees o in ensi y and se-
mio ic complexi y (Dudis, 2004;Co mie e al., 2015;Fe a a and Hodge, 2018), and which can occu wi h o wi hou
simul aneous lexical signs (e.g. Liddell and Me zge , 1998;Co mie e al., 2013).
*Co esponding au ho . Sign Language Cen e, Depa men o Language and Communica ion s udies, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Seminaa inka u 15 (P.O. Box
35), FI-40014, Finland.
E-mail add esses: anna.m.puupponen@jyu.fi(A. Puupponen), lau a.m.k.kan o@jyu.fi(L. Kan o), uija.wainio@jyu.fi(T. Wainio), ommi.j.jan unen@jyu.fi
(T. Jan unen).
Con en s lis s a ailable a ScienceDi ec
Language & Communica ion
jou nal homepage: www.else ie .com/loca e/langcom
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.11.006
0271-5309/Ó2021 The Au ho s. Published by Else ie L d. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/).
Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–35
CA is a equen and well-known phenomenon in sign language (SL) discou se, and i has been discussed in he field o sign
language linguis ics since he la e 1970s. Some schola s ha e paid a lo o a en ion especially o he enac men o e e en s’
hough s and u e ances (also e e ed o as quo a i e CA,cons uc ed dialogue, cons uc ed discou se, di ec quo a ion, di ec epo ,
a i ude asc ip ion) and whe he his can be used o indi ec epo ed speech as well as o di ec quo a ion ( o a e iew, see
e.g., Lillo-Ma in, 2012;Co mie e al., 2013;Que , 2018). These app oaches ha e emphasized he compa ison be ween bodily
enac men in SLs and con en ionalized quo a i e s a egies in spoken language syn ax.
O he s, on he o he hand, ha e paid mo e a en ion o he enac men o o he ypes o ac ions han u e ances and
hough s and, ollowing Tannen (1989), hey ha e defined enac men o bo h language e en s and o he ypes o ac ions as
cons uc ed ac ion (also e e ed o as ac ion ole shi ) (e.g. Me zge ,1995;Liddell and Me zge ,1998;Co mie e al., 2013).These
app oaches emphasize he cogni i e and unc ional p ocesses in ol ed in enac men , and he simila i ies be ween he bodily
enac men o signe s and he ocal and kinesic enac men o speake s. The heo e ical app oach in he cu en s udy ollows
his la e adi ion and we define bo h quo a i e and non-quo a i e enac men s as CA.
To da e, da a-d i en s udies on CA ha e been ca ied ou p ima ily on he basis o signed s o ies, and li le is known abou
how he use o CA a ies be ween di e en discou se ypes. Mo eo e , he use o CA has been no ed o a y be ween in-
di iduals (e.g. Fe a a and Johns on, 2014;Jan unen, 2017a) bu we do no ye know much abou he socio-indi idual phe-
nomena ha may be connec ed o his a ia ion, such as he age o gende o he signe (e.g. Hodge and Fe a a, 2014;Smi h
and Co mie , 2014). In he cu en s udy, we seek o con ibu e o hese discussions by in es iga ing whe he adul FinSL
signe s use CA di e en ly in di e en discou se ypes, and whe he he age o adul signe s a ec s he use o CA in hese
discou se ypes. Mo e specifically, he objec i es a e o find ou whe he (i) he use o CA is di e en in he s o ies and
con e sa ions o adul FinSL signe s; and (ii) whe he younge adul s (18–39) and olde adul s (50–79) use CA di e en ly in
s o ies and con e sa ions. The s udy is based on he manual anno a ion o eco ded ideo da a o adul s’FinSL use. The
analysis includes equency desc ip ions and s a is ical analysis.
In his endea o , he cu en s udy uses a amewo k p oposed by Co mie e al. (2015), acco ding o which CA has di e en
deg ees, ha is, sub le, educed and o e ypes. Non-enac ing s e ches o discou se we e e o as non-enac ing signing. We in es-
iga e how di e en deg ees o CA and non-enac ing signing occu in wo di e en discou se ypes and by signe s o di e en
ages. This wo k is done wi hin he usage-based cogni i e- unc ional amewo k and i is based on he iew ha language is a pa
o humans’physiological, cogni i e and social ac i i y, and he e o e ha language is inhe en ly connec ed o o he ypes o
humanac ion(see,e.g.,Hoppe ,1998;Bybeeand Beckne ,2010;Diessel,2017).Languageisalso iewedasincludingbo hg adien
and non-con en ionalized, as well as disc e e and con en ional elemen s, and iconic and indexical semio ic s a egies as well as
symbolic s a egies a e seen as impo an o meaning-making wi h language (Jan unen, 2017a;Puupponen, 2019). Fo mo e on
his iew see, o example, Co mie e al. (2012),Kendon (2014),Hodge and Johns on (2014),andFe a a and Hodge (2018).
The cu en s udy is he fi s co pus-based in es iga ion in o socio-indi idual a ia ion in FinSL. As age has been ound o
be a significan a iable in sociolinguis ic s udies o se e al sign languages (see e.g. Bayley e al., 2015), and as basic educa ion
has been qui e di e en o di e en gene a ions o FinSL signe s, age was conside ed o be a ele an ac o in a s udy o
a ia ion in he use o CA in FinSL. In he u u e, ou aim is o compa e he esul s o he cu en s udy wi h he use o CA by
child en acqui ing FinSL (Kan o e al., 2021), and o s udy u he o he socio-indi idual ac o s ha may influence he use o
CA in FinSL, such as gende , egional backg ound o signe s’linguis ic en i onmen du ing hei basic educa ion.
2. Cons uc ed ac ion in sign languages
2.1. App oaches o cons uc ed ac ion in sign languages
Al hough i is a ela i ely unde s udied opic, in SL linguis ics, he e is al eady a significan body o li e a u e ha discusses
–on one le el o ano he – he specific ype o bodily enac men ha we e e o in his pape as cons uc ed ac ion (CA). In
cons uc ed ac ion, a signe enac s a discou se e e en so ha di e en pa s o he signe ’s body ep esen di e en pa s o
he e e en ’s body, and he enac men is done as i showing he e en h ough he pe spec i e o he e e en (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. An example o he use o CA in FinSL (ma ked in bold): “Well, hen [ he snowman] wen o es he s o e and u ned i on using he knobs. [The s o e] was
adia ing hea . [The snowman] was s a led and pulled back om he hea because he was a aid o mel ing."
A. Puupponen e al. / Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–35 17
In mo e adi ional app oaches o SL g amma , his ype o enac men has been e e ed o as ole shi o e e en ial shi and a
dis inc ion has been made be ween he enac men o u e ances and he enac men o o he ypes o ac ions (e.g. Padden,1990;
Sandle and Lillo-Ma in, 2006; see also Lillo-Ma in, 2012). Ca ego ical di e en ia ion be ween enac ing u e ances and
enac ing o he ypes o ac ions is based on he iew ha signe s’enac men o non-linguis ic ac ion and all kinds o speake s’
kinesic enac men a e pa alinguis ic phenomena, whe eas signe s’enac men o u e ances is a linguis ic phenomenon com-
pa able o epo ed speech inw i en and spoken sen ences (e.g. Emmo ey, 2002;P auand Que , 2010). Behind his dis inc ionis
ano he me a heo e ical dis inc ion, ha o language being a sys em ha is sepa a e om o he human ac i i ies such as
ges icula ion. Speake s’kinesic o ocal enac men a e seen as “pa alinguis ic”pa s o communica ion, and he enac men o
e e en s’non-linguis ic ac ions, which does no include con en ionalized lexical signs, is seen as a pa allel pa alinguis ic
phenomenon. On he o he hand, some adi ional app oaches ha e no made such a ca ego ical dis inc ion be ween hese
di e en uses o enac men .Some, o example, ha e gone a ound he ges u e-language dicho omy byexplaining he enac men
o non-linguis ic ac ions h ough he linguis ic concep o a classifie and call hese okens o CA body classifie s (e.g. Supalla,1986,
2003;Mo gan and Woll, 2003;Da idson, 2015)–a iew ha has been bo h suppo ed and dispu ed.
1
Acco ding o ano he iew, he enac men o u e ances and he enac men o o he ypes o ac ions a e qui e closely
ela ed, bu s ill dis inc . This dis inc ion is jus ified by he ways in which signe s a e said o e e o he 1s pe son: when CA
enac s a language e en , signe s poin owa ds hemsel es in o de o e e o he enac ed “sel ”whe eas hese poin ing
ac ions do no occu in CA ha enac s nonlinguis ic ac ion (Lillo-Ma in, 2012). Howe e , his a gumen a ion has been
ques ioned, as he e a e ins ances o CA ha enac language e en s bu do no include any index-finge poin ing ac ions
e e ing o he enac ed sel (Que , 2018). In o he wo ds, in some cases, he di e ence be ween hese wo ypes o CA lies only
in hei con ex ually c ea ed and in e p e ed meaning and unc ion (see e.g. Co mie e al., 2015;Hodge and Co mie , 2019).
The e a e no sys ema ic o mal c i e ia ha dis inguish be ween hem, only he ac ha CA may eme ge wi hou any co-
occu ing lexical signs, whe eas he enac ing o u e ed o hough p oposi ions inhe en ly includes hese.
Due o his, no all app oaches ha e di e en ia ed be ween he enac men o u e ances and o he ac ions in he p e i-
ously men ioned ways. Acco ding o ano he iew, enac men s o discou se e e en s –whe he in ol ing language e en s o
non-linguis ic ac ions –a e always signe s’cons uc ions o he e en s hey enac . This means ha a cons uc ed e en
(enac men in Fig.1) is always a c ea ion o he signe which is de ached om he o iginal e en ( he e en in a s o y in which
‘a snowman is pulling back om a ho s o e’ e-enac ed in Fig.1; see e.g. Tannen,1989;Gün hne , 1999), and which includes,
o example, he signe ’s own in e p e a ions o he o iginal e en , and he signe ’s own communica ional aims in he
discou se con ex in which he enac men is p oduced (e.g. Wins on,1992;Me zge ,1995;Liddell and Me zge ,1998;Co mie
e al., 2013;Fe a a and Johns on, 2014, see also Lillo-Ma in, 2012). Acco ding o his iew, i is some imes e y di ficul , o
e en impossible, o dis inguish be ween CA ha quo es language e en s and CA ha quo es non-linguis ic ac ions, as bo h o
hese may eme ge in a single enac men (see e.g. Co mie e al., 2013, 120; Hodge and Co mie , 2019). This app oach un-
de lines he ac ha sequences o CA a e ound in bo h signe s’and speake s’
2
mul imodal communica ion and ha in bo h
cases hey a e demons a ions ha depic a he han desc ibe e e en s (see e.g. Cla k and Ge ig, 1990;S eeck, 2002;Fe a a
and Hodge, 2018). Tha is, a speake ’s ocal enac men o a e e en ’s speech o speake ’s/signe ’s bodily enac men o ano he
ype o e e en ’s ac ion a e all examples o depic ing a he han desc ibing. Enac ing a s e ch o discou se does no make i
“mo e linguis ic”o less depic i e han enac ing o he ypes o ac ions.
Finally, he e a e also conflic ing iews on whe he pa icula signals om he signe ’s body a e o be conside ed as a pa
o he enac men o a e e en in CA o as pa o con en ionalized SL g amma and mo phosyn ax. One qui e well-known
example o such a discussion is ha o he signe ’s eye gaze and i s use o CA e sus g amma ical ag eemen ( o an o e -
iew o hese compe ing iews, see e.g. Co mie e al., 2015 &Schemb i e al., 2018).
2.2. Deg ees o cons uc ed ac ion
In he heo e ical discussion o CA, i has also been no ed ha no all pa s o he signe ’s body a e necessa ily engaged in
he enac men . I is possible ha a pa o he signe ’s body is engaged in CA while a he same ime ano he pa o he body is
engaged in non-enac ing signing (Liddell and Me zge , 1998;Dudis, 2004). This well-known ea u e associa ed wi h CA has
been e e ed o as body pa i ioning (Dudis, 2004). In an u e ance ha in ol es body pa i ioning, a signe may enac a
e e en wi h, o example, he posi ion o hei uppe body, hei acial exp ession and hei eye gaze while hei hands
p oduce lexical o pa ly lexical signs
3
desc ibing o depic ing he e en ha is being discussed and/o he pa icipan (s) in
his e en . The end esul o his mul ilaye ed a icula ion is a semio ically complex u e ance which includes se e al iew-
poin s: he cha ac e pe spec i e (also e e ed o, e.g., as pa icipan iewpoin ) shown by enac men , as well as he obse e
pe spec i e (also e e ed o as, e.g., global iewpoin ) con eyed by lexical and pa ly lexical signs (see also e.g. Emmo ey e al.,
1
Fo di e ing iews on he use o he concep ‘(body) classifie ’in SL linguis ics, see e.g. Supalla (1986,2003);Mo gan and Woll (2003);Zwi se lood
(2012);Da idson (2015);Engbe g-Pede sen (1993,1995);Cogill-Koez (2000);Liddell (2003b);Schemb i (2003);Slobin e al. (2003).
2
The use o CA has also been ound in speake s’communica ion and i has been e e ed o wi h e ms such as demons a ion,body quo a ion,(mime ic) ( e-)
enac men and depic ion (e.g. Cla k and Ge ig 1990;Came on 1998;S eeck 2002;Enfield, 2009; Pa k 2009;Cla k 2016;Fe a a and Hodge 2018;Lilja and
Pii ainen-Ma sh 2019).
3
Wi h ‘lexical’we e e o signs ha a e ully con en ionalized o he lexicon o a SL and wi h ‘pa ly lexical’ o signs ha include mo e con en ionalized
elemen s as well as mo e con ex -dependen indica i e and/o depic i e elemen s (see e.g. Liddell 2003;Johns on and Schemb i 2010;Johns on 2012).
A. Puupponen e al. / Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–3518
2000;Dudis, 2004;Pe niss, 2007;Co mie e al., 2012;Quin o-Pozos and Pa ill, 2015;Fe a a and Ringsø, 2019). Cha ac e
pe spec i e has gene ally been associa ed wi h he li e-sized concep ual scene su ounding he signe , who is posi ioned
inside i and may mo e inside i . Obse e pe spec i e, on he o he hand, has been associa ed wi h he concep ual scene ha
is he opog aphical space in on o he signe , who is posi ioned a a s a ic poin ou side o i (Pe niss, 2007;Fe a a and
Ringsø, 2019, 584). Recen ly i has been no ed ha his di ision is less clea -cu han may ha e been hough , and ha
some spa ial language in ol es so-called mixed an age poin s; ha is, ex e nal iewpoin s may be mobile as well as s a ic, and
in e nal iewpoin s may be s a ic as well as mobile (Fe a a and Ringsø, 2019; see also Pe niss and Özyü ek, 2008).
The ideas o body pa i ioning and co-occu ing iewpoin s can be seen in some heo e ical-me hodological ea men s o
CA ha include he idea ha enac men may eme ge in di e en deg ees in SL discou se. Co mie e al. (2015) ha e p esen ed
a da a-d i en amewo k o he in es iga ion o CA, acco ding o which he deg ee o CA may be analyzed h ough de ailed
mul ichannel anno a ion o a icula o s’engagemen in CA combined wi h in ui ion-based e alua ion o he s eng h o he
enac men .
4
The amewo k includes anno a ions o enac ing a icula o s (hand(s), eye gaze, head, ace, o so), he iewpoin
o he signe (na a o , cha ac e ), and he p ominence o ha iewpoin ( ull, pa ial). This p ocess o desc ip ion and analysis
esul s in a classifica ion o CA in o h ee g adien p o o ype ca ego ies, o e (Fig. 2a), educed (Fig. 2b) and sub le CA (Fig. 2c).
Acco ding o Co mie e al. (2015, 193) hese p o o ypes a e “poin s along a con inuum o o e ness”o CA.
In o e CA, a ela i ely high numbe o a icula o s a e in ol ed in he enac ing and he signe is ully in he ole o a
cha ac e (i.e., he depic ion is done om he cha ac e ’s in e nal iewpoin ). In Fig. 2a he signe is engaged in o e CA, so
di e en pa s o he signe ’s body, including he hands, ep esen he enac ed e e en ,a pe son sc eaming, no hose o he
na a o .In educed CA, qui e a lo o a icula o s a e s ill engaged in he enac men bu he cha ac e iewpoin is only
pa ial, ha is, he signe akes he oles o bo h he cha ac e and he na a o . In he example in Fig. 2b, mos o he ac i i y o
he signe is s ill po aying ‘a pe son sc eaming’, while he signe ’s hands a e p oducing a lexical sign SCREAM, which depic s
he e en s om he na a o ’s ex e nal iewpoin .In sub le CA,only a ew a icula o s a e engaged in he enac men , and he
e en is depic ed only pa ially om he cha ac e ’s iewpoin .This is demons a ed in he u e ance in Fig. 2c, in which mos
o he isible ac i i y is ha o he signe -na a o , including he lexical sign SCREAM, and i is only he depic i e ac i i y o he
ace (i.e. he eyes and he eye b ows) ha ep esen some ea u es o he cha ac e ’s iewpoin , ‘a pe son sc eaming’.
When app oaching CA as an a icula o ily o in ensi y-wise holis ic phenomenon (e.g. Fe a a and Johns on, 2014;
Jan unen, 2017a.), di e en s udies may base hei conclusions abou he use o CA on obse a ions done on di e en a -
icula o (s) (e.g., obse ing only he mo emen s o he body o only acial exp ession/eye-gaze; see Co mie e al., 2015). In
addi ion, in a holis ic app oach some conclusions on CA may be based only on o e CA while o he s a e based on non-o e
CA, o he mos sub le ins ances o CA may no be aken in o accoun a all. These issues may pa ly explain he di e en
findings o s udies on CA and he conclusions eached on he linguis ic na u e o CA (see Co mie e al., 2015).
Abo e we ha e gi en a sho e iew o di e en app oaches o CA in sign language linguis ics. The heo e ical app oach o
he cu en s udy has i s o igins in he app oach o Wins on (1992),Me zge (1995), and Liddell and Me zge (1998) and hei
ollowe s. We define CA as a specific o m o enac men in which he ac ions o a speake ’s o signe ’s body ep esen he
ac ions, hough s, eelings o u e ances o e e en s in discou se. Following Me zge (1995) and Co mie e al. (2015), we see
he enac men o language e en s and he enac men o non-linguis ic ac ion as di e en ypes (which do no necessa ily
need o be dis inguished om each o he ) o he same discou se s a egy, cons uc ed ac ion, in which a signe /speake
depic s a cons uc ed e en . This ype o depic ion is a mo e g adien and non-con en ionalized way o meaning-making han
exp essing meaning wi h con en ionalized lexical signs, o example. Howe e , i may include di e en deg ees o con-
en ional o semi-con en ional elemen s, such as lexical signs when enac ing u e ances, o delexicalized o ms o signs
5
when enac ing o he ypes o ac ion. In his s udy, we ha e applied Co mie e al.’s (2015) amewo k o CA ypes o he
s udy o FinSL discou se, as is desc ibed in Sec ion 3. U e ances in ol ing o e CA a e conside ed o include mo e non-
con en ionalized and g adien ea u es while u e ances in ol ing sub le CA a e conside ed o include mo e con en ional
Fig. 2. Examples o he h ee CA ypes and non-enac ing signing in FinSL. All ou examples signi y o ep esen ‘sc eaming’.
4
Fo o he ea men s o deg ees o CA, see e.g. Len z (1986) and Quin o-Pozos and Meh a (2010).
5
Wi h ‘delexicalized o ms’we e e o okens o signs ha a e con en ionalized pa s o a lexicon o a SL bu ha a e “ aken back” o hei iconic and
mimic oo s in discou se (e.g. Johns on and Fe a a 2012;Co mie e al., 2012).
A. Puupponen e al. / Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–35 19

and disc e e ea u es (see Fe a a and Hodge, 2018;Jan unen e al., 2020b).We use he no ion o ole shi only o desc ibe he
punc ual ansi ion be ween cha ac e oles wi hin cons uc ed ac ion o he poin s a which a signe e u ns om con-
s uc ed ac ion o non-enac ing signing (Co mie e al., 2015).
2.3. Many unc ions o cons uc ed ac ion
CA has been ound o be mul i unc ional; i is associa ed wi h di e en semio ic and discou se-o ien ed unc ions. Fi s ly,
CA has a e e en ial unc ion: i is used o e-enac e en s and he pa icipan (s) in hese e en s (e.g. Co mie e al., 2013;
Hodge and Fe a a, 2014). These e en s may include he pa icipan ’s o pa icipan s’ac ions, hough s o sayings, o hei
emo ions, eac ions o a i udes. Since sequences o CA depic whole e en s, hey inhe en ly include in o ma ion abou he
pa icipan s in hese e en s and indica e seman ic oles, ha is, who does wha o whom (e.g. Liddell, 2003;Co mie e al.,
2013). Due o his semio ic complexi y, in syn ac ic analysis, some schola s ha e iewed a CA sequence as o ming a uni ha
in ol es a clause-like quan i y o seman ic con en , and ha connec s o o he syn ac ic sequences h ough coo dina ion and
chaining (Jan unen, 2017a). O he s ha e seen sequences o CA as co esponding o co e a gumen s and p edica es in clauses
(Hodge and Johns on, 2014). The e e en s depic ed wi h CA a e usually anima e bu may also be inanima e, especially in
discou se ypes such as fic ional s o ies and poe y (see e.g. Su on-Spence e al., 2005). A e e en in CA may, u he , be ei he
clea ly isible (‘ he snowman’in Fig. 1) o a so-called in isible su oga e (‘ he ho s o e’in Fig. 1), ha is, “a chunk o space
[ ha ] becomes semio ically ac i a ed ia he coo dina ion o one o mo e os ensi e indexical ac s”(Hodge e al., 2019, 48).
In discou se, CA is used especially o main aining e e ence a he han o in oducing new e e en s (e.g. Co mie e al.,
2013;Hodge e al., 2019). This means ha CA is one o he discou se s a egies ha a e used o e e ence acking in SLs: i is
used o main aining and ein oducing e e en s in a spa ially cohesi e manne . The unc ions o CA a e connec ed o many
discou se-le el communica i e aims and o he ea u es o specific discou se ypes, such as making he con en ha is being
signed mo e exci ing, engaging he in e locu o (s), o o a is ic e ec , o humo , and so on (e.g. Su on-Spence and Mülle
de Quad os, 2005;Quin o-Pozos and Meh a, 2010;Su on Spence and Napoli, 2010;Kaneko and Mesch, 2013;Su on-Spence,
2017). Finally, acco ding o a ecen s udy, CA is pa icula ly use ul and e ec i e in non-na a i e discou se con ex s such as
elici a ion asks ha aim a maximally e ficien in o ma ion ansmission (Slonimska e al., 2020).
2.4. Va ia ion in he use o cons uc ed ac ion
I has been obse ed ha how equen ly CA is used a ies be ween di e en signe s as well as acco ding o he in o ma ion
s uc u e and e en s uc u e o a na a i e (Fe a a, 2012;Co mie e al., 2013;Hodge and Fe a a, 2014;Fe a a and Johns on,
2014). Fo example, i has been no ed ha CA is used mo e by some signe s han o he s when e elling s o ies inAuslan (Fe a a,
2012;Hodge and Fe a a, 2014;Fe a a and Johns on, 2014). Hodge and Fe a a (2014) hypo hesized ha his a ia ion may be
he esul o pe sonal idiosync asy, o expe ience in s o y elling, o signe s’age, educa ion and o he socio-indi idual ac o s, o
he deg ee o social in imacy be ween he in e locu o s, as well as o he signe ’s eelings and a i udes du ing he discou se. I
has also been obse ed ha he ypes o cons uc ions ha p ecede o embed CA a e connec ed o whe he he u e ance
in ol es in oducing and e-in oducing e e en s (wi h NP), o main aining hem (wi hou NP) (Co mie e al., 2013). The
occu ence o CA has, u he , been ound o a y acco ding o he le el o animacy o he e e en (see e.g. Hodge e al., 2019).
The e ec o di e en discou se con ex s on he use o CA has no been looked a in dep h, and s udies in es iga ing CA in
non-na a i e con ex s a e a e. Fe a a (2012) epo ed ha in Auslan co pus da a, he use o CA was conside ably less equen
in con e sa ions han in s o y elling: CA was shown o be six imes mo e likely o appea in s o y elling han in con e sa ions
(see also Fenlon e al., 2014). Howe e , his s udy app oached CA as an a icula o ily holis ic phenomenon, and i may be ha
sub le CAwas no aken in o accoun in he analysis. Fe a a and Ringsø (2019) showed ha CA may occu bu is e y in equen
in No wegian sign language con e sa ions in ol ing spa ial language, such as ou es om one place o ano he o a el
i ine a ies. Slonimska e al. (2020), on he o he hand, showed ha in a di ec o -ma che game con ex , u e ances ha may
encode a lo o in o ma ion simul aneously, such as hose including CA, inc ease and become mo e semio ically complex as he
in o ma ion ha has o be con eyed inc eases. Apa om such indi idual s udies, he in es iga ion o CA in di e en non-
na a i e con ex s is only in i s ea ly s eps. This will, howe e , p esumably change in he nea u u e, as SL co pus da a now
o e us new ways o ca ying ou compa a i e and c osslinguis ic s udies on SL depic ion (e.g. Fe a a e al., 2020). Finally, i
should be no ed ha ee con e sa ions may include spon aneous na a i es o , o example, pe sonal expe iences.
Va ia ion in he use o CA acco ding o he age o he signe is also an unde s udied opic. Some s udies ha e epo ed on
how CA is used by child en acqui ing a sign language (Loew, 1984;Schick, 1987;Lillo-Ma in and de Quad os, 2011;Mo gan
2002,2006;Smi h and Co mie 2014). I has been shown ha al hough child en as young as h ee yea s o age do use CA
(Loew, 1984;Schick, 1987;Lillo-Ma in and de Quad os, 2011), younge child en (4–6 yea s) may use i in ways ha lead o
e e en ial ambigui y, o example when in oducing new e e en s. In gene al, i has been sugges ed ha he use o CA is a
skill ha is acqui ed and mas e ed g adually. The o e lapping o se e al iewpoin s and he cohe en use o CA a he le el o
discou se ha e been ound o eme ge la e (11–13 yea s and abo e) in child en’s language (Mo gan, 2006).
The e ec o adul signe s’age on hei use o CA has no ye been s udied. Howe e , in gene al, di e en sociolinguis ic
s udies ha e shown ha signe s’age may be a significan a iable ela ed o a ia ion in SLs. I has been epo ed ha in Sou h
A ican (Njeyiyana and Huddles one, 2020), Ame ican (Bayley e al., 2000) and B i ish (e.g. S amp e al., 2014) Sign Languages,
o example, some signs used by mos elde ly signe s a e becoming inc easingly a e in he language use o younge age
A. Puupponen e al. / Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–3520
g oups. Fo example, S amp e al. (2014) ound ha elde ly signe s o B i ish Sign Language (BSL) ended o use adi ional
egional lexical sign a ian s o colo s, coun ies and numbe s mo e han younge BSL signe s, especially i a he ime o he
s udy hey we e li ing in he egion in which hey had been educa ed, and had dea pa en s. Olde BSL signe s ha e also been
ound o use wo-handed a ian s o numbe signs much mo e equen ly han younge BSL signe s (S amp e al., 2015; see
also Woll, 1981). In o he sign-language con ex s, i has been ound ha younge signe s o Ame ican Sign Language and
Auslan (Lucas e al., 2001;Schemb i e al., 2009) a e mo e likely han olde signe s o p oduce lowe ed o ms o signs (i.e. sign
o ms p oduced a a lowe loca ion han in he dic iona y o m). In I alian Sign Language, i has been epo ed ha signe s
o e 55 yea s o age and wi h ela i ely low le els o educa ion p oduce in e oga i e signs mo e equen ly be o e p edica es
in in e oga i e clauses han hose unde he age o 55 and wi h ela i ely high le els o educa ion (Ge aci e al., 2015). Fo
FinSL, he in es iga ion o a ia ion and i s ela ion o possible social a iables has s a ed only ecen ly and has no been done
using co pus da a. I has been shown, howe e , ha elde ly FinSL signe s use he specific lexical a ian s o signs o mon hs
significan ly mo e equen ly han younge signe s do, and ha some o hese a ian s a e en i ely absen om he da a
collec ed om he younges FinSL signe s (18–35 yea s) (K onq is , 2018).
2.5. Cons uc ed ac ion in FinSL
Repo s on and men ions o he use o enac men in FinSL began in he ea ly 1990s (Rissanen, 1992;Jan unen, 2007,2008;
Lukasczyk, 2008). Lukasczyk (2008), o example, ound ha signe s’ acial exp essions, manual mo emen s, eye-gaze, and head
and body mo emen s and posi ions enac he ac ions, hough s and u e ances o e e en s in FinSL na a i es. Luckasczyk also
ound body pa i ioningas well as chains o up o ou consecu i e sequences o CA. A e Lukasczyk (2008), he use o enac men
has come up in di e en s udies on he s uc u e o FinSL. These include he acknowledgmen o how enac men con ibu es o
heomissiono lexicalco e a gumen sinclauses (Jan unen, 2013,2017b); o how he agen is exp essed and de ocused in clauses
(Ala-Sippola, 2012;No dlund, 2019); o how he coo dina ion o conjoined clauses is indica ed (Jan unen, 2016); and o how
di e en non-manual a icula ions/signals occu and coincide (Puupponen, 2018,2019). Al hough none o hese s udies ocused
on enac men pe se, i is an issue ha is discussed, o a leas men ioned, in ela ion o he subjec ma e s o hese s udies.
The fi s s udy specifically ocusing on CA (as we define i in he cu en pape ) in FinSL is Jan unen (2017a), a syn ac ic
s udy on he ela ion be ween clauses and CA in signed s o ies, in oduced in Sec ion 2.3. The s udy shows ha syn ax (in sign
languages) may be seen as a se o ea u es dis ibu ed on a con inuum be ween a mo e ca ego ical-con en ional syn ac ic
o ganiza ion o clauses –wi h hie a chical clausal linkages (i.e. subo dina ion, embedding), wi hou CA, and wi h a p e e ence
o ully lexical and pa ly lexical indica ing e bal signs –and mo e g adien -non-con en ionalized syn ac ic o ganiza ion –
wi h p ima ily fla linkages (i.e. coo dina ion & chaining), ex ensi e use o CA, and p e e ence o he use o pa ly lexical
depic ing e bal signs. This was ollowed by ano he s udy (Ho én, 2019), also based on signed na a i es, on he con-
nec ions be ween di e en ypes o depic ing signs (Liddell, 2003) and di e en deg ees o CA (Co mie e al., 2015) in FinSL.
Acco ding o Ho én (2019), he e a e di e ences in he combina o ics o depic ing signs and CA ha depend on he ype o
he depic ing sign and he deg ee o CA. In he da a, signs ha depic o d aw sizes and shapes occu ed mos ly wi hou CA,
and when occu ing wi h CA, he enac men was ne e o e ; signs ha depic a pe son’s hand
6
usually occu ed wi h o e
CA; and signs ha depic whole en i ies
7
occu ed bo h wi h and wi hou CA almos equally.
Finally, esea ch on CA in FinSL has ecen ly been augmen ed wi h wo phone ic s udies on FinSL based on synch onized
ideo, Mo ion Cap u e and eye- acking eco dings (Jan unen e al. 2020a,2020b). In he da a used in bo h s udies, he signe s
depic ca oon s ips o an in e locu o . Sequences o CA ha e been iden ified om hese da a acco ding o hei deg ee
ollowing Co mie e al.’s (2015) me hodology. Acco ding o he fi s s udy (Jan unen e al., 2020a), he o de in which
di e en pa s o he signe ’s body engage in enac men when ansi ioning om non-enac ing signing o o e CA seems o
in ol e a pa e n in which he head and eyes o he signe end o engage in he enac men fi s , ollowed by he ches a ea
and he dominan hand, al hough he da a showed a lo o a ia ion acco ding o he indi idual and he discou se con ex .
Acco ding o he second s udy (Jan unen e al., 2020b), in o e and educed CA he head and he body o he signe mo e on a
la ge a ea (in ela ion o he floo ), and mo e apidly han in sub le CA and non-enac ing signing. As ega ds he kinema ics o
how he signe ’s head and body mo e, educed CA does no di e significan ly om sub le o o e CA in he da a. The
s a is ically significan di e ences in he kinema ics o he mo emen s a e be ween he ex emes: non-enac ing signing and
educed/o e CA o sub le CA and o e CA.
The wo k desc ibed abo e shows, among o he hings, ha CA occu s in di e en discou se con ex s in FinSL such as
s o y elling (Jan unen, 2017a;Puupponen, 2018,2019;Ho én, 2019), elici ed sen ences (Jan unen, 2007) o p e-s uc u ed
ex s ansla ed in o FinSL om Finnish (Ala-Sippola, 2012;No dlund, 2019). Fu he mo e, we know ha s o y elling is likely
o include mo e enac men han o he ypes o discou se, a p esupposi ion ha was s eng hened in a compa ison o he
equency o CA in Luckasczyk’s (2008) s o y elling da a wi h No dlund’s (née Ala-Sippola, 2012,2019) desc ip ion o CA in
he da a, a sample om a Finnish- o-FinSL ansla ion o a ex on SL policy. Luckasczyk’s 6-min da a included al oge he 70
ins ances o CA whe eas No dlund ound CA o be a e in he 11-min da a she analyzed in he s udy.
8
Howe e , we do no ye
ha e esea ch ha a fi ms ha he use o CA is ac ually di e en in di e en discou se ypes in FinSL. The co pus-based s udies
6
These include bo h handling and non-handling ac ions, e.g. ubbing one’s hands oge he .
7
These include signs wi h handshapes ha depic ins umen s.
8
I should be no ed, howe e , ha Ala-Sippola did no sys ema ically anno a e CA, as he ocus o he s udy lay elsewhe e.
A. Puupponen e al. / Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–35 21
on CA in FinSL ha e all been done on he basis o signed na a i es. No do we ha e esea ch ha shows how his use is
di e en in di e en discou se con ex s. In No dlund’s (née Ala-Sippola,2012,2019) da a, CA, when i occu ed, was mo e
sub le han o e , which indica es ha o e CA is less equen in mo e o mal, non-na a i e con ex s. Howe e , we do no
know whe he his is he case in in o mal con e sa ions, o example.
Ano he finding al eady epo ed in he exis ing esea ch li e a u e on FinSL is ha he use o CA a ies conside ably
be ween di e en indi iduals. The desc ip ion o a ia ion has un il now ocused mainly on equency: we know ha some
signe s use much mo e CA han o he s when signing s o ies (Jan unen, 2017a;Puupponen and Jan unen, 2017). Al hough his
a ia ion has been shown o occu , i has no been examined in much de ail so, o example, we do no ye know much abou
how he use o di e en CA ypes di e s be ween indi iduals, o he easons why hese di e ences eme ge: no s udies ha e
ye been done ha compa e he CA (o any hing else, o ha ma e ) o , o example, signe s o di e en ages o gende s. The
cu en s udy aims o con ibu e o he findings desc ibed abo e by in es iga ing how di e en ypes o CA a e used in
di e en si ua ions and by di e en signe s in FinSL.
3. Da a and me hod
3.1. Pa icipan s and da a
In he s udy, he use o CA was in es iga ed using a subse o ma e ials om Co pus FinSL (Salonen e al., 2020).The da a
comp ise na a i e and dialogue ma e ials om 12 adul FinSL signe s aged be ween 18 and 79, and he o e all du a ion o
he ma e ials is 2 h and 30 min. The signe s, 6 emale and 6 male, a e all dea L1 use s o FinSL. A he ime o he da a
collec ion, he signe s we e li ing in a ious pa s o he adminis a i e egions o Wes e n & Inland Finland, and Eas e n
Finland. In o de o analyze signe s’use o CA acco ding o di e en age g oups, he signe s we e di ided in o wo g oups:
younge adul s (18–39 yea s old, n ¼6) and olde adul s (50–79 yea s old, n ¼6). The da a include s o ies and con e sa ions
sha ed be ween he adul signe s in a dialogue se ing (al oge he 6 pai s). The elici a ion ma e ials used when collec ing
hei signed s o ies we e ex less pic u e books, F og, whe e a e you (Maye ,1969)? (n ¼6) and Snowman (B iggs,1978)(n¼6).
Each o he wo in e locu o s was gi en one o he wo pic u e books be o e he eco ding so ha hey had ime o go h ough
he s o yline in ull. A e his, he in e locu o s signed he s o ies o each o he wi hou looking again a he elici a ion
ma e ial. In he con e sa ions he signe s discussed hei wo k, hobbies o o he a eas o in e es , as hey chose. All da a
excep he con e sa ion ma e ials o h ee signe s a e publicly a ailable in he Language Bank o Finland, which is a pa o he
FIN-CLARIN conso ium (Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Sign Language Cen e, 2019).
3.2. Anno a ion p ocedu e
The Co pus FinSL ma e ials used in he cu en s udy ha e been anno a ed in ELAN (Eudico Linguis ic Anno a o ;C asbo n
and Sloe jes, 2008) o signs, ansla ions and CA. The anno a ions o signs and ansla ions we e c ea ed du ing he p o-
cessing o he Co pus FinSL (Salonen e al., 2020) ollowing he Co pus FinSL anno a ion guidelines (Salonen e al., 2019). In
he cu en s udy, he ma e ials we e complemen ed wi h anno a ions o sub le, educed and o e CA, acco ding o he
guidelines p esen ed in Co mie e al. (2015). A summa y o he anno a ion ie s in ou da a is p esen ed in Table 1.
Table 1
The ELAN ie s used in he anno a ion o signs, ansla ions, CA (see Co mie e al., 2015;Jan unen e al., 2020b) and non-enac ing signing in he cu en
s udy.
Tie name Desc ip ion (and anno a ion cell alues)
T ansla ion Sen ence-le el ansla ion in o Finnish.
Gloss A gloss iden i ying he sign in Finnish.
NS Non-enac ing signing, i.e., no cons uc ed ac ion.
CA- ype The ype o cons uc ed ac ion based on he anno a ions on he cons uc ed ac ion summa y and ole ie s
(o e , educed, sub le).
Quo a ion A s e ch o discou se in which cons uc ed ac ion includes enac men o he u e ances o hough s o a e e en .
Role1 The p ima y ole he signe is aking when using cons uc ed ac ion (na a o , cha ac e ).
Role2 The seconda y ole he signe is aking when using cons uc ed ac ion (none, na a o , cha ac e ).
CA-summa y A s e ch o discou se in which cons uc ed ac ion is con inuously used wi h one o mo e a icula o s o ep esen he
same e e en (i.e. wi hin he same cha ac e ole) (enac ing).
CA-eye gaze B eak o eye gaze wi h add essee o pu pose o enac ing he e e en (enac ing).
CA-head Signe ’s use o his/he head o ep esen he e e en ’s head mo emen o pos u e (enac ing).
CA- ace Signe ’s use o his/he acial exp ession o ep esen he e e en ’s ace (enac ing).
CA- o so Signe ’s use o his/he o so o ep esen he e e en ’s o so mo emen o pos u e (enac ing).
CA-dom-a m/hand Signe ’s use o his/he dominan a m/hand o ep esen he e e en ’s a m/hand (enac ing, ins umen ).
CA-ndom-a m/hand Signe ’s use o his/he non-dominan a m/hand o ep esen he e e en ’s a m/hand (enac ing, ins umen ).
S o y The du a ion o one whole con inuous s e ch o discou se o a signe
A. Puupponen e al. / Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–3522
In he anno a ion p ocess, enac ing a icula o s we e fi s iden ified and anno a ed on al oge he six independen ie s: eye
gaze, head, ace, o so, and dominan and non-dominan hand. I one o hese a icula o s was engaged in enac men , an anno-
a ion cell wi h he alue e(i.e. enac men ) was c ea ed o he app op ia e ie wi h a du a ion ha ma ched he du a ion o
he a icula ion o he enac men . When a signe ’s hand did no enac he ac ions o a e e en ’s hand, bu ins ead enac ed an
ins umen wi h which o o which some hing was done, he anno a ion cell was gi en he alue i(i.e. hand as ins umen ). I
should be no ed ha he alue ewas added o anno a ion cells in he ie eye gaze when he signe ’s eye gaze was enac ing a
e e en ’s eye gaze. Howe e , he ie ace was used o anno a ions in cases in which he signe ’s eyes enac ed o he ac ions o
he eyes han a gaze, such as he closing, opening o squin ing o he eyes, o example in a si ua ion in which he signe was
enac ing a ‘ eac ion o a e y b igh ligh ’by closing hei eyes and changing he o ien a ion o hei head. Those s e ches o
discou se whe e CA included enac men o he u e ances o hough s o a e e en we e anno a ed in he ie Quo a ion.
A e he fi s s ep, he iewpoin o he signe (i.e. he na a o o he cha ac e ), e e ed o hence o h as he ole, and i s
p ominence (i.e. ull, pa ial) we e de e mined on he basis o he anno a ions o he enac ing a icula o s (Co mie e al., 2015).
Following Co mie e al. (2015), his was done using wo ie s:one ie o he p ima y ole and ano he o he seconda y ole.
Co mie e al.’s (2015) da a included a maximum o wo simul aneous oles pe signe . This was he case also wi h he
majo i y o CA sequences in ou da a. Howe e , in some cases (n ¼6), when a s o yline included wo cha ac e s who we e
doing o expe iencing he same hing simul aneously, i was impossible o dis inguish whe he he signe ’s ace and body
enac ed only one e e en o bo h o hem. In hese cases, he u e ances we e anno a ed wi h only one cha ac e ole
anno a ion cell wi h bo h oles ma ked inside i . The da a also included one highly complex u e ance in which he signe is
simul aneously enac ing he ac ions o wo e e en s wi h di e en pa s o he body ( wo in e nal iewpoin s o wo
cha ac e s) while p oducing a pa ly lexical sign (an ex e nal an age poin o he na a o ). This u e ance was anno a ed as
including al oge he h ee simul aneous oles.
The anno a ions o o e , educed and sub le CA ypes eme ged om he a icula o y and ole anno a ions, as explained in
Co mie e al. (2015) and Jan unen e al. (2020b). In o e CA, a ela i ely high numbe o a icula o s was always engaged in
he enac men , and he p ima y ole was always ha o a cha ac e .Excep ions we e hose ins ances in which a signe was
enac ing a s a ic s a e o a e e en (e.g. he cha ac e ‘s a es a some hing in a o pid o pe plexed manne ’), in which se e al
a icula o s may no be ac i a ed bu he end esul is a clea ly o e enac men o he ac ion. In o e CA he e was no
seconda y na a o ole and no lexical signs we e p oduced du ing i . CA ha enac ed language e en s (ma ked as quo a ion)
was anno a ed as o e CA i i in ol ed manual ac ions ha e-enac lexical and pa ly lexical signs u e ed by he e e en , o
he e e en ’s hough s, and i no na a o ole was assigned o ha CA sequence. In educed CA, sligh ly ewe a icula o s
we e anno a ed as enac ing han was he case in o e CA, al hough no as ew as in sub le CA. The p ima y ole in educed CA
was ha o a cha ac e and he seconda y ole ha o he na a o . In educed CA he signe p oduced lexical sign(s). In sub le
CA, he numbe o a icula o s anno a ed as enac ing was ela i ely low and he na a ion was done mos ly by using lexical
and pa ly lexical signs. The p ima y ole in sub le CA was always ha o he na a o and he seconda y ole ha o a
cha ac e (See also Jan unen e al., 2020b).
Fo he sake o cla i y, we will demons a e his p ocess h ough he se ies o exp essions in Fig. 2. The exp ession in Fig. 2a
is anno a ed so ha he enac ing a icula o s include he hands, eye gaze, head, ace and o so, which all ep esen a cha ac e
sc eaming; he p ima y ole is ‘cha ac e ’and he e is no seconda y ole o a na a o . The exp ession in Fig. 2b is anno a ed so
ha he enac ing a icula o s include he head and ace. The enac men is p oduced wi h a slow mo emen o he head
( aising he chin), a mou h ac ion, and an eye-b ow mo emen , all ep esen ing sc eaming. The enac men is so p ominen
ha he p ima y ole in he exp ession is ‘cha ac e ’. The seconda y ole is ‘na a o ’, which can be seen in he ac ha , du ing
he enac men , he signe p oduces he lexical sign SCREAM om he ex e nal iewpoin o he na a o . The exp ession in
Fig. 2c is anno a ed so ha he enac ing a icula o is he ace. Howe e , he enac men p oduced wi h he ace is no e y
p ominen : i can be seen mainly in he a ea o he eyes and eye-b ows while he mou h ac ion is non-enac ing (mou hing
‘huu’, ep esen ing he Finnish wo d ‘huu aa’meaning ‘ o sc eam’). As mos o he a icula o s a e no engaged in he
enac men and he p ominen iewpoin is o he na a o (including he hands ha p oduce he sign SCREAM), he p ima y
ole is ‘na a o ’and he seconda y ole is ‘cha ac e ’.
I a signed u e ance did no include any CA, he e we e no anno a ions on a icula o y ie s and he p ima y ole was
always ha o he na a o . In hese u e ances, no seconda y ole was assigned and hey we e defined as non-enac ing
signing. Following he me hodology o Jan unen e al. (2020b), we anno a ed non-enac ing signing au oma ically wi h
ELAN’sC ea e anno a ions om gaps unc ion on he basis o he CA summa y ie , which iden ified con inuous s e ches o
discou se ep esen ing he same cha ac e . The c i e ia o de e mining he cons uc ed ac ion ypes and he lack o con-
s uc ed ac ion a e summa ized in Table 2, ollowing Co mie e al. (2015).
Finally, anno a ions o he o e all du a ion o he signing o a pa icula signe we e made in he S o y ie . The S o y ie
anno a ions we e used o calcula e he ela i e sha e o CA in he signe ’s s o y o o he signe ’s engagemen in he con-
e sa ion. In signed s o ies, he whole na a ion o a signe was gi en one con inuous S o y-le el anno a ion cell (S o y 1). In
con e sa ions, each con inuous u n –a sequence du ing which a signe con inuously holds he floo o longe han o a
me e esponse o eac ion o hei in e locu o ’s signing –was gi en a S o y-le el anno a ion wi h an indi idual iden ifie
acco ding o he o de in which i occu ed in he da a (S o y 1, S o y 2 e c.). The sum o he du a ion o all o hese s o y
anno a ions was conside ed o be he o al du a ion o he engagemen o one signe in a con e sa ion. The s o y-le el an-
no a ions we e used o calcula ing he sha e o CA in he s o ies and con e sa ions o each signe .
A. Puupponen e al. / Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–35 23
5. Discussion
5.1. Di e ences be ween s o ies and con e sa ions
In he cu en s udy we se ou o in es iga e (i) whe he he use o CA is di e en in he s o ies and con e sa ions o adul
FinSL signe s and (ii) whe he age a ec s he di e ence in CA usage in hese wo di e en gen es. Rega ding (i), he esul s o
ou analysis showed, fi s ly, ha FinSL signe s include cons uc ed ac ion in bo h signed s o ies and con e sa ions, and,
secondly, ha he e is much mo e CA in signed s o ies han in con e sa ions. These findings a e in line wi h findings on he
spa seness o CA in Fe a a’s (2012) and Fe a a and Ringsø’s (2019) con e sa ional da a on Auslan and No wegian Sign
Language, as well as wi h Ala-Sippola’s (2012) epo o he spa seness o CA in a ansla ed, p e-s uc u ed ex in FinSL. The
di e ence be ween s o ies and con e sa ions was significan and subs an ial despi e he la ge a ia ion among indi idual
signe s in he equency o use o CA (see Fig. 3; c . Hodge and Fe a a, 2014;Fe a a and Johns on, 2014;Jan unen, 2017a).
Mo eo e , he esul co esponds o anecdo al e idence –based on he in ui ion and expe iences o FinSL signe s – ha non-
na a i e discou se in ol es less enac men han does s o y elling. Howe e , al hough less equen , CA s ill was used in
con e sa ions by 10 o he 12 adul signe s in he da a. Th ee o hese 12 signe s used CA om 9 o 13 pe cen o hei u ns in
con e sa ion. This is a clea indica ion ha CA is a na u al pa o SL discou se in non-na a i e con ex s, albei a less equen
and mo e a iable one.
The esul s o he cu en s udy also showed ha he di e ence in he equency o CA be ween s o ies and con e sa ions
holds o all h ee CA ypes: sub le, educed and o e CA a e all used significan ly mo e in s o ies han in con e sa ions.
When looking mo e closely a he dis ibu ion o he h ee ypes o CA, o e CA was ound o be he mos equen CA ype in
bo h s o ies and con e sa ions. Howe e , in s o ies, he signe s clea ly used o e CA much mo e han educed and sub le CA,
whe eas in con e sa ions his di e ence was smalle and hey used o e CA only sligh ly mo e han o he CA ypes. This
means ha , acco ding o ou da a, he ela i e sha e o educed and sub le CA is la ge in con e sa ions han in s o y elling in
FinSL. This esul is in line wi h No dlund’s (2019) obse a ions o he sub le y o CA in ano he non-na a i e discou se
con ex , a ansla ed p e-s uc u ed ex in FinSL. I may well be ha non-na a i e con ex s include ela i ely mo e sub le
and educed CA, and ha i one app oaches CA as an a icula o ily holis ic phenomenon (e.g. Fe a a and Johns on, 2014;
Jan unen, 2017a) while s udying non-na a i e language use, he mo e sub le enac men s may be o e looked and he iew o
he equency o enac men in hese discou se con ex s may become biased (see also Co mie e al., 2015). Con e sa ions a e,
howe e , di e en in hei communica ional ounda ions om o he non-na a i e discou se ypes, such as No dlund’s (2019)
o mal signed ex . Mo eo e , con e sa ions a e no always necessa ily “non-na a i e”, as signe s may use longe u ns o
con inuous signing o desc ibe, o example, hei pas expe iences. In ou u u e wo k, we plan o in es iga e u he how
equen ly okens o CA eme ge in hese ypes o con ex s in con e sa ions.
As men ioned in he beginning o his sec ion, he sha e o CA in bo h s o ies and con e sa ions was shown o a y, which
suppo s he ea lie obse a ions o , o example, Fe a a (2012),Hodge and Fe a a (2014) and Fe a a and Johns on (2014).
The sha e o CA in s o ies a ied be ween 20 and 62 pe cen . This a ia ionwas ound ega dless o which s o ybook was used
o elici a ion ( ha is, bo h F og, whe e a e you and Snowman s o ies showed a lo o a ia ion). In con e sa ions, he sha e o CA
a ied be ween 0 and 13.3 pe cen . Th ee o he wel e signe s did no use CA a all, o used i less han 1 pe cen o he ime
du ing hei u ns in con e sa ion.
We can see om he discussion abo e ha he equency o CA in FinSL seems o be connec ed o he ype o discou se
signe s engage in. Bo h discou se-o ien ed ac o s such as gen e-specific ea u es o language use and signe s’communi-
ca ional aims a ec wha ypes o discou se s a egies a e chosen a any gi en momen . Signed s o ies a e con inuous
s e ches o discou se wi h li le in e ac ion be ween he pa icipan s. S o y elling as a discou se con ex in i es signe s o
li en up he con en ha is being signed and ge he in e locu o engaged in he s o y elling. In addi ion, in s o y elling, he
same e e en s a e ca ied h ough he s o y o longe s e ches o ime. These ac o s na u ally lead o language use ha
includes, o example, he chaining o syn ac ic and discou se le el uni s (guided by he e en s uc u e o he s o y), he
Table 8
Desc ip i e s a is ics o he ela i e sha e o sub le, educed and o e CA in he s o ies o olde adul s.
Minimum % Maximum % Mean % Median % S d. De ia ion %
Sub le CA olde 5.91 17.61 11.71 11.61 4.01
Reduced CA olde 4.89 13.29 9.70 9.785 2.74
O e CA olde 8.91 35.84 27.16 29.62 9.86
Table 7
Desc ip i e s a is ics o he ela i e sha e o sub le, educed and o e CA in he s o ies o younge adul s.
Minimum % Maximum % Mean % Median % S d. De ia ion %
Sub le CA younge 8.75 15.58 11.53 10.63 2.72
Reduced CA younge 3.21 10.5 5.46 4.47 2.80
O e CA younge 6.48 19.19 12.02 12.69 4.70
A. Puupponen e al. / Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–3530

omission o o e co e a gumen s, and he use o CA (e.g. Jan unen, 2017a,b). As he con en o he s o ies was ela i ely fixed,
he a ia ion ound be ween he signed s o ies o di e en signe s a e mo e likely o ha e been caused by socio-indi idual
cha ac e is ics, such as p e e ences and expe ience in s o y elling, educa ion o age, as well as he social dis ance/in imacy
be ween he in e locu o s (see also Hodge and Fe a a, 2014). In he u u e, complemen ing co pus-based equency analysis
wi h in e iews wi h signe s on hei possible easons o using o no using CA in di e en con ex s migh be ui ul.
Especially in con e sa ions, he equi emen s o he in e ac ion and he opic ha is being discussed play a significan ole.
The opics o he con e sa ions in ou da a we e eely chosen by he in e locu o s, as long as hey we e ela ed o hei wo k,
hobbies o o he significan ac i i ies in hei e e yday li es. This means ha he equency o CA may co espond o he opic
o discussion, in addi ion o he discou se ype and possible socio-indi idual e ec s. Fo example, as he le el o animacy has
been epo ed o ha e an e ec on he use o CA (Hodge e al., 2019), we hypo hesize ha when he opic o discussion is
ela ed o he ac ions o anima e beings, he p obabili y o a highe equency o CA inc eases. Rele an he e, oo, is an
obse a ion made in Slonimska e al. (2020), ha CA may be use ul especially in si ua ions which equi e e ficiency in he
in o ma ion ansmission. A opic o u u e in es iga ion could be whe he he e en s uc u e o a s o y o opic in a
con e sa ion, and he complexi y o simul aneous in o ma ion (e.g. he numbe o simul aneous ac ions) a a pa icula poin
in he discou se, co ela e wi h he equency o CA. A e all, CA is a semio ically complex s uc u e in which a signe may
con ey simul aneously o ganized in o ma ion in ol ing se e al a icula o s and simul aneous iewpoin s. Fu he esea ch
in o he co espondence be ween discou se opics, e en s uc u e and he sha e o CA in he da a would also be e y
in e es ing. Howe e , wha is e iden is ha , ega dless o he a ie y o opics, he use o CA in he da a o he cu en s udy
was significan ly less equen in all con e sa ions han in s o y elling.
To conclude his discussion: al hough he ype o communica i e si ua ion plays a significan pa in how much and wha
kind o CA eme ges in he discou se, we also p esume ha some o he mos significan ac o s a ec ing he use o CA a e he
signe s’semio ic objec i es in language use, ha is, wha he signe s wish o say. We hypo hesize he e ha he e e en ial
unc ions o CA – he ype o ac ion and pa icipan (s) i e e s o –may be connec ed o whe he o e , educed o sub le o m
is used. In o he wo ds, we p esume ha he meanings signe s wish o con ey ha e an e ec on how CA is used.
Fo example, con e sa ions may include he epo ing o p eceding, po en ial o fic ional e en s ha include dialogue.
The e o e, he signed con e sa ions in ou da a may in ol e ela i ely mo e CA ha enac s u e ances han he signed s o ies,
as he s o ies we e p oduced on he basis o ex less s o y books ha do no in ol e o e dialogue (al hough his di e ence is
no clea -cu , as signe s may add u e ed o hough p oposi ions o a s o y e en when hey a e no p esen in he elici a ion
ma e ial). Following he chosen heo e ical-me hodological amewo k, we did no analyze u e ance-enac ing okens o CA
sepa a ely bu agged hem and included hem in ou o e all sample o CA okens. Howe e , a compa ison o he equency o
u e ance-enac ing CA be ween signed s o ies and con e sa ions is an in e es ing opic ha we plan o in es iga e u he in
ou u u e wo k. The same applies o CA ha has o he e e en ial unc ions, such as he enac men o eelings, a i udes,
physical eac ions and o he non-linguis ic ac ions.
When looking a all he ins ances o CA ha we e agged as enac ing language e en s in he s o ies and con e sa ions
(n ¼191), only a ew we e anno a ed as educed (n ¼8) o sub le (n ¼16). In hese cases, he CA in ol ed only he non-
manually signaled quo a ion o hough s o u e ances, no he manual lexical and pa ly lexical signs ha e-enac u -
e ances o hough s by a e e en . I may well be ha he me hod o anno a ing hose okens o CA ha enac language
e en s o e emphasizes hei o e ness: when hands p oduce quo a ions o lexical and pa ly-lexical signs, he CA oken is
always anno a ed as o e , ega dless o he p ominence o he enac men in o he a icula o s. In addi ion o being
manually biased, his me hodological solu ion may a ec he esul s on he sha e o o e CA ound in he con e sa ional
da a: some okens o u e ance-enac ing CA migh be conside ed non-o e i he occu ence o manual lexical quo a ions
did no au oma ically make hem o e . In ou u u e wo k, we plan o u he in es iga e he p ominence o enac men and
CA ype in okens o CA ha quo e language e en s. All in all, disco e ing whe he he e e en ial unc ion o CA connec s o
i s deg ee (o e , educed, sub le) is an impo an ask o u u e SL s udies. In o de o ge a mo e comp ehensi e un-
de s anding o he ole o CA in di e en discou se con ex s, i would also be use ul o compa e FinSL signe s’use o CA wi h
non-signing Finnish speake s’use o CA (see e.g. Fe a a and Hodge, 2018), and wi h he use o CA by child en and adul s
acqui ing FinSL.
5.2. Di e ences in he s o ies and con e sa ions o younge and olde FinSL signe s
Rega ding (ii), he esul s o ou s udy showed clea ly ha he o e all use o CA is mo e common in he signed s o ies o
olde adul s (50–79 yea s) han in hose o younge adul s (18–39 yea s). Howe e , his kind o di e ence was no ound
be ween younge and olde adul s’con e sa ions, in which bo h age g oups seemed o use CA qui e li le (as is e iden om
he discussion abo e). Acco ding o ou da a, in he case o s o y elling, olde signe s’p e e ence o enac ing discou se
s a egies is clea ly s onge han younge signe s’.
When looking mo e closely a he dis ibu ion o di e en ypes o CA, he esul s also showed ha he di e ence be ween
olde and younge adul s is especially significan in he use o o e CA. The a e age s o ies o younge and olde adul s
include ela i ely simila sha es o sub le and educed CA, bu olde signe s use, on a e age, wice as much o e CA as young
adul s. This indica es ha i young signe s use CA, hey end o use i oge he wi h pa ly o ully lexical signs.
These findings a e in line wi h he in ui ions, expe iences and conce ns o membe s o he FinSL communi y ha he FinSL
s o y elling o he younge gene a ions is becoming “less li ely”. In he u u e, including mo e da a in he analysis will show
A. Puupponen e al. / Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–35 31
whe he he significance o his di e ence holds when looking a a sample o FinSL ma e ials ha includes e en mo e in-
di idual a ia ion. The esul s a e also in line wi h he obse a ion ha in he FinSL communi y, olde FinSL signe s’a ic-
ula ion is o en conside ed bo h o be somehow la ge and o include mo e engagemen o he whole body. As p esen ed in
Sec ion 2.4, s udies in es iga ing he sociolinguis ic a ia ion in SLs ha e shown ha olde signe s o , o example, BSL may
use mo e wo-handed o ms o signs han one-handed o ms, and ha younge signe s o ASL o BSL may p oduce a icu-
la o ily lowe ed signs mo e equen ly han olde signe s (S amp e al., 2015;Lucas e al., 2001;Schemb i e al., 2009). An
in e es ing ollow-up ques ion o u u e c oss-linguis ic in es iga ion is whe he he di e ences in he use o CA o younge
and olde adul s p esen ed in his s udy a e specific o FinSL o whe he o he sign languages show simila ea u es as well.
The e a e se e al issues ha may explain he di e ences be ween he younge and olde signe s’use o CA, desc ibed
abo e. As has been no ed in he esea ch li e a u e on SL sociolinguis ics (e.g. Lucas e al., 2001;Schemb i and Lucas, 2015),
he changing educa ional p ac ices o dea child en and young adul s du ing he las ew decades may be ha ing an impo an
e ec on he a ia ion ound in SLs. The changes in Finnish dea educa ion (i.e. he disappea ance o oca ional schools & hei
language p ac ices) has had an impac on he in e gene a ional ansmission pa e ns o FinSL. This has mos p obably
a ec ed he s uc u e and use o FinSL on many di e en le els. As Lucas e al. (2001, 95) a gue:
‘Age as a sociolinguis ic a iable may ha e di e en e ec s on linguis ic a ia ion, because o he di e ences in language
policies in Dea schools in he wen ie h cen u y. Thus, while di e ences in he signing o olde and younge people may
appea o be due ei he o age g oup di e ences o o na u al language change (such as occu s in all languages), hese
di e ences may also be he esul o changes in educa ional policies, like he shi om o alism o “ o al communica ion”(i.e.
manualism) ha occu ed in he USA, o om o al communica ion o a bilingual–bicul u al app oach.’
Due o di e ences in he educa ional se ings o dea people in Finland, he a ailabili y o in e p e ing se ices and he
ad ances in and a o dabili y o in o ma ion and communica ions echnology, many child en acqui ing a sign language ace a
di e en linguis ic en i onmen om ha ound in, o example, he oca ional schools ha ollowed he o alis pa adigm
du ing a la ge pa o he 20 h cen u y. Nowadays, becoming acquain ed wi h di e en aspec s o he FinSL lexicon may
happen a an ea lie s age in young people’s li es (assuming ha he child’s igh o and need o SL eaching and in e p e ing
se ices is me ), whe eas in he pas much o he discou se eme ged om (and migh ha e been es ic ed o) hei li es in he
oca ional school en i onmen . The e a e also ac o s such as indi idual p e e ences and pe sonali y, o he amoun o con ac
wi h he Finnish language and o he aspec s o mul ilingualism in he language en i onmen . The e mayalso be di e ences in
expe ience and skills in s o y elling be ween he olde and younge gene a ions o FinSL signe s which could a ec he
equency o use o CA. Fo example, he ole o he na a i e “o al” adi ion in signe s’li es –flou ishing in he oca ional
schools and adi ional dea clubs –may now be changing, in much he same way as egional dialec s ha e been no ed o be
diminishing due o changes in dea people’s linguis ic en i onmen s (S amp e al., 2015). On he o he hand, he possibili ies
ha ha e eme ged om, o example, ecen de elopmen s in communica ions echnologies ha e been said o ca y po en ial
o language main enance (Fenlon and Wilkinson, 2015) and o o e pla o ms o new “o al”SL adi ions. I should also be
no ed ha due o he a o emen ioned gene a ional di e ences, ad ances in echnologies and di e ences in expe iences o
en e ainmen , signe s o di e en ages may ha e di e ing le els o in e es in o di e en a i udes owa d he mo e
adi ional pic u e-based e elling ask used in his s udy.
Finally, one in e es ing ques ion o u u e esea ch would be whe he he di e ence in he sha e o CA be ween younge
and olde signe s’s o ies is connec ed o he sociolinguis ic e ec s o he eplacemen o old signs wi h new ones in SL
lexicons. Hoye (2007) and Mckee and Mckee (2011), o example, ha e discussed he possibili y ha younge gene a ions o
signe s may be mo ing away om indigenous, mo e con ex -dependen signs and signs concei ed as mo e “ges u al”and
ins ead may be s a ing o use new signs (e.g. loan signs) wi h mo e con en ionalized o ma ional ea u es ha may be
hough o be mo e p es igious. Sandle e al. (2011),Sandle (2012),Sandle (2016) and Dachko sky e al. (2018) ha e
sugges ed ha ea lie s ages o a sign language in ol e mo e holis ic use o he body and, as he language de elops, signals
om di e en body pa s a e used and combined in mo e semio ically complex ways. Can hese sugges ed endencies in he
de elopmen o he lexicon and s uc u e o sign languages be oo ed in he same place as he young signe s’discou se-le el
p e e ence o endency o use less o e enac men in ou da a? When looking a a la ge da a se wi h mo e signe s and mo e
oken enac men s, would he da a show a endency o younge gene a ions o signe s o use less o e CA? Should sub le and
educed CA be conside ed as mo e complex s uc u es han o e CA, and how is his defined as ega ds a icula ion, he
combining and o ganiza ion o a icula ions, in o ma ion, composi ionali y, diag amma ici y, modal a o dances and p o-
cessing (see e.g. Ka lsson e al., 2008)? In o de o discuss he a o emen ioned issues, mo e compa a i e s udies a e needed o
younge and olde signe s’language use, wi h mo e ex ensi e samples o da a han is used in he cu en s udy.
6. Conclusion
In his pape , we ha e p esen ed a s udy on he use o cons uc ed ac ion in he s o y elling and con e sa ions by younge
and olde FinSL signe s. The esul s o he s udy show ha s o ies include significan ly mo e CA han con e sa ions, and ha
he mos equen ype o CA in bo h discou se con ex s is o e CA. Howe e , acco ding o he da a, when a signe does use CA
in a con e sa ion, he chance o i s being educed o sub le is g ea e han i is in s o ies. In addi ion, he sha e o CA in bo h
he s o ies and con e sa ions o indi idual signe s was shown o a y. The cu en s udy poin s owa d he need o in es-
iga ion o he unc ions o CA and discou se-o ien ed ac o s, such as he gen e-specific ea u es o language use, and he
A. Puupponen e al. / Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–3532
communica ional aims o signe s, and o how hese a ec he ypes o CA ha a e used o no used a a gi en momen .
Especially in con e sa ions, he equi emen s o he in e ac ion and he opic ha is being discussed play a significan ole. Fo
example, we hypo hesize ha when he opic o discussion is ela ed o he ac ions o anima e beings, he discussion is mo e
likely o include a highe equency o CA (see Hodge e al., 2019).
The esul s o he s udy also show ha , in s o y elling, young adul FinSL signe s use significan ly less CA han olde FinSL
signe s. Especially he use o o e CA –in which he signe ’s whole body is engaged in he enac men –is less equen in
young adul s’signed s o ies, and young adul s use ela i ely mo e sub le and educed deg ees o CA –in which he signe ’s
hand(s) p oduce(s) lexical o pa ly lexical signs o FinSL simul aneously wi h he enac men . In con e sa ions, no such
di e ence was ound be ween he wo age g oups. S udies wi h mo e ex ensi e samples o da a a e needed o us o disco e
whe he hese endencies can be gene alized o in ol e he whole FinSL communi y, whe he hey a e ela ed o changes in
he language en i onmen s o signe s o di e en ages, and whe he his a ec s how FinSL changes o e ime.
Acknowledgemen s
The au ho s wish o hank Eleano Unde wood o checking he English o he pape . The financial suppo o he Academy
o Finland unde he g an 339268 is also g a e ully acknowledged.
Re e ences
Ala-Sippola, S., 2012. Agen in Ilmaiseminen Suomalaisella Vii omakielellä Tuo e ussa Asia eks issä [Exp essing Agen in an In o ma ional Tex in FinSL].
MA Thesis. Uni e si y o Helsinki, Helsinki.
Bayley, R., Lucas, C., Rose, M., 2000. Va ia ion in Ame ican sign language: he case o DEAF. J. SocioLinguis ics 4, 81–107.
Bayley, R., Schemb i, A., Lucas, C., 2015. Va ia ion and change in sign languages. In: Schemb i, A., Lucas, C. (Eds.), Sociolinguis ics and Dea Communi ies.
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge, UK, pp. 1–4.
B iggs, R., 1978. The Snowman. Hamish Hamil on, London.
Bybee, J.L., Beckne , C., 2010. Usage-based heo y. In: Heine, B., Na og, H. (Eds.), The Ox o d Handbook o Linguis ic Analysis. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess,
Ox o d, pp. 827–856.
Came on, R., 1998. A a iable syn ax o speech, ges u e, and sound e ec : di ec quo a ions in Spanish. Lang. Va . Change 10, 43–83.
Cla k, H., 2016. Depic ing as a me hod o communica ion. Psychol. Re . 123 (3), 324–347.
Cla k, H., Ge ig, R., 1990. Quo a ions as demons a ions. Language 66, 764–805.
Cogill-Koez, D., 2000. Signed language classifie p edica es: linguis ic s uc u es o schema ic isual ep esen a ion? Sign Lang. Linguis . 3, 153–207.
Co mie , K., Quin o-Pozos, D., Se ciko a, Z., Schemb i, A., 2012. Lexicalisa ion and delexicalisa ion p ocesses in sign languages: compa ing depic ing
cons uc ions and iewpoin ges u es. Lang. Commun. 32, 329–348.
Co mie , K., Smi h, S., Zwe s, M., 2013. F aming cons uc ed ac ion in B i ish Sign Language na a i es. J. P agma . 55, 119–139.
Co mie , K., Smi h, S., Se ciko a, Z., 2015. Re hinking cons uc ed ac ion. Sign Lang. Linguis . 18, 167–204.
C asbo n, O., Sloe jes, H., 2008. Enhanced ELAN unc ionali y o sign language co po a. In: P oceedings o he 3 d Wo kshop on he Rep esen a ion and
P ocessing o Sign Languages. Cons uc ion and Exploi a ion o Sign Language Co po a, pp. 39–43.
Cuxac, C., 2000. La Langue des Signes F ançaise. Les Voies de l’Iconici é. Oph ys, Pa is.
Dachko sky, S., S amp, R., Sandle , W., 2018. Cons uc ing complexi y in a young sign language. F on . Psychol. 9, 2202.
Da idson, K., 2015. Quo a ion, demons a ion, and iconici y. Ling. Philos. 38 (6), 477–520.
Diessel, H., 2017. Usage-based linguis ics. In: A ono , M. (Ed.), Ox o d Resea ch Encyclopedia o Linguis ics. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, New Yo k.
Dudis, P.G., 2004. Body pa i ioning and eal-space blends. Cogni . Ling. 15 (2), 223–238.
Emmo ey, K., 2002. Language, Cogni ion, and he B ain: Insigh s F om Sign Language Resea ch. E lbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Emmo ey, K., T e sky, B., Taylo , H., 2000. Using space o desc ibe space: pe spec i e in speech, sign, and ges u e. Spa ial Cogni . Compu . 2 (3), 157–180.
Engbe g-Pede sen, E., 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language. Signum P ess, Hambu g.
Engbe g-Pede sen, E., 1995. Poin o View Exp essed h ough Shi e s. In: Emmo ey, K., Reilly, J. (Eds.), Language, Ges u e & Space. Law ence E lbaum
Associa es, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 133–154.
Fenlon, J., Wilkinson, E., 2015. Sign Languages in he Wo ld. In: Schemb i, A., Lucas, C. (Eds.), Sociolinguis ics and Dea Communi ies. Camb idge Uni e si y
P ess, Camb idge, pp. 5–28.
Fenlon, J., Schemb i, A., Ren elis, R., Vinson, D., Co mie , K., 2014. Using con e sa ional da a o de e mine lexical equency in B i ish Sign Language: he
influence o ex ype. Lingua 143, 187–202.
Fe a a, L., 2012. The G amma o Depic ion: Explo ing Ges u e and Language in Aus alian Sign Language (Auslan). A PhD Disse a ion. Depa men o
Linguis ics, Macqua ie Uni e si y, Sydney, Aus alia.
Fe a a, L., Hodge, G., 2018. Language as desc ip ion, indica ion, and depic ion. F on . Psychol. 9, 716.
Fe a a, L., Johns on, T., 2014. Elabo a ing who’s wha : a s udy o cons uc ed ac ion and clause s uc u e in auslan (Aus alian sign language). Aus . J. Ling.
34 (2), 193–215.
Fe a a, L., Ringsø, T., 2019. Spa ial an age poin s in No wegian sign language. Open Ling. 5, 583–600.
Fe a a, L., Anible, B., Hodge, G., Jan unen, T., Leeson, L., Mesch, J., Nilsson, A.-L., 2020. A c oss-linguis ic compa ison o e e ence ac oss di e en signed
languages. In: A Pape P esen ed a he 14 h Con e ence o he High Dese Linguis ic Socie y (HDLS 14), No embe 20-22, 2020. Uni e si y o New
Mexico, Albuque que, New Mexico.
Ge aci, C., Bayley, R., Ca dinale i, A., Cecche o, C., Dona i, C., 2015. Va ia ion in I alian sign language (LIS): he case o wh-signs. Linguis ics 53, 125–151.
Gün hne , S., 1999. Polyphony and he ‘Laye ing o Voices’in Repo ed Dialogues: an analysis o he use o p osodic de ices in e e yday epo ed speech. J.
P agma . 31, 685–708.
Hodge, G., Co mie , K., 2019. Repo ed speech as enac men . Linguis . Typol. 23 (1), 185–196.
Hodge, G., Fe a a, L., 2014. Showing he s o y: enac men as pe o mance in Auslan Na a i es. In: Gawne, L., Vaughan, J. (Eds.), Selec ed Pape s F om he
44 h Con e ence o he Aus alian Linguis ic Socie y, pp. 372–397.
Hodge, G., Johns on, T., 2014. Poin s, depic ions, ges u es and enac men : pa ly lexical and non-lexical signs as co e elemen s o single clause-like uni s in
auslan (Aus alian sign language). Aus . J. Ling. 34 (2), 262–291.
Hodge, G., Fe a a, L., Anible, B., 2019. The semio ic di e si y o doing e e ence in a dea signed language. J. P agma . 143, 33–53.
Ho én, N., 2019. Ku aile ien Vii omien Ja Kons uoidun Toiminnan Yh eispeli. [Coope a ion o Depic ing Signs and Cons uc ed ac ion.]. MA Thesis.
Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Jy äskylä.
Hoppe , P.J., 1998. Eme gen g amma . In: Tomasello, M. (Ed.), The New Psychology o Language: Cogni i e and Func ional App oaches o Language
S uc u e. E lbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 155–175.
A. Puupponen e al. / Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–35 33
Hoye , K., 2007. Albanian Sign Language: Language Con ac , In e na ional Sign, and Ges u e. In: Quin o-Pozos, D. (Ed.), Sign Languages in Con ac . Gallaude
Uni e si y P ess, Washing on, D.C., pp. 195–234.
Jan unen, T., 2007. On Topic in Finnish Sign Language (Unpublished manusc ip . h p://use s.jyu.fi/w ojan un/a icles/JAN_ opic_ms.pd ).
Jan unen, T., 2008. Fixed and ee: o de o he e bal p edica e and i s co e a gumen s in decla a i e ansi i e clauses in Finnish Sign Language. SKY J.
Linguis . 21, 83–123.
Jan unen, T., 2013. Ellipsis in Finnish sign language. No d. J. Ling. 36 (3), 303–332.
Jan unen, T., 2016. Clausal coo dina ion in Finnish sign language. S ud. Lang. 40 (1), 204–234.
Jan unen, T., 2017a. Cons uc ed ac ion, he clause and he na u e o syn ax in Finnish Sign Language. Open Ling. 3, 65–85.
Jan unen, T., 2017b. Finnish Sign Language. In: an C aenenb oeck, J., Temme man, T. (Eds.), The Ox o d Handbook o Ellipsis. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Jan unen, T., Puupponen, A., Bu ge , B., 2020a. Wha comes fi s : combining mo ion cap u e and eye acking da a o s udy he o de o a icula o s in
cons uc ed ac ion in sign language na a i es. In: P oceedings o he Twel h In e na ional Con e ence on Language Resou ces and E alua ion (LREC
2020). ELRA, Pa is, pp. 6005–6009.
Jan unen, T., De Wee d , D., Bu ge , B., Puupponen, A., 2020b. The mo e you mo e, he mo e ac ion you cons uc –a mo ion cap u e s udy on head and
uppe - o so mo emen s in cons uc ed ac ion in Finnish Sign Language na a i es. To appea in. Ges u e 19 (1), 72–96.
Johns on, T., 2012. Lexical equency in sign languages. J. Dea S ud. Dea Educ. 17 (2), 163–193.
Johns on, T., Fe a a, L., 2012. Lexicaliza ion in signed languages: when is an idiom no an idiom?. In: Selec ed Pape s om UK-CLA Mee ings,1, pp. 229–248.
Johns on, T., Schemb i, A., 2010. Va ia ion, lexicaliza ion and g amma icaliza ion in signed languages. Langage Soc. 131, 19–35.
Kaneko, Mesch, 2013. Eye gaze in c ea i e sign language. Sign Lang. S ud. 13 (3), 372–400.
Kan o, L., Puupponen, A., Jan unen, T., 2021. The use o cons uc ed ac ion in he na a i e asks o Adul FinSL signe s and child en acqui ing FinSL
[Manusc ip , o be submi ed in May 2022].
Ka lsson, F., Sinnemäki, K., Mies amo, M., 2008. In oduc ion: he P oblem o Language Complexi y. In: Ka lsson, e al. (Eds.), Language Complexi y: Ty-
pology, Con ac , Change. John Benjamins Publishing Co, Ams e dam.
Kendon, A., 2014. Semio ic di e si y in u e ance p oduc ion and he concep o ‘language. Philosophical T ansac ions o he Royal Socie y B 369 (1651),
20130293.
K onq is , A., 2018. Kuukausi ii omien Fonee inen Ja Leksikaalinen Va iaa io Suomalaisessa Vii omakielessä [The Phone ic and Lexical Va ia ion o Sign
o Mon hs in Finnish Sign Language]. MA Thesis. Depa men o Language and Communica ion S udies, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Finland. h p://u n.fi/
URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201808293948.
Len z, E.M., 1986. Teaching ole shi ing. In: Padden, C.A. (Ed.), P oceedings o he ou h na ional symposium on sign language esea ch and eaching. Sil e
Sp ing, MD: NAD, pp. 58–69.
Liddell, S.K., 2003. G amma , Ges u e, and Meaning in Ame ican Sign Language. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge.
Liddell, S.K., 2003b. Sou ces o meaning in asl classifie p edica es. In: Emmo ey, K. (Ed.), Pe spec i es on Classifie Cons uc ions in Sign Languages.
Law ence E lbaum Associa es, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 199–220.
Liddell, S.K., Me zge , M., 1998. Ges u e in sign language discou se. J. P agma . 30 (6), 657–697.
Lilja, N., Pii ainen-Ma sh, A., 2019. Connec ing he language class oom and he wild: Re- enac men s o language use expe iences. Applied Linguis ics 40 (4),
594–623.
Lillo-Ma in, D., 1995. The poin o iew p edica e in Ame ican Sign Language. In: Emmo ey, K., Reilly, J. (Eds.), Language, Ges u e, and Space. Law ence
E lbaum Associa es, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 155–170.
Lillo-Ma in, D., 2012. U e ance epo s and cons uc ed ac ion in sign and spoken languages. In: P au, R., S einbach, M., Woll, B. (Eds.), Sign Languages. An
In e na ional Handbook, Be lin: Mou on, pp. 365–387.
Lillo-Ma in, D., de Quad os, R.M., 2011. Acquisi ion o he syn ax–discou se in e ace: he exp ession o poin o iew. Lingua 121, 623–636.
Loew, R., 1984. Roles and Re e ence in Ame ican Sign Language: a De elopmen al Pe spec i e. PhD disse a ion. Uni e si y o Minneso a.
Lucas, C., Bayley, R., Valli, C., Rose, M., Wul , A., 2001. Sociolinguis ic a ia ion. In: Lucas, C. (Ed.), The Sociolinguis ics o Sign Languages. Camb idge Uni-
e si y P ess, pp. 61–112.
Lukasczyk, U., 2008. Sano ua, Aja el ua Ja Teh yä. Re e oin i Kolmessa Suomalaisella Vii omakielellä Tuo e ussa Fik ii isessä Ke omuksessa [Said,
Though , and Done: Re e encing in Th ee Fic i e FinSL Na a i es]. MA Thesis. Jy äskylä: Uni e si y o Jy äskylä. h p://u n.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-
201209192438.
Maye , M., 1969. F og, whe e A e You? Dial P ess, New Yo k.
Mckee, R., Mckee, D., 2011. Old signs, new signs, whose signs? Sociolinguis ic a ia ion in he NZSL lexicon. Sign Lang. S ud. 11 (4), 485–526.
Me zge , M., 1995. Cons uc ed dialogue and cons uc ed ac ion in Ame ican sign language. In: Lucas, C. (Ed.), Sociolinguis ics in Dea Communi ies.
Gallaude Uni e si y P ess, Washing on, DC, pp. 255–271.
Mo gan, G., 2002. Child en’s encoding o simul anei y in B i ish sign language na a i es. Sign Lang. Linguis . 5, 131–165.
Mo gan, G., 2006. The de elopmen o na a i e skills in b i ish sign language. In: Schick, B.S., Ma scha k, M., Spence , P. (Eds.), Ad ances in he De el-
opmen o Sign Language by Dea Child en. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, Ox o d, pp. 314–343.
Mo gan, G., Woll, B., 2003. The de elopmen o e e ence swi ching encoded h ough body classifie s in B i ish sign language. In: Emmo ey, K. (Ed.),
Pe spec i es on Classifie Cons uc ions in Sign Languages. Law ence E lbaum Associa es, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 297–310.
Njeyiyana, S., Huddles one, K., 2020. Lexical a ia ion and change in Sou h A ican sign language: a case s udy o a wes e n cape school-lec . In: A pape
p esen ed a he 14 h biennal con e ence o he high dese linguis ic socie y (HDLS14) a he uni e si y o New Mexico, albuque que, New Mexico on
No embe 20-22, 2020.
No dlund, S., 2019. Agen de ocusing in wo-pa icipan clauses in Finnish Sign Language. Glossa: J. Gen. Ling. 4 (1), 82.
Padden, C., 1990. The ela ion be ween space and g amma in ASL e b mo phology. In: Lucas, C. (Ed.), Sign Language Resea ch: Theo e ical Issues. Gal-
laude P ess, Washing on, D.C., pp. 118–132.
Pa k, Y., 2009. In e ac ion be ween g amma and mul imodal esou ces: quo ing di e en cha ac e s in Ko ean mul ipa y con e sa ion. Discou se S ud. 11
(1), 79–104.
Pe niss, P., 2007. Achie ing spa ial cohe ence in Ge man Sign Language na a i es: he use o classifie s and pe spec i e. Lingua 117 (7), 1315–1338.
Pe niss, P., Özyü ek, A., 2008. Rep esen a ions o ac ion, mo ion, and loca ion in sign space: a compa ison o ge man (DGS) and Tu kish (TID) sign language
na a i es. In: Que , J. (Ed.), Signs o he Time. Selec ed Pape s om TISLR 8. Signum P ess, Hambu g.
P au, R., Que , J., 2010. Nonmanuals: hei g amma ical and p osodic oles. In: B en a i, D. (Ed.), Sign Languages: A Camb idge Language Su ey. Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge, pp. 381–402.
Puupponen, A., 2018. The ela ionship be ween he mo emen s and posi ions o he head and he o so in Finnish Sign Language. Sign Lang. S ud. 18 (2),
175–214.
Puupponen, A., 2019. Towa ds unde s anding nonmanuali y: a semio ic ea men o signe s’head mo emen s. Glossa: J. Gen. Ling. 4 (1), 39. h ps://doi.
o g/10.5334/gjgl.709.
Puupponen, A., Jan unen, T., 2017. Head mo emen s, body mo emen s and cons uc ed ac ion in FinSL na a i es. In: A pape p esen ed a he Language asa
o m o Ac ion con e ence. Rome, I aly, June 21–23, 2017.
Que , J., 2018. On ca ego izing ypes o ole shi in Sign languages. Theo . Ling. 44 (3–4), 277–282.
Quin o-Pozos, D., Meh a, S., 2010. Regis e a ia ion in mime ic ges u al complemen s o signed language. J. P agma . 42, 557–584. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
p agma.2009.08.004.
Quin o-Pozos, D., Pa ill, F., 2015. Signe s and co-speech ges u e s adop simila s a egies o po aying iewpoin in na a i es. Topics in Cogni i e Science
7, 12–35.
A. Puupponen e al. / Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–3534
Salonen, J., Puupponen, A., Takkinen, R., Jan unen, T., 2019. Suomen Vii omakiel en Ko pus a Raken amassa. [Building a Co pus o Finland’s Sign Lan-
guages]. In: Jan unen, J., B unni, S., Kunnas, N., Pal iainen, S., Väs i, K. (Eds.), P oceedings o he Resea ch Da a and Humani ies (RDHum) 2019 Con-
e ence: Da a, Me hods and Tools. S udia Humanio a Ouluensia. h p://u n.fi/u n:isbn:9789526223216.
Rissanen, T., 1992. Näkökulman aih amises a suomalaisessa ii omakielessä. [On pe spec i e shi in Finnish Sign Language.]. In: I konen, E., Pajunen, A.,
Haukioja, T. (Eds.), Kieli ie een ken än ka oi us a. Publica ions o he Depa men o Finnish and Gene al Linguis ics, 12. Uni e si y o Tu ku, Tu ku,
Finland, pp. 23–32.
Salonen, J., K onq is , A., Jan unen, T., 2020. The Co pus o Finnish Sign Language. In: P oceedings o he 9 h Wo kshop on he Rep esen a ion and P o-
cessing o Sign Languages: Sign Language Resou ces in he Se ice o he Language Communi y, Technological Challenges and Applica ion Pe spec i es
(LREC2020). ELRA, Pa is, pp. 197–202.
Sandle , W., 2012. Dedica ed ges u es in he eme gence o sign language. Ges u e 12, 265–307.
Sandle , W., 2016. Wha comes fi s in language eme gence? In: Enfield, N.J. (Ed.), Dependencies in Language: on he Casual On ology o Linguis ic Sys ems.
Language Science P ess, Be lin, pp. 67–86.
Sandle , W., Lillo-Ma in, D., 2006. Sign Language and Linguis ic Uni e sals. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge.
Sandle , W., Mei , I., Dachko sky, S., Padden, C., A ono , M., 2011. The eme gence o complexi y in p osody and syn ax. Lingua. In e na ional e iewo
gene al linguis ics. Re . In . Linguis . Gen. 121, 2014–2033. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.05.007.
Schemb i, A., 2003. Re hinking “Classifie s”in Signed Languages. In: Emmo ey, K. (Ed.), Pe spec i es on Classifie Cons uc ions in Sign Languages. Law-
ence E lbaum Associa es, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 3–34.
Schemb i, A., Lucas, C., 2015. In oduc ion. In: Schemb i, A., Lucas, C. (Eds.), Sociolinguis ics and Dea Communi ies. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge,
UK, pp. 1–4.
Schemb i, A., McKee, D., McKee, R., Johns on, T., Goswell, D., Pi ac, S., 2009. Phonological a ia ion and change in Aus alian and New Zealand sign lan-
guages: he loca ion a iable. Lang. Va . Change 21, 193–231.
Schemb i, A., Co mie , K., Fenlon, J., 2018. Indica ing e bs as ypologically unique cons uc ions: econside ing e b ‘ag eemen ’in sign languages. Glossa:
A J. Gen. Ling. 3 (1), 1–40, 89.
Schick, B.S., 1987. The Acquisi ion O Classifie P edica es In Ame ican Sign Language. PhD Disse a ion. Pu due Uni e si y.
Slobin, D., Hoi ing, N., Kun ze, M., Linde , R., Weinbe g, A., Pye s, J., An hony, M., Biede man, Y., Thu mann, H., 2003. A cogni i e/ unc ional pe spec i e on
he acquisi ion o ‘‘classifie s’’. In: Emmo ey, K. (Ed.), Pe spec i es on Classifie Cons uc ions in Sign Languages. Law ence E lbaum Associa es, Mahwah,
NJ, pp. 271–296.
Slonimska, A., Özyü ek, A., Capi ci, O., 2020. The ole o iconici y and simul anei y o e ficien communica ion: he case o I alian Sign Language (LIS).
Cogni ion 200, 104246.
Smi h, S., Co mie , K., 2014. In o ou ? Spa ial scale and enac men in na a i es o na i e and non-na i e signing dea child en acqui ing B i ish Sign
Language. Sign Lang. S ud. 14, 275–301.
S amp, R., Schemb i, A., Fenlon, J., Ren elis, R., Woll, B., Co mie , K., 2014. Lexical a ia ion and change in B i ish sign language. PLoS One 9 (4), 94053.
S amp, R., Schemb i, A., Fenlon, J., Ren elis, R., 2015. Va ia ion and change in B i ish Sign Language numbe signs. Sign Lang. S ud. 15 (2), 151–181.
S eeck, J., 2002. G amma s, wo ds, and embodied meanings: on he uses and e olu ion o so and like. J. Commun. 52 (3), 581–596.
Supalla, T., 1986. The classifie sys em in Ame ican sign language. In: C aig, C. (Ed.), Noun Classes and Ca ego iza ion. Benjamins, Ams e dam, p. 181214.
Supalla, T., 2003. Re isi ing isual analogy in ASL classifie p edica es. In: Emmo ey, K. (Ed.), Pe spec i es on Classifie Cons uc ions in Sign Languages, pp.
249–257 (Mahwah, NJ).
Su on-Spence, R., 2017. Cons uc ing isual images in c ea i e sign language in solo and collabo a i e pe o mance: space and embodimen . A . S ud. 76
(3), 360–380.
Su on-Spence, R., Mülle de Quad os, R., 2005. Sign language poe y and dea iden i y. Sign Lang. Linguis . 8, 177–212.
Su on-Spence, R., Napoli, D., 2010. An h opomo phism in Sign Languages: a look a poe y and s o y elling wi h a ocus on B i ish sign language. Sign Lang.
S ud. 10, 442–504.
Su on-Spence, R., Ladd, P., Rudd, G., 2005. Analysing Sign Language Poe y. Palg a e Macmillan, Basings oke.
Tannen, D., 1989. Talking Voices: Repe i ion, Dialogue, and Image y in Con e sa ional Discou se. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge.
Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Sign Language Cen e, 2019. Co pus o Finnish Sign Language. Kielipankki [The Language bank o Finland]. h p://u n.fi/u n:nbn:fi:
lb-2019012321.
Wins on, E.,1992. Space and in ol emen in an ame ican sign language lec u e. In: Plan -Moelle , J. (Ed.), Expanding Ho izons: Twel h Na ional Con en ion
o he Regis y o In e p e e s o he Dea Sil e Sp ing, MD: Regis y o In e p e e s o he Dea , pp. 93–105.
Woll, B., 1981. Bo owing and Change in BSL. Pape P esen ed a he Linguis ics Associa ion o G ea B i ain Au umn Mee ing. Uni e si y o Yo k.
Zwi se lood, I., 2012. Classifie s. In: P au, R., S einbach, M., Woll, B. (Eds.), Sign Language: an In e na ional Handbook. Mou on de G uy e , Be lin, pp. 158–
185.
A. Puupponen e al. / Language & Communica ion 83 (2022) 16–35 35