Human natural languages come in two forms: spoken languages and signed languages, which are the visual-gestural languages used mainly by Deaf communities. Modern signed language linguistics only began around 1960. Studies have shown that signed languages share similarities with spoken languages at all levels of linguistic description, but that modality—whether vocal-auditory or visual-gestural—plays a role in some of the differences between spoken and signed languages. For example, signed languages show a more simultaneous organization than spoken languages, and iconicity and the use of space play a more important role. The study of signed languages is therefore an important addition to our knowledge of human language in general. Based on the research already carried out, it seems that different signed languages are structurally more similar to each other than different spoken languages. The striking similarities between signed languages have been attributed to several factors, including the affordances of the visual-gestural modality. However, more recent research has also shown differences between signed languages. Some of these may be due to independent diachronic changes in individual signed languages, others to influences from spoken languages. Indeed, for most signed languages there is an intensive contact with at least one, and sometimes several, spoken languages, which undoubtedly influence the signed languages, especially at the lexical level. However, the influence, whether lexical or grammatical, has been explored to a limited extent. It is particularly interesting to examine the extent to which unrelated signed languages are similar and different, and whether contact with the surrounding spoken languages plays a role in this.
Danish Sign Language and Flemish Sign Language are two signed languages that are not related. By contrast, Danish and Dutch both belong to the Germanic language family, Danish as a North Germanic language, Dutch as a West Germanic language. Some of the features shared by the two signed languages can be explained as modality dependent: they both use spatial morphology to express agreement and complex verbs of motion and location, and both use nonmanual features, that is, facial expression, gaze direction, and head movement, to express, for instance, topicalization and clause boundaries. Other shared features may not be explained as modality dependent in any straightforward way; this is the case with their preference for sentence-final repetition of pronouns and verbs. Moreover, the two signed languages share features that distinguish them from most Germanic languages: they lack a clear subject category and prototypical passive constructions, and they do not have V2-organization with the finite verb in the second position of declarative clauses. Much more research, especially research based on large annotated corpora, is needed to clarify the reasons why unrelated signed languages share many grammatical features, and the influences from spoken languages on signed languages.
Article
Signed Languages in Co-Existence With Germanic Languages: A Typological Perspective
Myriam Vermeerbergen and Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen
Article
Usage-Based Approaches to Germanic Languages
Martin Hilpert
The theoretical outlook of usage-based linguistics is a position that views language as a dynamic, evolving system and that recognizes the importance of usage frequency and frequency effects in language, as well as the foundational role of domain-general sociocognitive processes. Methodologically, usage-based studies draw on corpus-linguistic methods, experimentation, and computational modeling, often in ways that combine different methods and triangulate the results. Given the availability of corpus resources and the availability of experimental participants, there is a rich literature of usage-based studies focusing on Germanic languages, which at the same time has greatly benefited from usage-based research into other language families. This research has uncovered frequency effects based on measurements of token frequency, type frequency, collocational strength, and dispersion. These frequency effects result from the repeated experience of linguistic units such as words, collocations, morphological patterns, and syntactic constructions, which impact language production, language processing, and language change. Usage-based linguistics further investigates how the properties of linguistic structures can be explained in terms of cognitive and social processes that are not in themselves linguistic. Domain-general sociocognitive processes such as categorization, joint attention, pattern recognition, and intention reading manifest themselves in language processing and production, as well as in the structure of linguistic units. In addition to research that addresses the form and meaning of such linguistic units at different levels of linguistic organization, domains of inquiry that are in the current focus of usage-based studies include linguistic variation, first and second-language acquisition, bilingualism, and language change.
Article
Cognitive Semantics in the Romance Languages
Ulrich Detges
Cognitive semantics (CS) is an approach to the study of linguistic meaning. It is based on the assumption that the human linguistic capacity is part of our cognitive abilities, and that language in general and meaning in particular can therefore be better understood by taking into account the cognitive mechanisms that control the conceptual and perceptual processing of extra-linguistic reality. Issues central to CS are (a) the notion of prototype and its role in the description of language, (b) the nature of linguistic meaning, and (c) the functioning of different types of semantic relations. The question concerning the nature of meaning is an issue that is particularly controversial between CS on the one hand and structuralist and generative approaches on the other hand: is linguistic meaning conceptual, that is, part of our encyclopedic knowledge (as is claimed by CS), or is it autonomous, that is, based on abstract and language-specific features? According to CS, the most important types of semantic relations are metaphor, metonymy, and different kinds of taxonomic relations, which, in turn, can be further broken down into more basic associative relations such as similarity, contiguity, and contrast. These play a central role not only in polysemy and word formation, that is, in the lexicon, but also in the grammar.
Article
Usage-Based Linguistics
Holger Diessel
Throughout the 20th century, structuralist and generative linguists have argued that the study of the language system (langue, competence) must be separated from the study of language use (parole, performance), but this view of language has been called into question by usage-based linguists who have argued that the structure and organization of a speaker’s linguistic knowledge is the product of language use or performance. On this account, language is seen as a dynamic system of fluid categories and flexible constraints that are constantly restructured and reorganized under the pressure of domain-general cognitive processes that are not only involved in the use of language but also in other cognitive phenomena such as vision and (joint) attention. The general goal of usage-based linguistics is to develop a framework for the analysis of the emergence of linguistic structure and meaning.
In order to understand the dynamics of the language system, usage-based linguists study how languages evolve, both in history and language acquisition. One aspect that plays an important role in this approach is frequency of occurrence. As frequency strengthens the representation of linguistic elements in memory, it facilitates the activation and processing of words, categories, and constructions, which in turn can have long-lasting effects on the development and organization of the linguistic system. A second aspect that has been very prominent in the usage-based study of grammar concerns the relationship between lexical and structural knowledge. Since abstract representations of linguistic structure are derived from language users’ experience with concrete linguistic tokens, grammatical patterns are generally associated with particular lexical expressions.
