TY - JOUR
T1 - Metaphor in Sign Languages
AU - Meir, Irit
AU - Cohen, Ariel
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to thank Philip Schlenker and Jeremy Kuhn for insightful discussions, and Debbie Menashe, Sara Lanesman, Yifat Ziv Ben-Zeev and Meir Etdegi, for providing the ISL data on which this study is based, and for helpful discussions of these data. Wendy Sandler is warmly thanked for excellent suggestions and invaluable help. This work was partly supported by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation No. 553/04 to IM.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Meir and Cohen.
PY - 2018/6/26
Y1 - 2018/6/26
N2 - Metaphor abounds in both sign and spoken languages. However, in sign languages, languages in the visual-manual modality, metaphors work a bit differently than they do in spoken languages. In this paper we explore some of the ways in which metaphors in sign languages differ from metaphors in spoken languages. We address three differences: (a) Some metaphors are very common in spoken languages yet are infelicitous in sign languages; (b) Body-part terms are possible in very specific types of metaphors in sign languages, but are not so restricted in spoken languages; (c) Similes in some sign languages are dispreferred in predicative positions in which metaphors are fine, in contrast to spoken languages where both can appear in these environments. We argue that these differences can be explained by two seemingly unrelated principles: the Double Mapping Constraint (Meir, 2010), which accounts for the interaction between metaphor and iconicity in languages, and Croft's (2003) constraint regarding the autonomy and dependency of elements in metaphorical constructions. We further argue that the study of metaphor in the signed modality offers novel insights concerning the nature of metaphor in general, and the role of figurative speech in language.
AB - Metaphor abounds in both sign and spoken languages. However, in sign languages, languages in the visual-manual modality, metaphors work a bit differently than they do in spoken languages. In this paper we explore some of the ways in which metaphors in sign languages differ from metaphors in spoken languages. We address three differences: (a) Some metaphors are very common in spoken languages yet are infelicitous in sign languages; (b) Body-part terms are possible in very specific types of metaphors in sign languages, but are not so restricted in spoken languages; (c) Similes in some sign languages are dispreferred in predicative positions in which metaphors are fine, in contrast to spoken languages where both can appear in these environments. We argue that these differences can be explained by two seemingly unrelated principles: the Double Mapping Constraint (Meir, 2010), which accounts for the interaction between metaphor and iconicity in languages, and Croft's (2003) constraint regarding the autonomy and dependency of elements in metaphorical constructions. We further argue that the study of metaphor in the signed modality offers novel insights concerning the nature of metaphor in general, and the role of figurative speech in language.
KW - Autonomous And Dependent Elements
KW - Double Mapping Constraint
KW - Iconicity
KW - Inhibition
KW - Metaphor
KW - Simile
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049089890&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01025
DO - 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01025
M3 - Article
C2 - 29997544
AN - SCOPUS:85049089890
SN - 1664-1078
VL - 9
JO - Frontiers in Psychology
JF - Frontiers in Psychology
IS - JUN
M1 - 1025
ER -