The role of frozen metaphors in sign language lexicons and phonology has been addressed by many studies in different sign languages (Boyes Braem 1981, Boyes Braem 1996, Brennan 1994a, Bouvet 1997, Stokoe, Armstrong and S. Wilcox 1994, Wilbur 1987, P. Wilcox 1993). Most of these studies focused on the systematic role played by bodily experience in determining the semantic value of some of sign language parameter elements, particularly configurations. Less attention has been paid (cfr. Wilcox 1993, Brennan 1989; 1994 b) to the productive role of iconicity in the creation of new metaphors and, more generally, neologisms, in sign language discourse. This paper explores the role of different iconic relations between sign elements and their meanings in an Italian Sign Language (LIS) poem.
Analyses conducted at the phonological and textual levels show how different stylistic devices are employed to emphasise symmetrical relationships between parameter elements. Intratextual and referential iconicity are thus exploited in the creation of a symmetrical and rhythmical text structure. Within the regularities of this textual structure different sign parameters can be used most effectively in the creation of new signs. The interrelation between iconicity and live metaphors appears to be deeply related to the simultaneous patterning of LIS morphological structure. A functional shift of parameter elements from a phonological to a morphological value seem to be involved as an effect of textual iconicity. The regularities noted in the structure of the LIS poem will be discussed referring to some peircean distinctions between different kinds of iconicity, illustrating how these distinctions can be useful to compare features of poetic texts in sign languages and vocal languages.
It has been known for many years that Italian signers possessed a rich, albeit underground, "literary" tradition, with poems, narrative and dramatized texts, theatre performances expressed in Italian Sign Language (LIS) (Pizzuto, 1986). However, due chiefly to the minority condition of LIS, and its lower sociolinguistic status compared to both standard Italian and the numerous spoken dialects used in Italy, this cultural tradition has remained largely unknown and unexplored until very recently (Pizzuto & Russo, 2000). Research on the lexical, morphological and morphosyntactic structure of LIS focused primarily on individual signs occurring in their citation forms, out of context, or on signed sentences and texts produced in ordinary prose (see for example Angelini, Borgioli, Folchi & Mastromatteo, 1991; Caselli, Maragna, Pagliari Rampelli & Volterra, 1994; Pizzuto & Corazza, 1996; Pizzuto & Volterra, in press-a; Radutzky 1992; Romeo, 1981; Volterra, 1987). The diffusion of LIS literary texts has been severely limited due to the fact that LIS, like all other signed languages of the world to date investigated, does not possess a written form and that, until a very recent past, there has been a very limited use of video and/or multimedia devices for preserving and circulating signed languages texts.
In the last few years, the existence of an autonomous cultural tradition in LIS has begun to be more widely recognized, both within and outside the Italian Deaf community. LIS poems, dramatized texts and theatre performances have been presented at recent national congresses and cultural festivals on LIS, documented in exhibits (Volterra, 1998), or in video-periodicals published in sign language (Fabula, 1995 and ff.). LIS poets have begun to record, describe and discuss their work, and the stylistic resources they use (Giuranna & Giuranna, 1998-a, 1998-b), and a collection of LIS poems has recently been edited for a CD-ROM publication (Giuranna & Giuranna, 2000). The first exploration of the features that characterize poetry in LIS, as compared to other types of texts, has also been undertartaken for the first time within a broader study of iconic and methaphoric constructions in signed and spoken languages (Russo, 1999).
This paper is largely based on Russo's (1999) study and aims at exploring and describing, from a cross-linguistic perspective, some of the major structural regularities that appear to characterize poetry in LIS, and that distinguish poetic from non-poetic types of texts. First, we briefly discuss the major findings of previous studies of signed languages poetry (section 2). Second, we point out some issues that, in our view, need to be clarified in order to provide a more accurate description of the structural properties of signed poetry (section 3). We then examine how these issues were addressed in Russo's (1999) recent study (section 4), and we illustrate Russo's analytic proposals with examples taken from a LIS poem (section 5). In our concluding remarks we examine the cross-linguistic generalizability of the proposed analysis of LIS poetry.
In their pioneering analysis of American Sign Language (ASL) poetry, Klima and Bellugi (1976; 1979) set up the frame for cross-linguistic and cross-modal comparisons between signed and vocal language poetry. They showed how the spatial features of signs can be exploited in poetry to create symmetrical patterns, and to build up poetic structures in which sign forms and sign meanings are deeply related. Some of the most relevant linguistic features that Klima and Bellugi described as distinctive of ASL poetry were: - the recurrence of the same parameters (e.g specific configurations, movements, orientations recurred in symmetrical patterns across different signs); - the regular rythmic patterning of a poem; - the frequent use of coarticulation devices (e.g. simultaneous syntax but also anticipation or posticipation of certain parameters of a sign during the articulation of another sign); - the alternation and balancement between the right and the left hand in sign production; - the reduction or distortion of movement transitions; -the correspondence of the final point of articulation of a sign with the initial point of articulation of the subsequent sign.
Klima and Bellugi suggested that these features could be related to three distinct kinds of poetic structures. A first, internal poetic structure, is based mainly on lexical choices: signs are chosen to establish a symmetrical pattern made of recurrence or opposition of parameters in a signed sequence. There are then two levels of external poetic structure. One is related to such articulatory features as the opposition between two handed and one handed signs, and the elision of transition movements. A second layer of external poetic structure is related to the exageration of the signs' articulatory features, to the rythmic structure, and to the opposition between spatial loci. These latter features sometimes result in a superimposition of a regular visual and spatial pattern on the poetic structure as a whole.
These textual regularities were also related to the structural features of signed languages. One of the central points of Klima and Bellugi's study is that the inherent visual and spatial features of a signed language are exploited by poets to impose structural regularities which are not present in usual "straight" signing. A special metalinguistic awareness seems thus to be involved in the making of signed poetry, much as it happens in spoken poetry (see for example Jakobson, 1960; Fónagy, 1965 and, for a recent general review, Cappello, 1990).
As other studies on ASL poetry have pointed out (e.g. Bahan & Supalla, 1995; Ormsby, 1995) the linguistic features mentioned above seem to be widespread, and have been noted and described in analyses of poetry in other signed languages such as British Sign Language (Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999: 254-263). In this paper, we will build upon Klima and Bellugi's theoretical framework taking a somewhat different approach. We will focus on "register specific features" of poetical texts as compared to other kinds of text, and we will raise the issue of the role of iconicity in signed poetry.
Previous studies of signed poetry have explicitely or implicitely recognized that the grammatical and stylistic devices employed in poetic texts significantly differ from those employed in different registers, as for example everyday conversation, or even relatively planned texts such as those produced in the course of formal presentations like signed lectures. However, to our knowledge, no studies have attempted to examine in some detail the structural differences between poetic and non poetic texts, applying the same analytic categories to the regular and/or idiosyncratic patterns in one or the other kind of texts. Several questions have thus not been explicitely formulated or have remained unanswered.
One such question concerns the relevance of iconic features in the production of signed poetry. Iconic signs, i.e. signs which as a whole, or with respect to one or more of their constituent elements (henceforth: parameters) are linked to the referents/meanings they symbolize via some relationship of visual resemblance, have always been noted in signed languages lexicon and discourse. The discussion over the relevance of iconic features for a clear understanding of sign language structure and processing is far from being settled. But several recent explorations of LIS, including a cross-linguistic study on the comprehensibility of LIS signs by deaf (signers) and hearing (non signers) of six different European countries, clearly suggest that iconic features are a relevant property of LIS signs which deserves to be fully investigated at several levels of analysis (see Boyes Braem, 1998; Grosso, 1997; Pietrandrea, 1998; to appear; Pizzuto, Ardito, Caselli & Volterra, to appear; Pizzuto & Volterra, in press-a). The deliberate manipulation of iconic features in the creation of poetic texts has also been recently described by LIS poets (Giuranna & Giuranna, 1998-a).
Taking in due account Klima & Bellugi's (1976; 1979) observations on the key role that the inherent properties of signed language structure play in poetic patterns, it is plausible to hypothesize that iconicity may be conceived as yet another, inherent property of signs, and that it may play in signed poetry a role that is no less significant than that attributed to visual-spatial features. On these grounds, considering also the importance that visual imagery processes (quite obviuosly implicated in the perception of iconic features) have in poetry in general, it would be desirable to know to what extent iconic features are present in poetic texts, and whether there are any significant differences between poetic and non-poetic texts along this dimension.
Another general feature of the lexicon of signed languages is the presence of both one-handed and two-handed signs. The latter include fully or partially symmetrical signs, varying in their degree of symmetry depending upon whether they share all, or only some of their constituent handshapes, movement, orientation paramaters, and asymmetrical signs, where each hand assumes a different hanshape, movement or orientation value (e.g. Battison, 1978). Considering that the stylistic devices signers employ when producing poetry clearly, and reportedly, involve the systematic manipulation of these major articulatory features, it would be likewise desirable to have information on the distribution of one- vs. two-handed (symmetrycal and asymmetrical) signs in poetic vs. non-poetic texts. In addition, the use of one-handed signs brings with it the possibility of co-articulating different signs in one and the same time unit. This raises the question of the relevance of co-articulation phenomena and simultaneous syntax in poetic vs. non-poetic texts: is co-articulation used in the same manner in these different types of texts, or are there significant differences in one vs. the other text type?
Russo's (1999) recent study of iconicity and metaphor in signed and spoken languages provides some preliminary answers to the questions formulated above. This study included an analysis of different types of iconicity and structural regularities in a corpus of 823 different manual signs (a total of 1491 sign tokens) produced by native LIS signers. The signs were extracted from three sub-corpora of comparable duration (approximately 8' each), each representing a different type of LIS text or register, and including, respectively: 1) five LIS poems; 2) three texts characterized as "dramatized narratives", i.e. monologues in which a particular event, like a motorbike accident or the perception of music via a led display, was narrated in a "dramatized phrose" which clearly differed from the ordinary prose observed in the lecture texts (or in eveyday conversation), but which did not exhibit the regular rythmic patterns found in the poems; 3) three excerpts from lectures on various topics (e.g. bilingual education, research on LIS, socio-cultural aspects of the deaf community).
Russo proposes that in order to identify relevant differences along the dimension of iconicity between poetic vs. non-poetic texts, it is useful to make a distinction between two major types of iconicity that can be identified in connected signed texts: frozen and dynamic. Frozen iconicity is the type of iconicity that is most commonly noted and described: it refers to the iconic features that individual signs exhibit irrespective of the discourse context in which they occurred (e.g. the LIS sign EAT/FOOD, produced with a closed 5 handshape moving towards the signers mouth, exhibits frozen iconic features because it resembles the action of bringing food to one's own mouth, irrespective of the discourse context in which it occurs).
Dynamic iconicity refers to iconic features of the signs, or of their sublexical components, that arise from their arrangement in discourse, and which Russo further distinguished in several different subcategories. Russo's categorization is fairly detailed and cannot be fully described here. For the purposes of the present paper we will refer to only three major subcategories of dynamic iconicity proposed by Russo, namely:
1) The recurrence or the regular opposition of the same parameters in symmetrical patterns, labelled here "RSP" for "Recurrence of the Same Parameter". This is the phenomenon which in Klima and Bellugi's (1976; 1979) framework was described as a feature of ASL poetry internal structure. Russo (1999) argues that the resemblance within and across signed patterns that is realized via RSP, and the fact that this stylistic device is frequently used to underline thematic units, or to provide particular semantic connotations, can also be analyzed as a form of discourse-related iconicity.
2) Iconic features proper of signs articulated with two hands in which the signs' parameters form an iconic unity, labelled here "PB" for "Parameters Binding". Examples of this kind of iconicity are many common morphological modifications of LIS signs involving the use of loci, such as the sign meaning TWO-PEOPLE-WATCHING-EACH-OTHER, where two V handshapes are articulated in neutral space, with the fingertips of each hand oriented toward the fingertips of the other hand, iconically simbolizing the locked gazes of two people watching each other.
3) Iconic features proper of signs in which the signs' parameters may assume different semantic specifications according to contextual and cotextual constraints, labelled "SR" for "Semantic Regrounding". For example, handhapes that occur in what are commonly described as classifier signs can assume different semantic values according to cotextual and contextual constraints: LIS signs made with a C classifier handshape generally refer to cylindric objects of various types. These include both "more standard" objects such as drinking glasses, mugs, larger or smaller poles or pipes, as well as very specific objects such as the fuel container of a motorbike. The shape of the hand is always iconically related to the round, cylindric or container-like features of the represented objects, but assumes different semantic values, i.e. is semantically regrounded, in relation to the broader context in which it occurs (as well as, of course, to the different movements and orientations with which it is produced). This kind of phenomenon has been described in the literature in relation to what is called the productive lexicon (e.g. Brennan, 1992), but also in relation to processes that allow signers to "revitalize" the "dormant iconicity" of the frozen lexicon (e.g. Johnston & Schembri, in press).
Russo (1999) also examined the major articulatory features of the signs produced in the different types of texts described above. Analyses focussed on the distribution of one-handed vs. two-handed (symmetrical vs. asymmetrical) signs, and on the presence and proportion of co-articulation phenomena, including symultaneous syntax.
A complete description of Russo's detailed analyses and results cannot be provided within the limits of this paper. We will briefly summarize only some of the most relevant findings drawn from the analysis of the poetic texts compared to the lecture texts. Russo found that the LIS poems significantly differed from the lectures with respect to both the use of iconicity (frozen and dynamic), and the articulatory features most frequently employed. Frozen iconicity was present in the poems to a markedly higher degree than in the lectures (e.g. almost 80% of the signs in the poems presented some form of frozen iconicity compared to about 47% of the signs in the lectures). Even more consistent were the differences in the use of dynamic iconicity. This type of iconicity appeared to be a distinctive, and very productively used stylistic device in the poems, where it was identified in more than 50% of the signed constructions analysed, whereas it was a relatively minor feature of the lectures texts (where it was found only in about 10% of the signed construction analysed). In addition, and quite interestingly, the largest proportion of dynamic iconicity identified within the poetic texts fell in the RSP category (noted in about 36% of the signed construction used in the poetic texts), whereas this category was completely absent in the lectures texts.
The analysis of the most general articulatory features of the signs employed in the poems vs. the lectures also revealed relevant asymmetries. First, it was found that the distribution of one- vs. two-handed signs markedly differed in the poems compared to the lectures. One-handed signs were in much smaller proportion in the poems (19%), and in much larger proportion in the lectures (around 40%). Conversely, two-handed, for the most also symmetrical signs accounted for the large majority of the the signs employed in the poems. These were in fact represented in the poems in a proportion that was almost twice as much as that noted in the lectures (e.g. 49% of the signs in the poems fell in this category, compared to 21% in the lectures texts). In contrast, the analysis of co-articulation did not reveal marked differences between the poems and the lecture texts. Co-articolated signs, and symultaneous syntax were in fact present in both types of texts in appreciable yet relatively similar proportions (between 22% and 29% of the constructions analysed).
We turn now to illustrate the general properties of LIS poetry outlined above with examples taken from a fragment of the poem "The clock", created by Rosaria Giuranna (Giuranna & Giuranna, 1998-b; 2000), and included in the corpus analysed by Russo (1999).
This poem can be partitioned into four main thematic units or sections, each characterized by a distinctive rythm. In the first unit the poet describes the monotonous succession of the hours in a day, sequenced by the rythm of a clock attached to a wall, with the clock pointer inhesorably marking the hours, one after the other. A slow, cadenced rythm superimposed on the signs comprised within this thematic unit emphasizes the monotony of a cyclic repetition of everyday, seemingly meaningless activities, until a point which marks the transition into a second second main section: at this point the poet describes an unexpected, meaningful encounter with another person which suddenly changes the monotony of the everyday life previously described. The rythmic patterning of the signs comprised in the second section is likewise altered, and becomes much faster, as the poet describes an ever more involving dialogue with the person encountered, and the minutes on the clock running faster and faster. In the third section, the poet describes the difficulties that she and her interlocutor experience while trying to express their thoughts, feeling, and emotions under the pressure of time, and a third different rytmic pattern is used to mark their dialogic exchanges and the difficulties they face. But the encounter comes abruptly to an end and the protagonists of the story must leave eachother before they succeed in fully expressing themselves. In the last, short section of the poem the flowing of time is again described as a monotonous, cyclic succession of everyday, meaningless activities, and the same slow, cadenced rythm of the first part of the poem is resumed.
In this context, we focus our discussion on a sequence of signs taken from the end of the first section of the poem. The signs are illustrated below, accompanied by English glosses. The sequence illustrated has a central relevance in the organization of the thematic and rithmic superstructure of the poem: the end of the sequence coincides in fact with, and marks the transition into the second main section of the poems as outlined above.
"MORNING EVENING / MORNING EVENING / DAY NIGHT / DAY NIGHT / SUNRISE SUNSET / SUNRISE SUNSET / SUNRISE SUNSET // LIFE CONTINUE / LIFE ALWAYS-THE-SAME / ONE-DAY MEETING-SOMEONE // TWO-PEOPLE-WATCHING-EACH-OTHER"
Looking first at the entire sequence illustrated, it is relatively easy to note that several signs exhibit what we defined above as frozen iconicity. The signs MORNING and DAY as opposed to EVENING and NIGHT seem to convey visually the spreading vs. the diminishing of the light of the day, via their opposing upward vs. downward movements, as well as via the opening vs. closing of the hands (in the two signs DAY/NIGHT). Similarly, the signs glossed SUNRISE / SUNSET visually evoke the rising and falling cycle of the sun as the dominant hand rises up and comes down with an arched movement over the base hand that somehow symbolizes the straight line of the horizon. In the signs CONTINUE and ALWAYS-THE-SAME the circular repeated movement iconically evokes the cyclic repetition of events in time. In the sign MEETING-SOMEONE the two symmetrical handshapes that come in contact visually resemble two people approaching eachother. Finally, in the sign TWO-PEOPLE-WATCHING-EACH-OTHER, the V handshape is iconically related to the two eyes involved in the action of watching someone. As previously mentioned, this sign also exhibits a form of dynamic iconicity when exmined in relation to the context in which it occurs (see also below).
Considered from the point of view of dynamic iconicity, the sequence illustrated can be divided in two sub-sections: the first includes the signs from MORNING through SUNSET, the second one includes the remaining signs except the last, which marks the transition to the third main thematic unit of the poem. The signs of the first sub-section all refer in different ways to a twenty-four hours stretch of time in which day and night cyclically follow each other. The signs are chosen to underline with their form this semantic unity and the sense of monotony and repetitivity the poet tries to express. All the signs are articulated in neutral space, with the same B configuration, alternated with a B-bent handshape in the pair of opposed signs DAY / NIGHT. Several movement features are also shared: MORNING / EVENING and DAY / NIGHT are all performed with an arched movement with a symmetrical opposition of the upward or downward orientation. The same opposition is found in the pair SUNRISE / SUNSET, but here the movement is performed on a different plane and assumes a helliptic shape. Finally, all the signs in this subsection are repeated one or more times. Along with the shape and direction of the movement, this repetition is highly suggestive of the cyclical way in which time elapses as the sun goes up into the sky and falls down under the horizon.
The signs' constituent parameters thus appear to be interrelated by patterns of formal similarities and symmetries which evidence the relationship between forms and meanings that constitute the internal poetic structure of the sequence. These patterns are iconic because the recurrence of the signs' handshapes or movements underline the common semantic core of the signed sequence: days passing by. All these patterns can be described as instances of dynamic iconicity in one of its forms, namely RSP, which appears to be fully exploited in this sequence.
Similar formal similarities and symmetries bind together the signs of the second sub-section. The G configuration ties the signs CONTINUE and ALWAYS-THE-SAME, while the V configuration is present in the three signs LIFE, MEETING-SOMEONE and TWO-PEOPLE-WATCHING-EACH-OTHER. The same circular movement also relates three of the five different signs of the sequence: ALWAYS-THE-SAME, ONE-DAY and MEETING-SOMEONE, and a similar circular movement, but on a different plane, is found in the sign CONTINUE, which in turn presents the same repetition of the movement as ALWAYS-THE-SAME. These are again all instances of dynamic iconicity in the form categorized as RSP.
Circular (more or less elongated), repeated movements characterize in LIS aspectual inflections denoting cyclical, iterative actions (Pizzuto & Corazza, 1996). The sequence of circular movements underline the total homogeneity of the elapsing of time, from the experiencer point of view. In this case the symmetrical patterning of signs appears to be used to build a climax structure which ends with an abrupt interruption: the situation being described is suddenly and unexpectedly modified by the abrupt movement of the sign TWO-PEOPLE-WATCHING-EACH-OTHER. This sign, produced with an arched movement ending with the two configuratuions fronting each other, is an instance of PB dynamic iconicity, and iconically simbolizes two persons looking at each other. Dynamic iconicity is thus used here to build an homogeneous pattern which is then confronted with a brusque interruption iconically representing a change in the experiencer perception of time. From this point through the second main section of the poem (not described here), time will be perceived as flowing faster and faster with no possibility of being stopped.
The patterns described above are enhanced by the signs articulatory features. The entire sequence illustrated is composed by two-handed signs. In all cases but one these are also fully or partially symmetrical signs. The only exception is the sign ONE-DAY, made with two asymetrical configurations. There is no coarticulation of two distinct signs, nor symultaneous sintax.
The data and observations we have reported support and expand the results of previous studies on signed poetry in other signed languages such as ASL and BSL, and provide new information on some of the most general properties that distinguish signed poetic texts from non-poetic texts. Our approach to the study of LIS poetry was guided by the observation that, in order to explore the regularities that shape the structure of a signed poetic text at the lexical, sublexical as well as textual level, it was first useful to try to define and characterize some of the most conspicuous structural similarities and differences between poetic and non-poetic texts, applying the same analytic categories to both types of texts. Towards this end, we focussed primarily on a set of iconic and articulatory features, partially redifining regularities that had been noted in previous studies in terms of new analytic categories (e.g. by proposing that the recurrence of the same parameters can also be analyzed as a form of dynamic iconicity).
Our data are certainly limited, and the observations we drew ignored several important aspects that are unquestionably relevant for a full understanding of the structure of signed texts, most notably the non manual level of linguistic expression. Further research is certainly needed to ascertain whether the analyses we have proposed, and the findings we have summarized, can be extended to larger corpora of signed poetic and non poetic texts, in LIS and/or in other signed languages. Nonetheless, the data we reported provide several indications on some of the most general structural regularities that characterize signed poetry, albeit limitedly to the manual level of linguistic expression.
Consistent with the observations reported in previous studies of signed poetry in other signed languages, the data we have described on LIS poetry suggest that the search for formal symmetrical patterns, especially as concerns the recurrency of the same parameters across thematically related signs, is a key, distinctive feature of signed poetry which appears to be absent from non-poetic texts. Along with clearly identifiable rythmic patterns, this feature thus seems to characterize signed poetry across signed languages. The comparative information we have provided on the articulatory features of signs in LIS poetic vs. non poetic texts, and the illustrative examples taken from a LIS poem, further suggest that, at least in LIS poetry, the search for formal symmetric patterns is reflected into likewise formal, specific lexical choices: two-handed, mostly symmetrical signs are markedly more frequent in poems than in ordinary prose. The same data also indicate that some other features that had been noted as specific of signed poetry, namely the coarticulation of different signs (and, along with it, the use of simultaneous syntax), may not be distinctive of signed poetry: coarticulation and simultaneous syntax appear in fact to be used in comparable manner in both poetic and non poetic texts.
Finally, our analyses of frozen and dynamic iconicity show that iconic features are in general employed very productively in LIS signed texts, but are exploited to a markedly higher degree, and with different patterns, in poetic as compared to non poetic texts. In particular, poetic texts appear to be characterized not only by a larger use of frozen iconic features, but also by a distinctive use of dynamic iconicity, especially (but not exclusively) in the form of RSP. Within the analytic framework proposed by Russo (1999), dynamic iconicity arises primarily from patterns of resemblance identifiable at the sublexical level, across the constituent parameters of thematically related signs. In line with observations made by Giuranna & Giuranna (1998a), the use of these forms of iconicity can thus be seen as yet another manifestation of the special linguistic awareness LIS poets possess in deliberately manipulating one of the inherent feature of their language – iconicity – not just at a "holistic" level (e.g. selecting for their poems signs that globally exhibit frozen iconic properties), but a much finer grinded level, selecting sublexical iconic features for weawing the texture of their poetic discourse.
Angelini, N., Borgioli R., Folchi, A. & Mastromatteo, M. (1991). I primi 400 segni. Piccolo dizionario della Lingua Italiana dei Segni per comunicare con i sordi. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
Bahan, B. & Supalla S. (1995). Line Segmentation and Narrative Structure: A Study of Eye Gaze Behavior in American Sign Language in K. Emmorey and J. Reilly (Eds.), Language, Gesture and Space, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 171-191.
Battison, R. (1978). Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
Boyes Braem, P. (1998). Kulturell bestimmte oder freie Gesten? Die Wahrnehmung von Gesten durch Mitglieder unterschiedlicher (hörender und gehörloser) Kulturen.[Culturally determined or free gestures? The perception of gestures by members of different hearing and deaf cultures]. In Fähndrich, W. (Ed.) Improvisation III. Winterthur: Amadeus.
Brennan, M. (1992). The visual world of British Sign Language. An introduction, in D. Brien (Ed.), Dictionary of British Sign Language/English, Faber and Faber, London, 1-118.
Caselli, M.C. , Maragna S., Pagliari Rampelli, L. & Volterra, V. (1994). Linguaggio e Sordità - Parole e segni per l'educazione dei sordi. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
Fabula (1995 & ff). Il mondo dei Segni. Periodico Audiovisivo per i Sordi e per gli Udenti, Milano, 1995 & ff.
Fónagy, I. (1965). Le langage poétique: forme et fonction, Dionysos, 51, 72-116.
Giuranna, R. & Giuranna, G. (1998-a). Poesia in LIS: iconicità e arbitrarietà, concreto e astratto. Paper presented at the 1997-1998 Seminars, Institute of Psychology (Division of Neuropsychology of Language and Deafness), National Research Council (CNR), Rome, February 12, 1998.
Giuranna, R. & Giuranna G., (1998-b). Poesie e testi drammatizzati in LIS. Unpublished Videotape recorded at the Institute of Psychology (Division of Neuropsychology of Language and Deafness), National Research Council (CNR), Rome, February 1998.
Giuranna, R. & Giuranna, G. (2000). Sette poesie in Lingua Italiana dei Segni (LIS), CD-ROM prototype realized by the Institute of Psychology, National Research Council (CNR), Rome.
Grosso, B. (1997). Gli udenti capiscono i segni dei sordi? In M.C. Caselli & S. Corazza (Eds.) LIS Studi, esperienze e ricerche sulla Lingua dei Segni in Italia. Pisa: Edizioni del Cerro, 79-86.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statements: linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in Language. New York: Methuen, 350-377.
Johnston, T. & Schembri, A. (in press). On defining lexeme in a sign language. Sign Language and Linguistics, 2 (2), 115-185.
Klima, E. S. & Bellugi, U. (1976). Poetry and song in a language without sound, Cognition, 4, 45-97.
Klima, E. S. & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 340-372.
Ormsby, A. (1995), Poetic cohesion in ASL: Valli's Snowflake and Coleridge's Frost at midnight. Sign Language Studies, 88, 227-244.
Pietrandrea, P. (1998). Sublexical regularities and linguistic economy in Italian Sign Language – A quantitative analysis. In C. Berkenfield & A. Grieve-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual High Desert Linguistic Society Conference. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico.
Pietrandrea, P. (to appear). Economy, iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language Lexicon. In J. Bybee & S. Wilcox (Eds.), Cognitive and functional approaches to sign languages (in preparation).
Pizzuto, E. (1986). Italian Sign Language. In Gallaudet Encyclopedia of Deaf People and Deafness. New York: McGraw-Hill, Vol. 3, 85-89.
Pizzuto E., Ardito B., Caselli C. & Volterra V. (to appear). Cognition and language in Italian Deaf preschoolers of deaf and hearing families. In M. Marschark, D. Clark & M. Karchmer (Eds.), Cognition, Context, and deafness. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press (in preparation).
Pizzuto E., Cameracanna E., Corazza S., & Volterra V. (1995). Terms for spatio-temporal relations in Italian Sign Language (LIS), In R. Simone (Ed.), Iconicity in Language, New York-Amsterdam: Benjamins, 237-256.
Pizzuto, E. & Russo, T. (2000). Presentazione. In R. Giuranna & G. Giuranna, Sette poesie in Lingua Italiana dei Segni (LIS). CD-ROM prototype realized by the Institute of Psychology, National Research Council (CNR), Rome.
Pizzuto, E. & Volterra, V. (in press-a), Iconicity and transparency in sign languages: a cross- linguistic cross-cultural view. In K. Emmorey & H. Lane H. (Eds.), The Signs of Language Revisited: An Anthology in Honor of Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pizzuto E., Volterra V. (in press-b). La Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS). In C. Lavinio, C. Sgroi (Eds.), La Linguistica Italiana alle soglie del 2000, Bulzoni, Roma.
Radutzky, E. (1992), Dizionario Bilingue elementare della Lingua Italiana dei Segni. Roma: Edizioni Kappa.
Romeo, O. (1991). Dizionario dei Segni. La Lingua dei Segni in 1400 immagini. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Russo, T. (1999). Immagini e metafore nelle lingue parlate e segnate. Modelli semiotici e applicazioni alla LIS (Lingua Italiana dei Segni). Ph.D. Dissertation, Universities of Palermo, Calabria & Roma "La Sapienza".
Sutton-Spence, R. & Woll, B. (1999). The linguistics of British Sign Language. An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Volterra V., (Ed.) (1987), La Lingua Italiana dei Segni - La comunicazione visivo-gestuale dei sordi, Il Mulino, Bologna.
Volterra V., (1998) [in collaboration with: Capirci O., Corazza S., Gardino M., Giuliani V., Pennacchi B., Pezzuoli A., Porcari Li Destri G., Rossini P., Valli C., Veneziani R., Vitale M., Volterra V., Zatini F., & Zuccalà A]. National exhibit I segni come parole - La comunicazione visiva dei sordi., Genova, Loggia dei Mercanti, September 25-October 1 , 1998.
1 This paper is the result of a joint collaborative effort to which the three authors contributed in different ways and languages: Rosaria Giuranna provided many ideas and insightful observations in LIS based on her direct, insider experience as a Deaf LIS poet. Tommaso Russo and Elena Pizzuto are jointly responsible for incorporating these ideas and observations into their own observations on LIS poetry, and for writing the present English text. Tommaso Russo is primarily responsabible for sections 2, 4 and 5 of the paper, Elena Pizzuto for the remaining sections. The authors gratefullly acknowledge partial financial support from the Italian National Research Council (CNR), National Targeted Project Safeguard of Cultural Heritage, Research Unit Historical and Research Archive on the Language and culture of the Deaf (A.St.eR.Li.C.S), (1996-2000). (back to text)
posted: 14.03.2000