A Grammar of Italian Sign Language (LIS)

A different use of space is the topographic use which expresses spatial relations among entities and conveys specific meanings through the different locations of the signing space. Such meaningful descriptions expressed by loci are possible because of the iconic properties of the visual-spatial channel. Topographic use of space bears a semantic value because a modification in the locus corresponds to a different truth condition of the sentence. This can be seen in the two examples below in which two distinct locations provide different meanings.

 

 

 

         a.            tree_a SASS(5): ‘tall_round’ bird fly CL(curved open V): ‘fly_on_top_of_a’

         ‘A bird flew to the top of a tree.’

 

 

 

         b.            tree_a SASS: ‘tall_round’ bird fly CL(curved open V): ‘fly_on_bottom_of_a’

         ‘A bird flew to the bottom of a tree.’

 

Such spatial information is mostly conveyed through classifier constructions. As shown in the examples above, the predicative classifier referring to the bird is used to place the referent on the top or on the bottom of a tree.

         If more than one referent is present in space, LIS signers usually introduce background entities first and then the entity which is under the focus of attention. The background elements are called ground, and the central element is called figure. The spatial relationship among these entities is expressed through the specific location of the classifiers in the space. The simultaneous description of several elements is licensed by the possibility for a signer to use both manual articulators. Such case is shown below.

         

 

 

         dom:    boss ix_a CL(V): ‘walk_to_b’ CL(V): ‘fall_at_b’---------------------------------------------------------

         n-dom:                                               CL(V): ‘fall_at_b’ dog come CL(curved open V): ‘jump_on_b’++

         ‘The boss was walking when he fell on the ground, then the dog came and jumped on him several times.’

 

Topographic entities of the real world are mapped into the signing space in two main contexts. The first one concerns geographic information and the second one is related to the description of the physical environment.

         As for geographic information, cities and countries are mapped into the frontal plane of the signing space, as representing an imaginary map in front of the signer. In such way, northern areas are realised in the upper part of the signing space, southern areas in the lower part, western areas on the left side of the signing space, and eastern areas on the right side.

 

         

         Figure: Topographic use of the frontal plane in LIS: north vs. south

 

         

         Figure: Topographic use of the frontal plane in LIS: west vs. east

 

As for the description of the physical environments, such as rooms, shops, or building interiors, the imaginary map is mapped into the horizontal plane of the signer, as shown in the picture below.

 

         

         Figure: Topographic use of the horizontal plane in LIS

 

Another iconic use of the frontal plane involves social distinctions. In this regard, hierarchical relations are iconically represented in the signing space: higher social positions are generally mapped into the upper part of the frontal plane, while lower social positions are represented in the lower part of the frontal plane. In family relations, the upper part is usually associated with older family members, the lower part with younger ones. As a consequence, several asymmetrical relations can be mapped into the frontal plane, such as parent - child, boss - worker, and teacher - student (PRAGMATICS 9). To illustrate, we show in the video below the relation between a grandfather (localised higher in space) and his grandson (localised lower in space).

 

 

 

         pietro ix_a grandfather ix_[up] ix_[down] grandson ix_3a

         ‘Pietro is the grandfather’s grandson.’

 

The main differences between the two types of spatial uses, abstract and topographic, concern the conceptualisation of the points in the signing space. The abstract use establishes a formal and arbitrary relationship between the referent and the corresponding location, on the contrary, the topographic use establishes an iconic or symbolic relationship between the referent and the corresponding location in the signing space. Furthermore, the abstract use of space is composed of fixed trajectories within each spatial plane, while the topographic use exploits a larger and freer range of spatial positions. Both these uses should not be conceived as mutually exclusive, but they may co-exist in the same signing production. For instance, consider a context in which a woman and a man are mentioned. They are produced in two different areas of the signing space: woman on the right and man on the left.

 

 

 

         woman ix_a go_out stroll CL(V): ‘walk’, ix_b man drunk car CL(curved open V): ‘get_in_the_car’. 

         dom:    CL(unspread 5): ‘car_move’_b  CL(unspread 5): ‘car_crash’_b

         n-dom:           CL(V): ‘person_walk’_a CL(V): ‘person_crash’_b

         ‘A woman went out for a stroll. A drunken man got in his car. The man was driving dangerously, the woman was walking, and then he hit the woman.’

 

The last classifier predicates in the example above (MORPHOLOGY 5) employ both the abstract and the topographic space.

         The anaphoric use of the signing space can be observed in the classifier predicate CL(V): ‘person_walk’ which anaphorically refers back to an entity mentioned in the previous sentence, the walking woman. The topographic use of the signing space is fulfilled by the iconic position of the woman represented with respect to the car’s position.