Cover not available

Article In: Sign Language & Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Iconic, articulatory, and perceptual anchoring in signs that are high in the signing space

ORCiD logo with link | University of British Columbia
 | University of British Columbia
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Sign-language lexica typically contain a large number of signs produced high in the signing space, even though producing signs above the neutral signing space requires increased articulatory effort. This large proportion of ‘high’ signs is also surprising given the diachronic tendency for signs to lower in signing space and the synchronic tendency for signs to lower due to coarticulatory pressures. In this paper, we consider three possible factors that could account for the prevalence of high signs, which we refer to as ‘anchors’: (1) iconic motivations for their places of articulation, (2) reduced articulatory effort via reliance on articulatory endpoints, and (3) perceptual factors relating to visibility. We test these anchors with a database of American Sign Language (ASL) and find that high signs are overwhelmingly anchored in one, two, or all three ways. We find strong evidence for articulatory and iconic anchoring distinguishing high signs from not-high signs; however, the role of perceptual anchoring is less clear. It is possible that perceptual factors come into play only for perceptually confusable signs, especially in combination with other factors. Nonetheless, the evidence is clear that, at least in ASL, signs that are maintained at higher places of articulation are anchored.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1The signing space
    • 2.2Why signs might be expected to be low in the signing space
      • 2.2.1Articulatory effort in sign languages
      • 2.2.2Sociolinguistic variation and historical change
    • 2.3Why signs would be licensed to be high in the signing space
      • 2.3.1Semantic factors: Iconicity
      • 2.3.2Articulatory factors: Contact
      • 2.3.3Perceptual factors
    • 2.4The anchoring proposal
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Initial dataset
    • 3.2Annotation
      • 3.2.1Articulatory and iconic-location anchoring
      • 3.2.2Perceptual anchoring
      • 3.2.3Height
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Results that include perceptual anchoring based on handshape complexity
    • 4.2Results that include perceptual anchoring based on handshape confusability
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Links to hand sign videos
  • Author queries
  • References
References (125)
References
Archangeli, Diana B. & Douglas G. Pulleyblank. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Armstrong, David F., William C. Stokoe & Sherman E. Wilcox. 1995. Gesture and the nature of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bailey, Carole S., Kathy Dolby & Hilda M. Campbell. 2002. The Canadian dictionary of ASL. University of Alberta.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Battison, Robbin. 1974. Phonological deletion in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 5(1). 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Becker, Amelia A. 2021. The effect of iconicity on weak hand drop in American Sign Language. Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2023. The effect of iconicity on phonetic and phonological processes in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Georgetown University PhD dissertation.
Bellugi, Ursula & Susan Fischer. 1972. A comparison of sign language and spoken language. Cognition 1(2–3). 173–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonvillian, John D. & Theodore Siedlecki, Jr. 1996. Young children’s acquisition of the location aspect of American Sign Language signs: Parental report findings. Journal of Communication Disorders 29(1). 13–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borneman, Joshua D., Evie Malaia & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2018. Motion characterization using optical flow and fractal complexity. Journal of Electronic Imaging 27(5). 051229–051229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Börstell, Carl & Robert Östling. 2017. Iconic locations in Swedish Sign Language: Mapping form to meaning with lexical databases. 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (NoDaLiDa), Gothenburg, Sweden, 22–24 May, 2017. Linköping University Electronic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny. 1980. Significant features of the handshape in American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, Mary. 1990. Word formation in BSL. Stockholm: Stockholm University PhD dissertation.
Caselli, Naomi K., Zed Sevcikova Sehyr, Ariel M. Cohen-Goldberg & Karen Emmorey. 2017. ASL-LEX: A lexical database of American Sign Language. Behavior Research Methods 49(2). 784–801. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caselli, Naomi, Corrine Occhino, Bruno Artacho, Andreas Savakis & Matthew Dye. 2022. Perceptual optimization of language: Evidence from American Sign Language. Cognition 2241. 105040. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cates, Deborah, Eva Gutiérrez, Sarah Hafer, Ryan Barrett & David Corina. 2013. Location, location, location. Sign Language Studies 13(4). 433–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Yijun & James H-Y. Tai. 2009. Lexical variation and change in Taiwan Sign Language. In James H-Y. Tai & Jane Tsay (eds.), Taiwan Sign Language and beyond, 131–148. Taiwan Institute for the Humanities National Chung Cheng University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conlin, Kimberly E., Gene R. Mirus, Claude Mauk & Richard P. Meier. 2000. The acquisition of first signs: Place, handshape, and movement. In Charlene Chamberlain, Jill P. Morford & Rachel I. Mayberry (eds.), Language acquisition by eye, 51–69. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno. 2001. Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Leiden: Leiden University PhD dissertation.
Cuxac, Christian. 1999. French sign language: proposition of a structural explanation by iconicity. International Gesture Workshop. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Boysson-Bardies, Bénédicte & Marilyn M. Vihman. 1991. Adaptation to language: Evidence from babbling and first words in four languages. Language 67(2). 297–319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeMatteo, Asa. 1977. Visual imagery and visual analogues in American Sign Language. In Lynn A. Friedman (ed.), On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language, 109–136. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Demey, Eline. 2005. Fonologie van de Vlaamse Gebarentaal: Distinctiviteit en iconiciteit [‘Phonology of Flemish Sign Language: Distinctivity and iconicity’]. Ghent: Ghent University PhD dissertation.
Emmorey, Karen, David Corina & Ursula Bellugi. 1995. Differential processing of topographic and referential functions of space. In Karen Emmorey & Judy S. Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 43–62. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen & Brenda Falgier. 1999. Talking about space with space. In Elizabeth A. Winston (ed.), Storytelling and conversations: Discourse in deaf communities, 3–26. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen, Robin Thompson & Rachael Colvin. 2009. Eye gaze during comprehension of American Sign Language by native and beginning signers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 14(2). 237–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. The concept of domain in the cognitive theory of metaphor. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 18(2). 111–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 1995. Auditory representations in phonology. Los Angeles, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
. 2001. Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18(1). 7–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friedman, Lynn A. 1976. Phonology of a soundless language: phonological structure of the American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language. Language 511. 696–719. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy & Bonnie Gough. 1973. Time on our hands. Manuscript, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuks, Orit. 2014. The (non-)random distribution of formational parameters in the established lexicon of Israeli Sign Language (ISL). Semiotica 1991. 125–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2025. Examining weak drop in Israeli Sign Language (ISL) infant-directed signing. Language Learning and Development 22(2). 121–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gick, Bryan, Ian Stavness, Chenhao Chiu & Sidney Fels. 2011. Categorical variation in lip posture is determined by quantal biomechanical-articulatory relations. Canadian Acoustics 39(3). 178–179.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gildersleeve-Neumann, Christina E., Barbara L. Davis & Peter F. MacNeilage. 2000. Contingencies governing the production of fricatives, affricates, and liquids in babbling. Applied Psycholinguistics 21(3). 341–363. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goyal, Himanshu, Praneeth S. Venkata, Oksana Tkachman & Bryan Gick. 2019. Simulating biomechanical endpoints in sign language movements. Paper presented at the Language Sciences Undergraduate Research Conference (LSURC), Vancouver, Canada.
Grosvald, Michael & David Corina. 2008. Location-to-location coarticulation: A phonetic investigation of American Sign Language. Proceedings of the 24th Northwest Linguistics Conference (NWLC), 59–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosvald, Michael & David P. Corina. 2012a. Exploring the movement dynamics of manual and oral articulation: Evidence from coarticulation. Laboratory Phonology 3(1). 37–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosvald, Michael & David Corina. 2012b. Perception of long-distance coarticulation: An event-related potential and behavioral study. Applied Psycholinguistics 33(1). 55–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, Kathleen Currie, Yurika Aonuki, Kaili Vesik, April Poy & Nico Tolmie. 2022. Sign language phonetic annotator-analyzer: Open-source software for form-based analysis of sign languages. In Eleni Efthimiou, Stavroula-Evita Fotinea, Thomas Hanke, Julie A. Hochgesang, Jetter Kristoffersen, Johanna Mesch & Marc Schulder (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Language, 59–66. European Language Resources AssociationGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1999. Phonetically-driven phonology: The role of Optimality Theory and inductive grounding. In Michael Darnell, Edith Moravscik, Michael Noonan, Frederick Newmeyer & Kathleen Wheatly (eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Volume I: General papers, 243–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Higgins, Daniel D. 1923. How to talk to the deaf. St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman & Morris Halle. 1956. Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 2018. know and understand in ASL: A usage-based study of grammaticalized topic constructions. In Dawn Nordquist & K. Aaron Smith (eds.), Functionalist and usage-based approaches to the study of language: In honor of Joan L. Bybee, 59–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jissink, Tanja. 2005. How do you drive your car? Phonological acquisition order for hearing adult learners of Sign Language of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam MA thesis.
Karnopp, Lodenir B. 2008. Sign phonology acquisition in Brazilian Sign Language. In Ronice M. de Quadros (ed.), Sign languages: Spinning and unraveling the past, present, and future, 204–218. Petrópolis, Brazil: Editora Arara Azul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, Anna Klezovich & George Moroz. 2018. IPSL: A database of iconicity patterns in sign languages. Creation and use. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert M. 1998. An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. Los Angeles, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
Kirchner, Robert. 2001. Phonological contrast and articulatory effort. In Linda Lombardi (ed.), Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory, 79–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Emmon W. Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 171–202. New York: Holt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kozak, L. Viola & Nozomi Tomita. 2012. On selected phonological patterns in Saudi Arabian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 13(1). 56–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lapiak, Jolanta. 1995. Handspeak®. [URL]
Liddell, Scott K. & Robert E. Johnson. 1986. American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4(4). 445–513. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In William J. Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modelling, 403–439. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn & Ian Maddieson. 1988. Phonetic universals in consonant systems. In Larry M. Hyman & Charles N. Li (eds.), Language, speech and mind, 62–78. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, J. Schuyler. 1918. The sign language: A manual of signs. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lucas, Ceil, Robert Bayley, Mary Rose & Alyssa Wulf. 2002. Location variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 2(4). 407–440. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mak, Joe & Gladys Tang. 2011. Movement types, repetition, and feature organization in Hong Kong Sign Language. In Rachel Channon & Harry Van der Hulst (eds.), Formational units in sign languages, 315–337. Berlin & Nijmegen: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandel, Mark A. 1977. Iconic devices in American Sign Language. In Lynn A. Friedman (ed.), On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language, 57–107. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1981. Phonotactics and morphophonology in American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
Mauk, Claude E. 2003. Undershoot in two modalities: Evidence from fast speech and fast signing. Austin, TX: The University of Texas PhD dissertation.
Mauk, Claude E. & Martha E. Tyrone. 2012. Location in ASL: Insights from phonetic variation. Sign Language & Linguistics 15(1). 128–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marentette, Paula F. & Rachel Mayberry. 2000. Principles for an emerging phonological system: A case study of early ASL acquisition. In Charlene Chamberlain, Jill P. Morford & Rachel I. Mayberry (eds.), Language acquisition by eye, 71–90. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1952. Function, structure, and sound change. Word 8(1). 1–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Carol A. Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43(3). 531–563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miozzo, Michele, Michael Villabol, Eduardo Navarrete & Francesca Peressotti. 2020. Hands show where things are: The close similarity between sign and natural space. Cognition 1961. 104106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moisik, Scott & Bryan Gick. 2013. The quantal larynx revisited. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1331. 3522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moisik, Scott R. & Bryan Gick. 2017. The quantal larynx: The stable regions of laryngeal biomechanics and implications for speech production. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 60(3). 540–560. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgan, Gary, Sarah Barrett-Jones & Helen Stoneham. 2007. The first signs of language: Phonological development in British Sign Language. Applied Psycholinguistics 28(1). 3–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgan, Hope E. 2022. A phonological grammar of Kenyan Sign Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Motamedi, Yasamin, Hannah Little, Alan Nielsen & Justin Sulik. 2019. The iconicity toolbox: empirical approaches to measuring iconicity. Language and Cognition 11(2). 188–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muir, Laura J. & Iain E. G. Richardson. 2005. Perception of sign language and its application to visual communications for deaf people. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10(4). 390–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo & Stephanie Liapis. 2019. Effort reduction in articulation in sign languages and dance. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 3(1). 31–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo, Nathan Sanders & Rebecca Wright. 2014. On the linguistic effects of articulatory ease, with a focus on sign languages. Language 90(2). 424–456. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nelson, Winston L. 1983. Physical principles for economies of skilled movements. Biological Cybernetics 46(2). 135–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nilsson, Anna-Lena. 2008. Spatial strategies in descriptive discourse: Use of signing space in Swedish Sign Language. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Deaf Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nishio, Rie. 2009. Corpus-based analysis of weak drop and weak prop in German Sign Language (DGS). Paper presented at the workshop Sign Language Corpora: Linguistic Issues. University College London.
Nyst, Victoria. 1999. Variation in handshape in Ugandan Sign Language. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden MA thesis.
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 91. 725. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A. & David M. Perlmutter. 1987. American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5(3). 335–375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paligot, Aurore & Laurence Meurant. 2016. Weak hand lowering across signing styles of French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB). Poster presented at 12th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR 12), Melbourne, Australia.
Paligot, Aurore, Els van der Kooij, Onno Crasborn & Richard Bank. 2016. Weak drop in context. Paper presented at 12th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR 12), Melbourne, Australia.
Perniss, Pamela, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach. 2007. Can’t you see the difference? Sources of variation in sign language structure. In Pamela Perniss, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Visible variation: Comparative studies on sign language structure, 1–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela M. 2012. Use of sign space. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 412–431. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2000. The phonetic grounding of phonology. Bulletin de la communication parlée 51. 7–23.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pietrandrea, Paola. 2002. Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 2(3). 296–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poizner, Howard & Harlan Lane. 1978. Discrimination of location in American Sign Language. In Patricia Siple (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 271–287. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rozelle, Lorna G. 2003. The structure of sign language lexicons: Inventory and distribution of handshape and location. Seattle, WA: University of Washington PhD dissertation.
Russell, Kevin, Erin Wilkinson & Terry Janzen. 2011. ASL sign lowering as undershoot: A corpus study. Laboratory Phonology 2(2). 403–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam, David McKee, Rachel McKee, Sara Pivac, Trevor Johnston & Della Goswell. 2009. Phonological variation and change in Australian and New Zealand Sign Languages: The location variable. Language Variation and Change 21(2). 193–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmaling, Constanze. 2000. Maganar Hannu: Language of the hands: a descriptive analysis of Hausa Sign Language. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sehyr, Zed Sevcikova, Naomi 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. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 26(2). 263–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaw, Emily & Yves Delaporte. 2014. A historical and etymological dictionary of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siedlecki Jr, Theodore & John D. Bonvillian. 1993. Location, handshape & movement: Young children’s acquisition of the formational aspects of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 78(1). 31–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siple, Patricia. 1978. Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies 19(1). 95–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1972. The quantal nature of speech. In Edward E. David, Jr. & Peter B. Denes (eds.), Human communication: A unified view, 51–66. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1989. On the quantal nature of speech. Journal of Phonetics 17(1–2). 3–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, Carol. 1983. Constraints on consonant-vowel sequences in early words. Journal of Child Language 101. 455–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C., Dorothy C. Casterline & Carl G. Croneberg. 1965. A dictionary of ASL on linguistic principles. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stungis, James. 1981. Identification and discrimination of handshape in American Sign Language. Perception & Psychophysics 29(3). 261–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takkinen, Ritva. 2008. The acquisition of Finnish Sign Language. In Anu Klippi & Kaisa Launonen (eds.), Research in logopedics: Speech and language therapy in Finland, 175–205. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tkachman, Oksana. 2022. Embodiment and emergent phonology in the visual-manual modality: Factors enabling sublexical componentiality. Vancouver: University of British Columbia PhD disseertation.
Tkachman, Oksana & Irit Meir. 2018. Novel compounding and the emergence of structure in two young sign languages. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics 3.11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tkachman, Oksana, Kathleen Currie Hall, Robert Fuhrman & Yurika Aonuki. 2019. Visible amplitude: Towards quantifying prominence in sign language. Journal of Phonetics 771. 100935. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyrone, Martha E. & Claude E. Mauk. 2010. Sign lowering and phonetic reduction in American Sign Language. Journal of Phonetics 38(2). 317–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Phonetic reduction and variation in American Sign Language: A quantitative study of sign lowering. Laboratory Phonology 3(2). 425–453. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. The phonetics of head and body movement in the realization of American sign language signs. Phonetica 73(2). 120–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 & Wim Emmerik. 2006. Explaining prosodic body leans in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Pragmatics required. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10). 1598–1614. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vennes, Lenia. 2018. Weak hand lowering and weak drop: the influence of sub-lexical iconicity on sign language phonology. Nijmegen: Radboud University MA thesis.
Wallin, Lars. 1996. Polysynthetic signs in Swedish Sign Language. Edsbruk: Akademitryck AB.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2010. The role of contact in the phonology of ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 13(2). 203–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woll, Bencie. 1987. Historical and comparative aspects of BSL. In Jim Kyle (ed.), Sign and school: Using signs in deaf children’s development, 12–34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woodward, James & Susan De Santis. 1977. Two to one it happens: Dynamic phonology in two sign languages. Sign Language Studies 17(1). 329–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woodward Jr, James C. 1976. Signs of change: historical variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 10(1). 81–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue