Article published in:
Lexical plurals and beyond
Edited by Peter Lauwers and Marie Lammert
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 39:2] 2016
► pp. 391–407

Articulatory plurality is a property of lexical plurals in sign language

| Stockholm University
| University of California, San Diego
| University of Haifa
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.
Keywords: sign language, two-handed signs, iconicity, articulatory plurality, lexical plurality
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Background
    • 1.1Lexical plurality and sign language
    • 1.2The phonological structure of sign language
    • 1.3Semantics of two-handed forms
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Concepts
    • 2.2Language sample
    • 2.3Data and coding
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 March 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.39.2.10bor
References
Acquaviva, P
(2008) Lexical plurals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Attarde, I. P
(2007) Encyclopedic graded grammar, vol. 11. Lulu. (e-book)Google Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Björkstrand, T
(2016) Svenskt teckenspråkslexikon. Stockholm: Avdelningen för teckenspråk, Institutionen för lingvistik, Stockholms universitet. (Retrieved from teckensprakslexikon​.su​.se)Google Scholar
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
Börstell, C
(2011) Revisiting Reduplication: Toward a Description of Reduplication in Predicative Signs in Swedish Sign Language. MA Thesis, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.
Cabredo Hofherr, P., & Laca, B
(Eds.) (2012) Verbal plurality and distributivity. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. 11 (pp. 223–240). Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, B
(1893) Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen: Erster Teil. Strassburg: Trübner. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 from http://​bslsignbank​.ucl​.ac​.uk/)Google Scholar
Frishberg, N
(1975) Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51(3), 696–719. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M
(2007) Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. In V. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions (pp. 2087–2115). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Inkelas, S
(2006) Reduplication. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 417–419). Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, T
(2014) Auslan Signbank. (Retrieved from http://​www​.auslan​.org​.au​/dictionary/)Google Scholar
Johnston, T., & Schembri, A
(1999) On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2(2), 115–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. 551, pp. 615–750). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, J
(2015) Cross-categorial Singular and Plural Reference in Sign Language. PhD Thesis, New York University.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
LSF Dico
(n.d.). Metz: INJS (Institut National de Jeunes Sourds) de Metz. (Retrieved from http://​www​.lsfdico​-injsmetz​.fr/)
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
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 from http://​nzsl​.vuw​.ac​.nz/). DOI: Crossref
Meir, I., & Sandler, W
(2008) A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York, NY & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, 2811 (pp. 163–185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Padden, C., & Perlmutter, D. M
(1987) American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 51, 335–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M
(2003) Optimal reciprocals in German Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 6(1), 3–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Pluralization in sign and in speech: A cross-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology, 10(2), 135–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Savir, H
(1992) Gateway to Israeli Sign Language (First Version). Tel Aviv: The Association of the Deaf in Israel.Google Scholar
Sematos
(n.d.). Dictionary LSF. (Retrieved from http://​www​.sematos​.eu​/lsf​-en​.html)
SignWiki Ísland. (n.d
Retrieved from http://​is​.signwiki​.org/)
Stokoe, W. C
(1960) Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American Deaf. In Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers (No. 8). Buffalo, NY: Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
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
Suvi – Suomalainen viittomakielen verkkosanakirja
(2013) Kuurojen Liitto. (Retrieved from http://​suvi​.viittomat​.net/)Google Scholar
Tegnordbok
(n.d.). Statped. (Retrieved from http://​www​.tegnordbok​.no/)
Tennant, R. A., & Gluszak Brown, M
(2010) The American Sign Language handshape dictionary (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, P. M
(1982) Local and general markedness. Language, 58(4), 832–849. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, H
(1996) On the other hand. Lingua, 981, 121–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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. 31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Herreweghe, M., Vermeerbergen, M., De Weerdt, K., & Van Mulders, K
(2004) Woordenboek Nederlands – Vlaamse Gebarentaal / Vlaamse Gebarentaal – Nederlands (online). (Retrieved from http://​gebaren​.ugent​.be/)Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Woodward, Jr., J. C
(1976) Signs of change: Historical variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 101, 81–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

Börstell, Carl & Ryan Lepic
2020. Spatial metaphors in antonym pairs across sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1-2 ► pp. 112 ff. Crossref logo
Corbett, Greville G.
2019. Pluralia tantum nouns and the theory of features: a typology of nouns with non-canonical number properties. Morphology 29:1 ► pp. 51 ff. Crossref logo
Di Garbo, Francesca
2020. Plural marking on noun-associated forms. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 73:3 ► pp. 363 ff. Crossref logo
Ergin, Rabia, Ann Senghas, Ray Jackendoff & Lila Gleitman
2020. Structural cues for symmetry, asymmetry, and non-symmetry in Central Taurus Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1-2 ► pp. 171 ff. Crossref logo
OCCHINO, CORRINE, BENJAMIN ANIBLE & JILL P. MORFORD
2020. The role of iconicity, construal, and proficiency in the online processing of handshape. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 114 ff. Crossref logo
SEVCIKOVA SEHYR, ZED & KAREN EMMOREY
2019. The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Language and Cognition 11:2 ► pp. 208 ff. Crossref logo
Woodin, Greg, Bodo Winter, Marcus Perlman, Jeannette Littlemore, Teenie Matlock & Dennis Tay
2020. 'Tiny numbers' are actually tiny: Evidence from gestures in the TV News Archive. PLOS ONE 15:11 ► pp. e0242142 ff. Crossref logo
Östling, Robert, Carl Börstell & Servane Courtaux
2018. Visual Iconicity Across Sign Languages: Large-Scale Automated Video Analysis of Iconic Articulators and Locations. Frontiers in Psychology 9 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.