نقش حالات چهره در دستور زبانهای اشاره از منظر دستور شناختی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 پژوهشگر پسادکتری، مؤسسه علوم شناختی تهران

2 دکترای تخصصی زبان‌شناسی تربیتی، استاد بازنشستة گروه زبان‌شناسی، هیأت علمی دانشگاه نیومکزیکو، آمریکا

چکیده

حالات چهره در زبان‌های اشاره برای بیان مفاهیم دستوری به کار می‌رود (Pfau & Quer, 2010; Reilly, 2006; Wilbur, 2000; Dachkovsky & Sandler, 2009). از جمله مفاهیم دستوری که در زبان‌های اشاره با حالات چهره بیان می‌شوند می‌توان وجهیت، ساخت‌های شرطی، سببی‌، مبتدا، پرسشی‌ و امری را نام برد (Lackner, 2019). دو ناحیۀ نیمۀ بالایی (حالات ابرو و چشم‌ها ) و نیمۀ پائینی صورت (حالات لب و دهان) هرکدام در بیان مفاهیم دستوری مختلفی دخیل هستند. در این مقاله، با تحلیلی در چارچوب دستور شناختی، به طور ویژه مفهوم «چرخۀ کنترل» (Langacker, 2013) تلاش می‌شود نقش حالات صورت در دستور زبان بررسی شود. بسیاری از مفاهیم دستوری در زبان با مفهوم چرخۀ کنترل قابل تبیین هستند. چرخۀ کنترل در لایه‎های مختلف فیزیکی، ذهنی، حسی و اجتماعی زیست انسان قابل بررسی است و در زبان‌شناسی و شکل‌گیری دستور زبان ابزار سودمندی برای تحلیل‌های زبانی در اختیار ما قرار می‌دهد. چرخۀ کنترل شامل چهار مرحله است که هر کدام از این مراحل یک وضعیت ذهنی و عملی را نشان می‌دهد و می‌توان این وضعیت را به یکی از مفاهیم دستور زبان مرتبط دانست. هدف دیگر این مقاله آن است که در چارچوب زبان‌شناسی شناختی به طرح و بحث این پرسش بپردازیم که چگونه زبان‌هایی کاملاً جدا از یکدیگر در بیان بعضی مفاهیم دستوری شباهت‌های صوری دارند. با بررسی داده‌ها و یافته‌های پژوهش‌های گوناگون از زبان‌های اشارۀ ایرانی، آمریکایی، اسپانیایی، ایتالیایی و موارد مشابه به بررسی شباهت‌ها در حوزه‌های مختلف دستور زبان‌های اشاره و نقش حالات چهره در شکل‌گیری دستور زبان می‌پردازیم.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Facial Displays in Signed Languages: a CG Analysis

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sara Siyavoshi 1
  • Sherman Wilcox 2
1 Post-Doc Researcher, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies (ICSS), Pardis, Iran
2 PhD of Educational Linguistics. Professor Emeritus, Department of Linguistics, University of New Mexico, USA
چکیده [English]

INTRODUCTION

Signed languages employ finely articulated facial displays to express grammatical meanings (Pfau and Quer 2010; Reilly 2006, Wilbur 2000, Dachkovsky and Sandler 2009). Lackner (2019), for example, identifies three major areas — face, mouth, head — capable of articulating more than 100 nonmanual elements expressing such functions as mood and modality, complex propositions (conditionals, causal relations, complementation), information structure (topic, focus), assertions, content and yes/no questions, imperatives, miratives, and so on. Mouth movements in the lower part of the face,  on the one hand, and eyebrows’ muscle activities, on the other hand, are very common in expression of grammatical meanings in different signed languages. Two facial markers which are widely involved in sign grammar are horseshoe mouth and brow furrow.
Lowered corners of the mouth, or horseshoe mouth, is a common facial marker which appears in many diverse contexts. For example, horseshoe mouth is quite frequent in expressing modality and assertive propositions in Iranian Sign Language and some other signed languages. Brow furrow, which results in a distinct vertical line between the eyebrows, is a very common marker in interrogatives and imperatives across different signed languages.
 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this paper we examine two facial displays: an upper display in which the eyebrows are pulled together called brow furrow, and a lower display in which the corners of the mouth are turned down into a distinctive shape that resembles a horseshoe or upside-down “U”. Discussing data from Iranian Sign Language (Zaban Eshareh Irani (ZEI)), American Sign Language (ASL), Italian Sign Language (LSI) and other signed languages of the world, we address two puzzles that have previously been unaccounted for: (1) why do these displays mark such different types of grammatical structures in a single language? (2) why do these displays appear in and express similar function across unrelated signed languages? Employing the theory of cognitive grammar (CG) and the concept of Control Cycle, we suggest a unified account of the various functions expressed by these two facial displays that answers these two questions.
 

DISCUSSION

The control cycle consists of four phases (Langacker, 2013). Elements of the control cycle include an actor (A), the actor’s dominion (D), a field (F), and a target (T). The actor is an entity who strives for control. In linguistic interaction, interlocutors strive for effective and epistemic control. One of primary goals is to influence our interlocutor. This may only mean directing the attention of the interlocutor in order to achieve intersubjective alignment — a baseline level of effective control. We also use linguistic interaction to gain epistemic control, knowledge of the world. Epistemic control may be gained by our embodied perceptual interaction with the world. This experience includes our linguistic interaction with others, by which we acquire evidence of their conception of the world. We achieve epistemic control by incorporating and continuously updating these varied experiences into our conception of the world. We may also endeavor to exert effective control by asking someone something (interrogatives), ordering someone to do something (imperatives), and obligating someone to do something (modals).
Signed languages, like spoken languages, have lexical resources for expressing effective and epistemic control. Signed languages also employ facial displays for indicating effective control, such as degrees of exertion, and the phases of the epistemic control cycle. These linguistic resources have multiple functions ranging from marking questions and orders to making assertions and expressing epistemic meaning.
Brow furrow marks many different speech acts in a number of signed languages. Brow furrow marks content or wh-questions and is also associated with imperatives. Asking questions and ordering are expressions of effective control. Their goal is to exert force with the potential to influence what happens in the world. The imperative force of an order is directed at the addressee with the intention of eliciting an effective response, such as performing some action. The effective force of a content question is eliciting a linguistic response from the interlocutor.
Another kind of control is epistemic control. The goal of epistemic control is to construct and continually update our conception of reality. Epistemic control is about striving to understand the world rather than influencing what happens in the world. One aspect of epistemic control is the acquisition and control of propositional knowledge. In terms of the control cycle, “At this level, the actor is a conceptualizer, the target is a proposition, and the dominion is the conceptualizer’s view of reality (or epistemic dominion), i.e. the set of propositions the conceptualizer currently holds to be valid” (Langacker, 2009). Examples of epistemic control are making an inference or the use of reasoning to determine some inclination towards accepting or rejecting a conclusion; evaluating the veracity of a memory (e.g, whether some event did or did not occur); considering or entertaining a possibility; and concluding. Linguistic expressions of epistemic control include epistemic modality, assertions, and evidentiality. Expressions of epistemic control are frequently marked with the horseshoe mouth in a number of unrelated signed languages.
 

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we explore the meanings of two facial displays and examine how they are manifested in the grammars of signed languages. We propose that the schematic meaning of brow furrow is the exertion of force, both objective force directed at influencing reality and subjective or mental force required to construct a reality conception. The schematic meaning of horseshoe mouth is epistemic control, prototypically indicating an epistemic assessment during the potential phase of the control cycle.
We also explore the interactions between upper face and lower face displays in linguistic expressions that combine effective and epistemic control. Finally, we consider these facial displays as examples of disengaged cognition, as subjectified or grammaticized simulations vis-à-vis their source manifestations.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cognitive grammar
  • Control cycle
  • Facial displays
  • Force
  • Iranian sign language
  • Sign linguistics

مراجع

  1.  Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2016). Sentence types. In J. Nuyts & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood (pp. 141-165). Oxford University Press.
  2. Bell, C. (1806). Essays on the anatomy of expression in painting. London: Longman.
  3. Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  4. Cabeza-Pereiro, C., & Iglesias-Lago, S. (2015). Spanish sign language (LSE). In J. Bakken Jepsen, G. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi and W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 729-769). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  5. Camras, L. A., Oster, H., Bakeman, R., Meng, Z., Ujiie, T., & Campos, J. J. (2007). Do infants show distinct negative facial expressions for fear and anger? Emotional expression in 11‐month‐old European American, Chinese, and Japanese infants. Infancy, 11(2), 131-155.
  6. Chafe, W. L (1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (Vol. 3). USA: Praeger Pub Text.
  7. Chovil, Nicole. (1991). Discourse-oriented facial displays in conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 25(1–4), 163–194.
  8. Dachkovsky, S., & Sandler, W. (2009). Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and speech, 52(2-3), 287-314.
  9. .
  10. Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: J. Murray.
  11. Debras, C. (2017). The shrug: Forms and meanings of a compound enactment. Gesture, 16(1), 1-34.
  12. Dondi, M., Gervasi, M. T., Valente, A., Vacca, T., Bogana, G., De Bellis, I., Melappioni, S., Tran, M. R., & Oster, H. (2014). Spontaneous facial expressions of distress in fetuses. In De Sousa, C. and Oliveira, A. M. (Eds), Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Facial Expression: New Challenges for Research (pp. 16-18). Coimbra: IPCDVS.
  13. Geraci, C. (2015). Italian Sign Language. Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
  14. Gianfreda, G., Volterra, V., & Zuczkowski, A. (2014). L’espressione dell’incertezza nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS). Ricerche di Pedagogia e Didattica. Journal of Theories and Research in Education, 9(1), 199–234.
  15. Huang, D. H., Chiou, W. K., Chen, B. H., & Chen, Y. L. (2017). The design features of pictorial face design for facilitating exertion perception. Advances in neuroergonomics and cognitive engineering (pp. 405-412). Berlin: Springer.
  16. Johnston, T., & Schembri, A. (2007). Australian sign language (Auslan): An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Lackner, A. (2019). Describing non manuals in sign languages. Grazer Linguistische Studien, (91). 45-103.
  18. Lago, S. I. (2006). Uso del componente facial para la expresión de la modalidad en lengua de signos española (PhD dissertation). Universidade de Vigo.
  19. Langacker, R. W. (2002). 特別講演 The Control Cycle: Why grammar is a matter of life and death. 日本認知言語学会論文集, 2, 193-220.
  20. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: Abasic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  21. Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  22. Langacker, R. W. (2013). Modals: Striving for control. In Juana I. Marín-Arrese, M. Carretero, J. A. Hita and J. van der Auwera (Eds.), English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality (pp. 3-56). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  23. Langacker, R. W. (2019). Levels of Reality. Languages, 4(2), 22.
  24. Maier, E., De Schepper, K., & Zwets, M. (2013). The pragmatics of person and imperatives in sign language of the Netherlands. Research in Language, 11(4), 359-376.
  25. Massone, M. I., & Martínez, R. A. (2015). Argentine Sign Language: In J. B. Jepsen, G. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi, & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook, 71-103.
  26. Mayer, M. (2003). Frog, where are you? (A boy, a dog, and a frog). New York: Penguin Books.
  27. McGregor, W. B., Niemelä, J. B., & Jepsen, J. B. (2015). Danish Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen,
  28. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi, & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A
  29. comparative handbook (pp. 195-234). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. McKee, R. L., & Wallingford, S. (2011). ‘So, well, whatever’: Discourse functions of palm-up in New Zealand sign language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 14(2), 213-247.
  30. De Morree, H. M., & Marcora, S. M. (2010). The face of effort: Frowning muscle activity reflects effort during a physical task. Biological Psychology, 85(3), 377-382.
  31. De Morree, H. M., & Marcora, S. M. (2012). Frowning muscle activity and perception of effort during constant-workload cycling. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(5), 1967-1972.
  32. Neidle, C. (2000). SignStream™: A database tool for research on visual-gestural language Boston, MA: American sign language linguistic research project No.10, Boston University.
  33. Nikolaeva, I., (2016). Analyses of the semantics of mood. In J. Nuyts and J. Van Der Auwera (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood (pp. 68–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  34. Oster, H. (1978). Facial expression and affect development. In M. Lewis (Ed.), The development of affect (pp. 43-75). Springer, Boston, MA.
  35. Oster, H., Hegley, D., & Nagel, L. (1992). Adult judgments and fine-grained analysis of infant facial expressions: Testing the validity of a priori coding formulas. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1115.
  36. Pfau, R., & Quer, J. (2010). Nonmanuals: Their grammatical and prosodic roles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  37. Reilly, J. (2006). How faces come to serve grammar: The development of nonmanual morphology in American Sign Language. In B. Schick, M. Marschark, & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children, 262-290. Oxford University Press.
  38. Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Schalber, K. (2015). Austrian sign language. In J. B. Jepsen, G. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi and W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 105-128) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  40. Shenhav, A., Musslick, S., Lieder, F., Kool, W., Griffiths, T. L., Cohen, J. D., & Botvinick, M. M. (2017). Toward a rational and mechanistic account of mental effort. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 40, 99-124.
  41. Shaffer, B., Jarque, M. J., & Wilcox. S., (2011). The expression of modality: Conversational data from two signed languages. In M. T. Nogueria and M. F. V. Lopes (Eds.), Modo e modalidade: gramática, discurso e interação (pp. 11-39). Fortaleza: Edições UFC.
  42. Shaffer, B. & Janzen, T., (2016). Modality and mood in American Sign Language. In J. Nuyts and J. Van Der Auwera (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of mood and modality (pp. 448-469). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  43. Siyavoshi, S. (2019a). The expression of modality in Iranian sign language (ZEI). (PhD Dissertation). University of New Mexico, Mexico, United States.
  44. Siyavoshi, S. (2019b). Hands and faces: The expression of modality in ZEI, Iranian Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics 30(4), 655–686.
  45. Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft: The Manu-facturing of Meaning. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  46. Sullivan, M. W., & Lewis, M. (2003). Emotional expressions of young infants and children: A practitioner's primer. Infants & Young Children, 16(2), 120-142.
  47. Tai, J. H. Y., & Tsay, J. S. (2015). Taiwan sign language. In W. S-Y. Wang and Ch. Sun (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese Linguistics (pp. 729-750). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  48. Takkinen, R., Jantunen, T., & Ahonen, O. (2015). Finnish Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen, G. De
  49. Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi, & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative
  50. handbook (pp. 253-272). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
  51. Veinberg, S. C. (1993). Nonmanual negation & assertion in Argentine sign language. Sign Language Studies, 79(1), 95-112.
  52. Wilbur, R. B. (2000). Phonological and prosodic layering of nonmanuals in American sign language. In K. Emmorey & H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 215–244). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  53. Wilcox, S. & Shaffer. B. (2006). Modality in American sign language. In W. Frawley (Ed.), The expression of modality (pp. 207-237). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  54. Wilcox, S. & Wilcox. P. (1995). The gestural expression of modality in American Sign Language. In J. L. Bybee and S. Fleischman (Eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (pp. 135–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  55. Woll, B. (1981). Question structure in British sign language. In B. Woll, J. Kyle, & M. Deuchard (Eds.), Perspectives on British sign language and deafness (pp.136–149). London: Croom Helm
  56. Xavier, A.N., & Wilcox. S. (2014). Necessity and possibility modals in Brazilian sign language (Libras). Linguistic Typology, 18, 449-488.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار