0. Introduction Stokoe (1960) was the first to argue that American Sign Language (ASL) demonstrates the kind of abstract structure one expects to find in the analysis of any spoken language. 1 The idea that ASL was not a real language was so deeply embedded in the culture, however, that it required nearly two decades for Stokoe’s claim to gain acceptance. For Stokoe’s idea to take hold, it was necessary to give up the idea that ASL was a poor gestural substitute for real language. Linguists analyzing ASL found morphemes where previously there had been only gestures. The transformation from gesture to morpheme was so complete that, in the end, no gestures remained. The fact that some signs point toward things is undeniable. ASL pronouns, for example, point toward physically present referents. The pointing, however, has not become part of the analysis of these pointing signs. The field has come to accept that even when a referent is physically present, a sign is articulated at an area of space associated with the physically present referent. Claiming that signs are articulated with respect to locations in space avoids the necessity of claiming that signs actually point at things. The analysis is the same for non-present referents, where an area of space is also associated with the non-present referent. In either case, signs are seen as being directed toward morphemic areas of space. Liddell (1995) argues that if the referent is physically present, signs are not directed toward areas of space at all, but rather, toward the referent. In addition, I analyze areas of space associated with non-present referents as conceptual entities rather than morphemes. Furthermore, signs point at such areas of space because of the conceptual ability to point. This challenges the notion that signs point because the signer is articulating a spatial morpheme. There has been considerable opposition to the idea that what looks like pointing really is pointing. Part of the reason
[1]
James Paul Gee,et al.
Semantic Perspicuity and the Locative Hypothesis: Implications for Acquisition *
,
1982
.
[2]
R. Langacker.
Discourse in Cognitive Grammar
,
2001
.
[3]
W. Stokoe,et al.
Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. 1960.
,
1961,
Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.
[4]
U Bellugi,et al.
Representation of inflected signs from American Sign Language in short-term memory
,
1981,
Memory & cognition.
[5]
R. Langacker.
Foundations of cognitive grammar
,
1983
.
[6]
Lynn A. Friedman,et al.
Space, Time, and Person Reference in American Sign Language.
,
1975
.
[7]
Scott K. Liddell.
American Sign Language Syntax
,
1981
.
[8]
Richard Lacy.
Review article:Putting some of the syntax back into semantics
,
2003
.
[9]
G. Fauconnier.
Mappings in thought and language
,
1997
.
[10]
E. Klima.
The signs of language
,
1979
.
[11]
Gilles Fauconnier,et al.
Blending as a Central Process of Grammar
,
1996
.