Advertisement

A Construction Morphology Approach to Sign Language Analysis

  • Ryan Lepic
  • Corrine Occhino
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (SUMO, volume 4)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Sign language Usage-based Construction grammar Lexicon Classifier Gesture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Abner, N., K. Cooperrider, and S. Goldin-Meadow. 2015. Gesture for linguists: A handy primer. Language and Linguistics Compass 9 (11): 437–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, S.R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrén, M. 2014. Multimodal constructions in children: Is the headshake part of language? Gesture 14 (2): 141–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. Barsalou, L.W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4): 577–609. discussion 610–660.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59 (1): 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Battison, R. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bayley, R., C. Lucas, and M. Rose. 2000. Variation in American sign language: The case of DEAF. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4: 81–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berent, I., and S. Goldin-Meadow. 2015. Language by mouth and by hand. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 78. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Blevins, J.P. 2016. Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blevins, J.P., F. Ackerman, and R. Malouf. 2016. Morphology as an adaptive discriminative system. In Morphological metatheory, ed. D. Siddiqi and H. Harley, 271–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bochner, H. 1993. Simplicity in generative morphology. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Booij, G. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 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
  17. ———. 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
  18. 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
  19. Brentari, D. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Brooks, P.J., M. Tomasello, K. Dodson, and L.B. Lewis. 1999. Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development 70 (6): 1325–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bybee, J.L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82 (4): 711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bybee, J., and J. Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37 (4): 575–596. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.4.575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Calbris, G. 1990. The semiotics of French gesture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Cienki, A. 2013. Image schemas and mimetic schemas in cognitive linguistics and gesture studies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11 (2): 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. Emmorey, K. 1999. Do signers gesture? In Gesture, speech, and sign, ed. L. Messing and R. Campbell, 133–159. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Fernald, T.B., and D.J. Napoli. 2000. Exploitation of morphological possibilities in signed languages comparison of American Sign Language with English. Sign Language & Linguistics 3 (1): 3–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fillmore, C.J., P. Kay, and M.C. O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64 (3): 501–538. https://doi.org/10.2307/414531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Frishberg, N., and B. Gough. 2000. Morphology in American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 3 (1): 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.3.1.08fri.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Glenberg, A.M., and M.P. Kaschak. 2002. Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9 (3): 558–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalisations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 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
  40. 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.
  41. Goldin-Meadow, S., A. Shield, D. Lenzen, M. Herzig, and C.A. Padden. 2012. The gestures ASL signers use tell us when they are ready to learn math. Cognition 123 (3): 448–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hay, J., and R. Baayen. 2005. Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (7): 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Hockett, C.F. 1967. The Yawelmani basic verb. Language 43 (1): 208. https://doi.org/10.2307/411395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Hohenhaus, P. 2005. Lexicalization and institutionalization. In Handbook of word-formation, ed. P. Štekauer and R. Lieber, 353–373. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jackendoff, R. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51 (3): 639–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Janzen, T. 1995. The Polygrammaticalization of FINISH in ASL. Master’s thesis. University of Manitoba, Winnepeg. Manitoba.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Johnston, T., and A. Schembri. 1999. On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2 (2): 115–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kay, P., and C.J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? Construction. Language 75 (1): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kendon, A. 2008. Some reflections on the relationship between “gesture” and “sign”. Gesture 8: 348–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Klima, E.S., and U. Bellugi. 1979. The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kok, K. 2016. The grammatical potential of co-speech gesture: A functional discourse grammar perspective. Functions of Language 23 (2): 149–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kok, K., and A. Cienki. 2014. Taking simulation semantics out of the laboratory: Towards an interactive and multimodal reappraisal of embodied language comprehension. Language and Cognition 9: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. ———. 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
  58. ———. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lepic, R. 2015. Motivation in morphology: Lexical patterns in ASL and English. Dissertation. University of California, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  60. ———. 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.
  61. Lepic, Ryan, Carl Börstell, Gal Belsitzman, and Wendy Sandler. 2016. Taking meaning in hand: Iconic motivations in two-handed signs. Sign Language and Linguistics 19 (1): 37–81. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19.1.02lep.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Liddell, S. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Liddell, S.K., and R.E. Johnson. 1986. American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4 (4): 445–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Liddell, S.K., and R.E. Johnson. 1989. American sign language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64: 195–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Liddell, S., and M. Metzger. 1998. Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30 (6): 657–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.
  67. 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
  68. 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.
  69. Núñez, R.E., and E. Sweetser. 2006. With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science 30: 401–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Padden, C.A., I. Meir, S.-O. Hwang, R. Lepic, S. Seegers, and T. Sampson. 2013. Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture 13 (3): 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.3.03pad.Google Scholar
  72. Pinker, S. 1999. Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  73. Pinker, S., and A. Prince. 1988. On language and connectionism; analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28: 73–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. ———. 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
  75. Sandler, W. 2009. Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica 2009 (174): 241–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sandler, W., and D. Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. Singleton, J.L., J.P. Morford, and S. Goldin-Meadow. 1993. Once is not enough: Standards of well-formedness in manual communication created over three different timespans. Language 69 (4): 683–715. https://doi.org/10.2307/416883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stokoe, W.C. 1960. Sign language structure. Silver Spring: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
  82. Supalla, T. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language (Dissertation), University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  83. ———. 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
  84. Supalla, T., and P. Clark. 2014. Sign Language Archaeology. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  85. 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
  86. Vogler, C., and D. Metaxas. 2001. A Framework for Recognizing the Simultaneous Aspects of American Sign Language. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 81 (3): 358–384. https://doi.org/10.1006/cviu.2000.0895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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.
  88. Wilkinson, E. 2013. A functional description of SELF in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 13 (4): 462–490. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2013.0015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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.
  90. Zwaan, R.A., and C.J. Madden. 2005. Embodied sentence comprehension. In The grounding of cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking, ed. D. Pecher and R.A. Zwaan, 224–245. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goldin-Meadow Laboratory, University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Rochester Institute of TechnologyRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations