7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

1/32

1

Types of Depiction in ASLPaul Dudis

1. Introduction

The body and the surrounding space are often brought into ASL discourse to represententities of the scene being depicted. Close examination of depiction using cognitive linguisticframeworks suggests that additional components figure in these iconic representations, namelythe subject (or the self), vantage point , and temporal progression . Identification of thesecomponents contributes towards greater precision with which to describe various types of depiction observed to occur in ASL discourse. This in turn lends to a greater appreciation of issues involving depiction. One issue of particular interest is the relationship between thedepiction of an event involving a subject and signs produced during the depiction. The followinganalysis discusses one pattern in which, when an action of a subject is being depicted, any signor gesture produced is necessarily associated with the representation of temporal progressionthrough which the depicted subject exists.

2. Depicting vs. non-depicting signs

Many words in signed languages exhibit iconic mappings, but only one set of these wordshave the ability to visually represent semantic components. Following Liddell (2003), I use theterm depiction to describe this ability. The distinction between signs that depict and those thatdo not are discussed below, followed by a description of an informal test with which todetermine the status of an ASL sign as an event-depicting verb.

The ASL noun BIRD (Figure 1) exemplifies an iconic but non-depicting sign. The iconiccorrespondences it exhibits are likely to be discerned without great difficulty by anyone whoknows what birds are and what the sign means. The manual articulator corresponds to the beak ,its location to the location on the birds head , and so forth. However, the sign does not functionto describe what a bird looks like, nor does it function to describe the actions of a bird. To use asomewhat popular term, it is frozen. Moreover, the iconicity of many signs like BIRD beliesthe schematicity of the concept that the sign symbolizes. As noted by Taub (2001), such signsdesignate a general category of diverse but related thingsany bird with beak morphologydifferent from the prototype can still be called a BIRD.

Figure 1

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

2/32

2

Many verbs in ASL are also iconic but non-depicting. Two such verbs are the indicatingverbs GIVE y and EXPLAIN y, partly illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. When we consider thehandshape of GIVE y and what the sign symbolizes, it becomes clear that there is a hand-for-hand iconicity. In contrast, it is not readily apparent what the articulators of EXPLAIN y are

iconic for. Directionality is iconic in both verbs. Taub (2001) describes how conceptual paths the action-chain path, the literal path or the metaphorical pathmotivate directionality in theseverbs. Yet, given these and other iconic elements that can be discerned, indicating verbs do notdepict events. GIVE y encodes the transfer of any of a large range of objects, e.g. a paper document or a kitchen appliance, e.g. a kitchen blender. These objects are held differently, somerequiring the use of two hands, and many of these objects cannot be held with the handconfiguration similar to that in GIVE y. Moreover, the wrist-only movement in GIVE y typically produced during informal signing does not resemble any of the usual ways of

physically handing an object to someone.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Depiction is a type of iconicity different from that exhibited by nouns and indicating verbs.As described in Liddell (2003), some verbs have, in addition to their usual function as verbs, the

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

3/32

3

ability to depict the event they encode. HAND-TO is an example of an event-depicting verb. Itis not a derivative of GIVE y but a verb in its own right. (The two verbs are also contrasted inPadden 1986 and P. Wilcox 1998.) HAND-TO can be used to describe only the transfer of objects that can be held between the thumb and the four fingers of the handshapea paper document or credit card, but certainly not a kitchen blender. This is one way that the verbs

iconicity constrains its usage. Additionally, the palms continuously upward orientation and the path of the hand created via the elbow emulate the physical motion of the transfer event.However, the high degree to which the verbs form maps onto the scene it encodes does notnecessarily make the sign a depicting verb. Rather, it is the verbs ability to portray a dynamicand visual representation of a transfer, which is a demonstration rather than plain description.One way the verb can be used is akin to a re-enactment by an actor, but with just the signersupper body used to create the only visible part of the depiction, the giver. Instead of a visibleobject, the transferred entity is represented by a small portion of space occupied in part by thesigners hand, and instead of another actor, the recipient is represented by a larger portion of space in front of the signer.

The ability of a verb to depict an event can be determined by an informal test involving a

depiction of an event sequence performed by the signer who is representing an animate event participant throughout the sequence. If the verb in question can be signed while the event participant is continually being represented, then it is likely a depicting verb. For example, TAP-SHOULDER depicts a prototypical way of getting someones attention within the U.S. Deaf community. Since the giver typically has the recipients attention prior to the act of transfer, it isan ideal verb to be used in the first part of the event sequence depiction. The scene beingdepicted then, has someone getting another individuals attention and giving that person anobject. Partly illustrated in Figure 4a is the depiction of the attention-getting portion of thescene. Here the signer is conceptualized to be the attention-getter and the location towardswhich the hand is directing is imagined to be someones shoulder. GIVE y would not be ableimmediately follow this if the signer intends to depict a transfer. Since HAND-TO can (Figure4b), its depicting verb status is confirmed. This tests utility is evident in that it also confirms thenon-depicting status of EXPLAIN y as well as other indicating verbs such as SHOW y andTELL y.

Figure 4a Figure 4b

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

4/32

4

With GIVE y and HAND-TO, we see that a certain scene may be encoded into either anon-depicting or depicting verb. Other scenes are similarly encoded into these two types of verbs, including one in which an object is shown to someone. SHOW y (Figure 5) is a verb of showing in ASL.

Figure 5

From the semantics of the verb and related cultural knowledge, its handshapes can be seen to beiconic for a flat object and a finger pointing to something on that object, e.g. information on adocument. To determine whether this verb can depict an act of showing, a event sequencedepiction test similar to the one above can be used. The first part of the test depicts an individual

being approached by someone, e.g. a police officer (Figure 6a). SHOW y cannot follow thisdepiction if the signer wishes to continue to represent the individual. The extended eye contactthat would be made between the participants in the event sequence cannot be depicted during the

production of SHOW y in this case, demonstrating that the signer is not representing any event participant. Should the signer wish to represent this person while depicting the showing of theobject, a different verb would be used. If the object were a document, the verbs handshapewould be similar to that of HAND-TO (Figure 6b).

Figure 6a Figure 6b

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

5/32

5

If the document is understood to be already in hand, this verb can immediately follow the verbthat depicts the approach of an individual and be directed towards the imagined presence of thatindividual (otherwise a depiction of how the document came to be held would likely to intervene

between the two verbs). Throughout this depiction the signers eye gaze is continually directedtowards the individual, even during the production of the signs. Moreover, after being directed

towards the individual, the hand can remain in place, with eye gaze remaining fixed towards thisindividual, depicting the length of the presentation. This is typically not possible with SHOW y.Also, the indicating verb is directed with the fingertips of the non-dominant hand (thedocument) more or less pointing towards the person being shown the object. A closely relatedverb has the palm facing this person, and can remain in place with eye gaze towards the samelocation. This is a different verbone that passes the event sequence depiction testin whichthe hands do not just represent but depict a document and a finger pointing to something on it.

There are some scenes that are encoded into indicating verbs that are absent from depictingverbs. Some examples are scenes that are encoded in TELL y and EXPLAIN y. Both verbs failexhibit a hand-for-hand iconicity in the way that other indicating verbs do. TELL y has an indexfinger moving from the chin towards the person getting the information. This finger does not

seem to represent any finger that is part of the event. EXPLAINy

has F-handshapes moving bidirectionally towards an event participant, and these handshapes are also not iconic for anycomponent within the encoded event.

While both TELL y and EXPLAIN y appear to lack depicting verb counterparts, theredoes seem to be a way to depict an event in which an individual is explaining something tosomeone that does not make use of constructed dialogue. In the event sequence test,EXPLAIN y cannot follow TAP-SHOULDER or another sign depicting getting someonesattention by a quick waving of the hand (Figure 7a). However, what appears to be an aspectualform of the sign can. In Figure 7b, the signer, representing the explainer, demonstrates how eyecontact is made, which facial expression is used, and so on. During this demonstration, thesigner also produces a sign related to EXPLAIN y. This sign can be produced in a span of timesimilar to the time it takes to produce the citation form of the indicating verb, but it can be

produced for a longer time span. This suggests that the sign is an aspectual form of theindicating verb.

Figure 7a Figure 7b

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

6/32

6

The ability of the aspectual form of EXPLAIN y to be produced as part of a eventsequence depiction in which the signer represents an event participant would seem to invalidatethe test as a way to identify depicting verbs. As it turns out, it rather demonstrates the greater applicability of the test. The test can be used to determine not only whether a given verb may be

produced within a depiction of an event, but also whether other linguistic units or conventions

may be produced within event depictions. In the rest of this paper I attempt to explicatecircumstances that allow for different types of depictions to be performed in ASL. Section 3reviews the blending model (Fauconnier & Turner 1996, 2002) that is used here to analyze theconceptual process underlying depiction. Section 4 describes the variety of depictions observedto occur in ASL discourse. Section 5 examines the restrictions on the use of linguistic itemswhen an animate event participant is being represented by the signer, a product of conceptualintegration that is labeled here as |subject|.

3. The depiction of dialogue in ASL

The theory of conceptual blending (Fauconnier & Turner 1996, 2002) provides an elegantway to describe depictions in ASL. In this section, the basic blending analysis is applied todepiction of dialogue in ASL (see Liddell and Metzger 1998 for a comparable blendinganalysis); other types of depictions are analyzed in the next section. The depiction of dialogue is

popularly known as a type of roleshifting and is also known as constructed dialogue (seeTannen 1989 for discussion of constructed dialogue in spoken languages; see Roy 1989, Winston1991, and Metzger 1995 for discussion of constructed dialogue in ASL).

Constructed dialogue in ASL is often more than just the representation of an utterance; ascan be seen in exemplars of constructed dialogue in ASL, the interlocutor producing theutterance is also being represented. In Figure 8, the signer is producing a second-person singular

pronoun and the non-manual yes-no question signal. The signer is also attending to an areaabove the location towards which the pronoun is being directed. The signers apparent change of attention away from the addressee while continuing to sign is one of the cues signaling thatconstructed dialogue is in effect. Throughout the constructed dialogue the signer is understoodto represent an interlocutor and his signing represents what was said in the dialogue beingdepicted. A portion of the space to the signers right is in this depiction understood to representthe second interlocutor.

Figure 8

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

7/32

7

Constructed dialogue is not simply a one-to-one representation. It is a creative act in which both the signer and addressee imagine the interlocutors of the dialogue being depicted as present.That this imagination is involved is clear when one sees that where the addressee would identifythe signer-as-interlocutor, individuals without access to the discourse would identify the signer as just the signer. One way to illustrate how there can be two different conceptualizations

associated with the signer is by using the conceptual blending model, which I now describe.The concepts that are blended during constructed dialogue are counterparts of two distinctmental spaces. One mental space is built up through discourse, where linguistic items introduceelements and establish relations between them. As the signer is describing a conversation

between two individuals, this mental space has two elements, interlocutor 1 and interlocutor 2 .If these interlocutors were introduced by name, then these elements can be labeled in the modelaccordingly, e.g. Tracy and Dana . This mental space is labeled Event Space in the diagrams tofollow.

The other mental space is different in that it is not created via linguistic means but is aconceptualization of the surrounding environment. This is Real Space (Liddell 1995). As aquick demonstration of the nature of some of the elements within this mental space, suppose

someone shows you a writing instrument. You would have a Real-Space element that is aconceptualization of the instrument, but it is not the actual instrument itself. You are aware of its presence in front of you because your perceptual system takes in the external environment andcreates a cognitive representation of it. Since the signers and the addressees respective RealSpaces of course differ, they have different Real-Space elements. The former has aconceptualization of the addressee, and the latter a conceptualization of the signer. Another Real-Space element is the empty space surrounding the two. In recent investigations of depiction in ASL (e.g. Liddell 2003), the Real-Space signer and surrounding space were virtuallythe only elements described as contributing to the depiction of dialogue (or other actionsdepicted to occur on a human scale). Liddell (2003:151) does not seem to make a distinction

between the signer and the body, but as we will see in the next section there is good reason to doso. Moreover, other Real-Space elements described below also come into play in the depictionof dialogue and other events, and in the next section it will be clear how identification of theseother elements have descriptive benefits.

Part of the process in depicting the dialogue involves the creation of counterpartconnections between elements within Event Space on one hand and Real Space on the other. Inorder to facilitate these connections, a schematization process is needed as well as a GenericSpace that contains what relevant elements the inputs have in common. The Real-Space signer and the Event-Space interlocutor 1 are different concepts. The differences between the twocould be that of age, gender, race, physical characteristics, and so on. Additionally, only theReal-Space signer is visible and has specific dimensions. It is possible to abstract thesedifferences away so that the two elements are seen to be counterparts of one another. What thesigner and interlocutor 1 have in common is that they are conceptualizers who are capable of experiencing thoughts, physical sensations, and so forth. There are several candidate terms withwhich to describe both counterparts, including self (see Cutrer 1994 for discussion of strongand weak versions of V-POINT). In describing the relationship between a speech act participantand the meaning of expressions produced during discourse, Langacker (2000) labels the former as subject of conception . I will use subject here to describe the Real-Space signer and potentialcounterparts in the other input space (and this is not to be confused with the grammatical relationwith the same name). In his discussion of the viewing effects exhibited in various expressions,

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

8/32

8

Langacker observes how notions associated with perception have analogues to those of conception, and uses viewer to describe both the individual who perceives entities and theindividual who apprehends the meaning of expressions. Viewer is as good a candidate term assubject is, but the latter appears to require less disambiguation.

Interlocutor 2 is also a subject, but since the Real-Space subject is already mapped with

interlocutor 1, there is no Real-Space subject available to integrate with it. Instead, what isrecruited is a portion of empty space near the signer, labeled for convenience spatial portion 2.The physical space surrounding the signer is a Real-Space element that is partitionable into manydifferent portions. The counterpart mapping between interlocutor 2 and spatial portion 2 is in

part motivated by how both can be seen to be occupy an area of space within a larger space. The particular Real-Space location that is selected is often motivated by the knowledge about thelocative relationships not only between the interlocutors but within the more general setting fromthe perspective of interlocutor 1 . Here we can see that another counterpart mapping takes place,which involves the setting elements within the input spaces. The Event-Space setting and theReal-Space setting, while distinct, are obviously ideal counterparts.

Sometimes the specifics of the setting are not relevant in the depiction of dialogue, but as

any dialogue, and in fact all events, must take place within a setting, the blend network underlying constructed dialogue will invariably have setting counterpart mappings. Moreover,the interaction between interlocutors is both spatial and energetic. Thus, while the signer canelect to not include details about circumstances of the event being depicted, such as the distance

between the interlocutors, the signer will still need to depict a spatial relationship between theinterlocutors, no matter how schematic its construal is. The side towards which the canonicalbody shift moves then can be seen here to be less motivated but not completely arbitrary. Inorder for the Real-Space subject to take part in depiction, a temporary (but of course notcomplete) disengagement with the addressee is necessary. Equally necessary is establishing aspatial relationship distinct from that between the Real-Space interlocutors, or at the very least,the relationship of the individual to a setting. For example, the signer can report to a co-host of asummer party at a home about how one of the guests is reacting to the strength of the new air conditioner: FUNNY DANA [COLD COLD] Funny -- Dana is going, Its cold, its cold!Here at the very least, the co-host must be aware of certain circumstances existing prior to thedepicted utterance, e.g. the air conditioner is currently on at full blast, but they do not need toinclude the specific location in which the utterance was made--Dana could be anywhere in thehouse (but not the yard) where the cold air is known to likely exist.

Depiction does not arise simply through counterpart connections between inputs. Inneither input space is there anything being represented by the signer. It is in a fourth mentalspace, the blend , where the dialogue and the interlocutors are represented. The counterpartelements are integrated into the blend, creating new elements. Since the signer is visible, this

property is inherited by |interlocutor 1|, the only visible element in the blend. For as long as this blend is activated and is functioning to depict dialogue, the actions performed by the signer, i.e.his signing, is understood to be enacted by |interlocutor 1|. |Interlocutor 2| is the result of integrating interlocutor 2 and spatial portion 2, so this element is not visible. However, it doeshave a conceptual presence within the blend. Other than the attention given by the |interlocutor 1| to |interlocutor 2|, evidence for its presence is in the ability for the signer to direct signstowards the location where the |interlocutor 2| is conceptualized to be, whether duringconstructed dialogue or not. The blend also has an element, the |setting|, existing via integrationof the setting elements in Event Space and Real Space, both serving as inputs to the blend.

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

9/32

9

Figure 9 illustrates the four-space network model of constructed dialogue in ASL. (Linesconnecting counterpart elements not included for diagrammatic clarity.)

Figure 9

As described above, there is more to the ASL depiction of face-to-face dialogue than justthe representation of a set of utterances. At the minimum, the signer will direct his face and eyegaze to a selected portion of physical space to depict the attention given by one interlocutor toanother. An example of a minimal depiction of dialogue occurs as part of a larger chunk of discourse. Here the only depiction is of someone asking why, followed by continued discoursewhich lacks any depiction: PRO-1 [WHY], PRO DONT-KNOW I asked Why?, and she saidshe didnt know. This is contrasted with other instances of constructed dialogue, typically withlonger duration, where the signer also simultaneously depicts facial expression, body posture,and even mannerisms. These, along with the depiction of attention, complement the depiction of the dialogue itself and are actions rather than dialogue. The production of signs is also an action,

but we understand the event as a whole to be one of communicating something to someone elsethrough language. A depiction of action other than dialogue using facial expression, body

posture, mannerisms, and nonlinguistic manual action might be identified as constructed action (Winston 1991, Metzger 1995). Anticipating the discussion of multiple visible blended elementsin the next section, it is worth noting that the same type of blend network underlies both minimal

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

10/32

10

and elaborate depictions. The depictions of dialogue discussed here have only one visibleelement in the blend, the |interlocutor|. Any manual actions, facial expressions, and body posturethat are intended as visual demonstrations are understood to be actions made by the |interlocutor|.

4. Selective Projection of Real-Space Components

In the last section, constructed dialogue was described as one type of depiction in ASL, andthe process of creating the depiction was explicated using the conceptual blending model. TwoReal-Space elements were also introduced: the subject and the setting. What follows aredescriptions of other types of depiction. As will be demonstrated, the existence of different typesof depiction is a consequence of the availability of other Real-Space elements taking part indepiction as well as the selective projection (Fauconnier & Turner 1998) of these elements intothe blend.

It is worth detailing further what is meant by Real-Space element. Relevant here is theground , which is used to indicate the speech event, its participants, and its setting (Langacker

1987:126). Liddell (1995:22) describes Real Space as a grounded mental space. In this way,Real Space is contrasted with the other input space which, in Liddells terms, is a non-groundedmental space containing elements of its own. As mentioned above, one useful distinction

between the two input spaces is whether or not the mental space is established and structured vialinguistic means. Real Space is not, as it is an individuals mental space that is continually activewithin or without discourse. This mental space arises from continuously taking in of externalinformation through the visual and the auditory systems (Langacker 1987:112). Onesconceptualization of any object perceived to be present is a Real-Space element, and thisincludes other individuals with whom one is interacting face-to-face. The stream of linguisticsignals is also a Real-Space entity, but the resulting meaning constructions the signals promptrequire an array of mental spaces containing elements that are not (at least not strictly) Real-Space elements.

Other components of the ground are also Real-Space components. The signers self-awareness is certainly part of the ground. The signer isnt always fully aware of the self, as isoften the case during episodes of daydreaming, but when returning to the present circumstances,the signer becomes more aware of the self. This difference in awareness is a difference in howthe subject of conception is construed. At one extreme the signer is fully aware of the selfandthus construed as fully objectiveand at the other extreme the signer is least aware of the self and thus construed as fully subjective (Langacker 2000). In any case, the signer always hassome awareness of the self that exists as part of the ground, being the locus of experience(Lakoff 1996:93). This subject/self is part of ones Real Space, unique to that individual. Alsounique to the conceptualizer is the vantage point , the position from which a scene is viewed(Langacker 1987:123). An object within a room may be a Real-Space element to individuals,

but from unique vantage points. The notion of subject necessarily subsumes a unique vantage point, as one always finds oneself at a particular location within a larger setting. We now turn tothe descriptive advantage of distinguishing between the subject and vantage point wheredepiction is concerned.

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

11/32

11

Figure 10

First, it will be convenient to use simple illustrations like Figure 10 to represent blendedcomponents existing within different types of depiction. Figure 10 represents the blendedcomponents in just about any constructed dialogue involving two interlocutors. Representing the|setting| is a box-like container, and within it are two figures. One of them is the |subject|, and itsvisibility is indicated by the figure with a shaded fill. The second figure is the other |interlocutor|, and its lack of a fill indicates the non-visibility of the blended element. (The arrow

below the diagram will be explained later below.) It should be recognized that this diagram andothers below do not do much more than indicate the blended components and their schematicrelation to one another, e.g. the |subject| exists within a |setting| with an |interlocutor| in front.The figure representing the |subject| is a stick figure that is standing, but signers can of course

produce utterances sitting down or lying down, even during depiction. They typically also donot move away from their position when signing, even when a path movement of the |subject| is

being described. In fact, someone running can be depicted by a signer who is comfortablyseated. This means that often only a portion of the signers body takes part in the mappingcreating the |subject|. Pattern completion , another cognitive process involved in blending(Fauconnier & Turner 1998), supplies whatever is necessary to successfully interpret the blenddespite minimal visual information.

Evidence that the Real-Space subject and vantage point are distinct components comesfrom a type of depiction that makes use of a setting blend . Such blends are created whensigners wish to talk about objects within an environment other than their current one. One would

be created when, for example, the signer is talking with an addressee about a new light fixture ina mutual friends kitchen. In this situation, a mental space would have been previouslyestablished, containing certain elements associated with the kitchen being described. Elementsin this Kitchen Space would include the kitchen and the light fixture . Since the kitchen is anelement in this mental space, signers also have access to general knowledge, or frame, pertainingto kitchens, e.g. it is a type of room with the usual walls, ceiling, floor, entrances, and so forth.Should the signer wish to describe the location of this light fixture , the ASL grammaticalconvention is to not produce a periphrastic construction akin to the English on the ceiling.Rather, the convention is to direct a single depicting verb (often with a glance) towards theimagined ceiling above the signer, as illustrated in Figure 11.

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

12/32

12

Figure 11

The verb in Figure 11 is used here to simultaneously depict several features of the lightfixture. The handshape depicts its general bowl-like shape. The orientation of the sign depictsthe direction towards which certain sides of the light fixture are facing. In this case, since the

palm of the hand is facing upward, the light fixture is depicted as being convex-shaped. If it is possible for the downward-facing palm to be used in a similar depiction, we would understandthe light fixture as being concave-shaped. The location of the light fixture is depicted via thedirectionality of the verb: the verb is directed upwards and slightly away from the signer. To beable to direct this sign, typically a Real-Space blend needs to have been previously created (seeLiddell 2003:154 for a similar observation). Once the signer imagines the presence of a |kitchenceiling|, the verb can then be directed towards the blended element. Otherwise it is not possibleto use the verb (except in cases where the signer is talking about an actual ceiling directlyaccessible to the interlocutors). The use of this type of depicting verb is often an indicator of aReal-Space blend, and in this case it is clear that the signer has created a Kitchen blend.

The Kitchen blend is an instance of a setting blend. It is created by integrating the kitchenfrom the Kitchen Space input with a portion of the Real-Space setting into a blend, creating a|kitchen|. The |ceiling| in this blend is the result of integrating the ceiling (accessible via thekitchen frame) in the Kitchen Space input with a portion of space above the signer. The set-upof the |kitchen| and |ceiling| is not possible without the signers selection of a location within thekitchen from which to locate the light fixture . There are many possible locations within thekitchen that can be selected for this purpose. Once a location is selected, it integrates not withthe Real-Space subject, but with the Real-Space vantage point alone. The signer does happen to

be standing in what is understood to be the |kitchen| and is also glancing at the |kitchen ceiling|while directing a verb towards it. However, this does not mean that the Kitchen blend contains a|subject|. There is no animate being in the Kitchen Space input that is a candidate counterpart tothe Real-Space subject. Moreover, the blend is created to depict a setting rather than an event,and as discussed below, setting blends appear to preclude the existence of a |subject|. Since theReal-Space vantage point is a type of location, virtually any location within the kitchen is asuitable counterpart. The vantage point is not merely a location on the floor, but a three-dimensional concept. To quickly illustrate, consider the differences in the articulation of a verb

produced by a very young child and a tall adult to depict the location of a painting on the kitchenwall. The child would produce the sign above eye level referencing the actual paintings locationin space whereas the adult would produce the sign at eye level. This is obviously a consequenceof the different, three-dimensional vantage points that the two have, which is integrated with a

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

13/32

13

location in the kitchen to create the respective |vantage points|. Should the child or adult depictthe others experience of the kitchen, their articulations would change accordinglythe adultwould raise both arms to depict the location of the |painting|, but the child wouldnt need to.

Figure 12

Figure 12 represents setting blends that have life-sized dimensions. As with theconstructed dialogue representation in Figure 10, the |setting| is represented by a box. Instead of the figure with a shaded fill used to represent a |subject|, a dotted figure icon is used here torepresent the |vantage point|. These distinct representations should not be taken to mean that the|subject| lacks a |vantage point|, but as mentioned above, the former actually subsumes the latter.It is not possible for a subject to lack a vantage point because the conceptualization of oneslocation within a larger setting is an essential component of self-awareness. However, as wehave seen, it is possible to project the Real-Space vantage point independently of the Real-Spacesubject. This is an example of selective projection: in certain types of depiction, only a number of Real-Space components are selected to integrate with its counterparts. Constructed dialoguehas a |subject| with a concomitant |vantage point|, but life-sized setting blends only have thelatter. Since both types of depiction have |settings| with life-sized dimensions, they are examplesof what Emmorey and Falgier (1999) call viewer space . Surrogate space is the term used byLiddell (1995), although in my assessment, it has been used to describe only similarly-scaled

blends that depict dialogue or action.Setting blends can also be created with a smaller portion of space in front of the signer. In

this blend, the dimensions of the |setting| and entities within it are scaled down. This is the resultof the cognitive process of compression (Fauconnier and Turner 2002). The depicted setting iscompressed with the smaller portion of space into the blend. Because this physical space doesnot include the area where the signer is located, the Real-Space vantage point is not available totake part in the mappings that create this blend, so the blend lacks a |vantage point|. The signersReal-Space vantage point remains in effect. In contrast to viewer space, this is a diagrammaticspace (Emmorey and Falgier ibid.), represented by the small box in Figure 13. The benefit (andnecessity) of compression can be seen in the depiction of the spatial relations of planets or galaxies. Components of the entity being depicted are compressed with its smaller Real-Spacecounterparts into the blend, allowing for a human-scale conceptualization that would otherwisenot be possible.

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

14/32

14

Figure 13

It appears that the blended element |setting| is a constant among the various types of depiction explicated in this paper. Since dialogue necessarily takes place within a setting, thedepiction of dialogue requires a |setting| element. This is also true not just for constructed action

but also for any event depiction. In addition to |setting|, what is also constant among the varioustypes of event blends to be described shortly is a |temporal progression| element (and this alsoappears to be what basically distinguishes setting and event blends). As described in Dudis(2004b), this element is the result of integrating temporal progression elements from two inputs.The temporal element in Real Space is the currently experienced progression of time. Similar tothe varying degrees of awareness we have of our selves in any given moment, we are also notcontinuously aware of the progression of time. There are certain experiences where it does cometo the forefront, as when one wishes to adjust the blinking rate of the cursor on a computer monitor. The counterpart to this Real-Space temporal component is Event Time, i.e. thetemporal progression associated with the event being described. |Temporal progression| isrepresented in the diagrams in this section by an arrow below the box, as in Figure 10 above.

Events are often depicted from the viewpoint of a |subject agent|, the result of integratingthe Real-Space subject with the participant with the status of agent in the Event-Space input.Since other animate event participants are also subjects, they are potential counterparts to theReal-Space subject. In fact, we do see depictions from the viewpoint of, say, the |patient|. Whatis interesting in these non-|agentive| viewpoint depictions is that there is typically another visible

blended component (where in, say, constructed dialogue there is only one visible blendedelement). For example, in a depiction of a punch, the signer could direct a fist towards his chin.Considered in isolation, there are two ways to interpret this depiction. One is that the signer isdepicting someone punching himself. In this case, there is only one visible blended element, the|self-puncher|. Another interpretation is that the signer is understood to be the |victim|, and thatthe |fist| is thrown by an |attacker|. This interpretation requires partitioning (Dudis 2004a) of thesigners fist from the rest of the signers body. The fist then becomes available to integrate withthe attackers fist , while the Real-Space subject is integrated with the victim. One of the|victims| hands is not visible, but through pattern completion, it remains conceptually present inthe blend. With partitioning and pattern completion, the signer has the ability to create distinctvisible components in event blends while allowing a single viewpoint to be maintainedthroughout the depiction. It is also possible to partition the portion of the face that is used tocreate facial expressions as well as the lower region of the face that includes the mouth andcheeks. The whole face (excepting the eyes) can take part in the creation of a visible |facialexpression| that is distinct from the |subjects| (which would not be visible, at least not fully), as

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

15/32

15

can be seen in the depiction of someone noticing that a glare is being directed towards him. The partitioned-off mouth can be used to produce what appear to be onomatopoeic units depictingaural/vibratory-related phenomena within events, e.g. one produced when two objects collide.

Other types of event depiction are possible through the selection of fewer Real-Spacecomponents. Events that do not have an animate participant, e.g. a lightning striking a tree in a

woods during a storm, can be depicted with the Real-Space setting, vantage point, and temporal progression. It is not necessary for the signer to witness the event firsthand to depict it; areconstruction of the event in the aftermath of the storm or even imagination alone is sufficient.The Event-Space tree and woods would be integrated with its spatial counterparts in Real Spaceto create |tree| and |woods|. A location v (this is just a label for a selected location within the

setting ) would be integrated with the Real-Space vantage point, resulting in a |vantage point|from which the lightning strike is described. The lightning bolt s action is depicted by a verb inwhich at the |lightning bolts| path is visible. This blend parallels the viewer kitchen blend in thefollowing ways: both have a |setting| and a |vantage point|, and both depict a relationship

between a |figure| and a |ground| (|light fixture & |ceiling|; |lightning bolt| & |tree|). A keydifference between the event blend and the setting blend is the existence of a blended temporal

component in the former. The extent to which the lightning strike blend, represented in Figure14, and the kitchen blend parallel can be seen in the comparison of the diagrams. Both Figure 14and Figure 11 are basically identical save for the arrow in the former, which represents anintegrated temporal component.

Figure 14

There is an association between the Real-Space temporal progression and subjectcomparable to that between the Real-Space setting and vantage point. The Real-Space vantage

point is a particular location within a larger Real-Space setting, and the former clearly cannotexist outside of the latter. The adoption of an imagined vantage point is not possible without animagined setting. Thus, if the signer creates a viewer space blend, we know that the signer hasintegrated not only setting components but also the Real-Space vantage point with a locationwithin the depicted setting. Such attendant integrations do not occur in diagrammatic setting

blends (Figure 13), in which a setting is depicted without integration of the signers vantage point into the blend. The Real-Space subject is characterized above as having self-awareness,and being self-aware is an activity that takes place over time. More generally, a span of time isneeded to entertain any concept. Langacker 1987 distinguishes this processing time fromconceived time . For example, one can visualize leaves on a tree changing from green to red andorange. The rate of change can be adjusted, resulting in visualizing colors as bursting out all at

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

16/32

16

once or gradually emanating leaf by leaf. These different rates of change involve differentconceived times, extending through the conceptualizers processing time. Processing time isrequired for the signer to imagine setting blends, but since no event occurs within these blends,conceived time would not have a role within them. A conceived time, |temporal progression|, isnecessarily a component in event blends containing a |subject|, who is aware of the self and other

entities. This awareness or any activity cannot be depicted independently of a |temporal progression|. Thus, when it is clear that a blend has a |subject|, we know that there is attendantintegration of temporal progression components. |Temporal progression|, as illustrated with thedepiction of the lightning strike above, can be created independently of a |subject|.

Three other types of event blends observed in ASL involve compression. Figure 15 is anexample of a diagrammatic event blend used to depict a car passing another car.

Figure 15

Here the two manual articulators are linguistic units and in this instance are used to depict theaction of the cars. While there are |drivers| in this blend, conceptualized to be inside the |cars|,there is no |subject|. In fact, it does not appear possible for any diagrammatic event blend to havea |subject|. The only Real-Space elements that take part in this depiction are the depicting units(the manual articulators), the setting, and temporal progression. Because the depiction makesuse of only a portion of the space in front of the signer, there is no evidence suggesting that thesigners vantage point is integrated with a particular location in the setting of the event. As seenin Figure 15, the signers eye gaze is on the interaction of the two cars, making it clear that thesigner is not representing the driver of either car. Had the eye gaze instead been consistentlydirected straight ahead instead, this would likely to be interpreted as the actions of a driver andthus constitute evidence suggesting the existence of a |subject|. The manual articulators do nothave the capacity for self-awareness, so they are not regarded as subjects and their integrationwith the cars in the Event-Space input result in blended elements that are not subjects. This istrue even if the manual articulator that is conventionally used to depict an upright human (theindex finger) integrates with an Event-Space subject . Only when the Real-Space subjectintegrates with an Event-Space counterpart will there be a |subject|, and this is possible onlywithin a viewer space.

Apparently, that only one |subject| can exist within any instance of depiction is also trueeven when a viewer event blend and a diagrammatic event blend exist concurrently. The presentanalysis suggests that this involves the partitioning off of the manual articulators to create visible

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

17/32

17

blended elements existing only within the diagrammatic space. To illustrate, the signer in Figure16a is depicting someone riding uphill on a motorcycle.

Figure 16a Figure 16b

Only one blend is used to depict this scene, and it contains a |motorcyclist subject| who isunderstood to be steering a non-visible |motorcycle|. Then to add further details to the ongoingdepiction, the signer creates a diagrammatic blend. The diagrammatic blend is visuallymanifested when the signer partitions off the manual articulators to depict a motorcycle movingup on a hill. The 3-handshape in Figure 16b is similar to those in Figure 15, but is here used torepresent the motorcycle. The flat-B handshape is used to represent a portion of the hill. Basedin part on the placement of the 3-handshape, which is close and perpendicular to the signerschest, the |motorcycle| is understood to be the visual blended counterpart to the non-visible|motorcycle| in the viewer blend. This relationship would not be possible had the |motorcycle|

been placed even a few inches further away from the signer or to either side of the signer. Thevisible |motorcycle| in the diagrammatic blend would then be another motorcycle different fromthe one that the |motorcyclist subject| is on. This blend serves as a global perspective counterpartto the participant perspective within the viewer blend. The actions of the visible |motorcycle| inthis blend provides direct information whereas related information in the viewer blend can beobtained only indirectly. Figure 17 diagrams the co-existence of the viewer and diagrammaticspaces and the blended components within them. Since both spaces are event blends, an arrowrepresenting |temporal progression| is included in both blend representations.

Figure 17

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

18/32

18

The other two event blends are viewer and diagrammatic blends in which the Event Time iscompressed with a shorter span of the Real-Space temporal progression. It is probably the casethat many event blends exhibit temporal compression, but determining whether there is temporalcompression is not as easy as it is with setting compression. However, the use of temporalaspectual constructions or certain head movements accompanied by facial non-manual signals

(e.g. quick nodding of the head with eyes squinting and mouth slightly open) are good candidatesfor indicators of temporal compression as described here. Dudis (2004b) describes how someconventional head movements in ASL accompany gradual change-of-state depictions. Soonafter depicting the causing event, the signer makes a slow, backward head movement, and then

produces a quick return of the head to at or near its neutral position while simultaneously producing a sign describing the change. In the ASL expression more or less equivalent to theEnglish expression I practiced until I became good at it (Figure 18), an aspectual form of PRACTICE is produced with non-manual signals suggesting the existence of a |subject|. Duringthe production of the aspectual form, the head moves slowly back, a gesture suggesting therecognition that a change is underway. In the last part of the expression, the production of thesign SKILL and the heads return to neutral position or near it occur simultaneously. An actual

building of a skill requires more than a few seconds, but this span of time is exactly how long ittakes to produce the expression. This is clear evidence of a compression of temporal progression. As this construction can be used to depict other changes-of-state, we can take thehead non-manual signal just described as an indicator of this type of compression.

Figure 18

The last Real-Space element to be described in this paper is the body itself. Liddell2003:141-142 describes how a signer makes use of a Real-Space blend, replicated in Figure 19,to describe the preparation of a fish before cooking it. The signer places the tip of a B-hand onthe top of her chest near her throat and moves it down to her waist. Since the signer isspecifically talking about slicing the fish, we understand that the B-hand is used to depictsomething related to the slicing, either a part of the knife and its slicing motion or the path of theslice and perhaps its depth. We also interpret that the signers chest is used to depict theunderside of the fish. The underbelly of the fish in the Fish Space is mapped onto the Real-Spacesigners chest, and their integration results in the second visible blended element, |fishunderbelly|. What about the signers looking downwards? Aside from those in cartoons, fishcant watch themselves being sliced, so it is safe to say that there is no |subject| in this blend. So

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

19/32

19

here the signers head is just the signers head. Because fish take up space and events take placein settings, a |setting| is posited, albeit an abstract one (it seems highly doubtful that signerswould imagine a surface of, say, a table on one of the signers sides). Since the blend created isnot a diagrammatic space, but appears to be a larger-than-life-scale viewer space, it is clear thatthere exists a |vantage point| in this blend. Similar examples of viewer space blends containing

blended |bodies| but not |subjects| are often found in descriptions of how people have beeninjured, received scars, and so forth.In this section, I have demonstrated that the various types of depiction observed to occur in

ASL discourse are the result of the selective projection of Real-Space elements, namely thesetting, vantage point, temporal progression, the subject, and the body, along with cognitiveabilities including the ability to partition the body into several meaningful zones, to compress thesetting and time of the scene being depicted, and to create simultaneous blends. The differenttypes of depiction are listed in Table 1 below. Since any event blend can have a compressed|temporal progression|, no separate item indicating temporal compression is necessary. Also, the|subject| is not listed with diagrammatic blends because this blended element can only be part of a viewer event blend.

Types of Real-Space blend used in depictionViewer event blend with |subject|Viewer event blend without |subject|Viewer setting blendDiagrammatic setting blendDiagrammatic event blend

Table 1

5. Restrictions on the use of linguistic items when a |subject| is active

Conceptual blending analyses of ASL expressions also have shed further light on therelationship of ASL linguistic units to event blends. Of interest here is the set of restrictions thatis typically in effect when a |subject| is active. As described below, these restrictions are relatedto the activation of a |temporal progression| and the type of event blend created. Thesedemonstrate why the informal event sequence depiction test described in Section 2 is useful inidentifying whether a linguistic unit is one that actually depicts an event: if the sign is associatedwith |temporal progression|, then the sign further contributes to the overall depiction of the event.

Fauconnier (1997) describes discourse as comprising several mental spaces within a single

lattice. The discourse participants are described as navigators through this lattice, the producer of the discourse building spaces and guiding addressees through the lattice via a variety of cues, both linguistic and non-linguistic. Discourse begins with a base space (Fauconnier ibid.), aprivileged set of mental-space structures which [the speaker] understands as corresponding toher actual experience and/or to situations which she believes actually prevail or took place in the

past (Dancygier and Sweetser 2005:31). (Real Space could be regarded as part of theconceptualizers base space.) Distinct mental spaces are created relative to not just other mentalspaces but to this base space as well. Where constructed dialogue is concerned, the Event Space

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

20/32

20

that consists of elements related to the dialogue is established relative to the base space (the termEvent Space used in this paper is used as a label for input spaces that are parents of event

blends and is not the discourse primitive discussed in Cutrer 1994 and Fauconnier 1997). Thus(at least) three mental spaces have roles in the depiction of dialogue.

Among the different roles mental spaces have in discourse is one in which a mental space

is being structured. This is the focus space , the current, most active space; the space which anutterance is about (Cutrer 1994:71). An expression in which dialogue is depicted appearshave both the Event Space and the event blend as active mental spaces. I will leave in-depthexamination of focus spaces in dialogue involving depiction to future investigation. It issufficient to note the following: when an event blend is created, it becomes part of the lattice of mental spaces created within a discourse; having been created, it remains accessible throughoutthe discourse in question; and the moment the signer ceases depicting an event, the event blend isdeactivated. This event blend can be reactivated (or perhaps becomes a focus space once again),allowing the signer to continue the discourse with further depiction. It is also possible to havetwo different event blends in one stretch of discourse (Liddell and Metzger 1998; Liddell 2003).Figure 19 is a diagram of a discourse that I analyze as having two event blends created to depict

a dialogue between Dana and Tracy.

Figure 19

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

21/32

21

There is an Event Space set up relative to a Base Space. Because the interlocutors are known tothe signer, they are elements of the Base Space. The same interlocutors are being talked aboutin a context different from the Base Space, one that is contained within the past Event Space.Once one of these interlocutors are identified, perhaps via a noun phrase, the signer can change

posture from one facing the addressee to the posture in the video still near the blend labeled

Event Blend 1 (EB1). For as long as the |subject interlocutor| is understood to be active and producing dialogue, EB1 (or perhaps more precisely, the |temporal progression| element) remainsactive. A variety of cues signal the deactivation of the |temporal progression| element. The eye-gaze with the addressee is re-established and, simultaneously, the signers posture is no longer aligned with the |subject interlocutor|. If the posture now assumed is one previously held by thesigner prior to the creation of EB1, then it is clear that depiction has ceased. A new posture, asseen in the video still near Event Blend 2 (EB2), would signal the creation of a new blend, andthis blend may be preceded by linguistic units identifying interlocutor 2 as the dialogue

participant being depicted. These three postures and associated cues assist the signer in moving between mental spaces. Often the signer alternates between the postures associated with theevent blends without returning to the neutral signer posture, a deactivation-reactivation process

between EB1 and EB2.When an event blend created to depict dialogue is active, virtually any portion of theexpression the signer makes is understood to be the dialogue of the |interlocutor|. As discussed

previously, since a portion of the Real-Space body, especially from the head to the lower torso, isintegrated with the Event-Space interlocutor , any action of the Real-Space signer is understoodto be the action of the |interlocutor|. Whether the signs being produced are depicting is irrelevantin this case. What is being depicted is the act of dialogue making, which includes both depictingand non-depicting signs. This is one way that signs are associated with |temporal progression|.This does not require more than one event blend, and so compared to the other types of event

blends discussed below, the depiction of dialogue is a relatively straightforward process. Alsoexhibiting a straightforward blending process is the type of event blend in which a manual actionis performed by a |subject|. The manual action depicted may or may not be considered to be aninstance of a depicting verb. Figure 20 illustrates a verb that depicts the action of opening acapped bottle.

Figure 20

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

22/32

22

The manual articulators appear to be the |hand holding opener| and the |hand holding (neck of) bottle|, respectively. The |bottle| and |opener| are blended elements that are not visible but arenevertheless conceptually present. Note that the two |hands| contact each other. This contactdoesnt typically happen in actual opening of bottles. This does not make the verb a non-depicting verb, but it can be taken to indicate the verbs unit status rather than simply a non-

linguistic gesture.The opening-bottlecap depicting verb just described is an example of what is known as ahandling classifier construction. Handling is used to label this type of verb because theseverbs have a visible |hand| that is understood to be holding or handling |something|. The latter

blended element is non-visible, but the configuration of the |hand| indicates part of the |heldobjects| shape. Figure 21 is another verb of this type, one that depicts a gun being held. Adifferent depicting verb is illustrated in Figure 22.

Figure 21 Figure 22

The verb in Figure 22 is similar in many ways to its counterpart except that it depicts the objectheld rather than the hand that holds it: here we have two visible elements, the |subject shooter|and the |gun|. This type of verb is known as an instrument classifier construction, and using itwithin an event blend with a |subject| requires the partitioning of the signers hand. The blenddescribed in Section 4 in which a |subject victim| receives a |punch| also involves the partitioningof the hand, but the partitioning is only required if the punch is made by someone other than the|subject|; this is also true for hand-depicting verbs. Instrument-depicting verbs necessitates

partitioning when produced with a |subject| active, regardless of whether the |subject| isunderstood to be holding the object or not. The differences between these two types of depictingverbs notwithstanding, only a single event blend is necessary for either of these two verbs to beused. In the case of hand-depicting verbs, the |hand| is part of the |body| that the |subject| has,and any |held object| is not visible but is present as an element within the blend. In the case of instrument-depicting verbs, the |instrument| is visible, but the |hand| holding it is not.

We are already beginning to see the differences between expressions depicting dialogueand expressions depicting manual or instrument actions. While it is not obvious how differentthe event blends within these expressions are from each other, it is clear that they differ in thetype of linguistic unit used. Again, any sign produced within a blend created to depict dialoguewill be understood to be part of a |subjects| dialogue. This includes nouns like GUN (which is afingerspelled loan sign) and relations like SILVER (as it is not absolutely clear that this sign is

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

23/32

23

an adjective, I instead use relation, a Cognitive Grammar term that describes the class of verbs,adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions). Since both GUN and SILVER do not depict anything,they would not be able to be produced in a blend created to depict events other than dialogue.The two signs can be produced in the event sequence test only as constructed dialogue. Theverbs in Figures 21 and 22 can be used in event blends, not just because they are depicting verbs.

The verb illustrated in Figure 11 (repeated below as Figure 23) is produced to depict the shapeand location of the light fixture, but not any action. Hand- and instrument-depicting verbs areevent-depicting verbs. Since they depict events, they have a |temporal progression| element. Inthe same way that the verb in Figure 23 requires a setting blend to be active for it to be produced,these verbs require an event blend to be active for them to be produced. The event blend neednot be made manifest to the addressee prior to the use of event-depicting verbs. The appearanceof such verbs, with concomitant non-linguistic cues, is sufficient for the addressee to create or activate an event blend within the mental space lattice.

Figure 23

It is possible to produce the non-depicting sign SILVER with the hand representing a gunor a hand holding a gun remains in place. Whether an event blend is still active depends on whatthe signer is doing with SILVER. If the signer is depicting how the person with the gun isdescribing the gun, e.g. Heres the gun, its silver all over, then SILVER is produced as part of constructed dialogue, and this requires activation of an event blend. Only one event blend isneeded to depict both the dialogue and the gun in hand. If the signer and not the |subject| isdescribing the gun, then |temporal progression| has been deactivated. Deactivation of |temporal

progression| does not necessarily deactivate other elements in the blend. While the |subject|would be deactivated, the visible |hand| or the visible |gun| can remain active because they are theresult of integrating an Event-Space component with the Real-Space body, which is conceptuallyindependent from temporal progression. The signer can then talk about the gun using signs likeSILVER and directing signs towards the |gun|. This is an example of a discourse strategy inwhich |temporal progression| is deactivated while keeping not the event-depicting verbs active,

but the visible blended elements associated with them.The relationship between the event-depicting verb that signers know and the actual use of

the verb within an event blend can be described in Cognitive Grammar terms (Langacker 1987,1991) as a schema-instance relation . In the view of usage-based models of grammar, of whichCognitive Grammar is one, linguistic units are obtained in part through recurrence of actual

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

24/32

24

usages of these units. Non-recurrent features are abstracted away during the process in whichexpressions gain unit status. In the manual- and instrument-depicting verbs described above, itappears that the unit(s) which they instantiate do not specify where the hands should be directed.Rather, directionality is schematic, even though it is an essential feature of the event-depictingverb schema. The actual use of these verbs are instances of the verb schema, and their

directionality is for the most part motivated by the signers knowledge of the event beingdepicted (e.g. whether the gun is aimed to a side, towards the side, etc.). It appears that theschematic features of these verbs are what Liddell (2003) is referring to in his discussion of gradience in depicting verbs.

Since instances of manual- and instrument-depicting verbs consistently activate |temporal progression|, this is evidence that when it comes to these verb types, this activation is notoptional. This means that |temporal progression| is a component in the event-depicting verb: touse an event-depicting verb is to create or maintain an event blend with at least one visible

blended element. In the case of manual-depicting verbs, at the very least the |agents hand| isvisible. The |subject agent| can be visible, but through partitioning the signers Real-Space handcan be the only visible part of the |agent| acting on the |subject patient|, as in the depiction of

someone receiving a punch (Figure 24). In the case of instrument-depicting verbs, the|instrument| is the only visible element, but a |subject| can be, and often is, visible, for a total of two visible blended elements in the actual depiction.

Figure 24

Figure 25

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

25/32

25

These two types of event-depicting verbs are also known as classifier constructions, and for those classifier constructions that are used to depict events, a similar analysis would apply. Theexpression partly illustrated in Figure 15 (repeated here as Figure 25) has been labeled aswhole-entity classifier constructions. Since their use involves the activation of a blend with a|temporal progression| element, the schematic unit that sanctions the use of these constructions

has this element as a component. As these constructions activate a diagrammatic blend, they donot have a |subject| component. These verbs could be regarded as previously partitioned. If ananimate participant is also part of the scene being depicted, this allows the creation of a blendwith a |subject|, resulting in multiple visible blended elements.

Figure 26

ASL also appears to have event-depicting verbs that would not traditionally be regarded asclassifier constructions. BE-TAKEN-ABACK and DO-THINGS (Figure 26) are two such verbs.When either sign is produced, the various non-manual cues (eye-gaze shift, posture shift, changein facial expression, etc.) are exhibited, signaling the existence of a |subject|. BE-TAKEN-ABACK seems to be iconic for an individual experiencing something so intense that she throwsup her arms in order to regain her balance. In contrast, it is not immediately obvious what themanual articulators of DO-THINGS are iconic for, much less what they depict. It is notsufficient to just consider these articulators as partitioned off from the |subject|. This would notreconcile the manual sign with the |subject| in accordance to the claim put forth in this section.My preliminary analysis of DO-THINGS is that it is a verb that depicts someone doing a number of things (some if not all involving the use of the hands). There are some features of the manualsign that, upon closer examination, do appear to exhibit iconic mappings. The palms of themanual articulators are facing away from the signer, suggesting contact or interaction with someentity. The signs movement to one side and then towards the other suggests interaction withmore than one entity. The wiggling of the fingers in this sign is also found in a sign that has themeaning some time later. The length of the sign is relatively protracted compared to non-depicting signs, and is itself one indicator of |temporal progression|. If this analysis were borneout, this sign would then be evidence thatin addition to body partitioning and compression of settingtemporal progression plays a role in the creation of signs. Interestingly, DO-THINGSwould also be a candidate sign that exhibits the compression of setting into a viewer blend: theschematic activity being depicted is not necessarily limited to the space in front of the |subject|,

but may be understood to encompass a whole room or a variety of settings.

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

26/32

26

Aside from those expressions that create diagrammatic blends with distinct, visibleelements (e.g. Figure 25), most of the signs described thus far are likely to be viewed asmonomorphemic if one follows Liddells 2003 approach to the analysis of depicting verbs.Again, such linguistic units have schematic components that prompt the mapping of semanticcomponents onto Real-Space elements. Given the Cognitive Grammar view, we can then say

that depiction has a role in the lexicon of ASL, where concepts such as |setting| and |subject| areessential components of certain units. Symbolic units are viewed as comprising a network inwhich units at the lowest level have the greatest semantic and phonological specifications andthose at the higher levels are successively more schematic with respect to semantic and

phonological information. Does the role of depiction extend into the grammar of ASL?Cognitive Grammar and constructional approaches to grammar (e.g. Goldberg 1995) do notassume a strict division between lexicon and grammar, maintaining that phrasal and clausal unitsare to be treated as form-meaning pairings as well. This means that if we find depiction to havea role in multi-morphemic or multi-word expressions, this would suggest that depiction has arole in grammar as well.

Figure 27

Figure 7b, repeated here as Figure 26, partly illustrates the aspectual form of EXPLAIN y.As discussed in Section 2, it is not readily apparent as to what the manual articulators of EXPLAIN y are iconic for, and this is still true with this form. However, there is a visible|subject explainer|, the result of integrating the Real-Space signer and the explainer , one of theevent participants encoded in the verb EXPLAIN y. This |subject| and other features, includingthe protracted length, suggest that the aspectual form is comparable to DO-THINGS, except thatthe aspectual form is analyzable as being multi-morphemic. As mentioned earlier, it is not

possible to produce EXPLAIN y in an event blend aside from instances of constructed dialogue,so this sign would not be analyzed as having a |subject| or a |temporal progression| component.The aspectual form can, and the obvious source is the aspectual constructional schema that theform instantiates. This constructional schema is a productive one, as there are several instancesof this schema, e.g. the durational forms of WAIT and USE-KEYBOARD, all exhibiting cuesassociated with either the |subject| or |temporal progression|. (Klima and Bellugi 1979 andLiddell 2003 use durational aspect to label one type of aspectual construction, which seemsappropriate for the aspectual form being described here.) Other aspectual constructionalschemas, including the unrealized inceptive constructional schema (Liddell 1984), also areanalyzed as having at the very least a |temporal progression| component. As this is where

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

27/32

27

morphological processes come in, this suggests that depicting components are found not only inthe lexicon but grammar as well.

Returning to the claim being developed in this section, the non-iconicity of the manualarticulators of EXPLAIN y or other component sign involved in the creation of aspectual formsdoes not prevent an event blend from being active. This is because the articulators are now part

of a depicting expression produced via integration of a verb with the aspectual constructionalschema. Thus this is a case of the schema-instance relation which satisfies the provision thatlinguistic units or gestures produced with a |subject| active be associated with |temporal

progression|. The non-depicting nature of the articulators does not mean that they by themselvescontribute nothing to the blend. Rather, they can be seen as temporal markers whose extended

presence maps iconically onto the duration of the event being depicted.Further evidence that depiction has a role in the grammar of ASL is found in ASL change-

of-state constructions (Dudis 2004b). Figure 18, repeated here as Figure 28, partly illustrates adepiction of an event in which an individual practices some skill, e.g. shooting baskets or fingerspelling, until a higher level of competency is achieved. I analyze this expression as beingan instance of a gradual change-of-state construction.

Figure 28

The first part of the construction has an aspectual form, here a durational form of PRACTICE. While continuing to produce the aspectual form, the signer slowly moves his head

backward, which depicts not the actual moving of a head, but a recognition that a change is beginning to take place. Near the end of the expression the signer produces BE-SKILLED withthe head returning to neutral position. Since neither PRACTICE nor BE-SKILLED are depictingunits, the depiction in Figure 27 is attributed to the complex constructional schema. Theassociation the articulators of PRACTICE have to |temporal progression| is similar to the one thearticulators of EXPLAIN y have in the aspectual form. This suggests that an aspectualconstruction is part of this change-of-state construction. BE-SKILLED describes the resultingchange and comprises the final part of the manual portion of the construction. Its production can

be seen to mark the point in the |temporal progression| when the anticipated change is complete.The set of non-manual signals is a component of the change-of-state constructional schema. Itappears that the phonological information for the non-manual signal during the initial phase isschematic, at least where the head movement is concerned, but is specified for the following

phases (the head moves back slowly, etc.). Again, the head movement is associated with the

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

28/32

28

appearance of the anticipated change. In all, there is ample evidence that this constructionalschema is a depicting unit in the grammar of ASL. That this construction depicts a schematicchange-of-state explains why its instances can be produced with a |subject| active.

Thus far we have seen that non-depicting items can be produced when a |subject| is activeas long as they are associated with |temporal progression|, either as part of constructed dialogue

or as an instance of a linguistic unit that has a |temporal progression| component. A third possibility has already been hinted in the description of the non-manual component of thechange-of-state construction, which is associated with the recognition of the appearance of achange and the tracking of its progress. In addition to depicting dialogue and external events, itis also possible to depict psychological events. Figure 29 partly illustrates an expressiondepicting someone noticing, upon arriving at a shopping plaza, that two stores are unexpectedlyclosed.

Figure 29

Here a |subject| clearly is present. The sign BE-CLOSED is directed first towards thesigners left and then towards his right, both accompanied by eye gaze towards the samerespective direction. It is also clear that the signs are directed where the two |stores| areconceptualized to be. Following Liddell (2003:179), the BE-CLOSED sign is analyzed here asnot an instance of indicating verb or a depicting verb, but a plain verb that the signer simply

points towards a blended element. Here the |subject| is not signing to anyone in particular. If this is instead a depiction of inner speech, intuitively it is a sparse depiction compared to other instances of inner speech depictions. There is an alternative analysis. BE-CLOSED is producedto represent the |subjects| perception of the scene. Since the sign BE-CLOSED is not part of constructed dialogue (or an event-depicting verb), the manual articulators are understood to be

partitioned off from the |subject|. The mental space it is part of is separate from the viewer spacein a way similar to the diagrammatic blended spaces independence from the viewer space in thedepiction of a motorcyclist riding uphill. The difference is that BE-CLOSED is not adiagrammatic space, but a perceptual space associated with the |subject|. BE-CLOSED is thenassociated with |temporal progression|, in spite of its being a non-depicting unit.

A perceptual space relative to an event blend is also created to depict the |subjects|focusing on an |object| within a |setting|. Figure 30 partly illustrates an expression depictingsomeone seeing newly-installed light fixtures on a ceiling. Here it is clearer that dialogue is not

being depicted. A manual articulator is partitioned off from the |subject| to produce an instanceof the same verb described in Section 4, one that does not depict an event, but the shape and

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

29/32

29

location of an object, in this case a light fixture. As this verb does not depict an event, it lacks a|temporal progression| component. However, as it is understood to depict what the |subject| isseeing, it then has an association with |temporal progression|.

Figure 30

The event blend here has elements similar to those found the setting blend created to depict thelocation of the light fixture (described in Section 4). Without access to previous information, itwould not be possible to determine whether an event or a setting alone is being depicted. Arelated ambiguity is whether the viewer blend contains a |subject| or simply a |vantage point|.This demonstrates not only how context is an essential part of the expression, but also the utilityof identifying the distinct conceptual components involved in the depiction of setting and events.

I hope to have demonstrated in the above that when a |subject| is active, specific restrictionson the use of signs are in effect. Table 2 lists these restrictions.

Signs produced when a |subject| is activeSign is part of dialogue (or gesture) being depictedSign depicts psychological event experienced by |subject|Sign is an instance of a schematic unit containing a|temporal progression| component

Table 2

6.0 Conclusion

The depiction of settings, objects, and events explicated in this paper are clearly staples of ASL discourse. When ASL verbs and constructions are shown to have components that depictsemantic features, depiction becomes a focus of grammatical analysis from the cognitivelinguistic perspective discussed here. The specific approach being established here, begun byother cognitive linguists investigating signed languages, demonstrates the significant potentialthrough further analysis for elucidating of the role depiction has in ASL grammar. Thisapproach lends support to the view that while there are some facets of ASL grammar thatsubmerge iconicity (Klima and Bellugi 1979), other facets exist where iconicity emerges (S.Wilcox 2004).

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

30/32

30

Notes This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant number SBE-0541953. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are thoseof the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Paul G. DudisDepartment of LinguisticsGallaudet University800 Florida Avenue NEWashington, DC 20002

paul.dudis@gallaudet.edu

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

31/32

31

References

Cutrer, Michele. 1994. Time and Tense in Narratives and Everyday Language. Doctoraldissertation, University of California at San Diego.

Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser. 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: ConditionalConstructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dudis, Paul G. 2004a. Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics 15:2, 223-238.

Dudis, Paul G. 2004b. Depiction of Events in ASL: Conceptual Integration of TemporalComponents. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.

Emmorey, Karen and Falgier, Brenda. 1999. Talking about Space with Space: DescribingEnvironments in ASL. In E.A. Winston (ed.), Story Telling and Conversations: Discoursein Deaf Communities. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 3-26.

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In AdeleGoldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, CA: CSLIPublications, 113-130.

Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science22:2, 133-188.

Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and TheMinds Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Klima, Edward and Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.

Lakoff, George. 1996. Sorry, Im not myself today. In Gilles Fauconnier and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 91-123.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I, Theoretical

Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II, DescriptiveApplication. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Liddell, Scott K. 1984. Unrealized-inceptive aspect in American Sign Language: Featureinsertion in syllabic frames. In J. Drogo, V. Mishra, and D. Teston (eds.), Papers from the

7/27/2019 Drl Dudis2007

32/32

20th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 257-270.

Liddell, Scott K. 1995. Real, surrogate, and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL. InKaren Emmorey and Judy Reilly (eds.), Language, Gesture, and Space. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 19-41.

Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture and meaning in American Sign Language.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liddell, Scott K. and Melanie Metzger. 1998. Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 657-697.

Metzger, Melanie. 1995. Constructed Dialogue and Constructed Action in American SignLanguage. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities. Washington, DC:Gallaudet University Press, 255-271.

Padden, Carol. 1986. Verbs and role-shifting in ASL. in C. Padden (ed.), Proceedings of theFourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching. NationalAssociation of the Deaf: Silver Spring, MD, 44-56.

Roy, Cynthia. 1989. Features of Discourse in an American Sign Language Lecture. In Ceil Lucas(ed.), The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community. San Diego: Academic Press. 231-251.

Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking voices: repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversationaldiscourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: iconicity and metaphor in American SignLanguage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilcox, Phyllis P. 1998. GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language. In John Newman(ed.), The Linguistics of Giving. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 175-207.

Wilcox, Sherman. 2004. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signedlanguages. Cognitive Linguistics 15:2, 119-147.

Winston, Elizabeth. 1991. Spatial referencing and cohesion in an American Sign Language text.Sign Language Studies 73:397-410.