Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 26:2 (2023) ► pp.176–217

Strategies for new word formation in NGT

A case for simultaneous morphology

 | Radboud University Nijmegen
ORCID logo | Radboud University Nijmegen
ORCID logo | Radboud University Nijmegen
How do new words arise in a sign language? We present an empirical study of newly formed words in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Five signers were asked to create new forms for known concepts for which word forms exist in NGT. Participants used sequential strategies for word formation, also found in spoken languages. More frequently, however, they used simultaneous strategies, some of which are unique for the visual-manual modality. We describe and discuss each strategy and focus on the most prominent of these, namely the simultaneous combination of meaningful form elements (Form-Meaning Units or FMUs). The abundance of simultaneous combinations of FMUs in our data cannot be explained in terms of concatenative morphology. We propose an account for word formation phenomena in NGT that uses the phonological segment as the template for simultaneous combinations of FMUs. This study shows that the FMUs function as basic building blocks for words and accordingly can be considered morphemes. Given the large set of FMUs in NGT and their frequent occurrence in the newly formed lexical words in our data, we argue for the acknowledgement of more morphological complexity within the lexicon of sign languages and for a re-evaluation of the relation between sign language phonology, morphology, and syntax.
Keywords: word formation, morphology, compounding, blending, lexicon, sign language, NGT, neologisms
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Terminology
    • 2.2Word formation strategies in sign languages
      • 2.2.1Compounding
      • 2.2.2Derivation
      • 2.2.3Loan translation
      • 2.2.4Classifier constructions
      • 2.2.5Other sources of lexicon expansion in sign languages
    • 2.3The Dependency Model
    • 2.4The present study
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Materials
    • 3.2Participants and procedure
    • 3.3Analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Strategies
      • 4.2.1Combinations of existing words: Compounds and blends
      • 4.2.2FMU combinations
      • 4.2.3Combination of existing signs with one or more FMUs
      • 4.2.4Semantic extension
    • 4.2Distribution of the strategies
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Summary and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20001.van
References (63)
References
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol A. Padden & Wendy Sandler. 2003. Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 53–84. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir & Wendy Sandler. 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 811. 301–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Battison, Robbin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Claudia. 2001. Gebärdenbildungsprozesse in der Deutschen Gebärdensprache – Zur Rolle von Komposita. In Helen Leuninger & Karin Wempe (eds.), Gebärdensprachlinguistik 2000 – Theorie und Anwendung, 147–167. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 221. 743–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyes-Braem, Penny. 2001. Functions of the mouthing component in the signing of deaf early and late learners of Swiss German Sign Language. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages. A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation, 1–48. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brennan, Mary. 1990. Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
. 2001. Making borrowings work in British Sign Language. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages. A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation, 49–86. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brennan, Mary, Martin Colville, Lilian Lawson & Gerry Hughes. 1984. Words in hand: A structural analysis of the signs of British Sign Language. Edinburgh and Carlisle: Moray House College of Education and the British Deaf Association.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane & Carol A. Padden. 2001. Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: a lexicon with multiple origins. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages. A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation, 87–119. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bussemaker, Marlies C. 2000. Compounds in NGT. Utrecht: Utrecht University MA thesis.
Cates, Deborah, Eva Gutiérrez, Sarah Hafer, Ryan Barrett & David Corina. 2013. Location, location, location. Sign Language Studies 13(4). 433–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Els van der Kooij. 2023. The emergence of the second hand in sign language phonology: From underlying to surface representations. In Jeroen van de Weijer (ed.), Syllable, stress, and sign, 319–344. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Els van der Kooij & Johan Ros. 2012. On the weight of phrase-final prosodic words in a sign language. Sign Language & Linguistics 15(1). 11–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eccarius, Petra & Diane Brentari. 2007. Symmetry and dominance: A cross-linguistic study of signs and classifier constructions. Lingua 117(7). 1169–1201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernald, Theodore B. & Donna Jo Napoli. 2000. Exploitation of morphological possibilities in signed languages: Comparison of American Sign Language with English. Sign Language & Linguistics 31. 3–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuks, Orit. 2014. The (non-)random distribution of formational parameters in the established lexicon of Israeli Sign Language (ISL). Semiotica 1991. 125–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grote, Klaudia A. E. & Erika Linz. 2003. The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization. In Wolfgang G. Müller & Olga Fischer (eds.), From sign to signing ( Iconicity in language and literature 3), 23–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Jenny Audring. 2019. Relational Morphology in the parallel architecture. In Jenny Audring & Francesca Masini (eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory, 390–408 Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jarque, Maria-Josep. 2005. Double mapping in metaphorical expressions of thought and communication in Catalan Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 5(3). 292–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Robert & Scott K. Liddell. 1984. Structural diversity in the American Sign Language lexicon. In David Testen, Veena Mishra & Joe Drogo (eds.), CLS 20: Papers from the parasession on lexical semantics, 173–186.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Lindsay Ferrara. 2012. Lexicalization in signed languages – When is an idiom not an idiom? Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings 11. 229–248.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 1999. On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2(2). 115–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kegl, Judy A. & Sara Schley. 1986. When is a classifier no longer a classifier? Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 425–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, Jette H. & Thomas Troelsgård. 2012. Integrating corpora and dictionaries: problems and perspectives, with particular respect to the treatment of sign language. In Onno Crasborn, Eleni Efthimiou, Evita Fotinea, Thomas Hanke, Jette Kristoffersen & Johanna Mesch (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between Corpus and Lexicon, 95–100.Google Scholar
Kubuş, Okan & Annette Hohenberger. 2011. The phonetics and phonology of the TİD (Turkish Sign Language) bimanual alphabet. In Rachel Channon & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), Formational units in sign languages, 43–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lepic, Ryan. 2019. A usage-based alternative to “lexicalization” in sign language linguistics. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 231. 1–30, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lepic, Ryan & Corinne Occhino. 2018. A Construction Morphology approach to sign language analysis. In Geert Booij (ed.), The construction of words. Studies in morphology 41. 141–172. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Sources of meaning in ASL classifier predicates. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 199–220. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. & Robert E. Johnson. 1986. American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 41. 445–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2001. Verb classifiers as noun incorporation in Israeli Sign Language. In Geert Booij & Jaap Van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1999, 299–319. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Chris. 2001. The adaptation of loan words in Quebec Sign Language: Multiple sources, multiple processes. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages. A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation, 139–173. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Occhino, Corinne. 2016. A cognitive approach to phonology: Evidence from signed languages. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico PhD dissertation.
. 2017. An introduction to embodied cognitive phonology: Claw-5 handshape distribution in ASL and Libras. Complutense Journal of English Studies 251. 69–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol A. & David M. Perlmutter. 1987. American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 51. 335–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pleyer, Michael, Ryan Lepic & Stefan Hartmann. 2022. Compositionality in different modalities: A view from usage-based linguistics. International Journal of Primatology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. In Tracy A. Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz (eds.), Studies on the phonological word, 223–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, William. 1960. Sign language structure. An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. (1993 Reprint ed.). Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted R. 1980. Morphology of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. In Frank Caccamise & David Hicks (eds.), Proceedings of the Second National Symposium of Sign Language Research and Teaching, 1978, 27–45. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted R. 1986. The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Collette Craig (ed.), Noun classes and categorization, 181–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svaib, Trisha. 1992. Compound nouns in American Sign Language: Which way are they headed? Paper presented at TISLR 4, San Diego.
Taub, Sara F. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Cognition 35(2). 550–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 1993. Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology 101. 209–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. On the other hand. Lingua 981. 121–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Two phonologies. In Janet Grijzenhout & Baris Kabak (eds.), Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, 315–352. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry & Els van der Kooij. 2021. Sign language phonology: theoretical perspectives. In Josep Quer, Roland Pfau & Annika Herrmann (eds.), The Routledge handbook of theoretical and experimental sign language research, 1–32. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Kooij, Els. 2001. Weak drop in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Valerie Dively, Melanie Metzger, Sarah Taub & Anne Marie Baer (eds.), Signed languages. Discoveries from international research, 27–42. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Leiden: University of Leiden PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
van der Kooij, Els & Onno Crasborn. 2008. Syllables and the word-prosodic system in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Lingua 1181. 1307–1327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Kooij, Els, Inge Zwitserlood & Onno Crasborn. 2023. Units of sub-sign meaning in NGT. A morphological toolbox for a lexical database for a sign language. To appear in Sign Language & Linguistics 26(2).Google Scholar
Wallin, Lars. 1983. Compounds in Swedish Sign Language in historical perspective. In Jim Kyle & Bencie Woll (eds.), Language in sign, 56–68. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
. 1996. Polysynthetic signs in Swedish Sign Language. Stockholm: Stockholm University PhD dissertation.
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2003. ‘Classificatory’ constructions in Indo-Pakistani Sign Language: Grammaticalization and lexicalization processes. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 113–141. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: Utrecht University PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
. 2008. Morphology below the level of the sign – frozen forms and classifier predicates. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004, 251–272. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge, Els van der Kooij & Onno Crasborn. 2021. Morphological complexity in sign languages and the classifier – core sign dilemma. Manuscript, Radboud University.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge, Jette H. Kristoffersen & Thomas Troelsgård. 2013. Issues in sign language lexicography. In Howard Jackson (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to lexicography, 259–283. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
. 2022. Issues in sign language lexicography. In Howard Jackson (ed.), The Bloomsbury handbook of lexicography (2nd ed.), 227–250. London: Bloomsbury Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Zwitserlood, Inge, Els van der Kooij & Onno Crasborn
2023. Units of sub-sign meaning in NGT. Sign Language & Linguistics 26:2 ► pp. 276 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2033. Title Pending 10342. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 2024. 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.