عنوان مقاله [English]
According to the dominant view in linguistics, the relationship between signifier and signified is basically conventional and arbitrary. In this article we are going to claim that in home sign languages there are some degrees of motivation. To do this, we have collected the signs of a home signer through interview sessions within two years. After that, the signs and the potential relations between signifiers and signifieds have been analyzed. All the similarities or any kind of meaningful relation between signifiers and signifieds have been pointed out and a list of motivation devices has been presented. The research shows that there is a logical and meaningful relation between almost all the signifiers and the corresponding signifieds which can be clearly seen in the light of motivation devices.
Armstrong, D. F. (1983). "Iconicity, arbitrariness, and duality of patterning in signed and spoken language: perspectives on language evolution"Sign Language Studies 38: 51–69.
Burling, R. (1999). "Motivation, conventionalization, and arbitrariness in the origin of language", In B. J. King (ed.), The Origins of Language: What Nonhuman Primates Can Tell Us pp. 21-54. School of American Research Press.
Chan, Marjorie K. M. and Xu, W. (2009). "Modality effects revisited: iconicity in Chinese sign language", In James H-Y. Tai and Jane Tsay, (Eds.), Taiwan Sign Language and Beyond, pp. 49-81. The Taiwan Institute for the Humanities National Chung Cheng University.
DeMatteo, A. (1977). "Visual imagery and visual analogues in American sign language", In Lynn A. Friedman, (ed.), On the Other Hand pp. 109–36. London: Academic Press.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). The Resilience of Language. New York: Psychology Press.
Haiman, J. (ed.). (1985). Iconicity in Syntax: Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax,. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jespersen, O. (1933). "Symbolic value of the vowel i", In Linguistica; Selected Papers in English, French, and German, pp: 283-303. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.
Mandel, M. (1977). "Iconic devices in American sign language", In Lynn A. Friedman, (ed.), On the Other, Hand pp. 57–107. London: Academic Press.
Padden, C. (1988). Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.
Rhodes R. (1994). "Aural images", In L. Hinton, J. Nichols and J.J. Ohala (eds.), Sound Symbolism, pp. 276.92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sapir E. (1949). "A study in phonetic symbolism", In D. G. Mandelbaum (ed.), Selected Writings of Edward Sapir, pp. 61-72. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Saussure, F. de (1974). Course in General Linguistics, trans. W. Baskin, rev. ed. London: Owen.
Slobin, D. I. (2005). "Linguistic representations of motion events: what is signifier and what is signified?", In C. Maeder, O. Fischer, & W. Herlofsky (eds.), Iconicity Inside Out: Iconicity in Language and Literature 4, pp. 307-322. Amsterdam,Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Su, S. and Tai, J. (2009). "Lexical comparison of signs from Taiwan, Chinese, Japanese, and American sign languages: Taking iconicity into account," In Tai, J and Tsay, J. (Eds.) Taiwan Sign Language and Beyond, pp. 149-175. National Chung Cheng University.
Sutton-Spence, R. and Woll, B. (1999). The Linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tai, J. (2005). "Modality effects: Iconicity in Taiwan sign language", In Dah-an Ho and Ovid J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), POLA FOREVER: Festschrift in Honor of Professor William S-Y.Wang on his 70th Birthday, pp. 19-36. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Taub, S. (2010). Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tervoort, B. T. (1961). "Esoteric symbolism in the communication behavior of young deaf children" AmericanAnnals of the Deaf, 106 (5), 436–480.