Cover not available

Article published In: Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 26:2 (2023) ► pp.276–322

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required
Researcher’s resources

Units of sub-sign meaning in NGT

A toolbox for sub-sign meaning in a lexical database

ORCiD logo with link | Independent researcher
 | Independent researcher
ORCiD logo with link | Radboud University Nijmegen
Published online: 23 October 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20009.van
Abstract
This paper provides an overview of all the meaningful sub-sign form units (form-meaning units; FMUs) in lexical signs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). We investigated the potential meaning of all form features that were previously established in analyses of NGT form by analyzing their distribution in lexical signs. The data set consisted of 500 NGT signs in the lexical database Global Signbank, and a set of 163 elicited newly-formed lexical signs. All features in these data sets appear to bear meaning (at least once). No completely arbitrary features were found, and some features appeared to be always associated to a specific meaning. This toolkit and the set of FMUs in NGT provides a possible basis for cross-linguistic study and for a more fine-grained approach in various research disciplines, for instance psycholinguistics and acquisition, and it may thus advance the theoretical and applied study of sign languages.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Datasets
      • 2.1.1The sample from Global Signbank
      • 2.1.2The set of newly formed signs
    • 2.2Description of sign form
    • 2.3Analysis of meaning
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Meaningful form features
    • 3.2Motivation type at the feature level
      • 3.2.1Iconic motivation: Explanation and illustrations
      • 3.2.2Types of iconic motivation
      • 3.2.3Metaphoric motivation at the feature level
    • 3.3Meaning and motivation of FMU combinations; FMU clusters
      • 3.3.1FMU clusters
      • 3.3.2FMU clusters: Entity vs. handling classifiers
    • 3.4Same form, different meaning; different form, same meaning
      • 3.4.1Homonymy
      • 3.4.2Synonymy
  • 4.Implementation in a database
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (69)
References
Bauer, Laurie. 1988. Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blank, Andreas. 2001. Pathways of lexicalization. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 1596–1608. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny. 1981. Features of the handshape in American Sign Language. Berkeley: University of California PhD dissertation.
Brennan, Mary. 1990. Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: University of Stockholm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cabeza-Pereiro, Carmen. 2014. Metaphor and lexicon in sign languages: Analysis of the hand-opening articulation in LSE and BSL. Sign Language Studies 14(3). 302–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caselli, Naomi K., Zed Sevcikova Sehyr, Ariel M. Cohen-Goldberg & Karen Emmorey. 2017. ASL-LEX: A lexical database of American Sign Language. Behavior Research Methods 491. 784–801. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cassidy, Steve, Onno Crasborn, Henri Nieminen, Wessel Stoop, Micha Hulsbosch, Susan Even, Erwin Komen & Trevor Johnson. 2018. Signbank: Software to SupportWeb Based Dictionaries of Sign Language. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Involving the Language Community. Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation: May 7–12, 2018, Miyazaki, Japan, 2359–2364. Paris: ELRA. [URL]
Cates, Deborah, Eva Gutiérrez, Sarah Hafer, Ryan Barrett & David Corina. 2013. Location, location, location. Sign Language Studies 13(4). 433–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Richard Bank, Inge Zwitserlood, Els van der Kooij, Anique Schüller, Ellen Ormel, Ellen Nauta, Merel van Zuilen, Frouke van Winsum & Johan Ros. 2016. Linking lexical and corpus data for sign languages: NGT Signbank and the Corpus NGT. In Eleni Efthimiou, Stavroula-Evita Fotinea, et al. (eds.), Workshop Proceedings 7th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpus Mining Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), Portorož, Slovenia, 28 May 2016, 41–46. Paris: ELRA. [URL]
Crasborn, Onno & Els van der Kooij. 2023. The emergence of the second hand in sign language phonology: From underlying to surface representations. In Jeroen van de Weijer (ed.), Syllable, stress, and sign, 319–344. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Els van der Kooij, Inge Zwitserlood & Ellen Ormel. 2015. NGT dataset in Global Signbank. Radboud University, Nijmegen. [URL]
Crasborn, Onno, Inge Zwitserlood, Els van der Kooij & Anique Schüller. 2020. Signbank manual, version 2. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Inge Zwitserlood & Johan Ros. 2008. The Corpus NGT. A digital open access corpus of movies and annotations of Sign Language of the Netherlands. Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen. [URL]
Cuxac, Christian & Marie-Anne Sallandre. 2007. Iconicity and arbitrariness in French Sign Language – highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity. In Elena Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea & Raffaele Simone (eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies, 13–33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Damian E. Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten H. Christiansen & Padraic Monaghan. 2015. Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Science 19(10). 603–615. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51(3). 696–719. [URL]
Frishberg, Nancy & Bonnie Gough. 2000. Morphology in American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 31. 103–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuks, Orit. 2014. The (non-)random distribution of formational parameters in the established lexicon of Israeli Sign Language (ISL). Semiotica 1991. 125–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanke, Thomas, Susanne König, Reiner Konrad & Gabriele Langer. 2012. Towards tagging of multi-sign lexemes and other multi-unit structures. In Onno Crasborn, Eleni Efthimiou, et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between Corpus and Lexicon Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) Istanbul, May 2012, 67–68. Paris: ELRA. [URL]
Jackendoff, Ray & Jenny Audring. 2019. Relational Morphology in the Parallel Architecture. In Jenny Audring & Francesca Masini (eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory, 390–408. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jarque, Maria-Josep. 2005. Double mapping in metaphorical expressions of thought and communication in Catalan Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 5(3). 292–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Lindsay Ferrara. 2012. Lexicalization in signed languages. When is an idiom not an idiom? Proceedings of the 3rd UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 229–248. [URL]
Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 1999. On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics 21. 115–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, Anna Klezovich & George Moroz. 2018. IPSL: A database of iconicity patterns in sign languages: Creation and use. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Involving the Language Community. Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation: May 7–12, 2018, Miyazaki, Japan, 4230–4234. Paris: ELRA. [URL]
Kimmelman, Vadim, Maria Kyuseva, Yana Lomakina & Daria Perova. 2017. On the notion of metaphor in sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 20(2). 157–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Susanne, Reiner Konrad, & Gabriele Langer. 2008. What’s in a sign? Theoretical lessons from practical sign language lexicography. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time. Selected papers from TISLR 2004, 379–404. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
KOMVA. 1988. Handen uit de mouwen. Gebaren uit de Nederlandse Gebarentaal in kaart gebracht. [Roll up your sleeves. Handshapes from Sign Language of the Netherlands mapped out.] Amsterdam: Dovenraad / NSDSK.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lepic, Ryan, Carl Börstell, Gal Besitzman & Wendy Sandler. 2016. Taking meaning in hand. Iconic motivations in two-handed signs. Sign Language & Linguistics 19(1). 37–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lepic, Ryan & Corinne Occhino. 2018. A Construction Morphology approach to sign language analysis. In Geert Booij (ed.), The construction of words, Vol. 41, 141–172. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Sources of meaning in ASL classifier predicates. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 199–220. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandel, Mark. 1977. Iconic devices in American Sign Language. In Lynn A. Friedman (ed.), On the other hand, 57–107. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2010. Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language 86(4). 865–896. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgan, Hope E. 2022. A phonological grammar of Kenyan Sign Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nielsen, Alan. 2016. Systematicity, motivatedness, and the structure of the lexicon. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh PhD dissertation. [URL]
Occhino, Corrine. 2017. An introduction to embodied cognitive phonology: Claw-5 handshape distribution in ASL and Libras. Complutense Journal of English Studies 251. 69–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Occhino, Corrine, Benjamin Anible, Erin Wilkinson & Jill P. Morford. 2017. Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder. How language experience affects perceived iconicity. Gesture 16(1). 100–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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). 114–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, Gerardo. 2017. Iconicity and sign lexical acquisition: A review. Frontiers in Psychology 81. 1280.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, Gerardo, Beyza Sümer & Aslı Özyürek. 2017. Type of iconicity matters in the vocabulary development of signing children. Developmental Psychology 53(1). 89–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, Gerardo & Aslı Özyürek. 2020. Systematic mappings between semantic categories and types of iconic representations in the manual modality: A normed database of silent gesture. Behavior Research Methods 521. 51–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Robin L. Thompson & Gabriela Vigliocco. 2010. Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 11. Article 227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pietrandrea, Paola. 2002. Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 2(3). 296–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pizzuto, Elena, Paolo Rossini, Marie-Anne Sallandre & Erin Wilkinson. 2008. Deixis, anaphora and highly iconic structures: Crosslinguistic evidence on American (ASL), French (LSF) and Italian (LIS) Signed Languages. In Ronice M. de Quadros (ed.), Sign languages: spinning and unraveling the past, present and future. TISLR9, forty-five papers and three posters from the 9th Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference, Florianopolis, Brazil, December 2006. Petrópolis/RJ: Editora Arara Azul, Brazil. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schermer, Trude, Connie Fortgens, Rita Harder & Esther de Nobel. 1991. De Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Twello: Van Tricht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schick, Brenda S. 1990a. Classifier predicates in American Sign Language. International Journal of Sign Linguistics 11. 15–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1990b. The effects of morphosyntactic structure on the acquisition of classifier predicates in ASL. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research. Theoretical issues, 358–374. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiefner, Annika. 2019. What’s in a sign? When form features have meaning. Nijmegen: Radboud University MA thesis. [URL]
Shepard-Kegl, Judy A. 1985. Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation, syntax, and discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
Slonimska, Anita, Asli Özyürek & Olga Capirci. 2020. The role of iconicity and simultaneity for efficient communication: The case of Italian Sign Language (LIS). Cognition 2001. 104246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stokoe, William. 1960. Sign language structure. An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics Occasional Papers 81. (1993 Reprint; Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted R. 1980. Morphology of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. In Frank Caccamise & David Hicks (eds.), Proceedings of the Second National Symposium of Sign Language Research and Teaching, 19781, 27–45. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. San Diego: UCSD PhD dissertation.
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Robin L., David P. Vinson & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2009. The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35(2). 550–557. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Hulst, Harry. 1993. Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology 101. 209–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Hulst, Harry & Els van der Kooij. 2021. Sign language phonology: theoretical perspectives. In Josep Quer, Roland Pfau & Annika Herrmann (eds.), Routledge handbook of theoretical and experimental sign language research, 1–32. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Kooij, Els. 1998. The position of unselected fingers. Linguistics in the Netherlands 19981. 149–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Utrecht: Utrecht University PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
Van der Kooij, Els & Onno Crasborn. 2008. Syllables and the word-prosodic system in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Lingua 1181. 1307–1327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Kooij, Els, Inge Zwitserlood & Onno Crasborn. 2023. Strategies for new word formation in NGT: a case for simultaneous morphology. Sign Language & Linguistics 26(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vennes, Lenia. 2018. Weak hand lowering and weak drop: The influence of sub-lexical iconicity on sign language phonology. Nijmegen: Radboud University MA thesis. [URL]
Wallin, Lars. 1990. Polymorphemic predicates in Swedish Sign Language. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research. Theoretical issues, 133–148. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie. 2008. Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilcox, Phyllis P. 2000. Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman. 2004. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 119–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: Utrecht University PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
. 2008. Morphology below the level of the sign – frozen forms and classifier predicates. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004, 251–272. Hamburg: Signum. [URL]
Zwitserlood, Inge, Els van der Kooij & Onno Crasborn. 2021. Morphological complexity in sign languages and the classifier – core sign dilemma. Unpublished manuscript, Radboud University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Orrico, Hazan, Niels Martínez-Guevara & José-Rafael Rojano-Cáceres
2025. Sign Language Recognition: A Comparative Systematic Review of NLP and Computer Vision Methodologies. In Artificial Intelligence – COMIA 2025 [Communications in Computer and Information Science, 2552], ► pp. 146 ff. DOI logo
Sibanda, Patrick & Sarah Siyavoshi
2025. The phonological structure of South African Sign Language (SASL) toponyms. South African Journal of African Languages ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gimeno-Martínez, Marc, Eva Gutierrez-Sigut & Cristina Baus
2024. Neural changes in sign language vocabulary learning: Tracking lexical integration with ERP measures. Brain and Language 259 ► pp. 105495 ff. DOI logo

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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue