1887
Volume 39, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Sign languages make use of paired articulators (the two hands), hence manual signs may be either one- or two-handed. Although two-handedness has previously been regarded a purely formal feature, studies have argued morphologically two-handed forms are associated with some types of inflectional plurality. Moreover, recent studies across sign languages have demonstrated that even lexically two-handed signs share certain semantic properties. In this study, we investigate lexically plural concepts in ten different sign languages, distributed across five sign language families, and demonstrate that such concepts are preferentially represented with two-handed forms, across all the languages in our sample. We argue that this is because the signed modality with its paired articulators enables the languages to iconically represent conceptually plural meanings.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/li.39.2.10bor
2017-03-20
2019-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acquaviva, P
    (2008) Lexical plurals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Attarde, I. P
    (2007) Encyclopedic graded grammar, vol. 1. Lulu. (e-book)
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bergman, B
    (1983) Verbs and adjectives: Morphological processes in Swedish Sign Language. In J. Kyle & B. Woll (Eds.), Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language (pp. 3–9). London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergman, B. , & Engberg-Pedersen, E
    (2010) Transmission of sign languages in the Nordic countries. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey (pp. 74–94). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.005 [Google Scholar]
  5. Björkstrand, T
    (2016) Svenskt teckenspråkslexikon. Stockholm: Avdelningen för teckenspråk, Institutionen för lingvistik, Stockholms universitet. (Retrieved fromteckensprakslexikon.su.se)
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J. L. , Perkins, R. , & Pagliuca, W
    (1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Börstell, C
    (2011) Revisiting Reduplication: Toward a Description of Reduplication in Predicative Signs in Swedish Sign Language. MA Thesis, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cabredo Hofherr, P. , & Laca, B
    (Eds.) (2012) Verbal plurality and distributivity. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110293500
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110293500 [Google Scholar]
  9. Crasborn, O
    (2011) The other hand in sign language phonology. In M. van Oostendorp , C. J. Ewen , E. Hume , & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 1 (pp. 223–240). Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Crasborn, O. , & Sáfár, A
    (2016) An annotation scheme to investigate the form and function of hand dominance in the Corpus NGT. In R. Pfau , M. Steinbach , & A. Herrmann (Eds.), A matter of complexity (pp. 231–251). Boston, MA/Berlin & Preston: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Delbrück, B
    (1893) Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen: Erster Teil. Strassburg: Trübner.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fenlon, J. , Cormier, K. , Rentelis, R. , Schembri, A. , Rowley, K. , Adam, R. , & Woll, B
    (2014) BSL Signbank. BSL SignBank : A Lexical Database of British Sign Language (First Edition). London: Deafness Cognition and Language (DCAL) Research Centre, University College London. (Retrieved frombslsignbank.ucl.ac.uk/)
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Frishberg, N
    (1975) Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51(3), 696–719. doi: 10.2307/412894
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412894 [Google Scholar]
  14. Greftegreff, I. , & Handberg, T
    (2015) Norwegian Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen , G. De Clerck , S. Lutalo-Kiingi , & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 649–676). Berlin/Boston, MA & Preston: De Gruyter & Ishara Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Haspelmath, M
    (2007) Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. In V. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions (pp. 2087–2115). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Inkelas, S
    (2006) Reduplication. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 417–419). Oxford: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00126‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00126-7 [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnston, T
    (2014) Auslan Signbank. (Retrieved fromwww.auslan.org.au/dictionary/)
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Johnston, T. , & Schembri, A
    (1999) On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2(2), 115–185. doi: 10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh [Google Scholar]
  19. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. , & Wälchli, B
    (2001) The Circum-Baltic languages. In Ö. Dahl & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Eds.), Circum-Baltic languages. Volume 2: Grammar and typology (Vol. 55, pp. 615–750). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.55
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.55 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kuhn, J
    (2015) Cross-categorial Singular and Plural Reference in Sign Language. PhD Thesis, New York University.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lepic, R. , Börstell, C. , Belsitzman, G. , & Sandler, W
    (2016) Taking meaning in hand: Iconic motivations for two-handed signs. Sign Language & Linguistics, 19(1), 37–81. doi: 10.1075/sll.19.1.02lep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19.1.02lep [Google Scholar]
  22. LSF Dico.(n.d.). Metz: INJS (Institut National de Jeunes Sourds) de Metz. (Retrieved fromwww.lsfdico-injsmetz.fr/)
    [Google Scholar]
  23. McKee, D. , & Kennedy, G
    (2000) Lexical comparisons of signs from American, Australian, British and New Zealand Sign Languages. In K. Emmorey & H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 49–76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. McKee, D. , McKee, R. L. , Pivac Alexander, S. , Pivac, L. , & Vale, M
    . (n.d.). Online Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language. Deaf Studies Research Unit, Victoria University of Wellington. (Retrieved fromnzsl.vuw.ac.nz/). doi: 10.5788/23‑1‑1227
    https://doi.org/10.5788/23-1-1227 [Google Scholar]
  25. Meir, I. , & Sandler, W
    (2008) A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York, NY & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Meir, I. , Sandler, W. , Padden, C. A. , & Aronoff, M
    (Eds.) (2012) Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language: A dictionary. Haifa & San Diego, CA: Sign Language Research Lab, University of Haifa, Center for Research in Language, UCSD.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Middleton, E. L. , Wisniewski, E. J. , Trindel, K. A. , & Imai, M
    (2004) Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 371–394. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  28. Millet, A. , Niederberger, N. , & Blondel, M
    (2015) French Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen , G. De Clerck , S. Lutalo-Kiingi , & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 274–316). Berlin/Boston, MA & Preston: De Gruyter & Ishara Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Neidle, C. , & Poole Nash, J. C
    (2015) American Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen , G. De Clerck , S. Lutalo-Kiingi , & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 31–70). Berlin/Boston, MA & Preston: De Gruyter & Ishara Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Nilsson, A.-L
    (2007) The non-dominant hand in a Swedish Sign Language discourse. In M. Vermeerbergen , L. Leeson , & O. Crasborn (Eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function. Current issues in linguistic theory, 281 (pp. 163–185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.281.08nil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.281.08nil [Google Scholar]
  31. Padden, C. , & Perlmutter, D. M
    (1987) American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5, 335–375. doi: 10.1007/BF00134553
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134553 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pfau, R. , & Steinbach, M
    (2003) Optimal reciprocals in German Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 6(1), 3–42. doi: 10.1075/sll.6.1.03pfa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.6.1.03pfa [Google Scholar]
  33. (2006) Pluralization in sign and in speech: A cross-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology, 10(2), 135–182. doi: 10.1515/LINGTY.2006.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2006.006 [Google Scholar]
  34. Savir, H
    (1992) Gateway to Israeli Sign Language (First Version). Tel Aviv: The Association of the Deaf in Israel.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sematos
    . (n.d.). Dictionary LSF. (Retrieved fromwww.sematos.eu/lsf-en.html)
    [Google Scholar]
  36. SignWiki Ísland. ( n.d
    .). (Retrieved fromis.signwiki.org/)
  37. Stokoe, W. C
    (1960) Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American Deaf. InStudies in linguistics: Occasional papers (No. 8). Buffalo, NY: Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Supalla, T. , & Newport, E. L
    (1978) How many seats in a chair?: The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 91–132). New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Suvi – Suomalainen viittomakielen verkkosanakirja
    (2013) Kuurojen Liitto. (Retrieved fromsuvi.viittomat.net/)
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Tegnordbok
    . (n.d.). Statped. (Retrieved fromwww.tegnordbok.no/)
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Tennant, R. A. , & Gluszak Brown, M
    (2010) The American Sign Language handshape dictionary (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Thorvaldsdóttir, K. L. , & Stefánsdóttir, V
    (2015) Icelandic Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen , G. De Clerck , S. Lutalo-Kiingi , & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 409–429). Berlin/Boston, MA & Preston: De Gruyter & Ishara Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Tiersma, P. M
    (1982) Local and general markedness. Language, 58(4), 832–849. doi: 10.2307/413959
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413959 [Google Scholar]
  44. van der Hulst, H
    (1996) On the other hand. Lingua, 98, 121–143. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(95)00035‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(95)00035-6 [Google Scholar]
  45. van der Kooij, E
    (2001) Weak drop in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In V. Dively , M. Metzger , S. F. Taub , & A. M. Baer (Eds.), Signed languages: Discoveries from international research (pp. 27–42). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Van Herreweghe, M. , De Meulder, M. , & Vermeerbergen, M
    (2016) From erasure to recognition (and back again?): The case of Flemish Sign Language. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Language: Research, Policy, and Practice. (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Van Herreweghe, M. , Vermeerbergen, M. , De Weerdt, K. , & Van Mulders, K
    (2004) Woordenboek Nederlands – Vlaamse Gebarentaal / Vlaamse Gebarentaal – Nederlands (online). (Retrieved fromgebaren.ugent.be/)
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Wierzbicka, A
    (1988) Oats and wheat: Mass nouns, iconicity, and human categorization. In A. Wierzbicka (Ed.), The semantics of grammar (pp. 499–560). Amsterdam: John Benjamin. doi: 10.1075/slcs.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wisniewski, E. J
    (2010) On using count nouns, mass nouns, and pluralia tantum: What counts?In F. J. Pelletier (Ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff: Mass terms and generics (pp. 1–24). Oxford Scholarship Online.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Woodward, Jr., J. C
    (1976) Signs of change: Historical variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 10, 81–94. doi: 10.1353/sls.1976.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1976.0003 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/li.39.2.10bor
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/li.39.2.10bor
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): articulatory plurality , iconicity , lexical plurality , sign language and two-handed signs
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