Cover not available
Article published In:
Lexical plurals and beyond
Edited by Peter Lauwers and Marie Lammert
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 39:2] 2016
► pp. 391–407

Articulatory plurality is a property of lexical plurals in sign language

| Stockholm University |
| University of California, San Diego |
| University of Haifa |
Sign languages make use of paired articulators (the two hands), hence manual signs may be either one- or two-handed. Although two-handedness has previously been regarded a purely formal feature, studies have argued morphologically two-handed forms are associated with some types of inflectional plurality. Moreover, recent studies across sign languages have demonstrated that even lexically two-handed signs share certain semantic properties. In this study, we investigate lexically plural concepts in ten different sign languages, distributed across five sign language families, and demonstrate that such concepts are preferentially represented with two-handed forms, across all the languages in our sample. We argue that this is because the signed modality with its paired articulators enables the languages to iconically represent conceptually plural meanings.
Keywords: sign language, two-handed signs, iconicity, articulatory plurality, lexical plurality
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Background
    • 1.1Lexical plurality and sign language
    • 1.2The phonological structure of sign language
    • 1.3Semantics of two-handed forms
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Concepts
    • 2.2Language sample
    • 2.3Data and coding
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 March 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.39.2.10bor
References (50)
References
Acquaviva, P. (2008). Lexical plurals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Attarde, I. P. (2007). Encyclopedic graded grammar, vol. 11. Lulu. (e-book)Google Scholar
Bergman, B. (1983). Verbs and adjectives: Morphological processes in Swedish Sign Language. In J. Kyle & B. Woll (Eds.), Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language (pp. 3–9). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bergman, B., & Engberg-Pedersen, E. (2010). Transmission of sign languages in the Nordic countries. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey (pp. 74–94). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Björkstrand, T. (2016). Svenskt teckenspråkslexikon. Stockholm: Avdelningen för teckenspråk, Institutionen för lingvistik, Stockholms universitet. (Retrieved from [URL])Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Börstell, C. (2011). Revisiting Reduplication: Toward a Description of Reduplication in Predicative Signs in Swedish Sign Language. MA Thesis, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.
Cabredo Hofherr, P., & Laca, B. (Eds.). (2012). Verbal plurality and distributivity. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, O. (2011). The other hand in sign language phonology. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 11 (pp. 223–240). Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, O., & Sáfár, A. (2016). An annotation scheme to investigate the form and function of hand dominance in the Corpus NGT. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & A. Herrmann (Eds.), A matter of complexity (pp. 231–251). Boston, MA/Berlin & Preston: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, B. (1893). Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen: Erster Teil. Strassburg: Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenlon, J., Cormier, K., Rentelis, R., Schembri, A., Rowley, K., Adam, R., & Woll, B. (2014). BSL Signbank. BSL SignBank : A Lexical Database of British Sign Language (First Edition). London: Deafness Cognition and Language (DCAL) Research Centre, University College London. (Retrieved from [URL])Google Scholar
Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51(3), 696–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greftegreff, I., & Handberg, T. (2015). Norwegian Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen, G. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi, & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 649–676). Berlin/Boston, MA & Preston: De Gruyter & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2007). Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. In V. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions (pp. 2087–2115). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Inkelas, S. (2006). Reduplication. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 417–419). Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, T. (2014). Auslan Signbank. (Retrieved from [URL])Google Scholar
Johnston, T., & Schembri, A. (1999). On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2(2), 115–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., & Wälchli, B. (2001). The Circum-Baltic languages. In Ö. Dahl & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Eds.), Circum-Baltic languages. Volume 2: Grammar and typology (Vol. 551, pp. 615–750). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, J. (2015). Cross-categorial Singular and Plural Reference in Sign Language. PhD Thesis, New York University.Google Scholar
Lepic, R., Börstell, C., Belsitzman, G., & Sandler, W. (2016). Taking meaning in hand: Iconic motivations for two-handed signs. Sign Language & Linguistics, 19(1), 37–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LSF Dico. (n.d.). Metz: INJS (Institut National de Jeunes Sourds) de Metz. (Retrieved from [URL])
McKee, D., & Kennedy, G. (2000). Lexical comparisons of signs from American, Australian, British and New Zealand Sign Languages. In K. Emmorey & H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 49–76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
McKee, D., McKee, R. L., Pivac Alexander, S., Pivac, L., & Vale, M. (n.d.). Online Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language. Deaf Studies Research Unit, Victoria University of Wellington. (Retrieved from [URL]). DOI logo
Meir, I., & Sandler, W. (2008). A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York, NY & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Meir, I., Sandler, W., Padden, C. A., & Aronoff, M. (Eds.). (2012). Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language: A dictionary. Haifa & San Diego, CA: Sign Language Research Lab, University of Haifa, Center for Research in Language, UCSD.Google Scholar
Middleton, E. L., Wisniewski, E. J., Trindel, K. A., & Imai, M. (2004). Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 371–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Millet, A., Niederberger, N., & Blondel, M. (2015). French Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen, G. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi, & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 274–316). Berlin/Boston, MA & Preston: De Gruyter & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neidle, C., & Poole Nash, J. C. (2015). American Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen, G. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi, & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 31–70). Berlin/Boston, MA & Preston: De Gruyter & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, A.-L. (2007). The non-dominant hand in a Swedish Sign Language discourse. In M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson, & O. Crasborn (Eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function. Current issues in linguistic theory, 2811 (pp. 163–185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, C., & Perlmutter, D. M. (1987). American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 51, 335–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2003). Optimal reciprocals in German Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 6(1), 3–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Pluralization in sign and in speech: A cross-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology, 10(2), 135–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savir, H. (1992). Gateway to Israeli Sign Language (First Version). Tel Aviv: The Association of the Deaf in Israel.Google Scholar
Sematos. (n.d.). Dictionary LSF. (Retrieved from [URL])
SignWiki Ísland. (n.d.). (Retrieved from [URL])
Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American Deaf. In Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers (No. 8). Buffalo, NY: Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Supalla, T., & Newport, E. L. (1978). How many seats in a chair?: The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 91–132). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Suvi – Suomalainen viittomakielen verkkosanakirja. (2013). Kuurojen Liitto. (Retrieved from [URL])Google Scholar
Tegnordbok. (n.d.). Statped. (Retrieved from [URL])
Tennant, R. A., & Gluszak Brown, M. (2010). The American Sign Language handshape dictionary (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Thorvaldsdóttir, K. L., & Stefánsdóttir, V. (2015). Icelandic Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen, G. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi, & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 409–429). Berlin/Boston, MA & Preston: De Gruyter & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, P. M. (1982). Local and general markedness. Language, 58(4), 832–849. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, H. (1996). On the other hand. Lingua, 981, 121–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Kooij, E. (2001). Weak drop in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In V. Dively, M. Metzger, S. F. Taub, & A. M. Baer (Eds.), Signed languages: Discoveries from international research (pp. 27–42). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Van Herreweghe, M., De Meulder, M., & Vermeerbergen, M. (2016). From erasure to recognition (and back again?): The case of Flemish Sign Language. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Language: Research, Policy, and Practice. (Vol. 31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Herreweghe, M., Vermeerbergen, M., De Weerdt, K., & Van Mulders, K. (2004). Woordenboek Nederlands – Vlaamse Gebarentaal / Vlaamse Gebarentaal – Nederlands (online). (Retrieved from [URL])Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). Oats and wheat: Mass nouns, iconicity, and human categorization. In A. Wierzbicka (Ed.), The semantics of grammar (pp. 499–560). Amsterdam: John Benjamin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wisniewski, E. J. (2010). On using count nouns, mass nouns, and pluralia tantum: What counts? In F. J. Pelletier (Ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff: Mass terms and generics (pp. 1–24). Oxford Scholarship Online.Google Scholar
Woodward, Jr., J. C. (1976). Signs of change: Historical variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 101, 81–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Bauer, Anastasia, Anna Kuder, Marc Schulder, Job Schepens & Laura Morett
2024. Phonetic differences between affirmative and feedback head nods in German Sign Language (DGS): A pose estimation study. PLOS ONE 19:5 ► pp. e0304040 ff. DOI logo
Brentari, Diane, Susan Goldin-Meadow, Laura Horton, Ann Senghas & Marie Coppola
2024. The organization of verb meaning in Lengua de Señas Nicaragüense (LSN): Sequential or simultaneous structures?. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Napoli, Donna Jo & Nathan Sanders
2024. An approach to path movement in the diachronic study of sign languages. Diachronica DOI logo
Bradley, Chuck & Ronnie Wilbur
2023. Visual Form and Event Semantics Predict Transitivity in Silent Gestures: Evidence for Compositionality. Cognitive Science 47:8 DOI logo
Moita, Mara, Ana Maria Abreu & Ana Mineiro
2023. Iconicity in the emergence of a phonological system?. Journal of Language Evolution 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
GÜÇLÜTÜRK, Yasemin & İclâl ERGENÇ
2022. Türk İşaret Dilinde Çoklu Eylemlere İlişkin Bir Sınıflandırma Önerisi. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 33:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Loos, Cornelia, Austin German & Richard P. Meier
2022. Simultaneous structures in sign languages: Acquisition and emergence. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Börstell, Carl & Ryan Lepic
2020. Spatial metaphors in antonym pairs across sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1-2 ► pp. 112 ff. DOI logo
Di Garbo, Francesca
2020. Plural marking on noun-associated forms. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 73:3 ► pp. 363 ff. DOI logo
Ergin, Rabia, Ann Senghas, Ray Jackendoff & Lila Gleitman
2020. Structural cues for symmetry, asymmetry, and non-symmetry in Central Taurus Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1-2 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
OCCHINO, CORRINE, BENJAMIN ANIBLE & JILL P. MORFORD
2020. The role of iconicity, construal, and proficiency in the online processing of handshape. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 114 ff. DOI logo
Woodin, Greg, Bodo Winter, Marcus Perlman, Jeannette Littlemore, Teenie Matlock & Dennis Tay
2020. 'Tiny numbers' are actually tiny: Evidence from gestures in the TV News Archive. PLOS ONE 15:11 ► pp. e0242142 ff. DOI logo
Corbett, Greville G.
2019. Pluralia tantum nouns and the theory of features: a typology of nouns with non-canonical number properties. Morphology 29:1 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
SEVCIKOVA SEHYR, ZED & KAREN EMMOREY
2019. The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Language and Cognition 11:2 ► pp. 208 ff. DOI logo
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 9 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.