1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Diachronica
  4. Volume 43, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 43, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Assimilatory processes are generally understood to rely on sequential structure: a target element adopts features of a preceding or following element. While signed languages arguably show less sequential structure than spoken languages, there are several areas of the grammar of signed languages where sequential structure is evident and the conditions for assimilatory processes are available. Previous work has explored coarticulatory effects in sign production and has identified assimilation in contexts of multimorphemic compounds. This paper extends the investigation of diachronic assimilation to sign-internal assimilation within monomorphemic signs. We present case studies of diachronic assimilation using historical documentation of American Sign Language as well as comparative data from across the so-called French sign language family. We argue that although opportunities for sequentially structured assimilation in signed languages may be significantly fewer than in spoken languages, nevertheless many of the same kinds of assimilatory processes can be seen in diachronic changes to signs.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.24070.law
2026-08-24
2026-09-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dia.24070.law
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir & Wendy Sandler
    2005 The paradox of sign language morphology. Language81(2). 301–344. 10.1353/lan.2005.0043
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0043 [Google Scholar]
  2. Battison, Robbin
    1978 Lexical borrowing in ASL. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Brentari, Diane
    1998 A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Brentari, Diane & Carol A. Padden
    2001 Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A lexicon with multiple origins. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages: A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation, 87–120. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 10.4324/9781410601513‑10
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601513-10 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cheek, Davina A.
    2001 The phonetics and phonology of handshape in American sign language. University of Texas Austin PhD dissertation.
  6. Crasborn, Onno, Richard Bank, Inge Zwitserlood, Els van der Kooij, Ellen Ormel, Johan Ros, Anique Schüller, Anne de Meijer, Merel van Zuilen, Yassine Ellen Nauta, Frouke van Winsum, & Max Vonk
    2020 NGT dataset in Global Signbank. Nijmegen: Radboud University, Centre for Language Studies. 10.13140/RG.2.1.2839.1446
     https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2839.1446 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dictionnaire de LSFB en ligne
    Dictionnaire de LSFB en ligne 2017 https://dicto.lsfb.be/
  8. Frishberg, Nancy
    1975 Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language511. 696–719. 10.2307/412894
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412894 [Google Scholar]
  9. Goldsmith, John A.
    1976 Autosegmental phonology. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Higgins, D. D.
    1923 How to talk to the deaf. St. Louis, MO: D. D. Higgins, C. SS. R.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Hochgesang, Julie A., Onno Crasborn & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2024 ASL Signbank. New Haven, CT: Haskins Lab, Yale University. https://aslsignbank.haskins.yale.edu/
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hyman, Larry M.
    1976 Phonologization. InAlphonse Juilland (ed.), Linguistic studies presented to Joseph H. Greenberg, 407–418. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Johnson, Robert, & Scott. K. Liddell
    2011a Toward a phonetic representation of signs: Sequentiality and contrast. Sign Language Studies11(2). 241–274. 10.1353/sls.2010.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2010.0008 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2011b A segmental framework for representing signs phonetically. Sign Language Studies11(3): 408–463. 10.1353/sls.2011.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2011.0002 [Google Scholar]
  15. Keane, J., Diane Brentari & J. Riggle
    2013 Coarticulation in ASL fingerspelling. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society421. 261–272.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Köhler, Reinhard
    1986 Zur linguistischen Synergetik: Struktur und Dynamik der Lexik. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Labov, William
    1981 Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy. Language571. 267–308. 10.2307/413692
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413692 [Google Scholar]
  18. 1994 Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors, vol.11. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2001 Principles of linguistic change: Social factors, vol.21. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Lambert, abbé Louis Marie
    1865 Le langage de la physionomie et du geste mis à la portée de tous. Paris: Jacques Lecoffre.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Liddell, Scott K.
    1984 THINK and BELIEVE: Sequentiality in American Sign Language. Language601. 372–399. 10.2307/413645
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413645 [Google Scholar]
  22. Liddell, Scott K. & Robert E. Johnson
    1989 American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies641. 195–277. 10.1353/sls.1989.0027
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1989.0027 [Google Scholar]
  23. Long, J. Schuyler
    1918 The sign language: A manual of signs, 2nd ed. Des Moines, IA: Robert Henderson.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Mandel, Mark A.
    1981 Phonotactics and morphology in American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Mauk, Claude. E.
    2003 Undershoot in two modalities: Evidence from fast speech and fast signing. University of Texas, Austin PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. McCarthy, John J. & Norval Smith
    2003 Phonological processes: Assimilation. Oxford international encyclopedia of linguistics, 320–323. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Meier, Richard P.
    2002 Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. InRichard P. Meier, Kearsey Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.001
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Michaels, J. W.
    1923 A handbook of the sign language of the deaf. Atlanta, GA: Foote & Davies Co., Printers.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Miller, Christopher
    2001 The adaptation of loan words in Quebec Sign Language: Multiple sources, multiple processes. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages: A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation, 139–173. New York: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Occhino, Corrine
    2016 A cognitive approach to phonology: Evidence from signed languages. University of New Mexico PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Ohala, John J.
    1981 The listener as a source of sound change. InCarrie S. Masek, Roberta A. Hendrick, & Mary Frances Miller (eds.), Parasession on language and behavior, 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Ohala, John. J.
    1993 The phonetics of sound change. InCharles Jones (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 237–278. London: Longman Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Ormel, Ellen, Crasborn, Onno. and van der Kooij, Els
    2013 Coarticulation of hand height in Sign Language of the Netherlands is affected by contact type. Journal of Phonetics41(3–4). 156–171. 10.1016/j.wocn.2013.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2013.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ormel, Ellen, Onno Crasborn, Gerrit Jan Koostra, Anne de Meijer
    2017 Coarticulation of handshape in Sign Language of the Netherlands: A corpus study. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology8(1). : 10. 10.5334/labphon.45
     https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.45 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pavlík, Radoslav
    2009 A typology of assimilations. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics6(1). 2–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Pelissier, Pierre
    1856 L’enseignement primaire des sourds-muets mis à la portée de tout le monde, avec une iconographie des signes. Paris: Paul Dupont.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Port, R. F., & Leary, A. P.
    (2005) Against formal phonology. Language81(4). 927–964. 10.1353/lan.2005.0195
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0195 [Google Scholar]
  38. Power, Justin M., David Quinto-Pozos, & Danny Law
    2022 Signed language transcription and the creation of a cross-linguistic comparative database. InEleni Efthimiou (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages, 173–180. Marseilles, France: European Language Resources Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Power, Justin M. & Richard P. Meier
    2023 Demographics in the formation of language communities and in the emergence of languages: The early years of ASL in New England. Language991. 275–316. 10.1353/lan.2023.a900088
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2023.a900088 [Google Scholar]
  40. Russell, K., Wilkinson, E. and Janzen, T.
    2010 ASL sign lowering as target undershoot: A corpus study. Laboratory Phonology2(2). 403–422. 10.1515/labphon.2011.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/labphon.2011.015 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sandler, Wendy
    1986 The spreading hand autosegment of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies501. 1–28. 10.1353/sls.1986.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1986.0006 [Google Scholar]
  42. 1989 Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications. 10.1515/9783110250473
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110250473 [Google Scholar]
  43. 1993 A sonority cycle in American Sign Language. Phonology101. 243–279. 10.1017/S0952675700000051
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000051 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2010 Prosody and syntax in sign languages. Transactions of the Philological Society108(3). 298–328. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2010.01242.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2010.01242.x [Google Scholar]
  45. Sehyr, Zed Sevcikova, Naomi K. Caselli, Ariel M. Cohen-Goldberg, & Karen Emmorey
    2021 The ASL-LEX 2.0 Project: A database of lexical and phonological properties for 2,723 signs in American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education26(2). 263–277. 10.1093/deafed/enaa038
     https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enaa038 [Google Scholar]
  46. Stokoe, William C.
    1960/2005 Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education10(1). 3–37. 10.1093/deafed/eni001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eni001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Stokoe, William C., Dorothy C. Casterline & Carl G. Croneberg
    1965 Dictionary: American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Supalla, Ted
    2001 Making historical sign language materials accessible: A prototype database of early ASL. Sign Language and Linguistics41. 285–297. 10.1075/sll.4.12.20sup
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.4.12.20sup [Google Scholar]
  49. Tyrone, Martha E. & Claude E. Mauk
    2010 Sign lowering and phonetic reduction in American Sign Language. Journal of Phonetics381. 317–328. 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  50. Van der Hulst, Harry
    1993 Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology101. 209–241. 10.1017/S095267570000004X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S095267570000004X [Google Scholar]
  51. Van der Hulst, Harry & Els van der Kooij
    2021 Sign language phonology: Theoretical perspectives. InJosep Quer, Roland Pfau & Annika Herrmann (eds.), The Routledge handbook of theoretical and experimental sign language research, 1–32. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315754499‑1
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315754499-1 [Google Scholar]
  52. Van der Kooij, Els
    2002 Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Phonetic implementation and iconicity. Leiden: Leiden University PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Vlaams Gebarentaal Centrum
    Vlaams Gebarentaal Centrum 2024 Woordenboek Vlaamse Gebarentaal. https://woordenboek.vlaamsegebarentaal.be/
  54. Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, & Marvin I. Herzog
    1968 Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. InWinfried P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium, 95–188. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Wilcox, S.
    1992 The phonetics of fingerspelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sspcl.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sspcl.4 [Google Scholar]
  56. Yu, Alan C. L.
    2021 Toward an individual-difference perspective on phonologization. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics6(1): 14. 10.5334/gjgl.661
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.661 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.24070.law
Loading
Sequential structure and diachronic assimilation in signed languages
Diachronica 43, 349 (2026); https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.24070.law
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.24070.law
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.24070.law
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): American Sign Language; assimilation; French sign language family; historical phonology; sequential structure; signed languages

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error