Iconicity and metaphor in sign language poetry

This paper explores a unique relationship between iconicity and metaphor: that seen in creative sign language, where iconic properties abound at all levels of linguistic representation. We use the idea of ‘iconic superstructure’ to consider the way that metaphoric meaning is generated through the iconic properties of creative sign language. We focus on the interaction between the overall contextual force and individual elements that build up symbolism in sign language poetry. Evidence presented from the anthology of British Sign Language poetry demonstrates that metaphoric meaning is not inherent in signs. What is inherent is iconic value and purely iconic signs become metaphorical when situated in a certain poetic context. The interaction between iconicity and metaphor is foregrounded in artistic, creative signing, particularly in poems and stories composed and performed by Deaf signers. Strongly visual images are highly valued in creative sign language, and Deaf poets draw on iconicity in a range of ways to produce intensely visual depictions of their subject matter. At the same time, most poems present symbolic meaning, resulting in the high frequency of metaphoric expressions. Understanding how these metaphoric expressions are interrelated with iconicity is important for appreciating creative sign language and for understanding the potential of metaphor creation in general. Iconicity is a non-arbitrary relationship between a linguistic form and its meaning, which is based on physical similarity (Lakoff and Turner 1989, Taub 2001). For example, the English word ‘hiss’ resembles the actual sound a snake makes. Metaphor, on the other hand, is based on conceptual similarity between two concepts (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). For example, we can talk about the abstract target domain of ideas in terms of a concrete source domain of food (“They won’t swallow such an outrageous lie”; “Those views are hard to stomach”). Traditionally, iconicity and metaphor in spoken languages have been treated separately because iconic expressions at the vocabulary level were seen to be very limited. However, Hiraga (2005) explores in depth the interconnectedness between the two operations. She illustrates links between iconicity and metaphor using various literary texts. Her inclusion of Japanese haiku has been highly influential as referring to such non-European written texts ‘not only epitomises the commonality of iconic manifestations in diverse texts but also clarifies the difference in iconic manifestations in relation to the modes of representation’ (ibid: 19). This may lead us to expect that sign languages, which use an entirely different mode of representation, will also show some similarities but show unique types of iconicity-metaphor links too. In sign languages, iconic (i.e. visual-visual) correspondences between the form and the referent are the most natural and convenient way of representing the world. The ubiquity of iconicity in the linguistic structure of sign languages forces us to consider the role of iconicity in producing and interpreting metaphoric expressions. Thus the present paper draws on Hiraga’s ideas to explore the relationship between iconicity and metaphor in a visual-kinetic-spatial modality. We accept that certain manifestations may be similar to those in other languages, but specifically attempt to identify any unique iconicity-metaphor links. In this paper we analyse empirical data to examine the following hypotheses: Metaphor in creative sign language chiefly takes place at the sublexical level, not at the lexical level, in conjunction with global metaphorical reading. In creative sign language, carefully-selected parameters of the sign (handshape, location, movement, and palm orientation) generate an iconic superstructure, which serves as the basis for metaphorical interpretations. Metaphorical value of a sign is either absent or not foregrounded out of context. The poetic context evokes or reactivates symbolic interpretation. We explore how poets use iconic superstructure as a basis (concrete domain) for metaphorical extension. Creative metaphor drives the meaning of the poem using the entire frame of the iconic superstructure, not through a single-shot metaphoric expression (such as “Life is but a walking shadow”). Iconic superstructure operates at the smallest units of sign languages (metaphor at micro level) and how they are used is determined by the overall structure of the poem (metaphor at macro level). The nature of the interplay of iconicity and metaphor is how these two levels co-work with the “metaphoric intent” of the poets.