Cover not available
Part of
The Typology of Physical Qualities
Edited by Ekaterina Rakhilina, Tatiana Reznikova and Daria Ryzhova
[Typological Studies in Language 133] 2022
► pp. 289–308

Chapter 10
The qualitative lexicon in Russian Sign Language from a typological perspective

| University of Surrey
The paper describes several expressions of physical qualities (namely, sharp, blunt, old, thick-wide, and thin-narrow) in Russian Sign Language (RSL) from a lexical typological perspective. This is the first study to analyse a sign language from the standpoint of the MLexT framework. The results show that RSL structures the aforementioned domains on the same grounds as spoken languages. This finding strongly supports the hypothesis that lexical systems are cognitively motivated. At the same time, RSL exhibits a number of non-trivial lexicalization strategies, which are not accidental but can be explained by the fact that this language is produced in the visual modality.
Keywords: Russian Sign Language, RSL, sign language lexicon, lexical typology, physical qualities
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Iconicity and the word in sign languages
  • 3.Sign vs. spoken language lexicon: Previous studies
  • 4.Physical qualities in Russian Sign Language
    • 4.1Research methodology
    • 4.2Results of the study
      • 4.2.1Semantic domains with core signs only
      • 4.2.2Semantic domains with core and peripheral signs
  • 5.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.133.10kyu
References
Bellugi, U. & Klima, E. S.
1979 Language: perspectives from another modality. In Brain and Mind [Ciba Foundation Series 69], 99–117. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica.Google Scholar
Benedicto, E. & Brentari, D.
2004 Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of Classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22 (4): 743–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B. & Kay, P.
1969 Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F. & Christiansen, M. H.
2016 Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113(39): 10818–10823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyes-Braem, P. & Sutton-Spence, R.
(eds) 2001 The Hands are the Head of the Mouth: The Mouth as Articulator in Sign Languages. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Brennan, M.
1990 Word Formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: University of Stockholm Press.Google Scholar
2005 Conjoining Word and Image in British Sign Language (BSL): An Exploration of Metaphorical Signs in BSL. Sign Language Studies 5 (3): 360–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burkova, S. & Kimmelman, V.
(eds) 2019 Vvedenie v linguistiku žestovyx jazykov: Russkiy žestovyj jazyk [Introduction to Sign Language Linguistics: Russian Sign Language]. Novosibirsk: NSTUGoogle Scholar
Cogill-Koez, D.
2000a Signed language classifier predicates: Linguistic structures or schematic visual representation? Sign Language & Linguistics 3(2): 153–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000b A model of signed language ‘classifier predicates’ as templated visual representation. Sign Language & Linguistics 3(2): 209–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K. & Herzig, M.
2003 Categorical Versus Gradient Properties of Classifier Constructions in ASL. In Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages, K. Emmorey (ed), 221–247. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grose, D.
2012 Lexical semantics: Semantic fields and lexical aspect. In Sign Language: an International Handbook, R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds), 432–462. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanke, T.
2004 HamNoSys – representing sign language data in language resources and language processing contexts. In Workshop Proceedings : Representation and Processing of Sign Languages, O. Streiter & C. Vettori (eds), 1–6. Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. & Schembri, A.
2007 Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An Introduction to Sign Language Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A.
2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. K.
1980 American Sign Language Syntax. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, I.
2010 Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language 86 (4): 865–896. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlman, M., Little, H., Thompson, B. & Thompson, R. L.
2018 Iconicity in signed and spoken vocabulary: A comparison between American Sign Language, British Sign Language, English, and Spanish. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 132–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L. & Vigliocco, G.
2010 Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1: 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R. & Steinbach, M.
2006 Pluralization in sign and speech: Across-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology 10: 135–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietrandrea, P.
2002 Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian sign language. Sign Language Studies 2(3): 296–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prillwitz, S., Leven, R., Zienert, H., Hanke, Th. & Henning, J.
1987 HamNoSys. Hamburg Notation System for Sign Languages. An Introduction. Hamburg: Zentrum für Deutsche Gebärdensprache.Google Scholar
Rakhilina, E. & Reznikova, T.
2016 A Frame-based methodology for lexical typology. In The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts, P. Juvonen & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 95–130. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagara, K. & Zeshan, U.
2016 Semantic fields in sign languages: A comparative typological study. In Semantic Fields in Sign Languages: Colour, Kinship and Quantification [Sign language typology 6], U. Zeshan & K. Sagara (eds), 3–41. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W.
1989 Phonological Representation of the Sign Linearity and Nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D.
2001 Natural Sign Languages. In Handbook of Linguistics, M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (eds.), 533–562. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2006 Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, W.
1960 Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf [Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Paper No. 8]. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Supalla, T. R.
1986 The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Noun Classes and Categorization, C. Craig (ed), 181–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taub, S. F.
2004 Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Vos, C. & Pfau, R.
2015 Sign Language Typology: The Contribution of Rural Sign Languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 265–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, P. P.
2000 Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, E.
2009 Typology of Signed Languages: Differentiation through Kinship Terminology. PhD thesis, University of New Mexico.
Willbur, R.
2013 The point of agreement: Changing how we think about sign language, gesture, and agreement. Sign Language & Linguistics 16(2): 221–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J.
1978 All in the family: Kinship lexicalization across sign languages. Sign Language Studies 19: 121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, U.
(ed) 2006 Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, U., Delgado, C. E. E., Dikyuva, H., Panda, S. & de Vos, C.
2013 Cardinal numerals in rural sign languages: Approaching cross-modal typology. Linguistic typology 17: 357–396.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, I.
2003 Classifying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar