1887
Volume 26, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of all the meaningful sub-sign form units (form-meaning units; FMUs) in lexical signs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). We investigated the potential meaning of all form features that were previously established in analyses of NGT form by analyzing their distribution in lexical signs. The data set consisted of 500 NGT signs in the lexical database Global Signbank, and a set of 163 elicited newly-formed lexical signs. All features in these data sets appear to bear meaning (at least once). No completely arbitrary features were found, and some features appeared to be always associated to a specific meaning. This toolkit and the set of FMUs in NGT provides a possible basis for cross-linguistic study and for a more fine-grained approach in various research disciplines, for instance psycholinguistics and acquisition, and it may thus advance the theoretical and applied study of sign languages.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20009.van
2023-10-23
2024-06-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bauer, Laurie
    1988Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Blank, Andreas
    2001 Pathways of lexicalization. InMartin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 1596–1608. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110171549.2.15.1596
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110171549.2.15.1596 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boyes Braem, Penny
    1981Features of the handshape in American Sign Language. Berkeley: University of California PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brennan, Mary
    1990Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: University of Stockholm.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cabeza-Pereiro, Carmen
    2014 Metaphor and lexicon in sign languages: Analysis of the hand-opening articulation in LSE and BSL. Sign Language Studies14(3). 302–332. 10.1353/sls.2014.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2014.0009 [Google Scholar]
  6. Caselli, Naomi K., Zed Sevcikova Sehyr, Ariel M. Cohen-Goldberg & Karen Emmorey
    2017 ASL-LEX: A lexical database of American Sign Language. Behavior Research Methods491. 784–801. 10.3758/s13428‑016‑0742‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0742-0 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cassidy, Steve, Onno Crasborn, Henri Nieminen, Wessel Stoop, Micha Hulsbosch, Susan Even, Erwin Komen & Trevor Johnson
    2018 Signbank: Software to SupportWeb Based Dictionaries of Sign Language. InNicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Involving the Language Community. Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation: May 7–12, 2018, Miyazaki, Japan, 2359–2364. Paris: ELRA. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2018/pdf/499.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cates, Deborah, Eva Gutiérrez, Sarah Hafer, Ryan Barrett & David Corina
    2013 Location, location, location. Sign Language Studies13(4). 433–461. 10.1353/sls.2013.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2013.0014 [Google Scholar]
  9. Crasborn, Onno, Richard Bank, Inge Zwitserlood, Els van der Kooij, Anique Schüller, Ellen Ormel, Ellen Nauta, Merel van Zuilen, Frouke van Winsum & Johan Ros
    2016 Linking lexical and corpus data for sign languages: NGT Signbank and the Corpus NGT. InEleni Efthimiou, Stavroula-Evita Fotinea, (eds.), Workshop Proceedings 7th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpus Mining Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), Portorož, Slovenia, 28 May 2016, 41–46. Paris: ELRA. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2016/workshops/LREC2016Workshop-SignLanguage_Proceedings.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Crasborn, Onno & Els van der Kooij
    2023 The emergence of the second hand in sign language phonology: From underlying to surface representations. InJeroen van de Weijer (ed.), Syllable, stress, and sign, 319–344. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110730081‑016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110730081-016 [Google Scholar]
  11. Crasborn, Onno, Els van der Kooij, Inge Zwitserlood & Ellen Ormel
    2015NGT dataset in Global Signbank. Radboud University, Nijmegen. https://signbank.cls.ru.nl/datasets/NGT
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Crasborn, Onno, Inge Zwitserlood, Els van der Kooij & Anique Schüller
    2020Signbank manual, version 2. Nijmegen: Radboud University.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Crasborn, Onno, Inge Zwitserlood & Johan Ros
    2008The Corpus NGT. A digital open access corpus of movies and annotations of Sign Language of the Netherlands. Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen. hdl.handle.net/hdl:1839/00-0000-0000-0004-DF8E-6
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cuxac, Christian & Marie-Anne Sallandre
    2007 Iconicity and arbitrariness in French Sign Language – highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity. InElena Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea & Raffaele Simone (eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies, 13–33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CitetononCRdoi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4884.8483
    https://doi.org/Cite to nonCR doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4884.8483 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dingemanse, Mark, Damian E. Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten H. Christiansen & Padraic Monaghan
    2015 Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Science19(10). 603–615. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013 [Google Scholar]
  16. Frishberg, Nancy
    1975 Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language51(3). 696–719. www.jstor.org/stable/412894
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Frishberg, Nancy & Bonnie Gough
    2000 Morphology in American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics31. 103–131. 10.1075/sll.3.1.08fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.3.1.08fri [Google Scholar]
  18. Fuks, Orit
    2014 The (non-)random distribution of formational parameters in the established lexicon of Israeli Sign Language (ISL). Semiotica1991. 125–157. 10.1515/sem‑2013‑0122
    https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2013-0122 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hanke, Thomas, Susanne König, Reiner Konrad & Gabriele Langer
    2012 Towards tagging of multi-sign lexemes and other multi-unit structures. InOnno Crasborn, Eleni Efthimiou, (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between Corpus and Lexicon Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) Istanbul, May 2012, 67–68. Paris: ELRA. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jackendoff, Ray & Jenny Audring
    2019 Relational Morphology in the Parallel Architecture. InJenny Audring & Francesca Masini (eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory, 390–408. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199668984.013.33
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199668984.013.33 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jarque, Maria-Josep
    2005 Double mapping in metaphorical expressions of thought and communication in Catalan Sign Language. Sign Language Studies5(3). 292–316. 10.1353/sls.2005.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2005.0008 [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnston, Trevor & Lindsay Ferrara
    2012 Lexicalization in signed languages. When is an idiom not an idiom?Proceedings of the 3rd UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 229–248. uk-cla.org.uk/proceedings
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri
    1999 On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics21. 115–185. 10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh [Google Scholar]
  24. Kimmelman, Vadim, Anna Klezovich & George Moroz
    2018 IPSL: A database of iconicity patterns in sign languages: Creation and use. InNicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Involving the Language Community. Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation: May 7–12, 2018, Miyazaki, Japan, 4230–4234. Paris: ELRA. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2018/pdf/102.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kimmelman, Vadim, Maria Kyuseva, Yana Lomakina & Daria Perova
    2017 On the notion of metaphor in sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics20(2). 157–182. 10.1075/sll.00001.kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00001.kim [Google Scholar]
  26. König, Susanne, Reiner Konrad, & Gabriele Langer
    2008 What’s in a sign? Theoretical lessons from practical sign language lexicography. InJosep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time. Selected papers from TISLR 2004, 379–404. Hamburg: Signum.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. KOMVA
    KOMVA 1988Handen uit de mouwen. Gebaren uit de Nederlandse Gebarentaal in kaart gebracht. [Roll up your sleeves. Handshapes from Sign Language of the Netherlands mapped out.] Amsterdam: Dovenraad / NSDSK.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lepic, Ryan, Carl Börstell, Gal Besitzman & Wendy Sandler
    2016 Taking meaning in hand. Iconic motivations in two-handed signs. Sign Language & Linguistics19(1). 37–81. 10.1075/sll.19.1.02lep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19.1.02lep [Google Scholar]
  29. Lepic, Ryan & Corinne Occhino
    2018 A Construction Morphology approach to sign language analysis. InGeert Booij (ed.), The construction of words, Vol.41, 141–172. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑74394‑3_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_6 [Google Scholar]
  30. Liddell, Scott K.
    2003 Sources of meaning in ASL classifier predicates. InKaren Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 199–220. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mandel, Mark
    1977 Iconic devices in American Sign Language. InLynn A. Friedman (ed.), On the other hand, 57–107. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Meir, Irit
    2010 Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language86(4). 865–896. 10.1353/lan.2010.0044
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0044 [Google Scholar]
  33. Morgan, Hope E.
    2022A phonological grammar of Kenyan Sign Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110765694
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110765694 [Google Scholar]
  34. Nielsen, Alan
    2016Systematicity, motivatedness, and the structure of the lexicon. Edinburgh: University of EdinburghPhD dissertation. https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/20470
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Occhino, Corrine
    2017 An introduction to embodied cognitive phonology: Claw-5 handshape distribution in ASL and Libras. Complutense Journal of English Studies251. 69–103. 10.5209/CJES.57198
    https://doi.org/10.5209/CJES.57198 [Google Scholar]
  36. Occhino, Corrine, Benjamin Anible, Erin Wilkinson & Jill P. Morford
    2017 Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder. How language experience affects perceived iconicity. Gesture16(1). 100–126. 10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ [Google Scholar]
  37. Occhino, Corrine, Benjamin Anible & Jill P. Morford
    2020 The role of iconicity, construal, and proficiency in the online processing of handshape. Language and Cognition12(1). 114–137. 10.1017/langcog.2020.1
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.1 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ortega, Gerardo
    2017 Iconicity and sign lexical acquisition: A review. Frontiers in Psychology81. 1280. doi:https://doi.org/10/gbs2zr. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ortega, Gerardo, Beyza Sümer & Aslı Özyürek
    2017 Type of iconicity matters in the vocabulary development of signing children. Developmental Psychology53(1). 89–99. 10.1037/dev0000161
    https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000161 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ortega, Gerardo & Aslı Özyürek
    2020 Systematic mappings between semantic categories and types of iconic representations in the manual modality: A normed database of silent gesture. Behavior Research Methods521. 51–67. 10.3758/s13428‑019‑01204‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01204-6 [Google Scholar]
  41. Perniss, Pamela, Robin L. Thompson & Gabriela Vigliocco
    2010 Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology11. Article 227. 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227 [Google Scholar]
  42. Pietrandrea, Paola
    2002 Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies2(3). 296–321. 10.1353/sls.2002.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2002.0012 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pizzuto, Elena, Paolo Rossini, Marie-Anne Sallandre & Erin Wilkinson
    2008 Deixis, anaphora and highly iconic structures: Crosslinguistic evidence on American (ASL), French (LSF) and Italian (LIS) Signed Languages. InRonice M. de Quadros (ed.), Sign languages: spinning and unraveling the past, present and future. TISLR9, forty-five papers and three posters from the 9th Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference, Florianopolis, Brazil, December 2006. Petrópolis/RJ: Editora Arara Azul, Brazil. CitetononCRdoi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1935.7282
    https://doi.org/Cite to nonCR doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1935.7282 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2006Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
  45. Schermer, Trude, Connie Fortgens, Rita Harder & Esther de Nobel
    1991De Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Twello: Van Tricht.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Schick, Brenda S.
    1990a Classifier predicates in American Sign Language. International Journal of Sign Linguistics11. 15–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 1990b The effects of morphosyntactic structure on the acquisition of classifier predicates in ASL. InCeil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research. Theoretical issues, 358–374. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Schiefner, Annika
    2019What’s in a sign? When form features have meaning. Nijmegen: Radboud UniversityMA thesis. https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/handle/123456789/7775
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Shepard-Kegl, Judy A.
    1985Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation, syntax, and discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Slonimska, Anita, Asli Özyürek & Olga Capirci
    2020 The role of iconicity and simultaneity for efficient communication: The case of Italian Sign Language (LIS). Cognition2001. 104246. 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104246
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104246 [Google Scholar]
  51. Stokoe, William
    1960 Sign language structure. An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics Occasional Papers81 (1993 Reprint; Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Supalla, Ted R.
    1980 Morphology of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. InFrank Caccamise & David Hicks (eds.), Proceedings of the Second National Symposium of Sign Language Research and Teaching, 19781, 27–45. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 1982Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. San Diego: UCSD PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Taub, Sarah F.
    2001Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
  55. Thompson, Robin L., David P. Vinson & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2009 The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition35(2). 550–557. 10.1037/a0014547
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014547 [Google Scholar]
  56. 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]
  57. Van der Hulst, Harry & Els van der Kooij
    2021 Sign language phonology: theoretical perspectives. InJosep Quer, Roland Pfau & Annika Herrmann (eds.), 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]
  58. Van der Kooij, Els
    1998 The position of unselected fingers. Linguistics in the Netherlands19981. 149–162. 10.1075/avt.15.14koo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.15.14koo [Google Scholar]
  59. 2002Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Utrecht: Utrecht University PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Van der Kooij, Els & Onno Crasborn
    2008 Syllables and the word-prosodic system in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Lingua1181. 1307–1327. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  61. Van der Kooij, Els, Inge Zwitserlood & Onno Crasborn
    2023 Strategies for new word formation in NGT: a case for simultaneous morphology. Sign Language & Linguistics26(2). 10.1075/sll.20001.van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20001.van [Google Scholar]
  62. Vennes, Lenia
    2018Weak hand lowering and weak drop: The influence of sub-lexical iconicity on sign language phonology. Nijmegen: Radboud UniversityMA thesis. https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/handle/123456789/6544
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Wallin, Lars
    1990 Polymorphemic predicates in Swedish Sign Language. InCeil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research. Theoretical issues, 133–148. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Wilbur, Ronnie
    2008 Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar?InJosep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wilcox, Phyllis P.
    2000Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Wilcox, Sherman
    2004 Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics15(2). 119–147. 10.1515/cogl.2004.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.005 [Google Scholar]
  67. Zwitserlood, Inge
    2003Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: Utrecht University PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 2008 Morphology below the level of the sign – frozen forms and classifier predicates. InJosep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004, 251–272. Hamburg: Signum. https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_1187630_2/component/file_1189591/content
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Zwitserlood, Inge, Els van der Kooij & Onno Crasborn
    2021 Morphological complexity in sign languages and the classifier – core sign dilemma. Unpublished manuscript, Radboud University.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20009.van
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20009.van
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): FMU; form-meaning unit; lexical database; morphology; Sign Language of the Netherlands
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