ADAM KENDON: SIGN LANGUAGE IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA. A PRIMARY SIGN LANGUAGE FROM THE UPPER LAGAIP VALLEY, ENGA PROVINCE

ADAM KENDON: SIGN LANGUAGE IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA. APRIMARY SIGN LANGUAGE FROM THE UPPER LAGAIP VALLEY, ENGA PROVINCE Jose ulka Kendon, A. (2020). Sign Language in Papua New Guinea. AP ima y Sign Language om he Uppe Lagaip Valley, Enga P o ince. Ams e dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub- lishing Company. Fo mos eade s, and Czech eade s in pa icula , Adam Kendon is p ima ily known o his pionee ing wo k on he ges u al medium (o he kinesic medium, as he would p obably p e e o call i nowadays), which culmina ed in his 2004 monog aph en i led Ges u e: Visible Ac ion as U e ance (Kendon, 2004) ha has, in he ealm o ges u e s udies, al eady become aclassic. Less a en ion seems o ha e been paid o his ea lie wo k, wo k ha has ound i s apogee in he monumen al book on Aus alian Abo iginal sign languages (Kendon, 2013/1988). I would be, howe e , en i ely alse o say ha hese wo lines o Kendon’s hough a e sepa- a ed. Qui e he con a y, he ob ious co espondences be ween Kendon’s “e hno- g aphic” wo k and his gene al e lec ions on he kinesic medium a e plain o see— bo h a e in o med by he same undamen al p emises, and one o he me i s o he p esen olume, hough a om being he only one, is ha i pe mi s us o ollow he o ma ion o he heo e ical backg ound ha seems o de e mine bo h lines o Kendon’s inqui y. Sign Language in Papua New Guinea comp ises— wi h some mino e isions and se e al added oo no es— h ee ex ensi e pape s ha Kendon published in he jou - nal Semio ica in 1980. The opic o he pape s is adesc ip ion o he sign language used by adea speake (awoman named Imanoli) in he Enga p o ince in Papua New Guinea (PNG), based on i e ilm segmen s eco ded a he end o 1975. The subjec o Kendon’s in es iga ion, he e o e, is ap ima y sign language, unlike he al e na e sign languages— ha is, sign languages used by hea ing speake s who ha e o abs ain, o one eason o ano he , om using spoken language on pa icula occasions (Kendon, 2013/1988, pp.2–5)— ha Kendon examined la e in his 1988 monog aph. Despi e he limi ed scope o he ma e ial on which he analysis is based, Kendon’s insigh s bo h in o his pa icula sign language sys em and in o ce ain gene al ea u es o kinesic ac ion a e s iking. The encoun e wi h Imanoli and he sis e Lanyela (who was hea ing bu luen in sign), as Kendon s a es in he in oduc ion, was a andom one and ook place du ing an expedi ion whose aim was o s udy ace- o- ace in e ac ion among he (hea ing) Enga. As o he sign language Imanoli used, i seems o esis he labels commonly employed in sign language linguis ics. I is nei he a“home-sign” no a“ illage sign language”. I is no home-sign inso a as “ he ges u al sys em we a e dealing wi h is no con ined o he Uppe Lagaip egion, bu ex ends mo e widely in his pa o he OPEN ACCESS 88 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 1/2021 Enga a ea” (p.5).1 Bu nei he does he sys em i he label o a“ illage sign language” as i lacks he undamen al cha ac e is ics usually connec ed wi h his ca ego y o sign languages, such as being spoken by ag oup o people inhabi ing apa icula illage wi h highe pe cen age o he edi a y dea ness (see Zeshan & de Vos, 2012). Be ha as i may— and pa adoxical as i may seem a i s sigh — he p inci- pal in e es o Kendon’s analysis lies pe haps in he ac ha , despi e his ho ough knowledge and equen e e ence o he wo ks o S okoe, Klima, Bellugi, F iedman and many o he s, his me hodological and heo e ical backg ound is no “con ami- na ed” by he poli ical and emancipa o y s uggles o sign language linguis ics o he ime, which s i es o demons a e he language-like cha ac e o signing and concen a es, he e o e, on hose ea u es o sign languages ha p esen clea analo- gies wi h spoken language. I , as Kendon poin s ou in he in oduc ion, “ he ilms o signed con e sa ion [o Imanoli] […] p o oked me o in es iga e how seman ic subs ance could be con eyed h ough isible bodily ac ion”— akey issue ha has be- come, as we know, he undamen al guideline ha has de e mined Kendon’s inqui y conce ning ges u e in gene al—, i was because “Iwas no in he leas bi conce ned wi h whe he wha Iwas dealing wi h was ‘language’ o no and was ee, hus, o conside wha e e migh be ele an o unde s anding how hese signe s c ea ed he meaning o each o he ” (p. X). This doc a igno an ia has led no only o ema k- able e minological inno a ions bu , abo e all, o insigh s conce ning he s uc u e and unc ioning o sign language(s) ha we e, as he au ho a he modes ly admi s on he same page, “somewha ahead o i s ime”: hese conce n no only iconici y, bu also he non-manual componen s o signing such as acial exp ession, head mo e- men s o gaze di ec ion ha ep esen in eg al componen s o he message ansmis- sion in signing bu we e (apa om some excep ions) la gely neglec ed in he ea ly s ages o he de elopmen o sign language linguis ics. The p incipal dimension o Kendon’s analysis o Imanoli’s signing is wo old: de- sc ip i e and compa a i e. The speci ic ea u es o Enga signing a e con inuously being compa ed o hose o Ame ican sign language (ASL) o o he sign language sys ems, including al e na e ones, such as he sign sys em o sawmill wo ke s in B i ish Colum- bia o he Plains Indian sign language (PISL), wi h he aim o demons a e ha “any ges u al- isual linguis ic sys em makes use o anumbe o simila o ganiza ional p inciples” (p.2). This, again, poin s o wha seems o be Kendon’s undamen ally monis ic concep ion o he kinesic medium, despi e i s ich inne di e en ia ion. Apa om achap e de o ed o “Gene al P ope ies o Sign” (pp. 11–16), he analysis o he Enga sign language p ope is di ided in o i e sec ions: p ocesses o sign o ma ion (pp. 17–35), he ques ion o iconici y and o he ela ionship be ween sign and i s e e en (pp. 37–63), di e en uses o poin ing (pp. 65–74), he so-called concu en ac ion, ha is, he non-manual componen s o signing (pp.75–89), and he discou se cons uc ion, i.e., he sup a-lexical aspec o sign p oduc ion (pp.91–108). In wha ollows, a he han p o ide an exhaus i e o e iew, Iwill 1 This obse a ion o Kendon’s is based on he ac ha Ngangane Waipili, an in e p e e and a ield assis an whose sis e was dea , was amilia wi h he sys em, e en hough he came om adi e en egion o he Enga a ea. OPEN ACCESS JOSE ULKA 89 b ie ly men ion wha Iconside o ep esen he mos undamen al concep ual in- no a ions o his analysis. The ques ion o iconici y i s . When e lec ing upon wha he e ms “ he p ocess o signi ica ion in signing” (p.39), Kendon p oposes a wo old dis inc ion wi h espec o he iconici y o signs: he dis inc ion be ween he e e en and be ween he base o asign. “The e e en o asign is he meaning ha i ca ies in agi en con ex o use. The base o he sign, on he o he hand, is he objec o ac ion ha he p oduc ion o he sign is de i ed om” (ibid.). Kendon himsel p o ides aclea illus a ion o his dis inc ion, using he Enga sign o sleep: “A la hand is laid alongside he cheek, while he head is il ed o one side as i o es upon he hand” (ibid.). Thus, he o m o he sign bea s ama ked simila i y o he ac ion o lying down and p epa ing o sleep; his ac ion is wha cons i u es he base o he sign. The sign’s e e en , howe e , is a om being uni ocal. Fi s , he sign does no e e o he speci ic ac ion o lying down, bu o he s a e o sleeping. Fu he mo e, he e e ence may be ex ended o make he sign e e o a ious hings associa ed wi h sleeping: me onymically, o ex- ample, i may e e o ahouse (aplace whe e one usually sleeps). In o he wo ds, ico- nici y is no asimple ma e , and he e Kendon an icipa es, among o he s, he esea ch on iconici y conduc ed by Sa ah Taub mo e han wen y yea s la e (Taub, 2001). Ins ead o summa izing Kendon’s classi ica ion o signs based on he dis inc ion in ques ion, le us men ion some o his ema kable gene al insigh s ega ding sign o ma ion. Among hese, he e is he ac ha “ce ain kinds o e e en s end o a- o ce ain kinds o ealiza ion de ices” (p.53). When, o example, he enac men h ough which he base o he sign is ep esen ed aims a ep esen ing an objec ha is ypically subjec ed o some kind o manipula o y ac i i y on he pa o humans, i is p ecisely his manipula ion ha o en se es as abasis o he enac men in ques- ion (Kendon gi es an example o swee po a o, whe e he co esponding sign is o med by pe o ming he ac ion o knocking he dus o he swee po a o p io o ea ing i ). The enac men o amo emen pa e n, on he o he hand, ends o be used when he objec ep esen ed has an independen li e and is less p one o being ma- nipula ed (such is o en he case, o ins ance, in signs o animals). These indings conce ning sign o ma ion de ices in he Enga sign sys em a e subsequen ly compa ed o hose desc ibed in wo o he (and un ela ed) sign lan- guage sys ems, namely, he sign language used by he Pi a Pi a ibe o no h cen- al Queensland and he al eady men ioned sys em o sawmill wo ke s in B i ish Columbia. The compa ison suppo s he hesis announced ea lie in he book: ha despi e he ob ious di e ences in pa icula o ms o lexical signs, he “s a egies” o sign o ma ion a e ema kably simila ac oss di e en sign languages. Le us quo e Kendon: “We sugges (…) ha al hough signs o simila e e en s in di e en sign languages may o en di e ma kedly om one ano he , he ealiza ion p ocesses ha unde lie he c ea ion o such signs may be undamen ally he same” (p.63). Needless o say ha his conclusion has since been co obo a ed by subsequen compa a i e sign language esea ch. Mo eo e , Kendon’s analysis o he Enga signing is a om being limi ed o he sign “ ocabula y” only and i comp ises many di e en ways h ough which he ki- nesic medium becomes aca ie o meaning. This app oach becomes mos salien in OPEN ACCESS 90 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 1/2021 he chap e on concu en ac ion, ha is, “ac ion in o he pa s o he body concu - en wi h he p oduc ion o signs” (p.75). In gene al, he chap e on concu en ac- ion shows how his ac ion se es o disambigua e he signs, o ins uc he ecipien abou he exac kind o u e ance ha is being p oduced (aques ion, ajoke), o o commen upon he signe ’s eelings; b ie ly, o con ey “complex addi ional in o ma- ion” complemen ing he signed message. Fo he sake o b e i y, Iwill only ema k ha he inal chap e on he aspec o discou se cons uc ion con ains, apa om he analyses o Enga signing pe se, some mos in e es ing his o ical e e ences. When Kendon speaks abou “ he sequen ial a angemen o signs in ph ases” (p.92), he no es ace ain endency o he sign o de o be consis en (e en hough, as he poin s ou , his consis ency is no o be con used wi h igidi y o any kind): “[…] we ind ha signs ha e e o ac ions o s a es end o occu la e in he sequence, whe eas signs ha e e o he sou ce o goal o an ac ion end o occu i s […] he endency is o sign i s a e e ence o whom o wha he u e ance is o be abou , and hen o sign e e ences o how he componen s o he accoun a e ela ed o one ano he ” (ibid.). No only is his endency obse - able in o he sign languages desc ibed a he gi en pe iod, such as ASL— Kendon makes e e ence o much ea lie in es iga ions o sign languages, hose conduc ed by Wund , Malle y and Tylo in he second hal o he nine een h cen u y (Tylo , 1878; Malle y, 1972/1880; Wund , 1973), ap ly s a ing ha hese ea lie in es iga o s eached e y simila conclusions conce ning sign o de as well as o he aspec s o sign language s uc u e, such as he impo ance o spa ial ela ionships in he signed discou se (pp. 93–94). The in e es in he his o ical dimension o esea ch conce ning sign languages (o he kinesic medium in gene al) ep esen s aconsis en ea u e o Kendon’s heo e ical unde aking; su ice i o ead he “his o ical” chap e o his 2004 book (Kendon, 2004, pp.17–61; Wund , Malle y and Tylo a e ea ed in de ail on pp.50–60). Those “p e-S okoean” e e ences b ing o h, albei implici ly, an in e es - ing pa adox ha he his o y o sign language esea ch has le us wi h. The widely main ained “o icial” e sion o his his o y has i ha i was S okoe’s phonological analysis o sign language s uc u e, es ablishing, beyond all doub , he exis ence o he “duali y o pa e ning” in sign language, ha has i e ocably p o ed he hi he o unacknowledged linguis ic na u e o signing (S okoe, 1960). While nobody denies he g oundb eaking cha ac e o S okoe’s app oach, we should also bea in mind ha ea lie in es iga o s, such as hose men ioned by Kendon, no only did no deny he linguis ic (o language-like) na u e o signing (Malle y, o example, is qui e explici on his poin ), bu ha e p esen ed some e y acu e obse a ions conce ning i s unc- ioning, such as, o ins ance, he abo e-men ioned impo ance o spa ial ela ion- ships ha S okoe’s s uc u al analysis has no aken in o accoun (a leas no p ima - ily). I is, he e o e, no wi hou in e es o see ha Kendon’s sus ained admi a ion o ce ain p e-S okoean “s uden s o sign languages” (p.94) is al eady p esen in his 1980 pape s on he Enga signing. In his concluding ema ks, Kendon ackles he undamen al ques ion ha has been eme ging, especially in hei compa a i e passages, h oughou he h ee pa- pe s: Why is i ha a ious sign languages, be hey p ima y o al e na e, and despi e he di e ences in he conc e e o ms o lexical signs, employ simila s a egies o OPEN ACCESS JOSE ULKA 91 c ea ing meaning and o encoding he logical ela ionships be ween he elemen s o discou se? The possible answe lies, Kendon poin s ou , in he di e en ela ionship ha he isual-manual modali y en e ains wi h wha he e ms he “ e e ence ield” (p.113). Because sign languages, wi h hei use o space and mo emen , a e “no e- s ic ed o asingle dimension as speech is” (ibid.), he encoding o he e e ence ield in o signs seems o be mo e di ec han he one aking place in “unidimensional” spoken languages which need o ha e ecou se o symbolic ca ego ies ha , compa ed o sign languages, bea much less “ esemblance be ween exp ession and he e e - ence ield exp essed” (ibid.). I is well possible, hen, ha he way eali y is encoded in sign languages co esponds mo e closely o he way in o ma ion abou ha eali y is s o ed in he human mind. Le us no e in passing ha in asking and answe ing his ques ion, Kendon ejoins ce ain eigh een h-cen u y philosophe s (Dide o in pa icula ), o whom he issue o whe he ges u es o sign language— a he han spoken language— may p o ide us wi h in o ma ion conce ning “ he na u al o de o ideas” in he human mind was ac ucial one. I Kendon calls, in he inal sen ences o his conclusion, o amo e ex ensi e compa a i e s udy o di e en sign languages, i is in hope o gaining “amo e di ec insigh in o he humanly uni e sal modes o men a ion”, an insigh ha spoken languages, encumbe ed as hey a e wi h a ious “ ac ics” o con eying meaning h ough linea s ings o phonemes, a e pe haps less ap o p o ide (ibid.). The book is closed by wo appendices. In hei essay “Sign Language in Papua New Guinea and he Solomon Islands” (pp. 141–183), Lau en W.Reed and Alan Rumsey p o ide ause ul o e iew summa izing he p esen s a e o esea ch on di e en “ egional” PNG sign languages (o which Enga signing was bu one pa icula ex- ample), including ab ie compa a i e analysis o hei di e en egional a ie ies (pp. 164–176) and in o ma ion on he “o icial” PNG sign language, as i has de eloped du ing he ecen decades (pp. 153–160). Finally, he concluding essay by She man Wilcox, “Kendon’s wo k on asigned lan- guage om he Enga P o ince o Papua New Guinea” (pp. 185–196) adds se e al as- u e ema ks on Kendon’s app oach, wi h ega d, abo e all, o he s ill much-deba ed ela ionship be ween ges u e and sign. Kendon’s “usage based iew” (o e en wha Wilcox e ms a“use based pe spec i e”, p.192) o language and ges u e, al eady clea ly p esen in his s udies on he Enga ma e ial, “no only pe mi s us o compa e and con- as spoken and signed languages bu also o include ges u e in he mul imodal mix” (p.191). Bo h sign and ges u e being “ isible bodily ac ions”, he bounda y be ween he wo becomes necessa ily blu ed. Iha e al eady sugges ed ha , despi e o y yea s ha ing elapsed om he o igi- nal publica ion o Kendon’s pape s, he alue o hei 2020 eedi ion is much mo e han me ely a“documen a y” one. These a e no ju enilia o any so , he in e es o which would consis simply in cas ing ligh on he au ho ’s in ellec ual de elopmen : in mo e han one espec , he au ho was indeed ahead o his ime, and i is no only because o he pa icula objec and na u e o his in es iga ion, si ua ed a he c oss- oads be ween he desc ip i e and compa a i e app oach and unde aken a a ime when linguis s’ in e es in non-Eu opean sign languages in hei a ious modali ies and speci ici ies was conside ably less widesp ead han i is oday. Al eady in he OPEN ACCESS 92 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 1/2021 mid-se en ies, when he encoun e wi h Imanoli ook place, Kendon had adop ed an o e ly holis ic iew o kinesic ac ion. Wha is mo e, his kinesic ac ion ex ends a beyond i s manual modali y— as Kendon shows in he chap e on concu en ac ion, i is no only hands, bu he human body as awhole ha becomes he ehicle o he “seman ic subs ance”. She man Wilcox has pu i well: “Linguis s should be s i ing o emula e Kendon’s abili y o documen he semio ic di e si y o isible bodily ac ion in u e ance” (p.195). We canno bu endo se his ema k. REFERENCES Kendon, A. (2013/1988). Sign Languages o Abo iginal Aus alia. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Kendon, A. (2004). Ges u e: Visible Ac ion as U e ance. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Malle y, G. (1972/1880). Sign Language Among he No h Ame ican Indians Compa ed wi h Tha Among O he People and Dea -mu es. Mou on. S okoe, W. (1960). Sign Language S uc u e: An Ou line o he Visual Communica ion Sys ems o he Ame ican Dea . Uni e si y o Bu alo. Taub, S. (2001). Language om he Body. Iconici y and Me apho in Ame ican Sign Language. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Tylo , E. (1904). An h opology: An In oduc ion o he S udy o Man and Ci iliza ion. D.Apple on and Co. Wund , W. (1973). The Language o Ges u es. Mou on. Zeshan, U., & de Vos, C. (Eds.). (2012). Sign Languages in Village Communi ies: An h opological and Linguis ic Insigh s. Mou on de G uy e . Jose Fulka | Facul y o Humani ies < jose . ulka@ hs.cuni.cz> OPEN ACCESS