A Construction Morphology Approach to Sign Language Analysis
In this chapter, we extend a usage-based theory of Construction Morphology to the analysis of sign language structure, to address two long-standing categorization problems in sign language linguistics. Sign language linguistics traditionally distinguishes monomorphemic core lexical signs from multimorphemic classifier construction signs, based on whether or not a sign form exhibits analyzable morphological structure (“the Core vs. Classifier problem”). In this tradition, core signs are retrieved from the lexicon, while classifier signs are derived productively via grammatical rules. Sign linguists are also accustomed to classifying discrete and listable aspects of sign structure as language, while aspects of signing that exhibit more holism or gradience are considered to be gesture (“the Language vs. Gesture problem”). These categories of core vs. classifier on the one hand and language vs. gesture on the other derive from a shared source: the assumption that linguistic forms are built up from discrete building blocks. Instead, we analyze multimodal usage events in terms of constructions, conventional patterns of meaning and form containing both fixed elements and variable slots and organized in a structured network. We argue that the Construction Morphology approach leads to a uniform analysis of core and classifier signs alike, without resorting to an a priori distinction between language and gesture.
KeywordsSign language Usage-based Construction grammar Lexicon Classifier Gesture
We wish to thank Geert Booij, Onno Crasborn, Wendy Sandler, Lynn Hou, and Hope Morgan for their careful and very helpful comments on this chapter. We also wish to acknowledge the input and contributions of Satu Siltaloppi, Stephanie Johnston, and Brennan Terhune-Cotter, as well as the audience members in the “Constructions in Language” session at the 2017 meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, for their thoughtful questions.
- Anible, B., and C. Occhino-Kehoe. 2014. What’s happening with HAPPEN: The grammaticalization of HAPPEN in American Sign Language. In Proceedings of the High Desert Linguistics Society Conference, ed. B. Anible, K. Beers, L. Hirrel, and D. Wager, 27–41. Albuquerque. Retrieved from http://linggraduate.unm.edu/HDLS10Proceedings.html.
- Aronoff, M., I. Meir, C.A. Padden, and W. Sandler. 2003. Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages. In Perspectives on classifier constructions in signed languages, ed. K. Emmorey, 53–84. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Barsalou, L.W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4): 577–609. discussion 610–660.Google Scholar
- Battison, R. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
- Bergen, B. 2007. Experimental methods for simulation semantics. In Methods in cognitive linguistics, ed. M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittleberg, S. Coulson, and M.J. Spivey, 277–301. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Booij, G. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- ———. 2013. Morphology in construction grammar. In The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, ed. A. Bergs and G. Trousdale, 255–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- ———. 2017. Inheritance and motivation in construction morphology. In Defaults in morphological theory, ed. N. Gisborne and A. Hippisley, 18–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Brennan, M. 1990. Productive morphology in British Sign Language. Proceedings of the International Congress on Sign Language Research and Application, Hamburg, 205–228.Google Scholar
- Brentari, D. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Brentari, D., and C. Padden. 2001. A language with multiple origins: Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language. In Foreign vocabulary in sign language: A crosslinguistic investigation of word formation, ed. D. Brentari, 87–119. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Calbris, G. 1990. The semiotics of French gesture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Cormier, K., D. Quinto-Pozos, Z. Sevcikova, and A. Schembri. 2012. Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation processes in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language & Communication 32 (4): 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cormier, K., S. Smith, and Z. Sevcikova. 2013. Predicate structures, gesture, and simultaneity in the representation of action in British Sign Language: Evidence from deaf children and adults. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 18 (3): 370–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Eccarius, P., and D. Brentari. 2007. Symmetry and dominance: A cross-linguistic study of signs and classifier constructions. The Linguistics of Sign Language Classifiers: Phonology, Morpho-Syntax, Semantics and Discourse. Lingua 117 (7): 1169–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Elman, J.L. 1995. Language as a dynamical system. In Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition, ed. R.F. Port and T. Van Gelder. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Fenlon, J., K. Cormier, and D. Brentari. 2018. The phonology of sign languages. In Handbook of phonological theory, ed. S.J. Hannahs and A. Bosch. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalisations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- ———. 2013. Constructionist Approaches. In The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, ed. T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale, 15–31. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Goldin-Meadow, S., and D. Brentari. 2017. Gesture, sign and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences: 1–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15001247.
- Himmelmann, N.P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, ed. W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann, and B. Wiemer, 21–42. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Hoffmann, T., and G. Trousdale. 2013. Construction Grammar: Introduction. In The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, ed. id, 1–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Janzen, T. 1995. The Polygrammaticalization of FINISH in ASL. Master’s thesis. University of Manitoba, Winnepeg. Manitoba.Google Scholar
- Johnston, T., and L. Ferrara. 2012. Lexicalization in signed languages: When is an idiom not and idiom? Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings 1: 229–248.Google Scholar
- Klima, E.S., and U. Bellugi. 1979. The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- ———. 2000. A Dynamic Usage-Based Model. In Usage-based models of language, ed. M. Barlow and S. Kemmer. Stanford: CSLI Publications, Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
- Lepic, R. 2015. Motivation in morphology: Lexical patterns in ASL and English. Dissertation. University of California, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- ———. 2016. Lexical blends and lexical patterns in English and in American Sign Language, 98–111. Presented at the Quo Vadis Morphology? Online proceedings of the tenth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting. http://xantho.lis.upatras.gr/pasithee/index.php/mmm/article/view/2728.
- Lillo-Martin, D. and R. Meier. 2011. On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics, 37(3-4): 95–141. Retrieved 6 February 2018, from https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2011.009.
- Marghetis, T., and B. Bergen. 2015. Embodied meaning, inside and out: The coupling of gesture and mental simulation. In Body-language-communication, ed. C. Mueller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S.H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, and S. Tessendorf. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Morgan H. 2016. The effect of modality on signal space in natural languages. In The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 11th international conference (EVOLANG11), ed. S.G. Roberts, C. Cuskley, L. McCrohon, L. Barceló-Coblijn, O. Fehér, and T. Verhoef. Available online: http://evolang.org/neworleans/papers/192.html.
- Padden, C.A. 1998. The ASL Lexicon. Sign Language & Linguistics 1 (1): 39–60. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.rice.edu/10.1075/sll.1.1.04pad.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pinker, S. 1999. Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
- ———. 1994. Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In The reality of linguistic rules, ed. S.D. Lima, R.L. Corrigan, and G.K. Iverson. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Schembri, A. 2003. Rethinking “classifiers” in signed languages. In Perpectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, ed. K. Emmorey, 3–34. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Schembri, A., C. Jones, and D. Burnham. 2005. Comparing action gestures and classifier verbs of motion: evidence from Australian Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, and nonsigners’ gestures without speech. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10 (3): 272–290. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eni029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shaw, E., and Y. Delaporte. 2014. A historical and etymological dictionary of American Sign Language: The origin and evolution of more than 500 signs. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
- Stokoe, W.C. 1960. Sign language structure. Silver Spring: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
- Supalla, T. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language (Dissertation), University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
- ———. 1986. The classifier system of American Sign Language. In Noun Classification: Proceedings of a Symposium on Categorization and Noun Classification, 181–214. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Supalla, T., and P. Clark. 2014. Sign Language Archaeology. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
- Vigliocco, G., P. Perniss, and D. Vinson. 2014. Language as a multimodal phenomenon: implications for language learning, processing and evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369 (1651): 20130292. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wilcox, S., and C. Occhino. 2016. Constructing signs: Place as a symbolic structure in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 27(3): 371–404. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0003.
- Zima, E. 2014. English multimodal motion constructions. A construction grammar perspective. Studies van de BKL – Travaux du CBL – Papers of the LSB, Volume 8. http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/linguist/SBKL/sbkl2013/Zim2013.pdf.