Article published In: Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 17:1 (2014) ► pp.56–81
Do repeated references result in sign reduction?
Published online: 6 June 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.17.1.03hoe
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.17.1.03hoe
Previous research on speech and gesture has found that repeated references are often linguistically reduced in terms of, for example, the number of words and the acoustic realization of these words, compared to initial references. The present study looks at the production of repeated references by 14 signers of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Participants had to describe figures to an addressee, who had to pick the correct figure from a large group of figures. Several figures had to be described several times. The question was whether there would be reduction in the repeated references. We found systematic effects of repetition in that repeated references were shorter, contained fewer signs, and shorter signs than initial references. Moreover, in order to measure sign precision, a perception test was used where participants had to judge, in a forced choice task, which sign they considered to be the most precise, looking at 40 pairs of video clips with signs produced in either initial or repeated references to the same object by the same signer. We found that, non-signing participants (but not signing participants) consider signs produced during repeated references to be less precise than the signs produced during initial references. Taking together these results suggest that a similar reduction process in repeated references occurs in NGT as has been found previously for speech and gesture.
Keywords: sign language, repeated reference, reduction
References (59)
Arnold, Jennifer E. 2008. Reference production: production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(4). 495-527.
Arnold, Jennifer E., Jason M. Kahn & Giulia C. Pancani. 2012. Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 19(3). 505-512.
Aylett, Matthew & Alice Turk. 2004. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: a functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 47(1). 31-56.
Bard, Ellen G., Anne H. Anderson, Catherine Sotillo, Matthew Aylett, Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon & Alison Newlands. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 421. 1-22.
Bard, Ellen G. & Matthew Aylett. 2005. Referential form, duration, and modelling the listener in spoken dialogue. In John Trueswell & Michael Tanenhaus (eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions, 173-191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bell, Alan, Jason Brenier, Michelle Gregory, Cynthia Girand & Dan Jurafsky. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 601. 92-111.
Brennan, Susan & Herb Clark. 1996. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology 22(6). 1482-1493.
2002. Modality differences in sign language phonology and morphophonemics. In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy A. Cormier & David G. Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 35-64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brentari, Diane, Carolina Gonzalez, Amanda Seidl & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2011. Sensitivity to visual prosodic cues in signers and nonsigners. Language and Speech 54(1). 49-72.
Clark, Herb. 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 121. 335-359.
Crasborn, Onno. 2001. Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in sign language of the Netherlands. PhD dissertation, LOT, Utrecht.
de Ruiter, Jan P., Adrian Bangerter & Paula Dings. 2012. The interplay between gesture and speech in the production of referring expressions: investigating the trade-off hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science 4(2). 232-248.
Ernestus, Mirjam & Natasha Warner. 2011. An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants [Editorial]. Journal of Phonetics 391. 253-260.
Fenk, August & Gertraud Fenk-Oczlon. 1993. Menzerath’s law and the constant flow of linguistic information. In Reinhard Köhler & Burghard Rieger (eds.), Contributions to quantitative linguistics, 11-31. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 2001. Familiarity, information flow, and linguistic form. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 431-448. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ferreira, Victor S. 2008. Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Learning and Motivation 491. 209-246.
Fowler, Carol A. 1988. Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech 31(4). 307-319.
Fowler, Carol A. & Jonathan Housum. 1987. Talkers’ signaling of ‘new’ and ‘old’ words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language 26(5). 489-504.
Galati, Alexia & Susan Brennan. 2010. Attenuating information in spoken communication: for the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language 621. 35-51.
Gee, James & Wendy Goodhart. 1988. American Sign Language and the human biological capacity for language. In Michael Strong (ed.), Language learning and deafness, 49-74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gerwing, Jennifer & Janet Bavelas. 2004. Linguistic influences on gesture’s form. Gesture 41. 157-195.
Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 691. 274-307.
Hoetjes, Marieke, Ruud Koolen, Martijn Goudbeek, Emiel Krahmer & Marc Swerts. 2011. GREEBLES Greeble greeb. On reduction in speech and gesture in repeated references. In Laura Carlson, Christoph Hoelscher & Thomas F. Shipley (eds.),
33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society
, 3250-3255. Boston: Cognitive Science Society.
Holler, Judith & Katie Wilkin. 2009. Communicating common ground: how mutually shared knowledge influences speech and gesture in a narrative task. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(2). 267-289.
Jaeger, Tim Florian. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61(1). 23-62.
Jaeger, Tim Florian & Harry Tily. 2011. Language processing complexity and communicative efficiency. WIREs: Cognitive Science 2(3). 323-335.
Johnson, Robert E. & Scott K. Liddell. 2010. Toward a phonetic representation of signs: sequentiality and contrast. Sign Language Studies 11(2). 241-274.
Kelly, Spencer D., Sarah M. Manning & Sabrian Rodak. 2008. Gesture gives a hand to language and learning: perspectives from cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology and education. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(4). 569-588.
Kendon, Adam. 1980. Gesture and speech: two aspects of the process of utterance. In Mary R. Key (ed.), Nonverbal communication and language, 207-227. The Hague: Mouton.
Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Koolen, Ruud, Albert Gatt, Martijn Goudbeek & Emiel Krahmer. 2011. Factors causing overspecification in definite descriptions. Journal of Pragmatics 43(13). 3231-3250.
Krahmer, Emiel & Marc Swerts. 2007. The effects of visual beats on prosodic prominence: acoustic analyses, auditory perception and visual perception. Journal of Memory and Language 571. 396-414.
Lam, Tuan Q. & Duane G. Watson. 2010. Repetition is easy: why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory and Cognition 38(8). 1137-1146.
Leuninger, Helen, Annette Hohenberger, Eva Waleschkowski, Elke Menges & Daniela Happ. 2004. The impact of modality on language production: Evidence from slips of the tongue and hand. In Thomas Pechmann & Christopher Habel (eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to language production, 219-277. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Liddell, Scott K. & Robert E. Johnson. 1989. American Sign Language: the phonological base. Sign Language Studies 641. 195-277.
Lieberman, Philip. 1963. Some effects of semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech 6(3). 172-187.
Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaning variation: a sketch of the H and H theory. In William Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modelling, 403-439. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mauk, Claude E., Björn Lindblom & Richard P. Meier. 2008. Undershoot of ASL locations in fast signing. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time. Selected papers from TISLR 8, 3-24. Hamburg: Signum.
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind. What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Russell, Kevin, Erin Wilkinson & Terry Janzen. 2011. ASL sign lowering as undershoot: a corpus study. Laboratory Phonology 2(2). 403-422.
Samuel, Arthur G. & Mateusz Troicki. 1998. Articulation quality is inversely related to redundancy when children or adults have verbal control. Journal of Memory and Language 39(2). 175-194.
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris.
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schembri, Adam, David McKee, Rachel McKee, Sara Pivac, Trevor Johnston & Della Goswell. 2009. Phonological variation and change in Australian and New Zealand Sign Languages: The location variable. Language Variation and Change 211. 193-231.
Shannon, Claude. 1948. A mathematical theory of communications. Bell Systems Technical Journal 27(4). 623-656.
Singleton, Jenny L., Jill P. Morford & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 1993. Once is not enough: standards of well-formedness in manual communication created over three different timespans. Language 691. 683-715.
Stokoe, William C. 2005. Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10(1). 3-37.
Supalla, Ted. 2008. Sign language archeology: integrating historical linguistics with fieldwork on young sign languages. In: Ronice Müller de Quadros (ed.),
Sign languages: spinning and unraveling the past, present, and future. Forty-five papers and three posters from the 9th theoretical issues in sign language research conference
, Florianópolis, Brazil, December 2006. Petrópolis: Editora Arara Azul. [Available at: [URL]].
Tyrone, Martha E. & Claude E. Mauk. 2010. Sign lowering and phonetic reduction in American Sign Language. Journal of Phonetics 381. 317-328.
Van Deemter, Kees, Albert Gatt, Ielka van der Sluis & Richard Power. 2012. Generation of referring expressions: Assessing the incremental algorithm. Cognitive Science 36(5). 799-836.
van der Sluis, Ielka & Emiel Krahmer. 2007. Generating multimodal referring expressions. Discourse Processes 44(3). 145-174.
Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann & Han Sloetjes. 2006. ELAN: a professional framework for multimodality research. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006). Genoa, Italy, 24–26 May 2006.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Stamp, Rose, Svetlana Dachkovsky, Hagit Hel-Or, David Cohn & Wendy Sandler
TURNBULL, RORY
SEHYR, ZED SEVCIKOVA, BRENDA NICODEMUS, JENNIFER PETRICH & KAREN EMMOREY
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. 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.
