Article published In:
Sign Language & LinguisticsVol. 3:1 (2000) ► pp.3–58
Exploitation of morphological possibilities in signed languages
Comparison of American Sign Language with English
American Sign Language shares with spoken languages derivational and inflectional morphological processes, including compounding, reduplication, incorporation, and, arguably, templates. Like spoken languages, ASL also has an extensive nonderivational, noninflectional morphology involving phonological alternation although this is typically more limited. Additionally, ASL frequently associates meaning with individual phonological parameters. This association is atypical of spoken languages. We account for these phenomena by positing “ion-morphs,” which are phonologically incomplete lexical items that bond with other compatible ion-morphs. These ion-morphs draw lexical items into “families” of related signs.
In contrast, ASL makes little, if any, use of concatenative affixation, a morphological mechanism common among spoken languages. We propose that this difference is the result of the comparative slowness of movement of the manual articulators as compared to the speech articulators, as well as the perceptual robustness of the manual articulators to the visual system. The slowness of the manual articulators disfavors concatenative affixation. The perceptual robustness of the manual articulators allows ASL to exploit morphological potential that spoken language can use only at considerable cost.
Cited by (29)
Cited by 29 other publications
Othman, Achraf
2024. Structure of Sign Language. In Sign Language Processing, ► pp. 17 ff. 
Villaécija, Aida
Papatsimouli, Maria, Panos Sarigiannidis & George F. Fragulis
2023. A Survey of Advancements in Real-Time Sign Language Translators: Integration with IoT Technology. Technologies 11:4 ► pp. 83 ff.
van der Kooij, Els, Inge Zwitserlood & Onno Crasborn
Bradley, Chuck, Evie A. Malaia, Jeffrey Mark Siskind, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Marcus Perlman
2022. Visual form of ASL verb signs predicts non-signer judgment of transitivity. PLOS ONE 17:2 ► pp. e0262098 ff.
Martinez del Rio, Aurora, Casey Ferrara, Sanghee J. Kim, Emre Hakgüder & Diane Brentari
2022. Identifying the Correlations Between the Semantics and the Phonology of American Sign Language and British Sign Language: A Vector Space Approach. Frontiers in Psychology 13
Fuks, Orit
2021. The distribution of handshapes in the established lexicon of Israeli Sign Language (ISL). Semiotica 2021:242 ► pp. 101 ff.
Morgan, Hope E.
Ferrara, Casey & Donna Jo Napoli
2019. Manual Movement in Sign Languages: One Hand Versus Two in Communicating Shapes. Cognitive Science 43:9
Makaroğlu, Bahtiyar
Lepic, Ryan & Corrine Occhino
2018. A Construction Morphology Approach to Sign Language Analysis. In The Construction of Words [Studies in Morphology, 4], ► pp. 141 ff.
Makaroğlu, Bahtiyar & Selçuk İşsever
2018. Agreement Verbs in Turkish Sign Language (TİD) from the Perspective of Templatic Morphology. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 29:1 ► pp. 51 ff.
Kimmelman, Vadim
2017. Quantifiers in Russian Sign Language. In Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language: Volume II [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 97], ► pp. 803 ff.
Sandler, Wendy
2017. The Challenge of Sign Language Phonology. Annual Review of Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 43 ff.
Sandler, Wendy
2018. The Body as Evidence for the Nature of Language. Frontiers in Psychology 9
Sandler, Wendy
2021. Chapter 4. Signs and words. In All Things Morphology [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 353], ► pp. 57 ff.
Sandler, Wendy
2022. Redefining Multimodality. Frontiers in Communication 6
Williams, Joshua T. & Sharlene D. Newman
2017. Spoken Language Activation Alters Subsequent Sign Language Activation in L2 Learners of American Sign Language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 46:1 ► pp. 211 ff.
Lepic, Ryan
Lepic, Ryan
2021. From letters to families. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 268 ff.
Hall, Matthew L., Victor S. Ferreira, Rachel I. Mayberry & Antoni Rodriguez-Fornells
2015. Syntactic Priming in American Sign Language. PLOS ONE 10:3 ► pp. e0119611 ff.
KUBUS, OKAN, AGNES VILLWOCK, JILL P. MORFORD & CHRISTIAN RATHMANN
2015. Word recognition in deaf readers: Cross-language activation of German Sign Language and German. Applied Psycholinguistics 36:4 ► pp. 831 ff.
Hendriks, Bernadet & Shelley Dufoe
2014. Non-native or native vocabulary in Mexican Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 17:1 ► pp. 20 ff.
Mirus, Gene, Jami Fisher & Donna Jo Napoli
2012. Taboo expressions in American Sign Language. Lingua 122:9 ► pp. 1004 ff.
Zwitserlood, Inge, Pamela Perniss & Aslı Özyürek
2012. An empirical investigation of expression of multiple entities in Turkish Sign Language (TİD): Considering the effects of modality. Lingua 122:14 ► pp. 1636 ff.
Demey, Eline & Els van der Kooij
2008. Phonological patterns in a dependency model: Allophonic relations grounded in phonetic and iconic motivation. Lingua 118:8 ► pp. 1109 ff.
Johnston, T.
2006. Sign Language: Morphology. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, ► pp. 324 ff.
Sacknovitz, A.
2006. Napoli, Donna Jo (b. 1948). In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, ► pp. 443 ff.
Demey, Eline
2003. Review of Van der Kooij (2002): Phonological Categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. The Role of Phonetic Implementation and Iconicity. Sign Language & Linguistics 6:2 ► pp. 277 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 september 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.